+Benjamin Kidd.+—­The “social organism” theory is also the foundation of the theory of social progress with which Mr. Benjamin Kidd startled the scientific world a few years ago in “Social Evolution.”  While appreciating the importance of the factor of individual reason, he contended that self-restraint by the individual in the interests of society is impossible without an ultra-rational sanction; that, in fact, without this the reason is the most anti-social and anti-evolutionary of all human qualities.  The central fact therefore with which we are confronted in our progressive societies is stated as follows:—­“The interests of the social organism and those of the individuals comprising it at any particular time are actually antagonistic; they can never be reconciled; they are inherently and essentially irreconcilable.” What becomes of this extraordinary proposition if it is clearly established that the amount of reconciliation depends on the extent to which the principles of organization and responsible leadership are given effect to by representative machinery?

+Past Progress.+—­The question will naturally be raised:  If a representative body is now the indispensable agent of social progress, how can progress previous to the introduction of representation be explained?  The answer is that the same principles were operative, but in different forms, more suited to the stage of social development.  Indeed, we may say that, from the time that man emerged from the brute stage and became a social animal, the types of society which have survived in the struggle for existence with the state of nature and with other types have been those in which the principles of organization and leadership have been most active.  Even the lowest types of savages, such as the native tribes studied by Professor Baldwin Spencer and Mr. Gillen in Central Australia, have a complicated system of organization, the peculiar feature of which is totemism, or group marriage; but this is more the result of development than of conscious effort.  Leadership also is rudimentary, for, although the old men have control of the elaborate ceremonies described, they conform almost entirely to custom and tradition.  Out of this savage stage there grew in favoured countries the second type of human society—­the patriarchal, in which leadership becomes personal, and centred in a chief who exercises despotic authority.  Patriarchal society grew out of the necessities of a pastoral existence; indeed, it was the discovery of the domestication of animals which gave rise to it.  Among other interesting features which were developed are permanent marriage, slavery, and ancestor worship.  There can be no doubt that the latter played an important part in binding the tribe into one organization, and in inducing all the tribe to submit to the leadership of the chief.  There is a second stage of patriarchal society in which the large tribes break up into clans and become less nomadic.  Professor Jenks has shown, in his “Short