On this score, alone, then, opportunities cannot be equal, because, however accurately their equality may be established, in regard to a supposed standard man, the moment they are placed in relation to the multitude of unequal men, they, too, become unequal. For an opportunity is not a thing in itself; it only becomes something in relation to the creature who seizes it. Given an equal means of access to a particular ridge or hill-top, the opportunity to reach that hill-top or ridge, is the equal means of access _plus_ the kind of creature to whom it is afforded. The introduction of an unequal element on the one hand--the men--makes the other element, the means of access, not unequal as means of access in the abstract, but unequal as opportunity in the concrete. Suppose as much inequality between three men as exists between a hen, a hare, and a hippopotamus--and as regards fleetness and swimming power such inequality is not unusual between men--how could you devise equal opportunities which would enable all three men to reach a certain objective at the same moment of time, if a strip of water, a high wall, and a ravine stood between the starting point and the objective? You might do it by first holding a rehearsal, in which you would accurately time [p69] each man and note his abilities, and then handicap the fleetest accordingly. But unfortunately life cannot be rehearsed, a life-handicap cannot be calculated. Besides, it is to the advantage of society not to handicap her fleetest and her best. As Lord Morley very rightly says: “The well-being of the community demands the allotment of high function in proportion to high faculty.”[12] But suppose our objector replies: Very well, but that is all we ask. We do not demand a handicap; we simply demand an equal means of access to a particular objective, no matter whether ultimately those means prove unequal or not, owing to the inequality of the men to whom they are open. It may then be asked whether even this equality in means of access is not in itself utterly fanciful and fantastic. Given the radical inequality of men at birth, together with the highly complex arrangement of modern society, with its enormous variety of prizes, it may reasonably be questioned whether it be even possible, not to mention practicable. A large number of people cannot all travel along the same narrow path. Several narrow paths all exactly alike would have to be constructed. The accidents, vicissitudes, fatalities that would attend some of the early travellers along the roads--faintness, loss of luggage, sprains, deaths, etc.--would either impede or facilitate the way of the later travellers. Thus, in life, the means of access themselves, however equal at the start, would quickly acquire unforeseen inequalities. Let us select an example from life in England.