EDITOR'S TABLE. 



269 



ure shall," etc., but that there is a law in 

 nature, which, however it maybe quali- 

 fied, can not be essentially changed, that 

 " each creature shall,' 1 '' etc. The distinc- 

 tion is not without importance; as 

 quoted by Dr. Hill, Mr. Spencer seems 

 to be laying down a law in the spirit of 

 a legislator, whereas he is only announc- 

 ing a law in the tone of a discoverer. 

 Now, if Dr. Hill does not believe there is 

 any such law as Mr. Spencer announces 

 and formulates, let him say so ; the con- 

 troversy will then turn on the interpre- 

 tation to be given to the history of man- 

 kind. But, again, let Mr. Spencer ex- 

 plain himself: "Any arrangements 

 which in a considerable degree prevent 

 superiority from profiting by the re- 

 wards of superiority, or shield inferi- 

 ority from the evils it entails — any ar- 

 rangements which tend to make it as 

 well to be inferior as to be superior — are 

 arrangements diametrically opposed to 

 the progress of organization and the 

 reaching of a higher life." Is this true 

 or not ? Again, is it true, or not true, 

 that " general happiness is to be achieved 

 mainly through the adequate pursuit 

 of their own happiness by individuals ; 

 while, reciprocally, the happinesses of 

 individuals are to be achieved in part by 

 their pursuit of the general happiness"? 

 "We say it is true ; but we do not agree 

 with Dr. Hill, who says that " the center 

 of concern for each one is here his own 

 happiness, with only so much regard for 

 the happiness of others as is likely to 

 reflect happiness. 1 ' Mr. Spencer is not 

 discussing "the center of concern," but 

 the best conditions for the production of 

 general happiness ; and his position can 

 only be traversed by showing that the 

 conditions he asserts to be the best are 

 not the best. Unless this can be done, 

 what is the use of talking about " the 

 center of concern " ? It will be observed 

 by the careful reader that what Mr. 

 Spencer postulates in the first half of 

 the above sentence is adequate pursuit 

 of one's own happiness. The word is 

 well and happily chosen, and gives the 



key, we may say, to the whole thought 

 of the writer on the point involved. 

 The adequate pursuit of one's own hap- 

 piness is one thing; the inordinate or 

 selfish pursuit of it is quite another. 



Dr. Hill quotes a passage from So- 

 cial Statics, and draws from it the con- 

 clusion that Mr. Spencer " shows no con- 

 cern for those who need our charity 

 because they can not help themselves." 

 The conclusion is not justified, in our 

 opinion, by the text. On the contrary, 

 the whole passage is expressive of sym- 

 pathy with suffering, and there is noth- 

 ing in Mr. Spencer's system to check the 

 relief of suffering except where to do so 

 would be to entail greater subsequent 

 suffering. Quoting from Mr. Spencer a 

 passage in which he says, ""Without 

 wishing to restrain philanthropic action, 

 but quite contrariwise," etc., Dr. Hill 

 comments on it as follows: "I under- 

 stand by this that Mr. Spencer has no 

 wish to restrain philanthropy; but he 

 does not claim any wish to promote 

 charity." "We certainly do not so under- 

 stand the words " quite contrariwise " ; 

 we think they do imply a desire on Mr. 

 Spencer's part to promote any charity 

 that will be truly philanthropic and not 

 hurtful in its effects. " As he views it," 

 says Dr. Hill, " true philanthropy is best 

 expressed by non-interference." Mr. 

 Spencer has never said anything to jus- 

 tify this remark; but he has said that 

 non-interference is better than a good 

 deal of the interference that calls itself 

 charitable. Dr. Hill tells us in conclusion 

 that he is aware that his words — those 

 referred to by us last month — " can be 

 so interpreted as to represent Mr. Spen- 

 cer as indifferent to human beings other 

 than himself; but that," he adds, " is not 

 my meaning." If Dr. Hill was aware, 

 when he penned the words in question, 

 that they could be so interpreted, he 

 should in common fairness have guarded 

 against such a misapprehension. If, on 

 the other hand, he has only now become 

 aware that they are open to a wrong in- 

 terpretation, he should hasten to say 



