EDITOR'S TABLE. 



271 



and economics, but who shows such a 

 want of familiarity with the elements 

 of social science as gives confusion to 

 his exposition. Notwithstanding its 

 merits, looseness and inaccuracy in im- 

 portant parts of his paper must go far 

 to impair our confidence in the integ- 

 rity of his intellectual work. 



What trust, for example, can we 

 have in the information or the thinking 

 of a man who says, ''Darwin borrowed 

 his ideas of the struggle for existence 

 and the survival of the fittest from 

 Malthus, from whom he also drew his 

 theories of evolution and transform- 

 ism"? Now, "the struggle for exist- 

 ence " is certainly not an idea belong- 

 ing either to Darwin or Malthus, but is 

 far older than both. And so also with 

 the principle of the "survival of the 

 fittest"; it is a formula of Herbert 

 Spencer, adopted by him to represent 

 the same idea that Mr. Darwin ex- 

 presses by the term "natural selec- 

 tion " ; but the conception is found in 

 the writings of the earlier naturalists, 

 and what the modern thinkers have 

 done is simply to work out new and 

 important views of their results. 



M. de Laveleye constantly speaks 

 in his article of "Darwin's idea," and 

 constantly misconceives it. What Mr. 

 Darwin did was to show how the ideas 

 or principles or conditions of nature 

 known as the struggle for existence and 

 the survival of the fittest, together with 

 heredity and variation, give rise to new 

 species of plants and animals. It was 

 an idea belonging strictly to the sphere 

 of biological science, and aiming to ac- 

 count rationally for the great diversi- 

 ties of kinds among organic beings. 



M. de Laveleye not only misappre- 

 hends "Darwin's idea," of which he 

 is constantly talking, but speaks of it 

 as something seized upon by Herbert 

 Spencer and applied by him to human 

 society. But, in the first place, Dar- 

 win had nothing to apply ; and, in the 

 second place, Spencer was in the field 

 long before him. The struggle for ex- 

 istence and the survival of the fittest 



were ideas which Spencer had devel- 

 oped in their social applications, tracing 

 out their results and assigning their 

 limitations in his book upon human so- 

 ciety, of 1851 ; while " Darwin's idea," 

 belonging in quite another field, was 

 not enunciated till 1859. 



But this laxity of thought and mis- 

 information affecting the fundamental 

 conception of his argument go fur- 

 ther. Not only does he misapprehend 

 the "Darwinian idea," which is in fact 

 entirely irrelevant to his argument, and 

 not only does he constantly make Spen- 

 cer the follower of Darwin, where 

 Spencer was the actual predecessor, but 

 he discloses an ignorance of the prin- 

 ciples he professes to deal with, in their 

 social bearings, which is somewhat sur- 

 prising in a man who ventures to take 

 issue with the leading sociologist of the 

 age. He accuses Spencer of borrowing 

 from Darwin, and applying to society 

 an inhuman principle, which reverses 

 all the equities of government and gives 

 license to the worst of crimes. He 

 says, " If it be really advisable that the 

 law of the survival of the fittest should 

 be established among us, the first step 

 to be taken would be the abolition of 

 all laws which punish theft and mur- 

 der." And does M. de Laveleye really 

 consider that it is optional with any- 

 body whether the principle of the sur- 

 vival of the fittest shall be established 

 in society or not ? Are not the princi- 

 ples of the struggle for existence and 

 the survival of the fittest simple demon- 

 strated facts of nature, as old as men's 

 observations of the economy of life 

 upon earth,' and no more to be escaped 

 than temperature, the atmosphere, or 

 gravitation ? Because the law of gravi- 

 tation is destructive, and maims and 

 kills people daily, and everywhere, and 

 without remorse, is the question to be 

 raised whether or not it is to be es- 

 tablished among us ? And will M. de 

 Laveleye maintain that the only way 

 " to establish among us this heartless 

 and cruel law of gravitation" is to give 

 everybody a license to kill ? The law 



