EDITOR'S TABLE. 



413 



duced to reject it. Now, we perceive that 

 we all have a moral sense ; but the moral 

 sense of one individual, and still more of 

 one race, may differ from that of another in- 

 dividual or race. Each is more or less fitted 

 to its circumstances, and the best is ascer- 

 tained by eventual success. 



At the tail end of an article it is, of com-se, 

 impossible to discuss the grounds or results 

 of the Spencerian philosophy. To me it pre- 

 sents itself, in its main features, as unques- 

 tionably true ; indeed, it is already difficult 

 to look back and imagine how philosophers 

 could have denied of the human mind and 

 actions what is so obviously true of the ani- 

 mal races generally. As a reaction from the 

 old views about innate ideas, the philoso- 

 phers of the eighteenth century wished to 

 believe that the human mind was a kind of 

 tabula rasa, or carte blanche, upon which 

 education could impress any character. But, 

 if so, why not harness the lion, and teach 

 the sheep to drive away the wolf? If the 

 moral, not to speak of the physical charac- 

 teristics of the lower animals, are so distinct, 

 why should there not be moral and mental 

 differences among ourselves, descending, as 

 we obviously do, from different stocks with 

 different physical characteristics ? . . . . 

 Many persons may be inclined to like the 

 philosophy of Spencer no better than that of 

 Mill. But, if the one be true and the other 

 false, liking and disliking have no place in 

 the matter. There may be many things 

 which we can not possibly like ; but, if they 

 are, they are. It'is possible that the princi- 

 ples of evolution, as expounded by Mr. Her- 

 bert Spencer, may seem as wanting in "ge- 

 niality" as the formulas of Benthara. . . . 

 Nevertheless, I fully believe that all which 

 is sinister and ungenial in the philosophy of 

 evolution is either the expression of miques- 

 tionable facts, or else it is the outcome of 

 misinterpretation. It is impossible to see 

 how Mr. Spencer, any more than other peo- 

 ple, can explain away the existence of pain 

 and evil. Nobody has done this ; perhaps 

 nobody ever shall do it ; certainly systems 

 of theology will not do it. A true philoso- 

 pher will not expect to solve everything. 

 But, if we admit the potent fact that pain 

 exists, let us obser^'c also the tendency 

 which Spencer and Darwin establish toward 

 its minimization. Evolution is a striving 

 ever toward the better and the happier. 

 There may be also infinite powers against 

 us, but at least there is a deep-built scheme 

 working toward goodness and happiness. 

 So profound and widespread is this confed- 

 eracy of the powers of good, that no failure. 



and no series of failures, can disconcert it. 

 Let mankind be thrown back a himdred 

 times, and a hundred times the better ten- 

 dencies of evolution will reassert themselves. 

 Paley pointed out how many beautiful con- 

 trivances there are in the human form tend- 

 ing to our benefit. Spencer has pointed out 

 that the universe is one deep-laid framework 

 for the production of such beneficent con- 

 trivances. Paley called upon us to admire 

 such exquisite inventions as a hand or an 

 eye ; Spencer calls upon us to admire a 

 machine which is the most comprehensive 

 of all machines, because it is ever engaged 

 in inventing beneficial inventions ad injird- 

 tum. Such, at least, is my way of regarding 

 his philosophy. 



Darwin, indeed, cautions us against sup- 

 posing that natural selection always leads to- 

 ward the production of higher and happier 

 types of life. Ketrogression may result as 

 well as progression. But I apprehend that 

 retrogression can only occur where the en- 

 vironment of a living species is altered to 

 its detriment. Mankind degenerates when 

 forced, like the Esquimaux, to inhabit the 

 Arctic regions. StiU in retrograding, in a 

 sense, the being becomes more suited to its 

 circumstances — more capable, therefore, of 

 happiness. The inventing machine of evo- 

 lution would be working badly if it worked 

 other^vise. But, however this may be, we 

 must accept the philosophy if it be true, and, 

 for my part, I do so without reluctance. 



According to Mill, we are little, self-de- 

 pendent gods, fighting with a malignant and 

 murderous power called Nature, sure, one 

 would think, to be worsted in the struggle. 

 According to Spencer, as I venture to inter- 

 pret his theory, we are the latest manifesta- 

 tion of an all-prevailing tendency toward the 

 good, the happy. Creation is not yet con- 

 cluded, and there is no one of us who may 

 not become conscious in his heart that he is 

 no automaton, no mere lump of protoplasm, 

 but the creatiu-e of a Creator. 



RAILROAD CASUALTIES. 



Ottr half century's experience with 

 railroads is full of various instruction. 

 Charles Francis Adams, Jr., has occu- 

 pied himself with the lessons of railroad 

 casualties. He has investigated them 

 officially in Massachusetts, and studied 

 them elsewhere, and he has made a lit- 

 tle volume which he modestly calls 



