on the Com in (J Civilization. 389 



the world tliat has heen for good. The remedies of the phik)so- 

 phers have ahnost always failed when they have been applied. 

 The gentleman who last spoke has indicated his belief that the 

 l)aternal form of governm^'nt will accomplish the rectification of 

 all social mal-adjustment. But this is contrary to Spencer's well- 

 known philosophy as to the limitations of governmental interfer- 

 ence. It has been said that Herbert Spencer's discovery of the 

 universal law of social evolution was as notable as Newton's dis- 

 covery of the law of gravitation. Spencer sought to formulate a 

 law of universal application, which would make it possible for us 

 to predicate the future tendencies of society. At this last meet- 

 ing of the Association for the year, it will not be inappropriate to 

 characterize the work of Mr. Spencer very brietly. It was in this 

 country that he first received recognition and substantial support. 

 If he could know how greatly he has helped thinking minds all 

 over this country, by putting into the thought of the world a great 

 principle which shall endure forever, he would perhaps appreciate, 

 to a larger degree even than he does now, the breadth and gi-eat- 

 ness of his life-work. Spencer is the master-mind of this genera- 

 tion, and our work will fail of its best results if it does not lead 

 us to a more thoughtful study of his works. 



Pkofessor Geoege Guxton: — 



I have never heard a lecture which had such a clear and firm 

 grasp on the pi-oblems involved in the future evolution of society. 

 I was particularly pleased with the lecturer's assertion that our 

 .study of the past is to furnish us with our guide-board for the 

 future. Whenever a "panacea" is presented to us, we should ask 

 whether it is in line with the progress of the past. I agree that 

 "No Thoroughfare" is the proj^er inscrii^tion to write on most of 

 the social guide-boards. I have justlinished reading Mr. Bellamy's 

 book, "Looking Backward," and also his article h\t\\e Nationalist, 

 telling how he came to write the book. He says at first he had 

 no interest in the subject, beyond the desire to write an interest- 

 ing book, but as he went on his scheme evolved, — developed out 

 of his inner consciousness, so to speak. This show's the necessa- 

 rily crude and impractical character of the thought of the book. 

 Mr. Wakeman and I agree that we have to obey evolution. But 

 which way does the evolutionary current set? Always away from 

 paternal government and toward Individualism. If this is true, — 

 and it can be doubted by no careful student of history, — we cer- 

 tainly have a right to label Mr. Bellamy's scheme, "No Thorough- 



