the extent of self-contradiction, and Mr. Spencer brings a rigid scrutiny to bear on the whole question. His position is—the permanent supremacy of egoism over altruism; and he elucidates this in his systematic way. He cites numerous striking examples to bring home the truth that the first condition of the performance of duty to others is the perfect vigor and competence of the agent's self. As a pertinent moral lecture, nothing could be more effective. He allows that his view is the one practically recognized among men, and only regrets that the nominally accepted beliefs should be at variance with it.
In the chapter on altruism, Mr. Spencer, by a review of the entire social situation of human beings, endeavors to assign the exact scope and value of our sympathetic regards. While avoiding all exaggeration, he proves by numerous and striking examples the value of altruistic conduct to all and to each. The dependence of egoism upon altruism tends ever toward universality, becoming greater as social evolution advances.
He next proceeds to consider the conflict of the two principles, which leads him a second time to discuss the utilitarianism of Bentham and John Mill. He inquires what guidance the principle of "the greatest happiness of the greatest number" offers (1) to public policy and (2) to private action; and pronounces it defective as undertaking an impracticable operation, viz., first to gather all the happiness of mankind into one stock, and then to apportion it properly among individuals. I doubt, however, whether either Bentham or Mill conceived the doctrine of utility as necessitating any such operation. The essence and strength of the doctrine seem to me to be brought out by Bentham's two negatives of it—asceticism and unreasoning sentiment; to both of which Mr. Spencer is as much opposed as Bentham. The positive expression—the greatest happiness of the greatest number—is not itself happy, and was ultimately reduced by Bentham to the simple expression, "greatest happiness," which in its convenient vagueness seems to defy hostile criticism. How the greatest happiness of mankind is to be arrived at remains open for discussion. There is a general agreement at the present day that the best course is for each individual to occupy a limited sphere without thinking of the universal happiness. Mr. Spencer seems to me to be arguing for several pages without an opponent. The expressions that he quotes from Bentham and Mill need to be taken along with their whole system, which is, to my mind, not so very far from Mr, Spencer's own. They would say that society should confine itself to protecting each man and woman in the pursuit of their own happiness in their own way. This is the text of Mill's "Liberty." I admit that they are not able to prove beyond dispute that the greatest happiness will be attained in this form; but, as far as the needful computation can be carried, they think it is in favor of such an arrangement.
The discussion has, at all events, been brought to the point of stat-
