Ii80 T? ?coso?c aovaxa,?, in economics as (by our author's admission) it has someti?nes happened in philosophy (4). But the motto would more naturally mean that the true economist, like the true theologian, must be in earnest. Jamss BoNxa l?rinciples of State btterference. Four Essays on the Political Philosophy of Mr. Herbert Spencer, J. S. Mill, and T. H. Green. By D. G. R?TCr?n;, M.A. London: Swan Sonnen- schein and Co., 1891. ThE three first essays in this volume were published so?ne years ago in Time, and the fourth appeared in the Coatemporary Review for June, 1887. The first treats of Mr. Spencer's individual- ism and his conception of society. The second, entitled the State versus Mr. Herbert Spencer, deals more directly with Mr. Spencer's theory of the functions of government. The third, entitled Individual Liberty and State Interference, is a criticism of the fundamental ideas of Mill's famous book on Liberty. The fourth and last aims at setting in a clearer light the political philosophy of the late Professor Green. In form, therefore, these essays are critical; but in criticising the theories of other writers, the author expounds his own theory. This theory has two aspects, speculative in so far as it deals with the nature of society, practical in so far as it seeks to determine the true scope of government. Since however, the essays are critical in form, it is as criticism that they should first be con- sidered. As a critic, especially as a negative critic, Mr. Ritchie is excellent. To unusual dialectical power he unites a singularly effective style, clear, forcible, pointed and lively. These merits are conspicuous in his exam- ination of Mr. Spencer's doctrine. Mr. Ritchie shows convincingly enough that Mr. Spencer is not consistent with himself in his various applications of the idea of the social organism. He brings out the inconsistency of comparing the government of a political society with the nervous system of an animal, and then expecting the regula- rive power to dwindle as the 'animal develops. He enforces the anomaly of regarding all social phenomena save the action of govern- ment as the result of natural evolution. He proves satisfactorily that in some respects ' The social organism is not like any animal organism whatever.' ' The choice,' he observes, (p. 49)' does not lie solely be- tween" making" and "growing," and social organisms differ from other organisms in h.aving the remarkable property of making themselves.' And many readers will be disposed to agree with him when he con- eludes that'an appeal to the fact that society is an organism is no argument either for or against government interference in any given ?ase.' One might go further, and say that the doctrine of the social organism is much more likely to be used in the interests of tyranny than of forbearance. A man regards his limbs as mere means to his
