On this page

• Text (1)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    Untitled Article

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    Untitled Article

    illustrated ifc throughout his work in a full and ingenious manner ; and is , we believe , the first who has given it the due importance . We will hear him on the point : — ' All evil results from the non-adaptation of constitution to conditions . This is true of everything that lives . Does a shrub dwindle in poor soil , or become sickly when deprived of light , or die outright if removed to a cold climate ? It is because the harmony between its organization and its circumstances have been destroyed . Those experiences of the farm-yard and the menagerie which show that pain , disease , and death are entailed upon animals by certain kinds of treatment , may all be generalized niftier the same law . Every suffering incident to the human body , from a headache up to a fatal illnessfrom a burn or " a sprain to accidental Io 9 » of life , is similarly traceable to the having placed that body in a situation for which its powers did not fit it . Nor is the ex oression confined in its application to physical evil ; it comprehends moral evil also . Is the kind-hearted man distressed by the sight of misery ? Is the bachelor unhappy because his means will not permit him to marry ? Does the mother mourn over her lost child ? Does the emigrant lament leaving his fatherland ? Are some made uncomfortable by having to pass their lives in distasteful occupations , and others from having no occupation at all ? The explanation is still the same . No matter what the special nature of the evil , it is invariably referable to the one generic cause—want of congruity between the faculties and their spheres of action . "Equally true is it that the evil perpetually tends to disappear . In virtue of an essential principle of life , this nonadaptation of an organism to its conditions is ever being rectified ; and modification of one or both continues until the adaptation is complete . Whatever possesses vitality , from the elementary cell up to man himself , inclusive , obeys this law . We see it illustrated in the acclimatization of plants , in the altered habits of domesticated animals , in the varying characteristics of our own T £ tC € . • • •• Man exhibits just the same adaptability . He alters in colour according to temperature—lives here upon rice , and there upon whale oil—gets larger digestive organs if he habitually eats innutritious food—acquires the power of long fasting if his mode of life is irregular , and loses it when the supply of food is certain—becomes fleet and agile in the wilderness and inert in the city—attains acute vision , hearing , and scent , when his habits of life call for them , and gets these senses blunted when they are less needful . That such changes are towards fitness fir surrounding circumstances no one can question .

    When he sees that a dweller in marshes lives in an atmosphere which is certain death to a stranger—when he sees that the Hindoo can lie down and sleep under a tropical sun , whilst his white master with closed blinds , and water sprinklings , and punkah can hardly get a doze—when he sees the Greenlander and the Neapolitan subsist comfortably on their respective foods—blubber and macaroni , but would be made miserable by an interchange of them—when he sees that in other cases there is still this fitness to diet , to climate , and to modes of life , even the most sceptical must admit that some law of adaptation is at work . Nay , indeed , if he interprets facts aright , he will find that , the action of such a law is traceable down

    to the minutest ramifications of individual experience . In the drunkard whoyiecds an increasing quantity of spirits to intoxicate hint , and in the opium eater , who has to keep taking a larger dose to produce the usual effect , he may mark how the system gradually acquires power to resist wh it i « noxious . Those who smoke , who take snuff , or who habitually use medicines , can furnish like illustrations . Nor , in fact , is there any permanent change of bodily state or capability , which is not to be accounted for on the same principle . " This universal law of physical modification is the law of mental modification also . The multitudinous

    differences of capacity and disposition that havcincouisc of time grown up between the Indian , African , Mongolian , and Caucasian races , and between the various subdivisions of them , must all be ascribed to the acquirement in each case of fitness for surrounding circumstances . Those stiong contrasts between the character of nations and of times admit of no other conceivable explanation . Why all this divergence from the one common original type ? If adaptation of constitution to conditions is not the cause , what is the cause ? . . . .

    " Keeping in mind , then , the two fact « , that all evil results from the non-adaptation of constitution to conditions ; and that where this non-adaptation exists it is continually being diminished by the changing of constitution to suit conditions , we shall be prepared for comprehending the present position of the human race . " By the increase of population the state of existence we call aonial has been necessitated . Men living in this state suffer under numerous evils . By the hypothesis it follows that their characters are not completely adapted to such a state .

    " In what respect are they not so adapted ? What is the special qualification which the social state requires ? " It requires that each individual shall have such desires only as may be fully satisfied without trenching upon the ability of other individuals to obtain like satisfaction . If the desires of each are not thus limited , then either all must have certain of their designs ungrutificd , or some must get gratification for them at the corresponding expense of others . Both of which alternatives necessitating pain , imply non-adaptation . " But why is not man adapted to the social state ?

    " Simply because ho yet partially retains the characteristics that adapted him for an untecedent state . The respects in which he is not fitted to society aro the respects in which he is fitted for his original predatory life . His primitive circumstances required that lie should sacrifice the welfare of other beings to his own ; his preh « 'hi circumstances require that he should not do no ; and in an far as his old attribute still clings to him , in ao far

    is he unfit for the social state . All sins of men against each other , from the cannibalism of the Currib to the crimes and venalities that we see around us ; the felonies that fill our prisons , the trickeries of trade , the quarrelings of nation with nation , and of class with class , the corruptness of institutions , the jealousies of caste , and the scandal of drawing-rooms have their causes comprehended under this generalization . " Concerning the present position of the human race , we must therefore say , that man needed one moral

    constitution to fit him for his original state ; that he needs another to fit him for his present state ; and that he has been , is , and will long continue to be , in process of adaptation . By the term civilization we signify the adaptation that has already taken place . The changes that constitute progress are the successive steps of the transition . And the belief in human perfectibility , merely amounts to the belief that , in virtue of this process , man will eventually become completely suited to his mode of life . " With this law of Progress and the static law of Equality Mr . Spencer is not only able to evolve all the leading principles of social ethics , but brings Democracy to a Q . E . D . The following remarks , with which he sums up a discursive passage indicating the almost universal utterance of the sentiment of equality , will be acceptable to our readers : — " Not without meaning is the continued life and growth of this conviction . He mu t , indeed , have a strange way of Interpreting social phenomena , who can believe that the reappearance of it , with ever-increasing frequency , in laws , books , agitations , revolutions , means

    nothing . If we analyze them , we shall find all beliefs to be in some way dependent upon mental conformation —temporary ones upon temporary characteristics of our nature—permanent ones upon its permanent characte ristics . And when we find that a belief like this in the equal freedom of all men , is not only permanent , but daily gaining ground , we have good reason to conclude that it corresponds to some essential element of our moral constitution : more especially since we find that its existence is in h ' armony with that chief pre-requisite to greatest happiness lately dwelt upon ; and that its growth is in harmony with that law of adaptation by which this greatest happiness is being wrought out .

    ** Such , at least , is the hypothesis here adopted . From the above accumulation of evidence it is inferred that there exists in man what may be termed an instinct of personal rights—a feeling that leads him to claim as great a share of natural privilege as is claimed by others—a feeling that leads him to repel anything like an encroachment upon what he thinks his sphere of original freedom . " Upon these two laws , especially that of equal freedom , Mr . Spencer dwells at great length , and with propriety ; for upon the soundness of this first principle the whole book depends . Having once secured your assent , he has gained you for almost

    all his conclusions . Indeed , when—as on some few occasions—we find ourselves at variance with Mr . Spencer , it is never because we see a flaw in his logic , but because we do not accept his definitions . The case of Government is an example . Accept his definition of the true function of Government—viz ., that it is merely the protection of person and property—and all his arguments respecting state interference are unanswerable ; but if you think , as we think , the function of Government is larger , and that it is needed to govern society as well a 8 protect it , then you may reasonably

    dissent . With the distaste for abstract speculation now general , we cannot hope for much attention to the earlier chapters of this work , unless the reader be forewarned of their importance . Mr . Spencer has done wonders in making them attractive . His clear epigrammatic style , his affluence of illustration , and his careful avoidance of all philosophic pedantry will make the transit easy , even to the least patient reader . Once passed , these chapters lead to subjects of great and immediate interest , such as " practical politicians" have for ever in their thoughts . We will touch on these . Chapter IX . is on the " Right to the Use of the Earth . " A terrible chapter ! The ruthless logic of Mr . Spencer makes sad havoc with the pretensions of landlords , lie thus states the bearing of

    the law of Equity on the matter : — " Given a race of beings having like claims to pursue the objects of their desires—given a world adapted to the gratification of those desires—a world into which such benign aro similarly born , and it unavoidably follows that they have equal rights to the use of this world . For if each of them ' has freedom to do all that he willn provided ho infringes not the equal freedom of any other , " then each of them is free to use the earth for the Hiitis faction of his wains , provided he allows all others the same liberty . And , conversely , it is manifest that no one <> r part of them , may use the earth in such a way uh to prevent the re « t from similarly using it ; seeing that to do this is to assume gieater freedom than the rest , and , consequently , to break the law . " Equity , therefore , sternly and distinctly Bays , " there can be no propeity in land " : — " Passing from the consideration of the possible to

    that of the actual , we find yet further reason to deny the rectitude of property in land . It can never 1 > e pretended that the existing titles to such property are legitimate . Should any one think so , let him look in the chronicles . Violence , fraud , the prerogative of force , the claims of superior cunning—these are the sources to which those titles may be traced . The original deeds were written with the sword rather than with the pen : not lawyers , but soldiers were the conveyancers : blows were the current coin given in payment ; and for seals , blood was used in preference to wax . Could valirl claims be thus constituted ? Hardly . And if not , what becomes of the

    pretensions of all subsequent holders of estates so obtained ? Doessaleor bequest generate a right where it did not previously exist ? Would the original claimants be nonsuited at the bar of reason , because the thing stolen from them had changed hands ? Certainly not . And if one act of transfer can give no title , can many ? No : though nothing be multiplied for ever , it will not produce one . Even the law recognizes this principle . An existing holder must , if called upon , substantiate the claims of those from whom he purchased or inherited his property ; and any flaw in the original parchment , even though the property should have had a score of intermediate owners , quashes his right .

    " But Time , ' say some , ' is a great legalizer . Immemorial possession must be taken to constitute a legitimate claim . That which has been held from age to age as private property , and has been bought and sold as such , must now be considered as irrevocably belonging to individuals / To which proposition a willing assent shall be given when its propounders can assign it a definite meaning . To do this , however , they must find satisfactory answers to such questions as—How long does it take for what was originally a wrong to grow into a right ? At what rate per annum do invalid claims become valid ? If a title gets perfect in a thousand years , how much more than perfect will it be in two thousand years ? —and so forth . For the solution of which they will require a new calculus .

    " Whether it may be expedient to admit claims of a certain standing , is not the point . We have here nothing to do with considerations of conventional privilege or legislative convenience . We have simply to inquire what is the veTdict given by pure equity in the matter . And this verdict enjoins a protest against every existing pretension to the individual possession of the soil ; and dictates the assertion , that the right of mankind at large to the earth ' s surface is still valid ; all deeds , customs , and laws , notwithstanding . " The common argument is that , when a man reclaims land , expends his labour on it , making it by his improvements valuable , arable , from mere marsh or waste that it was before , his labour has erected a property which no other man can dispute . This Mr . Spencer thus answers : —

    " You say truly , when you say that ' whilst they were unreclaimed these lands belonged to all men . ' And it is my duty to tell you that they belong to all men still ; and that your ' improvements , ' as you call them , cannot vitiate the claim of all men . You may plough and harrow , and sow and reap ; you may turn over the soil as often as you like ; but all your manipulations will fail to make that soil yours , which was not yours to begin with . Let me put a case . Suppose now that in the course of your wanderings you come upon an empty house , which in spite of its dilapidated state takes your

    fancy ; suppose that with the intention of making it your abode you expend much time and trouble in repairing it —that you paint , and paper , and whitewash , and at considerable coat bring it into a habitable state . Suppose further , that on some fatal day a stranger is announced , who turns out to be the heir to whom this house has been bequeathed ; and that this professed heir is prepared with all the necessary proofs of his identity ; what becomes of your improvements ? Do they give you a valid title to the house ? Do they quash the title of the original claimant ? " No .

    " Neither , then , do your pioneering operations give you a valid title to this land . Neither do they quash the title of its original claimants —the human race . The world is God ' s bequest to mankind . All men are joint heirs to it ; you amongst the number . And because you have taken up your residence on a certain part of it , and have subdued , cultivated , beautified that part — improved it as you say , you are not , therefore , warranted in appropriating it as entirely private property . Al least if you do so , you may at any moment be justly expelled by the lawful owner—Society . " Again : —

    " After all , nobody does implicitly believe in landlordism . We hear of eutatoK being held under the king , that is , the State ; or of their being kept , in trust for the public benefit ; and not that they are the inalienable possessions of tin ir nominal owners . Moreover , we daily deny landlordism by our legislation . Is a canal , a railway , or a turnpike road to be . made ? We do not scruple to seize jnat as many acres as may be requisite ; allowing the holders compriiHution for tde capital invented . Wt : « lo not wait for consent . An act of Parliament supermen the authority of title deeds , and serves proprietors with notices to

    quit , whether they will or not JOither thin w equitable , or it is not . Hither the public aro free to resume as much of the earth's surface ; . s they think fit , or tin- titles of tin ? landowners uiUHt be oonHidered absolute , ami all national works must be postponed until lords « nd sqiiiico please to part with the requisite sli . es of their estates , if wo decide that the claims of individual ownership must give way then we imply that the right of the nation at largo to t ' h « noil is supreme—that the right of private possession only eximtt by general conHent—that general consent beinir withdittwn . it ceases—or , in other words , that it in no right at all .

    Untitled Article

    March 15 , 1851 . ] gflg fUfl&rr . 249

• Citation
  • Leader (1850-1860), March 15, 1851, page 249, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1874/page/13/