66

as exhibited by different circumstances. Bentham's greatest happiness of the greatest number," was simply a poetic thought carried to such a pitch of vulgarity, that one hesitates to apply the true name. Science has never even ventured to touch the question of good and evil, of pleasure and pain. Even if with time, it developes to such a degree, that an investigation of the kind become justifiable, the matter can only be the subject of theory, for the experience of the individual can never be reduced to figures. In the work we have mentioned, we refer all differences to extent. That which is most identified with the moment we declare to be inferior to that which can endure through a long succession of changes. Bentham and all other materialists are beneath those who appeal to the more subtle feelings of mankind, inasmuch as their ideal is taken from a momentary fashion. If, during the war against Napoleon, a sturdy Englishman had been asked which were better, to conquer the foe at the price of endless misery, or to yield tamely and escape all burdens, he would have answered that death was a thousand times better than disgrace; and how much deeper the truth of such a reply, than that of the cheap calculation that came into vogue in the days of our distress, when victory had come and passion had cooled, the wonderful rise of Great Britain since 1815 demonstrates surpassingly.

To Mr. Galton, as to Jeremy Bentham, the world he sees is the world that will endure. There is no doubt that science is a very great and very good thing at this moment, and therefore its increase is for him a something to be striven after with heart and soul. He proposes,

as a result of his enquiry into the individual history of one hundred and eighty persons, that monetary endowments should be forthcoming to further developement. Such a demand as this characterizes most aptly the tendency of such labours as his. Not very long ago, Professor Huxley, speaking in the name of science (and who with better right ?), declared that, much as he desired the advancement of certain studies, the results yielded by money-gifts were such in other branches, that he could not hope anything from the extension of endowments. The error, indeed, of those who imagine that piety and learning can be increased by the transfer of so much coin to the hands of those who profess the several qualities, is the same as that of those political economists who assume that wealth is produced by capital and labour alone. In each case there is a limited basis of truth. A poverty-stricken university, if suddenly possessed of large funds, would probably attract and develope an immense amount of talent in the first years, but that simply because, although grown wealthy, the spirit that actuated it would be that nurtured anterior to the change. In a nation also, for the moment there is nothing visibly concerned in the production of wealth but capital and labour, and any considerable addition to either would, for the moment, proportionately increase the aggregate. Supposing, however, that this increase be achieved, as such things usually are, at some moral sacrifice,—as, for instance, would be the case if we admitted large bodies of Chinese into these islands, -the unimportance of realized possessions, compared with

those that apparently only exist in the heart and brain, would soon become evident to all. Decay of patriotism, again, entails insecurity, and by national insecurity more can be lost in one day than labour and capital can make up in years. In the case of certain promoters of charitable institutions much that is favourable may be advanced. Although the adhesion for a long period to that which they accomplish generally leads to corruption and ruin, they may at the time, benefit their age largely; and where such benefits are imperative deeds at the moment, the thinker must trust to the vitality of posterity to overcome the evil legacy. With Mr. Galton, however, it is different. He is not, and does not profess to be, a man of action. His object is the discovery of certain principles by the application of scientific method; and, as he assumes the success that has not rewarded his efforts, and then essays to read the world a lesson, he is false to the needs of the time. Every snatch at an evanescent advantage is, according to our theory of extent, comparatively evil. It can only be good when taken in subordination to that which is more enduring. Where, as with our author, that which is but for a moment usurps the authority that pertains to the grandest forms of human expressions, either the race must be fallen to such a degree that great good would be destruction, or the tendency is one to be combated with every weapon.

Real Science can never be guilty of the sins charged upon it by its adversaries. Though less than art it is equally pure. It is the misapplication of its teachings that leads to absurd and pitiable results. There is, for

the object of

Science is exact unexpected dis

instance, nothing more unreasonable and foreign to its nature, than to assume certain mysteries and to declare them beyond the reach of human intellect, as is at present vulgarly the custom when the Deity, existence, and the like are spoken of. and definite. Although it may make coveries in its progress, it must realize clearly at starting both its object and the means to be employed. With such questions as the above, it has simply nothing to do. That it is impossible to conceive omnipotence or the like scientifically, is proof of nothing more than that science is unequal to the task, and that the enquirer must turn to some other mode of expression to find satisfaction. When people complain that they have been robbed of faith and hope by certain matters that have been put before them, they simply lament their weakness. To the due exercise of our instincts and passions we owe our humanity: if we cannot find a field for them we cease to be human, nay, even to live. The folly of attempting to apply exact reason to the details of such phenomena as religion, becomes manifest when we essay to analyse any of those realities concerning which it is the province of the poet and the artist to dictate. No possible strain could bring science to bear, for instance, on ugliness. There is no convention whatever to go upon. How much more helpless then, must our method be, when applied to the conception of a Supreme Being. When the object of being is spoken of, the true answer is, there is nothing in the premises to suggest it. Supposing the existence of anything similar, it would be imposssible to become scientifically conscious

of it. Science can only see man, like the grass in the field waxing and waning, according to his needs and the means he finds of satisfying them.

Another point which our consideration of these works forces on our attention is this. Great things in little men become petty and trivial, while littleness expressed through great natures becomes great. The poet who creates a civilization cannot personally carry out the details of his concrete thoughts, and must give place to minor agents, animated indeed by his spirit, but so much beneath him, that, in ordinary language, we recognise no community whatever between master and servant. Shakespeare and Byron are at this day often represented by Sergeant Stubbs. The patriotism of the one, the free-thought of the other, are translated by that intelligent and useful officer into brutality to niggers and a tendency to make free with sacred things. As however, all who will take the trouble to reflect must see that both the poet and the rough man of action have their places in the world, and that there is no ground on which to expect another order of things, we cannot be blind to what might occur if the fountain-head of our Genius should descend from the mountain peak to the plain. Into what would Sergeant Stubbs translate the theories of Mr. Galton? We have had political experience of late that awakens great suspicion concerning the infallibility of certain matters which we have spent half a century in praising. To reverence and study greatness of the highest kind is surely a better method of improving the race than to set up a transitory standard of excellence and attempt to attain it by a procedure borrowed from stock farmers. The result