[76] "Utilitarianism," fifth edition, p. 9, foot-note. Except where
otherwise specified, the references throughout this article will be to
the pages of the fifth edition of "Utilitarianism."
[77] _Fortnightly Review_, May, 1877, vol. xxi. p. 648.
[78] "The Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy," Book I. chap.
vi. 2nd paragraph.
[79] "An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation," p.
1.
[80] "Principles," &c. chap. iv. sect. 2-5. The statement is not a
verbatim extract but an abridgment of the sections named.
[81] "Autobiography," p. 214.
[82] "Utilitarianism," p. 11.
[83] Italicised by the present writer.
[84] "Principles of Morals and Legislation," ed. 1823, vol. i. p. 31.
[85] A very important article by Dr. E. L. Youmans upon Mr. Spencer's
philosophy has just appeared in the _North American Review_ for October,
1879. Dr. Youmans traces the history of the Evolution doctrines, and
proves the originality and independence of Mr. Spencer as regards the
closely related views of Mr. Darwin, Mr. Wallace, and Professor Huxley.
The eminent men in question are no doubt in perfect agreement; but Dr.
Youmans seems to think that readers in general do not properly
understand the singular originality and boldness of Mr. Spencer's vast
and partially accomplished enterprise in philosophy.
[86] Mr. Morley does not seem to countenance any such claims. On the
contrary, he remarks in his "Critical Miscellanies," p. 324, that Mill's
Essays lose in interest by not dealing with the Darwinian hypothesis.
[87] "Autobiography," p. 187.
[88] "Principles of Morals," &c., p. 29.
[89] "The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex," 1871, vol.
i. p. 71. I cannot help thinking that Mr. Darwin felt the inconsistency
and confusion of ideas in the passages quoted, although he does not so
express himself. Otherwise, why does he quote from two pages?