suffer were physical as well as mental, and with the former the vulgar could sympathize. The situation was at times dramatic. Auerbach's recital of the life of Spinoza is almost as interesting as though Spinoza were a great butcher of his kind. There is something tangible in the curse which the synagogue of Amster dam hurled against its protesting son, and, in our mind's eye, we can fill up the picture of suffering consequent upon the fulfilment of the words of the anathema, "There shall no man speak to him, no man write to him, no man show him any kindness, no man stay under the same roof with him, no man come nigh him." An incident in the life struggle of Tasso is the subject of one of Goethe's immortal tragedies. The fight between thought and organized bigotry, as evidenced in the lives of Galileo, Huss, Savonarola, and a host of others, offers numerous points of interest, in consequence of the open though unequal fight, and the not unfrequent terribly tragic conclusion of the lives of a majority of those who fought the ever-to-be-renewed contest between liberty and despotism. But the life of a modern thinker offers to the historian no such interesting material; the stake is abolished, the Index Expurgatorius alone remains as a feeble remnant of the exercise of that power which sent men to the torture and the auto-da-fe for presuming to think differently from the church. The spirit, however, which kindled the auto-da-fe, the animus which twisted, hacked, and mangled the body of a Savonarola until, with a broken spirit as well as bones, he confessed himself to be an impostor, still survives, manifesting itself in a different way; doubtless in a less cruel and much diminished form, but nevertheless manifesting itself. The war is no longer an open one; no martyr's crown encircles in our century the brow of the world's great protestants, but a martyrdom they nevertheless are compelled to endure. They are smothered by silence. A merciless and studied neglect, a denial of recognition, and an ignoring of existence, is the manner in which the world's great thinkers are at present treated. They are permitted to pursue their studies, and at their own expense to publish their books, and no organized government among the so-called civilized communities says nay. But the great body of the people refuses acknowledgment, and denies recognition. Their works fall still-born from the press; a few notices, or even favorable criticisms, in journals read by almost as few as read their works, are all that they obtain for life-long labors and devotions to the successful pursuit of the highest departments of human knowledge.

The original of the portrait which we offer to our readers is

one of those who, pursued by thought, have been driven far in advance of their contemporaries. Born in that country of class interests and class privileges-England-a nat on which offers to talent, on the condition. that it make of itself a tool of party, and a slave to forms, a higher reward than any other nation on the face of the globe, Spencer's claims to be ranked as first among her thinkers have been persistently ignored and denied, and that simply because his is too proud a spirit and too lofty an intellect to re-echo the shibboleths of party, or be subservient to forms which are repugnant to his sense of right.

Spencer was born in Derby, England, in 1816. In consequence of his ill-health, his father, who was by profession a teacher, determined to educate his son Herbert at home. From all that we can learn, the elder Spencer seems to have been a firm believer in the Pestalozzian system of education, and thus taught his son, at an early period, the true properties of things, before implanting in him abstract ideas for which his mind was unprepared. So soon as the health of his son permitted him to leave the parental home he placed him under the care of a brother, a gentleman of high culture and considerable scientific attainments, the Rev. Thomas Spencer, who taught him mathematics and the physical sciences. The strong leaning of Spencer toward applied mathematics induced his relatives to select for him as a profession that of railway engineering. At the age of seventeen he began life as an engineer. He remained for the period of eight years in the profession, and was drawn from it by the combined causes of inability to earn therein a respectable livelihood-the railway crises of 1842 having caused an utter stagnation in his vocation-and the opening of a new career, consequent upon the literary success of certain articles contributed by him about that time to the "Nonconformist" newspaper, which elicited flattering offers of permanent literary engagements.

From 1842 to 1848 he employed himself in various capacities upon the English press. His first permanent engagement as an editor was on the "Economist" newspaper, then under the editorship of its proprietor James Wilson, Esq., M. P. For the period of four years he aided in the editing of the "Economist," and contributed by the labors of his pen much to the success of that journal. Notwithstanding the exacting nature of his editorial labors, Mr. Spencer nevertheless found time, during those four years, to write the most original if not the most profound of all his works, "Social Statics," a work from which modern social science will take its date.

The editors of the "Westminster" and other liberal reviews of England invited Spencer, after the publication of "Social Statics," to contribute to their reviews, and he then became, with slight intermission, a regular contributor to the quarterlies. In the interim between 1852 and 1860, he found leisure to write and publish his profound work on psychology, a work which, in itself, might be deemed a sufficient contribution to scientific literature, as the result of life-long study and reflection. In 1860, Mr. Spencer commenced the publication of his system of philosophy, and has since then devoted the whole of his time to the completion of that task. Unfortunately for the cause of science, and to the shame of England, Mr. Spencer last year confessed that the loss of about one thousand pounds, incurred in the publication of his system of philosophy, would compel him to discontinue its publication. A number of his admirers in this country, at the instance of Professor Youmans, Robert B. Minturn, jr., Henry Holt, and others, collected a sum of money about sufficient to make good Mr. Spencer's loss. It is hoped that being thus reimbursed for his losses, he may be induced to continue his invaluable labors upon the crowning work of his life.

Professor Agassiz once replied to a society in Boston which offered him a handsome sum of money to deliver a course of lectures, that he had not time to make money. Mr. Spencer never had time to make money. He expressed to a friend his intention to visit this country during the coming year, and though it would be unreasonable for us to expect that we should give to England's representative man of thought a reception similar to that given to the prince who represents its toryism, we nevertheless hope that he may be made to feel, during his stay in the United States, that there are many here who can appreciate his labors, and do homage to one who, having the talents which can win applause in those walks of life wherein applause means wealth and station, willingly sacrifices all factitious advantages for the cause of science.

S. S.

SHOULD TAXATION BE COMPULSORY?

Essays on Taxation and Reconstruction. By "Diversity" (WILLIAM B. SCOTT). New York; C. B. Richardson.

THE modest title of this unpretending pamphlet would scarcely lead the reader to suppose that it contains, and briefly, clearly, calmly and forcibly advocates an idea which will probably startle

him, and tend (if he is a "conservative") to confuse his conceptions of "established rights" and "legitimate powers of government." This idea is no less than the most radical condemnation of all compulsory taxation, as wrong in principle, and productive of great misery and crime. The writer, in the six wonderfully condensed essays which fill the twenty-two pages of this noteworthy little work, first examines the effect of taxation on rent, the price of commodities, and wages. He next inquires whether it should be compulsory or voluntary: then, whether natural laws are sufficient to secure the safety and well-being of man, without the aid of human laws. He then puts forth a declaration of rights, and proposes two amendments to the Constitution of the United States. He proposes a plan for disposing of the national debt, which he looks on as the result of past

errors.

There are two lights in which to view this highly originál production First, it may be considered as a set of measures, recommended by the author for present adoption: Second, as an index finger pointing out the way which civilization should and must go. We proceed to consider it under the first aspect. Essay I. opens with the question, "What effect has taxation upon rent, the price of commodities, and the rate of wages ?" As to the first, he shows that, other things remaining unchanged, rents will rise in direct ratio to the increase of taxes. As to the second, he points out that every tax of necessity at last falls on the producer, and to its precise extent lessens his power to accumulate, and thence to duplicate his products. In regard to the third, he shows that, other things remaining the same, wages must decrease in direct ratio to the amount of tax.

Having proved these facts, the author proceeds to draw from them inferences, and to make on them remarks, of a most extraordinary kind. He asks "whether the payment of all mortgages, and the interest accruing thereon, whether given by individuals, counties, the state, or the nation, if ever paid, except by a transfer of existing property, must not be paid out of the income derived from the results of present and future labor ?" This being admitted, he goes on to ask whether such mortgages and interest (except those given by the individual) must not be "a virtual confiscation, at the present time, of about twenty-five per cent. of the income from wages, to be transferred to a portion of the community from whom the laborer receives no equivalent!"

It must be borne in mind that Mr. Scott does not speak of government stocks like the Jecker bonds in Mexico, which were

obtained by fraud, but of bonds entered into in good faith on both sides. To these and their effects he applies the strange language above quoted. To this he adds, "It is sometimes said that it makes but little difference what amount of tax is derived by government, for it is all paid back to the community; but I would ask how a laborer can get back ten dollars paid for taxation, except by surrendering an equivalent in labor?

"When an individual gives a mortgage, he receives the use of property as an equivalent; but what equivalent does the individual get for the mortgage placed upon his property by government ? Nothing! Nothing but the frequent demands of the tax-gatherer!”

If Mr. Scott supposes that government is of no value, we can understand these remarks; otherwise we cannot. If government fulfils its object by protecting the laborer in his rights, and simply charges him with the cost of doing so, as an insurance company protects its customers from loss and charges them a premium, it is fair to suppose that the capitalist who supplies the needs of the government, and thus enables it to prolong its existence and continue to discharge its most needful functions, has really given the laborer an equivalent for the tax which the latter pays to remunerate him, just as a man who loans money to another, wherewith to buy food for the latter's children, has really benefited the children, even though they should have to pay their father's debt. The difference between the case of the insurance company and that of government is, that, as government is obliged in the nature of the case to guard the rights of every man without asking his consent, it is also obliged to collect from him, without asking his consent, the price of so doing.

The questions which Mr. Scott asks, already quoted, are capable of complete answer. The laborer gets back ten dollars' worth of protection to the rest of his property and his rights, just as he who pays an insurance premium of a hundred dollars a year is protected to the extent of the amount of property which that premium will cover. This is surely as full an equiv

alent in the one case as in the other.

Mr. Scott may say that we never do get the same rate of protection from government that we do from insurance companies for the same amount of money. This is often true; but it is an argument for better administration, not one against taxation itself. When the president or treasurer of an insurance company defaults, no intelligent person argues from this that insurance premiums should never be paid.