derstand its true principles, we should try to apply them. One of the first of these principles is not to teach too much, not to congest the mind, not to overtax its powers. Our effort should be to whet curiosity, awaken a certain variety of interests, develop the natural powers of the mind, and leave room for the imagination to work. It is the spontaneous effort of the mind, not its forced labor, that yields the best results. Hitherto we have been fighting ignorance so hard, and have been so afraid of it, that the idea of knowledge in any degree being dangerous has seldom occurred to us. But knowledge may be as dangerous as food, if given in wrong quantities and under wrong conditions. When we realize this as fully as we have heretofore realized the danger of ignorance, a new era in education will have dawned.
INDIVIDUALISM.
The discussion on the land question in the London "Times," a further installment of which is given in our present issue, will have, we may hope, one or two good results. It will tend to produce in the public mind a more vivid sense of the difficulty of dealing with the land question on any abstract principles, and it will help, perhaps, to bring home the lesson that social progress is more a matter of individual improvement than of political reconstruction. Mr. Auberon Herbert, in the letter which we print this month, calls attention to the fact that the whole drift of Mr. Spencer's philosophy is toward individualism, and suggests that the social dangers of the present time arise precisely from the fatal disposition of men to invoke state action as a remedy for all evils. It is indeed a serious fact that so few of those who seek to catch the public ear lay any emphasis on the need for individual reform, or have anything to say about individual responsibility. Institutions are wrong, laws are wrong, social organization is wrong—all general forces and agencies are wrong; but rarely does any one discover that this or that man is wrong. Such a discovery, if made, would perhaps not be thought worth announcing, or perhaps might not be considered safe to announce. It is more popular to abuse institutions at large than to attempt to fix the responsibility for their defects; and no prudent orator would think of suggesting to his audience that the true starting-point of reform would be in the habits and dispositions of just such people as themselves.
Mr. Frederick Greenwood's letter, published by us last month, furnishes a striking illustration of the readiness with which the principle of personal responsibility is overlooked by even thoughtful writers. Mr. Greenwood reads a lesson to Mr. Spencer for having, as he considers, put forward certain radical theories as to land tenure without sufficient qualification, and so given occasion to men like Mr. Laidler to quote him in support of their revolutionary schemes. The true view of the matter, however, is that Mr. Spencer acquitted himself of his duty to society by giving expression to the opinions which, at the time, commended themselves to his acceptance. He did not force them upon the world, or upon any one. He did not offer them as infallibly inspired; he gave them simply as the views of Herbert Spencer, guaranteeing nothing, even by implication, save their sincerity. What was the nature, then, of his responsibility in the matter? We answer that he staked, to a certain extent, such literary or philosophical reputation as he had, at the time, acquired, and made himself a mark for the criticism of all who differed from him in opinion. On the other hand, he did not render himself responsible for all who might adopt his views simply because they were his, or for those who, under any circumstances, accepted them without sufficient examination, possibly with-
