erfere in the internal affairs of the Transvaal, the British
Government proceeded to insist on certain electoral arrangements, and
made resistance the excuse for a desolating war. As to the transparent
pretence that the Boers commenced the war, Mr. Spencer reminds us that
in the far West of the United States, where every man carries his life
in his hands and the usages of fighting are well understood, it is held
that he is the real aggressor who first moves his hand toward his
weapon. The application to the South African contest is obvious. In an
essay on "Style," Mr. Spencer tells us that his own diction has been,
from the beginning, unpremeditated. It has never occurred to him to take
any author as a model. Neither has he at any time examined the writing
of this or that author with a view of observing its peculiarities. The
thought of style, considered as an end in itself, has rarely, if ever,
been present with him, his sole purpose being to express ideas as
clearly as possible, and, when the occasion called for it, with as much
force as might be. He has observed, however, he says, that some
difference has been made in his style by the practice of dictation. Up
to 1860 his books and review articles were written with his own hand.
Since then they have all been dictated. He thinks that there is
foundation for the prevailing belief that dictation is apt to cause
diffuseness. The remark was once made to him, it seems, by two good
judges--George Henry Lewes and George Eliot--that the style of "Social
Statics" is better than the style of his later volumes; Mr. Spencer
would ascribe the contrast to the deteriorating effect of dictation. A
recent experience has strengthened him in this conclusion. When lately
revising "First Principles," which originally was dictated, the cutting
out of superfluous words, clauses, sentences, and sometimes paragraphs,
had the effect of abridging the work by about one-tenth. Touching the
style of other writers, Mr. Spencer points out the defects in some
passages quoted from Matthew Arnold and Froude. He says that he is
repelled by the ponderous, involved structure of Milton's prose, and he
dissents from the applause of Ruskin's style on the ground that it is
too self-conscious, and implies too much thought of effect. On the other
hand, he has always been attracted by the finished naturalness of
Thackeray.

A word should here be said about the misconception of Mr. Spencer's
position with referen