{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_55902/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_55902","id":"gutenberg_55902","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/55902","summary":null,"tags":["Category: British Literature","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","English literature -- History and criticism","Great Britain -- History"],"text":"CRITICAL, HISTORICAL, AND MISCELLANEOUS ESSAYS\n\nBy\n\nLord Macaulay\n\nWith A Memoir And Index\n\nIn Six Volumes.\n\nVol. II.\n\nNew York: Published By Sheldon And Company.\n\n1860\n\n[Illustration: 0007]\n\n\n\n\n\nESSAYS.\n\n\n\n\nMILL ON GOVERNMENT.(1)\n\n(_Edinburgh Review_, March 1829.)\n\n\nOf {5}those philosophers who call themselves Utilitarians, and whom\nothers generally call Benthamites, Mr. Mill is, with the exception of\nthe illustrious founder of the sect, by far the most distinguished. The\nlittle work now before us contains a summary of the opinions held by\nthis gentleman and his brethren on several subjects most important to\nsociety. All the seven essays of which it consists abound in curious\nmatter. But at present we intend to confine our remarks to the Treatise\non Government, which stands first in the volume. On some future\noccasion, we may perhaps attempt to do justice to the rest.\n\nIt must be owned that to do justice to any composition of Mr. Mill is\nnot, in the opinion of his admirers, a very easy task. They do not,\nindeed, place him in the same rank with Mr. Bentham; but the terms in\nwhich they extol the disciple, though feeble when compared with the\nhyperboles of adoration employed by\n\n     (1) _Essays on Government, Jurisprudence, the Liberty of the\n     Press, Prisons and Prison Discipline, Colonies, the Law of\n     Nations, and Education_, By James Mill, Esq., author of the\n     History of British India. Reprinted by permission from the\n     Supplement to the Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica. (Not for sale.)\n     London, 1828.\n\n{6}them in speaking of the master, are as strong as any sober man would\nallow himself to use concerning Locke or Bacon. The essay before us\nis perhaps the most remarkable of the works to which Mr. Mill owes\nhis fame. By the members of his sect, it is considered as perfect and\nunanswerable. Every part of it is an article of their faith; and\nthe damnatory clauses, in which their creed abounds far beyond any\ntheological symbol with which we are acquainted, are strong and\nfull against all who reject any portion of what is so irrefragably\nestablished. No man, they maintain, who has understanding sufficient\nto carry him through the first proposition of Euclid, can read this\nmaster-piece of demonstration and honestly declare that he remains\nunconvinced.\n\nWe have formed a very different opinion of this work. We think that the\ntheory of Mr. Mill rests altogether on false principles, and that even\non those false principles he does not reason logically. Nevertheless,\nwe do not think it strange that his speculations should have filled the\nUtilitarians with admiration. We have been for some time past inclined\nto suspect that these people, whom some regard as the lights of the\nworld and others as incarnate demons, are in general ordinary men, with\nnarrow understandings and little information. The contempt which they\nexpress for elegant literature is evidently the contempt of ignorance.\nWe apprehend that many of them are persons who, having read little\nor nothing, are delighted to be rescued from the sense of their own\ninferiority by some teacher who assures them that the studies which\nthey have neglected are of no value, puts five or six phrases into their\nmouths, lends them an odd number of the Westminster Review, and in\na month {7}transforms them into philosophers. Mingled with these\nsmatterers, whose attainments just suffice to elevate them from the\ninsignificance of dunces to the dignity of bores, and to spread dismay\namong their pious aunts and grandmothers, there are, we well know,\nmany well-meaning men who have really read and thought much; but whose\nreading and meditation have been almost exclusively confined to one\nclass of subjects; and who, consequently, though they possess much\nvaluable knowledge respecting those subjects, are by no means so\nwell qualified to judge of a great system as if they had taken a more\nenlarged view of literature and society.\n\nNothing is more amusing or instructive than to observe the manner in\nwhich people who think themselves wiser than all the rest of the world\nfall into snares which the simple good sense of their neighbours detects\nand avoids. It is one of the principal tenets of the Utilitarians that\nsentiment and eloquence serve only to impede the pursuit of truth. They\ntherefore affect a quakerly plainness, or rather a cynical negligence\nand impurity, of style. The strongest arguments, when clothed in\nbrilliant language, seem to them so much wordy nonsense. In the mean\ntime they surrender their understandings, with a facility found in no\nother party, to the meanest and most abject sophisms, provided those\nsophisms come before them disguised with the externals of demonstration.\nThey do not seem to know that logic has its illusions as well as\nrhetoric,--that a fallacy may lurk in a syllogism as well as in a\nmetaphor.\n\nMr. Mill is exactly the writer to please people of this description.\nHis arguments are stated with the utmost affectation of precision; his\ndivisions are awfully {8}formal; and his style is generally as dry as\nthat of Euclid\u2019s Elements. Whether this be a merit, we must be permitted\nto doubt. Thus much is certain: that the ages in which the true\nprinciples of philosophy were least understood were those in which the\nceremonial of logic was most strictly observed, and that the time from\nwhich we date the rapid progress of the experimental sciences was also\nthe time at which a less exact and formal way of writing came into use.\n\nThe style which the Utilitarians admire suits only those subjects on\nwhich it is possible to reason _a priori_ It grew up with the verbal\nsophistry which flourished during the dark ages. With that sophistry it\nfell before the Baconian philosophy in the day of the great deliverance\nof the human mind. The inductive method not only endured but required\ngreater freedom of diction. It was impossible to reason from phenomena\nup to principles, to mark slight shades of difference in quality, or to\nestimate the comparative effect of two opposite considerations between\nwhich there was no common measure, by means of the naked and meagre\njargon of the schoolmen. Of those schoolmen Mr. Mill has inherited\nboth the spirit and the style. He is an Aristotelian of the fifteenth\ncentury, born out of due season. We have here an elaborate treatise on\nGovernment, from which, but for two or three passing allusions, it\nwould not appear that the author was aware that any governments actually\nexisted among men. Certain propensities of human nature are assumed;\nand from these premises the whole science of politics is synthetically\ndeduced! We can scarcely persuade ourselves that we are not reading a\nbook written before the time of Bacon and Galileo,--a book {9}written in\nthose days in which physicians reasoned from the nature of heat to the\ntreatment of fever, and astronomers proved syllogistically that the\nplanets could have no independent motion,--because the heavens were\nincorruptible, and nature abhorred a vacuum!\n\nThe reason, too, which Mr. Mill has assigned for taking this course\nstrikes us as most extraordinary.\n\n\u201cExperience,\u201d says he, \u201cif we look only at the outside of the facts,\nappears to be _divided_ on this subject. Absolute monarchy, under Neros\nand Caligulas, under such men as the Emperors of Morocco and Sultans of\nTurkey, is the scourge of human nature. On the other side, the people of\nDenmark, tired out with the oppression of an aristocracy, resolved that\ntheir king should be absolute; and, under their absolute monarch, are as\nwell governed as any people in Europe.\u201d\n\nThis Mr. Mill actually gives as a reason for pursuing the _a priori_\nmethod. But, in our judgment, the very circumstances which he mentions\nirresistibly prove that the _a priori_ method is altogether unfit for\ninvestigations of this kind, and that the only way to arrive at the\ntruth is by induction. _Experience_ can never be divided, or even appear\nto be divided, except with reference to some hypothesis. When we say\nthat one fact is inconsistent with another fact, we mean only that it is\ninconsistent with _the theory_ which we have founded on that other fact.\nBut, if the fact be certain, the unavoidable conclusion is that our\ntheory is false; and, in order to correct it, we must reason back from\nan enlarged collection of facts to principles.\n\nNow here we have two governments which, by Mr. Mill\u2019s own account, come\nunder the same head in his _theoretical_ classification. It is evident,\ntherefore, that, {10}by reasoning on that theoretical classification,\nwe shall be brought to the conclusion that these two forms of government\nmust produce the same effects. But Mr. Mill himself tells us that they\ndo not produce the same effects. Hence he infers that the only way to\nget at truth is to place implicit confidence in that chain of proof _a\npriori_ from which it appears that they must produce the same effects!\nTo believe at once in a theory and in a fact which contradicts it is\nan exercise of faith sufficiently hard: but to believe in a theory\n_because_ a fact contradicts it is what neither philosopher nor pope\never before required. This, however, is what Mr. Mill demands of us. He\nseems to think that, if all despots, without exception, governed ill,\nit would be unnecessary to prove, by a synthetical argument, what would\nthen be sufficiently clear from experience. But, as some despots will be\nso perverse as to govern well, he finds himself compelled to prove the\nimpossibility of their governing well by that synthetical argument\nwhich would have been superfluous had not the facts contradicted it. He\nreasons _a priori_, because the phenomena are not what, by reasoning\n_a priori_, he will prove them to be. In other words, he reasons _a\npriori_, because, by so reasoning, he is certain to arrive at a false\nconclusion!\n\nIn the course of the examination to which we propose to subject the\nspeculations of Mr. Mill we shall have to notice many other curious\ninstances of that turn of mind which the passage above quoted indicates.\n\nThe first chapter of his Essay relates to the ends of government. The\nconception on this subject, he tells us, which exists in the minds of\nmost men is vague and undistinguishing. He first assumes, justly\nenough, that the end of government is \u201cto increase to the utmost {11}the\npleasures, and diminish to the utmost the pains, which men derive\nfrom each other.\u201d He then proceeds to show, with great form, that \u201cthe\ngreatest possible happiness of society is attained by insuring to every\nman the greatest possible quantity of the produce of his labour.\u201d To\neffect this is, in his opinion, the end of government. It is remarkable\nthat Mr. Mill, with all his affected display of precision, has here\ngiven a description of the ends of government far less precise than that\nwhich is in the mouths of the vulgar. The first man with whom Mr. Mill\nmay travel in a stage coach will tell him that government exists for the\nprotection of the _persons_ and property of men. But Mr. Mill seems to\nthink that the preservation of property is the first and only object. It\nis true, doubtless, that many of the injuries which are offered to the\npersons of men proceed from a desire to possess their property. But the\npractice of vindictive assassination as it has existed in some parts of\nEurope--the practice of fighting wanton and sanguinary duels, like those\nof the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, in which bands of seconds\nrisked their lives as well as the principals;--these practices, and many\nothers which might be named, are evidently injurious to society; and\nwe do not see how a government which tolerated them could be said \u201cto\ndiminish to the utmost the pains which men derive from each other.\u201d\n Therefore, according to Mr. Mill\u2019s very correct assumption, such a\ngovernment would not perfectly accomplish the end of its institution.\nYet such a government might, as far as we can perceive, \u201cinsure to\nevery man the greatest possible quantity of the produce of his labour.\u201d\n Therefore such a government might, according to Mr. Milks subsequent\ndoctrine, perfectly accomplish the end of its institution. {12}The\nmatter is not of much consequence, except as an instance of that\nslovenliness of thinking which is often concealed beneath a peculiar\nostentation of logical neatness.\n\nHaving determined the ends, Mr. Mill proceeds to consider the means.\nFor the preservation of property-some portion of the community must be\nintrusted with power. This is Government; and the question is, how are\nthose to whom the necessary power is intrusted to be prevented from\nabusing it?\n\nMr. Mill first passes in review the simple forms of government. He\nallows that it would be inconvenient, if not physically impossible, that\nthe whole community should meet in a mass; it follows, therefore, that\nthe powers of government cannot be directly exercised by the people. But\nhe sees no objection to pure and direct Democracy, except the difficulty\nwhich we have mentioned.\n\n\u201cThe community,\u201d says he, \u201ccannot have an interest opposite to its\ninterests. To affirm this would be a contradiction in terms. The\ncommunity within itself, and with respect to itself, can have no\nsinister interest. One community may intend the evil of another;\nnever its own. This is an indubitable proposition, and one of great\nimportance.\u201d\n\nMr. Mill then proceeds to demonstrate that a purely aristocratical form\nof government is necessarily bad.\n\n\u201c_The reason for which government exists is, that one man, if stronger\nthan another, will take from him whatever that other possesses and he\ndesires. But if one man will do this, so will several. And if powers\nare put into the hands of a comparatively small number, called an\naristocracy,--powers which make them stronger than the rest of the\ncommunity, they will take from the rest of the community as much as they\nplease of the objects {13}of desire. They will thus defeat the very end\nfor whieh government was instituted. The unfitness, therefore, of an\naristocracy to be intrusted with the powers of government, rests on\ndemonstration_.\u201d\n\nIn exactly the same manner Mr. Mill proves absolute monarchy to be a bad\nform of government.\n\n\u201c_If government is founded upon this as a law of human nature, that a\nman, if able, will take from others any thing which they have and he\ndesires, it is sufficiently evident, that when a man is called a king he\ndoes not change his nature; so that when he has got power to enable him\nto take from every man whatever he pleases, he will take whatever he\npleases. To suppose that he will not, is to affirm that government\nis unnecessary, and that human beings will abstain from injuring one\nanother of their own accord.\n\n\u201cIt is very evident that this reasoning extends to every modification of\nthe smaller number. Whenever the powers of government are placed in any\nhands other than those of the community, whether those of one man, of\na few, or of several, those principles of human nature which imply that\ngovernment is at all necessary, imply that those persons will make use\nof them to defeat the very end for which government exists._\u201d\n\nBut is it not possible that a king or an aristocracy may soon be\nsaturated with the objects of their desires, and may then protect\nthe community in the enjoyment of the rest? Mr. Mill answers in the\nnegative. He proves, with great pomp, that every man desires to have the\nactions of every other correspondent to his will. Others can be induced\nto conform to our will only by motives derived from pleasure or from\npain. The infliction of pain is of course direct injury; and, even if it\ntake the milder course, in order to produce obedience by motives derived\nfrom pleasure, the government must confer favours. But, as there is\nno limit to its desire of obedience, there will be no limit to its\ndisposition to confer favours; and, as it can confer favours {14}only\nby plundering the people, there will be no limit to its disposition to\nplunder the people. \u201cIt is therefore not true that there is in the mind\nof a king, or in the minds of an aristocracy, any point of saturation\nwith the objects of desire.\u201d\n\nMr. Mill then proceeds to show that, as monarchical and oligarchical\ngovernments can influence men by motives drawn from pain, as well as by\nmotives drawn from pleasure, they will carry their cruelty, as well as\ntheir rapacity, to a frightful extent. As he seems greatly to admire his\nown reasonings on this subject, we think it but fair to let him speak\nfor himself.\n\n\u201c_The chain of inference in this ease is close and strong to a most\nunusual degree. A man desires that the actions of other men shall be\ninstantly and accurately correspondent to his will. He desires that the\nactions of the greatest possible number shall be so. Terror is the grand\ninstrument. Terror can work only through assurance that evil will follow\nany failure of conformity between the will and the actions willed. Every\nfailure must therefore be punished. As there are no bounds to the mind\u2019s\ndesire of its pleasure, there are, of course, no bounds to its desire of\nperfection in the instruments of that pleasure. There are, therefore, no\nbounds to its desire of exactness in the conformity between its will and\nthe actions willed; and by consequence to the strength of that terror\nwhich is its procuring cause. Every the most minute failure must\nbe visited with the heaviest infliction; and as failure in extreme\nexactness must frequently happen, the occasions of cruelty must be\nincessant.\n\n\u201cWe have thus arrived at several conclusions of the highest possible\nimportance. We have seen that the principle of human nature, upon which\nthe necessity of government is founded, the propensity of one man to\npossess himself of the objects of desire at the cost of another, leads\non, by infallible sequence, where power over a community is attained,\nand nothing checks, not only to that degree of plunder which leaves the\nmembers (excepting always the recipients and instruments of the plunder)\nthe bare means of subsistence, but to that degree of cruelty which is\nnecessary to keep in existence the most intense terrors._\u201d {15}Now, no\nman who has the least knowledge of the real state of the world, either\nin former ages or at the present moment, can possibly be convinced,\nthough he may perhaps be bewildered, by arguments like these.\n\nDuring the last two centuries, some hundreds of absolute princes have\nreigned in Europe Is it true, that their cruelty has kept in existence\nthe most intense degree of terror; that their rapacity has left no\nmore than the bare means of subsistence to any of their subjects, their\nministers and soldiers excepted? Is this true of all of them? Of one\nhalf of them? Of one tenth part of them? Of a single one? Is it true, in\nthe full extent, even of Philip the Second, of Louis the Fifteenth, or\nof the Emperor Paul? But it is scarcely necessary to quote history. No\nman of common sense, however ignorant he may be of books, can be imposed\non by Mr. Mill\u2019s argument I because no man of common sense can live\namong his fellow-creatures for a day without seeing innumerable facts\nwhich contradict it. It is our business, however, to point out its\nfallacy; and happily the fallacy is not very recondite.\n\nWe grant that rulers will take as much as they can of the objects of\ntheir desires; and that, when the agency of other men is necessary to\nthat end, they will attempt by all means in their power to enforce\nthe prompt obedience of such men. But what are the objects of human\ndesire? Physical pleasure, no doubt, in part. But the mere appetites\nwhich we have in common with the animals would be gratified almost as\ncheaply and easily as those of the animals are gratified, if nothing\nwere given to taste, to ostentation, or to the affections. How small a\nportion of the income of a gentleman in easy circumstances is laid\nout merely in {16}giving pleasurable sensations to the body of the\npossessor! The greater part even of what is spent on his kitchen and his\ncellar goes, not to titillate his palate, but to keep up his character\nfor hospitality, to save him from the reproach of meanness in\nhousekeeping, and to cement the ties of good neighbourhood. It is clear\nthat a king or an aristocracy may be supplied to satiety with mere\ncorporal pleasures, at an expense which the rudest and poorest community\nwould scarcely feel.\n\nThose tastes and propensities which belong to us as reasoning and\nimaginative beings are not indeed so easily gratified. There is, we\nadmit, no point of saturation with objects of desire which come under\nthis head. And therefore the argument of Mr. Mill will be just, unless\nthere be something in the nature of the objects of desire themselves\nwhich is inconsistent with it. Now, of these objects there is none which\nmen in general seem to desire more than the good opinion of others. The\nhatred and contempt of the public are generally felt to be\nintolerable. It is probable that our regard for the sentiments of our\nfellow-creatures springs, by association, from a sense of their ability\nto hurt or to serve us. But, be this as it may, it is notorious that,\nwhen the habit of mind of which we speak has once been formed, men feel\nextremely solicitous about the opinions of those by whom it is most\nimprobable, nay, absolutely impossible, that they should ever be in the\nslightest degree injured or benefited. The desire of posthumous fame and\nthe dread of posthumous reproach and execration are feelings from the\ninfluence of which scarcely any man is perfectly free, and which in many\nmen are powerful and constant motives of action. As we are afraid\nthat, if we handle this part of the argument after our own manner, we\n{17}shall incur the reproach of sentimentality, a word which, in the\nsacred language of the Benthamites, is synonymous with idiocy, we will\nquote what Mr. Mill himself says on the subject, in his Treatise on\nJurisprudence.\n\n\u201c_Pains from the moral source are the pains derived from the\nunfavourable sentiments of mankind.... These pains are capable of rising\nto a height with which hardly any other pains incident to our nature\ncan be compared. There is a certain degree of unfavourableness in the\nsentiments of his fellow-creatures, under which hardly any man, not\nbelow the standard of humanity, can endure to live.\n\n\u201cThe importance of this powerful agency, for the prevention of injurious\nacts, is too obvious to need to be illustrated. If sufficiently at\ncommand, it would almost supersede the use of other means....\n\n\u201cTo know how to direct the unfavourable sentiments of mankind, it is\nnecessary to know in as complete, that is, in as comprehensive, a way as\npossible, what it is which gives them birth. Without entering into the\nmetaphysics of the question, it is a sufficient practical answer, for\nthe present purpose, to say that the unfavourable sentiments of man are\nexcited by every thing which hurts them._\u201d\n\nIt is strange that a writer who considers the pain derived from the\nunfavourable sentiments of others as so acute that, if sufficiently at\ncommand, it would supersede the use of the gallows and the tread-mill,\nshould take no notice of this most important restraint when discussing\nthe question of government. We will attempt to deduce a theory of\npolitics in the mathematical form, in which Mr. Mill delights, from the\npremises with which he has himself furnished us.\n\nProposition I. Theorem.\n\nNo rulers will do any thing which may hurt the people. {18}This is the\nthesis to be maintained: and the following we humbly offer to Mr. Mill,\nas its syllogistic demonstration.\n\nNo rulers will do that which produces pain to themselves.\n\nBut the unfavourable sentiments of the people will give pain to them.\n\nTherefore no rulers will do any thing which may excite the unfavourable\nsentiments of the people.\n\nBut the unfavourable sentiments of the people are excited by every thing\nwhich hurts them.\n\nTherefore no rulers will do any thing which may hurt the people. Which\nwas the thing to be proved.\n\nHaving thus, as we think, not unsuccessfully imitated Mr. Mill\u2019s logic,\nwe do not see why we should not imitate, what is at least equally\nperfect in its kind, his self-complacency, and proclaim our _Evonka_\nin his own words: \u201cThe chain of inference, in this case, is close and\nstrong to a most unusual degree.\u201d\n\nThe fact is, that, when men, in treating of things which cannot be\ncircumscribed by precise definitions, adopt this mode of reasoning, when\nonce they begin to talk of power, happiness, misery, pain, pleasure,\nmotives, objects of desire, as they talk of lines and numbers, there is\nno end to the contradictions and absurdities into which they fall. There\nis no proposition so monstrously untrue in morals or politics that we\nwill not undertake to prove it, by something which shall sound like a\nlogical demonstration, from admitted principles.\n\nMr. Mill argues that, if men are not inclined to plunder each other,\ngovernment is unnecessary; and that, if they are so inclined, the\npowers of government, when entrusted to a small number of them, will\nnecessarily {19}be abused. Surely it is not by propounding dilemmas of\nthis sort that we are likely to arrive at sound conclusions in any\nmoral science. The whole question is a question of degree. If all men\npreferred the moderate approbation of their neighbours to any degree\nof wealth or grandeur, or sensual pleasure, government would be\nunnecessary. If all men desired wealth so intensely as to be willing\nto brave the hatred of their fellow-creatures for sixpence, Mr. Mill\u2019s\nargument against monarchies and aristocracies would be true to the full\nextent. But the fact is, that all men have some desires which impel them\nto injure their neighbours, and some desires which impel them to benefit\ntheir neighbours. Now, if there were a community consisting of two\nclasses of men, one of which should be principally influenced by the one\nset of motives and the other by the other, government would clearly be\nnecessary to restrain the class which was eager for plunder and\ncareless of reputation: and yet the powers of government might be\nsafely intrusted to the class which was chiefly actuated by the love\nof approbation. Now, it might with no small plausibility be maintained\nthat, in many countries, _there are_ two classes which, in some degree,\nanswer to this description; that the poor compose the class which\ngovernment is established to restrain, and the people of some property\nthe class to which the powers of government may without danger be\nconfided. It might be said that a man who can barely earn a livelihood\nby severe labour is under stronger temptations to pillage others than a\nman who enjoys many luxuries. It might be said that a man who is lost in\nthe crowd is less likely to have the fear of public opinion before his\neyes than a man whose station and mode of living render him conspicuous.\nWe do {20}not assert all this. We only say that it was Mr. Mill\u2019s\nbusiness to prove the contrary; and that, not having proved the\ncontrary, he is not entitled to say, \u201cthat those principles which imply\nthat government is at all necessary, imply that an aristocracy will make\nuse of its power to defeat the end for which governments exist.\u201d This\nis not true, unless it be true that a rich man is as likely to covet the\ngoods of his neighbours as a poor man, and that a poor man is as likely\nto be solicitous about the opinions of his neighbours as a rich man.\n\nBut we do not see that, by reasoning _a priori_ on such subjects as\nthese, it is possible to advance one single step. We know that every man\nhas some desires which he can gratify only by hurting his neighbours,\nand some which he can gratify only by pleasing them. Mr. Mill has chosen\nto look only at one-half of human nature, and to reason on the motives\nwhich impel men to oppress and despoil others, as if they were the only\nmotives by which men could possibly be influenced. We have already shown\nthat, by taking the other half of the human character, and reasoning\non it as if it were the whole, we can bring out a result diametrically\nopposite to that at which Mr. Mill has arrived. We can, by such a\nprocess, easily prove that any form of government is good, or that all\ngovernment is superfluous.\n\nWe must now accompany Mr. Mill on the next stage of his argument. Does\nany combination of the three simple forms of government afford the\nrequisite securities against the abuse of power? Mr. Mill complains\nthat those who maintain the affirmative generally beg the question;\nand proceeds to settle the point by proving, after his fashion, that\nno combination of the three simple forms, or of any two of them, can\npossibly exist. {21}\u201d_From the principles which we have already laid\ndown it follows that, of the objects of human desire, and, speaking more\ndefinitely, of the means to the ends of human desire, namely, wealth and\npower, each party will endeavour to obtain as much as possible.\n\n\u201cIf any expedient presents itself to any of the supposed parties\neffectual to this end, and not opposed to any preferred object of\npursuit, we may infer with certainty that it will be adopted. One\neffectual expedient is not more effectual than obvious. Any two of the\nparties, by combining, may swallow up the third. That such combination\nwill take place appears to be as certain as any thing which depends upon\nhuman will; because there are strong motives in favour of it, and none\nthat can be conceived in opposition to it.... The mixture of three of\nthe kinds of government, it is thus evident, cannot possibly exist....\nIt may be proper to inquire whether an union may not be possible of two\nof them....\n\n\u201cLet us first suppose, that monarchy is united with aristocracy. Their\npower is equal or not equal. If it is not equal, it follows, as a\nnecessary consequence, from the principles which we have already\nestablished, that the stronger will take from the weaker till it\nengrosses the whole. The only question therefore is, What will happen\nwhen the power is equal?\n\n\u201cIn the first place, it seems impossible that such equality should ever\nexist. How is it to be established? or, by what criterion is it to be\nascertained? If there is no such criterion, it must, in all eases, be\nthe result of chance. If so, the chances against it are as infinity to\none. The idea, therefore, is wholly chimerical and absurd....\n\n\u201cIn this doctrine of the mixture of the simple forms of government is\nincluded the celebrated theory of the balance among the component parts\nof a government. By this it is supposed that, when a government is\ncomposed of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, they balance one\nanother, and by mutual checks produce good government. A few words will\nsuffice to show that, if any theory deserves the epithets of \u2018wild,\nvisionary and chimerical,\u2019 it is that of the balance. If there are three\npowers, how is it possible to prevent two of them from combining to\nswallow up the third?\n\n\u201cThe analysis which we have already performed will enable us to trace\nrapidly the concatenation of causes and effects in this imagined case.\n{22}\"We have already seen that the interest of the community, considered\nin the aggregate or in the democratical point of view, is, that each\nindividual should receive protection; and that the powers which are\nconstituted for that purpose should be employed exclusively for that\npurpose.... We have also seen that the interest of the king and of the\ngoverning aristocracy is directly the reverse. It is to have unlimited\npower over the rest of the community, and to use it for their own\nadvantage. In the supposed case of the balance of the monarchical,\naristocratical, and democratical powers, it cannot be for the interest\nof either the monarchy or the aristocracy to combine with the democracy;\nbecause it is the interest of the democracy, or community at large, that\nneither the king nor the aristocracy should have one particle of power,\nor one particle of the wealth of the community, for their own advantage.\n\n\u201cThe democracy or community have all possible motives to endeavour to\nprevent the monarchy and aristocracy from exercising power, or obtaining\nthe wealth of the community for their own advantage. The monarchy\nand aristocracy have all possible motives for endeavouring to obtain\nunlimited power over the persons and property of the community. The\nconsequence is inevitable: they have all possible, motives for combining\nto obtain that power_.\u201d\n\nIf any part of this passage be more eminently absurd than another, it\nis, we think, the argument by which Mr. Mill proves that there cannot\nbe an union of monarchy and aristocracy. Their power, he says, must be\nequal or not equal. But of equality there is no criterion. Therefore the\nchances against its existence are as infinity to one. If the power be\nnot equal, then it follows, from the principles of human nature, that\nthe stronger will take from the weaker, till it has engrossed the whole.\n\nNow, if there be no criterion of equality between two portions of power\nthere can be no common measure of portions of power. Therefore it is\nutterly impossible to compare them together. But where two {23}portions\nof lower are of the same kind, there is no difficulty in ascertaining,\nsufficiently for all practical purposes, whether they are equal or\nunequal. It is easy to judge whether two men run equally fast, or can\nlift equal weights. Two arbitrators, whose joint decision is to be\nfinal, and neither of whom can do any thing without the assent of the\nother, possess equal power. Two electors, each of whom has a vote for a\nborough, possess, in that respect, equal power. If not, all Mr. Mill\u2019s\npolitical theories fall to the ground at once. For, if it be impossible\nto ascertain whether two portions of power are equal, he never can show\nthat, even under a system of universal suffrage, a minority might not\ncarry every thing their own way, against the wishes and interests of the\nmajority.\n\nWhere there are two portions of power differing in kind, there is, we\nadmit, no criterion of equality. But then, in such a case, it is absurd\nto talk, as Mr. Mill does, about the stronger and the weaker. Popularly,\nindeed, and with reference to some particular objects, these words\nmay very fairly be used. But to use them mathematically is altogether\nimproper. If we are speaking of a boxing-match, we may say that some\nfamous bruiser has greater bodily power than any man in England. If\nwe are speaking of a pantomime, we may say the same of some very agile\nharlequin. But it would be talking nonsense to say, in general, that the\npower of Harlequin either exceeded that of the pugilist, or fell short\nof it.\n\nIf Mr. Mill\u2019s argument be good as between different branches of a\nlegislature, it is equally good as between sovereign powers. Every\ngovernment, it may be said, will, if it can, take the objects of its\ndesires from every other. If the French government can subdue England\n{24}it will do so. If the English government can subdue France it will\ndo so. But the power of England and France is either equal or not equal.\nThe chance that it is not exactly equal is as infinity to one, and may\nsafely be left out of the account; and then the stronger will infallibly\ntake from the weaker till the weaker is altogether enslaved.\n\nSurely the answer to all this hubbub of unmeaning words is the plainest\npossible. For some purposes France is stronger than England. For some\npurposes England is stronger than France. For some, neither has any\npower at all. France has the greater population, England the greater\ncapital; France has the greater army, England the greater fleet. For an\nexpedition to Rio Janeiro or the Philippines, England has the greater\npower. For a war on the Po or the Danube, France has the greater power.\nBut neither has power sufficient to keep the other in quiet subjection\nfor a month. Invasion would be very perilous; the idea of complete\nconquest on either side utterly ridiculous. This is the manly and\nsensible way of discussing such questions. The _ergo_, or rather the\n_argal_, of Mr. Mill cannot impose on a child. Yet we ought scarcely to\nsay this; for we remember to have heard _a child_ ask whether Bonaparte\nwas stronger than an elephant!\n\nMr. Mill reminds us of those philosophers of the sixteenth century who,\nhaving satisfied themselves _a priori_ that the rapidity with which\nbodies descended to the earth varied exactly as their weights, refused\nto believe the contrary on the evidence of their own eyes and ears.\nThe British constitution, according to Mr. Mill\u2019s classification, is\na mixture of monarchy and aristocracy; one House of Parliament being\ncomposed of {25}hereditary nobles, and the other almost entirely chosen\nby a privileged class who possess the elective franchise on account\nof their property, or their connection with certain corporations. Mr.\nMill\u2019s argument proves that, from the time that these two powers were\nmingled in our government, that is, from the very first dawn of our\nhistory, one or the other must have been constantly encroaching.\nAccording to him, moreover, all the encroachments must have been on\none side. For the first encroachment could only have been made by the\nstronger I and that first encroachment would have made the stronger\nstronger still. It is, therefore, matter of absolute demonstration, that\neither the Parliament was stronger than the Crown in the reign of Henry\nVIII., or that the Crown was stronger than the Parliament in 1641.\n\u201cHippocrate dira ce que lui plaira,\u201d says the girl in Moliere; \u201cmail\nle cocher est mort.\u201d Mr. Mill may say what he pleases; but the English\nconstitution is still alive. That since the Revolution the Parliament\nhas possessed great power in the state, is what nobody will dispute.\nThe King, on the other hand, can create new peers, and can dissolve\nParliaments. William sustained severe mortifications from the House of\nCommons, and was, indeed, unjustifiably oppressed. Anne was desirous to\nchange a ministry which had a majority in both Houses. She watched her\nmoment for a dissolution, created twelve Tory peers, and succeeded.\nThirty years later, the House of Commons drove Walpole from his seat. In\n1784, George III. was able to keep Mr. Pitt in office in the face of a\nmajority of the House of Commons. In 1804, the apprehension of a defeat\nin Parliament compelled the same King to part from his most favoured\nminister. But, in 1807, he was able to do {26}exactly what Anne had done\nnearly a hundred years before. Now, had the power of the King increased\nduring the intervening century, or had it remained stationary? Is it\npossible that the one lot among the infinite number should have fallen\nto us? If not, Mr. Mill has proved that one of the two parties must have\nbeen constantly taking from the other. Many of the ablest men in England\nthink that the influence of the Crown has, on the whole, increased since\nthe reign of Anne. Others think that the Parliament has been growing in\nstrength. But of this there is no doubt, that both sides possessed great\npower then, and possess great power now. Surely, if there were the least\ntruth in the argument of Mr. Mill, it could not possibly be a matter of\ndoubt, at the end of a hundred and twenty years, whether the one side or\nthe other had been the gainer.\n\nBut we ask pardon. We forgot that a fact, irreconcilable with Mr. Mill\u2019s\ntheory, furnishes, in his opinion, the strongest reason for adhering to\nthe theory. To take up the question in another manner, is it not plain\nthat there may be two bodies, each possessing a perfect and entire\npower, which cannot be taken from it without its own concurrence? What\nis the meaning of the words stronger and weaker, when applied to such\nbodies as these? The one may, indeed, by physical force, altogether\ndestroy the other. But this is not the question. A third party, a\ngeneral of their own, for example, may, by physical force, subjugate\nthem both. Nor is there any form of government, Mr. Mill\u2019s utopian\ndemocracy not excepted, secure from such an occurrence. We are speaking\nof the powers with which the constitution invests the two branches of\nthe legislature: and we ask Mr. Mill how, on his own principles, he can\n{27}maintain that one of them will be able to encroach on the other, if\nthe consent of the other be necessary to such encroachment?\n\nMr. Mill tells us that, if a government be composed of the three simple\nforms, which he will not admit the British constitution to be, two of\nthe component parts will inevitably join against the third. Now, if two\nof them combine and act as one, this case evidently resolves itself into\nthe last; and all the observations which we have just made will fully\napply to it. Mr. Mill says, that \u201cany two of the parties, by combining,\nmay swallow up the third;\u201d and afterwards asks, \u201cHow it is possible to\nprevent two of them from combining to swallow up the third?\u201d Surely Mr.\nMill must be aware that in politics two is not always the double of\none. If the concurrence of all the three branches of the legislature be\nnecessary to every law, each branch will possess constitutional power\nsufficient to protect it against any thing but that physical force\nfrom which no form of government is secure. Mr. Mill reminds us of the\nIrishman, who could not be brought to understand how one juryman could\npossibly starve out eleven others.\n\nBut is it certain that two of the branches of the legislature will\ncombine against the third? \u201cIt appears to be as certain,\u201d says Mr. Mill,\n\u201cas any thing which depends upon human will; because there are strong\nmotives in favour of it, and none that can be conceived in opposition to\nit.\u201d He subsequently sets forth what these motives are. The interest\nof the democracy is that each individual should receive protection. The\ninterest of the King and the aristocracy is to have all the power that\nthey can obtain, and to use it for their own ends. Therefore the King\nand the {28}aristocracy have all possible motives for combining against\nthe people. If our readers will look back to the passage quoted above,\nthey will see that we represent Mr. Mill\u2019s argument quite fairly.\n\nNow we should have thought that, without the help of either history\nor experience, Mr. Mill would have discovered, by the light of his own\nlogic, the fallacy which lurks, and indeed scarcely lurks, under this\npretended demonstration. The interest of the King may be opposed to that\nof the people. But is it identical with that of the aristocracy? In the\nvery page which contains this argument, intended to prove that the King\nand the aristocracy will coalesce against the people, Mr. Mill attempts\nto show that there is so strong an opposition of interest between the\nKing and the aristocracy that if the powers of government are divided\nbetween them the one will inevitably usurp the power of the other. If\nso, he is not entitled to conclude that they will combine to destroy the\npower of the people merely because their interests may be at variance\nwith those of the people. He is bound to show, not merely that in\nall communities the interest of a king must be opposed to that of the\npeople, but also that, in all communities, it must be more directly\nopposed to the interest of the people than to the interest of the\naristocracy. But he has not shown this. Therefore he has not proved\nhis proposition on his own principles. To quote history would be a mere\nwaste of time. Every schoolboy, whose studies have gone so far as the\nAbridgments of Goldsmith, can mention instances in which sovereigns have\nallied themselves with the people against the aristocracy, and in which\nthe nobles have allied themselves with the people against the sovereign.\nIn general, when there are three parties {29}every one of which has much\nto fear from the others, it is not found that two of them combine to\nplunder the third. If such a combination be formed it scarcely ever\neffects its purpose. It soon becomes evident which member of the\ncoalition is likely to be the greater gainer by the transaction. He\nbecomes an object of jealousy to his ally, who, in all probability,\nchanges sides, and compels him to restore what he has taken. Everybody\nknows how Henry VIII. trimmed between Francis and the Emperor Charles.\nBut it is idle to cite examples of the operation of a principle which is\nillustrated in almost every page of history, ancient or modern, and to\nwhich almost every state in Europe has, at one time or another, been\nindebted for its independence.\n\nMr. Mill has now, as he conceives, demonstrated that the simple forms\nof government are bad, and that the mixed forms cannot possibly exist.\nThere is still, however, it seems, a hope for mankind.\n\n\u201c_In the grand discovery of modern times, the system of representation,\nthe solution of all the difficulties, both speculative and practical,\nwill perhaps be found. If it cannot, we seem to be forced upon the\nextraordinary conclusion, that good government is impossible. For,\nas there is no individual or combination of individuals, except the\ncommunity itself, who would not have an interest in bad government if\nintrusted with its powers, and as the community itself is incapable of\nexercising those powers, and must intrust them to certain individuals,\nthe conclusion is obvious: the community itself must check those\nindividuals; else they will follow their interest, and produce bad\ngovernment. But how is it the community can cheek? The community can act\nonly when assembled; and when assembled, it is incapable of acting. The\ncommunity, however, can choose representatives_.\u201d\n\nThe next question is--How must the representative body be constituted?\nMr. Mill lays down two principles, {30}about which, he says, \u201cit is\nunlikely that there will be any dispute.\u201d\n\n\u201cFirst, The checking body must haye a degree of power sufficient for the\nbusiness of checking.\u201d\n\n\u201cSecondly, It must have an identity of interest with the community.\nOtherwise, it will make a mischievous use of its power.\u201d\n\nThe first of these propositions certainly admits of no dispute. As to\nthe second, we shall hereafter take occasion to make some remarks on\nthe sense in which Mr. Mill understands the words \u201cinterest of the\ncommunity.\u201d\n\nIt does not appear very easy, on Mr. Mill\u2019s principles, to find out any\nmode of making the interest of the representative body identical with\nthat of the constituent body. The plan proposed by Mr. Mill is simply\nthat of very frequent election. \u201cAs it appears,\u201d says he, \u201cthat limiting\nthe duration of their power is a security against the sinister interest\nof the people\u2019s representatives, so it appears that it is the only\nsecurity of which the nature of the case admits.\u201d But all the arguments\nby which Mr. Mill has proved monarchy and aristocracy to be pernicious\nwill, as it appears to us, equally prove this security to be no security\nat all. Is it not clear that the representatives, as soon as they are\nelected, are an aristocracy, with an interest opposed to the interest of\nthe community? Why should they not pass a law for extending the term of\ntheir power from one year to ten years, or declare themselves senators\nfor life? If the whole legislative power is given to them, they will be\nconstitutionally competent to do this. If part of the legislative power\nis withheld from them, to whom is that part given? Is the people\nto retain it, and to express its assent or dissent in primary\n{31}assemblies? Mr. Mill himself tells us that the community can only\nact when assembled, and that, when assembled, it is incapable of acting.\nOr is it to be provided, as in some of the American republics, that no\nchange in the fundamental laws shall be made without the consent of\na convention, specially elected for the purpose? Still the difficulty\nrecurs: Why may not the members of the convention betray their trust, as\nwell as the members of the ordinary legislature? When private men,\nthey may have been zealous for the interests of the community. When\ncandidates, they may have pledged themselves to the cause of the\nconstitution. But, as soon as they are a convention, as soon as they\nare separated from the people, as soon as the supreme power is put into\ntheir hands, commences that interest opposite to the interest of the\ncommunity which must, according to Mr. Mill, produce measures opposite\nto the interests of the community. We must find some other means,\ntherefore, of checking this check upon a check; some other prop to carry\nthe tortoise, that carries the elephant, that carries the world.\n\nWe know well that there is no real danger in such a case. But there is\nno danger only because there is no truth in Mr. Mill\u2019s principles.\nIf men were what he represents them to be, the letter of the very\nconstitution which he recommends would afford no safeguard against bad\ngovernment. The real security is this, that legislators will be deterred\nby the fear of resistance and of infamy from acting in the manner\nwhich we have described. But restraints, exactly the same in kind, and\ndiffering only in degree, exist in all forms of government. That broad\nline of distinction which Mr. Mill tries to point out between monarchies\nand aristocracies {32}on the one side, and democracies on the other,\nhas in fact no existence. In no form of government is there an absolute\nidentity of interest between the people and their rulers. In every form\nof government, the rulers stand in some awe of the people. The fear of\nresistance and the sense of shame operate, in a certain degree, on the\nmost absolute kings and the most illiberal oligarchies. And nothing but\nthe fear of resistance and the sense of shame preserves the freedom of\nthe most democratic communities from the encroachments of their annual\nand biennial delegates.\n\nWe have seen how Mr. Mill proposes to render the interest of the\nrepresentative body identical with that of the constituent body. The\nnext question is, in what manner the interest of the constituent body is\nto be rendered identical with that of the community. Mr. Mill shows that\na minority of the community, consisting even of many thousands, would be\na bad constituent body, and, indeed, merely a numerous aristocracy.\n\n\u201cThe benefits of the representative system,\u201d says he, \u201care lost, in all\ncases in which the interests of the choosing body are not the same with\nthose of the community. It is very evident, that if the community itself\nwere the choosing body, the interest of the community and that of the\nchoosing body would be the same.\u201d\n\nOn these grounds Mr. Mill recommends that all males of mature age, rich\nand poor, educated and ignorant, shall have votes. But why not the women\ntoo? This question has often been asked in parliamentary debate, and has\nnever, to our knowledge, received a plausible answer. Mr. Mill escapes\nfrom it as fast as he can. But we shall take the liberty to dwell a\nlittle on the words of the oracle. \u201cOne thing,\u201d says he, \u201cis {33}pretty\nclear, that all those individuals whose interests are involved in those\nof other individuals, may be struck off without inconvenience.... In\nthis light women may be regarded, the interest of almost all of whom is\ninvolved either in that of their fathers, or in that of their husbands.\u201d\n\nIf we were to content ourselves with saying, in answer to all the\narguments in Mr. Mill\u2019s essay, that the interest of a king is involved\nin that of the community, we should be accused, and justly, of talking\nnonsense. Yet such an assertion would not, as far as we can perceive,\nbe more unreasonable than that which Mr. Mill has here ventured to make.\nWithout adducing one fact, without taking the trouble to perplex the\nquestion by one sophism, he placidly dogmatises away the interest of one\nhalf of the human race. If there be a word of truth in history, women\nhave always been, and still are, over the greater part of the globe,\nhumble companions, playthings, captives, menials, beasts of burden.\nExcept in a few happy and highly civilised communities, they are\nstrictly in a state of personal slavery. Even in those countries where\nthey are best treated, the laws are generally unfavourable to them,\nwith respect to almost all the points in which they are most deeply\ninterested.\n\nMr. Mill is not legislating for England or the United States; but for\nmankind. Is then the interest of a Turk the same with that of the girls\nwho compose his harem? Is the interest of a Chinese the same with that\nof the woman whom he harnesses to his plough? Is the interest of an\nItalian the same with that of the daughter whom he devotes to God?\nThe interest of a respectable Englishman may be said, without any\nimpropriety, to be identical with that of his wife. But {34}why is it\nso? Because human nature is _not_ what Mr. Mill conceives it to be;\nbecause civilised men, pursuing their own happiness in a social state,\nare not Yahoos fighting for carrion; because there is a pleasure in\nbeing loved and esteemed, as well as in being feared and servilely\nobeyed. Why does not a gentleman restrict his wife to the bare\nmaintenance which the law would compel him to allow her, that he may\nhave more to spend on his personal pleasures? Because, if he loves her,\nhe has pleasure in seeing her pleased; and because, even if he dislikes\nher, he is unwilling that the whole neighbourhood should cry shame on\nhis meanness and ill-nature. Why does not the legislature, altogether\ncomposed of males, pass a law to deprive women of all civil privileges\nwhatever, and reduce them to the state of slaves? By passing such a\nlaw, they would gratify what Mr. Mill tells us is an inseparable part of\nhuman nature, the desire to possess unlimited power of inflicting pain\nupon others. That they do not pass such a law, though they have the\npower to pass it, and that no man in England wishes to see such a law\npassed, proves that the desire to possess unlimited power of inflicting\npain is not inseparable from human nature.\n\nIf there be in this country an identity of interest between the two\nsexes, it cannot possibly arise from any thing but the pleasure of being\nloved, and of communicating happiness. For, that it does not spring from\nthe mere instinct of sex, the treatment which women experience over the\ngreater part of the world abundantly proves. And, if it be said that our\nlaws of marriage have produced it, this only removes the argument a\nstep further; for those laws have been made by males. Now, if the kind\nfeelings of one half of the species be a sufficient security for the\nhappiness of the other, {35}why may not the kind feelings of a monarch\nor an aristocracy he sufficient at least to prevent them from grinding\nthe people to the very utmost of their power?\n\nIf Mr. Mill will examine why it is that women are better treated in\nEngland than in Persia, he may perhaps find out, in the course of\nhis inquiries, why it is that the Danes are better governed than the\nsubjects of Caligula.\n\nWe now come to the most important practical question in the whole essay.\nIs it desirable that all males arrived at years of discretion should\nvote for representatives, or should a pecuniary qualification be\nrequired? Mr. Mill\u2019s opinion is, that the lower the qualification the\nbetter; and that the best system is that in which there is none at all.\n\n\u201c_The qualification,\u201d says he, \u201cmust either be such as to embrace\nthe majority of the population, or something less than the majority.\nSuppose, in the first place, that it embraces the majority, the question\nis, whether the majority would have an interest in oppressing those\nwho, upon this supposition, would be deprived of political power? If we\nreduce the calculation to its elements, we shall see that the interest\nwhich they would have of this deplorable kind, though it would be\nsomething, would not be very great. Each man of the majority, if the\nmajority were constituted the governing body, would have something less\nthan the benefit of oppressing a single man. If the majority were twice\nas great as the minority, each man of the majority would only have one\nhalf the benefit of oppressing a single man.... Suppose, in the second\nplace, that the qualification did not admit a body of electors so\nlarge as the majority, in that case taking again the calculation in its\nelements, we shall see that each man would have a benefit equal to\nthat derived from the oppression of more than one man; and that, in\nproportion as the elective body constituted a smaller and smaller\nminority, the benefit of misrule to the elective body would be\nincreased, and bad government would be insured_.\u201d\n\nThe first remark which we have to make on this argument {36}is, that,\nby Mr. Mill\u2019s own account, even a government in which every human being\nshould vote would still be defective. For, under a system of universal\nsuffrage, the majority of the electors return the representative, and\nthe majority of the representatives make the law. The whole people may\nvote, therefore; but only the majority govern. So that, by Mr. Mill\u2019s\nown confession, the most perfect system of government conceivable is one\nin which the interest of the ruling body to oppress, though not great,\nis something.\n\nBut is Mr. Mill in the right when he says that such an interest could\nnot be very great? We think not. If, indeed, every man in the community\npossessed an equal share of what Mr. Mill calls the objects of desire,\nthe majority would probably abstain from plundering the minority. A\nlarge minority would offer a vigorous resistance; and the property of\na small minority would not repay the other members of the community\nfor the trouble of dividing it. But it happens that in all civilised\ncommunities there is a small minority of rich men, and a great majority\nof poor men. If there were a thousand men with ten pounds apiece, it\nwould not be worth while for nine hundred and ninety of them to rob\nten, and it would be a bold attempt for six hundred of them to rob four\nhundred. But, if ten of them had a hundred thousand pounds apiece, the\ncase would be very different. There would then be much to be got, and\nnothing to be feared.\n\n\u201cThat one human being will desire to render the person and property of\nanother subservient to his pleasures, notwithstanding the pain or\nloss of pleasure which it may occasion to that other individual, is,\u201d\n according to Mr. Mill, \u201cthe foundation of government.\u201d That the property\nof the rich minority can be made subservient {37}to the pleasures of the\npoor majority will scarcely be denied. But Mr. Mill proposes to give the\npoor majority power over the rich minority. Is it possible to doubt to\nwhat, on his own principles such an arrangement must lead?\n\nIt may perhaps be said that, in the long run, it is for the interest of\nthe people that property should be secure, and that therefore they will\nrespect it. We answer thus:--It cannot be pretended that it is not for\nthe immediate interest of the people to plunder the rich. Therefore,\neven if it were quite certain that, in the long run, the people would,\nas a body, lose by doing so, it would not necessarily follow that the\nfear of remote ill consequences would overcome the desire of immediate\nacquisitions. Every individual might flatter himself that the punishment\nwould not fall on him. Mr. Mill himself tells us, in his Essay on\nJurisprudence, that no quantity of evil which is remote and uncertain\nwill suffice to prevent crime.\n\nBut we are rather inclined to think that it would, on the whole, be\nfor the interest of the majority to plunder the rich. If so, the\nUtilitarians will say, that the rich _ought_ to be plundered. We deny\nthe inference.\n\nFor, in the first place, if the object of government be the greatest\nhappiness of the greatest number, the intensity of the suffering which a\nmeasure inflicts must be taken into consideration, as well as the\nnumber of the sufferers. In the next place, we have to notice one\nmost important distinction which Mr. Mill has altogether overlooked.\nThroughout his essay, he confounds the community with the species. He\ntalks of the greatest happiness of the greatest number: but, when we\nexamine his reasonings, we find that he thinks only of the greatest\nnumber of a single generation. {38}Therefore, even if we were to concede\nthat all those arguments of which we have exposed the fallacy are\nunanswerable, we might still deny the conclusion at which the essayist\narrives. Even if we were to grant that he had found out the form of\ngovernment which is best for the majority of the people now living on\nthe face of the earth, we might still without inconsistency maintain\nthat form of government to be pernicious to mankind. It would still be\nincumbent on Mr. Mill to prove that the interest of every generation is\nidentical with the interest of all succeeding generations. And how on\nhis own principles he could do this we are at a loss to conceive.\n\nThe case, indeed, is strictly analogous to that of an aristocratic\ngovernment. In an aristocracy, says Mr. Mill, the few, being invested\nwith the powers of government, can take the objects of their desires\nfrom the people. In the same manner, every generation in turn can\ngratify itself at the expense of posterity,--priority of time, in the\nlatter case, giving an advantage exactly corresponding to that which\nsuperiority of station gives in the former. That an aristocracy will\nabuse its advantage, is, according to Mr. Mill, matter of demonstration.\nIs it not equally certain that the whole people will do the same; that,\nif they have the power, they will commit waste of every sort on the\nestate of mankind, and transmit it to posterity impoverished and\ndesolated?\n\nHow is it possible for any person who holds the doctrines of Mr. Mill\nto doubt that the rich, in a democracy such as that which he recommends,\nwould be pillaged as unmercifully as under a Turkish Pacha? It is no\ndoubt for the interest of the next generation, and it may be for the\nremote interest of the present {39}generation, that property should be\nheld sacred. And so no doubt it will be for the interest of the next\nPacha, and even for that of the present Pacha, if he should hold office\nlong, that the inhabitants of his Pachalik should be encouraged to\naccumulate wealth. Scarcely any despotic sovereign has plundered his\nsubjects to a large extent without having reason before the end of his\nreign to regret it. Every body knows how bitterly Louis the Fourteenth,\ntowards the close of his life, lamented his former extravagance. If that\nmagnificent prince had not expended millions on Marli and Versailles,\nand tens of millions on the aggrandisement of his grandson, he would\nnot have been compelled at last to pay servile court to low-born\nmoney-lenders, to humble himself before men on whom, in the days of his\npride, he would not have vouchsafed to look, for the means of supporting\neven his own household. Examples to the same effect might easily be\nmultiplied. But despots, we see, do plunder their subjects, though\nhistory and experience tell them that, by prematurely exacting the means\nof profusion, they are in fact devouring the seed-corn from which the\nfuture harvest of revenue is to spring. Why then should we suppose\nthat the people will be deterred from procuring immediate relief and\nenjoyment by the fear of distant calamities, of calamities which perhaps\nmay not be fully felt till the times of their grand-children?\n\nThese conclusions are strictly drawn from Mr. Mill\u2019s own principles:\nand, unlike most of the conclusions which he has himself drawn from\nthose principles, they are not, as far as we know, contradicted by\nfacts. The case of the United States is not in point. In a country where\nthe necessaries of life are cheap and the wages of labour high, where\na man who has no capital {40}but his legs and arms may expect to become\nrich by industry and frugality, it is not very decidedly even for the\nimmediate advantage of the poor to plunder the rich; and the punishment\nof doing so would very speedily follow the offence. But in countries\nin which the great majority live from hand to mouth, and in which vast\nmasses of wealth have been accumulated by a comparatively small number,\nthe case is widely different. The immediate want is, at particular\nseasons, craving, imperious, irresistible. In our own time it has\nsteeled men to the fear of the gallows, and urged them on the point of\nthe bayonet. And, if these men had at their command that gallows and\nthose bayonets which now scarcely restrain them, what is to be expected?\nNor is this state of things one which can exist only under a bad\ngovernment. If there be the least truth in the doctrines of the school\nto which Mr. Mill belongs, the increase of population will necessarily\nproduce it everywhere. The increase of population is accelerated by good\nand cheap government. Therefore, the better the government, the greater\nis the inequality of conditions: and the greater the inequality of\nconditions, the stronger are the motives which impel the populace to\nspoliation. As for America, we appeal to the twentieth century.\n\nIt is scarcely necessary to discuss the effects which a general\nspoliation of the rich would produce. It may indeed happen that, where\na legal and political system full of abuses is inseparably bound up with\nthe institution of property, a nation may gain by a single convulsion,\nin which both perish together. The price is fearful. But, if, when the\nshock is over, a new order of things should arise under which property\nmay enjoy security, the industry of individuals will soon {41}repair the\ndevastation. Thus we entertain no doubt that the Revolution was, on the\nwhole, a most salutary event for France. But would France have gained\nif, ever since the year 1793, she had been governed by a democratic\nconvention? If Mr. Mill\u2019s principles be sound, we say that almost her\nwhole capital would by this time have been annihilated. As soon as the\nfirst explosion was beginning to be forgotten, as soon as wealth again\nbegan to germinate, as soon as the poor again began to compare their\ncottages and salads with the hotels and banquets of the rich, there\nwould have been another scramble for property, another maximum, another\ngeneral confiscation, another reign of terror. Four or five such\nconvulsions following each other, at intervals of ten or twelve years,\nwould reduce the most flourishing countries of Europe to the state of\nBarbary or the Morea.\n\nThe civilised part of the world has now nothing to fear from the\nhostility of savage nations. Once the deluge of barbarism has passed\nover it, to destroy and to fertilise; and in the present state of\nmankind we enjoy a full security against that calamity. That flood will\nno more return to cover the earth. But is it possible that in the bosom\nof civilisation itself may be engendered the malady which shall destroy\nit? Is it possible that institutions may be established which, without\nthe help of earthquake, of famine, of pestilence, or of the foreign\nsword, may undo the work of so many ages of wisdom and glory,\nand gradually sweep away taste, literature, science, commerce,\nmanufactures, everything but the rude arts necessary to the support of\nanimal life? Is it possible that, in two or three hundred years, a few\nlean and half-naked fishermen may divide with owls and foxes the ruins\nof the {42}greatest European cities--may wash their nets amidst the\nrelics of\u2019 her gigantic docks, and build their huts out of the capitals\nof her stately cathedrals? If the principles of Mr. Mill he sound, we\nsay, without hesitation, that the form of government which he recommends\nwill assuredly produce all this. But, if these principles be unsound,\nif the reasonings by which we have opposed them be just, the higher and\nmiddling orders are the natural representatives of the human race.\nTheir interest may be opposed in some things to that of their poorer\ncontemporaries; but it is identical with that of the innumerable\ngenerations which are to follow.\n\nMr. Mill concludes his essay, by answering an objection often made to\nthe project of universal suffrage--that the people do not understand\ntheir own interests. We shall not go through his arguments on this\nsubject, because, till he has proved that it is for the interest of the\npeople to respect property, he only makes matters worse by proving that\nthey understand their interests. But we cannot refrain from treating our\nreaders with a delicious _bonne bouche_ of wisdom, which he has kept for\nthe last moment.\n\n\u201c_The opinions of that class of the people who are below the middle\nrank are formed, and their minds are directed, by that intelligent, that\nvirtuous rank, who come the most immediately in contact with them, who\nare in the constant habit of intimate communication with them, to whom\nthey fly for advice and assistance in all their numerous difficulties,\nupon whom they feel an immediate and daily dependence in health and in\nsickness, in infancy and in old age, to whom their children look up as\nmodels for their imitation, whose opinions they hear daily repeated, and\naccount it their honour to adopt. There can be no doubt that the middle\nrank, which gives to science, to art, and to legislation itself their\nmost distinguished ornaments, and is the chief source of all that has\nexalted and refined human nature, is that portion of the community, of\nwhich, if the basis of representation were {43}ever so far extended, the\nopinion would ultimately decide. Of the people, beneath them, a vast\nmajority would be sure to be guided by their advice and example_.\u201d\n\nThis single paragraph is sufficient to upset Mr. Mill\u2019s theory. Will\nthe people act against their own interest? Or will the middle rank\nact against its own interest? Or is the interest of the middle rank\nidentical with the interest of the people? If the people act according\nto the directions of the middle rank, as Mr. Mill says that they\nassuredly will, one of these three questions must be answered in\nthe affirmative. But, if any one of the three be answered in the\naffirmative, his whole system falls to the ground. If the interest of\nthe middle rank be identical with that of the people, why should not\nthe powers of government be intrusted to that rank? If the powers of\ngovernment were intrusted to that rank, there would evidently be an\naristocracy of wealth; and \u201cto constitute an aristocracy of wealth,\nthough it were a very numerous one, would,\u201d according to Mr. Mill,\n\u201cleave the community without protection, and exposed to all the evils\nof unbridled power.\u201d Will not the same motives which induce, the middle\nclasses to abuse one kind of power induce them to abuse another? If\ntheir interest be the same with that of the people they will govern the\npeople well. If it be opposite to that of the people they will advise\nthe people ill. The system of universal suffrage, therefore, according\nto Mr. Mill\u2019s own account, is only a device for doing circuitously what\na representative system, with, a pretty high qualification, would do\ndirectly.\n\nSo ends this celebrated Essay. And such is this philosophy for which the\nexperience of three thousand years is to be discarded; this philosophy,\nthe professors {44}of which speak as if it had guided the world to the\nknowledge of navigation and alphabetical writing; as if, before its\ndawn, the inhabitants of Europe had lived in caverns and eaten each\nother! We are sick, it seems, like the children of Israel, of the\nobjects of our old and legitimate worship. We pine for a new idolatry.\nAll that is costly and all that is ornamental in our intellectual\ntreasures must be delivered up, and cast into the furnace--and there\ncomes out this Calf!\n\nOur readers can scarcely mistake our object in writing this article.\nThey will not suspect us of any disposition to advocate the cause of\nabsolute monarchy, or of any narrow form of oligarchy, or to exaggerate\nthe evils of popular government. Our object at present is, not so much\nto attack or defend any particular system of polity, as to expose the\nvices of a kind of reasoning utterly unfit for moral and political\ndiscussions; of a kind of reasoning which may so readily be turned to\npurposes of falsehood that it ought to receive no quarter, even when by\naccident it may be employed on the side of truth.\n\nOur objection to the essay of Mr. Mill is fundamental. We believe that\nit is utterly impossible to deduce the science of government from the\nprinciples of human nature.\n\nWhat proposition is there respecting human nature which is absolutely\nand universally true? We know of only one: and that is not only true,\nbut identical; that men always act from self-interest. This truism the\nUtilitarians proclaim with as much pride as if it were new, and as much\nzeal as if it were important. But in fact, when explained, it means\nonly that men, if they can, will do as they choose. When we see the\n{45}actions of a man we know with certainty what he thinks his interest\nto be. But it is impossible to reason with certainty from what _we_ take\nto be his interest to his actions. One man goes without a dinner that he\nmay add a shilling to a hundred thousand pounds: another runs in debt\nto give balls and masquerades. One man cuts his father\u2019s throat to get\npossession of his old clothes: another hazards his own life to save that\nof an enemy. One man volunteers on a forlorn hope: another is drummed\nout of a regiment for cowardice. Each of these men has, no doubt, acted\nfrom self-interest. But we gain nothing by knowing this, except the\npleasure, if it be one, of multiplying useless words. In fact, this\nprinciple is just as recondite and just as important as the great truth\nthat whatever is, is. If a philosopher were always to state facts in\nthe following form--\u201cThere is a shower: but whatever is, is; therefore,\nthere is a shower,\u201d--his reasoning would be perfectly sound; but we\ndo not apprehend that it would materially enlarge the circle of human\nknowledge. And it is equally idle to attribute any importance to a\nproposition which, when interpreted, means only that a man had rather do\nwhat he had rather do.\n\nIf the doctrine, that men always act from self-interest, be laid down in\nany other sense than this--if the meaning of the word self-interest\nbe narrowed so as to exclude any one of the motives which may by\npossibility act on any human being,--the proposition ceases to be\nidentical; but at the same time it Rases to be true.\n\nWhat we have said of the word \u201cself-interest\u201d applies to all the\nsynonymes and circumlocutions which are employed to convey the same\nmeaning; pain and pleasure, happiness and misery, objects of desire, and\nso forth. {46}The whole art of Mr. Mill\u2019s essay consists in one simple\ntrick of legerdemain. It consists in using words of the sort which we\nhave been describing first in one sense and then in another. Men will\ntake the objects of their desire if they can. Unquestionably:--but this\nis an identical proposition: for an object of desire means merely\na thing which a man will procure if he can. Nothing can possibly be\ninferred from a maxim of this kind. When we see a man take something we\nshall know that it was an object of his desire. But till then we have\nno means of judging with certainty what he desires or what he will\ntake. The general proposition, however, having been admitted, Mr. Mill\nproceeds to reason as if men had no desires but those which can be\ngratified only by spoliation and oppression. It then becomes easy to\ndeduce doctrines of vast importance from the original axiom. The only\nmisfortune is, that by thus narrowing the meaning of the word desire the\naxiom becomes false, and all the doctrines consequent upon it are false\nlikewise.\n\nWhen we pass beyond those maxims which it is impossible to deny without\na contradiction in terms, and which, therefore, do not enable us to\nadvance a single step in practical knowledge, we do not believe that\nit is possible to lay down a single general rule respecting the motives\nwhich influence human actions. There is nothing which may not, by\nassociation or by comparison, become an object either of desire or\nof aversion. The fear of death is generally considered as one of the\nstrongest of our feelings. It is the most formidable sanction which\nlegislators have been able to devise. Yet it is notorious that, as Lord\nBacon has observed, there is no passion by which that fear has not been\noften overcome. Physical pain is indisputably an evil; {47}yet it has\nbeen often endured, and even welcomed. Innumerable martyrs have exulted\nin torments which made the spectators shudder; and, to use a more homely\nillustration, there are few wives who do not long to be mothers.\n\nIs the love of approbation a stronger motive than the love of wealth? It\nis impossible to answer this question generally even in the case of an\nindividual with whom we are very intimate. We often say, indeed, that a\nman loves fame more than money or money more than fame. But this is said\nin a loose and popular sense; for there is scarcely a man who would not\nendure a few sneers for a great sum of money, if he were in pecuniary\ndistress; and scarcely a man, on the other hand, who, if he were in\nflourishing circumstances, would expose himself to the hatred and\ncontempt of the public for a trifle. In order, therefore, to return a\nprecise answer even about a single human being, we must know what is\nthe amount of the sacrifice of reputation demanded and of the pecuniary\nadvantage offered, and in what situation the person to whom the\ntemptation is proposed stands at the time. But, when the question is\npropounded generally about the whole species, the impossibility of\nanswering is still more evident. Man differs from man; generation from\ngeneration; nation from nation. Education, station, sex, age, accidental\nassociations, produce infinite shades of variety.\n\nNow, the only mode in which we can conceive it possible to deduce a\ntheory of government from the principles of human nature is this.\nWe must find out what are the motives which, in a particular form of\ngovernment, impel rulers to bad measures, and what are those which impel\nthem to good measures. We {48}must then compare the effect of the two\nclasses of motives; and, according as we find the one or the other to\nprevail, we must pronounce the form of government in question good or\nbad.\n\nNow let it be supposed that, in aristocratical and monarchical states,\nthe desire of wealth and other desires of the same class always tend\nto produce mis-government, and that the love of approbation and other\nkindred feelings always tend to produce good government. Then, if it be\nimpossible, as we have shown that it is, to pronounce generally which of\nthe two classes of motives is the more influential, it is impossible to\nfind out, _a priori_, whether a monarchical or aristocratical form of\ngovernment be good or bad.\n\nMr. Mill has avoided the difficulty of making the comparison, by very\ncoolly putting all the weights into one of the scales,--by reasoning as\nif no human being had ever sympathised with the feelings, been gratified\nby the thanks, or been galled by the execrations, of another.\n\nThe case, as we have put it, is decisive against Mr. Mill; and yet we\nhave put it in a manner far too favourable to him. For, in fact, it is\nimpossible to lay it down as a general rule that the love of wealth in a\nsovereign always produces misgovernment, or the love of approbation good\ngovernment. A patient and farsighted ruler, for example, who is\nless desirous of raising a great sum immediately than of securing an\nunencumbered and progressive revenue, will, by taking off restraints\nfrom trade and giving perfect security to property, encourage\naccumulation and entice capital from foreign countries. The commercial\npolicy of Prussia, which is perhaps superior to that of any country in\nthe world, and which puts to shame the {49}absurdities of our republican\nbrethren on the other side of the Atlantic, has probably sprung from the\ndesire of an absolute ruler to enrich himself. On the other hand, when\nthe popular estimate of virtues and vices is erroneous, which is too\noften the case, the love of approbation leads sovereigns to spend\nthe wealth of the nation on useless shows, or to engage in wanton and\ndestructive wars. If then we can neither compare the strength of two\nmotives, nor determine with certainty to what description of actions\neither motive will lead, how can we possibly deduce a theory of\ngovernment from the nature of man?\n\nHow, then, are we to arrive at just conclusions on a subject so\nimportant to the happiness of mankind? Surely by that method which, in\nevery experimental science to which it has been applied, has signally\nincreased the power and knowledge of our species,--by that method for\nwhich our new philosophers would substitute quibbles scarcely worthy\nof the barbarous respondents and opponents of the middle ages,--by the\nmethod of Induction;--by observing the present state of the world,--by\nassiduously studying the history of past ages,--by sifting the evidence\nof facts,--by carefully combining and contrasting those which are\nauthentic,--by generalising with judgment and diffidence,--by\nperpetually bringing the theory which we have constructed to the test\nof new facts,--by correcting, or altogether abandoning it, according\nas those new facts prove it to be partially or fundamentally unsound.\nProceeding thus,--patiently,--diligently,--candidly,--we may hope to\nform a system as far inferior in pretension to that which we have been\nexamining and as far superior to it in real utility as the prescriptions\nof a great physician, varying with every {50}stage of every malady and\nwith the constitution of every patient, to the pill of the advertising\nquack which is to cure all human beings, in all climates, of all\ndiseases.\n\nThis is that noble Science of Politics, which is equally removed from\nthe barren theories of the Utilitarian sophists, and from the petty\ncraft, so often mistaken for statesmanship by minds grown narrow in\nhabits of intrigue, jobbing, and official etiquette;--which of all\nsciences is the most important to the welfare of nations,--which of\nall sciences most tends to expand and invigorate the mind,--which draws\nnutriment and ornament from every part of philosophy and literature,\nand dispenses in return nutriment and ornament to all. We are sorry and\nsurprised when we see men of good intentions and good natural abilities\nabandon this healthful and generous study to pore over speculations like\nthose which we have been examining. And we should heartily rejoice to\nfind that our remarks had induced any person of this description to\nemploy, In researches of real utility, the talents and industry which\nare now wasted on verbal sophisms, wretched of their wretched kind.\n\nAs to the greater part of the sect, it is, we apprehend, of little\nconsequence what they study or under whom. It would be more amusing,\nto be sure, and more reputable, if they would take up the old republican\ncant and declaim about Brutus and Timoleon, the duty of killing tyrants\nand the blessedness of dying for liberty. But, on the whole, they\nmight have chosen worse. They may as well be Utilitarians as jockeys\nor dandies. And, though quibbling about self-interest and motives, and\nobjects of desire, and the greatest happiness of the greatest number, is\nbut a poor employment {51}for a grown man, it certainly hurts the health\nless than hard drinking and the fortune less than high play; it is not\nmuch more laughable than phrenology, and is immeasurably more humane\nthan cock-fighting.\n\n\n\n\nWESTMINSTER REVIEWER\u2019S DEFENCE OF MILL.(1)\n\n(Edinburgh Review, June 1829.)\n\n\nWe {52}have had great reason, we think, to be gratified by the success\nof our late attack on the Utilitarians. We could publish a long list\nof the cures which it has wrought in cases previously considered as\nhopeless. Delicacy forbids us to divulge names; but we cannot refrain\nfrom alluding to two remarkable instances. A respectable lady writes to\ninform us that her son, who was plucked at Cambridge last January, has\nnot been heard to call Sir James Mackintosh a poor ignorant fool\nmore than twice since the appearance of our article. A distinguished\npolitical writer in the Westminster and Parliamentary Reviews has\nborrowed Hume\u2019s History, and has actually got as far as the battle of\nAgincourt. He assures us that he takes great pleasure in his new study,\nand that he is very impatient to learn how Scotland and England became\none kingdom. But the greatest compliment that we have received is\nthat Mr. Bentham himself should have condescended to take the field in\ndefence of Mr. Mill. We have not been in the habit of reviewing reviews;\nbut, as Mr. Bentham is a truly great man, and as his party have thought\nfit to announce in puffs and placards that this\n\n     (1) The Westminster Review. No. XXI. Article XVI. Edinburgh\n     Review. No. XCVII. Article on Mill\u2019s Essays on Government,\n     &c. {53}\n\narticle is written by him, and contains not only an answer to our\nattacks, but a development of the \u201cgreatest happiness principle,\u201d with\nthe latest improvements of the author, we shall for once depart from our\ngeneral rule. However the conflict may terminate, we shall at least not\nhave been vanquished by an ignoble hand.\n\nOf Mr. Bentham himself we shall endeavour, even while defending\nourselves against his reproaches, to speak with the respect to which his\nvenerable age, his genius, and his public services entitle him. If any\nharsh expression should escape us, we trust that he will attribute it to\ninadvertence, to the momentary warmth of controversy,--to anything, in\nshort, rather than to a design of affronting him. Though we have\nnothing in common with the crew of Hurds and Boswells, who, either from\ninterested motives, or from the habit of intellectual servility and\ndependence, pamper and vitiate his appetite with the noxious sweetness\nof their undiscerning praise, we are not perhaps less competent than\nthey to appreciate his merit, or less sincerely disposed to acknowledge\nit. Though we may sometimes think his reasonings on moral and political\nquestions feeble and sophistical--though we may sometimes smile at his\nextraordinary language--we can never be weary of admiring the amplitude\nof his comprehension, the keenness of his penetration, the exuberant\nfertility with which his mind pours forth arguments and illustrations.\nHowever sharply he may speak of us, we can never cease to revere in him\nthe father of the philosophy of Jurisprudence. He has a full right to\nall the privileges of a great inventor; and, in our court of criticism,\nthose privileges will never be pleaded in vain. But they are limited\nin the same manner in which, fortunately for the ends of justice,\nthe privileges of the peerage {54}are now limited. The advantage is\npersonal and incommunicable. A nobleman can now no longer cover with his\nprotection every lackey who follows his heels, or every bully who draws\nin his quarrel: and, highly as we respect the exalted rank which Mr.\nBentham holds among the writers of our time, yet when, for the due\nmaintenance of literary police, we shall think it necessary to confute\nsophists, or to bring pretenders to shame, we shall not depart from the\nordinary course of our proceedings because the offenders call themselves\nBenthamites.\n\nWhether Mr. Mill has much reason to thank Mr. Bentham for undertaking\nhis defence, our readers, when they have finished this article, will\nperhaps be inclined to doubt. Great as Mr. Bentham\u2019s talents are,\nhe has, we think, shown an undue confidence in them. He should have\nconsidered how dangerous it is for any man, however eloquent and\ningenious he may be, to attack or defend a book without reading it: and\nwe feel quite convinced that Mr. Bentham would never have written the\narticle before us if he had, before he began, perused our review with\nattention, and compared it with Mr. Mill\u2019s Essay.\n\nHe has utterly mistaken our object and meaning. He seems to think that\nwe have undertaken to set up some theory of government in opposition to\nthat of Mr. Mill. But we distinctly disclaimed any such design. From\nthe beginning to the end of our article, there is not, as far as\nwe remember, a single sentence which, when fairly construed, can be\nconsidered as indicating any such design. If such an expression can be\nfound, it has been dropped by inadvertence. Our object was to prove,\nnot that monarchy and aristocracy, are good, but that Mr. Mill had not\nproved them to be bad; not {55}that democracy is bad, but that Mr. Mill\nhad not proved it to be good. The points in issue are these: whether the\nfamous Essay on Government be, as it has been called, a perfect solution\nof the great political problem, or a series of sophisms and blunders;\nand whether the sect which, while it glories in the precision of its\nlogic, extols this Essay as a masterpiece of demonstration, be a sect\ndeserving of the respect or of the derision of mankind. These, we say,\nare the issues; and on these we with full confidence put ourselves on\nthe country.\n\nIt is not necessary, for the purposes of this investigation, that\nwe should state what our political creed is, or whether we have any\npolitical creed at all. A man who cannot act the most trivial part in a\nfarce has a right to hiss Romeo Coates: a man who does not know a vein\nfrom an artery may caution a simple neighbour against the advertisements\nof Dr. Eady. A complete theory of government would indeed be a noble\npresent to mankind; but it is a present which we do not hope and do not\npretend that we can offer. If, however, we cannot lav the foundation, it\nis something to clear away the rubbish; if we cannot set up truth, it\nis something to pull down error. Even if the subjects of which the\nUtilitarians treat were subjects of less fearful importance, we should\nthink it no small service to the cause of good sense and good taste to\npoint out the contrast between their magnificent pretensions and their\nmiserable performances. Some of them have, however, thought fit to\ndisplay their ingenuity on questions of the most momentous kind, and on\nquestions concerning which men cannot reason ill with impunity. We think\nit, under these circumstances, an absolute duty to expose the fallacy\nof their arguments. It is no matter {56}of pride or of pleasure. To read\ntheir works is the most soporific employment that we know; and a man\nought no more to be proud of refuting them than of having two legs. We\nmust now come to close quarters with Mr. Bentham, whom, we need not\nsay, we do not mean to include in this observation. He charges us with\nmaintaining,--\n\n\u201c_First, \u2018That it is not true that all despots govern ill;\u2019--whereon the\nworld is in a mistake, and the Whigs have the true light. And for proof,\nprincipally,--that the King of Denmark is not Caligula. To which the\nanswer is, that the King of Denmark is not a despot. He was put in his\npresent situation by the people turning the scale in his favour in a\nbalanced contest between himself and the nobility. And it is quite clear\nthat the same power would turn the scale the other way the moment a King\nof Denmark should take into his head to be Caligula. It is of little\nconsequence by what congeries of letters the Majesty of Denmark is\ntypified in the royal press of Copenhagen, while the real fact is\nthat the sword of the people is suspended over his head, in ease of\nill-behaviour, as effectually as in other countries where more noise is\nmade upon the subject. Every body believes the sovereign of Denmark to\nbe a good and virtuous gentleman; but there is no more superhuman merit\nin his being so than in the ease of a rural squire who does not shoot\nhis land-steward or quarter his wife with his yeomanry sabre.\n\n\u201cIt is true that there are partial exceptions to the rule, that all\nmen use power as badly as they dare. There may have been such things as\namiable negro-drivers and sentimental masters of press-gangs; and here\nand there, among the odd freaks of human nature, there may have been\nspecimens of men who were not tyrants, though bred up to tyranny.\u2019 But\nit would be as wise to recommend wolves for nurses at the Foundling on\nthe credit of Romulus and Remus as to substitute the exception for the\ngeneral fact, and advise mankind to take to trusting to arbitrary power\non the credit of these specimens_.\u201d\n\nNow, in the first place, we never cited the case of Denmark to prove\nthat all despots do not govern ill. We cited it to prove that Mr.\nMill did not know how {57}to reason. Mr. Mill gave it as a reason for\ndeducing the theory of government from the general laws of human nature\nthat the King of Denmark was not Caligula. This we said, and we still\nsay, was absurd.\n\nIn the second place, it was not we, but Mr. Mill, who said that the King\nof Denmark was a despot. His words are these:--\u201cThe people of Denmark,\ntired out with the oppression of an aristocracy, resolved that their\nking should be absolute; and under their absolute monarch are as well\ngoverned as any people in Europe.\u201d We leave Mr. Bentham to settle with\nMr. Mill the distinction between a despot and an absolute king.\n\nIn the third place, Mr. Bentham says that there was in Denmark a\nbalanced contest between the king and the nobility. We find some\ndifficulty in believing that Mr. Bentham seriously means to say this,\nwhen we consider that Mr. Mill has demonstrated the chance to be as\ninfinity to one against the existence of such a balanced contest.\n\nFourthly, Mr. Bentham says that in this balanced contest the people\nturned the scale in favour of the king against the aristocracy. But Mr.\nMill has demonstrated that it cannot possibly be for the interest of\nthe monarchy and democracy to join against the aristocracy; and that,\nwherever the three parties exist, the king and the aristocracy will\ncombine against the people. This, Mr. Mill assures us, is as certain as\nanything which depends upon human will.\n\nFifthly, Mr. Bentham says that, if the King of Denmark were to oppress\nhis people, the people and nobles would combine against the king.\nBut Mr. Mill has proved that it can never be for the interest of the\naristocracy to combine with the democracy against the {58}king. It\nis evidently Mr. Bentham\u2019s opinion, that \u201cmonarchy, aristocracy, and\ndemocracy may balance each other, and by mutual checks produce good\ngovernment.\u201d But this is the very theory which Mr. Mill pronounces to\nbe the wildest, the most visionary, the most chimerical ever broached on\nthe subject of government.\n\nWe have no dispute on these heads with Mr. Bentham. On the contrary, we\nthink his explanation true---or, at least, true in part; and we heartily\nthank him for lending us his assistance to demolish the essay of his\nfollower. His wit and his sarcasm are sport to us; but they are death to\nhis unhappy disciple.\n\nMr. Bentham seems to imagine that we have said something implying an\nopinion favourable to despotism. We can scarcely suppose that, as he has\nnot condescended to read that portion of our work which he undertook to\nanswer, he can have bestowed much attention on its general character.\nHad he done so he would, we think, scarcely have entertained such\na suspicion. Mr. Mill asserts, and pretends to prove, that under no\ndespotic government does any human being, except the tools of the\nsovereign, possess more than the necessaries of life, and that the most\nintense degree of terror is kept up by constant cruelty. This, we say,\nis untrue. It is not merely a rule to which there are exceptions: but it\nis not the rule. Despotism is bad; but it is scarcely anywhere so bad as\nMr. Mill says that it is everywhere. This we are sure Mr. Bentham will\nallow. If a man were to say that five hundred thousand people die every\nyear in London of dram-drinking, he would not assert a proposition more\nmonstrously false than Mr. Mill\u2019s. Would it be just to charge us with\ndefending intoxication because we might say that such a man was grossly\nin the wrong? {59}We say with Mr. Bentham that despotism is a bad thing.\nWe say with Mr. Bentham that the exceptions do not destroy the authority\nof the rule. But this we say--that a single exception overthrows an\nargument which either does not prove the rule at all, or else proves the\nrule to be _true without exceptions_; and such an argument is Mr. Mill\u2019s\nargument against despotism. In this respect there is a great difference\nbetween rules drawl from experience and rules deduced _a priori_. We\nmight believe that there had been a fall of snow last August, and yet\nnot think it likely that there would be snow next August. A single\noccurrence opposed to our general experience would tell for very\nlittle in our calculation of the chances. But if we could once satisfy\nourselves that in any single right-angled triangle the square of the\nhypothenuse might be less than the squares of the sides, we must reject\nthe forty-seventh proposition of Euclid altogether. We willingly, adopt\nMr. Bentham\u2019s lively illustration about the wolf; and we will say in\npassing that it gives us real pleasure to see how little old age has\ndiminished the gaiety of this eminent man. We can assure him that his\nmerriment gives us far more pleasure on his account than pain on our\nown. We say with him, Keep the wolf out of the nursery, in spite of\nthe story of Romulus and Remus. But, if the shepherd who saw the wolf\nlicking and suckling those famous twins were, after telling this story\nto his companions, to assert that it was an infallible rule that no wolf\never had spared, or ever would spare, any, living thing which might\nfall in its way--that its nature was carnivorous--and that it conld not\npossibly disobey its nature, we think that the hearers might have been\nexcused for staring. It may be strange, but is not inconsistent, that\na wolf which has eaten {60}ninety-nine children should spare the\nhundredth. But the fact that a wolf has once spared a child is\nsufficient to show that there must be some flaw in the chain of\nreasoning purporting to prove that wolves cannot possibly spare\nchildren.\n\nMr. Bentham proceeds to attack another position which he conceives us to\nmaintain:--\n\n\u201c_Secondly, That a government not under the control of the community\n(for there is no question upon any other) \u2018may soon be saturated.\u2019 Tell\nit not in Bow-street, whisper it not in Hatton-garden--that there is\na plan for preventing injustice by \u2018saturation.\u2019 With what peals of\nunearthly merriment would Minos, \u00c6acus, and Rhadamanthus be aroused upon\ntheir benches, if the \u2018light wings of saffron and of blue\u2019 should\nbear this theory into their grim domains! Why do not the owners of\npocket-handkerchiefs try to \u2018saturate?\u2019 Why does not the cheated\npublican beg leave to check the gulosity of his defrauder with a\nrepetatur haustus, and the pummelled plaintiff neutralise the malice of\nhis adversary, by requesting to have the rest of the beating In presence\nof the court,--if it is not that such conduct would run counter to all\nthe conclusions of experience, and be the procreation of the mischief it\naffected to destroy? Woful is the man whose wealth depends on his having\nmore than somebody else can be persuaded to take from him; and woful\nalso is the people that is in such a case!_\u201d\n\nNow this is certainly very pleasant writing: but there is no great\ndifficulty in answering the argument. The real reason which makes it\nabsurd to think of preventing theft by pensioning off thieves is this,\nthat there is no limit to the number of thieves. If there were only a\nhundred thieves in a place, and we were quite sure that no person not\nalready addicted to theft would take to it, it might become a question\nwhether to keep the thieves from dishonesty by raising them above\ndistress would not be a better course than to employ officers against\nthem. But the actual cases are {61}not parallel. Every man who chooses\ncan become a thief; but a man cannot become a king or a member of\nthe aristocracy whenever he chooses. The number of the depredators is\nlimited; and therefore the amount of depredation, so far as physical\npleasures are concerned, must be limited also. Now, we made the remark\nwhich Mr. Bentham censures with reference to physical pleasures only.\nThe pleasures of ostentation, of taste, of revenge, and other pleasures\nof the same description, have, we distinctly allowed, no limit. Our\nwords are these:--\u201cA king or an aristocracy may be supplied to satiety\nwith _corporal pleasures_, at an expense which the rudest and poorest\ncommunity would scarcely feel.\u201d Does Mr. Bentham deny this? If he does,\nwe leave him to Mr. Mill. \u201cWhat,\u201d says that philosopher, in his Essay\non Education, \u201cWhat are the ordinary pursuits of Wealth and power, Which\nkindle to such a height the ardour of mankind? Not the mere love of\neating and of drinking, or all the physical objects together which\nwealth can purchase or power command. With these every man is in the\nlong run speedily satisfied.\u201d What the difference is between being\nspeedily satisfied and being soon saturated, we leave Mr. Bentham and\nMr. Mill to settle together.\n\nThe word \u2018saturation,\u2019 however, seems to provoke Mr. Bentham\u2019s mirth. It\ncertainly did not strike us as very pure English; but, as Mr. Mill used\nit, we supposed it to be good Benthamese. With the latter language we\nare not critically acquainted, though, as it has many roots in common\nwith our mother tongue, we can contrive, by the help of a converted\nUtilitarian, who attends us in the capacity of Moonshee, to make out a\nlittle. But Mr. Bentham\u2019s authority is of course decisive; and we bow to\nit. {62}Mr. Bentham next represents us as maintaining:--\n\n\u201c_Thirdly, That \u2018though there may be some tastes and propensities that\nhave no point of saturation, there exists a sufficient cheek in the\ndesire of the good opinion of others.\u2019 The misfortune of this argument\nis, that no man cares for the good opinion of those he has been\naccustomed to wrong. If oysters have opinions, it is probable they think\nvery ill of those who eat them in August; but small is the effect upon\nthe autumnal glutton that engulfs their gentle substances within his\nown. The planter and the slave-driver care just as much about negro\nopinion, as the epicure about the sentiments of oysters. M. Ude throwing\nlive eels into the fire as a kindly method of divesting them of the\nunsavoury oil that lodges beneath their skins, is not more convinced of\nthe immense aggregate of good which arises to the lordlier parts of the\ncreation, than is the gentle peer who strips his fellow man of country\nand of family for a wild-fowl slain. The goodly land-owner, who lives by\nmorsels squeezed indiscriminately from the waxy hands of the cobbler and\nthe polluted ones of the nightman, is in no small degree the object of\nboth hatred and contempt; but it is to be feared that he is a long way\nfrom feeling them to be intolerable. The principle of \u2018At mihi plaudo\nipse domi, simul ac nununos contemplai\u2019 in area\u2019 is sufficient to make\na wide interval between the opinions of the plaintiff and defendant in\nsuch eases. In short, to banish law and leave all plaintiffs to trust\nto the desire of reputation on the opposite side, would only be\ntransporting the theory of the Whigs from the House of Commons to\nWestminster Hall_.\u201d\n\nNow, in the first place, we never maintained the proposition which\nMr. Bentham puts into our mouths. We said, and say, that there is a\n_certain_ check to the rapacity and cruelty of men, in their desire of\nthe good opinion of others. We never said that it was sufficient. Let\nMr. Mill show it to be insufficient. It is enough for us to prove that\nthere is a set-off against the principle from which Mr. Mill deduces the\nwhole theory of government. The balance may be, and, we believe, will\nbe, against despotism and the narrower forms of {63}aristocracy. But\nwhat is this to the correctness or incorrectness of Mr. Mill\u2019s accounts?\nThe question is not, whether the motives which lead rulers to behave ill\nare stronger than those which lead them to behave well;--but, whether\nwe ought to form a theory of government by looking _only_ at the motives\nwhich lead rulers to behave ill and never noticing those which lead them\nto behave well.\n\nAbsolute rulers, says Mr. Bentham, do not care for the good opinion of\ntheir subjects; for no man cares for the good opinion of those whom he\nhas been accustomed to wrong. By Mr. Bentham\u2019s leave, this is a plain\nbegging of the question. The point at issue is this:--Will kings and\nnobles wrong the people? The argument in favour of kings and nobles is\nthis:--they will not wrong the people, because they care for the good\nopinion of the people. But this argument Mr. Bentham meets thus:--they\nwill not care for the good opinion of the people, because they are\naccustomed to wrong the people.\n\nHere Mr. Mill differs, as usual, from Mr. Bentham. \u201cThe greatest\nprinces,\u201d says he, in his Essay on Education, \u201cthe most despotical\nmasters of human destiny, when asked what they aim at by their wars and\nconquests, would answer, if sincere, as Frederick of Prussia answered,\n_pour faire parler de soi_;--to occupy a large space in the admiration\nof mankind.\u201d Putting Mr. Mill\u2019s and Mr. Bentham\u2019s principles together,\nwe might make out very easily that \u201cthe greatest princes, the most\ndespotical masters of human destiny,\u201d would never abuse their power.\n\nA man who has been long accustomed to injure people must also have been\nlong accustomed to do without their love, and to endure their aversion.\nSuch a man {64}may not miss the pleasure of popularity; for men seldom\nmiss a pleasure which they have long denied themselves. An old tyrant\ndoes without popularity just as an old water-drinker does without wine.\nBut, though it is perfectly true that men who for the good of their\nhealth have long abstained from wine feel the want of it very little,\nit would be absurd to infer that men will always abstain from wine when\ntheir health requires that they should do so. And it would be equally\nabsurd to say, because men who have been accustomed to oppress care\nlittle for popularity, that men will therefore necessarily prefer the\npleasures of oppression to those of popularity.\n\nThen, again, a man may be accustomed to wrong people in one point and\nnot in another. He may care for their good opinion with regard to one\npoint and not with regard to another. The Regent Orleans laughed at\ncharges of impiety, libertinism, extravagance, idleness, disgraceful\npromotions. But the slightest allusion to the charge of poisoning threw\nhim into convulsions. Louis the Fifteenth braved the hatred and contempt\nof his subjects during many years of the most odious and imbecile\nmisgovernment. But, when a report was spread that he used human blood\nfor his baths, he was almost driven mad by it. Surely Mr. Bentham\u2019s\nposition \u201cthat no man cares for the good opinion of those whom he has\nbeen accustomed to wrong\u201d would be objectionable, as far too sweeping\nand indiscriminate, even if it did not involve, as in the present case\nwe have shown that it does, a direct begging of the question at issue.\n\nMr. Bentham proceeds:--\n\n\u201c_Fourthly, The Edinburgh Reviewers are of opinion, that \u2018it might, with\nno small plausibility, be maintained, that in many {65}countries, there\nare two classes which, in some decree, answer to this description;\u2019\n[viz.] \u2018that the poor compose the class which government is established\nto restrain; and the people of some property the class to which the\npowers of government may without danger be confided.\u2019\n\n\u201cThey take great pains, it is true, to say this and not to say it. They\nshuffle and creep about, to secure a hole to escape at, if \u2018what they\ndo not assert\u2019 should be found in any degree inconvenient. A man might\nwaste his life in trying to find out whether the Misses of the Edinburgh\nmean to say Yes or No in their political coquetry. But whichever way the\nlovely spinsters may decide, it is diametrically opposed to history and\nthe evidence of facts, that the poor _are_ the class whom there is any\ndifficulty in restraining. It is not the poor but the rich that have a\npropensity to take the property of other people. There is no instance\nupon earth of the poor having combined to take away the property of the\nrich; and all the instances habitually brought forward in support of it\nare gross misrepresentations, founded upon the most necessary acts\nof self-defence on the part of the most numerous classes. Such a\nmisrepresentation is the common one of the Agrarian law; which was\nnothing but an attempt on the part of the Roman people to get back\nsome part of what had been taken from them by undisguised robbery. Such\nanother is the stock example of the French Revolution, appealed to by\nthe Edinburgh Review in the actual case. It is utterly untrue that the\nFrench Revolution took place because \u2018the poor began to compare their\ncottages and salads with the hotels and banquets of the rich;\u2019 it took\nplace because they were robbed of their cottages and salads to support\nthe hotels and banquets of their oppressors. It is utterly untrue that\nthere was either a scramble for property or a general confiscation; the\nclasses who took part with the foreign invaders lost their property, as\nthey would have done here, and ought to do everywhere. All these are the\nvulgar errors of the man on the lion\u2019s back,--which the lion will set\nto rights when he can tell his own story. History is nothing but the\nrelation of the sufferings of the poor from the rich; except precisely\nso far as the numerous classes of the community have contrived to keep\nthe virtual power in their hands, or in other words, to establish free\ngovernments. If a poor man injures the rich, the law is instantly at his\nheels; the injuries of the rich towards the poor are always inflicted by\nthe law. And to enable the rich {66}to do this to any extent that may be\npracticable or prudent, there is clearly one postulate required, which\nis, that the rich shall make the law_.\u201d\n\nThis passage is alone sufficient to prove that Mr. Bentham has not taken\nthe trouble to read our article from beginning to end. We are quite sure\nthat he would not stoop to misrepresent it. And, if he had read it with\nany attention, he would have perceived that all this coquetry, this\nhesitation, this Yes and No, this saying and not saying, is simply an\nexercise of the undeniable right which in controversy belongs to the\ndefensive side--to the side which proposes to establish nothing. The\naffirmative of the issue and the burden of the proof are with Mr. Mill,\nnot with us. We are not bound, perhaps we are not able, to show that the\nform of government which he recommends is bad. It is quite enough if we\ncan show that he does not prove it to be good. In his proof, among many\nother flaws, is this--He says, that if men are not inclined to plunder\neach other, government is unnecessary, and that, if men are so inclined,\nkings and aristocracies will plunder the people. Now this, we say, is a\nfallacy. That some men will plunder their neighbours if they can, is\na sufficient reason for the existence of governments. But it is not\ndemonstrated that kings and aristocracies will plunder the people,\nunless it be true that all men will plunder their neighbours if they\ncan. Men are placed in very different situations. Some have all the\nbodily pleasures that they desire, and many other pleasures besides,\nwithout plundering anybody. Others can scarcely obtain their daily bread\nwithout plundering. It may be true, but surely it is not self-evident,\nthat the former class is under as strong temptations to plunder as the\nlatter. Mr. Mill was therefore bound {67}to prove it. That he has not\nproved it is one of thirty or forty fatal errors in his argument. It is\nnot necessary that we should express an opinion or even have an opinion\non the subject. Perhaps we are in a state of perfect scepticism: but\nwhat then? Are we the theory-makers? When we bring before the world a\ntheory of government, it will be time to call upon us to offer proof\nat every step. At present we stand on our undoubted logical right.\nWe concede nothing: and we deny nothing. We say to the Utilitarian\ntheorists:--When you prove your doctrine, we will believe it; and, till\nyou prove it, we will not believe it.\n\nMr. Bentham has quite misunderstood what we said about the French\nRevolution. We never alluded to that event for the purpose of proving\nthat the poor were inclined to rob the rich. Mr. Mill\u2019s principles of\nhuman nature furnished us with that part of our argument ready-made.\nWe alluded to the French Revolution for the purpose of illustrating\nthe effects which general spoliation produces on society, not for the\npurpose of showing that general spoliation will take place under a\ndemocracy. We allowed distinctly that, in the peculiar circumstances of\nthe French monarchy, the Revolution, though accompanied by a great shock\nto the institution of property, was a blessing. Surely Mr. Bentham will\nnot maintain that the injury produced by the deluge of assignats and\nby the maximum fell only on the emigrants,--or that there were not many\nemigrants who would have staid and lived peaceably under any government\nif their persons and property had been secure.\n\nWe never said that the French Revolution took place because the poor\nbegan to compare their cottages and salads with the hotels and banquets\nof the rich. {68}We were not speaking about _the causes_ of the\nRevolution, or thinking about them. This we said, and say, that, if a\ndemocratic government had been established in France, the poor, when\nthey began to compare their cottages and salads with the hotels\nand banquets of the rich, would, on the supposition that Mr. Mill\u2019s\nprinciples are sound, have plundered the rich, and repeated without\nprovocation all the severities and confiscations which, at the time of\nthe Revolution, were committed with provocation. We say that Mr. Mill\u2019s\nfavourite form of government would, if his own views of human nature be\njust, make those violent convulsions and transfers of property which now\nrarely happen, except, as in the case of the French Revolution, when\nthe people are maddened by oppression, events of annual or biennial\noccurrence. We gave no opinion of our own. We give none now. We say that\nthis proposition may be proved from Mr. Mill\u2019s own premises, by steps\nstrictly analogous to those by which he proves monarchy and aristocracy\nto be bad forms of government. To say this, is not to say that the\nproposition is true. For we hold both Mr. Mill\u2019s premises and his\ndeduction to be unsound throughout.\n\nMr. Bentham challenges us to prove from history that the people will\nplunder the rich. What does history say to Mr. Mill\u2019s doctrine, that\nabsolute kings will always plunder their subjects so unmercifully as to\nleave nothing but a bare subsistence to any except their own creatures?\nIf experience is to be the test, Mr. Mill\u2019s theory is unsound. If Mr.\nMill\u2019s reasoning _a priori_ be sound, the people in a democracy will\nplunder the rich. Let us use one weight and one measure. Let us not\nthrow history aside when we are proving a theory, and take it up again\nwhen we have to refute an objection founded on the principles of that\ntheory. {69}We have not done, however, with Mr. Bentham\u2019s charges\nagainst us.\n\n\u201c_Among other specimens of their ingenuity, they think they embarrass\nthe subject by asking why, on the principles in question, women should\nnot have votes as well as men. And why not?\n\n                        Gentle shepherd, tell me why.--\n\nIf the mode of election was what it ought to be, there would be no more\ndifficulty in women voting for a representative in Parliament than for\na director at the India House. The world will find out at some time\nthat the readiest way to secure justice on some points is to be just on\nall:--that the whole is easier to accomplish than the part; and that,\nwhenever the camel is driven through the eye of the needle, it would be\nsimple folly and debility that would leave a hoof behind._\u201d\n\nWhy, says or sings Mr. Bentham, should not women vote? It may seem\nuncivil in us to turn a deaf ear to his Arcadian warblings. But we\nsubmit, with great deference, that it is not _our_ business to tell him\nwhy. We fully agree with him that the principle of female suffrage is\nnot so palpably absurd that a chain of reasoning ought to be pronounced\nunsound merely because it leads to female suffrage. We say that every\nargument which tells in favour of the universal suffrage of the males\ntells equally in favour of female suffrage. Mr. Mill, however, wishes\nto see all men vote, but says that it is unnecessary that women\nshould vote: and for making this distinction _he_ gives as a reason an\nassertion which, in the first place, is not true, and which, in the next\nplace, would, if true, overset his whole theory of human nature; namely,\nthat the interest of the women is identical with that of the men. We\nside with Mr. Bentham, so far at least as this: that, when we join to\ndrive the camel through the needle, he shall go through hoof and all.\nWe at present desire to be excused from {70}driving the camel. It is Mr.\nMill who leaves the hoof behind. But we should think it uncourteous to\nreproach him in the language which Mr. Bentham, in the exercise of his\npaternal authority over the sect, thinks himself entitled to employ.\n\n\u201c_Another of their perverted ingenuities is, that \u2018they are rather\ninclined to think,\u2019 that it would, on the whole, be for the interest of\nthe majority to plunder the rich; and if so, the Utilitarians will say\nthat the rich ought to be plundered. On which it is sufficient to reply,\nthat for the majority to plunder the rich would amount to a declaration\nthat nobody should be rich; which, as all men wish to be rich, would\ninvolve a suicide of hope. And as nobody has shown a fragment of reason\nwhy such a proceeding should be for the general happiness, it does\nnot follow that the \u2018Utilitarians\u2019 would recommend it. The Edinburgh\nReviewers have a waiting gentlewoman\u2019s ideas of \u2018Utilitarianism.\u2019 It\nis unsupported by anything but the pitiable \u2018We are rather inclined to\nthink\u2019--and is utterly contradicted by the whole course of history and\nhuman experience besides,--that there is either danger or possibility of\nsuch a consummation as the majority agreeing on the plunder of the rich.\nThere have been instances in human memory, of their agreeing to plunder\nrich oppressors, rich traitors, rich enemies,--but the rich simpliciter\nnever. It is as true now as in the days of Harrington, that \u2018a people\nnever will, nor ever can, never did, nor ever shall, take up arms for\nlevelling.\u2019 All the commotions in the world have been for something\nelse; and \u2018levelling\u2019 is brought forward as the blind to conceal what\nthe other was_.\u201d\n\nWe say, again and again, that we are on the defensive. We do not think\nit necessary to prove that a quack medicine is poison. Let the vendor\nprove it to be sanative. We do not pretend to show that universal\nsuffrage is an evil. Let its advocates show it to be a good. Mr. Mill\ntells us that, if power be given for short terms to representatives\nelected by all the males of mature age, it will then be for the interest\nof those {71}representatives to promote the greatest happiness of the\ngreatest number. To prove this, it is necessary that he should prove\nthree propositions: first, that the interest of such a representative\nbody will be identical with the interest of the constituent body;\nsecondly, that the interest of the constituent body will be identical\nwith that of the community; thirdly, that the interest of one generation\nof a community is identical with that of all succeeding generations. The\ntwo first propositions Mr. Mill attempts to prove, and fails. The last\nhe does not even attempt to prove. We therefore refuse our assent to his\nconclusions. Is this unreasonable?\n\nWe never even dreamed, what Mr. Bentham conceives us to have maintained,\nthat it could be for the greatest happiness of _mankind_ to plunder the\nrich. But we are \u201crather inclined to think,\u201d though doubtingly and with\na disposition to yield to conviction, that it may be for the pecuniary\ninterest of the majority of a single generation in a thickly-peopled\ncountry to plunder the rich. Why we are inclined to think so we will\nexplain, whenever we send a theory of government to an Encyclopaedia.\nAt present we are bound to say only that we think so, and shall think so\ntill somebody shows us a reason for thinking otherwise.\n\nMr. Bentham\u2019s answer to us is simple assertion. He must not think that\nwe mean any discourtesy by meeting it with a simple denial. The fact is,\nthat almost all the governments that have ever existed in the civilised\nworld have been, in part at least, monarchical and aristocratical. The\nfirst government constituted on principles approaching to those which\nthe Utilitarians hold was, we think, that of the United States. That the\npoor have never combined to plunder the rich in {72}the governments of\nthe old world, no more proves that they might not combine to plunder\nthe rich under a system of universal suffrage, than the fact that\nthe English kings of the House of Brunswick have not been Neros and\nDomitians proves that sovereigns may safely be intrusted with absolute\npower. Of what the people would do in a state of perfect sovereignty we\ncan judge only by indications, which, though rarely of much moment in\nthemselves, and though always suppressed with little difficulty, are yet\nof great significance, and resemble those by which our domestic animals\nsometimes remind us that they are of kin with the fiercest monsters of\nthe forest. It would not be wise to reason from the behaviour of a dog\ncrouching under the lash, which is the case of the Italian people,\nor from the behaviour of a dog pampered with the best morsels of a\nplentiful kitchen, which is the case of the people of America, to the\nbehaviour of a wolf, which is nothing but a dog run wild, after a week\u2019s\nfast among the snows of the Pyrenees. No commotion, says Mr. Bentham,\nwas ever really produced by the wish of levelling: the wish has been put\nforward as a blind; but something else has been the real object. Grant\nall this. But why has levelling been put forward as a blind in times\nof commotion to conceal the real objects of the agitators? Is it with\ndeclarations which involve \u201ca suicide of hope\u201d that men attempt to\nallure others? Was famine, pestilence, slavery, ever held out to attract\nthe people? If levelling has been made a pretence for disturbances, the\nargument against Mr. Bentham\u2019s doctrine is as strong as if it had been\nthe real object of disturbances.\n\nBut the great objection which Mr. Bentham makes to our review, still\nremains to be noticed:--{73}\"The pith of the charge against the\nauthor of the Essays is, that he has written \u2018an elaborate Treatise\non Government,\u2019 and \u2018deduced the whole science from the assumption of\ncertain propensities of human nature.\u2019 Now, in the name of Sir Richard\nBirnie and all saints, from what else should it be deduced? What did\never anybody imagine to be the end, object, and design of government as\nit ought to be but the same operation, on an extended scale, which that\nmeritorious chief magistrate conducts on a limited one at Bow-street; to\nwit, the preventing one man from injuring another? Imagine, then, that\nthe Whiggery of Bow-street were to rise up against the proposition that\ntheir science was to be deduced from \u2018certain propensities of human\nnature,\u2019 and thereon were to ratiocinate as follows:--\n\n\u201c\u2018_How then are we to arrive at just conclusions on a subject so\n\u2018important to the happiness of mankind? Surely by that method, which,\nin every experimental science to which it has been applied, has signally\nincreased the power and knowledge of our species,--by that method for\nwhich our new philosopher! would substitute quibbles scarcely worthy\nof the barbarous respondents and opponents of the middle ages,--by the\nmethod of induction,--by observing the present state of the world,--by\nassiduously studying the history of past ages,--by sifting the evidence\nof facts,--by carefully combining and contrasting those which\nare authentic,--by generalising with judgment and diffidence,--by\nperpetually bringing the theory which we have constructed to the test\nof new facts,--by correcting, or altogether abandoning it, according\nas those new facts prove it to be partially or fundamentally unsound.\nProceeding thus,--patiently, diligently, candidly, we may hope to form\na system as far inferior in pretension to that which we have\nbeen examining, and as far superior to it in real utility, as the\nprescriptions of a great physician, varying with every stage of every\nmalady, and with the constitution of every patient, to the pill of the\nadvertising quack, which is to cure all human beings, in all climates,\nof all diseases.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cFancy now,--only fancy,--the delivery of these wise words at\nBow-street; and think how speedily the practical catchpolls would\nreply, that all this might be very fine, but as far as they had studied\nhistory, the naked story was, after all, that numbers of men had a\npropensity to thieving, and their business was to catch them; that they,\ntoo, had been sifters of facts; and, to say the truth, their simple\nopinion was, that their brethren of the red {74}waistcoat--though\nthey should be sorry to think ill of any man--had somehow contracted a\nleaning to the other side, and were more bent on puzzling the case for\nthe benefit of the defendants, than on doing the duty of good officers\nand true. Such would, beyond all doubt, be the sentence passed on such\ntrimmers in the microcosm of Bow-street. It might not absolutely follow\nthat they were in a plot to rob the goldsmiths\u2019 shops, or to set fire\nto the House of Commons; but it would be quite clear that they had got\na feeling,--that they were in process of siding with the thieves,--and\nthat it was not to them that any man must look who was anxious that\npantries should be safe_.\u201d\n\nThis is all very witty; but it does not touch us. On the present\noccasion, we cannot but flatter ourselves that we bear a much greater\nresemblance to a practical catchpoll than either Mr. Mill or Mr.\nBentham. It would, to be sure, be very absurd in a magistrate,\ndiscussing the arrangements of a police-office, to spout ill the style\neither of our article or Mr. Bentham\u2019s; but, in substance, he would\nproceed, if he were a man of sense, exactly as _we_ recommend. He would,\non being appointed to provide for the security of property in a town,\nstudy attentively the state of the town. He would learn at what places,\nat what times, and under what circumstances, theft and outrage were most\nfrequent. Are the streets, he would ask, most infested with thieves at\nsunset or at midnight? Are there any public places of resort which give\npeculiar facilities to pickpockets? Are there any districts completely\ninhabited by a lawless population? Which are the flash-houses, and which\nthe shops of receivers? Having made himself master of the facts he would\nact accordingly. A strong detachment of officers might be necessary for\nPetticoat Lane; another for the pit entrance of Covent Garden Theatre.\nGrosvenor Square and Hamilton Place would require little or no\nprotection. {75}Exactly thus should we reason about government. Lombardy\nis oppressed by tyrants; and constitutional checks, such as may produce\nsecurity to the people, are required. It is, so to speak, one of the\nresorts of thieves; and there is great need of police-officers. Denmark\nresembles one of those respectable streets in which it is scarcely\nnecessary to station a catchpoll, because the inhabitants would at once\njoin to seize a thief. Yet, even in such a street, we should wish to see\nan officer appear now and then, as his occasional superintendence would\nrender the security more complete. And even Denmark, we think, would be\nbetter off under a constitutional form of government.\n\nMr. Mill proceeds like a director of police, who, without asking a\nsingle question about the state of his district, should give his orders\nthus:--\u201cMy maxim is, that every man will take what he can. Every man in\nLondon would be a thief, but for the thief-takers. This is an undeniable\nprinciple of human nature. Some of my predecessors have wasted\ntheir time in inquiring about particular pawnbrokers, and particular\nalehouses. Experience is altogether divided. Of people placed in exactly\nthe same situation, I see that one steals, and that another would sooner\nburn his hand off. _Therefore_ I trust to the laws of human nature\nalone, and pronounce all men thieves alike. Let every body, high and\nlow, be watched. Let Townsend take particular care that the Duke of\nWellington does not steal the silk handkerchief of the lord in waiting\nat the levee. A person has lost a watch. Go to Lord Fitz-william and\nsearch him for it; he is as great a receiver of stolen goods as Ikey\nSolomons himself. Don\u2019t tell me about his rank, and character, and\nfortune. He is a man; and a man does not change his nature {76}when he\nis called a lord. (1) Either men will steal or they will not steal. If\nthey will not, why do I sit here? If they will, his lordship must be a\nthief.\u201d The Whiggery of Bow Street would perhaps rise up against this\nwisdom. Would Mr. Bentham think that the Whiggery of Bow Street was In\nthe wrong?\n\nWe blamed Mr. Mill for deducing his theory of government from the\nprinciples of human nature. \u201cIn the name of Sir Richard Birnie and all\nsaints,\u201d cries Mr. Bentham, \u201cfrom what else should it be deduced?\u201d\n In spite of this solemn adjuration, we shall venture to answer Mr.\nBentham\u2019s question by another. How does he arrive at those principles of\nhuman nature from which he proposes to deduce the science of government?\nWe think that we may venture to put an answer into his mouth; for in\ntruth there is but one possible answer. He will say--By experience.\nBut what is the extent of this experience? Is it an experience which\nincludes experience of the conduct of men intrusted with the powers\nof government; or is it exclusive of that experience? If it includes\nexperience of the manner in which men act when intrusted with the powers\nof government, then those principles of human nature from which the\nscience of government is to be deduced can only be known after going\nthrough that inductive process by which we propose to arrive at the\nscience of government. Our knowledge of human nature, instead of being\nprior in order to our knowledge\n\n     (1) \u201cIf Government is founded upon this, as a law of human\n     nature, that a man, if able, will take from others anything\n     which they have and he desires, it is sufficiently evident\n     that when a man is called a king, he does not change his\n     nature: so that, when he has power to take what he pleases,\n     he will take what he pleases. To suppose that he will not,\n     is to affirm that government is unnecessary, and that human\n     beings will abstain from injuring one another of their own\n     accord.\u201d--Mill. _on Government._\n\n{77} of the science of government, will be posterior to it. And it would\nbe correct to say, that by means of the science of government, and of\nother kindred sciences--the science of education, for example, which\nfalls under exactly the same principle--we arrive at the science of\nhuman nature.\n\nIf, on the other hand, we are to deduce the theory of government from\nprinciples of human nature, in arriving at which principles we have not\ntaken into the account the manner in which men act when invested with\nthe powers of government, then those principles must be defective.\nThey have not been formed by a sufficiently copious induction. We are\nreasoning, from what a man does in one situation, to what he will do in\nanother. Sometimes we may be quite justified in reasoning thus. When we\nhave no means of acquiring information about the particular case before\nus, we are compelled to resort to cases which bear some resemblance to\nit. But the most satisfactory course is to obtain information about\nthe particular case; and, whenever this can be obtained, it ought to be\nobtained. When first the yellow fever broke out, a physician might\nbe justified in treating it as he had been accustomed to treat those\ncomplaints which, on the whole, had the most symptoms in common with it.\nBut what should we think of a physician who should now tell us that\nhe deduced his treatment of yellow fever from the general theory of\npathology? Surely we should ask him, Whether, in constructing his theory\nof pathology, he had or had not taken into the account the facts which\nhad been ascertained respecting the yellow fever? If he had, then it\nwould be more correct to say that he had arrived at the principles\nof pathology partly by his experience of cases of yellow fever\nthan {78}that he had deduced his treatment of yellow fever from the\nprinciples of pathology. If he had not, he should not prescribe for us.\nIf we had the yellow fever, we should prefer a man who had never\ntreated any cases but cases of yellow fever to a man who had walked the\nhospitals of London and Paris for years, but who knew nothing of our\nparticular disease.\n\nLet Lord Bacon speak for us: \u201cInductionem cense-mus cam esse\ndemonstrandi formam, qu\u00e6 sensum tue-tur, et naturam promit, et operibus\nimminet, ac fere immiscetur. Itaque ordo quoque demonstrandi\nplane invertitur. Adhuc enim res ita geri consuevit, ut a sensu et\nparticularibus primo loco ad maxime generalia advoletur, tanquam ad\npolos fixos, circa quos disputationes vertantur; ab illis c\u00e6tera, per\nmedia, deriventur; via certe compendiari\u00e2, sed pr\u00e6cipiti, et ad naturam\nim-pervi\u00e2, ad disputationes proclivi et accommodat\u00e2. At, secundum nos,\naxiomata continenter et gradatim exci-. tantur, ut non, nisi postremo\nloco, ad maxime generalia veniatur.\u201d Can any words more exactly describe\nthe political reasonings of Mr. Mill than those in which Lord Bacon thus\ndescribes the logomachies of the schoolmen? Mr. Mill springs at once\nto a general principle of the widest extent, and from that general\nprinciple deduces syllogistically every thing which is included in\nit. We say with Bacon--\u201cnon, nisi postremo loco, ad maxime generalia\nveniatur.\u201d In the present inquiry, the science of human nature is the\n\u201cmaxime generale.\u201d To this the Utilitarian rushes at once, and from this\nhe deduces a hundred sciences. But the true philosopher, the inductive\nreasoner, travels up to it slowly, through those hundred sciences, of\nwhich the science of government is one.\n\nAs we have lying before us that incomparable volume, {79}the noblest\nand most useful of all the works of the human reason, the Novum Organum,\nwe will transcribe a few lines, in which the Utilitarian philosophy is\nportrayed to the life.\n\n_\u201cSyllogismus act principia scientiarum non adhibetur, ad media axiomata\nfrustra adhibetur, cum sit subtilitati natur\u00e6 longe impar. Assensum\nitaque constringit, non res. Syllogismus ex propositionibus constat,\npropositiones ex verbis, verba notionnm tesser\u00e6 sunt. Itaque si notiones\nips\u00e6, id quod basis rei est, confus\u00e6 sint, et temer\u00e8 a rebus abstraet\u00e6,\nnihil in iis qu\u00e6 superstruuntur est firmitudinis. Itaque spes est una\nin Induetione vera. In notionibus nil sani est, nee in Logieis nee in\nphysicis. Non substantia, non qualitas, agere, pati, ipsum esse, bonne\nnotiones sunt; multo minus grave, leve, densum, tenue, humidum, siecum,\ngeneratio, corruptio, attrahere, fugare, elementum, materia, forma, et\nid genus, sed omnes phantastie\u00e6 et male terminat\u00e6_.\u201d\n\nSubstitute for the \u201csubstantia,\u201d the \u201cgeneratio,\u201d the \u201ccorruptio,\u201d\n the \u201celementum,\u201d the \u201cmateria\u201d of the old schoolmen, Mr. Mill\u2019s pain,\npleasure, interest, power, objects of desire,--and the words of Bacon\nwill seem to suit the current year as well as the beginning of the\nseventeenth century.\n\nWe have now gone through the objections that Mr. Bentham makes to our\narticle: and we submit ourselves on all the charges to the judgment of\nthe public.\n\nThe rest of Mr. Bentham\u2019s article consists of an exposition of the\nUtilitarian principle, or, as he decrees that it shall be called, the\n\u201cgreatest happiness principle.\u201d He seems to think that we have been\nassailing it. We never said a syllable against it. We spoke slightingly\nof the Utilitarian sect, as we thought of them, and think of them; but\nit was not for holding this doctrine that we blamed them. In attacking\nthem we no more meant to attack the \u201cgreatest happiness\u201d {80}principle\nthan when we say that Mahometanism is a false religion we mean to deny\nthe unity of God, which is the first article of the Mahometan creed;--no\nmore than Mr. Bentham, when he sneers at the Whigs, means to blame\nthem for denying the divine right of kings. We reasoned throughout our\narticle on the supposition that the end of government was to produce the\ngreatest happiness to mankind.\n\nMr. Bentham gives an account of the manner In which he arrived at the\ndiscovery of the \u201cgreatest happiness principle.\u201d He then proceeds to\ndescribe the effects which, as he conceives, that discovery is producing\nin language so rhetorical and ardent that, if it had been written by any\nother person, a genuine Utilitarian would certainly have thrown down the\nbook in disgust.\n\n\u201c_The only rivals of any note to the new principle which were brought\nforward, were those known by the names of the \u2018moral sense,\u2019 and the\n\u2018original contract.\u2019 The new principle superseded the first of these, by\npresenting it with a guide for its decisions; and the other, by making\nit unnecessary to resort to a remote and imaginary contract for what was\nclearly the business of every man and every hour. Throughout the whole\nhorizon of morals and of politics, the consequences were glorious and\nvast. It might be said without danger of exaggeration, that they who\nsat in darkness had seen a great light. The mists in which mankind\nhad jousted against each other were swept away, as when the sun of\nastronomical science arose in the full development of the principle of\ngravitation. If the object of legislation was the greatest happiness,\nmorality was the promotion of the same end by the conduct of the\nindividual; and by analogy, the happiness of the world was the morality\nof nations.\n\n\u201c....All the sublime obscurities, which had haunted the mind of man from\nthe first formation of society,--the phantoms whose steps had been on\nearth, and their heads among the clouds,--marshalled themselves at the\nsound of this new principle of connection and of union, and stood a\nregulated band, where all {81}was order, symmetry, and force. What men\nhad struggled for and bled, while they saw it but as through a glass\ndarkly, was made the object of substantial knowledge and lively\napprehension. The bones of sages and of patriots stirred within their\ntombs, that what they dimly saw and followed had become the world\u2019s\ncommon heritage. And the great result was wrought by no supernatural\nmeans, nor produced by any unparallelable concatenation of events. It\nwas foretold by no oracles, and ushered by no portents; but was brought\nabout by the quiet and reiterated exercise of God\u2019s first gift of common\nsense_.\u201d\n\nMr. Bentham\u2019s discovery does not, as we think we shall be able to show,\napproach in importance to that of gravitation, to which he compares it.\nAt all events, Mr. Bentham seems to us to act much as Sir Isaac Newton\nwould have done if he had gone about boasting that he was the first\nperson who taught bricklayers not to jump off scaffolds and break their\nlegs.\n\nDoes Mr. Bentham profess to hold out any new motive which may induce\nmen to promote the happiness of the species to which they belong? Not\nat all. He distinctly admits that, if he is asked why government should\nattempt to produce the greatest possible happiness, he can give no\nanswer.\n\n\u201c_The real answer,\u201d says he, \u201cappeared to be, that men at large ought\nnot to allow a government to afflict them with move evil or less good\nthan they can help. What a government ought to do is a mysterious and\nsearching question, which those may answer who know what it means; but\nwhat other men ought to do is a question of no mystery at all. The\nword ought, if it means anything, must have reference to some kind of\ninterest or motives; and what interest a government has in doing right,\nwhen it happens to be interested in doing wrong, is a question for\nthe schoolmen. The fact appears to be, that ought is not predicable of\ngovernments. The question is not why governments are bound not to do\nthis or that, but why other men should let them if they can help it. The\npoint is not to determine why the lion should {82}not eat sheep, but why\nmen should not eat their own mutton if they can_.\u201d\n\nThe principle of Mr. Bentham, if we understand it, is this, that\nmankind ought to act so as to produce their greatest happiness. The word\n_ought_, he tells us, has no meaning, unless it be used with reference\nto some interest. But the interest of a man is synonymous with his\ngreatest happiness:--and therefore to say that a man ought to do a\nthing, is to say that it is for his greatest happiness to do it. And\nto say that mankind _ought_ to act so as to produce their greatest\nhappiness, is to say that the greatest happiness is the greatest\nhappiness--and this is all!\n\nDoes Mr. Bentham\u2019s principle tend to make any man wish for anything for\nwhich he would not have wished, or do any thing which he would not have\ndone, if the principle had never been heard of? If not, it is an\nutterly useless principle. Now, every man pursues his own happiness or\ninterest--call it which you will. If his happiness coincides with the\nhappiness of the species, then, whether he ever heard of the \u201cgreatest\nhappiness principle\u201d or not, he will, to the best of his knowledge and\nability, attempt to produce the greatest happiness of the species.\nBut, if what he thinks his happiness be inconsistent with the greatest\nhappiness of mankind, will this new principle convert him to another\nframe of mind? Mr. Bentham himself allows, as we have seen, that he can\ngive no reason why a man should promote the greatest happiness of others\nif their greatest happiness be inconsistent with what he thinks his own.\nWe should very much like to know how the Utilitarian principle would\nrun when reduced to one plain imperative proposition? Will it run\nthus--pursue {83}your own happiness? This is superfluous. Every man\npursues it, according to his light, and always has pursued it, and\nalways must pursue it. To say that a man has done any thing, is to say\nthat he thought it for his happiness to do it. Will the principle run\nthus--pursue the greatest happiness of mankind, whether it be your own\ngreatest happiness or not? This is absurd and impossible; and Bentham\nhimself allows it to be so. But, if the principle be not stated in one\nof these two ways, we cannot imagine how it is to be stated at all.\nStated in one of these ways, it is an identical proposition,--true,\nbut utterly barren of consequences. Stated in the other way, it is\na contradiction in terms. Mr. Bentham has distinctly declined the\nabsurdity. Are we then to suppose that he adopts the truism?\n\nThere are thus, it seems, two great truths which the Utilitarian\nphilosophy is to communicate to mankind--two truths which are to produce\na revolution in morals, in laws, in governments, in literature, in the\nwhole system of life. The first of these is speculative; the second is\npractical. The speculative truth is, that the greatest happiness is the\ngreatest happiness. The practical rule is very simple; for it imports\nmerely that men should never omit, when they wish for any thing, to wish\nfor it, or when they do any thing, to do it! It is a great comfort to us\nto think that we readily assented to the former of these great doctrines\nas soon as it was stated to us; and that we have long endeavoured,\nas far as human frailty would permit, to conform to the latter in our\npractice. We are, however, inclined to suspect that the calamities of\nthe human race have been owing, less to their not knowing that happiness\nwas happiness, than to their not knowing how to obtain it--less to their\nneglecting to do what they did, than to their not {84}being able to do\nwhat they wished, or not wishing to do what they ought.\n\nThus frivolous, thus useless is this philosophy,--\u201ccontroversianun\nferax, operiun effoeta, ad garriendum prompta, ad generandum invalida.\u201d\n (1) The humble mechanic who discovers some slight improvement in\nthe construction of safety lamps or steam-vessels does more for the\nhappiness of mankind than the \u201cmagnificent principle,\u201d as Mr. Bentham\ncalls it, will do in ten thousand years. The mechanic teaches us how\nwe may in a small degree be better off than we were. The Utilitarian\nadvises us with great pomp to be as well off as we can.\n\nThe doctrine of a moral sense may be very unphilosophical; but we do\nnot think that it can be proved to be pernicious. Men did not entertain\ncertain desires and aversions because they believed in a moral sense,\nbut they gave the name of moral sense to a feeling which they found in\ntheir minds, however it came there. If they had given it no name at all\nit would still have influenced their actions; and it will not be very\neasy to demonstrate that it has influenced their actions the more\nbecause they have called it the moral sense. The theory of the original\ncontract is a fiction, and a very absurd fiction; but in practice it\nmeant, what the \u201cgreatest happiness principle,\u201d if ever it becomes a\nwatchword of political warfare, will mean--that is to say, whatever\nserved the turn of those who used it. Both the one expression and the\nother sound very well in debating clubs; but in the real conflicts of\nlife our passions and interests bid them stand aside and know their\nplace. The \u201cgreatest happiness principle\u201d has always been latent under\nthe words, social contract, justice,\n\n     (1) Bacon, Novum Organum.\n\n{85}benevolence, patriotism, liberty, and so forth, just as for as it\nwas for the happiness, real or imagined, of those who used these words\nto promote the greatest happiness of mankind. And of this we may be\nsure, that the words \u201cgreatest happiness\u201d will never, in any man\u2019s\nmouth, mean more than the greatest happiness of others which is\nconsistent with what he thinks his own. The project of mending a bad\nworld by teaching people to give new names to old things reminds us of\nWalter Shandy\u2019s scheme for compensating the loss of his son\u2019s nose by\nchristening him Trismegistus.\n\nWhat society wants is a new motive--not a new cant. If Mr. Bentham can\nfind out any argument yet undiscovered which may induce men to pursue\nthe general happiness, he will indeed be a great benefactor to our\nspecies. But those whose happiness is identical with the general\nhappiness are even now promoting the general happiness to the very best\nof their power and knowledge: and Mr. Bentham himself confesses that he\nhas no means of persuading those whose happiness is not identical with\nthe general happiness to act upon his principle. Is not this, then,\ndarkening counsel by words without knowledge? If the only fruit of the\n\u201cmagnificent principle\u201d is to be, that the oppressors and pilferers of\nthe next generation are to talk of seeking the greatest happiness of the\ngreatest number, just as the same class of men have talked in our time\nof seeking to uphold the Protestant constitution--just as they talked\nunder Anne of seeking the good of the Church, and under Cromwell of\nseeking the Lord--where is the gain? Is not every great question already\nenveloped in a sufficiently dark cloud of unmeaning words? Is it so\ndifficult for a man to cant some one or more of the good old English\ncants which his {86}father and grandfather canted before him, that he\nmust learn, in the schools of the Utilitarians, a new sleight of tongue,\nto make fools clap and wise men sneer? Let our countrymen keep their\neyes on the neophytes of this sect, and see whether we turn out to be\nmistaken in the prediction which we now hazard. It will before long be\nfound, we prophesy, that, as the corruption of a dunce is the generation\nof an Utilitarian, so is the corruption of an Utilitarian the generation\nof a jobber.\n\nThe most elevated station that the \u201cgreatest happiness principle\u201d is\never likely to attain is this, that it may be a fashionable phrase among\nnewspaper writers and members of parliament--that it may succeed to\nthe dignity which has been enjoyed by the \u201coriginal contract,\u201d by the\n\u201cconstitution of 1688,\u201d and other expressions of the same kind. We do\nnot apprehend that it is a less flexible cant than those which have\npreceded it, or that it will less easily furnish a pretext for any\ndesign for which a pretext may be required. The \u201coriginal contract\u201d\n meant in the Convention Parliament the co-ordinate authority of the\nThree Estates. If there were to be a radical insurrection to-morrow, the\n\u201coriginal contract\u201d would stand just as well for annual parliaments\nand universal suffrage. The \u201cGlorious Constitution,\u201d again, has meant\neverything in turn: the Habeas Corpus Act, the Suspension of the Habeas\nCorpus Act, the Test Act, the Repeal of the Test Act. There has not\nbeen for many years a single important measure which has not been\nunconstitutional with its opponents, and which its supporters have not\nmaintained to be agreeable to the true spirit of the constitution. Is it\neasier to ascertain what is for the greatest happiness of the human\nrace than what is the {87}constitution of England? If not, the greatest\nhappiness principle will be what the \u201cprinciples of the constitution\u201d\n are, a thing to be appealed to by everybody, and understood by everybody\nin the sense which suits him best. It will mean cheap bread, dear\nbread, free trade, protecting duties, annual parliaments, septennial\nparliaments, universal suffrage, Old Sarum, trial by jury, martial\nlaw--everything, in short, good, bad, or indifferent, of which any\nperson, from rapacity or from benevolence, chooses to undertake the\ndefence. It will mean six-and-eightpence with the attorney, tithes at\nthe rectory, and game-laws at the manor-house. The Statute of Uses, in\nappearance the most sweeping legislative reform in our history, was said\nto have produced no other effect than that of adding three words to a\nconveyance. The universal admission of Mr. Bentham\u2019s great principle\nwould, as far as we can see, produce no other effect than that those\norators who, while waiting for a meaning, gain time (like bankers paying\nin sixpences during a run) by uttering words that mean nothing would\nsubstitute \u201cthe greatest happiness,\u201d or rather, as the longer phrase,\nthe \u201cgreatest happiness of the greatest number,\u201d for \u201cunder existing\ncircumstances,\u201d--\u201cnow that I am on my legs,\u201d--and \u201cMr. Speaker, I, for\none, am free to say.\u201d In fact, principles of this sort resemble those\nforms which are sold by law-stationers, with blanks for the names of\nparties, and for the special circumstances of every case--mere customary\nheadings and conclusions, which are equally at the command of the most\nhonest and of the most unrighteous claimant. It is on the filling up\nthat everything depends.\n\nThe \u201cgreatest happiness principle\u201d of Mr. Bentham is included in the\nChristian morality; and, to our {88}thinking, it is there exhibited in\nan infinitely more sound and philosophical form than in the Utilitarian\nspeculations. For in the New Testament it is neither an identical\nproposition, nor a contradiction in terms; and, as laid down by Mr.\nBentham, it must be either the one or the other. \u201cDo as you would be\ndone by: Love your neighbour as yourself:\u201d these are the precepts of\nJesus Christ. Understood in an enlarged sense, these precepts are, in\nfact, a direction to every man to promote the greatest happiness of the\ngreatest number. But this direction would be utterly unmeaning, as it\nactually is in Mr. Bentham\u2019s philosophy, unless it were accompanied by\na sanction. In the Christian scheme, accordingly, it is accompanied by\na sanction of immense force. To a man whose greatest happiness in this\nworld is inconsistent with the greatest happiness of the greatest number\nis held out the prospect of an infinite happiness hereafter, from which\nhe excludes himself by wronging his fellow-creatures here.\n\nThis is practical philosophy, as practical as that on which penal\nlegislation is founded. A man is told to do something which otherwise\nhe would not do, and is furnished with a new motive for doing it. Mr.\nBentham has no new motive to furnish his disciples with. He has talents\nsufficient to effect any thing that can be effected. But to induce\nmen to act without an inducement is too much, even for him. He should\nreflect that the whole vast world of morals cannot be moved unless\nthe mover can obtain some stand for his engines beyond it. He acts as\nArchimedes would have done, if he had attempted to move the earth by a\nlever fixed on the earth. The action and reaction neutralise each other.\nThe artist labours, and the world remains at rest. Mr. Bentham can only\ntell us to do something {89}which we have always been doing, and should\nstill have continued to do, if we had never heard of the \u201cgreatest\nhappiness principle\u201d--or else to do something which we have no\nconceivable motive for doing, and therefore shall not do. Mr. Bentham\u2019s\nprinciple is at best no more than the golden rule of the Gospel without\nits sanction. Whatever evils, therefore, have existed in societies in\nwhich the authority of the Gospel is recognised may, _a fortiori_, as it\nappears to us, exist in societies in which the Utilitarian principle is\nrecognised. We do not apprehend that it is more difficult for a tyrant\nor a persecutor to persuade himself and others that in putting to death\nthose who oppose his power or differ from his opinions he is pursuing\n\u201cthe greatest happiness,\u201d than that he is doing as he would be done by.\nBut religion gives him a motive for doing as he would be done by: and\nMr. Bentham furnishes him no motive to induce him to promote the general\nhappiness. If, on the other hand, Mr. Bentham\u2019s principle mean only\nthat every man should pursue his own greatest happiness, he merely\nasserts what everybody knows, and recommends what everybody does.\n\nIt is not upon this \u201cgreatest happiness principle\u201d that the fame of\nMr. Bentham will rest. He has not taught people to pursue their own\nhappiness; for that they always did. He has not taught them to promote\nthe happiness of others, at the expense of their own; for that they will\nnot and cannot do. But he has taught them _how_, in some most important\npoints, to promote their own happiness; and, if his school had emulated\nhim as successfully in this respect as in the trick of passing off\ntruisms for discoveries, the name of Benthamite would have been no word\nfor the scoffer. But few of those who consider themselves as in a more\nespecial {90}manner his followers have anything in common with him but\nhis faults. The whole science of\u2019 Jurisprudence is his. He has done much\nfor political economy; but we are not aware that in either department\nany improvement has been made by members of his sect. He discovered\ntruths; all that _they_ have done has been to make those truths\nunpopular. He investigated the philosophy of law; he could teach them\nonly to snarl at lawyers.\n\nWe entertain no apprehensions of danger to the institutions of this\ncountry from the Utilitarians. Our fears are of a different kind. We\ndread the odium and discredit of their alliance. We wish to see a broad\nand clear line drawn between the judicious friends of practical reform\nand a sect which, having derived all its influence from the countenance\nwhich they have imprudently bestowed upon it, hates them with the deadly\nhatred of ingratitude. There is not, and we firmly believe that there\nnever was, in this country a party so unpopular. They have already made\nthe science of political economy--a science of vast importance to\nthe welfare of nations--an object of disgust to the majority of the\ncommunity. The question of parliamentary reform will share the same fate\nif once an association be formed in the public mind between Reform and\nUtilitarianism.\n\nWe bear no enmity to any member of the sect; and for Mr. Bentham we\nentertain very high admiration. We know that among his followers there\nare some well-intentioned men, and some men of talents: but we cannot\nsay that we think the logic on which they pride themselves likely to\nimprove their heads, or the scheme of morality which they have adopted\nlikely to improve their hearts. Their theory of morals, however,{91}\nwell deserves an article to itself; and perhaps, on some future\noccasion, we may discuss it more fully than time and space at present\nallow.\n\nThe preceding article was written, and was actually in types, when a\nletter from Mr. Bentham appeared in the newspapers, importing that,\n\u201cthough he had furnished the Westminster Review with some _memoranda_\nrespecting \u2018the greatest happiness principle,\u2019 he had nothing to do with\nthe remarks on our former article.\u201d We are truly happy to find that this\nillustrious man had so small a share in a performance which, for his\nsake, we have treated with far greater lenity than it deserved.\nThe mistake, however, does not in the least affect any part of our\narguments; and we have therefore thought it unnecessary to cancel or\ncast anew any of the foregoing pages. Indeed, we are not sorry that the\nworld should see how respectfully we were disposed to treat a great man,\neven when we considered him as the author of a very weak and very unfair\nattack on ourselves. We wish, however, to intimate to the actual writer\nof that attack that our civilities were intended for the author of the\n\u201cPreuves Judiciaires,\u201d and the \u201cDefence of Usury\u201d--and not for him. We\ncannot conclude, indeed, without expressing a wish--though we fear it\nhas but little chance of reaching Mr. Bentham--that he would endeavour\nto find better editors for his compositions. If M. Dumont had not been a\n_r\u00e9dacteur_ of a different description from some of his successors, Mr.\nBentham would never have attained the distinction of even giving his\nname to a sect.\n\n\n\n\nUTILITARIAN THEORY OF GOVERNMENT. (1)\n\n(_Edinburgh, Review_, October 1829.)\n\n\nWe {92}have long been of opinion that the Utilitarians have owed all\ntheir influence to a mere delusion--that, while professing to have\nsubmitted their minds to an intellectual discipline of peculiar\nseverity, to have discarded all sentimentality, and to have acquired\nconsummate skill in the art of reasoning, they are decidedly inferior\nto the mass of educated men in the very qualities in which they conceive\nthemselves to excel. They have undoubtedly freed themselves from the\ndominion of some absurd notions. But their struggle for intellectual\nemancipation has ended, as injudicious and violent struggles for\npolitical emancipation too often end, in a mere change of tyrants.\nIndeed, we are not sure that we do not prefer the venerable nonsense\nwhich holds prescriptive sway over the ultra-Tory to the upstart dynasty\nof prejudices and sophisms by which the revolutionists of the moral\nworld have suffered themselves to be enslaved.\n\nThe Utilitarians have sometimes been abused as intolerant, arrogant,\nirreligious,--as enemies of literature, of the fine arts, and of the\ndomestic charities.\n\n     (1) Westminster Review, (XXII. Art. 16,) on the Strictures\n     of the Edinburgh Review (XCVIII. Art. 1) on the Utilitarian\n     Theory of Government, and the \u201cGreatest Happiness\n     Principle.\u201d\n\n{93}They have been reviled for some things of which they were guilty,\nand for some of which they were innocent. But scarcely anybody seems\nto have perceived that almost all their peculiar faults arise from the\nutter want both of comprehensiveness and of precision in their mode of\nreasoning. We have, for some time past, been convinced that this was\nreally the case; and that, whenever then philosophy should be boldly\nand unsparingly scrutinised, the world would see that it had been under\na mistake respecting them.\n\nWe have made the experiment; and it has succeeded far beyond our most\nsanguine expectations. A chosen champion of the School has come forth\nagainst us. A specimen of his logical abilities now lies before us;\nand we pledge ourselves to show that no prebendary at an anti-Catholic\nmeeting, no true-blue baronet after the third bottle at a Pitt Club,\never displayed such utter incapacity of comprehending or answering an\nargument as appears in the speculations of this Utilitarian apostle;\nthat he does not understand our meaning, or Mr. Mill\u2019s meaning, or Mr.\nBentham\u2019s meaning, or his own meaning; and that the various parts of his\nsystem--if the name of system can be so misapplied--directly contradict\neach other.\n\nHaving shown this, we intend to leave him in undisputed possession of\nwhatever advantage he may derive from the last word. We propose only to\nconvince the public that there is nothing in the far-famed logic of the\nUtilitarians of which any plain man has reason to be afraid; that this\nlogic will impose on no man who dares to look it in the face.\n\nThe Westminster Reviewer begins by charging us with having\nmisrepresented an important part of Mr. Mill\u2019s argument. {94}\u201d_The first\nextract given by the Edinburgh Reviewers from the essay was an insulated\npassage, purposely despoiled of what had preceded and what followed.\nThe author had been observing, that \u2018some profound and benevolent\ninvestigators of human affairs had adopted the conclusion that, of all\nthe possible forms of government, absolute monarchy is the best.\u2019 This\nis what the reviewers have omitted at the beginning. He then adds, as\nin the extract, that \u2018Experience, if we look only at the outside of the\nfacts, appears to be divided on this subject;\u2019 there are Caligulas in\none place, and kings of Denmark in another. \u2018As the surface of history\naffords, therefore, no certain principle of decision, we must go beyond\nthe surface, and penetrate to the springs within.\u2019 This is what the\nreviewers have omitted at the end_.\u201d\n\nIt is perfectly true that our quotation from Mr. Mill\u2019s essay was, like\nmost other quotations, preceded and followed by something which we did\nnot quote. But, if the Westminster Reviewer means to say that either\nwhat preceded or what followed would, if quoted, have shown that we put\na wrong interpretation on the passage which was extracted, he does not\nunderstand Mr. Mill rightly.\n\nMr. Mill undoubtedly says that, \u201cas the surface of history affords\nno certain principle of decision, we must go beyond the surface, and\npenetrate to the springs within.\u201d But these expressions will admit of\nseveral interpretations. In what sense, then, does Mr. Mill use them?\nIf he means that we ought to inspect the facts with close attention,\nhe means what is rational. But, if he means that we ought to leave the\nfacts, with all their apparent inconsistencies, unexplained--to lay down\na general principle of the widest extent, and to deduce doctrines from\nthat principle by syllogistic argument, without pausing to consider\nwhether those doctrines be or be not consistent with the facts,--then he\nmeans what is irrational; and this is clearly what he does mean: for he\nimmediately begins, without offering {95}the least explanation of the\ncontradictory appearances which he has himself described, to go beyond\nthe surface in the following manner:--\u201cThat one human being will\ndesire to render the person and property of another subservient to his\npleasures, notwithstanding the pain or loss of pleasure which it may\noccasion to that other individual, is the foundation of government..\nThe desire of the object implies the desire of the power necessary to\naccomplish the object.\u201d And thus he proceeds to deduce consequences\ndirectly inconsistent with what he has himself stated respecting the\nsituation of the Danish people.\n\nIf we assume that the object of government is the preservation of the\npersons and property of men, then we must hold that, wherever that\nobject is attained, there the principle of good government exists. If\nthat object be attained both in Denmark and in the United States\nof America, then that which makes government good must exist, under\nwhatever disguise of title or name, both in Denmark and in the United\nStates. If men lived in fear for their lives and their possessions under\nNero and under the National Convention, it follows that the causes from\nwhich misgovernment proceeds existed both in the despotism of Rome and\nin the democracy of France. What, then, is that which, being found\nin Denmark and in the United States, and not being found in the Roman\nEmpire or under the administration of Robespierre, renders governments,\nwidely differing in their external form, practically good? Be it what it\nmay, it certainly is not that which Mr. Mill proves _a priori_ that it\nmust be,--a democratic representative assembly. For the Danes have no\nsuch assembly.\n\nThe latent principle of good government ought to {96}be tracked, as it\nappears to us, in the same manner in which Lord Bacon proposed to track\nthe principle of Heat. Make as large a list as possible, said that great\nman, of those bodies in which, however widely they differ from each\nother in appearance, we perceive heat; and as large a list as possible\nof those which, while they bear a general resemblance to hot bodies, are\nnevertheless not hot. Observe the different degrees of heat in different\nhot bodies; and then, if there be something which is found in all hot\nbodies, and of which the increase or diminution is always accompanied\nby an increase or diminution of heat, we may hope that we have really\ndiscovered the object of our search. In the same manner we ought to\nexamine the constitution of all those communities in which, under\nwhatever form, the blessings of good government are enjoyed; and to\ndiscover, if possible, in what they resemble each other, and in what\nthey all differ from those societies in which the object of government\nis not attained. By proceeding thus we shall arrive, not indeed at a\nperfect theory of government, but at a theory which will be of great\npractical use, and which the experience of every successive generation\nwill probably bring nearer and nearer to perfection.\n\nThe inconsistencies into which Mr. Mill has been betrayed by taking a\ndifferent course ought to serve as a warning to all speculators. Because\nDenmark is well governed by a monarch who, in appearance at least, is\nabsolute, Mr. Mill thinks that the only mode of arriving at the true\nprinciples of government is to deduce them _a priori_ from the laws of\nhuman nature. And what conclusion does he bring out by this deduction?\nWe will give it in his own words:--\u201cIn the grand discovery of modern\ntimes, the system of representation, {97}the solution of all the\ndifficulties, both speculative and practical, will perhaps be found. If\nit cannot, we seem to be forced upon the extraordinary conclusion that\ngood government is impossible.\u201d That the Danes are well governed without\na representation is a reason for deducing the theory of government\nfrom a general principle from which it necessarily follows that good\ngovernment is impossible without a representation! We have done our\nbest to put this question plainly; and we think that, if the Westminster\nReviewer will read over what we have written twice or thrice with\npatience and attention, some glimpse of our meaning will break in even\non his mind.\n\nSome objections follow, so frivolous and unfair, that we are almost\nashamed to notice them.\n\n\u201c_When it was said that there was in Denmark a balanced contest between\nthe king and the nobility, what was said was, that there was a balanced\ncontest, but it did not last. It was balanced till something put an end\nto the balance; and so is everything else That such a balance will not\nlast, is precisely what Mr. Mill had demonstrated_.\u201d\n\nMr. Mill, we positively affirm, pretends to demonstrate, not merely that\na balanced contest between the king and the aristocracy will not last,\nbut that the chances are as infinity to one against the existence of\nsuch a balanced contest. This is a mere question of fact. We quote the\nwords of the essay, and defy the Westminster Reviewer to impeach our\naccuracy:--\n\n\u201c_It seems impossible that such equality should ever exist. How is it to\nbe established? Or by what criterion is it to be ascertained? If there\nis no such criterion, it must, in all cases, be the result of chance. If\nso, the chances against it are as infinity to one_.\u201d\n\nThe Reviewer has confounded the division of power {98}with the balance\nor equal division of power. Mr. Mill says that the division of power\ncan never exist long, because it is next to impossible that the equal\ndivision of power should ever exist at all.\n\n\u201c_When Mr. Mill asserted that it cannot be for the interest of either\nthe monarchy or the aristocracy to combine with the democracy, it is\nplain he did not assert that if the monarchy and aristocracy were in\ndoubtful contest with each other, they would not, either of them, accept\nof the assistance of the democracy. He spoke of their taking the side\nof the democracy; not of their allowing the democracy to take side with\nthemselves_.\u201d\n\nIf Mr. Mill meant any thing, he must have meant this--that the monarchy\nand the aristocracy will never forget their enmity to the democracy in\ntheir enmity to each other.\n\n\u201c_The monarchy and aristocracy,\u201d says he, \u201chave all possible motives for\nendeavouring to obtain unlimited power over the persons and property\nof the community. The consequence is inevitable. They have all possible\nmotives for combining to obtain that power, and unless the people\nhave power enough to be a match for both they have no protection. The\nbalance, therefore, is a thing the existence of which upon the best\npossible evidence is to be regarded as impossible_.\u201d\n\nIf Mr. Mill meant only what the Westminster Reviewer conceives him to\nhave meant, his argument would leave the popular theory of the balance\nquite untouched. For it is the very theory of the balance that the help\nof the people will be solicited by the nobles when hard pressed by the\nking, and by the king when hard pressed by the nobles; and that, as the\nprice of giving alternate support to the crown and the aristocracy, they\nwill obtain something for themselves, as the Reviewer admits that they\nhave done in Denmark. If Mr. Mill admits this, he admits the only theory\nof the balance of which we ever heard--that {99}very theory which he has\ndeclared to be wild and chimerical. If he denies it, he is at issue with\nthe Westminster Reviewer as to the phenomena of the Danish government.\n\nWe now come to a more important passage. Our opponent has discovered, as\nhe conceives, a radical error which runs through our whole argument, and\nvitiates every part of it. We suspect that we shall spoil his triumph.\n\n\u201c_Mr. Mill never asserted \u2018that under no despotic government does any\nhuman being, except the tools of the sovereign possess more than the\nnecessaries of life, and that the most intense degree of terror is\nkept up by constant cruelty.\u2019 He said that absolute power leads to\nsuch results, \u2018by infallible sequence, where power over a community is\nattained, and nothing checks\u2019 The critic on the Mount never made a more\npalpable misquotation.\n\n\u201cThe spirit of this misquotation runs through every part of the reply\nof the Edinburgh Review that relates to the Essay on Government; and is\nrepeated in as many shapes as the Roman pork. The whole description of\n\u2018Mr. Mill\u2019s argument against despotism,\u2019--including the illustration\nfrom right-angled triangles and the square of the hypothenuse,--is\nfounded on this invention of saying what an author has not said, and\nleaving unsaid what he has_.\u201d\n\nWe thought, and still think, for reasons which our readers will soon\nunderstand, that we represented Mr. Mill\u2019s principle quite fairly, and\naccording to the rule of law and common sense, _ut res magis valeat guam\npereat_. Let us, however, give him all the advantage of the explanation\ntendered by his advocate, and see what he will gain by it.\n\nThe Utilitarian doctrine then is, not that despots and aristocracies\nwill always plunder and oppress the people to the last point, but that\nthey will do so if nothing checks them.\n\nIn the first place, it is quite clear that the doctrine {100}thus stated\nis of no use at all, unless the force of the checks be estimated. The\nfirst law of motion is, that a ball once projected will fly on to all\neternity with undiminished velocity, unless something checks. The fact\nis, that a ball stops in a few seconds after proceeding a few yards with\nvery variable motion. Every man would wring his child\u2019s neck and pick\nhis friend\u2019s pocket if nothing checked him. In fact, the principle thus\nstated means only that governments will oppress unless they abstain\nfrom oppressing. This is quite true, we own. But we might with equal\npropriety turn the maxim round, and lay it down, as the fundamental\nprinciple of government, that all rulers will govern well, unless some\nmotive interferes to keep them from doing so.\n\nIf there be, as the Westminster Reviewer acknowledges, certain checks\nwhich, under political institutions the most arbitrary in seeming,\nsometimes produce good government, and almost always place some\nrestraint on the rapacity and cruelty of the powerful, surely the\nknowledge of those checks, of their nature, and of their effect, must\nbe a most important part of the science of government. Does Mr. Mill say\nany thing upon this part of the subject? Not one word.\n\nThe line of defence now taken by the Utilitarians evidently degrades Mr.\nMill\u2019s theory of government from the rank which, till within the last\nfew months, was claimed for it by the whole sect. It is no longer a\npractical system, fit to guide statesmen, but merely a barren exercise\nof the intellect, like those propositions in mechanics in which the\neffect of friction and of the resistance of the air is left out of\nthe question; and which, therefore, though correctly deduced from the\npremises, are in practice utterly false. For, if Mr. {101}Mill professes\nto prove only that absolute monarchy and aristocracy are pernicious\nwithout checks,--if he allows that there are checks which produce good\ngovernment even under absolute monarchs and aristocracies,--and if he\nomits to tell us what those checks are, and what effects they produce\nunder different circumstances,--he surely gives us no information which\ncan be of real utility.\n\nBut the fact is,--and it is most extraordinary that the Westminster\nReviewer should not have perceived it,--that, if once the existence\nof checks on the abuse of power in monarchies and aristocracies be\nadmitted, the whole of Mr. Milks theory falls to the ground at once.\nThis is so palpable, that, in spite of the opinion of the Westminster\nReviewer, we must acquit Mr. Mill of having intended to make such an\nadmission. We still think that the words, \u201cwhere power over a community\nis attained, and nothing checks,\u201d must not be understood to mean that\nunder a monarchical or aristocratical form of government there can\nreally be any check which can in any degree mitigate the wretchedness of\nthe people.\n\nFor all possible checks may be classed under two general heads,--want\nof will, and want of power. Now, if a king or an aristocracy, having\nthe power to plunder and oppress the people, can want the will, all Mr.\nMill\u2019s principles of human nature must be pronounced unsound. He tells\nus, \u201cthat the desire to possess unlimited power of inflicting pain upon\nothers, is an inseparable part of human nature;\u201d and that a \u201cchain of\ninference, close and strong to a most unusual degree,\u201d leads to the\nconclusion that those who possess this power will always desire to use\nit. It is plain, therefore, that, if Mr. Mill\u2019s principles be sound, the\n{102}check on a monarchical or an aristocratical government will not be\nthe want of will to oppress.\n\nIf a king or an aristocracy, having, as Mr. Mill tells us that they\nalways must have, the will to oppress the people with the utmost\nseverity, want the power, then the government, by whatever name it may\nbe called, must be virtually a mixed government or a pure democracy: for\nit is quite clear that the people possess some power in the state--some\nmeans of influencing the nominal rulers. But Mr. Mill has demonstrated\nthat no mixed government can possibly exist, or at least that such a\ngovernment must come to a very speedy end; therefore, every country in\nwhich people not in the service of the government have, for any length\nof time, been permitted to accumulate more than the bare means of\nsubsistence must be a pure democracy. That is to say, France before the\nrevolution, and Ireland during the last century, were pure democracies.\nPrussia, Austria, Russia, all the governments of the civilised world,\nare pure democracies. If this be not a _reductio ad absurdum_, we do not\nknow what is.\n\nThe errors of Mr. Mill proceed principally from that radical vice in his\nreasoning which, in our last number, we described in the words of Lord\nBacon. The Westminster Reviewer is unable to discover the meaning of our\nextracts from the _Novum Organum_, and expresses himself as follows:\n\n\u201c_The quotations from Lord Bacon are misapplications, such as anybody\nmay make to any thing he dislikes. There is no more resemblance between\npain, pleasure, motives, &c., and substantia, generation corrupting\nelementum, materia,--than between lines, angles, magnitudes, &c., and\nthe same_.\u201d\n\nIt would perhaps be unreasonable to expect that a {103}writer who cannot\nunderstand his own English should understand Lord Bacon\u2019s Latin. We will\ntherefore attempt to make our meaning clearer.\n\nWhat Lord Bacon blames in the schoolmen of his time is this,--that\nthey reasoned syllogistically on words which had not been defined with\nprecision; such as moist, dry, generation, corruption, and so forth.\nMr. Mill\u2019s error is exactly of the same kind. He reasons syllogistically\nabout power, pleasure, and pain, without attaching any definite notion\nto any one of those words. There is no more resemblance, says the\nWestminster Reviewer, between pain and substantia than between pain and\na line or an angle. By his permission, in the very point to which\nLord Bacon\u2019s observation applies, Mr. Mill\u2019s subjects do resemble the\n_substantia_ and _elementum_ of the schoolmen and differ from the lines\nand magnitudes of Euclid. We can reason _a priori_ on mathematics,\nbecause we can define with an exactitude which precludes all possibility\nof confusion. If a mathematician were to admit the least laxity into his\nnotions, if he were to allow himself to be deluded by the vague sense\nwhich words bear in popular use, or by the aspect of an ill-drawn\ndiagram, if he were to forget in his reasonings that a point was\nindivisible, or that the definition of a line excluded breadth,\nthere would be no end to his blunders. The schoolmen tried to reason\nmathematically about things which had not been, and perhaps could not\nbe, defined with mathematical accuracy. We know the result. Mr. Mill has\nin our time attempted to do the same. He talks of power, for example, as\nif the meaning of the word power were as determinate as the meaning of\nthe word circle. But, when we analyse his speculations, we find that his\nnotion of power is, {104}in the words of Bacon, \u201c_phantastica et male\nterminata._\u201d\n\nThere are two senses in which we may use the word _power_ and those\nwords which denote the various distributions of power, as, for example,\n_monarchy_;--the one sense popular and superficial,--the other more,\nscientific and accurate. Mr. Mill, since he chose to reason _a priori_,\nought to have clearly pointed out in which sense he intended to use\nwords of this kind, and to have adhered inflexibly to the sense on which\nhe fixed. Instead of doing this, he flies backwards and forwards from\nthe one sense to the other, and brings out conclusions at last which\nsuit neither.\n\nThe state of those two communities to which he has himself referred--the\nkingdom of Denmark and the empire of Rome--may serve to illustrate our\nmeaning. Looking merely at the surface of things, we should call Denmark\na despotic monarchy, and the Roman world, in the first century after\nChrist, an aristocratical republic. Caligula was, in theory, nothing\nmore than a magistrate elected by the senate, and subject to the senate.\nThat irresponsible dignity which, in the most limited monarchies of our\ntime, is ascribed to the person of the sovereign never belonged to the\nearlier C\u00e6sars. The sentence of death which the great council of the\ncommonwealth passed on Nero was strictly according to the theory of the\nconstitution. Let, in fact, the power of the Roman emperors approached\nnearer to absolute dominion than that of any prince in modern Europe.\nOn the other hand, the King of Denmark, in theory the most despotic of\nprinces, would in practice find it most perilous to indulge in cruelty\nand licentiousness. Nor is there, we believe, at the present moment a\nsingle sovereign in our x {105}part of the world who has so much real\npower over the lives of his subjects as Robespierre, while he lodged at\na Handler\u2019s and dined at a restaurateur\u2019s, exercised over the lives of\nthose whom he called his fellow-citizens.\n\nMr. Mill and the Westminster Reviewer seem to agree that there cannot\nlong exist in any society a division of power between a monarch, an\naristocracy, and the people, or between any two of them. However the\npower be distributed, one of the three parties will, according to them,\ninevitably monopolise the whole. Now, what is here meant by power? If\nMr. Mill speaks of the external semblance of power,--of power recognised\nby the theory of the constitution,--he is palpably wrong. In England,\nfor example, we have had for ages the name and form of a mixed\ngovernment, if nothing more. Indeed, Mr. Mill himself owns that there\nare appearances which have given colour to the theory of the balance,\nthough he maintains that these appearances are delusive. But, if he uses\nthe word power in a deeper and philosophical sense, he is, if possible,\nstill more in the wrong than on the former supposition. For, if he had\nconsidered in what the power of one human being over other human beings\nmust ultimately consist, he would have perceived, not only that there\nare mixed governments in the world, but that all the governments in the\nworld, and all the governments which can even be conceived as existing\nin the world, are virtually mixed.\n\nIf a king possessed the lamp of Aladdin,--if he governed by the help\nof a genius who carried away the daughters and wives of his subjects\nthrough the air to the royal _Parc-aux-cerfs_, and turned into stone\nevery man who wagged a finger against his majesty\u2019s government, there\nwould indeed be an unmixed despotism. {106}But, fortunately, a ruler can\nbe gratified only by means of his subjects. His power depends on their\nobedience; and, as any three or four of them are more than a match for\nhim by himself, he can only enforce the unwilling obedience of some by\nmeans of the willing obedience of others.\n\nTake any of those who are popularly called absolute princes--Napoleon\nfor example. Could Napoleon have walked through Paris, cutting off the\nhead of one person in every house which he passed? Certainly not without\nthe assistance of an army. If not, why not? Because the people had\nsufficient physical power to resist him, and would have put forth that\npower in defence of their lives and of the lives of their children.\nIn other words, there was a portion of power in the democracy under\nNapoleon. Napoleon might probably have indulged himself in such an\natrocious freak of power if his army would have seconded him. But, if\nhis army had taken part with the people, he would have found himself\nutterly helpless; and, even if they had obeyed his orders against the\npeople, they would not have suffered him to decimate their own body. In\nother words, there was a portion of power in the hands of a minority of\nthe people, that is to say, in the hands of an aristocracy, under the\nreign of Napoleon.\n\nTo come nearer home,--Mr. Mill tells us that it is a mistake to imagine\nthat the English government is mixed. He holds, we suppose, with all the\npoliticians of the Utilitarian school, that it is purely aristocratical.\nThere certainly is an aristocracy in England; and we are afraid that\ntheir power is greater than it ought to be. They have power enough to\nkeep up the game-laws and corn-laws; but they have not power enough to\nsubject the bodies of men of the lowest class to wanton {107}outrage at\ntheir pleasure. Suppose that they were to make a law that any gentleman\nof two thousand a-year might have a day-labourer or a pauper flogged\nwith a cat-of-nine-tails whenever the whim might take him. It is\nquite clear that the first day on which such flagellation should be\nadministered would be the last day of the English aristocracy. In this\npoint, and in many other points which might be named, the commonalty in\nour island enjoy a security quite as complete as if they exercised the\nright of universal suffrage. We say, therefore, that the English people\nhave in their own hands a sufficient guarantee that in some points the\naristocracy will conform to their wishes;--in other words, they have\na certain portion of power over the aristocracy. Therefore the English\ngovernment is mixed.\n\nWherever a king or an oligarchy refrains from the last extremity of\nrapacity and tyranny through fear of the resistance of the people,\nthere the constitution, whatever it may be called, is in some measure\ndemocratical.\n\nThe admixture of democratic power may be slight. It may be much slighter\nthan it ought to be; but some admixture there is. Wherever a numerical\nminority, by means of superior wealth or intelligence, of political\nconcert, or of military discipline, exercises a greater influence on\nthe society than any other equal number of persons,--there, whatever the\nform of government may be called, a mixture of aristocracy does in fact\nexist. And, wherever a single man, from whatever cause, is so necessary\nto the community, or to any portion of it, that he possesses more\npower than any other man, there is a mixture of monarchy. This is\nthe philosophical classification of governments: and if we use this\nclassification we shall find, not only that {108}there are mixed\ngovernments, but that all governments are, and must always be, mixed.\nBut we may safely challenge Mr. Mill to give any definition of power, or\nto make any classification of governments, which shall bear him ont in\nhis assertion that a lasting division of authority is impracticable.\n\nIt is evidently on the real distribution of power, and not on names and\nbadges, that the happiness of nations must depend. The representative\nsystem, though doubtless a great and precious discovery in politics, is\nonly one of the many modes in which the democratic part of the community\ncan efficiently check the governing few. That certain men have been\nchosen as deputies of the people,--that there is a piece of paper\nstating such deputies to possess certain powers,--these circumstances\nin themselves constitute no security for good government. Such a\nconstitution nominally existed in France; while, in fact, an oligarchy\nof committees and clubs trampled at once on the electors and the\nelected. Representation is a very happy contrivance for enabling large\nbodies of men to exert their power with less risk of disorder than there\nwould otherwise be. But, assuredly, it does not of itself give power.\nUnless a representative assembly is sure of being supported in the\nlast resort by the physical strength of large masses who have spirit\nto defend the constitution and sense to defend it in concert, the mob of\nthe town in which it meets may overawe it;--the howls of the listeners\nin its gallery may silence its deliberations;--an able and daring\nindividual may dissolve it. And, if that sense and that spirit of\nwhich we speak be diffused through a society, then, even without a\nrepresentative assembly, that society will enjoy many of the blessings\nof good government. {109}Which is the better able to defend himself as a\nstrong man with nothing but his fists, or a paralytic cripple encumbered\nwith a sword which he cannot lift? Such, we believe, is the difference\nbetween Denmark and some new republics in which the constitutional forms\nof the United States have been most sedulously imitated.\n\nLook at the Long Parliament on the day on which Charles came to seize\nthe five members: and look at it again on the day when Cromwell stamped\nwith his foot on its floor. On which day was its apparent power the\ngreater? On which day was its real power the less? Nominally subject, it\nwas able to defy the sovereign. Nominally sovereign, it was turned out\nof doors by its servant.\n\nConstitutions are in politics what paper money is in commerce. They\nafford great facilities and conveniences. But we must not attribute to\nthem that value which really belongs to what they represent. They\nare not power, but symbols of power, and will, in an emergency, prove\naltogether useless unless the power for which they stand be forthcoming.\nThe real power by which the community is governed is made up of all the\nmeans which all its members possess of giving pleasure or pain to each\nother.\n\nGreat light may be thrown on the nature of a circulating medium by the\nphenomena of a state of barter. And in the same manner it may be useful\nto those who wish to comprehend the nature and operation of the outward\nsigns of power to look at communities in which no such signs exist;\nfor example, at the great community of nations. There we find nothing\nanalogous to a constitution: but do we not find a government? We do in\nfact find government in its purest, and simplest, and most intelligible\nform. We see one portion {110}of power acting directly on another\nportion of power. We see a certain police kept up; the weak to a certain\ndegree protected; the strong to a certain degree restrained. We see the\nprinciple of the balance in constant operation. We see the whole system\nsometimes undisturbed by any attempt at encroachment for twenty or\nthirty years at a time; and all this is produced without a legislative\nassembly, or an executive magistracy--without tribunals--without any\ncode which deserves the name; solely by the mutual hopes and fears of\nthe various members of the federation. In the community of nations,\nthe first appeal is to physical force. In communities of men, forms\nof government serve to put off that appeal, and often render it\nunnecessary. But it is still open to the oppressed or the ambitious.\n\nOf course, we do not mean to deny that a form of government will, after\nit has existed for a long time, materially affect the real distribution\nof power throughout the community. This is because those who administer\na government, with their dependents, form a compact and disciplined\nbody, which, acting methodically and in concert, is more powerful than\nany other equally numerous body which is inferior in organisation.\nThe power of rulers is not, as superficial observers sometimes seem\nto think, a thing _sui generis_. It is exactly similar in kind, though\ngenerally superior in amount, to that of any set of conspirators who\nplot to overthrow it. We have seen in our time the most extensive and\nthe best organised conspiracy that ever existed--a conspiracy which\npossessed all the elements of real power in so great a degree that it\nwas able to cope with a strong government, and to triumph over it--the\nCatholic Association. An Utilitarian {111}would tell us, we suppose,\nthat the Irish Catholics had no portion of political power whatever on\nthe first day of the late Session of Parliament.\n\nLet us really go beyond the surface of facts: let us, in the sound sense\nof the words, penetrate to the springs within; and the deeper we go the\nmore reason shall we find to smile at those theorists who hold that the\nsole hope of the human race is in a rule-of-three sum and a ballot-box.\n\nWe must now return to the Westminster Reviewer. The following paragraph\nis an excellent specimen of his peculiar mode of understanding and\nanswering arguments.\n\n\u201c_The reply to the argument against \u2018saturation,\u2019 supplies its own\nanswer. The reason why it is of no use to try to \u2018saturate\u2019 is precisely\nwhat the Edinburgh Reviewers have suggested,--\u2018that there is no limit\nto the number of thieves\u2019 There are the thieves, and the thieves\u2019\ncousins,--with their men-servants, their maid-servants, and their little\nones, to the fortieth generation. It is true, that \u2018a man cannot become\na king or a member of the aristocracy whenever he chooses:\u2019 but if there\nis to be no limit to the depredators except their own inclination to\nincrease and multiply, the situation of those who are to suffer is as\nwretched as it needs be. It is impossible to define what are \u2018corporal\npleasures.\u2019 A Duchess of Cleveland was a \u2018corporal pleasure.\u2019 The\nmost disgraceful period in the history of any nation--that of the\nRestoration--presents an instance of the length to which it is possible\nto go in an attempt to \u2018saturate\u2019 with pleasures of this kind._\u201d\n\nTo reason with such a writer is like talking to a deaf man who catches\nat a stray word, makes answer beside the mark, and is led further and\nfurther into error by every attempt to explain. Yet, that our readers\nmay fully appreciate the abilities of the new philosophers, we shall\ntake the trouble to go over some of our ground again.\n\nMr. Mill attempts to prove that there is no point of {112}saturation\nwith the objects of human desire. He then takes it for granted that men\nhave no objects of desire but those which can be obtained only at\nthe expense of the happiness of others. Hence he infers that absolute\nmonarchs and aristocracies will necessarily oppress and pillage the\npeople to a frightful extent.\n\nWe answered in substance thus. There are two kinds of objects of desire;\nthose which give mere bodily pleasure, and those which please through\nthe medium of associations. Objects of the former class, it is true, a\nman cannot obtain without depriving somebody else of a share. But then\nwith these every man is soon satisfied. A king or an aristocracy\ncannot spend any very large portion of the national wealth on the mere\npleasures of sense. With the pleasures which belong to us as reasoning\nand imaginative beings we are never satiated, it is true: but then, on\nthe other hand, many of those pleasures can be obtained without injury\nto any person, and some of them can be obtained only by doing good to\nothers.\n\nThe Westminster Reviewer, in his former attack on us, laughed at us foil\nsaying that a king or an aristocracy could not be easily satiated with\nthe pleasures of sense, and asked why the same course was not tried with\nthieves. We were not a little surprised at so silly an objection from\nthe pen, as we imagined, of Mr. Bentham. We returned, however, a very\nsimple answer. There is no limit to the number of thieves. Any man who\nchooses can steal: but a man cannot become a member of the aristocracy\nor a king whenever he chooses. To satiate one thief, is to tempt twenty\nother people to steal. But by satiating one king or five hundred nobles\nwith bodily pleasures we do not produce more kings or more nobles. The\nanswer {113}of the Westminster Reviewer we have quoted above; and it\nwill amply repay our readers for the trouble of examining it. We never\nread any passage which indicated notions so vague and confused. The\nnumber of the thieves, says our Utilitarian, is not limited. For there\nare the dependents and friends of the king and of the nobles. Is it\npossible that he should not perceive that this comes under a different\nhead? The bodily pleasures which a man in power dispenses among his\ncreatures are bodily pleasures as respects his creatures, no doubt.\nBut the pleasure which he derives from bestowing them is not a bodily\npleasure. It is one of those pleasures which belong to him as a\nreasoning and imaginative being. No man of common understanding can\nhave failed to perceive that, when we said that a king or an aristocracy\nmight easily be supplied to satiety with sensual Pleasures, we were\nspeaking of sensual pleasures directly enjoyed by themselves. But \u201cit is\nimpossible,\u201d says the Reviewer, \u201cto define what are corporal pleasures.\u201d\n Our brother would indeed, we suspect, find it a difficult task; nor, if\nwe are to judge of his genius for classification from the specimen which\nimmediately follows, would we advise him to make the attempt. \u201cA Duchess\nof Cleveland was a corporal pleasure.\u201d And to this wise remark is\nappended a note, setting forth that Charles the Second gave to the\nDuchess of Cleveland the money which he ought to have spent on the war\nwith Holland. We scarcely know how to answer a man who unites so much\npretension to so much ignorance. There are, among the many Utilitarians\nwho talk about Hume, Condillac, and Hartley, a few who have read\nthose writers. Let the Reviewer ask one of these what he thinks on\nthe subject. We shall not undertake to whip {114}a pupil of so little\npromise through his first course of metaphysics. We shall, therefore,\nonly say--leaving him to guess and wonder what we can mean--that, in\nour opinion, the Duchess of Cleveland was not a merely corporal\npleasure,--that the feeling which leads a prince to prefer one woman to\nall others, and to lavish the wealth of kingdoms on her, is a feeling\nwhich can only be explained by the law of association.\n\nBut we are tired, and even more ashamed than tired, of exposing these\nblunders. The whole article is of a piece. One passage, however, we must\nselect, because it contains a very gross misrepresentation.\n\n\u201c_They never alluded to the French Revolution for the purpose of proving\nthat the poor were inclined to rob the rich.\u2019 They only said, \u2018as soon\nas the poor again began to compare their cottages and salads with the\nhotels and banquets of the rich, there would have been another scramble\nfor property, another general confiscation,\u2019 &c._\u201d\n\nWe said that, _if Mr. Mill\u2019s principles of human nature were correct_,\nthere would have been another scramble for property, and another\nconfiscation. We particularly pointed this out in our last article. We\nshowed the Westminster Reviewer that he had misunderstood us. We dwelt\nparticularly on the condition which was introduced into our statement.\nWe said that we had not given, and did not mean to give, any opinion\nof our own. And, after this, the Westminster Reviewer thinks proper to\nrepeat his former misrepresentation, without taking the least notice of\nthat qualification to which we, in the most marked manner, called his\nattention.\n\nWe hasten on to the most curious part of the article under our\nconsideration--the defence of the \u201cgreatest happiness principle.\u201d The\nReviewer charges us with having quite mistaken its nature. {115}\u201d_All\nthat they ave established is, that they do not understand it. Instead\nof the truism of the Whigs, \u2018that the greatest happiness is the greatest\nhappiness,\u2019 what Mr. Bentham had demonstrated, or at all events had laid\nInch Inundations that there was no trouble in demonstrating, was, that\nthe greatest happiness of the individual was in the long run to be\nobtained by pursuing the greatest happiness of the aggregate_.\u201d\n\nIt was distinctly admitted by the Westminster Reviewer, as we remarked\nin our last article, that he could give no answer to the question,--why\ngovernments should attempt to produce the greatest possible happiness?\nThe Reviewer replies thus:--\n\n\u201c_Nothing of the kind will be admitted at all. In the passage thus\nselected to be tacked to the other, the question started was, concerning\n\u2018the object of government;\u2019 in which government was spoken of as an\noperation, not as anything that is capable of feeling pleasure or\npain. In this sense it is true enough, that ought is not predicable of\ngovernments._\u201d\n\nWe will quote, once again, the passage which we quoted in our last\nNumber; and we really hope that our brother critic will feel something\nlike shame while he peruses it.\n\n\u201c_The real answer appeared to be, that men at large ought not to allow\na government to afflict them with more evil or less good, than they\ncan help. What a government ought to do is a mysterious and searching\nquestion which those may answer who know what it means; but what other\nmen ought to do is a question of no mystery at all. The word ought,\nif it means anything, must have reference to some kind of interest or\nmotives; and what interest a government has in doing right, when\nit happens to be interested in doing wrong, is a question for the\nschoolmen. The fact appears to be that ought is not predicable of\ngovernments. The question is not, why governments are bound not to do\nthis or that, but why other men should let them if they can help it. The\npoint is not to determine why the lion should not eat sheep, but why\nmen should not eat their own mutton if they can._\u201d {116}We defy the\nWestminster Reviewer to reconcile this passage with the \u201cgeneral\nhappiness principle\u201d as he now states it. He tells us that he meant by\ngovernment, not the people invested with the powers of government, but a\nmere _operation_ incapable of feeling pleasure or pain. We say, that\nhe meant the people invested with the powers of government, and nothing\nelse. It is true that ought is not predicable of an operation. But\nwho would ever dream of raising any question about the duties of an\noperation? What did the Reviewer mean by saying, that a government could\nnot be interested in doing right because it was interested in doing\nwrong? Can an operation be interested in either? And what did he mean by\nhis comparison about the lion? Is a lion an operation incapable of pain\nor pleasure? And what did he mean by the expression, \u201cother men,\u201d so\nobviously opposed to the word \u201cgovernment\u201d? But let the public judge\nbetween us. It is superfluous to argue a point so clear.\n\nThe Reviewer does indeed seem to feel that his expressions cannot be\nexplained away, and attempts to shuffle out of the difficulty by owning,\nthat \u201cthe double meaning of the word government was not got clear of\nwithout confusion.\u201d He has now, at all events, he assures us, made\nhimself master of Mr. Bentham\u2019s philosophy. The real and genuine\n\u201cgreatest happiness principle\u201d is, that the greatest happiness of every\nindividual is identical with the greatest happiness of society; and all\nother \u201cgreatest happiness principles\u201d whatever are counterfeits. \u201cThis,\u201d\n says he, \u201cis the spirit of Mr. Bentham\u2019s principle; and if there is\nanything opposed to it in any former statement it may be corrected by\nthe present.\u201d\n\nAssuredly, if a fair and honourable opponent had, {117}in discussing a\nquestion so abstruse as that concerning the origin of moral obligation,\nmade some unguarded admission inconsistent with the spirit of his\ndoctrines, we should not be inclined to triumph over him. But no\ntenderness is due to a writer who, in the very act of confessing his\nblunders, insults those by whom his blunders have been detected,\nand accuses them of misunderstanding what, in pet, he has himself\nmis-stated.\n\nThe whole of this transaction illustrates excellently the real character\nof this sect. A paper comes forth, professing to contain a full\ndevelopement of the \u201cgreatest happiness principle,\u201d with the latest\nimprovements of Mr. Bentham. The writer boasts that his article has\nthe honour of being the announcement and the organ of this wonderful\ndiscovery, which is to make \u201cthe bones of sages and patriots stir\nwithin their tombs.\u201d This \u201cmagnificent principle\u201d is then stated thus:\nMankind ought to pursue their greatest happiness. But there are persons\nwhose interest is opposed to the greatest happiness of mankind. _Ought_\nis not predicable of such persons. For the word _ought_ has no meaning\nunless it be used with reference to some interest.\n\nWe answered, with much more lenity than we should have shown to such\nnonsense, had it not proceeded, as we supposed, from Mr. Bentham, that\ninterest was synonymous with greatest happiness; and that, therefore, if\nthe word ought has no meaning, unless used with reference to interest,\nthen, to say that mankind ought to pursue their greatest happiness, is\nsimply to say, that the greatest happiness is the greatest happiness;\nthat every individual pursues his own happiness; that either what he\nthinks is happiness must coincide with the greatest happiness of\nsociety or not; that, if what he thinks his happiness coincides with\nthe greatest {118}happiness of society, he will attempt to promote the\ngreatest happiness of society whether he ever heard of the \u201cgreatest\nhappiness principle\u201d or not; and that, by the admission of the\nWestminster Reviewer, if his happiness is inconsistent with the greatest\nhappiness of society, there is no reason why he should promote the\ngreatest happiness of society. Now, that there are individuals who think\nthat for their happiness which is not for the greatest happiness of\nsociety is evident. The Westminster Reviewer allowed that some of these\nindividuals were in the right; and did not pretend to give any reason\nwhich could induce any one of them to think himself in the wrong. So\nthat the \u201cmagnificent principle\u201d turned out to be, either a truism or\na contradiction in terms; either this maxim--\u201cDo what you do;\u201d or this\nmaxim, \u201cDo what you cannot do.\u201d\n\nThe Westminster Reviewer had the wit to see that he could not defend\nthis palpable nonsense; but, instead of manfully owning that he had\nmisunderstood the whole nature of the \u201cgreatest happiness principle\u201d in\nthe summer, and had obtained new light during the autumn, he attempts\nto withdraw the former principle unobserved, and to substitute another,\ndirectly opposed to it, in its place; clamouring all the time against\nour unfairness, like one who, while changing the carol diverts the\nattention of the table from his sleight of hand by vociferating charges\nof foul play against other people.\n\nThe \u201cgreatest happiness principle\u201d for the present quarter is then\nthis,--that every individual will best promote his own happiness in\nthis world, religious considerations being left out of the question,\nby promoting the greatest happiness of the whole species. And\nthis principle, we are told, holds good with respect to kings and\naristocracies as well as with other people. {119}\u201d_It is certain that\nthe individual operators in any government, if they were thoroughly\nintelligent and entered into a perfect calculation of all existing\nchances, would seek lor their own happiness in the promotion of the\ngeneral; which brings them, if they knew it, under Mr. Bentham\u2019s rule.\nThe mistake of supposing the contrary, lies in confounding criminals\nwho have had the luck to escape punishment with those who have the\nrisk still before them. Suppose, for instance, a member of the House of\nCommons were at this moment to debate within himself, whether it would\nbe for his ultimate happiness to begin, according to his ability, to\nmisgovern. If he could be sure of being as lucky as some that are dead\nand gone, there might be difficulty in finding him an answer. But he is\nnot sure; and never can be, till he is dead. He does not know that he\nis not close upon the moment when misgovernment such as he is tempted to\ncontemplate, will be made a terrible example of. It is not fair to pick\nout the instance of the thief that has died unhanged. The question is,\nwhether thieving is at this moment an advisable trade to begin with all\nthe possibilities of hanging not got over? This is the spirit of Mr.\nBentham\u2019s principle; and if there is any thing opposed to it in any\nformer statement, it may be corrected by the present_.\u201d\n\nWe hope that we have now at last got to the real \u201cmagnificent\nprinciple,\u201d--to the principle which is really to make \u201cthe hones of the\nsages and patriots stir.\u201d What effect it may produce on the bones of\nthe dead we shall not pretend to decide; but we are sure that it will do\nvery little for the happiness of the living.\n\nIn the first place, nothing is more certain than this, that the\nUtilitarian theory of government, as developed in Mr. Mill\u2019s Essay and\nin all the other works on the subject which have been put forth by the\nsect, rests on these two principles,--that men follow their interest,\nand that the interest of individuals may be, and in fact perpetually\nis, opposed to the interest of society. Unless these two principles be\ngranted, Mr. Mill\u2019s Essay does not contain one sound sentence. All his\narguments {120}against monarchy and aristocracy, all his arguments in\nfavour of democracy, nay, the very argument by which he shows that\nthere is any necessity for having government at all, must be rejected as\nutterly worthless.\n\nThis is so palpable that even the Westminster Reviewer, though not the\nmost clear-sighted of men, could not help seeing it. Accordingly, he\nattempts to guard himself against the objection, after the manner of\nsuch reasoners, by committing two blunders instead of one. \u201cAll this,\u201d\n says he, \u201conly shows that the members of a government would do well if\nthey were all-wise;\u201d and he proceeds to tell us that, as rulers are not\nall-wise, they will invariably act against this principle wherever they\ncan, so that the democratical checks will still be necessary to produce\ngood government.\n\nNo form which human folly takes is so richly and exquisitely laughable\nas the spectacle of an Utilitarian in a dilemma. What earthly good can\nthere be in a principle upon which no man will act until he is allwise?\nA certain most important doctrine, we are told, has been demonstrated so\nclearly that it ought to be the foundation of the science of government.\nAnd yet the whole frame of government is to be constituted exactly as\nif this fundamental doctrine were false, and on the supposition that no\nhuman being will ever act as if he believed it to be true!\n\nThe whole argument of the Utilitarians in favour of universal suffrage\nproceeds on the supposition that even the rudest and most uneducated men\ncannot, for any length of time, be deluded into acting against their\nown true interest. Yet now they tell us that, in all aristocratical\ncommunities, the higher and more educated class will, not occasionally,\nbut invariably, act against {121}its own interest. Now, the only use of\nproving anything, as far as we can see, is that people may believe it.\nTo say that a man does what he believes to be against his happiness is\na contradiction in terms. If, therefore, government and laws are to be\nconstituted on the supposition on which Mr. Mill\u2019s Essay is founded,\nthat all individuals will, whenever they have power over others put\ninto their hands, act in opposition to the general happiness, then\ngovernment, and laws must be constituted on the supposition that no\nindividual believes, or ever will believe, his own happiness to be\nidentical with the happiness of society. That is to say, government and\nlaws are to be constituted on the supposition that no human being will\never be satisfied by Mr. Bentham\u2019s proof of his \u201cgreatest happiness\nprinciple,\u201d--a supposition which may be true enough, but which says\nlittle, we think, for the principle in question.\n\nBut where has this principle been demonstrated? We are curious, we\nconfess, to see this demonstration which is to change the face of the\nworld and yet is to convince nobody. The most amusing circumstance is\nthat the Westminster Reviewer himself does not seem to know whether the\nprinciple has been demonstrated or not. \u201cMr. Bentham,\u201d he says, \u201chas\ndemonstrated it, or at all events has laid such foundations that there\nis no trouble in demonstrating it.\u201d Surely it is rather strange that\nsuch a matter should be left in doubt. The Reviewer proposed, in his\nformer article, a slight verbal emendation in the statement of the\nprinciple; he then announced that the principle had received its last\nimprovement; and gloried in the circumstance that the Westminster Review\nhad been selected as the organ of that improvement. Did it never occur\nto {122}him that one slight improvement to a doctrine is to prove it?\n\nMr. Bentham has not demonstrated the \u201cgreatest happiness principle,\u201d as\nnow stated. He is far too wise a man to think of demonstrating any\nsuch thing. In those sections of his _Introduction to the Principles of\nMorals and Legislation_, to which the Reviewer refers us in his note,\nthere is not a word of the kind. Mr. Bentham says, most truly, that\nthere are no occasions in which a man has not _some_ motives for\nconsulting the happiness of other men; and he proceeds to set forth what\nthose motives are--sympathy on all occasions, and the love of reputation\non most occasions. This is the very doctrine which we have been\nmaintaining against Mr. Mill and the Westminster Reviewer. The principal\ncharge which we brought against Mr. Mill was, that those motives to\nwhich Mr. Bentham ascribes so much influence were quite left out of\nconsideration in his theory. The Westminster Reviewer, in the very\narticle now before us, abuses us for saying, in the spirit, and almost\nin the words of Mr. Bentham, that \u201cthere is a certain check to the\nrapacity and cruelty of men in their desire of the good opinion of\nothers.\u201d But does this principle, in which we fully agree with Mr.\nBentham, go the length of the new \u201cgreatest happiness principle?\u201d The\nquestion is, not whether men have _some_ motives for promoting the\ngreatest happiness, but whether the _stronger_ motives be those which\nimpel them to promote the greatest happiness. That this would always be\nthe case if men knew their own worldly interests is the assertion of\nthe Reviewer. As he expresses some doubt whether Mr. Bentham has\ndemonstrated this or not, we would advise him to set the point at rest\nby giving his own demonstration. {123}The Reviewer has not attempted to\ngive a general confirmation of the \u201cgreatest happiness principle;\u201d but\nhe has tried to prove that it holds good in one or two particular cases.\nAnd even in those particular cases he has utterly failed. A man, says\nhe, who calculated the chances fairly would perceive that it would be\nfor his greatest happiness to abstain from stealing; for a thief runs a\ngreater risk of being hanged than an honest man.\n\nIt would have been wise, we think, in the Westminster Reviewer, before\nhe entered on a discussion of this sort, to settle in what human\nhappiness consists. Each of the ancient sects of philosophy held some\ntenet on this subject which served for a distinguishing badge. The\n_summum bonum_ of the Utilitarians, as far as we can Judge from the\npassage which we are now considering, is the not being hanged.\n\nThat it is an unpleasant thing to be hanged, we most willingly concede\nto our brother. But that the whole question of happiness or misery\nresolves itself into this single point, we cannot so easily admit. We\nmust look at the thing purchased as well as the price paid for it. A\nthief, assuredly, runs a greater risk of being hanged than a labourer;\nand so an officer in the army runs a greater risk of being shot than a\nbanker\u2019s clerk; and a governor of India runs a greater risk of lying of\ncholera than a lord of the bedchamber. But does it therefore follow that\nevery man, whatever his habits or feelings may be, would, if he knew\nhis own happiness, become a clerk rather than a cornet, or goldstick in\nwaiting rather than governor of India?\n\nNothing can be more absurd than to suppose, like the Westminster\nReviewed that thieves steal only because they do not calculate the\nchances of being {124}hanged as correctly as honest men. It never seems\nto have occurred to him as possible that a man may so greatly prefer the\nlife of a thief to the life of a labourer that he may determine to brave\nthe risk of detection and punishment, though he may even think that risk\ngreater than it really is. And how, on Utilitarian principles, is such\na man to be convinced that he is in the wrong? \u201cYou will be found\nout.\u201d--\u201cUndoubtedly.\u201d--\u201cYou will be hanged within two years.\u201d--\u201cI expect\nto be hanged within one year.\u201d--\u201cThen why do you pursue this lawless\nmode of life?\u201d--\u201cBecause I would rather live for one year with plenty\nof money, dressed like a gentleman, eating and drinking of the best,\nfrequenting public places, and visiting a dashing mistress, than break\nstones on the road, or sit down to the loom, with the certainty of\nattaining a good old age. It is my humour. Are you answered?\u201d \u201cA king,\nsays the Reviewer again, would govern well, if he were wise, for fear of\nprovoking his subjects to insurrection. Therefore, the true happiness of\na king is identical with the greatest happiness of society. Tell Charles\nII. that, if he will be constant to his queen, sober at table, regular\nat prayers, frugal in his expenses, active in the transaction of\nbusiness, if he will drive the herd of slaves, buffoons, and procurers\nfrom Whitehall, and make the happiness of his people the rule of his\nconduct, he will have a much greater chance of reigning in comfort to\nan advanced age; that his profusion and tyranny have exasperated his\nsubjects, and may, perhaps, bring him to an end as terrible as his\nfather\u2019s.\u201d He might answer, that he saw the danger, but that life was\nnot worth having without ease and vicious pleasures. And what has our\nphilosopher to say? Does he not see that it is no more possible to\n{125}reason a man out of liking a short life and a merry one more than\na long life and a dull one than to reason a Greenlander out of his train\noil? We may say that the tastes of the thief and the tyrant differ from\nours; but what right have we to say, looking at this world alone, that\nthey do not pursue their greatest happiness very judiciously?\n\nIt is the grossest ignorance of human nature to suppose that another man\ncalculates the chances differently from us, merely because he does what,\nin his place, we should not do. Every man has tastes and propensities,\nwhich he is disposed to gratify at a risk and expense which people of\ndifferent temperaments and habits think extravagant. \u201cWhy,\u201d says Horace,\n\u201cdoes one brother like to lounge in the forum, to play in the Campus,\nand to anoint himself in the baths, so well, that he would not put\nhimself out of his way for all the wealth of the richest plantations of\nthe East; while the other toils from sunrise to sunset for the purpose\nof increasing his fortune?\u201d Horace attributes the diversity to the\ninfluence of the Genius and the natal star: and eighteen hundred\nyears have taught us only to disguise our ignorance beneath a more\nphilosophical language.\n\nWe think, therefore, that the Westminster Reviewer, even if we admit his\ncalculation of the chances to be right, does not make out his case. But\nhe appears to us to miscalculate chances more grossly than any person\nwho ever acted or speculated in this world. \u201cIt is for the happiness,\u201d\n says he, \u201cof a member of the House of Commons to govern well; for he\nnever can tell that he is not close on the moment when misgovernment\nwill be terribly punished: if he was sure that he should be as lucky as\nhis predecessors, it might be {126}for his happiness to misgovern; but\nhe is not sure.\u201d Certainly a member of Parliament is not sure that he\nshall not be torn in pieces by a mob, or guillotined by a revolutionary\ntribunal for his opposition to reform. Nor is the Westminster Reviewer\nsure that he shall not be handed for writing in favour of universal\nsuffrage.\n\nWe may have democratical massacres. We may also have aristocratical\nproscriptions. It is not very likely, thank God, that we should\nsee either. But the radical, we think, runs as much danger as the\naristocrat. As to our friend the Westminster Reviewer, he, it must\nbe owned, has as good a right as any man on his side, \u201cAntoni gladios\nconternnere.\u201d But take the man whose votes, ever since he has sate in\nParliament, have been the most uniformly bad, and oppose him to the man\nwhose votes have been the most uniformly good. The Westminster Reviewer\nwould probably select Mr. Sadler and Mr. Hume. Now, does any rational\nman think,--will the Westminster Reviewer himself say,--that Mr. Sadler\nruns more risk of coming to a miserable end on account of his public\nconduct than Mr. Hume? Mr. Sadler does not know that he is not close on\nthe moment when he will be made an example of; for Mr. Sadler knows, if\npossible, less about the future than about the past. But he has no more\nreason to expect that he shall be made an example of than to expect that\nLondon will be swallowed up by an earthquake next spring; and it would\nbe as foolish in him to act on the former supposition as on the latter.\nThere is a risk; for there is a risk of every thing which does not\ninvolve a contradiction; but it is a risk from which no man in his wits\nwould give a shilling to be insured. Yet our Westminster Reviewer tells\nus that this risk alone, apart from all {127}considerations of religion,\nhonour, or benevolence, would, as a matter of mere calculation, induce a\nwise member of the House of Commons to refuse any emoluments which might\nbe offered him as the price of his support to pernicious measures.\n\nWe have hitherto been examining cases proposed by our opponent. It is\nnow our turn to propose one; and we beg that he will spare no wisdom in\nsolving it.\n\nA thief is condemned to be hanged. On the eve of the day fixed for the\nexecution a turnkey enters his cell and tells him that all is safe,\nthat he has only to slip out, that his friends are waiting in the\nneighbourhood with disguises, and that a passage is taken for him in\nan American packet. Now, it is clearly for the greatest happiness of\nsociety that the thief should be hanged and the corrupt turnkey exposed\nand punished. Will the Westminster Reviewer tell us that it is for the\ngreatest happiness of the thief to summon the head jailer and tell the\nwhole story? Now, either it is for the greatest happiness of a thief\nto be hanged or it is not. If it is, then the argument, by which the\nWestminster Reviewer attempts to prove that men do not promote their own\nhappiness by thieving, falls to the ground. If it is not, then there are\nmen whose greatest happiness is at variance with the greatest happiness\nof the community.\n\nTo sum up our arguments shortly, we say that the \u201cgreatest happiness\nprinciple,\u201d as now stated, is diametrically opposed to the principle\nstated in the Westminster Review three months ago.\n\nWe say that, if the \u201cgreatest happiness principle,\u201d as now stated,\nbe sound, Mr. Mill\u2019s Essay, and all other works concerning Government\nwhich, like that Essay, proceed on the supposition that individuals may\nhave {128}an interest opposed to the greatest happiness of society, are\nfundamentally erroneous.\n\nWe say that those who hold this principle to be sound must be prepared\nto maintain, either that monarchs and aristocracies may be trusted to\ngovern the community, or else that men cannot be trusted to follow their\nown interest when that interest is demonstrated to them.\n\nWe say that, if men cannot be trusted to follow their own interest\nwhen that interest has been demonstrated to them, then the Utilitarian\narguments in favour of universal suffrage are good for nothing.\n\nWe say that the \u201cgreatest happiness principle\u201d has not been proved;\nthat it cannot be generally proved; that even in the particular cases\nselected by the Reviewer it is not clear that the principle is true;\nand that many cases might be stated in which the common sense of mankind\nwould at once pronounce it to be false.\n\nWe now leave the Westminster Reviewer to alter and amend his\n\u201cmagnificent principle\u201d as he thinks best. Unlimited, it is false.\nProperly limited, it will be barren. The \u201cgreatest happiness principle\u201d\n of the 1st of July, as far as we could discern its meaning through\na cloud of rodomontade, was an idle truism. The \u201cgreatest happiness\nprinciple\u201d of the 1st of October is, in the phrase of the American\nnewspapers, \u201cimportant if true.\u201d But unhappily it is not true. It is not\nour business to conjecture what new maxim is to make the bones of sages\nand patriots stir on the 1st of December. We can only say that, unless\nit be something infinitely more ingenious than its two predecessors, we\nshall leave it unmolested. The Westminster Reviewer may, if he pleases,\nindulge himself like {129}Sultan Schahriar with espousing a rapid\nsuccession of virgin theories. But we must beg to be excused from\nplaying the part of the vizier who regularly attended on the day after\nthe wedding to strangle the new Sultana.\n\nThe Westminster Reviewer charges us with urging it as an objection to\nthe \u201cgreatest happiness principle\u201d that \u201cit is included in the Christian\nmorality.\u201d This is a mere fiction of his own. We never attacked the\nmorality of the Gospel. We blamed the Utilitarians for claiming the\ncredit of a discovery, when they had merely stolen that morality, and\nspoiled it in the stealing. They have taken the precept of Christ and\nleft the motive; and they demand the praise of a most wonderful and\nbeneficial invention, when all that they have done has been to make\na most useful maxim useless by separating it from its sanction. On\nreligious principles it is true that every individual will best promote\nhis own happiness by promoting the happiness of others. But if religious\nconsiderations be left out of the question it is not true. If we do not\nreason on the supposition of a future state, where is the motive? If we\ndo reason on that supposition, where is the discovery?\n\nThe Westminster Reviewer tells us that \u201cwe wish to see the science of\nGovernment unsettled because we see no prospect of a settlement which\naccords with our interests.\u201d His angry eagerness to have questions\nsettled resembles that of a judge in one of Dryden\u2019s plays--the\nAmphitryon, we think--who wishes to decide a pause after hearing only\none party, and, when he has been at last compelled to listen to the\nstatement of the defendant, flies into a passion, and exclaims, \u201cThere\nnow, sir! See what you have done. The case was {130}quite dear a minute\nago; and you must come and puzzle it!\u201d He is the zealot of a sect. We\nare searchers after truth. He wishes to have the question settled. We\nwish to have it sifted first. The querulous manner in which we have been\nblamed for attacking Mr. Mill\u2019s system, and propounding no system of\nour own, reminds us of the horror with which that shallow dogmatist,\nEpicurus, the worst parts of whose nonsense the Utilitarians have\nattempted to revive, shrank from the keen and searching scepticism of\nthe second Academy.\n\nIt is not our fault that an experimental science of vast extent does not\nadmit of being settled by a short demonstration;--that the subtilty\nof nature, in the moral as in the physical world, triumphs over the\nsubtilty of syllogism. The quack, who declares on affidavit that, by\nusing his pills and attending to his printed directions, hundreds who\nhad been dismissed incurable from the hospitals have renewed their youth\nlike the eagles, may, perhaps, think that Sir Henry Halford, when\nhe feels the pulses of patients, inquires about their symptoms, and\nprescribes a different remedy to each, is unsettling the science of\nmedicine for the sake of a fee.\n\nIf, in the course of this controversy, we have refrained from expressing\nany opinion respecting the political institutions of England, it is not\nbecause we have not an opinion or because we shrink from avowing it. The\nUtilitarians, indeed, conscious that their boasted theory of government\nwould not bear investigation, were desirous to turn the dispute about\nMr. Mill\u2019s Essay into a dispute about the Whig party, rotten boroughs,\nunpaid magistrates, and ex-officio informations. When we blamed them for\ntalking nonsense. {131}they cried out that they were insulted for being\nreformers,--just as poor Ancient Pistol swore that the scars which he\nhad received from the cudgel of Fluellen were got in the Gallia wars.\nWe, however, did not think it desirable to mix up political questions,\nabout which the public mind is violently agitated, with a great problem\nin moral philosophy.\n\nOur notions about Government are not, however, altogether unsettled. We\nhave an opinion about parliamentary reform, though we have not arrived\nat that opinion by the royal road which Mr. Mill has opened for the\nexplorers of political science. As we are taking leave, probably for the\nlast time, of this controversy, we will state very concisely what our\ndoctrines are. On some future occasion we may, perhaps, explain and\ndefend them at length.\n\nOur fervent wish, and we will add our sanguine hope, is that we may\nsee such a reform of the House of Commons as may render its votes\nthe express image of the opinion of the middle orders of Britain. A\npecuniary qualification we think absolutely necessary; and, in settling\nits amount, our object would be to draw the line in such a manner that\nevery decent farmer and shopkeeper might possess the elective franchise.\nWe should wish to see an end put to all the advantages which particular\nforms of property possess over other forms, and particular portions of\nproperty over other equal portions. And this would content us. Such a\nreform would, according to Mr. Mill, establish an aristocracy of wealth,\nand leave the community without protection and exposed to all the evils\nof unbridled power. Most willingly would we stake the whole controversy\nbetween us on the success of the experiment which we propose.\n\n\n\n\nSOUTHEY\u2019S COLLOQUIES. (1)\n\n(_Edinburgh Review_, January 1830.)\n\n\nIt {132}would be scarcely possible for a man of Mr. Southey\u2019s talents\nand acquirements to write two volumes so large as those before us, which\nshould be wholly destitute of information and amusement. Yet we do not\nremember to have read with so little satisfaction any equal quantity\nof matter, written by any man of real abilities. We have, for some time\npast, observed with great regret the strange infatuation which leads\nthe Poet Laureate to abandon those departments of literature in which he\nmight excel, and to lecture the public on sciences of which he has still\nthe very alphabet to learn. He has now, we think, done his worst. The\nsubject which he has at last undertaken to treat is one which demands\nall the highest intellectual and moral qualities of a philosophical\nstatesman, an understanding at once comprehensive and acute, a heart\nat once upright and charitable. Mr. Southey brings to the task two\nfaculties which were never, we believe, vouchsafed in measure so copious\nto any human being, the faculty of believing without a reason, and the\nfaculty of hating without a provocation.\n\n     (1) _Sir Thomas More; or, Colloquies on the Progress and\n     Prospects of Society_. By Robert Southey, Esq., LL.D., Poet\n     Laureate. 2 vols. 8vo, London: 1829.\n\n{133}It is, indeed, most extraordinary, that a mind like Mr. Southey\u2019s,\na mind richly endowed in many respects by nature, and highly cultivated\nby study, a mind which has exercised considerable influence on the most\nenlightened generation of the most enlightened people that ever existed,\nshould be utterly destitute of the power of discerning truth from\nfalsehood. Yet such is the fact. Government is to Mr. Southey one of the\nfine arts. He judges of a theory, of a public measure, of a religion or\na political party, of a peace or a war, as men judge of a picture or\na statue, by the effect produced on his imagination. A chain of\nassociations is to him what a chain of reasoning is to other men; and\nwhat he calls his opinions are in fact merely his tastes.\n\nThis description might perhaps apply to a much greater man,\nMr. Burke. But Mr. Burke assuredly possessed an understanding admirably\nfitted for the investigation of truth, an understanding stronger than\nthat of any statesman, active or speculative, of the eighteenth century,\nstronger than every thing, except his own fierce and ungovernable\nsensibility. Hence he generally chose his side like a fanatic, and\ndefended it like a philosopher. His conduct on the most important\noccasions of his life, at the time of the impeachment of Hastings for\nexample, and at the time of the French Revolution, seems to have been\nprompted by those feelings and motives which Mr. Coleridge has so\nhappily described,\n\n\n               \u201cStormy pity, and the cherish\u2019d lure\n\n               Of pomp, and proud precipitance of soul.\"\n\n\nHindostan, with its vast cities, its gorgeous pagodas, its infinite\nswarms of dusky population, its long-descended dynasties, its stately\netiquette, excited in a mind so capacious, so imaginative, and so\nsusceptible, {134}the most intense interest. The peculiarities of the\ncostume, of the manners, and of the laws, the very mystery which hung\nover the language and origin of the people, seized his imagination. To\nplead under the ancient arches of Westminster Hall, in the name of the\nEnglish people, at the bar of the English nobles, for great nations and\nkings separated from him by half the world, seemed to him the height of\nhuman glory. Again, it is not difficult to perceive that his hostility\nto the French Revolution principally arose from the vexation which he\nfelt at having all his old political associations disturbed, at seeing\nthe well known landmarks of states obliterated, and the li\u00e2mes and\ndistinctions with which the history of Europe had been filled for ages\nat once swept away. He felt like an antiquary whose shield had been\nscoured, or a connoisseur who found his Titian retouched. But, however\nhe came by an opinion, he had no sooner got it than he did his best\nto make out a legitimate title to it. His reason, like a spirit in the\nservice of an enchanter, though spellbound, was still mighty. It did\nwhatever work his passions and his imagination might impose. But it did\nthat work, however arduous, with marvellous dexterity and vigour. His\ncourse was not determined by argument; but he could defend the wildest\ncourse by arguments more plausible than those by which common men\nsupport opinions which they have adopted after the fullest deliberation.\nReason has scarcely ever displayed, even in those well constituted minds\nof which she occupies the throne, so much power and energy as in the\nlowest offices of that imperial servitude.\n\nNow in the mind of Mr. Southey reason has no place at all, as either\nleader or follower, as either sovereign or slave. He does not seem to\nknow what an {135}argument is. He never uses arguments himself. He never\ntroubles himself to answer the arguments of his opponents. It has never\noccurred to him, that a man ought to be able to give some better account\nof the way in which he has arrived at his opinions than merely that it\nis his will and pleasure to hold them. It has never occurred to him that\nthere is a difference between assertion and demonstration, that a rumour\ndoes not always prove a fact, that a single fact, when proved, is hardly\nfoundation enough for a theory, that two contradictory propositions\ncannot be undeniable truths, that to beg the question is not the way to\nsettle it, or that when an objection is raised, it ought to be met with\nsomething more convincing than \u201cscoundrel\u201d and \u201cblockhead.\u201d\n\nIt would be absurd to read the works of such a writer for political\ninstruction. The utmost that can be expected from any system promulgated\nby him is that it may be splendid and affecting, that it may suggest\nsublime and pleasing images. His scheme of philosophy is a mere\nday-dream, a poetical creation, like the Domdaniel cavern, the Swerga,\nor Padalon; and indeed it bears no inconsiderable resemblance to those\ngorgeous visions. Like them, it has something of invention, grandeur,\nand brilliancy. But, like them, it is grotesque and extravagant,\nand perpetually violates even that conventional probability which is\nessential to the effect of works of art.\n\nThe warmest admirers of Mr. Southey will scarcely, we think, deny that\nhis success has almost always borne an inverse proportion to the degree\nin which his undertakings have required a logical head. His poems, taken\nin the mass, stand far higher than his prose works. His official Odes\nindeed, amoung which the {136}Vision of Judgment must be classed, are,\nfor the most part, worse than Pye\u2019s and as bad as Cibber\u2019s; nor do we\nthink him generally happy in short pieces. But his longer poems, though\nfull of faults, are nevertheless very extraordinary productions. We\ndoubt greatly whether they will be read fifty years hence; but that, if\nthey are read, they will be admired, we have no doubt whatever.\n\nBut, though in general we prefer Mr. Southey\u2019s poetry to his prose, we\nmust make one exception. The Life of Nelson is, beyond all doubt, the\nmost perfect and the most delightful of his works. The fact is, as\nhis poems most abundantly prove, that he is by no means so skilful in\ndesigning as in filling up. It was therefore an advantage to him to be\nfurnished with an outline of characters and events, and to have no other\ntask to perform than that of touching the cold sketch into life. No\nwriter, perhaps, ever lived, whose talents so precisely qualified him to\nwrite the history of the great naval warrior. There were no fine riddles\nof the human heart to read, no theories to propound, no hidden causes to\ndevelope, no remote consequences to predict. The character of the hero\nlay on the surface. The exploits were brilliant and picturesque. The\nnecessity of adhering to the real course of events saved Mr. Southey\nfrom those faults which deform the original plan of almost every one of\nhis poems, and which even his innumerable beauties of detail scarcely\nredeem. The subject did not require the exercise of those reasoning\npowers the want of which is the blemish of his prose. It would not be\neasy to find, in all literary history, an instance of a more exact hit\nbetween wind and water. John Wesley and the Peninsular War were subjects\nof a very different kind, subjects which required {137}all the qualities\nof a philosophic historian. In Mr. Southey\u2019s works on these subjects,\nhe has, on the whole, failed. Yet there are charming specimens of the\nart of narration in both of them. The Life of Wesley will probably\nlive. Defective as it is, it contains the only popular account of a most\nremarkable moral revolution, and of a man whose eloquence and logical\nacuteness might have made him eminent in literature, whose genius for\ngovernment was not inferior to that of Richelieu, and who, whatever his\nerrors may-have been, devoted all his powers, in defiance of obloquy\nand derision, to what he sincerely considered as the highest good of his\nspecies. The History of the Peninsular War is already dead: indeed,\nthe second volume was dead-born. The glory of producing an imperishable\nrecord of that great conflict seems to be reserved for Colonel Napier.\n\nThe Book of the Church contains some stories very prettily told. The\nrest is mere rubbish. The adventure was manifestly one which could be\nachieved only by a profound thinker, and one in which even a profound\nthinker might have failed, unless his passions had been kept under\nstrict control. But in all those works in which Mr. Southey has\ncompletely abandoned narration, and has undertaken to argue moral and\npolitical questions, his failure has been complete and ignominious. On\nsuch occasions his writings are rescued from utter contempt and derision\nsolely by the beauty and purity of the English. We find, we confess, so\ngreat a charm in Mr. Southey\u2019s style that, even when he writes nonsense,\nwe generally read it with pleasure, except indeed when he tries to be\ndroll. A more insufferable jester never existed. He very often attempts\nto be humorous, and yet we do not remember a single {138}occasion on\nwhich he has succeeded farther than to be quaintly and flippantly dull.\nIn one of his works he tells us that Bishop Spratt was very properly so\ncalled, inasmuch as he was a very small poet. And in the book now before\nus he cannot quote Francis Bugg, the renegade Quaker, without a remark\non his unsavoury name. A wise man might talk folly like this by his\nown fireside; but that any human being, after having made such a joke,\nshould write it down, and copy it out, and transmit it to the printer,\nand correct the proof-sheets, and send it forth into the world, is\nenough to make us ashamed of our species.\n\nThe extraordinary bitterness of spirit which Mr. Southey manifests\ntowards his opponents is, no doubt, in a great measure to be attributed\nto the manner in which he forms his opinions. Differences of taste, it\nhas often been remarked, produce greater exasperation than differences\non points of science. But this is not all. A peculiar austerity marks\nalmost all Mr. Southey\u2019s judgments of men and actions. We are far from\nblaming him for fixing on a high standard of morals, and for applying\nthat standard to every case. But rigour ought to be accompanied\nby discernment; and of discernment Mr. Southey seems to be utterly\ndestitute. His mode of judging is monkish. It is exactly what we should\nexpect from a stern old Benedictine, who had been preserved from many\nordinary frailties by the restraints of his situation. No man out of a\ncloister ever wrote about love, for example, so coldly and at the same\ntime so grossly. His descriptions of it are just what we should hear\nfrom a recluse who knew the passion only from the details of the\nconfessional. Almost all his heroes make love either like Seraphim or\nlike cattle. He seems to have no notion of {139}any thing between\nthe Platonic passion of the Glendoveer who gazes with rapture on his\nmistress\u2019s leprosy, and the brutal appetite of Arvalan and Roderick. In\nRoderick, indeed, the two characters are united. He is first all\nclay, and then all spirit. He goes forth a Tarquin, and comes back too\nethereal to be married. The only love scene, as far as we can recollect,\nin Madoc, consists of the delicate attentions which a savage, who has\ndrunk too much of the Prince\u2019s excellent metheglin, offers to Goervyl.\nIt would be the labour of a week to find, in all the vast mass of Mr.\nSouthey\u2019s poetry, a single passage indicating any sympathy with those\nfeelings which have consecrated the shades of Vaucluse and the locks of\nMeillerie.\n\nIndeed, if we except some very pleasing images of paternal tenderness\nand filial duty, there is scarcely any thing soft or humane in Mr.\nSouthey\u2019s poetry. What theologians call the spiritual sins are his\ncardinal virtues, hatred, pride, and the insatiable thirst of vengeance.\nThese passions he disguises under the name of duties; he purifies them\nfrom the alloy of vulgar interests; he ennobles them by uniting them\nwith energy, fortitude, and a severe sanctity of manners; and he then\nholds them up to the admiration of mankind. This is the spirit of\nThalaba, of Ladurlad, of Adosinda, of Roderick after his conversion. It\nis the spirit which, in all his writings, Mr. Southey appears to affect.\n\u201cI do well to be angry,\u201d seems to be the predominant feeling of his\nmind. Almost the only mark of charity which he vouchsafes to his\nopponents is to pray for their reformation; and this he does in terms\nnot unlike those in which we can imagine a Portuguese priest interceding\nwith Heaven for a Jew, delivered over to the secular arm after a\nrelapse. {140}We have always heard, and fully believe, that Mr. Southey\nis a very amiable and humane man; nor do we intend to apply to him\npersonally any of the remarks which we have made on the spirit of\nhis writings. Such are the caprices of human nature. Even Uncle Toby\ntroubled himself very little about the French grenadiers who fell on the\nglacis of Namur. And Mr. Southey, when he takes up his pen, changes his\nnature as much as Captain Shandy, when he girt on his sword. The only\nopponents to whom the Laureate gives quarter are those in whom he\nfinds something of his own character reflected. He seems to have an\ninstinctive antipathy for calm, moderate men, for men who shun extremes,\nand who render reasons. He has treated Mr. Owen of Lanark, for example,\nwith infinitely more respect than he has shown to Mr. Hallam or to Dr.\nLingard; and this for no reason that we can discover, except that\nMr. Owen is more unreasonably and hopelessly in the wrong than any\nspeculator of our time.\n\nMr. Southey\u2019s political system is just what we might expect from a man\nwho regards politics, not as matter of science, but as matter of taste\nand feeling. All his schemes of government have been inconsistent with\nthemselves. In his youth he was a republican; yet, as he tells us in his\npreface to these Colloquies, he was even then opposed to the Catholic\nClaims. He is now a violent Ultra-Tory. Yet, while he maintains, with\nvehemence approaching to ferocity, all the sterner and harsher parts of\nthe Ultra-Tory theory of government, the baser and dirtier part of that\ntheory disgusts him. Exclusion, persecution, severe punishments for\nlibellers and demagogues, proscriptions, massacres, civil war, if\nnecessary, rather than any concession to a discontented people; these\nare the measures which {141}he seems inclined to recommend. A severe and\ngloomy tyranny, crushing opposition, silencing remonstrance, drilling\nthe minds of the people into unreasoning obedience, has in it something\nof grandeur which delights his imagination. But there is nothing fine in\nthe shabby tricks and jobs of office; and Mr. Southey, accordingly, has\nno toleration for them. When a Jacobin, he did not perceive that his\nsystem led logically, and would have led practically, to the removal of\nreligious distinctions. He now commits a similar error. He renounces\nthe abject and paltry part of the creed of his party, without perceiving\nthat it is also an essential part of that creed. He would have tyranny\nand purity together; though the most superficial observation might have\nshown him that there can be no tyranny without corruption.\n\nIt is high time, however, that we should proceed to the consideration\nof the work which is our more immediate subject, and which, indeed,\nillustrates in almost every page our general remarks on Mr.\nSouthey\u2019s writings. In the preface, we are informed that the author,\nnotwithstanding some statements to the contrary, was always opposed to\nthe Catholic Claims. We fully believe this; both because we are sure\nthat Mr. Southey is incapable of publishing a deliberate falsehood, and\nbecause his assertion is in itself probable. We should have expected\nthat, even in his wildest paroxysms of democratic enthusiasm, Mr.\nSouthey would have felt no wish to see a simple remedy applied to a\ngreat practical evil. We should have expected that, the only measure\nwhich all the great statesmen of two generations have agreed with each\nother in supporting would be the only measure which Mr. Southey would\nhave agreed with himself in opposing. He has passed from {142}one\nextreme of political opinion to another, as Satan in Milton went round\nthe globe, contriving constantly to \u201cride with darkness.\u201d Wherever the\nthickest shadow of the night may at any moment chance to fall, there is\nMr. Southey. It is not every body who could have so dexterously avoided\nblundering on the daylight in the course of a journey to the antipodes.\n\nMr. Southey has not been fortunate in the plan of any of his fictitious\nnarratives. But he has never failed so conspicuously as in the work\nbefore us; except, indeed, in the wretched Vision of Judgment. In\nNovember, 1817, it seems the Laureate was sitting over his newspaper,\nand meditating about the death of the Princess Charlotte. An elderly\nperson of very dignified aspect makes his appearance, announces himself\nas a stranger from a distant country, and apologizes very politely for\nnot having provided himself with letters of introduction. Mr. Southey\nsupposes his visitor to be some American gentleman who has come to see\nthe lakes and the lake-poets, and accordingly proceeds to perform, with\nthat grace, which only long practice can give, all the duties which\nauthors owe to starers. He assures his guest that some of the most\nagreeable visits which he has received have been from Americans, and\nthat he knows men among them whose talents and virtues would do honour\nto any country. In passing we may observe, to the honour of Mr. Southey,\nthat, though he evidently has no liking for the American institutions,\nhe never speaks of the people of the United States with that pitiful\naffectation of contempt by which some members of his party have done\nmore than wars or tariffs can do to excite mutual enmity between two\ncommunities formed for mutual friendship. Great as the faults of his\nmind are, paltry spite {143}like this has no place in it. Indeed it is\nscarcely conceivable that a man of his sensibility and his imagination\nshould look without pleasure and national pride on the vigorous and\nsplendid youth of a great people, whose veins are filled with our blood,\nwhose minds are nourished with our literature, and on whom is entailed\nthe rich inheritance of our civilisation, our freedom, and our glory.\n\nBut we must return to Mr. Southey\u2019s study at Keswick. The visitor\ninforms the hospitable poet that he is not an American but a spirit. Mr.\nSouthey, with more frankness than civility, tells him that he is a very\nqueer one. The stranger holds out his hand. It has neither weight nor\nsubstance. Mr. Southey upon this becomes more serious; his hair stands\non end; and he adjures the spectre to tell him what he is, and why\nhe comes. The ghost turns out to be Sir Thomas More. The traces of\nmartyrdom, it seems, are worn in the other world, as stars and ribands\nare worn in this. Sir Thomas shows the poet a red streak round his\nneck, brighter than a ruby, and informs him that Cranmer wears a suit\nof flames in paradise, the right hand glove, we suppose, of peculiar\nbrilliancy.\n\nSir Thomas pays but a short visit on this occasion, but promises to\ncultivate the new acquaintance which he has formed, and, after begging\nthat his visit may be kept secret from Mrs. Southey, vanishes into air.\n\nThe rest of the book consists of conversations between Mr. Southey and\nthe spirit about trade, currency, Catholic emancipation, periodical\nliterature, female nunneries, butchers, snuff, book-stalls, and a\nhundred other subjects. Mr. Southey very hospitably takes an opportunity\nto escort the ghost round the lakes, and directs his attention to the\nmost beautiful {144}points of view. Why a spirit was to be evoked for\nthe purpose of talking over such matters and seeing such sights, why the\nvicar of the parish, a blue-stocking from London, or an American, such\nas Mr. Southey at first supposed the aerial visitor to be, might not\nhave done as well, we are unable to conceive. Sir Thomas tells Mr.\nSouthey nothing about future events, and indeed absolutely disclaims the\ngift of prescience. He has learned to talk modern English. He has read\nall the new publications, and loves a jest as well as when he jested\nwith the executioner, though we cannot say that the quality of his wit\nhas materially improved in Paradise. His powers of reasoning, too, are\nby no means in as great vigour as when he sate on the woolsack; and\nthough he boasts that he is \u201cdivested of all those passions which cloud\nthe intellects and warp the understandings of men,\u201d we think him, we\nmust confess, far less stoical than formerly. As to revelations, he\ntells Mr. Southey at the outset to expect none from him. The Laureate\nexpresses some doubts, which assuredly will not raise him in the\nopinion of our modern millennarians, as to the divine authority of the\nApocalypse. But the ghost preserves an impenetrable silence. As far as\nwe remember, only one hint about the employment of disembodied spirits\nescapes him. He encourages Mr. Southey to hope that there is a Paradise\nPress, at which all the valuable publications of Mr. Murray and Mr.\nColburn are reprinted as regularly as at Philadelphia; and delicately\ninsinuates that Thalaba and the Curse of Kehama are among the number.\nWhat a contrast does this absurd fiction present to those charming\nnarratives which Plato and Cicero prefixed to their dialogues! What cost\nin machinery, yet what poverty of effect! A ghost brought in {145}to say\nwhat any man might have said! The glorified spirit of a great statesman\nand philosophe! dawdling, like a bilious old nabob at a watering place,\nover quarterly reviews and novels, dropping in to pay long calls, making\nexcursions in search of the picturesque! The scene of St. George and St.\nDennis in the Pucelle is hardly more ridiculous. We know what Voltaire\nmeant. Nobody, however, can suppose that Mr. Southey means to make game\nof the mysteries of a higher state of existence. The fact is that, in\nthe work before us, in the Vision of Judgement, and in some of his other\npieces, his mode of treating the most solemn subjects differs from\nthat of open scoffers only as the extravagant representations of sacred\npersons and things in some grotesque Italian paintings differ from\nthe caricatures which Carlile exposes in the front of his shop. We\ninterpret the particular act by the general character. What in the\nwindow of a convicted blasphemer we call blasphemous, we call only\nabsurd and ill judged in an altar-piece.\n\nWe now come to the conversations which pass between Mr. Southey and Sir\nThomas More, or rather between two Southeys, equally eloquent, equally\nangry, equally unreasonable, and equally given to talking about what\nthey do not understand. (1) Perhaps we could not select a better\ninstance of the spirit which pervades the whole book than the passages\nin which Mr. Southey gives his opinion of the manufacturing system.\nThere is nothing which he hates so bitterly. It is, according to him, a\nsystem more tyrannical than that of the feudal ages, a system of actual\nservitude, a system which destroys the bodies and degrades the\n\n     (1) A passage in which some expressions used by Mr. Southey\n     were misrepresented, certainly without any unfair intention,\n     has been here omitted.\n\n{146}minds of those who are engaged in it. He expresses a hope that the\ncompetition of other nations may drive us out of the field; that our\nforeign trade may decline; and that we may thus enjoy a restoration\nof national sanity and strength. But he seems to think that the\nextermination of the whole manufacturing population would be a blessing,\nif the evil could be removed in no other way.\n\nMr. Southey does not bring forward a single fact in support of these\nviews; and, as it seems to us, there are facts which lead to a very\ndifferent conclusion. In the first place, the poor-rate is very\ndecidedly lower in the manufacturing than in the agricultural districts.\nIf Mr. Southey will look over the Parliamentary returns on this subject,\nhe will find that the amount of parochial relief required by the\nlabourers in the different counties of England is almost exactly in\ninverse proportion to the degree in which the manufacturing system has\nbeen introduced into those counties. The returns for the years ending in\nMarch 1825, and in March 1828, are now before us. In the former year we\nfind the poor-rate highest in Sussex, about twenty shillings to every\ninhabitant. Then come Buckinghamshire, Essex, Suffolk, Bedfordshire,\nHuntingdonshire, Kent, and Norfolk. In all these the rate is above\nfifteen shillings a head. We will not go through the whole. Even in\nWestmoreland and the North Riding of Yorkshire, the rate is at more than\neight shillings. In Cumberland and Monmouthshire, the most fortunate of\nall the agricultural districts, it is at six shillings. But in the West\nRiding of Yorkshire, it is as low as five shillings; and when we come\nto Lancashire, we find it at four shillings, one fifth of what it is in\nSussex. The returns of the year ending in March 1828 {147}are a little,\nand but a little, more unfavourable to the manufacturing districts.\nLancashire, even in that season of distress, required a smaller\npoor-rate than any other district, and little more than one fourth of\nthe poor-rate raised in Sussex. Cumberland alone, of the agricultural\ndistricts, was as well off as the West Riding of Yorkshire. These facts\nseem to indicate that the manufacturer is both in a more comfortable and\nin a less dependent situation than the agricultural labourer.\n\nAs to the effect of the manufacturing system on the bodily health, we\nmust beg leave to estimate it by a standard far too low and vulgar for a\nmind so imaginative as that of Mr. Southey, the proportion of births and\ndeaths. We know that, during the growth of this atrocious system, this\nnew misery, to use the phrases of Mr. Southey, this new enormity, this\nbirth of a portentous age, this pest which no man can approve whose\nheart is not seared or whose understanding has not been darkened, there\nhas been a great diminution of mortality, and that this diminution has\nbeen greater in the manufacturing towns than any where else. The\nmortality still is, as it always was, greater in towns than in the\ncountry. But the difference has diminished in an extraordinary degree.\nThere is the best reason to believe that the annual mortality of\nManchester, about the middle of the last century, was one in\ntwenty-eight. It is now reckoned at one in forty-five. In Glasgow and\nLeeds a similar improvement has taken place. Nay, the rate of mortality\nin those three great capitals of the manufacturing districts is now\nconsiderably less than it was, fifty years ago, over England and Wales\ntaken together, open country and all. We might with some plausibility\nmaintain that the people {148}live longer because they are better fed,\nbetter lodged, better clothed, and better attended in sickness, and that\nthese improvements are owing to that increase of national wealth which\nthe manufacturing system has produced.\n\nMuch more might be said on the subject. But to what end? It is not from\nbills of mortality and statistical tables that Mr. Southey has learned\nhis political creed. He cannot stoop to study the history of the system\nwhich he abuses, to strike the balance between the good and evil which\nit has produced, to compare district with district, or generation with\ngeneration. We will give his own reason for his opinion, the only reason\nwhich he gives for it, in his own words:--\n\n\u201c_We remained awhile in silence looking upon the assemblage of dwellings\nbelow. Here, and in the adjoining hamlet of Millbeck, the effects\nof manufactures and of agriculture may be seen and compared. The old\ncottages are such as the poet and the painter especially delight in\nbeholding. Substantially built of the native stone without mortar,\ndirtied with no white lime, and their long low roofs covered with slate,\nif they had been raised by the magic of some indigenous Amphion\u2019s music,\nthe materials could not have adjusted themselves more beautifully in\naccord with the surrounding scene; and time has still further harmonized\nthem with weather-stains, lichens, and moss, short grasses, and short\nfern, and stone-plants of various kinds. The ornamented chimneys, round\nor square, less adorned than those which, like little turrets, crest the\nhouses of the Portuguese peasantry; and yet not less happily suited to\ntheir place, the hedge of dipt box beneath the windows, the rose-bushes\nbeside the door, the little patch of flower-ground, with its tall\nholly-hocks in front; the garden beside, the bee-hives, and the\norchard with its bank of daffodils and snow-drops, the earliest and the\nprofusest in these parts, indicate in the owners some portion of ease\nand leisure, some regard to neatness and comfort, some sense of\nnatural, and innocent, and healthful enjoyment. The new cottages of the\nmanufacturers are upon the manufacturing pattern--naked, and in a row._\n\n{149}\"\u2019_How is it,\u2019 said I, \u2018that every thing which is connected with\nmanufactures presents such features of unqualified deformity? From\nthe largest of Mammon\u2019s temples down to the poorest hovel in which his\nhelotry are stalled, these edifices have all one character. Time will\nnot mellow them; nature will neither clothe nor conceal them; and they\nwill remain always as offensive to the eye as to the mind_.\u201d\n\nHere is wisdom. Here are the principles on which nations are to be\ngoverned. Rose-bushes and poor-rates, rather than steam-engines and\nindependence. Mortality and cottages with weather-stains, rather than\nhealth and long life with edifices which time cannot mellow. We are\ntold, that our age has invented atrocities beyond the imagination of our\nfathers; that society has been brought into a state compared with which\nextermination would be a blessing; and all because the dwellings of\ncotton-spinners are naked and rectangular. Mr. Southey has found out a\nway, he tells us, in which the effects of manufactures and agriculture\nmay be compared. And what is this way? To stand on a hill, to look at\na cottage and a factory, and to see which is the prettier. Does air.\nSouthey think that the body of the English peasantry live, or ever\nlived, in substantial or ornamented cottages, with box-hedges,\nflower-gardens, bee-hives, and orchards? If not, what is his parallel\nworth? We despise those mock philosophers, who think that they serve the\ncause of science by depreciating literature and the fine arts. But if\nany thing could excuse their narrowness of mind it would be such a\nbook as this. It is not strange that, when one enthusiast makes the\npicturesque the test of political good, another should feel inclined to\nproscribe altogether the pleasures of taste and imagination.\n\nThus it is that Mr. Southey reasons about matters {150}with which he\nthinks himself perfectly conversant. We cannot, therefore, be surprised\nto find that he commits extraordinary blunders when he writes on points\nof which he acknowledges himself to be ignorant. He confesses that he\nis not versed in political economy, and that he has neither liking\nnor aptitude for it; and he then proceeds to read the public a lecture\nconcerning it which fully bears out his confession.\n\n\u201cAll wealth,\u201d says Sir Thomas More, \u201cin former times was tangible. It\nconsisted in land, money, or chattels, which were either of real or\nconventional value.\u201d\n\nMontesinos, as Mr. Southey somewhat affectedly calls himself, answers\nthus:--\n\n\u201cJewels, for example, and pictures, as in Holland, where indeed at one\ntime tulip bulbs answered the same purpose.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat bubble,\u201d says Sir Thomas, \u201cwas one of those contagious insanities\nto which communities are subject. All wealth was real, till the extent\nof commerce rendered a paper currency necessary; which differed from\nprecious stones and pictures in this important point, that there was no\nlimit to its production.\u201d\n\n\u201cWe regard it,\u201d says Montesinos, \u201cas the representative of real wealth;\nand, therefore, limited always to the amount of what it represents.\u201d\n\n\u201cPursue that notion,\u201d answers the ghost, \u201cand you will be in the dark\npresently. Your provincial banknotes, which constitute almost wholly the\ncirculating medium of certain districts, pass current to-day. Tomorrow\ntidings may come that the house which issued them has stopt payment, and\nwhat do they represent then? You will find them the shadow of a shade.\u201d\n {151}We scarcely know at which end to begin to disentangle this knot of\nabsurdities. We might ask, why it should be a greater proof of insanity\nin men to set a high value on rare tulips than on rare stones, which are\nneither more useful nor more beautiful? We might ask how it can be said\nthat there is no limit to the production of paper money, when a man is\nhanged if he issues any in the name of another, and is forced to cash\nwhat he issues in his own? But Mr. Southey\u2019s error lies deeper still.\n\u201cAll wealth,\u201d says he, \u201cwas tangible and real till paper currency was\nintroduced.\u201d Now, was there ever, since men emerged from a state of\nutter barbarism, an age in which there were no debts? Is not a debt,\nwhile the solvency of the debtor is undoubted, always reckoned as part\nof the wealth of the creditor? Yet is it tangible and real wealth?\nDoes it cease to be wealth, because there is the security of a written\nacknowledgment for it? And what else is paper currency? Did Mr. Southey\never read a bank-note? If he did, he would see that it is a written\nacknowledgment of a debt, and a promise to pay that debt. The promise\nmay be violated: the debt may remain unpaid: those to whom it was due\nmay suffer: but this is a risk not confined to cases of paper currency:\nit is a risk inseparable from the relation of debtor and creditor.\nEvery man who sells goods for any thing but ready money runs the risk of\nfinding that what he considered as part of his wealth one day is nothing\nat all the next day. Mr. Southey refers to the picture-galleries of\nHolland. The pictures were undoubtedly real and tangible possessions.\nBut surely it might happen that a burgomaster might owe a picture-dealer\na thousand guilders for a Teniers. What in this case corresponds to our\npaper money is not the {152}picture, which is tangible, but the claim\nof the picture-dealer on his customer for the price of the picture; and\nthis claim is not tangible. Now, would not the picture-dealer consider\nthis claim as part of his wealth? Would not a tradesman who knew of the\nclaim give credit to the picture-dealer the more readily on account\nof the claim? The burgomaster might be ruined. If so, would not those\nconsequences follow which, as Mr. Southey tells us, were never heard\nof till paper money came into use? Yesterday this claim was worth a\nthousand guilders. To-day what is it? The shadow of a shade.\n\nIt is true that, the more readily claims of this sort are transferred\nfrom hand to hand, the more extensive will be the Injury produced by a\nsingle failure. The laws of all nations sanction, in certain cases, the\ntransfer of rights not yet reduced into possession. Mr. Southey would\nscarcely wish, we should think, that all indorsements of bills and notes\nshould be declared invalid. Yet even if this were done, the transfer of\nclaims would imperceptibly take place, to a very great extent. When\nthe baker trusts the butcher, for example, he is in fact, though not in\nform, trusting the butcher\u2019s customers. A man who owes large bills\nto tradesmen, and fails to pay them, almost always produces distress\nthrough a very wide circle of people with whom he never dealt.\n\nIn short, what Mr. Southey takes for a difference in kind is only a\ndifference of form and degree. In every society men have claims on the\nproperty of others. In every society there is a possibility that some\ndebtors may not be able to fulfil their obligations. In every society,\ntherefore, there is wealth which is not tangible, and which may become\nthe shadow of a shade. {153}Mr. Southey then proceeds to a dissertation\non the national debt, which he considers in a new and most consolatory\nlight, as a clear addition to the income of the country.\n\n\u201cYou can understand,\u201d says Sir Thomas, \u201cthat it constitutes a great\npart of the national wealth.\u201d\n\n\u201cSo large a part,\u201d answers Montesinos, \u201cthat the interest amounted,\nduring the prosperous time of agriculture, to as much as the rental\nof all the land in Great Britain; and at present to the rental of all\nlands, all houses, and all other fixed property put together.\u201d The Ghost\nand the Laureate agree that it is very desirable that there should be\nso secure and advantageous a deposit for wealth as the funds afford. Sir\nThomas then proceeds:--\n\n\u201cAnother and far more momentous benefit must not be overlooked; the\nexpenditure of an annual interest, equalling, as you have stated, the\npresent rental of all fixed property.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat expenditure,\u201d quoth Montesinos, \u201cgives employment to half the\nindustry in the kingdom, and feeds half the mouths. Take, indeed, the\nweight of the national debt from this great and complicated social\nmachine, and the wheels must stop.\u201d\n\nFrom this passage we should have been inclined to think that Mr. Southey\nsupposes the dividends to be a free gift periodically sent down\nfrom heaven to the fundholders, as quails and manna were sent to\nthe Israelites; were it not that he has vouchsafed, in the following\nquestion and answer, to give the public some information which, we\nbelieve, was very little needed.\n\n\u201cWhence comes the interest?\u201d says Sir Thomas.\n\n\u201cIt is raised,\u201d answers Montesinos, \u201cby taxation.\u201d Now, has Mr. Southey\never considered what would {154}be done with this sum if it were not\npaid as interest to the national creditor? If he would think over this\nmatter for a short time, we suspect that the \u201cmomentous benefit\u201d of\nwhich he talks would appear to him to shrink strangely in amount. A\nfundholder, we will suppose, spends dividends amounting to five hundred\npounds a year; and his ten nearest neighbours pay fifty pounds each to\nthe tax-gatherer, for the purpose of discharging the interest of the\nnational debt. If the debt were wiped out, a measure, be it understood,\nwhich we by no means recommend, the fundholder would cease to spend\nhis five hundred pounds a year. He would no longer give employment to\nindustry, or put food into the mouths of labourers. This Mr. Southey\nthinks a fearful evil. But is there no mitigating circumstances? Each of\nthe ten neighbours of our fundholder has fifty pounds a year more than\nformerly. Each of them will, as it seems to our feeble understandings,\nemploy more industry and feed more mouths than formerly. The sum is\nexactly the same. It is in different, hands. But on what grounds does\nMr. Southey call upon us to believe that it is in the hands of men who\nwill spend it less liberally or less judiciously? He seems to think that\nnobody but a fundholder can employ the poor; that, if a tax is remitted,\nthose who formerly used to pay it proceed immediately to dig holes in\nthe earth, and to bury the sum which the government had been accustomed\nto take; that no money can set industry in motion till such money has\nbeen taken by the tax-gatherer out of one man\u2019s pocket and put into\nanother man\u2019s pocket. We really wish that Mr. Southey would try to prove\nthis principle, which is indeed the foundation of his whole theory of\nfinance: for we think it right to hint {155}to him that our hard-hearted\nand unimaginative generation will expect some more satisfactory\nreason than the only one with which he has yet favoured it, namely, a\nsimilitude touching evaporation and dew.\n\nBoth the theory and the illustration, indeed, are old friends of ours.\nIn every season of distress which we can remember, Mr. Southey has been\nproclaiming that it is not from economy, but from increased taxation,\nthat the country must expect relief; and he still, we find, places the\nundoubting faith of a political Diafoirus, in his\n\n                   \u201cI\u00eeesaignare, repurgare, et reclysterizare.\"\n\n\u201cA people,\u201d he tells us, \u201cmay be too rich, but a government cannot be\nso.\u201d\n\n\u201cA state,\u201d says he, \u201ccannot have more wealth at its command than may be\nemployed for the general good, a liberal expenditure in national works\nbeing one of the surest means of promoting national prosperity; and\nthe benefit being still more obvious, of an expenditure directed to the\npurposes of national improvement. But a people may be too rich.\u201d\n\nWe fully admit that a state cannot have at its command more wealth than\nmay be employed for the general good. But neither can individuals, or\nbodies of individuals, have at their command more wealth than may be\nemployed for the general good. If there be no limit to the sum which\nmay be usefully laid out in public works and national improvement, then\nwealth, whether in the hands of private men or of the government, may\nalways, if the possessors choose to spend it usefully, be usefully\nspent. The only ground, therefore, on which Mr. Southey can possibly\nmaintain that a government cannot be too rich, but that a people may be\ntoo rich, must be this, that governments are more {156}likely to spend\ntheir money on good objects than private individuals.\n\nBut what is useful expenditure? \u201cA liberal expenditure in national\nworks,\u201d says Mr. Southey, \u201cis one of the surest means for promoting\nnational prosperity.\u201d What does he mean by national prosperity? Does he\nmean the wealth of the state? If so, his reasoning runs thus: The more\nwealth a state has the better; for the more wealth a state has the more\nwealth it will have. This is surely something like that fallacy, which\nis ungallantly termed a lady\u2019s reason. If by national prosperity he\nmeans the wealth of the people, of how gross a contradiction is Mr.\nSouthey guilty. A people, he tells us, may be too rich: a government\ncannot: for a government can employ its riches in making the people\nricher. The wealth of the people is to be taken from them, because they\nhave too much, and laid out in works, which will yield them more.\n\nWe are really at a loss to determine whether Mr. Southey\u2019s reason for\nrecommending large taxation is that it will make the people rich, or\nthat it will make them poor. But we are sure that, if his object is\nto make them rich, he takes the wrong course. There are two or three\nprinciples respecting public works, which, as an experience of vast\nextent proves, may be trusted in almost every case.\n\nIt scarcely ever happens that any private man or body of men will invest\nproperty in a canal, a tunnel, or a bridge, but from an expectation\nthat the outlay will be profitable to them. No work of this sort can be\nprofitable to private speculators, unless the public be willing to pay\nfor the use of it. The public will not pay of their own accord for what\nyields no profit or convenience to them. There is thus a direct and\n{157}Previous connection between the motive which induces individuals to\nundertake such a work, and the utility of the work.\n\nCan we find any such connection in the case of a public work executed by\na government? If it is useful, are the individuals who rule the\ncountry richer? If it is useless, are they poorer? A public man may be\nsolicitous for his credit. But is not he likely to gain more credit by\nan useless display of ostentatious architecture in a great town than\nby the best road or the best canal in some remote province? The fame\nof public works is a much less certain test of their utility than the\namount of toll collected at them. In a corrupt age, there will be direct\nembezzlement. In the purest age, there will be abundance of jobbing.\nNever were the statesmen of any country more sensitive to public\nopinion, and more spotless in pecuniary transactions, than those who\nhave of late governed England. Yet we have only to look at the buildings\nrecently erected in London for a proof of our rule. In a bad age, the\nfate of the public is to be robbed outright. In a good age, it is merely\nto have the dearest and the worst of every thing.\n\nBuildings for state purposes the state must erect. And here we think\nthat, in general, the state ought to stop. We firmly believe that five\nhundred thousand pounds subscribed by individuals for rail-roads or\ncanals would produce more advantage to the public than five millions\nvoted by Parliament for the same purpose. There are certain old saws\nabout the master\u2019s eye and about every body\u2019s business, in which we\nplace very great faith.\n\nThere is, we have said, no consistency in Mr. Southey\u2019s political\nsystem. But if there be in his political {158}system any leading\nprinciple, any one error which diverges more widely and variously than\nany other, it is that of which his theory about national works is a\nramification. He conceives that the business of the magistrate is, not\nmerely to see that the persons and property of the people are secure\nfrom attack, but that he ought to be a jack-of-all-trades, architect,\nengineer, schoolmaster, merchant, theologian, a Lady Bountiful in every\nparish, a Paul Pry in every house, spying, eaves-dropping, relieving,\nadmonishing, spending our money for us, and choosing our opinions for\nus. His principle is, if we understand it rightly, that no man can do\nany thing so well for himself as his rulers, be they who they may, can\ndo it for him, and that a government approaches nearer and nearer to\nperfection, in proportion as it interferes more and more with the habits\nand notions of individuals.\n\nHe seems to be fully convinced that it is in the power of government to\nrelieve all the distresses under which the lower orders labour. Nay,\nhe considers doubt on this subject as impious. We cannot refrain from\nquoting his argument on this subject. It is a perfect jewel of logic.\n\n\u201c\u2018_Many thousands in your metropolis,\u2019 says Sir Thomas More, \u2018rise every\nmorning without knowing how they are to subsist during the day; as many\nof them, where they are to lay their heads at night. All men, even the\nvicious themselves, know that wickedness leads to misery: but many, even\namong the good and the wise, have yet to learn that misery is almost as\noften the cause of wickedness.\u2019\n\n\u201c\u2018There are many,\u2019 says Montesinos, \u2018who know this, but believe that it\nis not in the power of human institutions to prevent this misery. They\nsee the effect, but regard the causes as inseparable from the condition\nof human nature.\u2019\n\n\u201c\u2018As surely as God is good,\u2019 replies Sir Thomas, \u2018so surely there is no\nsuch thing as necessary evil. For, by the religious {159}mind, sickness,\nand pain I and death, are not to be accounted evils._\u2019\u201d\n\nNow if sickness, pain, and death, are not evils, we cannot understand\nwhy it should be an evil that thousands should rise without knowing how\nthey are to subsist. The only evil of hunger is that it produces first\npain, then sickness, and finally death. If it did not produce these, it\nwould be no calamity. If these are not evils, it is no calamity. We will\npropose a very plain dilemma: either physical pain is an evil, or it\nis not an evil. If it is an evil, then there is necessary evil in the\nuniverse: if it is not, why should the poor be delivered from it?\n\nMr. Southey entertains as exaggerated a notion of the wisdom of\ngovernments as of their power. He speaks with the greatest disgust of\nthe respect now paid to public opinion. That opinion is, according to\nhim, to be distrusted and dreaded; its usurpation ought to be vigorously\nresisted; and the practice of yielding to it is likely to ruin the\ncountry. To maintain police is, according to him, only one of the ends\nof government. The duties of a ruler are patriarchal and paternal.\nHe ought to consider the moral discipline of the people as his first\nobject, to establish a religion, to train the whole community in that\nreligion, and to consider all dissenters as his own enemies.\n\n\u201c\u2018_Nothing,\u2019 says Sir Thomas, \u2018is more certain, than that religion is\nthe basis upon which civil government rests; that from religion power\nderives its authority, laws their efficacy, and both their zeal and\nsanction; and it is necessary that this religion be established as for\nthe security of the state, and for the welfare of the people, who would\notherwise be moved to and fro with every wind of doctrine. A state is\nsecure in proportion as the people are attached to its institutions:\nit is, therefore, the first and plainest rule of sound policy, that\nthe people be trained up in the way {160}they should go. The state that\nneglects this prepares its own destruction; and they who train them in\nany other way are undermining it. Nothing in abstract science can be\nmore certain than these positions are.\u2019\n\n\u201c1 All of which,\u2019 answers Montesinos, \u2018are nevertheless denied by our\nprofessors of the arts Babblative and Scribblative: some in the audacity\nof evil designs, and others in the glorious assurance of impenetrable\nignorance._\u2019\u201d\n\nThe greater part of the two volumes before us is merely an amplification\nof these paragraphs. What does Mr. Southey mean by saying that religion\nis demonstrably the basis of civil government? He cannot surely\nmean that men have no motives except those derived from religion for\nestablishing and supporting-civil government, that no temporal advantage\nis derived from civil government, that men would experience no temporal\ninconvenience from living in a state of anarchy? If he allows, as we\nthink he must allow, that it is for the good of mankind in this world\nto have civil government, and that the great majority of mankind have\nalways thought it for their good In this world to have civil government,\nwe then have a basis for government quite distinct from religion. It is\ntrue that the Christian religion sanctions government, as it sanctions\nevery thing which promotes the happiness and virtue of our species. But\nwe are at a loss to conceive in what sense religion can be said to be\nthe basis of government, in which religion is not also the basis of\nthe practices of eating, drinking, and lighting fires in cold weather.\nNothing in history is more certain than that government has existed,\nhas received some obedience, and has given some protection, in times in\nwhich it derived no support from religion, in times in which there was\nno religion that influenced the hearts and lives of men. It was not from\ndread of Tartarus, or {161}from belief in the Elysian fields, that an\nAthenian wished to have some institutions which might keep Orestes from\nfilching his cloak, or Aliclias from breaking his head. \u201cIt is from\nreligion,\u201d says Mr. Southey, \u201cthat power derives its authority, and\nlaws their efficacy.\u201d From what religion does our power over the Hindoos\nderive its authority, or the law in virtue of which we hang Brahmins its\nefficacy? For thousands of years civil government has existed in\nalmost every corner of the world, in ages of priestcraft, in ages of\nfanaticism, in ages of Epicurean indifference, in ages of enlightened\npiety. However pure or impure the faith of the people might be, whether\nthey adored a beneficent or a malignant power, whether they thought\nthe soul mortal or immortal, they have, as soon as they ceased to\nbe absolute savages, found out their need of civil government, and\ninstituted it accordingly. It is as universal as the practice of\ncookery. Yet, it is as certain, says Mr. Southey, as any thing in\nabstract science, that government is founded on religion. We should like\nto know what notion Mr. Southey has of the demonstrations of abstract\nscience. A very vague one, we suspect.\n\nThe proof proceeds. As religion is the basis of government, and as\nthe state is secure in proportion as the people are attached to public\ninstitutions, it is therefore, says Mr. Southey, the first rule of\npolicy, that the government should train the people in the way in which\nthey should go; and it is plain that those who train them in any other\nway are undermining the state.\n\nNow it does not appear to us to be the first object that people should\nalways believe in the established religion and be attached to the\nestablished government. A religion may be false. A government may\nbe oppressive. And whatever support government gives to {162}false\nreligions, or religion to oppressive governments, Ive consider as a\nclear evil.\n\nThe maxim, that governments ought to train the people in the way in\nwhich they should go, sounds well. But is there any reason for believing\nthat a government is more likely to lead the people in the right way\nthan the people to fall into the right way of themselves? Have there not\nbeen governments which were blind leaders of the blind? Are there not\nstill such governments? Can it be laid down as a general rule that the\nmovement of political and religious truth is rather downwards from the\ngovernment to the people than upwards from the people to the government?\nThese are questions which it is of importance to have clearly resolved.\nMr. Southey declaims against public opinion, which is now, he tells us,\nusurping supreme power. Formerly, according to him, the laws governed;\nnow public opinion governs. What are laws but expressions of the opinion\nof some class which has power over the rest of the community? By\nwhat was the world ever governed but by the opinion of some person or\npersons? By what else can it ever be governed? What are all systems,\nreligious, political, or scientific, but opinions resting on evidence\nmore or less satisfactory? The question is not between human opinion\nand some higher and more certain mode of arriving at truth, but between\nopinion and opinion, between the opinions of one man and another, or of\none class and another, or of one generation and another. Public opinion\nis not infallible; but can Mr. Southey construct any institutions\nwhich shall secure to us the guidance of an infallible opinion? Can\nMr. Southey select any family, any profession, any class, in short,\ndistinguished by any plain badge from the rest of the {163}community,\nwhose opinion is more likely to be just than this much abused public\nopinion? Would he choose the peers, for example? Or the two hundred\ntallest men in the country? Or the poor Knights of Windsor? Or children\nwho are born with cauls? Or the seventh sons of seventh sons? We cannot\nsuppose that he would recommend popular election; for that is merely an\nappeal to public opinion. And to say that society ought to be governed\nby the opinion of the wisest and best, though true, is useless. Whose\nopinion is to decide, who are the wisest and best?\n\nMr. Southey and many other respectable people seem to think that, when\nthey have once proved the moral and religious training of the people to\nbe a most important object, it follows, of course, that it is an object\nwhich the government ought to pursue. They forget that we have to\nconsider, not merely the goodness of the end, but also the fitness of\nthe means. Neither in the natural nor in the political body have all\nmembers the same office. There is surely no contradiction in saying that\na certain section of the community may be quite competent to protect\nthe persons and property of the rest, yet quite unfit to direct our\nopinions, or to superintend our private habits.\n\nSo strong is the interest of a ruler to protect his subjects against all\ndepredations and outrages except his own, so clear and simple are the\nmeans by which this end is to be effected, that men are probably better\noff under the worst governments in the world than they would be in a\nstate of anarchy. Even when the appointment of magistrates has been left\nto chance, as in the Italian Republics, things have gone on far better\nthan if there had been no magistrates at all, and if every man had\ndone what seemed right in his own {164}eyes. But we see no reason for\nthinking that the opinions of the magistrate on speculative question are\nmore likely to be right than those of any other man. None of the modes\nby which a magistrate is appointed, popular election, the accident of\nthe lot, or the accident of birth, affords, as far as we can perceive,\nmuch security for his being wiser than any of his neighbours. The chance\nof his being wiser than all his neighbours together is still smaller.\nNow we cannot understand how it can be laid down that it is the duty and\nthe right of one class to direct the opinions of another, unless it can\nbe proved that the former class is more likely to form just opinions\nthan the latter.\n\nThe duties of government would be, as Mr. Southey says that they are,\npaternal, if a government were necessarily as much superior in wisdom\nto a people as the most foolish father, for a time, is to the most\nintelligent child, and if a government loved a people as fathers\ngenerally love their children. But there is no reason to believe that\na government will have either the paternal warmth of affection or the\npaternal superiority of intellect. Mr. Southey might as well say that\nthe duties of the shoemaker are paternal and that it is an usurpation in\nany man not of the craft to say that his shoes are bad and to insist on\nhaving better. The division of labour would be no blessing, if those by\nwhom a thing is done were to pay no attention to the opinion of\nthose for whom it is done. The shoemaker, in the Relapse, tells Lord\nFoppington that his lordship is mistaken in supposing that his shoe\npinches. \u201cIt does not pinch; it cannot pinch; I know my business; and\nI never made a better shoe.\u201d This is the way in which Mr. Southey would\nhave a government treat a people who usurp the privilege of thinking.\nNay, the {165}shoemaker of Vanbrugh has the advantage in the comparison.\n\nHe contented himself with regulating his customer\u2019s shoes, about which\nhe had peculiar means of information, and did not presume to dictate\nabout the coat and hat. But Mr. Southey would have the rulers of a\ncountry prescribe opinions to the people, not only about politics, but\nabout matters concerning which a government has no peculiar sources of\ninformation, and concerning which any man in the streets may know as\nmuch and think as justly as the King, namely religion and morals.\n\nMen are never so likely to settle a question rightly as when they\ndiscuss it freely, A government can interfere in discussion only by\nmaking it less free than it would otherwise be. Men are most likely to\nform just opinions when they have no other wish than to know the truth,\nand are exempt from all influence, either of hope or fear. Government,\nas government, can bring nothing but the influence of hopes and fears to\nsupport its doctrines. It carries on controversy, not with reasons,\nbut with threats and bribes. If it employs reasons, it does so, not in\nvirtue of any powers which belong to it as a government. Thus, instead\nof a contest between argument and argument, we have a contest between\nargument and force. Instead of a contest in which truth, from the\nnatural constitution of the human mind, has a decided advantage over\nfalsehood, we have a contest in which truth can be victorious only by\naccident.\n\nAnd what, after all, is the security which this training gives to\ngovernments? Mr. Southey would scarcely propose that discussion should\nbe more effectually shackled, that public opinion should be more,\nstrictly disciplined into conformity with established {166}institutions,\nthan in Spain and Italy. Yet we know that the restraints which exist\nin Spain and Italy have not prevented atheism from spreading among\nthe educated classes, and especially among those whose office it is to\nminister at the altars of God. All our readers know how, at the time of\nthe French Revolution, priest after priest came forward to declare that\nhis doctrine, his ministry, his whole life, had been a lie, a mummery\nduring which he could scarcely compose his countenance sufficiently to\ncarry on the imposture. This was the case of a false, or at least of a\ngrossly corrupted religion. Let us take then the case of all others most\nfavourable to Mr. Southey\u2019s argument. Let us take that form of religion\nwhich he holds to be the purest, the system of the Arminian part of\nthe Church of England. Let us take the form of government which he most\nadmires and regrets, the government of England in the time of Charles\nthe First. Would he wish to see a closer connection between church and\nstate than then existed? Would he wish for more powerful ecclesiastical\ntribunals? for a more zealous king? for a more active primate? Would he\nwish to see a more complete monopoly of public instruction given to the\nEstablished Church? Could any government do more to train the people\nin the way in which he would have them? And in what did all this\ntraining end? The Report of the state of the Province of Canterbury,\ndelivered by Laud to his master at the close of 1639, represents the\nChurch of England as in the highest and most palmy state. So effectually\nhad the government pursued that policy which Mr. Southey wishes to see\nrevived that there was scarcely the least appearance of dissent. Most of\nthe bishops stated that all was well amoung their flocks. Seven or eight\n{167}persons in the diocese of Peterborough had seemed refractory to the\nchurch, but had made ample submission. In Norfolk and Suffolk all whom\nthere had been reason to suspect had made profession of conformity, and\nappeared to observe it strictly. It is confessed that there was a\nlittle difficulty in bringing some of the vulgar in Suffolk to take the\nsacrament at the rails in the chancel. This was the only open instance\nof non-conformity which the vigilant eye of Laud could detect in all the\ndioceses of his twenty-one suffragans, on the very eve of a revolution\nin which primate, and church, and monarch, and monarchy were to perish\ntogether. .\n\nAt which time would Mr. Southey pronounce the constitution more secure;\nin 1639, when Laud presented this Report to Charles; or now, when\nthousands of meetings openly collect millions of dissenters, when\ndesigns against the tithes are openly avowed, when books attacking not\nonly the Establishment, but the first principles of Christianity, are\nopenly sold in the streets? The signs of discontent, he tells us, are\nstronger in England now than in France when the States-General met: and\nhence he would have us infer that a revolution like that of France\nmay be at hand. Does he not know that the danger of states is to be\nestimated, not by what breaks out of the public mind, but by what stays\nin it? Can he conceive any thing more terrible than the situation of a\ngovernment which rules without apprehension over a people of hypocrites,\nwhich is flattered by the press and cursed in the inner chambers, which\nexults in the attachment and obedience of its subjects, and knows not\nthat those subjects are leagued against it in a free-masonry of hatred,\nthe sign of which is every day conveyed in {168}the glance of ten\nthousand eyes, the pressure of ten thousand hands, and the tone of ten\nthousand voices? Profound and ingenious policy! Instead of curing the\ndisease, to remove those symptoms by which alone its nature can be\nknown! To leave the serpent his deadly sting, and deprive him only of\nhis warning rattle!\n\nWhen the people whom Charles had so assiduously trained in the good way\nhad rewarded his paternal care by cutting off his head, a new kind of\ntraining came into fashion. Another government arose which, like the\nformer, considered religion as its surest basis, and the religious\ndiscipline of the people as its first duty. Sanguinary laws were enacted\nagainst libertinism; profane pictures were burned: drapery was put on\nindecorous statues; the theatres were shut up; fast-days were numerous;\nand the Parliament resolved that no person should be admitted into any\npublic employment, unless the House should be first satisfied of his\nvital godliness. We know what was the end of this training. We know\nthat it ended in impiety, in filthy and heartless sensuality, in the\ndissolution of all ties of honour and morality. We know that at this\nvery day scriptural phrases, scriptural names, perhaps some scriptural\ndoctrines, excite disgust and ridicule, solely because they are\nassociated with the austerity of that period.\n\nThus has the experiment of training the people in established forms of\nreligion been twice tried in England on a large scale, once by Charles\nand Laud, and once by the Puritans. The High Tories of our time still\nentertain many of the feelings and opinions of Charles and Laud, though\nin a mitigated form; nor is it difficult to see that the heirs of\nthe Puritans are still amongst us. It would be desirable that each of\n{169}these parties should remember how little advantage or honour it\nformerly derived from the closest alliance with power, that it fell by\nthe support of rulers, and rose by their opposition, that of the two\nsystems that in which the people were at any time drilled was always\nat that time the unpopular system, that the training of the High\nChurch ended in the reign of the Puritans, and that the training of the\nPuritans ended in the reign of the harlots.\n\nThis was quite natural. Nothing is so galling to a people not broken in\nfrom the birth as a paternal, or, in other words, a meddling government,\na government which tells them what to read, and say, and eat, and drink,\nand wear. Our fathers could not bear it two hundred years ago; and we\nare not more patient than they. Mr. Southey thinks that the yoke of the\nchurch is dropping off because it is loose. We feel convinced that it\nis borne only because it is easy, and that, in the instant in which an\nattempt is made to tighten it, it will be flung away. It will be neither\nthe first nor the strongest yoke that has been broken asunder and\ntrampled under foot in the day of the vengeance of England.\n\nHow far Mr. Southey would have the government carry its measures for\ntraining the people in the doctrines of the church, we are unable to\ndiscover. In one passage Sir Thomas More asks with great vehemence,\n\u201cIs it possible that your laws should suffer the unbelievers to exist as\na party? Vetitum est adeo sceleris nihil?\u201d\n\nMontesinos answers. \u201cThey avow themselves in defiance of the laws. The\nfashionable doctrine which the press at this time maintains is, that\nthis is a matter in which the laws ought not to interfere, every man\n{170}having a right, both to form what opinion he pleases upon religious\nsubjects, and to promulgate that opinion.\u201d\n\nIt is clear, therefore, that Mr. Southey would not give full and perfect\ntoleration to infidelity. In another passage, however, he observes with\nsome truth, though too sweepingly, that \u201cany degree of intolerance short\nof that full extent which the Papal Church exercises where it has the\npower, acts upon the opinions which it is intended to suppress, like\npruning upon vigorous plants; they grow the stronger for it.\u201d These two\npassages, put together, would lead us to the conclusion that, in Mr.\nSouthey\u2019s opinion, the utmost severity ever employed by the Roman\nCatholic Church in the days of its greatest power ought to be employed\nagainst unbelievers in England; in plain words, that Carlile and his\nshopmen ought to be burned in Smith-field, and that every person\nwho, when called upon, should decline to make a solemn profession of\nChristianity ought to suffer the same fate. We do not, however, believe\nthat Mr. Southey would recommend such a course, though his language\nwould, according to all the rules of logic, justify us in supposing this\nto be his meaning. His opinions form no system at all. He never sees, at\none glance, more of a question than will furnish matter for one flowing\nand well turned sentence; so that it would be the height of unfairness\nto charge him personally with holding a doctrine, merely because\nthat doctrine is deducible, though by the closest and most accurate\nreasoning, from the premises which he has laid down. We are, therefore,\nleft completely in the dark as to Mr. Southey\u2019s opinions about\ntoleration. Immediately after censuring the government for not punishing\ninfidels, he proceeds to discuss {171}the question of the Catholic\ndisabilities, now, thank God, removed, and defends them on the ground\nthat the Catholic doctrines tend to persecution, and that the Catholics\npersecuted when they had power.\n\n\u201cThey must persecute,\u201d says he, \u201cif they believe their own creed, for\nconscience-sake; and if they do not believe it, they must persecute for\npolicy; because it is only by intolerance that so corrupt and injurious\na system can be upheld.\u201d\n\nThat unbelievers should not be persecuted is an instance of national\ndepravity at which the glorified spirits stand aghast. Yet a sect of\nChristians is to be excluded from power, because those who formerly held\nthe same opinions were guilty of persecution. We have said that we do\nnot very well know what Mr. Southey\u2019s opinion about toleration is. But,\non the whole, we take it to be this, that everybody is to tolerate him,\nand that he is to tolerate nobody.\n\nWe will not be deterred by any fear of misrepresentation from\nexpressing our hearty approbation of the mild, wise, and eminently\nChristian manner in which the Church and the Government have lately\nacted with respect to blasphemous publications. We praise them for not\nhaving thought it necessary to encircle a religion pure, merciful,\nand philosophical, a religion to the evidence of which the highest\nintellects have yielded, with the defences of a false and bloody\nsuperstition. The ark of God was never taken till it was surrounded by\nthe arms of earthly defenders. In captivity, its sanctity was sufficient\nto vindicate it from insult, and to lay the hostile fiend prostrate on\nthe threshold of his own temple. The real security of Christianity is to\nbe found in its benevolent morality, in its exquisite adaptation to the\nhuman heart, in the {172}facility with which its scheme accommodates\nitself to the capacity of every human intellect, in the consolation\nwhich it bears to the house of mourning, in the light with which it\nbrightens the great mystery of the grave. To such a system it can bring\nno addition of dignity or of strength, that it is part and parcel of the\ncommon law. It is not now for the first time left to rely on the force\nof its own evidences and the attractions of its own beauty. Its sublime\ntheology confounded the Grecian schools in the fair conflict of reason\nwith reason. The bravest and wisest of the C\u00e6sars found their arms\nand their policy unavailing, when opposed to the weapons that were not\ncarnal and the kingdom that was not of this world. The victory which\nPorphyry and Diocletian failed to gain is not, to all appearance,\nreserved for any of those who have, in this age, directed their attacks\nagainst the last restraint of the powerful and the last hope of the\nwretched. The whole history of Christianity shows, that she is in far\ngreater danger of being corrupted by the alliance of power, than of\nbeing crushed by its opposition. Those who thrust temporal sovereignty\nupon her treat her as their prototypes treated her author. They bow the\nknee, and spit upon her; they cry \u201cHail!\u201d and smite her on the cheek;\nthey put a sceptre in her hand, but it is a fragile reed; they crown\nher, but it is with thorns; they cover with purple the wounds which\ntheir own hands have inflicted on her; and inscribe magnificent titles\nover the cross on which they have fixed her to perish in ignominy and\npain.\n\nThe general view which Mr. Southey takes of the prospects of society is\nvery gloomy; but we comfort ourselves with the consideration that Mr.\nSouthey is no prophet. He foretold, we remember, on the very {173}eve of\nthe abolition of the Test and Corporation Acts, that these hateful laws\nwere immortal, and that pious minds would long be gratified by seeing\nthe most solemn religious rite of the Church profaned for the purpose of\nupholding her political supremacy. In the book before us, he says that\nCatholics cannot possibly be admitted into Parliament until those whom\nJohnson called \u201cthe bottomless Whigs\u201d come into power. While the book\nwas in the press, the prophecy was falsified: and a Tory of the Tories,\nMr. Southey\u2019s own favourite hero, won and wore that noblest wreath, \u201cOb\ncives servatos.\u201d\n\nThe signs of the times, Mr. Southey tells us, are very threatening. His\nfears for the country would decidedly preponderate over his hopes, but\nfor his firm reliance on the mercy of God. Now, as we know that God\nhas once suffered the civilised world to be overrun by savages, and the\nChristian religion to be corrupted by doctrines which made it, for some\nages, almost as bad as Paganism, we cannot think it inconsistent with\nhis attributes that similar calamities should again befal mankind.\n\nWe look, however, on the state of the world, and of this kingdom in\nparticular, with much greater satisfaction and with better hopes. Mr.\nSouthey speaks with contempt of those who think the savage state happier\nthan the social. On this subject, he says, Rousseau never imposed on him\neven in his youth. But he conceives that a community which has advanced\na little way in civilisation is happier than one which has made greater\nprogress. The Britons in the time of C\u00e6sar were happier, he suspects,\nthan the English of the nineteenth century. On the whole, he selects\nthe generation which preceded the Reformation {174}as that in which the\npeople of this country were better off than at any time before or since.\n\nThis opinion rests on nothing, as far as we can see, except his own\nindividual associations. He is a man of letters; and a life destitute\nof literary pleasures seems insipid to him. He abhors the spirit of the\npresent generation, the severity of its studies, the boldness of its\ninquiries, and the disdain with which it regards some old prejudices\nby which his own mind is held in bondage. He dislikes an utterly\nunenlightened age: he dislikes an investigation; and reforming age. The\nfirst twenty years of the sixteenth century would have exactly suited\nhim. They furnished just the quantity of intellectual excitement which\nhe requires. The learned few read and wrote largely. A scholar was held\nin high estimation. But the rabble did not presume to think; and even\nthe most inquiring and independent of the educated classes paid more\nreverence to authority, and less to reason, than is usual in our time.\nThis is a state of things in which Mr. Southey would have found himself\nquite comfortable; and, accordingly, he pronounces it the happiest state\nof things ever known in the world.\n\nThe savages were wretched, lays Mr. Southey: but the people in the time\nof Sir Thomas More were happier than either they or we. Now we think it\nquite certain that we have the advantage over the contemporaries of\nSir Thomas More, in every point in which they had any advantage over\nsavages.\n\nMr. Southey does not even pretend to maintain that the people in the\nsixteenth century were better lodged or clothed than at present.\nHe seems to admit that in these respects there has been some little\nimprovement, it is indeed a matter about which scarcely any doubt\n{175}can exist in the most perverse mind that the improvements of\nmachinery have lowered the price of manufactured articles, and have\nbrought within the reach of the poorest some conveniences which Sir\nThomas More or his master could not have obtained at any price.\n\nThe labouring classes, however, were, according to Mr. Southey, better\nfed three hundred years ago than at present. We believe that he is\ncompletely in error on this point. The condition of servants in noble\nand wealthy families, and of scholars at the Universities must surely\nhave been better in those times than that of day-labourers; and we are\nsure that it was not better than that of our workhouse paupers. From the\nhousehold book of the Northumberland family, we find that in one of the\ngreatest establishments of the kingdom the servants lived very much as\ncommon sailors live now. In the reign of Edward the Sixth the state\nof the students at Cambridge is described to us, on the very best\nauthority, as most wretched. Many of them dined on pottage made of a\nfarthing\u2019s worth of beef with a little salt and oatmeal, and literally\nnothing else. This account we have from a contemporary master of St.\nJohn\u2019s. Our parish poor now eat wheat bread. In the sixteenth century\nthe labourer was glad to get barley, and was often forced to content\nhimself with poorer fare. In Harrison\u2019s introduction to Holinshed we\nhave an account of the state of our working population in the \u201cgolden\ndays,\u201d as Mr. Southey calls them, \u201cof good Queen Bess.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe gentilitie,\u201d says he, \u201ccommonly provide themselves sufficiently\nof wheat for their own tables, why lest their household and poore\nneighbours in some shires are inforced to content themselves with rye or\nbarleie; yea, and in time of {176}dearth, many with bread made eyther\nof beanes, peason, or otes, or of altogether, and some acornes among.\nI will not say that this extremity is oft so well to be seen in time of\nplentie as of dearth; but if I should I could easily bring my trial: for\nalbeit there be much more grounde eared nowe almost in everye place then\nliathe beene of late yeares, yet such a price of corne continueth in\ncache towne and markete, without any just cause, that the artificer\nand poore labouring man is not able to reach unto it, but is driven to\ncontent himself with horse-corne.\u201d We should like to see what the\neffect would be of putting any parish in England now on allowance of\n\u201chorse-corne.\u201d The helotry of Mammon are not, in our day, so easily\nenforced to content themselves as the peasantry of that happy period, as\nMr. Southey considers it, which elapsed between the fall of the feudal\nand the rise of the commercial tyranny.\n\n\u201cThe people,\u201d says Mr. Southey, \u201care worse fed than when they were\nfishers.\u201d And yet in another place he complains that they will not eat\nfish. \u201cThey have contracted,\u201d says he, \u201cI know not how, some obstinate\nprejudice against a kind of food at once wholesome and delicate, and\nevery where to be obtained cheaply and in abundance, were the demand for\nit as general as it ought to be.\u201d It is true that the lower orders have\nan obstinate prejudice against fish. But hunger has no such obstinate\nprejudices. If what was formerly a common diet I now eaten only in times\nof severe pressure, the inference is plain. The people must be fed with\nwhat they at least think better food than that of their ancestors.\n\nThe advice and medicine which the poorest labourer {177}can now obtain,\nin disease, or after an accident, is far superior to what Henry the\nEighth could have commanded. Scarcely any part of the country is out of\nthe reach of practitioners who are probably not so far inferior to Sir\nHenry Halford as they are superior to Dr. Butts. That there has been a\ngreat improvement in this respect, Mr. Southey allows. Indeed he could\nnot well have denied it. \u201cBut,\u201d says he, \u201cthe evils for which these\nsciences are the palliative, have increased since the time of the\nDruids, in a proportion that heavily overweighs the benefit of improved\ntherapeutics.\u201d We know nothing either of the diseases or the remedies of\nthe Druids. But we are quite sure that the improvement of medicine has\nfar more than kept pace with the increase of disease during the last\nthree centuries. This is proved by the best possible evidence. The term\nof human life is decidedly longer in England than in any former age,\nrespecting which we possess any information on which we can Lely. All\nthe rants in the world about picturesque cottages and temples of Mammon\nwill not shake this argument. No test of the physical well-being of\nsociety can be named so decisive as that which is furnished by bills\nof mortality. That the lives of the people of this country have been\ngradually lengthening during the course of several generations, is as\ncertain as any fact in statistics; and that the lives of men should\nbecome longer and longer, while their bodily condition during life is\nbecoming worse and worse, is utterly incredible.\n\nLet our readers think over these circumstances. Let them take into the\naccount the sweating sickness and the plague. Let them take into the\naccount that fearful disease which first made its appearance in the\n{178}generation to which Mr. Southey assigns the palm of felicity, and\nraged through Europe with a fury at which the physician stood aghast,\nand before which the people were swept away by myriads. Let them\nconsider the state of the northern counties, constantly the scene of\nrobberies, rapes, massacres, and conflagrations. Let them add to all\nthis the fact that seventy-two thousand persons suffered death by the\nhands of the executioner during the reign of Henry the Eighth, and judge\nbetween the nineteenth and the sixteenth century.\n\nWe do not say that the lower orders in England do not suffer severe\nhardships. But, in spite of Mr. Southey\u2019s assertions, and in spite\nof the assertions of a class of politicians, who, differing from Mr.\nSouthey in every other point, agree with him in this, we are inclined to\ndoubt whether the labouring classes here really suffer greater physical\ndistress than the labouring classes of the most flourishing countries of\nthe Continent.\n\nIt will scarcely be maintained that the lazzaroni who sleep under the\nporticoes of Naples, or the beggars who besiege the convents of Spain,\nare in a happier situation than the English commonalty. The distress\nwhich has lately been experienced in the northern part of Germany, one\nof the best governed and most prosperous regions of Europe, surpasses,\nif we have been correctly informed, any thing which has of late years\nbeen known among us. In Norway and Sweden the peasantry are constantly\ncompelled to mix bark with their bread; and even this expedient has\nnot always preserved whole families and neighbourhoods from perishing\ntogether of famine. An experiment has lately been tried in the kingdom\nof the Netherlands, which {179}has been cited to prove the possibility\nof establishing agricultural colonies on the waste lands of England, but\nwhich proves to our minds nothing so clearly as this, that the rate\nof subsistence to which the labouring classes are reduced in the\nNetherlands is miserably low, and very far inferior to that of the\nEnglish paupers. No distress which the people here have endured for\ncenturies approaches to that which has been felt by the French in our\nown time. The beginning of the year 1817 was a time of great distress\nin this island. But the state of the lowest classes here was luxury\ncompared with that of the people of France. We find in Magendie\u2019s\n\u201cJournal de Physiologie Exp\u00e9rimentale\u201d a paper on a point of physiology\nconnected with the distress of that season. It appears that the\ninhabitants of six departments, Aix, Jura, Doubs, Haute Saone, Vosges,\nand Saone-et-Loire, were reduced first to oatmeal and potatoes, and at\nlast to nettles, bean-stalks, and other kinds of herbage fit only for\ncattle; that when the next harvest enabled them to eat barley-bread,\nmany of them died from intemperate indulgence in what they thought\nan exquisite repast; and that a dropsy of a peculiar description was\nproduced by the hard fare of the year. Dead bodies were found on the\nroads and in the fields. A single surgeon dissected six of these, and\nfound the stomach shrunk, and filled with the unwholesome aliments which\nhunger had driven men to share with beasts. Such extremity of distress\nas this is never heard of in England, or even in Ireland. We are, on\nthe whole, inclined to think, though we would speak with diffidence on a\npoint on which it would be rash to pronounce a positive judgment without\na much longer and closer investigation than we have bestowed upon it,\nthat the labouring {180}classes of this island, though they have their\ngrievances and distresses, some produced by their own improvidence,\nsome by the errors of their rulers, are on the whole better off as to\nphysical comforts than the inhabitants of any equally extensive district\nof the old world. For this very reason, suffering is more acutely felt\nand more loudly bewailed here than elsewhere. We must take into the\naccount the liberty of discussion, and the strong interest which the\nopponents of a ministry always have to exaggerate the extent of the\npublic disasters. There are countries in which the people quietly endure\ndistress that here would shake the foundations of the state, countries\nin which the inhabitants of a whole province turn out to eat grass\nwith less clamour than one Spitalfields weaver would make here, if the\noverseers were to put him on barley-bread. In those new commonwealths\nin which a civilised population has at its command a boundless extent of\nthe richest soil, the condition of the labourer is probably happier than\nin any society which has lasted for many centuries. But in the old world\nwe must confess ourselves unable to find any satisfactory record of any\ngreat nation, past or present, in which the working classes have been\nin a more comfortable situation than in England during the last thirty\nyears. When this island was thinly peopled, it was barbarous: there was\nlittle capital; and that little was insecure. It is now the richest\nand the most highly civilised spot in the world; but the population is\ndense. Thus we have never known that golden age which the lower orders\nIn the United States are now enjoying. We have never known an age of\nliberty, of order, and of education, an age in which the mechanical\nsciences were carried to a great height, yet in which the people were\nnot sufficiently {181}numerous to cultivate even the most fertile\nvalleys. But, \u2018when we compare our own condition with that of our\nancestors, we think it clear that the advantages arising from the\nprogress of civilisation have far more than counterbalanced the\ndisadvantages arising from the progress of population. \u201cWhile our\nnumbers have increased tenfold, our wealth has increased a hundred-fold.\nThough there are so many more people to share the wealth now existing in\nthe country than there were in the sixteenth century, it seems certain\nthat a greater share falls to almost every individual than fell to the\nshare of any of the corresponding class in the sixteenth century. The\nKing keeps a more splendid court. The establishments of the nobles are\nmore magnificent. The esquires are richer; the merchants are richer;\nthe shopkeepers are richer. The serving-man, the artisan, and the\nhusbandman, have a more copious and palatable supply of food, better\nclothing, and better furniture. This is no reason for tolerating abuses,\nor for neglecting any means of ameliorating the condition of our poorer\ncountrymen. But it is a reason against telling them, as some of our\nphilosophers are constantly telling them, that they are the most\nwretched people who ever existed on the face of the earth.\n\n\u201cWe have already adverted to Mr. Southey\u2019s amusing doctrine about\nnational wealth. A state, says he, cannot be too rich; but a people may\nbe too rich. His reason for thinking this is extremely curious.\n\n\u201c_A people may be too rich, because it is the tendency of the\ncommercial, and more especially of the manufacturing system, to collect\nwealth rather than to diffuse it. Where wealth is necessarily employed\nin any of the speculations of trade, its increase is in proportion to\nits amount. Great capitalists become like pikes in a fish-pond, who\ndevour the weaker fish; and it is but too certain. {182}that the poverty\nof one part of the people seems to increase in the same ratio as the\nriches of another. There are examples of this in history. In Portugal,\nwhen the high tide of wealth flowed in from the conquests in Africa and\nthe East, the effect of that great influx was not more visible in the\naugmented splendour of the court, and the luxury of the higher ranks,\nthan in the distress of the people_.\u201d\n\nMr. Southey\u2019s instance is not a very fortunate one. The wealth which did\nso little for the Portuguese was not the fruit either of manufactures or\nof commerce carried on by private individuals. It was the wealth, not\nof the people, but of the government and its creatures, of those who,\nas Mr. Southey thinks, can never be too rich. The fact is that Mr.\nSouthey\u2019s proposition is opposed to all history, and to the ph\u00e6nomena\nwhich surround us on every side. England is the richest country\nin Europe, the most commercial country, and the country in which\nmanufactures flourish most. Russia and Poland are the poorest countries\nin Europe. They have scarcely any trade, and none but the rudest\nmanufactures. Is wealth more diffused in Russia and Poland than in\nEngland? There are individuals in Russia and Poland whose incomes are\nprobably equal to those of our richest countrymen. It may be doubted\nwhether there are not, in those countries, as many fortunes of eighty\nthousand a year as here. But are there as many fortunes of two thousand\na year, or of one thousand a year? There are parishes in England which\ncontain more people of between three hundred and three thousand pounds\na year than could be found in all the dominions of the Emperor Nicholas.\nThe neat and commodious houses which have been built in London and its\nvicinity, for people of this class, within the last thirty years would\nof themselves {183}form a city larger than the capitals of some\nEuropean kingdoms. And this is the state of society in which the great\nproprietors have devoured a smaller!\n\nThe cure which Mr. Southey thinks that he has discovered is worthy of\nthe sagacity which he has shown in detecting the evil. The calamities\narising from the collection of wealth in the hands of a few capitalists\nare to be remedied by collecting it in the hands of one great\ncapitalist, who has no conceivable motive to use it better than other\ncapitalists, the all-devouring state.\n\nIt is not strange that, differing so widely from Mr. Southey as to\nthe past progress of society, we should differ from him also as to its\nprobable destiny. He thinks, that to all outward appearance, the country\nis hastening to destruction; but he relies firmly on the goodness\nof God. We do not see either the piety or the rationality of thus\nconfidently expecting that the Supreme Being will interfere to disturb\nthe common succession of causes and effects. We, too, rely on\nhis goodness, on his goodness as manifested, not in extraordinary\ninterpositions, but in those general laws which it has pleased him to\nestablish in the physical and in the moral world. We rely on the natural\ntendency of the human intellect to truth, and on the natural tendency\nof society to improvement. We know no well authenticated instance of a\npeople which has decidedly retrograded in civilisation and prosperity,\nexcept from the influence of violent and terrible calamities, such as\nthose which laid the Roman empire in ruins, or those which, about the\nbeginning of the sixteenth century, desolated Italy. We know of no\ncountry which, at the end of fifty years of peace, and tolerably good\ngovernment, has been less prosperous than at the beginning of that\nperiod. The political importance of a {184}state may decline, as the\nbalance of power is disturbed by the introduction of new forces. Thus\nthe influence of Holland and of Spain is much diminished. But are\nHolland and Spain poorer than formerly? We doubt it. Other countries\nhave outrun them. But we suspect that they have been positively, though\nnot relatively, advancing. We suspect that Holland is richer than when\nshe sent her navies up the Thames, that Spain is richer than when a\nFrench king was brought captive to the footstool of Charles the Fifth.\n\nHistory is full of the signs of this natural progress of society. We\nsee in almost every part of the annals of mankind how the industry of\nindividuals, struggling up against wars, taxes, famines, conflagrations,\nmischievous prohibitions, and more mischievous protections, creates\nfaster than governments can squander, and repairs whatever invaders can\ndestroy. We see the wealth of nations increasing, and all the arts\nof life approaching nearer and nearer to perfection, in spite of the\ngrossest corruption and the wildest profusion on the part of rulers.\n\nThe present moment is one of great distress. But how small will that\ndistress appear when we think over the history of the last forty years;\na war, compared with which all other wars sink into insignificance;\ntaxation, such as the most heavily taxed people of former times could\nnot have conceived; a debt larger than all the public debts that ever\nexisted in the world added together; the food of the people studiously\nrendered dear; the currency imprudently debased, and imprudently\nrestored. Yet is the country poorer than in 1790? We firmly believe\nthat, in spite of all the mis-government of her rulers, she has been\nalmost constantly becoming richer and richer. Now and then {185}there\nhas been a stoppage, now and then a short retrogression; but as to the\ngeneral tendency there can be no doubt. A single breaker may recede; but\nthe tide is evidently coming in.\n\nIf we were to prophesy that in the year 1980 a population of fifty\nmillions, better fed, clad, and lodged than the English of our time,\nwill cover these islands, that Sussex and Huntingdonshire will be\nwealthier than the wealthiest parts of the West Riding of Yorkshire now\nare, that cultivation, rich as that of a flower-garden, will be\ncarried up to the very tops of Ben Nevis and Helvellyn, that machines\nconstructed on principles yet undiscovered will be in every house, that\nthere will be no highways but railroads, no travelling but by\nsteam, that our debt, vast as it seems to us, will appear to our\ngreat-grandchildren a trifling encumbrance, which might easily be paid\noff in a year or two, many people would think us insane. We prophesy\nnothing; but this we say: If any person had told the Parliament which\nmet in perplexity and terror after the crash in 1720 that in 1880 the\nwealth of England would surpass all their wildest dreams, that the\nannual revenue would equal the principal of that debt which they\nconsidered as an intolerable burden, that for one man of ten thousand\npounds then living there would be five men of fifty thousand pounds,\nthat London would be twice as large and twice as populous, and that\nnevertheless the rate of mortality would have diminished to one half\nof what it then was, that the post-office would bring more into the\nexchequer than the excise and customs had brought in together under\nCharles the Second, that stage-coaches would run from London to York\nin twenty-four hours, that men would be in the habit of sailing without\nwind, and would be beginning {186}to ride without horses, our ancestors\nwould have given as much credit to the prediction as they gave to\nGulliver\u2019s Travels. Yet the prediction would have been true; and they\nwould have perceived that it was not altogether absurd, if they had\nconsidered that the country was then raising every year a sum which\nwould have purchased the fee-simple of the revenue of the Plantagenets,\nten times what supported the government of Elizabeth, three times what,\nin the time of Oliver Cromwell, had been thought intolerably oppressive.\nTo almost all men the state of things under which they have been used\nto live seems to be the necessary state of things. We have heard it said\nthat five per cent, is the natural interest of money, that twelve is\nthe natural number of a jury, that forty shillings is the natural\nqualification of a county voter. Hence it is that, though in every age\neverybody knows that up to his own time progressive improvement has been\ntaking place, nobody seems to reckon on any improvement during the next\ngeneration. We cannot absolutely prove that those are in error who tell\nus that society has reached a turning point, that we have seen our best\ndays. But so said all who came before us, and with just as much apparent\nreason. \u201cA million a year will beggar us,\u201d said the patriots of 1640.\n\u201cTwo millions a year will grind the country to powder,\u201d was the cry in\n1660, \u201cSix millions a year, and a debt of fifty millions!\u201d exclaimed\nSwift; \u201cthe high allies have been the ruin of us.\u201d\n\n\u201cA hundred and forty millions of debt!\u201d said Junius; \u201cwell may we say\nthat we owe Lord Chatham more than we shall ever pay, if we owe him such\na load as this.\u201d\n\n\u201cTwo hundred and forty millions of debt!\u201d cried all the statesmen of\n1783 in chorus; \u201cwhat abilities, or what {187}economy on the part of a\nminister, can save a country so burdened?\u201d We know that if, since 1783,\nno fresh debt had been incurred, the increased resources of the country\nwould have enabled us to defray that debt at which Pitt, Fox, and Burke\nstood aghast, nay, to defray it over and over again, and that with much\nlighter taxation than what we have actually borne. On what principle is\nit that, when we see nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect\nnothing but deterioration before us?\n\nIt is not by the intermeddling of Mr. Southey\u2019s idol, the omniscient\nand omnipotent State, but by the prudence and energy of the people, that\nEngland has hitherto been carried forward in civilisation; and it is to\nthe same prudence and the same energy that we now look with comfort and\ngood hope. Our rulers will best promote the improvement of the nation by\nstrictly confining themselves to their own legitimate duties, by leaving\ncapital to find its most lucrative course, commodities their fair price,\nindustry and intelligence their natural reward, idleness and folly their\nnatural punishment, by maintaining peace, by defending property, by\ndiminishing the price of law, and by observing strict economy in every\ndepartment of the state. Let the Government do this: the People will\nassuredly do the rest.\n\n\n\n\nMR. ROBERT MONTGOMERY. (1)\n\n(_Edinburgh Review_, April 1830.)\n\n\nThe {188}wise men of antiquity loved to convey instruction under the\ncovering of apologue; and though this practice is generally thought\nchildish, we shall make no apology for adopting it on the present\noccasion. A generation which has bought eleven editions of a poem by Mr.\nRobert Montgomery may well condescend to listen to a fable of Pilpay.\n(2)\n\nA pious Brahmin, it is written, made a vow that on a certain day he\nwould sacrifice a sheep, and on the appointed morning he went forth to\nbuy one. There lived in his neighbourhood three rogues who knew of his\nvow, and laid a scheme for profiting by it. The first met him and said,\n\u201cOh Brahmin, wilt thou buy a sheep? I have one fit for sacrifice.\u201d\n\n\u201cIt is for that very purpose,\u201d said the holy man, \u201cthat I came forth\nthis day.\u201d Then the impostor opened a bag, and brought out of it an\nunclean beast, an ugly dog, lame and blind. Thereon the Brahmin cried\nout, \u201cWretch, who touchest things impure, and utterest things untrue,\ncallest thou that cur a sheep?\u201d \u201cTruly,\u201d answered the other, \u201cit is a\nsheep of the finest fleece, and of the\n\n     (1). _The Omnipresence of the Deity: a Poem_. By Robert\n     Montgomery. Eleventh Edition. London: 1830.\n\n     (2). _Satan: a Poem_. By Robert Montgomery. Second Edition.\n     London: 1830.\n\n{189}sweetest flesh. Oh Brahmin, it will be an offering most acceptable\nto the gods.\u201d\n\n\u201cFriend,\u201d said the Brahmin, \u201ceither thou or I must be blind.\u201d\n\nJust then one of the accomplice\u2019s came up. \u201cPraised be the gods,\u201d said\nthis second rogue, \u201cthat I have been saved the trouble of going to the\nmarket for a sheep! This is such a sheep as I wanted. For how much wilt\nthou sell it?\u201d When the Brahmin heard this, his mind waved to and fro,\nlike one swinging in the air at a holy festival. \u201cSir,\u201d said he to the\nnew comer, \u201ctake heed what thou dost; this is no sheep, but an unclean\ncur.\u201d\n\n\u201cOh Brahmin,\u201d said the new comer, \u201cthou art drunk or mad!\u201d\n\nAt this time the third confederate drew near. \u201cLet us ask this man,\u201d\n said the Brahmin, \u201cwhat the creature is, and I will stand by what he\nshall say.\u201d To this the others agreed; and the Brahmin called out, \u201cOh\nstranger, what dost thou call this beast?\u201d\n\n\u201cSurely, oh Brahmin,\u201d said the knave, \u201cit is a fine sheep.\u201d Then the\nBrahmin said, \u201cSurely the gods have taken away my senses;\u201d and he asked\npardon of him who carried the dog, and bought it for a measure of rice\nand a pot of ghee, and offered it up to the gods, who, being wroth at\nthis unclean sacrifice, smote him with a sore disease in all his joints.\n\nThus, or nearly thus, if we remember rightly, runs the story of the\nSanscrit \u00c6sop. The moral, like the moral of every fable that is worth\nthe telling, lies on the surface. The writer evidently means to caution\nus against the practices of puffers, a class of people who have more\nthan once talked the public into the most absurd errors, but who surely\nnever played a more curious or a more difficult trick than when they\npassed Mr. Robert Montgomery off upon the world as a great poet. {190}In\nan age in which there are so few readers that a writer cannot subsist\non the sum arising from the sale of his works, no man who has not an\nindependent fortune can devote himself to literary pursuits, unless he\nis assisted by patronage. In such an age, accordingly, men of letters\ntoo often pass their lives in dangling at the heels of the wealthy and\npowerful; and all the faults which dependence tends to produce, pass\ninto their character. They become the parasites and slaves of the great.\nIt is melancholy to think how many of the highest and most exquisitely\nformed of human intellects have been condemned to the ignominious labour\nof disposing the commonplaces of adulation in new forms and brightening\nthem into new splendour. Horace invoking Augustus in the most\nenthusiastic language of religious veneration, Statius flattering a\ntyrant, and the minion of a tyrant, for a morsel of bread, Ariosto\nversifying the whole genealogy of a niggardly patron, Tasso extolling\nthe heroic virtues of the wretched creature who locked him up in a\nmad-house, these are but a few of the instances which might easily be\ngiven of the degradation to which those must submit who, not possessing\na competent fortune, are resolved to write when there are scarcely any\nwho read.\n\nThis evil the progress of the human mind tends to remove. As a taste for\nbooks becomes more and more common, the patronage of individuals becomes\nless and less necessary. In the middle of the last century a marked\nchange took place. The tone of literary men, both in this country and in\nFrance, became higher and more independent. Pope boasted that he was\nthe \u201cone poet\u201d who had \u201cpleased by manly ways;\u201d he derided the\nsoft dedications with which Halifax had been fed, asserted his own\nsuperiority over the pensioned Boileau, {191}and gloried in being not\nthe follower, but the friend, of nobles and princes. The explanation of\nall this is very simple. Pope was the first Englishman who, by the\nmere sale of his writings, realised a sum which enabled him to live\nin comfort and in perfect independence. Johnson extols him for the\nmagnanimity which he showed in inscribing his Iliad not to a minister\nor a peer, but to Congreve. In our time this would scarcely be a subject\nfor praise. Nobody is astonished when Mr. Moore pays a compliment of\nthis kind to Sir Walter Scott, or Sir Walter Scott to Mr. Moore. The\nidea of either of those gentlemen looking out for some lord who would\nbe likely to give him a few guineas in return for a fulsome dedication\nseems laughably incongruous. Yet this is exactly what Dryden or Otway\nwould have done; and it would be hard to blame them for it. Otway is\nsaid to have been choked with a piece of bread which he devoured in the\nrage of hunger; and, whether this story be true or false, he was beyond\nall question miserably poor. Dryden, at near seventy, when at the head\nof the literary men of England, without equal or second, received three\nhundred pounds for his Fables, a collection of ten thousand verses,\nand of such verses as no man then living, except himself, could have\nproduced. Pope, at thirty, had laid up between six and seven thousand\npounds, the fruits of his poetry. It was not, we suspect, because he had\na higher spirit or a more scrupulous conscience than his predecessors,\nbut because he had a larger income, that he kept up the dignity of the\nliterary character so much better than they had done.\n\nFrom the time of Pope to the present day the readers have been\nconstantly becoming more and more numerous, and the writers,\nconsequently, more and more {192}independent. It is assuredly a great\nevil that men, fitted by their talents and acquirements to enlighten and\ncharm the world, should be reduced to the necessity of flattering wicked\nand foolish patrons in return for the sustenance of life. But, though\nwe heartily rejoice that this evil is removed, we cannot but see with\nconcern that another evil has succeeded to it. The public is now the\npatron, and a most liberal patron. All that the rich and powerful\nbestowed on authors from the the time of M\u00e6cenas to that of Harley would\nnot, we apprehend, make up a sum equal to that which has been paid\nby English booksellers to authors during the last fifty years. Men of\nletters have accordingly ceased to court individuals, and have begun to\ncourt the public. They formerly used flattery. They now use puffing.\n\nWhether the old or the new vice be the worse, whether those who formerly\nlavished insincere praise on others, or those who now contrive by\nevery art of beggary and bribery to stun the public with praises of\nthemselves, disgrace their vocation the more deeply, we shall not\nattempt to decide. But of this we are sure, that it is high time to\nmake a stand against the new trickery. The puffing of books is now so\nshamefully and so successfully carried on that it is the duty of all who\nare anxious for the purity of the national taste, or for the honour of\nthe literary character, to join in discountenancing the practice. All\nthe pens that ever were employed in magnifying Bish\u2019s lucky office,\nRomanis\u2019s fleecy hosiery, Packwood\u2019s razor strops, and Rowland\u2019s\nKalydor, all the placard-bearers of Dr. Eady, all the wall-chalkers of\nDay and Martin, seem to have taken service with the poets and novelists\nof this generation. Devices which in the lowest trades {193}are\nconsidered as disreputable are adopted without scruple, and improved\nupon with a despicable ingenuity, by people engaged in a pursuit which\nnever was and never will be considered as a mere trade by any man of\nhonour and virtue. A butcher of the higher class disdains to ticket his\nmeat. A mercer of the higher class would be ashamed to hang up papers in\nhis window inviting the passers-by to look at the stock of a bankrupt,\nall of the first quality, and going for half the value. We expect some\nreserve, some decent pride, in our hatter and our bootmaker. But no\nartifice by which notoriety can be obtained is thought too abject for a\nman of letters.\n\nIt is amusing to think over the history of most of the publications\nwhich have had a run during the last few years. The publisher is often\nthe publisher of some periodical work. In this periodical work the first\nflourish of trumpets is sounded. The peal is then echoed and re-echoed\nby all the other periodical works over which the publisher, or the\nauthor, or the author\u2019s coterie, may have any influence. The newspapers\nare for a fortnight filled with puffs of all the various kinds which\nSheridan enumerated, direct, oblique, and collusive. Sometimes the\npraise is laid on thick for simple-minded people. \u201cPathetic,\u201d \u201csublime,\u201d\n \u201csplendid,\u201d \u201cgraceful,\u201d \u201cbrilliant wit,\u201d \u201cexquisite humour,\u201d and other\nphrases equally flattering, fall, in a shower as thick and as sweet as\nthe sugar-plums at a Roman carnival. Sometimes greater art is used. A\nsinecure has been offered to the writer if he would suppress his work,\nor if he would even soften down a few of his incomparable portraits. A\ndistinguished military and political character has challenged the\ninimitable satirist of the vices of the great; and the puffer is glad to\n{194}learn that the parties have been bound over to keep the peace.\nSometimes it is thought expedient that the puffer should put on a grave\nface, and utter his panegyric in the form of admonition. \u201cSuch attacks\non private character cannot be too much condemned. Even the exuberant\nwit of our author, and the irresistible power of his withering sarcasm,\nare no excuses for that utter disregard which he manifests for the\nfeelings of others. We cannot but wonder that a winter of such\ntranscendent talents, a writer who is evidently no stranger to the\nkindly charities and sensibilities of our nature, should show so little\ntenderness to the foibles of noble and distinguished individuals, with\nwhom it is clear, from every page of his work, that he must have been\nconstantly mingling in society.\u201d These are but tame and feeble\nimitations of the paragraphs with which the daily papers are filled\nwhenever an attorney\u2019s clerk or an apothecary\u2019s assistant undertakes to\ntell the public in bad English and worse French, how people tie their\nneckcloths and eat their dinners in Grosvenor Square. The editors of the\nhigher and more respectable newspapers usually prefix the words\n\u201cAdvertisement,\u201d or \u201cFrom a Correspondent,\u201d to such paragraphs. But this\nmakes little difference. The panegyric is extracted, and the significant\nheading omitted. The fulsome eulogy makes its appearance on the covers\nof all the Reviews and Magazines, with \u201cTimes\u201d or \u201cGlobe\u201d affixed,\nthough the editors of the Times and the Globe have no more to do with it\nthan with Mr. Goss\u2019s way of making old rakes young again.\n\nThat people who live by personal slander should practise these arts is\nnot surprising. Those who stoop to write calumnious books may well stoop\nto puff them; {195}and that the basest of all trades should be carried\non in the basest of all manners is quite proper and as it should be. But\nhow any man who has the least self-respect, the least regard for his\nown personal dignity, can condescend to persecute the public with this\nRag-fair importunity, we do not understand. Extreme poverty may, indeed,\nin some degree, be an excuse for employing these shifts, as it may be\nan excuse for stealing a leg of mutton. But we really think that a man\nof spirit and delicacy would quite as soon satisfy his wants in the one\nway as in the other.\n\nIt is no excuse for an author that the praises of journalists are\nprocured by the money or influence of his publishers, and not by his\nown. It is his business to take such precautions as may prevent others\nfrom doing what must degrade him. It is for his honour as a gentleman,\nand, if he is really a man of talents, it will eventually be for his\nhonour and interest as a writer, that his works should come before the\npublic recommended by their own merits alone, and should be discussed\nwith perfect freedom. If his objects be really such as he may own\nwithout shame, he will find that they will, in the long run, be better\nattained by suffering the voice of criticism to be fairly heard. At\npresent, we too often see a writer attempting to obtain literary fame as\nShakspeare\u2019s usurper obtains sovereignty. The publisher plays Buckingham\nto the author\u2019s Richard. Some few creatures of the conspiracy are\ndexterously disposed here and there in the crowd. It is the business of\nthese hirelings to throw up their caps, and clap their hands, and utter\ntheir _vivas_. The rabble at first stare and wonder, and at last join in\nshouting for shouting\u2019s sake; and thus a crown is placed on a head which\nhas no right to it, by the huzzas of a few servile dependents. {196}The\nopinion of the great body of the reading public is very materially\ninfluenced even by the unsupported assertions of those who assume\na right to criticize. Nor is the public altogether to blame on this\naccount. Most even of those who have really a great enjoyment in reading\nare in the same state, with respect to a book, in which a man who has\nnever given particular attention to the art of painting is with respect\nto a picture. Every man who has the least sensibility or imagination\nderives a certain pleasure from pictures. Yet a man of the highest and\nfinest intellect might, unless he had formed his taste by contemplating\nthe best pictures, be easily persuaded by a knot of connoisseurs that\nthe worst daub in Somerset House was a miracle of art. If he deserves\nto be laughed at, it is not for his ignorance of pictures, but for his\nignorance of men. He knows that there is a delicacy of taste in\npainting which he does not possess, that he cannot distinguish hands,\nas practised judges distinguish them, that he is not familiar with the\nfinest models, that he has never looked at them with close attention,\nand that, when the general effect of a piece has pleased him or\ndispleased him, he has never troubled himself to ascertain why. When,\ntherefore, people, whom he thinks more competent to judge than himself,\nand of whose sincerity he entertains no doubt, assure him that a\nparticular work is exquisitely beautiful, he takes it for granted that\nthey must be in the right. He returns to the examination, resolved to\nfind or imagine beauties; and, if he can work himself up into something\nlike admiration, he exults in his own proficiency.\n\nJust such is the manner in which nine readers out of ten judge of a\nbook. They are ashamed to dislike what men who speak as having authority\ndeclare to be good. At present, however contemptible a poem {197}or a\nnovel may be, there is not the least difficulty in procuring favourable\nnotices of it from all sorts of publications, daily, weekly, and\nmonthly. In the mean time, little or nothing is said on the other side.\nThe author and the publisher are interested in crying up the book.\nNobody has any very strong interest in crying it down. Those who are\nbest fitted to guide the public opinion think it beneath them to expose\nmere nonsense, and comfort themselves by reflecting that such popularity\ncannot last. This contemptuous lenity has been carried too far. It is\nperfectly true that reputations which have been forced into an unnatural\nbloom fade almost as soon as they have expanded; nor have we any\napprehensions that puffing will ever raise any scribbler to the rank\nof a classic. It is indeed amusing to turn over some late volumes of\nperiodical works, and to see how many immortal productions have, within\na few months, been gathered to the Poems of Blackmore and the novels\nof Mrs. Behn; how many \u201cprofound views of human nature,\u201d and \u201cexquisite\ndelineations of fashionable manners,\u201d and \u201cvernal, and sunny, and\nrefreshing thoughts,\u201d and \u201chigh imaginings,\u201d and \u201cyoung breathings,\u201d\n and \u201cembody-ings,\u201d and \u201cpinings,\u201d and \u201cminglings with the beauty of the\nuniverse,\u201d and \u201charmonies which dissolve the soul in a passionate sense\nof loveliness and divinity,\u201d the world has contrived to forget. The\nnames of the books and of the writers are buried in as deep an oblivion\nas the name of the builder of Stonehenge. Some of the well puffed\nfashionable novels of eighteen hundred and twenty-nine hold the pastry\nof eighteen hundred and thirty; and others, which are now extolled in\nlanguage almost too high-flown for the merits of Don Quixote, will, we\nhave no doubt, line the trunks of eighteen {198}hundred and thirty-one.\nBut, though we have no apprehensions that puffing will ever confer\npermanent reputation on the undeserving, we still think its influence\nmost pernicious. Men of real merit will, if they persevere, at last\nreach the station to which they are entitled, and intruders will be\nejected with contempt and derision. But it is no small evil that the\navenues to fame should be blocked up by a swarm of noisy, pushing,\nelbowing pretenders, who, though they will not ultimately be able to\nmake good their own entrance, hinder, in the mean time, those who have\na right to enter. All who will not disgrace themselves by joining in the\nunseemly scuffle must expect to be at first hustled and shouldered back.\nSome men of talents, accordingly, turn away in dejection from pursuits\nin which success appears to bear no proportion to desert. Others\nemploy in self-defence the means by which competitors, far inferior to\nthemselves, appear for a time to obtain a decided advantage. There are\nfew who have sufficient confidence in their own powers and sufficient\nelevation of mind to wait with secure and contemptuous patience, while\ndunce after dunce presses before them. Those who will not stoop to the\nbaseness of the modern fashion are too often discouraged. Those who\nstoop to it are always degraded.\n\nWe have of late observed with great pleasure some symptoms which lead us\nto hope that respectable literary men of all parties are beginning to be\nimpatient of this insufferable nuisance. And we purpose to do what in\nus lies for the abating of it. We do not think that we can more usefully\nassist in this good work than by showing our honest countrymen what that\nsort of poetry is which puffing can drive through eleven editions,\nand how easy any bellman might, if a bellman {199}would stoop to the\nnecessary degree of meanness, become a \u201cmaster-spirit of the age.\u201d We\nhave no enmity to Mr. Robert Montgomery. We know nothing whatever about\nhim, except what we have learned from his books, and from the portrait\nprefixed to one of them, in which he appears to be doing his very best\nto look like a man of genius and sensibility, though with less success\nthan his strenuous exertions deserve. We select him, because his works\nhave received more enthusiastic praise, and have deserved more unmixed\ncontempt, than any which, as far as our knowledge extends, have appeared\nwithin the last three or four years. His writing bears the same relation\nto poetry which a Turkey carpet bears to a picture. There are colours in\na Turkey carpet out of which a picture might be made. There are words\nin Mr. Montgomery\u2019s writing which, when disposed in certain orders and\ncombinations, have made, and will again make, good poetry. But, as they\nnow stand, they seem to be put together on principle in such a manner\nas to give no image of any thing \u201cin the heavens above, or in the earth\nbeneath, or in the waters under the earth.\u201d\n\nThe poem on the Omnipresence of the Deity commences with a description\nof the creation, in which we can find only one thought which has the\nleast pretension to ingenuity, and that one thought is stolen from\nDryden, and marred in the stealing;\n\n                   \u201cLast, softly beautiful as music\u2019s close,\n\n                   Angelic woman into being rose.\"\n\nThe all-pervading influence of the Supreme Being is then described in\na few tolerable lines borrowed from Pope, and a great many intolerable\nlines of Mr. Robert {200}Montgomery\u2019s own. The following may stand as a\nspecimen:\n\n                   \u201cBut who could trace Thine unrestricted course,\n\n                   Though Fancy follow\u2019d with immortal force?\n\n                   There\u2019s not a blossom fondled by the breeze,\n\n                   There\u2019s not a fruit that beautifies the trees,\n\n                   There\u2019s not a particle in sea or air,\n\n                   But nature owns thy plastic influence there!\n\n                   With fearful gaze, still be it mine to see\n\n                   How all is fill\u2019d and vivified by Thee;\n\n                   Upon thy mirror, earth\u2019s majestic view,\n\n                   To paint Thy Presence, and to feel it too.\"\n\nThe last two lines contain an excellent specimen of Mr. Robert\nMontgomery\u2019s Turkey-carpet style of writing. The majestic view of\nearth is the mirror of God\u2019s presence; and on this mirror Mr. Robert\nMontgomery paints God\u2019s presence. The use of a mirror, we submit, is not\nto be painted upon.\n\nA few more lines, as bad as those which we have quoted, bring us to one\nof the most amusing instances of literary pilfering which we remember.\nIt might be of use to plagiarists to know, as a general rule, that what\nthey steal is, to employ a phrase common in advertisements, of no use to\nany but the right owner. We never fell in, however, with any plunderer\nwho so little understood how to turn his booty to good account as Mr.\nMontgomery. Lord Byron, in a passage which every body knows by heart,\nhas said, addressing the sea,\n\n                   \u201cTime writes no wrinkle on thine azure brow.\"\n\nMr. Robert Montgomery very coolly appropriates the image and reproduces\nthe stolen goods in the following form:\n\n                   \u201cAnd thou, vast Ocean, on whose awful face\n\n                   Time\u2019s iron feet can print no ruin-trace.\"\n\nSo may such ill got gains ever prosper! {201}The effect which the Ocean\nproduces on Atheists is then described in the following: lofty lines:\n\nO v\n\n                   \u201cOh! never did the dark-soul\u2019d Atheist stand,\n\n                   And watch the breakers boiling on the strand,\n\n                   And, while Creation stagger\u2019d at his nod,\n\n                   Mock the dread presence of the mighty God!\n\n                   We hear Him in the wind-heaved ocean\u2019s roar,\n\n                   Hurling her billowy crags upon the shore;\n\n                   We hear Him in the riot of the blast,\n\n                   And shake, while rush the raving whirlwinds past!\u201d\n\nIf Mr. Robert Montgomery\u2019s genius were not far too free and aspiring to\nbe shackled by the rules of syntax, we should suppose that it is at the\nnod of the Atheist that creation staggers. But Mr. Robert Montgomery\u2019s\nreaders must take such grammar as they can get, and be thankful.\n\nA few more lines bring us to another instance of unprofitable theft. Sir\nWalter Scott has these lines in the Lord of the Isles:\n\n                        \u201cThe dew that on the violet lie?\n\n                        Mocks the dark lustre of thine eyes.\u201d\n\nThis is pretty taken separately, and, as is always the case with the\ngood things of good writers, much prettier in its place than can even\nbe conceived by those who see it only detached from the context. Now for\nMr. Montgomery:\n\n                   \u201cAnd the bright dew-bead on the bramble lies,\n\n                   Like liquid rapture upon beauty\u2019s eyes.\"\n\nThe comparison of a violet, bright with the dew, to a woman\u2019s eyes, is\nas perfect as a comparison can be. Sir Walter\u2019s lines are part of a song\naddressed to a woman at daybreak, when the violets are bathed in dew;\nand the comparison is therefore peculiarly natural and graceful. Dew on\na bramble is no more like a woman\u2019s eyes than dew anywhere else. There\nis a very {202}pretty Eastern tale of which the fate of plagiarists\noften reminds us. The slave of a magician saw his master wave his wand,\nand heard him give orders to the spirits who arose at the summons. The\nslave stole the wand, and waved it himself in the air; but he had\nnot observed that his master used the left hand for that purpose. The\nspirits thus irregularly summoned tore the thief to pieces instead of\nobeying his orders. There are very few who can safely venture to conjure\nwith the rod of Sir Walter; and Mr. Robert Montgomery is not one of\nthem.\n\nMr. Campbell, in one of his most pleasing pieces, has this line,\n\n                   \u201cThe sentinel stars set their watch in the sky.\"\n\nThe thought is good, and has a very striking propriety where Mr.\nCampbell has placed it, in the mouth of a soldier telling his dream.\nBut, though Shakspeare assures us that \u201cevery true man\u2019s apparel fits\nyour thief,\u201d it is by no means the case, as we have already seen, that\nevery true poet\u2019s similitude fits your plagiarist. Let us see how Mr.\nRobert Montgomery uses the image:\n\n                   \"Ye quenchless stars! so eloquently bright,\n\n                   Untroubled sentries of the shadowy night,\n\n                   While half the world is lapp\u2019d in downy dreams,\n\n                   And round the lattice creep your midnight beams,\n\n                   How sweet to gaze upon your placid eyes,\n\n                   In lambent beauty looking from the skies.\"\n\nCertainly the ideas of eloquence, of untroubled repose, of placid eyes,\non the lambent beauty of which it is sweet to gaze, harmonize admirably\nwith the idea of a sentry.\n\nWe would not be understood, however, to say, that Mr. Robert Montgomery\ncannot make similitudes for himself. A very few lines further on, we\nfind one {203}which has every mark of originality, and on which, we will\nbe bound, none of the poets whom he has plundered will ever think of\nmaking reprisals:\n\n                   \u201cThe soul, aspiring, pants its source to mount,\n\n                   As streams meander level with their fount.\"\n\nWe take this to be, on the whole, the worst similitude in the world. In\nthe first place, no stream meanders, or can possibly meander, level with\nits fount. In the next place, if streams did meander level with\ntheir founts, no two motions can be less like each other than that of\nmeandering level and that of mounting upwards.\n\nWe have then an apostrophe to the Deity, couched in terms which, in any\nwriter who dealt in meanings, we should call profane, but to which we\nsuppose Mr. Robert Montgomery attaches no idea whatever.\n\n                   \u201cYes! pause and think, within one fleeting hour,\n\n                   How vast a universe obeys Thy power;\n\n                   Unseen, but felt, Thine interfused control\n\n                   Works in each atom, and pervades the whole;\n\n                   Expands the blossom, and erects the tree,\n\n                   Conducts each vapour, and commands each sea,\n\n                   Beams in each ray, bids whirlwinds be unfurl\u2019d,\n\n                   Unrolls the thunder, and upheaves a world!\u201d\n\nNo field-preacher surely ever carried his irreverent familiarity so\nfar as to bid the Supreme Being stop and think on the importance of the\ninterests which are under his care. The grotesque indecency of such an\naddress throws into shade the subordinate absurdities of the passage,\nthe unfurling of whirlwinds, the unrolling of thunder, and the upheaving\nof worlds.\n\nThen comes a curious specimen of our poet\u2019s English:\n\n                        \u201cYet not alone created realms engage\n\n                        Thy faultless wisdom, grand, primeval sage!\n\n                        For all the thronging woes to life allied\n\n                        Thy mercy tempers, and Thy cares provide.\"\n\n{204}We should be glad to know what the word \u201cFor\u201d means here. If it is\na preposition, it makes nonsense of the words, \u201cThy mercy tempers.\u201d If\nit is an adverb, it makes nonsense of the words, \u201cThy cares provide.\u201d\n\nThese beauties we have taken, almost at random, from the first part of\nthe poem. The second part is a series of descriptions of various events,\na battle, a murder, an execution, a marriage, a funeral, and so forth.\nMr. Robert Montgomery terminates each of these descriptions by assuring\nus that the Deity was present at the battle, murder, execution,\nmarriage, or funeral in question. And this proposition, which might be\nsafely predicated of every event that ever happened or ever will happen,\nforms the only link which connects these descriptions with the subject\nor with each other.\n\nHow the descriptions are executed our readers are probably by this time\nable to conjecture. The battle is made up of the battles of all ages\nand nations: \u201cred-mouthed cannons, uproaring to the clouds,\u201d and \u201chands\ngrasping firm the glittering shield.\u201d The only military operations of\nwhich this part of the poem reminds us, are those which reduced the\nAbbey of Quedlinburgh to submission, the Templar with his cross, the\nAustrian and Prussian grenadiers in full uniform, and Curtius and\nDentatus with their battering-ram. We ought not to pass unnoticed the\nslain war-horse, who will no more\n\n                   \u201cRoll his red eye, and rally for the fight;\"\n\nor the slain warrior who, while \u201clying on his bleeding breast,\u201d\n contrives to \u201cstare ghastly and grimly on the skies.\u201d As to this last\nexploit, we can only say, as Dante did on a similar occasion,\n\n                        \u201cForse per forza gia di\u2019 parlasia\n\n                        Si stravolse lost alenn del tutto:\n\n                        Ma i\u00f4 nol vidi, n\u00e8 credo clie sia.\"\n\n{205}The tempest is thus described:\n\n               \u201cBut lo! around the marsh\u2019lling clouds unite,\n\n               Like thick battalions halting for the fight;\n\n               The sun sinks back, the tempest spirits sweep\n\n               Fierce through the air, and flutter on the deep.\n\n               Till from their caverns rush the maniac blasts,\n\n               Tear the loose sails, and split the creaking masts,\n\n               And the lash\u2019d billows, rolling in a train,\n\n               Rear their white heads, and race along the main!\u201d\n\nWhat, we should like to know, is the difference between the two\noperations which Mr. Robert Montgomery so accurately distinguishes from\neach other, the fierce sweeping of the tempest-spirits through the air,\nand the rushing of the maniac blasts from their caverns? And why does\nthe former operation end exactly when the latter commences?\n\nWe cannot stop over each of Mr. Robert Montgomery\u2019s descriptions. We\nhave a shipwrecked sailor, who \u201cvisions a viewless temple in the air;\u201d\n a murderer who stands on a heath, \u201cwith ashy lips, in cold convulsion\nspread;\u201d a pious man, to whom, as he lies in bed at night,\n\n                   \u201cThe panorama of past life appears,\n\n                   Warms his pure mind, and melts it into tears;\"\n\na traveller, who loses his way, owing to the thickness of the\n\u201ccloud-battalion,\u201d and the want of \u201cheaven-lamps, to beam their holy\nlight.\u201d We have a description of a convicted felon, stolen from that\nincomparable passage in Crabbe\u2019s Borough, which has made many a rough\nand cynical reader cry like a child. We can, however, conscientiously\ndeclare that persons of the most excitable sensibility may safely\nventure upon Mr. {206}Robert Montgomery\u2019s version. Then we have the\n\u201cpoor, mindless, pale-faced maniac boy,\u201d who\n\n                             Rolls his vacant eye,\n\n                   To greet the glowing fancies of the sky.\u201d\n\nWhat are the glowing fancies of the sky? And what is the meaning of the\ntwo lines which almost immediately follow?\n\n               \u201cA soulless thing, a spirit of the woods,\n\n               He loves to commune with the fields and floods.\"\n\nHow can a soulless thing be a spirit? Then comes a panegyric on the\nSunday. A baptism follows; after that a marriage: and we then proceed,\nin due course, to the visitation of the sick, and the burial of the\ndead.\n\nOften as Death has been personified, Mr. Montgomery has found something\nnew to say about him.\n\n               \u201cO Death! though dreadless vanquisher of earth,\n\n               The Elements shrank blasted at thy birth!\n\n               Careering round the world like tempest wind,\n\n               Martyrs before, and victims strew\u2019d behind;\n\n               Ages on ages cannot grapple thee,\n\n               Dragging the world into eternity!\u201d\n\nIf there be any one line in this passage about which we are more in the\ndark than about the rest, it is the fourth. What the difference may\nbe between the victims and the martyrs, and why the martyrs are to lie\nbefore Death, and the victims behind him, are to us great mysteries.\n\nWe now come to the third part, of which we may say with honest Cassio,\n\u201cWhy, this is a more excellent song than the other.\u201d Mr. Robert\nMontgomery is very severe on the infidels, and undertakes to prove,\nthat, as he elegantly expresses it,\n\n                One great Enchanter helm\u2019d the harmonious whole\"\n\nWhat an enchanter has to do with helming, or what a {207}helm has to do\nwith harmony, he does not explain. He proceeds with his argument thus:\n\n               \u201cAnd dare men dream that dismal Chance has framed\n\n               All that the eye perceives, or tongue has named;\n\n               The spacious world, and all its wonders, born\n\n               Designless, sell-created, and forlorn;\n\n               Like to the flashing bubbles on a stream,\n\n               Fire from the cloud, or phantom in a dream?\"\n\nWe should be sorry to stake our faith in a higher Power on Mr. Robert\nMontgomery\u2019s logic. He informs us that lightning is designless and\nself-created. If he can believe this, we cannot conceive why he may not\nbelieve that the whole universe is designless and self-created. A few\nlines before, he tells us that it is the Deity who bids \u201cthunder rattle\nfrom the skiey deep.\u201d His theory is therefore this, that God made the\nthunder, but that the lightning made itself.\n\nBut Mr. Robert Montgomery\u2019s metaphysics are not at present our game. He\nproceeds to set forth the fearful effects of Atheism.\n\n               \u201cThen, blood-stain\u2019d Murder, bare thy hideous arm,\n\n               And thou, Rebellion, welter in thy storm:\n\n               Awake, ye spirits of avenging crime;\n\n               Burst from your bonds, and battle with the time!\u201d\n\nMr. Robert Montgomery is fond of personification, and belongs, we need\nnot say, to that school of poets who hold that nothing more is necessary\nto a personification in poetry than to begin a word with a capital\nletter. Murder may, without impropriety, bare her arm, as she did long\nago, in Mr. Campbell\u2019s Pleasures of Hope. But what possible motive\nRebellion can have for weltering in her storm, what avenging crime may\nbe, who its spirits may be, why they should burst from their bonds, what\ntheir bonds may be, why they should battle with the time, what the\ntime may be, and {208}what a battle between the time and the spirits of\navenging crime would resemble, we must confess ourselves quite unable to\nunderstand.\n\n                   \u201cAnd here let Memory turn her tearful glance\n\n                   On the dark horrors of tumultuous France,\n\n                   When blood and blasphemy defiled her land,\n\n                   And fierce Rebellion shook her savage hand.\"\n\nWhether Rebellion shakes her own hand, shakes the hand of Memory, or\nshakes the hand of France, or what any one of these three metaphors\nwould mean, we know no more than we know what is the sense of the\nfollowing passage:\n\n               \u201cLet the foul orgies of infuriate crime\n\n               Picture the raging havoc of that time,\n\n               When leagued Rebellion march\u2019d to kindle man,\n\n               Fright in her rear, and Murder in her van.\n\n               And thou, sweet flower of Austria, slaughter\u2019d Queen,\n\n               Who dropp\u2019d no tear upon the dreadful scene,\n\n               When gush\u2019d the life-blood from thine angel form,\n\n               And martyr\u2019d beauty perish\u2019d in the storm,\n\n               Once worshipp\u2019d paragon of all who saw,\n\n               Thy look obedience, and thy smile a law.\"\n\nWhat is the distinction between the foul orgies and the raging havoc\nwhich the foul orgies are to picture? Why does Fright go behind\nRebellion, and Murder before? Why should not Murder fall behind Fright?\nOr why should not all the three walk abreast? We have read of a hero who\nhad\n\n               \u201cAmazement in his van, with flight combined,\n\n               And Sorrow\u2019s faded form, and Solitude behind.\"\n\nGray, we suspect, could have given a reason for disposing the\nallegorical attendants of Edward thus. But to proceed, \u201cFlower of\nAustria\u201d is stolen from Byron. \u201cDropp\u2019d\u201d is false English. \u201cPerish\u2019d\nin the storm\u201d means nothing at all; and \u201cthy look obedience\u2019\u2019 means the\nvery reverse of what Mr. Robert Montgomery intends to say. {209}Our poet\nthen proceeds to demonstrate the immortality of the soul:\n\n               \u201cAnd shall the soul, the fount of reason, die,\n\n               When dust and darkness round its temple lie?\n\n               Did God breathe in it no ethereal fire,\n\n               Dimless and quenchless, though the breath expire?\"\n\nThe soul is a fountain; and therefore it is not to die, though dust\nand darkness lie round its temple, because an ethereal fire has been\nbreathed into it, which cannot be quenched though its breath expire.\nIs it the fountain, or the temple, that breathes, and has fire breathed\ninto it?\n\nMr. Montgomery apostrophizes the\n\n                   \u201cImmortal beacons,--spirits of the just,\"\n\nand describes their employments in another world, which are to be,\nit seems, bathing in light, hearing fiery streams flow, and riding on\nliving cars of lightning. The deathbed of the sceptic is described with\nwhat we suppose is meant for energy. We then have the deathbed of a\nChristian made as ridiculous as false imagery and false English can make\nit. But this is not enough. The Day of Judgment is to be described,\nand a roaring cataract of nonsense is poured forth upon this tremendous\nsubject. Earth, we are told, is dashed into Eternity. Furnace blazes\nwheel round the horizon, and burst into bright wizard phantoms. Racing\nhurricanes unroll and whirl quivering fire-clouds. The white waves\ngallop. Shadowy worlds career around. The red and raging eye of\nImagination is then forbidden to pry further. But further Mr. Robert\nMontgomery persists in prying. The stars bound through the airy roar.\nThe unbosomed deep yawns on the ruin. The billows of Eternity then begin\nto advance. {210}The world glares in fiery slumber. A car comes forward\ndriven by living thunder.\n\n                   \u201cCreation shudders with sublime dismay,\n\n                   And in a blazing tempest whirls away.\"\n\nAnd this is fine poetry! This is what ranks its writer with the\nmaster-spirits of the age! This is what has been described, over and\nover again, in terms which would require some qualification if used\nrespecting Paradise Lost! It is too much that this patchwork, made by\nstitching together old odds and ends of what, when new, was but tawdry\nfrippery, is to be picked off the dunghill on which it ought to rot, and\nto be held up to admiration as an inestimable specimen of art. And what\nmust we think of a system by means of which verses like those which we\nhave quoted, verses fit only for the poet\u2019s corner of the Morning Post,\ncan produce emolument and fame? The circulation of this writer\u2019s\npoetry has been greater than that of Southey\u2019s Roderick, and beyond all\ncomparison greater than that of Cary\u2019s Dante or of the best works of\nColeridge. Thus encouraged Mr. Robert Montgomery has favoured the public\nwith volume after volume. We have given so much space to the examination\nof his first and most popular performance that we have none to spare\nfor his Universal Prayer, and his smaller poems, which, as the puffing\njournals tell us, would alone constitute a sufficient title to literary\nimmortality. We shall pass at once to his last publication, entitled\nSatan.\n\nThis poem was ushered into the world with the usual roar of acclamation.\nBut the thing was now past a joke. Pretensions so unfounded, so\nimpudent, and so successful, had aroused a spirit of resistance. In\nseveral magazines and reviews, accordingly, Satan has been handled\nsomewhat roughly, and the arts of the {211}puffers have been exposed\nwith good sense and spirit. We shall, therefore, be very concise.\n\nOf the two poems we rather prefer that on the Omnipresence of the Deity,\nfor the same reason which induced Sir Thomas More to rank one bad book\nabove another. \u201cMarry, this is somewhat. This is rhyme. But the other\nis neither rhyme nor reason.\u201d Satan is a long soliloquy, which the Devil\npronounces in five or six thousand lines of bad blank verse, concerning\ngeography, polities, newspapers, fashionable society, theatrical\namusements, Sir Walter Scott\u2019s novels, Lord Byron\u2019s poetry, and Mr.\nMartin\u2019s pictures. The new designs for Milton have, as was natural,\nparticularly attracted the attention of a personage who occupies so\nconspicuous a place in them. Mr. Martin must be pleased to learn that,\nwhatever may be thought of those performances on earth, they give full\nsatisfaction in Pand\u00e6monium, and that he is there thought to have hit\noff the likenesses of the various Thrones and Dominations very happily.\n\nThe motto to the poem of Satan is taken from the Book of Job: \u201cWhence\ncomest thou? From going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down\nin it.\u201d And certainly Mr. Robert Montgomery has not failed to make his\nhero go to and fro, and walk up and down. With the exception, however,\nof this propensity to locomotion, Satan has not one Satanic quality. Mad\nTom had told us that \u201cthe prince of darkness is a gentleman\u201d but we\nhad yet to learn that he is a respectable and pious gentleman, whose\nprincipal fault is that he is something of a twaddle and far too liberal\nof his good advice. That happy change in his character which Origen\nanticipated, and of which Tillotson did not despair, seems to be rapidly\ntaking {212}place. Bad habits are not eradicated in a moment.\n\nIt is not strange, therefore, that so old an offender should now and\nthen relapse for a short time into wrong dispositions. But to give him\nhis due, as the proverb recommends, we must say that he always returns,\nafter two or three lines of impiety, to his preaching style. We\nwould seriously advise Mr. Montgomery to omit or alter about a hundred\nlines in different parts of this large volume, and to republish it under\nthe name of \u201cGabriel.\u201d The reflections of which it consists would\ncome less absurdly, as far as there is a more and a less in extreme\nabsurdity, from a good than from a bad angel.\n\nWe can afford room only for a single quotation. We give one taken at\nrandom, neither worse nor better, as far as we can perceive, than any\nother equal number of lines in the book. The Devil goes to the play, and\nmoralises thereon as follows:\n\n               \u201cMusic and Pomp their mingling spirits shed\n\n               Around me; beauties in their cloud-like robes\n\n               Shine forth,--a scenic paradise, it glares\n\n               Intoxication through the reeling sense\n\n               Of flush\u2019d enjoyment. In the motley host\n\n               Three prime gradations may be rank\u2019d: the first,\n\n               To mount upon the wings of Shakspeare\u2019s mind,\n\n               And win a flash of his Promethean thought,--\n\n               To smile and weep, to shudder, and achieve\n\n               A round of passionate omnipotence,\n\n               Attend: the second, are a sensual tribe,\n\n               Convened to hear romantic harlots sing,\n\n               On forms to banquet a lascivious gaze,\n\n               While the bright perfidy of wanton eyes\n\n               Through brain and spirit darts delicious fire:\n\n               The last, a throng most pitiful! who seem,\n\n               With their corroded figures, rayless glance,\n\n               And death-like struggle of decaying age,\n\n               Like painted skeletons in charnel pomp\n\n               Set forth to satirize the human kind!--\n\n               How fine a prospect for demoniac view!\n\n               \u2018Creatures whose souls outbalance worlds awake!\u2019\n\n               Methinks I hear a pitying angel cry.\"\n\n{213}Here we conclude. If our remarks give pain to Mr. Robert\nMontgomery, we are sorry for it. But, at whatever cost of pain to\nindividuals, literature must be purified from this taint, And, to show\nthat we are not actuated by any feelings of personal enmity towards him,\nwe hereby give notice that, as soon as any book shall, by means of\npuffing, reach a second edition, our intention is to do unto the writer\nof it as we have done unto Mr. Robert Montgomery.\n\n\n\n\nSADLER\u2019S LAW OF POPULATION. (1)\n\n(_Edinburgh Review_, July 1830.)\n\n\nWe {214}did not expect a good book from Mr. Sadler: and it is well\nthat we did not; for he has given us a very bad one. The matter of his\ntreatise is extraordinary; the manner more extraordinary still. His\narrangement is confused, his repetitions endless, his style everything\nwhich it ought not to be. Instead of saying what he has to say with the\nperspicuity, the precision, and the simplicity in which consists the\neloquence proper to scientific writing, he indulges without measure in\nvague, bombastic declamation, made up of those fine things which boys of\nfifteen admire, and which everybody, who is not destined to be a boy\nall his life, weeds vigorously out of his compositions after\nfive-and-twenty. That portion of his two thick volumes which is not\nmade up of statistical tables, consists principally of ejaculations,\napostrophes, metaphors, similes,--all the worst of their respective\nkinds. His thoughts are dressed up in this shabby finery with so much\nprofusion and so little discrimination, that they remind us of a company\nof wretched strolling players, who have huddled on suits of ragged and\nfaded tinsel, taken from a common wardrobe, and fitting neither their\npersons\n\n     (1) _The Law of Population: a Treatise in Six Books, in\n     Disproof of the Perfecundity of Human Beings, and\n     developing the real Principle of their Increase_. By Michael\n     Thomas Sadlek, M. P. 2 vols. 8vo. London: 1830.\n\n{215}nor their parts; and who then exhibit themselves to the laughing\nand pitying spectators, in a state of strutting, ranting, painted,\ngilded beggary. \u201cOh, rare Daniels!\u201d\n\n\u201cPolitical economist, go and do thou likewise!\u201d\n\n\u201cHear, ye political economists and anti-populationists!\u201d \u201cPopulation, if\nnot proscribed and worried down by the Cerberean dogs of this wretched\nand cruel system, really does press against the level of the means of\nsubsistence, and still elevating that level, it continues thus to\nurge society through advancing stages, till at length the strong\nand resistless hand of necessity presses the secret spring of human\nprosperity, and the portals of Providence fly open, and disclose to the\nenraptured gaze the promised land of contented and rewarded labour.\u201d\n These are specimens, taken at random, of Mr. Sadler\u2019s eloquence. We\ncould easily multiply them; but our readers, we fear, are already\ninclined to cry for mercy.\n\nMuch blank verse and much rhyme is also scattered through these volumes,\nsometimes rightly quoted, sometimes wrongly,--sometimes good, sometimes\ninsufferable,--sometimes taken from Shakspeare, and sometimes, for aught\nwe know, Mr. Sadler\u2019s own. \u201cLet man,\u201d cries the philosopher, \u201ctake heed\nhow he rashly violates his trust;\u201d and thereupon he breaks forth into\nsinging as follows:\n\n               \u201cWhat myriads wait in destiny\u2019s dark womb,\n\n               Doubtful of life or an eternal tomb!\n\n               \u2019Tis his to blot them from the book of fate,\n\n               Or, like a second Deity, create;\n\n               To dry the stream of being in its source,\n\n               Or bid it, widening, win its restless course;\n\n               While, earth and heaven replenishing, the flood\n\n               Rolls to its Ocean fount, and rests in God.\"\n\nIf these lines are not Mr. Sadler\u2019s, we heartily beg {216}his pardon\nfor our suspicion--a suspicion which, we acknowledge, ought not to be\nlightly entertained of any human being. We can only say that we never\nmet with them before, and that we do not much care how long it may be\nbefore we meet with them, or with any others like them, again.\n\nThe spirit of this work is as bad as its style. We never met with a book\nwhich so strongly indicated that the writer was in a good humour with\nhimself, and in a bad humour with everybody else; which contained so\nmuch of that kind of reproach which is vulgarly said to be no slander,\nand of that kind of praise which is vulgarly said to be no commendation.\nMr. Malthus is attacked in language which it would be scarcely decent to\nemploy respecting Titus Oates. \u201cAtrocious,\u201d \u201cexecrable,\u201d \u201cblasphemous,\u201d\n and other epithets of the same kind, are poured forth against that able,\nexcellent, and honourable man, with a profusion which in the early part\nof the work excites indignation, but, after the first hundred pages,\nproduces mere weariness and nausea. In the preface, Mr. Sadler excuses\nhimself on the plea of haste. Two-thirds of his book, he tells us, were\nwritten in a few months. If any terms have escaped him which can be\nconstrued into personal disrespect, he shall deeply regret that he had\nnot more time to revise them. We must inform him that the tone of his\nbook required a very different apology; and that a quarter of a year,\nthough it is a short time for a man to be engaged in writing a book, is\na very long time for a man to be in a passion.\n\nThe imputation of being in a passion Mr. Sadler will not disclaim. His\nis a theme, he tells us, on which \u201cit were impious to be calm;\u201d and he\nboasts that, \u201cinstead of conforming to the candour of the present age,\nhe has {217}imitated the honesty of preceding ones, in expressing\nhimself with the utmost plainness and freedom throughout.\u201d If Mr. Sadler\nreally wishes that the controversy about his new principle of population\nshould be carried on with all the license of the seventeenth century, we\ncan have no personal objections. We are quite as little afraid of a\ncontest in which quarter shall be neither given nor taken as he can be.\nBut we would advise him seriously to consider, before he publishes the\npromised continuation of his work, whether he be not one of that class\nof writers who stand peculiarly in need of the candour which he insults,\nand who would have most to fear from that unsparing severity which he\npractises and recommends.\n\nThere is only one excuse for the extreme acrimony with which this book\nis written; and that excuse is but a bad one. Mr. Sadler imagines that\nthe theory of Mr. Malthus is inconsistent with Christianity, and even\nwith the purer forms of Deism. Now, even had this been the case, a\ngreater degree of mildness and self-command than Mr. Sadler has shown\nwould have been becoming in a writer who had undertaken to defend the\nreligion of charity. But, in fact, the imputation which has been thrown\non Mr. Malthus and his followers is so absurd as scarcely to deserve\nan answer. As it appears, however, in almost every page of Mr. Sadler\u2019s\nbook, we will say a few words respecting it.\n\nMr. Sadler describes Mr. Malthus\u2019s principle in the following words:--\n\n\u201c_It pronounces that there exists an evil in the principle of\npopulation; an evil, not accidental, but inherent; not of occasional\noccurrence, but in perpetual operation; not light, transient, or\nmitigated, but productive of miseries, compared with which all those\ninflicted by human institutions, that is to say, by the weakness\n{218}and wickedness of man, however instigated, are \u2018light: an evil,\nfinally, for which there is no remedy save one, which had been long\noverlooked, and which is now enunciated in terms which evince anything\nrather than confidence. It is a principle, moreover, pre-eminently bold,\nas well as \u2018clear.\u2019 With a presumption, to call it by no fitter name,\nof which it may be doubted whether literature, heathen or Christian,\nfurnishes a parallel, it professes to trace this supposed evil to its\nsource, \u2018the laws of nature, which are those of God;\u2019 thereby implying,\nand indeed asserting, that the law by which the Deity multiplies his\noffspring, and that by which he makes provision for their sustentation,\nare different, and, indeed, irreconcilable_.\u201d\n\n\u201cThis theory,\u201d he adds, \u201cin the plain apprehension of the many, lowers\nthe character of the Deity in that attribute, which, as Rousseau has\nwell observed, is the most essential to him, his goodness; or otherwise,\nimpugns his wisdom.\u201d\n\nNow nothing is more certain than that there is physical and moral\nevil in the world. Whoever, therefore, believes, as we do most\nfirmly believe, in the goodness of God must believe that there is\nno incompatibility between the goodness of God and the existence\nof physical and moral evil. If, then, the goodness of God be not\nincompatible with the existence of physical and moral evil, on\nwhat grounds does Mr. Sadler maintain that the goodness of God is\nincompatible with the law of population laid down by Mr. Malthus?\n\nIs there any difference between the particular form of evil which would\nbe produced by over-population, and other forms of evil which we know\nto exist in the world? It is, says Mr. Sadler, not a light or transient\nevil, but a great and permanent evil. What then? The question of the\norigin of evil is a question of ay or no,--not a question of more\nor less. If any explanation can be found by which the slightest\ninconvenience {219}ever sustained by any sentient being can be\nreconciled with the divine attribute of benevolence, that explanation\nwill equally apply to the most dreadful and extensive calamities that\ncan ever afflict the human race. The difficulty arises from an apparent\ncontradiction in terms; and that difficulty is as complete in the case\nof a headache which lasts for an hour as in the case of a pestilence\nwhich unpeoples an empire,--in the case, of the gust which makes us\nshiver for a moment as in the case of the hurricane in which an Armada\nis cast away.\n\nIt is, according to Mr. Sadler, an instance of presumption unparalleled\nin literature, heathen or Christian, to trace an evil to \u201cthe laws of\nnature, which are those of God,\u201d as its source. Is not hydrophobia\nan evil? And is it not a law of nature that hydrophobia should be\ncommunicated by the bite of a mad dog? Is not malaria an evil? And is it\nnot a law of nature that in particular situations the human frame should\nbe liable to malaria? We know that there is evil in the world. If it is\nnot to be traced to the laws of nature, how did it come into the world?\nIs it supernatural? And, if we suppose it to be supernatural, is not the\ndifficulty of reconciling it with the divine attributes as great as if\nwe suppose it to be natural? Or, rather, what do the words natural and\nsupernatural mean when applied to the operations of the Supreme Mind?\n\nMr. Sadler has attempted, in another part of his work, to meet these\nobvious arguments, by a distinction without a difference.\n\n\u201c_The scourges of human existence, as necessary regulators of the\nnumbers of mankind, it is also agreed by some, are not inconsistent with\nthe wisdom or benevolence of the Governor of the {220}universe; though\nsuch think that it is a mere after-concern to \u2018reconcile the undeniable\nstate of the fact to the attributes we assign to the Deity.\u2019 \u2018The\npurpose of the earthquake,\u2019 say they, \u2018the hurricane, the drought, or\nthe famine, by which thousands, and sometimes almost millions, of the\nhuman race, are at once overwhelmed, or left the victims of lingering\nwant, is certainly inscrutable.\u2019 How singular is it that a sophism like\nthis, so false, as a mere illustration, should pass for an argument,\nas it has long done! The principle of population is declared to be\nnaturally productive of evils to mankind, and as having that constant\nand manifest tendency to increase their numbers beyond the means\nof their subsistence, which has produced the unhappy and disgusting\nconsequences so often enumerated. This is, then, its universal tendency\nor rule. But is there in Nature the same constant tendency to these\nearthquakes, hurricanes, droughts, and famines, by which so many\nmyriads, if not millions, are overwhelmed or reduced at once to ruin?\nNo; these awful events are strange exceptions to the ordinary course\nof things; their visitations are partial, and they occur at distant\nintervals of time. While Religion has assigned to them a very solemn\noffice, Philosophy readily refers them to those great and benevolent\nprinciples of Nature by which the universe is regulated. But were there\na constantly operating tendency to these calamitous occurrences; did we\nfeel the earth beneath us tremulous, and giving ceaseless and certain\ntokens of the coming catastrophe of nature; were the hurricane heard\nmustering its devastating powers, and perpetually muttering around us;\nwere the skies \u2018like brass,\u2019 without a cloud to produce one genial drop\nto refresh the thirsty earth, and famine, consequently, visibly on the\napproach; I say, would such a state of things, as resulting from the\nconstant laws of Nature, be \u2018reconcilable with the attributes we assign\nto the Deity,\u2019 or with any attributes which in these inventive days\ncould be assigned to him, so as to represent him as anything but the\ntormentor, rather than the kind benefactor, of his creatures? Life, in\nsuch a condition, would be like the unceasingly threatened and miserable\nexistence of Damocles at the table of Dionysius, and the tyrant himself\nthe worthy image of the Deity of the anti-populationists_.\u201d\n\nSurely this is wretched trifling. Is it on the number of bad harvests,\nor of volcanic eruptions, that this {221}great question depends? Mr.\nSadler\u2019s piety, it seems, would be proof against one rainy summer, but\nwould be overcome by three or four in succession. On the coasts of the\nMediterranean, where earthquakes are rare, he would be an optimist.\nSouth America would make him a sceptic, and Java a decided Manichean,\nTo say that religion assigns a solemn office to these visitations is\nnothing to the purpose. Why was man so constituted as to need such\nwarnings? It is equally unmeaning to say that philosophy refers these\nevents to benevolent general laws of nature. In so far as the laws of\nnature produce evil, they are clearly not benevolent. They may produce\nmuch good. But why is this good mixed with evil? The most subtle and\npowerful intellects have been labouring for centuries to solve these\ndifficulties. The true solution, we are inclined to think, is that which\nhas been rather suggested, than developed, by Paley and Butler. But\nthere is not one solution which will not apply quite as well to the\nevils of over population as to any other evil. Many excellent people\nthink that it is presumptuous to meddle with such high questions at all,\nand that, though there doubtless is an explanation, our faculties are\nnot sufficiently enlarged to comprehend that explanation. This mode of\ngetting rid of the difficulty, again, will apply quite as well to the\nevils of over-population as to any other evils. We are sure that those\nwho humbly confess their inability to expound the great enigma act more\nrationally and more decorously than Mr. Sadler, who tells us, with the\nutmost confidence, which are the means and which the ends,--which the\nexceptions and which the rules, in the government of the universe;--who\nconsents to bear a little evil without denying the divine benevolence,\n{222}but distinctly announces that a certain quantity of dry weather or\nstormy weather would force him to regard the Deity as the tyrant of his\ncreatures.\n\nThe great discovery by which Mr. Sadler has, as he conceives, vindicated\nthe ways of Providence is enounced with all the pomp of capital letters.\nWe must particularly beg that our readers will peruse it with attention.\n\n\u201c_No one fact relative to the human species is more clearly ascertained,\nwhether by general observation or actual proof, than that their\nfecundity varies in different communities and countries. The principle\nwhich effects this variation, without the necessity of those cruel\nand unnatural expedients so frequently adverted to, constitutes what I\npresume to call The Law of Population; and that law may be thus briefly\nenunciated:--\n\n\u201cThe Prolificness of human beings, otherwise similarly CIRCUMSTANCED,\nVARIES INVERSELY AS THEIR NUMBERS.\n\n\u201cThe preceding definition may be thus amplified and explained.\nPremising, as a mere truism, that marriages under precisely similar\ncircumstances will, on the average, be equally fruitful everywhere,\nI proceed to state, first, that the prolificness of a given number\nof marriages will, all other circumstances being the same, vary\nin proportion to the condensation of the population, so that that\nprolificness shall be greatest where the numbers on an equal space are\nthe fewest, and, on the contrary, the smallest where those numbers are\nthe largest_.\u201d\n\nMr. Sadler, at setting out, abuses Mr. Malthus for enouncing his theory\nin terms taken from the exact sciences. \u201cApplied to the mensuration of\nhuman fecundity,\u201d he tells us, \u201cthe most fallacious of all things is\ngeometrical demonstration;\u201d and he again informs us that those \u201cact an\nirrational and irreverent part who affect to measure the mighty depth\nof God\u2019s mercies by their arithmetic, and to demonstrate, by their\ngeometrical ratios, that it is inadequate to receive and {223}contain\nthe efflux of that fountain of life which is in Him.\u201d\n\nIt appears, however, that it is not to the use of mathematical words,\nbut only to the use of those words in their right senses that Mr. Sadler\nobjects. The law of inverse variation, or inverse proportion, is as much\na part of mathematical science as the law of geometric progression. The\nonly difference in this respect between Mr. Malthus and Mr. Sadler is,\nthat Mr. Malthus knows what is meant by geometric progression, and\nthat Mr. Sadler has not the faintest notion of what is meant by inverse\nvariation. Had he understood the proposition which he has enounced with\nso much pomp, its ludicrous absurdity must at once have flashed on his\nmind.\n\nLet it be supposed that there is a tract in the back settlements of\nAmerica, or in New South Wales, equal in size to London, with only a\nsingle couple, a man and his wife, living upon it. The population of\nLondon, with its immediate suburbs, is now probably about a million and\na half. The average fecundity of a marriage in London is, as Mr. Sadler\ntells us, 2.35. How many children will the woman in the back settlements\nbear according to Mr. Sadler\u2019s theory? The solution of the problem is\neasy. As the population in this tract in the back settlements is to\nthe population of London, so will be the number of children born from a\nmarriage in London to the number of children born from the marriage\nof this couple in the back settlements. That is to say-- 2:1,500,000::\n2.35:1,762,500.\n\nThe lady will have 1,762,500 children: a large \u201cefflux of the fountain\nof life,\u201d to borrow Mr. Sadler\u2019s sonorous rhetoric, as the most\nphiloprogenitive parent could possibly desire. {224}But let us, instead\nof putting cases of our own, look at some of those which Mr. Sadler has\nbrought forward in support of his theory. The following table, he tells\nus, exhibits a striking proof of the truth of his main position. It\nseems to us to prove only that Mr. Sadler does not know what inverse\nproportion means.\n\n[Illustration: 0230]\n\nIs 1 to 160 as 3.66 to 5.48? If Mr. Sadler\u2019s principle were just, the\nnumber of children produced by a marriage at the Cape would be, not\n5.48, but very near 600. Or take America and France. Is 4 to 140 as\n4.22 to 5.22? The number of births to a marriage in North America ought,\naccording to this proportion, to be about 150.\n\nMr. Sadler states the law of population in England thus:--\n\n\u201cWhere the inhabitants are found to be on the square mile, From 50 to\n100 (2 counties) the births to 100 marriages are 420\n\n     --100 to 150 (9 counties).... 396\n     --150 to 200 (16 counties)... 390\n     --200 to 250 (4 counties).... 388\n     --250 to 300 (5 counties).... 378\n     --300 to 350 (3 counties).... 353\n     --500 to 600 (2 counties).... 331\n     --4000 and upwards (1 county) 246\n\n\u201cNow, I think it quite reasonable to conclude, that, were there {225}not\nanother document in existence relative to this subject, the facts thus\ndeduced from the census of England are fully sufficient to demonstrate\nthe position, that the fecundity of human beings varies inversely as\ntheir numbers. How, I ask, can it be evaded?\u201d\n\nWhat, we ask, is there to evade? Is 246 to 420 as 50 to 4000? Is 331 to\n396 as 100 to 500? If the law propounded by Mr. Sadler were correct,\nthe births to a hundred marriages in the least populous part of England,\nwould be, 246 X 4000 50, that is 19,680,--nearly two hundred children to\nevery mother. But we will not carry on these calculations. The absurdity\nof Mr. Sadler\u2019s proposition is so palpable that it is unnecessary\nto select particular instances. Let us see what are the extremes of\npopulation and fecundity in well-known countries. The space which Mr.\nSadler generally takes is a square mile. The population at the Cape of\nGood Hope is, according to him, one to the square mile. That of London\nis two hundred thousand to the square mile. The number of children at\nthe Cape, Mr. Sadler informs us, is 5.48 to a marriage. In London,\nhe states it at 2.35 to a marriage. Now how can that of which all the\nvariations lie between 2.35 and 5.48 vary, either directly or inversely,\nas that which admits of all the variations between one and two hundred\nthousand? Mr. Sadler evidently does not know the meaning of the word\nproportion. A million is a larger quantity than ten. A hundred is a\nlarger quantity than five. Mr. Sadler thinks, therefore, that there is\nno impropriety in saying that a hundred is to five as a million is to\nten, or in the inverse ratio of ten to a million. He proposes to prove\nthat the fecundity of marriages varies in inverse proportion to the\ndensity of the population. But all that {226}he attempts to prove is\nthat, while the population increases from one to a hundred and sixty on\nthe square mile, the fecundity will diminish from 5.48 to 3.66; and that\nagain, while the population increases from one hundred and sixty to two\nhundred thousand on the square mile, the fecundity will diminish from\n3.66 to 2.35.\n\nThe proposition which Mr. Sadler enounces, without understanding the\nwords which he uses, would indeed, if it could be proved, set us at ease\nas to the dangers of over-population. But it is, as we have shown, a\nproposition so grossly absurd that it is difficult for any man to keep\nhis countenance while he repeats it. The utmost that Mr. Sadler has\never attempted to prove is this,--that the fecundity of the human\nrace diminishes as population becomes more condensed,--but that the\ndiminution of fecundity bears a very small ratio to the increase\nof population,--so that, while the population on a square mile is\nmultiplied two hundred-thousand-fold, the fecundity decreases by little\nmore than one-half.\n\nDoes this principle vindicate the honour of God? Does it hold out any\nnew hope or comfort to man? Not at all. We pledge ourselves to\nshow, with the utmost strictness of reasoning, from Mr. Sadler\u2019s own\nprinciples, and from facts of the most notorious description, that every\nconsequence which follows from the law of geometrical progression,\nlaid down by Mr. Mal-thus, will follow from the law, miscalled a law of\ninverse variation, which has been laid down by Mr. Sadler.\n\nLondon is the most thickly peopled spot of its size in the known world.\nTherefore the fecundity of the population of London must, according to\nMr. Sadler, {227}be less than the fecundity of human beings living on\nany other spot of equal size. Mr. Sadler tells us, that \u201cthe ratios\nof mortality are influenced by the different degrees in which the\npopulation is condensated; and that, other circumstances being;\nsimilar, the relative number of deaths in a thinly-populated, or country\ndistrict, is less than that which takes place in towns, and in towns of\na moderate size less again than that which exists in large and populous\ncities.\u201d Therefore the mortality in London must, according to him, be\ngreater than in other places. But, though, according to Mr. Sadler, the\nfecundity is less in London than elsewhere, and though the mortality is\ngreater there than elsewhere, we find that even in London the number of\nbirths greatly exceeds the number of deaths. During the ten years which\nended with 1820, there were fifty thousand more baptisms than burials\nwithin the bills of mortality. It follows, therefore, that, even within\nLondon itself, an increase of the population is taking place by internal\npropagation.\n\nNow, if the population of a place in which the fecundity is less and\nthe mortality greater than in other places still goes on increasing\nby propagation, it follows that in other places the population will\nincrease, and increase still faster. There is clearly nothing in Mr.\nSadler\u2019s boasted law of fecundity which will keep the population from\nmultiplying till the whole earth is as thick with human beings as St.\nGiles\u2019s parish. If Mr. Sadler denies this, he must hold that, in places\nless thickly peopled than London, marriages may be less fruitful than\nin London, which is directly contrary to his own principles; or that in\nplaces less thickly peopled than London, and similarly situated, people\nwill die faster than in London, which is again directly contrary {228}to\nhis own principles. Now, if it follows, as it clearly does follow, from\nMr. Sadler\u2019s own doctrines, that the human race might he stowed together\nby three or four hundred to the acre, and might still, as far as the\nprinciple of propagation is concerned, go on increasing, what advantage,\nin a religious or moral point of view, has his theory over that of\nMr. Malthus? The principle of Mr. Malthus, says Mr. Sadler, leads to\nconsequences of the most frightful description. Be it so. But do not\nall these consequences spring equally from his own principle? Revealed\nreligion condemns Mr. Malthus. Be it so. But Mr. Sadler must share in\nthe reproach of heresy. The theory of Mr. Malthus represents the Deity\nas a Dionysius hanging the sword over the heads of his trembling slaves.\nBe it so. But under what rhetorical figure are we to represent the Deity\nof Mr. Sadler?\n\nA man who wishes to serve the cause of religion ought to hesitate long\nbefore he stakes the truth of religion on the event of a controversy\nrespecting facts in the physical world. For a time he may succeed in\nmaking a theory which he dislikes unpopular by persuading the public\nthat it contradicts the Scriptures and is inconsistent with the\nattributes of the Deity. But, if at last an overwhelming force of\nevidence proves this maligned theory to be true, what is the effect of\nthe arguments by which the objector has attempted to prove that it is\nirreconcilable with natural and revealed religion? Merely this, to make\nmen infidels. Like the Israelites, in their battle with the Philistines,\nhe has presumptuously and without warrant brought down the ark of God\ninto the camp as a means of ensuring victory:--and the consequence of\nthis profanation is that, when the battle is lost, the ark is taken.\n{229}In every age the Church has been cautioned against this fatal\nand impious rashness by its most illustrious members,--by the fervid\nAugustin, by the subtle Aquinas, by the all-accomplished Pascal. The\nwarning has been given in vain. That close alliance which, under\nthe disguise of the most deadly enmity, has always subsisted between\nfanaticism and atheism is still unbroken. At one time, the cry was,--\u201cIf\nyou hold that the earth moves round the sun, you deny the truth of the\nBible.\u201d Popes, conclaves, and religious orders, rose up against the\nCopernican heresy. But, as Pascal said, they could not prevent the earth\nfrom moving, or themselves from moving along with it. One Bing, however,\nthey could do, and they did. They could teach numbers to consider the\nBible as a collection of old women\u2019s stories which the progress of\ncivilisation and knowledge was refuting one by one. They had attempted\nto show that the Ptolemaic system was as much a part of Christianity\nas the resurrection of the dead. Was it strange, then, that, when the\nPtolemaic system became an object of ridicule to every man of education\nin Catholic countries, the doctrine of the resurrection should be in\nperil? In the present generation, and in our own country, the prevailing\nsystem of geology has been, with equal folly, attacked on the ground\nthat it is inconsistent with the Mosaic dates. And here we have Mr.\nSadler, out of his especial zeal for religion, first proving that the\ndoctrine of superfecundity is irreconcilable with the goodness of God,\nand then laying down principles, and stating facts, from which the\ndoctrine of superfecundity necessarily follows. This blundering piety\nreminds us of the adventures of a certain missionary who went to convert\nthe inhabitants of Madagascar. The good father had {230}an audience of\nthe king, and began to instruct his majesty in the history of the human\nrace as given in the Scriptures. \u201cThus, sir,\u201d said he, \u201cwas woman made\nout of the rib of man, and ever since that time a woman has had one rib\nmore than a man.\u201d\n\n\u201cSurely, father, you must be mistaken there,\u201d said the king. \u201cMistaken!\u201d\n said the missionary. \u201cIt is an indisputable fact. My faith upon it! My\nlife upon it!\u201d The good man had heard the fact asserted by his nurse\nwhen he was a child,--had always considered it as a strong confirmation\nof the Scriptures, and fully believed it without having ever thought of\nverifying it. The king ordered a man and woman, the leanest that could\nbe found, to be brought before him, and desired his spiritual instructor\nto count their ribs. The father counted over and over, upward and\ndownward, and still found the same number in both. He then cleared his\nthroat, stammered, stuttered, and began to assure the king that, though\nhe had committed a little error in saving that a woman had more ribs\nthan a man, he was quite right in saying that the first woman was made\nout of the rib of the first man. \u201cHow can I tell that?\u201d said the king.\n\u201cYou come to me with a strange story, which you say is revealed to you\nfrom heaven. I have already made you confess that one half of it is a\nlie: and how can you have the face to expect that I shall believe the\nother half?\u201d\n\nWe have shown that Mr. Sadler\u2019s theory, if it be true, is as much a\ntheory of superfecundity as that of Mr. Malthus. But it is not true. And\nfrom Mr. Sadler\u2019s own tables we will prove that it is not true.\n\nThe fecundity of the human race in England Mr. Sadler rates as\nfollows:--\n\n[Illustration: 0237]\n\n{231}\"Where the inhabitants are found to be on the square mile--From 50\nto 100 (2 counties) the births to 100 marriages are 420\n\n     -- 100 to 150 (9 counties) ....396\n\n     -- 150 to 200 (16 counties) ...390\n\n     -- 200 to 250 (4 counties) ....388\n\n     -- 250 to 300 (5 counties).....378\n\n     -- 300 to 350 (3 counties) ....353\n\n     -- 500 to 600 (2 counties) ....331\n\n     -- 4000 and upwards (1 county).246\n\nHaving given this table, he begins, as usual, to boast and triumph.\n\u201cWere there not another document on the subject in existence,\u201d says he,\n\u201cthe facts thus deduced from the census of England are sufficient to\ndemonstrate the position, that the fecundity of human beings varies\ninversely as their numbers.\u201d In no case would these facts demonstrate\nthat the fecundity of human beings varies inversely as their numbers\nin the right sense of the words inverse variation. But certainly\nthey would, \u201cif there were no other document in existence,\u201d appear to\nindicate something like what Mr. Sadler means by inverse variation.\nUnhappily for him, however, there are other documents in existence; and\nhe has himself furnished us with them. We will extract another of his\ntables:--\n\nThe result of his inquiries with respect to France he presents in the\nfollowing table:--\n\n[Illustration: 0238]\n\nThen comes the shout of exultation as regularly as the _Gloria Patri_\nat the end of a Psalm. \u201cIs there any possibility of gainsaying the\nconclusions these facts force upon us; namely that the fecundity of\nmarriages is regulated by the density of the population, and inversely\nto it?\u201d\n\nCertainly these tables, taken separately, look well for Mr. Sadler\u2019s\ntheory. He must be a bungling gamester who cannot win when he is\nsuffered to pack the cards his own way. We must beg leave to shuffle\nthem a little; and we will venture to promise our readers that some\ncurious results will follow from the operation. In nine counties of\nEngland, says Mr. Sadler, in which the population is from 100 to 150\non the square mile, the births to 100 marriages are 396. He afterwards\nexpresses some doubts as to the accuracy of the documents from which\nthis estimate has been formed, and rates the number of births as high as\n414. Let him take his choice. We will allow him every advantage. {233}In\nthe table which we have quoted, numbered lxiv., he tells us that in\nAlmondness, where the population is 267 to the square mile, there are\n415 births to 100 marriages. The population of Almondness is twice as\nthick as the population of the nine counties referred to in the other\ntable. Yet the number of births to a marriage is greater in Almondness\nthan in those counties.\n\nOnce more, he tells us that in three counties, in which the population\nwas from 300 to 350 on the square mile, the births to 100 marriages were\n353. He afterwards rates them at 375. Again we say, let him take his\nchoice. But from his table of the population of Lancashire it appears\nthat, in the hundred of Ley-land, where the population is 354 to the\nsquare mile, the number of births to 100 marriages is 391. Here again\nwe have the marriages becoming more fruitful as the population becomes\ndenser.\n\nLet us now shuffle the censuses of England and France together. In two\nEnglish counties which contain from fifty to 100 inhabitants on the\nsquare mile, the births to 100 marriages are, according to Mr. Sadler,\n420. But in forty-four departments of France, in which there are from\none to two hecatares to each inhabitant, that is to say, in which the\npopulation is from 125 to 250, or rather more, to the square mile, the\nnumber of births to 100 marriages is 423 and a fraction.\n\nAgain, in five departments of France in which there is less than one\nhecatare to each inhabitant, that is to sav, in which the population is\nmore than 250 to the square mile, the number of births to 100 marriages\nis 414 and a fraction. But, in the four counties of England in which the\npopulation is from 200 to 250 on the square mile, the number of births\nto 100 marriages is, {234}according to one of Mr. Sadler\u2019s tables, only\n388, and by his very highest estimate no more than 402.\n\nMr. Sadler gives us a long table of all the towns of England and\nIreland, which, he tells us, irrefragably demonstrates his principle. We\nassert, and will prove, that these tables are alone sufficient to upset\nhis whole theory.\n\nIt is very true that in the great towns the number of births to a\nmarriage appears to be smaller than in the less populous towns. But we\nlearn some other facts from these tables which we should be glad to\nknow how Mr. Sadler will explain. We find that the fecundity in towns of\nfewer than 3,000 inhabitants is actually much greater than the average\nfecundity of the kingdom, and that the fecundity in towns of between\n3,000 and 4,000 inhabitants is at least as great as the average\nfecundity of the kingdom. The average fecundity of a marriage in towns\nof fewer than 3,000 inhabitants is about four; in towns of between 3,000\nand 4,000 inhabitants it is 3.60. Now the average fecundity of England,\nwhen it contained only 160 inhabitants to a square mile, and when,\ntherefore, according to the new law of population, the fecundity must\nhave been greater than it now is, was only, according to Mr. Sadler,\n3.66 to a marriage. To proceed,--the fecundity of a marriage in the\nEnglish towns of between 4,000 and 5,000 inhabitants is stated at 3.56.\nBut, when we turn to Mr. Sadler\u2019s table of the counties, we find the\nfecundity of a marriage in Warwickshire and Staffordshire rated at only\n3.48, and in Lancashire and Surrey at only 3.41.\n\nThese facts disprove Mr. Sadler\u2019s principle; and the fact on which he\nlays so much stress--that the fecundity is less in the great towns\nthan in the small {235}towns--does not tend in any degree to prove his\nprinciple. There is not the least reason to believe that the population\nis more dense, _on a given space_, in London or Manchester than in a\ntown of 4,000 inhabitants. But it is quite certain that the population\nis more dense in a town of 4,000 inhabitants than in Warwickshire or\nLancashire. That the fecundity of Manchester is less than the fecundity\nof Sandwich or Guildford is a circumstance which has nothing whatever\nto do with Mr. Sadler\u2019s theory. But that the fecundity of Sandwich\nis greater than the average fecundity of Kent,--that the fecundity of\nGuildford is greater than the average fecundity of Surrey,--as from his\nown tables appears to be the case,--these are facts utterly inconsistent\nwith his theory.\n\nWe need not here examine why it is that the human race is less fruitful\nin great cities than in small towns or in the open country. The fact has\nlong been notorious. We are inclined to attribute it to the same causes\nwhich tend to abridge human life in great cities,--to general sickliness\nand want of tone, produced by close air and sedentary employments. Thus\nfar, and thus far only, we agree with Mr. Sadler, that, when population\nis crowded together in such masses that the general health and energy of\nthe frame are impaired by the condensation, and by the habits attending\non the condensation, then the fecundity of the race diminishes. But this\nis evidently a check of the same class with war, pestilence, and famine.\nIt is a check for the operation of which Mr. Malthus has allowed.\n\nThat any condensation which does not affect the general health will\naffect fecundity, is not only not proved--it is disproved--by Mr.\nSadler\u2019s own tables. {236}Mr. Sadler passes on to Prussia, and sums up\nhis information respecting that country as follows:--\n\n[Illustration: 0242]\n\nAfter the table comes the boast as usual:\n\n\u201c_Thus is the law of population deduced from the registers of Prussia\nalso; and were the argument to pause here, it is conclusive. The\nresults obtained from the registers of this and the preceding countries\nexhibiting, as they do most clearly, the principle of human increase,\nit is utterly impossible should have been the work of chance; on the\ncontrary, the regularity with which the facts class themselves in\nconformity with that principle, and the striking analogy which the whole\nof them bear to each other, demonstrate equally the design of Nature,\nand the certainty of its accomplishment._\u201d\n\nWe are sorry to disturb Mr. Sadler\u2019s complacency. But, in our opinion,\nthis table completely disproves his whole principle. If we read the\ncolumns perpendicularly, indeed, they seem to be in his favour. But how\nstands the case if we read horizontally? Does Mr. Sadler believe\nthat, during the thirty years which elapsed between 1754 and 1784, the\npopulation of Prussia had been diminishing? No fact in history is better\nascertained than that, during the long peace which followed the seven\nyears\u2019 war, it increased with great rapidity. Indeed, if the fecundity\nwere what Mr. Sadler states it to have been, it must have increased with\ngreat {237}rapidity. Yet, the ratio of births to marriages is greater\nin 1784 than in 1754, and that in every province. It is, therefore,\nperfectly clear that the fecundity does not diminish whenever the\ndensity of the population increases.\n\nWe will try another of Mr. Sadler\u2019s tables:\n\n[Illustration: 0243]\n\nStanding by itself, this table, like most of the others, seems to\nsupport Mr. Sadler\u2019s theory. But surely London, at the close of the\nseventeenth century, was far more thickly peopled than the kingdom\nof England now is. Yet the fecundity in London at the close of the\nseventeenth century was 4; and the average fecundity of the whole\nkingdom now is not more, according to Mr. Sadler, than 3.5 Then, again,\nthe large towns in 1700 were far more thickly peopled than Westmorland\nand the North Riding of Yorkshire now are. Yet the fecundity in those\nlarge towns was then 4.5. And Mr. Sadler tells us that it is now only\n4.2 in Westmorland and the North Riding.\n\nIt is scarcely necessary to say any thing about the {238}censuses of\nthe Netherlands, as Mr. Sadler himself confesses that there is some\ndifficulty in reconciling them with his theory, and helps out his\nawkward explanation by supposing, quite gratuitously, as it seems to us,\nthat the official documents are inaccurate. The armament which he has\ndrawn from the United States will detain us but for a very short time.\nHe has not told us,--perhaps he had not the means of telling us,--what\nproportion the number of births in the different parts of that country\nbears to the number of marriages. He shows that in the thinly-peopled\nstates the number of children bears a greater proportion to the number\nof grown-up people than in the old states; and this, he conceives, is a\nsufficient proof that the condensation of the population is unfavourable\nto fecundity. We deny the inference altogether. Nothing can be more\nobvious than the explanation of the phenomenon. The back settlements\nare for the most part peopled by emigration from the old states; and\nemigrants are almost always breeders. They are almost always vigorous\npeople in the prime of life. Mr. Sadler himself, in another part of\nhis book, in which he tries very unsuccessfully to show that, the\nrapid multiplication of the people of America is principally owing to\nemigration from Europe, states this fact in the plainest manner:\n\n\u201c_Nothing is more certain, than that emigration is almost universally\nsupplied by \u2018single persons in the beginning of mature life;\u2019 nor,\nsecondly, that such persons, as Dr. Franklin long ago asserted, \u2018marry\nand raise families.\u2019\n\n\u201cNor is this all. It is not more true, that emigrants, generally\nspeaking, consist of individuals in the prime of life\u2019, than that \u2018they\nare the most active and vigorous\u2019 of that age, as Dr. Sey-bert describes\nthem to be. They are, as it respects the principle at issue, a select\nclass, even compared with that of their own age generally considered.\nTheir very object in leaving their native {239}countries is to settle\nin life, a phrase that needs no explanation; and they do so. No equal\nnumber of human beings, therefore, have ever given so large or rapid an\nincrease to a community as \u2018settlers\u2019 have invariably done_.\u201d\n\nIt is perfectly clear that children are more numerous in the back\nsettlements of America than in the maritime states, not because\nunoccupied land makes people prolific, but because the most prolific\npeople go to the unoccupied laud.\n\nMr. Sadler having, as he conceives, fully established his theory of\npopulation by statistical evidence, proceeds to prove, \u201cthat it is\nin unison, or rather required by the principles of physiology.\u201d The\ndifference between himself and his opponents he states as follows:--\n\n\u201c_In pursuing this part of my subject, I must begin by reminding the\nreader of the difference between those who hold the superfecundity of\nmankind and myself, in regard to those principles which will form the\nbasis of the present argument. They contend, that production precedes\npopulation; I, on the contrary, maintain that population precedes, and\nis indeed the cause of, production. They teach that man breeds up to the\ncapital, or in proportion to the abundance of the food, he possesses; I\nassert, that he is comparatively sterile when he is wealthy, and that\nhe breeds in proportion to his poverty; not meaning, however, by that\npoverty, a state of privation approaching to actual starvation, any more\nthan, I suppose, they would contend, that extreme and culpable excess\nis the grand patron of population. In a word, they hold that a state\nof ease and affluence is the great promoter of prolificness: I maintain\nthat a considerable degree of labour, and even privation, is a more\nefficient cause of an increased degree of human fecundity._\u201d\n\nTo prove this point he quotes Aristotle, Hippocrates, Dr. Short, Dr.\nGregory, Dr. Perceval, M. Villermi, Lord Bacon, and Rousseau. We will\nnot dispute about it; for it seems quite clear to us that if he succeeds\n{240}in establishing it he overturns his own theory. If men breed in\nproportion to their poverty, as he tells us here,--and at the same time\nbreed in inverse proportion to their numbers, as he told us before,--it\nnecessarily follows that the poverty of men must be in inverse\nproportion to their numbers. Inverse proportion, indeed, as we have\nshown, is not the phrase which expresses Mr. Sadler\u2019s meaning. To\nspeak more correctly, it follows, from his own positions, that, if one\npopulation be thinner than another, it will also be poorer. Is this the\nfact? Mr. Sadler tells us, in one of those tables which we have already\nquoted, that in the United States the population is four to a square\nmile, and the fecundity 5,22 to a marriage, and that in Russia the\npopulation is twenty-three to a square mile, and the fecundity 4.94 to\na marriage. Is the North American labourer poorer than the Russian boor?\nIf not, what becomes of Mr. Sadler\u2019s argument?\n\nThe most decisive proof of Mr. Sadler\u2019s theory, according to him, is\nthat which he has kept for the last. It is derived from the registers of\nthe English Peerage. The Peers, he says, and says truly, are the\nclass with respect to whom we possess the most accurate statistical\ninformation.\n\n\u201c_Touching their number, this has been accurately known and recorded\never since the order has existed in the country. For several centuries\npast, the addition to it of a single individual has been a matter of\npublic interest and notoriety: this hereditary honour conferring not\npersonal dignity merely, but important privileges, and being almost\nalways identified with great wealth and influence. The records relating\nto it are kept with the most scrupulous attention, not only by heirs\nand expectants, but they are appealed to by more distant connections, as\nconferring distinction on all who can claim such affinity. Hence there\nare few disputes concerning successions to this rank, but such as go\nback {241}to very remote periods. In later times, the marriages, births,\nand deaths, of the nobility, have not only been registered by and known\nto those personally interested, but have been published periodically,\nand, consequently, subject to perpetual correction and revision; while\nmany of the most powerful motives which can influence the human mind\nconspire to preserve these records from the slightest falsification.\nCompared with these, therefore, all other registers, or reports, whether\nof sworn searchers or others, are incorrectness itself_.\u201d\n\nMr. Sadler goes on to tell us that the Peers are a marrying class, and\nthat their general longevity proves them to be a healthy class. Still\npeerages often become extinct;--and from this fact he infers that they\nare a sterile class. So far, says he, from increasing in geometrical\nprogression, they do not even keep up their numbers. \u201cNature interdicts\ntheir increase.\u201d\n\n\u201c_Thus,\u201d says he, \u201cin all ages of the world, and in every nation of it,\nhave the highest ranks of the community been the most sterile, and\nthe lowest the most prolific. As it respects our own country, from the\nlowest grade of society, the Irish peasant, to the highest, the British\npeer, this remains a conspicuous truth; and the regulation of the degree\nof fecundity conformably to this principle, through the intermediate\ngradations of society, constitutes one of the features of the system\ndeveloped in these pages._\u201d\n\nWe take the issue which Mr. Sadler has himself offered. W agree with\nhim, that the registers of the English Peerage are of far higher\nauthority than any other statistical documents. We are content that\nby those registers his principles should be judged. And we meet him by\npositively denying his facts. We assert that the English nobles are not\nonly not a sterile, but an eminently prolific, part of the community.\nMr. Sadler concludes that they are sterile, merely because peerages\noften become extinct. Is this the proper way of ascertaining the\npoint? Is it thus that he avails {242}himself of those registers on the\naccuracy and fulness of which he descants so largely? Surely his right\ncourse would have been to count the marriages, and the number of births\nin the Peerage. This he has not done;--but we have done it. And what is\nthe result?\n\nIt appears from the last edition of Debrett\u2019s _Peerage_, published in\n1828, that there were at that time 287 peers of the United Kingdom,\nwho had been married once or oftener. The whole number of marriages\ncontracted by these 287 peers was 388. The number of children by these\nmarriages was 1437,--more than five to a peer,--more than 4.3 to a\nmarriage,--more, that is to sav, than the average number in those\ncounties of England in which, according to Mr. Sadler\u2019s own statement,\nthe fecundity is the greatest.\n\nBut this is not all. These marriages had not, in 1828, produced their\nfull effect. Some of them had been very lately contracted. In a very\nlarge proportion of them there was every probability of additional\nissue. To allow for this probability, we may safely add one to the\naverage which we have already obtained, and rate the fecundity of a\nnoble marriage in England at 5.3;--higher than the fecundity which Mr.\nSadler assigns to the people of the United States. Even if we do not\nmake this allowance, the average fecundity of the marriages of peers is\nhigher by one-fifth than the average fecundity of marriages throughout\nthe kingdom. And this is the sterile class! This is the class which\n\u201cnature has interdicted from increasing!\u201d The evidence to which Mr.\nSadler has himself appealed proves that his principle is false,--utterly\nfalse,--wildly and extravagantly false. It proves that a class.\n{243}living during half of every year in the most crowded population\nin the world, breeds faster than those who live in the country;--that\nthe class which enjoys the greatest degree of luxury and ease breeds\nfaster than the class which undergoes labour and privation. To talk\na little in Mr. Sadler\u2019s style, we must own that we are ourselves\nsurprised at the results which our examination of the peerage has\nbrought out. We certainly should have thought that the habits of\nfashionable life, and long residence even in the most airy parts of\nso great a city as London, would have been more unfavourable to the\nfecundity of the higher orders than they appear to be.\n\nPeerages, it is true, often become extinct. But it is quite clear, from\nwhat we have stated, that this is not because peeresses are barren.\nThere is no difficulty in discovering what the causes really are. In the\nfirst place, most of the titles of our nobles are limited to heirs male;\nso that, though the average fecundity of a noble marriage is upwards\nof five, yet, for the purpose of keeping up a peerage, it cannot be\nreckoned at much more than two and a half. Secondly, though the peers\nare, as Mr. Sadler says, a marrying class, the younger sons of peers are\ndecidedly not a marrying class; so that a peer, though he has at least\nas great a chance of having a son as his neighbours, has less chance\nthan they of having a collateral heir.\n\nWe have now disposed, we think, of Mr. Sadler\u2019s principle of population.\nOur readers must, by this time, be pretty well satisfied as to his\nqualifications for setting up theories of his own. We will, therefore,\npresent them with a few instances of the skill and fairness which he\nshows when he undertakes to null down the theories of other men. The\ndoctrine {244}of Mr. Malthus, that population, if not checked by want,\nby vice, by excessive mortality, or by the prudent self-denial of\nindividuals, would increase in a geometric progression, is, in Mr.\nSadler\u2019s opinion, at once false and atrocious.\n\n\u201cIt may at once be denied,\u201d says he, \u201cthat human increase proceeds\ngeometrically; and for this simple but decisive reason, that the\nexistence of a geometrical ratio of increase in the works of nature,\nis neither true nor possible. It would fling into utter confusion all\norder, time, magnitude, and space.\u201d\n\nThis is as curious a specimen of reasoning as any that has been offered\nto the world since the days when theories were founded on the principle\nthat nature abhors a vacuum. We proceed a few pages farther, however;\nand we then find that geometric progression is unnatural only in those\ncases in which Mr. Malthus conceives that it exists; and that, in all\ncases in which Mr. Malthus denies the existence of a geometric ratio,\nnature changes sides, and adopts that ratio as the rule of increase.\n\nMr. Malthus holds that subsistence will increase only in an arithmetical\nratio. \u201cAs far as nature has to do with the question,\u201d says Mr. Sadler,\n\u201cmen might, for instance, plant twice the number of peas, and breed\nfrom a double number of the same animals, with equal prospect of their\nmultiplication.\u201d Now, if Mr. Sadler thinks that, as far as nature is\nconcerned, four sheep will double as fast as two, and eight as fast as\nfour, how can he deny that the geometrical ratio of increase does\nexist in the works of nature? Or has he a definition of his own for\ngeometrical progression, as well as for inverse proportion?\n\nMr. Malthus, and those who agree with him, have {245}generally referred\nto the United States, as a country in which the human race increases in\na \u2018geometrical ratio, and have fixed on twenty-five years as the term in\nwhich the population of that country doubles itself. Mr. Sadler contends\nthat it is physically impossible for a people to double in twenty-five\nyears; nay, that thirty-five years is far too short a period,--that\nthe Americans do not double by procreation in less than forty-seven\nyears,--and that the rapid increase of their numbers is produced by\nemigration from Europe.\n\nEmigration has certainly had some effect in increasing the population of\nthe United States. But so great has the rate of that increase been that,\nafter making frill allowance for the effect of emigration, there win be\na residue, attributable to procreation alone, amply sufficient to double\nthe population in twenty-five years.\n\nMr. Sadler states the results of the four censuses as follows:--\n\n\u201c_There were, of white inhabitants, in the whole of the United States\nin 1790, 3,093,111; in 1800, 4,309,656; in 1810, 5,862,093; and in 1820,\n7,861,710. The increase, in the first term, being 39 per cent.; that in\nthe second, 36 per cent.; and that in the third and last, 33 per cent.\nIt is superfluous to say, that it is utterly impossible to deduce\nthe geometric theory of human increase, whatever be the period of\nduplication, from such terms as these._\u201d\n\nMr. Sadler is a bad arithmetician. The increase in the last term is\nnot, as he states it, 33 per cent., but more than 34 per cent. Now, an\nincrease of 32 per cent, in ten years, is more than sufficient to double\nthe population in twenty-five years. And there is, we think, very strong\nreason to believe that the white population of the United States does\nincrease by 32 per cent, every ten years. {246}Our reason is this.\nThere is in the United States a class of persons whose numbers are not\nincreased by emigration,--the negro slaves. During the interval which\nelapsed between the census of 1810 and the census of 1820, the change in\ntheir numbers must have been produced by procreation, and by procreation\nalone. Their situation, though much happier than that of the wretched\nbeings who cultivate the sugar plantations of Trinidad and Demerara,\ncannot be supposed to be more favourable to health and fecundity than\nthat of free labourers. In 1810, the slave trade had been but recently\nabolished; and there were in consequence many more male than female\nslaves,--a circumstance, of course, very unfavourable to procreation.\nSlaves are perpetually passing into the class of freemen; but no freeman\never descends into servitude; so that the census will not exhibit the\nwhole effect of the procreation which really takes place.\n\nWe find, by the census of 1810, that the number of slaves in the Union\nwas then 1,191,000. In 1820, they had increased to 1,538,000. That is\nto say, in ten years, they had increased 29 per cent.--within three\nper cent of that rate of increase which would double their numbers\nin twenty-five years. We may, we think, fairly calculate that, if the\nfemale slaves had been as numerous as the males, and if no manumissions\nhad taken place, the census of the slave population would have exhibited\nan increase of 32 per cent, in ten years.\n\nIf we are right in fixing on 32 per cent, as the rate at which the white\npopulation of America increases by procreation in ten years, it will\nfollow that, during the last ten years of the eighteenth century, nearly\none-sixth of the increase was the effect of emigration; from {247}1800\nto 1810, about one-ninth; and from 1810 to 1820, about one-seventeenth.\nThis is what we should have expected; for it is clear that, unless the\nnumber of emigrants be constantly increasing, it must, as compared with\nthe resident population, be relatively decreasing. The number of persons\nadded to the population of the United States by emigration, between 1810\nand 1820, would be nearly 120,000. From the data furnished by Mr.\nSadler himself, we should be inclined to think that this would be a fair\nestimate.\n\n\u201c_Dr. Seybert says, that the passengers to ten of the principal ports of\nthe United States, in the year 1817, amounted to 22,235; of whom 11,977\nwere from Great Britain and Ireland; 4,164 from Germany and Holland:\n1,245 from France; 58 from Italy; 2,901 from the British possessions in\nNorth America; 1,569 from the West Indies; and from all other countries,\n321. These, however, we may conclude, with the editor of Styles\u2019s\nRegister, were far short of the number that arrived_.\u201d\n\nWe have not the honour of knowing either Dr. Seybert or the editor of\nStyles\u2019s Register. We cannot, therefore, decide on their respective\nclaims to our confidence so peremptorily as Mr. Sadler thinks fit to do.\nNor can we agree to what Mr. Sadler very gravely assigns as a reason for\ndisbelieving Dr. Seybert\u2019s testimony. \u201cSuch accounts,\u201d he says, \u201cif not\nwilfully exaggerated, must always fall short of the truth.\u201d It would be\na curious question of casuistry to determine what a man ought to do in a\ncase in which he cannot tell the truth except by being guilty of wilful\nexaggeration. We will, however, suppose, with Mr. Sadler, that Dr.\nSeybert, finding himself compelled to choose between two sins, preferred\ntelling a falsehood to exaggerating; and that he has consequently\nunderrated the number of emigrants. We will take it at double of the\n{248}Doctor\u2019s estimate, and suppose that, in 1817, 45,000 Europeans\ncrossed to the United States. Now, it must be remembered that the year\n1817 was a year of the severest and most general distress over all\nEurope,--a year of scarcity everywhere, and of cruel famine in some\nplaces. There can, therefore, be no doubt that the emigration of 1817\nwas very far above the average, probably more than three times that\nof an ordinary year. Till the year 1815, the war rendered it almost\nimpossible to emigrate to the United States either from England or from\nthe Continent. If we suppose the average emigration of the remaining\nyears to have been 16,000, we shall probably not be much mistaken. In\n1818 and 1819, the number was certainly much beyond that average; in\n1815 and 1816, probably much below it. But, even if we were to suppose\nthat, in every year from the peace to 1820, the number of emigrants\nhad been as high as we have supposed it to be in 1817, the increase by\nprocreation among the white inhabitants of the United States would still\nappear to be about 30 per cent, in ten years.\n\nMr. Sadler acknowledges that Cobbett exaggerates the number of emigrants\nwhen he states it at 150,000 a year. Yet even this estimate, absurdly\ngreat as it is, would not be sufficient to explain the increase of the\npopulation of the United States on Mr. Sadler\u2019s principles. He is,\nhe tells us, \u201cconvinced that doubling in 35 years is a far more rapid\nduplication than ever has taken place in that country from procreation\nonly.\u201d An increase of 20 per cent, in ten years, by procreation, would\ntherefore be the very utmost that he would allow to be possible. We have\nalready shown, by reference to the census of the slave population, that\nthis doctrine is quite absurd. And, if we suppose it to {249}be sound,\nwe shall be driven to the conclusion that above eight hundred thousand\npeople emigrated from Europe to the United States in a space of little\nmore than five years. The whole increase of the white population from\n1810 to 1820 was within a few hundreds of 2,000,000. If we are to\nattribute to procreation only 20 per cent, on the number returned by the\ncensus of 1810, we shall have about 830,000 persons to account for in\nsome other way;--and to suppose that the emigrants who went to America\nbetween the peace of 1815 and the census of 1820, with the children who\nwere born to them there, would make up that number, would be the height\nof absurdity.\n\nWe could say much more; but we think it quite unnecessary at present. We\nhave shown that Mr. Sadler is careless in the collection of facts,--that\nhe is incapable of reasoning on facts when he has collected them,--that\nhe does not understand the simplest terms of science,--that he has\nenounced a proposition of which he does not know the meaning,--that\nthe proposition which he means to enounce, and which he tries to prove,\nleads directly to all those consequences which he represents as impious\nand immoral,--and that, from the very documents to which he has himself\nappealed, it may be demonstrated that his theory is false. We may,\nperhaps, resume the subject when his next volume appears. Meanwhile, we\nhope that he will delay its publication until he has learned a little\narithmetic, and unlearned a great deal of eloquence.\n\n\n\n\nJOHN BUNYAN. (1)\n\n(_Edinburgh Review_, December 1830.)\n\n\nThis {250}is an eminently beautiful and splendid edition of a book\nwhich well deserves all that the printer and the engraver can do for it.\nThe Life of Bunyan is, of course, not a performance which can add much\nto the literary reputation of such a writer as Mr. Southey. But it is\nwritten in excellent English, and, for the most part, in an excellent\nspirit. Mr. Southey propounds, we need not say, many opinions from which\nwe altogether dissent; and his attempts to excuse the odious persecution\nto which Bunyan was subjected have sometimes moved our indignation. But\nwe will avoid this topic. We are at present much more inclined to\njoin in paying homage to the genius of a great man than to engage in a\ncontroversy concerning church-government and toleration.\n\nWe must not pass without notice the engravings with which this volume\nis decorated. Some of Mr. Heath\u2019s wood-cuts are admirably designed and\nexecuted. Mr. Martin\u2019s illustrations do not please us quite so well. His\nValley of the Shadow of Death is not that Valley of the Shadow of Death\nwhich Bunyan imagined. At all events, it is not that dark and\n\n     (1) _The Pilgrim\u2019s Progress, with a Life of John Bunyan_. By\n     Robert Southey, Esq., LL.D. Poet Laureate. Illustrated with\n     Engravings. 8vo. London: 1830.\n\n{251}horrible glen which has from childhood been in our mind\u2019s eye.\nThe valley is a cavern: the quagmire is a lake: the straight path\nruns zigzag: and Christian appears like a speck in the darkness of the\nimmense vault. We miss, too, those hideous forms which make so striking\na part of the description of Bunyan, and which Salvator Rosa would\nhave loved to draw. It is with unfeigned diffidence that we pronounce\njudgment on any question relating to the art of painting. But it appears\nto us that Mr. Martin has not of late been fortunate in his choice of\nsubjects. He should never have attempted to illustrate the Paradise\nLost. There can be no two manners more directly opposed to each other\nthan the manner of his painting and the manner of Milton\u2019s poetry.\nThose things which are mere accessories in the description! become the\nprincipal objects in the pictures; and those figures which are most\nprominent in the descriptions can be detected in the pictures only by a\nvery close scrutiny. Mr. Martin has succeeded perfectly in representing\nthe pillars and candelabra of Pand\u00e6imonium. But he has forgotten that\nMilton\u2019s Pand\u00e6monium is merely the background to Satan. In the picture,\nthe Archangel is scarcely visible amidst the endless colonnades of his\ninfernal palace. Milton\u2019s Paradise, again, is merely the background\nto his Adam and Eve. But in Mr. Martin\u2019s picture! the landscape is\neverything. Adam, Eve, and Raphael attract much less notice than the\nlake and the mountains, the gigantic flowers, and the giraffes which\nfeed upon them. We read that James the Second sat to Varelst, the great\nflower-painter. When the performance was finished, his Majesty appeared\nin the midst of a bower of sun-flowers and tulips, which completely drew\naway all attention from the central figure. {252}All who looked at the\nportrait took it for a flower-piece. Mr. Martin, we think, introduces\nhis immeasurable spaces, his innumerable multitudes, his gorgeous\nprodigies of architecture and landscape, almost as unseasonably as\nVarelst introduced his flower-pots and nosegays. If Mr. Martin were to\npaint Lear in the storm, we suspect that the blazing sky, the sheets of\nrain, the swollen torrents, and the tossing forest, would draw away all\nattention from the agonies of the insulted king and father. If he were\nto paint the death of Lear, the old man, asking the by-standers to undo\nhis button, would be thrown into the shade by a vast blaze of pavilions,\nstandards, armour, and heralds\u2019 coats. Mr. Martin would illustrate the\nOrlando Furioso well, the Orlando Innamorato still better, the Arabian\nNights best of all. Fairy palaces and gardens, porticoes of agate, and\ngroves flowering with emeralds and rubies, inhabited by people for whom\nnobody cares, these are his proper domain. He would succeed admirably in\nthe enchanted ground of Alcina, or the mansion of Aladdin. But he should\navoid Milton and Bunyan.\n\nThe characteristic peculiarity of the Pilgrim\u2019s Progress is that it is\nthe only work of its kind which possesses a strong human interest. Other\nallegories only amuse the fancy. The allegory of Bunyan has been read by\nmany thousands with tears. There are some good allegories in Johnson\u2019s\nworks, and some of still higher merit by Addison. In these performances\nthere is, perhaps, as much wit and ingenuity as in the Pilgrim\u2019s\nProgress. But the pleasure which is produced by the Vision of Mirza, the\nVision of Theodore, the genealogy of Wit, or the contest between Rest\nand Labour, is exactly similar to the pleasure which we derive {253}from\none of Cowley\u2019s odes or from a canto of Hudibras. It is a pleasure which\nbelongs wholly to the understanding, and in which the feelings have no\npart whatever. Nay, even Spenser himself, though assuredly one of the\ngreatest poets that ever lived, could not succeed in the attempt to make\nallegory interesting. It was in vain that he lavished the riches of his\nmind on the House of Pride and the House of Temperance. One unpardonable\nfault, the fault of tediousness, pervades the whole of the Fairy Queen.\nWe become sick of cardinal virtues and deadly sins, and long for the\nsociety of plain men and women. Of the persons who read the first canto,\nnot one in ten reaches the end of the first book, and not one in a\nhundred perseveres to the end of the poem. Very few and very weary are\nthose who are in at the death of the Blatant Beast. If the last six\nbooks, which are said to have been destroyed in Ireland, had been\npreserved. We doubt whether any heart less stout than that of a\ncommentator would have held out to the end.\n\nIt is not so with the Pilgrim\u2019s Progress. That wonderful book, while it\nobtains admiration from the most fastidious critics, is loved by those\nwho are too simple to admire it. Dr. Johnson, all whose studies were\ndesultory, and who hated, as he said, to read books through, made an\nexception in favour of the Pilgrim\u2019s Progress. That work was one of the\ntwo or three works which he wished longer. It was by no common merit\nthat the illiterate sectary extracted praise like this from the most\npedantic of critics and the most bigoted of Tories. In the wildest parts\nof Scotland the Pilgrim\u2019s Progress is the delight of the peasantry: In\nevery nursery the Pilgrim\u2019s Progress is a greater favourite than Jack\nthe Giant-killer. Every reader knows the {254}straight and narrow path\nas well as he knows a road in which he has gone backward and forward a\nhundred times. This is the highest miracle of genius, that things which\nare not should he as though they were, that the imaginations of one mind\nshould become the personal recollections of another. And this\nmiracle the tinker has wrought. There is no ascent, no declivity,\nno resting-place, no turn-stile, with which we are net perfectly\nacquainted. The wicket gate, and the desolate swamp which separates it\nfrom the City of Destruction, the long line of road, as straight as a\nrule can make it, the Interpreter\u2019s house and all its fair shows, the\nprisoner in the iron cage, the palace, at the doors of which armed men\nkept guard, and on the battlements of which walked persons clothed all\nin gold, the cross and the sepulchre, the steep hill and the pleasant\narbour, the stately front of the House Beautiful by the wayside,\nthe chained lions crouching in the porch, the low green valley of\nHumiliation, rich with grass and covered with flocks, all are as well\nknown to us as the sights of our own street. Then we come to the narrow\nplace where Apollyon strode right across the whole breadth of the way,\nto stop the journey of Christian, and where afterwards the pillar was\nset up to testify how bravely the pilgrim had fought the good fight.\nAs we advance, the valley becomes deeper and deeper. The shade of the\nprecipices on both sides falls blacker and blacker. The clouds gather\noverhead. Doleful voices, the clanking of chains, and the rushing of\nmany feet to and fro, are heard through the darkness. The way, hardly\ndiscernible in gloom, runs close by the mouth of the burning pit, which\nsends forth its flames, its noisome smoke, and its hideous shapes, to\nterrify the adventurer. Thence he goes on, {255}amidst the snares and\npitfalls, with the mangled bodies of those who have perished lying in\nthe ditch by his side. At the end of the long dark valley he passes the\ndens in which the old giants dwelt, amidst the bones of those whom they\nhad slain.\n\nThen the road passes straight on through a waste moor, till at length\nthe towers of a distant city appear before the traveller; and soon he is\nin the midst of the innumerable multitudes of Vanity Fair. There are the\njugglers and the apes, the shops and the puppet-shows. There are Italian\nRow, and French Row, and Spanish Row, and Britain Row, with their crowds\nof buyers, sellers, and loungers, jabbering all the languages of the\nearth.\n\nThence we go on by the little hill of the silver mine, and through\nthe meadow of lilies, along the bank of that pleasant river which is\nbordered on both sides by fruit-trees. On the left branches off the path\nleading to the horrible castle, the court-yard of which is paved with\nthe skulls of pilgrims; and right onward are the sheepfolds and orchards\nof the Delectable Mountains.\n\nFrom the Delectable Mountains, the way lies through the fogs and briers\nof the Enchanted Ground, with here and there a bed of soft cushions\nspread under a green arbour. And beyond is the land of Beulah, where the\nflowers, the grapes, and the songs of birds never cease, and where the\nsun shines night and day. Thence are plainly seen the golden pavements\nand streets of pearl, on the other side of that black and cold river\nover which there is no bridge.\n\nAll the stages of the journey, all the forms which cross or overtake the\npilgrims, giants, and hobgoblins, ill-favoured ones, and shining ones,\nthe tall, comely, swarthy Madame Bubble, with her great purse by her\nside, {256}and her fingers playing with the money, the black man in the\nbright vesture, Mr. Worldly Wiseman and my Lord Hategood, Mr. Talkative,\nand Mrs. Timorous, all are actually existing beings to us. We follow the\ntravellers through their allegorical progress with interest not inferior\nto that with which we follow Elizabeth from Siberia to Moscow, or Jeanie\nDeans from Edinburgh to London. Bunyan is almost the only writer who\never gave to the abstract the interest of the concrete. In the works of\nmany celebrated authors, men are mere personifications. We have not a\njealous man, but jealousy; not a traitor, but perfidy; not a patriot,\nbut patriotism. The mind of Bunyan, on the contrary, was so imaginative\nthat personifications, when he dealt with them, became men. A dialogue\nbetween two qualities, in his dream, has more dramatic effect than a\ndialogue between two human beings in most plays. In this respect the\ngenius of Bunyan bore a great resemblance to that of a man who had\nvery little else in common with him, Percy Bysshe Shelley. The strong\nimagination of Shelley made him an idolater in his own despite. Out of\nthe most indefinite terms of a hard, cold, dark, metaphysical system,\nhe made a gorgeous Pantheon, full of beautiful, majestic, and lifelike\nforms. He turned atheism itself into a mythology, rich with visions as\nglorious as the gods that live in the marble of Phidias, or the virgin\nsaints that smile on us from the canvass of Murillo. The Spirit of\nBeauty, the Principle of Good, the Principle of Evil, when he treated of\nthem, ceased to be abstractions. They took shape and colour. They were\nno longer mere words; but \u201cintelligible forms;\u201d \u201cfair humanities;\u201d\n objects of love, of adoration, or of fear. As there can be no stronger\nsign of a mind destitute of {257}the poetical faculty than that tendency\nwhich was so common among the writers of the French school to turn\nimages Into abstractions, Venus, for example, into Love, Minerva into\nWisdom, Mars into War, and Bacchus into Festivity, so there can be no\nstronger sign of a mind truly poetical than a disposition to reverse\nthis abstracting process, and to make individuals out of generalities.\nSome of the metaphysical and ethical theories of Shelley were certainly\nmost absurd and pernicious. But we doubt whether any modern poet has\npossessed in an equal degree some of the highest qualities of the great\nancient masters. The words bard and inspiration, which seem so cold and\naffected when applied to other modern writers, have a perfect propriety\nwhen applied to him. He was not an author, but a bard. His poetry seems\nnot to have been an art, but an inspiration. Had he lived to the full\nage of man, he might not improbably have given to the world some great\nwork of the very highest rank in design and execution. But, alas!\n\n[Illustration: 0263]\n\nBut we must return to Bunyan. The Pilgrim\u2019s Progress undoubtedly is not\na perfect allegory. The types are often inconsistent with each other;\nand sometimes the allegorical disguise is altogether thrown off. The\nriver, for example, is emblematic of death; and we are told that every\nhuman being must pass through the river. But Faithful does not pass\nthrough it. He is martyred, not in shadow, but in reality, at Vanity\nFair Hopeful talks to Christian about Esau\u2019s birthright and about his\nown convictions of sin as Bunyan might have talked with one of his own\ncongregation. The damsels at the House Beautiful catechize Christiana\u2019s\n{258}boys, as any good ladies might catechize any boys at a Sunday\nSchool. But we do not believe that any man, whatever might be his\ngenius, and whatever his good luck, could long continue a figurative\nhistory without falling into many inconsistencies. We are sure that\ninconsistencies, scarcely less gross than the worst into which Bunyan\nhas fallen, may be found in the shortest and most elaborate allegories\nof the Spectator and the Rambler. The Tale of a Tub and the History\nof John Bull swarm with similar errors, if the name of error can be\nproperly applied to that which is unavoidable. It is not easy to make\na simile go on all-fours. But we believe that no human ingenuity could\nproduce such a centipede as a long allegory in which the correspondence\nbetween the outward sign and the thing signified should be exactly\npreserved. Certainly no writer, ancient or modern, has yet achieved the\nadventure. The best thing, on the whole, that an allego-rist can do, is\nto present to his readers a succession of analogies, each of which may\nseparately be striking and happy, without looking very nicely to see\nwhether they harmonize with each other. This Bunyan has done; and,\nthough a minute scrutiny may detect inconsistencies in every page of his\nTale, the general effect which the Tale produces on all persons, learned\nand unlearned, proves that he has done well. The passages which it is\nmost difficult to defend are those in which he altogether drops the\nallegory, and puts into the mouth of his pilgrims religious ejaculations\nand disquisitions, better suited to his own pulpit at Bedford or Reading\nthan to the Enchanted Ground or to the Interpreter\u2019s Garden. Yet even\nthese passages, though we will not undertake to defend them against the\nobjections of critics, we feel that we could ill spare. We {259}feel\nthat the story owes much of its charm to these occasional glimpses of\nsolemn and effecting subjects, which will not be hidden, which force\nthemselves through the veil, and appear before us in their native\naspect. The effect is not unlike that which is said to have been\nproduced on the ancient stage, when the eyes of the actor were seen\nflaming through his mask, and giving life and expression to what would\nelse have been an inanimate and uninteresting disguise.\n\nIt is very amusing and very instructive to compare the Pilgrim\u2019s\nProgress with the Grace Abounding. The latter work is indeed one of the\nmost remarkable pieces of autobiography in the world. It is a full\nand open confession of the fancies which passed through the mind of an\nilliterate man, whose affections were warm, whose nerves were irritable,\nwhose imagination was ungovernable, and who was under the influence of\nthe strongest religious excitement. In whatever age Bunyan had lived,\nthe history of his feelings would, in all probability, have been very\ncurious. But the time in which his lot was cast was the time of a\ngreat stirring of the human mind. A tremendous burst of public feeling,\nproduced by the tyranny of the hierarchy, menaced the old ecclesiastical\ninstitutions with destruction. To the gloomy regularity of one\nintolerant Church had succeeded the license of innumerable sects,\ndrunk with the sweet and heady must of their new liberty. Fanaticism,\nengendered by persecution, and destined to engender persecution in turn,\nspread rapidly through society. Even the strongest and most commanding\nminds were not proof against this strange taint. Any time might have\nproduced George Fox and James Naylor. But to one time alone belong the\nfrantic delusions of such a statesman {260}as Vane, and the hysterical\ntears of such a soldier as Cromwell.\n\nThe history of Bunyan is the history of a most excitable mind in an age\nof excitement. By most of his biographers he has been treated with gross\ninjustice. They have understood in a popular sense all those strong\nterms of self-condemnation which he employed in a theological sense.\nThey have, therefore, represented him as an abandoned wretch reclaimed\nby means almost miraculous, or, to use their favourite metaphor, \u201cas\na brand plucked from the burning.\u201d Mr. Ivimey calls him the depraved\nBunyan and the wicked tinker of Elstow. Surely Mr. Ivimey ought to\nhave been too familiar with the bitter accusations which the most pious\npeople are in the habit, of bringing against themselves, to understand\nliterally all the strong expressions which are to be found in the Grace\nAbounding. It is quite clear, as Mr. Southey most justly remarks, that\nBunyan never was a vicious man. He married very early; and he solemnly\ndeclares that he was strictly faithful to his wife. He does not appear\nto have been a drunkard. He owns, indeed, that, when a boy, he never\nspoke without an oath. But a single admonition cured him of this bad\nhabit for life; and the cure must have been wrought early; for at\neighteen he was in the army of the Parliament; and, if he had\ncarried the vice of profaneness into that service, he would\ndoubtless have received something more than an admonition from\nSerjeant Bind-their-kings-in-chains, or Captain\nHew-Agag-in-pieces-before-the-Lord. Bell-ringing and playing at hockey\non Sundays seem to have been the worst vices of this depraved tinker.\nThey would have passed for virtues with Archbishop Laud. It is quite\nclear that, from a very early age, Bunyan was a man of a {261}strict\nlife and of a tender conscience. \u201cHe had been,\u201d says Mr. Southey, \u201ca\nblackguard.\u201d Even this we think too hard a censure. Bunyan was not, we\nadmit, so fine a gentleman as Lord Digby; but he was a blackguard\nno otherwise than as every labouring man that ever lived has been a\nblackguard. Indeed Mr. Southey acknowledges this. \u201cSuch he might have\nbeen expected to be by his birth, breeding, and vocation. Scarcely\nindeed, by possibility, could he have been otherwise.\u201d A man whose\nmanners and sentiments are decidedly below those of his class deserves\nto be called a blackguard. But it is surely unfair to apply so strong\na word of reproach to one who is only what the great mass of every\ncommunity must inevitably be.\n\nThose horrible internal conflicts which Bunyan has described with so\nmuch power of language prove, not that he was a worse man than his\nneighbours, but that his mind was constantly occupied by religious\nconsiderations, that his fervour exceeded his knowledge, and that his\nimagination exercised despotic power over his body and mind. He heard\nvoices from heaven. He saw strange visions of distant hills, pleasant\nand sunny as his own Delectable Mountains. From those abodes he was shut\nout, and placed in a dark and horrible wilderness, where he wandered\nthrough ice and snow, striving to make his way into the happy region of\nlight. At one time he was seized with an inclination to work miracles.\nAt another time he thought himself actually possessed by the devil. He\ncould distinguish the blasphemous whispers. He felt his infernal enemy\npulling at his clothes behind him. He spurned with his feet and struck\nwith his hands at the destroyer. Sometimes he was tempted to sell his\npart in the salvation {262}of mankind. Sometimes a violent impulse urged\nhim to start up from his food, to fall on his knees, and to break forth\ninto prayer. At length he fancied that he had committed the unpardonable\nsin. His agony convulsed his robust frame. He was, he says, as if his\nbreastbone would split; and this he took for a sign that he was destined\nto burst asunder like Judas. The agitation of his nerves made all his\nmovements tremulous; and this trembling, he supposed, was a visible mark\nof his reprobation, like that which had been set on Cain. At one time,\nindeed, an encouraging voice seemed to rush in at the window, like the\nnoise of wind, but very pleasant, and commanded, as he says, a great\ncalm in his soul. At another time, a word of comfort \u201cwas spoke\nloud unto him; it showed a great word; it seemed to be writ in great\nletters.\u201d But these intervals of ease were short: His state, during two\nyears and a half, was generally the most horrible that the human mind\ncan imagine. \u201cI walked,\u201d says he, with his own peculiar eloquence, \u201cto\na neighbouring town; and sat down upon a settle in the street, and fell\ninto a very deep pause about the most fearful state my sin had brought\nme to; and, after long musing, I lifted up my head; but methought I saw\nas if the sun that shineth in the heavens did grudge to give me light;\nand as if the very stones in the street, and tiles upon the houses, did\nband themselves against me. Methought that they all combined together to\nbanish me out of the world. I was abhorred of them, and unfit to dwell\namong them, because I had sinned against the Saviour. Oh, how happy now\nwas every creature over I! for they stood fast, and kept their station.\nBut I was gone and lost.\u201d Scarcely any madhouse could produce an\ninstance of delusion so strong, or of misery so acute. {263}It was\nthrough this Valley of the Shadow of Death, overhung by darkness,\npeopled with devils, resounding with blasphemy and lamentation, and\npassing amidst quagmires, snares, and pitfalls, close by the very mouth\nof hell, that Bunyan journeyed to that bright and fruitful land\nof Beulah, in which he sojourned during the latter period of his\npilgrimage. The only trace which his cruel sufferings and temptations\nseem to have left behind them was an affectionate compassion for those\nwho were still in the state in which he had once been. Religion has\nscarcely ever worn a form so calm and soothing as in his allegory.\nThe feeling which predominates through the whole book is a feeling of\ntenderness for weak, timid, and harassed minds. The character of Mr.\nFearing, of Mr. Feeble-Mind, of Mr. Despondency and his daughter Miss\nMuchafraid, the account of poor Littlefaith who was robbed by the three\nthieves, of his spending money, the description of Christian\u2019s terror in\nthe dungeons of Giant Despair and in his passage through the river, all\nclearly show how strong a sympathy Runyan felt, after his own mind\nhad become clear and cheerful, for persons afflicted with religious\nmelancholy.\n\nMr. Southey, who has no love for the Calvinists, admits that, if\nCalvinism had never worn a blacker appearance than in Bunyan\u2019s works,\nit would never have become a term of reproach. In fact, those works of\nBunyan with which we are acquainted are by no means more Calvinistic\nthan the articles and homilies of the Church of England. The moderation\nof his opinions on the subject of predestination gave offence to some\nzealous persons. We have seen an absurd allegory, the heroine of which\nis named Hephzibah, written by some raving supralapsarian preacher\n{264}who was dissatisfied with the mild theology of the Pilgrim\u2019s\nProgress. In this foolish hook, if we recollect rightly, the Interpreter\nis called the Enlightener, and the House Beautiful is Castle Strength.\nMr. Southey tells us that the Catholics had also their Pilgrim\u2019s\nProgress, without a Giant Pope, in which the Interpeter is the Director,\nand the House Beautiful Grace\u2019s Hall. It is surely a remarkable proof of\nthe power of Bunyan\u2019s genius, that two religious parties, both of which\nregarded his opinions as heterodox, should have had recourse to him for\nassistance.\n\nThere are, we think, some characters and scenes in the Pilgrim\u2019s\nProgress, which can be fully comprehended and enjoyed only by persons\nfamiliar with the history of the times through which Bunyan lived. The\ncharacter of Mr. Greatheart, the guide, is an example. His fighting is,\nof course, allegorical; but the allegory is not strictly preserved. He\ndelivers a sermon on imputed righteousness to his companions; and, soon\nafter, he gives battle to Giant Grim, who had taken upon him to back the\nlions. He expounds the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah to the household\nand guests of Gaius; and then he sallies out to attack Slaygood, who was\nof the nature of flesh-eaters, in his den. These are inconsistencies;\nbut they are inconsistencies which add, we think, to the interest of\nthe narrative. We have not the least doubt that Bunyan had in view some\nstout old Greatheart of Naseby and Worcester, who prayed with his men\nbefore he drilled them, who knew the spiritual state of every dragoon\nin his troop, and who, with the praises of God in his mouth, and a\ntwo-edged sword in his hand, had turned to flight, on many fields of\nbattle, the swearing, drunken bravoes of Rupert and Lunsford.\n{265} Every age produces such men as By-ends. But the middle of the\nseventeenth century was eminently prolific of such men. Mr. Southey\nthinks that the satire was aimed at some particular individual; and this\nseems by no means improbable. At all events, Bunyan must have known many\nof those hypocrites who followed religion only when religion walked\nin silver slippers, when the sun shone, and when the people applauded.\nIndeed he might have easily found all the kindred of By-ends among the\npublic men of his time. He might have found among the peers my Lord\nTurnabout, my Lord Time-server, and my Lord Fair-speech; in the House\nof Commons, Mr. Smooth-man, Mr. Anything, and Mr. Facing-both-ways; nor\nwould \u201cthe parson of the parish, Mr. Two-tongues,\u201d have been wanting.\nThe town of Bedford probably contained more than one politician who,\nafter contriving to raise an estate by seeking the Lord during the reign\nof the saints, contrived to keep what he had got by persecuting the\nsaints during the reign of the strumpets, and more than one priest who,\nduring repeated changes in the discipline and doctrines of the church,\nhad remained constant to nothing but his benefice.\n\nOne of the most remarkable passages in the Pilgrim\u2019s Progress is that in\nwhich the proceedings against Faithful are described. It is impossible\nto doubt that Bunyan intended to satirise the mode in whieh state\ntrials were conducted under Charles the Second. The license given to the\nwitnesses for the prosecution, the shameless partiality and ferocious\ninsolence of the judge, the precipitancy and the blind rancour of the\njury, remind us of those odious mummeries which, from the Restoration to\nthe Revolution, were merely forms preliminary to hanging, drawing, and\nquartering. {266}Lord Hategood performs the office of counsel for the\nprisoners as well as Scroggs himself could have performed it.\n\n\u201c_Judge. Thou runagate, heretic, and traitor, hast thou heard what these\nhonest gentlemen have witnessed against thee?\n\n\u201cFaithful. May I speak a few words in my own defence?\n\n\u201cJudge. Sirrah, sirrah! thou deservest to live no longer, but to\nbe slain immediately upon the place; yet, that all men may see our\ngentleness to thee, let us hear what thou, vile runagate, hast to say._\u201d\n\nNo person who knows the state trials can be at a loss for parallel\ncases. Indeed, write what Bunyan would, the baseness and cruelty of the\nlawyers of those times \u201csinned up to it still,\u201d and even went beyond it.\nThe imaginary trial of Faithful, before a jury composed of personified\nvices, was just and merciful, when compared with the real trial of Alice\nLisle before that tribunal where all the vices sat in the person of\nJefferies.\n\nThe style of Bunyan is delightful to every reader, and invaluable as\na study to every person who wishes to obtain a wide command over the\nEnglish language. The vocabulary is the vocabulary of the common people.\nThere is not an expression, if we except a few technical terms of\ntheology, which would puzzle the rudest peasant. We have observed\nseveral pages which do not contain a single word of more than two\nsyllables. Yet no writer has said more exactly what he meant to say.\nFor magnificence, for pathos, for vehement exhortation, for subtle\ndisquisition, for every purpose of the poet, the orator, and the divine,\nthis homely dialect, the dialect of plain working men, was perfectly\nsufficient. There is no book in our literature on which we would so\nreadily stake the fame of {267}the old unpolluted English language, no\nbook which shows so well how rich that language is in its own proper\nwealth, and how little it has been improved by all that it has borrowed.\n\nCowper said, forty or fifty years ago, that he dared not name John\nBunyan in his verse, for fear of moving a sneer. To our refined\nforefathers, we suppose, Lord Roscommon\u2019s Essay on Translated Verse,\nand the Duke of Buckinghamshire\u2019s Essay on Poetry, appeared to be\ncompositions infinitely superior to the allegory of the preaching\ntinker. We live in better times; and we are not afraid to say, that,\nthough there were many clever men in England during the latter half of\nthe seventeenth century, there were only two minds which possessed\nthe imaginative faculty in a very eminent degree. One of those minds\nproduced the Paradise Lost, the other the Pilgrim\u2019s Progress.\n\n\n\n\nSADLER\u2019S REFUTATION REFUTED. (1)\n\n(_Edinburg Review_, January 1831.)\n\n\nWe {268}have, in violation of our usual practice, transcribed Mr.\nSadler\u2019s title-page from top to bottom, motto and all. The parallel\nimplied between the Essay on the Human Understanding and the Essay on\nSuperfecundity is exquisitely laughable. We can match it, however, with\nmottoes as ludicrous. We remember to have heard of a dramatic piece,\nentitled \u201cNews from Camperdown,\u201d written soon after Lord Duncan\u2019s\nvictory, by a man once as much in his own good graces as Mr. Sadler is,\nand now as much forgotten as Mr. Sadler will soon be, Robert Heron. His\npiece was brought upon the stage, and damned, \u201cas it is phrased,\u201d in\nthe second act; but the author, thinking that it had been unfairly and\nunjustly \u201crun down,\u201d published it, in order to put his critics to shame,\nwith this motto from Swift:--\u201cWhen a true genius appears in the\n\n     (1) _A Refutation of an Article in the Edinburgh Review (No.\n     CII.) entitled, \u201cSadler\u2019s Law of Population, and Disproof of\n     Human Superfecundity;\u201d containing also Additional Proofs of\n     the Principle enunciated in that Treatise, founded on the\n     Censuses of different Countries recently published_. By\n     Michael Thomas Sadler, M.P. 8vo. London: 1830.\n\n     \u201cBefore anything came out against my Essay, I was told I\n     must prepare myself for a storm coming against it, it being\n     resolved by some men that it was necessary that book of mine\n     should, as it is phrased, be run down.\u201d--_John Locke_.\n\n{269}world, you may know him by this mark--that the dunces are all\nin confederacy against him.\u201d We remember another anecdote, which may\nperhaps be acceptable to so zealous a churchman as Mr. Sadler. A certain\nAntinomian preacher, the oracle of a barn, in a county of which we do\nnot think it proper to mention the name, finding that divinity was not\nby itself a sufficiently lucrative profession, resolved to combine with\nit that of dog-stealing. He was, by ill-fortune, detected in several\noffences of this description, and was in consequence brought before\ntwo justices, who, in virtue of the powers given them by an act of\nparliament, sentenced him to a whipping for each theft. The degrading\npunishment inflicted on the pastor naturally thinned the flock; and\nthe poor man was in danger of wanting bread. He accordingly put forth a\nhandbill, solemnly protesting his innocence, describing his sufferings,\nand appealing to the Christian charity of the public; and to his\npathetic address he prefixed this most appropriate text: \u201cThrice was I\nbeaten with rods.--_St. Paul\u2019s Epistle to the Corinthians_.\u201d He did\nnot perceive that, though St. Paul had been scourged, no number of\nwhippings, however severe, will of themselves entitle a man to be\nconsidered as an apostle. Mr. Sadler seems to us to have fallen into a\nsomewhat similar error. He should remember that, though Locke may have\nbeen laughed at, so has Sir Claudius Hunter; and that it takes something\nmore than the laughter of all the world to make a Locke.\n\nThe body of this pamphlet by no means justifies the parallel so modestly\ninsinuated on the title-page. Yet we must own that, though Mr. Sadler\nhas not risen to the level of Locke, he has done what was almost as\ndifficult, if not as honourable--he has fallen below his {270}own. He\nis at best a bad writer. His arrangement is an elaborate confusion.\nHis style has been constructed, with great care, in such a manner as\nto produce the least possible effect by means of the greatest possible\nnumber of words. Aspiring to the exalted character of a Christian\nphilosopher, he can never preserve through a single paragraph either the\ncalmness of a philosopher or the meekness of a Christian. His ill-nature\nwould make a very little wit formidable. But, happily, his efforts to\nwound resemble those of a juggler\u2019s snake. The bags of poison are full,\nbut the fang is wanting. In this foolish pamphlet, all the unpleasant\npeculiarities of his style and temper are brought out in the strongest\nmanner. He is from the beginning to the end in a paroxysm of rage, and\nwould certainly do us some mischief if he knew how. We will give a\nsingle instance for the present. Others will present themselves as we\nproceed. We laughed at some doggerel verses which he cited, and which\nwe, never having seen them before, suspected to be his own. We are now\nsure that, if the principle on which Solomon decided a famous case of\nfiliation were correct, there can be no doubt as to the justice of our\nsuspicion. Mr. Sadler, who, whatever elements of the poetical character\nhe may lack, possesses the poetical irritability in an abundance which\nmight have sufficed for Homer himself, resolved to retaliate on the\nperson, who, as he supposed, had reviewed him. He has, accordingly,\nransacked some collection of college verses, in the hope of finding,\namong the performances of his supposed antagonist, something as bad\nas his own. And we must in fairness admit that he has succeeded pretty\nwell. We must admit that the gentleman in question sometimes put into\nhis exercises, at seventeen. {271}almost as great nonsense as Mr. Sadler\nis in the habit of putting into his books at sixty.\n\nMr. Sadler complains that we have devoted whole pages to mere abuse of\nhim. We deny the charge. We have, indeed, characterised, in terms of\njust reprehension, that spirit which shows itself in every part of his\nprolix work. Those terms of reprehension we are by no means inclined\nto retract; and we conceive that we might have used much stronger\nexpressions, without the least offence either to truth or to decorum.\nThere is a limit prescribed to us by our sense of what is due to\nourselves. But we think that no indulgence is due to Mr. Sadler. A\nwriter who distinctly announces that he has not conformed to the candour\nof the age--who makes it his boast that he expresses himself throughout\nwith the greatest plainness and freedom--and whose constant practice\nproves that by plainness and freedom he means coarseness and\nrancour--has no right to expect that others shall remember courtesies\nwhich he has forgotten, or shall respect one who has ceased to respect\nhimself.\n\nMr. Sadler declares that he has never vilified Mr. Malthus personally,\nand has confined himself to attacking the doctrines which that gentleman\nmaintains. We should wish to leave that point to the decision of all\nwho have read Mr. Sadler\u2019s book, or any twenty pages of it. To quote\nparticular instances of a temper which penetrates and inspires the whole\nwork, is to weaken our charge. Yet, that we may not be suspected of\nflinching, we will give two specimens,--the two first which occur to our\nrecollection. \u201cWhose minister is it that speaks thus?\u201d says Mr. Sadler,\nafter misrepresenting in a most extraordinary manner, though, we are\nwilling to believe, unintentionally, one of the positions {272}of Mr.\nMalthus. \u201cWhose minister is it that speaks thus? That of the lover and\navenger of little children?\u201d Again, Mr. Malthus recommends, erroneously\nperhaps, but assuredly from humane motives, that alms, when given,\nshould be given very sparingly. Mr. Sadler quotes the recommendation,\nand adds the following courteous comment:--\u201cThe tender mercies of the\nwicked are cruel.\u201d We cannot think that a writer who indulges in these\nindecent and unjust attacks on professional and personal character has\nany right to complain of our sarcasms on his metaphors and rhymes.\n\nWe will now proceed to examine the reply which Mr. Sadler has thought\nfit to make to our arguments. He begins by attacking our remarks on the\norigin of evil. They are, says he, too profound for common apprehension;\nand he hopes that they are too profound for our own. That they seem\nprofound to him we can well believe. Profundity, in its secondary as in\nits primary sense, is a relative term. When Grihlrig was nearly drowned\nin the Brobdignagian cream-jug he doubtless thought it very deep. But\nto common apprehension our reasoning would, we are persuaded, appear\nperfectly simple.\n\nThe theory of Mr. Malthus, says Mr. Sadler, cannot be true, because it\nasserts the existence of a great and terrible evil, and is therefore\ninconsistent with the goodness of God. We answer thus. We know that\nthere are in the world great and terrible evils. In spite of these\nevils, we believe in the goodness of God. Why may we not then continue\nto believe in his goodness, though another evil should be added to the\nlist?\n\nHow does Mr. Sadler answer this? Merely by telling {273}us that we are\ntoo wicked to be reasoned with. He completely shrinks from the question;\na question, be it remembered, not raised by us--a question which we\nshould have felt strong objections to raising unnecessarily--a question\nput forward by himself, as intimately connected with the subject of\nhis two ponderous volumes. He attempts to carp at detached parts of our\nreasoning on the subject. \u201cWith what success he carries on this guerilla\nwar after declining a general action with the main body of our argument\nour readers shall see.\n\n\u201c_The reviewer sends me to Paley, who is, I confess, rather more\nintelligible on the subject, and who, fortunately, has decided the very\npoint in dispute. I will first give the words of the reviewer, who, when\nspeaking of my general argument regarding the magnitude of the evils,\nmoral and physical, implied in the theory I oppose, sums up his ideas\nthus:--\u2018Mr. Sadler says, that it is not a light or transient evil, but a\ngreat and permanent evil. What then? The question of the origin of evil\nis a question of av or no,--not a question of more or less.\u2019 But what\nsays Paley? His express rule is this, that \u2018when we cannot resolve all\nappearances into benevolence of design, we make the few give place to\nthe many, the little to the great; that we take our judgment from a\nlarge and decided preponderancy.\u2019 Now in weighing these two authorities,\ndirectly at issue on this point, I think there will be little trouble\nin determining which we shall make \u2018to give place or, if we \u2018look to\na large and decided preponderance\u2019 of either talent, learning, or\nbenevolence, from whom we shall \u2018take our judgment.\u2019 The effrontery, or,\nto speak more charitably, the ignorance of a reference to Paley on this\nsubject, and in this instance is really marvellous._\u201d\n\nNow, does not Mr. Sadler see that the very words which he quotes from\nPaley contain in themselves a refutation of his whole argument? Paley\nsays, indeed, as every man in his senses would say, that in a certain\ncase, which he has specified, the more and the less {274}come into\nquestion. But in what case? \u201cWhen we _cannot_ resolve all appearances\ninto the benevolence of design.\u201d It is better that there should be a\nlittle evil than a great deal of evil. This is self-evident. But it is\nalso self-evident that no evil is better than a little evil. Why, then,\nis there any evil? It is a mystery which we cannot solve. It is a\nmystery which Paley, by the very words which Mr. Sadler has quoted,\nacknowledges himself unable to solve; and it is because he cannot solve\nthat mystery that he proceeds to take into consideration the more and\nthe less. Believing in the divine goodness, we must necessarily believe\nthat the evils which exist are necessary to avert greater evils. But\nwhat those greater evils are we do not know. How the happiness of any\npart of the sentient creation would be in any respect diminished if, for\nexample, children cut their teeth without pain, we cannot understand.\nThe case is exactly the same with the principle of Mr. Malthus. If\nsuperfecundity exists, it exists, no doubt, because it is a less evil\nthan some other evil which otherwise would exist. Can Mr. Sadin his\nsenses would say, that in a certain\ncase, which he has specified, the more and the less {274}come into\nquestion. But in what case? \u201cWhen we\n_cannot_ resolve all appearances into the benevolence of design.\u201d It\nis better that there should be a little evil than a great deal of evil.\nThis is self-evident. But it is also self-evident that no evil is better\nthan a little evil. Why, then, is there any evil? It is a mystery which\nwe cannot solve. It is a mystery which Paley, by the very words which\nMr. Sadler has quoted, acknowledges himself unable to solve; and it\nis because he cannot solve that mystery that he proceeds to take into\nconsideration the more and the less. Believing in the divine goodness,\nwe must necessarily believe that the evils which exist are necessary to\navert greater evils. But what those greater evils are we do not know.\nHow the happiness of any part of the sentient creation would be in any\nrespect diminished if, for example, children cut their teeth without\npain, we cannot understand. The case is exactly the same with the\nprinciple of Mr. Malthus. If superfecundity exists, it exists, no doubt,\nbecause it is a less evil than some other evil which otherwise would\nexist. Can Mr. Sadler prove that this is an impossibility?\n\nOne single expression which Mr. Sadler employs on this subject is\nsufficient to show how utterly incompetent he is to discuss it. \u201cOn the\nChristian hypothesis,\u201d says he, \u201cno doubt exists as to the origin of\nevil.\u201d He does not, we think, understand what is meant by the origin\nof evil. The Christian Scriptures profess to give no solution of that\nmystery. They relate facts; but they leave the metaphysical question\nundetermined. They tell us that man fell; but why he was not so\nconstituted as to be incapable of falling, or why the Supreme Being has\nnot mitigated the consequences of the Fall more than they actually have\nbeen mitigated, the {275}Scriptures did not tell us, and, it may without\npresumption be said, could not tell us, unless we had been creatures\ndifferent from what we are. There is something, either in the nature of\nour faculties or in the nature of the machinery employed by us for the\npurpose of reasoning, which condemns us, on this and similar subjects,\nto hopeless ignorance. Man can understand these high matters only by\nceasing to be man, just as a fly can understand a lemma of Newton only\nby ceasing to be a fly. To make it an objection to the Christian system\nthat it gives us no solution of these difficulties, is to make it an\nobjection to the Christian system that it is a system formed for human\nbeings. Of the puzzles of the Academy, there is not one which does not\napply as strongly to Deism as to Christianity, and to Atheism as to\nDeism. There are difficulties in everything. Yet we are sure that\nsomething must be true.\n\nIf revelation speaks on the subject of the origin of evil it speaks\nonly to discourage dogmatism and temerity. In the most ancient, the most\nbeautiful, and the most profound of all works on the subject, the Book\nof Job, both the sufferer who complains of the divine government, and\nthe injudicious advisers who attempt to defend it on wrong principles,\nare silenced by the voice of supreme wisdom, and reminded that the\nquestion is beyond the reach of the human intellect. St. Paul silences\nthe supposed objector, who strives to force him into controversy, in\nthe same manner. The church has been, ever since the apostolic times,\nagitated by this question, and by a question which is inseparable from\nit, the question of fate and free-will. The greatest theologians and\nphilosophers have acknowledged that these things were too high for them,\nand have contented {276}themselves with hinting at what seemed to be\nthe most probable solution. What says Johnson? \u201cAll our effort ends\nin belief that for the evils of life there is some good reason, and in\nconfession that the reason cannot be found.\u201d What says Paley? \u201cOf the\norigin of evil no universal solution has been discovered. I mean no\nsolution which reaches to all cases of complaint.--The consideration of\ngeneral laws, although it may concern the question of the origin of evil\nvery nearly, which I think it does, rests in views disproportionate to\nour faculties, and in a knowledge which we do not possess. It serves\nrather to account for the obscurity of the subject, than to supply\nus with distinct answers to our difficulties.\u201d What says presumptuous\nignorance? \u201cNo doubt whatever exists as to the origin of evil.\u201d It is\nremarkable that Mr. Sadler does not tell us what his solution is. The\nworld, we suspect, will lose little by his silence.\n\nHe falls on the reviewer again.\n\n\u201c_Though I have shown,\u201d says he, \u201cand on authorities from which none\ncan lightly differ, not only the cruelty and immorality which this\nsystem necessarily involves, but its most revolting feature, its gross\npartiality, he has wholly suppressed this, the most important part of my\nargument; as even the bare notice of it would have instantly exposed\nthe sophistry to which he has had recourse. If, however, he would Fairly\nmeet the whole question, let him show me that \u2018hydrophobia,\u2019 which he\ngives as an example of the laws of God and nature, is a calamity to\nwhich the poor alone are liable; or that \u2018malaria,\u2019 which, with singular\ninfelicity, he has chosen as an illustration of the fancied evils of\npopulation, is a respecter of persons._\u201d\n\nWe said nothing about this argument, as Mr. Sadler calls it, merely\nbecause we did not think it worth while; and we are half ashamed to say\nanything about it now. But, since Mr. Sadler is so urgent for an answer,\n{277}he shall have one. If there is evil, it must be either partial or\nuniversal. Which is the better of the two? Hydrophobia, says this great\nphilosopher, is no argument against the divine goodness, because mad\ndogs bite rich and poor alike; but, if the rich were exempted, and\nonly nine people suffered for ten who suffer now, hydrophobia would\nforthwith, simply because it would produce less evil than at present,\nbecome an argument against the divine goodness! To state such a\nproposition, is to refute it. And is not the malaria a respecter of\npersons? It infests Rome. Does it infest London? There are complaints\npeculiar to the tropical countries. There are others which are found\nonly in mountainous districts; others which are confined to marshy\nregions; others again which run in particular families. Is not this\npartiality? Why is it more inconsistent with the divine goodness that\npoor men should suffer an evil from which rich men are exempt, than that\na particular portion of the community should inherit gout, scrofula,\ninsanity, and other maladies? And are there no miseries under which, in\nfact, the poor alone are suffering? Mr. Sadler himself acknowledges,\nin this very paragraph, that there are such; but he tells us that\nthese calamities are the effects of misgovernment, and that this\nmisgovernment is the effect of political economy. Be it so. But does he\nnot see that he is only removing the difficulty one step farther?\nWhy does Providence suffer men, whose minds are filled with false and\npernicious notions, to have power in the state? For good ends, we doubt\nnot, if the fact be so; but for ends inscrutable to us, who see only a\nsmall part of the vast scheme, and who see that small part only for a\nshort period. Does Mr. Sadler doubt that the Supreme Being has power as\nabsolute {278}over the revolutions of political as over the organisation\nof natural bodies? Surely not: and, if not, we do not see that he\nvindicates the ways of Providence by attributing the distresses, which\nthe poor, as he confesses, endure, to an error in legislation rather\nthan to a law of physiology. Turn the question as we may, disguise it\nas we may, we shall find that it at last resolves itself into the same\ngreat enigma,--the origin of physical and moral evil: an enigma which\nthe highest human intellects have given up in despair, but which Mr.\nSadler thinks himself perfectly able to solve.\n\nHe next accuses us of having paused long on verbal criticism. We\ncertainly did object to his improper use of the words, \u201cinverse\nvariation.\u201d Mr. Sadler complains of this with his usual bitterness.\n\n\u201c_Now what is the Reviewer\u2019s quarrel with me on this occasion? That he\ndoes not understand the meaning of my terms? No. He acknowledges the\ncontrary. That I have not fully explained the sense in which I lave used\nthem? No. An explanation, he knows, is immediately subjoined, though\nhe has carefully suppressed it. That I have varied the sense in which I\nhave applied them? No. I challenge him to show it. But he nevertheless\ngoes on for many pages together in arguing against what he knows, and,\nin fact, acknowledges, I did not mean; and then turns round and argues\nagain, though much more feebly, indeed, against what he says I did mean!\nNow, even had I been in error as to the use of a word, I appeal to the\nreader whether such an unworthy and disingenuous course would not, if\ngenerally pursued, make controversy on all subjects, however important,\nthat into which, in such hands, it always degenerates--a dispute about\nwords._\u201d\n\nThe best way to avoid controversies about words is to use words in their\nproper senses. Mr. Sadler may think our objection captious; but how\nhe can think it disingenuous we do not well understand. If we had\n{279}represented him as meaning what we knew that he did not mean, we\nshould have acted in a disgraceful manner. But we did not represent him,\nand he allows that we did not represent him, as meaning what he did not\nmean. We blamed him, and with perfect justice and propriety, for saying\nwhat he did not mean. Every man has in one sense a right to define his\nown terms; that is to say, if he chooses to call one two, and two seven,\nit would be absurd to charge him with false arithmetic for saying that\nseven is the double of one. But it would be perfectly fair to blame\nhim for changing the established sense of words. The words, \u201cinverse\nvariation,\u201d in matters not purely scientific, have often been used\nin the loose way in which Mr. Sadler has used them. But we shall be\nsurprised if he can find a single instance of their having been so used\nin a matter of pure arithmetic.\n\nWe will illustrate our meaning thus. Lord Thur-low, in one of his\nspeeches about Indian affairs, said that one Hastings was worth twenty\nMacartneys. He might, with equal propriety, have said ten Macartneys, or\na hundred Macartneys. Nor would there have been the least inconsistency\nin his using all the three expressions in one speech. But would this be\nan excuse for a financier who, in a matter of account, should reason as\nif ten, twenty, and a hundred were the same number?\n\nMr. Sadler tells us that he purposely avoided the use of the word\nproportion in stating his principle. He seems, therefore, to allow that\nthe word proportion would have been improper. Yet he did in fact employ\nit in explaining his principle, accompanied with an awkward explanation\nintended to signify that, though he said proportion, he meant something\nquite different {280}from proportion. We should not have said so much\non this subject, either in our former article, or at present, but that\nthere is in all Mr. Sadler\u2019s writings an air of scientific pedantry,\nwhich renders his errors fair game. We will now let the matter rest;\nand, instead of assailing Mr. Sadler with our verbal criticism, proceed\nto defend ourselves against his literal criticism.\n\n\u201c_The Reviewer promised his readers that some curious results should\nfollow from his shuffling. We will enable him to keep his word.\n\n\u201c\u2018In two English counties,\u2019 says he, \u2018which contain from 50 to 100\ninhabitants on the square mile, the births to 100 marriages are,\naccording to Mr. Sadler, 420; but in 44 departments of France, in which\nthere are from one to two hecatares [hectares] to each inhabitant, that\nis to say, in which the population is from 125 to 250, or rather more,\nto the square mile, the number of births to one hundred marriages is 423\nand a fraction.\u2019\n\n\u201cThe first curious result is, that our Reviewer is ignorant, not only of\nthe name, but of the extent, of a French hectare; otherwise he is guilty\nof a practice which, even if transferred to the gambling-table, would,\nI presume, prevent him from being allowed ever to shuffle, even there,\nagain. He was most ready to pronounce upon a mistake of one per cent, in\na calculation of mine, the difference in no wise affecting the argument\nin hand; but here I must inform him, that his error, whether wilfully or\nignorantly put forth, involves his entire argument.\n\n\u201cThe French hectare I had calculated to contain 107708 67/100 English\nsquare feet, or 247265 acres; Dr. Kelly takes it, on authority which\nhe gives, at 107644 English square feet. The last French Annuaires,\nhowever, state it, I perceive, as being equal to 2473914 acres. The\ndifference is very trifling, and will not in the slightest degree\ncover our critic\u2019s error. When, therefore, the Reviewer calculates the\npopulation of the departments of France thus: \u2018from one to two hectares\nto each inhabitant, that is to say, in which the population is from 125\nto 250, or rather more, to the square mile; his \u2018that {281}is to say\u2019 is\nthat which he ought not to have said--no rare case with him, as we shall\nshow throughout.\u201d_\n\nWe must inform Mr. Sadler, in the first place, that we inserted the\nvowel which amuses him so much, not from ignorance or from carelessness,\nbut advisedly, and in conformity with the practice of several\nrespectable writers. He will find the word hecatare in Rees\u2019s\nCyclopaedia. He will find it also in Dr. Young. We prefer the form which\nwe have employed, because it is etymologically correct. Mr. Sadler seems\nnot to know that a hecatare is so called, because it contains a hundred\nacres.\n\nWe were perfectly acquainted with the extent as well as with the name of\na hecatare. Is it at all strange that we should use the words \u201c250,\nor rather more,\u201d in speaking of 258 and a fraction? Do not people\nconstantly employ round numbers with still greater looseness, in\ntranslating foreign distances and foreign money? If indeed, as Mr.\nSadler says, the difference which he chooses to call an error involved\nthe entire argument, or any part of the argument, we should have been\nguilty of gross unfairness. But it is not so. The difference between 258\nand 250, as even Mr. Sadler would see if he were not blind with fury,\nwas a difference to his advantage. Our point was this. The fecundity of\na dense population in certain departments of France is greater than that\nof a thinly scattered population in certain counties of England. The\nmore dense, therefore, the population in those departments of\nFrance, the stronger was our case. By putting 250, instead of 258, we\nunderstated our case. Mr. Sadler\u2019s correction of our orthography\nleads us to suspect that he knows very little of Greek; and his\n{282}correction of our calculation quite satisfies us that he knows very\nlittle of logic.\n\nBut, to come to the gist of the controversy. Our argument, drawn from\nMr. Sadler\u2019s own Tables, remains absolutely untouched. He makes excuses\nindeed; for an excuse is the last thing that Mr. Sadler will ever want.\nThere is something half laughable and half provoking in the facility\nwith which he asserts and retracts, says and unsays, exactly as suits\nhis argument. Sometimes the register of baptisms is imperfect, and\nsometimes the register of burials. Then again these registers become all\nat once exact almost to an unit. He brings forward a census of Prussia\nin proof of his theory. We show that it directly confutes his theory;\nand it forthwith becomes \u201cnotoriously and grossly defective.\u201d The census\nof the Netherlands is not to be easily dealt with; and the census of the\nNetherlands is therefore pronounced inaccurate. In his book on the Law\nof Population, he tells us that \u201cin the slave-holding States of America,\nthe male slaves constitute a decided majority of that unfortunate\nclass.\u201d This fact, we turned against him; and, forgetting that he had\nhimself stated it, he tells that \u201cit is as erroneous as many other ideas\nwhich we entertain,\u201d and that \u201che will venture to assert that the female\nslaves were, at the nubile age, as numerous as the males.\u201d The increase\nof the negroes in the United States puzzles him; and he creates a\nvast slave trade to solve it. He confounds together things perfectly\ndifferent; the slave-trade carried on under the American flag, and\nthe slave-trade carried on for the supply of the American soil,--the\nslave-trade with Africa, and the internal slave-trade between the\ndifferent States. He exaggerates a few occasional acts of smuggling into\n{283}an immense and regular importation, and makes his escape as\nwell as he can under cover of this hubbub of words. Documents are\nauthentic and facts true precisely in proportion to the support which\nthey afford to his theory. This is one way, undoubtedly, of making\nbooks: but we question much whether it be the way to make discoveries.\n\nAs to the inconsistencies which we pointed out between his theory and\nhis own tables, he finds no difficulty in explaining them away or facing\nthem out. In one case there would have been no contradiction if, instead\nof taking one of his tables, we had multiplied the number of three\ntables together, and taken the average. Another would never have existed\nif there had not been a great migration of people into Lancashire.\nAnother is not to be got over by any device. But then it is very small,\nand of no consequence to the argument.\n\nHere, indeed, he is perhaps right. The inconsistencies which we noticed\nwere, in themselves, of little moment. We gave them as samples,--as\nmere hints, to caution those of our readers who might also happen to\nbe readers of Mil Sadler against being deceived by his packing. He\ncomplains of the word packing. We repeat it; and, since he has defied\nus to the proof, we will go fully into the question which, in our last\narticle, we only glanced at, and prove, in such a manner as shall not\nleave even to Mr. Sadler any shadow of excuse, that his theory owes its\nspeciousness to packing, and to packing alone.\n\nThat our readers may fully understand our reasoning, we will again state\nwhat Mr. Sadler\u2019s proportion is. He asserts that, on a given space,\nthe number of children to a marriage becomes less and {284}less as the\npopulation becomes more and more numerous.\n\nWe will begin with the censuses of France given by Mr. Sadler. By\njoining the departments together in combinations which suit his purpose,\nhe has contrived to produce three tables, which he presents as decisive\nproofs of his theory.\n\nThe first is as follows:--\n\n\u201cThe legitimate births are, in those departments where there are to each\ninhabitant--\n\n[Illustration: 0290]\n\nThese tables, as we said in our former article, certainly look well\nfor Mr. Sadler\u2019s theory. \u201cDo they?\u201d says he. \u201cAssuredly they do; and in\nadmitting this, the Reviewer has admitted the theory to be proved.\u201d We\ncannot absolutely agree to this. A theory is not proved, we must tell\nMr. Sadler, merely because the {285}evidence in its favour looks well\nat first sight. There is an old proverb, very homely in expression, but\nwell deserving to be had in constant remembrance by all men, engaged\neither in action or in speculation--\u201cOne story is good till another is\ntold!\u201d\n\nWe affirm, then, that the results which these tables present, and which\nseem so favourable to Mr. Sadler\u2019s theory, are produced by packing, and\nby packing alone.\n\nIn the first place, if we look at the departments singly, the whole is\nin disorder. About the department in which Paris is situated there is\nno dispute: Mr. Malthas distinctly admits that great cities prevent\npropagation. There remain eighty-four departments; and of these there\nis not, we believe, a single one in the place which, according to Mr.\nSadler\u2019s principle, it ought to occupy.\n\nThat which ought to be highest in fecundity is tenth in one table,\nfourteenth in another, and only thirty-first according to the third.\nThat which ought to be third is twenty-second by the table, which places\nit highest. That which ought to be fourth is fortieth by the table,\nwhich places it highest. That which ought to be eighth is fiftieth or\nsixtieth. That which ought to be tenth from the top is at about the same\ndistance from the bottom. On the other hand, that which, according to\nMr. Sadler\u2019s principle, ought to be last but two of all the eighty-four\nis third in two of the tables, and seventh in that which places it\nlowest; and that which ought to be last is, in one of Mr. Sadler\u2019s\ntables, above that which ought to be first, in two of them, above that\nwhich ought to be third, and, in all of them, above that which ought to\nbe fourth.\n\nBy dividing the departments in a particular manner, {286}Mr. Sadler has\nproduced results which he contemplates with great satisfaction. But, if\nwe draw the lines a little higher up or a little lower down, we shall\nfind that all his calculations are thrown into utter confusion; and\nthat the phenomena, if they indicate any thing, indicate a law the very\nreverse of that which he has propounded.\n\nLet us take, for example, the thirty-two departments, as they stand in\nMr. Sadler\u2019s table, from Loz\u00e8re to Meuse inclusive, and divide them into\ntwo sets of sixteen departments each. The set from Loz\u00e8re and Loiret\ninclusive consists of those departments in which the space to each\ninhabitant is from 3.8 hecatares to 2.42. The set from Cantal to Meuse\ninclusive consists of those departments in which the space to each\ninhabitant is from 2.42 hecatares to 2.07. That is to say, in the\nformer set the inhabitants are from 68 to 107 on the square mile, or\nthereabouts. In the latter they are from 107 to 125. Therefore, on Mr.\nSadler\u2019s principle, the fecundity ought to be smaller in the latter set\nthan in the former. It is, however, greater, and that in every one of\nMr. Sadler\u2019s three tables.\n\nLet us now go a little lower down, and take another set of sixteen\ndepartments--those which lie together in Mr. Sadler\u2019s tables, from\nH\u00e9rault to Jura inclusive. Here the population is still thicker than\nin the second of those sets which we before compared. The fecundity,\ntherefore, ought, on Mr. Sadler\u2019s principle, to be less than in that\nset. But it is again greater, and that in all Mr. Sadler\u2019s three tables.\nWe have a regularly ascending series, where, if his theory had any truth\nin it, we ought to have a regularly descending series. We will give the\nresults of our calculation.\n\nThe number of children to 1000 marriages is--\n\n[Illustration: 0293]\n\nFirst Table. Second Table. Third Table. In the sixteen departments where\nthere are from 68 to 107 people on a square mile 4188 4226 3780 In the\nsixteen departments where there are from 107 to 125 people on a square\nmile 4374 4332 3855 In the sixteen departments where there are from 134\nto 125 people on a square mile 4484 4416 3914 {287}We will give another\ninstance, if possible still more decisive. We will take the three\ndepartments of France which ought, on Mr. Sadler\u2019s principle, to be the\nlowest in fecundity of all the eighty-five, saving only that in which\nParis stands; and we will compare them with the three departments in\nwhich the fecundity ought, according to him, to be greater than in any\nother department of France, two only excepted. We will compare Bas Rhin,\nRhone, and Nord, with Loz\u00e8re, Landes, and Indre. In Loz\u00e8re, Landes, and\nIndre, the population is from 68 to 84 on the square mile, or nearly so.\nIn Bas Rhin, Rhone, and Nord, it is from 300 to 417 on the square mile.\nThere cannot be a more overwhelming answer to Mr. Sadler\u2019s theory than\nthe table which we subjoin:\n\nThe number of births to 1000 marriages is--\n\nTake the whole of the third, fourth, and fifth divisions into which Mr.\nSadler has portioned out the French departments. These three divisions\nmake up almost the whole kingdom of France. They contain seventy-nine\nout of the eighty-five departments. Mr. Sadler has contrived to divide\nthem in such a manner that, to a person who looks merely at his\naverages, the fecundity seems to diminish as the population thickens. We\nwill separate them into two parts instead of three. We will draw the\nline between the department of Gironde and that of H\u00e9rault. On the one\nside are the thirty-two departments from Cher to Gironde inclusive. On\nthe other side are the forty-six departments from H\u00e9rault to Nord\ninclusive. In all the departments of the former set, the population is\nunder 132 on the square mile. In all the departments of the latter set,\nit is above 132 on the square mile. It is clear that, if there be one\nword of truth in MV. Sadler\u2019s theory, the fecundity in the latter of\nthese divisions must be very decidedly smaller than in the former. Is it\nso? It is, on the contrary, greater in all the three tables. We give the\nresult.\n\nThe number of births to 1000 marriages is--\n\n[Illustration: 0294]\n\nIn the thirty-two departments in whieh there are from 86 to 13.2\npeople on the square mile 4210 4199 3760 In the forty-seven departments\nin whieh there are from 132 to 41.7 people on the square mile....\n\nThis fact is alone enough to decide the question. Yet it is only one of\na crowd of similar facts. If the {289}line between Mr. Sadler\u2019s second\nand third divisions be drawn six departments lower down, the third and\nfourth divisions will, in all the tables, be above the second. If the\nline between the third and fourth divisions he drawn two departments\nlower down, the fourth division will be above the third in all the\ntables. If the line between the fourth and fifth divisions be drawn two\ndepartments lower down, the fifth will, in all the tables, be above the\nfourth, above the third, and even above the second. How then has Mr.\nSadler obtained his results? By packing solely. By placing in one\ncompartment a district no larger than the Isle of Wight; in another,\na district somewhat less than Yorkshire; in a third, a territory much\nlarger than the island of Great Britain.\n\nBy the same artifice it is that he has obtained from the census of\nEngland those delusive averages which he brings forward with the\nutmost ostentation in proof of his principle. We will examine the facts\nrelating to England, as we have examined those relating to F rance.\n\nIf we look at the counties one by one, Mr. Sadler\u2019s principle utterly\nfails. Hertfordshire with 251 on the square mile; Worcestershire\nwith 258; and Kent with 282, exhibit a far greater fecundity than the\nEast-Riding of York, which has 151 on the square mile; Monmouthshire,\nwhich has 145; or Northumberland, which has 108. The fecundity of\nStaffordshire, which has more than 300 on the square mile, is as high as\nthe average fecundity of the counties which have from 150 to 200 on\nthe square mile. But, instead of confining ourselves to particular\ninstances, we will try masses.\n\nTake the eight counties of England which stand together in {290}Mr.\nSadler\u2019s list, from Cumberland to Dorset inclusive. In these the\npopulation is from 107 to 150 on the square mile. Compare with these the\neight counties from Berks to Durham inclusive, in which the population\nis from 175 to 200 on the square mile. Is the fecundity in the latter\ncounties smaller than in the former? On the contrary, the result stands\nthus:\n\nThe number of children to 100 marriages is--\n\nIn the eight counties of England, in which there are from 107 to 146\npeople on the square mile 388 In the eight counties of England, in which\nthere are from 175 to 200 people on the square mile 402 Take the\nsix districts from the East-Riding of York to the County of Norfolk\ninclusive. Here the population is from 150 to 170 on the square mile.\nTo these oppose the six counties from Derby to Worcester inclusive. The\npopulation is from 200 to 260. Here again we find that a law, directly\nthe reverse of that which Mr. Sadler has laid down, appears to regulate\nthe fecundity of the inhabitants.\n\nThe number of children to 100 marriages is--\n\nIn the six counties in which there are from 150 to 170 people on the\nsquare mile. . . 392\n\nIn the six counties in which there are from 200 to 260 people on the\nsquare mile. . . 399\n\nBut we will make another experiment on Mr. Sadler\u2019s tables, if possible\nmore decisive than any of those which we have hitherto made. We will\ntake the four largest divisions into which he has distributed the\nEnglish counties, and which follow each other in regular order. That\nour readers may fully comprehend the nature of that packing by which his\ntheory is supported, we will set before them this part of his table.\n\n[Illustration: 0297]\n\nThe number of children to 100 marriages is--\n\nIn the seventeen counties of England in which there are from 100 to 177\npeople on the square mile...... 387\n\nIn the seventeen counties in which there are from 177 to 282 people on\nthe square mile. 389\n\nThe difference is small, but not smaller than differences which Mr.\nSadler has brought forward as proofs of his theory. We say, that\nthese English tables no more prove that fecundity increases with the\npopulation than that it diminishes with the population. The thirty-four\ncounties which we have taken make up, at least, four-fifths of the\nkingdom: and we see that, through those thirty-four counties, the\nphenomena are directly opposed to Mr. Sadler\u2019s principle. That in the\ncapital, and in great manufacturing towns, marriages are less prolific\nthan in the open country, we admit, and Mr. Malthus admits. But that any\ncondensation of the population, short of that which injures all physical\nenergies, will diminish the prolific powers of man, is, from these very\ntables of Mr. Sadler, completely disproved.\n\nIt is scarcely worth while to proceed with instances, after proofs so\noverwhelming as those which we have given. Yet we will show that Mr.\nSadler has formed his averages on the census of Prussia by an artifice\nexactly similar to that which we have already exposed.\n\n[Illustration: 0298]\n\nThe number of births to a marriage is--\n\n[Illustration: 0299]\n\nWe will go no farther with this examination. In fact, we have nothing\nmore to examine. The tables which we have scrutinised constitute the\nwhole strength of Mr. Sadler\u2019s case; and we confidently leave it to our\nreaders to say, whether we have not shown that the strength of his case\nis weakness.\n\nBe it remembered too that we are reasoning on data furnished by Mr.\nSadler himself. We have not made collections of facts to set against\nhis, as we easily might have done. It is on his own showing, it is out\nof his own mouth, that his theory stands condemned.\n\nThat packing which we have exposed is not the only sort of packing which\nMr. Sadler has practised. We mentioned in our review some facts relating\nto the towns of England, which appear from Mr. Sadler\u2019s tables, and\nwhich it seems impossible to explain if his principles be sound. The\naverage fecundity of a marriage in towns of fewer than 3000 inhabitants\nis greater than the average fecundity of the kingdom. The average\nfecundity in towns of from 4000 to 5000 inhabitants is greater than the\naverage fecundity of Warwickshire, Lancashire, or Surrey. How is it, we\nasked, {295}if Mr. Sadler\u2019s principle be correct, that the fecundity of\nGuildford should be greater than the average fecundity of the county in\nwhich it stands?\n\nMr. Sadler, in reply, talks about \u201cthe absurdity of comparing the\nfecundity in the small towns alluded to with that In the counties of\nWarwick and Stafford, or those of Lancaster and Surrey.\u201d He proceeds\nthus--\n\n\u201c_In Warwickshire, far above half the population is comprised in large\ntowns, including, of course, the immense metropolis of one great branch\nof oui\u2019 manufactures, Birmingham. In the county of Stafford, besides\nthe large and populous towns in its iron districts, situated so close\ntogether as almost to form, for considerable distances, a continuous\nstreet; there is, in its potteries, a great population, recently\naccumulated, not included, indeed, in the towns distinctly enumerated in\nthe censuses, but vastly exceeding in its condensation that found in the\nplaces to which the Reviewer alludes. In Lancashire again, to which\nhe also appeals, one-fourth of the entire population is made up of the\ninhabitants of two only of the towns of that county; far above half of\nit is contained in towns, compared with which those he refers to are\nvillages; even the hamlets of the manufacturing parts of Lancashire are\noften far more populous than the places he mentions. But he presents\nus with a climax of absurdity in appealing lastly to the population of\nSurrey as quite rural compared with that of the twelve towns, having\nless than 5000 inhabitants in their respective jurisdictions, such as\nSaffron-Walden, Monmouth, &c. Now, in the last census, Surrey numbered\n398,658 inhabitants, and, to say not a word about the other towns of the\ncounty, much above two hundred thousands of these are within the Bills\nof mortality! \u2018We should, therefore, be glad to know\u2019 how it is utterly\ninconsistent with my principle that the fecundity of Guildford, which\nnumbers about 3000 inhabitants, should be greater than the average\nfecundity of Surrey, made up, as the bulk of the population of Surrey\nis, of the inhabitants of some of the worst parts of the metropolis? Or\nwhy the fecundity of a given number of marriages in the eleven little\nrural towns he alludes to, being somewhat higher than that of an\nequal number, half taken for instance, from the heart of Birmingham\nor Manchester, and half from the populous districts by which they are\nsurrounded, is inconsistent with my theory_?\u201d\n\n{296}\u201d_Had the Reviewer\u2019s object, in this instance, been to discover the\ntruth, or had he known how to pursue it, it is perfectly clear, at first\nsight, that he would not have instituted a comparison between the\nprolificness which exists in the small towns he has alluded to, and that\nin certain districts, the population of which is made up, partly of\nrural inhabitants and partly of accumulations of people in immense\nmasses, the prolificness of which, if he will allow me still the use of\nthe phrase, is inversely as their magnitude; but he would have compared\nthese small towns with the country places properly so called, and then\nagain the different classes of towns with each other; this method would\nhave led hint to certain conclusions on the subject._\u201d\n\nNow, this reply shows that Mr. Sadler does not in the least understand\nthe principle which he has himself laid down. What is that principle?\nIt is this, that the fecundity of human beings _on given spaces_, varies\ninversely as their numbers. We know what he means by inverse variation.\nBut we must suppose that he uses the words, \u201cgiven spaces\u201d in the proper\nsense. Given spaces are equal spaces. Is there any reason to believe,\nthat in those parts of Surrey which lie within the bills of mortality\nthere is any space, equal in area to the space on which Guildford\nstands, which is more thickly peopled than the space on which Guildford\nstands? We do not know that there is any such. We are sure that there\nare not many. Why, therefore, on Mr. Sadler\u2019s principle, should the\npeople of Guildford be more prolific than the people who live within\nthe bills of mortality? And, if the people of Guildford ought, as on\nMr. Sadler\u2019s principle they unquestionably ought, to stand as low in the\nscale of fecundity as the people of Southwark itself, it follows, most\nclearly, that they ought to stand far lower than the average obtained by\ntaking all the people of Surrey together.\n\nThe same remark applies to the case of Birmingham, {297}and to all the\nother eases which Mr. Sadler mentions. \u201cTowns of 5000 inhabitants may\nbe, and often are, as thickly peopled, on a given space,\u201d as Birmingham.\nThey are, in other words, as thickly peopled as a portion of Birmingham,\nequal to them in area. If so, on Mr. Sadler\u2019s principle, they ought to\nbe as low in the scale of fecundity as Birmingham. But they are not so.\nOn the contrary, they stand higher than the average obtained by taking\nthe fecundity of Birmingham in combination with the fecundity of the\nrural districts of Warwickshire.\n\nThe plain fact is, that Mr. Sadler has confounded the population of\na city with its population \u201con a given space,\u201d--a mistake which, in a\ngentleman who assures us that mathematical science was one of his early\nand favourite studies, is somewhat curious. It is as absurd, on his\nprinciple, to say that the fecundity of London ought to be less than\nthe fecundity of Edinburgh, because London has a greater population than\nEdinburgh, as to say that the fecundity of Russia ought to be greater\nthan that of England, because Russia has a greater population than\nEngland. He cannot say that the spaces on which towns stand are too\nsmall to exemplify the truth of his principle. For he has himself\nbrought forward the scale of fecundity in towns, as a proof of his\nprinciple. And, in the very passage which we quoted above, he tells us\nthat, if we knew how to pursue truth, or wished to find it, we \u201cshould\nhave compared these small towns with country places, and the different\nclasses of towns with each other.\u201d That is to say, we ought to compare\ntogether such unequal spaces as give results favourable to his theory,\nand never to compare such equal spaces as give results opposed to it.\nDoes he mean {298}any thing by \u201ca given space?\u201d Or does he mean merely\nsuch a space as suits his argument? It is perfectly clear that, if he\nis allowed to take this course, he may prove any thing. No fact can\ncome amiss to him. Suppose, for example, that the fecundity of New York\nshould prove to be smaller than the fecundity of Liverpool. \u201cThat,\u201d says\nMr. Sadler, \u201cmakes for my theory. For there are more people within two\nmiles of the Broadway of New York, than within two miles of the Exchange\nof Liverpool.\u201d Suppose, on the other hand, that the fecundity of New\nYork should be greater than the fecundity of Liverpool. \u201cThis,\u201d says Mr.\nSadler again, \u201cis an unanswerable proof of my theory. For there are many\nmore people within forty miles of Liverpool than within forty miles\nof New York.\u201d In order to obtain his numbers, he takes spaces in any\ncombinations which may suit him. In order to obtain his averages, he\ntakes numbers in any combinations which may suit him. And then he tells\nus that, because his tables, at the first, glance, look well for his\ntheory, his theory is irrefragably proved.\n\nWe will add a few words respecting the argument which we drew from the\npeerage. Mr. Sadler asserted that the Peers were a class condemned by\nnature to sterility. We denied this, and showed, from the last edition\nof Debrett, that the Peers of the United Kingdom have considerably more\nthan the average number of children to a marriage. Mr. Sadler\u2019s answer\nhas amused us much. He denies the accuracy of our counting, and, by\nreckoning all the Scotch and Irish Peers as Peers of the United Kingdom,\ncertainly makes very different numbers from those which we gave. A\nmember of the Parliament of the United Kingdom might have been expected,\nwe think, to {299}know Letter what a Peer of the United Kingdom is.\n\nBy taking the Scotch and Irish Peers, Mr. Sadler has altered the\naverage. But it is considerably higher than the average fecundity of\nEngland, and still, therefore, constitutes an unanswerable argument\nagainst his theory.\n\nThe shifts to which, in this difficulty, he has recourse, are\nexceedingly diverting. \u201cThe average fecundity of the marriages of\nPeers,\u201d said we, \u201cis higher by one-fifth than the average fecundity of\nmarriages throughout the kingdom.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhere, or by whom did the Reviewer find it supposed,\u201d answers Mr.\nSadler, \u201cthat the registered baptisms expressed the full fecundity of\nthe marriages of England?\u201d\n\nAssuredly, if the registers of England are so defective as to explain\nthe difference which, on our calculation, exists between the fecundity\nof the peers and the fecundity of the people, no argument against Mr.\nSadler\u2019s theory can be drawn from that difference. But what becomes\nof all the other arguments which Mr. Sadler has founded on these\nvery registers? Above all, what becomes of his comparison between the\ncensuses of England and France? In the pamphlet before us, he dwells\nwith great complacency on a coincidence which seems to him to support\nhis theory, and which to us seems, of itself, sufficient to overthrow\nit.\n\n\u201c_In my table of the population of France, in the forty-four departments\nin which there, are from one to two hectares to each inhabitant, the\nfecundity of 100 marriages, calculated on the average of the results of\nthe three computations relating to different periods given in my table,\nis 406.7. In the twenty-two counties of England, in which there is from\none to two hectares to each inhabitant, or {300}from 129 to 259 on the\nsquare mile,--beginning, therefore, with Huntingdonshire, and ending\nwith Worcestershire,--the whole number of marriages during ten years\nwill be found to amount to 379,024, and the whole number of the births\nduring the same term to 1,545,549--or 407 births to 100 marriages!\nA difference of one in one thousand only, compared with the French\nproportion!_\u201d\n\nDoes not Mr. Sadler see that, if the registers of England, which are\nnotoriously very defective, give a result exactly corresponding almost\nto an unit with that obtained from the registers of France, which are\nnotoriously very full and accurate, this proves the very reverse of what\nhe employs it to prove? The correspondence of the registers proves that\nthere is no correspondence in the facts. In order to l\u2019aise the average\nfecundity of England even to the level of the average fecundity of\nthe peers of the three kingdoms, which is 3.81 to a marriage, it is\nnecessary to add nearly six per cent, to the number of births given in\nthe English registers. But, if this addition be made, we shall have,\nin the counties of England, from Huntingdonshire to Worcestershire\ninclusive, 4.30 births to a marriage or thereabouts; and the boasted\ncoincidence between the phenomena of propagation in France and\nEngland disappears at once. This is a curious specimen of Mr. Sadler\u2019s\nproficiency in the art of making excuses. In the same pamphlet he\nreasons as if the same registers were accurate to one in a thousand, and\nas if they were wrong at the very least by one in eighteen.\n\nHe tries to show that we have not taken a fair criterion of the\nfecundity of the peers. We are not quite sure that we understand his\nreasoning on this subject. The order of his observations is more than\nusually confused, and the cloud of words moi-e than usually {301}thick.\nWe will give the argument on which he seems to lay most stress in his\nown words:\n\n\u201c_But I shall first notice a far more obvious and important Linn der\ninto which the Reviewer has fallen; or into which, I rather fear, he\nknowingly wishes to precipitate his readers, since I have distinctly\npointed ont what ought to have preserved him from it in the very chapter\nhe is criticising and contradicting It is this:--he has entirely omitted\n\u201ccounting\u201d the sterile marriages of all those peerages which have become\nextinct during the very period his counting embraces he counts, for\ninstance, Bar. Fitzwilliam, his marriages, and heir; but has he not\nomitted to enumerate the marriages of those branches of the same\nnoble house, which have become extinct since that venerable individual\npossessed his title? He talks of my having appealed merely to the\nextinction of peerages in my argument; but, on his plan of computation,\nextinctions are perpetually and wholly lost sight of. In computing the\naverage! prolificness of the marriages of the nobles, he positively\ncounts from a select class of them only, one from which the unprolific\nare constantly weeded, and regularly disappear; and he thus comes to the\nconclusion, that the peers are \u2018an eminently prolific class!\u2019 Just\nas though a farmer should compute the rate of increase, not from the\nquantity of seed sown, but from that part of it only which comes to\nperfection, entirely omitting all which had failed to spring up or come\nto maturity. Upon this principle the most scanty crop ever obtained, in\nwhich the husbandman should fail to receive \u2018seed again,\u2019 as the phrase\nis, might be so \u2018counted as to appear \u2018eminently prolific\u2019 indeed_.\u201d\n\nIf we understand this passage rightly, it decisively proves that Mr.\nSadler is incompetent to perform even the lowest offices of statistical\nresearch. What shadow of reason is there to believe that the peers who\nwere alive in the year 1828 differed as to their prolificness from any\nother equally numerous set of peers taken at random? In what sense were\nthe peers who were alive in 1828 analogous to that part of the seed\nwhich comes to perfection? Did we entirely omit all that failed? On the\ncontrary, we counted the sterile as {302}well as the fruitful marriages\nof all the peers of the United Kingdom living at one time. In what way\nwere the peers who were alive in 1828 a select class? In what way were\nthe sterile weeded from among them? Did every peer who had been married\nwithout having issue die in 1827? What shadow of reason is there to\nsuppose that there was not the ordinary proportion of barren marriages\namong the marriages contracted by the noblemen whose names are in\nDebrett\u2019s last edition? But we ought, says Mr. Sadler, to have counted\nall the sterile marriages of all the peers \u201cwhose titles had become\nextinct during the period which our counting embraced;\u201d that is to say,\nsince the earliest marriage contracted by any peer living in 1828. Was\nsuch a proposition ever heard of before? Surely we were bound to do no\nsuch thing, unless at the same time we had counted also the children\nborn from all the fruitful marriages contracted by peers during the same\nperiod. Mr. Sadler would have us divide the number of children born to\npeers living in 1828, not by the number of marriages which those peers\ncontracted, but by the number of marriages which those peers contracted\nadded to a crowd of marriages selected, on account of their sterility,\nfrom among the noble marriages which have taken place during the last\nfifty years. Is this the way to obtain fair averages? We might as well\nrequire that all the noble marriages which during the last fifty years\nhave produced ten children apiece should be added to those of the peers\nliving in 1828. The proper way to ascertain whether a set of people be\nprolific or sterile is, not to take marriages selected from the\nmass either on account of their fruitfulness or on account of their\nsterility, but to take a collection of marriages which {303}there is no\nreason to think either more or less fruitful than others. What reason is\nthere to think that the marriages contracted by the peers who were alive\nin 1828 were more fruitful than those contracted by the peers who were\nalive in 1800 or in 1700?\n\nWe will add another passage from Mr. Sadler\u2019s pamphlet on this subject.\nWe attributed the extinction of peerages partly to the fact that those\nhonours are for the most part limited to heirs male.\n\n\u201c_This is a discovery indeed!\u2019 Peeresses, \u2018eminently prolific, do not,\nas Macbeth conjured his spouse, \u2018bring forth men-children only;\u2019 they\nactually produce daughters as well as sons!! Why, does not the Reviewer\nsee, that so long as the rule of nature, which proportions the sexes so\naccurately to each other, continues to exist, a tendency to a diminution\nin one sex proves, as certainly as the demonstration of any mathematical\nproblem, a tendency to a diminution in both; but to talk of \u2018eminently\nprolific\u2019 peeresses, and still maintain that the rapid extinction in\npeerages is owing to their not bearing male children exclusively, is\narrant nonsense._\u201d\n\nNow, if there be any proposition on the face of the earth which we\nshould not have expected to hear characterised as arrant nonsense, it\nis this,--that an honour limited to males alone is more likely to\nbecome extinct than an honour which, like the crown of England, descends\nindifferently to sons and daughters. We have heard, nay, we actually\nknow families, in which, much as Mr. Sadler may marvel at it, there are\ndaughters and no sons. Nay, we know many such families. We are as much\ninclined as Mr. Sadler to trace the benevolent and wise arrangements of\nProvidence in the physical world, when once we are satisfied as to\nthe facts on which we proceed. And we have always considered it as an\narrangement deserving of the highest {304}admiration, that, though in\nfamilies the number of males and females differs widely, yet in great\ncollections of human beings the disparity almost disappears. The chance\nundoubtedly is, that in a thousand marriages the number of daughters\nwill not very much exceed the number of sons. But the chance also is,\nthat several of those marriages will produce daughters, and daughters\nonly. In every generation of the peerage there are several such cases.\nWhen a peer whose title is limited to male heirs dies, leaving\nonly daughters, his peerage must expire, unless he have, not only\na collateral heir, but a collateral heir descended through an\nuninterrupted line of males from the first possessor of the honour. If\nthe deceased peer was the first nobleman of his family, then, by the\nsupposition, his peerage will become extinct. If he was the second, it\nwill become extinct, unless he leaves a brother or a brother\u2019s son. If\nthe second peer had a brother, the first peer must have had at least two\nsons; and this is more than the average number of sons to a marriage in\nEngland. When, therefore, it is considered how many peerages are in the\nfirst and second generation, it will not appear strange that extinctions\nshould frequently take place. There are peerages which descend to\nfemales as well as males. But, in such cases, if a peer dies, leaving\nonly daughters, the very fecundity of the marriage is a cause of the\nextinction of the peerage. If there were only one daughter, the honour\nwould descend. If there are several, it falls into abeyance.\n\nBut it is needless to multiply words in a case so clear; and indeed it\nis needless to say anything more about Mr. Sadler\u2019s book. We have, if\nwe do not deceive ourselves, completely exposed the calculations on\n{305}which his theory rests; and we do not think that we should either\namuse our readers or serve the cause of science if we were to rebut in\nsuccession a series of futile charges brought in the most angry spirit\nagainst ourselves; ignorant imputations of ignorance, and unfair\ncomplaints of unfairness,--conveyed in long, dreary, declamations, so\nprolix that we cannot find space to quote them, and so confused that we\ncannot venture to abridge them.\n\nThere is much indeed in this foolish pamphlet to laugh at, from the\nmotto in the first page down to some wisdom about cows in the last. One\npart of it indeed is solemn enough, we mean a certain _jeu d\u2019esprit_ of\nMr. Sadler\u2019s touching a tract of Dr. Arbuthnot\u2019s. This is indeed \u201cvery\ntragical mirth,\u201d as Peter Quince\u2019s playbill has it; and we would not\nadvise any person who reads for amusement to venture on it as long as he\ncan procure a volume of the Statutes at Large. This, however, to do\nMr. Sadler justice, is an exception. His witticisms, and his tables of\nfigures, constitute the only parts of his work which can be perused with\nperfect gravity. His blunders are diverting, his excuses exquisitely\ncomic. But his anger is the most grotesque exhibition that we ever saw.\nHe foams at the mouth with the love of truth, and vindicates the Divine\nbenevolence with a most edifying heartiness of hatred. On this subject\nwe will give him one word of parting advice. If he raves in this way to\nease his mind, or because he thinks that he does himself credit by it,\nor from a sense of religious duty, far be it from us to interfere. His\npeace, his reputation, and his religion are his own concern; and he,\nlike the nobleman to whom his treatise is dedicated, has a right to\ndo what he will with his own. But, if he has adopted his {306} abusive\nstyle from a notion that it would hurt our feelings, we must inform him\nthat he is altogether mistaken; and that he would do well in future to\ngive us his arguments, if he has any, and to keep his anger for those\nwho fear it.\n\n\n\n\nCIVIL DISABILITIES OF THE JEWS.(1)\n\n(_Edinburgh Review_, January 1831.)\n\n\nThe {307}distinguished member of the House of Commons who, towards\nthe close of the late Parliament, brought forward a proposition for the\nrelief of the Jews, has given notice of his intention to renew it. The\nforce of reason, in the last session, carried the measure through one\nstage, in spite of the opposition of power. Reason and power are now\non the same side; and we have little doubt that they will conjointly\nachieve a decisive victory. In order to contribute our share to the\nsuccess of just principles, we propose to pass in review, as rapidly as\npossible, some of the arguments, or phrases claiming to be arguments,\nwhich have been employed to vindicate a system full of absurdity and\ninjustice.\n\nThe constitution, it is said, is essentially Christian; and therefore\nto admit Jews to office is to destroy the constitution. Nor is the Jew\ninjured by being excluded from political power. For no man has any right\nto power. A man has a right to his property; a man has a right to be\nprotected from personal injury. These rights the law allows to the Jew;\nand with these rights it would be atrocious to interfere. But it is a\nmere matter of favour to admit any man to political\n\n     (1) _Statement of the Civil Disabilities and Privations\n     affecting Jews in England_. 8 vo. London: 1829.\n\n{308}power; and no man can justly complain that he is shut out from it.\nWe cannot but admire the ingenuity of this contrivance for shifting\nthe burden of the proof from those to whom it properly belongs, and who\nwould, we suspect, find it rather cumbersome. Surely no Christian\ncan deny that every human being has a right to be allowed every\ngratification which produces no harm to others, and to be spared every\nmortification which produces no good to others. Is it not a source of\nmortification to a class of men that they are excluded from political\npower? If it be, they have, on Christian principles, a right to be freed\nfrom that mortification, unless it can be shown that their exclusion\nis necessary for the averting of some greater evil. The presumption is\nevidently in favour of toleration. It is for the prosecutor to make out\nhis case.\n\nThe strange argument which we are considering would prove too much even\nfor those who advance it. If no mail has a right to political power,\nthen neither Jew nor Gentile has such a right. The whole foundation of\ngovernment is taken away. But if government be taken away, the property\nand the persons of men are insecure; and it is acknowledged that men\nhave a right to their property and to personal security. If it be right\nthat the property of men should be protected, and if this can only\nbe done by means of government, then it must be right that government\nshould exist. Now there cannot be government unless some person or\npersons possess political power. Therefore it is right that some person\nor persons should possess political power. That is to say, some person\nor persons must have a right to political power.\n\nIt is because men are not in the habit of considering {309}what the end\nof government is, that Catholic disabilities and Jewish disabilities\nhave been suffered to exist so long. We hear of essentially Protestant\ngovernments and essentially Christian governments, words which mean\njust as much as essentially Protestant cookery, or essentially Christian\nhorsemanship. Government exists for the purpose of keeping the peace,\nfor the purpose of compelling us to settle our disputes by arbitration\ninstead of settling them by blows, for the purpose of compelling us to\nsupply our wants by industry instead of supplying them by rapine.\nThis is the only operation for which the machinery of government is\npeculiarly adapted, the only operation which wise governments ever\npropose to themselves as their chief object. If there is any class\nof people who are not interested, or who do not think themselves\ninterested, in the security of property and the maintenance of order,\nthat class ought to have no share of the powers which exist for the\npurpose of securing property and maintaining order. But why a man should\nbe less fit to exercise those powers because he wears a beard, because\nhe does not eat ham, because he goes to the synagogue on Saturdays\ninstead of going to the church on Sundays, we cannot conceive.\n\nThe points of difference between Christianity and Judaism have very much\nto do with a man\u2019s fitness to be a bishop or a rabbi. But they have\nno more to do with his fitness to be a magistrate, a legislator, or a\nminister of finance, than with his fitness to be a cobbler. Nobody has\never thought of compelling cobblers to make any declaration on the true\nfaith of a Christian. Any man would rather have his shoes mended by\na heretical cobbler than by a person who had subscribed all the\nthirty-nine articles, but had never handled an {310}awl. Men act thus,\nnot because they are indifferent to religion, but because they do\nnot see what religion has to do with the mending of their shoes. Yet\nreligion has as much to do with the mending of shoes as with the budget\nand the army estimates. We have surely had several signal proofs within\nthe last twenty years that a very good Christian may be a very bad\nChancellor of the Exchequer.\n\nBut it would be monstrous, say the persecutors, that Jews\nshould legislate for a Christian community. This is a palpable\nmisrepresentation. What is proposed is, not that the Jews should\nlegislate for a Christian community, but that a legislature composed\nof Christians and Jews should legislate for a community composed of\nChristians and Jews. On nine hundred and ninety-nine questions out of a\nthousand, on all questions of police, of finance, of civil and criminal\nlaw, of foreign policy, the Jew, as a Jew, has no interest hostile to\nthat of the Christian, or even to that of the Churchman. On questions\nrelating to the ecclesiastical establishment, the Jew and the Churchman\nmay differ. But they cannot differ more widely than the Catholic and\nthe Churchman, or the Independent and the Churchman. The principle that\nChurchmen ought to monopolize the whole power of the state would at\nleast have an intelligible meaning. The principle that Christians ought\nto monopolize it has no meaning at all. For no question connected with\nthe ecclesiastical institutions of the country can possibly come before\nParliament, with respect to which there will not be as wide a difference\nbetween Christians as there can be between any Christian and any Jew.\n\nIn fact, the Jews are not now excluded from political power. They\npossess it; and as long as they are {311}allowed to accumulate large\nfortunes, they must possess it. The distinction which is sometimes made\nbetween civil privileges and political power is a distinction without\na difference. Privileges are power. Civil and political are synonymous\nwords, the one derived from the Latin, the other from the Greek. Nor is\nthis mere verbal quibbling. If we look for a moment at the facts of the\ncase, we shall see that the things are inseparable, or rather identical.\n\nThat a Jew should be a judge in a Christian country would be most\nshocking. But he may be a juryman. He may try issues of fact; and no\nharm is done. But if he should be suffered to try issues of law, there\nis an end of the constitution. He may sit in a box plainly dressed, and\nreturn verdicts. But that he should sit on the bench in a black gown\nand white wig, and grant new trials, would be an abomination not to\nbe thought of among baptized people. The distinction is certainly most\nphilosophical.\n\nWhat power in civilised society is so great as that of the creditor over\nthe debtor? If we take this away from the Jew, we take away from him the\nsecurity of his property. If we leave it to him, we leave to him a power\nmore despotic by far than that of the king and all his cabinet.\n\nIt would be impious to let a Jew sit in Parliament. But a Jew may make\nmoney; and money may make members of Parliament. Gattan and Old Sarum\nmay be the property of a Hebrew. An elector of Penryn will take ten\npounds from Shylock rather than nine pounds nineteen shillings and\neleven pence three farthings from Antonio. To this no objection is made.\nThat a Jew should possess the substance of legislative power, that he\nshould command eight votes on every {312}division as if he were the\ngreat Duke of Newcastle himself, is exactly as it should be. But that he\nshould pass the bar and sit down on those mysterious cushions of green\nleather, that he should cry \u201chear\u201d and \u201corder,\u201d and talk about being on\nhis legs, and being, for one, free to say this and to say that, would be\na profanation sufficient to bring ruin on the country.\n\nThat a Jew should be privy-councillor to a Christian king would be an\neternal disgrace to the nation. But the Jew may govern the money-market,\nand the money-market may govern the world. The minister may be in doubt\nas to his scheme of finance till he has been closeted with the Jew.\nA congress of sovereigns may be forced to summon the Jew to their\nassistance. The scrawl of the Jew on the back of a piece of paper may be\nworth more than the royal word of three kings, or the national faith of\nthree new American republics. But that he should put Right Honourable\nbefore his name would be the most frightful of national calamities.\n\nIt was in this way that some of our politicians reasoned about the Irish\nCatholics. The Catholics ought to have no political power. The sun of\nEngland is set for ever if the Catholics exercise political power. Give\nthe Catholics every thing else; but keep political power from them.\nThese wise men did not see that, when every thing else had been given,\npolitical power had been given. They continued to repeat their cuckoo\nsong, when it was no longer a question whether Catholics should\nhave political power or not, when a Catholic Association bearded the\nParliament, when a Catholic agitator exercised infinitely more authority\nthan the Lord Lieutenant.\n\nIf it is our duty as Christians to exclude the Jews\n\n0-10 {313}from political power, it must be our duty to treat them as our\nancestors treated them, to murder them, and banish them, and rob them.\nFor in that way, and in that way alone, can we really deprive them of\npolitical power. If we do not adopt this course, we may take away the\nshadow, but we must leave them the substance. We may do enough to pain\nand irritate them; but we shall not do enough to secure ourselves from\ndanger, if danger really exists. Where wealth is, there power must\ninevitably be.\n\nThe English Jews, we are told, are not Englishmen. They are a\nseparate people, living locally in this island, but living morally and\npolitically in communion with their brethren who are scattered over all\nthe world. An English Jew looks on a Dutch or a Portuguese Jew as his\ncountryman, and on an English Christian as a stranger. This want of\npatriotic feeling, it is said, renders a Jew unfit to exercise political\nfunctions.\n\nThe argument has in it something plausible; but a close examination\nshows it to be quite, unsound. Even if the alleged facts are admitted,\nstill the Jews are not the only people who have preferred their sect to\ntheir country. The feeling of patriotism, when society is in a healthful\nstate, springs up, by a natural and inevitable association, in the minds\nof citizens who know that they owe all their comforts and pleasures to\nthe bond which unites them in one community. But, under a partial and\noppressive government, these associations cannot acquire that strength\nwhich they have in a better state of things. Men are compelled to seek\nfrom their party that protection which they ought to receive from their\ncountry, and they, by a natural consequence, transfer to their party\nthat affection which they would otherwise have felt for their country.\nThe {314}Huguenots of France called in the help of England against their\nCatholic kings. The Catholics of France called in the help of Spain\nagainst a Huguenot king. Would it be fair to infer, that at present the\nFrench Protestants would wish to see their religion made dominant by the\nhelp of a Prussian or English army? Surely not. And why is it that\nthey are not willing, as they formerly were willing, to sacrifice\nthe interests of their country to the interests of their religious\npersuasion? The reason is obvious: they were persecuted then, and are\nnot persecuted now. The English Puritans, under Charles the First,\nprevailed on the Scotch to invade England. Do the Protestant Dissenters\nof our time wish to see the Church put down by an invasion of foreign\nCalvinists? If not, to what cause are we to attribute the change? Surely\nto this, that the Protestant Dissenters are far better treated now than\nin the seventeenth century. Some of the most illustrious public men that\nEngland ever produced were inclined to take refuge from the tyranny of\nLaud in North America. Was this because Presbyterians and Independents\nare incapable of loving their country? But it is idle to multiply\ninstances. Nothing is so offensive to a man who knows any thing of\nhistory or of human nature as to hear those who exercise the powers\nof government accuse any sect of foreign attachments. If there be\nany proposition universally true in politics it is this, that foreign\nattachments are the fruit of domestic misrule. It has always been the\ntrick of bigots to make their subjects miserable at home, and then to\ncomplain that they look for relief abroad; to divide society, and to\nwonder that it is not united; to govern as if a section of the state\nwere the whole, and to censure the other sections of the state for their\n{315}want of patriotic spirit. If the Jews have not felt towards England\nlike children, it is because she has treated them like a step-mother.\nThere is no feeling which more certainly developes itself in the minds\nof men living under tolerably good government than the feeling of\npatriotism. Since the beginning of the world, there never was any\nnation, or any large portion of any nation, not cruelly oppressed, which\nwas wholly destitute of that feeling. To make it therefore ground of\naccusation against a class of men, that they are not patriotic, is the\nmost vulgar legerdemain of sophistry. It is the logic which the wolf\nemploys against the lamb. It is to accuse the mouth of the stream of\npoisoning the source.\n\nIf the English Jews really felt a deadly hatred to England, if the\nweekly prayer of their synagogues were that all the curses denounced\nby Ezekiel on Tyre and Egypt might fall on London, if, in their solemn\nfeasts, they called down blessings on those who should dash our children\nto pieces on the stones, still, we say, their hatred to their countrymen\nwould not be more intense than that which sects of Christians have often\nborne to each other. But in fact the feeling of the Jews is not such. It\nis precisely what, in the situation in which they are placed, we should\nexpect it to be. They are treated far better than the French Protestants\nwere treated in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, or than our\nPuritans were treated in the time of Laud. They, therefore, have no\nrancour against the government or against their countrymen. It will\nnot be denied that they are far better affected to the state than the\nfollowers of Coligni or Vane. But they are not so well treated as the\ndissenting sects of Christians are now treated in England; and on this\naccount, and, we {316}firmly believe, on this account alone, they have\na more exclusive spirit. Till we have carried the experiment farther,\nwe are not entitled to conclude that they cannot be made Englishmen\naltogether. The statesman who treats them as aliens, and then\nabuses them for not entertaining all the feelings of natives, is as\nunreasonable as the tyrant who punished their fathers for not making\nbricks without straw.\n\nRulers must not be suffered thus to absolve themselves of their solemn\nresponsibility. It does not lie in their mouths to say that a sect is\nnot patriotic. It is their business to make it patriotic. History and\nreason clearly indicate the means. The English Jews are, as far as we\ncan see, precisely what our government has made them. They are precisely\nwhat any sect, what any class of men, treated as they have been treated,\nwould have been. If all the red-haired people in Europe had, during\ncenturies, been outraged and oppressed, banished from this place,\nimprisoned in that, deprived of their money, deprived of their teeth,\nconvicted of the most improbable crimes on the feeblest evidence,\ndragged at horses\u2019 tails, hanged, tortured, burned alive, if, when\nmanners became milder, they had still been subject to debasing\nrestrictions and exposed to vulgar insults, locked up in particular\nstreets in some countries, pelted and ducked by the rabble in others,\nexcluded every where from magistracies and honours, what would be the\npatriotism of gentlemen with red hair? And if, under such circumstances,\na proposition were made for admitting red-haired men to office, how\nstriking a speech might an eloquent admirer of our old institutions\ndeliver against so revolutionary a measure! \u201cThese men,\u201d he might\nsay, \u201cscarcely consider themselves as Englishmen. They think a\n{317}red-haired Frenchman or a red-haired German more closely connected\nwith them than a man with brown hair born in their own parish. If a\nforeign sovereign patronises red hair, they love him better than their\nown native king. They are not Englishmen: they cannot be Englishmen:\nnature has forbidden it: experience proves it to be impossible. Right\nto political power they have none; for no man has a right to political\npower. Let them enjoy personal security; let their property be under the\nprotection of the law. But if they ask for leave to exercise power\nover a community of which they are only half members, a community the\nconstitution of which is essentially darkhaired, let us answer them in\nthe words of our wise ancestors, _Nolumus leges Anglice mutari_.\u201d\n\nBut, it is said, the Scriptures declare that the Jews are to be restored\nto their own country; and the whole nation looks forward to that\nrestoration. They are, therefore, not so deeply interested as others in\nthe prosperity of England. It is not their home, but merely the place\nof their sojourn, the house of their bondage. This argument, which first\nappeared in the Times newspaper, and which has attracted a degree of\nattention proportioned not so much to its own intrinsic force as to the\ngeneral talent with which that journal is conducted, belongs to a\nclass of sophisms by which the most hateful persecutions may easily\nbe justified. To charge men with practical consequences which they\nthemselves deny is disingenuous in controversy; it is atrocious in\ngovernment. The doctrine of predestination, in the opinion of many\npeople, tends to make those who hold it utterly immoral. And certainly\nit would seem that a man who believes his eternal destiny to be already\nirrevocably fixed is likely to indulge his passions {318}without\nrestraint and to neglect his religious duties. If he is an heir of\nwrath, his exertions must be unavailing. If he is preordained to life,\nthey must be superfluous. But would it be wise to punish every man who\nholds the higher doctrines of Calvinism, as if he had actually committed\nall those crimes which we know some Antinomians to have committed?\nAssuredly not. The fact notoriously is that there are many Calvinists as\nmoral in their conduct as any Arminian, and many Arminians as loose as\nany Calvinist.\n\nIt is altogether impossible to reason from the opinions which a man\nprofesses to his feelings and his actions; and in fact no person is\never such a fool as to reason thus, except when he wants a pretext\nfor persecuting his neighbours. A Christian is commanded, under the\nstrongest sanctions, to be just in all his dealings. Yet to how many of\nthe twenty-four millions of professing Christians in these islands would\nany man in his senses lend a thousand pounds without security? A man who\nshould act, for one day, on the supposition that all the people about\nhim were influenced by the religion which they professed, would\nfind himself ruined before night; and no man ever does act on that\nsupposition in any of the ordinary concerns of life, in borrowing, in\nlending, in buying, or in selling. But when any of our fellow-creatures\nare to be oppressed, the case is different. Then we represent those\nmotives which we know to be so feeble for good as omnipotent for evil.\nThen we lay to the charge of our victims all the vices and follies to\nwhich their doctrines, however remotely, seem to tend. We forget that\nthe same weakness, the same laxity, the same disposition to prefer the\npresent to the future, which make men worse than a good religion, make\nthem better than a bad one. {319}It was in this way that our ancestors\nreasoned, and that some people in our own time still reason, about the\nCatholics. A Papist believes himself bound to obey the pope. The pope\nhas issued a bull deposing Queen Elizabeth. Therefore every Papist will\ntreat her grace as an usurper. Therefore every Papist is a traitor.\nTherefore every Papist ought to be hanged, drawn, and quartered. To\nthis logic we owe some of the most hateful laws that ever disgraced our\nhistory. Surely the answer lies on the surface. The Church of Rome may\nhave commanded these men to treat the queen as an usurper. But she has\ncommanded them to do many other things which they have never done. She\nenjoins her priests to observe strict purity. You are always taunting\nthem with their licentiousness. She commands all her followers to fast\noften, to be charitable to the poor, to take no interest for money, to\nfight no duels, to see no plays. Do they obey these injunctions? If it\nbe the fact that very few of them strictly observe her precepts, when\nher precepts are opposed to their passions and interests, may not\nloyalty, may not humanity, may not the love of ease, may not the fear of\ndeath, be sufficient to prevent them from executing those wicked orders\nwhich she has issued against the sovereign of England? When we know\nthat many of these people do not care enough for their religion to go\nwithout beef on a Friday for it, why should we think that they will run\nthe risk of being racked and hanged for it?\n\nPeople are now reasoning about the Jews as our fathers reasoned about\nthe Papists. The law which is inscribed on the wails of the synagogues\nprohibits covetousness. But if we were to say that a Jew mortgagee\nwould not foreclose because God had commanded {320}him not to covet his\nneighbour\u2019s house, every body would think us out of our wits. Yet it\npasses for an argument to say that a Jew will take no interest in the\nprosperity of the country in which he lives, that he will not care how\nbad its laws and police may he, how heavily it may be taxed, how often\nit may be conquered and given up to spoil, because God has promised\nthat, by some unknown means, and at some undetermined time, perhaps ten\nthousand years hence, the Jews shall migrate to Palestine. Is not this\nthe most profound ignorance of human nature? Do we not know that what\nis remote and indefinite affects men far less than what is near and\ncertain? The argument too applies to Christians as strongly as to Jews.\nThe Christian believes as well as the Jew, that at some future period\nthe present order of things will come to an end. Nay, many Christians\nbelieve that the Messiah will shortly establish a kingdom on the earth,\nand reign visibly over all its inhabitants. Whether this doctrine be\northodox or not we shall not here inquire. The number of people who hold\nit is very much greater than the number of Jews residing in England.\nMany of those who hold it are distinguished by rank, wealth, and\nability. It is preached from pulpits, both of the Scottish and of the\nEnglish church. Noblemen and members of Parliament have written in\ndefence of it. Now wherein does this doctrine differ, as far as its\npolitical tendency is concerned, from the doctrine of the Jews? If a Jew\nis unfit to legislate for us because he believes that he or his remote\ndescendants will be removed to Palestine, can we safely open the\nHouse of Commons to a fifth-monarchy man, who expects that before\nthis generation shall pass away, all the kingdoms of the earth will be\nswallowed up in one divine empire? {321}Does a Jew engage less eagerly\nthan a Christian in any competition which the law leaves open to him? Is\nhe less active and regular in his business than his neighbours? Does he\nfurnish his house meanly, because he is a pilgrim and sojourner in\nthe land? Does the expectation of being restored to the country of his\nfathers make him insensible to the fluctuations of the stock-exchange?\nDoes he, in arranging his private affairs, ever take into the account\nthe chance of his migrating to Palestine? If not, why are we to suppose\nthat feelings which never influence his dealings as a merchant, or his\ndispositions as a testator, will acquire a boundless influence over him\nas soon as he becomes a magistrate or a legislator?\n\nThere is another argument which we would not willingly treat with\nlevity, and which yet we scarcely know how to treat seriously.\nScripture, it is said, is full of terrible denunciations against the\nJews. It is foretold that they are to be wanderers. Is it then right to\ngive them a home? It is foretold that they are to be oppressed. Can we\nwith propriety suffer them to be rulers? To admit them to the rights of\ncitizens is manifestly to insult the Divine oracles.\n\nWe allow that to falsify a prophecy inspired by Divine Wisdom would be\na most atrocious crime. It is, therefore, a happy circumstance for our\nfrail species, that it is a crime which no man can possibly commit. If\nwe admit the Jews to seats in Parliament, we shall, by so doing, prove\nthat the prophecies in question, whatever they may mean, do not mean\nthat the Jews shall be excluded from Parliament.\n\nIn fact it is already clear that the prophecies do not bear the meaning\nput upon them by the respectable persons whom we are now answering. In\nFrance and {322}in the United States the Jews are already admitted to\nall the rights of citizens. A prophecy, therefore, which should mean\nthat the Jews would never, during the course of their wanderings, he\nadmitted to all the rights of citizens in the places of their sojourn,\nwould be a false prophecy. This, therefore, is not the meaning of the\nprophecies of Scripture.\n\nBut we protest altogether against the practice of confounding prophecy\nwith precept, of setting up predictions which are often obscure against\na morality which is always clear. If actions are to be considered as\njust and good merely because they have been predicted, what action was\never more laudable than that crime which our bigots are now, at the end\nof eighteen centuries, urging us to avenge on the Jews, that crime\nwhich made the earth shake and blotted out the sun from heaven? The same\nreasoning which is now employed to vindicate the disabilities imposed on\nour Hebrew countrymen will equally vindicate the kiss of Judas and the\njudgment of Pilate. \u201cThe Son of man goeth, as it is written of him; but\nwoe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed.\u201d And woe to those\nwho in any age or in any country, disobey his benevolent commands under\npretence of accomplishing his predictions. If this argument justifies\nthe laws now existing against the Jews, it justifies equally all the\ncruelties which have ever been committed against them, the sweeping\nedicts of banishment and confiscation, the dungeon, the rack, and the\nslow fire. How can we excuse ourselves for leaving property to people\nwho are to \u201cserve their enemies in hunger, and in thirst, and in\nnakedness, and in want of all things;\u201d for giving protection to the\npersons of those who are to \u201cfear day and night, and to have none\nassurance of their {323}life;\u201d for not seizing on the children of a race\nwhose \u201csons and daughters are to be given unto another people?\u201d\n\nWe have not so learned the doctrines of Him who commanded us to love our\nneighbour as ourselves, and who, when he was called upon to explain what\nHe meant by a neighbour, selected as an example a heretic and an alien.\nLast year, we remember, it was represented by a pious writer in the\nJohn Bull newspaper, and by some other equally fervid Christians, as a\nmonstrous indecency, that the measure for the relief of the Jews should\nbe brought forward In Passion week. One of these humorists ironically\nrecommended that it should be read a second time on Good Friday. We\nshould have had no objection; nor do we believe that the day could\nbe commemorated in a more worthy manner. We know of no day fitter for\nterminating long hostilities, and repairing cruel wrongs, than the day\non which the religion of mercy was founded. We know of no day fitter for\nblotting out from the statute-book the last traces of intolerance than\nthe day on which the spirit of intolerance produced the foulest of\nall judicial murders, the day on which the list of the victims of\nintolerance, that noble list wherein Socrates and Mole are enrolled, was\nglorified by a yet greater and holier name.\n\n\n\n\nMOORE\u2019S LIFE OF LORD BYRON. (1)\n\n(_Edinburgh Review_, June 1831.)\n\n\nWe {324}have read this book with the greatest pleasure. Considered\nmerely as a composition, it deserves to be classed among the best\nspecimens of English prose which our age has produced. It contains,\nindeed, no single passage equal to two or three which we could select\nfrom the Life of Sheridan. But, as a whole, it is immeasurably superior\nto that work. The style is agreeable, clear, and manly, and when it\nrises into eloquence, rises without effort or ostentation. Nor is the\nmatter inferior to the manner. It would be difficult to name a book\nwhich exhibits more kindness, fairness, and modesty. It has evidently\nbeen written, not for the purpose of showing, what, however, it\noften shows, how well its author can write, but for the purpose of\nvindicating, as far as truth will permit; the memory of a celebrated\nman who can no longer vindicate himself. Mr. Moore never thrusts himself\nbetween Lord Byron and the public. With the strongest temptations to\negotism, he has said no more about himself than the subject absolutely\nrequired.\n\nA great part, indeed the greater part, of these volumes, consists of\nextracts from the Letters and Journals\n\n     (1) _Letters and Journals of Lord Byron; with Notices of his\n     Life_. By Thomas Mooke, Esq. 2 vols. 4to. London: 1830.\n\n{325}of Lord Byron; and it is difficult to speak too highly of the skill\nwhich has been shown in the selection and arrangement. We will not say\nthat we have not occasionally remarked in these two large quartos an\nanecdote which should have been omitted, a letter which should have been\nsuppressed, a name which should have been concealed by asterisks, or\nasterisks which do not answer the purpose of concealing the name. But\nit is impossible, on a general survey, to deny that the task has been\nexecuted with great judgment and great humanity. When we consider the\nlife which Lord Byron had led, his petulance, his irritability, and his\ncommunicativeness, we cannot but admire the dexterity with which Mr.\nMoore has contrived to exhibit so much of the character and opinions of\nhis friend, with so little pain to the feelings of the living.\n\nThe extracts from the journals and correspondence of Lord Byron are in\nthe highest degree valuable, not merely on account of the information\nwhich they contain respecting the distinguished man by whom they were\nwritten, but on account also of their rare merit as compositions. The\nLetters, at least those which were sent from Italy, are among the best\nin our language. They are less affected than those of Pope and Walpole;\nthey have more matter in them than those of Cowper. Knowing that many of\nthem were not written merely for the person to whom they were directed,\nbut were general epistles, meant to be read by a large circle, we\nexpected to find them clever and spirited, but deficient in ease. We\nlooked with vigilance for instances of stiffness in the language and\nawkwardness in the transitions. We have been agreeably disappointed;\nand we must confess that, if the epistolary style of Lord Byron was\nartificial, it was a {326}rare and admirable instance of that highest\nart which cannot be distinguished from nature.\n\nOf the deep and painful interest which this book excites no abstract can\ngive a just notion. So sad and dark a story is scarcely to be found in\nany work of fiction; and we are little disposed to envy the moralist who\ncan read it without being softened.\n\nThe pretty fable by which the Duchess of Orleans illustrated the\ncharacter of her son the Regent might, with little change, be applied to\nByron. All the fairies, save one, had been bidden to his cradle. All\nthe gossips had been profuse of their gifts. One had bestowed nobility,\nanother genius, a third beauty. The malignant elf who had been uninvited\ncame last, and, unable to reverse what her sisters had done for their\nfavourite, had mixed up a curse with every blessing. In the rank of Lord\nByron, in his understanding, in his character, in his very person, there\nwas a strange union of opposite extremes. He was born to all that men\ncovet and admire. But in every one of those eminent advantages which he\npossessed over others was mingled something of misery and debasement.\nHe was sprung from a house, ancient indeed and noble, but degraded and\nimpoverished by a series of crimes and follies which had attained a\nscandalous publicity. The kinsman whom he succeeded had died poor, and,\nbut for merciful judges, would have died upon the gallows. The young\npeer had great intellectual powers; yet there was an unsound part in his\nmind. He had naturally a generous and feeling heart: but his temper was\nwayward and irritable. He had a head which statuaries loved to copy,\nand a foot the deformity of which the beggars in the streets mimicked.\nDistinguished {327}at once by the strength and by the weakness of\nhis intellect, affectionate yet perverse, a poor lord, and a handsome\ncripple, he required, if ever man required, the firmest and the most\njudicious training. But, capriciously as nature had dealt with him, the\nparent to whom the office of forming his character was intrusted was\nmore capricious still. She passed from paroxysms of rage to paroxysms\nof tenderness. At one time she stifled him with her caresses: at another\ntime she insulted his deformity. He came into the world; and the world\ntreated him as his mother had treated him, sometimes with fondness,\nsometimes with cruelty, never with justice. It indulged him without\ndiscrimination, and punished him without discrimination. He was truly\na spoiled child, not merely the spoiled child of his parent, but the\nspoiled child of nature, the spoiled child of fortune, the spoiled child\nof fame, the spoiled child of society. His first poems were received\nwith a contempt which, feeble as they were, they did not absolutely\ndeserve. The poem which he published on his return from his travels was,\non the other hand, extolled far above its merit. At twenty-four he\nfound himself on the highest pinnacle of literary fame, with Scott,\nWordsworth, Southey, and a crowd of other distinguished writers beneath\nhis feet. There is scarcely an instance in history of so sudden a rise\nto so dizzy an eminence.\n\nEvery thing that could stimulate, and every thing that could gratify\nthe strongest propensities of our nature, the gaze of a hundred\ndrawing-rooms, the acclamations of the whole nation, the applause of\napplauded men, the love of lovely women, all this world and all the\nglory of it were at once offered to a youth to whom nature had given\nviolent passions, and to {328}whom education had never taught to control\nthem. He lived as many men live who have no similar excuse to plead for\ntheir fruits. But his countrymen and his countrywomen would love him and\nadmire him. They were resolved to see in his excesses only the flash and\noutbreak of that same fiery mind which glowed in his poetry. He attacked\nreligion; yet in religious circles his name was mentioned with\nfondness, and in many religious publications his works were censured with\nsingular tenderness. He lampooned the Prince Regent; yet he could not\nalienate the Tories. Every thing, it seemed, was to be forgiven to\nyouth, rank, and genius.\n\nThen came the reaction. Society, capricious in its indignation as it had\nbeen capricious in its fondness, flew into a rage with its froward and\npetted darling. He had been worshipped with an irrational idolatry.\nHe was persecuted with an irrational fury. Much has been written about\nthose unhappy domestic occurrences which decided the fate of his life.\nYet nothing is, nothing ever was, positively known to the public, but\nthis, that he quarrelled with his lady, and that she refused to live\nwith him. There have been hints in abundance, and shrugs and shakings of\nthe head, and \u201cWell, well, we know,\u201d and \u201cWe could an if we would,\u201d and\n\u201cIf we list to speak,\u201d and \u201cThere be that might an they list.\u201d But we\nare not aware that there is before the world substantiated by credible,\nor even by tangible evidence, a single fact indicating that Lord Byron\nwas more to blame than any other man who is on bad terms with his wife.\nThe professional men whom Lady Byron consulted were undoubtedly of\nopinion that she ought not to live with her husband. But it is to be\nremembered {329}that they formed that opinion without hearing both\nsides. We do not say, we do not mean to insinuate, that Lady Byron was\nin any respect to blame. We think that those who condemn her on the\nevidence which is now before the public are as rash as those who condemn\nher husband. We will not pronounce any judgment, we cannot, even in our\nown minds, form any judgment, on a transaction which is so imperfectly\nknown to us. It would have been well if, at the time of the separation,\nall those who knew as little about the matter then as we know about it\nnow had shown that forbearance which, under such circumstances, is but\ncommon justice.\n\nWe know no spectacle so ridiculous as the British public in one of\nits periodical fits of morality. In general, elopements, divorces, and\nfamily quarrels, pass with little notice. We read the scandal, talk\nabout it for a day, and forget it. But once in six or seven years our\nvirtue becomes outrageous. We cannot suffer the laws of religion and\ndecency to be violated. We must make a stand against vice. We must teach\nlibertines that the English people appreciate the importance of domestic\nties. Accordingly some unfortunate man, in no respect more depraved than\nhundreds whose offences have been treated with lenity, is singled out\nas an expiatory sacrifice. If he has children, they are to be taken from\nhim. If he has a profession, he is to be driven from it. He is cut by\nthe higher orders, and hissed by the lower. He is, in truth, a sort of\nwhipping-boy, by whose vicarious agonies all the other transgressors of\nthe same class are, it is supposed, sufficiently chastised. We reflect,\nvery complacently on our own severity, and compare with great pride the\nhigh standard of morals established in England with {330}the Parisian\nlaxity. At length our anger is satiated. Our victim is ruined and\nheart-broken. And our virtue goes quietly to sleep for seven years more.\n\nIt is clear that those vices which destroy domestic happiness ought to\nbe as much as possible repressed. It is equally clear that they cannot\nbe repressed by penal legislation. It is therefore right and desirable\nthat public opinion should be directed against them. But it should\nbe directed against them uniformly, steadily, and temperately, not by\nsudden fits and starts. There should be one weight and one measure.\nDecimation is always an objectionable mode of punishment. It is the\nresource of judges too indolent and hasty to investigate facts and\nto discriminate nicely between shades of guilt. It is an irrational\npractice, even when adopted by military tribunals. When adopted by the\ntribunal of public opinion, it is infinitely more irrational. It is good\nthat a certain portion of disgrace should constantly attend on certain\nbad actions. But it is not good that the offenders should merely have\nto stand the risks of a lottery of infamy, that ninety-nine out of every\nhundred should escape, and that the hundredth, perhaps the most innocent\nof the hundred, should pay for all. We remember to have seen a mob\nassembled in Lincoln\u2019s Inn to hoot a gentleman against whom the most\noppressive proceeding known to the English law was then in progress. He\nwas hooted because he had been an unfaithful husband, as if some of\nthe most popular men of the age, Lord Nelson for example, had not been\nunfaithful husbands. We remember a still stronger case. Will posterity\nbelieve that, in an age in which men whose gallantries were universally\nknown, and had been legally proved, filled some of the highest offices\nin the state and in the army, {331}presided at the meetings of religious\nand benevolent institutions, were the delight of every society, and the\nfavourites of the multitude, a crowd of moralists went to the theatre,\nin order to pelt a poor actor for disturbing the conjugal felicity of an\nalderman? What there was in the circumstances either of the offender or\nof the sufferer to vindicate the zeal of the audience, we could never\nconceive. It has never been supposed that the situation of an actor is\npeculiarly favourable to the rigid virtues, or that an alderman enjoys\nany special immunity from injuries such as that which on this occasion\nroused the anger of the public. But such is the justice of mankind.\n\nIn these cases the punishment was excessive; but the offence was known\nand proved. The case of Lord Byron was harder. True Jedwood justice was\ndealt out to him. First came the execution, then the investigation, and\nlast of all, or rather not at all, the accusation. The public, without\nknowing any thing whatever about the transactions in his family, flew\ninto a violent passion with him, and proceeded to invent stories\nwhich might justify its anger. Ten or twenty different accounts of the\nseparation, inconsistent with each other, with themselves, and with\ncommon sense, circulated at the same time. What evidence there might be\nfor any one of these, the virtuous people who repeated them neither\nknew nor cared. For in fact these stories were not the causes, but\nthe effects of the public indignation. They resembled those loathsome\nslanders which Lewis Goldsmith, and other abject libellers of the same\nclass, were in the habit of publishing about Bonaparte; such as that he\npoisoned a girl with arsenic when he was at the military school, that he\nhired a grenadier to shoot Dessaix at Marengo, that {332}he filled St.\nCloud with all the pollutions of Capre\u00e6. There was a time when anecdotes\nlike these obtained some credence from persons who, hating the French\nemperor without knowing why, were eager to believe any thing which might\njustify their hatred. Lord Byron fared in the same way. His countrymen\nwere in a bad humour with him. His writings and his character had lost\nthe charm of novelty. He had been guilty of the offence which, of all\noffences, is punished most severely; he had been over-praised; he had\nexcited too warm an interest; and the public, with its usual justice,\nchastised him for its own folly. The attachments of the multitude bear\nno small resemblance to those of the wanton enchantress in the Arabian\nTales, who, when the forty days of her fondness were over, was not\ncontent with dismissing her lovers, but condemned them to expiate, in\nloathsome shapes, and under cruel penances, the crime of having once\npleased her too well.\n\nThe obloquy which Byron had to endure was such as might well have shaken\na more constant mind. The newspapers were filled with lampoons. The\ntheatres shook with execrations. He was excluded from circles where he\nhad lately been the observed of all observers. All those creeping things\nthat riot in the decay of nobler natures hastened to their repast; and\nthey were right; they did after their kind. It is not every day that\nthe savage envy of aspiring dunces is gratified by the agonies of such a\nspirit, and the degradation of such a name.\n\nThe unhappy man left his country for ever. The howl of contumely\nfollowed him across the sea, up the Rhine, over the Alps; it gradually\nwaxed fainter; it died away; those who had raised it began to ask each\n{333}other, what, after all, was the matter about which they had been\nso clamorous, and wished to invite back the criminal whom they had just\nchased from them. His poetry became more popular than it had ever\nbeen; and his complaints were read with tears by thousands and tens of\nthousands who had never seen his face.\n\nHe had fixed his home on the shores of the Adriatic, in the most\npicturesque and interesting of cities, beneath the brightest of skies,\nand by the brightest of seas. Censoriousness was not the vice of the\nneighbours whom he had chosen. They were a race corrupted by a bad\ngovernment and a bad religion, long renowned for skill in the arts of\nvoluptuousness, and tolerant of all the caprices of sensuality. From the\npublic opinion of the country of his adoption, he had nothing to dread.\nWith the public opinion of the country of his birth, he was at open war.\nHe plunged into wild and desperate excesses, ennobled by no generous\nor tender sentiment. From his Venetian harem he sent forth volume after\nvolume, full of eloquence, of wit, of pathos, of ribaldry, and of bitter\ndisdain. His health sank under the effects of his intemperance. His hair\nturned grey. His food ceased to nourish him. A hectic fever withered him\nup. It seemed that his body and mind were about to perish together.\n\nFrom this wretched degradation he was in some measure rescued by a\nconnection, culpable indeed, yet such as, if it were judged by the\nstandard of morality established in the country where he lived, might\nbe called virtuous. But an imagination polluted by vice, a temper\nembittered by misfortune, and a frame habituated to the fatal excitement\nof intoxication, prevented him from fully enjoying the happiness which\nhe might have derived from the purest and most tranquil of his {334}many\nattachments. Midnight draughts of ardent spirits and Rhenish wines had\nbegun to work the ruin of his fine intellect. His verse lost much of\nthe energy and condensation which had distinguished it. But he would not\nresign, without a struggle, the empire which he had exercised over the\nmen of his generation. A new dream of ambition arose before him; to be\nthe chief of a literary party; to be the great mover of an intellectual\nrevolution; to guide the public mind of England from his Italian\nretreat, as Voltaire had guided the public mind of France from the\nvilla of Ferney. With this hope, as it should seem, he established the\nLiberal. But, powerfully as he had affected the imaginations of his\ncontemporaries, he mistook his own powers if he hoped to direct their\nopinions; and he still more grossly mistook his own disposition, if he\nthought that he could long act in concert with other men of letters. The\nplan failed, and failed ignominiously. Angry with himself, angry with\nhis coadjutors, he relinquished it, and turned to another project, the\nlast and noblest of his life.\n\nA nation, once the first among the nations, preeminent in knowledge,\npreeminent in military glory, the cradle of philosophy, of eloquence,\nand of the fine arts, had been for ages bowed down under a cruel yoke.\nAll the vices which oppression generates, the abject vices which it\ngenerates in those who submit to it, the ferocious vices which it\ngenerates in those who struggle against it, had deformed the character\nof that miserable race. The valour which had won the great battle of\nhuman civilisation, which had saved Europe, which had subjugated\nAsia, lingered only among pirates and robbers. The ingenuity, once\nso conspicuously displayed in every department of physical and moral\nscience, had {335}been depraved into a timid and servile cunning. On\na sudden this degraded people had risen on their oppressors.\nDiscountenanced or betrayed by the surrounding potentates, they had\nfound in themselves something of that which might well supply the place\nof all foreign assistance, something of the energy of their fathers.\n\nAs a man of letters, Lord Byron conld not but be interested in the event\nof this contest. His political opinions, though, like all his opinions,\nunsettled, leaned strongly towards the side of liberty. He bad assisted\nthe Italian insurgents with his purse, and, if their struggle against\nthe Austrian government had been prolonged, would probably have assisted\nthem with his sword. But to Greece he was attached by peculiar ties. He\nhad when young resided in that country. Much of his most splendid and\npopular poetry had been inspired by its scenery and by its history. Sick\nof inaction, degraded in his own eyes by his private vices and by\nhis literary failures, pining for untried excitement and honourable\ndistinction, he carried his exhausted body and his wounded spirit to the\nGrecian camp.\n\nHis conduct in his new situation showed so much vigour and good sense\nas to justify us in believing that, if his life had been prolonged,\nhe might have distinguished himself as a soldier and a politician. But\npleasure and sorrow had done the work of seventy years upon his delicate\nframe. The hand of death was upon him: he knew it; and the only wish\nwhich he uttered was that he might die sword in hand.\n\nThis was denied to him. Anxiety, exertion, exposure, and those fatal\nstimulants which had become indispensable to him, soon stretched him on\na sick bed, in a strange land, amidst strange faces, without one human\n{336}being that he loved near him. There, at thirty-six, the most\ncelebrated Englishman of the nineteenth century closed his brilliant and\nmiserable career.\n\nWe cannot even now retrace those events without feeling something of\nwhat was felt by the nation, when it was first known that the grave had\nclosed over so much sorrow and so much glory; something of what was felt\nby those who saw the hearse, with its long train of coaches, turn slowly\nnorthward, leaving behind it that cemetery which had been consecrated\nby the dust of so many great poets, but of which the doors were closed\nagainst all that remained of Byron. We well remember that on that day,\nrigid moralists could not refrain from weeping for one so young, so\nillustrious, so unhappy, gifted with such rare gifts, and tried by\nsuch strong temptations. It is unnecessary to make any reflections. The\nhistory carries its moral with it. Our age has indeed been fruitful of\nwarnings to the eminent, and of consolations to the obscure. Two men\nhave died within our recollection, who, at a time of life at which many\npeople have hardly completed their education, had raised themselves,\neach in his own department, to the height of glory. One of them died at\nLongwood; the other at Missolonghi.\n\nIt is always difficult to separate the literary character of a man who\nlives in our own time from his personal character. It is peculiarly\ndifficult to make this separation in the case of Lord Byron. For it\nis scarcely too much to say, that Lord Byron never wrote without some\nreference, direct or indirect, to himself. The interest excited by the\nevents of his life mingles itself in our minds, and probably in the\nminds of almost all our readers, with the interest which properly\nbelongs to his works. A generation must pass away before it will be\n{337}possible to form a fair judgment of his books, considered merely as\nbooks. At present they are not only books, but relics. We will however\nventure, though with unfeigned diffidence, to offer some desultory\nremarks on his poetry.\n\nHis lot was cast in the time of a great literary revolution. That\npoetical dynasty which had dethroned the successors of Shakspeare and\nSpenser was, in its turn, dethroned by a race who represented themselves\nas heirs of the ancient line, so long dispossessed by usurpers. The real\nnature of this revolution has not, we think, been comprehended by the\ngreat majority of those who concurred in it.\n\nWherein especially does the poetry of our times differ from that of the\nlast century? Ninety-nine persons out of a hundred would answer that\nthe poetry of the last century was correct, but cold and mechanical, and\nthat the poetry of our time, though wild and irregular, presented far\nmore vivid images, and excited the passions far more strongly than that\nof Parnell, of Addison, or of Pope. In the same manner we constantly\nhear it said, that the poets of the age of Elizabeth had far more\ngenius, but far less correctness, than those of the age of Anne. It\nseems to be taken for granted, that there is some incompatibility, some\nantithesis between correctness and creative power. We rather suspect\nthat this notion arises merely from an abuse of words, and that it has\nbeen the parent of many of the fallacies which perplex the science of\ncriticism.\n\nWhat is meant by correctness in poetry? If by correctness be meant the\nconforming to rules which have their foundation in truth and in the\nprinciples of human nature, then correctness is only another name\n{339}for excellence. If by correctness be meant the conforming to\nrules purely arbitrary, correctness may be another name for dulness and\nabsurdity.\n\nA writer who describes visible objects falsely and violates the\npropriety of character, a writer who makes the mountains \u201cnod their\ndrowsy heads\u201d at night, or a dying man take leave of the world with a\nrant like that of Maximin, may be said in the high and just sense of\nthe phrase, to write incorrectly. He violates the first great law of\nhis art. His imitation is altogether unlike the thing imitated. The four\npoets who are most eminently free from incorrectness of this description\nare Homer, Dante, Shakspeare, and Milton. They are, therefore, in one\nsense, and that the best sense, the most correct of poets.\n\nWhen it is said that Virgil, though he had less genius than Homer, was a\nmore correct writer, what sense is attached to the word correctness? Is\nit meant that the story of the \u00c6neid is developed more skilfully than\nthat of the Odyssey? that the Roman describes the face of the external\nworld, or the emotions of the mind, more accurately than the Greek? that\nthe characters of Achates and Mnestheus are more nicely discriminated,\nand more consistently supported, than those of Achilles, of Nestor, and\nof Ulysses? The fact incontestably is that, for every violation of the\nfundamental laws of poetry which can be found in Homer, it would be easy\nto find twenty in Virgil.\n\nTroilus and Cressida is perhaps of all the plays of Shakspeare that\nwhich is commonly considered as the most incorrect. Yet it seems to us\ninfinitely more correct, in the sound sense of the term, than what are\ncalled the most correct plays of the most correct dramatists. Compare\nit, for example, with the Iphigenie {339}of Racine. We are sure that the\nGreeks of Shakspeare bear a for greater resemblance than the Greeks of\nRacine to the real Greeks who besieged Troy; and for this reason, that\nthe Greeks ol Shakspeare are human beings, and the Greeks of Racine\nmere names, mere words printed in capitals at the head of paragraphs of\ndeclamation. Racine, it is true, would have shuddered at the thought of\nmaking a warrior at the siege of Troy quote Aristotle. But of what\nuse is it to avoid a single anachronism, when the whole play is one\nanachronism, the sentiments and phrases of Versailles in the camp of\nAulis?\n\nIn the sense in which we are now using the word correctness, we think\nthat Sir Walter Scott, Mr. Wordsworth, Mr. Coleridge, are for more\ncorrect poets than those who are commonly extolled as the models of\ncorrectness, Pope, for example, and Addison. The single description of\na moonlight night in Pope\u2019s Iliad contains more inaccuracies than can\nbe found in all the Excursion. There is not a single scene in Cato,\nin which all that conduces to poetical illusion, all the propriety of\ncharacter, of language, of situation, is not more grossly violated than\nin any part of the Lay of the last Minstrel. No man can possibly think\nthat the Romans of Addison resemble the real Romans so closely as the\nmoss-troopers of Scott resemble the real mosstroopers. Wat Tinlinn and\nWilliam of Deloraine are not, it is true, persons of so much dignity\nas Cato. But the dignity of the persons represented has as little to do\nwith the correctness of poetry as with the correctness of painting. We\nprefer a gipsy by Reynolds to his Majesty\u2019s head on a sign-post, and a\nBorderer by Scott to a Senator by Addison.\n\nIn what sense, then, is the word correctness used {340}by those who say,\nwith the author of the Pursuits of Literature, that Pope was the most\ncorrect of English Poets, and that next to Pope came the late Mr.\nGifford? What is the nature and value of that correctness, the praise\nof which is denied to Macbeth, to Lear, and to Othello, and given\nto Hoole\u2019s translations and to all the Seatonian prize-poems? We can\ndiscover no eternal rule, no rule founded in reason and in the nature of\nthings, which Shakspeare does not observe much more strictly than Pope.\nBut if by correctness be meant the conforming to a narrow legislation\nwhich, while lenient to the _mala in se_, multiplies, without the shadow\nof a reason, the _mala prohibita_, if by correctness be meant a\nstrict attention to certain ceremonious observances, which are no more\nessential to poetry than etiquette to good government, or than the\nwashings of a Pharisee to devotion, then, assuredly, Pope may be a more\ncorrect poet than Shakspeare; and, if the code were a little altered,\nColley Cibber might be a more correct poet than Pope. But it may well be\ndoubted whether this kind of correctness be a merit, nay, whether it be\nnot an absolute fault.\n\nIt would be amusing to make a digest of the irrational laws which bad\ncritics have framed for the government of poets. First in celebrity\nand in absurdity stand the dramatic unities of place and time. No human\nbeing has ever been able to find any thing that could, even by courtesy,\nbe called an argument for these unities, except that they have been\ndeduced from the general practice of the Greeks. It requires no very\nprofound examination to discover that the Greek dramas, often admirable\nas compositions, are, as exhibitions of human character and human life,\nfar inferior to the English plays of the age of Elizabeth. {341}Every\nscholar knows that the dramatic part of the Athenian tragedies was at\nfirst subordinate to the lyrical part. It would, therefore, have been\nlittle less than a miracle if the laws of the Athenian stage had been\nfound to suit plays in which there was no chorus.\n\nAll the greatest masterpieces of the dramatic art have been composed in\ndirect violation of the unities, and could never have been composed if\nthe unities had not been violated. It is clear, for example, that such\na character as that of Hamlet could never have been developed within the\nlimits to which Alfieri confined himself. Yet such was the reverence of\nliterary men during the last century for these unities that Johnson who,\nmuch to his honour, took the opposite side, was, as he says, \u201cfrightened\nat his own temerity,\u201d and \u201cafraid to stand against the authorities which\nmight be produced against him.\u201d\n\nThere are other rules of the same kind without end. \u201cShakspeare,\u201d says\nRymer, \u201cought not to have made Othello black; for the hero of a tragedy\nought always to be white.\u201d\n\n\u201cMilton,\u201d says another critic, \u201cought not to have taken Adam for his\nhero; for the hero of an epic poem ought always to be victorious.\u201d\n\n\u201cMilton,\u201d says another, \u201cought not to have put so many similes into his\nfirst book; for the first book of an epic poem ought always to be the\nmost unadorned. There are no similes in the first book of the Iliad.\u201d\n\n\u201cMilton,\u201d says another, \u201cought not to have placed in an epic poem such\nlines as these.\"\n\n               \u201c'While thus I called, and strayed I knew not whither.\u2019\u201d\n\nAnd why not? The critic is ready with a reason, a lady\u2019s reason. \u201cSuch\nlines,\u201d says he, \u201care not, it must be allowed, unpleasing to the ear;\nbut the redundant {342}syllable ought to be confined to the drama, and\nnot admitted into epic poetry.\u201d As to the redundant syllable in heroic\nrhyme on serious subjects, it has been, from the time of Pope downward,\nproscribed by the general consent of all the correct school. No magazine\nwould have admitted so incorrect a couplet as that of Drayton;\n\n               \u201cAs when we lived untouch\u2019d with these disgraces,\n\n               When as our kingdom was our dear embraces.\"\n\nAnother law of heroic rhyme, which, fifty years ago, was considered as\nfundamental, was, that there should be a pause, a comma at least, at the\nend of every couplet. It was also provided that there should never be a\nfull stop except at the end of a line. Well do we remember to have heard\na most correct judge of poetry revile Mr. Rogers for the incorrectness\nof that most sweet and graceful passage,\n\n                   \u201cSuch grief was ours,--it seems but yesterday,--\n\n                   When in thy prime, wishing so much to stay,\n\n                   \u2019Twas thine, Maria, thine without a sigh\n\n                   At midnight in a sister\u2019s arms to die.\n\n                   Oh thou wert lovely; lovely was thy frame,\n\n                   And pure thy spirit as from heaven it came:\n\n                   And when recalled to join the blest above\n\n                   Thou diedst a victim to exceeding love,\n\n                   Nursing the young to health. In happier hours,\n\n                   When idle Fancy wove luxuriant flowers,\n\n                   Once in thy mirth thou badst me write on thee;\n\n                   And now I write what thou shalt never see.\"\n\nSir Roger Newdigate is fairly entitled, we think, to be ranked among\nthe great critics of this school. He made a law that none of the poems\nwritten for the prize which he established at Oxford should exceed\nfifty lines. This law seems to us to have at least as much foundation in\nreason as any of those which we {343}have mentioned; nay, much more,\nfor the world, we believe, is pretty well agreed in thinking that the\nshorter a prize-poem is, the better.\n\nWe do not see why we should not make a few more rules of the same kind;\nwhy we should not enact that the number of scenes in every act shall be\nthree or some multiple of three, that the number of lines in every scene\nshall be an exact square, that the _dramatis personae_ shall never\nbe more or fewer than sixteen, and that, in heroic rhymes, every\nthirty-sixth line shall have twelve syllables. If we were to lay down\nthese canons, and to call Pope, Goldsmith, and Addison incorrect writers\nfor not having complied with our whims, we should act precisely as those\ncritics act who find incorrectness in the magnificent imagery and the\nvaried music of Coleridge and Shelley.\n\nThe correctness which the last century prized so much resembles the\ncorrectness of those pictures of the garden of Eden which we see in old\nBibles. We have an exact square, enclosed by the rivers Pison, Gihon,\nHiddekel, and Euphrates, each with a convenient bridge in the centre,\nrectangular beds of flowers, a long canal, neatly bricked and railed\nin, the tree of knowledge, clipped like one of the limes behind the\nTuilleries, standing in the centre of the grand alley, the snake twined\nround it, the man on the right hand, the woman on the left, and the\nbeasts drawn up in an exact circle round them. In one sense the picture\nis correct enough. That is to say, the squares are correct; the circles\nare correct; the man and the woman are in a most correct line with the\ntree; and the snake forms a most correct spiral.\n\nBut if there were a painter so gifted that he could place on the canvass\nthat glorious paradise, seen by the {344}interior eye of him whose\noutward sight had failed with long watching and labouring for liberty\nand truth, if there were a painter who could set before us the mazes\nof the sapphire brook, the lake with its fringe of myrtles, the flowery\nmeadows, the grottoes overhung by vines, the forests shining with\nHesperian fruit and with the plumage of gorgeous birds, the massy shade\nof that nuptial bower which showered down roses on the sleeping lovers,\nwhat should we think of a connoisseur who should tell us that this\npainting, though finer than the absurd picture in the old Bible, was not\nso correct? Surely we should answer, It is both finer and more correct;\nand it is finer because it is more correct. It is not made up of\ncorrectly drawn diagrams; but it is a correct painting, a worthy\nrepresentation of that which it is intended to represent.\n\nIt is not in the fine arts alone that this false correctness is prized\nby narrow-minded men, by men who cannot distinguish means from ends,\nor what is accidental from what is essential. M. Jourdain admired\ncorrectness in fencing. \u201cYou had no business to hit me then. You must\nnever thrust in quart till you have thrust in tierce.\u201d M. Tomes liked\ncorrectness in medical practice. \u201cI stand up for Artemius. That he\nkilled his patient is plain enough. But still he acted quite according\nto rule. A man dead is a man dead; and there is an end of the matter.\nBut if rules are to be broken, there is no saying what consequences may\nfollow.\u201d We have heard of an old German officer, who was a great admirer\nof correctness in military operations. He used to revile Bonaparte for\nspoiling the science of war, which had been carried to such exquisite\nperfection by Marshal {345}Daun. \u201cIn my youth we used to march and\ncountermarch all the summer without gaining or losing a square league,\nand then we went into winter quarters. And now comes an ignorant,\nhot-headed young man, who flies about from Bologne to Ulm, and from\nUlm to the middle of Moravia, and fights battles in December. The\nwhole system of his tactics is monstrously incorrect.\u201d The world is of\nopinion, in spite of critics like these, that the end of fencing is\nto hit, that the end of medicine is to cure, that the end of war is to\nconquer, and that those means are the most correct which best accomplish\nthe ends.\n\nAnd has poetry no end, no eternal and immutable principles? Is poetry,\nlike heraldry, mere matter of arbitrary regulation? The heralds tell us\nthat certain scutcheons and bearings denote certain conditions, and that\nto put colours on colours, or metals on metals, is false blazonry.\nIf all this were reversed, if every coat of arms in Europe were new\nfashioned, if it were decreed that or should never be placed but on\nargent, or argent but on or, that illegitimacy should be denoted by a\nlozenge, and widowhood by a bend, the new science would be just as good\nas the old science, because both the new and the old would be good for\nnothing. The mummery of Portcullis and Rouge Dragon, as it has no other\nvalue than that which caprice has assigned to it, may well submit to any\nlaws which caprice may impose on it. But it is not so with that great\nimitative art, to the power of which all ages, the rudest and the most\nenlightened, bear witness. Since its first great masterpieces were\nproduced, every thing that is changeable in this world has been changed.\nCivilisation has been gained, lost, gained again. Religions, and\nlanguages, and forms of government, and usages of private {346}life, and\nmodes of thinking, all have undergone a succession of revolutions. Every\nthing has passed away but the great features of nature, and the heart of\nman, and the miracles of that art of which it is the office to reflect\nback the heart of man and the features of nature. Those two strange\nold poems, the wonder of ninety generations, still retain all their\nfreshness. They still command the veneration of minds enriched by the\nliterature of many nations and ages. They are still, even in wretched\ntranslations, the delight of schoolboys. Having survived ten thousand\ncapricious fashions, having seen successive codes of criticism become\nobsolete, they still remain to us, immortal with the immortality of\ntruth, the same when perused in the study of an English scholar, as when\nthey were first chanted at the banquets of the Ionian princes.\n\nPoetry is, as was said more than two thousand years ago, imitation. It\nis an art analogous in many respects to the art of painting, sculpture,\nand acting. The imitations of the painter, the sculptor, and the actor,\nare indeed, within certain limits, more perfect than those of the poet.\nThe machinery which the poet employs consists merely of words; and words\ncannot, even when employed by such an artist as Homer or Dante, present\nto the mind images of visible objects quite so lively and exact as\nthose which we carry away from looking on the works of the brush and the\nchisel. But, on the other hand, the range of poetry is infinitely wider\nthan that of any other imitative art, or than that of all the other\nimitative arts together. The sculptor can imitate only form; the painter\nonly form and colour; the actor, until the poet supplies him with words,\nonly form, colour, and motion. Poetry holds the outer world in common\nwith the other arts. The {347}heart of man is the province, of poetry,\nand of poetry alone. The painter, the sculptor, and the actor can\nexhibit no more of human passion and character than that small portion\nwhich overflows into the gesture and the face, always an imperfect,\noften a deceitful, sign of that which is within. The deeper and more\ncomplex parts of human nature can be exhibited by means of words alone.\nThus the objects of the imitation of poetry are the whole external and\nthe whole internal universe, the face of nature, the vicissitudes of\nfortune, man as he is in himself, man as he appears in society, all\nthings which really exist, all things of which we can form an image in\nour minds by combining together parts of things which really exist.\nThe domain of this Imperial art is commensurate with the imaginative\nfaculty.\n\nAn art essentially imitative ought not surely to be subjected to rules\nwhich tend to make its imitations less perfect than they otherwise would\nbe; and those who obey such rules ought to be called, not correct, but\nincorrect artists. The true way to judge of the rules by which English\npoetry was governed during the last century is to look at the effects\nwhich they produced.\n\nIt was in 1780 that Johnson completed his Lives of the Poets. He tells\nus in that work that, since the time of Dryden, English poetry had shown\nno tendency to relapse into its original savageness, that its language\nhad been refined, its numbers tuned, and its sentiments improved. It may\nperhaps be doubted whether the nation had any great reason to exult in\nthe refinements and improvements which gave it Douglas for Othello, and\nthe Triumphs of Temper for the Fairy Queen.\n\nIt was during the thirty years which preceded the {348}appearance of\nJohnson\u2019s Lives that the diction and versification of English poetry\nwere, in the sense in which the word is commonly used, most correct.\nThose thirty years are, as respects poetry, the most deplorable part\nof our literary history. They have indeed bequeathed to us scarcely any\npoetry which deserves to be remembered. Two or three hundred lines of\nGray, twice as many of Goldsmith, a few stanzas of Beattie and Collins,\na few strophes of Mason, and a few clever prologues and satires, were\nthe masterpieces of this age of consummate excellence. They may all be\nprinted in one volume, and that volume would be by no means a volume\nof extraordinary merit. It would contain no poetry of the very highest\nclass, and little which could be placed very high in the second class.\nThe Paradise Regained or Comus would outweigh it all.\n\nAt last, when poetry had fallen into such utter decay that Mr. Hayley\nwas thought a great poet, it began to appear that the excess of the evil\nwas about to work the cure. Men became tired of an insipid conformity to\na standard which derived no authority from nature or reason. A shallow\ncriticism had taught them to ascribe a superstitious value to the\nspurious correctness of poetasters. A deeper criticism brought them back\nto the true correctness of the first great masters. The eternal laws\nof poetry regained their power, and the temporary fashions which had\nsuperseded those laws went after the wig of Lovelace and the hoop of\nClarissa.\n\nIt was in a cold and barren season that the seeds of that rich harvest\nwhich we have reaped were first sown. While poetry was every year\nbecoming more feeble and more mechanical, while the monotonous\nversification {349}which Pope had introduced, no longer redeemed by his\nbrilliant wit and his compactness of expression, palled on the ear of\nthe public, the great works of the old masters were every day attracting\nmore and more of the admiration which they deserved. The plays of\nShakspeare were better acted, better edited, and better known than they\nhad ever been. Our fine ancient ballads were again read with pleasure,\nand it became a fashion to imitate them. Many of the imitations were\naltogether contemptible. But they showed that men had at least begun to\nadmire the excellence which they could not rival. A literary revolution\nwas evidently at hand. There was a ferment in the minds of men, a vague\ncraving for something new, a disposition to hail with delight any\nthing which might at first sight wear the appearance of originality. A\nreforming age is always fertile of impostors. The same excited state of\npublic feeling which produced the great separation from the see of Rome\nproduced also the excesses of the Anabaptists. The same stir in the\npublic mind of Europe which overthrew the abuses of the old French\ngovernment, produced the Jacobins and Theophilanthropists.\n\nMacpherson and Della Crusca were to the true reformers of English poetry\nwhat Knipperdoling was to Luther, or Clootz to Turgot. The success of\nChatterton\u2019s forgeries and of the far more contemptible forgeries of\nIreland showed that people had begun to love the old poetry well,\nthough not wisely. The public was never more disposed to believe stories\nwithout evidence, and to admire books without merit. Any thing which\ncould break the dull monotony of the correct school was acceptable.\n\nThe forerunner of the great restoration of our literature was Cowper.\nHis literary career began and {350}ended at nearly the same time with\nthat of Alfieri. A comparison between Alfieri and Cowper may, at first\nsight, appear as strange as that which a loyal Presbyterian minister is\nsaid to have made in 1745 between George the Second and Enoch. It may\nseem that the gentle, shy, melancholy Calvinist, whose spirit had been\nbroken by fagging at school, who had not courage to earn a livelihood by\nreading the titles of bills in the House of Lords, and whose favourite\nassociates were a blind old lady and an evangelical divine, could have\nnothing in common with the haughty, ardent, and voluptuous nobleman, the\nhorse-jockey, the libertine, who fought Lord Ligonier in Hyde Park, and\nrobbed the Pretender of his queen. But though the private lives of\nthese remarkable men present scarcely any points of resemblance, their\nliterary lives bear a close analogy to each other. They both found\npoetry in its lowest state of degradation, feeble, artificial, and\naltogether nerveless. They both possessed precisely the talents which\nfitted them for the task of raising it from that deep abasement. They\ncannot, in strictness, be called great poets. They had not in any very\nhigh degree the creative power,\n\n                        \u201cThe vision and the faculty divine;\"\n\nbut they had great vigour of thought, great warmth of feeling, and what,\nin their circumstances, was above all things important, a manliness of\ntaste which approached to roughness. They did not deal in mechanical\nversification and conventional phrases. They wrote concerning things the\nthought of which set their hearts on fire; and thus what they wrote,\neven when it wanted every other grace, had that inimitable grace which\nsincerity and strong passion impart to the rudest and most homely\ncompositions. Each of them sought {351}for inspiration in a noble and\naffecting subject, fertile of images which had not yet been hackneyed.\nLiberty was the muse of Alfieri, Religion was the muse of Cowper. The\nsame truth is found in their lighter pieces. They were not among those\nwho deprecated the severity, or deplored the absence, of an unreal\nmistress in melodious commonplaces. Instead of raving about imaginary\nChloes and Sylvias, Cowper wrote of Mrs. Unwin\u2019s knitting-needles. The\nonly love-verses of Alfieri were addressed to one whom he truly and\npassionately loved. \u201cTutte le rime amorose che se-guono,\u201d says he,\n\u201ctutte sono per essa, e ben sue, e di lei solamente; poiche mai d\u201d altra\ndonna per certo non canter\u00f4.\u201d\n\nThese great men were not free from affectation. But their affectation\nwas directly opposed to the affectation which generally prevailed. Each\nof them expressed, in strong and bitter language, the contempt which he\nfelt for the effeminate poetasters who were in fashion both in England\nand in Italy. Cowper complains that\n\n                   \u201cManner is all in all, whate\u2019er is writ,\n\n                   The substitute for genius, taste, and wit.\"\n\nHe praised Pope; yet he regretted that Pope had\n\n                   \u201cMade poetry a mere mechanic art,\n\n                   And every warbler had his tune by heart.\"\n\nAlfieri speaks with similar scorn of the tragedies of his predecessors.\n\u201cMi eadevano dalle mani per la languidezza, triviality e prolissit\u2019i dei\nmodi e del verso, senza parlare poi della snervatezza dei pensieri. Or\nperche mai questa nostra divina lingua, si maschia aneo, ed energica, e\nferoce, in boeca di Dante, dovra, ella farsi cost sbiadata ed eunuca nel\ndialogo tragico?\u201d\n\nTo men thus sick of the languid manner of their {352}contemporaries\nruggedness seemed a venial fault, or rather a positive merit. In their\nhatred of meretricious ornament, and of what Cowper calls \u201ccreamy\nsmoothness,\u201d they erred on the opposite side. Their style was too\naustere, their versification too harsh. It is not easy, however, to\noverrate the service which they rendered to literature. The intrinsic\nvalue of their poems is considerable. But the example which they set\nof mutiny against an absurd system was invaluable. The part which they\nperformed was rather that of Moses than that of Joshua. They opened the\nhouse of bondage; but they did not enter the promised land.\n\nDuring the twenty years which followed the death of Cowper, the\nrevolution in English poetry was fully consummated. None of the writers\nof this period, not even Sir Walter Scott, contributed so much to\nthe consummation as Lord Byron. Yet Lord Byron contributed to it\nunwillingly, and with constant self-reproach and shame. All his tastes\nand inclinations led him to take part with the school of poetry which\nwas going out against the school which was coming in. Of Pope himself\nhe spoke with extravagant admiration. He did not venture directly to say\nthat the little man of Twickenham was a greater poet than Shakspeare\nor Milton; but he hinted pretty clearly that he thought so. Of his\ncontemporaries, scarcely any had so much of his admiration as Mr.\nGifford, who, considered as a poet, was merely Pope, without Pope\u2019s\nwit and fancy, and whose satires are decidedly inferior in vigour and\npoignancy to the very imperfect juvenile performance of Lord Byron\nhimself. He now and then praised Mr. Wordsworth and Mr. Coleridge, but\nungraciously and without cordiality. When he attacked them, he\nbrought his whole soul to the work. {353}Of the most elaborate of\nMr. Wordsworth\u2019s poems he could find nothing to say, but that it was\n\u201cclumsy, and frowsy, and his aversion.\u201d Peter Bell excited his spleen to\nsuch a degree that he evoked the shades of Pope and Dryden, and demanded\nof them whether it were possible that such trash could evade contempt?\nIn his heart he thought his own Pilgrimage of Harold inferior to his\nImitation of Horace\u2019s Art of Poetry, la feeble echo of Pope and Johnson.\nThis insipid performance he repeatedly designed to publish, and was\nwithheld only by the solicitations of his friends. He has distinctly\ndeclared his approbation of the unities, the most absurd laws by which\ngenius was ever held in servitude. In one of his works, we think in his\nletter to Mr. Bowles, he compares the poetry of the eighteenth century\nto the Parthenon, and that of the nineteenth to a Turkish mosque, and\nboasts that, though he had assisted his contemporaries in building their\ngrotesque and barbarous edifice, he had never joined them in defacing\nthe remains of a chaster and more graceful architecture. In another\nletter he compares the change which had recently passed on English\npoetry to the decay of Latin poetry after the Augustan age. In the\ntime of Pope, he tells his friend, it was all Horace with us. It is all\nClaudian now.\n\nFor the great old masters of the art he had no very enthusiastic\nveneration. In his letter to Mr. Bowles he uses expressions which\nclearly indicate that he preferred Pope\u2019s Iliad to the original.\nMr. Moore confesses that his friend was no very fervent admirer of\nShakspeare. Of all the poets of the first class, Lord Byron seems to\nhave admired Dante and Milton most. Yet in the fourth canto of Childe\nHarold, he places Tasso, a writer not merely inferior to them, but of\n{354}quite a different order of mind, on at least a footing of equality\nwith them. Mr. Hunt is, we suspect, quite correct in saying that Lord\nByron could see little or no merit in Spenser.\n\nBut Byron the critic and Byron the poet were two very different men. The\neffects of the noble writer\u2019s theory may indeed often be traced in his\npractice. But his disposition led him to accommodate himself to the\nliterary taste of the age in which he lived; and his talents would have\nenabled him to accommodate himself to the taste of any age. Though he\nsaid much of his contempt for mankind, and though he boasted that amidst\nthe inconstancy of fortune and of fame he was all-sufficient to himself,\nhis literary career indicated nothing of that lonely and unsocial pride\nwhich he affected. We cannot conceive him, like Milton or Wordsworth,\ndefying the criticism of his contemporaries, retorting their scorn, and\nlabouring on a poem in the full assurance that it would be unpopular,\nand in the full assurance that it would be immortal. He has said, by the\nmouth of one of his heroes, in speaking of political greatness, that \u201che\nmust serve who fain would sway;\u201d and this he assigns as a reason for not\nentering into political life. He did not consider that the sway which\nhe had exercised in literature had been purchased by servitude, by the\nsacrifice of his own taste to the taste of the public.\n\nHe was the creature of his age; and whenever he had lived he would have\nbeen the creature of his age. Under Charles the First Byron would have\nbeen more quaint than Donne. Under Charles the Second the rants of\nByron\u2019s rhyming plays would have pitted it, boxed it, and galleried it,\nwith those of any Bays or Bilboa. Under George the First the monotonous\n{355}smoothness of Byron\u2019s versification and the terseness of his\nexpression would have made Pope himself envious.\n\nAs it was, he was the man of the last thirteen years of the eighteenth\ncentury, and of the first twenty-three years of the nineteenth century.\nHe belonged half to the old, and half to the new school of poetry.\nHis personal taste led him to the former; his thirst of praise to the\nlatter; his talents were equally suited to both. His fame was a common\nground on which the zealots of both sides, Gifford, for example, and\nShelley, might meet. He was the representative, not of either literary\nparty, but of both at once, and of their conflict, and of the victory\nby which that conflict was terminated. His poetry fills and measures the\nwhole of the vast interval through which our literature has moved since\nthe time of Johnson. It touches the Essay on Man at the one extremity,\nand the Excursion at the other.\n\nThere are several parallel instances in literary history. Voltaire,\nfor example, was the connecting link between the France of Lewis the\nFourteenth and the France of Lewis the Sixteenth, between Racine and\nBoileau on the one side, and Condorcet and Beaumarchais on the other.\nHe, like Lord Byron, put himself at the head of an intellectual\nrevolution, dreading it all the time, murmuring at it, sneering at it,\nyet choosing rather to move before his age in any direction than to be\nleft behind and forgotten. Dryden was the connecting link between the\nliterature of the age of James the First, and the literature of the age\nof Anne. Oromasdes and Arimanes fought for him. Arimanes carried him\noff. But his heart was to the last with Oromasdes. Lord Byron was, in\nthe same manner. {356}the mediator between two generations, between two\nhostile poetical sects. Though always sneering at Mr. Wordsworth, he\nwas yet, though perhaps unconsciously, the interpreter between Mr.\nWordsworth and the multitude. In the Lyrical Ballads and the Excursion\nMr. Wordsworth appeared as the high priest of a worship, of which nature\nwas the idol. No poems have ever indicated a more exquisite perception\nof the beauty of the outer world, or a more passionate love and\nreverence for that beauty. Yet they were not popular; and it is not\nlikely that they ever will be popular as the poetry of Sir Walter Scott\nis popular. The feeling which pervaded them was too deep for\ngeneral sympathy. Their style was often too mysterious for general\ncomprehension. They made a few esoteric disciples, and many scoffers.\nLord Byron founded what may be called an exoteric Lake school; and all\nthe readers of verse in England, we might say in Europe, hastened to\nsit at his feet. What Mr. Wordsworth had said like a recluse, Lord Byron\nsaid like a man of the world, with less profound feeling, but with more\nperspicuity, energy, and conciseness. We would refer our readers to\nthe last two cantos of Childe Harold and to Manfred, in proof of these\nobservations.\n\nLord Byron, like Mr. Wordsworth, had nothing dramatic in his genius. He\nwas indeed the reverse of a great dramatist, the very antithesis to a\ngreat dramatist. All his characters, Harold looking on the sky, from\nwhich his country and the sun are disappearing together, the Giaour,\nstanding apart in the gloom of the side aisle, and casting a haggard\nscowl from under his long hood at the crucifix and the censer, Conrad\nleaning on his sword by the watch-tower, Lara smiling on the dancers,\nAlp gazing steadily on the fatal cloud {357}as it passes before the\nmoon, Manfred wandering among the precipices of Berne, Azzo on the\njudgment-seat, Ugo at the bar, Lambrol frowning on the siesta of his\ndaughter and Juan, Cain presenting his unacceptable offering, are\nessentially the same. The varieties are varieties merely of age,\nsituation, and outward show. If ever Lord Byron attempted to exhibit men\nof a different kind, he always made them either insipid or unnatural.\nSelim is nothing. Bonnivart is nothing. Don Juan, in the first and best\ncantos, is a feeble copy of the Page in the Marriage of Figaro. Johnson,\nthe man whom Juan meets in the slave-market, is a most striking failure.\nHow differently would Sir Walter Scott have drawn a bluff, fearless\nEnglishman, in such a situation! The portrait would have seemed to walk\nout of the canvass.\n\nSardanapalus is more coarsely drawn than any dramatic personage that we\ncan remember. His heroism and his effeminacy, his contempt of death and\nhis dread of a weighty helmet, his kingly resolution to be seen in the\nforemost ranks, and the anxiety with which he calls for a looking-glass,\nthat he may be seen to advantage, are contrasted, it is true, with all\nthe point of Juvenal. Indeed the hint of the character seems to have\nbeen taken from what Juvenal says of Otho:\n\n               \u201cSpeculum civilis sarcina belli.\n\n               Nimirum summi ducis est occidere Galbam,\n\n               Et curare cutem summi constantia civis,\n\n               Bedriaci in campo spolium affectare l\u2019alati,\n\n               Et pressum in faciem digitis extendere panem.\"\n\nThese are excellent lines in a satire. But it is not the business of the\ndramatist to exhibit characters in this sharp antithetical way. It is\nnot thus that Shakspeare makes Prince Hal rise from the rake of\n{358}Eastcheap into the hero of Shrewsbury, and sink again into the Bike\nof Eastcheap. It is not thus that Shakspeare has exhibited the union\nof effeminacy and valour in Antony. A dramatist cannot commit a greater\nerror than that of following those pointed descriptions of character in\nwhich satirists and historians indulge so much. It is by rejecting what\nis natural that satirists and historians produce these striking\ncharacters. Their great object generally is to ascribe to every man as\nmany contradictory qualities as possible: and this is an object easily\nattained. By judicious selection and judicious exaggeration, the\nintellect and the disposition of any human being might be described as\nbeing made up of nothing but startling contrasts. If the dramatist\nattempts to create a being answering to one of these descriptions, he\nfails, because he reverses an imperfect analytical process. He produces,\nnot a man, but a personified epigram. Very eminent writers have fallen\ninto this snare. Ben Jonson has given us a Hermogenes, taken from the\nlively lines of Horace; but the inconsistency which is so amusing in the\nsatire appears unnatural and disgusts us in the play. Sir Walter Scott\nhas committed a far more glaring error of the same kind in the novel of\nPeveril. Admiring, as every judicious reader must admire, the keen and\nvigorous lines in which Dryden satirised the Duke of Buckingham,\nSir Walter attempted to make a Duke of Buckingham to suit them, a\nreal living Zimri; and he made, not a man, but the most grotesque of\nall monsters. A writer who should attempt to introduce into a play or a\nnovel such a Wharton as the Wharton of Pope, or a Lord Hervey answering\nto Sporus, would fail in the same manner.\n\nBut to return to Lord Byron; his women, like his men, {359}are all\nof one breed. Haidee is a half-savage and girlish Julia; Julia is a\ncivilised and matronly Haidee. Leila is a wedded Zuleika, Zuleika a\nvirgin Leila. Gulnare and Medora appear to have been intentionally\nopposed to each other. Yet the difference is a difference of situation\nonly. A slight change of circumstances would, it should seem, have sent\nGulnare to the lute of Medora, and armed Medora with the dagger of\nGulnare.\n\nIt is hardly too much to say, that Lord Byron could exhibit only one man\nand only one woman, a man proud, moody, cynical, with defiance on his\nbrow, and misery in his heart, a scorner of his kind, implacable in\nrevenge, yet capable of deep and strong affection: a woman all softness\nand gentleness, loving to caress and to be caressed, but capable of\nbeing transformed by passion into a tigress.\n\nEven these two characters, his only two characters, he could not exhibit\ndramatically. He exhibited them in the manner, not of Shakspeare, but of\nClarendon. He analysed them; he made them analyse themselves; but he did\nnot make them show themselves. We are told, for example, in many\nlines of great force and spirit, that the speech of Lara was bitterly\nsarcastic, that he talked little of his travels, that if he was much\nquestioned about them, his answers became short, and his brow gloomy.\nBut we have none of Lara\u2019s sarcastic speeches or short answers. It is\nnot thus that the great masters of human nature have portrayed human\nbeings. Homer never tells us that Nestor loved to relate long stories\nabout his youth. Shakspeare never tells us that in the mind of Iago\nevery thing that is beautiful and endearing was associated with some\nfilthy and debasing idea. {360}It is curious to observe the tendency\nwhich the dialogue of Lord Byron always has to lose its character of a\ndialogue, and to become soliloquy. The scenes between Manfred and the\nChamois-hunter, between Manfred and the Witch of the Alps, between\nManfred and the Abbot, are instances of this tendency. Manfred, after\na few unimportant speeches, has all the talk to himself. The other\ninterlocutors are nothing more than good listeners. They drop an\noccasional question or ejaculation which sets Manfred off again on the\ninexhaustible topic of his personal feelings. If we examine the fine\npassages in Lord Byron\u2019s dramas, the description of Rome, for example,\nin Manfred, the description of a Venetian revel in Marino Faliero, the\nconcluding invective which the old doge pronounces against Venice, we\nshall find that there is nothing dramatic in these speeches, that they\nderive none of their effect from the character or situation of the\nspeaker, and that they would have been as fine, or finer, if they had\nbeen published as fragments of blank verse by Lord Byron. There is\nscarcely a speech in Shakspeare of which the same could be said. No\nskilful reader of the plays of Shakspeare can endure to see what are\ncalled the fine things taken out, under the name of \u201cBeauties\u201d or of\n\u201cElegant Extracts,\u201d or to hear any single passage, \u201cTo be or not to be,\u201d\n for example, quoted as a sample of the great poet. \u201cTo be or not to be\u201d\n has merit undoubtedly as a composition. It would have merit if put into\nthe mouth of a chorus. But its merit as a composition vanishes when\ncompared with its merit as belonging to Hamlet. It is not too much to\nsay that the great plays of Shakspeare would lose less by being deprived\nof all the passages which are commonly called the fine passages, than\nthose passages {361}lose by being read separately from the play. This is\nperhaps the highest praise which can be given to a dramatist.\n\nOn the other hand, it may be doubted whether there is, in all Lord\nByron\u2019s plays, a single remarkable passage which owes any portion of its\ninterest or effect to its connection with the characters or the action.\nHe has written only one scene, as far as we can recollect, which\nis dramatic even in manner, the scene between Lucifer and Cain. The\nconference is animated, and each of the interlocutors has a fair share\nof it. But this scene, when examined, will be found to be a confirmation\nof our remarks. It is a dialogue only in form. It is a soliloquy in\nessence. It is in reality a debate carried on within one single unquiet\nand sceptical mind. The questions and the answers, the objections and\nthe solutions, all belong to the same character.\n\nA writer who showed so little dramatic skill in works professedly\ndramatic was not likely to write narrative with dramatic effect.\nNothing conld indeed be more rude and careless than the structure of\nhis narrative poems. He seems to have thought, with the hero of the\nRehearsal, that the plot was good for nothing but to bring in fine\nthings. His two longest works, Childe Harold and Don Juan, have no plan\nwhatever. Either of them might have been extended to any length, or cut\nshort at any point. The state in which the Giaour appears illustrates\nthe manner in which all Byron\u2019s poems were constructed. They are all,\nlike the Giaour, collections of fragments; and, though there may be no\nempty spaces marked by asterisks, it is still easy to perceive, by the\nclumsiness of the joining, where the parts for the sake of which\nthe whole was composed end and begin. {362}It was in description and\nmeditation that Byron excelled. \u201cDescription,\u201d as he said in Don\nJuan, \u201cwas his forte.\u201d His manner is indeed peculiar, and is almost\nunequalled; rapid, sketchy, full of vigour; the selection happy; the\nstrokes few and bold. In spite of the reverence which we feel for the\ngenius of Mr. Wordsworth we cannot but think that the minuteness of his\ndescriptions often diminishes their effect, He has accustomed himself to\ngaze on nature with the eye of a lover, to dwell on every feature, and\nto mark every change of aspect. Those beauties which strike the most\nnegligent observer, and those which only a close attention discovers,\nare equally familiar to him and are equally prominent in his poetry.\nThe proverb of old Hesiod, that half is often more than the whole, is\neminently applicable to description. The policy of the Dutch who cut\ndown most of the precious trees in the Spice Islands, in order to raise\nthe value of what remained, was a policy which poets would do well\nto imitate. It was a policy which no poet understood better than Lord\nByron. Whatever his faults might be, he was never, while his mind\nretained its vigour, accused of prolixity.\n\nHis descriptions, great as was their intrinsic merit, derived their\nprincipal interest from the feeling which always mingled with them.\nHe was himself the beginning, the middle, and the end, of all his own\npoetry, the hero of every tale, the chief object in every landscape.\nHarold, Lara, Manfred, and a crowd of other characters, were universally\nconsidered merely as loose incognitos of Byron; and there is every\nreason to believe that he meant them to be so considered. The wonders of\nthe outer world, the Tagus, with the mighty fleets of England riding on\nits bosom, the towers of {363}Cintra overhanging the shaggy forest of\ncork-trees and willows, the glaring marble of Pentelicus, the banks of\nthe Rhine, the glaciers of Clarens, the sweet Lake of Leman, the dell of\nEgeria with its summer-birds and rustling lizards, the shapeless ruins\nof Rome overgrown with ivy and wall-flowers, the stars, the sea, the\nmountains, all were mere accessaries, the background to one dark and\nmelancholy figure.\n\nNever had any writer so vast a command of the whole eloquence of scorn,\nmisanthropy and despair. That Marah was never dry. No art could sweeten,\nno draughts could exhaust, its perennial waters of bitterness. Never was\nthere such variety in monotony as that of Byron. From maniac laughter\nto piercing lamentation, there was not a single note of human anguish\nof which he was not master. Year after year, and month after month, he\ncontinued to repeat that to be wretched is the destiny of all; that\nto be eminently wretched is the destiny of the eminent; that all the\ndesires by which we are cursed lead alike to misery, if they are not\ngratified, to the misery of disappointment, if they are gratified, to\nthe misery of satiety. His heroes are men who have arrived by different\nroads at the same goal of despair, who are sick of life, who are at\nwar with society, who are supported in their anguish only by an\nunconquerable pride resembling that of Prometheus on the rock or of\nSatan in the burning marl, who can master their agonies by the force\nof their will, and who, to the last, defy the whole power of earth and\nheaven. He always described himself as a man of the same kind with\nhis favourite creations, as a man whose heart had been withered, whose\ncapacity for happiness was gone and could not be restored, but whose\ninvincible spirit dared the worst that could befall him here or\nhereafter. {364}How much of this morbid feeling sprang from an original\ndisease of the mind, how much from real misfortune, how much from the\nnervousness of dissipation, how much was fanciful, how much was\nmerely affected, it is impossible for us, and would probably have been\nimpossible for the most intimate friends of Lord Byron, to decide.\nWhether there ever existed, or can ever exist, a person answering to the\ndescription which he gave of himself may be doubted; but that he was not\nsuch a person is beyond all doubt. It is ridiculous to imagine that\na man whose mind was really imbued with scorn of his fellow-creatures\nwould have published three or four books every year in order to tell\nthem so; or that a man who could say with truth that he neither sought\nsympathy nor needed it would have admitted all Europe to hear his\nfarewell to his wife, and his blessings on his child. In the second\ncanto of Childe Harold, he tells us that he is insensible to fame and\nobloquy:\n\n               \u201cIll may such contest now the spirit move,\n\n               Which heeds nor keen reproof nor partial praise.\"\n\nYet we know on the best evidence that, a day or two before he\npublished these lines, he was greatly, indeed childishly, elated by the\ncompliments paid to his maiden speech In the House of Lords.\n\nWe are far, however, from thinking that his sadness was altogether\nfeigned. He was naturally a man of great sensibility; he had been ill\neducated; his feelings had been early exposed to sharp trials; he had\nbeen crossed in his boyish love; he had been mortified by the failure\nof his first literary efforts; he was straitened in pecuniary\ncircumstances; he was unfortunate in his domestic relations; the public\ntreated him with cruel injustice: his health and spirits suffered from\nhis {365}dissipated habits of life; he was, on the whole, an unhappy\nman. He early discovered that, by parading his unhappiness before the\nmultitude, he produced an immense sensation. The world gave him every\nencouragement to talk about his mental sufferings. The interest which\nhis first confessions excited induced him to affect much that he did not\nfeel; and the affectation probably reacted on his feelings. How far\nthe character in which he exhibited himself was genuine, and how far\ntheatrical, it would probably have puzzled himself to say.\n\nThere can be no doubt that this remarkable man owed the vast influence\nwhich he exercised over his contemporaries at least as much to his\ngloomy egotism as to the real power of his poetry. We never could very\nclearly understand how it is that egotism, so unpopular in conversation,\nshould be so popular in writing; or how it is that men who affect in\ntheir compositions qualities and feelings which they have not, impose so\nmuch more easily on their contemporaries than on posterity. The interest\nwhich the loves of Petrarch excited in his own time, and the pitying\nfondness with which half Europe looked upon Rousseau, are well known. To\nreaders of our age, the love of Petrarch seems to have been love of\nthat kind which breaks no hearts, and the sufferings of Rousseau to have\ndeserved laughter rather than pity, to have been partly counterfeited,\nand partly the consequences of his own perverseness and vanity.\n\nWhat our grandchildren may think of the character of Lord Byron, as\nexhibited in his poetry, we will not pretend to guess. It is certain,\nthat the interest which he excited during his life is without a parallel\nin literary history The feeling with which young readers of {366}poetry\nregarded him can be conceived only by those who have experienced it. To\npeople who are unacquainted with real calamity, \u201cnothing is so dainty\nsweet as lovely melancholy.\u201d This faint image of sorrow has in all\nages been considered by young gentlemen as an agreeable excitement. Old\ngentlemen and middle-aged gentlemen have so many real causes of\nsadness that they are rarely inclined \u201cto be as sad as night only\nfor wantonness.\u201d Indeed they want the power almost as much as the\ninclination. We know very few persons engaged in active life who, even\nif they were to procure stools to be melancholy upon, and were to sit\ndown with all the premeditation of Master Stephen, would be able to\nenjoy much of what somebody calls the \u201cecstasy of woe.\u201d\n\nAmong that large class of young persons whose reading is almost entirely\nconfined to works of imagination, the popularity of Lord Byron was\nunbounded. They bought pictures of him; they treasured up the smallest\nrelics of him; they learned his poems by heart, and did their best to\nwrite like him, and to look like him. Many of them practised at the\nglass in the hope of catching the curl of the upper lip, and the scowl\nof the brow, which appear in some of his portraits. A few discarded\ntheir neckcloths in imitation of their great leader. For some years\nthe Minerva press sent forth no novel without a mysterious, unhappy,\nLara-like peer. The number of hopeful under-graduates and medical\nstudents who became things of dark imaginings, on whom the freshness\nof the heart ceased to fall like dew, whose passions had consumed\nthemselves to dust, and to whom the relief of tears was denied, passes\nall calculation. This was not the worst. There was created in the minds\nof {367}many of these enthusiasts a pernicious and absurd association\nbetween intellectual power and moral depravity. From the poetry of\nLord Byron they drew a system of ethics, compounded of misanthropy and\nvoluptuousness, a system in which the two great commandments were, to\nhate your neighbour, and to love your neighbour\u2019s wife.\n\nThis affectation has passed away; and a few more years will destroy\nwhatever yet remains of that magical potency which once belonged to the\nname of Byron. To us he is still a man, young, noble, and unhappy. To\nour children he will be merely a writer; and their impartial judgment\nwill appoint his place among writers, without regard to his rank or to\nhis private history. That his poetry will undergo a severe sifting, that\nmuch of what has been admired by his contemporaries will be rejected\nas worthless, we have little doubt. But we have as little doubt, that,\nafter the closest scrutiny, there will still remain much that can only\nperish with the English language.\n\n\n\n\nSAMUEL JOHNSON. (1)\n\n(_Edinburgh Review_, September 1831.)\n\n\nThis {368}work has greatly disappointed us. Whatever faults we may\nhave been prepared to find in it, we fully expected that it would be\na valuable addition to English literature; that it would contain many\ncurious facts, and many judicious remarks; that the style of the notes\nwould be neat, clear, and precise; and that the typographical execution\nwould be, as in new editions of classical works it ought to be, almost\nfaultless. We are sorry to be obliged to say that the merits of Mr.\nCroker\u2019s performance are on a par with those of a certain leg of mutton\non which Dr. Johnson dined, while travelling from London to Oxford, and\nwhich he, with characteristic energy, pronounced to be \u201cas bad as bad\ncould be, ill fed, ill killed, ill kept, and ill dressed.\u201d This edition\nis ill compiled, ill arranged, ill written, and ill printed.\n\nNothing in the work has astonished us so much as the ignorance or\ncarelessness of Mr. Croker with respect to facts and dates. Many of his\nblunders are such as we should be surprised to hear any well educated\n\n     (1) _The Life of Samuel Johnson, LL.D. Including a Journal\n     of a Tour to the Hebrides, by James Boswell, Esq. A new\n     Edition, with numerous Additions and Notes_. By John Wilson\n     Croker, LL.D. F.R.S. Five volumes 8vo. London: 1831.\n\n{369}gentleman commit, even in conversation. The notes absolutely swarm\nwith misstatements into which the editor never would have fallen, if\nhe had taken the slightest pains to investigate the truth of his\nassertions, or if he had even been well acquainted with the book on\nwhich he undertook to comment. We will give a few instances.\n\nMr. Croker tells us in a note that Derrick, who was master of the\nceremonies at Bath, died very poor in 1760. (1) We read on; and, a\nfew pages later, we find Dr. Johnson and Boswell talking of this same\nDerrick as still living and reigning, as having retrieved his character,\nas possessing so much power over his subjects at Bath, that his\nopposition might be fatal to Sheridan\u2019s lectures on oratory. (2) And all\nthis is In 1763. The fact is, that Derrick died in 1769.\n\nIn one note we read, that Sir Herbert Croft, the author of that pompous\nand foolish account of Young, which appears among the Lives of the\nPoets, died in 1805. (3) Another note in the same volume states, that\nthis same Sir Herbert Croft died at Paris, after residing abroad for\nfifteen years, on the 27th of April 1816. (4) Mr. Croker informs us,\nthat Sir William Forbes of Pitsligo, the author of the Life of Beattie,\ndied in 1816. (5) A Sir William Forbes undoubtedly died in that year,\nbut not the Sir William Forbes in question, whose death took place in\n1806. It is notorious, indeed, that the biographer of Beattie lived just\nlong enough to complete the history of his friend. Eight or nine years\nbefore the date which Mr. Croker has assigned for Sir William\u2019s death,\nSir Walter Scott\n\n     (1) I. 394.\n\n     (2) I. 404.\n\n     (3) IV. 321\n\n     (4) IV. 428.\n\n     (5) II. 262.\n\n{370}lamented that event in the introduction to the fourth canto of\nMarmion. Every school-girl knows the lines:\n\n                        \u201cScarce had lamented Forbes paid\n\n                        The tribute to his Minstrel\u2019s shade;\n\n                        The tale of friendship scarce was told,\n\n                        Ere the narrator\u2019s heart was cold:\n\n                        Far may we search before we find\n\n                        A heart so manly and so kind!\u201d\n\nIn one place, we are told, that Allan Ramsay, the painter, was born in\n1709, and died in 1784; (1) in another, that he died in 1784, in the\nseventy-first year of his age. (2)\n\nIn one place, Mr. Croker says, that at the commencement of the intimacy\nbetween Dr. Johnson and Mrs. Thrale, in 1765, the lady was twenty-five\nyears old. (3) In other places he says, that Mrs. Thrale\u2019s thirty-fifth\nyear coincided with Johnson\u2019s seventieth.(4) Johnson was born in 1709.\nIf, therefore, Mrs. Thrale\u2019s thirty-fifth year coincided with Johnson\u2019s\nseventieth, she could have been only twenty-one years old in 1765. This\nis not all. Mr. Croker, in another place, assigns the year 1777 as the\ndate of the complimentary lines which Johnson made on Mrs. Thrale\u2019s\nthirty-fifth birth-day. (5) If this date be correct, Mrs. Thrale must\nhave been born in 1742, and could have been only twenty-three when her\nacquaintance with Johnson commenced. Mr. Croker therefore gives us three\ndifferent statements as to her age. Two of the three must be incorrect.\nWe will not decide between them; we will only say, that the reasons\nwhich Mr. Croker gives for thinking that Mrs. Thrale was exactly\nthirty-five years old when Johnson was seventy, appear to us utterly\nfrivolous.\n\n     (1)  IV. 105.\n\n     (2) V. 281.\n\n     (3) I. 510.\n\n     (4) IV. 271. 322.\n\n     (5) III. 463. {371}Again, Mil Croker informs his readers\n     that \u201cLord Mansfield survived Johnson full ten years.\u201d (1)\n     Lord Mansfield survived Dr. Johnson just eight years and a\n     quarter.\n\nJohnson found in the Library of a French lady, whom he visited during\nhis short visit to Paris, some works which he regarded with great\ndisdain. \u201cI looked,\u201d says he, \u201cinto the books in the lady\u2019s closet, and,\nin contempt, showed them to Mr. Thrale. Prince Titi, Biblioth\u00e8que des\nF\u00e9es, and other books.\u201d (2) \u201cThe History of Prince Titi,\u201d observes Mr.\nCroker, \u201cwas said to be the autobiography of Frederick Prince of Wales,\nbut was probably written by Ralph his secretary.\u201d A more absurd note\nnever was penned. The history of Prince Titi, to which Mr. Croker\nrefers, whether written by Prince Frederick or by Ralph, was certainly\nnever published. If Mr. Croker had taken the trouble to read with\nattention that very passage in Park\u2019s Royal and Noble Authors which he\ncites as his authority, he would have seen that the manuscript was given\nup to the government. Even if this memoir had been printed, it is not\nvery likely to find its way into a French lady\u2019s bookcase. And would any\nman in his senses speak contemptuously of a French lady, for having in\nher possession an English work, so curious and interesting as a Life\nof Prince Frederick, whether written by himself or by a confidential\nsecretary, must have been? The history at which Johnson laughed was a\nvery proper companion to the Biblioth\u00e8que des F\u00e9es, a fairy tale about\ngood Prince Titi and naughty Prince Violent. Mr. Croker may find it in\nthe Magasin des Enfans, the first French book which the little girls of\nEngland read to their governesses.\n\n     (1) II. 151.\n\n     (2) III. 271.\n\n{372}Mr. Croker states that Mr. Henry Bate, who afterwards assumed the\nname of Dudley, was proprietor of the Morning Herald, and fought a duel\nwith George Robinson Stoney, in consequence of some attacks on Lady\nStrathmore which appeared in that paper.(1) Now Mr. Bate was then\nconnected, not with the Morning Herald, but with the Morning Post; and\nthe dispute took place before the Morning Herald was in existence. The\nduel was fought in January, 1777. The Chronicle of the Annual Register\nfor that year contains an account of the transaction, and distinctly\nstates that Mr. Bate was editor of the Morning Post. The Morning\nHerald, as any person may see by looking at any number of it, was not\nestablished till some years after this affair. For this blunder there\nis, we must acknowledge, some excuse: for it certainly seems almost\nincredible to a person living in our time that any human being should\never have stooped to fight with a writer in the Morning Post.\n\n\u201cJames de Duglas,\u201d says Mr. Croker, \u201cwas requested by King Robert Bruce,\nin his last hours, to repair, with his heart to Jerusalem, land humbly\nto deposit it at the sepulchre of our Lord, which he did in 1329.\"(2)\nNow, it is well known that he did no such thing, and for a very\nsufficient reason, because he was killed by the way. Nor was it in\n1329 that he set out. Robert Bruce died in 1329, and the expedition of\nDouglas took place in the following year, \u201cQuand le printems vint et\nla saison,\u201d says Froissart, in June, 1330, says Lord Hailes, whom Mr.\nCroker cites as the authority for his statement.\n\nMr. Croker tells us that the great Marquis of Montrose was beheaded at\nEdinburgh in 1650.(3) There is not\n\n     (1) V. 196.\n\n     (2) IV. 29.\n\n     (3) II. 526.\n\na {373}forward boy at any school in England who does not know that the\nmarquis was hanged. The account of the execution is one of the finest\npassages in Lord Clarendon\u2019s History. We can scarcely suppose that Mr.\nCroker has never read that passage; and yet we can scarcely suppose that\nany person who has ever perused so noble and pathetic a story can have\nutterly forgotten all its most striking circumstances.\n\n\u201cLord Townshend,\u201d says Mr. Croker, \u201cwas not secretary of state till\n1720.\"(1) Can Mr. Croker possibly be ignorant that Lord Townshend was\nmade secretary of state at the accession of George I. in 1714, that\nhe continued to be secretary of state till he was displaced by the\nintrigues of Sunderland and Stanhope at the close of 1710, and that he\nreturned to the office of secretary of state, not in 1720, but in 1721?\n\nMr. Croker, indeed, is generally unfortunate in his statements\nrespecting the Townshend family. He tells us that Charles Townshend, the\nchancellor of the exchequer, was \u201cnephew of the prime minister, and son\nof a peer who was secretary of state, and leader of the House of Lords.\u201d\n (2) Charles Townshend was not nephew, but grandnephew, of the Duke\nof Newcastle, not son, but grandson, of the Lord Townshend who was\nsecretary of state, and leader of the House of Lords.\n\n\u201cGeneral Burgoyne surrendered at Saratoga,\u201d says Mr. Croker, \u201cin March,\n1778.\u201d (3) General Burgoyne surrendered on the 17th of October, 1777.\n\n\u201cNothing,\u201d says Mr. Croker, \u201ccan be more unfounded than the assertion\nthat Byng fell a martyr _to political party_. By a strange coincidence\nof circumstances, it happened that there was a total change of\nadministration between his condemnation and his death:\n\n     (1) III. 52.\n\n     (2) III. 368.\n\n     (3) IV. 222.\n\n{374}so that one party presided at his trial, and another at his\nexecution: there can be no stronger proof that he was _not_ a political\nmartyr.\u201d (1) Now what will our readers think of this writer, when we\nassure them that this statement, so confidently made, respecting events\nso notorious, is absolutely untrue? One and the same administration was\nin office when the court-martial on Byng commenced its sittings, through\nthe whole trial, at the condemnation, and at the execution. In the month\nof November, 1756, the Duke of Newcastle and Lord Hardwicke resigned;\nthe Duke of Devonshire became first lord of the treasury, and Mr. Pitt,\nsecretary of state. This administration lasted till the month of April,\n1757. Byng\u2019s court-martial began to sit on the 28th of December, 1756.\nHe was shot on the 14th of March, 1757. There is something at once\ndiverting and provoking in the cool and authoritative manner in which\nMr. Croker makes these random assertions. We do not suspect him of\nintentionally falsifying history. But of this high literary misdemeanour\nwe do without hesitation accuse him, that he has no adequate sense of\nthe obligation which a writer, who professes to relate facts, owes to\nthe public. We accuse him of a negligence and an ignorance analogous to\nthat _crassa negligentia,_ and that _crassa ignorantia_, on which\nthe law animadverts in magistrates and surgeons, even when malice and\ncorruption are not imputed. We accuse him of having undertaken a work\nwhich, if not performed with strict accuracy, must be very much worse\nthan useless, and of having performed it as if the difference between\nan accurate and an inaccurate statement was not worth the trouble of\nlooking into the most common book of reference.\n\n     (1) 1. 298.\n\n{375}But we must proceed. These volumes contain mistakes more gross, if\npossible, than any that we have yet mentioned. Boswell has recorded some\nobservations made by Johnson on the changes which had taken place in\nGibbon\u2019s religious opinions. That Gibbon when a lad at Oxford turned\nCatholic is well known.\n\n\u201cIt is said,\u201d cried Johnson, laughing, \u201cthat he has been a Mahommedan.\u201d\n\n\u201cThis sarcasm,\u201d says the editor, \u201cprobably alludes to the tenderness\nwith which Gibbon\u2019s malevolence to Christianity induced him to treat\nMahommedanism in his history.\u201d Now the sarcasm was uttered in 1770; and\nthat part of the History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire\nwhich relates to Mahommedanism was not published till 1788, twelve years\nafter the date of this conversation, and near four years after the death\nof Johnson. (1)\n\n\u201cIt was in the year 1701,\u201d says Mr. Croker, \u201cthat Goldsmith published\nhis Vicar of Wakefield. This\n\n     (1) _A defence of this blunder was attempted. That the\n     celebrated chapters in which Gibbon has traced the progress\n     of Mahommedanism were not written in 1776 could not be\n     denied. But it was confidently asserted that his partiality\n     to Mahommedanism appeared in his first volume. This\n     assertion is untrue. No passage which can by any art be\n     construed into the faintest indication of the faintest\n     partiality for Mahommedanism has ever been quoted or ever\n     will be quoted from the first volume of the History of the\n     Decline and Fall of the Woman Empire.\n\n     To what then, it has been asked, could Johnson allude?\n     Possibly to some anecdote or some conversation of which all\n     trace is lost. One conjecture may be offered, though with\n     diffidence. Gibbon tells us in his memoirs, that at Oxford\n     he took a fancy for studying Arabic, and was prevented from\n     doing so by the remonstrances of his tutor. Soon after this,\n     the young man fell in with Bossuet\u2019s controversial writings,\n     and was speedily converted by them to the Roman Catholic\n     faith. The apostasy of a gentleman commoner would of course\n     be for a time the chief subject of conversation in the\n     common room of Magdalene. His whim about Arabic learning\n     would naturally be mentioned, and would give occasion to\n     some jokes about the probability of his turning Mussulman.\n     If such jokes were made, Johnson, who frequently visited\n     Oxford, was very likely to hear of them._\n\n{376}leads the editor to observe a more serious inaccuracy of Mrs.\nPiozzi, than Mr. Boswell notices, when he says Johnson left her table\nto go and sell the Vicar of Wakefield for Goldsmith. Now Dr. Johnson was\nnot acquainted with the Thrales till 1765, four years after the book had\nbeen published.\u201d (1) Mr. Croker, in reprehending the fancied inaccuracy\nof Mrs. Thrale, has himself shown a degree of inaccuracy, or, to speak\nmore properly, a degree of ignorance, hardly credible. In the first\nplace, Johnson became acquainted with the Thrales, not in 1765, but in\n1764, and during the last weeks of 1764 dined with them every Thursday,\nas is written in Mrs. Piozzi\u2019s anecdotes. In the second place, Goldsmith\npublished the Vicar of Wakefield, not in 1761, but in 1766. Mrs. Thrale\ndoes not pretend to remember the precise date of the summons which\ncalled Johnson from her table to the help of his friend. She says only\nthat it was near the beginning of her acquaintance with Johnson, and\ncertainly not later than 1766. Her accuracy is therefore completely\nvindicated. It was probably after one of her Thursday dinners in 1764\nthat the celebrated scene of the landlady, the sheriff\u2019s officer, and\nthe bottle of Madeira, took place. (2)\n\nThe very page which contains this monstrous blunder, contains another\nblunder, if possible, more monstrous still. Sir Joseph Mawbey, a foolish\nmember of Parliament, at whose speeches and whose pig-styes the wits\nof Brookes\u2019s were, fifty years ago, in the habit of laughing most\nunmercifully, stated, on the authority of Garrick, that Johnson, while\nsitting in a coffee-house\n\n     (1)  V. 409.\n\n     (2) This paragraph has been altered; and a slight inaccuracy\n     immaterial to the argument, has been removed.\n\n{377}at Oxford, about the time of his doctor\u2019s degree, used some\ncontemptuous expressions respecting Home\u2019s play and Macpherson\u2019s Ossian.\n\u201cMany men,\u201d he said, \u201cmany women, and many children, might have written\nDouglas.\u201d Mr. Croker conceives that he has detected an inaccuracy, and\nglories over poor Sir Joseph in a most characteristic manner. \u201cI have\nquoted this anecdote solely with the view of showing to how little\ncredit hearsay anecdotes are in general entitled. Here is a story\npublished by Sir Joseph Mawbey, a member of the House of Commons, and a\nperson every way worthy of credit, who says he had it from Garrick. Now\nmark: Johnson\u2019s visit to Oxford, about the time of his doctor\u2019s\ndegree, was in 1754, the first time he had been there since he left\nthe university. But Douglas was not acted till 1750, and Ossian not\npublished till 1760. All, therefore, that is new in Sir Joseph Mawbey\u2019s\nstory is false.\u201d (1) Assuredly we need not go far to find ample proof\nthat a member of the House of Commons may commit a very gross error. Now\nmark, say we, in the language of Mr. Croker. The fact is, that Johnson\ntook his Master\u2019s degree in 1754 (2) and his Doctor\u2019s degree in 1775.\n(3) In the spring of 1776, (4) he paid a visit to Oxford, and at this\nvisit a conversation respecting the works of Home and Macpherson might\nhave taken place, and, in all probability, did take place. The only real\nobjection to the story Mr. Croker has missed. Boswell states, apparently\non the best authority, that as early at least as the year 1703, Johnson,\nin conversation with Blair, used the same expressions respecting Ossian,\nwhich Sir Joseph represents him as having used respecting Douglas. (5)\nSir Joseph, or Garrick, confounded,\n\n     (1) V. 109.\n\n     (2) I. 262.\n\n     (3) III. 205.\n\n     (4) III. 326.\n\n     (5) I. 405.\n\n{378}we suspect, the two stories. But their error is venial, compared\nwith that of Mr. Croker.\n\nWe will not multiply instances of this scandalous inaccuracy. It is\nclear that a writer who, even when warned by the text on which he\nis commenting, falls into such mistakes as these, is entitled to no\nconfidence whatever. Mr. Croker has committed an error of five years\nwith respect to the publication of Goldsmith\u2019s novel, an error of twelve\nyears with respect to the publication of part of Gibbon\u2019s History, an\nerror of twenty-one years with respect to an event in Johnson\u2019s life\nso important as the taking of the doctoral degree. Two of these three\nerrors he has committed, while ostentatiously displaying his own\naccuracy, and correcting what he represents as the loose assertions of\nothers. How can his readers take on trust his statements concerning\nthe births, marriages, divorces, and deaths of a crowd of people, whose\nnames are scarcely known to this generation? It is not likely that a\nperson who is ignorant of what almost every body knows can know that of\nwhich almost every body is ignorant. We did not open this book with any\nwish to find blemishes in it. We have made no curious researches. The\nwork itself, and a very common knowledge of literary and political\nhistory, have enabled us to detect the mistakes which we have pointed\nout, and many other mistakes of the same kind. We must say, and we say\nit with regret, that we do not consider the authority of Mr. Croker,\nunsupported by other evidence, as sufficient to justify any writer who\nmay follow him in relating a single anecdote or in assigning a date to a\nsingle event.\n\nMr. Croker shows almost as much ignorance and heedlessness in his\ncriticisms as in his statements concerning {379}facts. Dr. Johnson said,\nvery reasonably as it appears to us, that some of the satires of Juvenal\nare too gross for imitation. Mr. Croker, who, by the way, is angry with\nJohnson for defending Prior\u2019s tales against the charge of indecency,\nresents this aspersion on Juvenal, and indeed refuses to believe that\nthe doctor can have said any thing so absurd. He probably said--some\n_passages_ of them--for there are none of Juvenal\u2019s satires to which\nthe same objection may be made as to one of Horace\u2019s, that it is\n_altogether_ gross and licentious. (1) Surely Mr. Croker can never have\nread the second and ninth satires of Juvenal.\n\nIndeed the decisions of this editor on points of classical learning,\nthough pronounced in a very authoritative tone, are generally such that,\nif a schoolboy under our care were to utter them, our soul assuredly\nshould not spare for his crying. It is no disgrace to a gentleman who\nhas been engaged during near thirty years in political life that he has\nforgotten his Greek and Latin. But he becomes justly ridiculous if,\nwhen no longer able to construe a plain sentence, he affects to sit in\njudgment on the most delicate questions of style and metre. From one\nblunder, a blunder which no good scholar would have made, Mr. Croker\nwas saved, as he informs us, by Sir Robert Peel, who quoted a passage\nexactly in point from Horace. We heartily wish that Sir Robert,\nwhose classical attainments are well known, had been more frequently\nconsulted. Unhappily he was not always at his friend\u2019s elbow; and we\nhave therefore a rich abundance of the strangest errors. Boswell has\npreserved a poor epigram by Johnson, inscribed \u201cAd Lan ram parituram.\u201d\n Mr. Croker censures the poet for applying the word puella to a lady in\n\n     (1) I. 167\n\n{380}Laura\u2019s situation, and for talking of the beauty of Lucina.\n\u201cLucina,\u201d he says, \u201cwas never lamed for her beauty.\u201d (1) If Sir Robert\nPeel had seen this note, he probably would have again refuted Mr.\nCroker\u2019s criticisms by an appeal to Horace. In the secular ode, Lucina\nis used as one of the names of Diana, and the beauty of Diana is\nextolled by all the most orthodox doctors of the ancient mythology, from\nHomer in his Odyssey, to Claudian in his Rape of Proserpine. In another\node, Horace describes Diana as the goddess who assists the \u201claborantes\nutero paellas.\u201d But we are ashamed to detain our readers with this\nfourth-form learning.\n\nBoswell found, in his tour to the Hebrides, an inscription written by\na Scotch minister. It runs thus: \u201cJoannes Macleod, &c., gentis su\u00e6\nPhilarchus, &c., Flor\u00e6 Macdonald matrimoniali vinculo conjugatus turrem\nhanc Beganodunensem pro\u00e6vorum habitaculum longe vetustissimum, diu\npenitus labefactatam, anno \u00e6r\u00e6 vulgaris mdcdxxxvi. instauravit.\u201d--\u201cThe\nminister,\u201d says Mr. Croker, \u201cseems to have been no contemptible\nLatinist. Is not Philarchus a very happy term to express the paternal\nand kindly authority of the head of a clan?\u201d (2) The composition of this\neminent Latinist, short as it is, contains several words that are just\nas much Coptic as Latin, to say nothing of the incorrect structure\nof the sentence. The word Philarchus, even if it were a happy term\nexpressing a paternal and kindly authority, would prove nothing for the\nminister\u2019s Latin, whatever it might prove for his Greek. But it is clear\nthat the word Philarchus means, not a man who rules by love, but a man\nwho loves rule. The Attic writers of the best age used\n\n(1) I. 133.\n\n(II.) 458.\n\n[Illustration: 0387]\n\n{381}the word [Greek] in the sense which we assign to it. Would Mr.\nCroker translate [Greek], a man who acquires wisdom by means of love, or\n[Greek], a man who makes money by means of love? In fact, it requires no\nBentley or Casaubon to perceive, that Philarchus is merely a false\nspelling for Phylarchus, the chief of a tribe.\n\nMr. Johnson was not a first-rate Greek scholar; but he knew more Greek\nthan most boys when they leave school; and no schoolboy could venture to\nuse the word [Greek] in the sense which Mr. Croker ascribes to it\nwithout imminent danger of a flogging.\n\nMr. Croker has also given us a specimen of his skill in translating\nLatin. Johnson wrote a note in which he consulted his friend Dr.\nLawrence, on the propriety of losing some blood. The note contains these\nwords:--\u201cSi per te licet, imperatur nuncio Holderum ad me deducere.\u201d\n Johnson should rather have written \u201cimperatum est.\u201d But the meaning of\nthe words is perfectly clear. \u201cIf you say yes, the messenger has orders\nto bring Holder to me.\u201d Mr. Broker translates the words as follows: \u201cIf\nyou consent, pray tell the\n\n     1 IV. 251.\n\n{382}messenger to bring Holder to me.\u201d (1) If Mr. Croker is resolved to\nwrite on points of classical learning, we would advise him to begin by\ngiving an hour every morning to our old friend Corderius.\n\nIndeed we cannot open any volume of this work in any place, and turn it\nover for two minutes in any direction, without lighting on a blunder.\nJohnson, in his Life of Tickell, stated that the poem entitled The Royal\nProgress, which appears in the last volume of the Spectator, was\nwritten on the accession of George I. The word \u201carrival\u201d was afterwards\nsubstituted for \u201caccession.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe reader will observe,\u201d says Mr. Croker, \u201cthat the Whig term\n_accession_, which might imply legality, was altered into a statement of\nthe simple fact of King George\u2019s _arrival_.\u2019\u201d (2) Now Johnson, though\na bigoted Tory, was not quite such a fool as Mr. Croker here represents\nhim to be. In the Life of Granville, Lord Lansdowne, which stands a very\nfew pages from the Life of Tickell, mention is made of the accession of\nAnne, and of the accession of George I. The word arrival was used in the\nLife of Tickell for the simplest of all reasons. It was used because\nthe subject of the poem called The Royal Progress was the arrival of the\nking, and not his accession, which took place near two months before his\narrival.\n\nThe editor\u2019s want of perspicacity is indeed very amusing. He is\nperpetually telling us that he cannot understand something in the text\nwhich is as plain as language can make it. \u201cMattaire,\u201d said Dr. Johnson,\n\u201cwrote Latin verses from time to time, and published a set in his old\nage, which he called Senilia, in which he shows so little learning or\ntaste in writing, as to make Carteret a dactyl.\u201d (3) Hereupon we have\nthis\n\n     (1) V. 17.\n\n     (2) IV. 425.\n\n     (3) IV. 335.\n\n{383}note: \u201cThe editor does not understand this objection, nor the\nfollowing observation.\u201d The following observation, which Mr. Croker\ncannot understand, is simply this: \u201cIn matters of genealogy,\u201d says\nJohnson, \u201cit is necessary to give the bare names as they are. But in\npoetry and in prose of any elegance in the writing, they require to have\ninflection given to them.\u201d If Mr. Croker had told Johnson that this was\nunintelligible, the doctor would probably have replied, as he replied\non another occasion, \u201cI have found you a reason, sir; I am not bound to\nfind you an understanding.\u201d Every body who knows any thing of Latinity\nknows that, in genealogical tables, Joannes Baro de Carteret, or\nVice-comes de Carteret, may be tolerated, but that in compositions which\npretend to elegance, Carteretus, or some other form which admits of\ninflection, ought to be used.\n\nAll our readers have doubtless seen the two distichs of Sir William\nJones, respecting the division of the time of a lawyer. One of the\ndistichs is translated from some old Latin lines; the other is original.\nThe former runs thus:\n\n                   \u201cSix hours to sleep, to law\u2019s grave study six,\n\n                   Four spend in prayer, the rest on nature fix.\"\n\n\u201cRather,\u201d says Sir William Jones,\n\n                        \u201cSix hours to law, to soothing slumbers seven,\n\n                        Ten to the world allot, and all to heaven.\u201d\n\nThe second couplet puzzles Mr. Croker strangely. \u201cSir William,\u201d says he,\n\u201chas shortened his day to twenty-three hours, and the general advice of\n\u2018all to heaven,\u2019 destroys the peculiar appropriation of a certain period\nto religious exercises.\u201d (1) Now, we did\n\n     (1) V. 233.\n\n{384}not think that it was in human dulness to miss the meaning of the\nlines so completely. Sir William distributes twenty-three hours among\nvarious employments. One hour is thus left for devotion. The reader\nexpects that the verse will end with \u201cand one to heaven.\u201d The whole\npoint of the lines consists in the unexpected substitution of \u201call\u201d for\n\u201cone.\u201d The conceit is wretched enough; but it is perfectly intelligible,\nand never, we will venture to say, perplexed man, woman, or child\nbefore.\n\nPoor Tom Davies, after failing in business, tried to live by his\npen. Johnson called him \u201can author generated by the corruption of a\nbookseller.\u201d This is a very obvious, and even a commonplace allusion\nto the famous dogma of the old physiologists. Dryden made a similar\nallusion to that dogma before Johnson was born. Mr. Croker, However, is\nunable to understand what the doctor meant. \u201cThe expression,\u201d he says,\n\u201cseems not quite clear.\u201d And he proceeds to talk about the generation of\ninsects, about bursting into gaudier life, and Heaven knows what. (1)\n\nThere is still a stranger instance of the editor\u2019s talent for finding\nout difficulty in what is perfectly plain. \u201cNo man,\u201d said Johnson, \u201ccan\nnow be made a bishop for his learning and piety.\u201d\n\n\u201cFrom this too just observation,\u201d says Boswell, \u201cthere are some eminent\nexceptions.\u201d Mr. Croker is puzzled by Boswell\u2019s very natural and simple\nlanguage. \u201cThat a general observation should be pronounced _too just_,\nby the very person who admits that it is not universally just, is not a\nlittle odd.\u201d (2)\n\nA very large proportion of the two thousand five hundred notes which the\neditor boasts of having added\n\n     1 IV. 323.\n\n     2 III. 228.\n\n{385}to those of Boswell and Malone consists of the flattest and poorest\nreflections, reflections such as the least intelligent reader is quite\ncompetent to make for himself, and such as no intelligent reader would\nthink it worth while to utter aloud. They remind us of nothing so much\nas of those profound and interesting annotations which are penciled by\nsempstresses and apothecaries\u2019 boys on the dog-eared margins of novels\nborrowed from circulating libraries; \u201cHow beautiful!\u201d \u201cCursed prosy!\u201d\n\n\u201cI don\u2019t like Sir Reginald Malcolm at all.\u201d\n\n\u201cI think Pelham is a sad dandy.\u201d Mr. Croker is perpetually stopping us\nin our progress through the most delightful narrative in the language,\nto observe that really Dr. Johnson was very rude, that he talked more for\nvictory than for truth, that his taste for port wine with capillaire in\nit was very odd, that Boswell was impertinent, that it was foolish in\nMrs. Thrale to blame the music-master; and so forth.\n\nWe cannot speak more favourably of the manner in which the notes are\nwritten than of the matter of which they consist. We find in every\npage words used in wrong senses, and constructions which violate the\nplainest rules of grammar. We have the vulgarism of \u201cmutual friend,\u201d for\n\u201ccommon friend.\u201d We have \u201cfallacy\u201d used as synonymous with \u201cfalsehood.\u201d\n We have many such inextricable labyrinths of pronouns as that which\nfollows: \u201cLord Erskine was fond of this anecdote; he told it to the\neditor the first time that he had the honour of being in his company.\u201d\n Lastly, we have a plentiful supply of sentences resembling those which\nwe subjoin. \u201cMarkland, _who_, with Jortin and Thirlby, Johnson calls\nthree contemporaries of great eminence.\u201d (1) \u201cWarburton himself did not\nfeel, as Mr.\n\n     (1)  IV. 377.\n\n{386}Boswell was disposed to think he did, kindly or gratefully _of\nJohnson_.\u201d (1) \u201cIt was _him_ that Horace Walpole called a man who never\nmade a bad figure but as an author.\u201d (2) One or two of these solecisms\nshould perhaps be attributed to the printer, who has certainly done his\nbest to fill both the text and the notes with all sorts of blunders. In\ntruth, he and the editor have between them made the book so bad, that we\ndo not well see how it could have been worse.\n\nWhen we turn from the commentary of Mr. Croker to the work of our old\nfriend Boswell, we find it not only worse printed than in any other\nedition with which we are acquainted, but mangled in the most wanton\nmanner. Much that Boswell inserted in his narrative is, without the\nshadow of a reason, degraded to the appendix. The editor has also taken\nupon himself to alter or omit passages which he considers as indecorous.\nThis prudery is quite unintelligible to us. There is nothing immoral\nin Boswell\u2019s book, nothing which tends to inflame the passions. He\nsometimes uses plain words. But if this be a taint which requires\nexpurgation, it would be desirable to begin by expurgating the morning\nand evening lessons. The delicate office which Mr. Croker has\nundertaken he has performed in the most capricious manner. One strong,\nold-fashioned, English word, familiar to all who read their Bibles, is\nchanged for a softer synonyme in some passages, and suffered to stand\nunaltered in others. In one place a faint allusion made by Johnson to\nan indelicate subject, an allusion so faint that, till Mr. Croker\u2019s note\npointed it out to us, we had never noticed it, and of which we are quite\nsure that the meaning would never be discovered by any of those\n\n     (1) IV. 415\n\n     (2) II. 461.\n\n{387}for whose sake books are expurgated, is altogether omitted. In\nanother place, a coarse and stupid jest of Dr. Taylor on the same\nsubject, expressed in the broadest language, almost the only passage,\nas far as we remember, in all Boswell\u2019s book, which we should have been\ninclined to leave out, is suffered to remain.\n\nWe complain, however, much more of the additions than of the omissions.\nWe have half of Mrs. Thrale\u2019s book, scraps of Mr. Tyers, scraps of Mr.\nMurphy, scraps of Mr. Cradock, long prosings of Sir John Hawkins, and\nconnecting observations by Mr. Croker himself, inserted into the midst\nof Boswell\u2019s text. To this practice we most decidedly object. An\neditor might as well publish Thucydides with extracts from Diodorus\ninterspersed, or incorporate the Lives of Suetonius with the History and\nAnnals of Tacitus. Mr. Croker tells us, indeed, that he has done only\nwhat Boswell wished to do, and was prevented from doing by the law of\ncopyright. We doubt this greatly. Boswell has studiously abstained\nfrom availing himself of the information given by his rivals, on many\noccasions on which he might have cited them without subjecting himself\nto the charge of piracy. Mr. Croker has himself, on one occasion,\nremarked very justly that Boswell was unwilling to owe any obligation to\nHawkins. But, be this as it may, if Boswell had quoted from Sir John\nand from Mrs. Thrale, he would have been guided by his own taste and\njudgment in selecting his quotations. On what Boswell quoted he would\nhave commented with perfect freedom; and the borrowed passages, so\nselected, and accompanied by such comments, would have become original.\nThey would have dove-tailed into the work. No hitch, no crease,\n{388}would have been discernible. The whole would appear one and\nindivisible,\n\n                        \u201cUt per l\u00e6ve severos\n\n               Effundat junctura ungues.\"\n\nThis is not the case with Mr. Croker\u2019s insertions. They are not chosen\nas Boswell would have chosen them. They are not introduced as Boswell\nwould have introduced them. They differ from the quotations scattered\nthrough the original Life of Johnson, as a withered bough stuck in the\nground differs from a tree skilfully transplanted with all its life\nabout it.\n\nNot only do these anecdotes disfigure Boswell\u2019s book; they are\nthemselves disfigured by being inserted in his book. The charm of Mrs.\nThrale\u2019s little volume is utterly destroyed. The feminine quickness\nof observation, the feminine softness of heart, the colloquial\nincorrectness and vivacity of style, the little amusing airs of a\nhalf-learned lady, the delightful garrulity, the \u201cdear Doctor Johnson,\u201d\n the \u201cit was so comical,\u201d all disappear in Mr. Croker\u2019s quotations. The\nlady ceases to speak in the first person; and her anecdotes, in the\nprocess of transfusion, become as flat as Champagne in decanters,\nor Herodotus in Beloe\u2019s version. Sir John Hawkins, it is true, loses\nnothing; and for the best of reasons. Sir John had nothing to lose.\n\nThe course which Mr. Croker ought to have taken is quite clear. He\nshould have reprinted Boswell\u2019s narrative precisely as Boswell wrote\nit; and in the notes or the appendix he should have placed any anecdotes\nwhich he might have thought it advisable to quote from other writers.\nThis would have been a much more convenient course for the reader, who\nhas now constantly to keep his eye on the margin in order {389}to see\nwhether he is perusing Boswell, Mrs. Thrale, Murphy, Hawkins, Tyers,\nCradock, or Mr. Croker. We greatly doubt whether even the Tour to the\nHebrides ought to have been inserted in the midst of the Life. There is\none marked distinction between the two works. Most of the Tour was seen\nby Johnson in manuscript. It does not appear that he ever saw any part\nof the Life.\n\nWe love, we own, to read the great productions of the human mind as\nthey were written. We have this feeling even about scientific treatises;\nthough we know that the sciences are always in a state of progression,\nand that the alterations made by a modern editor in an old book on any\nbranch of natural or political philosophy are likely to be improvements.\nSome errors have been detected by writers of this generation in the\nspeculations of Adam Smith. A short cut has been made to much knowledge\nat which Sir Isaac Newton arrived through arduous and circuitous paths.\nYet we still look with peculiar veneration on the Wealth of Nations and\non the Principia, and should regret to see either of those great works\ngarbled even by the ablest hands. But in works which owe much of their\ninterest to the character and situation of the writers the case\nis infinitely stronger. What man of taste and feeling can endure\n_rifacimenti_, harmonies, abridgments, expurgated editions? Who ever\nreads a stage-copy of a play when he can procure the original? Who ever\ncut open All\u2019s. Siddons\u2019s Milton? Who ever got through ten pages of Mr.\nGilpin\u2019s translation of John Bun-yan\u2019s Pilgrim into modern English? Who\nwould lose, in the confusion of a Diatessaron, the peculiar charm which\nbelongs to the narrative of the disciple whom Jesus loved? The feeling\nof a reader who has become {390}intimate with any great original work is\nthat which Adam expressed towards his bride:\n\n                   \u201cShould God create another Eve, and I\n\n                   Another rib afford, yet loss of thee\n\n               Would never from my heart.\u2019\u201d\n\nNo substitute, however exquisitely formed, will fill the void left by\nthe original. The second beauty may be equal or superior to the first;\nbut still it is not she.\n\nThe reasons which Mr. Croker has given for incorporating passages from\nSir John Hawkins and Mrs. Thrale with the narrative of Boswell would\nvindicate the adulteration of half the classical works in the language.\nIf Pepys\u2019s Diary and Mrs. Hutchinson\u2019s Memoirs had been published a\nhundred years ago, no human being can doubt that Mr. Hume would have\nmade great use of those books in his History of England. But would it,\non that account, be judicious in a writer of our times to publish an\nedition of Hume\u2019s History of England, in which large extracts from\nPepys and Mrs. Hutchinson should be incorporated with the original text?\nSurely not. Hume\u2019s history, be its faults what they may, is now one\ngreat entire work, the production of one vigorous mind, working on such\nmaterials as were within its reach. Additions made by another hand may\nsupply a particular deficiency, but would grievously injure the general\neffect. With Boswell\u2019s book the case is stronger. There is scarcely,\nin the whole compass of literature, a book which bears interpolation so\nill. We know no production of the human mind which has so much of what\nmay be called the race, so much of the peculiar flavour of the soil from\nwhich it sprang. The work could never have been written if the writer\nhad not been precisely what he was. His character is displayed in every\npage, and {391}this display of character gives a delightful interest to\nmany passages which have no other interest.\n\nThe Life of Johnson is assuredly a great, a very great work. Homer is\nnot more decidedly the first of heroic poets, Shakspeare is not more\ndecidedly the first of dramatists, Demosthenes is not more decidedly the\nfirst of orators, than Boswell is the first of biographers. He has no\nsecond. He has distanced all his competitors so decided that it is not\nworth while to place them. Eclipse r first, and the rest nowhere.\n\nWe are not sure that there is in the whole history of the human\nintellect so strange a ph\u00e6nomenon as this book. Many of the greatest men\nthat ever lived have written biography. Boswell was one of the smallest\nmen that ever lived, and he has beaten them all. He was, if we are to\ngive any credit to his own account or to the united testimony of all who\nknew him, a man of the meanest and feeblest intellect. Johnson described\nhim as a fellow who had missed his only chance of immortality by not\nhaving been alive when the Dunciad was written. Beauclerk used his name\nas a proverbial expression for a bore. He was the laughing stock of the\nwhole of that brilliant society which has owed to him the greater part\nof its fame. He was always laying himself at the feet of some eminent\nman, and begging to be spit upon and trampled upon. He was always\nearning some ridiculous nickname, and then \u201cbinding it as a crown unto\nhim,\u201d not merely in metaphor, but literally. He exhibited himself, at\nthe Shakspeare Jubilee, to all the crowd which filled Stratford-on-won,\nwith a placard round his hat bearing the inscription of Corsica Boswell.\nIn his Tour, he proclaimed to all the world that at Edinburgh he was\nknown by the appellation of {392}Paoli Boswell. Servile and impertinent\nshallow and pedantic, a bigot and a sot, bloated with family pride, and\neternally blustering about the dignity of a born gentleman, yet stooping\nto be a talebearer, an eavesdropper, a common butt in the taverns of\nLondon, so curious to know every body who was talked about, that, Tory\nand high Churchman as he was, he manoeuvred, we have been told, for an\nintroduction to Tom Paine, so vain of the most childish distinctions,\nthat when he had been to court, he drove to the office where his\nbook was printing without changing his clothes, and summoned all the\nprinter\u2019s devils to admire his new ruffles and sword; such was this man,\nand such he was contented and proud to be. Every thing which another man\nwould have hidden, every thing the publication of which would have made\nanother man hang himself, was matter of gay and clamorous exultation\nto his weak and diseased mind. What silly things he said, what bitter\nretorts he provoked, how at one place he was troubled with evil\npresentiments which came to nothing, how at another place, on waking\nfrom a drunken doze, he read the prayerbook and took a hair of the\ndog that had bitten him, how he went to see men hanged and came away\nmaudlin, how he added five hundred pounds to the fortune of one of his\nbabies because she was not scared at Johnson\u2019s ugly face, how he was\nfrightened out of his wits at sea, and how the sailors quieted him as\nthey would have quieted a child, how tipsy he was at Lady Cork\u2019s one\nevening and how much his merriment annoyed the ladies, how impertinent\nhe was to the Duchess of Argyle and with what stately contempt she put\ndown his impertinence, how Colonel Macleod sneered to his face at\nhis impudent obtrusiveness, how his father and the very wife of his\n{393}bosom laughed and fretted at his fooleries; all these things he\nproclaimed to all the world, as if they had been subjects for pride\nand ostentations rejoicing. All the caprices of his temper, all the\nillusions of his vanity, all his hypochondriac whimsies, all his castles\nin the air, he displayed with a cool self-complacency, a perfect\nunconsciousness that he was making a fool of himself, to which it is\nimpossible to find a parallel in the whole history of mankind. He\nhas used many people ill; but assuredly he has used nobody so ill as\nhimself.\n\nThat such a man should have written one of the best books in the world\nis strange enough. But this is not all. Many persons who have conducted\nthemselves foolishly in active life, and whose conversation has\nindicated no superior powers of mind, have left us valuable works.\nGoldsmith was very justly described by one of his contemporaries as an\ninspired idiot, and by another as a being\n\n               \u201cWho wrote like an angel, and talked like poor Poll.\"\n\nLa Fontaine was in society a mere simpleton. His blunders would not come\nin amiss among the stories of Hierocles. But these men attained literary\neminence in spite of their weaknesses. Boswell attained it by reason\nof his weaknesses. If he had not been a great fool, he would never have\nbeen a great writer. Without all the qualities which made him the jest\nand the torment of those among whom he lived, without the officiousness,\nthe inquisitiveness, the effrontery, the toadeating, the insensibility\nto all reproof, he never could have produced so excellent a book. He\nwas a slave, proud of his servitude, a Paul Pry, convinced that his\nown curiosity and garrulity were virtues, an unsafe companion who\nnever scrupled to repay the most {394}liberal hospitality by the basest\nviolation of confidence, a man without delicacy, without shame, without\nsense enough to know when he was hurting the feelings of others or when\nhe was exposing himself to derision; and because he was all this, he\nhas, in an important department of literature, immeasurably surpassed\nsuch writers as Tacitus, Clarendon, Alfieri, and his own idol Johnson.\n\nOf the talents which ordinarily raise men to eminence as writers,\nBoswell had absolutely none. There is not in all his books a single\nremark of his own on literature, politics, religion, or society, which\nis not either commonplace or absurd. His dissertations on hereditary\ngentility, on the slave-trade, and on the entailing of landed estates,\nmay serve as examples. To say that these passages are sophistical would\nbe to pay them an extravagant compliment. They have no pretence to\nargument, or even to meaning. He has reported innumerable observations\nmade by himself in the course of conversation. Of those observations we\ndo not remember one which is above the intellectual capacity of a boy of\nfifteen. He has printed many of his own letters, and in these letters he\nis always ranting or twaddling. Logic, eloquence, wit, taste, all those\nthings which are generally considered as making a book valuable, were\nutterly wanting to him. He had, indeed, a quick observation and a\nretentive memory. These qualities, if he had been a man of sense\nand virtue, would scarcely of themselves have sufficed to make him\nconspicuous; but, because he was a dunce, a parasite, and a coxcomb,\nthey have made him immortal.\n\nThose parts of his book which, considered abstractedly, are most utterly\nworthless, are delightful when we read them as illustrations of\nthe character of the {395}writer. Bad in themselves, they are good\ndramatically, like the nonsense of Justice Shallow, the clipped\nEnglish of Dr. Cains, or the misplaced consonants of Fluellen. Of all\nconfessors, Boswell is the most candid. Other men who have pretended to\nlay open their own hearts, Rousseau, for example, and Lord Byron, have\nevidently written with a constant view to effect, and are to be then\nmost distrusted when they seem to be most sincere. There is scarcely any\nman who would not rather accuse himself of great crimes and of dark\nand tempestuous passions than proclaim all his little vanities and wild\nfancies. It would be easier to find a person who would avow actions like\nthose of C\u00e6sar Borgia or Danton, than one who would publish a daydream\nlike those of Alnaschar and Malvolio. Those weaknesses which most\nmen keep covered up in the most secret places of the mind, not to\nbe disclosed to the eve of friendship or of love, were precisely the\nweaknesses which Boswell paraded before all the world. He was perfectly\nfrank, because the weakness of his understanding and the tumult of his\nspirits prevented him from knowing when he made himself ridiculous. His\nbook resembles nothing so much as the conversation of the inmates of the\nPalace of Truth.\n\nHis fame is great; and it will, we have no doubt, be lasting; but it is\nfame of a peculiar kind, and indeed marvellously resembles infamy.\nWe remember no other case in which the world has made so great a\ndistinction between a book and its author. In general, the book and\nthe author are considered as one. To admire the book is to admire\nthe author. The case of Boswell is an exception, we think the only\nexception, to this rule. His work is universally allowed to be\ninteresting, instructive, eminently original: yet it has {396}brought\nhim nothing but contempt. All the world reads it: all the world delights\nin it: yet we do not remember ever to have read or ever to have heard\nany expression of respect and admiration for the man to whom we owe so\nmuch instruction and amusement. While edition after edition of his book\nwas coming forth, his son, as Mr. Croker tells us, was ashamed of it,\nand hated to hear it mentioned. This feeling was natural and reasonable.\nSir Alexander saw that, in proportion, to the celebrity of the work,\nwas the degradation of the author. The very editors of this unfortunate\ngentleman\u2019s books have forgotten their allegiance, and, like those\nPuritan casuists who took arms by the authority of the king against his\nperson, have attacked the writer while doing homage to the writings. Mr.\nCroker, for example, has published two thousand five Mildred notes on\nthe life of Johnson, and yet scarcely ever mentions the biographer whose\nperformance he has taken such pains to illustrate without some\nexpression of contempt.\n\nAn ill-natured man Boswell certainly was not. Yet the malignity of the\nmost malignant satirist could scarcely cut deeper than his thoughtless\nloquacity. Having himself no sensibility to derision and contempt, he\ntook it for granted that all others were equally callous. He was not\nashamed to exhibit himself to the whole world as a common spy, a common\ntattler, a humble companion without the excuse of poverty, and to tell a\nhundred stories of his own pertness and folly, and of the insults which\nhis pertness and folly brought upon him. It was natural that he should\nshow little discretion in cases in which the feelings or the honour of\nothers might be concerned. No man, surely, ever published such stories\nrespecting persons whom he professed {397}to love and revere. He would\ninfallibly have made his hero as contemptible as he has made himself,\nhad not his hero really possessed some moral and intellectual qualities\nof a very high order. The best proof that Johnson was really an\nextraordinary man is that his character, instead of being degraded, has,\non the whole, been decidedly raised by a work in which all his vices and\nweaknesses are exposed more unsparingly than they ever were exposed by\nChurchill or by Ken-rick.\n\nJohnson grown old, Johnson in the fulness of his fame and in the\nenjoyment of a competent fortune, is better known to us than any other\nman in history. Every thing about him, his coat, his wig, his figure,\nhis face, his scrofula, his St. Vitus\u2019s dance, his rolling walk, his\nblinking eye, the outward signs which too clearly marked his approbation\nof his dinner, his insatiable appetite for fish-sauce and veal-pie with\nplums, his inextinguishable thirst for tea, his trick of touching the\nposts as he walked, his mysterious practice of treasuring up scraps\nof orange-peel, his morning slumbers, his midnight disputations, his\ncontortions, his mutter-ings, his gruntings, his puffings, his vigorous,\nacute, and ready eloquence, his sarcastic wit, his vehemence, his\ninsolence, his fits of tempestuous rage, his queer inmates, old Mr.\nLevett and blind Mrs. Williams, the cat Hodge and the negro Frank, all\nare as familiar to us as the objects by which we have been surrounded\nfrom childhood. But we have no minute information respecting those years\nof Johnson\u2019s life during which his character and his manners became\nimmutably fixed. We know him, not as he was known to the men of his own\ngeneration, but as he was known to men whose father he might have been.\nThat celebrated club of {398}which he was the most distinguished member\ncontained few persons who could remember a time when his fame was not\nfully established and his habits completely formed. He had made himself\na name in literature while Reynolds and the Wartons were still boys. He\nwas about twenty years older than Burke, Goldsmith, and Gerard Hamilton,\nabout thirty years older than Gibbon, Beauclerk, and Langton, and about\nforty years older than Lord Stowell, Sir William Jones, and Windham.\nBoswell and Mrs. Thrale, the two writers from whom we derive most of\nour knowledge respecting him, never saw him till long after he was fifty\nyears old, till most of his great works had become classical, and till\nthe pension bestowed on him by the Crown had placed him above poverty.\nOf those eminent men who were his most intimate associates towards the\nclose of his life, the only one, as far as we remember, who knew him\nduring the first ten or twelve years of his residence in the capital,\nwas David Garrick; and it does not appear that, during those years,\nDavid Garrick saw much of his fellow-townsman.\n\nJohnson came up to London precisely at the time when the condition of\na man of letters was most miserable and degraded. It was a dark night\nbetween two sunny days. The age of patronage had passed away. The age\nof general curiosity and intelligence had not arrived. The number of\nreaders is at present so great that a popular author may subsist in\ncomfort and opulence on the profits of his works. In the reigns of\nWilliam the Third, of Anne, and of George the First, even such men\nas Congreve and Addison would scarcely have been able to live like\ngentlemen by the mere sale of their writings. But the deficiency of the\nnatural demand for literature was, at the close of the {399}seventeenth\nand at the beginning of the eighteenth century, more than made up by\nartificial encouragement, by a vast system of bounties and premiums.\nThere was, perhaps, never a time at which the rewards of literary merit\nwere so splendid, at which men who could write well found such easy\nadmittance into the most distinguished society, and to the highest\nhonours of the state. The chiefs of both the great parties into which\nthe kingdom was divided patronised literature with emulous munificence.\nCongreve, when he had scarcely attained his majority, was rewarded for\nhis first comedy with places which made him independent for life. Smith,\nthough his Hippolytus and Ph\u00e6dra failed, would have been consoled with\nthree hundred a year but for his own folly. Rowe was not only Poet\nLaureate, but also land-surveyor of the customs in the port of London,\nclerk of the council to the Prince of Wales, and secretary of the\nPresentations to the Lord Chancellor. Hughes was secretary to the\nCommissions of the Peace. Ambrose Philips was judge of the Prerogative\nCourt in Ireland. Locke was Commissioner of Appeals and of the Board of\nTrade. Newton was Master of the Mint. Stepney and Prior were employed\nin embassies of high dignity and importance. Gay, who commenced life\nas apprentice to a silk mercer, became a secretary of legation at\nfive-and-twenty. It was to a poem on the Death of Charles the Second,\nand to the City and Country Mouse, that Montague owed his introduction\ninto public life, his earldom, his garter, and his Auditorship of the\nExchequer. Swift, but for the unconquerable prejudice of the queen,\nwould have been a bishop. Oxford, with his white staff in his hand,\npassed through the crowd of his suitors to welcome Parnell, when that\ningenious {400}writer deserted the Whigs. Steele was a commissioner of\nstamps and a member of Parliament. Arthur Mainwaring was a commissioner\nof the customs, and auditor of the imprest. Tickell was secretary to the\nLords Justices of Ireland. Addison was secretary of state.\n\nThis liberal patronage was brought into fashion, as it seems, by the\nmagnificent Dorset, almost the only noble versifier in the court of\nCharles the Second who possessed talents for composition which were\nindependent of the aid of a coronet. Montague owed his elevation to the\nfavour of Dorset, and imitated through the whole course of his life\nthe liberality to which he was himself so greatly indebted. The Tory\nleaders, Harley and Bolingbroke in particular, vied with the chiefs of\nthe Whig party in zeal for the encouragement of letters. But soon after\nthe accession of the house of Hanover a change took place. The supreme\npower passed to a man who cared little for poetry or eloquence. The\nimportance of the House of Commons was constantly on the increase.\nThe government was under the necessity of bartering for Parliamentary\nsupport much of that patronage which had been employed in fostering\nliterary merit; and Walpole was by no means inclined to divert any part\nof the fund of corruption to purposes which he considered as idle.\nHe had eminent talents for government and for debate. But he had paid\nlittle attention to books, and felt little respect for authors. One of\nthe coarse jokes of his friend, Sir Charles Hanbury Williams, was far\nmore pleasing to him than Thomson\u2019s Seasons or Richardson\u2019s Pamela. He\nhad observed that some of the distinguished writers whom the favour of\nHalifax had turned into statesmen had been mere encumbrances {401}to\ntheir party, dawdlers in office, and mutes in Parliament. During the\nwhole course of his administration, therefore, he scarcely befriended a\nsingle man of genius. The best writers of the age gave all their support\nto the opposition, and contributed to excite that discontent which,\nafter plunging the nation into a foolish and unjust war, overthrew\nthe minister to make room for men less able and equally immoral. The\nopposition could reward its eulogists with little more than promises and\ncaresses. St. James\u2019s would give nothing: Leicester house had nothing to\ngive.\n\nThus, at the time when Johnson commenced his literary career, a writer\nhad little to hope from the patronage of powerful individuals. The\npatronage of the public did not yet furnish the means of comfortable\nsubsistence. The prices paid by booksellers to authors were so low that\na man of considerable talents and unremitting industry could do little\nmore than provide for the day which was passing over him. The lean kine\nhad eaten up the fat kine. The thin and withered ears had devoured\nthe good ears. The season of rich harvests was over, and the period of\nfamine had begun. All that is squalid and miserable might now be\nsummed up in the word Poet. That word denoted a creature dressed like\na scarecrow, familiar with compters and spunging-houses, and perfectly\nqualified to decide on the comparative merits of the Common Side in\nthe King\u2019s Bench prison and of Mount Scoundrel in the Fleet. Even the\npoorest pitied him; and they well might pity him. For if their condition\nwas equally abject, their aspirings were not equally high, nor their\nsense of insult equally acute. To lodge in a garret up four pairs of\nstairs, to dine in a cellar among footmen out of place, to translate ten\nhours a day for {402}the wages of a ditcher, to be hunted by bailiffs\nfrom one haunt of beggary and pestilence to another, from Grub Street to\nSt. George\u2019s Fields, and from St. George\u2019s Fields to the alleys behind\nSt. Martin\u2019s church, to sleep on a bulk in June and amidst the ashes of\na glass-house in December, to die in an hospital and to be buried in a\nparish vault, was the fate of more than one writer who, if he had lived\nthirty years earlier, would have been admitted to the sittings of the\nKitcat or the Scriblerus club, would have sat in Parliament, and would\nhave been entrusted with embassies to the High Allies; who, if he\nhad lived in our time, would have found encouragement scarcely less\nmunificent in Albemarle Street or in Paternoster Row.\n\nAs every climate has its peculiar diseases, so every walk of life has\nits peculiar temptations. The literary character, assuredly, has always\nhad its share of faults, vanity, jealousy, morbid sensibility. To these\nfaults were now superadded the faults which are commonly found in men\nwhose livelihood is precarious, and whose principles are exposed to the\ntrial of severe distress. All the vices of the gambler and of the\nbeggar were blended with those of the author. The prizes in the wretched\nlottery of book-making were scarcely less ruinous than the blanks. If\ngood fortune came, it came in such a manner that it was almost certain\nto be abused. After months of starvation and despair, a full third night\nor a well-received dedication filled the pocket of the lean, ragged,\nunwashed poet with guineas. He hastened to enjoy those luxuries with the\nimages of which his mind had been haunted while he was sleeping amidst\nthe cinders and eating potatoes at the Irish ordinary in Shoe Lane. A\nweek of taverns soon qualified him for another year of night-cellars.\n{403}Such was the life of Savage, of Boyse, and of a crowd of others.\nSometimes blazing in gold-laced hats and waistcoats; sometimes lying\nin bed because their coats had gone to pieces, or wearing paper cravats\nbecause their linen was in pawn; sometimes drinking Champagne and Tokay\nwith Betty Careless; sometimes standing at the window of an eating-house\nin Porridge island, to snuff up the scent of what they could not afford\nto taste; they knew luxury; they knew beggary; but they never knew\ncomfort. These men were irreclaimable. They looked on a regular and\nfrugal life with the same aversion which an old gipsy or a Mohawk hunter\nfeels for a stationary abode, and for the restraints and securities of\ncivilised communities. They were as untameable, as much wedded to their\ndesolate freedom, as the wild ass. They could no more be broken into\nthe offices of social man than the unicorn could be trained to serve and\nabide by the crib. It was well if they did not, like beasts of a still\nfiercer race, tear the hands which ministered to their necessities. To\nassist them was impossible; and the most benevolent of mankind at length\nbecame weary of giving relief which was dissipated with the wildest\nprofusion as soon as it had been received. If a sum was bestowed on the\nwretched adventurer, such as, properly husbanded, might have supplied\nhim for six months, it was instantly spent in strange freaks of\nsensuality, and, before forty-eight hours had elapsed, the poet was\nagain pestering all his acquaintance for twopence to get a plate of shin\nof beef at a subterraneous cook-shop. If his friends gave him an asylum\nin their houses, those houses were forthwith turned into bagnios and\ntaverns. All order was destroyed; all business was suspended. The most\ngood-natured host {404}began to repent of his eagerness to serve a man\nof genius in distress when he heard his guest roaring for fresh punch at\nfive o\u2019clock in the morning.\n\nA few eminent writers were more fortunate. Pope had been raised above\npoverty by the active patronage which, in his youth, both the great\npolitical parties had extended to his Homer. Young had received the only\npension ever bestowed, to the best of our recollection, by Sir Robert\nWalpole, as the reward of mere literary merit. One or two of the many\npoets who attached themselves to the opposition, Thomson in particular\nand Mallet, obtained, after much severe suffering, the means of\nsubsistence from their political friends. Richardson, like a man of\nsense, kept his shop; and his shop kept him, which his novels, admirable\nas they are, would scarcely have done. But nothing could be more\ndeplorable than the state even of the ablest men, who at that time\ndepended for subsistence on their writings. Johnson, Collins, Fielding,\nand Thomson, were certainly four of the most distinguished persons that\nEngland produced during the eighteenth century. It is well known that\nthey were all four arrested for debt.\n\nInto calamities and difficulties such as these Johnson plunged in his\ntwenty-eighth year. From that time till he was three or four and fifty,\nwe have little information respecting him; little, we mean, compared\nwith the full and accurate information which we possess respecting his\nproceedings and habits towards the close of his life. He emerged at\nlength from cock-lofts and sixpenny ordinaries into the society of the\npolished and the opulent. His fame was established. A pension sufficient\nfor his wants had been conferred on him: and he came forth to astonish\na generation with which {405}he had almost as little in common as with\nFrenchmen or Spaniards.\n\nIn his early years he had occasionally seen the great: hut he had seen\nthem as a beggar. He now came among them as a companion. The demand for\namusement and instruction had, during the course of twenty years, been\ngradually increasing. The price of literary labour had risen; and those\nrising men of letters with whom Johnson was henceforth to associate were\nfor the most part persons widely different from those who had walked\nabout with him all night in the streets for want of a lodging. Burke,\nRobertson, the Wartons, Gray, Mason, Gibbon, Adam Smith, Beattie, Sir\nWilliam Jones, Goldsmith, and Churchill, were the most distinguished\nwriters of what may be called the second generation of the Johnsonian\nage. Of these men Churchill was the only one in whom we can trace the\nstronger lineaments of that character which, when Johnson first came up\nto London, was common among authors. Of the rest, scarcely any had felt\nthe pressure of severe poverty. Almost all had been early admitted into\nthe most respectable society on an equal footing. They were men of quite\na different species from the dependents of Curll and Osborne.\n\nJohnson came among them the solitary specimen of a past age, the last\nsurvivor of the genuine race of Grub Street hacks; the last of that\ngeneration of authors whose abject misery and whose dissolute manners\nhad furnished inexhaustible matter to the satirical genius of Pope. From\nnature, he had received an uncouth figure, a diseased constitution,\nand an irritable temper. The manner in which the earlier years of his\nmanhood had been passed had given to his demeanour, and even to his\nmoral character, some peculiarities appalling {406}to the civilised\nbeings who were the companions of his old age. The perverse irregularity\nof his hours, the slovenliness of his person, his fits of strenuous\nexertion, interrupted by long intervals of sluggishness, his strange\nabstinence, and his equally strange voracity, his active benevolence,\ncontrasted with the constant rudeness and the occasional ferocity of his\nmanners In society, made him, in the opinion of those with whom he\nlived during the last twenty years of his life, a complete original. An\noriginal he was, undoubtedly, in some respects. But if we possessed full\ninformation concerning those who shared his early hardships, we should\nprobably find that what we call his singularities of manner were, for\nthe most part, failings which he had in common with the class to which\nhe belonged. He ate at Streatham Park as he had been used to eat behind\nthe screen at St. John\u2019s Gate, when he was ashamed to show his ragged\nclothes. He ate as it was natural that a man should eat, who, during\na great part of his life, had passed the morning in doubt whether he\nshould have food for the afternoon. The habits of his early life had\naccustomed him to bear privation with fortitude, but not to taste\npleasure with moderation. He could fast; but, when he did not fast, he\ntore his dinner like a famished wolf, with the veins swelling on his\nforehead, and the perspiration running down his cheeks. He scarcely\never took wine. But when he drank it, he drank it greedily and in large\ntumblers. These were, in fact, mitigated symptoms of that same moral\ndisease which raged with such deadly malignity in his friends Savage and\nBoyse. The roughness and violence which he showed in society were to be\nexpected from a man whose temper, not naturally gentle, had been long\ntried by the bitterest {407}calamities, by the want of meat, of fire,\nand of clothes, by the importunity of creditors, by the insolence of\nbooksellers, by the derision of fools, by the insincerity of patrons, by\nthat bread which is the bitterest of all food, by those stairs which are\nthe most toilsome of all paths, by that deferred hope which makes the\nheart sick. Through all these things the ill-dressed, coarse, ungainly\npedant had struggled manfully up to eminence and command. It was natural\nthat, in the exercise of his power, he should be \u201ceo immitior, quia\ntolera-verat,\u201d that, though his heart was undoubtedly generous and\nhumane, his demeanour in society should be harsh and despotic. For\nsevere distress he had sympathy, and not only sympathy, but munificent\nrelief. But for the suffering which a harsh world inflicts upon a\ndelicate mind he had no pity; for it was a kind of suffering which he\ncould scarcely conceive. He would carry home on his shoulders a sick\nand starving girl from the streets. He turned his house into a place\nof refuge for a crowd of wretched old creatures who could find no other\nasylum; nor could all their peevishness and ingratitude weary out his\nbenevolence. But the pangs of wounded vanity seemed to him ridiculous;\nand he scarcely felt sufficient compassion even for the pangs of wounded\naffection. He had seen and felt so much of sharp misery, that he was\nnot affected by paltry vexations; and he seemed to think that every body\nought to be as much hardened to those vexations as himself. He was\nangry with Boswell for complaining of a headache, with Mrs. Thrale for\ngrumbling about the dust on the road, or the smell of the kitchen. These\nwere, in his phrase, \u201cfoppish lamentations,\u201d which people ought to be\nashamed to utter in a world so full of sin and sorrow. Goldsmith crying\nbecause the Good-natured {408}Man had failed, inspired him with no\npity. Though his own health was not good, he detested and despised\nvaletudinarians. Pecuniary losses, unless they reduced the loser\nabsolutely to beggary, moved him very little. People whose hearts had\nbeen softened by prosperity might weep, he said, for such events; but\nall that could be expected of a plain man was not to laugh. He was not\nmuch moved even by the spectacle of Lady Tavistock dying of a broken\nheart for the loss of her lord. Such grief he considered as a luxury\nreserved for the idle and the wealthy. A washerwoman, left a widow with\nnine small children, would not have sobbed herself to death.\n\nA person who troubled himself so little about small or sentimental\ngrievances was not likely to be very attentive to the feelings of others\nin the ordinary intercourse of society. He could not understand how\na sarcasm or a reprimand could make any man really unhappy. \u201cMy dear\ndoctor,\u201d said he to Goldsmith, \u201cwhat harm does it do to a man to call\nhim Holofernes?\u201d\n\n\u201cPooh, ma\u2019am,\u201d he exclaimed to Mrs. Carter, \u201cwho is the worse for being\ntalked of uncharitably?\u201d Politeness has been well defined as\nbenevolence in small things. Johnson was impolite, not because he wanted\nbenevolence, but because small things appeared smaller to him than to\npeople who had never known what it was to live for fourpence halfpenny a\nday.\n\nThe characteristic peculiarity of his intellect was the union of great\npowers with low prejudices. If we judged of him by the best parts of\nhis mind, we should place him almost as high as he was placed by the\nidolatry of Boswell; if by the worst parts of his mind, we should\nplace him even below Boswell himself. Where {409}he was not under the\ninfluence of some strange scruple, or some domineering passion, which\nprevented him from boldly investigating a subject, he was a\nwary and acute reasoner, a little too much inclined to scepticism, and a\nlittle too fond of paradox. No man was less likely to be imposed upon\nby fallacies in argument or by exaggerated statements of fact. But if,\nwhile he was beating down sophisms and exposing false testimony, some\nchildish prejudices, such as would excite laughter in a well managed\nnursery, came across him, he was smitten as if by enchantment. His\nmind dwindled away under the spell from gigantic elevation to dwarfish\nlittleness. Those who had lately been admiring its amplitude and\nits force were now as much astonished at its strange narrowness and\nfeebleness as the fisherman in the Arabian tale, when he saw the Genie,\nwhose stature had overshadowed the whole sea-coast, and whose might\nseemed equal to a contest with armies, contract himself to the\ndimensions of his small prison, and lie there the helpless slave of the\ncharm of Solomon.\n\nJohnson was in the habit of sifting with extreme severity the evidence\nfor all stories which were merely odd. But when they were not only odd\nbut miraculous, his severity relaxed. He began to be credulous precisely\nat the point where the most credulous people begin to be sceptical. It\nis curious to observe, both in his writings and in his conversation,\nthe contrast between the disdainful manner in which he rejects\nunauthenticated anecdotes, even when they are consistent with the\ngeneral laws of nature, and the respectful manner in which he mentions\nthe wildest stories relating to the invisible world. A man who told him\nof a water-spout or a meteoric stone generally had the lie {410}direct\ngiven him for his pains. A man who told him of a prediction or a dream\nwonderfully accomplished was sure of a courteous hearing. \u201cJohnson,\u201d\n observed Hogarth, \u201clike King David, says in his haste that all men are\nliars.\u201d\n\n\u201cHis incredulity,\u201d says Mrs. Thrale, \u201camounted almost to disease.\u201d\n She tells us how he browbeat a gentleman, who gave him an account of a\nhurricane in the West Indies, and a poor quaker who related some strange\ncircumstance about the red-hot balls fired at the siege of Gibraltar.\n\u201cIt is not so. It cannot be true. Don\u2019t tell that story again. You\ncannot think how poor a figure you make in telling it.\u201d He once said,\nhalf jestingly we suppose, that for six months he refused to credit the\nfact of the earthquake at Lisbon, and that he still believed the extent\nof the calamity to be greatly exaggerated. Yet he related with a grave\nface how old Mr. Cave of St. John\u2019s Gate saw a ghost, and how this ghost\nwas something of a shadowy being. He went himself on a ghost-hunt, to\nCock Lane, and was angry with John Wesley for not following up another\nscent of the same kind with proper spirit and perseverance. He rejects\nthe Celtic genealogies and poems without the least hesitation; yet he\ndeclares himself willing to believe the stories of the second sight. If\nhe had examined the claims of the Highland seers with half the severity\nwith which he sifted the evidence for the genuineness of Fingal, he\nwould, we suspect, have come away from Scotland with a mind fully made\nup. In his Lives of the Poets, we find that he is unwilling to give\ncredit to the accounts of Lord Roscommon\u2019s early proficiency in his\nstudies; but he tells with great solemnity an absurd romance about some\nintelligence preternaturally impressed on the mind of that nobleman. He\navows {411}himself to be in great doubt about the truth of the story,\nand ends by warning his readers not wholly to slight such impressions.\n\nMany of his sentiments on religious subjects are worthy of a liberal and\nenlarged mind. He could discern clearly enough the folly and meanness\nof all bigotry except his own. When he spoke of the scruples of the\nPuritans, he spoke like a person who had really obtained an insight\ninto the divine philosophy of the New Testament, and who considered\nChristianity as a noble scheme of government, tending to promote the\nhappiness and to elevate the moral nature of man. The horror which the\nsectaries felt for cards, Christmas ale, plum-porridge, mince-pies, and\ndancing bears, excited his contempt. To the arguments urged by some very\nworthy people against showy dress he replied with admirable sense and\nspirit, \u201cLet us not be found, when our Master calls us, stripping the\nlace off our waistcoats, but the spirit of contention from our souls and\ntongues. Alas! sir, a man who cannot get to heaven in a green coat will\nnot find his way thither the sooner in a grey one.\u201d Yet he was himself\nunder the tyranny of scruples as unreasonable as those of Hudibras\nor Ralpho, and carried his zeal for ceremonies and for ecclesiastical\ndignities to lengths altogether inconsistent with reason or with\nChristian charity. He has gravely noted down in his diary that he once\ncommitted the sin of drinking coffee on Good Friday. In Scotland, he\nthought it his duty to pass several months without joining in public\nworship, solely because the ministers of the kirk had not been ordained\nby bishops. His mode of estimating the piety of his neighbours was\nsomewhat singular. \u201cCampbell,\u201d said he, \u201cis a good {412}man, a pious\nman. I am afraid he has not been in the inside of a church for many\nyears; but he never passes a church without pulling off his hat: this\nshows he has good principles.\u201d Spain and Sicily must surely contain many\npious robbers and well-principled assassins. Johnson could easily see\nthat a Roundhead who named all his children after Solomon\u2019s singers,\nand talked in the House of Commons about seeking the Lord, might be\nan unprincipled villain whose religious mummeries only aggravated\nhis guilt. But a man who took off his hat when he passed a church\nepiscopally consecrated must be a good man, a pious man, a man of good\nprinciples. Johnson could easily see that those persons who looked on\na dance or a laced waistcoat as sinful, deemed most ignobly of the\nattributes of God and of the ends of revelation. But with what a storm\nof invective he would have overwhelmed any man who had blamed him for\ncelebrating the redemption of mankind with sugarless tea and butterless\nbuns.\n\nNobody spoke more contemptuously of the cant of patriotism. Nobody saw\nmore clearly the error of those who regarded liberty, not as a means,\nbut as an end, and who proposed to themselves, as the object of their\npursuit, the prosperity of the state as distinct from the prosperity\nof the individuals who compose the state. His calm and settled opinion\nseems to have been that forms of government have little or no influence\non the happiness of society. This opinion, erroneous as it is, ought\nat least to have preserved him from all intemperance on political\nquestions. It did not, however, preserve him from the lowest, fiercest,\nand most absurd extravagances of party-spirit, from rants which, in\nevery thing but the diction, resembled those of Squire {413}Western.\nHe was, as a politician, half ice and half fire. On the side of his\nintellect he was a mere Pococurante, far too apathetic about public\naffairs, far too sceptical as to the good or evil tendency of any form\nof polity. His passions, on the contrary, were violent even to slaying\nagainst all who leaned to Whiggish principles. The well-known lines\nwhich he inserted in Goldsmith\u2019s Traveller express what seems to have\nbeen his deliberate judgment:\n\n                   \u201cHow small, of all that human hearts endure,\n\n                   That part which kings or laws can cause or cure!\u201d\n\nHe had previously put expressions very similar into the mouth of\nRasselas. It is amusing to contrast these passages with the torrents of\nraving abuse which he poured forth against the Long Parliament and the\nAmerican Congress. In one of the conversations reported by Boswell this\ninconsistency displays itself in the most ludicrous manner.\n\n\u201cSir Adam Ferguson,\u201d says Boswell, \u201csuggested that luxury corrupts a\npeople, and destroys the spirit of liberty. Johnson: \u2018Sir, that is all\nvisionary. I would not give half a guinea to live under one form of\ngovernment rather than another. It is of no moment to the happiness of\nan individual. Sir, the danger of the abuse of power is nothing to\na private man. What Frenchman is prevented passing his life as he\npleases?\u2019 Sir Adam: \u2018But, sir, in the British constitution it is surely\nof importance to keep up a spirit in the people, so as to preserve a\nbalance against the crown.\u2019 Johnson: \u2018Sir, I perceive you are a vile\nWhig. Why all this childish jealousy of the power of the crown? The\ncrown has not power enough.\u2019\u201d\n\nOne of the old philosophers, Lord Bacon tells us, used to say that life\nand death were just the same to {414}him. \u201cWhy then,\u201d said an objector,\n\u201cdo you not kill yourself?\u201d The philosopher answered, \u201cBecause it is\njust the same.\u201d If the difference between two forms of government be\nnot worth half a guinea, it is not easy to see how Whiggism can he\nviler than Toryism, or how the crown can have too little power. If the\nhappiness of individuals is not affected by political abuses, zeal for\nliberty is doubtless ridiculous. But zeal for monarchy must be equally\nso. No person would have been more quick-sighted than Johnson to such a\ncontradiction as this in the logic of an antagonist.\n\nThe judgments which Johnson passed on books were, in his own time,\nregarded with superstitious veneration, and, in our time, are generally\ntreated with indiscriminate contempt. They are the judgments of a strong\nbut enslaved understanding. The mind of the critic was hedged round\nby an uninterrupted fence of prejudices and superstitions. Within his\nnarrow limits, he displayed a vigour and an activity which ought to have\nenabled him to clear the barrier that confined him.\n\nHow it chanced that a man who reasoned on his premises so ably, should\nassume his premises so foolishly, is one of the great mysteries of human\nnature. The same inconsistency may be observed in the schoolmen of the\nmiddle ages. Those writers show so much acuteness and force of mind in\narguing on their wretched data, that a modern reader is perpetually at\na loss to comprehend how such minds came by such data. Not a flaw in\nthe superstructure of the theory which they are rearing escapes\ntheir vigilance. Yet they are blind to the obvious unsoundness of the\nfoundation. It is the same with some eminent lawyers. {415}Their legal\narguments are intellectual prodigies, abounding with the happiest\nanalogies and the most refined distinctions. The principles of their\narbitrary science being once admitted, the statute-book and the reports\nbeing once assumed as the foundations of reasoning, these men must be\nallowed to be perfect masters of logic. But if a question arises as to\nthe postulates on which their whole system rests, if they are called\nupon to vindicate the fundamental maxims of that system which they have\npassed their lives in studying, these very men often talk the language\nof savages or of children. Those who have listened to a man of this\nclass in his own court, and who have witnessed the skill with which he\nanalyses and digests a vast mass of evidence, or reconciles a crowd of\nprecedents which at first sight seem contradictory, scarcely know him\nagain when, a few hours later, they hear him speaking on the other side\nof Westminster Hall in his capacity of legislator. They can scarcely\nbelieve that the paltry quirks which are faintly heard through a storm\nof coughing, and which do not impose on the plainest country gentleman,\ncan proceed from the same sharp and vigorous intellect which had excited\ntheir admiration under the same roof, and on the same day.\n\nJohnson decided literary questions like a lawyer, not like a legislator.\nHe never examined foundations where a point was already ruled. His whole\ncode of criticism rested on pure assumption, for which he sometimes\nquoted a precedent or an authority, but rarely troubled himself to give\na reason drawn from the nature of things. He took it for granted that\nthe kind of poetry which flourished in his own time, which he had been\naccustomed to hear praised from his childhood, and which he had\nhimself written with success, {416}was the best kind of poetry. In\nhis biographical work he has repeatedly laid it down as an undeniable,\nproposition that during the latter part of the seventeenth century,\nand the earlier part of the eighteenth, English poetry had been in a\nconstant progress of improvement. Waller, Denham, Dryden, and Pope, had\nbeen, according to him, the great reformers. He judged of all works\nof the imagination by the standard established among his own\ncontemporaries. Though he allowed Homer to have been a greater man\nthan Virgil, he seems to have thought the \u00c6neid a greater poem than the\nIliad. Indeed he well might have thought so; for he preferred Pope\u2019s\nIliad to Homer\u2019s. He pronounced that, after Hoole\u2019s translation of\nTasso, Fairfax\u2019s would hardly be reprinted. He could see no merit, in\nour fine old English ballads, and always spoke with the most provoking\ncontempt of Percy\u2019s fondness for them. Of the great original works of\nimagination which appeared during his time, Richardson\u2019s novels alone\nexcited his admiration. He could see little or no merit in Tom Jones,\nin Gulliver\u2019s Travels, or in Tristram Shandy. To Thomson\u2019s Castle\nof Indolence, he vouchsafed only a line of cold commendation, of\ncommendation much colder than what he has bestowed on the Creation of\nthat portentous bore, Sir Richard Blackmore. Gray was, in his dialect, a\nbarren rascal. Churchill was a blockhead. The contempt which he felt for\nthe trash of Macpherson was indeed just; but it was, we suspect, just by\nchance. He despised the Fingal for the very reason which led many men\nof genius to admire it. He despised it, not because it was essentially\ncommon-place, but because it had a superficial air of originality.\n\nHe was undoubtedly an excellent judge of compositions {417}fashioned on\nhis own principles. But when a deeper philosophy was required, when he\nundertook to pronounce judgment on the works of those great minds which\n\u201cyield homage only to eternal laws,\u201d his failure was ignominious.\nHe criticized Pope\u2019s Epitaphs excellently. But his observations on\nShakspeare\u2019s plays and Milton\u2019s poems seem to us for the most part as\nwretched as if they had been written by Rymer himself, whom we take to\nhave been the worst critic that ever lived.\n\nSome of Johnson\u2019s whims on literary subjects can be compared only to\nthat strange nervous feeling which made him uneasy if he had not\ntouched every post between the Mitre tavern and his own lodgings. Hiss\npreference of Latin epitaphs to English epitaphs is an instance. An\nEnglish epitaph, he said, would disgrace Smollett. He declared that he\nwould not pollute the walls of Westminster Abbey with an English epitaph\non Goldsmith. What reason there can be for celebrating a British writer\nin Latin, which there was not for covering the Roman arches of triumph\nwith Greek inscriptions, or for commemorating the deeds of the heroes of\nThermopyl\u00e6 in Egyptian hieroglyphics, we are utterly unable to imagine.\n\nOn men and manners, at least on the men and manners of a particular\nplace and a particular age, Johnson had certainly looked with a most\nobservant and discriminating eye. His remarks on the education of\nchildren, on marriage, on the economy of families, on the rules of\nsociety, are always striking, and generally sound. In his writings,\nindeed, the knowledge of life which he possessed in an eminent degree is\nvery imperfectly exhibited. Like those unfortunate chiefs of the middle\nages who were suffocated by their own chain-mail and cloth of gold,\nhis maxims perish under that {418}load of words which was designed! for\ntheir defence and their ornament. But it is clear from the remains of\nhis conversation, that he had more of that homely wisdom which nothing\nbut experience and observation can give than any writer since the time\nof Swift. If he had been content to write as he talked, he might have\nleft books on the practical art of living superior to the Directions to\nServants.\n\nYet even his remarks on society, like his remarks on literature,\nindicate a mind at least as remarkable for narrowness as for strength.\nHe was no master of the great science of human nature. He had studied,\nnot the genus man, but the species Londoner. Nobody was ever so\nthoroughly conversant with all the forms of life and all the shades of\nmoral and intellectual character which were to be seen from Islington\nto the Thames, and from Hyde-Park corner to Mile-end green. But his\nphilosophy stopped at the first turnpike-gate. Of the rural life of\nEngland he knew nothing; and he took it for granted that every body\nwho lived in the country was either stupid or miserable. \u201cCountry\ngentlemen,\u201d said he, \u201cmust be unhappy; for they have not enough to keep\ntheir lives in motion;\u201d as if all those peculiar habits and associations\nwhich made Fleet Street and Charing Cross the finest views in the world\nto himself had been essential parts of human nature. Of remote countries\nand past times he talked with wild and ignorant presumption. \u201cThe\nAthenians of the age of Demosthenes,\u201d he said to Mrs. Thrale, \u201cwere a\npeople of brutes, a barbarous people.\u201d In conversation with Sir Adam\nFerguson he used similar language. \u201cThe boasted Athenians,\u201d he said,\n\u201cwere barbarians. The mass of every people must be barbarous where there\nis no printing.\u201d The fact was {419}this: he saw that a Londoner who\ncould not read was a very stupid and brutal fellow: he saw that great\nrefinement of taste and activity of intellect were rarely found in a\nLondoner who had not read much; and, because it was by means of books\nthat people acquired almost all their knowledge in the society with\nwhich he was acquainted, he concluded, in defiance of the strongest and\nclearest evidence, that the human mind can be cultivated by means of\nbooks alone. An Athenian citizen might possess very few volumes; and the\nlargest library to which he had access might be much less valuable than\nJohnson\u2019s bookcase in Bolt Court. But the Athenian might pass every\nmorning in conversation with Socrates, and might hear Pericles speak\nfour or five times every month. He saw the plays of Sophocles and\nAristophanes: he walked amidst the friezes of Phidias and the paintings\nof Zeuxis: he knew by heart the choruses of \u00c6schylus: he heard the\nrhapsodist at the corner of the street reciting the shield of Achilles\nor the Death of Argus: he was a legislator, conversant with high\nquestions of alliance, revenue, and war: he was a soldier, trained under\na liberal and generous discipline: he was a judge, compelled every\nday to weigh the effect of opposite arguments. These things were in\nthemselves an education, an education eminently fitted, not, indeed,\nto farm exact or profound thinkers, but to give quickness to the\nperceptions, delicacy to the taste, fluency to the expression, and\npoliteness to the manners. All this was overlooked. An Athenian who did\nnot improve his mind by reading was, in Johnson\u2019s opinion, much such a\nperson as a Cockney who made his mark, much such a person as black\nFrank before he went to school, and far inferior to a parish clerk or a\nprinter\u2019s devil. {420}Johnson\u2019s friends have allowed that he carried to\na ridiculous extreme his unjust contempt for foreigners. He pronounced\nthe French to be a very silly people, much behind us, stupid, ignorant\ncreatures. And this judgment he formed after having been at Paris about\na month, during which he would not talk French, for fear of giving the\nnatives an advantage over him in conversation. He pronounced them, also,\nto be an indelicate people, because a French footman touched the sugar\nwith his fingers. That ingenious and amusing traveller, M. Simond, has\ndefended his countrymen very successfully against Johnson\u2019s accusation,\nand has pointed out some English practices which, to an impartial\nspectator, would seem at least as inconsistent with physical cleanliness\nand social decorum as those which Johnson so bitterly reprehended. To\nthe sage, as Boswell loves to call him, it never occurred to doubt that\nthere must be something eternally and immutably good in the usages to\nwhich he had been accustomed. In fact, Johnson\u2019s remarks on society\nbeyond the bills of mortality, are generally of much the same kind with\nthose of honest Tom Dawson, the English footman in Dr. Moore\u2019s Zeluco.\n\u201cSuppose the king of France has no sons, but only a daughter, then, when\nthe king dies, this here daughter, according to that there law, cannot\nbe made queen, but the next near relative, provided he is a man, is\nmade king, and not the last king\u2019s daughter, which, to be sure, is very\nunjust. The French footguards are dressed in blue, and all the marching\nregiments in white, which has a very foolish appearance for soldiers;\nand as for blue regimentals, it is only fit for the blue horse or the\nartillery.\u201d\n\nJohnson\u2019s visit to the Hebrides introduced him to a state of society\ncompletely new to him; and a salutary {421}suspicion of his own\ndeficiencies seems on that occasion to have crossed his mind for the\nfirst time. He confessed, in the last paragraph of his Journey, that his\nthoughts on national manners were the thoughts of one who had seen but\nlittle, of one who had passed his time almost wholly in cities. This\nfeeling, however, soon passed away. It is remarkable that to the last\nhe entertained a fixed contempt for all those modes of life and those\nstudies which tend to emancipate the mind from the prejudices of a\nparticular age or a particular nation. Of foreign travel and of history\nhe spoke with the fierce and boisterous contempt of ignorance. \u201cWhat\ndoes a man learn by travelling? Is Beauclerk the better for travelling?\nWhat did Lord Charlemont learn in his travels, except that there was a\nsnake in one of the pyramids of Egypt?\u201d History was, in his opinion, to\nuse the fine expression of Lord Plunkett, an old almanack: historians\ncould, as he conceived, claim no higher dignity than that of\nalmanack-makers; and his favourite historians were those who, like Lord\nHailes, aspired to no higher dignity. He always spoke with contempt of\nRobertson. Hume he would not even read. He affronted one of his friends\nfor talking to him about Catiline\u2019s conspiracy, and declared that he\nnever desired to hear of the Punic war again as long as he lived.\n\nAssuredly one fact which does not directly affect our own interests,\nconsidered in itself, is no better worth knowing than another fact.\nThe fact that there is a snake in a pyramid, or the fact that Hannibal\ncrossed the Alps, are in themselves as unprofitable to us as the fact\nthat there is a green blind in a particular house in Threadneedle\nStreet, or the fact {422}that a Mr. Smith comes into the city every\nmorning on the top of one of the Blackwall stages. But it is certain\nthat those who will not crack the shell of history will never get at the\nkernel. Johnson, with hasty arrogance, pronounced the kernel worthless,\nbecause he saw no value in the shell. The real use of travelling\nto distant countries and of studying the annals of past times is to\npreserve men from the contraction of mind which those can hardly escape\nwhose whole communion is with one generation and one neighbourhood, who\narrive at conclusions by means of an induction not sufficiently copious,\nand who therefore constantly confound exceptions with rules, and\naccidents with essential properties. In short, the real use of\ntravelling and of studying history is to keep men from being what Tom\nDawson was in fiction, and Samuel Johnson in reality.\n\nJohnson, as Mr. Burke most justly observed, appears far greater in\nBoswell\u2019s books than in his own. His conversation appears to have been\nquite equal to his writings in matter, and far superior to them in\nmanner. When he talked, he clothed his wit and his sense in forcible and\nnatural expressions. As soon as he took his pen in his hand to write for\nthe public, his style became systematically vicious. All his books are\nwritten in a learned language, in a language which nobody hears from\nhis mother or his nurse, in a language in which nobody ever quarrels,\nor drives bargains, or makes love, in a language in which nobody ever\nthinks. It is clear that Johnson himself did not think in the dialect\nin which he wrote. The expressions which came first to his tongue were\nsimple, energetic, and picturesque. When he wrote for publication, he\ndid his sentences out of English into {423}Johnsonese. His letters from\nthe Hebrides to Mrs. Thrale are the original of that work of which the\nJourney to the Hebrides is the translation; and it is amusing to compare\nthe two versions. \u201cWhen we were taken up stairs,\u201d says he in one of his\nletters, \u201ca dirty fellow bounced out of the bed on which one of us was\nto lie.\u201d This incident is recorded in the Journey as follows: \u201cOut of\none of the beds on which we were to repose started up, at our entrance,\na man black as a Cyclops from the forge.\u201d Sometimes Johnson translated\naloud. \u201cThe Rehearsal,\u201d he said, very unjustly, \u201chas not wit enough\nto keep it sweet;\u201d then, after a pause, \u201cit has not vitality enough to\npreserve it from putrefaction.\u201d\n\nMannerism is pardonable, and is sometimes even agreeable, when the\nmanner, though vicious, is natural. Few readers, for example, would\nbe willing to part with the mannerism of Milton or of Burke. But a\nmannerism which does not sit easy on the mannerist, which has been\nadopted on principle, and which can be sustained only by constant\neffort, is always offensive. And such is the mannerism of Johnson.\n\nThe characteristic faults of his style are so familiar to all\nour readers, and have been so often burlesqued, that it is almost\nsuperfluous to point them out. It is well known that he made less use\nthan any other eminent writer of those strong plain words, Anglo-Saxon\nor Norman-French, of which the roots lie in the inmost depths of our\nlanguage; and that he felt a vicious partiality for terms which, long\nafter our own speech had been fixed, were borrowed from the Greek and\nLatin, and which, therefore, even when lawfully naturalised, must be\nconsidered as born aliens, not entitled to rank with the king\u2019s English.\nHis constant practice {424}of padding out a sentence with useless\nepithets, till it became as stiff as the bust of an exquisite, his\nantithetical forms of expression, constantly employed even where there\nis no opposition in the ideas expressed, his big words wasted on little\nthings, his harsh inversions, so widely different from those graceful\nand easy inversions which give variety, spirit, and sweetness to the\nexpression of our great old writers, all these peculiarities have been\nimitated by his admirers and parodied by his assailants, till the public\nhas become sick of the subject.\n\nGoldsmith said to him, very wittily and very justly, \u201cIf you were to\nwrite a fable about little fishes, doctor, you would make the little\nfishes talk like whales.\u201d No man surely ever had so little talent\nfor personation as Johnson. Whether he wrote in the character of a\ndisappointed legacy-hunter or an empty town fop, of a crazy virtuoso or\na flippant coquette, he wrote in the same pompous and unbending style.\nHis speech, like Sir Piercy Shafton\u2019s Euphuistic eloquence, bewrayed him\nunder every disguise. Euphelia and Rhodoclea talk as finely as Imlac\nthe poet, or Seged, Emperor of Ethiopia. The gay Cornelia describes her\nreception at the country-house of her relations, in such terms as these:\n\u201cI was surprised, after the civilities of my first reception, to find,\ninstead of the leisure and tranquillity which a rural life always\npromises, and, if well conducted, might always afford, a confused\nwildness of care, and a tumultuous hurry of diligence, by which every\nface was clouded, and every motion agitated.\u201d The gentle Tranquica\ninforms us, that she \u201chad not passed the earlier part of life without\nthe flattery of courtship, and the joys of triumph; but had danced the\nround of gaiety amidst the murmurs of envy and {425}the gratulations of\napplause, had been attended from pleasure to pleasure by the great,\nthe sprightly, and the vain, and had seen her regard solicited by the\nobsequiousness of gallantry, the gaiety of wit, and the timidity of\nlove.\u201d Surely Sir John Falstaff himself did not wear his petticoats with\na worse grace. The reader may well cry out, with honest Sir Hugh Evans,\n\u201cI like not when a \u2018oman has a great peard: I spy a great peard under\nher muffler.\u201d (1)\n\nWe had something more to say. But our article is already too long; and\nwe must close it. We would fain part in good humour from the hero, from\nthe biographer, and even from the editor, who, ill as he has performed\nhis task, has at least this claim to our gratitude, that he has induced\nus to read Boswell\u2019s book again. As we close it, the club-room is before\nus, and the table on which stands the omelet for Nugent, and the lemons\nfor Johnson. There are assembled those heads which live for ever on the\ncanvass of Reynolds. There are the spectacles of Burke and the tall thin\nform of Langton, the courtly sneer of Beauclerk and the beaming smile of\nGarrick, Gibbon tapping his snuff-box and Sir Joshua with his trumpet in\nhis ear. In the foreground is that strange figure which is as familiar\nto us as the figures of those among whom we have been brought up, the\ngigantic body, the huge massy face, seamed with the scars of disease,\nthe brown coat, the black worsted stockings, the grey wig with the\nscorched foretop, the dirty hands, the nails bitten and pared to the\nquick. We see the eyes and mouth moving with convulsive twitches; we see\nthe heavy\n\n     (1) It is proper to observe that this passage bears a very\n     close resemblance to a passage in the Rambler (No. 20). The\n     resemblance may possibly be the effect of unconscious\n     plagiarism.\n\n{426}form rolling; we hear it puffing; and then comes the \u201cWhy, sir!\u201d\n and the \u201cWhat then, sir?\u201d and the \u201cNo, sir!\u201d and the \u201cYou don\u2019t see your\nway through the question, sir!\u201d\n\nWhat a singular destiny has been that of this remarkable man! To be\nregarded in his own time as a classic, and in ours as a companion. To\nreceive from his contemporaries that full homage which men of genius\nhave in general received only from posterity! To be more intimately\nknown to posterity than other men are known to their contemporaries!\nThat kind of fame which is commonly the most transient is, in his case,\nthe most durable. The reputation of those writings, which he probably\nexpected to be immortal, is every day fading; while those peculiarities\nof manner and that careless table-talk the memory of which, he probably\nthought, would die with him, are likely to be remembered as long as the\nEnglish language is spoken in any quarter of the globe.\n\n\n\n\nJOHN HAMPDEN. (1)\n\n(_Edinburgh Review_, December 1831.)\n\n\nWe {427}have read this book with great pleasure, though not exactly\nwith that kind of pleasure which we had expected. We had hoped that Lord\nNugent would have been able to collect, from family papers and local\ntraditions, much new and interesting information respecting the life and\ncharacter of the renowned leader of the Long Parliament, the first of\nthose great English commoners whose plain addition of Mister has, to our\nears, a more majestic sound than the proudest of the feudal titles. In\nthis hope we have been disappointed; but assuredly not from any want of\nzeal or diligence on the part of the noble biographer. Even at\nHampden, there are, it seems, no important papers relating to the\nmost illustrious proprietor of that ancient domain. The most valuable\nmemorials of him which still exist, belong to the family of his friend,\nSir John Eliot. Lord Eliot has furnished the portrait which is engraved\nfor this work, together with some very interesting letters. The portrait\nis undoubtedly an original, and probably the only original now in\nexistence. The intellectual forehead, the mild penetration of the eye,\nand the inflexible resolution expressed by the\n\n     (1)  _Some Memorials of John Hampden, his Party, and his\n     Times_. By Lord Nugext. 2 vols. 8vo. London: 1&31.\n\n{428}lines of the month, sufficiently guarantee the likeness. We shall\nprobably make some extracts from the letters. They contain almost all\nthe new information that Lord Nugent has been able to procure respecting\nthe private pursuits of the great man whose memory he worships with an\nenthusiastic, but not extravagant, veneration.\n\nThe public life of Hampden is surrounded by no obscurity. His history,\nmore particularly from the year 1640 to his death, is the history of\nEngland. These Memoirs must be considered as Memoirs of the history of\nEngland; and, as such, they well deserve to be attentively perused. They\ncontain some curious facts which, to us at least, are new, much spirited\nnarrative, many judicious remarks, and much eloquent declamation.\n\nWe are not sure that even the want of information respecting the private\ncharacter of Hampden is not in itself a circumstance as strikingly\ncharacteristic as any which the most minute chronicler, O\u2019Meara, Mrs.\nThrale, or Boswell himself, ever recorded concerning their heroes. The\ncelebrated Puritan leader is an almost solitary instance of a great man\nwho neither sought nor shunned greatness, who found glory only because\nglory lay in the plain path of duty. During more than forty years he was\nknown to his country neighbours as a gentleman of cultivated mind, of\nhigh principles, of polished address, happy in his family, and active\nin the discharge of local duties; and to political men, as an honest,\nindustrious, and sensible member of Parliament, not eager to display\nhis talents, stanch to his party, and attentive to the interests of his\nconstituents. A great and terrible crisis came. A direct attack was made\nby an arbitrary government on a sacred right of Englishmen, on a right\nwhich was the {429}chief security for all their other rights. The nation\nlooked round for a defender. Calmly and unostentatiously the plain\nBuckinghamshire Esquire placed himself at the head of his countrymen,\nand right before the face and across the path of tyranny. The times grew\ndarker and more troubled. Public service, perilous, arduous, delicate,\nwas required; and to every service the Intellect and the courage of this\nwonderful man were found fully equal. He became a debater of the first\norder, a most dexterous manager of the House of Commons, a negotiator, a\nsoldier. He governed a fierce and turbulent assembly, abounding in\nable men, as easily as he had governed his family. He showed himself as\ncompetent to direct a campaign as to conduct the business of the petty\nsessions. We can scarcely express the admiration which we feel for\na mind so great, and, at the same time, so healthful and so well\nproportioned, so willingly contracting itself to the humblest duties,\nso easily expanding itself to the Highest, so contented in repose, so\npowerful in action. Almost every part of this virtuous and blameless\nlife which is not hidden from us in modest privacy is a precious and\nsplendid portion of our national history. Had the private conduct of\nHampden afforded the slightest pretence for censure, he would have\nbeen assailed by the same blind malevolence which, in defiance of the\nclearest proofs, still continues to call Sir John Eliot an assassin.\nHad there been even any weak part in the character of Hampden, had his\nmanners been in any respect open to ridicule, we may be sure that no\nmercy would have been shown to him by the writers of Charles\u2019s faction.\nThose writers have carefully preserved every little circumstance which\ncould tend to make their opponents odious or contemptible. {430}They\nhave made themselves merry with the cant of injudicious zealots. They\nhave told us that Pym broke down in a speech, that Ireton had his\nnose pulled by Hollis, that the Earl of Northumberland cudgelled Henry\nMarten, that St. John\u2019s manners were sullen, that Vane had an ugly face,\nthat Cromwell had a red nose. But neither the artful Clarendon nor the\nscurrilous Denham could venture to throw the slightest imputation on\nthe morals or the manners of Hampden. What was the opinion entertained\nrespecting him by the best men of his time, we learn from Baxter. That\neminent person, eminent not only for his piety and his fervid devotional\neloquence, but for his moderation, his knowledge of political affairs,\nand his skill in judging of characters, declared in the Saint\u2019s Rest\nthat one of the pleasures which he hoped to enjoy in heaven was the\nsociety of Hampden. In the editions printed after the Restoration, the\nname of Hampden was omitted. \u201cBut I must tell the reader,\u201d says Baxter,\n\u201cthat I did blot it out, not as changing my opinion of the person....\nMr. John Hampden was one that friends and enemies acknowledged to be\nmost eminent for prudence, piety, and peaceable counsels, having the\nmost universal praise of any gentleman that I remember of that age.\nI remember a moderate, prudent, aged gentleman, far from him, but\nacquainted with him, whom I have heard saying, that if he might choose\nwhat person he would be then in the world, he would be John Hampden.\u201d We\ncannot but regret that we have not fuller memorials of a man who, after\npassing through the most severe temptations by which human virtue can be\ntried, after acting a most conspicuous part in a revolution and a civil\nwar, could yet deserve such praise as this from such authority. {431}Yet\nthe want of memorials is surely the best proof that hatred itself could\nfind no blemish on his memory.\n\nThe story of his early life is soon told. He was the head of a family\nwhich had been settled in Buckinghamshire before the Conquest. Part of\nthe estate which he inherited had been bestowed by Edward the Confessor\non Baldwyn de Hampden, whose name seems to indicate that he was one of\nthe Norman favourites of the last Saxon king. During the contest between\nthe houses of York and Lancaster, the Hampdens adhered to the party of\nthe Red Rose, and were, consequently, persecuted by Edward the Fourth,\nand favoured by Henry the Seventh. Under the Tudors, the family\nwas great and flourishing. Griffith Hampden, high sheriff of\nBuckinghamshire, entertained Elizabeth with great magnificence at his\nseat. His son, William Hampden, sate in the Parliament which that Queen\nsummoned in the year 1593. William married Elizabeth Cromwell, aunt of\nthe celebrated man who afterwards governed the British islands with more\nthan regal power; and from this marriage sprang John Hampden.\n\nHe was born in 1594. In 1597 his father died, and left him heir to a\nvery large estate. After passing some years at the grammar school of\nThame, young Hampden was sent, at fifteen, to Magdalene College, in\nthe University of Oxford. At nineteen, he was admitted a student of\nthe Inner Temple, where he made himself master of the principles of the\nEnglish law. In 1619, he married Elizabeth Symeon, a lady to whom he\nappears to have been fondly attached. In the following year he was\nreturned to parliament by a borough which has in our time obtained a\nmiserable celebrity, the borough of Grampound. {432}Of his private life\nduring his early years little is known beyond what Clarendon has told\nus. \u201cIn his entrance into the world,\u201d says that great historian, \u201che\nindulged himself in all the license in sports, and exercises, and\ncompany, which were used by men of the most jolly conversation.\u201d A\nremarkable change, however, passed on his character. \u201cOn a sudden,\u201d says\nClarendon, \u201cfrom a life of great pleasure and license, he retired to\nextraordinary sobriety and strictness, to a more reserved and melancholy\nsociety.\u201d It is probable that this change took place when Hampden was\nabout twenty-five years old. At that age he was united to a woman whom\nhe loved and esteemed. At that age he entered into political life.\nA mind so happily constituted as his would naturally, under such\ncircumstances, relinquish the pleasures of dissipation for domestic\nenjoyments and public duties.\n\nHis enemies have allowed that he was a man in whom virtue showed itself\nin its mildest and least austere form. With the morals of a Puritan, he\nhad the manners of an accomplished courtier. Even after the change\nin his habits, \u201che preserved,\u201d says Clarendon, \u201chis own natural\ncheerfulness and vivacity, and, above all, a flowing courtesy to all\nmen.\u201d These qualities distinguished him from most of the members of his\nsect and his party, and, in the great crisis in which he afterwards took\na principal part, were of scarcely less service to the country than his\nkeen sagacity and his dauntless courage.\n\nIn January, 1621, Hampden took his seat in the House of Commons. His\nmother was exceedingly desirous that her son should obtain a peerage.\nHis family, his possessions, and his personal accomplishments were such,\nas would, in any age, have justified {433}him in pretending to that\nhonour. But in the reign of James the First there was one short cut to\nthe House of Lords. It was but to ask, to pay, and to have. The sale of\ntitles was carried on as openly as the sale of boroughs in our times.\nHampden turned away with contempt from the degrading honours with which\nhis family desired to see him invested, and attached himself to the\nparty which was in opposition to the court.\n\nIt was about this time, as Lord Nugent has justly remarked, that\nparliamentary opposition began to take a regular form. From a very early\nage, the English had enjoyed a far larger share of liberty than had\nfallen to the lot of any neighbouring people. How it chanced that a\ncountry conquered and enslaved by invaders, a country of which the soil\nhad been portioned out among foreign adventurers and of which the laws\nwere written in a foreign tongue, a country given over to that worst\ntyranny, the tyranny of caste over caste, should have become the seat\nof civil liberty, the object of the admiration and envy of surrounding\nstates, is one of the most obscure problems in the philosophy of\nhistory. But the fact is certain. Within a century and a half after the\nNorman conquest, the Great Charter was conceded. Within two centuries\nafter the Conquest, the first House of Commons met. Froissart tells us,\nwhat indeed his whole narrative sufficiently proves, that, of all the\nnations of the fourteenth century, the English were the least disposed\nto endure oppression. \u201cC\u2019est le plus p\u00e9rilleux peuple qui soit au monde,\net plus outrageux et orgueilleux.\u201d The good canon probably did not\nperceive that all the prosperity and internal peace which this dangerous\npeople enjoyed were the fruits of the spirit which he designates as\nproud {434}and outrageous. He has, however, borne ample testimony\nto the effect, though he was not sagacious enough to trace it to its\ncause. \u201cEn le royaume d\u2019Angleterre,\u201d says he, \u201ctoutes gens, laboureurs\net marchands, ont appris de vivre en paix, et \u00e0 mener leurs marchandises\npaisiblement, et les laboureurs labourer.\u201d In the fifteenth century,\nthough England was convulsed by the struggle between the two branches\nof the royal family, the physical and moral condition of the people\ncontinued to improve. Villenage almost wholly disappeared. The\ncalamities of war were little felt, except by those who bore arms.\nThe oppressions of the government were little felt, except by the\naristocracy. The institutions of the country, when compared with\nthe institutions of the neighbouring kingdoms, seem to have been not\nundeserving of the praises of Fortescue. The government of Edward the\nFourth, though we call it cruel and arbitrary, was humane and liberal\nwhen compared with that of Lewis the Eleventh, or that of Charles the\nBold. Comines, who had lived amidst the wealthy cities of Flanders, and\nwho had visited Florence and Venice, had never seen a people so well\ngoverned as the English. \u201cOr selon mon advis,\u201d says he, \u201centre toutes\nles seigneuries du monde, dont j\u2019ay connoissance, ou la chose publique\nest mieulx trait\u00e9e, et ou r\u00e9gn\u00e9 moins de violence sur le peuple, et ou\nil n\u2019y an uls \u00e9difices abbatus ny d\u00e9molis pour guerre, c\u2019est Angleterre;\net tombe le sort et le malheur sur ceulx qui font la guerre.\u201d\n\nAbout the close of the fifteenth and the commencement of the sixteenth\ncentury, a great portion of the influence which the aristocracy had\npossessed passed to the crown. No English king has ever enjoyed\nsuch absolute power as Henry the Eighth. But while the {435}royal\nprerogatives were acquiring strength at the expense of the nobility,\ntwo great revolutions took place, destined to be the parents of many\nrevolutions, the invention of Printing, and the reformation of the\nChurch.\n\nThe immediate effect of the Reformation in England was by no means\nfavourable to political liberty. The authority which had been exercised\nby the Popes was transferred almost entire to the King. Two formidable\npowers which had often served to check each other were united in a\nsingle despot. If the system on which the founders of the Church of\nEngland acted could have been permanent, the Reformation would have\nbeen, in a political sense, the greatest curse that ever fell on our\ncountry. But that system carried within it the seeds of its own death.\nIt was possible to transfer the name of Head of the Church from Clement\nto Henry; but it was impossible to transfer to the new establishment\nthe veneration which the old establishment had inspired. Mankind had not\nbroken one yoke in pieces only in order to put on another. The supremacy\nof the Bishop of Rome had been for ages considered as a fundamental\nprinciple of Christianity. It had for it every thing that could make a\nprejudice deep and strong, venerable antiquity, high authority, general\nconsent. It had been taught in the first lessons of the nurse. It was\ntaken for granted in all the exhortations of the priest. To remove it\nwas to break innumerable associations, and to give a great and perilous\nshock to the principles. Yet this prejudice, strong as it was, could not\nstand in the great day of the deliverance of the human reason. And it\nwas not to be expected that the public mind, just after freeing itself\nby an unexampled effort, from a bondage {436}which it had endured\nfor ages, would patiently submit to a tyranny which could plead\nno ancient\u2019title. Rome had at least prescription on its side. But\nProtestant intolerance, despotism in an upstart sect, infallibility\nclaimed by guides who acknowledged that they had passed the greater part\nof their lives in error, restraints imposed on the liberty of private\njudgment at the pleasure of rulers who could vindicate their own\nproceedings only by asserting the liberty of private judgment, these\nthings could not long be borne. Those who had pulled down the crucifix\ncould not long continue to persecute for the surplice. It required no\ngreat sagacity to perceive the inconsistency and dishonesty of men who,\ndissenting from almost all Christendom, would suffer none to dissent\nfrom themselves, who demanded freedom of conscience, yet refused to\ngrant it, who execrated persecution, yet persecuted, who urged reason\nagainst the authority of one opponent, and authority against the reasons\nof another. Bonner acted at least in accordance with his own principles.\nCranmer could vindicate himself from the charge of being a heretic only\nby arguments which made him out to be a murderer.\n\nThus the system on which the English Princes acted with respect to\necclesiastical affairs for some time after the Reformation was a system\ntoo obviously unreasonable to be lasting. The public mind moved while\nthe government moved, but would not stop where the government stopped.\nThe same impulse which had carried millions away from the Church of Rome\ncontinued to carry them forward in the same direction. As Catholics\nhad become Protestants, Protestants became Puritans; and the Tudors and\nStuarts were as unable to avert the latter change as the Popes had been\nto {437}avert the former. The dissenting party increased and became\nstrong under every kind of discouragement and oppression. They were a\nsect. The government persecuted them; and they became an opposition. The\nold constitution of England furnished to them the means of resisting the\nsovereign without breaking the law. They were the majority of the House\nof Commons. They had the power of giving or withholding supplies; and,\nby a judicious exercise of this power, they might hope to take from the\nChurch its usurped authority over the consciences of men, and from the\nCrown some part of the vast prerogative which it had recently acquired\nat the expense of the nobles and of the Pope.\n\nThe faint beginnings of this memorable contest may be discerned early in\nthe reign of Elizabeth. The conduct of her last Parliament made it clear\nthat one of those great revolutions which policy may guide but cannot\nstop was in progress. It was on the question of monopolies that the\nHouse of Commons gained its first great victory over the Throne. The\nconduct of the extraordinary woman who then governed England is an\nadmirable study for politicians who live in unquiet times. It shows how\nthoroughly she understood the people whom she ruled, and the crisis in\nwhich she was called to act. What she held she held firmly. What she\ngave she gave graciously. She saw that it was necessary to make a\nconcession to the nation; and she made it, not grudgingly, not tardily,\nnot as a matter of bargain and sale, not, in a word, as Charles the\nFirst would have made it, but promptly and cordially. Before a bill\ncould be framed or an address presented, she applied a remedy to the\nevil of which the nation complained. She expressed in the {438}warmest\nterms her gratitude to her faithful Commons for detecting abuses\nwhich interested persons had concealed from her. If her successors had\ninherited her wisdom with her crowd, Charles the First might have died\nof old age, and James the Second would never have seen St. Germain\u2019s.\n\nShe died; and the kingdom passed to one who was, in his own opinion, the\ngreatest master of king-craft that ever lived, but who was, in truth,\none of those kings whom God seems to send for the express purpose of\nhastening revolutions. Of all the enemies of liberty whom Britain has\nproduced, he was at once the most harmless and the most provoking. His\noffice resembled that of the man who, in a Spanish bullfight, goads the\ntorpid savage to fury, by shaking a red rag in the air, and by now and\nthen throwing a dart, sharp enough to sting, but too small to injure.\nThe policy of wise tyrants has always been to cover their violent acts\nwith popular forms. James was always obtruding his despotic theories\non his subjects without the slightest necessity. His foolish talk\nexasperated them infinitely more than forced loans or benevolences would\nhave done. Yet, in practice, no king ever held his prerogatives less\ntenaciously. He neither gave way gracefully to the advancing spirit of\nliberty nor took vigorous measures to stop it, but retreated before\nit with ludicrous haste, blustering and insulting as he retreated. The\nEnglish people had been governed during near a hundred and fifty years\nby Princes who, whatever might be their frailties or their vices, had\nall possessed great force of character, and who, whether beloved or\nhated, had always been feared. Now, at length, for the first time since\nthe day when the sceptre of Henry the Fourth dropped {439}from the hand\nof his lethargic grandson, England had a king whom she despised.\n\nThe follies and vices of the man increased the contempt which was\nproduced by the feeble policy of the sovereign. The indecorous\ngallantries of the Court, the habits of gross intoxication in which even\nthe ladies indulged, were alone sufficient to disgust a people whose\nmanners were beginning to be strongly tinctured with austerity.\nBut these were trifles. Crimes of the most frightful kind had been\ndiscovered; others were suspected. The strange story of the Gowries was\nnot forgotten. The ignominious fondness of the King for his minions, the\nperjuries, the sorceries, the poisonings, which his chief favourites\nhad planned within the walls of his palace, the pardon which, in direct\nviolation of his duty and of his word, he had granted to the mysterious\nthreats of a murderer, made him an object of loathing to many of his\nsubjects. What opinion grave and moral persons residing at a distance\nfrom the Court entertained respecting him, we learn from Mrs.\nHutchinson\u2019s Memoirs. England was no place, the seventeenth century no\ntime, for Sporus and Locusta.\n\nThis was not all. The most ridiculous weaknesses seemed to meet in the\nwretched Solomon of Whitehall, pedantry, buffoonery, garrulity,\nlow curiosity, the most contemptible personal cowardice. Nature and\neducation had done their best to produce a finished specimen of all that\na king ought not to be. His awkward figure, his rolling eye, his rickety\nwalk, his nervous tremblings, his slobbering mouth, his broad Scotch\naccent, were imperfections which might have been found in the best and\ngreatest man. Their effect, however, was to make James and his office\nobjects of contempt, and to dissolve those associations which had\n{440}been created by the noble bearing of preceding mon-arclis, and\nwhich were in themselves no inconsiderable fence to royalty.\n\nThe sovereign whom James most resembled was, we think, Claudius C\u00e6sar.\nBoth had the same feeble vacillating temper, the same childishness, the\nsame coarseness, the same poltroonery. Both were men of learning; both\nwrote and spoke, not, indeed, well, but still in a manner in which\nit seems almost incredible that men so foolish should have written or\nspoken.\n\nThe follies and indecencies of James are well described in the words\nwhich Suetonius uses respecting Claudius:\n\n\u201cMulta talia, etiam privatis deformia, nedum prilcipi, neque infacundo,\nneque indocto, immo etiam pertinaciter liberalibus studiis dedito.\u201d The\ndescription given by Suetonius of the manner in which the Roman prince\ntransacted business exactly suits the Briton.\n\n\u201cIn comioscendo ac decernendo mira varietate animi fuit, modo\ncircumspectus et sagax, modo inconsultus ac pr\u00e6ceps, nonnunquam frivolus\namentique similis.\u201d Claudius was ruled successively by two bad women:\nJames successively by two bad men. Even the description of the person of\nClaudius, which we find in the ancient memoirs, might, in many points,\nserve for that of James. \u201cCeterum et ingredientem destituebant poplit\u00e9s\nminus firmi, et remisse quid vel serio agentem multa dehonestabant,\nrisus indecens, ira turpior, spumante rictu, pr\u00e6terea lingu\u00e6\ntitubantia.\u201d\n\nThe Parliament which James had called soon after his accession had been\nrefractory. His second Parliament, called in the spring of 1614, had\nbeen more refractory still. It had been dissolved after a session of\ntwo months; and during six years the King had governed without having\nrecourse to the legislature. {441}During those six years, melancholy\nand disgraceful events, at home and abroad, had followed one another in\nrapid succession; the divorce of Lady Essex, the murder of Overbury, the\nelevation of Villiers, the pardon of Somerset, the disgrace of Coke,\nthe execution of Raleigh, the battle of Prague, the invasion of the\nPalatinate by Spinola, the ignominious flight of the son-in-law of the\nEnglish king, the depression of the Protestant interest all over the\ncontinent. All the extraordinary modes by which James could venture to\nraise money had been tried. His necessities were greater than ever;\nand he was compelled to summon the Parliament in which Hampden first\nappeared as a public man.\n\nThis Parliament lasted about twelve months. During that time it visited\nwith deserved punishment several of those who, during the preceding six\nyears, had enriched themselves by peculation and monopoly. Michell, one\nof the grasping patentees who had purchased of the favourite the power\nof robbing the nation, was fined and imprisoned for life. Mompesson,\nthe original, it is said, of Massinger\u2019s Overreach, was outlawed and\ndeprived of his ill gotten wealth. Even Sir Edward Villiers, the brother\nof Buckingham, found it convenient to leave England. A greater name is\nto be added to the ignominious list. By this Parliament was brought\nto justice that illustrious philosopher whose memory genius has half\nredeemed from the infamy due to servility, to ingratitude, and to\ncorruption.\n\nAfter redressing internal grievances, the Commons proceeded to take into\nconsideration the state of Europe. The King flew into a rage with them\nfor meddling with such matters, and, with characteristic {442}judgment,\ndrew them into a controversy about the origin of their House and of its\nprivileges. When he found that he could not convince them, he dissolved\nthem in a passion, and sent some of the leaders of the Opposition to\nruminate on his logic in prison.\n\nDuring the time which elapsed between this dissolution and the meeting\nof the next Parliament, took place the celebrated negotiation respecting\nthe Infanta. The would-be despot was unmercifully browbeaten. The\nwould-be Solomon was ridiculously overreached. Steenie, in spite of the\nbegging and sobbing of his dear dad and gossip, carried off baby Charles\nin triumph to Madrid. The sweet lads, as James called them, came back\nsafe, but without their errand. The great master of king-craft, in\nlooking for a Spanish match, had found a Spanish war. In February, 1624,\na Parliament met, during the whole sitting of which, James was a mere\npuppet in the hands of his baby, and of his poor slave and dog. The\nCommons were disposed to support the King in the vigorous policy which\nhis favourite urged him to adopt. But they were not disposed to place\nany confidence in their feeble sovereign and his dissolute courtiers,\nor to relax in their efforts to remove public grievances. They\ntherefore lodged the money which they voted for the war in the hands\nof Parliamentary Commissioners. They impeached the treasurer, Lord\nMiddlesex, for corruption, and they passed a bill by which patents of\nmonopoly were declared illegal.\n\nHampden did not, during the reign of James, take any prominent part in\npublic affairs. It is certain, however, that he paid great attention to\nthe details of Parliamentary business, and to the local interests of his\nown country. It was in a great measure owing to {443}his exertions that\nWendover and some other boroughs on which the popular party could depend\nrecovered the elective franchise, in spite of the opposition of the\nCourt.\n\nThe health of the King had for some time been declining. On the\ntwenty-seventh of March, 1025, he expired. Under his weak rule, the\nspirit of liberty had grown strong, and had become equal to a great\ncontest. The contest was brought on by the policy cf his successor.\nCharles bore no resemblance to his father. He was not a driveller, or\na pedant, or a buffoon, or a coward. It would be absurd to deny that\nhe was a scholar and a gentleman, a man of exquisite taste in the fine\narts, a man of strict morals in private life. His talents for business\nwere respectable; his demeanour was kingly. But he was false, imperious,\nobstinate, narrow-minded, ignorant of the temper of his people,\nunobservant of the signs of his times. The whole principle of his\ngovernment was resistance to public opinion; nor did he make any real\nconcession to that opinion till it mattered not whether he resisted or\nconceded, till the nation, which had long ceased to love him or to trust\nhim, had at last ceased to fear him.\n\nHis first Parliament met in June, 1625. Hampden sat in it as burgess for\nWendover. The King wished for money. The commons wished for the redress\nof grievances. The war, however, could not be carried on without funds.\nThe plan of the Opposition was, it should seem, to dole out supplies by\nsmall sums, in order to prevent a speedy dissolution. They gave the King\ntwo subsidies only, and proceeded to complain that his ships had been\nemployed against the Huguenots in France, and to petition in behalf of\nthe Puritans who were persecuted in England. The King {444}dissolved\nthem, and raised money by Letters under his Privy Seal. The supply\nfell far short of what he needed; and, in the spring of 1620, he called\ntogether another Parliament. In this Parliament, Hampden again sat for\nWendover.\n\nThe Commons resolved to grant a very liberal supply, but to defer the\nfinal passing of the act for that purpose till the grievances of the\nnation should be redressed. The struggle which followed far exceeded in\nviolence any that had yet taken place. The Commons impeached Buckingham.\nThe King threw the managers of the impeachment into prison. The Commons\ndenied the right of the King to levy tonnage and poundage without their\nconsent. The King dissolved them. They put forth a remonstrance. The\nKing circulated a declaration vindicating his measures, and committed\nsome of the most distinguished members of the Opposition to close\ncustody. Money was raised by a forced loan, which was apportioned among\nthe people according to the rate at which they had been respectively\nassessed to the last subsidy. On this occasion it was, that Hampden\nmade his first stand for the fundamental principle of the English\nconstitution. He positively refused to lend a farthing. He was required\nto give his reasons. He answered, \u201cthat he could be content to lend\nas well as others, but feared to draw upon himself that curse in Magna\nCharta which should be read twice a year against those who infringe it.\u201d\n For this spirited answer, the Privy Council committed him close prisoner\nto the Gate House. After some time, he was again brought up; but he\npersisted in his refusal, and was sent to a place of confinement in\nHampshire.\n\nThe government went on, oppressing at home, and blundering in all its\nmeasures abroad. A war was {445}foolishly undertaken against France, and\nmore foolishly conducted. Buckingham led an expedition against Rhe, and\nfailed ignominiously. In the mean time soldiers were billeted on the\npeople. Crimes of which ordinary justice should have taken cognisance\nwere punished by martial law. Near eighty gentlemen were imprisoned for\nrefusing to contribute to the forced loan. The lower people who showed\nany signs of insubordination were dressed into the fleet, or compelled\nto serve in the army. Money, however, came in slowly; and the King was\ncompelled to summon another Parliament. In the hope of conciliating\nhis subjects, he set at liberty the persons who had been imprisoned\nfor refusing to comply with his unlawful demands. Hampden regained his\nfreedom, and was immediately reelected burgess for Wendover.\n\nEarly in 1628 the Parliament met. During its first session, the Commons\nprevailed on the King, after many delays and much equivocation, to\ngive, in return for five subsidies, his full and solemn assent to that\ncelebrated instrument, the second great charter of the liberties of\nEngland, known by the name of the Petition of Right. By agreeing to this\nact, the King bound himself to raise no taxes without the consent of\nParliament, to imprison no man except by legal process, to billet no\nmore soldiers on the people, and to leave the cognisance of offences to\nthe ordinary tribunals.\n\nIn the summer, this memorable Parliament was prorogued. It met again in\nJanuary, 1629. Buckingham was no more. That weak, violent, and dissolute\nadventurer, who, with no talents or acquirements but those of a mere\ncourtier, had, in a great crisis of foreign and domestic politics,\nventured on the part of {446}prime minister, had fallen, during the\nrecess of Parliament, by the hand of an assassin. Both before and after\nhis death the war had been feebly and unsuccessfully conducted. The King\nhad continued, in direct violation of the Petition of Righ, to raise\ntonnage and poundage without the consent of Parliament. The troops had\nagain been billeted on the people; and it was clear to the Commons that\nthe five subsidies which they had given as the price of the national\nliberties had been given in vain.\n\nThey met accordingly in no complying humour. They took into their most\nserious consideration the measures of the government concerning tonnage\nand poundage. They summoned the officers of the custom-house to their\nbar. They interrogated the barons of the exchequer. They committed one\nof the sheriffs of London. Sir John Eliot, a distinguished member of\nthe Opposition, and an intimate friend of Hampden, proposed a resolution\ncondemning the unconstitutional imposition. The Speaker said that\nthe King had commanded him to put no such question to the vote. This\ndecision produced the most violent burst of feeling ever seen within\nthe walls of Parliament. Hayman remonstrated vehemently against the\ndisgraceful language which had been heard from the chair. Eliot dashed\nthe paper which contained his resolution on the floor of the House.\nValentine and Hollis held the Speaker down in his seat by main force,\nand read the motion amidst the loudest shouts. The door was locked. The\nkey was laid on the table. Black Rod knocked for admittance in vain.\nAfter passing several strong resolutions, the House adjourned. On the\nday appointed for its meeting it was dissolved by the King, and several\nof its most eminent members, among {447}whom were Hollis and Sir John\nEliot, were committed to prison.\n\nThough Hampden had as yet taken little part in the debates of the House,\nhe had been a member of many very important committees, and had read and\nwritten much concerning the law of Parliament. A manuscript volume uf\nParliamentary cases, which is still in existence, contains many extracts\nfrom his notes.\n\nHe now retired to the duties and pleasures of a rural life. During the\neleven years which followed the dissolution of the Parliament of 1628,\nhe resided at his seat in one of the most beautiful parts of the county\nof Buckingham. The house, which has since his time been greatly altered,\nand which is now, we believe, almost entirely neglected, was an old\nEnglish mansion, built in the days of the Plantagenets and the Tudors.\nIt stood on the brow of a hill which overlooks a narrow valley. The\nextensive woods which surround it were pierced by long avenues. One of\nthose avenues the grandfather of the great statesman had cut for the\napproach of Elizabeth; and the opening, which is still visible for many\nmiles, retains the name of the Queen\u2019s Gap. In this delightful retreat,\nHampden passed several years, performing with great activity all the\nduties of a landed gentleman and a magistrate, and amusing himself with\nbooks and with field sports.\n\nHe was not in his retirement unmindful of his persecuted friends. In\nparticular, he kept up a close correspondence with Sir John Eliot, who\nwas confined in the Tower. Lord Nugent has published several of the\nLetters. We may perhaps be fanciful; but it seems to us that every one\nof them is an admirable illustration {448}of some part of the character\nof Hampden which Clarendon has drawn.\n\nThe correspondence relates to the two sons of Sir John Eliot.\nThese young men were wild and unsteady; and their father, who was now\nseparated from them, was naturally anxious about their conduct. He at\nlength resolved to send one of them to France, and the other to serve\na campaign in the Low Countries. The letter which we subjoin shows that\nHampden, though rigorous towards himself, was not uncharitable towards\nothers, and that his puritanism was perfectly compatible with the\nsentiments and the tastes of an accomplished gentleman. It also\nillustrates admirably what has been said of him by Clarendon: \u201cHe was of\nthat rare affability and temper in debate, and of that seeming humility\nand submission of judgment, as if he brought no opinion of his own with\nhim, but a desire of information and instruction. Yet he had so subtle\na way of interrogating, and, under cover of doubts, insinuating his\nobjections, that he infused his own opinions into those from whom he\npretended to learn and receive them.\u201d\n\nThe letter runs thus: \u201cI am so perfectly acquainted with your clear\ninsight into the dispositions of men, and ability to fit them with\ncourses suitable, that, had you bestowed sons of mine as you have\ndone your own, my judgment durst hardly have called it into question,\nespecially when, in laying the design, you have prevented the\nobjections to be made against it. For if Mr. Richard Eliot will, in the\nintermissions of action, add study to practice, and adorn that lively\nspirit with flowers of contemplation, he will raise our expectations\nof another Sir Edward Vere, that had this character--all summer in\nthe field, all winter in his study--{449}in whose fall fame makes this\nkingdom a great loser; and, having taken this resolution from counsel\nwith the highest wisdom, as I doubt not you have, I hope and pray that\nthe same power will crown it with a blessing answerable to our wish. The\nway you take with my other friend shows you to be none of the Bishop of\nExeter\u2019s converts; (1) of whose mind neither am I superstitiously. But\nhad my opinion been asked, I should, as vulgar conceits use to do, have\nshowed my power rather to raise objections than to answer them. A temper\nbetween France and Oxford, might have taken away his scruples, with more\nadvantage to his years......... For although he be one of those that, if\nhis age were looked for in no other book but that of the mind, would be\nfound no ward if you should die to-morrow, yet it is a great hazard,\nmethinks, to see so sweet a disposition guarded with no more, amongst a\npeople whereof many make it their religion to be superstitious in\nimpiety, and their behaviour to be affected in ill manners. But God, who\nonly knoweth the periods of life and opportunities to come, hath\ndesigned him, I hope, for his own service betime, and stirred up your\nprovidence to husband him so early for great affairs. Then shall he be\nsure to find Him in France that Abraham did in Sechem and Joseph in\nEgypt, under whose wing alone is perfect safety.\u201d\n\nSir John Eliot employed himself, during his imprisonment, in writing a\ntreatise on government, which he transmitted to his friend. Hampden\u2019s\ncriticisms are strikingly characteristic. They are written with all that\n\u201cflowing courtesy\u201d which is ascribed to him by Clarendon. The objections\nare insinuated with so\n\n     (1) Hall, Bishop of Exeter, had written strongly, both in\n     verse and in prose, against the fashion of sending young men\n     of quality to travel.\n\n{450}much delicacy that they could scarcely gall the most irritable\nauthor. We see too how highly Hampden valued in the writings of others\nthat conciseness which was one of the most striking peculiarities of his\nown eloquence. Sir John Eliot\u2019s style was, it seems, too diffuse, and it\nis impossible not to admire the skill with which this is suggested. \u201cThe\npiece,\u201d says Hampden, \u201cis as complete an image of the pattern as can be\ndrawn by lines, a lively character of a large mind, the subject,\nmethod, and expression, excellent and homogeneal, and, to say truth,\nsweetheart, somewhat exceeding my commendations. My words cannot render\nthem to the life. Yet, to show my ingenuity rather than wit, would not\na less model have given a full representation of that subject, not by\ndiminution but by contraction of parts? I desire to learn. I dare not\nsay. The variations upon each particular seem many; all, I confess,\nexcellent. The fountain was full, the channel narrow; that may be the\ncause; or that the author resembled Virgil, who made more verses by many\nthan he intended to write. To extract a just number, had I seen all his,\nI could easily have bid him make fewer; but if he had bade me tell him\nwhich he should have spared, I had been posed.\u201d This is evidently the\nwriting not only of a man of good sense and natural good taste, but of a\nman of literary habits. Of the studies of Hampden little is known. But,\nas it was at one time in contemplation to give him the charge of\nthe education of the Prince of Wales, it cannot be doubted that his\nacquirements were considerable. Davila, it is said, was one of\nhis favourite writers. The moderation of Davila\u2019s opinions and the\nperspicuity and manliness of his style could not but recommend him to so\njudicious a reader. {451}It is not improbable that the parallel between\nFrance and England, the Huguenots and the Puritans, had struck the mind\nof Hampden, and that he already-found within himself powers not unequal\nto the lofty part of Coligni.\n\nWhile he was engaged in these pursuits, a heavy domestic calamity fell\non him. His wife, who had borne him nine children, died in the summer\nof 1634. She lies in the parish church of Hampden, close to the\nmanor-house. The tender and energetic language of her epitaph still\nattests the bitterness of her husband\u2019s sorrow, and the consolation\nwhich he found in a hope full of immortality.\n\nIn the mean time, the aspect of public affairs grew darker and darker.\nThe health of Eliot had sunk under an unlawful imprisonment of several\nyears. The brave sufferer refused to purchase liberty, though liberty\nwould to him have been life, by recognising the authority which had\nconfined him. In consequence of the representations of his physicians,\nthe severity of restraint was somewhat relaxed. But it was in vain. He\nlanguished and expired a martyr to that good cause for which his friend\nHampden was destined to meet a more brilliant, but not a more honourable\ndeath.\n\nAll the promises of the King were violated without scruple or shame.\nThe Petition of Right, to which he had, in consideration of monies duly\nnumbered, given a solemn assent, was set at nought. Taxes were raised by\nthe royal authority. Patents of monopoly were granted. The old usages of\nfeudal times were made pretexts for harassing the people with exactions\nunknown during many years. The Puritans were persecuted with cruelty\nworthy of the Holy Office. They were forced to fly from the country.\nThey {452}were imprisoned. They were whipped. Their ears were cut off.\nTheir noses were slit. Their cheeks were branded with red-hot iron. But\nthe cruelty of the oppressor could not tire out the fortitude of the\nvictims. The mutilated defenders of liberty again defied the vengeance\nof the Star Chamber, came back with undiminished resolution to the place\nof their glorious infamy, and manfully presented the stumps of their\nears to be grubbed out by the hangman\u2019s knife. The hardy sect grew up\nand flourished in spite of every thing that seemed likely to stunt it,\nstruck its roots deep into a barren soil, and spread its branches wide\nto an inclement sky. The multitude thronged round Prynne in the pillory\nwith more respect than they paid to Mainwaring in the pulpit, and\ntreasured up the rags which the blood of Burton had soaked, with a\nveneration such as mitres and surplices had ceased to inspire.\n\nFor the misgovernment of this disastrous period Charles himself is\nprincipally responsible. After the death of Buckingham, he seems to\nhave been his own prime minister. He had, however, two counsellors who\nseconded him, or went beyond him, in intolerance and lawless violence,\nthe one a superstitious driveller, as honest as a vile temper would\nsuffer him to be, the other a man of great valour and capacity, but\nlicentious, faithless, corrupt, and cruel.\n\nNever were faces more strikingly characteristic of the individuals to\nwhom they belonged, than those of Laud and Strafford, as they still\nremain portrayed by the most skilful hand of that age. The mean\nforehead, the pinched features, the peering eyes, of the prelate, suit\nadmirably with his disposition. They mark him out as a lower kind of\nSaint Dominic, differing {453}from the fierce and gloomy enthusiast\nwho founded the Inquisition, as we might imagine the familiar imp of a\nspiteful witch to differ from an archangel of darkness. When we read\nHis Grace\u2019s judgments, when we read the report which he drew up, setting\nforth that he had sent some separatists to prison, and imploring the\nroyal aid against others, we feel a movement of indignation. We turn to\nhis Diary, and we are at once as cool as contempt can make us. There we\nlearn how his picture fell down, and how fearful he was lest the fall\nshould be an omen; how he dreamed that the Duke of Buckingham came to\nbed to him, that King James walked past him, that he saw Thomas Flaxney\nin green garments, and the Bishop of Worcester with his shoulders\nwrapped in linen. In the early part of 1627, the sleep of this great\nornament of the church seems to have been much disturbed. On the fifth\nof January, he saw a merry old man with a wrinkled countenance, named\nGrove, lying on the ground. On the fourteenth of the same memorable\nmonth, he saw the Bishop of Lincoln jump on a horse and ride away. A\nlay or two after this he dreamed that he gave the King drink in a silver\ncup, and that the King refused it, and called for glass. Then he dreamed\nthat he had turned Papist; of all his dreams the only one, we suspect,\nwhich came through the gate of horn. But of these visions our favourite\nis that which, as he has recorded, he enjoyed on the night of Friday,\nthe ninth of February, 1627. \u201cI dreamed,\u201d says he, \u201cthat I had the\nscurvy; and that forthwith all my teeth became loose. There was one in\nespecial in my lower jaw, which I could scarcely keep in with my finger\ntill I had called for help.\u201d Here was a man to have the superintendence\nof the opinions of a great nation! {454}But Wentworth,--who ever names\nhim without thinking of those harsh dark features, ennobled by their\nexpression into more than the majesty of an antique Jupiter; of that\nbrow, that eye, that cheek, that lip, wherein, as in a chronicle, are\nwritten the events of many stormy and disastrous years, high enterprise\naccomplished, frightful dangers braved, power unsparingly exercised,\nsuffering unshrinkingly borne; of that fixed look, so full of severity,\nof mournful anxiety, of deep thought, of dauntless resolution, which\nseems at once to forebode and to defy a terrible fate, as it lowers on\nus from the living canvass of Vandyke? Even at this day the haughty earl\noverawes posterity as he overawed his contemporaries, and excites the\nsame interest when arraigned before the tribunal of history which he\nexcited at the bar of the House of Lords. In spite of ourselves, we\nsometimes feel towards his memory a certain relenting similar to that\nrelenting which his defence, as Sir John Denham tells us, produced in\nWestminster Hall.\n\nThis great, brave, bad man entered the House of Commons at the same time\nwith Hampden, and took the same side with Hampden. Both were among the\nrichest and most powerful commoners in the kingdom. Both were equally\ndistinguished by force of character, and by personal courage. Hampden\nhad more judgment and sagacity than Wentworth. But no orator of that\ntime equalled Wentworth in force and brilliancy of expression. In 1626\nboth these eminent men were committed to prison by the King, Wentworth,\nwho was among the leaders of the Opposition, on account of his\nparliamentary conduct, Hampden, who had not as yet taken a prominent\npart in debate, for refusing to pay taxes illegally imposed.\n\nHere their path separated. After the death of {455}Buckingham, the King\nattempted to seduce some of the chiefs of the Opposition from their\nparty; and Wentworth was among those who yielded to the seduction. He\nabandoned his associates, and hated them ever after with the deadly\nhatred of a renegade. High titles and great employments were heaped upon\nhim. He became Earl of Strafford, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, President\nof the Council of the North; and he employed all his power for the\npurpose of crushing those liberties of which he had been the most\ndistinguished champion. His counsels respecting public affairs were\nfierce and arbitrary. His correspondence with Laud abundantly proves\nthat government without parliaments, government by the sword, was his\nfavourite scheme. He was angry even that the course of justice between\nman and man should be unrestrained by the royal prerogative. He grudged\nto the Courts of King\u2019s Bench and Common Pleas even that measure\nof liberty which the most absolute of the Bourbons allowed to the\nParliaments of France. In Ireland, where he stood in the place of the\nKing, his practice was in strict accordance with his theory. He set up\nthe authority of the executive government over that of the courts of\nlaw. He permitted no person to leave the island without his licence.\nHe established vast monopolies for his own private benefit. He imposed\ntaxes arbitrarily. He levied them by military force. Some of his acts\nare described even by the partial Clarendon as powerful acts, acts which\nmarked a nature excessively imperious, acts which caused dislike and\nterror in sober and dispassionate persons, high acts uf oppression.\nUpon a most frivolous charge, he obtained a capital sentence from a\ncourt-martial against a man of high rank who had given him offence, he\ndebauched {456}the daughter-in-law of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland,\nand then commanded that nobleman to settle his estate according to the\nwishes of the lady. The Chancellor refused. The Lord Lieutenant turned\nhim out of office, and threw him into prison. When the violent acts\nof the Long Parliament are blamed, let it not be forgotten from what a\ntyranny they rescued the nation.\n\nAmong the humbler tools of Charles were Chief-Justice Finch and Noy\nthe Attorney-General. Noy had, like Wentworth, supported the cause of\nliberty in Parliament, and had, like Wentworth, abandoned that cause for\nthe sake of office. He devised, in conjunction with Finch, a scheme\nof exaction which made the alienation of the people from the throne\ncomplete. A writ was issued by the King, commanding the city of London\nto equip and man ships of war for his service. Similar writs were sent\nto the towns along the coast. These measures, though they were direct\nviolations of the Petition of Right, had at least some show of precedent\nin their favour. But, after a time, the government took a step for\nwhich no precedent could be pleaded, and sent writs of ship-money to the\ninland counties. This was a stretch of power on which Elizabeth herself\nhad not ventured, even at a time when all laws might with propriety\nhave been made to bend to that highest law, the safety of the state. The\ninland counties had not been required to furnish ships, or money in\nthe room of ships, even when the Armada was approaching our shores. It\nseemed intolerable that a prince who, by assenting to the Petition of\nRight, had relinquished the power of levying ship-money even in the\nout-ports, should be the first to levy it on parts of the kingdom\nwhere it had been unknown under the most absolute of his predecessors.\n{457}Clarendon distinctly admits that this tax was intended, not only\nfor the support of the navy, but \u201cfor a spring and magazine that should\nhave no bottom, and for an everlasting supply of all occasions.\u201d The\nnation well understood this; and from one end of England to the other\nthe public mind was strongly excited.\n\nBuckinghamshire was assessed at a ship of four hundred and fifty tons,\nor a sum of four thousand five hundred pounds. The share of the tax\nwhich fell to Hampden was very small; so small, indeed, that the sheriff\nwas blamed for setting so wealthy a man at so low a rate. But, though\nthe sum demanded was a trifle, the principle involved was fearfully\nimportant. Hampden, after consulting the most eminent constitutional\nlawyers of the time, refused to pay the few shillings at which he was\nassessed, and determined to incur all the certain expense, and the\nprobable danger, of bringing to a solemn hearing this great controversy\nbetween the people and the Crown. \u201cTill this time,\u201d says Clarendon, \u201che\nwas rather of reputation in his own country than of public discourse or\nfame in the kingdom; but then he grew the argument of all tongues, every\nman inquiring who and what he was that durst, at his own charge, support\nthe liberty and prosperity of the kingdom.\u201d\n\nTowards the close of the year 1636, this great cause came on in the\nExchequer Chamber before all the judges of England. The leading counsel\nagainst the writ was the celebrated Oliver St. John, a man whose temper\nwas melancholy, whose manners were reserved, and who was as yet little\nknown in Westminster Hall, but whose great talents had not escaped the\npenetrating eye of Hampden. The Attorney-General and Solicitor-General\nappeared for the Crown. {458}The arguments of the counsel occupied\nmany days; and the Exchequer Chamber took a considerable time for\ndeliberation. The opinion of the bench was divided. So clearly was the\nlaw in favour of Hampden that, though the judges held their situations\nonly during the royal pleasure, the majority against him was the least\npossible. Five of the twelve pronounced in his favour. The remaining\nseven gave their voices for the writ.\n\nThe only effect of this decision was to make the public indignation\nstronger and deeper. \u201cThe judgment,\u201d says Clarendon, \u201cproved of more\nadvantage and credit to the gentleman condemned than to the King\u2019s\nservice.\u201d The courage which Hampden had shown on this occasion, as\nthe same historian tells us, \u201craised his reputation to a great height\ngenerally throughout the kingdom.\u201d Even courtiers and crown-lawyers\nspoke respectfully of him. \u201cHis carriage,\u201d says Clarendon, \u201cthroughout\nthat agitation, was with that rare temper and modesty, that they who\nwatched him narrowly to find some advantage against his person, to\nmake him less resolute in his cause, were compelled to give him a just\ntestimony.\u201d But his demeanour, though it impressed Lord Falkland\nwith the deepest respect, though it drew forth the praises of\nSolicitor-General Herbert, only kindled into a fiercer flame the\never-burning hatred of Strafford. That minister, in his letters to Laud,\nmurmured against the lenity with which Hampden was treated. \u201cIn good\nfaith,\u201d he wrote, \u201cwere such men rightly served, they should be whipped\ninto their right wits\u201d Again he says, \u201cI still wish Mr. Hampden, and\nothers to his likeness, were well whipped into their right senses. And\nif the rod be so used that it smart not, I am the more sorry.\u201d {459}The\nperson of Hampden was now scarcely safe. His prudence and moderation\nhad hitherto disappointed those who would gladly have had a pretence for\nsending him to the prison of Eliot. But he knew that the eye of a tyrant\nwas on him. In the year 1637 mis-government had reached its height.\nEight years had passed without a Parliament. The decision of the\nExchequer Chamber had placed at the disposal of the Crown the whole\nproperty of the English people. About the time at which that decision\nwas pronounced, Prynne, Bastwick, and Burton were mutilated by the\nsentence of the Star Chamber, and sent to rot in remote dungeons. The\nestate and the person of every man who had opposed the court were at its\nmercy.\n\nHampden determined to leave England. Beyond the Atlantic Ocean, a few of\nthe persecuted Puritans had formed, in the wilderness of Connecticut, a\nsettlement which has since become a prosperous commonwealth, and which,\nin spite of the lapse of time and of the change of government, still\nretains something of the character given to it by its first founders.\nLord Saye and Lord Brooke were the original projectors of this scheme of\nemigration. Hampden had been early consulted respecting it. He was now,\nit appears, desirous to withdraw himself beyond the reach of oppressors\nwho, as he probably suspected, and as we know, were bent on punishing\nhis manful resistance to their tyranny. He was accompanied by his\nkinsman, Oliver Cromwell, over whom he possessed great influence, and in\nwhom he alone had discovered, under an exterior appearance of coarseness\nand extravagance, those great and commanding talents which were\nafterwards the admiration and the dread of Europe.\n\nThe cousins took their passage in a vessel which lay {460}in the Thames,\nand which was bound for North America. They were actually on board,\nwhen an order of council appeared, by which the ship was prohibited from\nsailing. Seven other ships, filled with emigrants, were stopped at the\nsame time.\n\nHampden and Cromwell remained; and with them remained the Evil Genius\nof the House of Stuart. The tide of public affairs was even now on the\nturn. The King had resolved to change the ecclesiastical constitution\nof Scotland, and to introduce into the public worship of that kingdom\nceremonies which the great body of the Scots regarded as popish. This\nabsurd attempt produced, first discontents, then riots, and at length\nopen rebellion. A provisional government was established at Edinburgh,\nand its authority was obeyed throughout the kingdom. This government\nraised an army, appointed a general, and summoned an Assembly of the\nKirk. The famous instrument called the Covenant was put forth at this\ntime, and was eagerly subscribed by the people.\n\nThe beginnings of this formidable insurrection were strangely neglected\nby the King and his advisers. But towards the close of the year 1638 the\ndanger became pressing. An army was raised; and early in the following\nspring Charles marched northward at the head of a force sufficient, as\nit seemed, to reduce the Covenanters to submission.\n\nBut Charles acted at this conjuncture as he acted at every important\nconjuncture throughout his life. After oppressing, threatening, and\nblustering, he hesitated and failed. He was bold in the wrong place, and\ntimid in the wrong place. He would have shown his wisdom by being afraid\nbefore the liturgy was read in St. Giles\u2019s church. He put off his fear\ntill he had {461}reached the Scottish border with his troops. Then,\nafter a feeble campaign, he concluded a treaty with the insurgents, and\nwithdrew his army. But the terms of the pacification were not observed.\nEach party charged the other with foul play. The Scots refused to\ndisarm. The King found great difficulty in re-assembling his forces. His\nlate expedition had drained his treasury. The revenues of the next year\nhad been anticipated. At another time, he might have attempted to make\nup the deficiency by illegal expedients; but such a course would clearly\nhave been dangerous when part of the island was in rebellion. It was\nnecessary to call a Parliament. After eleven years of suffering, the\nvoice of the nation was to be heard once more.\n\nIn April, 1640, the Parliament met; and the King had another chance\nof conciliating his people. The new House of Commons was, beyond all\ncomparison, the least refractory House of Commons that had been known\nfor many years. Indeed, we have never been able to understand how, after\nso long a period of mis-government, the representatives of the nation\nshould have shown so moderate and so loyal a disposition. Clarendon\nspeaks with admiration of their dutiful temper. \u201cThe House, generally,\u201d\n says he, \u201cwas exceedingly disposed to please the King, and to do him\nservice.\u201d\n\n\u201cIt could never be hoped,\u201d he observes elsewhere, \u201cthat more sober or\ndispassionate men would ever meet together in that place, or fewer who\nbrought ill purposes with them.\u201d\n\nIn this Parliament Hampden took his seat as member for Buckinghamshire,\nand thenceforward, till the day of his death, gave himself up, with\nscarcely any intermission, to public affairs. He took lodgings in\n{462}Gray\u2019s Inn Lane, near the house occupied by Pym, with whom he lived\nin habits of the closest intimacy. He was now decidedly the most popular\nman in England. The Opposition looked to him as their leader, and the\nservants of the King treated him with marked respect.\n\nCharles requested the Parliament to vote an immediate supply, and\npledged his word that, if they would gratify him in this request, he\nwould afterwards give them time to represent their grievances to him.\nThe grievances under which the nation suffered were so serious, and\nthe royal word had been so shamefully violated, that the Commons could\nhardly be expected to comply with this request. During the first week of\nthe session, the minutes of the proceedings against Hampden were laid on\nthe table by Oliver St. John, and a committee reported that the case was\nmatter of grievance. The King; sent a message to the Commons, offering,\nif they would vote him twelve subsidies, to give up the prerogative\nof ship-money. Many years before, he had received five subsidies in\nconsideration of his assent to the Petition of Right. By assenting to\nthat petition, he had given up the right of levying ship-money, if he\never possessed it. How he had observed the promises made to his third\nParliament, all England knew; and it was not strange that the Commons\nshould be somewhat unwilling to buy from him, over and over again, their\nown ancient and undoubted inheritance.\n\nHis message, however, was not unfavourably received. The Commons were\nready to give a large supply; but they were not disposed to give it\nin exchange for a prerogative of which they altogether denied the\nexistence. If they acceded to the proposal {463}of the King, they\nrecognised the legality of the writs of ship-money.\n\nHampden, who was a greater master of parliamentary tactics than any\nman of his time, saw that this was the prevailing feeling, and availed\nhimself of it with great dexterity. He moved that the question should\nbe put, \u201cWhether the House would consent to the proposition made by the\nKing, as contained in the message.\u201d Hyde interfered, and proposed that\nthe question should be divided; that the sense of the House should be\ntaken merely on the point whether there should be a supply or no\nsupply; and that the manner and the amount should be left for subsequent\nconsideration.\n\nThe majority of the House was for granting a supply, but against\ngranting it in the manner proposed by the King! If the House had divided\non Hampden\u2019s question, the court would have sustained a defeat; if on\nHyde\u2019s, the court would have gained an apparent victory. Some members\ncalled for Hyde\u2019s motion, others for Hampden\u2019s. In the midst of the\nuproar, the secretary of state, Sir Harry Vane, rose and stated that the\nsupply would not be accepted unless it were voted according to the tenor\nof the message. Vane was supported by Herbert, the Solicitor-General.\nHyde\u2019s motion was therefore no further pressed, and the debate on the\ngeneral question was adjourned till the next day.\n\nOn the next day the King came down to the House of Lords, and dissolved\nthe Parliament with an angry speech. His conduct on this occasion has\nnever been defended by any of his apologists. Clarendon condemns it\nseverely. \u201cNo man,\u201d says he, \u201ccould imagine what offence the Commons\nhad given.\u201d The {464}offence which they had given is plain. They had,\nindeed, behaved most temperately and most respectfully. But they had\nshown a disposition to redress wrongs and to vindicate the laws; and\nthis was enough to make them hateful to a king whom no law could bind,\nand whose whole government was one system of wrong.\n\nThe nation received the intelligence of the dissolution with sorrow\nand indignation. The only persons to whom this event gave pleasure were\nthose few discerning men who thought that the maladies of the state were\nbeyond the reach of gentle remedies. Oliver St. John\u2019s joy was too great\nfor concealment. It lighted up his dark and melancholy features, and\nmade him, for the first time, indiscreetly communicative. He told Hyde\nthat things must be worse before they could be better, and that the\ndissolved Parliament would never have done all that was necessary. St.\nJohn, we think, was in the right. No good could then have been done by\nany Parliament which did not fully understand that no confidence could\nsafely be placed in the King, and that, while he enjoyed more than the\nshadow of power, the nation would never enjoy more than the shadow of\nliberty.\n\nAs soon as Charles had dismissed the Parliament, he threw several\nmembers of the House of Commons into prison. Ship-money was exacted\nmore rigorously than ever; and the Mayor and Sheriffs of London\nwere prosecuted before the Star Chamber for slackness in levying it.\nWentworth, it is said, observed, with characteristic insolence and\ncruelty, that things would never go right till the Aldermen were hanged.\nLarge sums were raised by force on those counties in which the troops\nwere quartered. All the wretched shifts of a {465}beggared exchequer\nwere tried. Forced loans were raised. Great quantities of goods were\nbought on long credit and sold for ready-money. A scheme for debasing\nthe currency was under consideration. At length, in August, the King\nagain marched northward.\n\nThe Scots advanced into England to meet him. It is by no means\nimprobable that this bold step was taken by the advice of Hampden, and\nof those with whom he acted; and this has been made matter of grave\naccusation against the English Opposition. It is said that to call in\nthe aid of foreigners in a domestic quarrel is the worst of treasons,\nand that the Puritan leaders, by taking this course, showed that they\nwere regardless of the honour and independence of the nation, and\nanxious only for the success of their own faction. We are utterly unable\nto see any distinction between the case of the Scotch invasion in\n1640, and the case of the Dutch invasion in 1688; or rather, we see\ndistinctions which are to the advantage of Hampden and his friends. We\nbelieve Charles to have been a worse and more danserons king than his\nson. The Dutch were strangers to us, the Scots a kindred people speaking\nthe same language, subjects of the same prince, not aliens in the eye of\nthe law. If, indeed, it had been possible that a Scotch army or a Dutch\narmy could have enslaved England, those who persuaded Leslie to cross\nthe Tweed, and those who signed the invitation to the Prince of Orange,\nwould have been traitors to their country. But such a result was out of\nthe question. All that either a Scotch or a Dutch invasion could do was\nto give the public feeling of England an opportunity to show\nitself. Both expeditions would have ended in complete and ludicrous\n{466}discomfiture, had Charles and James been supported by their\nsoldiers and their people. In neither case, therefore, was the\nindependence of England endangered; in both cases her liberties were\npreserved.\n\nThe second campaign of Charles against the Scots was short and\nignominious. His soldiers, as soon as they saw the enemy, ran away as\nEnglish soldiers have never run either before or since. It can scarcely\nbe doubted that their flight was the effect, not of cowardice, but of\ndisaffection. The four northern counties of England were occupied by the\nScotch army, and the King retired to York.\n\nThe game of tyranny was now up. Charles had risked and lost his last\nstake. It is not easy to retrace the mortifications and humiliations\nwhich the tyrant now had to endure, without a feeling of vindictive\npleasure. His army was munitions; his treasury was empty; his people\nclamoured for a Parliament; addresses and petitions against the\ngovernment were presented. Strafford was for shooting the petitioners by\nmartial law; but the King could not trust the soldiers. A great council\nof Peers was called at York; but the King could not trust even the\nPeers. He struggled, evaded, hesitated, tried every shift, rather than\nagain face the representatives of his injured people. At length no shift\nwas left. He made a truce with the Scots, and summoned a Parliament.\n\nThe leaders of the popular party had, after the late dissolution,\nremained in London for the purpose of organizing a scheme of opposition\nto the court. They now exerted themselves to the utmost. Hampden, in\nparticular, rode from county to county, exhorting the electors to give\ntheir votes to men worthy of their confidence. The great majority of\nthe returns was on the side {467}of the Opposition. Hampden was himself\nchosen member both for Wendover and Buckinghamshire. He made his\nelection to serve for the county.\n\nOn the third of November, 1640, a day to be long remembered, met that\ngreat Parliament, destined to every extreme of fortune, to empire and\nto servitude, to glory and to contempt; at one time the sovereign of its\nsovereign, at another time the servant of its servants. From the first\nday of meeting the attendance was great; and the aspect of the members\nwas that of men not disposed to do the work negligently. The dissolution\nof the late Parliament had convinced most of them that half measures\nwould no longer suffice. Clarendon tells us, that \u201cthe same men who, six\nmonths before, were observed to be of very moderate tempers, and to wish\nthat gentle remedies might be applied, talked now in another dialect\nboth of kings and persons; and said that they must now be of another\ntemper than they were the last Parliament.\u201d The debt of vengeance was\nswollen by all the usury which had been accumulating during many years;\nand payment was made to the full.\n\nThis memorable crisis called forth parliamentary abilities such as\nEngland had never before seen. Among the most distinguished members\nof the House of Commons were Falkland, Hyde, Digby, young Harry Vane,\nOliver St. John, Denzil Hollis, Nathaniel Fiennes. But two men exercised\na paramount influence over the legislature and the country, Pym and\nHampden; and, by the universal consent of friends and enemies, the first\nplace belonged to Hampden.\n\nOn occasions which required set speeches Pym generally took the lead.\nHampden very seldom rose till late in a debate. His speaking was of that\nkind which {468}has, in every age, been held in the highest estimation\nby English Parliaments, ready, weighty, perspicuous, condensed. His\nperception of the feelings of the House was exquisite, his temper\nunalterably placid, his manner eminently courteous and gentlemanlike.\n\u201cEven with those,\u201d says Clarendon, \u201cwho are able to preserve themselves\nfrom his infusions, and who discerned those opinions to be fixed in him\nwith which they could not comply, he always left the character of an\ningenious and conscientious person.\u201d His talents for business were as\nremarkable as his talents for debate. \u201cHe was,\u201d says Clarendon, \u201cof\nan industry and vigilance not to be tired out or wearied by the most\nlaborious, and of parts not to be imposed upon by the most subtle\nand sharp.\u201d Yet it was rather to his moral than to his intellectual\nqualities that he was indebted for the vast influence which\nhe possessed. \u201cWhen this parliament began,\u201d--we again quote\nClarendon,--\u201cthe eyes of all men were fixed upon him, as their _patriae\npater_, and the pilot that must steer the vessel through the tempests\nand rocks which threatened it. And I am persuaded his power and interest\nat that time were greater to do good or hurt than any man\u2019s in the\nkingdom, or than any man of his rank hath had in any time; for his\nreputation of honesty was universal, and his affections seemed so\npublicly guided, that no corrupt or private ends could bias them.. . .\nHe was indeed a very wise man, and of great parts, and possessed with\nthe most absolute spirit of popularity, and the most absolute faculties\nto govern the people, of any man I ever knew.\u201d\n\nIt is sufficient to recapitulate shortly the acts of the Long Parliament\nduring its first session. Strafford and Laud were impeached and\nimprisoned. Strafford {469}was afterwards attainted by Bill, and\nexecuted. Lord Keeper Finch fled to Holland, Secretary Windebank to\nFrance. All those whom the King had, during the last twelve years,\nemployed for the oppression of his people, from the servile judges\nwho had pronounced in favour of the crown against Hampden, down to\nthe sheriffs who had distrained for ship-money, and the custom-house\nofficers who had levied tonnage and poundage, were summoned to answer\nfor their conduct. The Star Chamber, the High Commission Court, the\nCouncil of York, were abolished. Those unfortunate victims of Laud who,\nafter undergoing ignominious exposure and cruel manglings, had been\nsent to languish in distant prisons, were set at liberty, and conducted\nthrough London in triumphant procession. The King was compelled to give\nthe judges patents for life or during good behaviour. He was deprived\nof those oppressive powers which were the last relics of the old feudal\ntenures. The Forest Courts and the Stannary Courts were reformed. It\nwas provided that the Parliament then sitting should not be prorogued or\ndissolved without its own consent, and that a Parliament should be held\nat least once every three years.\n\nMany of these measures Lord Clarendon allows to have been most salutary;\nand few persons will, in our times, deny that, in the laws passed\nduring this session, the good greatly preponderated over the evil. The\nabolition of those three hateful courts, the Northern Council, the\nStar Chamber, and the High Commission, would alone entitle the Long\nParliament to the lasting gratitude of Englishmen.\n\nThe proceeding against Strafford undoubtedly seems hard to people living\nin our days. It would probably have seemed merciful and moderate to\npeople living in {470}the sixteenth century. It is curious to compare\nthe trial of Charles\u2019s minister with the trial, if it can be so called,\nof Lord Seymour of Sudeley, in the blessed reign of Edward the Sixth.\nNone of the great reformers of our Church doubted the propriety of\npassing an act of Parliament for cutting off Lord Seymour\u2019s head without\na legal conviction. The pious Cranmer voted for that act; the pious\nLatimer preached for it; the pious Edward returned thanks for it; and\nall the pious Lords of the council together exhorted their victim\nto what they were pleased facetiously to call \u201cthe quiet and patient\nsuffering of justice.\u201d\n\nBut it is not necessary to defend the proceedings against Strafford by\nany such comparison. They are justified, in our opinion, by that which\nalone justifies capital punishment or any punishment, by that which\nalone justifies war, by the public danger. That there is a certain\namount of public danger which will justify a legislature in sentencing\na man to death by retrospective law, few people, we suppose, will\ndeny. Few people, for example, will deny that the French Convention was\nperfectly justified in placing Robespierre, St. Just, and Couthon under\nthe ban of the law, without a trial. This proceeding differed from the\nproceeding against Strafford only in being much more rapid and violent.\nStrafford was fully heard. Robespierre was not suffered to defend\nhimself. Was there, then, in the case of Strafford, a danger sufficient\nto justify an act of attainder? We believe that there was. We believe\nthat the contest in which the Parliament was engaged against the King\nwas a contest for the security of our property, for the liberty of our\npersons, for every thing which makes us to differ from the subjects of\nDon Miguel. We believe that the cause of the {471}Commons was such as\njustified them in resisting the King, in raising an army, in sending\nthousands of brave men to kill and to be killed. An act of attainder is\nsurely not more a departure from the ordinary course of law than a civil\nwar. An act of attainder produces much less suffering than a civil\nwar. We are, therefore, unable to discover on what principle it can be\nmaintained that a cause which justifies a civil war will not justify an\nact of attainder.\n\nMany specious arguments have been urged against the retrospective law by\nwhich Strafford was condemned to death. But all these arguments proceed\non the supposition that the crisis was an ordinary crisis. The attainder\nwas, in truth, a revolutionary measure. It was part of a system of\nresistance which oppression had rendered necessary. It is as unjust to\njudge of the conduct pursued by the Long Parliament towards Strafford on\nordinary principles, as it would have been to indict Fairfax for murder\nbecause he cut down a cornet at Naseby. From the day on which the Houses\nmet, there was a war waged by them against the King, a war for all that\nthey held dear, a war carried on at first by means of parliamentary\nforms, at last by physical force; and, as in the second stage of that\nwar, so in the first, they were entitled to do many things which, in\nquiet times, would have been culpable.\n\nWe must not omit to mention that those who were afterwards the most\ndistinguished ornaments of the King\u2019s party supported the bill of\nattainder. It is almost certain that Hyde voted for it. It is quite\ncertain that Falkland both voted and spoke for it. The opinion of\nHampden, as far as it can be collected from a very obscure note of one\nof his speeches, seems to have been that the proceeding by Bill was\nunnecessary, {472}and that it would be a better course to obtain\njudgment on the impeachment.\n\nDuring this year the Court opened a negotiation with the leaders of the\nOpposition. The Earl of Bedford was invited to form an administration on\npopular principles. St. John was made solicitor-general. Hollis was to\nhave been secretary of state, and Pym chancellor of the exchequer. The\npost of tutor to the Prince of Wales was designed for Hampden. The death\nof the Earl of Bedford prevented this arrangement from being carried\ninto effect; and it may be doubted whether, even if that nobleman\u2019s\nlife had been prolonged, Charles would ever have consented to surround\nhimself with counsellors whom he could not but hate and fear.\n\nLord Clarendon admits that the conduct of Hampden during this year was\nmild and temperate, that he seemed disposed rather to soothe than to\nexcite the public mind, and that, when violent and unreasonable motions\nwere made by his followers, he generally left the House before the\ndivision, lest he should seem to give countenance to their extravagance.\nHis temper was moderate. He sincerely loved peace. He felt also great\nfear lest too precipitate a movement should produce a reaction. The\nevents which took place early in the next session clearly showed that\nthis fear was not unfounded.\n\nDuring the autumn the Parliament adjourned for a few weeks. Before the\nrecess, Hampden was despatched to Scotland by the House of Commons,\nnominally as a commissioner, to obtain security for a debt which the\nScots had contracted during the late invasion; but in truth that he\nmight keep watch over the King, who had now repaired to Edinburgh, for\nthe {473}purpose of finally adjusting the points of difference which\nremained between him and his northern subjects. It was the business of\nHampden to dissuade the Covenanters from making their peace with the\nCourt, at the expense of the popular party in England.\n\nWhile the King was in Scotland, the Irish rebellion broke out. The\nsuddenness and violence of this terrible explosion excited a strange\nsuspicion in the public mind. The Queen was a professed Papist. The King\nand the Archbishop of Canterbury had not indeed been reconciled to the\nSee of Rome; but they had, while acting towards the Puritan party with\nthe utmost rigour, and speaking of that party with the utmost contempt,\nshown great tenderness and respect towards the Catholic religion and\nits professors. In spite of the wishes of successive Parliaments, the\nProtestant separatists had been cruelly persecuted. And at the same\ntime, in spite of the wishes of those very Parliaments, laws which were\nin force against the Papists, and which, unjustifiable as they were,\nsuited the temper of that age, had not been carried into execution. The\nProtestant nonconformists had not yet learned toleration in the school\nof suffering. They reprobated the partial lenity which the government\nshowed towards idolaters, and, with some show of reason, ascribed to bad\nmotives conduct which, in such a king as Charles, and such a prelate\nas Laud, could not possibly be ascribed to humanity or to liberality\nof sentiment. The violent Arminianism of the Archbishop, his childish\nattachment to ceremonies, his superstitious veneration for altars,\nvestments, and painted windows, his bigoted zeal for the constitution\nand the privileges of his order, his known opinions respecting the\ncelibacy of the clergy, had excited great disgust {474}throughout that\nlarge party which was every day becoming more and more hostile to Rome,\nand more and more inclined to the doctrines and the discipline of\nGeneva. It was believed by many that the Irish rebellion had been\nsecretly encouraged by the Court; and, when the Parliament met again in\nNovember, after a short recess, the Puritans were more intractable than\never.\n\nBut that which Hampden had feared had come to pass. A reaction had taken\nplace. A large body of moderate and well-meaning men, who had heartily\nconcurred in the strong measures adopted before the recess, were\ninclined to pause. Their opinion was that, during many years, the\ncountry had been grievously misgoverned, and that a great reform\nhad been necessary; but that a great reform had been made, that the\ngrievances of the nation had been fully redressed, that sufficient\nvengeance had been exacted for the past, that sufficient security had\nbeen provided for the future, and that it would, therefore, be\nboth ungrateful and unwise to make any further attacks on the royal\nprerogative. In support of this opinion many plausible arguments have\nbeen used. But to all these arguments there is one short answer. The\nKing could not be trusted.\n\nAt the head of those who may be called the Constitutional Royalists\nwere Falkland, Hyde, and Culpeper. All these eminent men had, during the\nformer year, been in very decided opposition to the Court. In some of\nthose very proceedings with which their admirers reproach Hampden, they\nhad taken a more decided part than Hampden. They had all been concerned\nin the impeachment of Strafford. They had all, there is reason to\nbelieve, voted for the Bill of Attabuler. {475}Certainly none of them\nvoted against it. They had all agreed to the act which made the consent\nof the Parliament necessary to a dissolution or prorogation. Hyde had\nbeen among the most active of those who attacked the Council of York.\nFalkland had voted for the exclusion of the bishops from the Upper\nHouse. They were now inclined to halt in the path of reform, perhaps to\nretrace a few of their steps.\n\nA direct collision soon took place between the two parties into which\nthe House of Commons, lately at almost perfect unity with itself, was\nnow divided. The opponents of the government moved that celebrated\naddress to the King which is known by the name of the Grand\nRemonstrance. In this address all the oppressive acts of the preceding\nfifteen years were set forth with great energy of language; and, in\nconclusion, the King was entreated to employ no ministers in whom the\nParliament could not confide.\n\nThe debate on the Remonstrance was long and stormy. It commenced at nine\nin the morning of the twenty-first of November, and lasted till after\nmidnight. The division showed that a great change had taken place in the\ntemper of the House. Though many members had retired from exhaustion,\nthree hundred voted; and the Remonstrance was carried by a majority\nof only nine. A violent debate followed, on the question whether\nthe minority should be allowed to protest against this decision. The\nexcitement was so great that several members were on the point of\nproceeding to personal violence. \u201cWe had sheathed our swords in each\nother\u2019s bowels,\u201d says an eye-witness, \u201chad not the sagacity and great\ncalmness of Mr. Hampden, by a short speech, prevented it.\u201d The House\ndid not rise till two in the morning. {476}The situation of the Puritan\nleaders was now difficult and full of peril. The small majority which\nthey still had might soon become a minority. Out of doors, their\nsupporters in the higher and middle classes were beginning to fall off.\nThere was a growing opinion that the King had been hardly used. The\nEnglish are always inclined to side with a weak party which is in the\nwrong, rather than with a strong party which is in the right. This may\nbe seen in all contests, from contests of boxers to contests of faction.\nThus it was that a violent reaction took place in favour of Charles the\nSecond against the Whigs in 1681. Thus it was that an equally violent\nreaction took place in favour of George the Third against the coalition\nin 1784. A similar reaction was beginning to take place during the\nsecond year of the Long Parliament. Some members of the Opposition \u201chad\nresumed,\u201d says Clarendon, \u201ctheir old resolution of leaving the kingdom.\u201d\n Oliver Cromwell openly declared that he and many others would have\nemigrated if they had been left in a minority on the question of the\nRemonstrance.\n\nCharles had now a last chance of regaining the affection of his people.\nIf he could have resolved to give his confidence to the leaders of the\nmoderate party in the House of Commons, and to regulate his proceedings\nby their advice, he might have been, not, indeed, as he had been, a\ndespot, but the powerful and respected king of a free people. The nation\nmight have enjoyed liberty and repose under a government with Falkland\nat its head, checked by a constitutional Opposition under the conduct\nof Hampden. It was not necessary that, in order to accomplish this happy\nend, the King should sacrifice any part of his lawful prerogative, or\nsubmit to any conditions inconsistent {477}with his dignity. It was\nnecessary only that he should abstain from treachery, from violence,\nfrom gross breaches of the law. This was all that the nation was then\ndisposed to require of him. And even this was too much.\n\nFor a short time he seemed inclined to take a wise and temperate course.\nHe resolved to make Falkland secretary of state, and Culpeper chancellor\nof the exchequer. He declared his intention of conferring in a short\ntime some important office on Hyde. He assured these three persons that\nhe would do nothing relating to the House of Commons without their joint\nadvice, and that he would communicate all his designs to them in the\nmost unreserved manner. This resolution, had he adhered to it, would\nhave averted many years of blood and mourning. But \u201cin very few days,\u201d\n says Clarendon, \u201che did fatally swerve from it.\u201d\n\nOn the third of January 1642, without giving the slightest hint of his\nintention to those advisers whom he had solemnly promised to consult, he\nsent down the attorney-general to impeach Lord Kimbolton, Hampden, Pym,\nHollis, and two other members of the House of Commons, at the bar of the\nLords, on a charge of High Treason. It is difficult to find in the whole\nhistory of England such an instance of tyranny, perfidy, and folly. The\nmost precious and ancient rights of the subject were violated by this\nact. The only way in which Hampden and Pym could legally be tried for\ntreason at the suit of the King, was by a petty jury on a bill found\nby a grand jury. The attorney-general had no right to impeach them. The\nHouse of Lords had no right to try them.\n\nThe Commons refused to surrender their members. The Peers showed no\ninclination to usurp the unconstitutional {478}jurisdiction which the\nKing attempted to force on them. A contest began, in which violence and\nweakness were on the one side, law and resolution on the other. Charles\nsent an officer to seal up the lodgings and trunks of the accused\nmembers. The Commons sent their sergeant to break the seals. The tyrant\nresolved to follow up one outrage by another. In making: the charge,\nhe had struck at the institution of juries. In executing the arrest, he\nstruck at the privileges of Parliament. He resolved to go to the House\nin person with an armed force, and there to seize the leaders of the\nOpposition, while engaged in the discharge of their parliamentary\nduties.\n\nWhat was his purpose? Is it possible to believe that he had no definite\npurpose, that he took the most important step of his whole reign without\nhaving for one moment considered what might be its effects? Is it\npossible to believe that he went merely for the purpose of making\nhimself a laughing-stock, that he intended, if he had found the accused\nmembers, and if they had refused, as it was their right and duty to\nrefuse, the submission which he illegally demanded, to leave the House\nwithout bringing them away? If we reject both these suppositions, we\nmust believe, and we certainly do believe, that he went fully determined\nto carry his unlawful design into effect by violence, and, if necessary,\nto shed the blood of the chiefs of the Opposition on the very floor of\nthe Parliament House. Lady Carlisle conveyed intelligence of the design\nto Pym. The five members had time to withdraw before the arrival of\nCharles. They left the House as he was entering New Palace Yard. He was\naccompanied by about two hundred halberdiers of his guard, and by many\ngentlemen of the Court armed {479}with swords. He walked up Westminster\nHall. At the southern end of the Hall his attendants divided to the\nright and left, and formed a lane to the door of the House of Commons.\nHe knocked, entered, darted a look towards the place which Pym usually\noccupied, and, seeing it empty, walked up to the table. The Speaker\nfell on his knee. The members rose and uncovered their heads in profound\nsilence, and the King took his seat in the chair. He looked round the\nHouse. But the five members were nowhere to be seen. He interrogated\nthe Speaker. The Speaker answered, that he was merely the organ of the\nHouse, and had neither eyes to see, nor tongue to speak, but according\nto their direction. The King muttered a few feeble sentences about his\nrespect for the laws of the realm, and the privileges of Parliament, and\nretired. As he passed along the benches, several resolute voices called\nout audibly \u201cPrivilege!\u201d He returned to Whitehall with his company of\nbravoes, who, while he was in the House, had been impatiently waiting\nin the lobby for the word, cocking their pistols, and crying \u201cFall on.\u201d\n That night he put forth a proclamation, directing that the ports should\nbe stopped, and that no person should, at his peril, venture to harbour\nthe accused members.\n\nHampden and his friends had taken refuge in Coleman Street. The city\nof London was indeed the fastness of public liberty, and was, in those\ntimes, a place of at least as much importance as Paris during the\nFrench Revolution. The city, properly so called, now consists in a great\nmeasure of immense warehouses and counting-houses, which are frequented\nby traders and their clerks during the day, and left in almost total\nsolitude during the night. It was then closely inhabited {480}by three\nhundred thousand persons, to whom it was not merely a place of business,\nbut a place of constant residence. This great capital had as complete\na civil and military organization as if it had been an independent\nrepublic. Each citizen had his company; and the companies, which now\nseem to exist only for the sake of epicures and of antiquaries, were\nthen formidable brotherhoods, the members of which were almost as\nclosely bound together as the members of a Highland clan. How strong\nthese artificial ties were, the numerous and valuable legacies anciently\nbequeathed by citizens to their corporations abundantly prove. The\nmunicipal offices were filled by the most opulent and respectable\nmerchants of the kingdom. The pomp of the magistracy of the capital was\ninferior only to that which surrounded the person of the sovereign. The\nLondoners loved their city with that patriotic love which is found only\nin small communities, like those of ancient Greece, or like those which\narose in Italy during the middle ages. The numbers, the intelligence,\nthe wealth of the citizens, the democratical form of their local\ngovernment, and their vicinity to the Court and to the Parliament, made\nthem one of the most formidable bodies in the kingdom. Even as soldiers\nthey were not to be despised. In an age in which war is a profession,\nthere is something ludicrous in the idea of battalions composed of\napprentices and shopkeepers, and officered by aldermen. But, in the\nearly part of the seventeenth century, there was no standing army in the\nisland; and the militia of the metropolis was not inferior in training\nto the militia of other places. A city which could furnish many\nthousands of armed men, abounding in natural courage, and not absolutely\nuntinctured with military discipline, {481}was a formidable auxiliary in\ntimes of internal dissension. On several occasions during the civil war,\nthe train-bands of London distinguished themselves highly; and at the\nbattle of Newbury, in particular, they repelled the fiery onset of\nRupert, and saved the army of the Parliament from destruction.\n\nThe people of this great city had long been thoroughly devoted to the\nnational cause. Many of them had signed a protestation in which they\ndeclared their resolution to defend the privileges of Parliament. Their\nenthusiasm had, indeed, of late begun to cool. But the impeachment\nof the five members, and the insult offered to the House of Commons,\ninflamed them to fury. Their houses, their purses, their pikes, were at\nthe command of the representatives of the nation. London was in arms all\nnight. The next day the shops were closed; the streets were filled\nwith immense crowds; the multitude pressed round the King\u2019s coach, and\ninsulted him with opprobrious cries. The House of Commons, in the mean\ntime, appointed a committee to sit in the city, for the purpose of\ninquiring into the circumstances of the late outrage. The members of the\ncommittee were welcomed by a deputation of the common council. Merchant\nTailors\u2019 Hall, Goldsmiths\u2019 Hall, and Grocers\u2019 Hall, were fitted up for\ntheir sittings. A guard of respectable citizens, duly relieved twice a\nday, was posted at their doors. The sheriffs were charged to watch over\nthe safety of the accused members, and to escort them to and from the\ncommittee with every mark of honour.\n\nA violent and sudden revulsion of feeling, both in the House and out of\nit, was the effect of the late proceedings of the King. The Opposition\nregained in a few hours all the ascendency which it had lost. The\n{482}constitutional royalists were filled with shame and sorrow. They\nsaw that they had been cruelly deceived by Charles. They saw that they\nwere, unjustly, but not unreasonably, suspected by the nation. Clarendon\ndistinctly says that they perfectly detested the counsels by which the\nKing had been guided, and were so much displeased and dejected at the\nunfair manner in which he had treated them that they were inclined to\nretire from his service. During the debates on the breach of privilege,\nthey preserved a melancholy silence. To this day, the advocates of\nCharles take care to say as little as they can about his visit to the\nHouse of Commons, and, when they cannot avoid mention of it, attribute\nto infatuation an act which, on any other supposition, they must admit\nto have been a frightful crime.\n\nThe Commons, in a few days, openly defied the King, and ordered the\naccused members to attend in their places at Westminster and to resume\ntheir parliamentary duties. The citizens resolved to bring back the\nchampions of liberty in triumph before the windows of Whitehall. Vast\npreparations were made both by land and water for this great festival.\n\nThe King had remained in his palace, humbled, dismayed, and bewildered,\n\u201cfeeling,\u201d says Clarendon, \u201cthe trouble and agony which usually attend\ngenerous and magnanimous minds upon their having committed errors;\u201d\n feeling, we should say, the despicable repentance which attends the\nman who, having attempted to commit a crime, finds that he has only\ncommitted a folly. The populace hooted and shouted all day before the\ngates of the royal residence. The tyrant could not bear to see\nthe triumph of those whom he had destined to the gallows and the\nquartering-block. {483}On the day preceding that which was fixed for\ntheir return, he fled, with a few attendants, from that palace which he\nwas never to see again till he was led through it to the scaffold.\n\nOn the eleventh of January, the Thames was covered with boats, and its\nshores with the gazing multitude.\n\nArmed vessels, decorated with streamers, were ranged in two lines from\nLondon Bridye to Westminster Hall. The members returned upon the river\nin a ship manned by sailors who had volunteered their services. The\ntrain-bands of the city, under the command of the sheriffs, marched\nalong the Strand, attended by a vast crowd of spectators, to guard\nthe avenues to the House of Commons; and thus, with shouts and loud\ndischarges of ordnance, the accused patriots were brought back by the\npeople whom they had served and for whom they had suffered. The restored\nmembers, as soon as they had entered the House, expressed, in the\nwarmest terms, their gratitude to the citizens of London. The sheriffs\nwere warmly thanked by the Speaker in the name of the Commons; and\norders were given that a guard selected from the train-bands of the\ncity, should attend daily to watch over the safety of the Parliament.\n\nThe excitement had not been confined to London. When intelligence of the\ndanger to which Hampden was exposed reached Buckinghamshire, it excited\nthe alarm and indignation of the people. Four thousand freeholders of\nthat county, each of them wearing in his hat a copy of the protestation\nin favour of the privileges of Parliament, rode up to London to defend\nthe person of their beloved representative. They came in a body to\nassure Parliament of their full resolution to defend its privileges.\nTheir petition was {484}couched in the strongest terms. \u201cIn respect,\u201d\n said they, \u201cof that latter attempt upon the honourable House of Commons,\nwe are now come to offer our service to that end, and resolved, in their\njust defence, to live and die.\u201d\n\nA great struggle was clearly at hand. Hampden had returned to\nWestminster much changed. His influence had hitherto been exerted rather\nto restrain than to animate the zeal of his party. But the treachery,\nthe contempt of law, the thirst for blood, which the King had now shown,\nleft no hope of a peaceable adjustment. It was clear that Charles must\nbe either a puppet or a tyrant, that no obligation of law or of honour\ncould bind him, and that the only way to make him harmless was to make\nhim powerless.\n\nThe attack which the King had made on the five members was not merely\nirregular in manner. Even if the charges had been preferred legally,\nif the Grand Jury of Middlesex had found a true bill, if the accused\npersons had been arrested under a proper warrant and at a proper time\nand place, there would still have been in the proceeding enough of\nperfidy and injustice to vindicate the strongest measures which the\nOpposition could take. To Impeach Pym and Hampden was to impeach the\nHouse of Commons. It was notoriously on account of what they had done as\nmembers of that House that they were selected as objects of vengeance;\nand in what they had done as members of that House the majority had\nconcurred. Most of the charges brought against them were common between\nthem and the Parliament. They were accused, indeed, and it may be with\nreason, of encouraging the Scotch army to invade England. In doing this,\nthey had committed what was, in strictness of law, a high offence, the\n{485}same offence which Devonshire and Shrewsbury committed in 1688.\nBut the King had promised pardon and oblivion to those who had been\nthe principals in the Scotch insurrection. Did it then consist with his\nhonour to punish the accessaries? He had bestowed marks of his favour on\nthe leading Covenanters. He had given the great seal of Scotland to one\nchief of the rebels, a marquisate to another, an earldom to Leslie, who\nhad brought the Presbyterian army across the Tweed. On what principle\nwas Hampden to be attainted for advising what Leslie was ennobled\nfor doing? In a court of law, of course, no Englishman could plead an\namnesty granted to the Scots. But, though not an illegal, it was\nsurely an inconsistent and a most unkingly course, after pardoning and\npromoting the heads of the rebellion in one kingdom, to hang, draw, and\nquarter their accomplices in another.\n\nThe proceedings of the King against the five members, or rather against\nthat. Parliament which had concurred in almost all the acts of the\nfive members, was the cause of the civil war. It was plain that either\nCharles or the House of Commons must be stripped of all real power In\nthe state. The best course which the Commons could have taken would\nperhaps have been to depose the King, as their ancestors had deposed\nEdward the Second and Richard the Second, and as their children\nafterwards deposed James. Had they done this, had they placed on the\nthrone a prince whose character and whose situation would have been a\npledge for his good conduct, they might safely have left to that prince\nall the old constitutional prerogatives of the Crown, the command of the\narmies of the state, the power of making peers, the power of appointing\nministers, a veto on bills passed by the two Houses. {486}Such a prince,\nreigning by their choice, would have been under the necessity of acting\nin conformity with their wishes. But the public mind was not ripe for\nsuch a measure. There was no Duke of Lancaster, no Prince of Orange, no\ngreat and eminent person, near in blood to the throne, yet attached to\nthe cause of the people. Charles was then to remain King; and it was\ntherefore necessary that he should be king only in name. A William the\nThird, or a George the First, whose title to the crown was identical\nwith the title of the people to their liberty, might safely be trusted\nwith extensive powers. But new freedom could not exist in safety under\nthe old tyrant. Since he was not to be deprived of the name of king,\nthe only course which was left was to make him a mere trustee, nominally\nseised of prerogatives of which others had the use, a Grand Lama, a _Roi\nFain\u00e9ant_, a phantom resembling those Dagoberts and Childeberts who wore\nthe badges of royalty, while Ebroin and Charles Martel held the real\nsovereignty of the state.\n\nThe conditions which the Parliament propounded were hard, but, we are\nsure, not harder than those which even the Tories, in the Convention of\n1689, would have imposed on James, if it had been resolved that James\nshould continue to be king. The chief condition was that the command of\nthe militia and the conduct of the war in Ireland should be left to the\nParliament. On this point was that great issue joined, whereof the two\nparties put themselves on God and on the Sword.\n\nWe think, not only that the Commons were justified in demanding for\nthemselves the power to dispose of the military force, but that it would\nhave been absolute insanity in them to leave that force at the disposal\nof {487}the King. From the very beginning of his reign, it had\nevidently been his object to govern by an army. His third Parliament had\ncomplained, in the Petition of Right, of his fondness for martial law,\nand of the vexations manner in which he billeted his soldiers on the\npeople. The wish nearest the heart of Strafford was, as his letters\nprove, that the revenue might be brought into such a state as would\nenable the King to keep a standing military establishment. In 1640,\nCharles had supported an army in the northern counties by lawless\nexactions. In 1641 he had engaged in an intrigue, the object of which\nwas to bring that army to London for the purpose of overawing the\nParliament. His late conduct had proved that, if he were suffered to\nretain even a small body-guard of his own creatures near his person, the\nCommons would be in danger of outrage, perhaps of massacre. The Houses\nwere still deliberating under the protection of the militia of London.\nCould the command of the whole armed force of the realm have been, under\nthese circumstances, safely confided to the King? Would it not have been\nfrenzy in the Parliament to raise and pay an army of fifteen or twenty\nthousand men for the Irish war, and to give to Charles the absolute\ncontrol of this army, and the power of selecting, promoting, and\ndismissing officers at his pleasure? Was it not probable that this army\nmight become, what it is the nature of armies to become, what so many\narmies formed under much more favourable circumstances have become,\nwhat the army of the Roman republic became, what the army of the French\nrepublic became, an instrument of despotism? Was it not probable that\nthe soldiers might forget that they were also citizens, and might be\nready to serve their general against their {488}country? Was it not\ncertain that, on the very first day on which Charles could venture to\nrevoke his concessions, and to punish his opponents, he would establish\nan arbitrary government, and exact a bloody revenge?\n\nOur own times furnish a parallel case. Suppose that a revolution\nshould take place in Spain, that the Constitution of Cadiz should be\nreestablished, that the Cortes should meet again, that the Spanish\nPrynnes and Burtons, who are now wandering in rags round Leicester\nSquare, should be restored to their country. Ferdinand the Seventh\nwould, in that case, of course repeat all the oaths and promises which\nhe made in 1820, and broke in 1828. But would it not be madness in the\nCortes, even if they were to leave him the name of King, to leave him\nmore than the name? Would not all Europe scoff at them, if they were\nto permit him to assemble a large army for an expedition to America, to\nmodel that army at his pleasure, to put it under the command of\nofficers chosen by himself? Should we not say that every member of\nthe Constitutional party who might concur in such a measure would most\nrichly deserve the fate which he would probably meet, the fate of\nRiego and of the Empecinado? We are not disposed to pay compliments to\nFerdinand; nor do we conceive that we pay him any compliment, when we\nsay that, of all sovereigns in history, he seems to us most to resemble,\nin some very important points, King Charles the First. Like Charles,\nhe is pious after a certain fashion; like Charles, he has made large\nconcessions to his people after a certain fashion. It is well for him\nthat he has had to deal with men who bore very little resemblance to the\nEnglish Puritans. {489}The Commons would have the power of the sword;\nthe King would not part with it; and nothing remained but to try the\nchances of war. Charles still had a strong party in the country. His\naugust office, his dignified manners, his solemn protestations that he\nwould for the time to come respect the liberties of his subjects, pity\nfor fallen greatness, fear of violent innovation, secured to him many\nadherents. He had with him the Church, the Universities, a majority of\nthe nobles and of the old landed gentry. The austerity of the Puritan\nmanners drove most of the gay and dissolute youth of that age to the\nroyal standard. Many good, brave, and moderate men, who disliked\nhis former conduct, and who entertained doubts touching his present\nsincerity, espoused his cause unwillingly and with many painful\nmisgivings, because, though they dreaded his tyranny much, they dreaded\ndemocratic violence more.\n\nOn the other side was the great body of the middle orders of England,\nthe merchants, the shopkeepers, the yeomanry, headed by a very large and\nformidable minority of the peerage and of the landed gentry. The Earl of\nEssex, a man of respectable abilities and of some military experience,\nwas appointed to the command of the parliamentary army.\n\nHampden spared neither his fortune nor his person in the cause.\nHe subscribed two thousand pounds to the public service. He took a\ncolonel\u2019s commission in the army, and went into Buckinghamshire to\nraise a regiment of infantry. His neighbours eagerly enlisted under\nhis command. His men were known by their green uniform, and by their\nstandard, which bore on one side the watchword of the Parliament, \u201cGod\nwith us,\u201d and on the other the device of Hampden, \u201cVestigia {490}nulla\nretrorsum.\u201d This motto well described the line of conduct which he\npursued. No member of his party had been so temperate, while there\nremained a hope that legal and peaceable measures might save the\ncountry. No member of his party showed so much energy and vigour when it\nbecame necessary to appeal to arms. He made himself thoroughly master\nof his military duty, and \u201cperformed it,\u201d to use the words of Clarendon,\n\u201cupon all occasions most punctually.\u201d The regiment which he had raised\nand trained was considered as one of the best in the service of the\nParliament. He exposed his person in every action, with an intrepidity\nwhich made him conspicuous even among thousands of brave men. \u201cHe was,\u201d\n says Clarendon, \u201cof a personal courage equal to his best parts; so that\nhe was an enemy not to be wished wherever he might have been made a\nfriend, and as much to be apprehended where he was so, as any man could\ndeserve to be.\u201d Though his military career was short, and his military\nsituation subordinate, he fully proved that he possessed the talents of\na great general, as well as those of a great statesman.\n\nWe shall not attempt to give a history of the war. Lord Nugent\u2019s account\nof the military operations is very animated and striking. Our abstract\nwould be dull, and probably unintelligible. There was, in fact, for some\ntime no great and connected system of operations on either side. The war\nof the two parties was like the war of Arimanes and Oromasdes, neither\nof whom, according to the Eastern theologians, has any exclusive domain,\nwho are equally omnipresent, who equally pervade all space, who carry on\ntheir eternal strife within every particle of matter. There was a\npetty war in almost every county. A town furnished {491}troops to the\nParliament while the manor-house of the neighbouring peer was garrisoned\nfor the King. The combatants were rarely disposed to march far from\ntheir own homes. It was reserved for Fairfax and Cromwell to terminate\nthis desultory warfare, by moving one overwhelming force successively\nagainst all the scattered fragments of the royal party.\n\nIt is a remarkable circumstance that the officers who had studied\ntactics in what were considered as the best schools, under Vere in the\nNetherlands, and under Gustavus Adolphus in Germany, displayed far less\nskill than those commanders who had been bred to peaceful employments,\nand who never saw even a skirmish till the civil war broke out. An\nunlearned person might hence be inclined to suspect that the military\nart is no very profound mystery, that its principles are the principles\nof plain good sense, and that a quick eye, a cool head, and a stout\nheart, will do more to make a general than all the diagrams of Jomini.\nThis, however, is certain, that Hampden showed himself a far better\nofficer than Essex, and Cromwell than Leslie.\n\nThe military errors of Essex were probably in some degree produced by\npolitical timidity. He was honestly, but not warmly, attached to the\ncause of the Parliament; and next to a great defeat he dreaded a great\nvictory. Hampden, on the other hand, was for vigorous and decisive\nmeasures. When he drew the sword, as Clarendon has well said, he threw\naway the scabbard. He had shown that he knew better than any public\nman of his time how to value and how to practise moderation. But he\nknew that the essence of war is violence, and that moderation in war\nis imbecility. On several occasions, particularly during the operations\n{492}in the neighbourhood of Brentford, he remonstrated earnestly with\nEssex. Wherever he commanded separately, the boldness and rapidity of\nhis movements presented a striking contrast to the sluggishness of his\nsuperior.\n\nIn the Parliament he possessed boundless influence. His employments\ntowards the close of 1642 have been described by Denham in some lines\nwhich, though intended to be sarcastic, convey in truth the highest\neulogy. Hampden is described in this satire as perpetually passing\nand repassing between the military station at Windsor and the House of\nCommons at Westminster, as overawing the general, and as giving law to\nthat Parliament which knew no other law. It was at this time that he\norganised that celebrated association of counties, to which his party\nwas principally indebted for its victory over the King.\n\nIn the early part of 1643, the shires lying in the neighbourhood\nof London, which were devoted to the cause of the Parliament, were\nincessantly annoyed by Rupert and his cavalry. Essex had extended his\nlines so far that almost every point was vulnerable. The young prince,\nwho, though not a great general, was an active and enterprising\npartisan, frequently surprised posts, burned villages, swept away\ncattle, and was again at Oxford before a force sufficient to encounter\nhim could be assembled.\n\nThe languid proceedings of Essex were loudly condemned by the troops.\nAll the ardent and daring spirits in the parliamentary party were eager\nto have Hampden at their head. Had his life been prolonged, there\nis every reason to believe that the supreme command would have been\nintrusted to him. But it was decreed, that at this conjuncture, England\nshould lose {493}the only man who united perfect disinterestedness to\neminent talents, the only man who, being capable of gaining the victory\nfor her, was incapable of abusing that victory when gained.\n\nIn the evening of the seventeenth of June, Rupert darted out of Oxford\nwith his cavalry on a predatory expedition. At three in the morning\nof the following day, he attacked and dispersed a few parliamentary\nsoldiers who lay at Postcombe. He then flew to Chinnor, burned the\nvillage, killed or took all the troops who were quartered there, and\nprepared to hurry back with his booty and his prisoners to Oxford.\n\nHampden had, on the preceding day, strongly represented to Essex\nthe danger to which this part of the line was exposed. As soon as he\nreceived intelligence of Rupert\u2019s incursion, he sent off a horseman with\na message to the General. The cavaliers, he said, could return only by\nChiselhampton Bridge. A force ought to be instantly despatched in that\ndirection for the purpose of intercepting them. In the mean time, he\nresolved to set out with all the cavalry that he could muster, for\nthe purpose of impeding the march of the enemy till Essex could take\nmeasures for cutting off their retreat. A considerable body of horse and\ndragoons volunteered to follow him. He was not their commander. He did\nnot even belong to their branch of the service. But \u201che was,\u201d says Lord\nClarendon, \u201csecond to none but the General himself in the observance\nand application of all men.\u201d On the field of Chalgrove he came up with\nRupert. A fierce skirmish ensued. In the first charge, Hampden was\nstruck in the shoulder by two bullets, which broke the bone, and lodged\nin his body. The troops of the Parliament lost heart and gave way.\nRupert, after pursuing them for {494}a short time, hastened to cross the\nbridge, and made his retreat unmolested to Oxford.\n\nHampden, with his head drooping, and his hands leaning on his horse\u2019s\nneck, moved feebly out of the battle. The mansion which had been\ninhabited by his father-in-law, and from which in his youth he had\ncarried home his bride Elizabeth, was in sight. There still remains an\naffecting tradition that he looked for a moment towards that beloved\nhouse, and made an effort to go thither to die. But the enemy lay in\nthat direction. He turned his horse towards Thame, where he arrived\nalmost fainting with agony. The surgeons dressed his wounds. But there\nwas no hope. The pain which he suffered was most excruciating. But he\nendured it with admirable firmness and resignation. His first care\nwas for his country. He wrote from his bed several letters to London\nconcerning public affairs, and sent a last pressing message to the\nhead-quarters, recommending that the dispersed forces should be\nconcentrated. When his public duties were performed, he calmly prepared\nhimself to die. He was attended by a clergyman of the Church of England,\nwith whom he had lived in habits of intimacy, and by the chaplain of\nthe Buckinghamshire Green-coats, Dr. Spurton, whom Baxter describes as a\nfamous and excellent divine.\n\nA short time before Hampden\u2019s death the sacrament was administered to\nhim. He declared that, though he disliked the government of the Church\nof England, he yet agreed with that Church as to all essential matters\nof doctrine. His intellect remained unclouded. When all was nearly over,\nhe lay murmuring faint prayers for himself, and for the cause in which\nhe died. \u201cLord Jesus,\u201d he exclaimed, in the moment of the {495}last\nagony, \u201creceive my soul. O Lord, save my country. O Lord, be merciful\nto----.\u201d In that broken ejaculation passed away his noble and fearless\nspirit.\n\nHe was buried in the parish church of Hampden. His soldiers, bareheaded,\nwith reversed arms and muffled drums and colours, escorted his body to\nthe grave, singing, as they marched, that lofty and melancholy psalm in\nwhich the fragility\u2019 of human life is contrasted with the immutability\nof Him to whom a thousand years are as yesterday when it is passed, and\nas a watch in the night.\n\nThe news of Hampden\u2019s death produced as great a consternation in his\nparty, according to Clarendon, as if their whole army had been cut off.\nThe journals of the time amply prove that the Parliament and all its\nfriends were filled with grief and dismay. Lord Nugent has quoted a\nremarkable passage from the next Weekly Intelligencer. \u201cThe loss of\nColonel Hampden goeth near the heart of every man that loves the good\nof his king and country, and makes some conceive little content to be\nat the army now that he is gone. The memory of this deceased colonel is\nsuch, that in no age to come but it will more and more be held in honour\nand esteem; a man so religious, and of that prudence, judgment, temper,\nvalour, and integrity, that he hath left few his like behind.\u201d\n\nHe had indeed left none his like behind him. There still remained,\nindeed, in his party, many acute intellects, many eloquent tongues,\nmany brave and honest hearts. There still remained a rugged and clownish\nsoldier, half fanatic, half buffoon, whose talents, discerned as yet\nonly by one penetrating eye, were equal to all the highest duties of the\nsoldier and the prince. {496}But in Hampden, and in Hampden alone, were\nunited all the qualities which, at such a crisis, were necessary to\nsave the state, the valour and energy of Cromwell, the discernment and\neloquence of Vane, the humanity and moderation of Manchester, the stern\nintegrity of Hale, the ardent public spirit of Sydney. Others might\npossess the qualities which were necessary to save the popular party in\nthe crisis of danger; he alone had both the power and the inclination to\nrestrain its excesses in the hour of triumph. Others could conquer; he\nalone could reconcile. A heart as bold as his brought up the cuirassiers\nwho turned the tide of battle on Marston Moor. As skilful an eye as his\nwatched the Scotch army descending from the heights over Dunbar. But\nit was when to the sullen tyranny of Laud and Charles had succeeded\nthe fierce conflict of sects and factions, ambitious of ascendency and\nburning for revenge, it was when the vices and ignorance which the old\ntyranny had generated threatened the new freedom with destruction, that\nEngland missed the sobriety, the self-command, the perfect soundness of\njudgment, the perfect rectitude of intention, to which the history of\nrevolutions furnishes no parallel, or furnishes a parallel in Washington\nalone.\n\nEND OF VOL. II.","title":"Critical, Historical, and Miscellaneous Essays; Vol. 2: With a Memoir and Index","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":147675}