{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_61763/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_61763","id":"gutenberg_61763","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/61763","summary":null,"tags":["Category: British Literature","Category: Economics","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","English essays -- 19th century"],"text":"THE\n                   COLLECTED WORKS OF WILLIAM HAZLITT\n                           IN TWELVE VOLUMES\n\n\n                              VOLUME FOUR\n\n\n\n\n                         _All rights reserved_\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  _William Hazlitt._\n\n  _From a miniature on ivory Executed by John Hazlitt about 1784_\n]\n\n\n\n\n                         THE COLLECTED WORKS OF\n                            WILLIAM HAZLITT\n\n\n                         EDITED BY A. R. WALLER\n                           AND ARNOLD GLOVER\n\n                        WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY\n\n                              W. E. HENLEY\n\n                                   \u2766\n\n                           A Reply to Malthus\n                         The Spirit of the Age\n                                  Etc.\n\n                                   \u2766\n\n                                  1902\n                        LONDON: J. M. DENT & CO.\n                   McCLURE, PHILLIPS & CO.: NEW YORK\n\n\n\n\n     Edinburgh: T. and A. CONSTABLE, (late) Printers to Her Majesty\n\n\n\n\n                                CONTENTS\n\n\n                                                                    PAGE\n A REPLY TO MALTHUS\u2019S ESSAY ON POPULATION                              1\n\n THE SPIRIT OF THE AGE                                               185\n\n PREFACE, ETC., FROM AN ABRIDGMENT OF THE LIGHT OF NATURE PURSUED    369\n\n PREFACE FROM A NEW AND IMPROVED GRAMMAR OF THE ENGLISH TONGUE       387\n\n NOTES                                                               397\n\n\n\n\n      A REPLY TO THE ESSAY ON POPULATION BY THE REV. T. R. MALTHUS\n  IN A SERIES OF LETTERS. TO WHICH ARE ADDED, EXTRACTS FROM THE ESSAY,\n                               WITH NOTES\n\n\n\n\n                          BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE\n\n\nPublished anonymously in one 8vo vol. of 378 pages (1807) with the\nfollowing title-page: \u2018A Reply to the Essay on Population, by the Rev.\nT. R. Malthus. In a Series of Letters. To which are added, Extracts from\nthe Essay; with notes. London: Printed for Longman, Hurst, Rees, and\nOrme, Paternoster Row. 1807.\u2019 The volume was printed by Arliss and\nHuntsman, 32 Gutter Lane, Cheapside.\n\n\n\n\n                             ADVERTISEMENT\n\n\nThe three first of the following letters appeared originally in\nCobbett\u2019s Weekly Political Register. There are several things, in which\nthey may seem to require some apology. First, some persons, who were\nconvinced by the arguments, have objected to the style as too flowery,\nand full of attempts at description. If I have erred in this respect, it\nhas been from design. I have indeed endeavoured to make my book as\namusing as the costiveness of my genius would permit. If however these\ncritics persist in their objection, I will undertake to produce a work\nas dry and formal as they please, if they will undertake to find\nreaders. Secondly, some of the observations may be thought too severe\nand personal. In the first place, I shall answer that the abuse, of\nwhich there is to be sure a plentiful sprinkling, is not I think\nunmerited or unsupported; and in the second place, that if I could have\nattacked the works successfully, without attacking the author, I should\nhave preferred doing so. But the thing was impossible. Whoever troubles\nhimself about abstract reasonings, or calm, dispassionate inquiries\nafter truth? The public ought not to blame me for consulting their\ntaste. As to the diffuseness, the repetitions, and want of method to be\nfound in these letters, I have no good defence to make. I may however\nmake the same excuse for the great length to which they have run, as the\nFrenchman did, who apologised for writing a long letter by saying, that\nhe had not time to write a shorter.\n\n\n\n\n                               LETTERS IN\n\n                         ANSWER TO MALTHUS, &c.\n\n\n\n\n                                LETTER I\n                              INTRODUCTORY\n\n\nSIR,\u2014As the proposed alteration in the system of the Poor Laws must\nnaturally engage your attention, as well as that of the public; and, as\nthe authority of Mr. Malthus has often been referred to, and has great\nweight with many people on this subject, it may not be amiss to inquire,\nhow far the reputation which that gentleman has gained, as a moral and\npolitical philosopher, can be safely reposed on as the foundation of any\npart of a system which is directed to objects of national utility, and\nrequires close, comprehensive, and accurate reasoning. You, Sir, are not\nignorant, that a name will do more towards softening down prejudices,\nand bolstering up a crude and tottering system, than any arguments\nwhatever. It is always easier to quote an authority than to carry on a\nchain of reasoning. Mr. Malthus\u2019s reputation may, I fear, prove fatal to\nthe poor of this country. His name hangs suspended over their heads, _in\nterrorem_, like some baleful meteor. It is the shield behind which the\narchers may take their stand, and gall them at their leisure. He has set\nthem up as a defenceless mark, on which both friends and foes may\nexercise their malice, or their wantonness, as they think proper. He has\nfairly hunted them down, he has driven them into his toils, he has\nthrown his net over them, and they remain as a prey to the first\ninvader, either to be sacrificed without mercy at the shrine of cold\nunfeeling avarice, or to linger out a miserable existence under the\nhands of ingenious and scientific tormentors.\u2014There is a vulgar saying,\n\u2018Give a dog a bad name, and hang him.\u2019 The poor seem to me to be pretty\nmuch in this situation at present. The poor, Sir, labour under a natural\nstigma; they are _naturally_ despised. Their interests are at best but\ncoldly and remotely felt by the other classes of society. Mr. Malthus\u2019s\nbook has done all that was wanting to increase this indifference and\napathy. But it is neither generous nor just, to come in aid of the\nnarrow prejudices and hard-heartedness of mankind, with metaphysical\ndistinctions and the cobwebs of philosophy. The balance inclines too\nmuch on that side already, without the addition of false weights. I\nconfess I do feel some degree of disgust and indignation rising within\nme, when I see a man of Mr. Malthus\u2019s character and calling standing\nforward as the accuser of those \u2018who have none to help them,\u2019 as the\nhigh-priest of \u2018pride and covetousness,\u2019 forming selfishness into a\nregular code, with its codicils, institutes and glosses annexed, trying\nto muffle up the hand of charity in the fetters of the law, to suppress\n\u2018the compunctious visitings of nature,\u2019 to make men ashamed of\ncompassion and good-nature as folly and weakness, \u2018laying the flattering\nunction\u2019 of religion to the conscience of the riotous and luxurious\nliver, and \u2018grinding the faces of the poor\u2019 with texts of scripture.\nFormerly the feelings of compassion, and the dictates of justice were\nfound to operate as correctives on the habitual meanness and selfishness\nof our nature: at present this order is reversed; and it is discovered\nthat justice and humanity are not obstacles in the way of, but that they\nare the most effectual strengtheners and supporters of our prevailing\npassions. Mr. Malthus has \u2018admirably reconciled the old quarrel between\nspeculation and practice,\u2019 by shewing (I suppose in humble imitation of\nMandeville) that our duty and our vices both lean the same way, and that\nthe ends of public virtue and benevolence are best answered by the\nmeanness, pride, extravagance, and insensibility of individuals. This is\ncertainly a very convenient doctrine; and it is not to be wondered at,\nthat it should have become so fashionable as it has.[1]\n\nWhile the prejudice infused into the public mind by this gentleman\u2019s\nwritings subsists in its full force, I am almost convinced that any\nserious attempt at bettering the condition of the poor will be\nineffectual. The only object at present is to gain time. The less it is\nmeddled with either with good or bad intentions, the better. Tampering\nwith the disease \u2018will but skin and film the ulcerous part, while foul\ncorruption, mining all within, infects unseen.\u2019 I have not confidence\nenough either in the integrity, the abilities, or the power of our\nstate-doctors to be willing to trust it entirely in their hands. They\nrisk nothing, if they fail. The patient is in too desperate a state to\nbring any imputation on their skill; and after all, it is only trying\nexperiments _in corpore vili_. The only thing they need be afraid of is\nin reality doing _too much_ good. This is the only error which would\nnever be forgiven by those whose resentment they have most reason to\ndread. This however there will be no danger of. The state of public\nfeeling, the dispositions of individuals, the narrow jealousy of\nparties, and the interests of the most powerful members of the community\nwill, I suspect, suffer little effectually to be done for bettering the\ncondition, exalting the character, enlightening the understandings, or\nsecuring the comforts, the independence, the virtue and happiness of the\nlower classes of the people. But, I am not equally sure that the means\nemployed for this very purpose may not be made a handle for stifling\nevery principle of liberty and honour in the hearts of a free people. It\nwill be no difficult matter, as things are circumstanced, under pretence\nof propriety and economy, to smuggle in the worst of tyrannies, a\nprinciple of unrelenting, incessant, vexatious, over-ruling influence,\nextending to each individual, and to all the petty concerns of life.\n\nThis is what strikes me on the first view of the subject. I would ask,\nIs Mr. Whitbread sure of the instruments he is to employ in the\nexecution of his scheme? Is he sure that his managing partners in this\nnew political firm of opulent patronage will not play the game into the\nhands of those whose views of government and civilization are very\ndifferent from his own? But it seems, that whether practicable, or no,\nMr. Whitbread must bring in a Poor Bill. The effect of it appears to me\nto be putting the poor into the wardship of the rich, to be doing away\nthe little remains of independence we have left, and making them once\nmore what they were formerly, the vassals of a wealthy aristocracy. For\nmy own part, who do not pretend to see far into things, and do not\nexpect miracles from human nature, I should wish to trust as little as\npossible to the liberality and enlightened views of country squires, or\nto the _tender mercies_ of justices of the peace.\n\nThe example of Scotland is held out to us as a proof of the beneficial\neffects of popular education, and we are promised all the same\nadvantages from the adoption of the same plan. The education of the poor\nis the grand specific which is to cure all our disorders, and make the\nleper whole again; and, like other specifics, it is to operate equally\non all constitutions and in all cases. But I may ask, Is the education\nof the poor the only circumstance in which Scotland differs from\nEngland? Are there no other circumstances in the situation of this\ncountry that may render such a scheme impracticable, or counteract its\ngood effects, or render it even worse than nugatory? Is knowledge in\nitself a principle of such universal and indisputable excellence that it\ncan never be misapplied, that it can never be made the instrument and\nincentive to mischief, or that it can never be mixed and contaminated\nwith \u2018baser matter\u2019? Do not the peculiar principles and discipline of\nthe church of Scotland, does not the traditional and habitual faith in\nthe doctrines of religion, do not the general manners not of the poor\nonly, but of the other classes of society, does not the state of\ncultivation, do not the employments of the people, the absence of\nluxury, and temptation, the small number of great towns, and the remains\nof ancient customs, tend to strengthen, to forward, to give consistency\nto, and secure the good effects of education? Or will Mr. Whitbread say\nthat he can supply the place of these with a beadle, a white wand, a\nspelling book, and a primmer? Supposing it practicable, will the\nadoption of a general plan of education have the same effect in our\ngreat manufacturing towns, in our sea-ports, in the metropolis, that it\nhas in the heart of Scotland, or in the mountains of Cumberland? Will it\nnot have the contrary effect?\n\nIt is not reading in the abstract, but the kind of reading they are\nlikely to meet with, and the examples about them leading them to emulate\nthe patterns of sobriety and industry, or of vice and profligacy held\nout to them in books, that will do either good or harm to the morals of\na people. In the country the people read moral or religious, or, at\nleast, innocent books, and therefore, they are benefited by them; in\ntowns, they as often meet with licentious and idle publications, which\nmust do them harm. It is in vain to say that you will give them _good_\nbooks, they will get _bad ones_. Will those hotbeds of vice, the\nfactories of Manchester, &c., be less fruitful for having the _farina_\nof knowledge sprinkled over them? Will not corruption quicken faster,\nand spread wider for having this new channel opened to it? Will a\nsmattering in books, and the current pamphlets of the day tend to quench\nand smother the flame of the passions, or will it add fuel to them? I do\nnot scruple to assert, that religion itself, when it comes in contact\nwith certain situations, may be highly dangerous. It is the soil in\nwhich the greatest virtues and the greatest vices take root. Where it\nhas not strength to stop the torrent of dissolute manners, it gives it\nadditional force by checking it; as the bow that has been bent the\ncontrary way, recoils back with tenfold violence. It is for this reason\nthat the morals of the people in the trading towns in the north of\nEngland are, I believe, worse than they are farther south, because they\nare brought up more religiously. The common people there are almost all\nof them originally dissenters. Again, it may be asked, will the poor\npeople in the trading towns send their children to school instead of\nsending them to work at a factory? Or will their employers, forgetting\ntheir own interests, compel them to do it? Or will they give up their\nprofits and their wealth for the sake of informing the minds, and\npreserving the morals of the poor? Oh! no. It may be replied, that it is\nchiefly for the peasantry and country people, who compose the largest\npart of the community, that this plan of education is intended. But they\nare the very people who do not stand in need of it, and to whom, if it\ndoes no harm, it will do little good. If working hard, and living\nsparingly are the chief lessons meant to be inculcated in their minds,\nthey are already tolerably perfect in their parts. As for the rest, it\nis in vain to attempt to make men any thing else but what their\nsituation makes them. We are the creatures not of knowledge, but of\ncircumstances.\n\nFor all these reasons I cannot help looking at this general parallel\nbetween the benefits derived from education in Scotland, and those\nexpected from it in this country as little better than a _leurre de\ndupe_. The advantages of education in the abstract are, I fear, like\nother abstractions, not to be found in nature. I thought that the rage\nfor blind reform, for abstract utility, and general reasoning, had been\nexploded long since. If ever it was proper, it was proper on general\nsubjects, on the nature of man and his prospects in general. But the\nspirit of abstraction driven out of the minds of philosophers has passed\ninto the heads of members of parliament: banished from the closets of\nthe studious, it has taken up its favourite abode in the House of\nCommons. It has only shifted its ground and its objects according to the\ncharacter of those in whom it is found. It has dwindled down into petty\nprojects, speculative details, and dreams of practical, positive\nmatter-of-fact improvement. These new candidates for fame come in\nawkwardly holding up the train of philosophy; and, like the squires of\npolitical romance, invite you to sit down with them to the spoonfuls of\nwhipt syllabub, the broken scraps of logic, and the same banquet of\nwindy promises which had been so much more handsomely served up, and to\nsatiety, by their masters.\n\nI know nothing of Mr. Whitbread personally. His character stands fair\nwith the public, for consistency and good intention. But I cannot\nrecognise in his plodding, mechanical, but ill-directed and unsuccessful\nendeavours to bring to justice a great public delinquent, in his flowery\ncommon-place harangues, or in the cold, philosophic indifference of the\nsentiments he has expressed upon the present occasion, either the\ngenius, penetration, or generous enthusiasm, (regulated, not damped by\nthe dictates of reason) which shall be equally proof against the\nartifices of designing men, against the sanguine delusions of personal\nvanity, or the difficulties, the delays, the disgust, and probable odium\nto be encountered in the determined prosecution of such a task. The\ncelebrated Howard fell a martyr to the great cause of humanity in which\nhe embarked. He plunged into the depth of dungeons, into the loathsome\ncells of disease, ignominy, and despair; he sacrificed health and life\nitself as a pledge of the sincerity of his motives. But what proof has\nMr. Whitbread ever given of his true and undissembled attachment to the\nsame cause? What sacrifices has he made, what fatigues has he suffered,\nwhat pain has he felt, what privation has he undergone in the pursuit of\nhis object, that he should be depended on as the friend and guardian of\nthe poor, as the dispenser of good or ill to millions of his\nfellow-beings? The \u2018champion\u2019 should be the \u2018child\u2019 of poverty. The\nauthor of our religion, when he came to save the world, took our nature\nupon him, and became as one of us: it is not likely that any one should\never prove the _saviour_ of the poor, who has not common feelings with\nthem, and who does not know their weaknesses and wants. To the officious\ninquiries of all others, What then are we to do for them? The best\nanswer would perhaps be, Let them alone.\u2014\n\nI return to the subject from which I set out, and from which I have\nwandered without intending it; I mean the system of Mr. Malthus, under\nthe auspices of whose discoveries it seems the present plan is\nundertaken, though it differs in many of its features from the\nexpedients recommended by that author. I am afraid that the parent\ndiscovery may, however, in spite of any efforts to prevent it, overlay\nthe ricketty offspring. Besides, the original design and principle gives\na bias to all our subsequent proceedings, and warps our views without\nour perceiving it. Mr. Malthus\u2019s system must, I am sure, ever remain a\nstumbling block in the way of true political economy, as innate ideas\nfor a long time confused and perplexed all attempts at philosophy. It is\nan _ignis fatuus_, which can only beguile the thoughtless gazer, and\nlead him into bogs and quicksands, before he knows where he is. The\ndetails of his system are, I believe, as confused, contradictory, and\nuncertain, as the system itself. I shall, however, confine my remarks to\nthe outlines of his plan, and his general principles of reasoning. In\nthese respects, I have no hesitation in saying that his work is the most\ncomplete specimen of _illogical_, crude and contradictory reasoning,\nthat perhaps was ever offered to the notice of the public. A clear and\ncomprehensive mind is, I conceive, shewn, not in the extensiveness of\nthe plan which an author has chalked out for himself, but in the order\nand connection observed in the arrangement of the subject, and the\nconsistency of the several parts. This praise is so far from being\napplicable to the reasoning of our author, that nothing was ever more\nloose and incoherent. \u2018The latter end of his commonwealth always forgets\nthe beginning.\u2019 Argument threatens argument, conclusion stands opposed\nto conclusion. This page is an answer to the following one, and that to\nthe next. There is hardly a single statement in the whole work, in which\nhe seems to have had a distinct idea of his own meaning. The principle\nitself is neither new, nor does it prove any thing new; least of all\ndoes it prove what he meant it to prove. His whole theory is a continued\ncontradiction; it is a nullity in the science of political philosophy.\n\nI must, however, defer the proof of these assertions to another letter,\nwhen, if you should deem what I have already said worthy the notice of\nyour readers, I hope to make them out to their and your satisfaction.\n\n\n\n\n                               LETTER II\n         ON THE ORIGINALITY OF MR. MALTHUS\u2019S PRINCIPAL ARGUMENT\n\n\nSIR,\u2014The English have been called a nation of philosophers; as I\nconceive, on very slender foundations. They are indeed somewhat slow and\ndull, and would be wise, if they could. They are fond of deep questions\nwithout understanding them; and have that perplexed and plodding kind of\nintellect, which takes delight in difficulties, and contradictions,\nwithout ever coming to a conclusion. They feel most interest in things\nwhich promise to be the least interesting. What is confused and\nunintelligible they take to be profound; whatever is remote and\nuncertain, they conceive must be of vast weight and importance. They are\nalways in want of some new and mighty project in science, in politics,\nor in morality for the morbid sensibility of their minds to brood over\nand exercise itself upon: and by the time they are tired of puzzling\nthemselves to no purpose about one absurdity, another is generally ready\nto start up, and take its place. Thus there is a perpetual restless\nsuccession of philosophers and systems of philosophy: and the proof they\ngive you of their wisdom to-day, is by convincing you what fools they\nwere six months before. Their pretensions to solidity of understanding\nrest on the foundation of their own shallowness and levity; and their\ngravest demonstrations rise out of the ruins of others.\n\nMr. Malthus has for some time past been lord of the ascendant. But I\nwill venture to predict that his reign will not be of long duration. His\nhour is almost come; and this mighty luminary, \u2018who so lately scorched\nus in the meridian, will sink temperately to the west, and be hardly\nfelt as he descends.\u2019 It is not difficult to account for the very\nfavourable reception his work has met with in certain classes of\nsociety: it must be a source of continual satisfaction to their minds by\nrelieving them from the troublesome feelings so frequently occasioned by\nthe remains of certain silly prejudices, and by enabling them to set so\ncompletely at defiance the claims of \u2018worthless importunity in rags.\u2019\nBut it is not easy to account for the attention which our author\u2019s\nreasonings have excited among thinking men, except from a habit of\nextreme abstraction and over-refined speculation, unsupported by actual\nobservation or a general knowledge of practical subjects, in consequence\nof which the mind is dazzled and confounded by any striking fact which\nthwarts its previous conclusions. There is also in some minds a low and\nnarrow jealousy, which makes them glad of any opportunity to escape from\nthe contemplation of magnificent scenes of visionary excellence, to hug\nthemselves in their own indifference and apathy, and to return once more\nto their natural level. Mr. Malthus\u2019s essay was in this respect a nice\n_let-down_ from the too sanguine expectations and overstrained\nenthusiasm which preceded it. Else, how a work of so base tendency, and\nso poorly glossed over, which strikes at the root of every humane\nprinciple, and all the while cants about sensibility and morality, in\nwhich the little, low, rankling malice of a parish-beadle, or the\noverseer of a work-house is disguised in the garb of philosophy, and\nrecommended as a dress for every English gentleman to wear, in which\nfalse logic is buried under a heap of garbled calculations, such as a\nbad player might make at cribbage to puzzle those with, who knew less of\nthe game than himself, where every argument is a _felo de se_, and\ndefeats its own purpose, containing both \u2018its bane and antidote\u2019 within\nitself, how otherwise such a miserable reptile performance should ever\nhave crawled to that height of reputation which it has reached, I am\nutterly unable to comprehend. But it seems Mr. Malthus\u2019s essay was a\n_discovery_. There are those whom I have heard place him by the side of\nSir Isaac Newton, as both equally great, the one in natural, the other\nin political philosophy. But waving this comparison, I must confess,\nthat were I really persuaded that Mr. Malthus had made any discovery at\nall, there is so little originality, and so much ill-nature and\nilliberality in the world, that I should be tempted to overlook the\nlarge share of the latter which Mr. Malthus possesses in common with the\nrest of mankind (and which in him may probably be owing to\nill-digestion, to a sickly constitution, or some former distaste\nconceived against poverty) and to consider him merely in the light of a\nman of genius. _Multum abludit imago._ Indeed I do not much see what\nthere is to discover on the subject, after reading the genealogical\ntable of Noah\u2019s descendants, and knowing that the world is round. But\neven allowing that there was something in the nature of the subject\nwhich threw over it a veil of almost impenetrable obscurity, Mr. Malthus\nwas not the first who found out the secret. Whatever some of his\nignorant admirers may pretend, Mr. Malthus will not say that this was\nthe case. He has himself given us a list of authors, some of whom he had\nread before, and some since the first publication of his Essay,[2] who\nfully understood and clearly stated this principle. Among these Wallace\nis the chief. He has not only stated the general principle with the\nutmost force and precision, by pointing out the necessary disproportion\nbetween the tendency in population and the tendency in the means of\nsubsistence to increase after a certain period, (and till this period,\nnamely till the world became _full_, I must contend in opposition to Mr.\nMalthus that the disproportion would not be _necessary_, but\nartificial); but what is most remarkable, he has brought this very\nargument forward as an answer to the same schemes of imaginary\nimprovement, which the author of the Essay on population first employed\nit to overturn.[3] For it is to be remembered that the use which our\nauthor has since made of this principle to shut up the work-house, to\n_snub_ the poor, to stint them in their wages, to deny them any relief\nfrom the parish, and preach lectures to them on the new-invented crime\nof matrimony, was an after-thought. His first, his grand, his most\nmemorable effort was directed against the modern philosophy. It was the\nservice his borrowed weapons did in that cause, that sanctified them at\nall other purposes. I shall have occasion by and by to examine how far\nthe argument was a solid one; at present I am only inquiring into the\noriginality of the idea. And here I might content myself with referring\nyour readers to Wallace\u2019s work; or it might be sufficient to inform them\nthat after indulging in the former part of it in all the schemes of\nfancied excellence and Utopian government, which Sir Thomas More and so\nmany other philosophers and speculators have endeavoured to establish,\nhe then enters into an elaborate refutation of them, by describing the\nevils, \u2018the universal confusion and perplexity in which all such perfect\nforms of society must soon terminate, the sooner on account of their\nperfection,\u2019 from the principle of population, and as he expresses it,\n\u2018from these primary determinations in nature, a limited earth, a limited\ndegree of fertility, and the continual increase of mankind.\u2019 However, as\nit is probable that most of your readers may not have the book within\ntheir reach, and as people do not like to take these things upon trust,\nor from a mere general representation of them, I must beg your insertion\nof the following extract from the work itself; and though it is pretty\nlong, yet as you, Sir, seem to be of opinion with me that the subject of\nMr. Malthus\u2019s reputation is a matter of no mean interest to the public,\nI am in hopes that you will not think your pages misemployed in\ndissipating the illusion. As to Mr. Malthus himself, if he is a vain\nman, he ought to be satisfied with this acknowledgement of his\nimportance.\n\n\u2018But without entering further into these abstracted and uncertain\nspeculations, it deserves our particular attention, that as no\ngovernment which hath hitherto been established, is free from all seeds\nof corruption, or can be expected to be eternal; so if we suppose a\ngovernment to be perfect in its original frame, and to be administered\nin the most perfect manner, after whatever model we suppose it to have\nbeen framed, such a perfect form would be so far from lasting for ever,\nthat it must come to an end so much the sooner on account of its\nperfection. For, though happily such governments should be firmly\nestablished, though they should be found consistent with the reigning\npassions of human nature, though they should spread far and wide; nay,\nthough they should prevail universally, they must at last involve\nmankind in the deepest perplexity, and in universal confusion. For how\nexcellent soever they may be in their own nature, they are altogether\ninconsistent with the present frame of nature, and with a limited extent\nof earth.\n\n\u2018Under a perfect government, the inconveniences of having a family would\nbe so intirely removed, children would be so well taken care of, and\neverything become so favourable to populousness, that though some sickly\nseasons or dreadful plagues in particular climates might cut off\nmultitudes, yet in general, mankind would encrease so prodigiously, that\nthe earth would at last be overstocked, and become unable to support its\nnumerous inhabitants.\n\n\u2018How long the earth, with the best culture of which it is capable from\nhuman genius and industry, might be able to nourish its perpetually\nencreasing inhabitants, is as impossible as it is unnecessary to be\ndetermined. It is not probable that it could have supported them during\nso long a period as since the creation of Adam. But whatever may be\nsupposed of the length of this period, of necessity it must be granted,\nthat the earth could not nourish them for ever, unless either its\nfertility could be continually augmented, or by some secret in nature,\nlike what certain enthusiasts have expected from the philosopher\u2019s\nstone, some wise adept in the occult sciences, should invent a method of\nsupporting mankind quite different from any thing known at present. Nay,\nthough some extraordinary method of supporting them might possibly be\nfound out, yet if there was no bound to the increase of mankind, which\nwould be the case under a perfect government, there would not even be\nsufficient room for containing their bodies upon the surface of the\nearth, or upon any limited surface whatsoever. It would be necessary,\ntherefore, in order to find room for such multitudes of men, that the\nearth should be continually enlarging in bulk, as an animal or vegetable\nbody.\n\n\u2018Now since philosophers may as soon attempt to make mankind immortal, as\nto support the animal frame without food; it is equally certain, that\nlimits are set to the fertility of the earth, and that its bulk, so far\nas is hitherto known, hath continued always the same, and probably could\nnot be much altered without making considerable changes in the solar\nsystem. It would be impossible, therefore, to support the great numbers\nof men who would be raised up under a perfect government; the earth\nwould be overstocked at last, and the greatest admirers of such fanciful\nschemes must foresee the fatal period when they would come to an end, as\nthey are altogether inconsistent with the limits of that earth in which\nthey must exist.\n\n\u2018What a miserable catastrophe of the most generous of all human systems\nof government! How dreadfully would the magistrates of such\ncommonwealths find themselves disconcerted at that fatal period, when\nthere was no longer any room for new colonies, and when the earth could\nproduce no further supplies! During all the preceding ages, while there\nwas room for increase, mankind must have been happy; the earth must have\nbeen a paradise in the literal sense, as the greatest part of it must\nhave been turned into delightful and fruitful gardens. But when the\ndreadful time should at last come, when our globe, by the most diligent\nculture, could not produce what was sufficient to nourish its numerous\ninhabitants, what happy expedient could then be found out to remedy so\ngreat an evil?\n\n\u2018In such a cruel necessity, must there be a law to restrain marriage?\nMust multitudes of women be shut up in cloisters like the ancient\nvestals or modern nuns? To keep a ballance between the two sexes, must a\nproportionable number of men be debarred from marriage? Shall the\nUtopians, following the wicked policy of superstition, forbid their\npriests to marry; or shall they rather sacrifice men of some other\nprofession for the good of the state? Or, shall they appoint the sons of\ncertain families to be maimed at their birth, and give a sanction to the\nunnatural institution of eunuchs? If none of these expedients can be\nthought proper, shall they appoint a certain number of infants to be\nexposed to death as soon as they are born, determining the proportion\naccording to the exigencies of the state; and pointing out the\nparticular victims by lot, or according to some established rule? Or,\nmust they shorten the period of human life by a law, and condemn all to\ndie after they had compleated a certain age, which might be shorter or\nlonger, as provisions were either more scanty or plentiful? Or what\nother method should they devise (for an expedient would be absolutely\nnecessary) to restrain the number of citizens within reasonable bounds?\n\n\u2018Alas! how unnatural and inhuman must every such expedient be accounted!\nThe natural passions and appetites of mankind are planted in our frame,\nto answer the best ends for the happiness both of the individuals and of\nthe species. Shall we be obliged to contradict such a wise order? Shall\nwe be laid under the necessity of acting barbarously and inhumanly? Sad\nand fatal necessity! And which, after all, could never answer the end,\nbut would give rise to violence and war. For mankind would never agree\nabout such regulations. Force, and arms, must at last decide their\nquarrels, and the deaths of such as fall in battle, leave sufficient\nprovisions for the survivors, and make room for others to be born.\n\n\u2018Thus the tranquillity and numerous blessings of the Utopian governments\nwould come to an end; war, or cruel and unnatural customs, be\nintroduced, and a stop put to the increase of mankind, to the\nadvancement of knowledge, and to the culture of the earth, in spite of\nthe most excellent laws and wisest precautions. The more excellent the\nlaws had been, and the more strictly they had been observed, mankind\nmust have sooner become miserable. The remembrance of former times, the\ngreatness of their wisdom and virtue, would conspire to heighten their\ndistress;[4] and the world, instead of remaining the mansion of wisdom\nand happiness, become the scene of vice and confusion. Force and fraud\nmust prevail, and mankind be reduced to the same calamitous condition as\nat present.\n\n\u2018Such a melancholy situation in consequence merely of the want of\nprovisions, is in truth more unnatural than all their present\ncalamities. Supposing men to have abused their liberty, by which abuse,\nvice has once been introduced into the world; and that wrong notions, a\nbad taste, and vicious habits, have been strengthened by the defects of\neducation and government, our present distresses may be easily\nexplained. They may even be called natural, being the natural\nconsequences of our depravity. They may be supposed to be the means by\nwhich providence punishes vice; and by setting bounds to the increase of\nmankind, prevents the earth\u2019s being overstocked, and men being laid\nunder the cruel necessity of killing one another. But to suppose that in\nthe course of a favourable providence, a perfect government had been\nestablished, under which the disorders of human passions had been\npowerfully corrected and restrained; poverty, idleness, and war\nbanished; the earth made a paradise; universal friendship and concord\nestablished, and human society rendered flourishing in all respects; and\nthat such a lovely constitution should be overturned, not by the vices\nof men, or their abuse of liberty, but by the order of nature itself,\nseems wholly unnatural, and altogether disagreeable to the methods of\nprovidence.\n\n\u2018By reasoning in this manner, it is not pretended that \u2019tis unnatural to\nset bounds to human knowledge and happiness, or to the grandeur of\nsociety, and to confine what is finite to proper limits. It is certainly\nfit to set just bounds to every thing according to its nature, and to\nadjust all things in due proportion to one another. Undoubtedly, such an\nexcellent order, is actually established throughout all the works of\nGod, in his wide dominions. But there are certain primary determinations\nin nature, to which all other things of a subordinate kind must be\nadjusted. A limited earth, a limited degree of fertility and the\ncontinual increase of mankind are three of these original constitutions.\nTo these determinations, human affairs, and the circumstances of all\nother animals, must be adapted. In which view, it is unsuitable to our\nideas of order, that while the earth is only capable of maintaining a\ndetermined number, the human race should increase without end. This\nwould be the necessary consequence of a perfect government and\neducation. On which account it is more contrary to just proportion, to\nsuppose that such a perfect government should be established in such\ncircumstances, than that by permitting vice, or the abuse of liberty in\nthe wisdom of providence, mankind should never be able to multiply so as\nto be able to overstock the earth.\n\n\u2018From this view of the circumstances of the world, notwithstanding the\nhigh opinion we have of the merits of Sir Thomas More, and other admired\nprojectors of perfect governments in ancient or modern times, we may\ndiscern how little can be expected from their most perfect systems.\n\n\u2018As for these worthy philosophers, patriots, and law-givers, who have\nemployed their talents in framing such excellent models, we ought to do\njustice to their characters, and gratefully to acknowledge their\ngenerous efforts to rescue the world out of that distress into which it\nhas fallen, through the imperfection of government. Sincere, and ardent\nin their love of virtue, enamoured of its lovely form, deeply interested\nfor the happiness of mankind, to the best of their skill, and with\nhearts full of zeal, they have strenuously endeavoured to advance human\nsociety to perfection. For this, their memory ought to be sacred to\nposterity. But if they expected their beautiful systems actually to take\nplace, their hopes were ill founded, and they were not sufficiently\naware of the consequences.\n\n\u2018The speculations of such ingenious authors enlarge our views, and amuse\nour fancies. They are useful for directing us to correct certain errors\nat particular times. Able legislators ought to consider them as models,\nand honest patriots ought never to lose sight of them, or any proper\nopportunity of transplanting the wisest of their maxims into their own\ngovernments, as far as they are adapted to their particular\ncircumstances, and will give no occasion to dangerous convulsions. But\nthis is all that can be expected. Though such ingenious romances should\nchance to be read and admired, jealous and selfish politicians need not\nbe alarmed. Such statesmen need not fear that ever such airy systems\nshall be able to destroy their craft, or disappoint them of their\nintention to sacrifice the interests of mankind to their own avarice or\nambition. There is too powerful a charm which works secretly in favor of\nsuch politicians, which will for ever defeat all attempts to establish a\nperfect government. There is no need of miracles for this purpose. The\nvices of mankind are sufficient. And we need not doubt but providence\nwill make use of them, for preventing the establishment of governments\nwhich are by no means suitable to the present circumstances of the\nearth.\u2019 See Various Prospects of mankind, nature and providence. Chap.\niv. p. 113.\n\nHere then we have not only the same argument stated; but stated in the\nsame connection and brought to bear on the very same subject to which it\nis applied by the author of the Essay. The principle and the\nconsequences deduced from it are exactly the same. It often happens that\none man is the first to make a particular discovery or observation, and\nthat another draws from it an important inference of which the former\nwas not at all aware. But this is not the case in the present instance.\nAs far as general reasoning will go, it is impossible that any thing\nshould be stated more clearly, more fully and explicitly than Wallace\nhas here stated the argument against the progressive amelioration of\nhuman affairs, from the sole principle of population. \u2018So will his\nanticipation prevent Mr. Malthus\u2019s discovery;\u2019 for it happens that\nWallace\u2019s book was published so long ago as the year 1761. As to the\ndetails of the Essay, I shall leave them to the _connoisseurs_, not\npretending to know much about the matter; but as to the general\nprinciple or ground-work, I must contend that it was completely\npre-occupied: Mr. Malthus has no more pretentions to originality on that\nscore, than I or any one else would have, who after having read Mr.\nMalthus\u2019s work undertook to retail the arguments contained in it and did\nit in words a little different from his own.\u2014\u2018Oh! but,\u2019 I hear some one\nexclaim, \u2018the geometrical and arithmetical series! Has Wallace said any\nthing of them? did he find them out, or was not this discovery reserved\nentirely for the genius and penetration of Mr. Malthus?\u2019 Why really I do\nnot know: whether after having brought his principle to light, he\nchristened it himself, is more than I can pretend to determine. It seems\nto me sufficient for Wallace to have said that let the one ratio\nincrease as fast as it would, the other would increase much faster, as\nthis is all that is practically meant by a geometrical and arithmetical\nseries. I should have no objection to let Mr. Malthus have the honour of\nstanding godfather to another\u2019s bantling (and Mr. Shandy was of opinion\nthat it was a matter of as great importance to hit upon a lucky name for\na child as to beget it) but that the technical phrase he has employed as\na convenient shorthand method of explaining the subject, in reality\napplies only to one half of it. The gradual increase applies only to the\ndegree of cultivation of the earth, not to the quantity. These two\nthings are palpably distinct. It does not begin to take place till the\nwhole surface of the earth has been cultivated to a certain degree, or\nonly with respect to those parts of it which have been cultivated. It is\nevident that while most of the soil remained wholly unoccupied and\nuncultivated, (which must have been the case for many ages after these\ntwo principles began to operate, and is still the case in many\ncountries) the power of increase in the productions of the earth, and\nconsequently, in the support of population would be exactly in\nproportion to the population itself, for there would be nothing more\nnecessary in order to the earth\u2019s maintaining its inhabitants than that\nthere should be inhabitants enough to till it. In this case the\ncultivation of the earth would be limited by the population, not the\npopulation by the state of the cultivation. Where there was no want of\nroom, and a power of transporting themselves from place to place, which\nthere would naturally be in great continents, and in gradually\nincreasing colonies, there could be no want of subsistence. All that\nwould be wanted would be power to raise or gather the fruits which the\nearth had in store, which as long as men were born with hands they would\nbe always able to do. If a certain extent of ground easily maintained a\ncertain number of inhabitants, they would only have to spread themselves\nover double the surface to maintain double the number. The difficulty is\nnot in making more land maintain more men, but in making the same spot\nof ground maintain a greater number than it did before. Thus Noah might\nhave taken possession of the three contiguous quarters of the globe for\nhimself and his three sons; and, if instead of having three sons, he had\nhad three hundred, there would, I believe, have been no danger of their\nstarving, but the contrary, from the rapid increase of population. What\nI mean to shew is, that it is not true as a general principle that the\nincrease of population and the increase of subsistence are necessarily\ndisproportionate to each other, that the one is in a geometrical, the\nother is in an arithmetical ratio; but, that in a particular and very\nimportant view of the subject, the extent of population is only limited\nby the extent of the earth, and that the increase of the means of\nsubsistence will be in proportion to the greater extent of surface\noccupied, which may be enlarged as fast as there are numbers to occupy\nit. I have been thus particular, because mathematical terms carry with\nthem an imposing air of accuracy and profundity, and ought, therefore,\nto be applied strictly, and with the greatest caution, or not at all. I\nshould say, then, that looking at the subject in a general and\nphilosophical point of view, I do not think that the expression of an\narithmetical and geometrical series applies: for, with respect to the\nextent of ground occupied, which is one thing on which population\ndepends, and in the first instance always, this might evidently be\nincreased in any ratio whatever, that the increase of population would\nadmit, until the earth was entirely occupied; and after that there would\nbe no room either for a geometrical or arithmetical progression; it\nwould be at an absolute stand. The distinction is therefore confined to\nthe degree of art and diligence used in the cultivation of those parts\nwhich have been already occupied. This has no doubt gone on at a very\nslow kind of snail\u2019s pace from the very first, and will I dare say\ncontinue to do so. Or to adopt Wallace\u2019s distinction, the increase of\npopulation is either not restricted at all by the \u2018limited nature of the\nearth,\u2019 or it is limited absolutely by it: it is only kept back\nindefinitely by the \u2018limited fertility\u2019 of the earth; and it cannot be\nsaid to be kept back necessarily by this, while there are vast tracts of\nhabitable land left untouched. Till there is no more room, and no more\nfood to be procured without extreme exertion and contrivance, the\narithmetical and geometrical ratios do not naturally begin to operate;\nand the gradual increase that might take place after that period, is not\nin my opinion (who am no great speculator) of sufficient importance to\ndeserve a pompous appellation. I would, therefore, rather stop there,\nbecause it will simplify the question. Till the world is full, or at\nleast till every country is full, that is, maintains as many inhabitants\nas the soil will admit, namely, till it can be proved satisfactorily\nthat it might not by taking proper methods be made to maintain double\nthe number that it does, the increase of mankind is not necessarily\nchecked by the \u2018limited extent of the earth,\u2019 nor by its \u2018limited\nfertility,\u2019 but by other causes. Till then population must be said to be\nkept down, not by the original constitution of nature, but by the will\nof man. Till then, Mr. Malthus has no right to set up his arithmetical\nand geometrical ratios upon the face of the earth, and say they are the\nwork of nature. You, Sir, will not be at a loss to perceive the fallacy\nwhich lurks under the gloss which Mr. Malthus has here added to\nWallace\u2019s text. His readers looking at his mathematical scale will be\napt to suppose, that population is a naturally growing and necessary\nevil; that it is always encroaching on and straitening the means of\nexistence, and doing more harm than good: that its pernicious effects\nare at all times and in all places equally necessary and unavoidable;\nthat it is at all times an evil, but that the evil increases in\nproportion to the increase of population; and that, therefore, there is\nnothing so necessary as to keep population down at all events. This is\nthe imperious dictate of nature, the grinding law of necessity, the end\nand the fulfilling of the commandment. I do not mean to say, that Mr.\nMalthus does not often shift his ground on this subject, or that he is\nnot himself aware of the deception. It is sufficient for him that he has\nit to resort to, whenever he is in want of it, that he has been able to\nthrow dust in his readers\u2019 eyes, and dazzle them by a specious shew of\naccuracy; that he has made out a bill of indictment against the\nprinciple of population as a common nuisance in society, and has\nobtained a general warrant against it, and may have it brought into\ncourt as a felon whenever he thinks proper. He has alarmed men\u2019s minds\nwith confused apprehensions on the subject, by setting before their\neyes, in an orderly series, the malignant nature and terrible effects of\npopulation, which are perpetually increasing as it goes on: and they are\nready to assent to every scheme that promises to keep these dreadful\nevils at a distance from them. \u2018_Sacro tremuere timore._ Every coward is\nplanet-struck.\u2019 But nothing of all this is the truth. Population is only\nan evil, as Mr. Malthus has himself shewn, in proportion as it is\nexcessive; it is not a necessary evil, till the supply of food can, from\nnatural causes, no longer keep pace with it: till this is the case, no\nrestraints are necessary, and when this is the case, the same wholesome\ndegree of restraint, the same quantity of vice and misery, will operate\nequally to prevent any tremendous consequences, whether the actual\npopulation is great or small; that is, whether it is stopped only from\nhaving reached the utmost limits prescribed by nature, or whether it has\nbeen starved and crushed down long before that period by positive,\narbitrary institutions, and the perverse nature of man. But this is\nentering upon a matter which I intended to reserve for another letter in\nwhich I shall examine the force of the arguments which Mr. Malthus has\nbuilt upon this principle. At present, I have done all that was\nnecessary to the performance of the first part of my engagement, which\nwas to shew that Mr. Malthus had little claim to the praise of\noriginality.\n\n\n\n\n                               LETTER III\n   ON THE PRINCIPLE OF POPULATION AS AFFECTING THE SCHEMES OF UTOPIAN\n                              IMPROVEMENT\n\n     \u2018A swaggering paradox, when once explained, soon sinks into an\n                        unmeaning common-place.\u2019\n\n                                                                BURKE.\n\n\nSIR,\u2014This excellent saying of a great man was never more strictly\napplicable to any system than it is to Mr. Malthus\u2019s paradox, and his\nexplanation of it. It seemed, on the first publication of the Essay on\nPopulation, as if the whole world was going to be turned topsy-turvy,\nall our ideas of moral good, and evil were in a manner confounded, we\nscarcely knew whether we stood on our head or our heels: but after\nexciting considerable expectation, giving us a good shake, and making us\na little dizzy, Mr. Malthus, does as we do when we shew the children\n_London_,\u2014sets us on our feet again, and every thing goes on as before.\nThe common notions that prevailed on this subject, till our author\u2019s\nfirst population-scheme tended to weaken them, were that life is a\nblessing, and that the more people could be maintained in any state in a\ntolerable degree of health, comfort and decency, the better: that want\nand misery are not desirable in themselves, that famine is not to be\ncourted for its own sake, that wars, disease and pestilence are not what\nevery friend of his country or his species should pray for in the first\nplace: that vice in its different shapes is a thing, that the world\ncould do very well without, and that if it could be got rid of\naltogether, it would be a great gain. In short, that the object both of\nthe moralist and politician was to diminish as much as possible the\nquantity of vice and misery existing in the world: without apprehending\nthat by thus effectually introducing more virtue and happiness, more\nreason and good sense, that by improving the manners of a people,\nremoving pernicious habits and principles of acting, or securing greater\nplenty, and a greater number of mouths to partake of it, they were doing\na disservice to humanity. Then comes Mr. Malthus with his octavo book,\nand tells us there is another great evil, which had never been found\nout, or at least not sufficiently attended to till his time, namely\nexcessive population: that this evil was infinitely greater and more to\nbe dreaded than all others put together; and that its approach could\nonly be checked by vice and misery: that any increase of virtue or\nhappiness, was the direct way to hasten it on; and that in proportion as\nwe attempted to improve the condition of mankind, and lessened the\nrestraints of vice and misery, we threw down the only barriers that\ncould protect us from this most formidable scourge of the species,\npopulation. Vice, and misery were indeed evils, but they were absolutely\nnecessary evils; necessary to prevent the introduction of others of an\nincalculably, and inconceivably greater magnitude; and that every\nproposal to lessen their actual quantity on which the measure of our\nsafety depended, might be attended with the most ruinous consequences,\nand ought to be looked upon with horror. I think, Sir, this description\nof the tendency and complexion of Mr. Malthus\u2019s first essay is not in\nthe least exaggerated, but an exact and faithful picture of the\nimpression, which it made on every one\u2019s mind.\n\nAfter taking some time to recover from the surprise and hurry into which\nso great a discovery would naturally throw him, he comes forward again\nwith a large quarto, in which he is at great pains both to say and unsay\nall that he had said in his former volume, and upon the whole concludes,\nthat population is in itself a good thing, that it is never likely to do\nmuch harm, that virtue and happiness ought to be promoted by every\npracticable means, and that the most effectual as well as desirable\ncheck to excessive population is _moral restraint_. The mighty\ndiscovery, thus reduced to, and pieced out by common sense, the wonder\nvanishes, and we breathe a little freely again. Mr. Malthus is however,\nby no means willing to give up his old doctrine, or _eat his own words_:\nhe stickles stoutly for it at times. He has his fits of reason and his\nfits of extravagance, his yielding and his obstinate moments,\nfluctuating between the two, and vibrating backwards and forwards with a\ndexterity of self-contradiction which it is wonderful to behold. The\nfollowing passage is so curious in this respect that I cannot help\nquoting it in this place. Speaking of the reply of the author of the\nPolitical Justice to his former work, he observes, \u2018But Mr. Godwin says,\nthat if he looks into the past history of the world, he does not see\nthat increasing population has been controlled and confined by vice and\nmisery _alone_. _In this observation I cannot agree with him._ I will\nthank Mr. Godwin to name to me any check, that in past ages has\ncontributed to keep down the population to the level of the means of\nsubsistence, that does not fairly come under some form of vice or\nmisery; except indeed the check of _moral restraint, which I have\nmentioned in the course of this work_; and which to say the truth,\nwhatever hopes we may entertain of its prevalence in future, has\nundoubtedly in past ages operated with very inconsiderable force.\u2019[5]\nWhen I assure the reader that I give him this passage fairly and fully,\nI think he will be of opinion with me, that it would be difficult to\nproduce an instance of a more miserable attempt to reconcile a\ncontradiction by childish evasion, to insist upon an argument, and give\nit up in the same breath. Does Mr. Malthus really think that he has such\nan absolute right and authority over this subject of population, that\nprovided he mentions a principle, or shews that he is not ignorant of\nit, and cannot be caught _napping_ by the critics, he is at liberty to\nsay that it has or has not had any operation, just as he pleases, and\nthat the state of the fact is a matter of perfect indifference. He\ncontradicts the opinion of Mr. Godwin that vice and misery are not the\nonly checks to population, and gives as a proof of his assertion, that\nhe himself truly has mentioned another check. Thus after flatly denying\nthat moral restraint has any effect at all, he modestly concludes by\nsaying that it has had some, no doubt, but promises that it will never\nhave a great deal. Yet in the very next page, he says, \u2018On this\nsentiment, whether virtue, prudence or pride, which I have already\nnoticed under the name of moral restraint, or of the more comprehensive\ntitle, the _preventive_ check, it will appear, that in the sequel of\nthis work, I shall lay considerable stress,\u2019 p. 385. This kind of\nreasoning is enough to give one the head-ache. But to take things in\ntheir order.\n\nThe most singular thing in this singular performance of our author is,\nthat it should have been originally ushered into the world as the most\ncomplete and only satisfactory answer to the speculations of Godwin,\nCondorcet and others, or to what has been called the modern philosophy.\nA more complete piece of wrong-headedness, a more strange perversion of\nreason could hardly be devised by the wit of man. Whatever we may think\nof the doctrine of the progressive improvement of the human mind, or of\na state of society in which every thing will be subject to the absolute\ncontrol of reason, however absurd, unnatural, or impracticable we may\nconceive such a system to be, certainly it cannot without the grossest\ninconsistency be objected to it, that such a system would necessarily be\nrendered abortive, because if reason should ever get this mastery over\nall our actions, we shall then be governed entirely by our physical\nappetites and passions, without the least regard to consequences. This\nappears to me a refinement on absurdity. Several philosophers and\nspeculatists had supposed that a certain state of society very different\nfrom any that has hitherto existed was in itself practicable; and that\nif it were realised, it would be productive of a far greater degree of\nhuman happiness than is compatible with the present institutions of\nsociety. I have nothing to do with either of these points. I will allow\nto any one who pleases that all such schemes are \u2018false, sophistical,\nunfounded in the extreme.\u2019 But I cannot agree with Mr. Malthus that they\nwould be _bad_, in proportion as they were _good_; that their excellence\nwould be their ruin; or that the true and only unanswerable objection\nagainst all such schemes is that very degree of _happiness_, virtue and\nimprovement to which they are supposed to give rise. And I cannot agree\nwith him in this because it is contrary to common sense, and leads to\nthe subversion of every principle of moral reasoning. Without perplexing\nhimself with the subtle arguments of his opponents, Mr. Malthus comes\nboldly forward, and says, \u2018Gentlemen, I am willing to make you large\nconcessions, I am ready to allow the practicability and the\ndesirableness of your schemes, the more happiness, the more virtue, the\nmore refinement they are productive of the better, all these will only\nadd to the \u201cexuberant strength of my argument\u201d; I have a short answer to\nall objections, to be sure I found it in an old political receipt-book,\ncalled Prospects, &c. by one Wallace, a man not much known, but no\nmatter for that, _finding is keeping_, you know\u2019: and with one smart\nstroke of his wand, on which are inscribed certain mystical characters,\nand algebraic proportions, he levels the fairy enchantment with the\nground. For, says Mr. Malthus, though this improved state of society\nwere actually realised, it could not possibly continue, but must soon\nterminate in a state of things pregnant with evils far more\ninsupportable than any we at present endure, in consequence of the\nexcessive population which would follow, and the impossibility of\nproviding for its support.\n\nThis is what I do not understand. It is, in other words, to assert that\nthe doubling the population of a country, for example, after a certain\nperiod, will be attended with the most pernicious effects, by want,\nfamine, bloodshed, and a state of general violence and confusion, this\nwill afterwards lead to vices and practices still worse than the\nphysical evils they are designed to prevent, &c. and yet that at this\nperiod those who will be the most interested in preventing these\nconsequences, and the best acquainted with the circumstances that lead\nto them will neither have the understanding to foresee, nor the heart to\nfeel, nor the will to prevent the sure evils to which they expose\nthemselves and others, though this advanced state of population, which\ndoes not admit of any addition without danger is supposed to be the\nimmediate result of a more general diffusion of the comforts and\nconveniences of life, of more enlarged and liberal views, of a more\nrefined and comprehensive regard to our own permanent interests, as well\nas those of others, of corresponding habits and manners, and of a state\nof things, in which our gross animal appetites will be subjected to the\npractical control of reason. The influence of rational motives, of\nrefined and long-sighted views of things is supposed to have taken place\nof narrow, selfish and merely sensual motives: this is implied in the\nvery statement of the question. \u2018What conjuration and what mighty magic\u2019\nshould thus blind our philosophical descendants on this single subject\nin which they are more interested than in all the rest, so that they\nshould stand with their eyes open on the edge of a precipice, and\ninstead of retreating from it, should throw themselves down headlong, I\ncannot comprehend; unless indeed we suppose that the impulse to\npropagate the species is so strong and uncontrolable that reason has no\npower over it. This is what Mr. Malthus was at one time strongly\ndisposed to assert, and what he is at present half inclined to retract.\nWithout this foundation to rest on, the whole of his reasoning is\nunintelligible. It seems to me a most childish way of answering any one,\nwho chooses to assert that mankind are capable of being governed\nentirely by their reason, and that it would be better for them if they\nwere, to say, No, for if they were governed entirely by it, they would\nbe much less able to attend to its dictates than they are at present:\nand the evils, which would thus follow from the unrestrained increase of\npopulation, would be excessive.\u2014Almost every little Miss, who has had\nthe advantage of a boarding-school education, or been properly tutored\nby her mamma, whose hair is not of an absolute flame-colour, and who has\nhopes in time, if she behaves prettily, of getting a good husband, waits\npatiently year after year, looks about her, rejects or trifles with half\na dozen lovers, favouring one, laughing at another, chusing among them\n\u2018as one picks pears, saying, this I like, that I loathe,\u2019 with the\ngreatest indifference, as if it were no such very pressing affair, and\n_all the while behaves very prettily_; till she is at last smitten with\na handsome house, a couple of footmen in livery, or a black-servant, or\na coach with two sleek geldings, with which she is more taken than with\nher man:\u2014why, what an idea does Mr. Malthus give us of the grave,\nmasculine genius of our Utopian philosophers, their sublime attainments\nand gigantic energy, that they will not be able to manage these matters\nas decently and cleverly as the silliest women can do at present! Mr.\nMalthus indeed endeavours to soften the absurdity by saying that moral\nrestraint at present owes its strength to selfish motives: what is this\nto the purpose? If Mr. Malthus chooses to say, that men will always be\ngoverned by the same gross mechanical motives that they are at present,\nI have no objection to make to it; but it is shifting the question: it\nis not arguing against the state of society we are considering from the\nconsequences to which it would give rise, but against the possibility of\nits ever existing. It is absurd to object to a system on account of the\nconsequences which would follow if we were to suppose men to be actuated\nby entirely different motives and principles from what they are at\npresent, and then to say, that those consequences would necessarily\nfollow, because men would never be what we suppose them. It is _very_\nidle to alarm the imagination by deprecating the evils that must follow\nfrom the practical adoption of a particular scheme, yet to allow that we\nhave no reason to dread those consequences, but because the scheme\nitself is impracticable.\u2014But I am ashamed of wasting your reader\u2019s time\nand my own in thus beating the air. It is not however my fault that Mr.\nMalthus has written nonsense, or that others have admired it. It is not\nMr. Malthus\u2019s nonsense, but the opinion of the world respecting it, that\nI would be thought to compliment by this serious refutation of what in\nitself neither deserves nor admits of any reasoning upon it. If however\nwe recollect the source from whence Mr. Malthus borrowed his principle\nand the application of it to improvements in political philosophy, we\nmust allow that he is merely _passive_ in error. The principle itself\nwould not have been worth a farthing to him without the application, and\naccordingly he took them as he found them lying snug together; and as\nTrim having converted the old jack-boots into a pair of new mortars\nimmediately planted them against whichever of my uncle Toby\u2019s garrisons\nthe allies were then busy in besieging, so the public-spirited gallantry\nof our modern engineer directed him to bend the whole force of his\nclumsy discovery against that system of philosophy which was the most\ntalked of at the time, but to which it was the least applicable of all\nothers. Wallace, I have no doubt, took up his idea either as a paradox,\nor a _jeu d\u2019esprit_, or because any thing, he thought, was of weight\nenough to overturn what had never existed anywhere but in the\nimagination, or he was led into a piece of false logic by an error we\nare very apt to fall into, of supposing because he had never been struck\nhimself by the difficulty of population in such a state of society, that\ntherefore the people themselves would not find it out, nor make any\nprovision against it. But though I can in some measure excuse a lively\nparadox, I do not think the same favour is to be shewn to the dull,\ndogged, voluminous repetition of an absurdity.\n\nI cannot help thinking that our author has been too much influenced in\nhis different feelings on this subject, by the particular purpose he had\nin view at the time. Mr. Malthus might not improperly have taken for the\nmotto of his first edition, \u2018These three bear record on earth, vice,\nmisery, and population.\u2019 In his answer to Mr. Godwin, this principle was\nrepresented as an evil, for which no remedy could be found but in\nevil;\u2014that its operation was mechanical, unceasing, necessary; that it\nwent strait forward to its end, unchecked by fear, or reason, or\nremorse; that the evils, which it drew after it, could only be avoided\nby other evils, by actual vice and misery. Population was in fact the\ngreat devil, the untamed Beelzebub that was only kept chained down by\nvice and misery, and that if it were once let loose from these\nrestraints, it would go forth, and ravage the earth. That they were\ntherefore the two main props and pillars of society, and that the lower\nand weaker they kept this principle, the better able they were to\ncontend with it: that therefore any diminution of that degree of them\nwhich at present prevails, and is found sufficient to keep the world in\norder, was of all things chiefly to be dreaded.\u2014Mr. Malthus seems fully\naware of the importance of the stage-maxim, To elevate and surprise.\nHaving once heated the imaginations of his readers, he knows that he can\nafterwards mould them into whatever shape he pleases. All this bustle\nand terror, and stage-effect, and theatrical-mummery, was only to serve\na temporary purpose, for all of a sudden the scene is shifted, and the\nstorm subsides. Having frighted away the boldest champions of modern\nphilosophy, this monstrous appearance, full of strange and inexplicable\nhorrors, is suffered quietly to shrink back to its natural dimensions,\nand we find it to be nothing more than a common-sized tame looking\nanimal, which however requires a chain and the whip of its keeper to\nprevent it from becoming mischievous. Mr. Malthus then steps forward and\nsays, \u2018the evil we were all in danger of was not population,\u2014but\nphilosophy. Nothing is to be done with the latter by mere reasoning. I\ntherefore thought it right to make use of a little terror to accomplish\nthe end. As to the principle of population you need be under no alarm,\nonly leave it to me and I shall be able to manage it very well. All its\ndreadful consequences may be easily prevented by a proper application of\nthe motives of common prudence and common decency.\u2019 If however any one\nshould be at a loss to know how it is possible to reconcile such\ncontradictions, I would suggest to Mr. Malthus the answer which Hamlet\nmakes to his friend Guildenstern, \u2018\u2019Tis as easy as lying: govern these\nventiges (the poor-rates and private charity) with your fingers and\nthumb, and this same instrument will discourse most excellent music;\nlook you, here are the stops,\u2019 (namely, Mr. Malthus\u2019s Essay and Mr.\nWhitbread\u2019s Poor Bill). To sum up the whole of this argument in one\nword. Let us suppose with Mr. Malthus that population can only be kept\ndown by a certain degree of vice and misery. Let us also suppose that\nthese checks are for a time removed, and that mankind become perfectly\nvirtuous and happy. Well, then, according to the former supposition,\nthis would necessarily lead to an excessive increase of population. Now\nthe question is, to what degree of excess it would lead, and where it\nwould naturally stop. Mr. Malthus, to make good his reasoning, must\nsuppose a miracle to take place; that after population has begun to\nincrease excessively, no inconvenience is felt from it, that in the\nmidst of the \u2018imminent and immediate\u2019 evils which follow from it, people\ncontinue virtuous and happy and unconscious of the dangers with which\nthey are surrounded; till of a sudden Mr. Malthus opens the flood-gates\nof vice and misery, and they are overwhelmed by them, all at once. In\nshort he must suppose either that this extraordinary race of men, in\nproportion as population increases, are gradually reduced in size, \u2018and\nless than smallest dwarfs, in narrow room, throng numberless, like that\npygmean race beyond the Indian mount, or fairy elves\u2019; or that they have\nsome new world assigned them as a breeding-place, from which attempting\nto return they are immediately squeezed to death, like people rushing\ninto a crowded theatre. On the other hand, I contend that in the natural\ncourse of things, that is, if we suppose people to retain their usual\ndimensions, to eat, and drink, and beget children, and bring them up in\nthe usual way, all this could never happen: for it is impossible but\nthey must see and feel that there was only room for a certain number.\nThe moment population became excessive from the _excess_ of virtue and\nhappiness, its inconveniences would return, and people would no longer\nbe _perfectly virtuous and happy_: that is, the old checks of a certain\ndegree of vice and misery would come into play again, and a less degree\nof them (I suppose about as much as we enjoy the advantage of at\npresent) would be sufficient to deter men from plunging into greater,\nwould put a stop to the further increase of population, and anticipate\nthose tremendous evils which Mr. Malthus apprehends from it, which could\nnever happen unless we suppose people to have come to a previous,\ndeliberate resolution mutually to starve one another to death. There is\ntherefore no foundation for the alarm given by Mr. Malthus, for vice and\nmisery are such ready and sure resources that we can be at a loss for\nthem at no time; and farther with respect to the state of society\nsupposed by Mr. Malthus, that is if we could once drive vice and misery\nout of the world, I really do not see what occasion we should have for\nthem afterwards.\n\nThe most important question yet remains, which is not how Mr. Malthus\ncame by his discovery, nor whether he was right in endeavouring to\nexemplify it in the first instance by shewing its effects on an\nimaginary state of society where it would be naturally disarmed of its\nmalignity, but whether the practical conclusions he has drawn from it\nare not of weight and moment in themselves, and whether they are not\nestablished so clearly and fully as to make it necessary for us to\nreverse almost entirely all our old reasonings on the principles of\npolitical economy. I confess, I have some difficulty in determining,\nwhether Mr. Malthus\u2019s principles do or do not materially affect the\ncommonly received notions on this subject, because I really do not know\nwhat those principles are, and till Mr. Malthus himself tells us,\nwhether he would have us believe in the new revelation or the old, it is\nimpossible that any one should. If we are to consider those as Mr.\nMalthus\u2019s real and chastized opinions which are the least like himself,\nwhich most flatly contradict his former assertions, which being forced\nfrom him may be looked upon as confessions of the truth, I see nothing\nin these that in any manner interferes with the common sense of mankind.\nAnd though Mr. Malthus still perseveres in almost all his extreme\nconclusions, yet as those conclusions are for the most part\nunwarrantable assumptions, disproved even by his own concessions, and\nshew nothing more than Mr. Malthus\u2019s qualifications for the delicate\noffice of conscience-keeper to the rich and great, I am so far from\nconsidering them as new and important discoveries, that I must be\nexcused if I consider them as in the highest degree false and dangerous,\nand treat them accordingly.\n\n\n\n\n                               LETTER IV\n            ON THE GENERAL TENDENCY OF POPULATION TO EXCESS\n\n\nSIR,\u2014Mr. Malthus\u2019s argument against a state of _unlimited_ improvement,\nof perfect wisdom, virtue and happiness, from the vice, misery, and\nmadness inseparable from such a state would, if admitted, be an\neffectual bar to all limited improvement whatever. It is for this\nreason, that I have dwelt so long on the subject. If out of timidity, or\ncomplaisance, or prejudice against an unpopular system, we suffer\nourselves to be wheedled into a silly persuasion, that the worst thing\nthat could happen for the human race would be their being able to\nrealise not in words only, but in deed all the fine things, that have\nbeen said of them, we then fairly throw ourselves upon the mercy of our\nadversaries. For what is there in this case, to hinder Mr. Malthus, or\nany one else, from representing every degree of practical improvement as\nan approximation to this deplorable crisis, from binding up the slips\nand scyons of human happiness with this great trunk of evil, and root of\nall our woe, from marking with his slider and graduated scale all our\nadvances towards this ideal perfection, however partial or necessary, as\nso many deviations from the strict line of our duty, and only sphere of\nour permanent happiness? It is evident, that the only danger of all\nimaginary schemes of improvement arises from their being _exaggerations_\nof the real capacities of our nature, from supposing that we can pick\nout all the dross, and leave nothing but the gold; that is, from their\nbeing carried to excess, and aiming at more than is practicable. But if\nwe allow that improvement is an evil in the abstract, and that the\ngreater the improvement, the greater the mischief, that the actual and\ncomplete success of all such schemes would be infinitely worse even than\ntheir failure, for that the most complete and extensive improvement\nwould only prepare the way for the most deplorable wretchedness, and\nthat the very next step after reaching the summit of human glory would\nplunge us into the lowest abyss of vice and misery,\u2014why truly there will\nbe little encouragement to set out on a journey that promises so very\ndisagreeable a conclusion; such a representation of the matter will not\nadd wings to our zeal for practical reform, but will rather make us stop\nshort in our career, and refuse to advance one step farther in a road,\nthat is beset with danger and destruction. People will begin to look\nwith a jaundiced eye at the most obvious advantages, to resist every\nuseful regulation, and dread every change for the better. Our feelings\nare governed very much by common-place associations, and are most\ninfluenced by that sort of logic which is the shortest. Thus, \u2018that the\nparts are contained in the whole,\u2019 is a general rule which is found to\nhold good in most of the concerns of life; and it is not therefore easy\nto drive it out of people\u2019s heads. For this reason, it will always be\ndifficult to persuade the generality of mankind that a less degree of\nimprovement is a good thing, though a greater would be a bad thing, or\nthat the subordinate parts of a system, that would in reality embody all\nthe ills of life, can be very desirable in themselves. Mr. Malthus has\nhowever by no means left this conclusion to the mere mechanical\noperation of our feelings. He endeavours formally to establish it. The\nfollowing passage seems the connecting link in the chain, which unites\nthe two worlds of theory and practice together; it cements the argument,\ngives solidity and roundness to it, and renders it complete against all\nimprovement, real or imaginary, present or future, against all absolute\nperfection or imperfect attempts at it, and gradual approaches to it. It\nfairly blocks up the road.\n\n\u2018It cannot but be a matter of astonishment that all writers on the\nperfectibility of man, and of society, who have noticed the argument of\nan overcharged population, treat it always very slightly, and invariably\nrepresent the difficulties arising from it, as at a great, and almost\nimmeasurable distance. Even Mr. Wallace, who thought the argument itself\nof so much weight as to destroy his whole system of equality, did not\nseem to be aware that any difficulty would occur from this cause, till\nthe whole earth had been cultivated like a garden, and was incapable of\nany further increase of produce. Were this really the case, and were a\nbeautiful system of equality in other respects practicable, I cannot\nthink that our ardour in the pursuit of such a scheme ought to be damped\nby the contemplation of so remote a difficulty. An event at such a\ndistance might fairly be left to providence; but the truth is, that if\nthe view of the argument given in this Essay be just, the difficulty so\nfar from being remote, would be imminent and immediate. _At every period\nduring the progress of cultivation_, from the present moment to the time\nwhen the whole earth was become like a garden, _the distress for want of\nfood would be constantly pressing on all mankind_, if they were equal.\nThough the produce of the earth _might be increasing every year_,\npopulation _would be increasing much faster_; and the redundancy must\n_necessarily_ be repressed by the periodical or constant action of vice\nand misery.\u2019[6]\n\nIn answer to this statement (allowing however that it is a fair\ninference from Wallace\u2019s reasoning, and from our author\u2019s own principle)\nI would simply ask, whether _during this progress of cultivation, the\ndistress for want of food would be constantly pressing on all mankind_\nmore than it does at present. Let us suppose that men remain just as\nvicious, as imprudent, as regardless of their own interests and those of\nothers as they are at present, let us suppose them to continue just what\nthey are, through all the stages of improved cultivation to the time\nwhen the whole earth was become like a garden, would this in the\nsmallest degree detract from the benefit? Would nothing indeed be gained\nby the earth\u2019s being cultivated like a garden, that is, by its producing\nten times the quantity of food that it does at present, and being able\nto maintain ten times the quantity of inhabitants in the same degree of\ncomfort and happiness that it does at present, because forsooth they\nwould not at the same time be ten times better off than they are now? Is\nit an argument against adding to the happiness of mankind tenfold, by\nincreasing their number, their condition remaining the same, that we\ncannot add to it a hundred-fold, by increasing their number and\nimproving their condition proportionably? Or is it any objection to\nincreasing the means of subsistence by the improved cultivation of the\nearth, that the population would keep pace with it? It appears to me\nthat there must be a particular perversity, some egregious bias in the\nmind of any person who can either deny the inference to be drawn from\nthese questions, or evade it as a matter of indifference, by\nequivocation and subterfuge. We might as well assert that because it is\nmost likely that the inhabitants of the rest of Europe are not better,\nnor indeed quite so well off as the people of England, that it would\ntherefore be no matter if the whole continent of Europe were sunk in the\nsea, as if human life was merely to be considered as a sample of what\nthe thing is, and as if when we have a sample of a certain quality, all\nthe rest might be very well spared, as of no value. As however I\nconceive that Mr. Malthus is not a man to be moved either by common\nfeelings or familiar illustrations, I shall venture to lay down one dry\nmaxim on the subject, which he will get over as well as he can, namely,\nthat an improved cultivation of the earth, and a consequent increase of\nfood must necessarily lead to one or other of these two consequences,\neither that a greater number of people will be maintained in the same\ndegree of comfort and happiness, other things being the same, or that\nmeans will be afforded for maintaining an equal number in greater ease,\nplenty, and affluence. It is plain either that existence is upon the\nwhole a blessing and that the means of existence are on that account\ndesirable; that consequently an increased population is doubly a\nblessing, and an increase in the means of existence doubly desirable; or\nelse life is an evil, and whatever tends to promote it is an evil, and\nin this case it would be well if all the inhabitants of the earth were\nto die of some easy death to-morrow!\n\nFor my own part, \u2018who am no great clerk,\u2019 I cannot by any efforts, of\nwhich I am capable, separate these two propositions, that it is\ndesirable either that population should have stood still at first, or\nthat it should go on increasing till the earth is absolutely full; or in\nother words, I see no rational alternative between the principle of\nextermination (as far as it is in our power) and the principle of the\nutmost possible degree of populousness. It is, I conceive, an\nincontrovertible axiom, that the proportion between the population and\nfood being given (and Mr. Malthus tells us that it holds nearly the same\nin all the stages of society) the actual increase of population is to be\nconsidered as so much clear gain, as so much got into the purse, as so\nmuch addition to the sum of human happiness. Mr. Malthus says in another\nplace (second edition, p. 357), \u2018The only point in which I differ from\nM. Condorcet in this description\u2019 [of the evils arising from increased\npopulation,] \u2018is with regard to the period, when it may be applied to\nthe human race. M. Condorcet thinks that it cannot possibly be\napplicable, but at an era extremely distant. If the proportion between\nthe natural increase of population and food, which was stated in the\nbeginning of this essay, and which has received considerable\nconfirmation _from the poverty that has been found to prevail in every\nstage and department of human society_, be in any degree near the truth,\nit will appear on the contrary, that the period, when the number of men\nsurpass their means of subsistence, has long since arrived, &c.\u2019 Mr.\nMalthus in different parts of his work makes a great _rout_ about the\ndistinction between _actual_ and _relative_ population, and lays it down\nthat an actual increase of population is an advantage, except when it\nexceeds the means of subsistence; yet he here seems to treat the\nproportion between the increase of population, and food, which he says\nhas always continued pretty much the same, as the only thing to be\nattended to, and to represent the progressive increase of the actual\npopulation, unless we could at the same time banish poverty entirely\nfrom the world, as a matter of the most perfect indifference, or rather\nas the most dangerous experiment, that could be tried. Is not this being\nwilfully blind to the consequences of his own reasoning? Oh! but, says\nMr. Malthus, you do not state the case fairly. If men were to continue\nwhat they are at present; if there were the same proportionable quantity\nof vice, and misery in the world, what you say would be true. Every\nthing would then go on as well, or indeed better than before. But this\nis impossible, because this increased cultivation, and a more equal\ndistribution of the produce of the earth could only take place, in\nconsequence of the increased civilization, virtue, good sense, and\nhappiness of mankind: and this would necessarily spoil all. For remove\nthe present quantity of vice and misery existing in the world, and you\nremove the only checks, that can keep population down. \u2018Though the\nproduce of the earth might be increasing every year, the population\nwould be increasing much faster; and the redundancy must be repressed by\nthe old restraints of vice and misery.\u2019 That is to say, though\n(according to the second edition) vice, misery, and moral restraint,\noperate mutually as checks to population, and though the diminution of\nvice and misery could only be the consequence of the increased strength\nin the principle of moral restraint, yet this latter principle would in\nreality have no effect at all, and in proportion as the other checks to\npopulation, viz. vice and misery, were superseded, they would become\nmore and more necessary. If there could be a gradual, and indefinite\nimprovement in the cultivation of the soil, and every facility could be\nafforded for the supply of an increasing population, without supposing\nsome change in the institutions of society, which would render men\nbetter and wiser, than they now are, Mr. Malthus will perhaps with some\nreluctance, and uncertainty hanging over his mind, allow that this would\nbe a considerable advantage; the population might in this case be kept\nwithin some bounds, and not increase faster than the means of\nsubsistence: but as this is a change that cannot be looked for without\nsupposing a correspondent improvement in the morals and characters of\nmen, we must set off one thing against another, and give up the chance\nof improvement, to prevent the shocking alternative connected with it.\nWith our present modicum of wit and command over our passions, we do\ncontrive in some measure to make both ends meet, or to cut our coat\naccording to our cloth, or look before we leap, and are not carried\naway, neck or nothing, by this high-mettled courser, Population, over\nall the fences and barriers of common sense. But if we were to make any\nconsiderable improvements in horsemanship, or in our _knack_ at\ncalculation, we should instantly, belying all reasonable expectation,\nthrow the bridle on the horse\u2019s neck, rush blindly forward in spite of\nall obstacles, and freed from the shackles of necessity without having\nacquired the discipline of reason, though the one always instantly\nresumes its sway, the moment the other ceases, plunge into all the\nmiseries of famine, without remorse, or apprehension.\n\nThis I conceive is an express contradiction in terms. Yet I grant that\nit is a logical inference from Mr. Malthus\u2019s original statement, that\nvice and misery are the only adequate checks to population. If this were\nindeed the case, all the consequences that Mr. Malthus describes, the\nutmost degree of vice and misery, would necessarily be the lot of man in\nall stages and departments of society, whether in his improved or\nunimproved state, because in all cases and at all times his reason would\nbe of no use to him. However great or however small our attainments in\narts or science, or in all other virtues might be, in this respect we\nshould still be the same; that is, we should be exactly in the condition\nof the brutes, entirely governed by an impulse, over which we should\nhave neither check nor control. Mr. Malthus, however, finding that this\naccount is inconsistent with the state of human life, and with those\nchecks which certainly do keep population back from going its natural\nlengths, now adds moral restraint as a convenient supplement to his\ntheory, and as our chief security against vice and misery, though he\nstill insists that where its effect must be greatest, it would have no\neffect at all. He gives up his principle, but retains his conclusion, to\nwhich he has no right. He is like a bad poet who to get rid of a false\nconcord alters the ending of his first line, and forgets that he has\nspoiled his rhyme in the second. On the whole, then, it appears, that at\nno one period during the progress of cultivation from the present moment\nto the time when it should have reached its utmost limits, would the\ndistress for want of food be greater than it is at present. In the mean\ntime, the number of mankind, and consequently their happiness would go\non increasing with the means of their happiness, or subsistence, till\nthe whole earth had been cultivated like a garden, and was incapable of\nany further increase, and we should then be exactly where we are now\nwith respect to the checks on population. That is, the earth would\nmaintain ten times its present number of inhabitants in the same comfort\nas at present, without our having involved ourselves in any of those\nstraits and difficulties, those pits and snares, against which we are so\nkindly warned by Mr. Malthus. The population, and the means of\nsubsistence would indeed be stationary, but so they may be said to be at\npresent. The only difference is that they are at present unnecessarily\nstationary from artificial causes, from moral and political\ncircumstances; in that case the line would be drawn by nature herself,\nin other words, by the limited extent of the earth, and by its limited\nfertility. _This being the case and were a beautiful system of equality\nin other respects practicable_, (for observe, reader, I leave the\nquestion as _to those other respects_ exactly where I found it) _I\ncannot think that our ardour in pursuit of such a scheme can in any wise\nbe damped by the contemplation of the difficulties attendant upon it\nfrom the principle of population._ All that could be gained, would be\npure gain without any loss whatever. In short, the principle of\npopulation does not, as I conceive, affect the future improvement of\nsociety in any way whatever, whether on a larger or a smaller scale,\ntheoretically or practically, generally, or particularly. I have thus,\nSir, endeavoured to answer Mr. Malthus\u2019s argument against the improved\ncultivation of the earth, and an increase of population, from the\nincreased difficulties (as he falsely represents them), that would all\nthe way press upon society during its progress. He has rendered his\nparadox in some measure palatable to the reader, by introducing it as\none branch of his answer to Condorcet, and others of the same school,\nherein imitating the policy of the house of commons, who sometimes\nprevail on the house of lords to pass a bill which they do not much\nlike, by tacking a money-bill to it. However as the two subjects are\nentirely distinct, I beg that they may not be confounded. The question\nis simply, whether we are to look upon the progress of agriculture,\ncivilization, and the populousness which would follow, (no matter to\nwhat extent, nor by whom it is brought about, whether it is projected by\na junto of philosophers, or decided upon in a committee of the house of\ncommons, enlightened by the genius of Mr. Malthus and guided by Mr.\nWhitbread\u2019s wisdom), whether I say, as a general principle we are to\nlook upon an addition to the inhabitants of a state, if there is enough\nto support them, as a good or an evil. Mr. Malthus has chosen to answer\nthis question under the head, _modern philosophy_, so that he is secure\nof the protection of the court. I have been willing not to deprive him\nof this advantage, and have answered it under the same head. If however\nany of my readers should dislike the argument in this connection, they\nmay easily take it out of the mould in which it is cast, without doing\nit the least hurt. To shew how lightly all schemes of improvement sit on\nMr. Malthus\u2019s mind, how easily he thinks they may be puffed aside with\nthe least breath of sophistry, it will be sufficient to quote the\nfollowing passage. After allowing in general that even the best\ncultivated countries in Europe might be made to produce double what they\ndo at present, he says, \u2018We should not be too ready to make inferences\nagainst the internal economy of a country from the appearance of\nuncultivated heaths without other evidence.\u2019 [It is wonderful with what\nslowness and circumspection Mr. Malthus always proceeds in his\ndisapprobation of any thing, that comes in the prepossessing garb of an\nevil. He is only confident and severe in his decisions against those\nhidden mischiefs, which lie concealed under a delusive appearance of\ngood. There is something in the prospect of dearth and barrenness which\nis perfectly congenial to the disposition of Mr. Malthus. He is\nunwilling to give up a subject which promises so much scope for his\nsingular talents of bringing good out of evil.] \u2018But the fact is, that\nas no country has ever reached, or probably will ever reach its highest\npossible acme of produce, it _appears always_, as if the want of\nindustry, or the ill-direction of that industry was the actual limit to\na further increase of produce and population, and not the absolute\nrefusal of nature to yield any more; but a man who is locked up in a\nroom, may be fairly said to be confined by the walls of it, _though he\nmay never touch_ them; and with regard to the principle of population,\nit is never the question whether a country will produce _any more_, but\nwhether it may be made to produce a sufficiency to keep pace with an\nunchecked increase of people.\u2019 This I confess is a singular passage for\na practical philosopher to write. Mr. Malthus here lays it down that the\nquestion is not whether we should do all the good we can, but whether we\nshould do what we cannot. As to his illustration of a man locked up in a\nroom, though it is smart and clever, it is not much to the purpose. The\ncase is really that of a man who has the range of a suite of rooms and\nwho in a fit of the spleen, or from indolence, or stupidity, or from any\nother cause you please, confines himself to one of them, or of a man who\nhaving hired a large commodious apartment, says, I never make use of the\nwhole of this apartment, I never go within a foot of the walls, I might\nas well have it partitioned off, it would be snugger and warmer, and so\nstill finding that he does not run against his partition any more than\nagainst the wall, should continue, being determined to have no\nunnecessary spare-room, to hemm himself in closer and closer till at\nlast he would be able to stir neither hand nor foot. That any one,\nallowing as Mr. Malthus does, that with proper management and industry\nthis country might be made to maintain _double_ its present number of\ninhabitants, or twenty millions instead of ten, should at the same time\naffect to represent this as a mere trifling addition, that practically\nspeaking cannot be taken into the account, can I think only be explained\nby supposing in that person either an extreme callousness of feeling, or\nwhich amounts to pretty much the same thing, a habit of making his\nopinions entirely subservient to his convenience, or to any narrow\npurpose he may have in view at the moment.\u2014Perhaps if the truth were\nknown, I am as little sanguine in my expectations of any great\nimprovement to be made in the condition of human life either by the\nvisions of philosophy, or by downright, practical, parliamentary\nprojects, as Mr. Malthus himself can be. But the matter appears to me\nthus. It requires some exertion and some freedom of will to keep even\nwhere we are. If we tie up our hands, shut our eyes to the partial\nadvantages we possess, and cease to exert ourselves in that direction in\nwhich we can do it with the most effect, we shall very soon \u2018go deep in\nthe negative series.\u2019 Take away the hope and the tendency to\nimprovement, and there is nothing left to counteract the opposite\nnever-failing tendency of human things \u2018from bad to worse.\u2019 There is\ntherefore a serious practical reason against losing sight of the object,\neven when we cannot attain it. However, I am \u2018free to confess\u2019 (to\nborrow the language of my betters) that there is as much selfishness as\npublic spirit in my resistance to Mr. Malthus\u2019s contradictions. It is a\nremote question whether the world will ever be much wiser than it is:\nbut what I am certainly interested in, is not to submit to have all my\nideas confounded by barren sophistry, nor to give up the little\nunderstanding which I may actually possess. Nor for my own part, were I\nconfined to my room, should I think myself obliged to any one for\nblocking up my view of a pleasant prospect, because I could not move\nfrom the place, where I was.\n\nThe fundamental principle of Mr. Malthus\u2019s essay is that population has\na constant tendency to become excessive, because it has a tendency to\nincrease not only in a progressive, but in a geometrical ratio, whereas\nthe means of subsistence are either positively limited, or at most can\nonly be made to increase in an arithmetical ratio. But to be sure of\navoiding any thing like misrepresentation in this part of the argument,\nwhere the least error or omission might be fatal to our author\u2019s whole\nscheme, let us take his own words.\n\n\u2018It may be safely affirmed that population when unchecked goes on\ndoubling itself every twenty-five years, or increases in a geometrical\nratio.\n\n\u2018That we may be the better able to compare the increase of population\nand food, let us make a supposition, which without pretending to\naccuracy, is clearly more favourable to the power of production in the\nearth, than any experience that we have had of its qualities will\nwarrant.\n\n\u2018Let us suppose that the yearly additions which might be made to the\nformer average produce, instead of decreasing, which they certainly\nwould do, were to remain the same; and that the produce of this island\nmight be increased every twenty-five years by a quantity equal to what\nit at present produces; the most enthusiastic speculator cannot suppose\na greater increase than this. In a few centuries it would make every\nacre of land in the island like a garden.\n\n\u2018If this supposition be applied to the whole earth, and if it be allowed\nthat the subsistence for man which the earth affords, might be increased\nevery twenty-five years by a quantity equal to what it at present\nproduces; this will be supposing a rate of increase much greater than we\ncan imagine that any possible exertions of mankind could make it.\n\n\u2018It may be fairly pronounced therefore that considering the present\naverage state of the earth, the means of subsistence, under\ncircumstances the most favourable to human industry, could not possibly\nbe made to increase faster than in an arithmetical ratio.\n\n\u2018The necessary effects of these two different rates of increase, when\nbrought together, will be very striking. Let us call the population of\nthis island eleven millions; and suppose the present produce equal to\nthe easy support of such a number. In the first twenty-five years the\npopulation would be twenty-two millions, and the food being also\ndoubled, the means of subsistence would be equal to this increase. In\nthe next twenty-five years, the population would be forty-four millions,\nand the means of subsistence only equal to the support of thirty-three\nmillions. In the next period, the population would be eighty-eight\nmillions, and the means of subsistence just equal to the support of half\nthat number. And at the conclusion of the first century, the population\nwould be a hundred and seventy-six millions, and the means of\nsubsistence only equal to the support of fifty-five millions; leaving a\npopulation of a hundred and twenty-one millions totally unprovided for.\n\n\u2018Taking the whole earth instead of this island, emigration would of\ncourse be excluded: and supposing the present population equal to a\nthousand millions, the human species would increase as the numbers 1, 2,\n4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, and subsistence as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,\n9. In two centuries the population would be to the means of subsistence\nas 256 to 9; in three centuries as 4096 to 13, and in two thousand\nyears, the difference would be almost incalculable.\n\n\u2018In this supposition no limits whatever are placed to the produce of the\nearth. It may increase for ever, and be greater than any assignable\nquantity; yet still _the power of population being in every period_ so\nmuch superior, the increase of the human species can only be kept down\nto the level of the means of subsistence by the _constant operation of\nthe strong law of necessity_ acting as a check upon the greater power;\u2019\nor as he elsewhere expresses it \u2018_by misery or the fear of misery_.\u2019\n\nOh! my good Sir, spare your calculations. We do not wish to be informed\nwhat would be the exact proportion of the _imaginary_ means of\nsubsistence to the _imaginary_ population at a period, and at a rate of\nincrease, at which, if it had been possible for it to have gone on only\nhalf so long as you suppose, the whole race would have been long ago\n_actually_ extinct. Mr. Malthus here treats us as the fantastical\nlandlord treated _Sancho Panza_, by giving him a magnificent list of a\ngreat variety of delicacies, which it appeared on examination were not\nto be had, but made no mention of an excellent dish of cow-heel, which\nwas the only thing he had in the house, and which exactly suited the\nstomach of the squire. I am, like Sancho, disposed to be satisfied with\nwhat I can get; and therefore I must fairly tell Mr. Malthus that if he\nwill only spare me that first ratio of his, of a doubled population with\nrespect to this island, or to the whole earth (though there, begging his\npardon, if all other things went right, his arithmetical and geometrical\ndistinction would not as I have shewn come into play for some time), I\nsay if he will allow, as far as the principle of population is\nconcerned, that it is possible to double the number of inhabitants of\nthis country or of the world without any injury, I shall be perfectly\ncontent with this concession: this first ratio shall be to me the golden\nnumber of Pythagoras, and he may do as he pleases with all the remaining\nlinks of an impossible series, which he has started only, I imagine, as\nwe throw out a tub to a whale by way of diversion. As to any serious\nargument, it is perfectly immaterial, perfectly irrelevant to the\nquestion, _whether we should double our population_, that we cannot\nforsooth go on doubling it for ever; unless indeed it could be shewn\nthat by thus doubling it once, when we can do it without any\ninconvenience, we should be irresistibly impelled to go on doubling it\nafterwards when it would have become exceedingly inconvenient, and in\nfact till the consequence would be general famine and the most extensive\nmisery. Without this addition to his argument, either expressed or\nimplied, Mr. Malthus\u2019s double series is of no use or avail whatever: it\nlooks very pretty upon paper, and reads very neat, but is of no\npractical importance. The evils which it describes so accurately as\narising from the increased disproportion between the ratios at every\nstep are mere imaginary things, existing no where but in the morbid\nenthusiasm of Mr. Malthus\u2019s mind, unless we suppose that every increase\nof the existing population, either with or without a proportionable\nincrease in the means of subsistence, is a vicious habit, a species of\nphrensy, where one step only leads to another, till we are plunged into\nirretrievable ruin. But I would ask, supposing the inhabitants of a\ncountry to have increased gradually in consequence of an increase in the\nmeans of subsistence, from two millions to four, how that population of\nfour millions would have a greater tendency to excess, than the present\npopulation of two millions? Would not the same sense of inconvenience,\nthe same dread of poverty, the same regard to the comforts of life,\noperate in the same way and just as much upon every individual of the\nfour millions, as upon every individual of the two millions? What then\nbecomes of the increased tendency to excessive population in consequence\nof its actual increase? Yet without this, an increased population is not\nin itself an evil, or a good necessarily leading to evil, but a pure and\nunmixed good unconnected with any greater evil.\n\nEven our author\u2019s own account will give us a new country and a new\nearth; it will double all the happiness and all the enjoyment that there\nis at present in the world. If he had been a man of sanguine or poetical\nfeelings, methinks this single consideration would have been enough to\nhave made his heart leap up with a lively joy\u2014to see \u2018fast by hanging in\na golden chain this pendant world,\u2019 &c. but he is a man whom you may\ncall rather of a saturnine than of a sanguine disposition. He therefore\nhad no leisure to behold this cheering object, but passes on \u2018to\nnature\u2019s farthest verge,\u2019 till he enters once more into \u2018the confines of\nChaos, and the bosom of dim night.\u2019 Mr. Malthus somewhere speaks\nfamiliarly of the association of ideas, as if he were acquainted with\nthat doctrine. He has here at any rate very skilfully availed himself of\nthat kind of reasoning, which owes all its weight to that mechanical\nprinciple. In all the stages of an unchecked population, except the\nfirst, it having appeared that there is a great disproportion between\nthis principle and the progress of agriculture, our author concludes\nthat his readers will forget that that, which is so often represented as\nan evil, can ever be a good, and therefore peremptorily adds, in\ndefiance of his own statement, that in _every period_ of the increase,\nthe power of population is much superior to the other. Though it appears\nto me then that Mr. Malthus by his ratios has gained nothing in point of\nargument over his readers, he has gained much upon their imagination. By\nrepresenting population so often as an evil, and by magnifying its\nincrease in certain cases as so enormous an evil, he raises a general\nprejudice against it. Whenever you talk of any improvement or any\nincrease of population consequent upon it, he immediately plays off his\ninfinite series against you. He makes the transition from a practicable\nto an impracticable increase of population, from that degree of it,\nwhich is desirable to that which is excessive, by the assistance of his\nmathematical scale, as easily as you pass from the low notes of a\nharpsichord to the high ones. There seems no division between them. It\nis true that so long as we confine ourselves to the real question before\nus and distinguish between what is practicable, and what can never\npossibly happen, the evil consequences of the system we contend for are\nmerely chimerical. But as Hercules in order to strangle the earth-born\nAnt\u00e6us was obliged to lift him from the ground, Mr. Malthus, in order to\ncomplete his triumph over common sense, is obliged to call to his aid\ncertain airy speculations and fanciful theories of dangers, that, by his\nown confession, can never possibly exist. Whenever you are for setting\nout on the road of reform, Mr. Malthus stops you on the threshold, and\nsays, Do you consider where you are going? Don\u2019t you know where this\nroad will lead you? and then, with a \u2018come on, sir, here\u2019s the place:\nlook how fearful and dizzy \u2019tis to cast one\u2019s eye so low\u2019; he hurries\nyou forward to his imaginary precipice, and shews you the danger you\nhave so narrowly escaped. However, it is not Mr. Malthus\u2019s rhetoric, but\nour own wilful blindness, that must persuade us that we have escaped\nbeing dashed to pieces down any precipices, when he himself tells us\nthat the road is nothing more than a long winding declivity.\n\nI conceive there were two very capital errors in Mr. Malthus\u2019s first\nessay, which though he has abandoned or in a great measure softened them\ndown in his subsequent edition, still adhere to all his reasonings, and\ngive them a wrong bias. The first of these was, that vice and misery are\nthe only checks to population: secondly, that if population were for any\ntime freed from these restraints, it would in that case go on increasing\nwith a force and rapidity, which nothing would be able to withstand, and\nwhich would bear down the feeble mounds that had before opposed its\nprogress till the whole would end in one wide scene of universal uproar\nand confusion. As if, in the first place, mere misery of itself, without\na sense of greater misery, and a desire to avoid it, would do any thing\nto prevent population; and in the second place, as if though the tax of\nvice and misery were taken off for a time, yet the recurrence of the\nsame evils afterwards would not operate in the same way to repress\npopulation, or as if population would in the mean time have acquired any\npreternatural strength, with which its counteracting causes would be\nunable to contend, or as if the mere mechanical checks to population\nfrom the actual evils attendant upon it were not always necessarily a\nmatch for, and proportioned to, the strength of the principle itself,\nand its immediate tendency to excess. It is astonishing to see how those\nmen, who pique themselves the most on the solidity of their\nunderstandings, and on a kind of dull matter-of-fact plodding accuracy,\nare perpetually led away by their imaginations: the more so because they\nare the dupes of their own vanity, and never suspect that they are\nliable to any such deception. In the present instance our author has\nbeen hurried into an unfounded assumption by having his imagination\nheated with a _personification_. He has given to the principle of\npopulation a personal existence, conceiving of it as a sort of infant\nHercules, as one of that terrific giant brood, which you can only master\nby strangling it in its cradle; forgetting that the antagonist principle\nwhich he has made its direct counterpoise, still grows with its growth\nand strengthens with its strength, being in fact its own offspring: and\nthat the sharper evils which excessive population brings along with it,\nmore severe in proportion to its excess, naturally tend to repress and\nkeep population down to the same level, other circumstances being\nsupposed the same. Nothing can be clearer to my understanding than this;\nyet it is upon the misrepresentation or misconception of this principle\nthat most of Mr. Malthus\u2019s sophisms and ambiguities hinge.\n\nIt is necessary to make a distinction between the tendency in population\nto increase, and its power to increase; otherwise we may fall into great\nerrors. The power of population to increase is an abstract thing\nindependent of circumstances, and which is therefore always the same.\nIts effects may therefore be very well described by a mathematical\nseries. When we speak of the power of population to increase in a\ncertain continued ratio, we do not mean to say that it will or will not\ndo so, but merely that it is possible that it should do so from the\nnature of the principle itself. The power of population to increase is\nin fact the same both before and after it has become excessive. But I\nconceive this is not the case with its _tendency_ to increase, unless we\nmean its _unchecked tendency_, which is saying nothing; for if we speak\nof its real tendency to increase, this certainly is not always the same,\nbut depends exceedingly on circumstances, that is, is greater or less in\nproportion as the population is or is not excessive. The ratio in which\nMr. Malthus has represented population as having a natural tendency to\nincrease, can therefore only relate to its unchecked progress, or to its\nincrease while the means of subsistence can be made to keep pace with\nit; inasmuch as it has an actual tendency to increase in this ratio,\nonly while it is free from checks; but the moment these checks begin to\noperate it is necessarily limited by them, or kept down within a certain\npoint to the level of the means of subsistence. In short, as a practical\nguide, Mr. Malthus\u2019s table is extremely fallacious; for the population\nhas a tendency to go on as 1, 2, 4, 8, &c. only while the subsistence\nanswers to it, or is as 1, 2, 4, 8, &c. and when the means of\nsubsistence can only be made to increase as 1, 2, 3, 4, &c. then the\npopulation will, in the natural course of things, come down to it and\nincrease only as 1, 2, 3, 4, &c. or supposing it to have generally a\ncertain tendency to excess, it will then increase as 1\u00bc, 2\u00bd, 3\u00be, 5, &c.\nThe actual, positive, practical tendency in population _to increase_ is\nnot therefore always the same, and for that very reason its tendency _to\nexcess_ is always the same, neither greater nor less, in consequence of\nthe absolute increase in population. Mr. Malthus himself admits fully\nthe distinction between the actual increase of population and its\nexcessive increase, between the tendency of population to increase with\nthe means of subsistence and its tendency to increase beyond those\nmeans. In fact, almost one half of his voluminous work is taken up by\nextensive historical researches to prove that the population is in all\nages and countries, in every form of society, and stage of civilization\nkept down _nearly_ to the means of subsistence: that population has not\ntherefore at one time more than another, when it is strong than when it\nis weak, in an improved than in a neglected state of cultivation, a\ntendency to rush on beyond its necessary limits: yet if there is any one\ninference to be drawn from the general spirit and tenor of Mr. Malthus\u2019s\nreasonings, it is this, that we ought not to encourage population, nor\nbe anxious about the increase of the means of subsistence, but ought\nrather to keep them back as much as possible, because every addition\nmade to population by whatever means or in whatever circumstances, has a\ndirect and unavoidable tendency to make it go on increasing with an\naccelerated force; or that the positive benefit of an enlarged\npopulation is always counterbalanced by the increased danger of the\nexcess to which it naturally leads. Mr. Malthus by setting a certain\ndegree of plenty against a certain degree of excessive population, has\nmade it appear as if the two things were inseparably connected, as if\nsupposing a certain progress made in the one ratio you may then by\npassing over to the opposite line see immediately what progress had been\nmade at the same time in the other, that is, what quantity of actual and\nexcessive population, proportioned to the increase in the means of\nsubsistence and its immediate consequence, would require to be cut off\nby forcible and unnatural means, by vice and misery. It therefore looks\nvery much as if plenty were the immediate fore-runner of famine, as if\nby sowing the seeds of virtue and happiness you were ensuring a larger\nharvest of vice and misery, the evil engrafted on any good being always\ngreater than the real benefit itself, and as if by advancing population\nand increasing the means of its support, you were only opening a new\nIliad of woes, and giving larger scope to the baneful operation of this\nprinciple. So that it is not the increase of good that we are to think\nof, but the introduction of evil that we are to guard against. The\nproportion by which we are to be guided is clear and demonstrable; it is\nas 256 to 9, and so regularly through all the gradations upwards and\ndownwards. At this rate it is pretty clear that our only object must be\nto confine human happiness within as narrow limits, and to keep the\npopulation down as low as possible, at least to suffer no addition to\nit. We are something in the condition of a man suspended on a balance\nwith sharp-pointed spikes placed close to his body, and who must not\nstir for his life. Now the source of this fallacy (on which the whole\nturns, for without it it is null and abortive) lies here, namely in\nsupposing that of the two ratios here connected together, the one is the\ncause of, or has any thing to do with the other. For the ratio in the\nupper line being at number 256 does not depend on the other ratio being\nat number 9, but simply on its being so many removes from the root or\nfirst number. It only expresses a possible or imaginary series, or the\nindependent, direct, physical power of increase, or abstract tendency to\nincrease in population at each step, and what that increase would amount\nto in a given number of steps, being left entirely to itself. If it\nexpresses any thing else, or the actual increase of population combined\nwith and in reference to the means of subsistence, it is utterly false\nand delusive, and a contradiction in terms. For population as regulated\nby, and arising out of the means of subsistence cannot have got the\nstart of it in so prodigious a manner, and as unconnected with the\nincrease of the latter cannot depend upon it. In the one case,\npopulation instead of being to the means of subsistence as 256 to 9,\nwill only be a little a-head of it, or as 9\u00bd to 9: in the other case it\nwill be as 256, whether the food has in a given time increased from 1 to\n9, or only from 1 to 6, or whether it has stood still at 1. The number\nof inhabitants from the beginning of the world, proceeding by the\ngeometrical ratio, would have been going on just the same whether they\nhad ever had any thing to eat or not (they are a kind of enchanted\npeople who live without food) whether the quantity of food had been more\nor less, whether there has been any improvements in agriculture or not.\nThough the improvements in agriculture had stood still at 1 in the\narithmetical scale this would not lessen or alter the height to which\nthe geometrical scale would have mounted in the interval. \u2018It keeps on\nits way unslacked of motion.\u2019 By advancing in the arithmetical scale or\nincreasing the means of subsistence, you do not advance the geometrical\nscale, much less by increasing the disproportion between the two, do you\nincrease the _waste_ population of the world, which must be greater in\nproportion as less of it had been provided for. On the other hand, you\nnecessarily lessen this disproportion. For instead of supposing that if\nwe had remained at 1 in the lower scale, we should then have been at 1\nin the upper, or that if we had advanced no further than 3, the\ndisproportion would then only have been 4 to 3, and so on, whereas by\ngoing on it is now as 256 to 9, the fact is that the disproportion\ninstead of being as 256 to 9, would have been 256 to 1, or 2, or 3: and\nthat the further we go in the one scale, though we cannot keep up with,\nor overtake the other, yet we lose so much the less ground and are\nnearer it than we should otherwise be. To argue otherwise is to be like\nthe children who when they cannot keep up with others, stand still and\nbegin to cry, thinking this the likeliest way to make them slacken their\npace. I shall therefore beg leave to look upon every increase in the\nmeans of subsistence or actual population, as so much gained upon the\n_infinite series_: by keeping back the _actual_ means of subsistence, I\ndo not lessen the _possible_ or abstract tendency of population to\nincrease, and I only add to its actual tendency to increase in\nproportion as I add to its actual means of support. We have therefore a\nclear addition to its actual quantity without any addition to its\ntendency to excess, or without strengthening the evil principle, the\ngerm of incalculable mischief, which population contains within it. Mr.\nMalthus has taken no pains to guard his readers against the conclusion,\nthat by increasing the actual population, you increase its actual\ntendency to increase, as if either the disposition to propagate the\nspecies were stronger in proportion to the number of those who possess\nit, or as if in proportion as the power is spread over a larger surface,\nit were not counteracted by being accompanied in each individual with a\nproportionable share of common sense and reason, so that he will not be\na bit more likely to run upon famine because there will be twice as many\nto keep him company as there used to be. The tendency to excessive\npopulation in any community does not depend upon the number of\nindividuals in it, who have the power of abusing their liberty, or on\nthe quantity of mischief they _might_ do, but upon the moral character\nof the individuals composing it, upon the difference between the\nstrength of moral restraint and the strength of physical appetite, or on\nthe actual inconvenience to which they _will_ submit for the sake of\ngratifying their passions. In short the tendency to excess does not\ndepend on the point in the scale where the _limit_ is drawn, but upon\nthe tendency to overleap that limit; now this tendency or _impetus_ is\nnot increased by the distance which it has gone, like a stone rolling\ndown a hill, or like a torrent of water accumulating, but is like a cart\nor waggon left on a declivity with a drag-chain fastened to one of the\nwheels, which is carried forward till the chain is pulled tight and then\nit stops of itself. This is a very clumsy comparison, but it has some\nresemblance to the thing. We are not to calculate the actual tendency to\nexcess in population by the excess of the power itself over the means of\nsubsistence, which is greater as we advance, but by the excess of the\npower restrained by other motives and principles over the means of\nsubsistence. In algebraic language the tendency to excess is not equal\nto the power of population simply, but to the power, _minus_ the\ndifficulty of providing for its support, or the influence which that\ndifficulty has on the conduct of rational beings.\n\nIf we suppose a barren island with half a dozen savages upon it, living\nupon roots, vermin, and crawfish, without any of the arts or any of the\nconveniences of life, ignorant of agriculture, neither knowing nor\ncaring how to improve their condition, passing their time in stupid\nindolence, with as little pretensions to reason or refinement as can\nwell be desired, in short a very unphilosophical, improgressive,\nviscious, miserable set of barbarians as need be; now what difference\nwould it make in the condition of these poor uninformed wretches, or how\nwould it add to their vices, their ignorance, or \u2018squalid poverty,\u2019 if\nwe suppose another island at a few leagues distance, of about the same\ncircumference, maintaining nearly the same number of inhabitants living\nin the same manner? Yet as it is probable that these poor lousy\nwretches[7] leading a life of sloth and hunger, may upon the whole have\nmore enjoyment than misery (for even the life of a savage seems better\nthan no life at all, nay some have gone so far as to say that it was\nbetter than any other life) it would be desirable that there should be\nsuch another island so inhabited. But it is exactly the same thing\nwhether we suppose twice the number of people inhabiting twice the\nextent of ground, or maintained on the same ground, being twice as much\ncultivated; population would not press the more on the means of\nsubsistence, nor would the misery be greater, nor the checks required to\nprevent it greater. That is to say, an advance made in the state of\ncultivation and in the arts of life so as to maintain double the\npopulation must always be the means of doubling the numbers and\nenjoyment of any people. The only possible difference would be that as\nthis increased population would be the consequence of greater industry\nand knowledge, it would, one should think, denote of itself, that the\npeople would be less liable to unforeseen accidents, and less likely to\ninvolve themselves in wilful distress than before. This is the first\nstep in the progress of civilization and in the history of all nations.\nFrom this description of a barren island supporting a few wandering\nhalf-starved ignorant savages, such as England might have been once, let\nus turn our eyes to what England is now;\u2014populous, enlightened, free,\nrich, powerful and happy; excelling equally in arts, and arms, the\ndelight and terror of the rest of the world; the abode of science, the\nnurse of virtue, the darling seat of the muses; boasting her long line\nof heroes, and sages; her Bacon, her Newton, her Shakespear, her Milton,\nand her Locke;[8] blest with the most perfect government administered in\nthe most perfect manner; having a king, lords, and commons, each\nbalancing the other, and each in their several station and degree being\nsecurity for every kind of liberty and every kind of property,\nharmoniously conspiring together for the good of the whole, taking care\nfirst of their own rights and interests as the most important, and then\nof those of others: subject to mild and equal laws, which afford the\nsame immediate protection to every one in the enjoyment of his liberty\nand his property, whether that property is five thousand a year or no\nmore than a shilling a day: maintaining in different degrees of comfort,\nand affluence, from the common necessaries to the highest luxuries of\nlife, ten millions of souls, all supported by their own labour and\nindustry or that of others; all plying close with cheerful and patient\nactivity to some ingenious and useful handicraft, or some more severe\nbut necessary labour, or else reclining in ease and elegance, and\nbasking in the sunshine of life; her meanest beggar owing the rags which\ncover his nakedness, and the crust of bread which keeps his body and\nsoul together to some of the most useful inventions which support, and\nto that humanity which is only to be found in civilized society. Shall\nwe forget her schools, her colleges, her hospitals, her churches, her\ncrowded cities, her streets lined with shops, enriched with the produce\nand manufactures of her own soil, or glittering with the spoils of a\nhundred nations, her thronged assemblies, her theatres, her balls, her\noperas, her \u2018palaces, her ladies and her pomp\u2019; her villas, her parks,\nher cottages, her hamlets, her rich cultivated lands, teeming with\nplenty, her green valleys, her \u2018upland swells, echoing to the bleat of\nflocks,\u2019 her brave contented peasantry, their simple manners and honest\nintegrity; and shall we wish to degrade this queen of nations, this\nmistress of the world once more into a horde of fierce barbarians,\ntreading back our steps, and resigning this splendid profusion of all\nthat can adorn and gladden human life, this gay variety, this happy\nunion of all that is useful and all that is ornamental, the refinements\nof taste and decorations of fashion, the beautiful distinctions of\nartificial society, and the solid advantages derived from our\nconstitution in church and state, for the groveling dispositions, the\nbrutal ignorance, the disgusting poverty, the dried skins and miserable\nhuts of the inhabitants of Terra del Fuego, or New Holland? Yet this it\nseems from the doctrine of Mr. Malthus is our only safe policy, since\nthe lower we are in the scale of existence, the fewer and more miserable\nwe are, the farther removed we must be from the tremendous evils of\nexcessive population, which are the necessary consequences of the\nprogress of refinement and civilization. But as the fact _so far_ does\nnot, as I suppose Mr. Malthus will himself allow, square with his\ntheory, (for at no time during the progress of cultivation does the\npopulation appear to have been pressing with increased force on the\nmeans of subsistence, so that though the produce of the earth was\nincreasing every year, the inhabitants were increasing much faster,\nevery addition to the actual produce only occasioning some new addition\nto the swoln and bloated state of population, and aggravating the\nalready dreadful symptoms of the disease) as I say the progress of\ncultivation and improvement of different kinds has not produced any of\nthose fatal consequences we might be led to expect from it, so neither\ndo I apprehend any of these fatal consequences in future from carrying\nit as much farther as it can go. I should just reverse the reasoning of\nMr. Malthus, who taking the evil as at its greatest height when the\nworld is supposed to be completely full and completely enlightened,\nthence argues downwards against all attempts at improvement as dangerous\ninnovations; so I, finding that an improved cultivation and enlarged\npopulation are good things through the inferior gradations, am apt to\nthink they would continue so, proceeding upwards to the topmost round of\nthe ladder, as far as population is concerned, for I once more give full\nand fair warning that I engage in this question no farther, any loose,\ngeneral or accidental expressions to the contrary notwithstanding. To\nmake good Mr. Malthus\u2019s argument against population, we must suppose, as\nI have said before, that the tendency in population to increase goes on\nincreasing with the thing itself: this would be true, if as our author\nsupposes in his first edition, the passion always required the same\nvent, in all circumstances, that is if we suppose man to be a mere\nheadstrong animal in this respect, his reason having no influence\nwhatever over his conduct, or which amounts to the same thing, that\n_actual_ vice and misery (not foreseen, but felt) are the only checks to\npopulation. At this rate, it is evident that the degree of misery\nattending the gratification of the passion would have no effect to\nrestrain it, all degrees being alike indifferent or that the quantity of\nactual misery incurred would be in proportion to the increased power of\nproducing it. I shall examine these positions more at large in another\nletter; I here wish to shew in a few words that as applied to the\nsubject of increasing population, they lead to a direct absurdity. If we\nsuppose this passion to be perfectly blind and insensible, to be deaf to\nall remonstrance, and regardless of all consequences, then no matter in\nwhat depths of misery it involves us, it will have its way, and go its\nown lengths. Take away the preventive check of _moral restraint_ (which\nonly comes in as a snivelling interpolation in some places of the second\nedition) and the population would no doubt go on doubling as fast as it\ncould, not as fast as the means of subsistence would let it; that is,\nthe excess of population would be great in proportion to the actual\nprevious increase, or the excessive multiplication of the species would\nbe the necessary consequence of, and commensurate with the power of\nexcessive multiplication, which would depend on the number of persons\nhaving that power. Now this is contrary to all we know of facts and\nhuman nature, since in this case there could be no restraint to\npopulation at any time, but the extreme of vice or the extreme of\nmisery. The power of population to increase is (we will grant)\nunlimited, but the tendency to increase is necessarily limited by its\ntendency to excess and limited by it in proportion to the excess. That\nis to say, it does not follow that though when there ought to be only\ntwo millions of inhabitants, there may be four, owing to the weakness of\nthe above-mentioned principle of _moral restraint_, that therefore that\nfour (by the tendency of population to increase in a geometrical ratio\nor to double itself,) will in like manner become eight, and so on,\nnamely because the checks to it will increase in proportion; or though\nthe prospect of the inconveniences arising from doubling the population\nin the first instance, the quantity of food remaining the same, might\nnot be sufficient to deter people, or overcome this propensity, yet the\nprospect of famine consequent upon the second doubling undoubtedly\nwould, because their regard to consequences is supposed to remain the\nsame, and the evils they have to dread in the one case are greater, and\nunless we suppose them to have become more stupid and brutal, must\noperate upon them more forcibly than in the other. The strength of the\npassion itself may be considered as always the same, or a given\nquantity: but the motives to resist it arising from the consequences of\nits indulgence are not always the same, but may be either none at all,\nor very slight, or considerable, or extreme, as the obstacles to its\nindulgence may be either none at all, of a trifling inconvenience, or\npoverty, or absolute famine. Now the degree of excess in population, or\nthe inconveniences to which we expose ourselves by inconsiderate\ngratification will depend entirely on the difference, be it more or\nless, between the strength of the passion in each individual, and the\nstrength of moral restraint. If the latter principle is weak, it will\nrequire to be stimulated by the immediate apprehension of some very\ngreat inconvenience, before it will become a match for the importunity\nof physical desire. If it is strong, a general conviction of the\npropriety or prudence of self-denial will be sufficient to incline the\nbalance. But in no case unless we suppose man to be degraded to the\ncondition of the brutes, will this principle be so low and weak as to\nhave no effect at all, so that no apprehension of the last degree of\nwretchedness, as the consequence, would take off or abate the edge of\nappetite. There is therefore always a point at which the excess ceases,\nand we have seen what this point at all times is. Thus if the operation\nof rational motives is so much upon a level with the physical impulse,\nas to keep population exactly or nearly down to the means of\nsubsistence, it will do so equally whether that population is actually\ngreater or less, whether it is stationary or progressive, for it will\nincrease only with the means by which it is supported. On the other hand\nif from the manners, the habits, and institutions of society, there is a\nconsiderable tendency in population to excess, this tendency to excess\nwill not be greater or less in proportion to the actual number of\ninhabitants, or the actual quantity of food, nor will it depend on their\nbeing progressive or stationary, but on the morals of the people being\nretrograde, progressive, or stationary; for the tendency of population\nitself to excess or to _increase_ excessively (a dubious kind of\nexpression) is not a perpetual, indefinite, invariable tendency to\nincrease from 2 to 4, from 4 to 8, &c. (as I have just shewn) but a\ntendency to increase _beyond_ the means of subsistence to a certain\npoint or degree. This tendency to excess will consequently be the same\nwherever we fix the point of subsistence, because it is only a given\ntendency to outstrip that limit whether nearer or farther off, whether\nadvancing or retreating.[9] It is true there is a tendency in population\nin this case to increase _faster_ than the means of subsistence, but not\nto increase _faster and faster_, or to get more and more a-head of it.\nIt is in fact only a disproportionate superiority in certain motives\nover others, which subjects the community or certain classes of it to a\ngreat degree of want and hardship: and as far as their imprudence and\nfolly will carry them, they will go, but they will not go farther. They\nwill submit to be _pinched_, but not to be _starved_, unless this\nconsequence may sometimes be supposed to follow from the partial and\nunnatural debasement of certain classes of the community, by driving\nthem to despair and rendering them callous to suffering. But the general\ntendency in population to become excessive can only be increased by the\nincreased relaxation of moral restraint, or by gradually weakening the\nmotives of prudence, reason, &c. I cannot make this matter plainer.\n\nMr. Malthus has not I conceive given this question of increasing\npopulation and practical improvement fair play. He has contrived to\ncover over its real face and genuine features with the terrible mask of\nmodern philosophy. His readers having been prevailed upon to give up the\nfee-simple of their understandings into his hands, that no undue\nadvantages might be taken of them by the _perfectibility_ school, they\nfind it difficult to get it back out of his hands, though they want it\nto go on again (the alarm being over) in the old road of common sense,\npractical improvement, and liberal discussion. He had persuaded himself\nthat population was such an enormous evil in connection with a scheme of\nunlimited improvement, that he can hardly reconcile himself to it, or\ntell whether to think it a good or an evil in any shape, or according to\nany scheme. By indulging his prejudices, he has so confounded his\nperceptions, that he cannot judge rightly, even when he wishes to do it.\nHe found it most convenient, when he had to confute Mr. Godwin, to\ndescribe reason as a principle of no practical value whatever, as a mere\nnegation. As therefore by the removal of vice and misery the office of\nchecking population would devolve upon this principle, which could do\nnothing, population would in fact have no check left to it, and then\ncertainly the most terrible consequences would ensue. The only question\nwould be, how soon we should begin cutting one another\u2019s throats, or how\nmany (whether a greater or a smaller number) had better be employed on\nthis kind of work. We perceive very plainly that this must be the\ninevitable consequence of increased population, if it can only be kept\ndown by the positive checks of vice and misery. We apply the theory very\nclearly to a future stage of the progress; but though, if the theory\nwere true, exactly the same scenes ought to be acting before our eyes at\npresent on a smaller scale, yet as we find that this is not the case, we\nleave this circumstance out of the question, and conclude that there\nmust be some secret difference, some occult cause, something we cannot\nvery well explain, which makes the present state of things preferable to\nall others: at least whatever might be the consequences of population,\nif certain alterations and improvements were to take place, we are sure\nthat it produces no such consequences at present. With respect to the\nlower, or actual stages of population and improvement, Mr. Malthus\nsupposes the _preventive_ checks to operate as well as the _positive_,\nthe fear of misery as well as the misery itself, because we know that it\ndoes: but whenever you suppose any alteration or improvement to take\nplace in the world, so that you have not the fact to confront him with,\nhe immediately assumes the positive checks, or actual vice and misery,\nas the only checks to population; herein trusting to his theory.\nWhenever you are found to be advancing in the scale (which must be\nindeed from some of the restraints being taken off) he directly supposes\nthat you are to be set free from all restraints whatever. He lets loose\nhis ratios upon you, and away they go like a clock running down. This\nindeed would not be so well. Mr. Malthus thus artfully makes the\nquestion of progressive improvement to be, whether we are to be governed\nas now by mixed motives, or to be released from all moral restraint, for\nhe supposes that if population once passes a certain bourne, which he\npoints out to you, it will then become perfectly untractable, all its\nfuture excesses will be prevented only by actual vice and misery. Thus\nthough all the good of our present situation, all wherein it differs\nfrom a state of brutal violence or lingering want, is in fact owing to\nthe prevalence of a less degree of reason and foresight, yet that if\nthat principle were strengthened, and the consequence were an increase\nof population, and a more general diffusion of the comforts of life,\nthis principle would then be of no avail in preventing or correcting the\nexcesses to which the unrestrained indulgence of our appetites would\ngive rise. There is a degree of absurdity, which staggers belief and\nalmost challenges our conviction, by making it incredible that if we\nourselves do not labour under some strong deception, the human\nunderstanding should be capable of such extreme folly.\n\nI shall conclude this letter by laying down two or three general maxims,\nwhich appear to me to follow clearly from the view which has been here\ntaken of the subject.\n\nFirst, while population goes on increasing at that tremendous rate\ndescribed by Mr. Malthus, it shews that there is nothing to restrain it;\nthat there is no need of any thing to restrain it: that it is wanted,\nthat its increase is a thing to be desired, not to be dreaded, and that\nif it were possible for it to increase ten times faster, it would be so\nmuch the better.\n\nSecondly, when it arrives at a certain point, that is, where the\npopulation begins to press on the means of subsistence, either from\nnatural or artificial causes, or when it threatens to become an evil\nfrom excess, it naturally stops short of its own accord, the checks to\nit from vice, misery and moral restraint taken all together becoming\nstronger as the excess becomes greater. It therefore produces its own\nantidote and produces it in quantities exactly in proportion to its own\nextent. It is not therefore (as Mr. Malthus would, when he pleases, have\nus believe) like a stone hanging suspended over a precipice, which if it\nonce loses its balance will be hurled furiously down, rolling and\nbounding from steep to steep with increased velocity till it reaches the\nbottom, but like a balance suspended by a check-weight, where you cannot\nincrease the pressure on one side without increasing the resistance\nproportionably on the other. It may therefore at worst be left very\nsafely to itself, instead of being considered as an evil against whose\nunforeseen ravages no precautions are sufficient.\n\nThirdly, as the same quantity of vice and misery co-operating with the\nsame degree of moral restraint, will always keep population at the same\n(relative) point, so a less degree of actual vice and misery operating\non a greater degree of moral restraint, that is, of reason, prudence,\nvirtue, &c. will produce the same effect: and we may always judge of the\nhappiness of a people, and of the beneficial effects of population by\nthe prevalence of moral restraint over vice and misery, instead of\nsupposing that vice and misery are the best pledges of the happiness of\na state, and the only possible security against excessive population.\nConsequently, the object of the philosopher must be to increase the\ninfluence of rational motives, and lessen the actual operation of vice\nand misery. It is only in proportion as he does this, that he does any\nthing; for not only are vice and misery such cheap commodities that they\nmay be had at any corner merely with asking for (any bungler may\ncontract for them in the gross) but farther though they undoubtedly\noperate as checks to population, I must be excused from admitting that\nthey _remedy_ the evils of population, unless the disease can be\nconsidered as its own remedy, for in the degree in which they generally\nexist, they are the only evils, that are ever likely to rise from it,\nand as to those imaginary, unknown and unheard of evils, with which Mr.\nMalthus is perpetually threatening us in order to reconcile us to those\nwe bear, I deny the possibility of their existence upon any known\nprinciples of human society, either in its improved, or unimproved\nstate.\n\nI do not mean to say that there is any thing in the general principles\nhere stated that Mr. Malthus is at present disposed to deny, or that he\nhas not himself expressly insisted on in some part or other of his\n_various_ work; it is enough for my purpose that there are other parts\nof his work in which he has contradicted them and himself, and that the\nuniform tenor of his first work leans directly the opposite way; and it\nis not my business so much to inquire, how much Mr. Malthus retains of\nhis old philosophy, as how many of their old feelings his readers retain\non the subject, on which he will be able to build as many false\nconclusions as he pleases, and with more safety to himself, than if he\nstill persevered in the direct and unqualified assertion of exploded\nerror. Plain, downright consistent falsehood is not dangerous: it is\nonly that spurious mixture of truth and falsehood, that perpetual\noscillation between the two extremes, that wavering and uncertainty that\nbaffles detection by rendering it difficult to know on what ground you\nare to meet your adversary, that makes the sophist so formidable as he\nis. In order therefore that Mr. Malthus may not avail himself of his\ninconsistencies, I shall assume a right to contradict him as often as he\ncontradicts himself, and to consider the peculiar doctrines of his work\nas its essential and only important doctrines.\n\n\n\n\n                                LETTER V\nWHETHER VICE AND MISERY ARE THE NECESSARY CONSEQUENCES OF, AND THE ONLY\n                 CHECKS TO, THE PRINCIPLE OF POPULATION\n\n\nSIR\u2014I have in my last letter taken more pains than, I believe, was\nnecessary to shew that the tendency of population to increase is not a\n_dangerous_ one; or at any rate that the actual increase of population\ndoes not increase the danger. The same proportionable quantity of vice\nand misery would always be _sufficient_ to keep down the excess of\npopulation beyond the means of subsistence, whether we suppose those\nmeans to be great or small: there is another question, whether the same\nquantity of vice and misery is always _necessary_ for this purpose; and\nfurther, whether all the vice and misery in the world are not only\nnecessary checks to, but the immediate effects of, the principle of\npopulation, and of nothing else.\n\nBefore I proceed, I must stop to observe that I have just been perusing\nthe corrections, additions, &c. to the third and _last_ edition of the\nEssay; and I confess I have not much heart to go on. The pen falls from\nmy hand. For to what purpose is it to answer a man, who has answered\nhimself, who has hardly advanced an opinion that he has not retracted,\nwho after all your pains to overturn the extravagant assertions he had\nbrought forward, comes and tells you, Why I have given them up myself;\nso that you hardly know whether to look upon him in the light of an\nadversary or an ally. I do not like this shadow-fighting, any more than\nSancho liked his master\u2019s fighting with enchanters. When Don Quixote had\nto encounter the knight of the Prodigious Nose, his valour was inflamed,\nand he rushed fiercely on his antagonist, but when after having unhorsed\nhim, he found that it was his old friend and neighbour the Batchelor\nCarrasco, the fury of his arm was suspended, and he knew not what to say\nor do.[10] Till Mr. Malthus lays aside his harlequin\u2019s coat and sword,\nand ceases to chase opinions through a rapid succession of varying\neditions, it is not an easy matter to come up with him or give him fair\nbattle. It was thought a work of no small labour and ingenuity to make a\nharmony of the Evangelists. I would recommend it to some one (who thinks\nhimself equal to the task) to make a harmony of Mr. Malthus\u2019s different\nperformances. Till this is done, it seems impossible to collect the\nsense of his writings, and consequently to answer them. It should not\ntherefore be the object of any one who would set himself to answer Mr.\nMalthus, so much to say that such and such are the real and settled\nopinions of that author, as that such opinions are floating in different\nparts of his writings, that they are floating or fixed in the minds of\nhis readers, and that those opinions are not so correct as they might\nbe. If Mr. Malthus had chosen to disclaim certain opinions with their\nconsequences, advanced in the first edition, instead of denying that he\never held such opinions, though he may still be detected with the\n_manner_, he would have saved me the trouble of writing, and himself the\ndisagreeable task of reading, this _rude_ attack upon them.\n\nMr. Malthus lays down as the basis of all his reasonings the two\nfollowing positions, viz. \u2018First, that food is necessary to the\nexistence of man.\u2019\n\n\u2018Secondly, That the passion between the sexes is necessary, and will\nremain nearly in its present state.\u2019\n\n\u2018These two laws,\u2019 he adds, \u2018ever since we have had any knowledge of\nmankind, appear to have been fixed laws of our nature; and as we have\nnot hitherto seen any alteration in them, we have no right to conclude\nthat they will ever cease to be what they are now, without an immediate\nact of power in that Being who first arranged the system of the\nuniverse. The best arguments for the perfectibility of man are drawn\nfrom a contemplation of the great progress that he has already made from\nthe savage state, and the difficulty of saying where he is to stop. But\ntowards the extinction of the passion between the sexes, no progress\nwhatever has hitherto been made. It appears to exist in as much force at\npresent as it did two thousand, or four thousand years ago. There are\nindividual exceptions now as there always have been. But, as these\nexceptions do not appear to increase in number, it would surely be a\nvery unphilosophical mode of arguing to infer merely from the existence\nof an exception, that the exception would in time become the rule, and\nthe rule the exception.\u2019\n\nAs to the first position here laid down that food is necessary to the\nexistence of man, I shall not certainly dispute it. As to the second\nkind of necessity, the gratification of the passion between the sexes, I\nmust beg leave to deny that this necessity is \u2018like unto the first\u2019 or\nto be compared with it. Does Mr. Malthus really mean to say that a man\ncan no more abstain from the commerce of women, than he can live without\nfood? If so, he states what is not the fact. Does he mean to assert,\nthat the impulse to propagate the species, call it lust, or love, is a\nprinciple as strong, as ungovernable, as importunate, as uniform in its\neffects, as incapable of being subjected to the control of reason, or\ncircumstances, in short as much an affair of mere physical appetite, as\nhunger? One would suppose so, for he makes no distinction between them,\nbut speaks of them both in the same terms, as equally _necessary_, as\nequally fixed, and immutable laws of our nature, the operation of which\nnothing short of a miracle can suspend or alter. There are two\ncircumstances, the mentioning of which will however be sufficient to\nshew that the two kinds of necessity here spoken of are not of the same\norder, or cogency, and cannot be reasoned upon in the same manner,\nnamely, that there are many instances of persons who have lived all\ntheir lives without any intercourse with the other sex, whereas there is\nno instance of any person living without food; in the second place, what\nmakes a most marked distinction between the two cases, is that the\nlonger we have been accustomed to do without the indulgence of the one\nappetite, the more tractable we find it, whereas the craving occasioned\nby the want of food, the longer it continues, becomes more and more\npressing, and at last utterly ungovernable, and if not satisfied in\ntime, is sure in all cases whatever, without a single exception, to\ndestroy the person\u2019s life. These two considerations are of themselves\nquite sufficient to overturn the analogy which is here pretended to be\nset up between love and hunger (a delicate comparison)\u2014to shew that the\nfirst of these impulses is not an affair of mere physical necessity,\nthat it does not operate always in the same way, and that it is not a\nthing, over which reason, or circumstances have no power. What can be a\nstronger instance of the power of reason, or imagination, or habit over\nthis principle than the number of single women, who in every country,\ntill the manners become quite corrupt, preserve either through their\nwhole lives, or the best part of them the greatest purity and propriety\nof conduct? One would think that female modesty had been a flower that\nblossomed only in other climes (instead of being the peculiar growth of\nour own time and country!) that Mr. Malthus in the heat of his argument,\nand urged on by the ardour of his own feelings, is blind to the example\nof so many of his fair countrywomen, in whom the influence of a virtuous\neducation, of virtuous principles, and virtuous dispositions prevails\nover the warmth of the passions and force of temptation. Mr. Malthus\u2019s\ndoctrine is a most severe satire against the modesty and self-denial of\nthe other sex, and ruins in one sweeping clause the unblemished\nreputations of all those expecting or desponding virgins who had\nhitherto been supposed to live in the daily, hourly practice of this\nvirtue. Trenched as he is behind history, philosophy, and a knowledge of\nhuman nature, he laughs at all their prudery and affectation, and tells\nthem fairly that the thing is impossible; and that unless a miracle\ncould be worked in their favour, they might as well pretend to live\nwithout eating or drinking, or sleeping, as without the men. He must be\nof opinion with Iago, that \u2018their greatest merit is not to leave it\nundone but keep it unknown.\u2019 Surely, _no maid could live near such a\nman_.\u2014Though this is what Mr. Malthus _might_ say, it is not what he\n_does_ say: on the other hand, when he comes to particulars, (as he is\nrather a candid man, and does not trouble himself much about\nconsistency) instead of representing real chastity as a kind of miracle\nor monster in nature, he represents it as a very common thing and bears\nhonourable testimony to the virtue of most women, particularly in the\nmiddle and higher ranks of life, in this respect. But then this virtue\nis confined entirely to the women; the men neither do, nor ever will be\nable to practise it; and this again salves the objection to his\nargument. But this is of all others the strongest proof of the futility\nof Mr. Malthus\u2019s reasoning: for to what is this difference owing but to\nthe opinion of the world respecting their conduct, that is, to moral\ncauses? It cannot be said I presume that the greater command which the\nother sex have over themselves is because their heads are stronger and\ntheir passions weaker, (this would, I am sure, be out of all anatomical\nproportion): it is owing solely to the institutions of society, imposing\nthis restraint upon them; though these institutions, if we are to\nbelieve Mr. Malthus, can never in any circumstances whatever have any\neffect on this passion. It is impossible to add any thing to the force\nand conclusiveness of this argument by enlarging upon it: it speaks for\nitself. I can only say, that I am willing to rest the whole controversy\non this single fact. If the passion is thus capable of being modified\nand influenced by circumstances, opinion, and manners, and not merely\nslightly modified, or for a short time, in one or two solitary\ninstances, as an exception to the general rule (though even this would\nshew that the necessity is not absolute, invincible, fatal) but actually\nkept under (as far as it has any thing to do with population, or\nchild-bearing) by one half the sex in every well-regulated community, I\nconceive Mr. Malthus can only be justified in saying, that no possible\ncircumstances will ever render this passion entirely subject to the\ncontrol of reason, by saying that no circumstances will ever arrive in\nwhich it would be the imperious and indispensable duty of every one to\nhabituate himself to such restraint, in which that necessity would be\ngenerally felt and understood and enforced by the opinion of the whole\ncommunity, and in which nothing but a general system of manners formed\nupon that opinion could save the community from ruin, or from the evils\nof excessive population, which is point-blank contrary to Mr. Malthus\u2019s\nwhole doctrine. In short, Mr. Malthus\u2019s whole book rests on a malicious\nsupposition, that all mankind (I hope the reader will pardon the\ngrossness of the expression, the subject is a gross one) are like so\nmany animals _in season_. \u2018Were they as prime as goats, as hot as\nmonkeys, as salt as wolves in pride, and fools as gross as ignorance\nmade drunk,\u2019 matters could then be no worse than he represents them.\nPopulation could then only be checked by vice and misery and by nothing\nelse. But I hope things are not quite so bad.[11] Mr. Malthus says,\n\u2018that the passion between the sexes is necessary, or at least that it\nwill remain nearly in its present state.\u2019 To this I might perhaps\nassent, if I knew what \u2018its present state\u2019 is. Does Mr. Malthus mean by\nits present state its present state in England or in Scotland, or in\nItaly, or in Asia, or in Africa, or America, for in all or most of these\nplaces is its present state a very different thing from what it is in\nthe rest of them? One would imagine from the easy complacency with which\nMr. Malthus treats the subject, that the present state of this passion\nwas a something really given, a fixed quantity, a general rule like the\nrelation between two and two and four, or _between food and the human\nstomach_,[12] that it was indulged universally and equally in all\ncountries, instead of being as various in itself and its effects as\nclimate and all other causes, natural and artificial, can make it.\u2014Thus\nto give an example as much in point as can be, is the present state of\nthis passion, _i.e._ of the indulgence of it, the same in Lancashire,\nthat it is in Westmoreland, the very next county to it? In the one you\nfind the most profligate manners, and the most extreme licentiousness,\nin the other there is hardly any such thing. Mr. Malthus often says, he\nwill never dispute any thing that is proved by experience and a real\nobservation of human life. Now I conceive that the observation which I\nhave just stated is a _fact_. Yet Mr. Malthus seems to have been quite\ninsensible to this, and many other facts of the same kind. But the truth\nis, that your practical reasoners, your matter-of-fact men are the\ndullest of all mortals. They are like justices of the peace who are\nbound to receive no evidence unless it is given in upon oath, and who\nwithout descending from the bench and forfeiting the dignity of their\npretensions cannot attend to any of those general surmises, those\nobvious sources of information or casual impressions, by which other\npeople arrive at common sense, and human feelings.\u2014They shut their eyes\nto the general face of nature, and trying to grope their way by the help\nof facts as they call them, wander like blind men from _pillar to post_,\nwithout either guide or object, and are lost in a labyrinth of dates,\nnames, capital letters, numeros, official documents, authenticated\ncopies of lying affidavits, curious records that are nothing to the\npurpose, registers of births, deaths, marriages, and christenings,\nvoyages and travels.\u2014Mr. Malthus may perhaps mean, when he says that\n\u2018the sexual passion will remain nearly in its present state,\u2019 that it\nwill remain in the same state in each country. To this I should also\nassent, if I could agree with him, \u2018that ever since we have had any\nknowledge of mankind, the passion of which we are speaking, appears to\nhave been a fixed law of our nature, and that as we have not hitherto\nseen any alteration in it, we have no right to conclude that there will\never be any.\u2019 If Mr. Malthus in this passage meant to confine him to the\npassion or impulse itself, I should not certainly be at much pains to\ncontradict him. But that is not the question. The question relates\nsolely to the irregular indulgence of, or the degree of restraint\nimposed on the passion; and in this respect his assertion is evidently\nfalse. The difference in the state of manners in the same country at\ndifferent periods is as striking and notorious as that between the\nmanners of different countries. There is as much difference between what\nEngland was in this respect a hundred and sixty years ago, and what she\nis now, as there is between England and Italy at the present day. Was\nthere no difference between the manners of ancient Rome in the early\nperiods of her history, and towards the decline of the empire? May not\nthe state of manners in Italy under the republic, under the emperors,\nand under the popes, be distinctly traced to the influence of religious\nor political institutions, or to other causes, besides the state of\npopulation, or the facility of gratifying the abstract instinctive\npropensity to sexual indulgence? Was there not a striking difference\nbetween the severity and restraint which was required and undoubtedly\npractised under Charles I. and in the time of the Puritans, and that\ntorrent of dissipation and undisguised profligacy which burst upon the\nkingdom after the restoration of Charles II.? This sudden transition\nfrom demure and saint-like or hypocritical austerity to open shameless\nlicentiousness cannot assuredly be accounted for from the increasing\npressure of population. Nor can it be pretended to have been owing to\nthis principle that the tide afterwards turned again at the Revolution\nwith the habits and fashions of the court, and with the views and maxims\nof that party who had now got the ascendancy. A learned writer might\neasily fill a volume with instances to the same purpose. But the few\nwhich are here skimmed from the mere surface of history, and which must\nbe familiar to every one, are sufficient to disprove Mr. Malthus\u2019s\nassertion, not as a metaphysical refinement, but as a practical rule,\nthat the passion between the sexes and the effects of that passion have\nremained always the same. The indulgence of that passion is so far from\nbeing a law antecedent to all other laws, and paramount to all other\nconsiderations, that it is in a manner governed almost entirely by\ncircumstances, and may be said to be the creature of the imagination.\nBut Mr. Malthus says, that no regular or gradual progress has hitherto\nbeen made towards the extinction of this passion, and that it exists in\nas much force at present, as it did two thousand, or four thousand years\nago. The question is whether this passion is fixed and stationary,\nalways remaining at the same point, controuling circumstances, but not\ncontrouled by them, not whether the change of circumstances and lapse of\ntime may not bring it back to the same point again. I think it probable\nthat if Mr. Malthus had to preach a sermon on the truth and excellence\nof revealed religion, he would be inclined to take for one of his topics\nthe benefit we have derived from it in the government of our passions,\nand general purity of our manners. He might launch out into a\ndescription shewing how the contemplation of heavenly things weans the\naffections from the things of the world, and mortifies our carnal\ndesires, how a belief in future rewards and punishments strengthens our\nresolution, and is indeed the only thing that can render us proof\nagainst every species of temptation; he might enlarge on the general\npurity and elevation which breathes through the sacred writings, on the\nlaw confining the institution of marriage to pairs; he might dwell on\nthe grossness and pernicious tendency of the Pagan mythology; he might\nglance at the epistle to the Romans, or the preamble to the Jewish laws,\nand finding that the practices there described are not common among\n_us_, without travelling to Rome, or inquiring into the present state of\nChald\u00e6a, conclude by felicitating his hearers on the striking contrast\nbetween ancient and modern manners, and on the gradual improvement of\nmorals and refinement of sentiment produced by the promulgation of\nchristianity. Though we in general reason very incorrectly in comparing\nancient and modern manners, (for we always confound the former with\neastern, and the latter with our own manners) I am apt to think that\nsome change has taken place in this passion in the course of time. It\nseems to be more modified by other feelings than it used to be; it is\nless a boiling of the blood, an animal heat, a headlong, brutal impulse\nthan it was in past ages. The principle is somewhat taken down and\nweakened, the appetite is not so strong, we can stay our stomachs better\nthan we used to do, we do not gorge indiscriminately on every kind of\nfood without taste or decency. The vices of the moderns are more\nartificial than constitutional. They do not arise so much from instinct\nas from a depraved will. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.\nWe stimulate ourselves into affected passion: we are laborious imitators\nof folly, and ape the vices of others in cold blood. But whatever may be\nthe result of an inquiry into the comparative state of ancient and\nmodern manners, I cannot allow that it has any thing to do with the\npresent question. I will allow that the progress of refinement and\nknowledge has in ninety-nine instances out of a hundred tended to\ndeprave instead of improving the morals of men, that at the same time\nthat it has taken away the gross impulse, it has introduced an\nartificial and studied depravity, the operation of which is more subtle,\ndangerous and universal; in short that nations as they grow older like\nindividuals grow worse, not from constitution, but habit. Still this\nfact if granted (and I am afraid it is too near the truth) will not at\nall prove Mr. Malthus\u2019s theory, that this passion remains always the\nsame, being influenced neither by time nor circumstances. Secondly, it\nwill not overturn the speculations respecting the possibility of making\nan entire change in the passion \u2018in a state of society altogether\ndifferent from any that has hitherto existed,\u2019 but will on the contrary\nrender such a change more desirable and necessary, as our only resource\nagainst the general contagion of vice and profligacy. If this vice is\nfound to spread gradually wider and wider, clinging to the support of\ninstitutions, which in all other respects favour selfishness and\nsensuality, if it is not the only one among the vices, which, while all\nothers spread and flourish and are fostered in the eye of the world,\ndoes not hide its diminished head, this is not to be wondered at. But it\nwould be a singular way of defending the present institutions of\nsociety, that from all our past experience we find that their progress\nhas been attended with the gradual corruption of manners, and has\nuniformly ended in an utter debasement of character and the relaxation\nof every moral tie; and it would be a strange kind of inference to say\nthat no alteration in the circumstances or institutions of society would\never make men different from what they are, because as long as those\ncircumstances and institutions have been known to exist, mankind have\nremained always the same, or have been growing worse instead of better.\nMr. Malthus denies that Mr. Godwin has any right to conclude that\nbecause population has not produced the dreadful effects he ascribes to\nit in any known state of society, it would not therefore produce them in\na state of society quite different from any other; and in the same\nmanner I should deny that Mr. Malthus has any right to infer because the\nprogress of the human mind has not in the past history of the world been\nproductive of any very beneficial consequences, that it will never be\nproductive of any such consequences under very different circumstances.\nKnowledge, as I have shewn in a former letter, is not a necessary,\nabsolute good: neither is it a necessary evil. Its utility depends on\nthe direction which is given to it by other things; e.g. in Scotland,\nthe case before alluded to, knowledge does not seem to be the enemy of\nsobriety and good manners, but a support to them. The decay in the\npurity and simplicity of Scotch manners, whenever it arrives, will not I\ndare say be owing to the increase of knowledge, but to the spread of\nluxury, or other external causes. When the whole mass is tainted, it\ncannot be expected that knowledge should escape the infection. All\ntherefore that the advocates for the future progressive improvement of\nmankind have to prove in order to make out a consistent case, is that\nthe state of the passion between the sexes depends not upon physical,\nbut moral causes; that where these latter causes have been favourable to\nseverity of manners, and the elevation of the character, these effects\nhave uniformly flowed from them, and may be seen not in one or two\nsingular exceptions, but in large classes of people, in the prevailing\nmanners of whole ages and nations. Thus we do not merely know that\nScipio was chaste, and Nero profligate, but we know that there was\nnothing singular in the chastity of the one, or the profligacy of the\nother; it was little more than the emanation of the character and\ncircumstances of the times in which they lived. The leaders of the\nrepublican party in the time of Cromwell, such men as Milton, Hampden,\nPym, Marvel, Sydney, were not I believe in the command over their\npassions exactly on a level with the young courtiers in the following\nreign: but though the names of these men stand out and ever will stand\nout in history, giving dignity to our nature in all its parts, yet it is\nnot to be supposed that they alone drank of the pure waters of faith and\nreason, which flowed freely at that time; but that the same lofty\nthoughts, the same common exertions, and the same passions, growing out\nof the circumstances of the times, must have imparted a sort of severe\nand high-toned morality to men\u2019s minds in general, influencing the\nnational character in a very different way from the foreign fopperies\nand foreign vices, from the train of strumpets, buffoons, fiddlers, and\nobscene rhymers let loose upon the people in the succeeding reign. It is\nnot necessary to prove that manners have always changed for the better,\nbut that they have always changed for the better, as far as those\ngeneral causes have operated in part, from the complete success of which\na total change is predicted. This passion as it runs into licentiousness\nis certainly one great obstacle in the way of improvement, and one of\nthose passions which we must conquer before we can hope to become\nperfectly reasonable beings (if this is a thing either desirable or\npossible). But to say, that we may get a complete mastery over our\npassions, and that we shall still be in danger from the principle of\npopulation is to me a paradox. Population is only dangerous from the\nexcess of this passion, and I see no reason why its excesses may not be\nrestrained as well as those of any other passion. We find by uniform\nexperience that it is, like other passions, influenced by example,\ninstitution, and circumstances, according to the degree of strength they\nhave; and if there is reason to suppose it possible that any of the\nother passions should ever be totally eradicated, or subjected to moral\nrestraint, there is no reason why this should not be so too. It does not\nform any anomaly to the other prevailing passions of men. It is not,\nlike hunger, a necessary instinct. Its effects are more like those of\ndrunkenness: and we might as well make this latter vice an\ninsurmountable objection to the good order and happiness of society, by\nsaying that there will always be as many drunken disputes, brawls and\nriots, as there are at present, because there are as many instances of\npeople getting drunk now as there were two thousand years ago, as\npretend to deduce the same consequence from the existence of such a\npassion as lust.\u2014To judge from his book, I should suppose Mr. Malthus to\nbe a man of a warm constitution, and amorous complexion. I should not\nhesitate in my own mind, to conclude that this is \u2018the sin that most\neasily besets him.\u2019 I can easily imagine that he has a sufficient\ncommand over himself, in all other respects. I can believe that he is\nquite free from the passions of anger, pride, avarice, sloth,\ndrunkenness, envy, revenge, and all those other passions which create so\nmuch disturbance in the world. He seems never to have heard of, or never\nto have felt them; for he passes them over as trifles beneath the notice\nof a philosopher. But the women are _the devil_.\u2014The delights and\ntorments of love no man, he tells us, ever was proof against: there all\nour philosophy is useless; and reason but an empty name. \u2018The rich\ngolden shaft hath killed the flock of all affections else,\u2019 and here\nonly he is vulnerable. The smiles of a fair lady are to him\nirresistible; the glimpse of a petticoat throws him into a flame; and\nall his senses are up in arms, and his heart fails within him, at the\nvery name of love. His gallantry and devotion to the fair sex know no\nbounds; and he not only answers for himself, but undertakes to prove\nthat all men are made of the same combustible materials. His book\nreminds one of the title of the old play, \u2018All for love, or the world\nwell lost.\u2019 If Mr. M.\u2019s passions are too much for him, (though I should\nnot have the worse opinion of him on this account) I would advise him to\ngive vent to them in writing love-songs; not in treatises of philosophy.\nI am aware, however, that it is dangerous to meddle in such matters. As\nlong as Mr. Malthus gravely reduces the strength of the passion to a\nmathematical certainty, he is sure to have the women on his side; while\nI, for having the presumption to contradict his amorous conclusions,\nshall be looked upon as a sour old batchelor, and convicted of rebellion\nagainst the omnipotence of love.\n\nBut to return. It is the direct object of Mr. Malthus\u2019s philosophy to\ndraw our attention from the slight and superficial influence which human\ninstitutions have had on the happiness of man, to those \u2018deeper-seated\u2019\ncauses of misery which arise out of the principle of population. These,\nhe says, are by far the most important, and the only ones worth our\nattending to, because they are the only ones on which all our reasonings\nand all our exertions will have no effect. He very roundly taxes Mr.\nGodwin and others as men who talked about what they did not understand,\nbecause they did not perceive that social institutions, and the\ndifferent forms of government, and all the other means in our power of\naffecting the condition of human life are \u2018but as the dust in the\nbalance,\u2019 compared with a principle entirely out of our power, which\nrenders the vices of those institutions necessary, and any essential\nimprovement in them hopeless. He is also angry with Hume for saying\nsomething about \u2018indolence.\u2019 We are in no case to look beyond the\nprinciple of population, in accounting for the state of man in society,\nif we would not fall under Mr. Malthus\u2019s displeasure, but are to resolve\nevery thing into that. In his hands, population is the Aaron\u2019s rod which\nswallowed up all the other rods. The piety of some of the old divines\nled them to see all things in God. Mr. Malthus\u2019s self-complacency leads\nhim to see all things in the Essay. He would persuade us that his\ndiscovery supersedes all other discoveries; that it is the category of\npolitical science; that all other causes of human happiness and misery\nare merged and sunk in that one, to which alone they owe their\ninfluence, and their birth. So that we are in fact to consider all human\ninstitutions, good, bad, and indifferent, all folly, vice, wisdom,\nvirtue, knowledge, ignorance, liberty and slavery, poverty and riches,\nmonarchy, aristocracy, democracy, polygamy, celibacy, all forms and\nmodes of life, all arts, manufactures, and science, as resulting\nmechanically from this one principle; which though simple in itself, yet\nin its effects is a jumble, a chaos of contradictions, a mass of\ninconsistency and absurdity, which no human understanding can unravel,\nor explain. Over this crew and medley of opinions, Mr. Malthus \u2018sits\numpire, and by decision more embroils the fray by which he reigns\u2019: for\nhe is not quite undetermined in his choice between good and evil, but is\nalways inclined to give the preference to vice and misery, not only as\nthe most natural, but as the most safe and salutary effects of this\nprinciple, as we prescribe a low diet and blisters to persons of too\nfull a temperament. \u2018Our greatest good is but plethoric ill.\u2019\u2014Mr.\nMalthus may perhaps plead in his own defence that at the outset of his\nwork (second edition) he professes to treat only of _one_ of the causes\nwhich have hitherto impeded the progress of virtue and happiness, and\nthat he was not therefore, by the terms of the agreement, bound to take\ncognizance of any of the other causes which have tended to produce the\nsame effect. He is like a man who takes it into his head to make a huge\nmap of Scotland, (larger than any that ever was made of the whole world\nbesides) and gives you into the bargain as much or as little of Ireland\nor the rest of Great Britain as he pleases. Any one else who chuses, may\nmake a map of England or Ireland on the same scale. There is something\nfair and plausible in this. But the fact really is, that Mr. Malthus\nwill let nobody make a map of the country but himself: he has put\nEngland, Wales, and Ireland in the three corners of his great map (for\nthe title takes up one of the corners) and he insists upon it that this\nis quite sufficient.\u2014What he aims at in all his plans and calculations\nof existing grievances is to magnify the evils of population, to\nexonerate human institutions, and to throw the whole blame on nature\nherself. I shall therefore try to give such a sketch, or bird\u2019s-eye view\nof the subject as may serve to shew the unfairness of our author\u2019s\nstatement. How little he has confined himself to his professed object,\nand how little he can be considered in the light of a joint-inquirer\nafter truth, will be seen by quoting the following passages at large.\n\n\u2018The great error under which Mr. Godwin labours throughout his whole\nwork is, the attributing of almost all the vices and misery that prevail\nin civil society to human institutions. Political regulations, and the\nestablished administration of property are with him the fruitful sources\nof all evil, the hotbeds of all the crimes that degrade mankind. Were\nthis really a true state of the case, it would not seem an absolutely\nhopeless task to remove evil completely from the world; and reason seems\nthe proper and adequate instrument for effecting so great a purpose. But\nthe truth is, that though human institutions _appear_ to be the obvious\nand obtrusive causes of much mischief to mankind, they are, in reality,\nlight and superficial, in comparison with those deeper-seated causes of\nevil which result from the laws of nature.\u2019\n\nNow by \u2018the laws of nature,\u2019 of which human institutions are here made\nonly a sort of _cat\u2019s-paw_, our author means neither more nor less than\nthe principle of population. For after supposing in compliment to Mr.\nGodwin, a state of society in which the spirit of oppression, the spirit\nof servility, and the spirit of fraud, in which envy, malice, and\nrevenge, in which every species of narrowness and selfishness are\nbanished from the world, where war and contention have ceased to exist,\nwhere unwholesome trades and manufactures are no longer encouraged, &c.,\nhe breaks out into his usual cant of, \u2018I cannot conceive a form of\nsociety so favourable upon the whole to population.\u2019 He then proceeds\ngravely to shew, by a train of reasoning which has been already\nrecapitulated, and which need not surely be refuted twice, how in such a\nstate of happy equality population would go on increasing without limit,\nbecause all obstacles to it, \u2018all anxiety about the future support of\nchildren,\u2019 would be entirely removed, though it would at the same time\nbe attended in every stage of the progress with increasing and\naggravated wretchedness, because those very obstacles, and the same\ndifficulty of providing for the support of children would still remain.\n\n\u2018Here then,\u2019 he says, \u2018no human institutions existed, to the\nperverseness of which Mr. Godwin ascribes the original sin of the worst\nmen. No opposition had been produced by them between public and private\ngood. No monopoly had been created of those advantages which reason\ndirects to be left in common. No man had been goaded to the breach of\norder by unjust laws. Benevolence had established her reign in all\nhearts. And yet in so short a period as fifty years, violence,\noppression, falsehood, misery, every hateful vice, and every form of\ndistress, which degrade and sadden the present state of society, seem to\nhave been generated by the most imperious circumstances, by laws\ninherent in the nature of man, and absolutely independent of all human\nregulations.\u2019\n\n\u2018It is a perfectly just observation of Mr. Godwin, that _there is a\nprinciple in human society by which population is perpetually kept down\nto the level of the means of subsistence_. The sole question is, what is\nthis principle? Is it some obscure and occult cause? Is it some\nmysterious interference of heaven, which at a certain period strikes the\nmen with impotence, and the women with barrenness? Or is it a cause open\nto our researches, within our view; a cause which has constantly been\nobserved to operate, though with varied force, in every state in which\nman has been placed? Is it not misery and the fear of misery,\u2019\n[certainly two very different things] \u2018the necessary and inevitable\nresults of the laws of nature, which human institutions, so far from\naggravating, have tended considerably to mitigate, though they can never\nremove?\u2019 He then proceeds to shew how the distinctions of property and\nthe other regulations of society would necessarily result from the\nprinciple of population, and adds, that \u2018certainly if the great\nprinciple of the Essay be admitted, it affects Mr. Godwin\u2019s whole work,\nand essentially alters the foundations of political justice. A great\npart of his book consists of an _abuse_ of human institutions\u2019 [very sad\nindeed] \u2018as productive of all or most of the evils which afflict\nsociety. The acknowledgement of a new and totally unconsidered cause of\nmisery must evidently alter the state of these arguments,\u2019 [comfortable\nagain] \u2018and make it absolutely necessary that they should be either\nnewly modified, or _entirely rejected_.\u2019\u2014How fortunate to have\ndiscovered that the evils in society are not owing to a cause which\nmight be remedied, but to one that renders their removal absolutely\nhopeless!\n\nI might here, if I were to follow the impulse of my own levity, say that\nthe yellow fever has I believe made its appearance since the first\nedition of Political Justice, though I do not know that this\ncircumstance would make it necessary entirely to new-model the\narguments. As to Mr. Malthus\u2019s \u2018new and unconsidered cause of misery,\u2019 I\ndeny that the necessity of providing a proportionable quantity of food\nfor an increase of people was new or unconsidered. All that Mr. Malthus\nhas discovered is that the population would go on increasing, though\nthere was nothing to support it!\u2014Our author has chosen to justify or\npalliate the real disorders which prevail in society by supposing a case\nof fictitious distress; by which means he proves incontestably that the\npresent vices and defects of political institutions, &c. are\n_comparative_ blessings. He supposes that in a state of society where\nthe public good was the constant guide of action, men would entirely lay\naside the use of their reason, and think of nothing but begetting\nchildren, without considering in the least how they were to be\nmaintained. Now I will also for a time take a license from common sense,\nand make a supposition as wise as Mr. Malthus\u2019s. I will suppose all the\ninhabitants of this town to come to a determination to live without\neating, and do nothing but drink gin. What would be the consequence?\nPerpetual intoxication, quarrels, the fierceness of hunger, disease,\nidleness, filth, nakedness, maudlin misery, sallow faces, sights of\nfamine and despair, meagre skeletons, the dying, and the dead. But why\nneed I attempt to describe what has been already so much better\ndescribed by Hogarth? Here then, I might exclaim, no human institutions\nexisted, no unjust laws, no excessive labour, no unwholesome trades, no\ninequality, no malice, envy, lust, or revenge, to produce the dreadful\ncatastrophe we just have witnessed: yet in the short space of a single\nmonth or fortnight we see that scenes of distress, shocking beyond any\nthing of which we can at present form even a conception, would arise out\nof the most imperious circumstances, from laws inherent in the nature\nand constitution of man, and absolutely independent of all human\nregulations, namely, _from the unrestricted use of gin_. The inference\nis direct and unavoidable, that we ought to submit patiently and\nthankfully to all the abuses, vices, and evils that are to be found in\nthis great city, and flatter, excuse, and encourage them by all the\nmeans in our power, _because_ they all of them together do not amount to\na tenth part of the mischief that would be the consequence of the\nunrestrained indulgence of a single pernicious habit. This is something\nthe way in which Mr. Malthus reasons about the unrestricted increase of\npopulation. But the absurdity is too gross even for burlesque.\n\nThe following is, I conceive, a fair summary of Mr. Malthus\u2019s theory.\nFirst, that the principle of population is a necessary, mechanical\nthing, that it is the \u2018grinding law of necessity,\u2019 unavoidably leading\nto a certain degree of vice and misery, and in fact accounting for\nalmost all the evils in human life. Secondly, that all the other sources\nof vice and misery which have been so much and idly insisted on, have no\ntendency to increase the necessary evils of population, but the\ncontrary, or that the removal of those different sources of evil would\ninstead of lessening the evils of population, which are much the most\nimportant, really aggravate them. Here then three questions naturally\npresent themselves.\n\nFirst, how much of the vice and misery in society is actually owing to\nhuman institutions, or the passions, follies, imperfections, or\nperversities of human nature, independently of the principle of\npopulation.\n\nSecondly, whether the removing or diminishing the evils produced by\nthose causes would necessarily increase the evils of population, and\nopen a door to the influx of more vice and misery than ever.\n\nThirdly, whether the tendency of population to excess is the effect of a\nsimple principle operating mechanically, whether it is to be looked upon\nas one of the laws inherent in our very nature, or whether the state of\nmorals in every country does not depend greatly and principally on the\nstate of society, on the condition of the people, on public opinion, and\non a variety of other causes which are more or less within our power;\nthat is, whether human institutions, laws, &c. instead of being the mere\nblind instruments of this principle, do not re-act very powerfully upon\nit, and give it its direction and limits.\u2014If it can be shewn under this\nlast head, that there is some connection between the form of government\nand the state of morals, and that the better the government, the better\nthe morals, the evils of population instead of forming an excuse for bad\ngovernments will only aggravate their mischief, and increase the\nnecessity of getting rid of them. Again, if it can be made to appear\nthat there is no necessary, or general proportion between the degree of\nvice in any country, and the pressure of population on the means of\nsubsistence, that it is not always the effect of want, but constantly\noutruns the occasion, being self-propagated, and often spreading like a\ncontagion through those countries and those ranks in life, where the\ndifficulty of providing for a family is least felt, this will shew that\nthe mere existence of vice is no proof of its being necessary, or that\nit is to be considered as a test of the excessive increase of\npopulation.\n\nFarther, if on the other hand, improving the condition of the lower\nclasses of the people is generally found, instead of leading to an\nunrestrained increase of population, and thus adding to their misery, to\ngive them a greater attachment to the decencies and comforts of life, to\nmake them more cautious how they part with them, to open their ideas and\nprospects, to strengthen the principle of moral restraint, and so\nconfine population within reasonable limits, this will be an additional\nmotive for improving their condition (really and truly, not by taking\nfrom them the comforts and privileges they already possess). Again, if\nit should be found that independently of the immediate acts of tyranny\nexercised by particular governments, and the poverty and wretchedness\nexperienced by certain classes of the community there is a tendency in\nsome governments to keep population down infinitely below the level to\nwhich it might rise by a proper encouragement of agriculture, and the\nmethods of industry by which population is supported, it will be but a\npoor defence of the folly or tyranny of such governments to say, that\nthey are a necessary expedient to prevent the excess of population.\n\nLastly, if those states or communities, where the greatest equality\nprevails, are those which maintain the greatest number of inhabitants,\nand where the principle of moral restraint is likely to operate with\nmost effect, that is, where population is soonest able to reach its\nutmost limits, and goes the least beyond them, certainly those\ninstitutions which favour the greatest disparity of conditions, the\nextremes of poverty and the extremes of luxury, will receive no very\nstriking support from the principle of population. These are I think the\nchief points and inferences to which I wish to direct the reader\u2019s\nattention in the few slight remarks which I have to make upon the\nsubject.\n\nIt may be proper to observe, in the first place, that Mr. Malthus by\nmaking vice and misery the necessary consequences of his favourite\nprinciple lays himself open to a very obvious objection. For if he means\nto prove any thing by his theory, the question immediately is, what\ndegree of vice and misery is rendered necessary by this principle, or by\nthe _physical constitution of man_? Are we to suppose that only so much\nevil is necessary as naturally grows out of the British constitution? Or\ndoes this principle also prove that all the evils that are suffered\nunder the Turkish government, or that were suffered under the old\ngovernment of France, or that may arise out of its present government\nare equally necessary and salutary? How far are we to go? Where are we\nto stop? Are we to consider every evil and abuse as necessary, merely\nbecause it exists, or only as much of the thing as we cannot get rid of?\nBut how much can we really get rid of? Are vice and misery uniformly\nowing to the development of this principle in certain situations, or are\nthey to be in part ascribed to the intervention of other arbitrary, and\ngratuitous causes, the operation of which may be more easily set aside?\nIn what manner are we to distinguish between what is necessary, and what\nis not? All these questions require to be asked before we can proceed to\nbuild any practical conclusions on Mr. Malthus\u2019s theory of the evils of\npopulation. The vague, general term, \u2018vice and misery,\u2019 gives us no\nclue. It is mere cant; and applies equally to the best and worst of all\npossible governments. It proves either nothing, or it proves a great\ndeal more than I conceive Mr. Malthus would in all cases wish to prove\nby it.\n\nThere is no species of vice or oppression that does not find a ready\nexcuse in this kind of reasoning. And besides, by leaving the quantity\nof vice and misery always uncertain, we never subject ourselves to the\nnecessity of following a general principle into any obnoxious\nconclusions; and are always at liberty to regulate our opinions\naccording to our convenience by saying\u2014I would have no more vice and\nmisery than at present prevails: but that degree of vice and misery\nwhich is inwoven with the present constitution of things, I would by no\nmeans have removed, it might endanger the whole fabric. This is a double\nadvantage. We thus sacrifice to the powers that be, without violating\ndecorum, or being driven off our guard by an inflexible and pedantic\nlogic. I have so good an opinion of Mr. Malthus that I do not think he\nhas any predilection for vice and misery in the abstract, or for their\nown sakes: I do not believe he would stand forward as the advocate of\nany abuses from which he himself does not reap some benefit, or which he\nmay not get something by defending.\n\nI do not know that I can go so far as with Mr. Godwin to ascribe the\noriginal sin of the worst men to social institutions, but of this I am\nvery sure that that original sin and those institutions do not proceed\nentirely from the principle of population. There are other vices and\nmischievous propensities inherent in our nature, besides the love of\npleasure. We are troubled with a complication of disorders, and it is\nbad advice to say, that we ought to direct all our attention to the one\nthat is perhaps the most inveterate, or because we despair of doing any\nthing with that, make no attempts to counteract the progress of the\nothers, either by palliatives or otherwise. If we are deceived with\nrespect to the real extent, and sources of our disorders, it is\nimpossible we should hit upon the right method of cure, whatever might\nbe the case, if we were informed of our true situation.\u2014The principle of\npopulation alone, according to the description Mr. Malthus gives of it\nas a principle of unbridled and insatiable lust, would indeed be\nsufficient to account for all the vice and misery in the world, and for\na great deal more than there is in the world. It would soon overturn\nevery thing. But we have seen that that account is not just. It is in\nfact only one of the principles or passions by which the conduct of\nmankind is influenced; and he would be a bold man who should assert that\nneither ambition, nor avarice, nor sloth, nor ignorance, nor prejudice\nhave had any share in producing the various evils that abound in civil\nsociety. The other passions are sturdy claimants and know how to bustle\nfor themselves, and will not be so easily pushed out of the world. Let\nany one write the words, ambition, pride, cruelty, hatred, oppression,\nfalsehood, selfishness, indolence, lust, and hunger in the same line,\nand let him see if there is any peculiar charm in the two last, which\ndraws all their virtue and meaning out of the rest. Yet this is the\nimpression which Mr. Malthus seems anxious to leave on the minds of his\nreaders. Indeed all the others appear to owe their efficacy and their\nsting to lust alone. If it were not for this one principle, the world\nmight go on very well.\n\nMr. Malthus charges it as a great error on Mr. Godwin\u2019s system that\n\u2018political regulations and the established administration of property\nare with him the fruitful sources of all evil, the hotbeds of all the\ncrimes that degrade mankind.\u2019 Be it so, that this is an error. The next\nquestion is, as Mr. Malthus does not deny that these institutions are\nthe immediate causes of many of the evils that exist, to what principle\nthey really owe their rise. Mr. Malthus says, they are the necessary\nresults of laws inherent in our nature, and that though all the other\npassions and vices of men could be got rid of altogether, the principle\nof population alone would still render those institutions with all the\nabuses belonging to them as necessary as ever. This I take upon me to\ndispute. Will he say, that (leaving the principle of population entirely\nout of the question) pride, avarice, and indolence have had no share in\nthe establishment, or continuance of the inequality of property, in\ngoading men on to the accumulation of immense riches by oppression,\nextortion, fraud, perjury, and every species of villainy, or in making\nthem undergo every kind of distress, sooner than apply themselves to\nsome regular and useful occupation. If I were inclined to maintain a\nparadox on the subject, I might take up Hume\u2019s assertion, \u2018that\nindolence is the source of all mischief in the world.\u2019 For if men had\nnot been averse to labour, if there had been no idlers to take advantage\nof, to offer temptation to, and enlist upon any terms in any lawless\nenterprize, that promised an easy booty, the tyrant would have been\nwithout his slaves, the robber without his gang, and the rich man\nwithout his dependents. But these smart points and pithy sayings are\nsoon found to be fallacious, if we attend a little closely to the\nsubject. For instance, it may be true that if there had been no idle\npeople, there would have been no one to take advantage of, but if there\nhad been no pride, rapacity, or selfishness, there would have been no\none to take an undue advantage of them, or foment the mischief. The\nfellows that generally compose a gang of robbers only wish to gain a\ncheap livelihood by acts of violence; the captain of the gang is also\nactuated by vanity, revenge, the spirit of adventure, and the desire to\nkeep the country for twenty or thirty miles round in awe of him. The\ncommon soldier is glad of sixpence a-day to be shot at every now and\nthen, and do nothing the rest of his time: the general is not easy,\nunless he can lay waste provinces, overrun kingdoms, and make the world\nring with the terror of his name. The lazy and unthinking would not do\nhalf the mischief, of which they are capable, without the active, the\nenterprizing and turbulent: fools and knaves are as necessary to the\nbody politic, as the head and limbs are to the human body. The Romans\nmight have staid quietly within their own walls, but for the plotting\nheads at home that sent them out to victory; and his thirty thousand\nfollowers would no more have thought of setting out to India of their\nown accord, than Alexander would have thought of marching there by\nhimself.\n\nIt is to me pretty clear that as long as there are such passions as\nsloth and rapacity, these will be sufficient to account for the unequal\ndivision of property, and will render the laws relating to it necessary:\nand it is equally clear to my mind that if these passions could be\ncompletely subdued, so that no one would refuse his share in the common\nlabour, or endeavour to take an unfair advantage of others either by\nforce or fraud, that the established administration of property would be\nno longer necessary.[13] If, as Mr. Malthus supposes, \u2018Benevolence had\nso far established her reign in all hearts,\u2019 that every one was ready to\ngive up the enjoyments of ease and luxury as far as related to himself,\nI do not think that in such a state of unparalleled disinterestedness\nand heroic virtue, any madman would be found to violate the public\nhappiness, and begin the work of contention anew, for the sake of\ntransmitting a contingent inheritance of vice and misery _to his heirs_!\nIf reason and virtue are at present no match for the principle of\npopulation, neither are they a match for the principle of selfishness,\nor for any of our other passions. But truly, if benevolence had once\nestablished her reign in all hearts, we should see wonders, she would\nperform the part of vice and misery to a miracle.\u2014It is evident then\nthat the seeds of inequality, of vice and misery are not sown entirely\nin the principle of population; that the same untoward passions which\nfirst rendered civil establishments necessary, have continued to operate\never since, that they have produced most of the disorders in the world,\nand are still in as much force as ever; that they very well deserve a\nchapter by themselves in the history of human nature, and ought not to\ncome in as a note or parenthesis to Mr. Malthus\u2019s great work.\n\nBut whatever account we may chuse to give of the origin of the\nestablishment of property or government in general, this has nothing to\ndo with the real question, unless it could be shewn that the same form\nof government, the same inequality of conditions, and the same degree of\nvice and misery are to be found alike in every country. Mr. Malthus\u2019s\nsystem goes to the support of all political regulations and existing\nevils, or it goes to the support of none. Let us cast our eyes over the\nmap of Europe, and ask whether all that variety of governments and\nmanners by which it is distinguished took their rise solely from the\nprinciple of population. A principle common to human nature, a law\ninherent in the physical constitution of man, may in its progress be\nnecessarily attended with a certain degree of vice and misery; but it\ncannot be productive of different degrees of vice and misery in\ndifferent countries; as the stern law of necessity, it must operate\nevery where alike. If it does not do so, this of itself shews that it is\nnot the sole moving spring in all human institutions, that it is not\nbeyond the reach of all regulation and control, and that there are other\ncircumstances, accidents, and principles on which the happiness of\nnations depends. Whatever difference there is, then, between one\ngovernment and another, whether that government is despotic, or mixed,\nor free; whatever difference there is in the administration of that\ngovernment, whether it is cruel, oppressive, and arbitrary in the\nextreme, or mild, just, and merciful; whatever difference there is\nbetween the manners of one nation and those of another, whether the most\nlicentious that can be, or strict and exemplary; whatever difference\nthere is in the arts and conveniences of life, in the improvements of\ntrade and agriculture in various countries, whatever differences are\nproduced by religion, by contrarieties of opinion, by the state of\nknowledge, by useful or mischievous regulations of all kinds, all these\ncannot be owing to one and the same cause.\n\nWill Mr. Malthus say that all these differences are as nothing, that\nthey are not worth insisting on, or contending about, that they are\nnominal, rather than real, or at any rate that what is gained in one way\nis lost in another, for that the principle of population still requires\nthe same vent, and produces first or last the same quantity of vice and\nmisery of one sort or other in every country? He must assert on the one\nhand that all other causes put together do not materially affect the\nhappiness of a people, or on the other hand that the state of all those\nother causes depends on, and arises out of the state of population,\nthough they do not in the least influence the principle of population\nitself. These absurdities, than which it would be difficult to advance\ngreater, are however necessary to bear out the author\u2019s conclusion, that\narts, knowledge, liberty and virtue, and the best institutions can do\nlittle for the happiness of mankind. For instance, if it is true that\nreligion or opinion of any kind exerts a direct influence over morals,\nthen it is not true that morals depend entirely on the state of\npopulation. Or if it is true, that the invention of a useful art, which\nis accident, or the public encouragement of it, which is design, may\ncontribute to the support of a larger population without multiplying its\ninconveniences, then it is not true that all human happiness or misery\ncan be calculated according to a mechanical ratio. But these matters\nare, I confess, set in the clearest light by a reference to facts, and I\ncan quote no better authority than Mr. Malthus himself.\n\nHe says, \u2018It will not be difficult, from the accounts of travellers, to\ntrace the checks to population, and the causes of its present decay [in\nTurkey]; and as there is little difference in the _manners_ of the\nTurks, whether they inhabit Europe or Asia, it will not be worth while\nto make them the subject of distinct consideration.\u2019 [I shall presume\nthat I have so far reconciled the reader\u2019s mind to the bugbear,\npopulation, that he will not regard _depopulation_ as one of the most\nbeautiful features in the economy of a state.]\n\nOur author then proceeds, \u2018The fundamental cause of the low state of\npopulation in Turkey, compared with its extent of territory, is\nundoubtedly the nature of its government. Its tyranny, its feebleness,\nits bad laws and worse administration of them, with the consequent\ninsecurity of property, throw such obstacles in the way of agriculture,\nthat the means of subsistence are necessarily decreasing yearly, and\nwith them, of course, the number of people. The _miri_ or general\nland-tax, paid to the sultan, is in itself moderate; but by abuses\ninherent in the Turkish government, the pachas, and their agents have\nfound out the means of rendering it ruinous. Though they cannot\nabsolutely alter the impost which has been established by the sultan,\nthey have introduced a number of changes, which, without the name,\nproduce all the effect of an augmentation. In Syria, according to\nVolney, having the greatest part of the land at their disposal, they\nclog their concessions with burthensome conditions, and exact the half,\nand sometimes even two-thirds of the crop. When the harvest is over,\nthey cavil about losses, and, as they have the power in their hands,\nthey carry off what they think proper.\u2019 [What they leave behind them, is\nwhat Mr. Malthus when he gets into his abstractions calls \u2018_the fund\nappropriated to the maintenance of labour_,\u2019 or, \u2018_the aggregate\nquantity of food possessed by the owners of land beyond their own\nconsumption_.\u2019] \u2018If the season fail, they still exact the same sum, and\nexpose every thing that the poor peasant possesses to sale. To these\nconstant oppressions are added a thousand accidental extortions.\nSometimes a whole village is laid under contribution for some real or\nimaginary offence. Arbitrary presents are exacted on the accession of\neach governor; grass, barley, and straw are demanded for his horses\u2019;\n[Mr. Malthus thinks, farther on in his book, that \u2018the waste of the\nrich, and the horses kept for pleasure\u2019 in this country are no detriment\nto the poor _here_, but rather a benefit, page 478.] \u2018and commissions\nare multiplied, that the soldiers who carry the orders may live upon the\nstarving peasants, whom they treat with the most brutal insolence and\ninjustice. The consequence of these depredations is, that the poorer\nclass of inhabitants, ruined, and unable any longer to pay the _miri_,\nbecome a burden to the village,\u2019 [something I suppose in the same way\nthat the poor among us become a burden to the parish] \u2018or fly into the\ncities; but the _miri_ is unalterable, and the sum to be levied must be\nfound somewhere. The portion of those who are thus driven from their\nhomes falls on the remaining inhabitants, whose burden, though at first\nlight, now becomes insupportable. If they should be visited by two years\nof drought and famine, the whole village is ruined and abandoned; and\nthe tax, which it should have paid, is levied on the neighbouring lands.\nThe same mode of proceeding takes place with regard to the tax on\nChristians, which has been raised by these means,\u2019 [by what means, by\nthe principle of population?] \u2018from three, five, and eleven piastres, at\nwhich it was first fixed, to thirty-five and forty, which absolutely\nimpoverishes those on whom it is levied, and obliges them to leave the\ncountry. It has been remarked that these exactions have made a rapid\nprogress during the last forty years, from which time are dated the\ndecline of agriculture, the depopulation of the country, and the\ndiminution in the quantity of the specie carried to Constantinople. The\npeasants are every where reduced to a little flat cake of barley, or\n_doura_, onions, lentils, and water. Not to lose any part of their corn\nthey leave in it all sorts of wild grain, which often produces bad\nconsequences. In the mountains of Lebanon and Nablous, in time of\ndearth, they gather the acorns from the oak which they eat after boiling\nor roasting them on the ashes. By a natural consequence of this misery,\nthe art of cultivation is in the most deplorable state. The husbandman\nis almost without instruments, and those he has are very bad. His plough\nis frequently no more than the branch of a tree cut below a fork and\nused without wheels. The ground is tilled by asses and cows, rarely by\noxen, which would bespeak too much riches. In the districts exposed to\nthe Arabs, as in Palestine, the countryman must sow with his musket in\nhis hand, and scarcely does the corn turn yellow before it is reaped and\nconcealed in subterraneous caverns. As little as possible is employed\nfor seed corn, because the peasants sow no more than is barely necessary\nfor their subsistence. Their whole industry is limited to the supply of\ntheir immediate wants, and to procure a little bread, a few onions, a\nblue shirt, and a bit of woollen, much labour is not necessary. The\npeasant lives therefore in distress, but at least he does not enrich his\ntyrants, and the avarice of despotism is its own punishment.\u2019\n[_Note._\u2014These are the unhappy persons, as our author expresses it in a\npassage, which may hereafter be quoted at length, \u2018who in the great\nlottery of life have drawn a blank; and with whose exorbitant and\nunreasonable demands the owners of the aforesaid surplus produce neither\nthink it just nor natural to comply.\u2019 I confess, I cannot account for\nall the contention and distress which is here implied, for the conflict\nbetween famine and riches, when I seriously consider with Mr. Malthus,\n\u2018that the quantity of food, which one man can consume, is necessarily\nlimited by the narrow capacity of the human stomach; that it is not\ncertainly probable that he should throw away the rest; or if he\nexchanged his surplus produce for the labour of others, that this would\nbe better than that these others should absolutely _starve_.\u2019 But human\nlife, as well as our reasonings about it, is a mystery, a dream.] \u2018This\npicture which is drawn by Volney, in describing the state of the\npeasants in Syria, seems to be confirmed by all the other travellers in\nthese countries, and according to Eton, it represents very nearly the\ncondition of the peasants in the greater part of the Turkish dominions.\nUniversally the offices of every denomination are set up to public sale,\nand in the intrigues of the seraglio, by which the disposal of all\nplaces is regulated, every thing is done by means of bribes. The pachas\nin consequence, who are sent into the provinces, exert to the utmost\ntheir power of extortion, but are always outdone by the officers\nimmediately below them, who, in their turn, leave room for their\nsubordinate agents. The pacha must raise money to pay the tribute, and\nalso to indemnify himself for the purchase of his office; support his\ndignity, and make a provision in case of accidents; and as all power,\nboth civil and military, centers in his person, from his representing\nthe sultan, the means are at his discretion, and the quickest are\ninvariably considered as the best. Uncertain of to-morrow, he treats his\nprovince as a mere transient possession, and endeavours to reap, if\npossible, in one day, the fruit of many years, without the smallest\nregard to his successor, or the injury that he may do to the permanent\nrevenue. The cultivator is necessarily more exposed to these extortions\nthan the inhabitants of the towns. From the nature of his employment, he\nis fixed to one spot, and the productions of agriculture do not admit of\nbeing easily concealed. _The tenure of the land and the right of\nsuccession are besides uncertain._ When a father dies, the inheritance\nreverts to the sultan, and the children can only redeem the succession\nby a considerable sum of money. These considerations naturally occasion\nan indifference to landed estates. The country is deserted, and each\nperson is desirous of flying to the towns, where he will not only in\ngeneral meet with better treatment, but may hope to acquire a species of\nwealth, which he can more easily conceal from the eyes of his rapacious\nmasters. To complete the ruin of agriculture, a maximum is in many cases\nestablished, and the peasants are obliged to furnish the towns with corn\nat a fixed price. It is a maxim of Turkish policy, originating in the\nfeebleness of the government, and the fear of popular tumults, to keep\nthe price of corn low in all the considerable towns. In the case of a\nfailure in the harvest, every person who possesses any corn is obliged\nto sell it at the price fixed, under pain of death: and if there be none\nin the neighbourhood, other districts are ransacked for it. When\nConstantinople is in want of provisions, ten provinces are perhaps\nfamished for a supply. At Damascus, during a scarcity in 1784, the\npeople paid only one penny farthing a pound for their bread, while the\npeasants in the villages were absolutely dying with hunger. _The effect\nof such a system of government_ on agriculture, need not be insisted on.\nThe causes of the decreasing means of subsistence are but too obvious;\nand the checks which keep the population down to the level of these\ndecreasing resources, may be traced with nearly equal certainty, and\nwill appear to include almost every species of vice and misery.\u2019 Happy\ncountry, secured by the very nature of its government from the terrors\nof increasing population, and where every species of vice and misery,\nwisely anticipated, on the principle that the imagination of a thing is\nworse than the reality, takes away all fear of any greater evils than\nthose they already endure!\n\nIn the same chapter, he says, that in Persia \u2018the lower classes of\npeople are obliged to defer marriage till late; and that it is only\namong the rich that this union takes place early. The dreadful\nconvulsions to which this country has been subject for many hundred\nyears, must have been fatal to her agriculture. The periods of repose\nfrom external wars, and internal commotions have been short and few, and\neven during the times of profound peace, the frontier provinces have\nbeen constantly subject to the ravages of the Tartars.\u2014The effect of\nthis state of things is such as might be expected. The proportion of\nuncultivated to cultivated land, Sir John Chardin states to be, ten to\none; and the mode in which the officers of the state and private owners\nlet out their lands to husbandmen, is not that _which is best calculated\nto reanimate industry_. The other checks to population in Persia are\nnearly the same as those in Turkey. _The superior destruction of the\nplague in Turkey is perhaps nearly balanced by the greater frequency of\ninternal commotions in Persia._\u2019\n\nThese extracts furnish, I think, a tolerably clear idea of the manner in\nwhich it is possible for human institutions to aggravate instead of\nmitigating the _necessary_ evils of population. We have a sufficient\nspecimen of the effects of bad government, of bad laws, of the worse\nexecution of them, of feeble and selfish policy, of wars and commotions,\nor of diseases probably occasioned for the most part by the numbers of\npeople who are huddled together in dirt and poverty in the great towns\nin the manner we have seen\u2014in altering the natural proportion between\nthe produce of the soil, and the maintenance of the inhabitants; in\nwantonly diminishing the means of subsistence by a most unjust and\nunequal distribution of them; in diverting the produce of industry from\nits proper channels, in drying up its sources, in causing a stagnation\nof all the motives and principles which animate human life, in\ndestroying all confidence, independence, hope, cheerfulness, and manly\nexertion, in thwarting the bounties of nature by waste, rapacity,\nextortion and violence, and spreading want, misery, and desolation in\ntheir stead. How admirably does Mr. Malthus balance his checks! What the\nplague does in Turkey, is in Persia happily effected by means of civil\ncommotions. Population is thus kept down to the level of the means of\nsubsistence. But it seems, that wars, and intestine commotions, those\nblind drudges of Providence in clearing away the filth, rubbish, and\nother evils of a too crowded population, sometimes go beyond their\nerrand, or do their work the wrong way, by striking at the root of\npopulation instead of lopping off its superfluous branches. According to\nour author\u2019s general system, the killing ten, or twenty, or a hundred\nthousand men is an evil of a very trifling magnitude, if it is to be\nlooked upon as an evil at all. Population will only go on with the\ngreater alacrity, marriage will be rendered more practicable, and the\ndeficiency will soon be supplied from the sprightly and ever-teeming\nsource of nature. The dreadful convulsions, however, to which Persia has\nbeen subject for so many hundred years have not been merely vents to\ncarry off the excess of population beyond the means of subsistence, but\nthey have further been fatal to agriculture itself, or to those very\nmeans of subsistence. The proportion of _uncultivated_, to _cultivated_\nland, we find, is ten to one; so that the population is not only reduced\nto a level with the means of subsistence, but reduced ten times lower\nthan it need be.[14]\n\nI beg leave to accompany this description of the effects of political\nregulations and the established administration of property in Turkey,\nwith the following critical commentary, taken from another part of the\nsame work, which will throw considerable light on the _necessity_ of\nthose institutions to prevent the evils of population. Mr. Malthus\u2019s\nusual plea for \u2018vice and misery,\u2019 is that nothing else can put a stop to\nthe excesses of population; which _they_ do in the most effectual and\neligible manner. But he has here deserted his idols.\n\n\u2018It has appeared, I think, clearly, in the review of different\nsocieties given in the former part of this work, that those countries,\nthe inhabitants of which were sunk in the most barbarous ignorance, or\noppressed by the most cruel tyranny, however low they might be in\nactual population, were very populous in proportion to their means of\nsubsistence; and upon the slightest failure of the seasons, generally\nsuffered the severities of want.\u2019 [Yet it was the sole object of Mr.\nMalthus\u2019s discovery to prove the converse proposition, that the\nhighest degree of knowledge, and a perfect exemption from every\nspecies of tyranny would only lead to the lowest state of human\nwretchedness.]\u2014\u2018Ignorance and despotism seem to have no tendency to\ndestroy the passion which prompts to increase; _but they effectually\ndestroy the checks to it from reason and foresight_. The improvident\nbarbarian who thinks only of his present wants, or the miserable\npeasant, who from his political situation feels little security of\nreaping what he has sown, will seldom be deterred from gratifying his\npassions by the prospect of inconveniences which cannot be expected to\npress on him under three or four years. But though this want of\nforesight, which is fostered by ignorance and despotism, tend thus\nrather to encourage the procreation of children, it is absolutely\nfatal to the industry which is to support them. Industry cannot exist\nwithout foresight and security. The indolence of the savage is well\nknown; and the poor Egyptian or Abyssinian farmer, without capital,\nwho rents land, which is let out yearly to the highest bidder and who\nis constantly subject to the demands of his tyrannical masters, to the\ncasual plunder of an enemy, and not unfrequently to the violation of\nhis miserable contract, can have no heart to be industrious, and if he\nhad, could not exercise that industry with success. Even poverty\nitself, which appears to be the great spur to industry, when it has\nonce passed certain limits, almost ceases to operate. The indigence\nwhich is hopeless, destroys all vigorous exertion, and confines the\nefforts to what is sufficient for bare existence. _It is the hope of\nbettering our condition and the fear of want, rather than want itself,\nthat is the best stimulus to industry, and its most constant and best\ndirected efforts will almost invariably be found among a class of\npeople above the class of the wretchedly poor._\u2019\n\nWhat a pity that a man, who writes so well at times, should, for the\nsake of an hypothesis, involve \u2018himself in absurdities and\ncontradictions that would disgrace the lips of an ideot.\u2019 Mr. Malthus\nwill excuse me, if I make use of some of the hints contained in this\nexcellent passage, for the benefit of our English poor, who I think\nshould not have harder measure dealt them than others, and try to soften\nsome of the harshest constructions of the grinding law of necessity in\ntheir favour. I do not see why they alone are to be the martyrs of an\nabstraction. But Mr. Malthus reserves the application of his theory _in\nits purity_ for his own countrymen. He has some natural feelings, and a\ncertain degree of tender weakness for the distresses of other countries,\nbut he will not suffer his feelings for a moment to get the better of\nhis reason, with regard to those to whom he is bound by stronger ties,\nand over whose interests he watches with a paternal anxiety. He will\nhear of no palliations, no excuses, no shuffling temporary expedients to\nput off the evil day, he insists upon their submitting to the full\noperation of the penalty incurred by the laws of God and of nature,\nnothing short of the utmost severity will satisfy him, (\u2019tis death to\nspare) he will not bate them a jot of his argument, he makes them drain\nthe unsavoury cup of misery to the very dregs.\n\nIn the same chapter, which is entitled \u2018Of the principal sources of the\nprevailing errors on population,\u2019 he says, \u2018It has been observed that\nmany countries at the period of their greatest populousness have lived\nin the greatest plenty, and have been able to export corn; but at other\nperiods, when their population was very low, have lived in continual\npoverty and want, and have been obliged to import corn. Egypt,\nPalestine, Rome, Sicily, and Spain are cited as particular\nexemplifications of this fact; and it has been inferred, that an\nincrease of population in any state, not cultivated to the utmost, will\ntend rather to augment than diminish the relative plenty of the whole\nsociety,\u2019 &c. After contradicting this inference without giving any\nreasons against it, he goes on, \u2018Scarcity and extreme poverty,\ntherefore, may or may not accompany an increasing population, according\nto circumstances. But they must always accompany a permanently declining\npopulation; because there has never been, nor probably ever will be, any\nother cause than want of food, which makes the population of a country\npermanently decline. In the numerous instances of depopulation which\noccur in history, the causes of it may always be traced to the want of\nindustry, or the ill-direction of that industry, arising from violence,\nbad government, ignorance, &c. which first occasions a want of food, and\nof course depopulation follows. When Rome adopted the custom of\nimporting all her corn, and laying all Italy into pasture, she soon\ndeclined in population. The causes of the depopulation of Egypt and\nTurkey have already been alluded to; and in the case of Spain, it was\ncertainly not the numerical loss of people, occasioned by the expulsion\nof the Moors; but the industry and capital thus expelled, which\npermanently injured her population.\u2019 [I do not myself see, how the\nexpulsion of capital could permanently injure the population.] \u2018When a\ncountry has been depopulated by violent causes, if a bad government,\nwith its usual concomitant, insecurity of property, ensue, which has\ngenerally been the case in all those countries which are now less\npeopled than formerly; neither the food nor the population, will recover\nthemselves, and the inhabitants will probably live in severe want,\u2019 &c.\nYet Mr. Malthus elsewhere affects to consider all human institutions and\ncontrivances as perfectly indifferent to the question. We have here,\nhowever, a truer account of the matter. The state of population is\nevidently no proof of what it might be: to judge whether it is more or\nless than it might or ought to be, we must take into consideration good\nand bad government, the progress of civilization, &c. It is a thing _de\nfacto_, not _de jure_. It is not that rock, against which whosoever sets\nhimself shall be dashed to pieces, but the clay moulded by the potter\ninto vessels of honour or dishonour. With respect to Spain, it is\nallowed that her population is deficient, or short of what it might be.\nThe problem of political economy I take to be, how far this is the case\nwith respect to all other countries, and how to remedy the defect; or\nhow to support the greatest number of people in the greatest degree of\ncomfort. But I have said this more than once before.\n\nTo the same purpose I might quote Algernon Sydney, who in his Discourses\non government gives the following account of the decline and weakness of\nmany of the modern states from the loss of liberty.[15]\n\n\u2018I take Greece to have been happy and glorious, when it was full of\npopulous cities, flourishing in all the arts that deserve praise among\nmen; when they were courted and feared by the greatest kings, and never\nassaulted by any but to his own loss and confusion; when Babylon and\nSusa trembled at the motion of their arms: and their valour, exercised\nin those wars and tumults, which our author [Filmer] looks upon as the\ngreatest evils, was raised to such a power, that nothing upon earth was\nfound able to resist them. And I think it now miserable, when peace\nreigns within their empty walls, and the poor remains of those exhausted\nnations, sheltering themselves under the ruins of the desolated cities,\nhave neither any thing that deserves to be disputed among them, nor\nspirit or force to repel the injuries they daily suffer from a proud and\ninsupportable master.\u2019\n\n\u2018The like may be said of Italy. Whilst it was inhabited by nations\ngoverning themselves by their own will, they fell sometimes into\ndomestic seditions, and had frequent wars with their neighbours. When\nthey were free, they loved their country and were always ready to fight\nin its defence. Such as succeeded well, increased in vigour and power;\nand even those which were the most unfortunate in one age, found means\nto repair their losses, if their government continued. While they had a\nproperty in their goods, they would not suffer the country to be\ninvaded, since they knew they could have none, if it were lost. This\ngave occasion to wars and tumults; it sharpened their courage, kept up a\ngood discipline, and the nations that were most exercised by them,\nalways increased in power and number: so that no country seems ever to\nhave been of greater strength than Italy was when Hannibal invaded it,\nand after his defeat the rest of the world was not able to resist their\nvalour and power. They sometimes killed one another; but their enemies\nnever got any thing but burying-places within their territories. All\nthings are now brought into a very different method by the blessed\ngovernments they are under. The fatherly care of the king of Spain, the\npope, and other princes has established peace among them. We have not in\nmany ages heard of any sedition among the Latins, Sabines, Volsci, Equi,\nSamnites, and others. The thin, half-starved inhabitants of walls\nsupported by ivy fear neither popular tumults, nor foreign alarms; and\ntheir sleep is only interrupted by hunger, the cries of their children,\nor the howling of wolves. Instead of many turbulent, contentious cities,\nthey have a few scattered, silent cottages; and the fierceness of those\nnations is so tempered, that every rascally collector of taxes extorts,\nwithout fear, from every man, that which should be the nourishment of\nhis family. And if any of those countries are free from these pernicious\nvermin, it is through the extremity of their poverty.\u2019\n\n[How differently do people see things! According to Mr. Malthus, this\nrascally tax-gatherer, this vile nuisance, is a very sacred sort of\ncharacter, a privileged person, one of the most indispensable and active\ninstruments in the procession of vice and misery, those harbingers of\nhuman happiness; and all our reproaches and indignation should fall on\nthe poor peasant, for bringing beings into the world whom he could not\nmaintain, in \u2018the face of the clearest warning, and in defiance of the\nexpress command of God,\u2019 as proved by the tax-book. Our superficial\npolitician was not aware (Mr. Malthus tells us that first appearances\nare very deceitful) that the produce of the husbandman\u2019s labour was much\nbetter employed in supporting the waste and extravagance of the rich,\nthan in affording nourishment to his family, as this would only enable\nhim to _rear_ his family, which must operate as an encouragement to\nmarriage, and this again would produce other marriages, and so on _ad\ninfinitum_, to which unrestricted increase of population it is necessary\nto put a timely stop.]\n\n\u2018Even in Rome a man may be circumvented by the fraud of a priest, or\npoisoned by one, who would have his estate, wife, whore, or child; but\nnothing is done that looks like violence or tumult. The governors do as\nlittle fear Gracchus as Hannibal; and instead of wearying their subjects\nin wars,\u2019 [We have not yet reached this pitch of perfection] \u2018they only\nseek by perverted laws, corrupt judges, false witnesses, and vexatious\nsuits, to cheat them of their money and inheritance. This is the best\npart of their condition. Where these arts are used, there are men, and\nthey have something to lose; but for the most part, the lands lie waste;\nand they who were formerly troubled with the disorders incident to\npopulous cities, now enjoy the quiet and peaceable estate of a\nwilderness.\u2014Again, there is a way of killing worse than that of the\nsword; for as Tertullian says upon a different occasion, _vetare nasci\nest interficere_; those governments are in the highest degree guilty of\nblood, which by taking from men the means of living, bring some to\nperish through want, drive others out of the country, and generally\ndissuade men from marriage, _by taking from them all ways of supporting\ntheir families_.\u2019 [Our author, we see, has not here put the cart before\nthe horse. He seems to have understood the necessity of food to\npopulation, though Mr. Malthus\u2019s essay had not then been heard of.]\n\u2018Notwithstanding all the seditions of Florence, and other cities of\nTuscany, the horrid factions of Guelphs and Gibelines,[16] Neri and\nBianchi, nobles and commons, they continued populous, strong, and\nexceeding rich; but in the space of less than a hundred and fifty years,\nthe peaceable reign of the Medici is thought to have destroyed nine\nparts in ten of the people of that province. Among other things it is\nremarkable, that when Philip the second of Spain gave Sienna to the Duke\nof Florence, his embassador then at Rome sent him word, that he had\ngiven away more than six hundred and fifty thousand subjects; and it is\nnot believed there are now twenty thousand souls inhabiting that city\nand territory. Pisa, Pistoia, Arezzo, Cortona, and other towns, that\nwere then good and populous, are in the like proportion diminished, and\nFlorence more than any. When that city had been long troubled with\nseditions, tumults, and wars, for the most part unprosperous, it still\nretained such strength, that when Charles the eighth of France, being\nadmitted as a friend with his whole army, which soon after conquered the\nkingdom of Naples, thought to master them, the people, taking up arms,\nstruck such a terror into him, that he was glad to depart upon such\nconditions as they thought fit to impose. Machiavel reports, that in the\nyear 1298 Florence alone, with the Val d\u2019Arno, a small territory\nbelonging to that city, could, in a few hours, by the sound of a bell,\nbring together a hundred thousand well-armed men. Whereas now that city,\nwith all the others in that province, are brought to such despicable\nweakness, emptiness, poverty, and baseness, that they can neither resist\nthe oppressions of their own prince, nor defend him or themselves, if\nthey were assaulted by a foreign enemy. The people are dispersed or\ndestroyed, and the best families sent to seek habitations in Venice,\nGenoa, Rome, and Lucca. This is not the effect of war or pestilence:\nthey enjoy a perfect peace, and suffer no other plague than the\ngovernment they are under. But he who has thus cured them of disorders\nand tumults does in my opinion deserve no greater praise than a\nphysician, who should boast there was not a sick person in a house\ncommitted to his care, when he had poisoned all that were in it. The\nSpaniards have established the like peace in the kingdoms of Naples and\nSicily, the West Indies, and other places. The Turks by the same means\nprevent tumults in their dominions. And they are of such efficacy in all\nplaces, that Mario Chigi, brother to pope Alexander the seventh, by one\nsordid cheat upon the sale of corn, is said within eight years to have\ndestroyed above a third part of the people in the ecclesiastical state.\nAnd that country, which was the strength of the Romans in the time of\nthe Carthaginian wars, suffered more by the covetousness and fraud of\nthat villain, than by all the defeats received from Hannibal, &c. Chap.\nii. p. 223.\n\nIt will be worth the reader\u2019s while to turn to Lord Kaims\u2019s account of\nthe kingdom of Siam, which, though one of the most fertile countries in\nthe world, is reduced to the lowest state of poverty and wretchedness by\nthe absurd and tyrannical policy of its government. Some of the finest\ndistricts that were formerly cultivated, are now inhabited only by wild\nbeasts. One of the arts by which they preserve the balance of population\nin that country is, that the keeper of the king\u2019s menagerie is\nauthorized to let loose the elephants into the gardens of all those\nwithin a given distance of the capital, who do not pay him a large fine\nyearly to be excused from this intrusion. Yet according to our Essayist,\nhuman institutions have a very slight influence on the happiness of a\npeople, because they cannot alter the necessary ratios of the increase\nof food and population. It is probable, however, that some of the cases\nhere cited, which seem to bear rather hard on Mr. Malthus\u2019s rule, might\nhave led those hasty writers, whom he censures for their want of a due\ninsight into the subject, to conceive an unjust prejudice against human\ninstitutions; and perhaps some of my readers may also be led to suspect,\nfrom not comprehending fully the scope and connection of his arguments,\nthat bad governments are not quite such innocent things, as Mr. Malthus\nwould sometimes represent them. Is it necessary to press this subject\nany farther? I do not pretend to be very deep-read in history, in the\nconstitution of states, the principles of legislation, the progress of\nmanners, or the immediate causes of the revolutions that have taken\nplace in different countries. All that I can presume to bring to this\nquestion is a little stubborn common sense, an earnestness of feeling,\nand a certain familiarity with abstruse subjects, that is not willingly\nor easily made the dupe of flimsy distinctions. But without much\nlearning in one\u2019s self, it is easy to take advantage of the learning of\nothers. By the help of a common-place book, which is all that is wanted\nin these cases (and I am fortunate enough to have such a one by me in\nthe collections of \u2018that honest chronicler,\u2019 James Burgh) I might soon\nswell the size of these letters to a bulk, which the bookseller would\nnot like, by a number of striking illustrations from the most celebrated\nauthors. I might make myself a splendid livery of the wisdom of others.\nBut I have no taste for this pompous drudgery. However, to satisfy those\nreaders who are unable to discern the truth without the spectacles of\nfacts, it will not be amiss to refer to the opinions of a few of the\nwriters, who seem with sufficient clearness to have traced the causes of\nthe rise and fall of particular states to principles quite independent\nof, which were neither first set in motion nor afterwards regulated by\nthe principle of population, and the effects of which were utterly\ndisproportionate to the actual operation of that principle. After all,\nit is impossible to answer a paradox satisfactorily. The real answer\nconsists of the feelings and observations of our whole lives; and of\ncourse, it must be impossible to embody these in any single statement.\nAll that can be done in these cases is to set the imagination once more\nin its old track.\n\n\u2018Hear,\u2019 says my authority, \u2018the excellent Montague on the prevalence of\nluxury among the Romans.\u2019\n\n\u2018If we connect the various strokes interspersed through what we have\nremaining of the writings of Sallust, which were levelled at the vices\nof his countrymen, we shall be able to form a just idea of the manners\nof the Romans in his time. From this picture, we must be convinced, that\nnot only those shocking calamities, which the republic suffered during\nthe contest between Marius and Sylla, but those subsequent and more\nfatal evils, which brought on the utter extinction of the Roman liberty\nand constitution, were the natural effects of that foreign luxury, which\nfirst introduced venality and corruption.\u2019 [Now by _luxury_ we may\nunderstand a very great superabundance of the good things of this life,\neither in the community at large or in certain classes of it, but it\ncannot by any construction be made to signify the general and absolute\nwant of them. Luxury in some classes may produce want in others, but\npoverty is in this case the effect of the unequal distribution of the\nproduce of the earth, not of its real deficiency. Or if by luxury we\nunderstand only certain exterior decorations or artificial indulgences,\nwhich have nothing to do with the real support of life, such as dress,\nfurniture, buildings, pictures, gold and silver, rarities, delicacies of\nall kinds, every thing connected with shew and expence (though all these\nthings among the Romans being the effects not merely of leisure or of\nsupernumerary hands, but of _power_, and foreign dominion, must imply a\ncommand over the more substantial necessaries of life) yet even in this\nsense the passion for luxury or for those indulgences (which is here\nsaid to have been one great instrument in the overthrow of the state) is\ncertainly a very different thing from the passion of hunger, or want of\nfood, Mr. Malthus\u2019s key to the solution of all problems of a political\nnature.] \u2018Though the introduction of luxury from Asia preceded the ruin\nof Carthage in point of time, yet as Sallust informs us, the dread of\nthat dangerous rival restrained the Romans within the bounds of decency\nand order. But as soon as ever _that obstacle was removed_, they gave a\nfull scope to their ungoverned passions. The change in their manners was\nnot gradual, and by little and little as before, but rapid and\ninstantaneous. Religion, justice, modesty, decency, all regard for\ndivine or human laws, were swept away at once by the irresistible\ntorrent of corruption. The nobility strained their privileges, and the\npeople their liberty, alike into the most unbounded licentiousness.\nEvery one made the dictate of his own will, his only rule of action.\nPublic virtue, and the love of their country, which had raised the\nRomans to the empire of the universe, were extinct. Money, which alone\ncould enable them to gratify their darling luxury, was substituted in\nits place. Power, dominion, honours, and universal respect were annexed\nto the possession of money. Contempt, and whatever was the most\nreproachful was the bitter portion of poverty; and to be poor, grew to\nbe the greatest of all crimes, in the estimation of the Romans. Thus\nwealth and poverty contributed alike to the ruin of the republic. The\nrich employed their wealth in the acquisition of power, and their power\nin every kind of oppression and rapine for the acquisition of more\nwealth. The poor, now dissolute and desperate, were ready to engage in\nevery seditious insurrection, which promised them the plunder of the\nrich, and set up both their liberty and country to sale, to the best\nbidder. The republic, which was the common prey to both, was thus rent\nto pieces between the contending factions.\u2014A state so circumstanced must\nalways furnish an ample supply of proper instruments for faction. For as\nluxury consists in an inordinate gratification of the sensual passions,\nand as the more they are indulged, the more importunate they grow, the\ngreatest fortune must at last sink under their insatiable demands. Thus\nluxury necessarily produces corruption. As wealth is necessary to the\nsupport of luxury, all those who have dissipated their private fortunes\nin the purchase of pleasure, will be ever ready to enlist in the cause\nof faction for the wages of corruption. And when once the idea of\nrespect and homage is annexed to the possession of wealth alone, honour,\nprobity, every virtue and every amiable quality will be held cheap in\ncomparison and looked upon as awkward, and quite unfashionable. But as\nthe spirit of liberty will yet exist in some degree, in a state which\nretains the name of freedom, even though the manners of that state\nshould be generally depraved, an opposition will arise from those\nvirtuous citizens, who know the value of their birth-right, liberty, and\nwho will not submit tamely to the chains of faction. Force will then be\ncalled in to the aid of corruption, a military government will be\nestablished on the ruins of the civil, and all commands and employments\nwill be at the disposal of arbitrary, lawless power. The people will be\nfleeced to pay for their own fetters, and doomed, like the cattle, to\nunremitting toil and drudgery, for the support of their tyrannical\nmasters.\u2019 [All this is evidently erroneous, when we apply to it the\ntouch-stone of the theory of population. The people are not fleeced and\nworked in this manner for the benefit of those who fleece and work them,\nto gratify any appetites or passions of theirs, it is out of pure\ngood-will to the poor wretches themselves, that they may live more at\ntheir ease, and in a greater degree of affluence than they would without\nthis timely warning of the evils of poverty.] \u2018Or if the outward form of\ncivil government should be permitted to remain, the people will be\ncompelled to give a sanction to tyranny by their own suffrages, and to\nelect oppressors instead of protectors.\u2014From this genuine portrait of\nthe Roman state it is evident that the fatal catastrophe of that\nrepublic, of which Sallust himself was an eye-witness, was the natural\neffect of the corruption of their manners; and again, that this\ncorruption was the effect of the introduction of foreign wealth and\nluxury. This fatal tendency was too obvious to escape the notice of\nthose who had any regard for liberty and their ancient constitution.\nMany sumptuary laws were made to restrain the excesses of luxury; but\nthese efforts were too feeble to check the over-bearing violence of the\ntorrent. Cato proposed a severe law, enforced by the sanction of an\noath, against bribery and corruption at elections; where the scandalous\ntraffic of votes was established by custom, as at a public market. But\nhe only incurred the resentment of both parties by that salutary\nmeasure. The rich, who had no other merit to plead but what arose from\ntheir superior wealth, thus found themselves precluded from all\npretensions to the highest dignities. The electors abused, cursed and\neven pelted him as the author of a law which reduced them to the\nnecessity of subsisting by labour. Corruption was arrived at its height,\nand those excesses which were formerly esteemed the _vices_ of the\npeople were now, by the force of custom, become the _manners_ of the\npeople. To pilfer the public money and to plunder the provinces by\nviolence, though state crimes of the most heinous nature, were grown so\nfamiliar, that they were looked upon as no more than mere office\nperquisites.\u2019 Really I am afraid that the reader will suspect me of\nfalsifying the historical record to write a satire against our own\ntimes. Some of these remarks are I confess _home_ truths. To a person\nwho has not that mysterious kind of penetration which the author of the\nEssay possesses, they carry more weight, and give a clearer insight into\nthe principles that operate in the decomposition of states, than all Mr.\nMalthus\u2019s indiscriminate and shadowy reasonings on the evils of\npopulation, which can no more prove anything decisively on the subject,\nthan we can account for the inequalities in the surface of the earth\nfrom its being round.\n\nThe same author adds, \u2018Though there is a concurrence of several causes\nin the ruin of a state, yet where luxury prevails, that parent of all\nour fantastic wants, ever craving, and ever unsatisfied, we may safely\nassign it as the leading cause; since it ever was and ever will be the\nmost baneful to public virtue. _As luxury is contagious from its very\nnature_, it will gradually descend from the highest to the lowest ranks\ntill it has ultimately affected a whole people.\u2014We see luxury gradually\nincreasing and prevailing over the Roman spirit and virtue, till at\nlength the contagion _even_ reached ladies of the greatest distinction,\nwho in imitation of the prince and his court, had their assemblies and\nrepresentations in a grove, planted by the Emperor, where booths were\nbuilt, and in them sold whatever incited to sensuality and wantonness.\nThus was even the outward appearance of virtue banished the city, and\nall manner of avowed lewdness, depravity and dissoluteness introduced in\nits room, men and women being engaged in a contention to outvie each\nother in glaring vices, and scenes of impurity. Again.\u2014About the time\nthat the Roman republic was tottering to its fall, it was observed that\nthere was an universal degeneracy of manners prevailing, particularly\nthat the women were very scandalous in their behaviour at Rome, while\nthose of the countries called by them barbarous were remarkably\nexemplary in this respect.\u2019 Was this difference wholly owing to the\ndifference in the state of population? Or shall we believe that the\nladies of Roman knights, that the wives and daughters of Emperors, that\nthe mistresses of those to whom the world was tributary, who scattered\npearls and gold among their followers, who gave largesses of corn to the\npeople, and entertained them at ten thousand tables at a time, who ate\nthe tongues of peacocks and nightingales, and the brains of parrots,\nwhose dogs were fed with the livers of geese, their horses with raisins,\nand their wild beasts with the flesh of partridges and pheasants, shall\nwe believe that these delicate creatures, who dreamt of nothing but\npleasure and feasting, who reclined on silken couches, whose baths were\nmade of rose-water and wine, who scented the air with all the perfumes\nof the East, whose rich dresses were upborne by a train of\nwaiting-women, and idle boys, were driven to the necessity of\nstimulating their passions by lewd exhibitions, and wanton dances, and\nlascivious songs, and soft music and obscene practices, because they\nwere hindered from gratifying their honest desires in a lawful way by\nthe difficulty of providing for their future offspring, or the pressure\nof population on the means of subsistence? Yet this is what we must be\nled to suppose from Mr. Malthus\u2019s theory, according to whom vice is the\nnatural consequence of want, and want the effect of increasing\npopulation. For any one who is acquainted with the state of manners, and\nthe mode of living among the great at Rome at this time to pretend that\nall this was owing to nothing but the advanced state of population, just\nas the rising or falling of the weather-glass depends on the pressure of\nthe air outside, betrays a most astonishing ignorance of human nature. I\nthink I am warranted in laying down the two following maxims; that\nluxury is itself an immediate cause of dissoluteness of manners;\nsecondly, that example, particularly that of the great, has a powerful\ninfluence over manners.\n\nBefore I quit this subject of Roman luxury, I shall just mention a fact\nquoted by my author, which seems to contradict Mr. Malthus\u2019s notion that\nthe luxuries of the rich do not in the least affect the condition of the\npoor. \u2018The good Emperor Aurelius,\u2019 says Burgh, \u2018sold the plate,\nfurniture, jewels, pictures and statues of the imperial palace, _to\nrelieve the distresses of the people_, occasioned by the invasion of\nbarbarians, pestilence, famine, &c. the value of which was so great,\nthat it maintained the war for five years, beside other inestimable\nexpences.\u2019 If according to Mr. Malthus\u2019s reasoning on this subject in\ndifferent parts of his work, every man\u2019s stomach can hold only a certain\nquantity of food, and what does not go into one man\u2019s stomach\nnecessarily goes into some other\u2019s, that is, if every person has as\nlarge a share as it is possible he should have of the necessaries of\nlife, I do not see what this moving of pictures or statues about, or\nsetting them up to auction should have to do with the state of\nprovisions, or how it should relieve the necessities of the poor. Mr.\nMalthus\u2019s reasonings are sometimes as remarkable for their simplicity as\nthey are at others for their complexity. He sees things in the most\nnatural or in the most artificial point of view, as he pleases. At one\ntime, every thing comes round by a labyrinth of causes, and all the\nintricate secretions of the state; at another time the whole science of\npolitical economy is reduced to a flat calculation of the size of a\nquartern loaf, and the size of the human stomach.\n\nAll authors (but Mr. Malthus) seem agreed that luxury has been fatal to\nthe spirit of liberty, and that the loss of liberty has led to the loss\nof independence. \u2018The welfare of every country depends upon the morals\nof the people. Though a nation may become rich by trade, thrift, and\nindustry, or from the advantages of soil and situation, or may attain to\ngreat eminence and power either by force of arms, or by the sagacity of\ntheir councils; yet when their manners are depraved, they will decline\ninsensibly, and at last come to utter destruction. When a country is\ngrown vicious, industry decays, and the people become unruly,\neffeminate, and unfit for labour. Luxury, when introduced into free\nstates, and suffered to spread through the body of the people was ever\nproductive of that degeneracy of manners, which extinguishes public\nvirtue, and puts a final period to liberty. Thus the Assyrian empire\nsunk under the arms of Cyrus with his poor but hardy Persians. The\nextensive and opulent empire of Persia fell an easy prey to Alexander\nand a handful of Macedonians. And the Macedonian empire, when enervated\nby the luxury of Asia, was compelled to receive the yoke of the\nvictorious Romans. The descendants of the heroes, philosophers, orators,\nand free citizens of Greece are now the slaves of the Grand Turk. The\nposterity of the Scipios and Catos of Rome are now singing operas, in\nthe shape of Italian eunuchs, on the English stage.\u2019[17] It should seem\nfrom the length of time which these countries have remained in the same\ndegraded condition without a single effort or even wish to relieve\nthemselves from it, that there must be other causes of the permanent\ndepression of states, and other channels of transmission, by which the\nhabits, and characters of the people, their customs and institutions,\nare handed down through successive generations without any hope of a\nchange for the better, besides the mechanical fluctuations in the\nprinciple of population. If all laws, institutions, manners, and customs\nwere only so many _expressions_ (as I may say) of the power of that\nprinciple, kingdoms would rise and fall with the operation of the checks\nprovided for it; their alternate renovation and decay would be as\nregular as the ebbing and flowing of the tide; in proportion as they\nsank deep in wretchedness, they would tower to greater happiness and\nsplendour; the foundation of their future prosperity would be laid in\nthe lowness of their fortune; the exhausted state would rise, like the\nph\u0153nix, out of its own ashes, and enter the career of liberty and glory\nin all its pristine vigour. But we do not find that the accounts in\nhistory correspond with the oscillations of Mr. Malthus\u2019s theory. We\nfind through a long, dreary tract of time, during which our author\u2019s\nratios must have been ascending and descending like buckets in a well,\nthat the inhabitants of those devoted countries have remained just where\nthey were,\u2014in the lowest scale of human being. They have for a great\nmany hundred years been undergoing the wholesome discipline of vice and\nmisery without being the better for it, the iron yoke of necessity to\nwhich they have so long and patiently submitted does not seem ever to\nhave been relaxed in their favour, and they have reaped none of those\nreversionary benefits which might be expected from slavery and famine.\nThese powerful principles have not done much to rekindle in their\nbreasts their ancient love of liberty, the glow of genius,\u2014or to open a\nnew field for the rapid increase of population. They have not been\nfavoured with any of those _ups_ and _downs_, those pretty whirls and\nagreeable vicissitudes of good and evil, which Mr. Malthus describes as\nthe natural consequence of the principles on which his machine of\npopulation is constructed. This is a radical objection to his machine;\nit shews plainly that it is not constructed on true principles, that we\ncannot safely trust ourselves in it, and will I hope deter us from\ngetting up into it.\n\n\u2018The Swiss keep the same unchanged character of simplicity, honesty,\nfrugality, modesty, bravery. These are the virtues which preserve\nliberty. They have no corrupt court, no blood-sucking placemen, no\nstanding army, the ready instruments of tyranny, no ambition for\nconquest, no debauching commerce, no luxury, no citadels against\ninvasions and against liberty. Their mountains are their fortifications,\nand every householder is a soldier, ready to fight for his country.\u2019\nThis is the account which Voltaire gives of that country. Since that\ntime, it has fallen by a power greater than its own, and paid with its\nliberty for the folly and madness of the rest of Europe. I hope I shall\nnot offend any of the sycophants of power, any of the enlightened\npatriots of the day who regard the general distinctions of liberty and\nslavery as slight and evanescent, by adding to my list of political\ngrievances foreign conquest as an evil, and an evil that tends to no\ncertain good.\u2014I would fain know from the adepts in the science of\npopulation whether according to that system it would be an advantage to\nthis country to be conquered by the French. The necessary ratios of the\nincrease of food and population (which according to our author are every\nthing,\u2014he utterly rejects the idea that established governments can do\nany mischief) would of course remain the same; and as to the practical\npart, population would, if any thing, go on slower than before. I cannot\nbut think however that most of my readers would in such a case\nanticipate the consequences which our political reformer describes in\nhis croaking old-fashioned way as proceeding from another cause, the\ncorruption of the people, and the abuses of government at home. \u2018I see\u2019\nhe says, \u2018my wretched country in the same condition as France is now.\u2019\n[This was written at a time when it was the fashion for the English to\nreproach all other countries for their misery and slavery, as they have\nsince been in the habit of hunting them down for their attempts at\nliberty.] \u2018Instead of the rich and thriving farmers, who now fill or who\nlately filled, the country with agriculture, yielding plenty for man and\nbeast, I see the lands neglected, the villages and farms in ruins, with\nhere and there a starveling in wooden shoes, driving his plough, his\nteam consisting of an old goat, a hide-bound bullock, and an ass, value\nin all forty shillings. I see the once rich and populous cities of\nEngland in the same condition with those of Spain; whole streets lying\nin rubbish, and the grass peeping out between the stones in those which\ncontinue still inhabited. I see the harbours empty, the warehouses shut\nup, and the shop-keepers playing at draughts, for want of customers. I\nsee our noble and spacious turnpike roads covered with thistles and\nother weeds, and hardly to be traced out. I see the studious men reading\nthe Political Disquisitions, and the histories of the eighteenth\ncentury, and execrating the stupidity of their fathers, who in spite of\nthe many faithful warnings given them, sat still, and suffered their\ncountry to be ruined by a set of wretches, whom they could have crushed.\nI see the country devoured by an army of 200,000 men. I see justice\ntrodden under foot in the courts of justice. I see _Magna Charta_, the\n_Habeas Corpus_ act, the bill of rights, and trial by jury, obsolete,\nand royal edicts and _arrets_ set up in their place. I see the once\nrespectable land-owners, tradesmen, and manufacturers of England sunk\ninto contempt, and placemen and military officers the only persons of\nconsequence, &c.\u2019 I do not know but there may be some staunch adherents\nto the new philosophy, some hyper-graduates in the school, who would\nthink such a state of things \u2018a consummation devoutly to be wished.\u2019 But\nit is happy that where our reason leaves us, our prejudices often come\nto our aid. Though there may be some persons in this country who would\nnot care a fig for the Bastile, or letters _de cachet_, there is no one\nwho has not a just dread of Buonaparte; or who would not indignantly\nspurn at the wretch who told him that so long as the disproportion in\nthe increase of food and the increase of mankind continued, it was of\nlittle consequence to him whether he was subject to the yoke of a\nforeign tyrant, or governed by a mild and lawful sovereign.\u2014It has\nalways been the custom for the English to extol themselves to the skies\nas the freest and happiest nation on the face of the earth. Ever since I\nwas a boy, I remember to have heard of the trial by jury, Magna Charta,\nand the bill of rights, of the Bastile in France, and the Inquisition in\nSpain, and the man in the Iron mask. Now whether it is that I was a boy\nwhen I first heard of these things, or that they carry some weight and\nmeaning in themselves, certain it is that they have made such a strong\nand indelible impression on my mind as totally to preclude the effects\nof Mr. Malthus\u2019s philosophy. Whether it is owing to the strength of my\nreason or my prejudices, I cannot receive the benefit of his new light.\nAs these are some of the strongest feelings I have, (though they may\nperhaps be just as childish as those which I still have in reading the\nstory of Goody Two-Shoes, or the Little Red Riding-hood) it occurred to\nme to make some use of them in answer to Mr. Malthus\u2019s challenge to shew\nthat there is no difference between one government and another in the\nessentials of liberty and happiness. Or I thought I might contrast the\nconstitution of this country with that of Denmark, where (says Lord\nMolesworth) the peasants are as absolute slaves as the negroes in\nJamaica, and _worse fed_. This seemed to be strong ground. But then I\nrecollected that the very same expression had been applied by a person,\nwhom it would be unbecoming in me to contradict, to the peasants in this\ncountry.[18] I also met with a passage something to the same purpose in\nthe Political Disquisitions, which a little damped my patriotic\neagerness. \u2018A poor hard-working man, who has a wife and six children to\nmaintain\u2019 [what a wicked wretch!] \u2018can neither enjoy the glorious light\nof heaven, nor the glimmering of a farthing candle, without paying the\nwindow tax and the candle tax. He rises early and sits up late; he fills\nthe whole day with severe labour; he goes to his flock-bed with half a\nbelly-full of bread and cheese denying the call of natural appetite,\nthat his wife and little starvelings may have the more.\u2019 [Why he is very\njustly punished to be sure. True; but mark the sequel.] \u2018In the mean\nwhile the exactors of these taxes are revelling at the expence of more\nmoney for one evening\u2019s amusement, than the wretched hard-working man\n(who is obliged to find the money for them to squander) can earn by half\na year\u2019s severe labour.\u2019 On the whole, I was obliged to relinquish my\nproject. I found that my picture must either want effect, or be out of\nall keeping. And besides the relations of things had not only changed,\nbut men\u2019s opinions had changed with them. An overcharged description of\nEnglish liberty and continental slavery would not be at all to the taste\nof the times. It would sound like mere rant, and would come to nothing.\nBut when I came to that fine representation of the effects of slavery,\nwhich Burgh has left us, with those exquisite figures of the old goat,\nthe bullock and the ass, and the group of shop-keepers playing at\ndraughts for want of something to do, I was determined to bring it in,\ncost what it would. At last, I bethought me of the expedient of an\ninvasion,\u2014at that word I knew that every true friend of his country\nwould grow pale, would see the odious consequences of slavery in their\nnative deformity, and turn with disdain from those vile panders to vice\nand misery, those sanguine enthusiasts of mischief, who would artfully\nreconcile them to every species of want, oppression, and unfeeling\nbarbarity, as the necessary consequences of the principle of population.\nSo much more credit do we attach to names, than things!\u2014The whole of the\naccount of Denmark to which I have just referred, is well worthy of\nattention: I cannot forbear giving the following extract. \u2018The\nconsequence of this oppression is that the people of Denmark finding it\nimpossible to secure their property\u2019 [from the tax-gatherers] \u2018squander\ntheir little gettings, as fast as they can, and are irremediably poor.\nOppression and arbitrary sway beget distrust and doubts about the\nsecurity of property; doubts beget profusion, men chusing to squander on\ntheir pleasures what they apprehend may excite the rapaciousness of\ntheir superiors; and this profusion is the legitimate parent of that\nuniversal indolence, poverty and despondency, which so strongly\ncharacterize the miserable inhabitants of Denmark. When Lord Molesworth\nresided in that country, the collectors of the poll-tax were obliged to\naccept of old feather-beds, brass and pewter pans, &c. instead of money,\nfrom the inhabitants of a town, which once raised 200,000 rix dollars\nfor Christiern IV. on twenty-four hours\u2019 notice. The quartering and\npaying the king\u2019s troops is another grievance no less oppressive. The\nboors are obliged to furnish the king and every little insolent courtier\nwith horses and waggons in their journeys, and are beaten like cattle.\nConsequently, Denmark, once very populous, is become thin of\ninhabitants; as poverty, oppression, and meagre diet do miserably check\nprocreation, besides producing diseases which shorten the lives of the\nfew who are born.\u2019 [How miserably short-sighted must our author have\nbeen not to perceive that these were great advantages!] \u2018All this the\nrich and thriving and free people of England may bring themselves to, if\nthey please\u2019 [by following up Mr. Malthus\u2019s theory.] \u2018It is only letting\nthe court go on with their scheme of diffusing universal corruption\nthrough all ranks, and it will come of course.\u2019\u2014There is one passage in\nthis account, which malevolence itself cannot apply to the history of\nthis country. \u2018Before the government of Denmark was made hereditary and\nabsolute in the present royal family, by that fatal measure in 1660, the\nnobility lived in great splendour and affluence. _Now they are poor and\ntheir number diminished._\u2019\n\nI shall conclude these extracts with the following passages, taken at\nrandom, which will at least serve to shew the strange prejudices that\nprevailed on the subject, before Mr. Malthus, like the clown in\nShakespear, undertook to find out an answer that should explain all\ndifficulties. \u2018It must indeed be an answer of most monstrous size that\nfits all demands.\u2019 But perhaps Mr. Malthus is by this time convinced,\nthat \u2018a thing may serve long, and not serve ever.\u2019\n\n\u2018The richest soil in Europe, Italy, is full of beggars; among the\nGrisons, the poorest country in Europe, there are no beggars. The\nbailage of Lugane is the worst country, the least productive, the most\nexposed to cold and the least capable of trade of any in all Italy, and\nyet is the best peopled. If ever this country is brought under a yoke\nlike that which the rest of Italy bears, it will soon be abandoned, for\nnothing draws so many people to live in so bad a soil, when they are in\nsight of the best soil in Europe, but the easiness of the government.\u2019\nBurnet\u2019s Travels.\n\n\u2018Italy shews, in a very striking light, the advantages of free\ngovernment.[19] The subjects of the Italian republics are thriving and\nhappy. Those under the Pope, the dukes of Tuscany, Florence &c. wretched\nin the extreme.\u2014Lucca, to mention no other, is a remarkable instance of\nthe happy effects of liberty. The whole dominion is but thirty miles\nround, yet contains, besides the city, 150 villages, 120,000\ninhabitants, and all the soil is cultivated to the utmost. Their\nmagistrates are re-elected every two months out of a body of nobility,\nwho are chosen every two years.\u2019 Modern Universal History. See also A.\nSydney as before quoted.\u2014These differences cannot be accounted for by\nthe length of time or the force with which the principle of population\nhas operated in these states. The countries are equally old, and the\nclimate very nearly the same.\n\n\u2018In England an industrious subject has the best chance for thriving,\nbecause the country is the freest. In the Mogul\u2019s dominions the worst,\nbecause the country is the most effectually enslaved.\u2019\n\n\u2018The title of freemen was formerly confined chiefly to the nobility and\ngentry, who were descended of free ancestors. _For the greatest part of\nthe people_ was restrained under some species of slavery, so that they\nwere not their own masters.\u2019 Spelman\u2019s Glossary.[20]\u2014On this passage my\nauthor remarks very gravely, \u2018What has been in England may be again. If\nliberty be on the decline, no one knows how low it may sink, and to what\npitch of slavery and cruelty it may grow.\u2019 Mr. Malthus\u2019s theory tends to\nfamiliarise the mind to such a change as the necessary effect of the\nprogress of population. But this pretext is here clearly done away, as\nwe have fought up to our present free, and flourishing state, in the\n_teeth_ of this principle. Our progress has not been uniformly\n_retrograde_, as it ought to have been to make any thing of the\nargument.\n\n\u2018It is constantly (said a member in Queen Elizabeth\u2019s time) in the\nmouths of us all, that our lands, goods and laws are at our prince\u2019s\ndisposal.\u2019 We do not at present come _quite_ up to the loyalty of this\nspeaker.\n\n\u2018Nations have often been deceived into slavery by men of shining\nabilities.\u2019 Perhaps the late Mr. Burke was an instance of this. I by no\nmeans insist that he was, because there may be differences of opinion on\nthat point. But of this I am sure, that the effect of his writings, good\nor bad, cannot be measured\u2014by the principle of population.\n\n\u2018A single genius changes the face and state of a whole country, as\nGustavus Adolphus of Sweden, and Peter the great of Russia. Confucius\nproduced a reformation in one of the oriental kingdoms in a few months.\u2019\n\n\u2018Commerce introduced by the czar Peter introduced luxury. Universal\ndissipation took the lead, and profligacy of manners succeeded. _Many of\nthe lords began to squeeze and grind the peasants to extort fresh\nsupplies from them for the incessant demands of luxury_\u2019\u2014not of\npopulation.\n\n\u2018The extreme poverty occasioned by idleness and luxury in the beginning\nof Lewis XIII. of France filled the streets of Paris with beggars. The\ncourt disgusted at the sight, which indeed was a severe reproach on\nthem, issued an order, forbidding all persons, on severe penalties, to\nrelieve them, intending thereby to drive them out of the town, and not\ncaring though they dropped down dead, before they could reach the\ncountry towns and villages.\u2019 This was a project worthy of the genius of\nMr. Malthus.\n\n\u2018Government, according to Plato, is the parent of manners. One judicious\nregulation will often produce a very salutary effect on a whole people,\nas experimental philosophy shews us, that a wire will secure a castle\nfrom the once irresistible force of lightning.\u2014Mankind may be brought to\nhold any principles and to indulge any practices, and again to give them\nup.\u2014Is there any notion of right and wrong, about which mankind are\nuniversally agreed? Is it not evident that mankind may be moulded into\nany shape? How come we to know that antimony or quicksilver may, by\nchemical processes, be made to pass through twenty different states, and\nrestored again to their original state? Is it not by experiment? Are not\nthe various legislations, institutions, regulations of wise or designing\nstatesmen, priests, and kings, a series of experiments, shewing that\nhuman nature is susceptible of any form or character?\u2019 According to the\nmost modern discovery, these things never did, nor ever will have any\neffect at all. The question is simply whether the state of food and the\nstate of population being the same, the different causes here alluded to\nhave not produced very different results with respect to the degree both\nof vice and misery existing in the world.[21]\n\n\u2018The great difference we see between the behaviour of the people called\nQuakers, and all others; between English, Scotch, Irish, French,\nSpanish, Heathens, Mahometan, Christian, Popish, Protestant manners and\ncharacters, &c. the regular and permanent difference we see between the\nmanners of all these divisions of mankind, shews beyond all doubt that\nthe principles and habits of the people are very much in the power of\nable statesmen.\u2019\n\n\u2018Among the Lacedemonians there was no such crime as infidelity to the\nmarriage-bed: yet Lycurgus in framing his laws had used no precaution\nagainst it, but the virtuous and temperate education he prescribed for\nthe youth of both sexes.\u2014The influence which education has on the\nmanners of a people is so considerable that it cannot be estimated. But\nby _education_ it is to be observed, we must understand not only what is\ntaught at schools and universities, but the impressions young people\nreceive from parents, and from the world, which greatly outweigh all\nthat can be done by masters and tutors. Education, taken in this\nenlarged sense, is almost all that makes the difference between the\ncharacters of nations; and it is a severe satire on our times, _that the\nworld makes most young men very different beings from what those who\neducated them intended them to be_.\u2019 This last remark is I think of the\nutmost force and importance; and has never been sufficiently attended to\nby those who prate most fluently and triumphantly about the inherent\nperversity of human nature. A young man is seldom tainted by the world,\ntill he becomes dependent on it. I have known several persons who I am\nsure have set out in life with the utmost purity of intention, and a\nnoble ingenuousness of mind, and were prepared to act on very different\nprinciples from those, which they found prevailing in the world. Is the\nfault in this case in the wood, or in the carver? Is it in the stuff, or\nin the mould, in which it is cast? The difficulty seems to be, how to\nget a better mould.\n\n\u2018Aristotle lays down very strict rules concerning the company young\npeople may be allowed to keep, the public diversions they may attend;\nthe pictures they may see, and against obscenity, intemperance, &c. And\nthe eighth book of his politics is employed wholly on education, in\nwhich he shews, that youth ought to be strongly impressed with the idea\nof their being members of a community, whose good they are to prefer to\ntheir private advantage in all cases where they come in competition. He\ncommends the wisdom of the Spartans in paying such attention to this\ngreat object. Such is the delicacy of this old Heathen, that he\nhesitates about the propriety of young men\u2019s applying to music, as being\nlikely to enervate the mind.\u2019\n\n\u2018Lycurgus did not allow the Spartans to travel, lest they should be\ntainted by the manners of other nations.\u2019 I do not chuse to name all the\nvices that have been imported into this country within the last fifty\nyears by the aid of foreign travel. Vice is unfortunately of a very\ntenacious quality, and there is no quarantine against the epidemics of\nthe mind. In return, however, we have learned to converse, to dress, and\ndance better than we used to do.\n\n\u2018At Sparta, the poets could not publish any thing without a license; and\nall immoral writings were prohibited. A very wise man[22] said he\nbelieved, if a man were permitted to make all the ballads, he need not\ncare who made the laws of a nation. The ancient legislators did not\npretend to reform the manners of the people without the help of the\npoets.\u2019\n\n\u2018The grave Romans did not allow a person of character to dance! It was a\nsaying among them, no one dances unless he is drunk or mad.\u2019\n\n\u2018In the old English laws, we find punishments for wanton behaviour, as\ntouching the breasts of women, &c.\u2014By the ancient laws of France, the\nleast indecency of behaviour to a free woman, as squeezing the hand,\ntouching the arm or breast, &c. was punishable by fire.\u2019[23] What odd,\nsour, crabbed notions must have prevailed in those days! Not squeeze a\nlady\u2019s hand! No\u2014a much more agreeable latitude of behaviour is allowed\nat present: we are as much improved in our notions of gallantry as of\nliberty. The polite reader will not suspect me of a design to hold up\nthe shocking manners of our ancestors as models of imitation in the\npresent day; I only mention them to shew what a wide difference there\nmay be in the notions of decency and propriety at different times!\n\nIf a stranger, on entering a large town, London for example, should be\nstruck with that immense number of prostitutes, \u2018who elbow us aside in\nall our crowded streets,\u2019 and not well knowing how to account for this\nenormous abuse, should apply to a disciple of the modern school for some\nexplanation of it, he would probably be told with great gravity, _That\nit was a necessary consequence of the progress of population, and the\nsuperior power of that principle over the increase in the means of\nsubsistence_.\u2014If Mr. Malthus, contented to follow in the track of common\nsense, and not smitten with the love of dangerous novelty, had\nendeavoured to trace the torrent of vice and dissipation which threatens\nto bear down every principle of virtue and decency among us to the chief\nsources pointed out by other writers, to the particular institutions of\nsociety, to the prevalence of luxury, the inequality of conditions, the\nfacility of gratifying the passions from the power of offering\ntemptation, and inducements to accept it, the disproportion between the\npassions excited in individuals, and their situation in life, to books,\nto education, the progress of arts, the influence of neighbouring\nexample, &c. these are all causes, which, as they are arbitrary and\nvariable, seem as if they could be counteracted or modified by other\ncauses; they are the work of man, and what is the work of man it seems\nin the power of man to confirm or alter. We see distinctly the source of\nthe grievance, and try to remedy it: hope remains, the will acts with\ndouble energy, the spirit of virtue is not broken. Our vices grow out of\nother vices, out of our own passions, prejudices, folly, and weakness:\nthere is nothing in this to make us proud of them, or to reconcile us to\nthem; even though we may despair, we are not confounded. We still have\nthe theory of virtue left: we are not obliged to give up the distinction\nbetween good and evil even in imagination: there is some little good\nwhich we may at least wish to do. Man in this case retains the character\nof a free agent; he stands chargeable with his own conduct, and a sense\nof the consequences of his own presumption or blindness may arouse in\nhim feelings that may in some measure counteract their worst effects; he\nmay regret what he cannot help: the life, the pulse, the spring of\nmorality is not dead in him; his moral sense is not quite extinguished.\nBut our author has chosen to stagger the minds of his readers by\nrepresenting vice and misery as the necessary consequences of an\nabstract principle, of a fundamental law of our nature, on which nothing\ncan be effected by the human will. This principle follows us wherever we\ngo; if we fly into the uttermost parts of the earth, it is there:\nwhether we turn to the right or the left, we cannot escape from it. O\nrather for that warning voice, that once cried aloud, _Insens\u00e9s qui vous\nplaignez, sans cesse de la nature, apprenez que tous vos maux vous\nviennent de vous!_ As however I deny the sufficiency of our author\u2019s\nall-pervading principle, I may be required to point out more\nparticularly what I conceive to be the real and determining causes of\nthe decay of manners. I do not know that I can mention any that do not\ncome under the heads already alluded to, but if I must give a short\nanswer, I should say,\u2014Great towns, great schools, dress, and novels.\nThese things are not regulated exactly by the size of the earth, and yet\nmust be allowed to have some influence on manners. To instance only the\ntwo last. Is it to be wondered at that a young raw ignorant girl, who is\nsent up from the country as a milliner\u2019s or mantua-maker\u2019s apprentice,\nand stowed into a room with eight or ten others, who snatch every moment\nthey can spare from caps and bonnets, and sit up half the night to read\nall the novels they can get, and as soon they have finished one, send\nfor another, whose heart, in the course of half a year, has been pierced\nthrough with twenty beaux on paper, who has been courted, seduced, run\naway with, married and put to bed under all the fine names that the\nimagination can invent to as many fine gentlemen, who has sighed and\nwept with so many heroes and heroines that her tears and sighs have at\nlast caused in her a defluction of the brain, and a palpitation of the\nheart at the sight of every man, whose fancy is love-sick, and her head\nquite turned, should be unable to resist the first coxcomb of real flesh\nand blood, who in shining boots and a velvet collar accosts her in the\nshape of a lover, but who has no thoughts of marrying her, because if he\nwere to take this imprudent step, he must give up his shining boots and\nvelvet collar, and the respect they procure him in the world? Zaleucus\nordained that no woman should dress herself gorgeously, unless she was a\nprostitute. If I were a law-giver, and chose to meddle in such matters,\nI would ordain that no woman should expose her shape publicly, unless\nshe were a prostitute.\u2014The female form is more proper for child-bearing,\nthan for public exhibition; this secret analogy, when coupled with\nmodesty and reserve, is however its greatest charm. The strange\nfancy-dresses, the perverse disguises, the counterfeit shapes, the stiff\nstays, and enormous hoops worn by the women in the time of the Spectator\ngave an agreeable scope to the imagination. The greedy eye and rash hand\nof licentiousness were repressed. The senses were never satisfied in an\ninstant. Love was entangled in the folds of the swelling handkerchief,\nand the desires might wander for ever round the circumference of a\nquilted petticoat, or find a rich lodging in the flowers of a damask\nstomacher. There was room for years of patient perseverance, for a\nthousand thoughts, fancies, conjectures, hopes, fears, and wishes. There\nseemed no end to difficulties and delays: to overcome so many obstacles\nwas the work of ages. A _wife_ had then some meaning in it: it was an\nangel concealed behind whalebone, flounces, and brocade. The transition\nfrom a mistress in masquerade to a wife in wedding sheets was worth\nventuring for: now it is nothing, and we hear no more of faithful\ncourtships, and romantic loves. A woman can be _but_ undressed.\u2014The\nyoung ladies we at present see with the thin muslin vest drawn tight\nround the slender waist, and following with nice exactness the\nundulations of the shape downwards, disclosing each full swell, each coy\nrecess, obtruding on the eye each opening charm, the play of the\nmuscles, the working of the thighs, and by the help of a walk, of which\nevery step seems a gird, and which keeps the limbs strained to the\nutmost point, displaying all those graceful involutions of person, and\nall those powers of fascinating motion, of which the female form is\nsusceptible\u2014these moving pictures of lust and nakedness, against which\nthe greasy imaginations of grooms and porters may rub themselves,\nrunning the gauntlet of the saucy looks and indecent sarcasms of the\nboys in the street, staring at every ugly fellow, leering at every\nhandsome man, and throwing out a lure for every fool (true Spartan\ngirls, who if they were metamorphosed into any thing in the manner of\nOvid, it would certainly be into valerian!) are the very same, whose\nmothers or grand-mothers buried themselves under a pile of clothes,\nwhose timid steps hardly touched the ground, whose eyes were constantly\naverted from the rude gaze of the men, and who almost blushed at their\nown shadows. \u2018Of such we in romances read.\u2019 It does not require any\ngreat spirit of divination to perceive that this change in appearance\nmust imply some change in manners. Is this change then owing entirely to\nthe increased pressure of the principle of population, or have not\nFrench fashions, French milliners, and French dancing-masters had some\nhand in producing it?[24]\u2014Mr. Malthus inveighs with great severity\nagainst squalid poverty, and the vices produced by filth and rags. I\nallow the justice of his remarks, and think that the condition of the\npoor in this respect is one of the chief nuisances of society. After\ngiving the poor a scrubbing with a coarse towel in the manner he has\ndone, it would not have been amiss if he had taken a clean white\nclerical pocket-handkerchief, and applied it to wipe off the rouge from\nthe cheeks of painted prostitution, or thrown it as a covering over the\npolished neck and ivory shoulders of ladies of high quality. The bishop\nof London would have praised the attempt. Mr. Malthus might have\ndistinguished between the involuntary rents, and the unlucky loop-holes\nwhich sometimes appear in a poor girl\u2019s petticoat, and the elegant\ndishabille and studied nakedness of high life. The dirt that sticks to a\nwench\u2019s face in cleaning a saucepan is I think likely to have less\neffect on the character than the red paste daubed on the cheeks before a\nlooking-glass, to give _animation_ to the eyes. The contempt which dirt\nand poverty excite must destroy all moral sensibility. Must not the\nglare of fashion and the perpetual intoxication of personal vanity have\nthe same effect? The poor grovel in disagreeable sensations, the rich\nwanton in voluptuous ones. The passions are not more likely to be\ninflamed by stale porter, the screams of a fiddle, and the clattering of\na hornpipe at a hop in St. Giles\u2019s, than by the elegant liqueurs, the\nsoft sounds of the clarionet and hautboy, and the languishing movements\nof walses, allemandes, and minuets _de la cour_ at a ball in St.\nJames\u2019s. A fair, or an opera may equally turn the head of any silly girl\nthat goes to one. Of the two, a tune on the salt-box would be got over\nsooner than Narcissus and the Graces. The tawdry prints to be seen in\ngarrets, and the ballads sung at the corners of streets do not much\nimprove the morals of the people: but I put it to the conscience of our\nsentimental divine, whether the Wanton Wife of Bath, or the tall captain\nwith his arm round the chambermaid\u2019s waist, or Jemmy Jessamy lolling on\nthe sofa with his mistress, may be expected to produce more accidents\nthan those luscious collections of the poets, or those grave\nscripture-pieces, or classical _chef-d\u2019\u0153uvres_ of Venus and Adonis, of\nLeda with her Swan, Nymphs, Fawns, and Satyrs, which gentlemen of\nfortune keep in their houses for the instruction of their wives and\ndaughters. Mr. Malthus is convinced that no young woman brought up in\nnastiness and vulgarity, however virtuous she may seem, can be good for\nany thing at twenty: I confess I have the same cynical opinion of those,\nwho have the good fortune to be brought up in the obscene refinements of\nfashionable life.\n\nI never fell in love but once; and then it was with a girl who always\nwore her handkerchief pinned tight round her neck, with a fair face,\ngentle eyes, a soft smile, and cool auburn locks. I mention this,\nbecause it may in some measure account for my temperate, tractable\nnotions of this passion, compared with Mr. Malthus\u2019s. It was not a\nraging heat, a fever in the veins: but it was like a vision, a dream,\nlike thoughts of childhood, an everlasting hope, a distant joy, a\nheaven, a world that might be. The dream is still left, and sometimes\ncomes confusedly over me in solitude and silence, and mingles with the\nsoftness of the sky, and veils my eyes from mortal grossness. After all,\nMr. Malthus may be right in his opinion of human nature. Though my\nnotions of love have been thus aerial and refined, I do not know that\nthis was any advantage to me, or that I might not have done better with\na few of our author\u2019s ungovernable transports, and sensual oozings.\nPerhaps the workings of the heart are best expressed by a gloating\ncountenance, by mawkish sentiments and lively gestures. Cupid often\nperches on broad shoulders, or on the brawny calf of a leg, a settlement\nis better than a love-letter, and in love not minds, but bodies and\nfortunes meet. I have therefore half a mind to retract all that I have\nsaid, and prove to Mr. Malthus that love is not even so intellectual a\npassion as he sometimes admits it to be, but altogether gross and\ncorporal.\n\nI have thus attempted to answer the different points of Mr. Malthus\u2019s\nargument, and give a truer account of the various principles that\nactuate human nature. There is but one advantage that I can conceive of\nas resulting from the admission of his mechanical theory on the subject,\nwhich is that it would be the most effectual recipe for indifference\nthat has yet been found out. No one need give himself any farther\ntrouble about the progress of vice, or the extension of misery. The\noffice of moral censor, that troublesome, uneasy office which every one\nis so ready to set up in his own breast, and which I verily believe is\nthe occasion of more unhappiness than any one cause else, would be at an\nend. The professor\u2019s chair of morality would become vacant, and no one\nwould have more cause than I to rejoice at the breaking up for the\nholidays; for I have plagued myself a good deal about the distinctions\nof right and wrong. The pilot might let go the helm, and leave the\nvessel to drift carelessly before the stream. When we are once convinced\nthat the degree of virtue and happiness can no more be influenced by\nhuman wisdom than the ebbing and flowing of the tide, it must be idle to\ngive ourselves any more concern about them. The wise man might then\nenjoy an Epicurean languor and repose, without being conscious of the\nneglect of duty. Mr. Malthus\u2019s system is one, \u2018in which the wicked cease\nfrom troubling, and in which the weary are at rest.\u2019 To persons of an\nirritable and nervous disposition, who are fond of kicking against the\npricks, who have tasted of the bitterness of the knowledge of good and\nevil, and to whom whatever is amiss in others sticks not merely like a\nburr, but like a pitch-plaister, the advantage of such a system is\nincalculable.\u2014\n\nHappy are they, who live in the dream of their own existence, and see\nall things in the light of their own minds; who walk by faith and hope,\nnot by knowledge; to whom the guiding-star of their youth still shines\nfrom afar, and into whom the spirit of the world has not entered! They\nhave not been \u2018hurt by the archers,\u2019 nor has the iron entered their\nsouls. They live in the midst of arrows, and of death, unconscious of\nharm. The evil thing comes not nigh them. The shafts of ridicule pass\nunheeded by, and malice loses its sting. Their keen perceptions do not\ncatch at hidden mischiefs, nor cling to every folly. The example of vice\ndoes not rankle in their breasts, like the poisoned shirt of Nessus.\nEvil impressions fall off from them, like drops of water. The yoke of\nlife is to them light and supportable. The world has no hold on them.\nThey are in it, not of it; and a dream and a glory is ever about them.\n\n\n\n\n                 EXTRACTS FROM THE ESSAY ON POPULATION\n                      WITH A COMMENTARY, AND NOTES\n\n\nI intended to have added another Letter on the principle of population\nas affecting the laws of property, and the condition of the poor. But I\nfound it impossible to combat some of Mr. Malthus\u2019s opinions without\nbringing vouchers for them. I might otherwise seem to be combating the\nchimeras of my own brain. There are some instances of perverse reasoning\nso gross and mischievous, that without seeing the confidence with which\nthey are insisted on, it seems a waste of time to contradict them. The\nreader may perhaps have had something of this feeling already. By\nthrowing the remainder of the work into the form of Extracts with notes\nI shall at least avoid the imputation of ascribing to Mr. Malthus\nsingularities he never dreamt of, and have an opportunity of remarking\nupon some incidental passages, which appeared to me liable to objection\nin the perusal. My remarks will be confined almost entirely to the two\nlast books of the work.\n\n\u2018M. Condorcet\u2019s _Esquisse d\u2019un tableau historique des progres de\nl\u2019esprit humain_, was written, it is said, under the pressure of that\ncruel proscription which terminated in his death. If he had no hopes of\nits being seen during his life, and of its interesting France in his\nfavour, it is a singular instance of the attachment of a man to\nprinciples, which every day\u2019s experience was, so fatally for himself,\ncontradicting. To see the human mind, in one of the most enlightened\nnations of the world, debased by such a fermentation of disgusting\npassions, of fear, cruelty, malice, revenge, ambition, madness, and\nfolly, as would have disgraced the most savage nations in the most\nbarbarous age, must have been such a tremendous shock to his ideas of\nthe necessary and inevitable progress of the human mind, that nothing\nbut the firmest conviction of the truth of his principles, in spite of\nall appearances, could have withstood.\u2019\n\nMr. Malthus in his pick-thank way, here takes occasion to sneer at\nCondorcet for his attachment to principles, which, he asserts, every\nday\u2019s experience was contradicting. As this of mine is not a pick-thank\nwork, I must take the liberty of observing, as I have never read M.\nCondorcet\u2019s work, that if his ideas of the future progress of the human\nmind were the same as those of other writers on the subject, that\ndebasement of character, and that mass of disgusting passions, which\ndeveloped themselves in the events to which Mr. Malthus here alludes,\nwere the strongest confirmation of the necessity of getting rid of those\ninstitutions which had thus degraded the human character, and under\nwhich such passions had been fostered: for to say that the progress of\nthe human mind, in spite of those institutions, was necessary and\ninevitable, or that there were no such passions as fear, cruelty,\nmalice, revenge, &c. belonging to the character generated by the old\nsystem in France (in which an immediate change could not be expected\nwithout a miracle) would have been such a contradiction to common sense,\nand to all their own favourite schemes of reform, as no madman in the\nheight of revolutionary madness was ever guilty of. All that could ever\nbe pretended by the advocates of reform was that there were capacities\nfor improvement in the mind, which had hitherto notwithstanding the\nadvantages of knowledge been thwarted by human institutions. The\ncontradiction rests therefore not with Condorcet, but with our author.\nThe same objection has been often made, and often refuted. But there are\nsome reasoners who care little how often a fallacy has been exposed, if\nthey know there are people who are still inclined to listen to it.\n\n\u2018This posthumous publication is only a sketch of a much larger work\nwhich he proposed should be executed. It necessarily wants, therefore,\nthat detail and application, which can alone prove the truth of any\ntheory.\u2019 [This remark I cannot admit. I do not think for instance that\nany detail or application is necessary to prove the truth of Mr.\nMalthus\u2019s general principle of the disproportion between the power of\nincrease in population, and in the productions of the earth, or to shew\nthe bad consequences of an unrestricted increase of population.] \u2018A few\nobservations will be sufficient to shew how completely this theory is\ncontradicted, when it is applied to the real and not to an imaginary\nstate of things.\u2019 [The _contre-sens_ implied in this expression is not a\nslip of the pen, but a fixed principle in Mr. Malthus\u2019s mind.] He has a\nvery satisfactory method of answering all theories relating to any\nimaginary alterations or improvements in the condition of mankind, by\nshewing what would be the consequences of a certain state of society, if\nno such state of society really existed, but if every thing remained\njust as it is at present. He thinks it sound sense and true philosophy\nto judge of a theory which is confessedly imaginary or has never been\nrealized by comparing it \u2018with the real and not with an imaginary state\nof things.\u2019 That is, he does not adopt the necessarian maxim that men\nwill be always the same while the circumstances continue, but he insists\nupon it that they will be always the same, whether the circumstances are\nthe same or not. Some instances have already appeared of this in the\nforegoing work. The following passage may serve as another instance.\nAfter supposing Mr. Godwin\u2019s system of equality to be realized to its\nutmost extent, and the most perfect form of society established, he\nexclaims, \u2018this would indeed be a happy state; but that it is merely an\nimaginary state with scarcely a feature near the _truth_, the reader, I\nam afraid, is already too well convinced.\u2019 Mr. Godwin himself was I\napprehend very well convinced that this imaginary state was very\ndifferent from the truth or from the present state of things, when he\nwrote his book to shew how much better the one _would be_ than the other\n_is_. He then goes on, \u2018Man cannot live in the midst of plenty. All\ncannot share alike the bounties of nature. Were there no established\nadministration of property, every man would be obliged to guard with\nforce his little store. Selfishness would be triumphant. The subjects of\ncontention would be perpetual,\u2019 &c. If there were no established\nadministration of property, while men continued as selfish as they are\nat present, (which is I suppose what Mr. Malthus means by applying the\ntheory _to the real state of things_\u2018) the consequences here mentioned\nwould no doubt follow. But it is supposed that there is no established\nadministration of property, because the necessity for it has ceased or\nbecause selfishness is not triumphant, but vanquished. This is the\nsupposition. Mr. Malthus however persists, that were there no\nestablished administration of property, \u2018every man would be obliged to\nguard with force his little store since selfishness would still be as\ntriumphant as ever.\u2019 This is contrary to all the received rules of\nreasoning. He then proceeds to examine, how long Mr. Godwin\u2019s theory if\nonce realized might be expected to last, and how soon the present vices\nof men would discompose this _perfect_ form of society, concluding very\nwisely that \u2018a theory that will not admit of application cannot possibly\nbe just.\u2019 True: if a man tells you that a triangle has certain\nproperties, he is bound to make good this theory with respect to a\ntriangle, but not with respect to a circle.\u2014The outcry which Mr. Malthus\nhere makes about experience is without any meaning. It is evident that\nwe cannot make this word a rule in all cases whatever. For instance, if\na man who is in the habit of drinking a bottle of brandy every day of\nhis life and consequently enjoys but an indifferent state of health, is\nadvised by his physician to leave off this practice, and told that _on\nthis condition_ he may recover his health and appetite, it would not be\nconsidered as a proof of any great wisdom in the man, if he were to\nanswer this reasoning of his physician by applying it to the real, and\nnot to an imaginary state of things, or by saying, \u2018The consequences you\npromise me from submitting to your regimen are indeed very desirable;\nbut I cannot expect any such consequences from it: I have always been in\nvery bad health from the habit I have constantly been in of drinking\nbrandy; and it would be contrary to the experience of my whole life to\nsuppose, that I should receive any benefit from leaving it off.\u2019 In like\nmanner, I conceive that it is not from any great depth of philosophy,\nbut from the strength of his attachment to the good things of this life,\nthat Mr. Malthus makes so many ill-judged appeals to experience. He is\nafraid of launching into the empty regions of abstraction, he stands\nshivering on the brink; or if he ventures a little way, soon turns back\nagain, frightened out of his wits, and muttering something about\npopulation. His imagination cannot sustain for a moment the idea of any\nreal improvement or elevation in the human character, but instantly\ndrops down into the filth of vice and misery, out of which it had just\ncrawled. His attempts at philosophy put me in mind of the exploits of\nthose citizens who set out on a Sunday morning to take an excursion into\nthe country, resolved to taste the fresh air, and not be confined for\never to the same spot, but who get no farther than Paddington, White\nConduit-house, or Bagnigge-wells, unable to leave the smoke, the noise\nand dust, to which they have so long been used! Mr. Malthus is a perfect\n_cockney_ in matters of philosophy.\n\nM. Condorcet, allowing that there must in all stages of society be a\nnumber of individuals who have no other resource than their industry, or\nthat \u2018there exists a necessary cause of inequality, of dependence and\neven of misery,[25] which menaces without ceasing the most numerous and\nactive class of the community,\u2019 proposes to establish a fund, which\nshould assure to the old an assistance, produced in part _by their own\nformer savings_, and partly by the savings of others, who die before\nthey reap the benefit of it; and that this fund might extend to women\nand children, who had lost their husbands or fathers, and afford a\ncapital to young beginners, sufficient for the developement of their\nindustry. To those who have not fathomed all the depths and shoals of\nthe principle of population, this plan seems feasible enough. Mr.\nMalthus\u2019s cautious reserved humanity, his anxious concern about the\nsupport of the aged, the infirm, the widow, and the orphan, his wish to\ngive every encouragement to industry, and above all, his regard for the\nrights and independence of his fellows, lead him to see nothing but\ndifficulties and objections in the way of such a plan.\n\n\u2018Such establishments may appear very promising upon paper; but when\napplied to real life, they will be found to be absolutely nugatory. M.\nCondorcet allows, that a class of people which maintains itself entirely\nby industry is necessary to every state. Why does he allow this? No\nother reason can well be assigned, than because he conceives, that the\nlabour necessary to procure subsistence for an extended population, will\nnot be performed without the goad of necessity. If by establishments,\nupon the plans that have been mentioned, this spur to industry be\nremoved; if the idle and negligent be placed upon the same footing with\nregard to their credit, and the future support of their wives and\nfamilies, as the active and industrious, can we expect to see men exert\nthat animated activity in bettering their condition, which now forms the\nmaster-spring of publick prosperity. If an inquisition were to be\nestablished to examine the claims of each individual, and to determine\nwhether he had, or had not, exerted himself to the utmost, and to grant\nor refuse assistance accordingly, this would be little else than a\nrepetition upon a larger scale, of the English poor laws, and would be\ncompletely destructive of the true principles of liberty and equality.\u2019\n\nThis passage only shews the shyness of our author\u2019s benevolence. He will\nhear of no short-cuts or obvious expedients for bettering the condition\nof the poor. All his benefits are extracted by the C\u00e6sarean\noperation.\u2014In the first place, he contradicts himself. He first supposes\nthat labour cannot be performed without the _goad of necessity_, and\nthen affirms that it is _the prospect of bettering their condition_,\nthat makes men exert themselves, and forms the master-spring of public\nprosperity. But why is it necessary that the idle and negligent should\nbe put upon the same footing with the industrious, with respect to their\ncredit, the support of their families, &c.? As to the first of these, it\nis proposed to be only temporary, to serve as a beginning, and if a\nproper use is not made of it, the goad of necessity, to which Mr.\nMalthus is so ready to resort on all occasions, will soon begin to do\nits office. As to the second object, the support of a surviving family,\nin case of accidents, did Mr. Malthus never hear of any distress\nproduced in this way, but in consequence of the idleness and negligence\nof the deceased? Is not a poor family necessarily reduced to distress by\nthe death of the husband, let his industry and sobriety have been never\nso great, and even reduced to greater distress in proportion to his\nindustry, as they must miss his help the more? Besides, it is not likely\nthat the withholding this assistance from a man\u2019s family after his death\nwill be any inducement to the idle and negligent to exert themselves,\nwhen the sight of the actual distress in which their families are\ninvolved by their ill conduct has no effect upon them. I see no\nobjection to proportioning the allowance to the old, or to those who\nhave had time to make a provision for themselves, to the contributions\nthey have really made to the fund in a given length of time. This would\nbe a sufficient test of the validity of their pretensions, as they could\nnot contribute largely, without proportionably straitening themselves,\nand the idle and profligate are not very apt to part with their present\ngains to provide for any speculative uncertainties or future difficulty.\n(Mr. Malthus may measure the support allotted to their families in the\nsame way.) While the distinction of the idle and industrious continued,\nand while it was necessary to encourage the one and discountenance the\nother, I do not understand what objection there can be to this mode, or\nhow it would trench upon the true principles of liberty and equality.\nTrue equality supposes equal merit and virtue. But Mr. Malthus is\nalarmed at this scheme, because, he says, it is little else than a\nrepetition on a larger scale of the English poor laws. If the English\npoor laws are formed upon this principle, I should, I confess, be very\nsorry to see them abolished.\n\n\u2018Were every man sure of a comfortable provision for a family, almost\nevery man would have one; and were the rising generation free from the\n\u201ckilling frost\u201d of misery, population must increase with unusual\nrapidity.\u2019\n\nThis is an utter falsification of the argument, as I have already shewn.\nEvery man could not be sure of a comfortable provision for a family,\nunless this provision existed, and I see no reason why the rising\ngeneration should not be free from the killing frost of misery, at least\nwhile they can. To argue that our enlightened posterity will feel\n\u2018secure that the general benevolence will supply every deficiency,\u2019 is\nto suppose them strangely unacquainted with the principles of Mr.\nMalthus\u2019s Essay.\n\n\u2018The period when the number of men surpass their means of subsistence\nhas long since arrived.\u2019 p. 357.\n\nThis I must deny. That the period of the utmost degree of populousness\nwould have arrived long ago, if nothing had prevented it, I am very\nready to grant. But that it has ever actually arrived, is another\nquestion. Because population would have arrived at its greatest possible\nor desirable height long before our time, if it had not been kept back\nby any artificial and arbitrary checks, is that any reason why it should\nnever attain that height, or should not now be suffered to go on, though\nthose checks have always operated to keep it back much more than was\nnecessary, viz. below the level not only of the possible, but of the\n_actual_ means of subsistence or produce of the earth? As to the period\nwhen the world is likely to maintain the greatest possible number of\ninhabitants in the greatest possible comfort, I have no notion that it\nwill ever arrive at all. If however it should ever arrive, it must be in\nconsequence either of a gradual or immediate complete improvement in the\nstate of society. If this improvement is gradual, the increase in\npopulation will be so too, and will not reach its farthest limit till a\nconsiderably remote period; if the improvement is sudden and rapid,\nstill it must be some time before the operation of the new system of\nthings will have overcome all obstacles, and completely peopled the\nearth. So that in either case the event seems a good way off. The danger\nof arriving at this point does not therefore appear to be \u2018immediate or\nimminent,\u2019 but doubtful and distant.\n\nMr. Malthus in his examination of Condorcet\u2019s arguments, in favour of\nthe indefinite prolongation of human life, (one of those absurdities\nagainst which no good reason can be given, but that it shocks all common\nsense) shews considerable ingenuity, mixed up with a great deal of that\nminute verbal logic, to which he seems to have accustomed his mind, and\nwhich is perpetually leading him into erroneous methods of reasoning,\neven when he happens to be right in his conclusions. As in the following\npassages.\n\n\u2018Variations from different causes are essentially distinct from a\nregular and unretrograde increase. The average duration of human life\nwill, to a certain degree, vary, from healthy or unhealthy climates,\nfrom wholesome or unwholesome food, from virtuous or vicious manners,\nand other causes; but it may be fairly doubted, whether there has been\nreally the smallest perceptible advance in the natural duration of human\nlife, since first we had any authentic history of man. The prejudices of\nall ages have, indeed, been directly contrary to this supposition.\u2019\n\nNow this statement is very unsatisfactory, to say the least. For the\nonly reason that can be given why the causes here mentioned, on which\nMr. M. allows that the duration of human life depends, have not produced\na regular and permanent effect _must be_, that they themselves have\nneither been regular nor permanent. The mere fact, therefore, of the\nvariableness in the length of human life proves nothing but the\nvariableness of those moral and artificial causes, which are supposed to\nhave some influence on our physical constitution. But Condorcet supposes\na regular advance to be made in these causes, and that an indefinite\nadvance in some of them (as the knowledge of medicine for instance) is\nprobable, will hardly be disputed. The question (in this point of view)\nof the necessary duration of human life is not properly a question of\nfact, or history, but depends on a comparison of the present\ncircumstances of mankind with their past circumstances, and on the\nprobability that may thence appear of preventing or counteracting those\nmaladies and passions which are most unfavourable to long life. That our\nreason may sometimes get the start of our experience is what no one can\ndeny. Thus when the art of printing was first discovered it required no\ngreat stretch of thought to perceive that knowledge and learning would\nsoon become more generally diffused than they had hitherto been, though\ntill this event no perceptible or regular progress had ever been made.\nThose who reason otherwise are a kind of stereographic reasoners who\ntake things in the lump without being able to analyse or connect their\ndifferent principles. Experience is but the alphabet of reason. With\nrespect to the general shortness of human life compared with what it was\nin the first ages of mankind, this fact seems rather against Mr.\nMalthus, for if there is no certain date, no settled period to human\nlife, beyond which it cannot hold out, but that it has varied from a\nthousand to a hundred years, so far there is no reason why we should not\ntread back our steps, or even go beyond the point from which we set out.\nThere is no fixed limit; the present length of human life is not\nevidently a general law of nature. The mere naked fact of its never\nexceeding a certain length at present is just as decisive against its\never having been longer, as it is against its ever being longer in\nfuture. Mr. Malthus argues about human life, as Hume argues about\nmiracles.\n\n\u2018It will be said, perhaps, that the reason why plants and animals cannot\nincrease indefinitely in size, is, that they would fall by their own\nweight. I answer, how do we know this but from experience? from\nexperience of the degree of strength with which these bodies are formed.\nI know that a carnation, long before it reached the size of a cabbage,\nwould not be supported by its stalk; but I only know this from my\nexperience of the weakness, and want of tenacity in the materials of a\ncarnation stalk. There are many substances in nature, of the same size,\nthat would support as large a head as a cabbage.\n\n\u2018The reasons of the mortality of plants are at present perfectly unknown\nto us. No man can say why such a plant is annual, another biennial, and\nanother endures for ages. The whole affair in all these cases, in\nplants, animals, and in the human race, is an affair of experience; and\nI only conclude that man is mortal, because the invariable experience of\nall ages has proved the mortality of those materials of which his\nvisible body is made.\n\n              \u2018What can we reason but from what we know.\u2019\n\nThis is making use of words without ideas. It is endeavouring to\nconfound two things essentially distinct, because the same lax\nexpression may be applied to them both. It is an attempt to deprive men\nof their understanding, and leave them nothing but the use of their\nsenses, by a trick of language. Does it follow because all our knowledge\nmay be traced in some way to something which may be called _experience_,\nthat all our conclusions are nothing but an affair of memory? Does Mr.\nMalthus know of only one sort of experience? Is there not a blind and a\nrational experience? Is it not one thing merely to know a fact, or a\nnumber of facts, and another to know the _reason_ of them? Or if our\nphilosopher is determined to intrench himself behind a word, is there\nnot a knowledge founded on the experience of certain positive results,\n(which often extends no further than those results) and a knowledge\nfounded on the experience of certain general principles or laws, to\nwhich all particular effects are subject? Mr. Malthus seems to insinuate\nthat the knowledge of the general law or principle adds nothing to the\nknowledge of the fact, because both are equally an affair of experience.\nHe might as well assert that a ligature of iron would not strengthen a\ndeal plank, because they are both held together by the same law of\ncohesion. The fact expresses nothing more than the actual co-existence\nof certain things in certain circumstances, and while all those\ncircumstances continue, no doubt the same consequences will follow. But\nwe know that they are hardly ever the same, and the question is, which\nof them is necessary to produce the effect talked of. This the _reason_\npoints out, that is, it points out a relation between certain things,\nwhich has been found to hold not merely in the given circumstances, but\nin all others, which is properly the relation of cause and effect. Our\nidea of cause and effect is not derived from our immediate but from our\n_comparative_ experience: it is only by taking our experience to pieces,\nby seeing what things are, or are not necessarily connected together in\ndifferent circumstances, that we learn to reason with clearness and\nconfidence on the succession of events.\n\nThe succession of events is not the same thing as the succession of\ncause and effect. By assigning a reason for a thing, I mean then being\nable to refer it to a general rule or principle collected from and\nproved by an infinite number of collateral instances, and confirming the\nparticular fact or instance to which it is applied. It is drawing\ntogether the different ramifications of our experience, and winding them\nround a particular bundle of things, and tying them fast together. Thus\nsuppose we have never seen a carnation of the size of a cabbage: does it\nfollow that we never shall, or that there can be no such thing? We might\nsay, I know no _reason_ why a flower of a certain shape, colour, &c.\nshould not reach a certain size, but that it has never been so within my\nknowledge. This might however be owing to the soil, culture, or a\nthousand circumstances, which are not invariable.\u2014But the moment the\nreason is given (supposing it to be a good one) namely, the connection\nbetween the contexture and weight, (though this reason is also derived\nindirectly from the general fund of our experience) there is an end at\nonce of the question. To suppose a flower to grow to a greater height\nthan it could support from the slenderness of the stalk would be to\nsuppose what never happened not only with respect to that particular\nflower, the carnation, but with respect to any other flower, or plant,\nor animal, or any other body whatever. We know that climate has such an\neffect that what are plants with us, in the tropical climates become\nlarge trees: but the necessary proportion between the size or weight of\nthe plant, and the strength of the stalk that is to support it, is what\nno change of soil or climate can supersede, unless we could supersede\nthe law of gravitation itself. The mere experimental or historical proof\nis here then buttressed up by the general rule, or reason of the\nthing.\u2014I have always seen a stone fall to the ground; I remember a house\nalways to have stood where it does; a hill has never stirred from the\nplace where I first saw it. Is the inference to be drawn from these\ndifferent cases equally certain? Am I to conclude that the house will\nlast as long as the mountain, because I have the same positive evidence\nof their permanence? No: because though I have never seen any alteration\nin that particular house, I have seen other houses pulled down and built\nup; and besides, from the size of the objects, the shape and nature of\nthe materials, I know that one of them may be very easily destroyed,\nwhereas nothing but some great convulsion in nature is ever likely to\ndestroy the other or remove it from its place. Our particular experience\nis only to be depended on, as it is explained and confirmed by analogy\nto other cases, viz. by a number of other facts of the same kind, or by\ngeneral observation. Secondly, the aggregate of our experience with\nrespect to any given class of events is constantly over-ruled by the\n_reason of the case_, viz. by our knowledge of cause and effect, by the\nintelligible, explicit connections of things, and by considering whether\nthe principles concerned in the production of a series of events,\n(forming a body of facts, or the concrete mass of our experience) are\nresolvable into a simple law of nature operating universally,\nunchangeably, without ever being suspended for a moment, (as for\ninstance, the law of gravitation which holds equally of all bodies in\nall cases, and can never be separated from our reasonings upon them) or\nwhether the event has been owing to a combination of mixed causes, which\ndo not always act alike and with equal force, or the effect of which\ndepends upon circumstances, which we know may be altered, (as in the\ncase of soils, climates, methods of culture,[26] &c. to return to the\nformer example). Suppose a rock to have stood for ages on the summit of\na mountain. Am I sure that it will stand there always? Yes, if nothing\nhappens to prevent it. But can I be sure that nothing will ever remove\nit, because nothing has ever done so hitherto? On the contrary, I know\nthat if a man points a cannon against it, it will be shattered to pieces\nin an instant, though it has stood there for ages, and though there is\nnot at present the least appearance of a change in it. Here then my\nexperience is of no avail against my reason. In one sense of the word,\nit is all thrown away, and goes for nothing. To judge rationally, I must\ntake other circumstances into the account, the effects of gunpowder, &c.\nThe resistance made by the rock will depend upon its hardness, not upon\nthe length of time it had stood there. Our experience then is not one\nthing, or any number of things, taken absolutely or blindly by\nthemselves, but a vast collection of facts, and what is of infinitely\nmore importance, of rules, founded upon those facts, bearing one upon\nanother, and perpetually modified by circumstances. It is not upon any\nsingle fact or class of facts, or on any single rule, but on the\ncombination of all these, and the manner in which they balance and\ncontrol one another, that our decisions must ultimately rest. It is from\nthis rational and abstracted experience that we obtain any certain\nresults, and infer from the altered relation of causes and events, that\nthings will happen which never happened before. The future is contained\nin the past, only as it grows out of the same powers in nature, but\nacting in different situations, and producing different practical\nresults by invariable laws. To apply all this to the question. If it is\nallowed that the improvements in physic have an influence on the\nduration of human life, and that these improvements may go on\nindefinitely, I do not think Mr. Malthus\u2019s answer a conclusive one that\nno considerable progress will ever be made in this respect, because none\nhas hitherto been made. If the improvements in science have not hitherto\nbeen regular and permanent, it cannot be expected that any advantages\ndepending on them should have been so: nor does the past history of\nmankind in this instance furnish a rule for our future conjectures,\ninasmuch as in all that relates to the permanence and general diffusion\nof knowledge, a new turn has been given to the question (as before\nobserved) by the invention of printing. This single circumstance, which\nwas matter of mere accident, may be said in many respects to have given\na new aspect to human affairs; to say that it has not yet produced the\neffects predicted from it, when it has had no time to produce them, is\nlike saying, that the repeated blows of a battering-ram will not break\ndown a stone-wall, because for the two or three first blows it does not\nbegin to move. The true question is, whether the cause is adequate to\nthe effect ascribed to it, that is, whether its operation is of a\nsufficiently general and powerful nature to produce a correspondent\ngeneral change in the circumstances of mankind. I think it will hardly\nbe denied that printing may be applied with great success as an\ninstrument for the propagation of vice: may it not then be made use of\nto give currency to the principles of virtue? At any rate, to deny that\nit is a means of diffusing and embodying knowledge is to deny that such\na contrivance exists at all, or that books will be more generally read,\nor less liable to be lost from the facility with which they are\nmultiplied. While therefore Mr. Malthus allows certain moral habits, and\nthe state of physical knowledge in a great measure to determine the\nlength of human life, he cannot object on any allowed principles of\nphilosophy to M. Condorcet\u2019s employing these causes as intermediate\nlinks in a chain of argument to establish the probability of the gradual\napproach of mankind\u2014to a state of immortality. The error does not lie in\nM. Condorcet\u2019s general principles of reasoning, but in the wrong\napplication of them; though I do not know that I could detect the error\nbetter than Mr. Malthus has done. What I have endeavoured to shew in\nthese hasty remarks is that the admission of the rule laid down by our\nauthor, that in our calculations of the future, we are to attend to\nnothing but the general state of the fact hitherto, without giving any\nweight to the actual change of collateral circumstances, or the\nexistence of any new cause which may influence the state of that fact,\nwould overturn every principle, not only of sound philosophy, but of the\nmost obvious common sense.[27] I dissent equally from M. Condorcet\u2019s\nparadoxical speculations and from Mr. Malthus\u2019s paradoxical answers to\nthem. It would be unfair not to add that Mr. Malthus has made one good\ndistinction on the subject, between an unlimited and an indefinite\nimprovement. It is the old argument of the Heap, and is here stated with\nconsiderable effect, and novelty of appearance. The conclusion of Mr.\nMalthus\u2019s argument on this idle question is a sensible and pleasant\naccount of the matter. After all, I do not quite dislike a man who\nquotes Bickerstaff so well.\n\n\u2018It does not, however, by any means, seem impossible, that by an\nattention to breed, a certain degree of improvement, similar to that\namong animals, might take place among men. Whether intellect could be\ncommunicated may be a matter of doubt: but size, strength, beauty,\ncomplexion, and perhaps even longevity, are in a degree transmissible.\nThe error does not seem to lie, in supposing a small degree of\nimprovement possible, but in not discriminating between a small\nimprovement, the limit of which is undefined, and an improvement really\nunlimited. As the human race, however, could not be improved in this\nway, without condemning all the bad specimens to celibacy, it is not\nprobable, that an attention to breed should ever become general; indeed,\nI know of no well-directed attempts of the kind, except in the ancient\nfamily of the Bickerstaffs, who are said to have been very successful in\nwhitening the skins, and increasing the height of their race by prudent\nmarriages, particularly by that very judicious cross with Maud the\nmilk-maid, by which some very capital defects in the constitutions of\nthe family were corrected.\u2019\n\nMr. Malthus afterwards adds, \u2018When paradoxes of this kind are advanced\nby ingenious and able men, neglect has no tendency to convince them of\ntheir mistakes. Priding themselves on what they conceive to be a mark of\nthe reach and size of their own understandings, of the extent and\ncomprehensiveness of their views; they will look upon this neglect\nmerely as an indication of poverty, and narrowness, in the mental\nexertions of their contemporaries; and only think, that the world is not\nyet prepared to receive their sublime truths.\u2019\u2014This is said _bitingly_\nenough. For my own part, I conceive that the world is neither prepared\nto receive, nor reject, nor answer them, nor decide any thing about them\nbut that they are contrary to all our notions of things, which, till we\nknow more about the matter, is perhaps a sufficient answer.\n\n\u2018Mr. Godwin at the conclusion of the third chapter of his eighth book,\nspeaking of population, says, \u201cThere is a principle in human society, by\nwhich population is perpetually kept down to the level of the means of\nsubsistence. Thus, among the wandering tribes of America and Asia, we\nnever find, through the lapse of ages, that population has so increased\nas to render necessary the cultivation of the earth.\u201d This principle,\nwhich Mr. Godwin thus mentions as some mysterious and occult cause, and\nwhich he does not attempt to investigate, has appeared to be the\ngrinding law of necessity\u2014misery, and the fear of misery.\u2019\n\nThere is a want of clearness here. The cause which Mr. Malthus thus\nexplains so accurately has still something dark and mysterious about it.\nWith respect to the savage tribes Mr. Malthus states in another place,\nthat it is not owing to the backwardness of population that agriculture\nhas never become necessary, but to the want of agriculture that\npopulation has never increased among them. The passage is worth quoting.\n\u2018It is not, therefore,\u2019 he says, \u2018as Lord Kaimes imagines, that the\nAmerican tribes have never increased sufficiently to render the pastoral\nor agricultural state necessary to them; but, from some cause or other,\u2019\n[Mr. Malthus also deals in occult causes] \u2018they have not adopted in any\ngreat degree these more plentiful modes of procuring subsistence, and\ntherefore, cannot have increased so as to have become populous. If\nhunger alone could have prompted the savage tribes of America to such a\nchange in their habits, I do not conceive that there would have been a\nsingle nation of hunters and fishers remaining; but it is evident, that\nsome fortunate train of circumstances, in addition to this stimulus, is\nnecessary for this purpose; and it is undoubtedly probable, that these\narts of obtaining food, will be first invented and improved in those\nspots that are best suited to them, and where the natural fertility of\nthe situation,\u2019 [Is not the soil of America sufficiently fertile?] \u2018by\nallowing a greater number of people to subsist together, would give the\nfairest chance to the inventive powers of the human mind.\u2019\u2014Here then we\nsee \u2018the grinding law of necessity\u2019 converted into a \u2018fortunate train of\ncircumstances,\u2019 so that we have a fact arising from a _necessary cause_,\nand that necessary cause depending on an _accident_. The population is\nkept down to the level of the means of subsistence, but not to _what it\nis_, by the law of necessity; since there are ways and means of raising\nthat level, and the population along with it. Notwithstanding all the\nmisery, and all the fear of misery, which Mr. Malthus describes as thus\noperating to keep population down to its proper level, he is altogether\nunwilling to lighten their pressure, or to extend the benefits of that\nfortunate train of circumstances and of those more plentiful modes of\nobtaining food beyond their present necessary limits. Nothing can exceed\nhis jealousy on this point. He is apprehensive lest some speculative\nphilosopher should take it into his head \u2018to exterminate the inhabitants\nof the greatest part of Asia and Africa\u2019 on a principle of humanity. He\nproposes rather \u2018to civilize and direct the industry of the various\ntribes of Tartars and Negroes, as a work of considerable time, and as\nhaving little chance of success.\u2019 He looks with an enlightened concern\nat the encroachments daily made by the thriving population of the\ncolonies on the deserts and uncultivated plains of North America,\ngrieving to see the few scattered inhabitants driven \u2018from their\nassigned and native dwelling-place,\u2019 and foreseeing that by this means\nthe whole population of that vast continent will be some time or other\ncompletely choaked up! It is, I know, a painful object to Mr. Malthus (I\ncannot tell how it happens) to see plenty, comfort, civilisation and\nnumerous swarms of people succeed to want, ignorance, famine, misery,\nand desolation. Those who are the well-wishers of the happiness of\nmankind (among which number I reckon Mr. Malthus one) are always\ndiverted from their projects by their own delicacy and scruples. Those\nwho wish to enslave or destroy them never boggle at difficulties, or\nstand upon ceremony!\n\nMr. Malthus says that the principle, by which population is perpetually\nkept down to a certain level is the grinding law of necessity\u2014misery and\nthe fear of misery. This may be true of the savage tribes there spoken\nof, but if he means to apply it generally, \u2018it is not in any degree near\nthe truth.\u2019 At this rate, all those who do not formally set about\npropagating their species ought to be restrained by want or the fear of\nit. Is this the fact? Misery or the fear of misery may be the check to\npopulation among the poor, but it cannot be the check to it among the\nrich. Yet we do not find that the rich, any more than the poor,\nregularly marry and get children. If this were the case, the rich would\nlong ago have multiplied themselves into beggars. They would all have\ndescendants, and those descendants would have others, till the world\nwould not have room for such a number of poor gentlemen. All their\nwealth would be turned into rags, and they would be glad of a crust of\nbread. The world would be one great work-house.[28] There must therefore\nbe some other principle which checks population among the higher\nclasses, and makes them stop short within many degrees of actual\npoverty, besides \u2018misery and the fear of misery.\u2019 They do not even come\nwithin sight of misery: the fact is that they are as unwilling to\ndescend from the highest pitch of luxury as the poor are to sink into\nthe lowest state of want.\u2014Mr. Malthus by asserting in this careless\nmanner that population can only be checked by misery or the fear of\nmisery, gains a main point. He has always a certain quantity of misery\n_in bank_, as you must put so much salt in your porridge, and so many\npoor devils standing on the brink of wretchedness, as a sort of\nout-guard or forlorn hope, to ward off the evils of population from the\nsociety at large. Thus the enemy is sure to be defeated, before it can\nmake any impression on the body of the community. This would be very\nwell if we had to deal with an external, and not with an internal enemy.\nBut is it the poor then only, who are subject to this disease of\npopulation? Are the rich quite proof against the evils of this\nall-pervading principle, this inevitable law of nature? If the account\nwhich Mr. Malthus gives of that principle were true, its ravages could\nno more be checked by devoting a certain class of the community to glut\n\u2018its ravenous maw,\u2019 than you could keep the plague out of a house by\nplacing some one at the door to catch it. Either misery and the dread of\nmisery are not absolutely necessary to keep population within due\nbounds, or nothing short of the general spread of misery and poverty\nthrough the whole community could save us from it. Mr. Malthus tries to\nshut the gates of mercy on mankind by an ill-natured man\u0153uvre! From the\nlittle trouble our author gives himself about the application of his\narithmetical and geometrical ratios to the rich, and his confidence in\nthe method of inoculating the poor only by way of prevention, one would\nsuppose that the former had no concern in the affair: that \u2018they neither\nmarry nor are given in marriage\u2019; but leaving the vulgar business of\nprocreation to their inferiors, only look on to see that they do not\noverstock the world. Why no, says Mr. Malthus, I have always insisted on\n_vice_ as one of the necessary checks to population; and though in the\nupper ranks of life, the restraints on marriage cannot be said to be\nimposed by misery or the fear of misery, yet it cannot be denied that\nthese restraints lead to a great deal of vice and profligacy, which\nanswer the purpose just as well.\u2014There is one merit I shall not deny to\nMr. Malthus, which is, that he has adapted his remedies with great skill\nand judgment to the different tempers, habits, and circumstances of his\npatients. In his division of the evils of human life, he has allotted to\nthe poor _all_ the misery, and to the rich _as much vice as they\nplease_! These last will I daresay be very well satisfied with this\ndistribution.\u2014These remarks sufficiently shew that we cannot apologize\nfor all the misery there is in the world by saying, that nothing else\ncan put a stop to the evils of population; nor for all the vice, by\nsaying that it is the alternative of misery. It cannot be pretended,\nthat no one would ever indulge in vicious gratifications, but from the\napprehension of reducing himself to want by having a family.\u2014\u2018But he\ncannot maintain them in a certain style.\u2019\u2014True: vice is then a very\nconvenient auxiliary to pride, vanity, luxury, artificial distinctions,\n&c. but it is not a resource against want. I once knew an instance of a\ngentleman and lady who had a very romantic passion for each other, but\nwho could not afford to marry because they could only muster seven\nthousand pounds between them. Were they not to be pitied? What could\nthey do in this case? Why, the lady no doubt would behave with all the\nwonted fortitude of her sex on the occasion: but the poor man must\ncertainly be driven into vicious courses. Oh! no: I had forgot he was a\nclergyman; and his cloth would not admit of any such thing. Vice does\nnot therefore seem to be _always_ a necessary consequence of the\nobstacles to marriage. Moral restraint is always practicable, where the\nopinion of the world renders it necessary. At all events, I conceive\nthat either one or the other of Mr. Malthus\u2019s remedies may be dispensed\nwith: they are not _both_ necessary. By his own account, (as formerly\nseen) extreme poverty is a very ineffectual bar to population; and as to\nvice, if it could be administered in doses, proportioned to the\noccasion, so much and no more, it might be an excellent cure; but the\nmisfortune is, that when it once begins, there is no end of it. To\nchange my metaphor, it takes the bit in its mouth, and sets off at a\nglorious rate, without the least spur from necessity, always keeping as\nmuch a-head of the occasion as Mr. Malthus\u2019s geometrical series keeps\na-head of his arithmetical one. Some persons may perhaps argue, that\nthere is a natural connection between vice and misery, inasmuch as\nwithout the temptation of want among the poor, the vices of the rich\nwould lack proper objects to exercise themselves upon: so that, there\nbeing no one to offer temptation to, and no one having any very great\ntemptations to offer, people would be forced to marry among their\n_equals_, unless the trifling consideration of not being able to provide\nimmediately for a large family should induce them to moderate their\npassions for a while. This is an argument which I shall not controvert:\nthe disturbing that beautiful harmony and dependence which at present\nsubsists between vice and misery would certainly lead us back in a great\nmeasure to all the evils which Mr. Malthus anticipates as arising out of\na state of excessive virtue and happiness, and the most perfect form of\nsociety.\n\nI shall here quote at large Mr. Malthus\u2019s account of the origin of the\ndistinctions of property as necessarily arising from the pressure of\npopulation on the means of subsistence, and from that principle solely.\nI shall mark what I think the most noticeable parts in italics, and make\nsome observations at the end.\n\n\u2018It may be curious to observe in the case that we have been supposing,\nhow some of the principal laws, which at present govern civilized\nsociety, would be successively dictated by the most imperious necessity.\nAs man, according to Mr. Godwin, is the creature of the impressions to\nwhich he is subject, the goadings of want could not continue long before\nsome violations of public or private stock would necessarily take place.\nAs these violations increased in number and extent, _the more active and\ncomprehensive intellects of the society would soon perceive_, that while\npopulation was fast increasing, the yearly produce of the country would\nshortly begin to diminish. The urgency of the case would suggest the\nnecessity of some immediate measures being taken for the general safety.\nSome kind of convention would then be called, and the dangerous\nsituation of the country stated in the strongest terms. _It would be\nobserved, that while they lived in the midst of plenty it was of little\nconsequence who laboured the least, or who possessed the least, as every\nman was perfectly willing and ready to supply the wants of his\nneighbour. But that the question was no longer whether one man should\ngive to another that which he did not use himself; but whether he should\ngive to his neighbour the food which was absolutely necessary to his own\nexistence. It would be represented that the number of those who were in\nwant very greatly exceeded the number and means of those who should\nsupply them_; that these pressing wants, which from the state of the\nproduce of the country, could not all be gratified, had occasioned some\nflagrant violations of justice; that these violations had already\nchecked the increase of food, and would, if they were not by some means\nor other prevented, throw the whole community into confusion: that\nimperious necessity seemed to dictate, that a yearly increase of produce\nshould, if possible, be obtained at all events; that in order to effect\nthis first great and indispensable purpose it would be advisable to make\na more complete division of land, and to secure every man\u2019s property\nagainst violation by the most powerful sanctions.\n\n\u2018It might be urged perhaps, by some objectors, that as the fertility of\nthe land increased, and various accidents occurred, the shares of some\nmen might be much more than sufficient for their support; and that when\nthe reign of self-love was once established, _they would not distribute\ntheir surplus produce without some compensation in return_. It would be\nobserved in answer, that this was an inconvenience greatly to be\nlamented; but that it was an evil which would bear no comparison to the\nblack train of distresses which would inevitably be occasioned by the\ninsecurity of property; _that the quantity of food which one man could\nconsume, was necessarily limited by the narrow capacity of the human\nstomach; that it was not certainly probable that he should throw away\nthe rest; and if he exchanged his surplus produce for the labour of\nothers, this would be better than that these others should absolutely\nstarve._\n\n\u2018It seems highly probable therefore, that an administration of property\n_not very different from that which prevails in civilized states at\npresent_ would be established as the best though inadequate remedy for\nthe evils which were pressing on the society.\n\n\u2018The next subject which would come under discussion, intimately\nconnected with the preceding, is the commerce of the sexes. It would be\nurged by those who had turned their attention to the _true cause of the\ndifficulties under which the community laboured, that while every man\nfelt secure that all his children would be well provided for by general\nbenevolence, the powers of the earth would be absolutely inadequate to\nproduce food for the population which would inevitably ensue_; that even\nif the whole attention and labour of the society were directed to this\nsole point, and if by the most perfect security of property, and every\nother encouragement that could be thought of, the greatest possible\nincrease of produce were yearly obtained; yet still the increase of food\nwould by no means keep pace with the much more rapid increase of\npopulation; that some check to population therefore was imperiously\ncalled for; that the most natural and obvious check seemed to be to make\nevery man provide for his own children; that this would operate in some\nrespect as a measure and a guide in the increase of population, as it\nmight be expected that no man would bring beings into the world for whom\nhe could not find the means of support; that where this notwithstanding\nwas the case, it seemed necessary for the example of others, that the\ndisgrace and inconvenience attending such a conduct should fall upon\nthat individual who had thus inconsiderately plunged himself and his\ninnocent children into want and misery.\n\n\u2018The institution of marriage, or at least of some express or implied\nobligation on every man to support his own children, seems to be the\nnatural result of these reasonings in a community under the difficulties\nthat we have supposed.\n\n\u2018When these two fundamental laws of society, the security of property,\nand the institution of marriage were once established, inequality of\nconditions must necessarily follow. Those who were born after the\ndivision of property would come _into a world already possessed_. If\ntheir parents from having too large a family were unable to give them\nsufficient for their support, what could they do in a world where every\nthing was appropriated? We have seen the fatal effects that would result\nto society if every man had a _valid claim to an equal share of the\nproduce of the earth._ The members of a family which was grown too large\nfor the original division of land appropriated to it, _could not then\ndemand a part of the surplus produce of others as a debt of justice. It\nhas appeared that from the inevitable laws of human nature some human\nbeings will be exposed to want. These are the unhappy persons who in the\ngreat lottery of life have drawn a blank. The number of these persons\nwould soon exceed the ability of the surplus produce to supply. Moral\nmerit is a very difficult criterion except in extreme cases. The owners\nof surplus produce would in general seek some more obvious mark of\ndistinction; and it seems to be both natural and just, that except upon\nparticular occasions their choice should fall upon those who were able,\nand professed themselves willing to exert their strength in procuring a\nfurther surplus produce, which would at once benefit the community, and\nenable the proprietors to afford assistance to greater numbers. All who\nwere in want of food would be urged by imperious necessity to offer\ntheir labour in exchange for this article, so absolutely necessary to\nexistence. The fund appropriated to the maintenance of labour would be\nthe aggregate quantity of food possessed by the owners of land beyond\ntheir own consumption. When the demands upon this fund were great and\nnumerous it would naturally be divided into very small shares. Labour\nwould be ill paid. Men would offer to work for a bare subsistence; and\nthe rearing of families would be checked by sickness and misery. On the\ncontrary, when this fund was increasing fast; when it was great in\nproportion to the number of claimants, it would be divided in much\nlarger shares. No man would exchange his labour without receiving an\nample quantity of food in return. Labourers would live in ease and\ncomfort, and would consequently be able to rear a numerous and vigorous\noffspring._\n\n\u2018_On the state of this fund the happiness or the degree of misery,\nprevailing among the lower classes of people in every known state, at\npresent chiefly depends; and on this happiness or degree of misery\ndepends principally the increase, stationariness, or decrease of\npopulation._\n\n\u2018_And thus it appears, that a society constituted according to the most\nbeautiful form that imagination can conceive, with benevolence for its\nmoving principle instead of self-love, and with every evil disposition\nin all its members corrected by reason, not force, would from the\ninevitable laws of nature, and not from any original depravity of man,\nor of human institutions, degenerate in a very short period into a\nsociety constructed upon a plan not essentially different from that\nwhich prevails in every known state at present; a society divided into a\nclass of proprietors and a class of labourers, and with self-love for\nthe mainspring of the great machine_; we may, therefore, venture to\npronounce with certainty, that if Mr. Godwin\u2019s system of society were\nestablished in its utmost perfection, instead of myriads of centuries,\nnot thirty years could elapse before its utter destruction from the\nsimple principle of population.\u2019\n\nNot to insist on the absurdity, with which Mr. Malthus seems to be\nenamoured, of believing that the change here predicted would be the\nconsequence of the inevitable laws of nature, not of any inherent\ndepravity in the human mind, when it is evident that the whole mischief\noriginates in the folly and headstrong passions of the individuals\ncomposing this extraordinary society, all the members of which are\nactuated by the purest motives of reason and virtue, I shall at once\nsuppose a state of society not indeed perfect, but equal, and with\nself-love, and a little common sense, instead of benevolence and perfect\nwisdom, for its moving principles; and see whether it would not be\npossible for such a state of practical equality, admitting neither\npoverty nor riches, to last more than \u2018thirty years, before its _utter\ndestruction from the simple principle of population_.\u2019 The question is,\nif I understand it rightly, how that principle _alone_ (I do not enter\ninto the general structure, foundations, or purposes of civil society, I\npropose to examine the question only as a branch of political economy,\nor as it relates to the physical sustenance of mankind, which is the\npoint of view in which Mr. Malthus has treated it) how I say that\nprinciple imperiously requires, that there should be one class of the\ncommunity, ready to perish of want except as they are kept from it by\nsevere and unremitting exertion, and another class living in ease and\nluxury for no other purpose than to keep the good things of this life\nfrom the first class, because if they were admitted to a share of them\nthey would be immediately subjected to greater want and hardships than\never. It is to be remembered that Mr. Malthus here pretends to bring\nforward a new theory of property; to have added the key-stone to the\narch of political society, which, he says, was in danger of falling\nwithout it; to enforce the rights of the rich, and set aside the claims\nof the poor as false and unfounded; and by shewing how the distinctions\nof property are immediately connected with the physical nature and very\nexistence of mankind in a way that had not been supposed before, to\npoint out the necessity of arming the law with new rigour, and steeling\nthe heart with fresh obduracy to second the decisions of his pragmatical\nphilosophy. The laws of England recognize the right of the poor man to\nlive by his labour; Mr. Malthus denies this right, and holds it up to\nridicule. The question is, which of them we shall believe. I shall\ntherefore examine the subject freely, having so good an authority on my\nside.\n\nAll that I can find Mr. Malthus has discovered is, that it would be\nnecessary in the progress of society, in order to stave off the evils of\npopulation, to make a regulation, that every man should be obliged to\nwork for a subsistence, and to provide for his own children. A great\nmatter truly! But having allowed to Mr. Malthus that these two\nregulations would be _necessary_ in the common course of things, I\ncannot at the same time help thinking that they would also be\n_sufficient_\u2014to avert the approach of famine, which is the point at\nissue. I can easily understand if every man had a valid claim to an\nequal share of the produce of the earth, that this abstract unqualified\nright would lead to great inconveniences\u2014but not when that abstract\nright is clogged with the condition, that he should work for his share\nof it. I can also admit that I can have no claim to the surplus produce\nof another without some compensation in return. This would certainly be\nhard. But it does not appear (upon the face of the argument) how I\nshould therefore have no claim to the produce of my own industry; or how\nany other person has a right to force me to work for him without making\nme what compensation I think fit. _He_ has a right to his estate, _I_\nhave a right to my labour. As to any produce, whether surplus or not,\nwhich he may raise from it, he has a right to keep it to himself; as to\nthat which I raise for him, it seems to be a subject of voluntary\nagreement. Again, if a man who is as industrious as myself, and equally\nreaps the benefit of his industry chuses to have the additional solace\nof a wife and family, as he has all the _fun_, I see no reason why he\nshould not have all the trouble; it is neither fair nor equal that I\nshould make a drudge of myself, or be put to inconvenience for the sake\nof his amusements. Let us see then how the argument stands in this stage\nof it. The reason which appeared for not allowing to every man a valid\nclaim to an equal share of the produce of the earth was, that the\nadmission of such a claim would only be an excuse for idleness. The\nextravagant, the worthless, and indolent would thus prey upon the honest\nand laborious part of the community. (We are supposing a case where\nevery evil disposition and original depravity had _not_ been completely\neradicated by reason and philosophy.) Even if no such characters\nexisted, they would hardly fail to be produced by having such fine\nencouragement given them. On the other hand, if every one was at liberty\nto saddle his neighbour or the community with as many children as he\npleased, there would either be no sufficient check to the inordinate\nincrease of population, or at least any one person who got the start in\nthe race of matrimony would have it in his power to deprive the others\nof their right to the surplus produce of their labour by claiming it for\nhis family. It is necessary then to prevent the imposition of any one\u2019s\nfastening himself and children on another for support, that there should\nbe a certain _appropriation of the common stock_; that is, that each\nman\u2019s claim upon it should be in proportion to the share he had in\nincreasing it. The next consideration is whether with this hold upon\nhim, you would not be able to make him effectually exert himself, and at\nthe same time prevent him from having more children than he could\nmaintain, the same all-powerful stimulus of self-interest equally\ncounteracting his indolence and his indiscretion. Mr. Malthus says that\nthe true cause of the difficulties under which the community would\nlabour, would be the excessive tendency to population, arising from the\nsecurity felt by every man that his children would be well provided for\nby the general benevolence: by taking away this security then, and\nimposing the task of maintaining them upon himself, you remove the only\ncause of the unavoidable tendency of population to excess, and of all\nthe confusion that would ensue, by making his selfishness and his\nindolence operate as direct checks on his sensual propensities. He would\nbe tied to his good behaviour as effectually as a country fellow is at\npresent by being bound in a penalty of twenty pounds to the parish for\nevery bastard child that he gets. If every man\u2019s earnings were in\nproportion to his exertions, if his share of the necessaries, the\ncomforts, or even the superfluities of life were derived from the\nproduce of his own toil, or ingenuity, or determined by equitable\n_compensation_, I cannot conceive how there could be any greater\nsecurity for regularity of conduct and a general spirit of industry in\nthe several members of the community, as far as was consistent with\nhealth and the real enjoyment of life. If these principles are not\nsufficient to ensure the good order of society in such circumstances, I\nshould like to know what are the principles by which it is enforced at\npresent. They are nothing more than the regular connection between\nindustry and its reward, and the additional charge or labour to which a\nman necessarily subjects himself by being encumbered with a family. The\nonly difference is in the proportion between the reward, and the\nexertion, or the rate at which the payment of labour is fixed. So far\nthen we see no very pressing symptoms of the dissolution of the society,\nor of any violent departure from this system of decent equality, from\nthe sole principle of population. Yet we have not hitherto got (in the\nregular course of the argument) so far as the distinction of a class of\nlabourers, and a class of proprietors. It may be urged perhaps that\nnothing but extreme want or misery can furnish a stimulus sufficiently\nstrong to produce \u2018the labour necessary for the support of an extended\npopulation,\u2019 or counteract the principle of population. But Mr. Malthus\nhimself admits that \u2018the most constant and best directed efforts of\nindustry are to be found among a class of people above the class of the\nwretchedly poor,\u2019 among those who have something to lose, and something\nto gain, and who, happen what will, cannot be worse off than they are.\nHe also admits that it is among this middling class of people, that we\nare to look for most instances of self-denial, prudence, and a competent\nresistance to the principle of population. I do not therefore understand\neither the weight or consistency of the charge which he brings against\nPaine of having fallen into the most fundamental errors respecting the\nprinciples of government by confounding the affairs of Europe with those\nof America. If the people in America are not forced to labour (and there\nare no people more industrious) by extreme poverty, if they are not\nforced to be prudent (and their prudence is I believe equal to their\nindustry) by the scantiness of the soil, or the unequal distribution of\nits produce, no matter whether the state is old or new, whether the\npopulation is increasing or stationary, the example proves equally in\nall cases that wretchedness is not the _sine qua non_ of industry, and\nthat the way to hinder people from taking _desperate_ steps is not to\ninvolve them in despair. The current of our daily life, the springs of\nour activity or fortitude, may be supplied as well from hope as fear,\nfrom \u2018cheerful and confident thoughts\u2019 as the apparition of famine\nstalking just behind us. The merchant attends to his business, settles\nhis accounts, and answers his correspondents as diligently and\npunctually as the shop-keeper. The shop-keeper minds his customers, and\npuffs off his goods, tells more lies, is a greater drudge, and gets less\nfor his pains than the merchant. The shoeblack piques himself upon\ngiving the last polish to a gentleman\u2019s shoes, and gets a penny for his\ntrouble. In all these cases, it is not strictly the proportion between\nthe exertion and the object, neither hope nor fear in the abstract, that\ndetermines the degree of our exertions, but the balance of our hopes and\nfears, the _difference_ that it will make to us in our situation whether\nwe exert ourselves to the utmost or not, and the impossibility of\nturning our labour to any better account that habitually regulates our\nconduct.[29] We all do the best for ourselves that we can. This is at\nleast a general rule.\u2014But let us suppose, though I do not think Mr.\nMalthus has thrown any new or striking light on the way, in which such a\nchange would be brought about, that it is found necessary to make a\nregular division of the land, and that a class of proprietors and a\nclass of labourers is consequently established. Let us see in this case\nwhat proportion of the surplus produce of the ground might be supposed\nto fall to the share of the labourer, or whether if any thing more was\nallowed him than what was just enough to keep him alive and enable him\nto stagger through the tasks of the day, both rich and poor (but\nespecially the latter) would not suffer grievously from all such impious\nand inhuman attempts, as our author afterwards calls them, to reverse\nthe laws of nature, or decrees of Providence (which you please) \u2018by\nwhich some human beings are inevitably exposed to want.\u2019 I shall argue\nthe question solely on the ground stated by Mr. Malthus. I shall suppose\nthat every proprietor has an absolute right to his property, and to the\n_whole_ produce of his own exertions. There are two other questions to\nbe considered, namely, whether the right to the labour of others and to\nthe produce of their labour attaches to the possession of the soil,\nsecondly, if that is not the case, to what proportion of the produce of\nthe ground the labourer is naturally entitled by his exertions. Mr.\nMalthus infers that from the establishment of the two fundamental laws,\nsecurity of property, and the institution of marriage, inequality of\nconditions must necessarily follow. I confess I do not see this\nnecessary consequence. I would ask, upon what plea Mr. Malthus succeeded\nin establishing these two fundamental laws, but because they were\nnecessary and competent to stimulate the exertions and restrain the\npassions of the community at large, that is, to maintain a general\npractical equality, to regulate each person\u2019s indulgences according to\ntheir industry, to lay an even tax upon every man, and thus prevent the\nreturn of fraud, violence, confusion, want and misery. Grant that the\nmost fatal effects would result to society, if every man had a valid\nclaim to _an equal share_ of the produce of the earth; it by no means\nfollows that the same fatal effects would result to society from\nallowing to every man a valid claim to a share of the produce of the\nearth _proportioned_ to his labour. Yet I doubt whether any great\ninequality could subsist, while each man had this valid claim. It is one\nthing to have a right to the produce of your own exertions, and another\nto have a right to the produce of the earth, that is, of the labour of\nothers. It is so far from being fair to apply the same reasoning to\nthese two things, that the evils which would be the necessary\nconsequences of the one, cannot possibly result from the other. The one\nis a direct contradiction to the other. It is on this distinction in\nfact, that all property and all society is originally founded. By making\nit equally the interest of each individual to exert himself, you in all\nprobability secure an equal degree of industry and comfort in each\nindividual. At least, a society formed upon this plan would have as fair\na chance of realising all the advantages of which it was capable, with\nas few deviations from the original direction and design, as a society,\nwhere only a less degree of equality was _possible_, would have of\ncoming up to its original idea. Industry and regularity of behaviour\nmust gain ground, where these habits were enforced by the general\nexample of the whole society, and where the sacrifice to be made was\nless, and the reward more certain. I might appeal to the history of all\ncountries in proof of this. Industry flourishes most in those countries,\nwhere there is the greatest equality of conditions, and where in\nconsequence instances of extreme distress can rarely occur. The\nexcessive depression of the lower class of the community can only (by\ntaking away the spring of hope, and making it nearly impossible for them\nto fall lower,) dishearten industry, and make them regardless of\nconsequences. It cannot be laid down as an axiom, that you animate\nindustry, in proportion as you take away its reward. It may be said that\nthe poor will not go through extreme hardships but from the fear of\nstarving. I know no reason why such hardships are necessary but because\none man is obliged to do the work of several.\u2014These general observations\nare not set aside by supposing the right of property to be established.\nAll that I can understand by a right of property is a right in any one\nto cultivate a piece of land, be it more or less, and a right at the\nsame time to prevent any one else from cultivating it, or reaping the\nproduce. This, in whatever way a man comes by it, is the utmost extent\nof this right. \u2018Those who were born after the division of property,\u2019\nsays Mr. Malthus, \u2018would come into _a world already possessed_.\u2019 [How\nthe whole world should come to be possessed immediately after the\ndivision of property I do not understand.] \u2018If their parents, from\nhaving too large a family, were unable to give them sufficient for their\nsupport, what could they do in a world, where every thing was\nappropriated?\u2019 [Just now _the world_, and at present, _every thing in\nit_ is appropriated.] \u2018We have seen the fatal effects that would result\nto society, if every man had a valid claim to an equal share of the\nproduce of the earth.\u2019 [This has been answered.] \u2018The members of a\nfamily which was grown too large for the original division of land\nappropriated to it could not then demand a part of the _surplus produce\nof others_ as a debt of justice.\u2019 [Certainly not. They would have no\nright to it, because one man would have no right to another man\u2019s\nproperty; but that right, as far as relates to the surplus produce, is\nnot backed by the necessity of the case, as Mr. Malthus would lead us to\nsuppose, or because every thing is already appropriated.] \u2018It has\nappeared that, from the inevitable laws of human nature, some beings\nwill be exposed to want.\u2019 [That is the question.] \u2018The number of those\npersons would soon exceed the ability of the _surplus produce_ to\nsupply.\u2019 I believe so, if they depended on the surplus produce of the\nlabour of the rich to supply them. But the long and the short of it is\nthat these laborious landholders, these owners of surplus produce,\nfinding that their own exertions could not supply all their own wants,\nand at the same time keep pace with their benevolence to those unhappy\npersons, who in the great lottery of life had drawn a blank, would call\nto their aid such of these as professed themselves able and willing to\nexert their strength in procuring a _further surplus produce_, which\nwould enable the proprietors to afford assistance to greater numbers,\nthat is, out of the produce of their own labour, not out of that of the\nproprietors. To hear Mr. Malthus talk, one would suppose that the rich\nwere really a very hard-working, ill-used people, who are not suffered\nto enjoy the earnings of their honest industry in quiet by a set of\ntroublesome, unsatisfied, luxurious, idle people called _the poor_. Or\none might suppose that a landed estate was a machine that did its own\nwork; or that it was like a large plum-cake, which the owner might at\nonce cut up into slices, and either eat them himself, or give them away\nto others, just as he pleased. In this case I grant that the poor might\nbe said to depend entirely upon the bounty or _surplus produce_ of the\nrich; and as they would have no trouble in procuring their share but\nmerely that of asking for it, their demands would no doubt be a little\nunreasonable, and in short, if they were complied with, the estate, the\nsurplus produce, or the plumb-cake (call it which you will) would soon\nbe gone. The question would no longer be \u2018whether one man should give to\nanother that which he did not use himself: but whether he should give to\nhis neighbour the food which was absolutely necessary to his own\nexistence.\u2019 But I cannot admit that they would be reduced to any such\nnecessity merely from allowing to the labourer as much of the additional\nproduce of the ground as he himself had really _added_ to it. I repeat\nthat I do not see how a man\u2019s reaping the produce, and no more than the\nproduce of his industry, can operate as an inducement to idleness, or to\nthe excessive multiplication of children, when notwithstanding all his\nindustry it is impossible he should provide for them without either\ndiminishing his own comforts, or if the population is already full,\nplunging them and himself into want and misery. This addition to the\nargument is like a foil to a sword\u2014it prevents any dangerous\nconsequences. If I say to a number of people, that they may each of them\nhave as much of a heap of corn as they desire, the whole of it would\nvery soon be bespoke, but if I tell them that they may each of them have\nas much as they can _carry away_ themselves, there might be enough to\nload them all, and I might have plenty left for my own consumption. The\nability and the willingness of a man to labour, (when these are made the\ngeneral foundation of his claim to the produce of the earth) at once set\nbounds to his own rapacious demands, and effectually limit the\npopulation.\u2014If Mr. Malthus had shewn that nothing but extreme misery can\nexcite to industry or check population, he would then have shewn the\nnecessity of such a state. But if it has appeared in various ways that\nthere is no connection between these things, or that if there is, it is\ndirectly contrary to what Mr. Malthus supposes it, then he has failed in\nhis attempt to regulate the price of labour by the principle of\npopulation, or to prove that this should be fixed so low, as only just\nto keep the labourer from starving. Certainly any advance in the price\nof labour, or a more equal distribution of the produce of the earth\nwould enable a greater number of persons to live in comfort, and would\nincrease population; but it is the height of absurdity, as I have shewn\nover and over again, to suppose that it would lead to an excessive or\nunrestricted increase; as if by making people acquainted with comfort\nand decency, you were teaching them to fall in love with misery. This is\nthe real jut and bearing of the question. The author of the Essay, to\nassist his argument, transposes the question. He represents the\nlabouring class of the community as a set of useless, supernumerary\npaupers, living on charity, or on the labour of the industrious\nproprietor. If this representation had any foundation, I should be ready\nto admit that these interlopers had no claim on any part of _the surplus\nproduce of others as a debt of justice_. They must owe every thing to\nfavour, and would be entirely at the mercy of their benefactors. Every\nreader must perceive, how little this account is in any degree near the\ntruth. The case is not that of a person both willing and able to labour\nfor himself, and imparting freely to another, who had done nothing to\ndeserve it, a part of the surplus produce of the soil, but of a person\nbargaining with another to do all his work for him, and allowing him as\na bribe part of the produce of his own labour in return. It is not\ntherefore a question of right any more than it is a question of\nexpediency, but a question of power on one side, and of necessity on the\nother. On the degree of power, or on that of the necessity, and on\nnothing else, will the price of labour depend. Mr. Malthus somewhere\ntalks of a man\u2019s having no right to subsistence when his labour will not\n_fairly_ purchase it. This word _fairness_ conveys to my ears no meaning\nbut that of the struggle between power and want, just spoken of. \u2018A\nman,\u2019 he says, \u2018born into a world already possessed, if the society do\nnot want his labour, has no claim of _right_ to the smallest portion of\nfood.\u2019 This is, as if the question was of an individual, pestering a\nlaborious community for a job, when they do not want his assistance, and\nnot of the laborious part of the community demanding a small portion of\nfood or the means of subsistence out of the surplus produce of their\nlabour as _a fair compensation_ for their trouble! I sometimes think\nthat abstruse subjects are best illustrated by familiar examples, and I\nshall accordingly give one. Suppose I have got possession of an island\nwhich I either took from somebody else, or was the first to occupy. But\nno matter how I came by it, I am in possession of it, and that is\nenough. Suppose then I see another person coming towards it either in a\ncanoe (these questions are always first decided in a state very nearly\napproaching a state of nature) or swimming from some other island as I\nconceive either with intent to drive me from it, or to defraud me of the\nproduce of my labour. Now even allowing that I had more than enough for\nmyself, that part of my surplus produce was devoured by fowls or wild\nbeasts, or that I threw it for sport into the sea, yet I should contend\nthat I have a right, a strict right in one sense of the word, to take\nout a long pole, and push this unfair intruder from the shore, and try\nto sink his boat or himself in the water to get rid of him, and defend\nmy own _right_. But suppose that instead of his coming to me, I go to\nhim, and persuade him to return with me; and that when I have got him\nhome, I want to set him to work to do either part or the whole of my\nbusiness for me. In this case I should conceive that he is at liberty\neither to work or refuse working just as he thinks proper, to work on\nwhat terms he thinks proper, to receive only a small part, or the half,\nor more than half the produce as he pleases; or if I do not chuse to\nagree to his terms, I must do my work myself. What possible right have I\nover him? His right to his liberty is just as good as my right to my\nproperty. It is an excellent _cheveux-de-fris_, and if he is as idle as\nI am lazy, he will make his market of it. I say then that this original\nright continues in all stages of society, unless where it has been\nspecifically given up; and acts as a counterpoise to the insolence of\nproperty. If indeed the poor will work for the rich at a certain rate,\nthey are not bound to employ others who demand higher wages, or a\ngreater number than they want: but as it is plain that they must either\nwork themselves, or get others to work for them, over whom they have no\nright whatever, I contend that the mass of the labouring community have\nalways a right to _strike_, to demand what wages they please; the least\nthat they can demand is enough to support them and their families; and\nthe real contest will be between the aversion of the rich to labour, and\nof the poor to famine. This seems to be the philosophy of the question.\nIt is also the spirit of the laws of England, which have left a\nprovision for the poor; wisely considering, no doubt, that they who\nreceived their all from the labour of others were bound to provide out\nof their superfluities for the necessities of such as were in want. If\nit be said that this principle will lead to extreme abuse in practice, I\nanswer, No, for there is hardly any one, who will live in dependence, or\non casualties, if he can help it. The check to the abuse is sufficiently\nprovided in the miserable precariousness and disgusting nature of the\nremedy. But if from the extreme inequality of conditions, that is, from\none part of the community having been able to engross all the advantages\nof society to themselves, so that they can trample on the others at\npleasure, the poor are reduced so low in intellect and feeling as to be\nindifferent to every consideration of the kind, neither will they be\nrestrained from following their inclinations by Mr. Malthus\u2019s grinding\nlaw of necessity, by the abolition of the poor laws, or by the prospect\nof seeing their children starving at the doors of the rich. It is not by\ntheir own fault alone that they have fallen into this degradation; those\nwho have brought them into it ought to be answerable for some of the\nconsequences. The way to obviate those consequences is not by\nobstinately increasing the pressure, but by lessening it. It is not my\nbusiness to inquire how a society formed upon the simple plan\nabove-mentioned might be supposed to degenerate in consequence of the\ndifferent passions, follies, vices, and circumstances of mankind, into a\nstate of excessive inequality and wretchedness: it is sufficient for my\npurpose to have shewn, that such a change was not rendered necessary by\nthe sole principle of population, or that it would not be absolutely\nimpossible for a state of actual equality to last \u2018thirty years\u2019 without\nproducing the total overthrow and destruction of the society. Equality\nproduces no such maddening effects on the principle of population, nor\nis it a thing, any approaches to which must be fatal to human happiness,\nand are universally to be dreaded. The connection therefore between that\ndegree of inequality, which terminates in extreme vice and misery, and\nthe necessary restraints on population, is not so obvious or\nindissoluble, as to give Mr. Malthus a right to \u2018qualify\u2019 the luxuries\nof the rich, and the distresses of the poor as the inevitable\nconsequences of the fundamental laws of nature, and as necessary to the\nvery existence of society. I shall here take the liberty of quoting the\ntwo following passages from Mr. Malthus\u2019s Essay, which seem exactly to\nconfirm my ideas on the subject, only better expressed, and stated in a\nmuch neater manner. \u2018In most countries, among the lower classes of\npeople, there appears to be something like a standard of wretchedness, a\npoint below which, they will not continue to marry and propagate their\nspecies. This standard is different in different countries, and is\nformed by various concurring circumstances of soil, climate, government,\ndegree of knowledge, and civilization, &c. The principal circumstances\nwhich contribute to raise it, are, liberty, security of property, the\nspread of knowledge, and _a taste for the conveniences and the comforts\nof life_. Those which contribute principally to lower it are despotism\nand ignorance.\u2019 For what purpose did Mr. Malthus write his book? \u2018In an\nattempt to better the condition of the lower classes of society, our\nobject should be to raise this standard as high as possible, by\ncultivating a spirit of independence, a decent pride, and a taste for\ncleanliness and comfort among the poor. These habits would be best\ninculcated by a system of general education and, when strongly fixed,\nwould be _the most powerful means of preventing their marrying with the\nprospect of being obliged to forfeit such advantages; and would\nconsequently raise them nearer to the middle classes of society_.\u2019 Yet\nMr. Malthus elsewhere attempts to prove that the pressure of population\non the means of subsistence can only be kept back by a system of terror\nand famine, as the pressure of a crowd is only kept back by the\nsoldiers\u2019 bayonets. I have thus endeavoured to answer the _play of\nwords_, by which Mr. Malthus undertakes to prove that the rich have an\nabsolute right to the disposal of the whole of the surplus produce of\n_the labour of others_. After this preparation, I shall venture to trust\nthe reader\u2019s imagination with the passages, in which he tries to put\ndown private charity, and to prove the right of the rich (whenever they\nconveniently can) to starve the poor. They are very pretty passages.\n\n\u2018There is one right, which man has generally been thought to possess,\nwhich I am confident he neither does, nor can, possess, a right to\nsubsistence when his labour will not _fairly_ purchase it. Our laws\nindeed say, that he has this right, and bind the society to furnish\nemployment and food to those who cannot get them in the regular market;\nbut in so doing, they attempt to reverse the laws of nature; and it is,\nin consequence, to be expected, not only that they should fail in their\nobject, but that the poor who were intended to be benefited, should\nsuffer most cruelly from this inhuman deceit which is practised upon\nthem.\n\n\u2018A man who is born into a world already possessed, if he cannot get\nsubsistence from his parents on whom he has a just demand, and if the\nsociety do not want his labour, has no claim of _right_ to the smallest\nportion of food, and, in fact, has no business to be where he is. At\nnature\u2019s mighty feast there is no vacant cover for him. She tells him to\nbe gone, and will quickly execute her own orders, if he do not work upon\nthe compassion of some of her guests. If these guests get up and make\nroom for him, other intruders immediately appear demanding the same\nfavour. The report of a provision for all that come, fills the hall with\nnumerous claimants. The order and harmony of the feast is disturbed, the\nplenty that before reigned is changed into scarcity; and the happiness\nof the guests is destroyed by the spectacle of misery and dependence in\nevery part of the hall, and by the clamorous importunity of those, who\nare justly enraged at not finding the provision which they had been\ntaught to expect. The guests learn too late their error, in\ncounteracting those strict orders to all intruders, issued by the great\nmistress of the feast, who, wishing that all her guests should have\nplenty, and knowing that she could not provide for unlimited numbers,\nhumanely refused to admit fresh comers when her table was already full.\u2019\nThis is a very brilliant description, and a pleasing allegory. Our\nauthor luxuriates in the dearth of nature: he cannot contain his\ntriumph: he frolics with his subject in the gaiety of his heart, and his\ntongue grows wanton in praise of famine. But let us examine it not as a\ndisplay of imagination, but as a piece of reasoning. In the first place,\nI cannot admit the assertion that \u2018at nature\u2019s mighty feast there is no\nvacant cover for the poor man.\u2019 There are plenty of vacant covers but\nthat the guests at the head of the table have seized upon all those at\nthe lower end, before the table was full. Or if there were no vacant\ncover, it would be no great matter, he only asks for the crumbs which\nfall from rich men\u2019s tables, and the bones which they throw to their\ndogs. \u2018She (nature) tells him to be gone, and will quickly execute her\nown orders, if he do not work on the compassion of some of the guests.\u2019\nWhen I see a poor old man, who after a life of unceasing labour is\nobliged at last to beg his bread, driven from the door of the rich man\nby a surly porter, and half a dozen sleek well-fed dogs, kept for the\npleasure of their master or mistress, jumping up from the fireside, or\nbouncing out of their warm kennels upon him, I am, according to Mr.\nMalthus, in the whole of this scene, to fancy nature presiding in person\nand executing her own orders against this unwelcome intruder, who as he\nis bent fairly double with hard labour, and can no longer get employment\nin the regular market, has no claim of _right_ (as our author\nemphatically expresses it) to the smallest portion of food, and in fact\nhas no business to be where he is. The preference which is often given\nto the inferior animals over the human species by the institutions and\ncustoms of society is bad enough. But Mr. Malthus wishes to go farther.\nBy the institutions of society a rich man is at liberty to give his\nsuperabundance either to the poor or to his dogs. Mr. Malthus will not\nallow him this liberty, but says that by the laws of nature he is bound\nto give it to his dogs, because if we suffer the poor to work upon our\ncompassion at all, this will only embolden their importunity, \u2018and the\norder and harmony that before reigned at nature\u2019s feast will be\ndisturbed and changed into want and confusion.\u2019 This might probably be\nthe consequence, if the rich, or the chief guests had provided the\nentertainment for themselves; or if nature, like a liberal hostess, had\nkindly provided it for them, at her own proper cost and expence, without\nany obligations to the poor. It might be necessary in this case for\nthose who had either provided the feast, or been expressly invited to\nit, to keep a pretty strict hand over those idle and disorderly persons,\nto whose importunity there was no end. But the question really is, not\nwhether all those should be supplied who press forward into the hall\nwithout having contributed any thing to the plenty that abounds, but\nwhether after the different guests have contributed largely, each of\nthem having brought his share and more than his share, the proprietors\nof the mansion have a right to turn them all out again, and only leave a\nfew scraps or coarse bits to be flung to them out of the windows, or\nhanded to them outside the door. Or whether if every man was allowed to\neat the _mess_ which he had brought with him in quiet, he would\nimmediately go out, and bring in half a dozen more, so that he would\nhave nothing left for himself, and the hall would be instantly\novercrowded. This statement is, I believe, considerably nearer the truth\nthan Mr. Malthus\u2019s. And if so, we can have little difficulty in deciding\nwhether there is any ground for Mr. Malthus\u2019s apprehensions of the\ndanger of raising the condition of the poor, or relieving the distresses\nto which, in their present unnatural and unnecessary state of\ndegradation, they are unavoidably subject. \u2018The spectacle of misery and\ndependence\u2019 never arises from the scantiness of the provision, or from\nthe nearly equal shares, in which it is divided, giving encouragement to\na greater number of applicants; for those helpless intruders, against\nwhom Mr. Malthus issues such strict orders, namely the _rising\ngeneration_, never come into the world till they are sent for, and it is\nnot likely that those who find themselves warm in their seats with every\nthing comfortable about them and nothing to complain of, should when\nthere is really no room for fresh comers, send for more people to shove\nthem out of their places, and eat the victuals out of their mouths. \u2018The\nAbb\u00e9 Raynal has said that, \u201cAvant toutes les loix sociales l\u2019homme avoit\nle droit de subsister.\u201d He might with just as much propriety have said,\nthat before the institution of social laws, every man had a right to\nlive a hundred years. Undoubtedly he had then, and has still, a good\nright to live a hundred years, nay a thousand _if he can_, without\ninterfering with _the right of others to live_; but the affair, in both\ncases, is principally an affair of power, not of right. Social laws very\ngreatly increase this power, by enabling a much greater number to\nsubsist than could subsist without them, and so far very greatly enlarge\n_le droit de subsister_; but neither before nor after the institution of\nsocial laws, could _an unlimited number subsist_; and before, as well as\nsince, he who ceased to have _the power_, ceased to have _the right_.\u2019\nIn this passage Mr. Malthus \u2018sharpens his understanding upon his flinty\nheart.\u2019 The logic is smart and lively and unembarrassed: it is not\nencumbered with any of the awkward feelings of humanity. After all, he\nmisses his aim. For his argument proves that the right of subsistence or\none man\u2019s right to live is only limited by its interfering with the\nright of others to live: that is, that a man has then only no right to\nlive, when there is nothing for him to live upon; in which case the\nquestion becomes an affair of power, not of right. But it is not the\nquestion whether the proprietor should starve himself in order that the\nlabourer may live; but whether the proprietor has a right to live in\nextravagance and luxury, while the labourer is starving. As to his\nabsolute right to the produce of the soil, that is to say, of the labour\nof others, we have seen that he has no such right either to the whole of\nthe surplus produce, or to _as much of it as he pleases_. With respect\nthen to the share of the produce which the labourer has a right to\ndemand, \u2018it is not likely that he should exchange his labour, without\nreceiving a _sufficient_ quantity of food in return,\u2019 to enable him to\nlive, unless the right of the proprietor to exact the labour of others\non what terms he chuses, is seconded by a kind of power, which has very\nlittle connection with the power of the earth to bring forth no more\nproduce. As to the right of the rich, in a moral point of view, wantonly\nto starve the poor, it is I think best to say nothing about it. Social\ninstitutions, on which our author lays great stress as enlarging the\npower of subsistence and the right along with it, do not deny relief to\nthe poor. For this very reason Mr. Malthus wishes to shoulder them\naside, in order to make room for certain regulations of his own, more\nagreeable to _the laws of nature and the principle of population_. A\nlittle farther on he says, \u2018As a previous step even to any considerable\nalteration in the present system, which would _contract_ or stop the\nincrease of the relief to be given, it appears to me that we are bound\nin justice and honour \u2018_formally to disclaim the right of the poor to\nsupport_.\u2019 It would be more modest in Mr. Malthus to let them _disclaim_\nit for themselves. But it appears that the reason for _contracting_ the\nrelief afforded them by the present system, and denying the right\naltogether, is that there is no subsistence for an unlimited number. As\nto the point at which it may be prudent or proper for the rich to\nwithhold assistance from the poor, I shall not enquire into it. But I\nshall dispute Mr. Malthus\u2019s right to thrust the poor man out of\nexistence because there is no room for him \u2018at nature\u2019s mighty feast,\u2019\ntill he can give some better reason for it than that there is not room\nfor an _unlimited number_!\u2014The maintainance of the needy poor is a tax\non the inequality of conditions and the luxuries of the rich, which they\ncould not enjoy but in consequence of that general depression of the\nlower classes which continually subjects them to difficulties and want.\nIt is a _douceur_ to keep them quiet, and prevent them from enforcing\nthose more solid, and important claims, not interfering with the right\nof property, but a direct consequence of the right of personal freedom,\nand of their right to set their own price on their own exertions, which\nwould raise them above the reach of want, and enable them to maintain\ntheir own _poor_. But they cannot do this without a general combination\nof the labouring part of the community; and if any thing of this kind\nwere to be attempted, the legislature we know would instantly interfere\nto prevent it. I know indeed that the legislature assumes a right to\nprevent combinations of the poor to keep themselves above want, though\nthey _disclaim_ any right to meddle with monopolies of corn, or other\ncombinations _in the regular course of trade_, by which the rich and\nthriving endeavour to grind the poor. But though the men of property\nhave thus retained the legislature on their side, Mr. Malthus does not\nthink this practical security sufficient: he thinks it absolutely\nnecessary to recur to first principles; and that they may see how well\nqualified he is to act as chamber counsel in the business, he makes them\na present of his Essay, written expressly for the purpose, and\ncontaining a new institute of the laws of nature, and a complete theory\nof population, in which it is clearly proved that the poor have no right\nto live any longer than the rich will let them. In this work which those\nto whom it is addressed should have bound in morocco, and constantly\nlying by them as a text-book to refer to in all cases of difficulty, it\nis shewn that there is no injustice in forcing the poorer classes to\nwork almost for nothing, because they have no right to the produce of\ntheir labour, and no inhumanity in denying them assistance when they\nhappen to be in want, because they ought not to be encouraged in\nidleness. Thus armed with \u2018metaphysical aid,\u2019 and conscience-proof, the\nrich will I should think be able very successfully to resist the unjust\nclaims of the poor\u2014to a subsistence!\n\nNeither the fundamental laws of property then, nor the principle of\npopulation seem to imply the necessity of any great inequality of\nconditions. They do not even require the distinction of rich and poor,\nmuch less do they imply the right of the rich to starve the poor. What\nshews that there must be some radical defect in our author\u2019s reasoning\nis, that a substantial equality does really prevail in several\ncountries, where the right of property is established, and where the\n_principle of population_ has been known to exist for a great length of\ntime. Property may certainly be made a handle for power; and that power\nmay, and does almost constantly lead to abuse, I mean to want and\nwretchedness. But neither the power nor the abuse is any part of the\noriginal right; and the original end and design of the right itself,\nnamely to procure a sufficient supply for the actual population, and to\nprevent an unlimited increase of population, is just as well, or indeed\nmuch better answered _without_, than _with_ the abuse.\u2014But perhaps we\nhave mistaken Mr. Malthus all this while. Perhaps he only wishes to\nsecure to the rich their original right, which is to reserve a certain\nshare of the produce for their own use; and to prevent their being\ndriven out of house and home by the poor, under pretence of population.\nHe seems to say in one place, that the fund appropriated to the\nmaintenance of labour is the aggregate quantity of food possessed by the\nowners of land beyond what is necessary for their own immediate\nconsumption. He says this, or something like it. In this case, it is\nevident, that \u2018no man would be forced to exchange his labour without\nreceiving an ample quantity of food in return.\u2019 At this rate the\nlabourer would be as rich, only not so idle as the proprietor. The only\ndifference between them would be that one of them would get his share\nfor nothing, and the other would be obliged to work for it. It would in\nfact be a common fund divided equally between the rich and poor, or more\nproperly speaking, between the sleeping and the acting partners in this\njoint-concern. If so, I do not see what the poor could have to complain\nof, as, if they were ever in want, it must be owing to their own\nidleness, extravagance, and imprudence, and they would deserve to be\npunished. Now Mr. Malthus is ready to prove with a pair of compasses\nthat this is always the state of the case. The poor are always just as\nwell off as the rich, if it is not their own fault, and the want in\nwhich they are sometimes plunged is not owing to an unequal division of\nthe shares among as many as can possibly subsist, but to the folly of\npushing population beyond the verge of subsistence. By this means there\nis nothing left for those who come last, who have consequently no right\nto be where they are, because there is nothing for them. \u2018The quantity\nof food\u2019 (says Mr. Malthus) \u2018which one man can consume is necessarily\nlimited by the narrow capacity of the human stomach; it is not certainly\nprobable that he should throw away the rest; and if he exchange his\nsurplus produce for the labour of others, this is better than that these\nothers should absolutely starve.\u2019 Here then we see the necessary limits\nof the inequality of conditions, or of the almost imperceptible\ndifference in the advantages which the rich have over the poor. But is\nthere really then no difference between being gorged and _not_ being\nstarved, between eating venison and turtle-soup, and drinking three\nbottles of wine a-day, and living on crusts of bread and water? Is it\nphysically impossible that one man should eat more than does him good,\nor that another should not get his full share? But it may be asked, what\nadvantage can it be to the rich to consume more than they want? None.\nBut the food which is thus misapplied, might be of great use to the\npoor. Is there no such thing as waste in great houses, which must\nconsiderably diminish the disproportion between the quantity of food,\nand the narrow capacity of the human stomach? When I consider that the\nrich are neither a bit taller, nor stouter, nor born with larger\nstomachs than other men, it does indeed seem at first sight a little\nextraordinary that they should make such havoc in the world as they do.\nBut the wonder vanishes the instant we recollect that crowd of\ndependents always dangling about them, who intercept the surplus produce\nlong before it can reach the labourer, and who instead of dividing his\ntoil with the husbandman, or sharing in other tasks not less useful or\nnecessary are maintained by the distresses and hardships of the poor. A\nrich man has not only himself and his family to keep, but he has to keep\nhis gentlemen, his valet, his butler, his cook, his coachman, his groom,\nhis horses, his hounds, his ornamental gardener, his architect, his\nupholsterer, his jeweller, his silversmith, his man\u2019s-mercer, and\nhaberdasher, his pimps, parasites, and players, his poets, painters, and\nmusicians, not to mention a hundred more, who are of no service on the\nface of the earth, nor have any mortal thing to do\u2014but to tend upon his\nperson, to dress his hair, to brush his clothes, or air his shirt, to\nrun on his errands, to do his jobs, to manage his affairs, to please his\ntaste, to pamper his appetites, to study his humours, to follow his\nsteps, to fawn and cringe and bow and smile as he directs. All these\npersons depend entirely on the bounty of their patron; and though they\ndo nothing to increase the produce of the ground, they do not devour it\nthe less eagerly, and it may be supposed that they make a good gap in\nit. In the mean time, the productive labourer, and hard-working mechanic\nare straitened in their circumstances, and doomed to unremitting toil\nand drudgery, that these hangers-on of the rich may live at their ease,\nor contribute only to the vanity and convenience of their employers.\nThis as I understand it is the pinch of the grievance.\u2014The rich man has\nnot only to supply his own wants, but the wants of those who depend upon\nhim, and who do nothing to support either him or themselves. He is\nsomething in the situation of a balance-master, who undertakes to\nsupport twenty men, some on his head, some on his shoulders, and others\nsuspended from different parts of his body: his own weight is nothing:\nit is the weight of those who hang upon him that makes the rich man a\nburthen to the poor. I see a little old emaciated man riding on a poney\nalong the street, and a stout healthy, well looking man riding behind\nhim at some distance, who follows him like his puppet, who turns as he\nturns, and whenever he passes him touches his hat in a respectful\nmanner. What is the meaning of this? It is a nobleman, and his servant.\nThe man is as well-fed, as comfortably clothed, and as well-mounted as\nhis master: what makes all the difference is, that there are thirty or\nforty gradations of society between them, each looking up with envy, or\ndown with contempt on the other, as they have more or less power over\nthe necessaries and conveniences of life not for themselves, but others,\nand so can hire the respect of a certain number of dependents. So little\ncan we judge of the state of society in the mechanical way pointed out\nby Mr. Malthus. But it is time to proceed with my author.\n\n\u2018As Mr. Godwin seems disposed to understand, and candidly to admit the\ntruth of, the principal argument in the essay, I feel the more\nmortified, that he should think it a fair inference from my positions,\nthat the political superintendents of a community are bound to exercise\na paternal vigilance and care over the two great means of advantage and\nsafety to mankind, misery and vice; and that no evil is more to be\ndreaded than that we should have too little of them in the world, to\nconfine the principle of population within its proper sphere.\u2019 [This I\nthink a fair statement of the argument.] \u2018I am at a loss to conceive\nwhat class of evils Mr. Godwin imagines is yet behind, which these\nsalutary checks are to prevent.\u2019 [It is not Mr. Godwin\u2019s business, but\nour author\u2019s to find out such a class of evils.] \u2018For my own part, I\nknow of no stronger or more general terms than vice and misery; and the\nsole question is, respecting a greater or less degree of them. The only\nreason why I object to Mr. Godwin\u2019s system, is, my full conviction that\nan attempt to execute it, would very greatly increase the quantity of\nvice and misery in society.\u2019\n\nBe it so. But still Mr. Malthus thinks a less degree of them necessary\nto prevent a greater; and it therefore seems a fair inference from his\npositions to say, that the greatest care ought to be taken, not to\ndiminish the necessary quantity. He approves much of the things in his\nown mind, but he does not like to hear them called by their names in a\ndisrespectful way. He does not like the odium attached to them.\n\n\u2018Mr. Godwin observes, that he should naturally be disposed to pronounce\nthat man strangely indifferent to schemes of extraordinary improvement\nin society, who made it a conclusive argument against them, that, when\nthey were realized, they might peradventure be of no permanence and\nduration. And yet, what is morality, individual or political, according\nto Mr. Godwin\u2019s own definition of it, but a calculation of\nconsequences?\u2019 [This, I must say, is a very _abortive_ kind of\nargument]. \u2018Is the physician the patron of pain, who advises his patient\nto bear a present evil, rather than betake himself to a remedy, which,\nthough it might give momentary relief, would afterwards greatly\naggravate all the symptoms?\u2019 [The real case is of a physician, who tells\nhis patient he must not get well, and endeavours to keep him from doing\nso, because if he were once in perfect health, he would be subject to\nmore violent returns of his disorder]. \u2018Is the moralist to be called an\nenemy to pleasure, because he recommends to a young man just entering\ninto life, not to ruin his health and patrimony in a few years, by an\nexcess of present gratifications, but to economize his enjoyments, that\nhe may spread them over a longer period?\u2019 [Our Essayist would advise the\nyoung man to neglect his affairs, and ruin his health, because by a\ncontrary method his estate would increase so that he would not be able\nto manage it, and it would be thrown into complete and total disorder,\nat the same time that his improved health and spirits would urge him to\nplunge into much greater excesses, than, if his constitution were\ndebilitated in time, he would be capable of committing]. \u2018Of Mr.\nGodwin\u2019s system, according to the present arguments by which it is\nsupported, it is not enough to say, _peradventure_ it will be of no\npermanence: but we can pronounce _with certainty_ that it will be of no\npermanence: and under such circumstances an attempt to execute it would\nunquestionably be a great political immorality.\u2019 According to the\n_present_ arguments against it, this has not appeared to be the case.\n\n\u2018The permission of infanticide is bad enough, and cannot but have a bad\neffect on the moral sensibility of a nation; but I cannot conceive any\nthing much more detestable, or shocking to the feelings, than any direct\nregulation of this kind, although sanctioned by the names of Plato and\nAristotle.\u2019 Mr. Malthus in this passage very properly gives way to his\nfeelings, which are, in my opinion, a much better test of morality than\na calculation of consequences. At the same time, he would himself make a\nlaw to starve the children of the poor, because their parents are not\nable to maintain them. Mr. Malthus\u2019s humanity is of the _intermittent_\nsort. The mention of the Chinese, of Plato or Aristotle, has a great\neffect in bringing the fit on: at the mention of population or the\npoor-laws it vanishes in an instant, and \u2018he is himself again.\u2019\u2014I hope I\nshall sometimes be allowed to appeal to my feelings against Mr.\nMalthus\u2019s authority, as he dissents from that of Plato and Aristotle on\nthe same _unphilosophical_ plea, and to look upon those arguments as\nnarrow and superficial, which pay no regard to \u2018the moral sensibility of\na nation\u2019; the more so as the system of morality prevailing at present\nis built upon the natural affections and common feelings and habitual\nprejudices of mankind, not, as Mr. Malthus pretends, on pure reason, or\na dry calculation of consequences. Our author\u2019s plan is addressed\nneither to the _head_, nor _heart_. It retains the common sympathies of\nour nature only to shock and insult them, and engrafts the vices of a\nbad heart on a perverted understanding.\n\nMr. Malthus defies Mr. Godwin to point out a method, by which it is\npossible \u2018to limit the number of children to each prolific marriage.\u2019\nAccording to his theory, there seems no way but by having a constable in\nthe room, and converting bed-chambers into a kind of lock-up\nhouses.\u2014Speaking of the possibility of delaying the gratification of the\npassion between the sexes, he says,\n\n\u2018If the whole effect were to depend merely on a sense of duty,\nconsidering the powerful antagonist that is to be contended with, in the\npresent case, I confess that I should absolutely despair. At the same\ntime, I am strongly of opinion that a sense of duty, superadded to a\nsense of interest, would by no means be without its effect. There are\nmany noble and disinterested spirits, who, though aware of the\ninconveniences which they may bring upon themselves by the indulgence of\nan early and virtuous passion, feel a kind of repugnance to listen to\nthe dictates of mere worldly prudence, and a pride in rejecting these\nlow considerations. There is a kind of romantic gallantry in sacrificing\nall for love, naturally fascinating to a young mind; and, to say the\ntruth, if all is to be sacrificed, I do not know, in what better cause\nit can be done. But if a strong sense of duty could, in these instances,\nbe added to prudential suggestions, the whole question might wear a\ndifferent colour. In delaying the gratification of passion, from a sense\nof duty, the most disinterested spirit, the most delicate honour, might\nbe satisfied. The romantic pride might take a different direction, and\nthe dictates of worldly prudence might be followed with the cheerful\nconsciousness of making a virtuous sacrifice.\u2019\n\nI am happy to learn that Mr. Malthus has been able to reconcile the\nsense of duty and interest with the gratification of his favourite\npassion. By preaching the virtue of celibacy with such success to\nothers, he found it no longer necessary to practise it himself. He is\nnot the first philosopher who extracted the flames of love out of ice.\nWe read of such a one in Hudibras. I should be sorry to scandalize the\nmodest reader; but really whenever I think of our author\u2019s escape from\nthe consequences of his own doctrine in a wife, it puts me in mind of\nSt. Francis\u2019s triumph over his desires,\n\n                  \u2018Which after in enjoyment quenching,\n                  He hung a garland on his engine.\u2019\n\nThis St. Francis was as great an adept as our author in the cold-sweat\nof the passions.\n\nThere is no end of Mr. Malthus\u2019s paradoxes. I come now to his attempts\nto prove that in proportion as you raise the wages of the poor, you take\naway their livelihood.\n\n\u2018Suppose, that by a subscription of the rich, the eighteen-pence, or two\nshillings, which men earn now, were made up five shillings, it might be\nimagined, perhaps, that they would then be able to live comfortably, and\nhave a piece of meat every day for their dinner. But this would be a\nvery false conclusion. The transfer of three additional shillings a day\nto each labourer would not increase the quantity of meat in the country.\nThere is not at present enough for all to have a moderate share. What\nwould then be the consequence? The competition among the buyers in the\nmarket of meat, would rapidly raise the price from eight pence or nine\npence, to two or three shillings in the pound, and the commodity would\nnot be divided among many more than it is at present. When an article is\nscarce, and cannot be distributed to all, he that can shew the most\nvalid patent, that is, he that offers the most money, becomes the\npossessor. When subsistence is scarce in proportion to the number of\npeople, it is of little consequence, whether the lowest members of the\nsociety possess two shillings or five. They must, at all events, be\nreduced to live upon the hardest fare, and in the smallest quantity.\u2019\n\nAgain, some pages after he says, \u2018The question is, how far wealth has a\ntendency to better the condition of the labouring poor. It is a\nself-evident proposition that any general advance in the price of\nlabour, the stock of provisions remaining the same, can only be a\nnominal advance, as it must shortly be followed by a _proportional_ rise\nin provisions. The increase in the price of labour which we have\nsupposed, would have no permanent effect therefore in giving to the\nlabouring poor a greater command over the necessaries of life.\u2019\n\nOn these two passages which explain the drift of our author\u2019s reasonings\npretty clearly, I shall remark, first, that wealth is nothing but the\npower of securing to yourself the fruits of the earth, or commanding the\nlabour of others. The more equal distribution of wealth, or the throwing\na greater quantity of money (_bona fide_) into the hands of the poor\nmust therefore enable them to procure either a greater share of\nprovisions or of the labour of others, or both. This I hold to be an\naxiom, as far as I can comprehend the subject. But Mr. Malthus says that\nif the wages of the poor were raised to double or treble what they are\nat present, this in the first place would not increase the quantity of\nmeat in the market, nor the share which the labourer would have of it,\nbecause any advance in the price of labour must be followed by a\n_proportional_ rise in provisions. This word is equivocal. To make out\nthe argument, the rise ought to be not only proportional but equal to\nthe rise of wages, which it evidently would not be. But Mr. Malthus is\nwilling to exclude the possibility of bettering the condition of the\npoor, even in theory, by an _equivoque_, or any thing else. But to put\nan end to this miserable quackery, I would ask, whether if the rich were\nto divide their incomes with the poor, the latter would be any the\nricher for it. To say in this case, that the good things of the world\nwould not be shared more equally among them, is flat nonsense. But any\napproach to a more equal division of wealth must lessen the difference\nbetween the rich and the poor _proportionally_. It is true that the\nlowest members of the community will still live upon the hardest fare,\nand in the smallest quantity: but their fare will be less hard and in\nlarger quantities than it used to be, _in proportion_ to the advance in\nthe price of labour.\n\n\u2018It may at first appear strange, but I believe it is true, that I cannot\nby means of money, raise the condition of a poor man, and enable him to\nlive much better than he did before, without proportionably depressing\nothers in the same class. If I retrench the quantity of food consumed in\nmy house, and give him what I have cut off, I then benefit him without\ndepressing any but myself and family, who perhaps may be well able to\nbear it. If I turn up a piece of uncultivated land, and give him the\nproduce, I then benefit both him and all the members of society, because\nwhat he before consumed is thrown into the common stock, and, probably,\nsome of the new produce with it. But if I only give him money, supposing\nthe produce of the country to remain the same, I give him a title to a\nlarger share of that produce than formerly, which share he cannot\nreceive without diminishing the shares of others. It is evident, that\nthis effect in individual instances must be so small as to be totally\nimperceptible; but still it must exist, as many other effects do, which,\nlike some of the insects that people the air, elude our grosser\nperceptions.\u2019\n\nIt will be sufficient to ask in answer to this passage, whether when I\ngive away my money to another, I do not necessarily retrench the\nquantity of food or other things consumed in my own house, and give him\nwhat I have cut off. I give him a title to a larger share of the common\nproduce by diminishing _my own_ share. It does not matter to the\ncommunity whether he or I spend the money: the only difference that it\nmakes is between ourselves.\u2014Mr. Malthus seems to have a notion that the\nrich are never the worse for their charities.\n\n\u2018Supposing the quantity of food in any country, to remain the same for\nmany years together, it is evident, that this food must be divided\naccording to the value of each man\u2019s patent, or the sum of money which\nhe can afford to spend in this commodity so universally in request. It\nis a demonstrative truth, therefore, that the patents of one set of men\ncould not be increased in value, without diminishing the value of the\npatents of some other set of men.\u2019\n\nAt any rate, then, the poor would be enabled to contend with the rich.\nThe increased value of the patents of the poor would necessarily\ndiminish the value of the patents of the rich. In order to out-bid them,\nthey must make some other sacrifices, which they will not always be\nwilling to do. Food to the rich is in a great measure an article of\nluxury: to the poor it is a necessary; and the one, about which they are\nchiefly concerned. Many a _petit-ma\u00eetre_, and ape of fashion goes\nwithout his dinner to pay for his coat, or go to the play, \u2018where he\npicks clean teeth,\u2019 &c.\n\n\u2018No person, I believe, will venture to doubt, that, if we were to give\nthree additional shillings a day to every labouring man in the kingdom,\nas I before supposed, in order that he might have meat for his dinner,\nthe price of meat would rise in the most rapid and unexampled manner.\u2019\n\nMr. Malthus here creeps on. He first spoke of a number of individuals as\nhaving a certain sum given them. He now includes every labouring man in\nthe kingdom. Because if we were to give five shillings a day to five\nhundred thousand men, the remaining five hundred thousand might be the\nworse for it, therefore he would have us suppose that the same or\ngreater mischiefs would follow from giving the same sum to the whole\nnumber, or in fact from doing away that very inequality, which was the\nonly source of the mischief. To suppose that we can allow five shillings\na-day to five hundred, or ten hundred thousand people without\nretrenching from our own superfluities, or that we can distribute our\nown patents among others without diminishing our own number, is one of\nthose perversities which I shall not attempt to answer. If the labourer\nwith his three shillings extra is only able to purchase an ounce of\nmeat, this will be an advantage to him. Let the rise be what it will,\nthe rich man will evidently be less able to out-bid him than he is at\npresent, and the rise can only be in proportion to his capacity to\nout-bid him. Besides, it is not to be supposed that his additional gains\nwould all be laid out in meat, but in articles of trade, &c. which would\nbe rendered cheaper by the neglect of the rich, or in proportion to the\nrun upon provisions. To assert generally that increasing the wages of\nthe poor does not give them a greater command over the necessaries of\nlife, is as much as to say that if they were forced to work for nothing,\nand could get nothing to eat, this would lower the markets, and they\nwould be much better off than they were before. It would be looked upon\nas an insult, rather than a consolation, to tell them that they ought to\nbe contented with the cheapness of provisions, and to consider that\nallowing them any thing for their labour, would only raise the price of\nmeat by enabling them to buy some of it to satisfy their hunger.\n\nHow things being cheap or dear, or how there being much or little to\nspare, proves that that much, or little will not be divided according to\nthe ability of different people to pay for it, is beyond my\ncomprehension. It is ridiculous. It is saying that the money of a poor\nman will not _pass_, even when he has it. If the poor in consequence of\nhaving more money, or being richer could not draw to themselves a\ngreater portion of food, there could be no room for competition, nor for\nan increase in the price or the demand.\n\n\u2018The poor who were assisted by their parishes had no reason whatever to\ncomplain of the high price of grain; because it was the excessiveness of\nthis price, and this alone, which, by enforcing such a saving, left a\ngreater quantity of corn, for the consumption of the lowest classes,\nwhich corn, the parish allowances enabled them to command.\u2019 [Yet Mr.\nMalthus has just tried to persuade us, that the increased price of\nprovisions, occasioned by the competition of the poor, does not enforce\nany retrenchment of the superfluities of the higher classes, or leave a\ngreater quantity of corn, for the consumption of the lower classes.]\n\u2018The greatest sufferers in the scarcity were undoubtedly the classes\nimmediately above the poor; and these were in the most marked manner\ndepressed by the excessive bounties given to those below them.\u2019 [It is\nbetter that these classes should be depressed than those below them,\nbecause they can bear it better. Is it an argument that because the\npressure of a scarcity does not fall directly upon those who can bear it\nbest, viz. the very rich, that it should therefore fall upon those, who\ncan bear it least, viz. on the very poor? Unless Mr. Malthus can\ncontrive to starve some one, he thinks he does nothing.] \u2018This\ndistribution by giving to the poorer classes a command of food, so much\ngreater than their degree of skill and industry entitled them to, in the\nactual circumstances of the country, diminished, exactly in the same\nproportion, that command over the necessaries of life, which the classes\nabove them, by their superior skill and industry, would naturally\npossess.\u2019 [Is a man then to starve on account of his want of skill? To\ntack industry to skill as if the lowest classes did not work the hardest\nis impudence indeed.] \u2018And it may be a question, whether the degree of\nassistance which the poor received, and which prevented them from\nresorting to the use of those substitutes, which, in every other\ncountry, on such occasions, the great law of necessity teaches, was not\nmore than overbalanced by the severity of the pressure on so large a\nbody of people from the extreme high prices, and the permanent evil\nwhich must result from forcing so many persons on the parish, who before\nthought themselves almost out of the reach of want.\u2019\n\nIt is a contradiction to say, that the poor were forced on the parish by\nthe assistance they received from it. If they were to be denied this\nassistance from a tender regard for their morals and independence, it is\na pity that the same disinterested motives, joined to the \u2018severe\npressure\u2019 of the high prices on the classes above the poor, did not\ninduce some of _them_ to condescend to the use of those cheap and\nwholesome substitutes recommended by Mr. Malthus, by which means they\nwould have saved their own pockets, and not have \u2018forced so many persons\non the parish.\u2019\n\n\u2018If we were to double the fortunes of all those who possess above a\nhundred a year, the effect on the price of grain would be slow and\ninconsiderable; but if we were to double the price of labour throughout\nthe kingdom, the effect, in raising the price of grain, would be rapid\nand great.\u2019\n\nI do not see the harm of this rise. It would be in consequence of, and\nwould denote the number of bellies that were filled that had not been\nfilled before. Mr. Malthus in this passage seems to prefer a little evil\nto a great good.\n\n\u2018The parish rates and the prodigious sum expended in voluntary charity,\nmust have had a most powerful effect in raising the price of the\nnecessaries of life, if any reliance can be placed on the clearest\ngeneral principles, confirmed as much as possible by appearances. A man\nwith a family, has received, _to my knowledge_, fourteen shillings a\nweek from the parish.\u2019 [Shocking to be sure.] \u2018His common earnings were\nten shillings a week, and his weekly _revenue_, therefore, twenty-four.\nBefore the scarcity, he had been in the habit of purchasing a bushel of\nflour a week with eight shillings perhaps, and consequently had two\nshillings out of his ten, to spare for other necessaries. During the\nscarcity, he was enabled to purchase the same quantity at nearly three\ntimes the price. He paid twenty-two shillings for his bushel of flour,\nand had, as before, two shillings remaining for other wants.\u2019 [Good: but\ndoes Mr. Malthus deny that the scarcity would of itself have raised the\nprice of wheat? And in that case if the labourer had had no addition to\nhis \u2018weekly revenue,\u2019 instead of having the large sum of two shillings\nat the end of the week to lay out in other necessaries, he would have\nhad nothing. Perhaps Mr. Malthus is ready to prove, that half a bushel\nof corn will go farther with a poor family in a time of scarcity than a\nwhole one, because they would husband it more carefully.] \u2018Such\ninstances could not possibly have been universal, without raising the\nprice of wheat much higher than it really was during any part of the\ndearth. But similar instances were by no means infrequent, and _the\nsystem itself, of measuring the relief given by the price of grain, was\ngeneral_.\u2019\n\nI cannot conceive of any better rule. But the gentleman is alarmed at\nthe _voluntary_ contributions extorted from the rich. After all, I do\nnot see how the rich would suffer by their great charity, if, as our\nauthor says, the poor got nothing by it. I would ask, were the rich ever\nin danger of starving in the late scarcity, and were not the poor in\ndanger of it, and would they not have starved, but for the assistance\ngiven to them? Is it better that the poor should starve than that the\nrich should be at the expence of relieving them? Or if the pressure in\nscarce times falls on the middle classes, have they to complain, that\nthey, in whom \u2018life and death may always be said to contend for\nvictory,\u2019 are still just kept alive, or that the sleek and pampered\ncontinue to fatten on the distresses of others? The false feeling which\nruns through all Mr. Malthus\u2019s reasonings on this subject is, that the\nupper classes cannot be expected to retrench any of their superfluities,\nto lie at the mercy of the seasons, or to contribute any thing to the\ngeneral necessity, but that the whole burthen of a scarcity ought to\nfall on those whom Mr. Malthus calls \u2018the least fortunate members of the\ncommunity,\u2019 on those who are most used to distress, and in whom the\ntransition is easy and natural from poverty to famine! \u2018They lay heavy\nburthens on the poor and needy, which they will not touch with one of\ntheir fingers.\u2019 Would it not be worth our author\u2019s while to comment on\nthis text, and shew how little it has been understood?\u2014I remember to\nhave heard of but one instance of a real, effectual, and judicious\ndetermination in the rich to retrench idle and superfluous waste and\nexpence, some years ago at a time when the poor were _in want of bread_.\nIt originated in a great and noble family, where seventy or eighty\nservants were kept, and where twenty or thirty guests of the first\ndistinction \u2018fared sumptuously every day.\u2019 These humane and enlightened\npersons, struck with the difference between their own good fortune, and\nthe necessities of others, came to a resolution that the pieces of bread\nwhich they left at dinner should neither be thrown nor given away, but\nthat the bread-baskets should be divided into little compartments with\neach person\u2019s name affixed to them, where he could conveniently put the\npiece of bread which he left, and have it _saved_ till the next day.\nThis humane example was much talked of in the neighbourhood, and soon\nafter followed by several of the gentry, who got their bread-baskets\ndivided into little compartments with the different names affixed, and\neat the pieces of bread which they left one day, the day after\u2014so that\nthe poor were thus placed completely out of the reach of want!\n\nMr. Malthus next talks about the embarrassments of commerce, returning\ncheapness, &c. Now I do not see, according to his doctrine, what\ncheapness has to do with the question. He says, every thing depends on\nthe quantity of provisions in the country, and that this being given,\nall the rest follows as a matter of course. What then does it signify\nwhether you call a piece of paper one pound or two if you can get a\nproportionable quantity of food for your money?\n\n\u2018If instead of giving the temporary assistance of parish allowances,\nwhich might be withdrawn on the first fall of price, we had raised\nuniversally the wages of labour, it is evident, that the obstacles to a\ndiminution of the circulation, and to returning cheapness, would have\nbeen still further increased; and the high price of labour would have\nbecome permanent, without any advantage whatever to the labourer,\u2019\u2014or\ndisadvantage to the proprietor.\n\n\u2018There is no one that more ardently desires to see a real advance in the\nprice of labour than myself; but the attempt to effect this object by\nforcibly raising the nominal price, which was practised to a certain\ndegree, and recommended almost universally during the late scarcities,\nevery thinking man must reprobate as puerile and ineffectual.\u2019\n\n\u2018The price of labour, when left to find its natural level, is a most\nimportant political barometer, expressing the relation between the\nsupply of provisions, and the demand for them; between the quantity to\nbe consumed, and the number of consumers; and taken on the average,\nindependently of accidental circumstances, it further expresses,\nclearly, the wants of the society respecting population; that is,\nwhatever may be the number of children to a marriage necessary to\nmaintain exactly the present population, the price of labour will be\njust sufficient to support this number, or be above it, or below it,\naccording to the state of the real funds for the maintainance of labour,\nwhether stationary, progressive, or retrograde. Instead, however, of\nconsidering it in this light, we consider it as something which we may\nraise or depress at pleasure, something which depends principally upon\nhis majesty\u2019s justices of the peace. When an advance in the price of\nprovisions already expresses that the demand is too great for the\nsupply, in order to put the labourer in the same condition as before, we\nraise the price of labour, that is, we increase the demand, and are then\nmuch surprised that the price of provisions continues rising. In this,\nwe act much in the same manner, as if, when the quicksilver in the\ncommon weather-glass stood at _stormy_, we were to raise it by some\nforcible pressure to _settled fair_, and then be greatly astonished that\nit continued raining.\u2019\n\nThis is certainly a most excellent illustration. As to the argument\nitself, it is all false and hollow. With respect to the rise in the\nprice of provisions consequent on the rise of wages, I am not I confess\nat all concerned about it, so that the labourer is still enabled to\npurchase the same _necessary_ quantity as before. All that is wanted is\nthat the one should keep pace with the other. What the natural level of\nthe price of labour is, otherwise than as it is regulated by the\npositive institutions of society, or as I have before stated, by the\npower of one set of men, and the wants of another is\u2014like many other\nthings in this book of Mr. Malthus\u2019s\u2014what I do not understand. If we are\nto believe him, the whole is a trick. There is a pretence of sacrificing\nsomething for the relief of the poor in hard times, and then the next\nthing is to render that relief ineffectual, by out-bidding them, by\nlowering the value of money, by creating artificial wealth, and other\nmethods. If then the rich are so entirely masters of the price of labour\nthat they can render it real or nominal as they please, and take good\ncare never to lose by it in the end, I should like to know how this most\nimportant political barometer has any relation to real plenty or want:\nhow it expresses any thing more than the will of the rich and great; or\nthe miserable pittance they are willing to allow out of the support of\ntheir own extravagant and ostentatious establishments to the\nmaintainance of the mass of the people. It does indeed express the\nrelation between the supply of provisions, and the demand for them, &c.\nsupposing that a certain number of people are to consume four or five\ntimes as much (either in quantity or quality) as the others: and that\nthis proportion is unalterable and one of the laws of nature. It further\nexpresses the wants of the society respecting population, while this\ndivision continues, or that degree of poverty beyond which it is\nimpossible for people to subsist at all. The object in a scarcity is not\nhowever to stop the ordinary process of population, but to alleviate the\ndistresses of those already in existence, by a more equal distribution\nof the real funds for the maintainance of labour. By these funds Mr.\nMalthus means any arbitrary division of the produce of the ground, which\nthe rich find it convenient to make, and which the poor are forced to\ntake up with as better than nothing. But the real funds for the\nmaintenance of labour are the produce of labour. According to Mr.\nMalthus, they are not the produce itself, but what happens to be left of\nit, as the husks only and not the corn are given to the swine.\n\n\u2018The number of servants out of place, and of manufacturers wanting\nemployment during the late scarcities, were melancholy proofs of the\ntruth of these reasonings. If a general rise in the wages of labour had\ntaken place proportioned to the price of provisions, none but farmers\nand a few gentlemen could have afforded to employ the same number of\nworkmen as before. Additional crowds of servants and manufacturers would\nhave been turned off; and those who were thus thrown out of employment,\nwould, of course, have no other refuge than the parish. In the natural\norder of things, a scarcity must tend to lower, instead of to raise, the\nprice of labour.\u2019\n\nThis natural order has been already explained to mean a very artificial\norder. Our ingenious author is a great admirer of moral analogies. He\nsticks to the old proverb, those that have little shall have less. \u2018The\nmost laborious and deserving part of the community\u2019 are to bear the\nbrunt of all distress, _ordinary and extraordinary_. He will not suffer\nthe positive regulations of society, which carry inequality of\nconditions as far almost as it can go in common cases, to relax a little\nin their favour in extreme cases, so as not to push them quite out of\nexistence. I know no reason why in the natural order of things a\nscarcity should tend to lower, instead of raising the price of labour;\nbut upon that common principle that the weakest are to go to the wall.\nThe rich forsooth are a privileged class, out of the reach of fortune,\n\u2018whose solid virtue the shot of accident or dart of change can neither\ngraze nor pierce.\u2019 In the rest of this passage, Mr. Malthus quarrels\nwith his own favourite system, with those capricious and arbitrary\ninstitutions, in consequence of which those who ministered only to the\nvanity and artificial wants of the rich will in times of difficulty be\nturned adrift and reduced to want, or else saddled as an additional\nweight on the common labourer, who had enough to do to support them and\ntheir employers under the most favourable circumstances.\n\nGENERAL ANSWER.\u2014I wish Mr. Malthus to state explicitly whether he means\nthat the rise in the price of labour should be nominal or real. He has\nshifted his ground four or five times on the subject in the course of\nthe chapter, now supposing it to be a mere non-entity, and now fraught\nwith the most terrible consequences, famine, and God knows what. But it\nseems to me, that if nominal, it must be nugatory, and therefore\ninnocent; and that if real, it must be proportionably beneficial. For if\nreal, it must throw a greater quantity of the necessaries or comforts of\nlife into the hands of those who most want them, and take them from\nthose who are oppressed with their superfluities. For suppose the\nquantity of food and the quantity of money to be fixed, given quantities\n(unless we suppose both, there is no reasoning about the matter) and\nthat an additional price is given for labour: let us suppose farther\nthat this raises the price of provisions. It is evident in this case,\nthat the rich having less money to give, and being obliged to give more\nfor their former luxuries, will be obliged to retrench somewhere. This\nmust be either in provisions, or other things. First, they may retrench\nin the article of provisions. This will evidently leave a greater plenty\nfor others, who stand very much in need of them; and their additional\nwages will be laid out in supplying themselves with what they could not\notherwise have obtained. Secondly, they may retrench in articles of\nfurniture, dress, houses, &c. and there will consequently be less demand\nfor these things. Well then, in the first place, with regard to\nprovisions, the poor will be no worse off in this respect than if there\nhad been no advance in the price, for it is not to be supposed that if\nthe rich are so attached to the luxuries of the belly as notwithstanding\nthe increased price to buy the same quantity as ever, that they would\nhave bought less, if the price had continued lower. They would have\nengrossed the markets at all events. On the other hand, they must\nretrench their expences in other things, in superfluities of different\nkinds, which will thus fall into the hands of the poor, who having been\nexcluded from the meat-market can only lay out their additional wages in\nproviding themselves with household conveniences, good clothes, tables,\nchairs, &c. What should they do with their money? It is supposed that\nthey cannot get a morsel of meat with it: and it is not be expected that\nthey should throw it away. Sooner than do this, they might spend it in\nbuying smart buckles for their shoes, or garters and ribbons for their\nsweethearts. The labour of the mechanic, inasmuch as it is not wanted by\nthe great, will go to enrich the lower classes. The less they are\nemployed by the rich, in consequence of \u2018a more equal distribution of\nthe money of the society,\u2019 the better able they will be to employ one\nanother. The farmer\u2019s servant will employ the mechanic with the same\nmoney with which the farmer or his landlord would have employed him: if\nhe has the same wages as before, he will have as much to do, or if his\nwages are doubled, and he has only half as much to do, this will be a\nproportionable relief to him on the score of labour, and would be no\nprejudice to his earnings as he would get the same wages for doing half\nas much work. But there is no occasion to suppose any such slackness in\nthe demand for labour. The proportion between the money, the productive\nand mechanical labour in the community, would remain the same: and the\nrise in the wages of the labouring manufacturer and mechanic to be real\nand effectual ought to be paid out of the profits of the master and\nproprietor. In this case, the demand would be the same: and it would\nevidently be his interest to employ the same number of men that he did\nbefore, as though he would get less by each of them, he must get more,\nthe more hands he employs, as long as the demand continues.[30] If\nhowever our rich men and manufacturers should grow sulky upon the\noccasion, and take it into their heads to hoard their money in order to\nspite the poor, thus driving them altogether out of employ, I conceive\nthe best use that can be made of this hoarded wealth would be to\ntransfer it to the poor\u2019s fund, for the relief of those who are willing\nto work, but not to starve. On the whole, and in every view of the\nsubject it appears to me that any addition to the price of labour must\nas far as it goes, be an advantage to the labourer, and that the more\ngeneral and permanent it is, the greater will be the benefit to the\nlabouring class of the community. The rise of wages would certainly take\nfrom the pomp and luxury of the rich, and it would as certainly and in\nthe same proportion add to the comforts of the poor. I am not here\nrecommending such a change. I only contend that it would follow the\ndistribution of wealth; and that it is absurd to say that the poorer a\nman is, the richer he will be.\n\nMr. Malthus\u2019s acuteness amounts to a species of second-sight, whenever\nthere is a question of famine. Thus he demonstrates that this must be\nthe necessary consequence of fixing a maximum in a time of scarcity. Now\nI do not see this necessary consequence, because if it were fixed at a\ncertain height above the common price in proportion to the deficiency,\nthis would check the too rapid consumption. Or even without supposing\nthis, as it would be necessary to have some kind of law or order of the\npolice to enforce the observance of a maximum, and make the farmers and\ndealers bring their corn to market, the quantities in which it was\nbrought forward might be regulated in the same way as the price.\nBesides, I do not believe that people would starve themselves with their\neyes open, whether the police interfered or not. As to the epithets of\nilliberal, unjust, and narrow policy which some people may apply to such\na measure, I would ask them whether fixing the assize of bread in London\nis not just the same thing. But corn-factors, forestallers and regraters\nare a set of people whose liberal notions place them above the law, who\nought not to be looked upon in the same light with every little scurvy\nknavish bread and biscuit baker, nor cramped in their generous exertions\nto economize the public resources, and save the poor from famine at the\nlatter end of the year\u2014by starving them in the beginning. With respect\nto the parallel which Mr. Malthus attempts to establish between fixing a\nmaximum, and raising the price of labour, I am so unfortunate as not to\nperceive it. He sometimes argues against raising the price of labour\nbecause it would give the poor no greater command over the provisions\nthan before; he here talks as if it would enable them to devour every\nthing before them. I think neither of these suppositions is true. The\nhigh price of corn in proportion to other things will always make people\nunwilling to lay out more in that way than they can help, and will\nconsequently diminish the consumption. As to famine, people will look\nmany ways, before they submit to it.\n\n\u2018Independently of any considerations respecting a year of deficient\ncrops, it is evident, that an increase of population, without a\nproportional increase of food, must lower the value of each man\u2019s\n_earnings_. The food must necessarily be distributed in smaller\nquantities, and consequently, a day\u2019s labour will purchase a smaller\nquantity of provisions.\u2019\n\nWhy of earnings more than property? Mr. Malthus would have this\nconsidered as an elementary or philosophical work. Yet he looks only at\nthe flattering side of his subject. A day\u2019s labour will purchase a less\nquantity of provisions, but a day\u2019s idleness will purchase the same. In\nthis case idleness and industry are plaintiff and defendant; and the\nverdict is in favour of idleness, and industry is not only cast, but\npays the costs.\u2014It is all very well.\n\n\u2018The quantity of provisions consumed in workhouses, upon a part of the\nsociety, that cannot in general be considered as the most valuable\npart,\u2019 [or in other houses on footmen, &c. who are not the most\nrespectable kind of paupers] \u2018diminishes the shares that would otherwise\nbelong to more industrious and more worthy members, and thus in the same\nmeasure, forces more to become dependent.\n\n\u2018Fortunately for England, a spirit of independence still remains among\nthe peasantry. The poor laws are strongly calculated to eradicate this\nspirit.\u2019 [Is it the man who reduces me to beggary, or he who affords me\nrelief, that lowers my condition and breaks my spirit?] \u2018They have\nsucceeded in part; but had they succeeded as completely as might have\nbeen expected, their pernicious tendency would not have been so long\nconcealed.\u2019\n\nIt would have been discovered sooner, if Mr. Malthus had read Mr.\nWallace\u2019s book sooner.\n\n\u2018The parish laws of England _appear_ to have contributed to raise the\nprice of provisions and to lower the real price of labour.\u2019 [Our\nauthor\u2019s demonstrations are delusive appearances. What must his\n_appearances_ be? Shall we take them for demonstrations?] \u2018They have\ntherefore contributed to impoverish that class of people whose only\npossession is their labour. It is also difficult to suppose, that they\nhave not powerfully contributed to generate that carelessness and want\nof frugality observable among the poor, so contrary to the disposition\ngenerally to be remarked among petty tradesmen and small farmers. The\nlabouring poor, to use a vulgar expression, seem always to live from\nhand to mouth. Their present wants employ their whole attention; and\nthey seldom think of the future. Even when they have an opportunity of\nsaving, they seldom exercise it; but all that they earn beyond their\npresent necessities, goes, generally speaking, to the alehouse. The poor\nlaws may, therefore, be said to diminish both the power, and the will,\nto save, among the common people, and thus to weaken one of the\nstrongest incentives to sobriety and industry, and consequently to\nhappiness.\u2019\n\nThis passage is remarkable. It may be asked in the first place, whether\nthe parish laws are not equally open to petty tradesmen and small\nfarmers, as to the poor. If so, they cannot account for the difference\nobservable between them. I shall therefore, as far as this very striking\ncontrast goes, put the poor laws out of the question; and say that the\ndifference in their behaviour can arise from nothing but the difference\nin their situations, from the greater hardships imposed on the labouring\npart of the community, from their different prospects in life, and the\nlittle estimation in which they are held. Mr. Malthus accounts for the\ncarelessness and laziness of the poor from their casting a sheep\u2019s-eye\nat the work-house. No: they are to be accounted for from that poverty\nand depression which makes the work-house a temptation to them. We\ncannot say of those who are seduced by the prospect of a\nwork-house\u2014\u2018Alas from what height fallen!\u2019 Mr. Malthus proposes to\nremove this dazzling object out of their way; to make them indulge in\nlarger views of things by setting before them the prospect of their\nwives and children starving, in case of any accident to themselves, and\nto stimulate their industry by lowering their wages. The poor live from\nhand to mouth, because, in general, they have no hopes of living in any\nother way. They seldom think of the future, because they are afraid to\nthink of it. Their present wants employ their whole attention. This is\ntheir misfortune. Others have better luck. They have no time to think of\nwind-falls. Mr. Malthus may take his glass of wine after dinner, and his\nafternoon\u2019s nap, when, having got the Essay on Population out of his\nhead, queen Mab \u2018comes to him with a tythe-pig\u2019s tail, tickling the\nparson as he lies asleep:\u2014then dreams he of another benefice.\u2019 The poor\ncannot indulge in such pleasing speculations. If what they earn beyond\ntheir immediate necessities goes to the alehouse, it is because the\nsevere labour they undergo requires some relaxation, because they are\nwilling to forget the _work-house_, their old age, and the prospect of\ntheir wives and children starving, and to drown care in a mug of ale, in\nnoise, and mirth, and laughter, and old ditties, and coarse jokes, and\nhot disputes; and in that sense of short-lived comfort, independence and\ngood-fellowship, which is necessary to relieve the hurt mind and jaded\nbody. But all these, when our author\u2019s system is once established,\n\u2018shall no more impart,\n\n            \u2018An hour\u2019s importance to the poor man\u2019s heart.\u2019\n\nNo human patience can submit to everlasting toil and self-denial. The\nprospect of mere physical comfort is not a match for continued physical\nsuffering: and the lower classes of the people have no other motives to\nanimate them to bear up against the ills of life, in habits of moral\nreflection, in the pursuits and example of the rich, or in the real\nrespect and credit attached to their own good behaviour. You reduce them\nalmost to the condition of brutes, and then grudge them their coarse\nenjoyments: you make machines of them, and then expect from them\nfirmness, resolution, the love of independence, the fruits of an erect\nand manly spirit. Mr. Malthus, like the Sphinx, destroys his victims by\nthe help of riddles; and makes a snare of impossibilities. As to the\nworkmen and mechanics in manufacturing towns (to say nothing of the\ncloseness and unwholesomeness of their occupations, which would go a\ngood way in accounting for \u2018their drunkenness and dissipation\u2019) the\nnoise and turbulence in which they live, and their being crowded\ntogether as they are must unfit them for enjoying the quiet and\nstillness of domestic life: they are glad to escape from the contempt\nwhich their \u2018squalid appearance\u2019 excites in the well-dressed mob who\nwalk the streets, and hide their greasy clothes and smutched faces in\nthe nearest pot-house; and to say the truth, with respect to those of\nthem who are married, the hard features, the disjointed shapes, the\ncoarse limbs, the carking countenances, and ill-humour of their wives,\noccasioned by the fretful wants of a set of squalling children, cannot\nbe supposed to prove so attractive to them, as \u2018the symmetry of person,\nthe vivacity, the voluptuous softness of temper, the affectionate\nkindness of feeling, the imagination, and the wit\u2019 which in Mr.\nMalthus\u2019s opinion constitute the charm of the sex. After all, are the\nhigher classes a bit better than their inferiors? Are drinking and\ndissipation confined to the poor? As Mr. Malthus ingenuously observes,\n\u2018Our Doctors Commons and the lives that many married men [of the better\nsort] are known to lead sufficiently prove the reverse of this.\u2019 I\nbelieve it will hardly be proposed to make moral merit a rule for the\ndivision of the good things of fortune. The only difference in the vices\nof the rich and the poor is, that the rich can _afford_ theirs better.\nNevertheless they set up for censors and reformers of the morals of the\npoor. I remember to have seen a red-faced swag-bellied bishop (such\nanother as Father Paul in the Duenna) who could drink his two bottles of\nwine without being affected, belch out a severe reprimand against a poor\nlabouring man, who was staggering home after drinking a quart of small\nbeer. As to our author\u2019s plan of _starving_ the poor out of their vices,\nI must say (all circumstances considered) that I think it, in the first\nplace, an impudent proposal, because their executioners are no better\nthan themselves; in the second place, a silly proposal, because, if not\nliterally followed up, it must evidently defeat itself; in the third\nplace, a malignant proposal, because if it were strictly put in\npractice, it could only produce despair and sullen insensibility among\nthe poor, and destroy all traces of justice or humanity among the rich;\nin the fourth place, a lying proposal, because it is contrary to Mr.\nMalthus\u2019s own reasonings, who in many places has shewn that the only way\nto improve the condition of the poor is not by urging them to extremity,\nbut by raising them above want, by inspiring them with a respect for\nthemselves, and a taste for the comforts and decencies of life by\nsharing in them.\n\n\u2018That the poor (says Mr. Malthus) employed in manufactures consider\nparish assistance as a _reason_ why they may spend all the wages which\nthey earn, and enjoy themselves while they can, _appears to be evident_,\nfrom the number of families that upon the failure of any great\nmanufactory, immediately fall upon the parish.\u2019 This is an assumption of\nthe question. Our author here confounds the fact and the reason\ntogether. It appears evident that the manufacturer often spends his\nearnings as he gets them, but not that he does so in the hope that his\nfamily may go to the parish after his death. \u2018A man who might not be\ndeterred from going to the alehouse from the consideration that on his\ndeath or sickness he should leave his wife and family upon the parish,\nmight yet hesitate in thus dissipating his earnings if he were assured\nthat in either of these cases _his family must starve_, or be left to\nthe support of casual bounty.\u2019 Now it has appeared that his conduct is\nregulated by motives and circumstances which have nothing to do with\nwhat happens to his wife and children after his death. It may therefore\nbe questioned whether the catastrophe proposed by Mr. Malthus would have\nthe desired effect. But certainly it could not have this effect as long\nas there was a dependence on casual bounty: and to stop up this resource\nit would be absolutely necessary to call in the aid of the magistrate to\nprevent the indiscreet and unavailing interference of private charity,\nand execute the sentence of the law of nature and the law of God on his\nwife and hapless progeny, justly doomed to starve for the neglect of\ntheir parent. What effect this would have on the \u2018moral sensibility of\nthe nation\u2019 I leave to Mr. Malthus to determine with his well-known\npenetration and humanity. \u2018The suffering a poor family to perish of want\nis bad enough: but I cannot conceive of any thing much more detestable\nor shocking to the feelings than any direct regulation of this kind, by\nwhatever name it is sanctioned.\u2019 Mr. Malthus may perhaps object that I\nhave quoted him unfairly; and applied to the _organizing the starving of\na family_ what he applied to the direct regulation of _infanticide_,\u2014a\nvery different thing! Unfortunately, I have not sufficient delicacy of\n_verbal_ feeling to be able to find out the difference.\u2014Now I recollect,\nhowever, what shocked Mr. Malthus so much in speaking of infanticide was\nthe supposition that the parents were to be forced to destroy their own\nchildren, when they thought they could not maintain them; according to\nour author\u2019s mode of starving a family, the society are only to stand by\nand prevent others from affording them assistance. Here we see there is\nnot that direct violation of the parental affection which, says Mr.\nMalthus, is the principal aggravation of the other case. He explains the\ngrounds of this distinction in another part of his work. \u2018If,\u2019 says he,\n\u2018the parents desert their child, _they_ ought to be answerable for the\ncrime. The infant is, comparatively speaking, of no value to the\nsociety,[31] as others will immediately supply its place. Its principal\nvalue is on account of its being the object of one of the most\ndelightful passions in human nature\u2014parental affection. But if this\nvalue be disregarded by those who are _alone_ in a capacity to feel it,\nthe _society_ cannot be called upon to put itself in their place and has\nno further business in its protection,\u2019 than just to see that its\nparents do not ill-use, or kill or eat it. Nothing can be plainer than\nthe inference from these premises. The society, which is bound to\nprevent or punish the least barbarity in parents towards their children,\nbecause they are to them an object of a very delightful passion, may\nexercise any barbarity it pleases on them itself, because it is not in a\ncapacity to feel this affection towards them. It is not only not called\nupon to put itself in their place, but is bound to prevent others from\ndoing so, and thus reversing the laws of nature, by which \u2018the child is\nconfided exclusively to its parents.\u2019 It is only, says our author, by\nextinguishing every spark of humanity in the breasts of the community\ntowards the children of others, that the ties of parental affection can\never exist in their full force, or be expected \u2018to remain in the state\nin which nature has left them.\u2019 Mr. Malthus may therefore in his zeal\nfor the growth of parental affection, and the entire suppression of\ncommon humanity as subversive of it, very consistently brand every\nattempt of the society to make the parents accomplices in starving their\nchildren, as the greatest injustice, though we may very heroically\nproceed to starve them ourselves, repeating after this high-priest of\nnature, Their blood be upon us and upon _our_ children! This is the best\naccount I can give of the fundamental distinction which Mr. Malthus\nmakes between the impropriety and inhumanity of _destroying children_ by\nlaw, and the propriety and humanity of _starving_ a family by law. But I\nshall recur to the same subject presently, when I come to the detail of\nhis plan.\n\nMr. Malthus devotes the first and second chapters of his fourth book to\nan inquiry into our obligations to regulate the sexual passion by\nconsiderations of prudence, &c. into the general capacity of human\nnature to act from rational motives, and the good effects which would\nresult from such a conduct. He begins his third chapter in the following\nmanner.\n\n\u2018He who publishes a moral code, or system of duties, however firmly he\nmay be convinced of the strong obligation on each individual strictly to\nconform to it, has never the folly to imagine that it will be\nuniversally or even generally practised. But this is no valid objection\nagainst the publication of the code. If it were, the same objection\nwould always have applied; we should be totally without general rules;\nand to the vices of mankind arising from temptation, would be added a\nmuch longer list, than we have at present, of vices from ignorance.\u2019\n[This is well said, and \u2019tis a kind of good deed to say well.] \u2018Judging\nmerely from the light of nature, if we feel convinced of the misery\narising from a redundant population, on the one hand, and of the evils\nand unhappiness, particularly to the female sex, arising from\npromiscuous intercourse, on the other, I do not see how it is possible\nfor any person, who acknowledges the principle of utility as the great\nfoundation of morals, to escape the conclusion that moral restraint,\ntill we are in a condition to support a family, is the strict line of\nduty; and when revelation is taken into the question, this duty\nundoubtedly receives very powerful confirmation. At the same time, I\nbelieve that few of my readers can be less sanguine in their\nexpectations of any great change in the general conduct of men on this\nsubject than I am; and the chief reason, why, in the last chapter, I\nallowed myself to suppose the universal prevalence of this virtue, was,\nthat I might endeavour to remove any imputation on the goodness of the\nDeity, by shewing that the evils arising from the principle of\npopulation were exactly of the same nature as the generality of other\nevils which excite fewer complaints, that they were increased by human\nignorance and indolence, and diminished by human knowledge and virtue;\nand on the supposition, that each individual strictly fulfilled his\nduty, would be almost totally removed; and this, without any general\ndiminution of those sources of pleasure, arising from the regulated\nindulgence of the passions, which have been justly considered as the\nprincipal ingredients of human happiness.\u2019\n\nMr. Malthus here appears in the double character of a politician and\ndivine. Sir Hugh Evans says, \u2018I like not when a \u2019omans has a great\npeard.\u2019 I must say, I do not like to see a philosopher in a cassock. He\nhas you at an unfair advantage, and it is a hundred to one but he will\nmake use of it. When he is pressed hard, or sees his arguments in danger\nof being cut off, he puts them into the false belly of theology. It is\nlike hunting an otter: you do not know where to have him.\u2014What our\nauthor says of moral systems is certainly true: neither the preaching of\nSt. Paul, nor probably his own has been able to put an end to that\npious, courtly race of men, who strive equally to serve God and mammon.\nMr. Malthus in the last chapter took an opportunity of paying his court\nto the former: the leaf is no sooner turned, than he begins to insinuate\nhimself into the good graces of the latter, by disclaiming the sincerity\nof his late professions. In the passage just quoted, Mr. Malthus not\nonly tells you that he had endeavoured to give a more favourable account\nof the expectations of mankind and their capacity for virtue and\nhappiness than he believes has any foundation in human nature; but he at\nthe same time lets you into his motive for so doing, viz. his wish to\nremove any imputation on the divine goodness, which purpose, it seems,\nwould not have been so well answered by the real statement of the fact.\nHaving thus decently paid his compliments to his profession, and\njustified the goodness of God from _the ideal capacity of man for\nvirtue_ he next proceeds to prove the wisdom of human institutions by\nhis _real incapacity_ for it. He was yesterday engaged to whitewash\nProvidence: to day he is retained on the other side of the question,\nwhich he assures his clients shall not suffer through any anxiety of his\nabout consistency. This seems to be playing at fast and loose both with\nreligion and morality. Mr. Malthus has indeed set apart the preceding\nchapter to shew that \u2018the evils arising from the principle of population\nare exactly of the same nature as the generality of other evils which\nexcite fewer complaints, that they were increased by human ignorance and\nindolence, and diminished by human knowledge and virtue.\u2019 But I do not\nknow what right he had to do this, seeing that it is the express object\nof his work to shew that the evils of population are unlike all other\nevils, neither generated by human folly, nor to be removed or palliated\nby human wisdom, but by vice and misery alone: that they are _sui\ngeneris_, and not to be reasoned upon, like any thing else. Neither do I\nunderstand how the evils of population can be said to excite more\ncomplaints than other evils, when Mr. Malthus tells us that till his\ntime nobody had thought of tracing them to their true source, but\nerroneously ascribed them to human institutions, vice, folly, &c. Mr.\nMalthus himself was the first who proved them to be irremediable and\ninherent in the constitution of nature, and thus brought an imputation\nupon Providence. To remove this imputation he supposes them to admit of\na remedy: then again lest any one should take him at his word and be for\napplying this remedy, he says they admit of no such remedy; and that it\nwas all an idle supposition of his own without any foundation, a\nharmless picture drawn to illustrate the _imaginary_ goodness of\nProvidence.\n\n\u2018If it will answer any purpose of illustration, I see no harm in drawing\nthe picture of a society in which each individual is supposed strictly\nto fulfil his duties: nor does a writer appear to be justly liable to\nthe imputation of being visionary, unless he makes such universal or\ngeneral obedience necessary to the practical utility of his system, and\nto that degree of moderate and partial improvement, which is all that\ncan rationally be expected from the most complete knowledge of our\nduties.\n\n\u2018But in this respect, there is an essential difference between that\nimproved state of society which I have supposed in the last chapter, and\nmost of the other speculations on this subject. The improvement there\nsupposed, if we ever should make approaches towards it, is to be\neffected in the way in which we have been in the habit of seeing all the\ngreatest improvements effected, by a direct application to the interest\nand happiness of each individual. It is not required of us to act from\nmotives, to which we are unaccustomed; to pursue a general good, which\nwe may not distinctly comprehend, or the effect of which may be weakened\nby distance or diffusion.\u2019\n\nIs there not such a virtue as patriotism? To what class of motives would\nour author refer this feeling? The way in which Mr. Malthus wishes to\neffect his improvement in the virtue and happiness of mankind, is one in\nwhich no such improvement has hitherto been effected. But I see Mr.\nMalthus\u2019s object. He is only anxious, lest any one should attempt to\nrear the fabric of human excellence on any other basis than that of vice\nand misery. So that we begin with this solid and necessary foundation,\nhe does not care to what height the building is carried. So that we set\nout on our journey of reform through the gate at which Mr. Malthus is\nsitting at the receipt of custom, (whether it faces the road or not) it\ngives him little concern what direction we take, or how far we go\nafterwards, or whether we ever reach our promised destination.\n\n\u2018The duty of each individual is express and intelligible to the humblest\ncapacity. It is merely that he is not to bring beings into the world for\nwhom he cannot find the means of support. When once this subject is\ncleared from the obscurity thrown over it by parochial laws and _private\nbenevolence_, every man must feel the strongest conviction of such an\nobligation. If he cannot support his children, they must _starve_; and\nif he marry in the face of a fair probability that he shall not be able\nto support his children, he is guilty of all the evils which he thus\nbrings upon himself, his wife, and his offspring. It is clearly his\ninterest, and will tend greatly to promote his happiness to defer\nmarrying, till, by industry and economy, he is in a capacity to support\nthe children, that he may reasonably expect from his marriage and as he\ncannot in the mean time, gratify his passions, without violating _an\nexpress command of God_, and running a great risk of injuring himself,\nor some of his fellow creatures, considerations of his own interest and\nhappiness will dictate to him the strongest obligation to moral\nrestraint.\n\n\u2018However powerful may be the impulses of passion _they are generally in\nsome degree modified by reason_. And it does not seem entirely visionary\nto suppose, that if the true and permanent cause of poverty were clearly\nexplained,\u2019 [This I take to be that the rich have more than the poor]\n\u2018and forcibly brought home to each man\u2019s bosom, it would have some, and\nperhaps not an inconsiderable, influence on his conduct; at least, the\nexperiment has never yet been fairly tried.\u2019\n\nIt is astonishing, what a propensity Mr. Malthus has to try experiments,\nif there is any mischief to be done by them. He has a perfect horror of\nexperiments that are to be tried on the higher qualities of our nature,\nfrom which any great, unmixed, and general good is to be expected. But\nin proportion as the end is low, and the means base, he acquires\nconfidence, his tremours forsake him, and he approaches boldly to the\ntask with nerves of iron. His humanity is of a singular cast. What is\ngrand and elevated, seems to be his aversion. Pure benefits are of too\ncloying a quality to please his taste. He is willing to improve the\nmorals of the people by extirpating the common feelings of mankind, and\nwill submit to the introduction of a greater degree of plenty and\ncomfort, provided it is prefaced by famine.\n\nHis ardour is kindled not so much in proportion to the difficulty, as to\nthe disgusting nature of the task. He is a kind of sentimental nightman,\nan amateur chimney-sweeper, a patriotic Jack-ketch. The spirit of\nadventure is roused in him only by the prospect of dirty roads, and\nnarrow, crooked paths. He never flinches where there is any evil to be\ndone, that good may come of it! His present plan is an admirable one of\nthe kind\u2014_Omne tulit punctum_\u2014it comprises both extremes of vice and\nmisery. The poor are to make a formal surrender of their right to\nprivate charity or parish assistance, that the rich may be able to lay\nout all their money on their vices.\n\n\u2018Till these erroneous ideas have been corrected, and the language of\n_nature_ and reason has been generally heard on the subject of\npopulation, instead of the language of error and prejudice, it cannot be\nsaid that any fair experiment has been made with the understandings of\nthe common people; and we cannot justly accuse them of improvidence and\nwant of industry, till they act as they do now, after it has been\nbrought home to their comprehensions, that they are themselves the cause\nof their own poverty; that the means of redress are in their own hands,\nand _in the hands of no other persons whatever; that the society in\nwhich they live, and the government which presides over it, are totally\nwithout power in this respect_; and however ardently they may desire to\nrelieve them, and whatever attempts they may make to do so, they are\nreally and truly unable to execute what they benevolently wish, but\nunjustly promise; that when the wages of labour will not maintain a\nfamily, it is an incontrovertible sign that _their king and country do\nnot want more subjects_, or at least that _they cannot support them_;\nthat if they marry in this case, so far from fulfilling a duty to\nsociety, they are throwing a useless burden on it, at the same time that\nthey are plunging themselves into distress; and that they are acting\ndirectly contrary to the will of God, and bringing down upon themselves\nvarious diseases, which might all, or in a great part, have been\navoided, if they had attended to the repeated admonitions which he\ngives, by the general laws of nature, to every being capable of\nreason.\u2019[32]\n\nThe erroneous ideas of which Mr. Malthus here complains as prevailing in\nthe minds of the common people, to the prejudice of the language of\nreason and nature, are, as he states just before, that their poverty and\ndistress are _in part_ owing to their not getting more for their labour,\nto the slowness with which the parish assist them, to the avarice of the\nrich, and to the institutions of society, or to fortune which has\nassigned them a place so beset with difficulties and dependence! No,\npoverty is owing to none of these causes, but it is owing entirely to\n_itself_. Mr. Burke has said, that people will not be argued into\nslavery. Our author attempts more than this. He tries to persuade them\nout of their senses, and to argue them into slavery and famine besides.\nThere is a distinction which it is sometimes dangerous to insist on in\ncommon life; but which it is necessary to attend to in matters of\nreasoning, and that is the distinction between truth and falsehood. For\ninstance, Mr. Malthus asserts, that the means of remedying their\ncomplaints are in the hands of the poor, and in the hands of no other\npersons whatever. Now this is not true. It is not true that the society\nin which they live and the government which presides over it are\n_totally_ without power in this respect. It is not true that however\nardently they may wish to relieve them, they are utterly unable to\nexecute their benevolent intentions. It is not an incontrovertible sign\nthat their king and country do not want more subjects, and that they\ncannot support them, when the common wages of labour will not maintain a\nfamily. As Mr. Malthus\u2019s positions exist no where but in the Essay of\nPopulation, they will hardly support those weighty practical conclusions\nwhich he wishes to build upon them. Some persons may perhaps be at a\nloss to understand what Mr. Malthus can mean by his assertions. The\nfollowing may be some clue to what in itself has very much the\nappearance of irony.\n\n\u2018Among the other prejudices which have prevailed on the subject of\npopulation, it has been generally thought, that while there is either\nwaste among the rich, or land remaining uncultivated in any country, the\ncomplaint for want of food cannot be justly founded, or, at least, that\nthe pressure of distress upon the poor is to be attributed to the\nill-conduct of the higher classes of society, and the bad management of\nthe land. The real effect, however, of these two circumstances, is\nmerely to narrow the limit of the actual population; but they have\nlittle or no influence on what may be called the average pressure of\ndistress on the poorer members of society. If our ancestors had been so\nfrugal and industrious, and had transmitted such habits to their\nposterity, that nothing superfluous was now consumed by the higher\nclasses, no horses were used for pleasure, and no land was left\nuncultivated, a striking difference would appear in the state of the\nactual population; but probably none whatever, in the state of the lower\nclasses of people, with respect to the price of labour, and the facility\nof supporting a family. The waste among the rich and the horses kept for\npleasure, have indeed a little the effect of the consumption of grain in\ndistilleries, noticed before with regard to China. On the supposition\nthat the food consumed in this manner may be withdrawn on the occasion\nof a scarcity, and be applied to the relief of the poor, they operate,\ncertainly, as far as they go, like granaries which are only opened at\nthe time that they are most wanted, and must therefore tend rather to\nbenefit than injure the lower classes of society.\n\n\u2018With regard to uncultivated land, it is evident that its effect upon\nthe poor is neither to injure, nor to benefit them. The sudden\ncultivation of it, will indeed tend to improve their condition for a\ntime, and the neglect of lands before cultivated, will certainly make\ntheir situation worse for a certain period; but when no changes of this\nkind are going forward, the effect of uncultivated land on the lower\nclasses, operates merely like the possession of a smaller territory.\u2019\n\nAfter what has been said in various parts of these observations, I might\nleave these passages to the contempt of the reader. But Mr. Malthus\nshall not complain of my remissness. I will give him heaped measure. I\nsay then that the argument here employed leads to a direct absurdity:\nfor it would justify any degree of neglect, or waste, or wanton abuse\nthat can be imagined. If thirty-nine out of the forty counties in\nEngland were laid waste to-morrow, this would be no evil, according to\nMr. Malthus, because it would not increase the average pressure of\ndistress in the remaining one. If half the corn that is grown every\nyear, besides what is already employed in supplying the waste of the\nrich, were regularly sent off by waggon-loads, and thrown into the sea,\nthere would be still no harm done. A _striking_ difference would\nundoubtedly appear in the number of poor people, but probably none\nwhatever in the state of those who had not been starved. If double the\nnumber of horses were kept for pleasure, and only half the number of\npoor were kept alive, these latter would have no reason to complain,\nbecause they would be as well, or better off than ever; and if a limited\nnumber are tolerably well provided for, this is all that can ever be\nexpected, because by the laws of nature it is impossible to provide for\nan unlimited number. To say nothing of those immense granaries and\nboundless resources which are thus formed in the uncultivated parts of\nthe earth, or which might be created at any time of extraordinary\ndistress by employing in the service of man what had hitherto been\nprovidently reserved for the beasts.\n\nWhile there is waste among the rich, or neglect of lands, or while the\nbreed of horses is encouraged so as to put a stop to the breed of men, I\ndeny that the distresses of the poor, or the restraints on population\nare the necessary effects of the laws of nature, or of the unavoidable\ndisproportion between the increase of mankind and the capacity of the\nearth to produce food for a greater number. But Mr. Malthus has his\nusual resource. Though the distresses of the poor were actually relieved\nas they might be, and though the unnecessary checks to population were\ntaken off, yet the time would come when these wants could no longer be\nsupplied, and when the restraints on population would become necessary,\nfrom the inability of the earth to yield any more, and from the whole\nproduce being applied to the best advantage. This is undoubtedly true:\nbut I do not think it a reason that we are not to put off the evil as\nlong as we can, or that we are not to attempt any improvement, because\nwe cannot go on for ever improving. Death is certain, and \u2018will come\nwhen it will come.\u2019 Is that a reason why I should take poison? There is\nin all Mr. Malthus\u2019s arguments on this subject the same _twist_ that\nthere was in the Irish servant, who was told to call his master early,\nand waked him two hours before the time to tell him how much longer he\nhad to sleep. Mr. Malthus would have insisted on his getting up and\ndressing himself in the middle of the night.\n\nMr. Malthus allows, that \u2018the object of those who really wish to better\nthe condition of the poor must be to raise the relative proportion\nbetween the price of labour, and the price of provisions.\u2019 Almost in the\nnext paragraph, however, he adds, that if we are really serious in this\nobject, \u2018we must explain to them the true nature of their situation, and\nshew them that _the withholding the supplies of labour is the only\npossible way of raising its real price_.\u2019 I cannot help thinking, to use\nhis own words, that our author\u2019s \u2018benevolence to the poor must be either\nchildish play, or hypocrisy: that it must be either to amuse himself, or\nto pacify the minds of the common people with a mere shew of attention\nto their wants.\u2019 He proceeds to instruct the poor in their true\nsituation in a chapter which requires a few comments.\n\n\u2018The pressure of distress on the lower classes of people, with the habit\nof attributing this distress to their rulers, appears to me to be the\nrock of defence, the castle, the guardian spirit, of despotism. It\naffords to the tyrant the fatal and unanswerable plea of _necessity_.\u2019\n[That is Mr. Malthus\u2019s plea.] \u2018While any dissatisfied man of talents has\npower to persuade the lower classes of people, that all their poverty\nand distress arise solely from the iniquity of the government, though\nperhaps the greatest part of what they suffer is totally unconnected\nwith this cause, it is evident that the seeds of fresh discontents, and\nfresh revolutions, are continually sowing.\u2019\n\nThat is, the way to prevent revolutions, and at the same time to produce\nlasting reforms is to persuade the people that all the evils which they\nsuffer, or which the government may chuse to inflict upon them are their\nown fault. The way to put governments upon their good behaviour is to\ngive them a licence to do as much mischief as they please, without being\nanswerable for it.\n\n\u2018Of the tendency of mobs to produce tyranny, we may not be long without\nan example in this country. _As a friend to freedom, and an enemy to\nlarge standing armies_, it is with extreme reluctance that I am\ncompelled to acknowledge, that, had it not been for the organized force\nin the country, the distresses of the people during the late scarcities,\nencouraged by the extreme ignorance and folly of many among the higher\nclasses, might have driven them to commit the most dreadful outrages,\nand ultimately to involve the country in all the horrors of famine.\u2019\n\nDoes Mr. Malthus think that this hint will dispose the government to\nkeep up their large standing armies, or to mitigate the distresses of\nthe people? I wonder, if Blifil had happened to be an author, whether he\nmight not have written such a book as this.\n\n\u2018Should such periods often recur, a recurrence which we have too much\nreason to apprehend from the present state of the country, the prospect\nwhich opens to our view is melancholy in the extreme. The English\nconstitution will be seen hastening with rapid strides to the\n_Euthanasia_ foretold by Hume; unless its progress be interrupted by\nsome popular commotion; and this alternative presents a picture still\nmore appalling to the imagination. If political discontents were blended\nwith the cries of hunger, and a revolution were to take place by the\ninstrumentality of a mob, clamouring for want of food, the consequences\nwould be unceasing change and unceasing carnage, the bloody career of\nwhich, nothing but the establishment of some complete despotism could\narrest.\u2019\n\nThe gentleman seems greatly alarmed at his own predictions. He points\nout to government the dangers arising from mobs; and shews that these\nagain arise from discontent, and repining against the good order of\nsociety. The way proposed to cure them of this discontent, and these\nfalse notions of society is to break asunder at once the link of\nhumanity which binds the poor to the rich, to reduce them to extremity,\nto cut off all hope, all over-weening expectation, all mutual kindness\nand good offices, by exploding the very idea of the rights of the poor,\nor the duties of the rich, and thus to tame them so effectually and\nsystematically, that we shall be in no danger from mobs, revolutions, or\nmilitary despotism, but shall conclude with a happy Euthanasia!\n\n\u2018To say that our conduct is not to be regulated by circumstances, is to\nbetray an ignorance of the most _solid_ and incontrovertible principles\nof morality.\u2019 [An odd phrase. Solid seems to imply something fixed. We\nshould hardly talk of a _solid_ bridge of boats, though they might\nafford tolerably safe footing.] \u2018Though the admission of this principle\nmay sometimes afford a cloke to changes of opinion that do not result\nfrom the purest motives; yet the admission of a contrary principle would\nbe productive of infinitely worse consequences. The phrase of existing\ncircumstances has, I believe, not unfrequently created a smile in the\nEnglish House of Commons; but the smile should have been reserved for\nthe application of the phrase and not have been excited by the phrase\nitself.\u2019 [He teaches us to smile by the book.] \u2018A very frequent\nrepetition of it, has indeed, of itself, rather a suspicious air; and\nits application should always be watched with the most jealous and\nanxious attention; but no man ought to be judged _in limine_ for saying,\nthat existing circumstances had obliged him to alter his opinions and\nconduct. The country gentlemen were perhaps too easily convinced that\nexisting circumstances called upon them to give up some of the most\nvaluable privileges of Englishmen; but, as far as they were really\nconvinced of this obligation, they acted consistently with the _clearest\nrule_ of morality.\u2019 [Begging the learned writer\u2019s pardon, it is rather\nthe exception than the rule. Did Junius Brutus, when he killed his son,\nact in conformity to the _clearest rule of morality_? Mr. Malthus has\nnot quite got rid of the leaven of his old philosophy.]\n\n\u2018The degree of power to be given to the civil government, and the\nmeasure of our submission to it, must be determined by general\nexpediency.\u2019\n\nThis is saying a good deal. The rule which Mr. Malthus then lays down\nfor \u2018a rising of the people,\u2019 seems to be that when they are enlightened\nand well off, that is, when the government is a good one, they may rebel\nagainst it: but when they are kept in a state of ignorance and want,\nthen they are to blame, if they are at all refractory: they are to be\nconsidered as the causes of that very oppression which they are\nendeavouring to resist, and as giving a farther handle to that tyranny,\nwhich their superiors are thus forced to exercise in self-defence, not\nfrom any innate love of power, or predilection for violent measures.\n\n\u2018All improvements in government must necessarily originate with persons\nof some education, and these will of course be found among the people of\nproperty. Whatever may be said of a few, it is impossible that the great\nmass of the people of property should be really interested in the abuses\nof government. They merely submit to them, from the fear, that an\nendeavour to remove them, might be productive of greater evils. Could we\nbut take away this fear, reform and improvement would proceed with as\nmuch facility, as the removal of nuisances, or the paving and lighting\nthe streets. Remove all apprehension from the tyranny or folly of the\npeople, and the tyranny of government could not stand a moment. It would\nthen appear in its proper deformity, without palliation, without\npretext, without protector. Naturally feeble in itself, when it was once\nstripped naked, and deprived of the support of public opinion, and of\nthe great _plea of necessity_, it would fall without a struggle.\u2019\n\nThis is a new view of the subject. What then, mankind are governed by\nthe pure love of justice! The people of property and education have no\nvices or follies of their own, which blind their understandings, no\nprejudices about royalty, or aristocracy, or church or state, no\nattachment to party, no dependence on great men, no hopes of preferment,\nno connections, no privileges, no interest in the abuses of government,\nno pride, none of the _esprit de corps_, to hinder them from pronouncing\nsentence on the laws, institutions, uses, and abuses of society with the\nsame calmness, disinterestedness, and wisdom, as they would upon\ncleaning a sewer, or paving a street.\n\n\u2018The most successful supporters of tyranny are without doubt those\ngeneral declaimers, who attribute the distresses of the poor, and almost\nall the evils to which society is subject, to human institutions and the\niniquity of governments.\u2019\n\nThis is like those highwaymen, who attribute their ill treatment of\ntheir victims to the resistance they make.\n\n\u2018Whatever therefore may be the intention of those indiscriminate and\nwholesale accusations against governments, their real effect undoubtedly\nis, to add a weight of talents and principles to the prevailing power\nwhich it never would have received otherwise.\u2019\n\nThis is possible: but the effect of Mr. Malthus\u2019s method would be that\nthey would not want the additional weight either of talents or\nprinciple, but would laugh in your face.\n\n\u2018The inference, therefore, which Mr. Paine and others have drawn against\ngovernments from the unhappiness of the people, is palpably unfair; and\nbefore we give a sanction to such accusations, it is a debt we owe to\ntruth and justice, to ascertain how much of this unhappiness arises from\nthe principle of population, and how much is fairly to be attributed to\ngovernment. When this distinction has been properly made, and all the\nvague, indefinite, and false accusations removed, government would\nremain, as it ought to be, clearly responsible for the rest. A tenfold\nweight would be immediately given to the cause of the people, and every\nman of principle would join in asserting and enforcing, if necessary,\ntheir rights.\u2019\n\n_Timeo Danaos, et dona ferentes._ Our author here wishes to delay the\nquestion in order to give additional weight to the cause of the people.\nThis is something as if upon a stranger coming into a house almost\nfainting with hunger and cold, we should advise him not to go near the\nfire, nor take any thing to eat, for that there is a great apothecary in\nthe neighbourhood who sometimes calls in about that time of the day, who\nwill be able to tell him exactly how much of his illness proceeds from\ncold, and how much from hunger, whether he should eat, or warm himself\nfirst, and how the one would assist the other. The man might naturally\nanswer, I know that I am very cold and hungry: I will therefore first\nsit down by the fire, and if, in the mean time, you can let me have any\nthing to eat, I shall be heartily glad of it. Otherwise the advice of\nthe apothecary will come too late.\n\n\u2018I cannot help thinking, therefore, that a knowledge generally\ncirculated, that the principal cause of want and unhappiness is\nunconnected with government, and totally beyond its power to remove\nwould, instead of giving any advantage to governments, give a great\nadditional weight to the popular side of the question, by removing the\ndangers with which, from ignorance, it is at present accompanied: and\nthus tend, in a very powerful manner, to promote the cause of rational\nfreedom.\u2019\n\nThe mode in which Mr. Malthus strengthens the popular side is by\ndisarming it of all power or pretence for resistance. Undoubtedly that\nmust be a strange sort of strength which is founded on impotence. The\npeople are only secure against the encroachments of power from their\ninability to resist it. This is like clapping a man into a dungeon to\nsave him from the pursuit of his creditors. Mr. Malthus promotes the\ncause of rational freedom, as the husband secured the virtue of his wife\nin the sign of the Good Woman.\n\nMr. Malthus\u2019s plan for the abolition of the poor laws is as follows:\n\n\u2018I should propose a regulation to be made, declaring, that no child born\nfrom any marriage, taking place after the expiration of a year from the\ndate of the law; and no illegitimate child born two years from the same\ndate, should ever be entitled to parish assistance. And to give a more\ngeneral knowledge of this law, and to enforce it more strongly on the\nminds of the lower classes of people, the clergyman of each parish\nshould after the publication of banns, read a short address, stating the\nstrong obligation on every man to support his own children; the\nimpropriety, and even immorality, of marrying without a fair prospect of\nbeing able to do this; the evils which had resulted to the poor\nthemselves, from the attempt which had been made to assist by public\ninstitutions in a duty which ought to be exclusively appropriated to\nparents; and the absolute necessity which had at length appeared, of\nabandoning all such institutions, on account of their producing effects\ntotally opposite to those which were intended.\n\n\u2018This would operate as a fair, distinct, and precise notice, which no\nman could well mistake; and without pressing hard on any particular\nindividuals, would at once throw off the rising generation from that\nmiserable and helpless dependence upon the government and the rich, the\nmoral as well as physical consequences of which are almost incalculable.\n\n\u2018After the public notice which I have proposed had been given, and the\nsystem of poor laws had ceased with regard to the rising generation, if\nany man chose to marry, without a prospect of being able to support a\nfamily, he should have the most perfect liberty so to do. Though to\nmarry, in this case, is in my opinion clearly an immoral act, yet it is\nnot one which society can justly take upon itself to prevent or punish;\nbecause the punishment provided for it by the laws of nature, falls\ndirectly, and most severely upon the individual who commits the act, and\nthrough him, only more remotely and feebly on the society. When nature\nwill govern and punish for us, it is a very miserable ambition to wish\nto snatch the rod from her hands, and draw upon ourselves the odium of\nexecutioner. To the punishment therefore of nature he should be left,\nthe punishment of severe want. He has erred in the face of a most clear\nand precise warning, and can have no just reason to complain of any\nperson but himself, when he feels the consequences of his error. All\nparish assistance should be most rigidly denied him: and if the hand of\nprivate charity be stretched forth in his relief, the interests of\nhumanity imperiously require that it should be administered very\nsparingly. He should be taught to know that the laws of nature, which\nare the laws of God, had doomed him and his family to starve for\ndisobeying their repeated admonitions;\u2019 [nay his family had no hand in\ndisobeying these admonitions] \u2018that he had no claim of _right_ on\nsociety for the smallest portion of food, beyond that which his labour\nwould fairly purchase; and that if he and his family were saved from\nsuffering the extremities of hunger, he would owe it to the pity of some\nkind benefactor, to whom, therefore, he ought to be bound by the\nstrongest ties of gratitude.\n\n\u2018If this system were pursued, we need be under no apprehensions that the\nnumber of persons in extreme want would be beyond the power and the will\nof the benevolent to supply. The sphere for the exercise of private\ncharity would, I am confident, be less than it is at present; and the\nonly difficulty would be, to restrain the hand of benevolence from\nassisting those in distress in so indiscriminate a manner as to\nencourage indolence and want of foresight in others.\u2019\n\nI am not sorry that I am at length come to this passage. It will I hope\ndecide the reader\u2019s opinion of the benevolence, wisdom, piety, candour,\nand disinterested simplicity of Mr. Malthus\u2019s mind. Any comments that I\nmight make upon it to strengthen this impression must be faint and\nfeeble. I give up the task of doing justice to the moral beauties that\npervade every line of it, in despair. There are some instances of an\nheroical contempt for the narrow prejudices of the world, of a perfect\nrefinement from the vulgar feelings of human nature, that must only\nsuffer by a comparison with any thing else.\n\nMr. Malthus prefaces his plan by saying,\n\n\u2018I have reflected much on the subject of the poor laws, and hope\ntherefore that I shall be excused in venturing to suggest a mode of\ntheir gradual abolition, to which I confess that at present I can see no\nmaterial objection. Of this indeed I feel nearly convinced, that should\nwe ever become sufficiently sensible of the wide-spreading tyranny,\ndependence, indolence, and unhappiness, which they create, as seriously\nto make an effort to abolish them, we shall be compelled by a sense of\njustice to adopt the principle, if not the plan, which I shall mention.\nIt seems impossible to get rid of so extensive a system of support,\nconsistently with humanity, without applying ourselves directly to its\nvital principle, and endeavouring to counteract that deeply-seated\ncause, which occasions the rapid growth of all such establishments, and\ninvariably renders them inadequate to their object. As a previous step\neven to any considerable alteration in the present system, which would\ncontract, or stop the increase of the relief to be given, it appears to\nme that we are bound in justice and honour formally to disclaim the\n_right_ of the poor to support.\u2019\n\nNow I shall not myself be so uncandid as not to confess, that I think\nthe poor laws bad things; and that it would be well, if they could be\ngot rid of, consistently with humanity and justice. This I do not think\nthey could in the present state of things and other circumstances\nremaining as they are. The reason why I object to Mr. Malthus\u2019s plan is\nthat it does not go to the root of the evil, or attack it in its\nprinciple, but its effects. He confounds the cause with the effect. The\nwide spreading tyranny, dependence, indolence, and unhappiness of which\nMr. Malthus is so sensible, are not occasioned by the increase of the\npoor-rates, but these are the natural consequence of that increasing\ntyranny, dependence, indolence, and unhappiness occasioned by other\ncauses.\n\nMr. Malthus desires his readers to look at the enormous proportion in\nwhich the poor-rates have increased within the last ten years. But have\nthey increased in any greater proportion than the other taxes, which\nrendered them necessary, and which I think were employed for much more\nmischievous purposes? I would ask, what have the poor got by their\nencroachments for the last ten years? Do they work less hard? Are they\nbetter fed? Do they marry oftener, and with better prospects? Are they\ngrown pampered and insolent? Have they changed places with the rich?\nHave they been cunning enough, by means of the poor-laws, to draw off\nall their wealth and superfluities from the men of property? Have they\ngot so much as a quarter of an hour\u2019s leisure, a farthing candle, or a\ncheese-paring more than they had? Has not the price of provisions risen\nenormously? Has not the price of labour almost stood still? Have not the\ngovernment and the rich had their way in every thing? Have they not\ngratified their ambition, their pride, their obstinacy, their ruinous\nextravagance? Have they not squandered the resources of the country as\nthey pleased? Have they not heaped up wealth on themselves, and their\ndependents? Have they not multiplied sinecures, places, and pensions?\nHave they not doubled the salaries of those that existed before? Has\nthere been any want of new creations of peers, who would thus be\nimpelled to beget heirs to their titles and estates, and saddle the\nyounger branches of their rising families, by means of their new\ninfluence, on the country at large? Has there been any want of\ncontracts, of loans, of monopolies of corn, of good understanding\nbetween the rich and the powerful to assist one another, and to fleece\nthe poor? Have the poor prospered? Have the rich declined? What then\nhave they to complain of? What ground is there for the apprehension,\nthat wealth is secretly changing hands, and that the whole property of\nthe country will shortly be absorbed in the poor\u2019s fund? Do not the poor\ncreate their own fund? Is not the necessity for such a fund first\noccasioned by the unequal weight with which the rich press upon the\npoor, and has not the increase of that fund in the last ten years been\noccasioned by the additional exorbitant demands, which have been made\nupon the poor and industrious, which without some assistance from the\npublic they could not possibly have answered? Whatever is the increase\nin the nominal amount of the poor\u2019s fund, will not the rich always be\nable ultimately to throw the burthen of it on the poor themselves? But\nMr. Malthus is a man of general principles. He cares little about these\ncircumstantial details, and petty objections. He takes higher ground. He\ndeduces all his conclusions, by an infallible logic, from the laws of\nGod and nature. When our Essayist shall prove to me, that by these paper\nbullets of the brain, by his ratios of the increase of food and the\nincrease of mankind, he has prevented one additional tax, or taken off\none oppressive duty, that he has made a single rich man retrench one\narticle at his table, that he has made him keep a dog or a horse the\nless, or part with a single vice, arguing from a mathematical\nadmeasurement of the size of the earth, and the number of inhabitants it\ncan contain, he shall have my perfect leave to disclaim the right of the\npoor to subsistence, and to tie them down by severe penalties to their\ngood behaviour on the same profound principles. But why does Mr. Malthus\npractise his demonstrations on the poor only? Why are they to have a\nperfect system of rights and duties prescribed to them? I do not see why\nthey alone should be put to live on these _metaphysical_ board-wages,\nwhy they should be forced to submit to a course of _abstraction_; or why\nit should be meat and drink to them, more than to others, to do the will\nof God. Mr. Malthus\u2019s gospel is preached only to the poor!\u2014Even if I\napproved of our author\u2019s plan, I should object to the principle on which\nit is founded. The parson of the parish, when a poor man comes to be\nmarried\u2014No, not so fast. The author does not say, whether the lecture he\nproposes is to be read to the poor only, or to all ranks of people.\nWould it not sound oddly, if when the squire, who is himself worth a\nhundred thousand pounds, is going to be married to the rector\u2019s\ndaughter, who is to have fifty, the curate should read them a formal\nlecture on their obligation to maintain their own children, and not turn\nthem on the parish? Would it be necessary to go through the form of the\naddress, when an amorous couple of eighty presented themselves at the\naltar? If the admonition were left to the parson\u2019s own discretion, what\naffronts would he not subject himself to, from his neglect of old maids,\nand superannuated widows, and from his applying himself familiarly to\nthe little shop-keeper, or thriving mechanic? Well then let us suppose\nthat a very poor hard-working man comes to be married, and that the\nclergyman can take the liberty with him: he is to warn him first against\nfornication, and in the next place against matrimony. These are the two\ngreatest sins which a poor man can commit, who can neither be supposed\nto keep his wife, nor his girl. Mr. Malthus, however, does not think\nthem equal: for he objects strongly to a country fellow\u2019s marrying a\ngirl whom he has debauched, or, as the phrase is, making an honest woman\nof her, as aggravating the crime, because by this means the parish will\nprobably have three or four children to maintain instead of one.\nHowever, as it seems rather too late to recommend fornication or any\nthing else to a man who is actually come to be married (he must be a\nstrange sawney who could turn back at the church-door after bringing a\npretty rosy girl to hear a lecture on the principle of population) it is\nmost natural to suppose that he would marry the young woman in spite of\nthis principle. Here then he errs in the face of a precise warning, and\nshould be left to the punishment of _nature_, the punishment of severe\nwant. When he begins to feel the consequences of his error, all parish\nassistance is to be rigidly denied him, and the interests of humanity\nimperiously require that all other assistance should be withheld from\nhim, or most sparingly administered. In the mean time to reconcile him\nto this treatment, and let him see that he has nobody to complain of but\nhimself, the parson of the parish comes to him with the certificate of\nhis marriage, and a copy of the warning he had given him at the time, by\nwhich he is taught to know that the laws of nature, which are the laws\nof God, had doomed him and his family to starve for disobeying their\nrepeated admonitions; that he had no claim of right to the smallest\nportion of food beyond what his labour would actually purchase; and that\nhe ought to kiss the feet and lick the dust off the shoes of him, who\ngave him a reprieve from the just sentence which the laws of God and\nnature had passed upon him. To make this clear to him, it would be\nnecessary to put the Essay on Population into his hands, to instruct him\nin the nature of a geometrical and arithmetical series, in the necessary\nlimits to population from the size of the earth, and here would come in\nMr. Malthus\u2019s plan of education for the poor, writing, arithmetic, the\nuse of the globes, &c. for the purpose of proving to them the necessity\nof their being starved. It cannot be supposed that the poor man (what\nwith his poverty and what with being priest-ridden) should be able to\nresist this body of evidence, he would open his eyes to his error, and\n\u2018would submit to the sufferings that were absolutely irremediable with\nthe fortitude of a man, and the resignation of a Christian.\u2019 He and his\nfamily might then be sent round the parish in a starving condition,\naccompanied by the constables and _quondam_ overseers of the poor, to\nsee that no person, blind to \u2018the interests of humanity,\u2019 practised upon\nthem the abominable deception of attempting to relieve their remediless\nsufferings, and by the parson of the parish to point out to the\nspectators the inevitable consequences of sinning against the laws of\nGod and man. By celebrating a number of these _Auto da fes_ yearly in\nevery parish, the greatest publicity would be given to the principle of\npopulation, \u2018the strict line of duty would be pointed out to every man,\u2019\nenforced by the most powerful sanctions, justice and humanity would\nflourish, they would be understood to signify that the poor have no\nright to live by their labour, and that the feelings of compassion and\nbenevolence are best shewn by denying them charity, the poor would no\nlonger be dependent on the rich, the rich could no longer wish to reduce\nthe poor into a more complete subjection to their will, all causes of\ncontention, of jealousy, and of irritation would have ceased between\nthem, the struggle would be over, each class would fulfil the task\nassigned by heaven, the rich would oppress the poor without remorse, the\npoor would submit to oppression with a pious gratitude and resignation,\nthe greatest harmony would prevail between the government and the\npeople, there would be no longer any seditions, tumults, complaints,\npetitions, partisans of liberty, or tools of power, no grumbling, no\nrepining, no discontented men of talents proposing reforms, and\nfrivolous remedies, but we should all have the same gaiety and lightness\nof heart, and the same happy spirit of resignation that a man feels when\nhe is seized with the plague, who thinks no more of the physician, but\nknows that his disorder is without cure. The best laid schemes are\nsubject, however, to unlucky reverses. Some such seem to lie in the way\nof that pleasing Euthanasia, and contented submission to the grinding\nlaw of necessity, projected by Mr. Malthus. We might never reach the\nphilosophic temper of the inhabitants of modern Greece and Turkey in\nthis respect. Many little things might happen to interrupt our progress,\nif we were put into ever so fair a train. For instance, the men might\nperhaps be talked over by the parson, and their understandings being\nconvinced by the geometrical and arithmetical ratios, or at least so far\npuzzled, that they would have nothing to say for themselves, they might\nprepare to submit to their fate with a tolerable grace. But I am afraid\nthat the women might prove refractory. They never will hearken to\nreason, and are much more governed by their feelings than by\ncalculations. While the husband was instructing his wife in the\nprinciples of population, she might probably answer that she did not see\nwhy her children should starve when the squire\u2019s lady, or the parson\u2019s\nlady kept half a dozen lap-dogs, and that it was but the other day that\nbeing at the hall, or the parsonage house, she heard Miss declare that\nnot one of the brood that were just littered should be drowned\u2014It was\n_so inhuman_ to kill the poor little things\u2014Surely the children of the\npoor are as good as puppy-dogs! Was it not a week ago that the rector\nhad a new pack of terriers sent down, and did I not hear the squire\nswear a tremendous oath, that he would have Mr. Such-a-one\u2019s fine\nhunter, if it cost him a hundred guineas? Half that sum would save us\nfrom ruin.\u2014After this curtain-lecture, I conceive that the husband might\nbegin to doubt the force of the demonstrations he had read and heard,\nand the next time his clerical monitor came, might pluck up courage to\nquestion the matter with him; and as we of the male sex, though dull of\napprehension, are not slow at taking a hint, and can draw tough\ninferences from it, it is not impossible but the parson might be\n_gravelled_. In consequence of these accidents happening more than once,\nit would be buzzed about that the laws of God and nature, on which so\nmany families had been doomed to starve, were not so clear as had been\npretended. This would soon get wind among the mob: and at the next grand\nprocession of the Penitents of famine, headed by Mr. Malthus in person,\nsome discontented man of talents, who could not bear the distresses of\n_others_ with the fortitude of a man and the resignation of a Christian,\nmight undertake to question Mr. Malthus, whether the laws of nature or\nof God, to which he had piously sacrificed so many victims, signified\nany thing more than the limited extent of the earth, and the natural\nimpossibility of providing for more than a limited number of human\nbeings; and whether those laws could be justly put in force, to the very\nletter, while the actual produce of the earth, by being better\nhusbanded, or more equally distributed, or given to men and not to\nbeasts, might maintain in comfort double the number that actually\nexisted, and who, not daring to demand a _fair_ proportion of the\nproduce of their labour, humbly crave charity, and are refused out of\nregard to the interests of justice and humanity. Our philosopher, at\nthis critical juncture not being able to bring into the compass of a few\nwords all the history, metaphysics, morality and divinity, or all the\nintricacies, subtleties, and callous equivocations contained in his\nquarto volume, might hesitate and be confounded\u2014his own feelings and\nprejudices might add to his perplexity\u2014his interrogator might persist in\nhis question\u2014the mob might become impatient for an answer, and not\nfinding one to their minds, might proceed to extremities. Our\nunfortunate Essayist (who by that time would have become a bishop) might\nbe ordered to the lamp-post, and his book committed to the flames.\u2014I\ntremble to think of what would follow:\u2014the poor laws would be again\nrenewed, and the poor no longer doomed to starve by the laws of God and\nnature! Some such, I apprehend, might be the consequence of attempting\nto enforce the abolition of the poor-laws, the extinction of private\ncharity, and of instructing the poor in their metaphysical rights. In a\nfew years time it is probable, however, that no such consequences would\nfollow. In that time, if Mr. Malthus\u2019s systematic ardour will let him\nwait so long, they may be gradually crushed low enough in the scale of\nexistence to be ripe for the ironical benefits, and sarcastic\ninstruction prepared for them. Mr. Malthus says,\n\n\u2018The scanty relief granted to persons in distress, the capricious and\ninsulting manner in which it is sometimes distributed by the overseers,\nand the natural and becoming pride not yet quite extinct among the\npeasantry of England, have deterred the more thinking and virtuous part\nof them, from venturing on marriage, without some better prospect of\nmaintaining their families, than mere parish assistance. The desire of\nbettering our condition and the fear of making it worse, like the _vis\nmedicatrix natur\u00e6_ in physics, is the _vis medicatrix reipublic\u00e6_ in\npolitics, and is continually counteracting the disorders arising from\nnarrow human institutions. In spite of the prejudices in favour of\npopulation, and the direct encouragements to marriage from the poor\nlaws, it operates as a preventive check to increase; and happy for this\ncountry is it that it does so.\u2019\n\nIf then this natural repugnance in the poor to subject themselves to the\nnecessity of parish relief has ceased to operate, must it not be owing\nto extreme distress, or to the degradation of character, consequent upon\nit? How does Mr. Malthus propose to remedy this? By subjecting them to\nsevere distress, and _teaching them patience under their sufferings_.\nBut the rational desire of bettering our condition and the fear of\nmaking it worse is not increased by its being made worse. The standard\nof our notions of decency and comfort is not raised by a familiarity\nwith unmitigated wretchedness, nor is the love of independence\nheightened by insults, and contempt, and by a formal mockery of the\nprinciples of justice and humanity. On the previous habits and character\nof the people, it is, however, that the degree of misery incurred always\ndepends, as far as relates to themselves. The consequence of an\neffectual abolition of the poor laws would be all the immediate misery\nthat would be produced, aggravated by the additional depression, and\nproneness to misery in the lower classes, and a beautiful putrefaction\nof all the common feelings of human nature in the higher ones. Finally,\nI agree with Mr. Malthus, that, \u2018if, as in Ireland and in Spain, and\nmany of the southern countries, the people be in so degraded a state, as\nto propagate their species like brutes, it matters little, whether they\nhave poor laws or not. Misery in all its various forms must be the\npredominant check to their increase: and with, or without poor laws, no\nstretch of human ingenuity and exertion could rescue the people from the\nmost extreme poverty and wretchedness.\u2019\n\nAs to the metaphysical subtleties, by which Mr. Malthus endeavours to\nprove that we ought systematically to visit the sins of the father on\nthe children, and keep up the stock of vice and misery in the family\n(from which it would follow, that the children of thieves and robbers\nought either to be hanged outright, or at least brought up in such a\nmanner as to ensure their following the fate of their parents) I feel\nand know my own superiority on that ground so well, that it would be\nungenerous to push it farther. Mr. Malthus has a curious chapter on old\nmaids. He might have written one on suicides, and another on\nprostitutes. As far as the question of population is concerned, they are\ncertainly of more service to the community, because they tempt others to\nfollow their example, whereas an old maid is a beacon to frighten others\ninto matrimony. But this, says our author, is owing to unjust prejudice.\nI shall give the reader some of his arguments, as otherwise he might not\nguess at them.\n\n\u2018It is not enough to abolish all the positive institutions which\nencourage population; but we must endeavour, at the same time, to\ncorrect the prevailing opinions, which have the same, or perhaps even a\nmore powerful, effect. The matron who has reared a family of ten or\ntwelve children, and whose sons, perhaps, may be fighting the battles of\ntheir country, is apt to think that society owes her much; and this\nimaginary debt, society is, in general, fully inclined to acknowledge.\nBut if the subject be fairly considered, and the respected matron\nweighed in the scales of justice against the neglected old maid, it is\npossible that the matron might kick the beam. She will appear rather in\nthe character of a monopolist, than of a great benefactor to the state.\nIf she had not married and had so many children, other members of the\nsociety might have enjoyed this satisfaction; and there is no particular\nreason for supposing that her sons would fight better for their country\nthan the sons of other women. She has therefore rather subtracted from,\nthan added to, the happiness of the other part of society. The old maid,\non the contrary, has exalted others by depressing herself. Her\nself-denial has made room for another marriage, without any additional\ndistress; and she has not, like the generality of men, in avoiding one\nerror, fallen into its opposite. She has really and truly contributed\nmore to the happiness of the rest of the society arising from the\npleasures of marriage, than if she had entered into this union herself,\nand had besides portioned twenty maidens with a hundred pounds each;\nwhose particular happiness would have been balanced, either by an\nincrease in the general difficulties of rearing children and getting\nemployment, or by the necessity of celibacy in twenty other maidens\nsomewhere else. Like the truly benevolent man in an irremediable\nscarcity, she has diminished her own consumption, instead of raising up\na few particular people, by pressing down the rest. On a fair\ncomparison, therefore, she seems to have a better founded claim to the\ngratitude of society than the matron. Whether we could always completely\nsympathize with the motives of her conduct, has not much to do with the\nquestion. The particular motive which influenced the matron to marry,\nwas certainly not the good of her country. To refuse a proper tribute of\nrespect to the old maid, because she was not directly influenced in her\nconduct by the desire of conferring on society a certain benefit, which,\nthough it must undoubtedly exist, must necessarily be so diffused as to\nbe invisible to her, is in the highest degree impolitic and unjust. It\nis expecting a strain of virtue beyond humanity. If we never reward any\npersons with our approbation, but those who are exclusively influenced\nby motives of general benevolence, this powerful encouragement to do\ngood actions will not be very often called into exercise.\u2019\n\nMr. Malthus would make an excellent superior of a convent of nuns of the\nOrder of Population.\u2014The better to remove what he considers as an unjust\nstigma on old maids; he has endeavoured to set one on married women. He\nwould persuade every one to look upon his mother as a person of bad\ncharacter. He would pass an act of bastardy on every mother\u2019s son of us;\nand prove that we come into the world without a proper license (from\nhim) merely to gratify the coarse, selfish, immoral propensities of our\nparents. Till however he can do away the filial relation, or the respect\nattached to it, or so contrive it that all men should be \u2018born of a\nvirgin\u2019 contrary to all our experience, it will I believe be impossible\nto get rid of the unjust prejudice against old maids, or to place them\non a level with married women. Mr. Malthus has gone the wrong way to\ningratiate himself with the mothers of families: but he has not taken\nhis measures ill. He knows that the partiality and favours of such\npersons are generally confined to run in their own low, narrow, domestic\nchannels. But this is not the case with those reverend persons, to whom\nhe pays his court. He knows that their bounty is not confined by any\nsuch selfish limits, it flows liberally to all, and they have the best\nchance of sharing in it, who endeavour to indemnify them for their\npersonal sacrifices, or the ridicule of the world by a succession of\nlittle agreeable attentions, or by offering theoretical incense to their\nvirtue and merit.\n\n\u2018It is perfectly absurd as well as unjust, that a giddy girl of sixteen\nshould, because she is married be considered by the forms of society as\nthe protector of women of thirty, should come first into the room,\nshould be assigned the highest place at table, and be the prominent\nfigure to whom the attentions of the company are more particularly\naddressed.\u2019\u2014Not more absurd than that a child or an ideot should be a\nking, or that a grave man of fifty should call a young coxcomb, My lord.\nOur sophist would overturn all the established order of society with his\nout-of-the-way principles.\u2014Mr. Malthus has huddled into the same chapter\nhis attack on the monopoly made by the married women of the men, and his\ndefence of the monopoly of corn by farmers and others. It is the last\npassage I shall quote, though there are many others worthy of rebuke.\n\n\u2018In some conversations with labouring men during the late scarcities, I\nconfess that I was to the last degree disheartened, at observing their\ninveterate prejudices on the subject of grain: and I felt very strongly\nthe almost absolute incompatibility of a government really free, with\nsuch a degree of ignorance. The delusions are of such a nature, that, if\nacted upon, they must, at all events, be repressed by force: and it is\nextremely difficult to give such a power to the government as will be\nsufficient at all times for this purpose, without the risk of its being\nemployed improperly, and endangering the liberty of the subject. And\nthis reflection cannot but be disheartening to every friend to freedom.\n\n\u2018It is of the very utmost importance, that the gentlemen of the country,\nand particularly the clergy, should not, from ignorance, aggravate the\nevils of scarcity every time that it unfortunately occurs. During the\nlate dearths, half of the gentlemen and clergymen in the kingdom richly\ndeserved to have been prosecuted for sedition. After inflaming the minds\nof the common people against the farmers and corn-dealers, by the manner\nin which they talked of them, or preached about them, it was but a\nfeeble antidote to the poison which they had infused, coldly to observe,\nthat however the poor might be oppressed or cheated, it was their duty\nto keep the peace. It was little better than Antony\u2019s repeated\ndeclaration, that the conspirators were all honourable men; which did\nnot save either their houses or their persons from the attacks of the\nmob. Political economy is perhaps the only science of which it might be\nsaid, that the ignorance of it is not merely a deprivation of good, but\nproduces great positive evil.\u2019\n\nI shall accompany this passage with an extract from the Author\u2019s first\nedition and leave it to the reader to apply the hint of Antony\u2019s speech\nto whom he thinks fit.\n\n\u2018It very rarely happens that the nominal price of labour universally\nfalls; but we well know that it frequently remains the same, while the\nnominal price of provisions has been gradually increasing. This is, in\neffect, a real fall in the price of labour; and during this period, the\ncondition of the lower orders of the community must gradually grow worse\nand worse. But the farmers and the capitalists are growing rich from the\nreal cheapness of labour. Their increased capitals enable them to employ\na greater number of men. Work therefore may be plentiful; and the price\nof labour would consequently rise. But the want of freedom in the market\nof labour, which occurs more or less in all communities, either from\nparish laws, or the more general cause of the facility of combination\namong the rich, and its difficulty among the poor, operates to prevent\nthe price of labour from rising at the natural period, and keeps it down\nsome time longer; perhaps, till a year of scarcity, when the clamour is\ntoo loud, and the necessity too apparent to be resisted.\n\n\u2018The true cause of the advance in the price of labour is thus concealed;\nand the rich affect to grant it as an act of compassion and favour to\nthe poor, in consideration of a year of scarcity; and when plenty\nreturns, indulge themselves in the most unreasonable of all complaints,\nthat the price does not again fall; when a little reflection would shew\nthem, that it must have risen long before, but from an unjust conspiracy\nof their own.\u2019\n\n\n                                THE END\n\n\n\n\n                         THE SPIRIT OF THE AGE\n\n\n\n\n                          BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE\n\n\nPublished anonymously in one volume (8vo, 424 pages) in 1825, with the\nfollowing title-page:\u2014\u2018The Spirit of the Age: or Contemporary Portraits.\n\u201cTo know another well were to know one\u2019s self.\u201d London: Printed for\nHenry Colburn, New Burlington Street. 1825.\u2019 The imprint was \u2018London:\nPrinted by S. and R. Bentley, Dorset Street.\u2019 A second edition (here\nreproduced), with the same title-page (except that the quotation ran:\n\u2018\u201cTo know a man well, were to know himself.\u201d Hamlet\u2019) and imprint, was\nproduced in smaller type (8vo, 408 pages) in the same year. In this\nedition the essays were arranged in a different order, an addition was\nmade to the essay on Coleridge, and an essay on Cobbett from _Table\nTalk_ (vol. i., 1821) was included. In the same year, 1825, an edition\nwas published in Paris (A. and W. Galignani) which included the essay on\nCobbett and an essay on Canning. The third edition, edited by the\nauthor\u2019s son, was published in 1858 (one volume, 8vo, 396 pages, C.\nTempleman, Great Portland Street). In this edition the essays on Cobbett\nand Canning were included, and the essays were arranged in an order\ndifferent from that of either the first or the second edition. The\nfourth edition, edited by Mr. W. C. Hazlitt for Bohn\u2019s _Standard\nLibrary_ (1886) restored the order of the second edition, but included\nthe essay on Canning. In this edition Mr. Hazlitt made some alterations\nin the text based upon (1) portions of the original MSS. then in his\npossession, and (2) autograph notes of the author\u2019s in a copy of the\nsecond edition belonging to Mr. C. W. Reynell. A volume of _Essays\nselected from The Spirit of the Age_, with an introduction by R. B.\nJohnson, was published in 1893 (the Knickerbocker Press, G. P. Putnam\u2019s\nSons). Five of the essays, viz.: those on Bentham, Irving, Horne Tooke,\nScott, and Eldon were originally published in Colburn\u2019s _New Monthly\nMagazine and Literary Journal_ (1824, vols. x. and xi.) in a series\nentitled \u2018The Spirits of the Age.\u2019\n\n\n\n\n                                CONTENTS\n\n\n                                                                    PAGE\n Jeremy Bentham                                                      189\n\n William Godwin                                                      200\n\n Mr. Coleridge                                                       212\n\n Rev. Mr. Irving                                                     222\n\n The late Mr. Horne Tooke                                            231\n\n Sir Walter Scott                                                    241\n\n Lord Byron                                                          253\n\n Mr. Southey                                                         262\n\n Mr. Wordsworth                                                      270\n\n Sir James Mackintosh                                                279\n\n Mr. Malthus                                                         287\n\n Mr. Gifford                                                         298\n\n Mr. Jeffrey                                                         310\n\n Mr. Brougham\u2014Sir F. Burdett                                         318\n\n Lord Eldon\u2014Mr. Wilberforce                                          325\n\n Mr. Cobbett                                                         334\n\n Mr. Campbell\u2014Mr. Crabbe                                             343\n\n Mr. T. Moore\u2014Mr. Leigh Hunt                                         353\n\n Elia\u2014Geoffrey Crayon                                                362\n\n\n\n\n                         THE SPIRIT OF THE AGE\n\n\n\n\n                             JEREMY BENTHAM\n\n\nMr. Bentham is one of those persons who verify the old adage, that \u2018A\nprophet has most honour out of his own country.\u2019 His reputation lies at\nthe circumference; and the lights of his understanding are reflected,\nwith increasing lustre, on the other side of the globe. His name is\nlittle known in England, better in Europe, best of all in the plains of\nChili and the mines of Mexico. He has offered constitutions for the New\nWorld, and legislated for future times. The people of Westminster, where\nhe lives, hardly dream of such a person; but the Siberian savage has\nreceived cold comfort from his lunar aspect, and may say to him with\nCaliban\u2014\u2018I know thee, and thy dog and thy bush!\u2019 The tawny Indian may\nhold out the hand of fellowship to him across the GREAT PACIFIC. We\nbelieve that the Empress Catherine corresponded with him; and we know\nthat the Emperor Alexander called upon him, and presented him with his\nminiature in a gold snuff-box, which the philosopher, to his eternal\nhonour, returned. Mr. Hobhouse is a greater man at the hustings, Lord\nRolle at Plymouth Dock; but Mr. Bentham would carry it hollow, on the\nscore of popularity, at Paris or Pegu. The reason is, that our author\u2019s\ninfluence is purely intellectual. He has devoted his life to the pursuit\nof abstract and general truths, and to those studies\u2014\n\n            \u2018That waft a _thought_ from Indus to the Pole\u2019\u2014\n\nand has never mixed himself up with personal intrigues or party\npolitics. He once, indeed, stuck up a hand-bill to say that he (Jeremy\nBentham) being of sound mind, was of opinion that Sir Samuel Romilly was\nthe most proper person to represent Westminster; but this was the whim\nof the moment. Otherwise, his reasonings, if true at all, are true\neverywhere alike: his speculations concern humanity at large, and are\nnot confined to the hundred or the bills of mortality. It is in moral as\nin physical magnitude. The little is seen best near: the great appears\nin its proper dimensions, only from a more commanding point of view, and\ngains strength with time, and elevation from distance!\n\nMr. Bentham is very much among philosophers what La Fontaine was among\npoets:\u2014in general habits and in all but his professional pursuits, he is\na mere child. He has lived for the last forty years in a house in\nWestminster, overlooking the Park, like an anchoret in his cell,\nreducing law to a system, and the mind of man to a machine. He scarcely\never goes out, and sees very little company. The favoured few, who have\nthe privilege of the _entr\u00e9e_, are always admitted one by one. He does\nnot like to have witnesses to his conversation. He talks a great deal,\nand listens to nothing but facts. When any one calls upon him, he\ninvites them to take a turn round his garden with him (Mr. Bentham is an\neconomist of his time, and sets apart this portion of it to air and\nexercise)\u2014and there you may see the lively old man, his mind still\nbuoyant with thought and with the prospect of futurity, in eager\nconversation with some Opposition Member, some expatriated Patriot, or\nTransatlantic Adventurer, urging the extinction of Close Boroughs, or\nplanning a code of laws for some \u2018lone island in the watery waste,\u2019 his\nwalk almost amounting to a run, his tongue keeping pace with it in\nshrill, cluttering accents, negligent of his person, his dress, and his\nmanner, intent only on his grand theme of UTILITY\u2014or pausing, perhaps,\nfor want of breath and with lack-lustre eye to point out to the stranger\na stone in the wall at the end of his garden (overarched by two\nbeautiful cotton-trees) _Inscribed to the Prince of Poets_, which marks\nthe house where Milton formerly lived. To show how little the\nrefinements of taste or fancy enter into our author\u2019s system, he\nproposed at one time to cut down these beautiful trees, to convert the\ngarden where he had breathed the air of Truth and Heaven for near half a\ncentury into a paltry _Chrestomathic School_, and to make Milton\u2019s house\n(the cradle of Paradise Lost) a thoroughfare, like a three-stalled\nstable, for the idle rabble of Westminster to pass backwards and\nforwards to it with their cloven hoofs. Let us not, however, be getting\non too fast\u2014Milton himself taught school! There is something not\naltogether dissimilar between Mr. Bentham\u2019s appearance, and the\nportraits of Milton, the same silvery tone, a few dishevelled hairs, a\npeevish, yet puritanical expression, an irritable temperament corrected\nby habit and discipline. Or in modern times, he is something between\nFranklin and Charles Fox, with the comfortable double-chin and sleek\nthriving look of the one, and the quivering lip, the restless eye, and\nanimated acuteness of the other. His eye is quick and lively; but it\nglances not from object to object, but from thought to thought. He is\nevidently a man occupied with some train of fine and inward association.\nHe regards the people about him no more than the flies of a summer. He\nmeditates the coming age. He hears and sees only what suits his purpose,\nor some \u2018foregone conclusion\u2019; and looks out for facts and passing\noccurrences in order to put them into his logical machinery and grind\nthem into the dust and powder of some subtle theory, as the miller looks\nout for grist to his mill! Add to this physiognomical sketch the minor\npoints of costume, the open shirt-collar, the single-breasted coat, the\nold fashioned half-boots and ribbed stockings; and you will find in Mr.\nBentham\u2019s general appearance a singular mixture of boyish simplicity and\nof the venerableness of age. In a word, our celebrated jurist presents a\nstriking illustration of the difference between the _philosophical_ and\nthe _regal_ look; that is, between the merely abstracted and the merely\npersonal. There is a lack-adaisical _bonhommie_ about his whole aspect,\nnone of the fierceness of pride or power; an unconscious neglect of his\nown person, instead of a stately assumption of superiority; a\ngood-humoured, placid intelligence, instead of a lynx-eyed watchfulness,\nas if it wished to make others its prey, or was afraid they might turn\nand rend him; he is a beneficent spirit, prying into the universe, not\nlording it over it; a thoughtful spectator of the scenes of life, or\nruminator on the fate of mankind, not a painted pageant, a stupid idol\nset up on its pedestal of pride for men to fall down and worship with\nidiot fear and wonder at the thing themselves have made, and which,\nwithout that fear and wonder, would in itself be nothing!\n\nMr. Bentham, perhaps, over-rates the importance of his own theories. He\nhas been heard to say (without any appearance of pride or affectation)\nthat \u2018he should like to live the remaining years of his life, a year at\na time at the end of the next six or eight centuries, to see the effect\nwhich his writings would by that time have had upon the world.\u2019 Alas!\nhis name will hardly live so long! Nor do we think, in point of fact,\nthat Mr. Bentham has given any new or decided impulse to the human mind.\nHe cannot be looked upon in the light of a discoverer in legislation or\nmorals. He has not struck out any great leading principle or\nparent-truth, from which a number of others might be deduced; nor has he\nenriched the common and established stock of intelligence with original\nobservations, like pearls thrown into wine. One truth discovered is\nimmortal, and entitles its author to be so: for, like a new substance in\nnature, it cannot be destroyed. But Mr. Bentham\u2019s _forte_ is\narrangement; and the form of truth, though not its essence, varies with\ntime and circumstance. He has methodised, collated, and condensed all\nthe materials prepared to his hand on the subjects of which he treats,\nin a masterly and scientific manner; but we should find a difficulty in\nadducing from his different works (however elaborate or closely\nreasoned) any new element of thought, or even a new fact or\nillustration. His writings are, therefore, chiefly valuable as _books of\nreference_, as bringing down the account of intellectual inquiry to the\npresent period, and disposing the results in a compendious, connected,\nand tangible shape; but books of reference are chiefly serviceable for\nfacilitating the acquisition of knowledge, and are constantly liable to\nbe superseded and to grow out of fashion with its progress, as the\nscaffolding is thrown down as soon as the building is completed. Mr.\nBentham is not the first writer (by a great many) who has assumed the\nprinciple of UTILITY as the foundation of just laws, and of all moral\nand political reasoning:\u2014his merit is, that he has applied this\nprinciple more closely and literally; that he has brought all the\nobjections and arguments, more distinctly labelled and ticketed, under\nthis one head, and made a more constant and explicit reference to it at\nevery step of his progress, than any other writer. Perhaps the weak side\nof his conclusions also is, that he has carried this single view of his\nsubject too far, and not made sufficient allowance for the varieties of\nhuman nature, and the caprices and irregularities of the human will. \u2018He\nhas not allowed for the _wind_.\u2019 It is not that you can be said to see\nhis favourite doctrine of Utility glittering everywhere through his\nsystem, like a vein of rich, shining ore (that is not the nature of the\nmaterial)\u2014but it might be plausibly objected that he had struck the\nwhole mass of fancy, prejudice, passion, sense, whim, with his petrific,\nleaden mace, that he had \u2018bound volatile Hermes,\u2019 and reduced the theory\nand practice of human life to a _caput mortuum_ of reason, and dull,\nplodding, technical calculation. The gentleman is himself a capital\nlogician; and he has been led by this circumstance to consider man as a\nlogical animal. We fear this view of the matter will hardly hold water.\nIf we attend to the _moral_ man, the constitution of his mind will\nscarcely be found to be built up of pure reason and a regard to\nconsequences: if we consider the _criminal_ man (with whom the\nlegislator has chiefly to do) it will be found to be still less so.\n\nEvery pleasure, says Mr. Bentham, is equally a good, and is to be taken\ninto the account as such in a moral estimate, whether it be the pleasure\nof sense or of conscience, whether it arise from the exercise of virtue\nor the perpetration of crime. We are afraid the human mind does not\nreadily come into this doctrine, this _ultima ratio philosophorum_,\ninterpreted according to the letter. Our moral sentiments are made up of\nsympathies and antipathies, of sense and imagination, of understanding\nand prejudice. The soul, by reason of its weakness, is an aggregating\nand an exclusive principle; it clings obstinately to some things, and\nviolently rejects others. And it must do so, in a great measure, or it\nwould act contrary to its own nature. It needs helps and stages in its\nprogress, and \u2018all appliances and means to boot,\u2019 which can raise it to\na partial conformity to truth and good (the utmost it is capable of) and\nbring it into a tolerable harmony with the universe. By aiming at too\nmuch, by dismissing collateral aids, by extending itself to the farthest\nverge of the conceivable and possible, it loses its elasticity and\nvigour, its impulse and its direction. The moralist can no more do\nwithout the intermediate use of rules and principles, without the\n\u2018vantage ground of habit, without the levers of the understanding, than\nthe mechanist can discard the use of wheels and pulleys, and perform\nevery thing by simple motion. If the mind of man were competent to\ncomprehend the whole of truth and good, and act upon it at once, and\nindependently of all other considerations, Mr. Bentham\u2019s plan would be a\nfeasible one, and _the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the\ntruth_, would be the best possible ground to place morality upon. But it\nis not so. In ascertaining the rules of moral conduct, we must have\nregard not merely to the nature of the object, but to the capacity of\nthe agent, and to his fitness for apprehending or attaining it. Pleasure\nis that which is so in itself: good is that which approves itself as\nsuch on reflection, or the idea of which is a source of satisfaction.\nAll pleasure is not, therefore (morally speaking) equally a good; for\nall pleasure does not equally bear reflecting on. There are some tastes\nthat are sweet in the mouth and bitter in the belly; and there is a\nsimilar contradiction and anomaly in the mind and heart of man.\n\nAgain, what would become of the _Posth\u00e6c meminisse juvabit_ of the poet,\nif a principle of fluctuation and reaction is not inherent in the very\nconstitution of our nature, or if all moral truth is a mere literal\ntruism? We are not, then, so much to inquire what certain things are\nabstractedly or in themselves, as how they affect the mind, and to\napprove or condemn them accordingly. The same object seen near strikes\nus more powerfully than at a distance: things thrown into masses give a\ngreater blow to the imagination than when scattered and divided into\ntheir component parts. A number of mole-hills do not make a mountain,\nthough a mountain is actually made up of atoms: so moral truth must\npresent itself under a certain aspect and from a certain point of view,\nin order to produce its full and proper effect upon the mind. The laws\nof the affections are as necessary as those of optics. A calculation of\nconsequences is no more equivalent to a sentiment, than a _seriatim_\nenumeration of square yards or feet touches the fancy like the sight of\nthe Alps or Andes.\n\nTo give an instance or two of what we mean. Those who on pure\ncosmopolite principles, or on the ground of abstract humanity, affect an\nextraordinary regard for the Turks and Tartars, have been accused of\nneglecting their duties to their friends and next-door neighbours. Well,\nthen, what is the state of the question here? One human being is, no\ndoubt, as much worth in himself, independently of the circumstances of\ntime or place, as another; but he is not of so much value to us and our\naffections. Could our imagination take wing (with our speculative\nfaculties) to the other side of the globe or to the ends of the\nuniverse, could our eyes behold whatever our reason teaches us to be\npossible, could our hands reach as far as our thoughts and wishes, we\nmight then busy ourselves to advantage with the Hottentots, or hold\nintimate converse with the inhabitants of the Moon; but being as we are,\nour feelings evaporate in so large a space\u2014we must draw the circle of\nour affections and duties somewhat closer\u2014the heart hovers and fixes\nnearer home. It is true, the bands of private, or of local and natural\naffection, are often, nay in general, too tightly strained, so as\nfrequently to do harm instead of good: but the present question is\nwhether we can, with safety and effect, be wholly emancipated from them?\nWhether we should shake them off at pleasure and without mercy, as the\nonly bar to the triumph of truth and justice? Or whether benevolence,\nconstructed upon a logical scale, would not be merely _nominal_, whether\nduty, raised to too lofty a pitch of refinement, might not sink into\ncallous indifference or hollow selfishness? Again, is it not to exact\ntoo high a strain from humanity, to ask us to qualify the degree of\nabhorrence we feel against a murderer by taking into our cool\nconsideration the pleasure he may have in committing the deed, and in\nthe prospect of gratifying his avarice or his revenge? We are hardly so\nformed as to sympathise at the same moment with the assassin and his\nvictim. The degree of pleasure the former may feel, instead of\nextenuating, aggravates his guilt, and shows the depth of his malignity.\nNow the mind revolts against this by mere natural antipathy, if it is\nitself well-disposed; or the slow process of reason would afford but a\nfeeble resistance to violence and wrong. The will, which is necessary to\ngive consistency and promptness to our good intentions, cannot extend so\nmuch candour and courtesy to the antagonist principle of evil: virtue,\nto be sincere and practical, cannot be divested entirely of the\nblindness and impetuosity of passion! It has been made a plea (half\njest, half earnest) for the horrors of war, that they promote trade and\nmanufactures. It has been said, as a set-off for the atrocities\npractised upon the negro slaves in the West Indies, that without their\nblood and sweat, so many millions of people could not have sugar to\nsweeten their tea. Fires and murders have been argued to be beneficial,\nas they serve to fill the newspapers, and for a subject to talk of\u2014this\nis a sort of sophistry that it might be difficult to disprove on the\nbare scheme of contingent utility; but on the ground that we have\nstated, it must pass for mere irony. What the proportion between the\ngood and the evil will really be found in any of the supposed cases, may\nbe a question to the understanding; but to the imagination and the\nheart, that is, to the natural feelings of mankind, it admits of none!\n\nMr. Bentham, in adjusting the provisions of a penal code, lays too\nlittle stress on the co-operation of the natural prejudices of mankind,\nand the habitual feelings of that class of persons for whom they are\nmore particularly designed. Legislators (we mean writers on legislation)\nare philosophers, and governed by their reason: criminals, for whose\ncontroul laws are made, are a set of desperadoes, governed only by their\npassions. What wonder that so little progress has been made towards a\nmutual understanding between the two parties! They are quite a different\nspecies, and speak a different language, and are sadly at a loss for a\ncommon interpreter between them. Perhaps the Ordinary of Newgate bids as\nfair for this office as any one. What should Mr. Bentham, sitting at\nease in his arm-chair, composing his mind before he begins to write by a\nprelude on the organ, and looking out at a beautiful prospect when he is\nat a loss for an idea, know of the principles of action of rogues,\noutlaws, and vagabonds? No more than Montaigne of the motions of his\ncat! If sanguine and tender-hearted philanthropists have set on foot an\ninquiry into the barbarity and the defects of penal laws, the practical\nimprovements have been mostly suggested by reformed cut-throats,\nturnkeys, and thief-takers. What even can the Honourable House, who when\nthe Speaker has pronounced the well-known, wished-for sounds, \u2018That this\nhouse do now adjourn,\u2019 retire, after voting a royal crusade or a loan of\nmillions, to lie on down, and feed on plate in spacious palaces, know of\nwhat passes in the hearts of wretches in garrets and night-cellars,\npetty pilferers and marauders, who cut throats and pick pockets with\ntheir own hands? The thing is impossible. The laws of the country are,\ntherefore, ineffectual and abortive, because they are made by the rich\nfor the poor, by the wise for the ignorant, by the respectable and\nexalted in station for the very scum and refuse of the community. If\nNewgate would resolve itself into a committee of the whole Press-yard,\nwith Jack Ketch at its head, aided by confidential persons from the\ncounty prisons or the Hulks, and would make a clear breast, some _data_\nmight be found out to proceed upon; but as it is, the _criminal mind_ of\nthe country is a book sealed, no one has been able to penetrate to the\ninside! Mr. Bentham, in his attempts to revise and amend our criminal\njurisprudence, proceeds entirely on his favourite principle of Utility.\nConvince highwaymen and housebreakers that it will be for their interest\nto reform, and they will reform and lead honest lives; according to Mr.\nBentham. He says, \u2018All men act from calculation, even madmen reason.\u2019\nAnd, in our opinion, he might as well carry this maxim to Bedlam or St.\nLuke\u2019s, and apply it to the inhabitants, as think to coerce or overawe\nthe inmates of a gaol, or those whose practices make them candidates for\nthat distinction, by the mere dry, detailed convictions of the\nunderstanding. Criminals are not to be influenced by reason; for it is\nof the very essence of crime to disregard consequences both to ourselves\nand others. You may as well preach philosophy to a drunken man, or to\nthe dead, as to those who are under the instigation of any mischievous\npassion. A man is a drunkard, and you tell him he ought to be sober; he\nis debauched, and you ask him to reform; he is idle, and you recommend\nindustry to him as his wisest course; he gambles, and you remind him\nthat he may be ruined by this foible; he has lost his character, and you\nadvise him to get into some reputable service or lucrative situation;\nvice becomes a habit with him, and you request him to rouse himself and\nshake it off; he is starving, and you warn him if he breaks the law, he\nwill be hanged. None of this reasoning reaches the mark it aims at. The\nculprit, who violates and suffers the vengeance of the laws, is not the\ndupe of ignorance, but the slave of passion, the victim of habit or\nnecessity. To argue with strong passion, with inveterate habit, with\ndesperate circumstances, is to talk to the winds. Clownish ignorance may\nindeed be dispelled, and taught better; but it is seldom that a criminal\nis not aware of the consequences of his act, or has not made up his mind\nto the alternative. They are, in general, _too knowing by half_. You\ntell a person of this stamp what is his interest; he says he does not\ncare about his interest, or the world and he differ on that particular.\nBut there is one point on which he must agree with them, namely, what\n_they_ think of his conduct, and that is the only hold you have of him.\nA man may be callous and indifferent to what happens to himself; but he\nis never indifferent to public opinion, or proof against open scorn and\ninfamy. Shame, then, not fear, is the sheet-anchor of the law. He who is\nnot afraid of being pointed at as a _thief_, will not mind a month\u2019s\nhard labour. He who is prepared to take the life of another, is already\nreckless of his own. But every one makes a sorry figure in the pillory;\nand the being launched from the New Drop lowers a man in his own\nopinion. The lawless and violent spirit, who is hurried by headstrong\nself-will to break the laws, does not like to have the ground of pride\nand obstinacy struck from under his feet. This is what gives the\n_swells_ of the metropolis such a dread of the _tread-mill_\u2014it makes\nthem ridiculous. It must be confessed, that this very circumstance\nrenders the reform of criminals nearly hopeless. It is the apprehension\nof being stigmatized by public opinion, the fear of what will be thought\nand said of them, that deters men from the violation of the laws, while\ntheir character remains unimpeached; but honour once lost, all is lost.\nThe man can never be himself again! A citizen is like a soldier, a part\nof a machine, who submits to certain hardships, privations, and dangers,\nnot for his own ease, pleasure, profit, or even conscience, but\u2014_for\nshame_. What is it that keeps the machine together in either case? Not\npunishment or discipline, but sympathy. The soldier mounts the breach or\nstands in the trenches, the peasant hedges and ditches, or the mechanic\nplies his ceaseless task, because the one will not be called a _coward_,\nthe other a _rogue_: but let the one turn deserter and the other\nvagabond, and there is an end of him. The grinding law of necessity,\nwhich is no other than a name, a breath, loses its force; he is no\nlonger sustained by the good opinion of others, and he drops out of his\nplace in society, a useless clog! Mr. Bentham takes a culprit, and puts\nhim into what he calls a _Panopticon_, that is, a sort of circular\nprison, with open cells, like a glass bee-hive. He sits in the middle,\nand sees all the other does. He gives him work to do, and lectures him\nif he does not do it. He takes liquor from him, and society and liberty;\nbut he feeds and clothes him, and keeps him out of mischief; and when he\nhas convinced him, by force and reason together, that this life is for\nhis good, he turns him out upon the world a reformed man, and as\nconfident of the success of his handy-work, as the shoemaker of that\nwhich he has just taken off the last, or the Parisian barber in Sterne,\nof the buckle of his wig. \u2018Dip it in the ocean,\u2019 said the perruquier,\n\u2018and it will stand!\u2019 But we doubt the durability of our projector\u2019s\npatchwork. Will our convert to the great principle of Utility work when\nhe is from under Mr. Bentham\u2019s eye, because he was forced to work when\nunder it? Will he keep sober, because he has been kept from liquor so\nlong? Will he not return to loose company, because he has had the\npleasure of sitting vis-\u00e0-vis with a philosopher of late? Will he not\nsteal, now that his hands are untied? Will he not take the road, now\nthat it is free to him? Will he not call his benefactor all the names he\ncan set his tongue to, the moment his back is turned? All this is more\nthan to be feared. The charm of criminal life, like that of savage life,\nconsists in liberty, in hardship, in danger, and in the contempt of\ndeath, in one word, in extraordinary excitement; and he who has tasted\nof it, will no more return to regular habits of life, than a man will\ntake to water after drinking brandy, or than a wild beast will give over\nhunting its prey. Miracles never cease, to be sure; but they are not to\nbe had wholesale, or _to order_. Mr. Owen, who is another of those\nproprietors and patentees of reform, has lately got an American savage\nwith him, whom he carries about in great triumph and complacency, as an\nantithesis to his _New View of Society_, and as winding up his reasoning\nto what it mainly wanted, an epigrammatic point. Does the benevolent\nvisionary of the Lanark cotton-mills really think this _natural man_\nwill act as a foil to his _artificial man_? Does he for a moment imagine\nthat his _Address to the higher and middle classes_, with all its\nadvantages of fiction, makes any thing like so interesting a romance as\n_Hunter\u2019s Captivity among the North American Indians_? Has he any thing\nto show, in all the apparatus of New Lanark and its desolate monotony,\nto excite the thrill of imagination like the blankets made of wreaths of\nsnow under which the wild wood-rovers bury themselves for weeks in\nwinter? Or the skin of a leopard, which our hardy adventurer slew, and\nwhich served him for great-coat and bedding? Or the rattle-snake that he\nfound by his side as a bedfellow? Or his rolling himself into a ball to\nescape from him? Or his suddenly placing himself against a tree to avoid\nbeing trampled to death by the herd of wild buffaloes, that came rushing\non like the sound of thunder? Or his account of the huge spiders that\nprey on blue-bottles and gilded flies in green pathless forests; or of\nthe great Pacific Ocean, that the natives look upon as the gulf that\nparts time from eternity, and that is to waft them to the spirits of\ntheir fathers? After all this, Mr. Hunter must find Mr. Owen and his\nparallelograms trite and flat, and will, we suspect, take an opportunity\nto escape from them!\n\nMr. Bentham\u2019s method of reasoning, though comprehensive and exact,\nlabours under the defect of most systems\u2014it is too _topical_. It\nincludes every thing; but it includes every thing alike. It is rather\nlike an inventory, than a valuation of different arguments. Every\npossible suggestion finds a place, so that the mind is distracted as\nmuch as enlightened by this perplexing accuracy. The exceptions seem as\nimportant as the rule. By attending to the minute, we overlook the\ngreat; and in summing up an account, it will not do merely to insist on\nthe number of items without considering their amount. Our author\u2019s page\npresents a very nicely dove-tailed mosaic pavement of legal\ncommon-places. We slip and slide over its even surface without being\narrested any where. Or his view of the human mind resembles a map,\nrather than a picture: the outline, the disposition is correct, but it\nwants colouring and relief. There is a technicality of manner, which\nrenders his writings of more value to the professional inquirer than to\nthe general reader. Again, his style is unpopular, not to say\nunintelligible. He writes a language of his own, that _darkens\nknowledge_. His works have been translated into French\u2014they ought to be\ntranslated into English. People wonder that Mr. Bentham has not been\nprosecuted for the boldness and severity of some of his invectives. He\nmight wrap up high treason in one of his inextricable periods, and it\nwould never find its way into Westminster-Hall. He is a kind of\nManuscript author\u2014he writes a cypher-hand, which the vulgar have no key\nto. The construction of his sentences is a curious frame-work with pegs\nand hooks to hang his thoughts upon, for his own use and guidance, but\nalmost out of the reach of every body else. It is a barbarous\nphilosophical jargon, with all the repetitions, parentheses,\nformalities, uncouth nomenclature and verbiage of law-Latin; and what\nmakes it worse, it is not mere verbiage, but has a great deal of\nacuteness and meaning in it, which you would be glad to pick out if you\ncould. In short, Mr. Bentham writes as if he was allowed but a single\nsentence to express his whole view of a subject in, and as if, should he\nomit a single circumstance or step of the argument, it would be lost to\nthe world for ever, like an estate by a flaw in the title-deeds. This is\nover-rating the importance of our own discoveries, and mistaking the\nnature and object of language altogether. Mr. Bentham has _acquired_\nthis disability\u2014it is not natural to him. His admirable little work _On\nUsury_, published forty years ago, is clear, easy, and vigorous. But Mr.\nBentham has shut himself up since then \u2018in nook monastic,\u2019 conversing\nonly with followers of his own, or with \u2018men of Ind,\u2019 and has\nendeavoured to overlay his natural humour, sense, spirit, and style,\nwith the dust and cobwebs of an obscure solitude. The best of it is, he\nthinks his present mode of expressing himself perfect, and that whatever\nmay be objected to his law or logic, no one can find the least fault\nwith the purity, simplicity, and perspicuity of his style.\n\nMr. Bentham, in private life, is an amiable and exemplary character. He\nis a little romantic, or so; and has dissipated part of a handsome\nfortune in practical speculations. He lends an ear to plausible\nprojectors, and, if he cannot prove them to be wrong in their premises\nor their conclusions, thinks himself bound _in reason_ to stake his\nmoney on the venture. Strict logicians are licenced visionaries. Mr.\nBentham is half-brother to the late Mr. Speaker Abbott[33]\u2014_Proh pudor!_\nHe was educated at Eton, and still takes our novices to task about a\npassage in Homer, or a metre in Virgil. He was afterwards at the\nUniversity, and he has described the scruples of an ingenuous youthful\nmind about subscribing the articles, in a passage in his\n_Church-of-Englandism_, which smacks of truth and honour both, and does\none good to read it in an age, when \u2018to be honest\u2019 (or not to laugh at\nthe very idea of honesty) \u2018is to be one man picked out of ten thousand!\u2019\nMr. Bentham relieves his mind sometimes, after the fatigue of study, by\nplaying on a fine old organ, and has a relish for Hogarth\u2019s prints. He\nturns wooden utensils in a lathe for exercise, and fancies he can turn\nmen in the same manner. He has no great fondness for poetry, and can\nhardly extract a moral out of Shakespeare. His house is warmed and\nlighted by steam. He is one of those who prefer the artificial to the\nnatural in most things, and think the mind of man omnipotent. He has a\ngreat contempt for out-of-door prospects, for green fields and trees,\nand is for referring every thing to Utility. There is a little\nnarrowness in this; for if all the sources of satisfaction are taken\naway, what is to become of utility itself? It is, indeed, the great\nfault of this able and extraordinary man, that he has concentrated his\nfaculties and feelings too entirely on one subject and pursuit, and has\nnot \u2018looked enough abroad into universality.\u2019[34]\n\n\n\n\n                             WILLIAM GODWIN\n\n\nThe Spirit of the Age was never more fully shown than in its treatment\nof this writer\u2014its love of paradox and change, its dastard submission to\nprejudice and to the fashion of the day. Five-and-twenty years ago he\nwas in the very zenith of a sultry and unwholesome popularity; he blazed\nas a sun in the firmament of reputation; no one was more talked of, more\nlooked up to, more sought after, and wherever liberty, truth, justice\nwas the theme, his name was not far off:\u2014now he has sunk below the\nhorizon, and enjoys the serene twilight of a doubtful immortality. Mr.\nGodwin, during his life-time, has secured to himself the triumphs and\nthe mortifications of an extreme notoriety and of a sort of posthumous\nfame. His bark, after being tossed in the revolutionary tempest, now\nraised to heaven by all the fury of popular breath, now almost dashed in\npieces, and buried in the quicksands of ignorance, or scorched with the\nlightning of momentary indignation, at length floats on the calm wave\nthat is to bear it down the stream of time. Mr. Godwin\u2019s person is not\nknown, he is not pointed out in the street, his conversation is not\ncourted, his opinions are not asked, he is at the head of no cabal, he\nbelongs to no party in the State, he has no train of admirers, no one\nthinks it worth his while even to traduce and vilify him, he has\nscarcely friend or foe, the world make a point (as Goldsmith used to\nsay) of taking no more notice of him than if such an individual had\nnever existed; he is to all ordinary intents and purposes dead and\nburied; but the author of _Political Justice_ and of _Caleb Williams_\ncan never die, his name is an abstraction in letters, his works are\nstandard in the history of intellect. He is thought of now like any\neminent writer a hundred-and-fifty years ago, or just as he will be a\nhundred-and-fifty years hence. He knows this, and smiles in silent\nmockery of himself, reposing on the monument of his fame\u2014\n\n            \u2018Sedet, in eternumque sedebit infelix Theseus.\u2019\n\nNo work in our time gave such a blow to the philosophical mind of the\ncountry as the celebrated _Enquiry concerning Political Justice_. Tom\nPaine was considered for the time as a Tom Fool to him; Paley an old\nwoman; Edmund Burke a flashy sophist. Truth, moral truth, it was\nsupposed, had here taken up its abode; and these were the oracles of\nthought. \u2018Throw aside your books of chemistry,\u2019 said Wordsworth to a\nyoung man, a student in the Temple, \u2018and read Godwin on Necessity.\u2019 Sad\nnecessity! Fatal reverse! Is truth then so variable? Is it one thing at\ntwenty, and another at forty? Is it at a burning heat in 1793, and below\n_zero_ in 1814? Not so, in the name of manhood and of common sense! Let\nus pause here a little.\u2014Mr. Godwin indulged in extreme opinions, and\ncarried with him all the most sanguine and fearless understandings of\nthe time. What then? Because those opinions were overcharged, were they\ntherefore altogether groundless? Is the very God of our idolatry all of\na sudden to become an abomination and an anathema? Could so many young\nmen of talent, of education, and of principle have been hurried away by\nwhat had neither truth, nor nature, not one particle of honest feeling\nnor the least show of reason in it? Is the _Modern Philosophy_ (as it\nhas been called) at one moment a youthful bride, and the next a withered\nbeldame, like the false Duessa in Spenser? Or is the vaunted edifice of\nReason, like his House of Pride, gorgeous in front, and dazzling to\napproach, while \u2018its hinder parts are ruinous, decayed, and old?\u2019 Has\nthe main prop, which supported the mighty fabric, been shaken and given\nway under the strong grasp of some Samson; or has it not rather been\nundermined by rats and vermin? At one time, it almost seemed, that \u2018if\nthis failed,\n\n                 The pillar\u2019d firmament was rottenness,\n                 And earth\u2019s base built of stubble:\u2019\n\nnow scarce a shadow of it remains, it is crumbled to dust, nor is it\neven talked of! \u2018What, then, went ye forth for to see, a reed shaken\nwith the wind?\u2019 Was it for this that our young gownsmen of the greatest\nexpectation and promise, versed in classic lore, steeped in dialectics,\narmed at all points for the foe, well read, well nurtured, well provided\nfor, left the University and the prospect of lawn sleeves, tearing\nasunder the shackles of the free born spirit, and the cobwebs of\nschool-divinity, to throw themselves at the feet of the new Gamaliel,\nand learn wisdom from him? Was it for this, that students at the bar,\nacute, inquisitive, sceptical (here only wild enthusiasts) neglected for\na while the paths of preferment and the law as too narrow, tortuous, and\nunseemly to bear the pure and broad light of reason? Was it for this,\nthat students in medicine missed their way to Lecturerships and the top\nof their profession, deeming lightly of the health of the body, and\ndreaming only of the renovation of society and the march of mind? Was it\nto this that Mr. Southey\u2019s _Inscriptions_ pointed? to this that Mr.\nColeridge\u2019s _Religious Musings_ tended? Was it for this, that Mr. Godwin\nhimself sat with arms folded, and, \u2018like Cato, gave his little senate\nlaws?\u2019 Or rather, like another Prospero, uttered syllables that with\ntheir enchanted breath were to change the world, and might almost stop\nthe stars in their courses? Oh! and is all forgot? Is this sun of\nintellect blotted from the sky? Or has it suffered total eclipse? Or is\nit we who make the fancied gloom, by looking at it through the paltry,\nbroken, stained fragments of our own interests and prejudices? Were we\nfools then, or are we dishonest now? Or was the impulse of the mind less\nlikely to be true and sound when it arose from high thought and warm\nfeeling, than afterwards, when it was warped and debased by the example,\nthe vices, and follies of the world?\n\nThe fault, then, of Mr. Godwin\u2019s philosophy, in one word, was too much\nambition\u2014\u2018by that sin fell the angels!\u2019 He conceived too nobly of his\nfellows (the most unpardonable crime against them, for there is nothing\nthat annoys our self-love so much as being complimented on imaginary\nachievements, to which we are wholly unequal)\u2014he raised the standard of\nmorality above the reach of humanity, and by directing virtue to the\nmost airy and romantic heights, made her path dangerous, solitary, and\nimpracticable. The author of the _Political Justice_ took abstract\nreason for the rule of conduct, and abstract good for its end. He places\nthe human mind on an elevation, from which it commands a view of the\nwhole line of moral consequences; and requires it to conform its acts to\nthe larger and more enlightened conscience which it has thus acquired.\nHe absolves man from the gross and narrow ties of sense, custom,\nauthority, private and local attachment, in order that he may devote\nhimself to the boundless pursuit of universal benevolence. Mr. Godwin\ngives no quarter to the amiable weaknesses of our nature, nor does he\nstoop to avail himself of the supplementary aids of an imperfect virtue.\nGratitude, promises, friendship, family affection give way, not that\nthey may be merged in the opposite vices or in want of principle; but\nthat the void may be filled up by the disinterested love of good, and\nthe dictates of inflexible justice, which is \u2018the law of laws, and\nsovereign of sovereigns.\u2019 All minor considerations yield, in his system,\nto the stern sense of duty, as they do, in the ordinary and established\nones, to the voice of necessity. Mr. Godwin\u2019s theory, and that of more\napproved reasoners, differ only in this, that what are with them the\nexceptions, the extreme cases, he makes the every-day rule. No one\ndenies that on great occasions, in moments of fearful excitement, or\nwhen a mighty object is at stake, the lesser and merely instrumental\npoints of duty are to be sacrificed without remorse at the shrine of\npatriotism, of honour, and of conscience. But the disciple of the _New\nSchool_ (no wonder it found so many impugners, even in its own bosom!)\nis to be always the hero of duty; the law to which he has bound himself\nnever swerves nor relaxes; his feeling of what is right is to be at all\ntimes wrought up to a pitch of enthusiastic self-devotion; he must\nbecome the unshrinking martyr and confessor of the public good. If it be\nsaid that this scheme is chimerical and impracticable on ordinary\noccasions, and to the generality of mankind, well and good; but those\nwho accuse the author of having trampled on the common feelings and\nprejudices of mankind in wantonness or insult, or without wishing to\nsubstitute something better (and only unattainable, because it is\nbetter) in their stead, accuse him wrongfully. We may not be able to\nlaunch the bark of our affections on the ocean-tide of humanity, we may\nbe forced to paddle along its shores, or shelter in its creeks and\nrivulets: but we have no right to reproach the bold and adventurous\npilot, who dared us to tempt the uncertain abyss, with our own want of\ncourage or of skill, or with the jealousies and impatience, which deter\nus from undertaking, or might prevent us from accomplishing the voyage!\n\nThe _Enquiry concerning Political Justice_ (it was urged by its\nfavourers and defenders at the time, and may still be so, without either\nprofaneness or levity) is a metaphysical and logical commentary on some\nof the most beautiful and striking texts of Scripture. Mr. Godwin is a\nmixture of the Stoic and of the Christian philosopher. To break the\nforce of the vulgar objections and outcry that have been raised against\nthe Modern Philosophy, as if it were a new and monstrous birth in\nmorals, it may be worth noticing, that volumes of sermons have been\nwritten to excuse the founder of Christianity for not including\nfriendship and private affection among its golden rules, but rather\nexcluding them.[35] Moreover, the answer to the question, \u2018Who is thy\nneighbour?\u2019 added to the divine precept, \u2018Thou shalt love thy neighbour\nas thyself,\u2019 is the same as in the exploded pages of our author,\u2014\u2018He to\nwhom we can do most good.\u2019 In determining this point, we were not to be\ninfluenced by any extrinsic or collateral considerations, by our own\npredilections, or the expectations of others, by our obligations to them\nor any services they might be able to render us, by the climate they\nwere born in, by the house they lived in, by rank or religion, or party,\nor personal ties, but by the abstract merits, the pure and unbiassed\njustice of the case. The artificial helps and checks to moral conduct\nwere set aside as spurious and unnecessary, and we came at once to the\ngrand and simple question\u2014\u2018In what manner we could best contribute to\nthe greatest possible good?\u2019 This was the paramount obligation in all\ncases whatever, from which we had no right to free ourselves upon any\nidle or formal pretext, and of which each person was to judge for\nhimself, under the infallible authority of his own opinion and the\ninviolable sanction of his self-approbation. \u2018There was the rub that\nmade _philosophy_ of so short life!\u2019 Mr. Godwin\u2019s definition of morals\nwas the same as the admired one of law, _reason without passion_; but\nwith the unlimited scope of private opinion, and in a boundless field of\nspeculation (for nothing less would satisfy the pretensions of the New\nSchool), there was danger that the unseasoned novice might substitute\nsome pragmatical conceit of his own for the rule of right reason, and\nmistake a heartless indifference for a superiority to more natural and\ngenerous feelings. Our ardent and dauntless reformer followed out the\nmoral of the parable of the Good Samaritan into its most rigid and\nrepulsive consequences with a pen of steel, and let fall his\n\u2018trenchant-blade\u2019 on every vulnerable point of human infirmity; but\nthere is a want in his system of the mild and persuasive tone of the\nGospel, where \u2018all is conscience and tender heart.\u2019 Man was indeed\nscrewed up, by mood and figure, into a logical machine, that was to\nforward the public good with the utmost punctuality and effect, and it\nmight go very well on smooth ground and under favourable circumstances;\nbut would it work up-hill or _against the grain_? It was to be feared\nthat the proud Temple of Reason, which at a distance and in stately\nsupposition shone like the palaces of the New Jerusalem, might (when\nplaced on actual ground) be broken up into the sordid styes of\nsensuality, and the petty huckster\u2019s shops of self-interest! Every man\n(it was proposed\u2014\u2018so ran the tenour of the bond\u2019) was to be a Regulus, a\nCodrus, a Cato, or a Brutus\u2014every woman a Mother of the Gracchi.\n\n                   \u2018\u2014\u2014It was well said,\n               And \u2019tis a kind of good deed to say well.\u2019\n\nBut heroes on paper might degenerate into vagabonds in practice,\nCorinnas into courtezans. Thus a refined and permanent individual\nattachment is intended to supply the place and avoid the inconveniences\nof marriage; but vows of eternal constancy, without church security, are\nfound to be fragile. A member of the _ideal_ and perfect commonwealth of\nletters lends another a hundred pounds for immediate and pressing use;\nand when he applies for it again, the borrower has still more need of it\nthan he, and retains it for his own especial, which is tantamount to the\npublic good. The Exchequer of pure reason, like that of the State, never\nrefunds. The political as well as the religious fanatic appeals from the\nover-weening opinion and claims of others to the highest and most\nimpartial tribunal, namely, his own breast. Two persons agree to live\ntogether in Chambers on principles of pure equality and mutual\nassistance\u2014but when it comes to the push, one of them finds that the\nother always insists on his fetching water from the pump in Hare-court,\nand cleaning his shoes for him. A modest assurance was not the least\nindispensable virtue in the new perfectibility code; and it was hence\ndiscovered to be a scheme, like other schemes where there are all prizes\nand no blanks, for the accommodation of the enterprizing and cunning, at\nthe expence of the credulous and honest. This broke up the system, and\nleft no good odour behind it! Reason has become a sort of bye-word, and\nphilosophy has, \u2018fallen first into a fasting, then into a sadness, then\ninto a decline, and last, into the dissolution of which we all\ncomplain!\u2019 This is a worse error than the former: we may be said to have\n\u2018lost the immortal part of ourselves, and what remains is beastly!\u2019\n\nThe point of view from which this matter may be fairly considered, is\ntwo-fold, and may be stated thus:\u2014In the first place, it by no means\nfollows, because reason is found not to be the only infallible or safe\nrule of conduct, that it is no rule at all; or that we are to discard it\naltogether with derision and ignominy. On the contrary, if not the sole,\nit is the principal ground of action; it is, \u2018the guide, the stay and\nanchor of our purest thoughts, and soul of all our moral being.\u2019 In\nproportion as we strengthen and expand this principle, and bring our\naffections and subordinate, but perhaps more powerful motives of action\ninto harmony with it, it will not admit of a doubt that we advance to\nthe goal of perfection, and answer the ends of our creation, those ends\nwhich not only morality enjoins, but which religion sanctions. If with\nthe utmost stretch of reason, man cannot (as some seemed inclined to\nsuppose) soar up to the God, and quit the ground of human frailty, yet,\nstripped wholly of it, he sinks at once into the brute. If it cannot\nstand alone, in its naked simplicity, but requires other props to\nbuttress it up, or ornaments to set it off; yet without it the moral\nstructure would fall flat and dishonoured to the ground. Private reason\nis that which raises the individual above his mere animal instincts,\nappetites, and passions: public reason in its gradual progress separates\nthe savage from the civilized state. Without the one, men would resemble\nwild beasts in their dens; without the other, they would be speedily\nconverted into hordes of barbarians or banditti. Sir Walter Scott, in\nhis zeal to restore the spirit of loyalty, of passive obedience and\nnon-resistance as an acknowledgment for his having been created a\nBaronet by a Prince of the House of Brunswick, may think it a fine thing\nto return in imagination to the good old times, \u2018when in Auvergne alone,\nthere were three hundred nobles whose most ordinary actions were\nrobbery, rape, and murder,\u2019 when the castle of each Norman baron was a\nstrong hold from which the lordly proprietor issued to oppress and\nplunder the neighbouring districts, and when the Saxon peasantry were\ntreated by their gay and gallant tyrants as a herd of loathsome\nswine\u2014but for our own parts, we beg to be excused; we had rather live in\nthe same age with the author of Waverley and Blackwood\u2019s Magazine.\nReason is the meter and alnager in civil intercourse, by which each\nperson\u2019s upstart and contradictory pretensions are weighed and approved\nor found wanting, and without which it could not subsist, any more than\ntraffic or the exchange of commodities could be carried on without\nweights and measures. It is the medium of knowledge, and the polisher of\nmanners, by creating common interests and ideas. Or in the words of a\ncontemporary writer, \u2018Reason is the queen of the moral world, the soul\nof the universe, the lamp of human life, the pillar of society, the\nfoundation of law, the beacon of nations, the golden chain let down from\nheaven, which links all accountable and all intelligent natures in one\ncommon system\u2014and in the vain strife between fanatic innovation and\nfanatic prejudice, we are exhorted to dethrone this queen of the world,\nto blot out this light of the mind, to deface this fair column, to break\nin pieces this golden chain! We are to discard and throw from us with\nloud taunts and bitter execrations that reason, which has been the lofty\ntheme of the philosopher, the poet, the moralist, and the divine, whose\nname was not first named to be abused by the enthusiasts of the French\nRevolution, or to be blasphemed by the madder enthusiasts, the advocates\nof Divine Right, but which is coeval with, and inseparable from the\nnature and faculties of man\u2014is the image of his Maker stamped upon him\nat his birth, the understanding breathed into him with the breath of\nlife, and in the participation and improvement of which alone he is\nraised above the brute creation and his own physical nature!\u2019\u2014The\noverstrained and ridiculous pretensions of monks and ascetics were never\nthought to justify a return to unbridled licence of manners, or the\nthrowing aside of all decency. The hypocrisy, cruelty, and fanaticism,\noften attendant on peculiar professions of sanctity, have not banished\nthe name of religion from the world. Neither can \u2018the unreasonableness\nof the reason\u2019 of some modern sciolists so \u2018unreason our reason,\u2019 as to\ndebar us of the benefit of this principle in future, or to disfranchise\nus of the highest privilege of our nature. In the second place, if it is\nadmitted that Reason alone is not the sole and self-sufficient ground of\nmorals, it is to Mr. Godwin that we are indebted for having settled the\npoint. No one denied or distrusted this principle (before his time) as\nthe absolute judge and interpreter in all questions of difficulty; and\nif this is no longer the case, it is because he has taken this\nprinciple, and followed it into its remotest consequences with more\nkeenness of eye and steadiness of hand than any other expounder of\nethics. His grand work is (at least) an _experimentum crucis_ to show\nthe weak sides and imperfections of human reason as the sole law of\nhuman action. By overshooting the mark, or by \u2018flying an eagle flight,\nforth and right on,\u2019 he has pointed out the limit or line of separation,\nbetween what is practicable and what is barely conceivable\u2014by imposing\nimpossible tasks on the naked strength of the will, he has discovered\nhow far it is or is not in our power to dispense with the illusions of\nsense, to resist the calls of affection, to emancipate ourselves from\nthe force of habit; and thus, though he has not said it himself, has\nenabled others to say to the towering aspirations after good, and to the\nover-bearing pride of human intellect\u2014\u2018Thus far shalt thou come, and no\nfarther!\u2019 Captain Parry would be thought to have rendered a service to\nnavigation and his country, no less by proving that there is no\nNorth-West Passage, than if he had ascertained that there is one: so Mr.\nGodwin has rendered an essential service to moral science, by attempting\n(in vain) to pass the Arctic Circle and Frozen Regions, where the\nunderstanding is no longer warmed by the affections, nor fanned by the\nbreeze of fancy! This is the effect of all bold, original, and powerful\nthinking, that it either discovers the truth, or detects where error\nlies; and the only crime with which Mr. Godwin can be charged as a\npolitical and moral reasoner is, that he has displayed a more ardent\nspirit, and a more independent activity of thought than others, in\nestablishing the fallacy (if fallacy it be) of an old popular prejudice\nthat _the Just and True were one_, by \u2018championing it to the Outrance,\u2019\nand in the final result placing the Gothic structure of human virtue on\nan humbler, but a wider and safer foundation than it had hitherto\noccupied in the volumes and systems of the learned.\n\nMr. Godwin is an inventor in the regions of romance, as well as a\nskilful and hardy explorer of those of moral truth. _Caleb Williams_ and\n_St. Leon_ are two of the most splendid and impressive works of the\nimagination that have appeared in our times. It is not merely that these\nnovels are very well for a philosopher to have produced\u2014they are\nadmirable and complete in themselves, and would not lead you to suppose\nthat the author, who is so entirely at home in human character and\ndramatic situation, had ever dabbled in logic or metaphysics. The first\nof these, particularly, is a masterpiece, both as to invention and\nexecution. The romantic and chivalrous principle of the love of personal\nfame is embodied in the finest possible manner in the character of\nFalkland[36]; as in Caleb Williams (who is not the first, but the second\ncharacter in the piece) we see the very demon of curiosity personified.\nPerhaps the art with which these two characters are contrived to relieve\nand set off each other, has never been surpassed in any work of fiction,\nwith the exception of the immortal satire of Cervantes. The restless and\ninquisitive spirit of Caleb Williams, in search and in possession of his\npatron\u2019s fatal secret, haunts the latter like a second conscience,\nplants stings in his tortured mind, fans the flames of his jealous\nambition, struggling with agonized remorse; and the hapless but\nnoble-minded Falkland at length falls a martyr to the persecution of\nthat morbid and overpowering interest, of which his mingled virtues and\nvices have rendered him the object. We conceive no one ever began Caleb\nWilliams that did not read it through: no one that ever read it could\npossibly forget it, or speak of it after any length of time but with an\nimpression as if the events and feelings had been personal to himself.\nThis is the case also with the story of St. Leon, which, with less\ndramatic interest and intensity of purpose, is set off by a more\ngorgeous and flowing eloquence, and by a crown of preternatural imagery,\nthat waves over it like a palm-tree! It is the beauty and the charm of\nMr. Godwin\u2019s descriptions that the reader identifies himself with the\nauthor; and the secret of this is, that the author has identified\nhimself with his personages. Indeed, he has created them. They are the\nproper issue of his brain, lawfully begot, not foundlings, nor the\n\u2018bastards of his art.\u2019 He is not an indifferent, callous spectator of\nthe scenes which he himself pourtrays, but without seeming to feel them.\nThere is no look of patchwork and plagiarism, the beggarly copiousness\nof borrowed wealth; no tracery-work from worm-eaten manuscripts, from\nforgotten chronicles, nor piecing out of vague traditions with fragments\nand snatches of old ballads, so that the result resembles a gaudy,\nstaring transparency, in which you cannot distinguish the daubing of the\npainter from the light that shines through the flimsy colours and gives\nthem brilliancy. Here all is clearly made out with strokes of the\npencil, by fair, not by factitious means. Our author takes a given\nsubject from nature or from books, and then fills it up with the ardent\nworkings of his own mind, with the teeming and audible pulses of his own\nheart. The effect is entire and satisfactory in proportion. The work (so\nto speak) and the author are one. We are not puzzled to decide upon\ntheir respective pretensions. In reading Mr. Godwin\u2019s novels, we know\nwhat share of merit the author has in them. In reading the _Scotch\nNovels_, we are perpetually embarrassed in asking ourselves this\nquestion; and perhaps it is not altogether a false modesty that prevents\nthe editor from putting his name in the title-page\u2014he is (for any thing\nwe know to the contrary) only a more voluminous sort of Allen-a-Dale. At\nleast, we may claim this advantage for the English author, that the\nchains with which he rivets our attention are forged out of his own\nthoughts, link by link, blow for blow, with glowing enthusiasm: we see\nthe genuine ore melted in the furnace of fervid feeling, and moulded\ninto stately and _ideal_ forms; and this is so far better than peeping\ninto an old iron shop, or pilfering from a dealer in marine stores!\nThere is one drawback, however, attending this mode of proceeding, which\nattaches generally, indeed, to all originality of composition; namely,\nthat it has a tendency to a certain degree of monotony. He who draws\nupon his own resources, easily comes to an end of his wealth. Mr.\nGodwin, in all his writings, dwells upon one idea or exclusive view of a\nsubject, aggrandises a sentiment, exaggerates a character, or pushes an\nargument to extremes, and makes up by the force of style and continuity\nof feeling for what he wants in variety of incident or ease of manner.\nThis necessary defect is observable in his best works, and is still more\nso in Fleetwood and Mandeville; the one of which, compared with his more\nadmired performances, is mawkish, and the other morbid. Mr. Godwin is\nalso an essayist, an historian\u2014in short, what is he not, that belongs to\nthe character of an indefatigable and accomplished author? His _Life of\nChaucer_ would have given celebrity to any man of letters possessed of\nthree thousand a year, with leisure to write quartos: as the legal\nacuteness displayed in his _Remarks on Judge Eyre\u2019s Charge to the Jury_\nwould have raised any briefless barrister to the height of his\nprofession. This temporary effusion did more\u2014it gave a turn to the\ntrials for high treason in the year 1794, and possibly saved the lives\nof twelve innocent individuals, marked out as political victims to the\nMoloch of Legitimacy, which then skulked behind a British throne, and\nhad not yet dared to stalk forth (as it has done since) from its\nlurking-place, in the face of day, to brave the opinion of the world. If\nit had then glutted its maw with its intended prey (the sharpness of Mr.\nGodwin\u2019s pen cut the legal cords with which it was attempted to bind\nthem), it might have done so sooner, and with more lasting effect. The\nworld do not know (and we are not sure but the intelligence may startle\nMr. Godwin himself), that he is the author of a volume of Sermons, and\nof a life of Chatham.[37]\n\nMr. Fawcett (an old friend and fellow-student of our author, and who\nalways spoke of his writings with admiration, tinctured with wonder)\nused to mention a circumstance with respect to the last-mentioned work,\nwhich may throw some light on the history and progress of Mr. Godwin\u2019s\nmind. He was anxious to make his biographical account as complete as he\ncould, and applied for this purpose to many of his acquaintance to\nfurnish him with anecdotes or to suggest criticisms. Amongst others Mr.\nFawcett repeated to him what he thought a striking passage in a speech\non _General Warrants_ delivered by Lord Chatham, at which he (Mr.\nFawcett) had been present. \u2018Every man\u2019s house\u2019 (said this emphatic\nthinker and speaker) \u2018has been called his castle. And why is it called\nhis castle? Is it because it is defended by a wall, because it is\nsurrounded with a moat? No, it may be nothing more than a straw-built\nshed. It may be open to all the elements: the wind may enter in, the\nrain may enter in\u2014but the king _cannot_ enter in!\u2019 His friend thought\nthat the point was here palpable enough: but when he came to read the\nprinted volume, he found it thus _transposed_: \u2018Every man\u2019s house is his\ncastle. And why is it called so? Is it because it is defended by a wall,\nbecause it is surrounded with a moat? No, it may be nothing more than a\nstraw-built shed. It may be exposed to all the elements: the rain may\nenter into it, _all the winds of Heaven may whistle round it_, but the\nking cannot, &c.\u2019 This was what Fawcett called a defect of _natural\nimagination_. He at the same time admitted that Mr. Godwin had improved\nhis native sterility in this respect; or atoned for it by incessant\nactivity of mind and by accumulated stores of thought and powers of\nlanguage. In fact, his _forte_ is not the spontaneous, but the voluntary\nexercise of talent. He fixes his ambition on a high point of excellence,\nand spares no pains or time in attaining it. He has less of the\nappearance of a man of genius, than any one who has given such decided\nand ample proofs of it. He is ready only on reflection: dangerous only\nat the rebound. He gathers himself up, and strains every nerve and\nfaculty with deliberate aim to some heroic and dazzling achievement of\nintellect: but he must make a career before he flings himself, armed,\nupon the enemy, or he is sure to be unhorsed. Or he resembles an\neight-day clock that must be wound up long before it can strike.\nTherefore, his powers of conversation are but limited. He has neither\nacuteness of remark, nor a flow of language, both which might be\nexpected from his writings, as these are no less distinguished by a\nsustained and impassioned tone of declamation than by novelty of opinion\nor brilliant tracks of invention. In company, Horne Tooke used to make a\nmere child of him\u2014or of any man! Mr. Godwin liked this treatment,[38]\nand indeed it is his foible to fawn on those who use him _cavalierly_,\nand to be cavalier to those who express an undue or unqualified\nadmiration of him. He looks up with unfeigned respect to acknowledged\nreputation (but then it must be very well ascertained before he admits\nit)\u2014and has a favourite hypothesis that Understanding and Virtue are the\nsame thing. Mr. Godwin possesses a high degree of philosophical candour,\nand studiously paid the homage of his pen and person to Mr. Malthus, Sir\nJames Mackintosh, and Dr. Parr, for their unsparing attacks on him; but\nwoe to any poor devil who had the hardihood to defend him against them!\nIn private, the author of _Political Justice_ at one time reminded those\nwho knew him of the metaphysician engrafted on the Dissenting Minister.\nThere was a dictatorial, captious, quibbling pettiness of manner. He\nlost this with the first blush and awkwardness of popularity, which\nsurprised him in the retirement of his study; and he has since, with the\nwear and tear of society, from being too pragmatical, become somewhat\ntoo careless. He is, at present, as easy as an old glove. Perhaps there\nis a little attention to effect in this, and he wishes to appear a foil\nto himself. His best moments are with an intimate acquaintance or two,\nwhen he gossips in a fine vein about old authors, Clarendon\u2019s _History\nof the Rebellion_, or Burnet\u2019s _History of his own Time_; and you\nperceive by your host\u2019s talk, as by the taste of seasoned wine, that he\nhas a _cellarage_ in his understanding! Mr. Godwin also has a correct\n_acquired_ taste in poetry and the drama. He relishes Donne and Ben\nJonson, and recites a passage from either with an agreeable mixture of\npedantry and _bonhommie_. He is not one of those who do not grow wiser\nwith opportunity and reflection: he changes his opinions, and changes\nthem for the better. The alteration of his taste in poetry, from an\nexclusive admiration of the age of Queen Anne to an almost equally\nexclusive one of that of Elizabeth, is, we suspect, owing to Mr.\nColeridge, who some twenty years ago, threw a great stone into the\nstanding pool of criticism, which splashed some persons with the mud,\nbut which gave a motion to the surface and a reverberation to the\nneighbouring echoes, which has not since subsided. In common company,\nMr. Godwin either goes to sleep himself, or sets others to sleep. He is\nat present engaged in a History of the Commonwealth of England.\u2014_Esto\nperpetua!_ In size Mr. Godwin is below the common stature, nor is his\ndeportment graceful or animated. His face is, however, fine, with an\nexpression of placid temper and recondite thought. He is not unlike the\ncommon portraits of Locke. There is a very admirable likeness of him by\nMr. Northcote, which with a more heroic and dignified air, only does\njustice to the profound sagacity and benevolent aspirations of our\nauthor\u2019s mind. Mr. Godwin has kept the best company of his time, but he\nhas survived most of the celebrated persons with whom he lived in habits\nof intimacy. He speaks of them with enthusiasm and with discrimination;\nand sometimes dwells with peculiar delight on a day passed at John\nKemble\u2019s in company with Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Curran, Mrs. Wollstonecraft\nand Mrs. Inchbald, when the conversation took a most animated turn, and\nthe subject was of Love. Of all these our author is the only one\nremaining. Frail tenure, on which human life and genius are lent us for\na while to improve or to enjoy!\n\n\n\n\n                             MR. COLERIDGE\n\n\nThe present is an age of talkers, and not of doers; and the reason is,\nthat the world is growing old. We are so far advanced in the Arts and\nSciences, that we live in retrospect, and doat on past achievements. The\naccumulation of knowledge has been so great, that we are lost in wonder\nat the height it has reached, instead of attempting to climb or add to\nit; while the variety of objects distracts and dazzles the looker-on.\nWhat _niche_ remains unoccupied? What path untried? What is the use of\ndoing anything, unless we could do better than all those who have gone\nbefore us? What hope is there of this? We are like those who have been\nto see some noble monument of art, who are content to admire without\nthinking of rivalling it; or like guests after a feast, who praise the\nhospitality of the donor \u2018and thank the bounteous Pan\u2019\u2014perhaps carrying\naway some trifling fragments; or like the spectators of a mighty battle,\nwho still hear its sound afar off, and the clashing of armour and the\nneighing of the war-horse and the shout of victory is in their ears,\nlike the rushing of innumerable waters!\n\nMr. Coleridge has \u2018a mind reflecting ages past\u2019; his voice is like the\necho of the congregated roar of the \u2018dark rearward and abyss\u2019 of\nthought. He who has seen a mouldering tower by the side of a chrystal\nlake, hid by the mist, but glittering in the wave below, may conceive\nthe dim, gleaming, uncertain intelligence of his eye: he who has marked\nthe evening clouds uprolled (a world of vapours), has seen the picture\nof his mind, unearthly, unsubstantial, with gorgeous tints and\never-varying forms\u2014\n\n            \u2018That which was now a horse, even with a thought\n            The rack dislimns, and makes it indistinct\n            As water is in water.\u2019\n\nOur author\u2019s mind is (as he himself might express it) _tangential_.\nThere is no subject on which he has not touched, none on which he has\nrested. With an understanding fertile, subtle, expansive, \u2018quick,\nforgetive, apprehensive,\u2019 beyond all living precedent, few traces of it\nwill perhaps remain. He lends himself to all impressions alike; he gives\nup his mind and liberty of thought to none. He is a general lover of art\nand science, and wedded to no one in particular. He pursues knowledge as\na mistress, with outstretched hands and winged speed; but as he is about\nto embrace her, his Daphne turns\u2014alas! not to a laurel! Hardly a\nspeculation has been left on record from the earliest time, but it is\nloosely folded up in Mr. Coleridge\u2019s memory, like a rich, but somewhat\ntattered piece of tapestry: we might add (with more seeming than real\nextravagance), that scarce a thought can pass through the mind of man,\nbut its sound has at some time or other passed over his head with\nrustling pinions. On whatever question or author you speak, he is\nprepared to take up the theme with advantage\u2014from Peter Abelard down to\nThomas Moore, from the subtlest metaphysics to the politics of the\n_Courier_. There is no man of genius, in whose praise he descants, but\nthe critic seems to stand above the author, and \u2018what in him is weak, to\nstrengthen, what is low, to raise and support\u2019: nor is there any work of\ngenius that does not come out of his hands like an illuminated Missal,\nsparkling even in its defects. If Mr. Coleridge had not been the most\nimpressive talker of his age, he would probably have been the finest\nwriter; but he lays down his pen to make sure of an auditor, and\nmortgages the admiration of posterity for the stare of an idler. If he\nhad not been a poet, he would have been a powerful logician; if he had\nnot dipped his wing in the Unitarian controversy, he might have soared\nto the very summit of fancy. But in writing verse, he is trying to\nsubject the Muse to _transcendental_ theories: in his abstract\nreasoning, he misses his way by strewing it with flowers. All that he\nhas done of moment, he had done twenty years ago: since then, he may be\nsaid to have lived on the sound of his own voice. Mr. Coleridge is too\nrich in intellectual wealth, to need to task himself to any drudgery: he\nhas only to draw the sliders of his imagination, and a thousand subjects\nexpand before him, startling him with their brilliancy, or losing\nthemselves in endless obscurity\u2014\n\n                  \u2018And by the force of blear illusion,\n                  They draw him on to his confusion.\u2019\n\nWhat is the little he could add to the stock, compared with the\ncountless stores that lie about him, that he should stoop to pick up a\nname, or to polish an idle fancy? He walks abroad in the majesty of an\nuniversal understanding, eyeing the \u2018rich strond,\u2019 or golden sky above\nhim, and \u2018goes sounding on his way,\u2019 in eloquent accents, uncompelled\nand free!\n\nPersons of the greatest capacity are often those, who for this reason do\nthe least; for surveying themselves from the highest point of view,\namidst the infinite variety of the universe, their own share in it seems\ntrifling, and scarce worth a thought, and they prefer the contemplation\nof all that is, or has been, or can be, to the making a coil about doing\nwhat, when done, is no better than vanity. It is hard to concentrate all\nour attention and efforts on one pursuit, except from ignorance of\nothers; and without this concentration of our faculties, no great\nprogress can be made in any one thing. It is not merely that the mind is\nnot capable of the effort; it does not think the effort worth making.\nAction is one; but thought is manifold. He whose restless eye glances\nthrough the wide compass of nature and art, will not consent to have\n\u2018his own nothings monstered\u2019: but he must do this, before he can give\nhis whole soul to them. The mind, after \u2018letting contemplation have its\nfill,\u2019 or\n\n                    \u2018Sailing with supreme dominion\n                    Through the azure deep of air,\u2019\n\nsinks down on the ground, breathless, exhausted, powerless, inactive; or\nif it must have some vent to its feelings, seeks the most easy and\nobvious; is soothed by friendly flattery, lulled by the murmur of\nimmediate applause, thinks as it were aloud, and babbles in its dreams!\nA scholar (so to speak) is a more disinterested and abstracted character\nthan a mere author. The first looks at the numberless volumes of a\nlibrary, and says, \u2018All these are mine\u2019: the other points to a single\nvolume (perhaps it may be an immortal one) and says, \u2018My name is written\non the back of it.\u2019 This is a puny and groveling ambition, beneath the\nlofty amplitude of Mr. Coleridge\u2019s mind. No, he revolves in his wayward\nsoul, or utters to the passing wind, or discourses to his own shadow,\nthings mightier and more various!\u2014Let us draw the curtain, and unlock\nthe shrine.\n\nLearning rocked him in his cradle, and while yet a child,\n\n             \u2018He lisped in numbers, for the numbers came.\u2019\n\nAt sixteen he wrote his _Ode on Chatterton_, and he still reverts to\nthat period with delight, not so much as it relates to himself (for that\nstring of his own early promise of fame rather jars than otherwise) but\nas exemplifying the youth of a poet. Mr. Coleridge talks of himself,\nwithout being an egotist, for in him the individual is always merged in\nthe abstract and general. He distinguished himself at school and at the\nUniversity by his knowledge of the classics, and gained several prizes\nfor Greek epigrams. How many men are there (great scholars, celebrated\nnames in literature) who having done the same thing in their youth, have\nno other idea all the rest of their lives but of this achievement, of a\nfellowship and dinner, and who, installed in academic honours, would\nlook down on our author as a mere strolling bard! At Christ\u2019s Hospital,\nwhere he was brought up, he was the idol of those among his\nschoolfellows, who mingled with their bookish studies the music of\nthought and of humanity; and he was usually attended round the cloisters\nby a group of these (inspiring and inspired) whose hearts, even then,\nburnt within them as he talked, and where the sounds yet linger to mock\nELIA on his way, still turning pensive to the past! One of the finest\nand rarest parts of Mr. Coleridge\u2019s conversation, is when he expatiates\non the Greek tragedians (not that he is not well acquainted, when he\npleases, with the epic poets, or the philosophers, or orators, or\nhistorians of antiquity)\u2014on the subtle reasonings and melting pathos of\nEuripides, on the harmonious gracefulness of Sophocles, tuning his\nlove-laboured song, like sweetest warblings from a sacred grove; on the\nhigh-wrought trumpet-tongued eloquence of \u00c6schylus, whose Prometheus,\nabove all, is like an Ode to Fate, and a pleading with Providence, his\nthoughts being let loose as his body is chained on his solitary rock,\nand his afflicted will (the emblem of mortality)\n\n              \u2018Struggling in vain with ruthless destiny.\u2019\n\nAs the impassioned critic speaks and rises in his theme, you would think\nyou heard the voice of the Man hated by the Gods, contending with the\nwild winds as they roar, and his eye glitters with the spirit of\nAntiquity!\n\nNext, he was engaged with Hartley\u2019s tribes of mind, \u2018etherial braid,\nthought-woven,\u2019\u2014and he busied himself for a year or two with vibrations\nand vibratiuncles and the great law of association that binds all things\nin its mystic chain, and the doctrine of Necessity (the mild teacher of\nCharity) and the Millennium, anticipative of a life to come\u2014and he\nplunged deep into the controversy on Matter and Spirit, and, as an\nescape from Dr. Priestley\u2019s Materialism, where he felt himself\nimprisoned by the logician\u2019s spell, like Ariel in the cloven pine-tree,\nhe became suddenly enamoured of Bishop Berkeley\u2019s fairy-world,[39] and\nused in all companies to build the universe, like a brave poetical\nfiction, of fine words\u2014and he was deep-read in Malebranche, and in\nCudworth\u2019s Intellectual System (a huge pile of learning, unwieldy,\nenormous) and in Lord Brook\u2019s hieroglyphic theories, and in Bishop\nButler\u2019s Sermons, and in the Duchess of Newcastle\u2019s fantastic folios,\nand in Clarke and South and Tillotson, and all the fine thinkers and\nmasculine reasoners of that age\u2014and Leibnitz\u2019s _Pre-Established Harmony_\nreared its arch above his head, like the rainbow in the cloud,\ncovenanting with the hopes of man\u2014and then he fell plump, ten thousand\nfathoms down (but his wings saved him harmless) into the _hortus siccus_\nof Dissent, where he pared religion down to the standard of reason, and\nstripped faith of mystery, and preached Christ crucified and the Unity\nof the Godhead, and so dwelt for a while in the spirit with John Huss\nand Jerome of Prague and Socinus and old John Zisca, and ran through\nNeal\u2019s History of the Puritans, and Calamy\u2019s Non-Conformists\u2019 Memorial,\nhaving like thoughts and passions with them\u2014but then Spinoza became his\nGod, and he took up the vast chain of being in his hand, and the round\nworld became the centre and the soul of all things in some shadowy\nsense, forlorn of meaning, and around him he beheld the living traces\nand the sky-pointing proportions of the mighty Pan\u2014but poetry redeemed\nhim from this spectral philosophy, and he bathed his heart in beauty,\nand gazed at the golden light of heaven, and drank of the spirit of the\nuniverse, and wandered at eve by fairy-stream or fountain,\n\n               \u2018\u2014\u2014When he saw nought but beauty,\n           When he heard the voice of that Almighty One\n           In every breeze that blew, or wave that murmured\u2019\u2014\n\nand wedded with truth in Plato\u2019s shade, and in the writings of Proclus\nand Plotinus saw the ideas of things in the eternal mind, and unfolded\nall mysteries with the Schoolmen and fathomed the depths of Duns Scotus\nand Thomas Aquinas, and entered the third heaven with Jacob Behmen, and\nwalked hand in hand with Swedenborg through the pavilions of the New\nJerusalem, and sung his faith in the promise and in the word in his\n_Religious Musings_\u2014and lowering himself from that dizzy height, poised\nhimself on Milton\u2019s wings, and spread out his thoughts in charity with\nthe glad prose of Jeremy Taylor, and wept over Bowles\u2019s Sonnets, and\nstudied Cowper\u2019s blank verse, and betook himself to Thomson\u2019s Castle of\nIndolence, and sported with the wits of Charles the Second\u2019s days and of\nQueen Anne, and relished Swift\u2019s style and that of the John Bull\n(Arbuthnot\u2019s we mean, not Mr. Croker\u2019s), and dallied with the British\nEssayists and Novelists, and knew all qualities of more modern writers\nwith a learned spirit, Johnson, and Goldsmith, and Junius, and Burke,\nand Godwin, and the Sorrows of Werter, and Jean Jacques Rousseau, and\nVoltaire, and Marivaux, and Crebillon, and thousands more\u2014now \u2018laughed\nwith Rabelais in his easy chair\u2019 or pointed to Hogarth, or afterwards\ndwelt on Claude\u2019s classic scenes, or spoke with rapture of Raphael, and\ncompared the women at Rome to figures that had walked out of his\npictures, or visited the Oratory of Pisa, and described the works of\nGiotto and Ghirlandaio and Massaccio, and gave the moral of the picture\nof the Triumph of Death, where the beggars and the wretched invoke his\ndreadful dart, but the rich and mighty of the earth quail and shrink\nbefore it; and in that land of siren sights and sounds, saw a dance of\npeasant girls, and was charmed with lutes and gondolas,\u2014or wandered into\nGermany and lost himself in the labyrinths of the Hartz Forest and of\nthe Kantean philosophy, and amongst the cabalistic names of Ficht\u00e9 and\nSchelling and Lessing, and God knows who\u2014this was long after, but all\nthe former while, he had nerved his heart and filled his eyes with\ntears, as he hailed the rising orb of liberty, since quenched in\ndarkness and in blood, and had kindled his affections at the blaze of\nthe French Revolution, and sang for joy when the towers of the Bastile\nand the proud places of the insolent and the oppressor fell, and would\nhave floated his bark, freighted with fondest fancies, across the\nAtlantic wave with Southey and others to seek for peace and freedom\u2014\n\n                   \u2018In Philarmonia\u2019s undivided dale!\u2019\n\nAlas! \u2018Frailty, thy name is _Genius_!\u2019\u2014What is become of all this mighty\nheap of hope, of thought, of learning, and humanity? It has ended in\nswallowing doses of oblivion and in writing paragraphs in the\n_Courier_.\u2014Such and so little is the mind of man!\n\nIt was not to be supposed that Mr. Coleridge could keep on at the rate\nhe set off; he could not realize all he knew or thought, and less could\nnot fix his desultory ambition; other stimulants supplied the place, and\nkept up the intoxicating dream, the fever and the madness of his early\nimpressions. Liberty (the philosopher\u2019s and the poet\u2019s bride) had fallen\na victim, meanwhile, to the murderous practices of the hag, Legitimacy.\nProscribed by court-hirelings, too romantic for the herd of vulgar\npoliticians, our enthusiast stood at bay, and at last turned on the\npivot of a subtle casuistry to the _unclean side_: but his discursive\nreason would not let him trammel himself into a poet-laureate or\nstamp-distributor, and he stopped, ere he had quite passed that\nwell-known \u2018bourne from whence no traveller returns\u2019\u2014and so has sunk\ninto torpid, uneasy repose, tantalized by useless resources, haunted by\nvain imaginings, his lips idly moving, but his heart for ever still, or,\nas the shattered chords vibrate of themselves, making melancholy music\nto the ear of memory! Such is the fate of genius in an age, when in the\nunequal contest with sovereign wrong, every man is ground to powder who\nis not either a born slave, or who does not willingly and at once offer\nup the yearnings of humanity and the dictates of reason as a welcome\nsacrifice to besotted prejudice and loathsome power.\n\nOf all Mr. Coleridge\u2019s productions, the _Ancient Mariner_ is the only\none that we could with confidence put into any person\u2019s hands, on whom\nwe wished to impress a favourable idea of his extraordinary powers. Let\nwhatever other objections be made to it, it is unquestionably a work of\ngenius\u2014of wild, irregular, overwhelming imagination, and has that rich,\nvaried movement in the verse, which gives a distant idea of the lofty or\nchangeful tones of Mr. Coleridge\u2019s voice. In the _Christabel_, there is\none splendid passage on divided friendship. The _Translation of\nSchiller\u2019s Wallenstein_ is also a masterly production in its kind,\nfaithful and spirited. Among his smaller pieces there are occasional\nbursts of pathos and fancy, equal to what we might expect from him; but\nthese form the exception, and not the rule. Such, for instance, is his\naffecting Sonnet to the author of the Robbers.\n\n            \u2018Schiller! that hour I would have wish\u2019d to die,\n              If through the shudd\u2019ring midnight I had sent\n              From the dark dungeon of the tower time-rent,\n            That fearful voice, a famish\u2019d father\u2019s cry\u2014\n            That in no after-moment aught less vast\n              Might stamp me mortal! A triumphant shout\n              Black horror scream\u2019d, and all her goblin rout\n            From the more with\u2019ring scene diminish\u2019d pass\u2019d.\n            Ah! Bard tremendous in sublimity!\n              Could I behold thee in thy loftier mood,\n            Wand\u2019ring at eve, with finely frenzied eye,\n              Beneath some vast old tempest-swinging wood!\n              Awhile, with mute awe gazing, I would brood,\n            Then weep aloud in a wild ecstasy.\u2019\n\nHis Tragedy, entitled _Remorse_, is full of beautiful and striking\npassages, but it does not place the author in the first rank of dramatic\nwriters. But if Mr. Coleridge\u2019s works do not place him in that rank,\nthey injure instead of conveying a just idea of the man, for he himself\nis certainly in the first class of general intellect.\n\nIf our author\u2019s poetry is inferior to his conversation, his prose is\nutterly abortive. Hardly a gleam is to be found in it of the brilliancy\nand richness of those stores of thought and language that he pours out\nincessantly, when they are lost like drops of water in the ground. The\nprincipal work, in which he has attempted to embody his general views of\nthings, is the FRIEND, of which, though it contains some noble passages\nand fine trains of thought, prolixity and obscurity are the most\nfrequent characteristics.\n\nNo two persons can be conceived more opposite in character or genius\nthan the subject of the present and of the preceding sketch. Mr. Godwin,\nwith less natural capacity, and with fewer acquired advantages, by\nconcentrating his mind on some given object, and doing what he had to do\nwith all his might, has accomplished much, and will leave more than one\nmonument of a powerful intellect behind him; Mr. Coleridge, by\ndissipating his, and dallying with every subject by turns, has done\nlittle or nothing to justify to the world or to posterity, the high\nopinion which all who have ever heard him converse, or known him\nintimately, with one accord entertain of him. Mr. Godwin\u2019s faculties\nhave kept at home, and plied their task in the workshop of the brain,\ndiligently and effectually: Mr. Coleridge\u2019s have gossiped away their\ntime, and gadded about from house to house, as if life\u2019s business were\nto melt the hours in listless talk. Mr. Godwin is intent on a subject,\nonly as it concerns himself and his reputation; he works it out as a\nmatter of duty, and discards from his mind whatever does not forward his\nmain object as impertinent and vain. Mr. Coleridge, on the other hand,\ndelights in nothing but episodes and digressions, neglects whatever he\nundertakes to perform, and can act only on spontaneous impulses, without\nobject or method. \u2018He cannot be constrained by mastery.\u2019 While he should\nbe occupied with a given pursuit, he is thinking of a thousand other\nthings; a thousand tastes, a thousand objects tempt him, and distract\nhis mind, which keeps open house, and entertains all comers; and after\nbeing fatigued and amused with morning calls from idle visitors, finds\nthe day consumed and its business unconcluded. Mr. Godwin, on the\ncontrary, is somewhat exclusive and unsocial in his habits of mind,\nentertains no company but what he gives his whole time and attention to,\nand wisely writes over the doors of his understanding, his fancy, and\nhis senses\u2014\u2018No admittance except on business.\u2019 He has none of that\nfastidious refinement and false delicacy, which might lead him to\nbalance between the endless variety of modern attainments. He does not\nthrow away his life (nor a single half-hour of it) in adjusting the\nclaims of different accomplishments, and in choosing between them or\nmaking himself master of them all. He sets about his task, (whatever it\nmay be) and goes through it with spirit and fortitude. He has the\nhappiness to think an author the greatest character in the world, and\nhimself the greatest author in it. Mr. Coleridge, in writing an\nharmonious stanza, would stop to consider whether there was not more\ngrace and beauty in a _Pas de trois_, and would not proceed till he had\nresolved this question by a chain of metaphysical reasoning without end.\nNot so Mr. Godwin. That is best to him, which he can do best. He does\nnot waste himself in vain aspirations and effeminate sympathies. He is\nblind, deaf, insensible to all but the trump of Fame. Plays, operas,\npainting, music, ball-rooms, wealth, fashion, titles, lords, ladies,\ntouch him not\u2014all these are no more to him than to the magician in his\ncell, and he writes on to the end of the chapter, through good report\nand evil report. _Pingo in eternitatem_\u2014is his motto. He neither envies\nnor admires what others are, but is contented to be what he is, and\nstrives to do the utmost he can. Mr. Coleridge has flirted with the\nMuses as with a set of mistresses: Mr. Godwin has been married twice, to\nReason and to Fancy, and has to boast no short-lived progeny by each. So\nto speak, he has _valves_ belonging to his mind, to regulate the\nquantity of gas admitted into it, so that like the bare, unsightly, but\nwell-compacted steam-vessel, it cuts its liquid way, and arrives at its\npromised end: while Mr. Coleridge\u2019s bark, \u2018taught with the little\nnautilus to sail,\u2019 the sport of every breath, dancing to every wave,\n\n             \u2018Youth at its prow, and Pleasure at its helm,\u2019\n\nflutters its gaudy pennons in the air, glitters in the sun, but we wait\nin vain to hear of its arrival in the destined harbour. Mr. Godwin, with\nless variety and vividness, with less subtlety and susceptibility both\nof thought and feeling, has had firmer nerves, a more determined\npurpose, a more comprehensive grasp of his subject, and the results are\nas we find them. Each has met with his reward: for justice has, after\nall, been done to the pretensions of each; and we must, in all cases,\nuse means to ends!\n\nIt was a misfortune to any man of talent to be born in the latter end of\nthe last century. Genius stopped the way of Legitimacy, and therefore it\nwas to be abated, crushed, or set aside as a nuisance. The spirit of the\nmonarchy was at variance with the spirit of the age. The flame of\nliberty, the light of intellect, was to be extinguished with the\nsword\u2014or with slander, whose edge is sharper than the sword. The war\nbetween power and reason was carried on by the first of these abroad\u2014by\nthe last at home. No quarter was given (then or now) by the\nGovernment-critics, the authorised censors of the press, to those who\nfollowed the dictates of independence, who listened to the voice of the\ntempter, Fancy. Instead of gathering fruits and flowers, immortal fruits\nand amaranthine flowers, they soon found themselves beset not only by a\nhost of prejudices, but assailed with all the engines of power, by\nnicknames, by lies, by all the arts of malice, interest and hypocrisy,\nwithout the possibility of their defending themselves \u2018from the pelting\nof the pitiless storm,\u2019 that poured down upon them from the strong-holds\nof corruption and authority. The philosophers, the dry abstract\nreasoners, submitted to this reverse pretty well, and armed themselves\nwith patience \u2018as with triple steel,\u2019 to bear discomfiture, persecution,\nand disgrace. But the poets, the creatures of sympathy, could not stand\nthe frowns both of king and people. They did not like to be shut out\nwhen places and pensions, when the critic\u2019s praises, and the\nlaurel-wreath were about to be distributed. They did not stomach being\n_sent to Coventry_, and Mr. Coleridge sounded a retreat for them by the\nhelp of casuistry, and a musical voice.\u2014\u2018His words were hollow, but they\npleased the ear\u2019 of his friends of the Lake School, who turned back\ndisgusted and panic-struck from the dry desert of unpopularity, like\nHassan the camel-driver,\n\n          \u2018And curs\u2019d the hour, and curs\u2019d the luckless day,\n          When first from Shiraz\u2019 walls they bent their way.\u2019\n\nThey are safely inclosed there, but Mr. Coleridge did not enter with\nthem; pitching his tent upon the barren waste without, and having no\nabiding place nor city of refuge!\n\n\n\n\n                            REV. MR. IRVING\n\n\nThis gentleman has gained an almost unprecedented, and not an altogether\nunmerited popularity as a preacher. As he is, perhaps, though a burning\nand a shining light, not \u2018one of the fixed,\u2019 we shall take this\nopportunity of discussing his merits, while he is at his meridian\nheight; and in doing so, shall \u2018nothing extenuate, nor set down aught in\nmalice.\u2019\n\nFew circumstances show the prevailing and preposterous rage for novelty\nin a more striking point of view, than the success of Mr. Irving\u2019s\noratory. People go to hear him in crowds, and come away with a mixture\nof delight and astonishment\u2014they go again to see if the effect will\ncontinue, and send others to try to find out the mystery\u2014and in the\nnoisy conflict between extravagant encomiums and splenetic objections,\nthe true secret escapes observation, which is, that the whole thing is,\nnearly from beginning to end, a _transposition of ideas_. If the subject\nof these remarks had come out as a player, with all his advantages of\nfigure, voice, and action, we think he would have failed; if, as a\npreacher, he had kept within the strict bounds of pulpit-oratory, he\nwould scarcely have been much distinguished among his Calvinistic\nbrethren: as a mere author, he would have excited attention rather by\nhis quaintness and affectation of an obsolete style and mode of\nthinking, than by any thing else. But he has contrived to jumble these\nseveral characters together in an unheard-of and unwarranted manner, and\nthe fascination is altogether irresistible. Our Caledonian divine is\nequally an anomaly in religion, in literature, in personal appearance,\nand in public speaking. To hear a person spout Shakspeare on the stage\nis nothing\u2014the charm is nearly worn out\u2014but to hear any one spout\nShakspeare (and that not in a sneaking under-tone, but at the top of his\nvoice, and with the full breadth of his chest) from a Calvinistic\npulpit, is new and wonderful. The _Fancy_ have lately lost something of\ntheir gloss in public estimation, and after the last fight, few would go\nfar to see a Neat or a Spring set-to;\u2014but to see a man who is able to\nenter the ring with either of them, or brandish a quarter-staff with\nFriar Tuck, or a broad-sword with Shaw the Life-guard\u2019s man, stand up in\na strait-laced old-fashioned pulpit, and bandy dialectics with modern\nphilosophers, or give a _cross-buttock_ to a cabinet minister, there is\nsomething in a sight like this also, that is a cure for sore eyes. It is\nas if Crib or Molyneux had turned Methodist parson, or as if a\nPatagonian savage were to come forward as the patron-saint of\nEvangelical religion. Again, the doctrine of eternal punishment was one\nof the staple arguments with which, everlastingly drawled out, the old\nschool of Presbyterian divines used to keep their audiences awake, or\nlull them to sleep; but to which people of taste and fashion paid little\nattention, as inelegant and barbarous, till Mr. Irving, with his\ncast-iron features and sledge-hammer blows, puffing like a grim Vulcan,\nset to work to forge more classic thunderbolts, and kindle the expiring\nflames anew with the very sweepings of sceptical and infidel libraries,\nso as to excite a pleasing horror in the female part of his\ncongregation. In short, our popular declaimer has, contrary to the\nScripture-caution, put new wine into old bottles, or new cloth on old\ngarments. He has, with an unlimited and daring licence, mixed the sacred\nand the profane together, the carnal and the spiritual man, the\npetulance of the bar with the dogmatism of the pulpit, the theatrical\nand theological, the modern and the obsolete;\u2014what wonder that this\nsplendid piece of patchwork, splendid by contradiction and contrast, has\ndelighted some and confounded others? The more serious part of his\ncongregation indeed complain, though not bitterly, that their pastor has\nconverted their meeting-house into a play-house: but when a lady of\nquality, introducing herself and her three daughters to the preacher,\nassures him that they have been to all the most fashionable places of\nresort, the opera, the theatre, assemblies, Miss Macauley\u2019s readings,\nand Exeter-Change, and have been equally entertained no where else, we\napprehend that no remonstrances of a committee of ruling-elders will be\nable to bring him to his senses again, or make him forego such sweet,\nbut ill-assorted praise. What we mean to insist upon is, that Mr. Irving\nowes his triumphant success, not to any one quality for which he has\nbeen extolled, but to a combination of qualities, the more striking in\ntheir immediate effect, in proportion as they are unlooked-for and\nheterogeneous, like the violent opposition of light and shade in a\npicture. We shall endeavour to explain this view of the subject more at\nlarge.\n\nMr. Irving, then, is no common or mean man. He has four or five\nqualities, possessed in a moderate or in a paramount degree, which,\nadded or multiplied together, fill up the important space he occupies in\nthe public eye. Mr. Irving\u2019s intellect itself is of a superior order; he\nhas undoubtedly both talents and acquirements beyond the ordinary run of\nevery-day preachers. These alone, however, we hold, would not account\nfor a twentieth part of the effect he has produced: they would have\nlifted him perhaps out of the mire and slough of sordid obscurity, but\nwould never have launched him into the ocean-stream of popularity, in\nwhich he \u2018lies floating many a rood\u2019;\u2014but to these he adds uncommon\nheight, a graceful figure and action, a clear and powerful voice, a\nstriking, if not a fine face, a bold and fiery spirit, and a most\nportentous obliquity of vision, which throw him to an immeasurable\ndistance beyond all competition, and effectually relieve whatever there\nmight be of common-place or bombast in his style of composition. Put the\ncase that Mr. Irving had been five feet high\u2014Would he ever have been\nheard of, or, as he does now, have \u2018bestrode the world like a Colossus?\u2019\nNo, the thing speaks for itself. He would in vain have lifted his\nLilliputian arm to Heaven, people would have laughed at his\nmonkey-tricks. Again, had he been as tall as he is, but had wanted other\nrecommendations, he would have been nothing.\n\n          \u2018The player\u2019s province they but vainly try,\n          Who want these powers, deportment, voice, and eye.\u2019\n\nConceive a rough, ugly, shock-headed Scotchman, standing up in the\nCaledonian Chapel, and dealing \u2018damnation round the land\u2019 in a broad\nnorthern dialect, and with a harsh, screaking voice, what ear polite,\nwhat smile serene would have hailed the barbarous prodigy, or not\nconsigned him to utter neglect and derision? But the Rev. Edward Irving,\nwith all his native wildness, \u2018hath a smooth aspect framed to make\nwomen\u2019 saints; his very unusual size and height are carried off and\nmoulded into elegance by the most admirable symmetry of form and ease of\ngesture; his sable locks, his clear iron-grey complexion, and firm-set\nfeatures, turn the raw, uncouth Scotchman into the likeness of a noble\nItalian picture; and even his distortion of sight only redeems the\notherwise \u2018faultless monster\u2019 within the bounds of humanity, and, when\nadmiration is exhausted and curiosity ceases, excites a new interest by\nleading to the idle question whether it is an advantage to the preacher\nor not. Farther, give him all his actual and remarkable advantages of\nbody and mind, let him be as tall, as strait, as dark and clear of skin,\nas much at his ease, as silver-tongued, as eloquent and as argumentative\nas he is, yet with all these, and without a little charlatanry to set\nthem off he had been nothing. He might, keeping within the rigid line of\nhis duty and professed calling, have preached on for ever; he might have\ndivided the old-fashioned doctrines of election, grace, reprobation,\npredestination, into his sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth heads,\nand his _lastly_ have been looked for as a \u2018consummation devoutly to be\nwished\u2019; he might have defied the devil and all his works, and by the\nhelp of a loud voice and strong-set person\u2014\n\n                  \u2018A lusty man to ben an Abbot able;\u2019\u2014\n\nhave increased his own congregation, and been quoted among the godly as\na powerful preacher of the word; but in addition to this, he went out of\nhis way to attack Jeremy Bentham, and the town was up in arms. The thing\nwas new. He thus wiped the stain of musty ignorance and formal bigotry\nout of his style. Mr. Irving must have something superior in him, to\nlook over the shining close-packed heads of his congregation to have a\nhit at the _Great Jurisconsult_ in his study. He next, ere the report of\nthe former blow had subsided, made a lunge at Mr. Brougham, and glanced\nan eye at Mr. Canning; _mystified_ Mr. Coleridge, and _stultified_ Lord\nLiverpool in his place\u2014in the Gallery. It was rare sport to see him,\n\u2018like an eagle in a dovecote, flutter the Volscians in Corioli.\u2019 He has\nfound out the secret of attracting by repelling. Those whom he is likely\nto attack are curious to hear what he says of them: they go again, to\nshow that they do not mind it. It is no less interesting to the\nbystanders, who like to witness this sort of _onslaught_\u2014like a charge\nof cavalry, the shock, and the resistance. Mr. Irving has, in fact,\nwithout leave asked or a licence granted, converted the Caledonian\nChapel into a Westminster Forum or Debating Society, with the sanctity\nof religion added to it. Our spirited polemic is not contented to defend\nthe citadel of orthodoxy against all impugners, and shut himself up in\ntexts of Scripture and huge volumes of the Commentators as an\nimpregnable fortress;\u2014he merely makes use of the stronghold of religion\nas a resting-place, from which he sallies forth, armed with modern\ntopics and with penal fire, like Achilles of old rushing from the\nGrecian tents, against the adversaries of God and man. Peter Aretine is\nsaid to have laid the Princes of Europe under contribution by penning\nsatires against them: so Mr. Irving keeps the public in awe by insulting\nall their favourite idols. He does not spare their politicians, their\nrulers, their moralists, their poets, their players, their critics,\ntheir reviewers, their magazine-writers; he levels their resorts of\nbusiness, their places of amusement, at a blow\u2014their cities, churches,\npalaces, ranks and professions, refinements, and elegances\u2014and leaves\nnothing standing but himself, a mighty landmark in a degenerate age,\noverlooking the wide havoc he has made! He makes war upon all arts and\nsciences, upon the faculties and nature of man, on his vices and his\nvirtues, on all existing institutions, and all possible improvements,\nthat nothing may be left but the Kirk of Scotland, and that he may be\nthe head of it. He literally sends a challenge to all London in the name\nof the KING of HEAVEN, to evacuate its streets, to disperse its\npopulation, to lay aside its employments, to burn its wealth, to\nrenounce its vanities and pomp; and for what?\u2014that he may enter in as\nthe _King of Glory_; or after enforcing his threat with the\nbattering-ram of logic, the grape-shot of rhetoric, and the cross-fire\nof his double vision, reduce the British metropolis to a Scottish heath,\nwith a few miserable hovels upon it, where they may worship God\naccording to _the root of the matter_, and where an old man with a blue\nbonnet, a fair-haired girl, and a little child would form the flower of\nhis flock! Such is the pretension and the boast of this new Peter the\nHermit, who would get rid of all we have done in the way of improvement\non a state of barbarous ignorance, or still more barbarous prejudice, in\norder to begin again on a _tabula rasa_ of Calvinism, and have a world\nof his own making. It is not very surprising that when nearly the whole\nmass and texture of civil society is indicted as a nuisance, and\nthreatened to be pulled down as a rotten building ready to fall on the\nheads of the inhabitants, that all classes of people run to hear the\ncrash, and to see the engines and levers at work which are to effect\nthis laudable purpose. What else can be the meaning of our preacher\u2019s\ntaking upon himself to denounce the sentiments of the most serious\nprofessors in great cities, as vitiated and stark-naught, of relegating\nreligion to his native glens, and pretending that the hymn of praise or\nthe sigh of contrition cannot ascend acceptably to the throne of grace\nfrom the crowded street as well as from the barren rock or silent\nvalley? Why put this affront upon his hearers? Why belie his own\naspirations?\n\n             \u2018God made the country, and man made the town.\u2019\n\nSo says the poet; does Mr. Irving say so? If he does, and finds the air\nof the city death to his piety, why does he not return home again? But\nif he can breathe it with impunity, and still retain the fervour of his\nearly enthusiasm, and the simplicity and purity of the faith that was\nonce delivered to the saints, why not extend the benefit of his own\nexperience to others, instead of taunting them with a vapid pastoral\ntheory? Or, if our popular and eloquent divine finds a change in\nhimself, that flattery prevents the growth of grace, that he is becoming\nthe God of his own idolatry by being that of others, that the glittering\nof coronet-coaches rolling down Holborn-Hill to Hatton Garden, that\ntitled beauty, that the parliamentary complexion of his audience, the\ncompliments of poets, and the stare of peers discompose his wandering\nthoughts a little; and yet that he cannot give up these strong\ntemptations tugging at his heart; why not extend more charity to others,\nand show more candour in speaking of himself? There is either a good\ndeal of bigoted intolerance with a deplorable want of self-knowledge in\nall this; or at least an equal degree of cant and quackery.\n\nTo which ever cause we are to attribute this hyperbolical tone, we hold\nit certain he could not have adopted it, if he had been _a little man_.\nBut his imposing figure and dignified manner enable him to hazard\nsentiments or assertions that would be fatal to others. His\ncontroversial daring is _backed_ by his bodily prowess; and by bringing\nhis intellectual pretensions boldly into a line with his physical\naccomplishments, he, indeed, presents a very formidable front to the\nsceptic or the scoffer. Take a cubit from his stature, and his whole\nmanner resolves itself into an impertinence. But with that addition, he\n_overcrows_ the town, browbeats their prejudices, and bullies them out\nof their senses, and is not afraid of being contradicted by any one\n_less than himself_. It may be said, that individuals with great\npersonal defects have made a considerable figure as public speakers; and\nMr. Wilberforce, among others, may be held out as an instance. Nothing\ncan be more insignificant as to mere outward appearance, and yet he is\nlistened to in the House of Commons. But he does not wield it, he does\nnot insult or bully it. He leads by following opinion, he trims, he\nshifts, he glides on the silvery sounds of his undulating, flexible,\ncautiously modulated voice, winding his way betwixt heaven and earth,\nnow courting popularity, now calling servility to his aid, and with a\nlarge estate, the \u2018saints,\u2019 and the population of Yorkshire to swell his\ninfluence, never venturing on the forlorn hope, or doing any thing more\nthan \u2018hitting the house between wind and water.\u2019 Yet he is probably a\ncleverer man than Mr. Irving.\n\nThere is a Mr. Fox, a Dissenting Minister, as fluent a speaker, with a\nsweeter voice and a more animated and beneficent countenance than Mr.\nIrving, who expresses himself with manly spirit at a public meeting,\ntakes a hand at whist, and is the darling of his congregation; but he is\nno more, because he is diminutive in person. His head is not seen above\nthe crowd the length of a street off. He is the Duke of Sussex in\nminiature, but the Duke of Sussex does not go to hear him preach, as he\nattends Mr. Irving, who rises up against him like a martello tower, and\nis nothing loth to confront the spirit of a man of genius with the\nblood-royal. We allow there are, or may be, talents sufficient to\nproduce this equality without a single personal advantage; but we deny\nthat this would be the effect of any that our great preacher possesses.\nWe conceive it not improbable that the consciousness of muscular power,\nthat the admiration of his person by strangers might first have inspired\nMr. Irving with an ambition to be something, intellectually speaking,\nand have given him confidence to attempt the greatest things. He has not\nfailed for want of courage. The public, as well as the fair, are won by\na show of gallantry. Mr. Irving has shrunk from no opinion, however\nparadoxical. He has scrupled to avow no sentiment, however obnoxious. He\nhas revived exploded prejudices, he has scouted prevailing fashions. He\nhas opposed the spirit of the age, and not consulted the _esprit de\ncorps_. He has brought back the doctrines of Calvinism in all their\ninveteracy, and relaxed the inveteracy of his northern accents. He has\nturned religion and the Caledonian Chapel topsy-turvy. He has held a\nplay-book in one hand, and a Bible in the other, and quoted Shakespeare\nand Melancthon in the same breath. The tree of the knowledge of good and\nevil is no longer, with his grafting, a dry withered stump; it shoots\nits branches to the skies, and hangs out its blossoms to the gale\u2014\n\n              \u2018Miraturque novos fructus, et non sua poma.\u2019\n\nHe has taken the thorns and briars of scholastic divinity, and garlanded\nthem with the flowers of modern literature. He has done all this,\nrelying on the strength of a remarkably fine person and manner, and\nthrough that he has succeeded\u2014otherwise he would have perished\nmiserably.\n\nDr. Chalmers is not by any means so good a looking man, nor so\naccomplished a speaker as Mr. Irving; yet he at one time almost equalled\nhis oratorical celebrity, and certainly paved the way for him. He has\ntherefore more merit than his admired pupil, as he has done as much with\nfewer means. He has more scope of intellect and more intensity of\npurpose. Both his matter and his manner, setting aside his face and\nfigure, are more impressive. Take the volume of \u2018Sermons on Astronomy,\u2019\nby Dr. Chalmers, and the \u2018Four Orations for the Oracles of God\u2019 which\nMr. Irving lately published, and we apprehend there can be no comparison\nas to their success. The first ran like wild-fire through the country,\nwere the darlings of watering-places, were laid in the windows of\ninns,[40] and were to be met with in all places of public resort; while\nthe \u2018Orations\u2019 get on but slowly, on Milton\u2019s stilts, and are pompously\nannounced as in a Third Edition. We believe the fairest and fondest of\nhis admirers would rather see and hear Mr. Irving than read him. The\nreason is, that the ground work of his compositions is trashy and\nhackneyed, though set off by extravagant metaphors and an affected\nphraseology; that without the turn of his head and wave of his hand, his\nperiods have nothing in them; and that he himself is the only _idea_\nwith which he has yet enriched the public mind! He must play off his\nperson, as Orator Henley used to dazzle his hearers with his\ndiamond-ring. The small frontispiece prefixed to the \u2018Orations\u2019 does not\nserve to convey an adequate idea of the magnitude of the man, nor of the\nease and freedom of his motions in the pulpit. How different is Dr.\nChalmers! He is like \u2018a monkey-preacher\u2019 to the other. He cannot boast\nof personal appearance to set him off. But then he is like the very\ngenius or demon of theological controversy personified. He has neither\nairs nor graces at command; he thinks nothing of himself: he has nothing\ntheatrical about him (which cannot be said of his successor and rival);\nbut you see a man in mortal throes and agony with doubts and\ndifficulties, seizing stubborn knotty points with his teeth, tearing\nthem with his hands, and straining his eyeballs till they almost start\nout of their sockets, in pursuit of a train of visionary reasoning, like\na Highland-seer with his second sight. The description of Balfour of\nBurley in his cave, with his Bible in one hand and his sword in the\nother, contending with the imaginary enemy of mankind, gasping for\nbreath, and with the cold moisture running down his face, gives a lively\nidea of Dr. Chalmers\u2019s prophetic fury in the pulpit. If we could have\nlooked in to have seen Burley hard-beset \u2018by the coinage of his\nheat-oppressed brain,\u2019 who would have asked whether he was a handsome\nman or not? It would be enough to see a man haunted by a spirit, under\nthe strong and entire dominion of a wilful hallucination. So the\nintegrity and vehemence of Dr. Chalmers\u2019s manner, the determined way in\nwhich he gives himself up to his subject, or lays about him and buffets\nsceptics and gain-sayers, arrests attention in spite of every other\ncircumstance, and fixes it on that, and that alone, which excites such\ninterest and such eagerness in his own breast! Besides, he is a\nlogician, has a theory in support of whatever he chooses to advance, and\nweaves the tissue of his sophistry so close and intricate, that it is\ndifficult not to be entangled in it, or to escape from it. \u2018There\u2019s\nmagic in the web.\u2019 Whatever appeals to the pride of the human\nunderstanding, has a subtle charm in it. The mind is naturally\npugnacious, cannot refuse a challenge of strength or skill, sturdily\nenters the lists and resolves to conquer, or to yield itself vanquished\nin the forms. This is the chief hold Dr. Chalmers had upon his hearers,\nand upon the readers of his \u2018Astronomical Discourses.\u2019 No one was\nsatisfied with his arguments, no one could answer them, but every one\nwanted to try what he could make of them, as we try to find out a\nriddle. \u2018By his so potent art,\u2019 the art of laying down problematical\npremises, and drawing from them still more doubtful, but not impossible,\nconclusions, \u2018he could bedim the noonday sun, betwixt the green sea and\nthe azure vault set roaring war,\u2019 and almost compel the stars in their\ncourses to testify to his opinions. The mode in which he undertook to\nmake the circuit of the universe, and demand categorical information\n\u2018now of the planetary and now of the fixed,\u2019 might put one in mind of\nHecate\u2019s mode of ascending in a machine from the stage, \u2018midst troops of\nspirits,\u2019 in which you now admire the skill of the artist, and next\ntremble for the fate of the performer, fearing that the audacity of the\nattempt will turn his head or break his neck. The style of these\n\u2018Discourses\u2019 also, though not elegant or poetical, was, like the\nsubject, intricate and endless. It was that of a man pushing his way\nthrough a labyrinth of difficulties, and determined not to flinch. The\nimpression on the reader was proportionate; for, whatever were the\nmerits of the style or matter, both were new and striking; and the train\nof thought that was unfolded at such length and with such strenuousness,\nwas bold, well-sustained, and consistent with itself.\n\nMr. Irving wants the continuity of thought and manner which\ndistinguishes his rival\u2014and shines by patches and in bursts. He does not\nwarm or acquire increasing force or rapidity with his progress. He is\nnever hurried away by a deep or lofty enthusiasm, nor touches the\nhighest point of genius or fanaticism, but \u2018in the very storm and\nwhirlwind of his passion, he acquires and begets a temperance that may\ngive it smoothness.\u2019 He has the self-possession and masterly execution\nof an experienced player or fencer, and does not seem to express his\nnatural convictions, or to be engaged in a mortal struggle. This greater\nease and indifference is the result of vast superiority of personal\nappearance, which \u2018to be admired needs but to be seen,\u2019 and does not\nrequire the possessor to work himself up into a passion, or to use any\nviolent contortions to gain attention or to keep it. These two\ncelebrated preachers are in almost all respects an antithesis to each\nother. If Mr. Irving is an example of what can be done by the help of\nexternal advantages, Dr. Chalmers is a proof of what can be done without\nthem. The one is most indebted to his mind, the other to his body. If\nMr. Irving inclines one to suspect fashionable or popular religion of a\nlittle _anthropomorphitism_, Dr. Chalmers effectually redeems it from\nthat scandal.\n\n\n                        THE LATE MR. HORNE TOOKE\n\nMr. Horne Tooke was one of those who may be considered as connecting\nlinks between a former period and the existing generation. His education\nand accomplishments, nay, his political opinions, were of the last age;\nhis mind, and the tone of his feelings were _modern_. There was a hard,\ndry materialism in the very texture of his understanding, varnished over\nby the external refinements of the old school. Mr. Tooke had great scope\nof attainment, and great versatility of pursuit; but the same\nshrewdness, quickness, cool self-possession, the same _literalness_ of\nperception, and absence of passion and enthusiasm, characterised nearly\nall he did, said, or wrote. He was without a rival (almost) in private\nconversation, an expert public speaker, a keen politician, a first-rate\ngrammarian, and the finest gentleman (to say the least) of his own\nparty. He had no imagination (or he would not have scorned it!)\u2014no\ndelicacy of taste, no rooted prejudices or strong attachments: his\nintellect was like a bow of polished steel, from which he shot\nsharp-pointed poisoned arrows at his friends in private, at his enemies\nin public. His mind (so to speak) had no _religion_ in it, and very\nlittle even of the moral qualities of genius; but he was a man of the\nworld, a scholar bred, and a most acute and powerful logician. He was\nalso a wit, and a formidable one: yet it may be questioned whether his\nwit was any thing more than an excess of his logical faculty: it did not\nconsist in the play of fancy, but in close and cutting combinations of\nthe understanding. \u2018The law is open to every one: _so_,\u2019 said Mr. Tooke,\n\u2018_is the London Tavern_!\u2019 It is the previous deduction formed in the\nmind, and the splenetic contempt felt for a practical sophism, that\n_beats about the bush for_, and at last finds the apt illustration; not\nthe casual, glancing coincidence of two objects, that points out an\nabsurdity to the understanding. So, on another occasion, when Sir Allan\nGardiner (who was a candidate for Westminster) had objected to Mr. Fox,\nthat \u2018he was always against the minister, _whether right or wrong_,\u2019 and\nMr. Fox, in his reply, had overlooked this slip of the tongue, Mr. Tooke\nimmediately seized on it, and said, \u2018he thought it at least an equal\nobjection to Sir Allan, that he was always _with_ the minister, whether\nright or wrong.\u2019 This retort had all the effect, and produced the same\nsurprise as the most brilliant display of wit or fancy: yet it was only\nthe detecting a flaw in an argument, like a flaw in an indictment, by a\nkind of legal pertinacity, or rather by a rigid and constant habit of\nattending to the exact import of every word and clause in a sentence.\nMr. Tooke had the mind of a lawyer; but it was applied to a vast variety\nof topics and general trains of speculation.\n\nMr. Horne Tooke was in private company, and among his friends, the\nfinished gentleman of the last age. His manners were as fascinating as\nhis conversation was spirited and delightful. He put one in mind of the\nburden of the song of \u2018_The King\u2019s Old Courtier, and an Old Courtier of\nthe King\u2019s_.\u2019 He was, however, of the opposite party. It was curious to\nhear our modern sciolist advancing opinions of the most radical kind\nwithout any mixture of radical heat or violence, in a tone of\nfashionable _nonchalance_, with elegance of gesture and attitude, and\nwith the most perfect good-humour. In the spirit of opposition, or in\nthe pride of logical superiority, he too often shocked the prejudices or\nwounded the self-love of those about him, while he himself displayed the\nsame unmoved indifference or equanimity. He said the most provoking\nthings with a laughing gaiety, and a polite attention, that there was no\nwithstanding. He threw others off their guard by thwarting their\nfavourite theories, and then availed himself of the temperance of his\nown pulse to chafe them into madness. He had not one particle of\ndeference for the opinion of others, nor of sympathy with their\nfeelings; nor had he any obstinate convictions of his own to defend\u2014\n\n             \u2018Lord of himself, uncumbered with a _creed_!\u2019\n\nHe took up any topic by chance, and played with it at will, like a\njuggler with his cups and balls. He generally ranged himself on the\nlosing side; and had rather an ill-natured delight in contradiction, and\nin perplexing the understandings of others, without leaving them any\nclue to guide them out of the labyrinth into which he had led them. He\nunderstood, in its perfection, the great art of throwing the _onus\nprobandi_ on his adversary; and so could maintain almost any opinion,\nhowever absurd or fantastical, with fearless impunity. I have heard a\nsensible and well-informed man say, that he never was in company with\nMr. Tooke without being delighted and surprised, or without feeling the\nconversation of every other person to be flat in the comparison; but\nthat he did not recollect having ever heard him make a remark that\nstruck him as a sound and true one, or that he himself appeared to think\nso. He used to plague Fuseli by asking him after the origin of the\nTeutonic dialects, and Dr. Parr, by wishing to know the meaning of the\ncommon copulative, _Is_. Once at G\u2014\u2014\u2018s, he defended Pitt from a charge\nof verbiage, and endeavoured to prove him superior to Fox. Some one\nimitated Pitt\u2019s manner, to show that it was monotonous, and he imitated\nhim also, to show that it was not. He maintained (what would he not\nmaintain?) that young Betty\u2019s acting was finer than John Kemble\u2019s, and\nrecited a passage from Douglas in the manner of each, to justify the\npreference he gave to the former. The mentioning of this will please the\nliving; it cannot hurt the dead. He argued on the same occasion and in\nthe same breath, that Addison\u2019s style was without modulation, and that\nit was physically impossible for any one to write well, who was\nhabitually silent in company. He sat like a king at his own table, and\ngave law to his guests\u2014and to the world! No man knew better how to\nmanage his immediate circle, to foil or bring them out. A professed\norator, beginning to address some observations to Mr. Tooke with a\nvoluminous apology for his youth and inexperience, he said, \u2018Speak up,\nyoung man!\u2019\u2014and by taking him at his word, cut short the flower of\norations. Porson was the only person of whom he stood in some degree of\nawe, on account of his prodigious memory and knowledge of his favourite\nsubject, Languages. Sheridan, it has been remarked, said more good\nthings, but had not an equal flow of pleasantry. As an instance of Mr.\nHorne Tooke\u2019s extreme coolness and command of nerve, it has been\nmentioned that once at a public dinner when he had got on the table to\nreturn thanks for his health being drank with a glass of wine in his\nhand, and when there was a great clamour and opposition for some time,\nafter it had subsided, he pointed to the glass to show that it was still\nfull. Mr. Holcroft (the author of the _Road to Ruin_) was one of the\nmost violent and fiery-spirited of all that motley crew of persons, who\nattended the Sunday meetings at Wimbledon. One day he was so enraged by\nsome paradox or raillery of his host, that he indignantly rose from his\nchair, and said, \u2018Mr. Tooke, you are a scoundrel!\u2019 His opponent without\nmanifesting the least emotion, replied, \u2018Mr. Holcroft, when is it that I\nam to dine with you? shall it be next Thursday?\u2019\u2014\u2018If you please, Mr.\nTooke!\u2019 answered the angry philosopher, and sat down again.\u2014It was\ndelightful to see him sometimes turn from these waspish or ludicrous\naltercations with over-weening antagonists to some old friend and\nveteran politician seated at his elbow; to hear him recal the time of\nWilkes and Liberty, the conversation mellowing like the wine with the\nsmack of age; assenting to all the old man said, bringing out his\npleasant _traits_, and pampering him into childish self-importance, and\nsending him away thirty years younger than he came!\n\nAs a public or at least as a parliamentary speaker, Mr. Tooke did not\nanswer the expectations that had been conceived of him, or probably that\nhe had conceived of himself. It is natural for men who have felt a\nsuperiority over all those whom they happen to have encountered, to\nfancy that this superiority will continue, and that it will extend from\nindividuals to public bodies. There is no rule in the case; or rather,\nthe probability lies the contrary way. That which constitutes the\nexcellence of conversation is of little use in addressing large\nassemblies of people; while other qualities are required that are hardly\nto be looked for in one and the same capacity. The way to move great\nmasses of men is to show that you yourself are moved. In a private\ncircle, a ready repartee, a shrewd cross-question, ridicule and banter,\na caustic remark or an amusing anecdote, whatever sets off the\nindividual to advantage, or gratifies the curiosity or piques the\nself-love of the hearers, keeps attention alive, and secures the triumph\nof the speaker\u2014it is a personal contest, and depends on personal and\nmomentary advantages. But in appealing to the public, no one triumphs\nbut in the triumph of some public cause, or by showing a sympathy with\nthe general and predominant feelings of mankind. In a private room, a\nsatirist, a sophist may provoke admiration by expressing his contempt\nfor each of his adversaries in turn, and by setting their opinion at\ndefiance\u2014but when men are congregated together on a great public\nquestion and for a weighty object, they must be treated with more\nrespect; they are touched with what affects themselves or the general\nweal, not with what flatters the vanity of the speaker; they must be\nmoved altogether, if they are moved at all; they are impressed with\ngratitude for a luminous exposition of their claims or for zeal in their\ncause; and the lightning of generous indignation at bad men and bad\nmeasures is followed by thunders of applause\u2014even in the House of\nCommons. But a man may sneer and cavil and puzzle and fly-blow every\nquestion that comes before him\u2014be despised and feared by others, and\nadmired by no one but himself. He who thinks first of himself, either in\nthe world or in a popular assembly, will be sure to turn attention away\nfrom his claims, instead of fixing it there. He must make common cause\nwith his hearers. To lead, he must follow the general bias. Mr. Tooke\ndid not therefore succeed as a speaker in parliament. He stood aloof, he\nplayed antics, he exhibited his peculiar talent\u2014while he was on his\nlegs, the question before the House stood still; the only point at issue\nrespected Mr. Tooke himself, his personal address and adroitness of\nintellect. Were there to be no more places and pensions, because Mr.\nTooke\u2019s style was terse and epigrammatic? Were the Opposition benches to\nbe inflamed to an unusual pitch of \u2018sacred vehemence,\u2019 because he gave\nthem plainly to understand there was not a pin to choose between\nMinisters and Opposition? Would the House let him remain among them,\nbecause, if they turned him out on account of his _black coat_, Lord\nCamelford had threatened to send his _black servant_ in his place? This\nwas a good joke, but not a practical one. Would he gain the affections\nof the people out of doors, by scouting the question of reform? Would\nthe King ever relish the old associate of Wilkes? What interest, then,\nwhat party did he represent? He represented nobody but himself. He was\nan example of an ingenious man, a clever talker, but he was out of his\nplace in the House of Commons; where people did not come (as in his own\nhouse) to admire or break a lance with him, but to get through the\nbusiness of the day, and so adjourn! He wanted effect and _momentum_.\nEach of his sentences told very well in itself, but they did not\naltogether make a speech. He left off where he began. His eloquence was\na succession of drops, not a stream. His arguments, though subtle and\nnew, did not affect the main body of the question. The coldness and\npettiness of his manner did not warm the hearts or expand the\nunderstandings of his hearers. Instead of encouraging, he checked the\nardour of his friends; and teazed, instead of overpowering his\nantagonists. The only palpable hit he ever made, while he remained\nthere, was the comparing his own situation in being rejected by the\nHouse, on account of the supposed purity of his clerical character, to\nthe story of the girl at the Magdalen, who was told \u2018she must turn out\nand qualify.\u2019[41] This met with laughter and loud applause. It was a\n_home_ thrust, and the House (to do them justice) are obliged to any one\nwho, by a smart blow, relieves them of the load of grave responsibility,\nwhich sits heavy on their shoulders.\u2014At the hustings, or as an\nelection-candidate, Mr. Tooke did better. There was no great question to\nmove or carry\u2014it was an affair of political _sparring_ between himself\nand the other candidates. He took it in a very cool and leisurely\nmanner\u2014watched his competitors with a wary, sarcastic eye; picked up the\nmistakes or absurdities that fell from them, and retorted them on their\nheads; told a story to the mob; and smiled and took snuff with a\ngentlemanly and becoming air, as if he was already seated in the House.\nBut a Court of Law was the place where Mr. Tooke made the best figure in\npublic. He might assuredly be said to be \u2018native and endued unto that\nelement.\u2019 He had here to stand merely on the defensive\u2014not to advance\nhimself, but to block up the way\u2014not to impress others, but to be\nhimself impenetrable. All he wanted was _negative success_; and to this\nno one was better qualified to aspire. Cross purposes, _moot-points_,\npleas, demurrers, flaws in the indictment, double meanings, cases,\ninconsequentialities, these were the playthings, the darlings of Mr.\nTooke\u2019s mind; and with these he baffled the Judge, dumb-founded the\nCounsel, and outwitted the Jury. The report of his trial before Lord\nKenyon is a masterpiece of acuteness, dexterity, modest assurance, and\nlegal effect. It is much like his examination before the Commissioners\nof the Income-Tax\u2014nothing could be got out of him in either case!\n\nMr. Tooke, as a political leader, belonged to the class of _trimmers_;\nor at most, it was his delight to make mischief and spoil sport. He\nwould rather be _against_ himself than _for_ any body else. He was\nneither a bold nor a safe leader. He enticed others into scrapes, and\nkept out of them himself. Provided he could say a clever or a spiteful\nthing, he did not care whether it served or injured the cause. Spleen or\nthe exercise of intellectual power was the motive of his patriotism,\nrather than principle. He would talk treason with a saving clause; and\ninstil sedition into the public mind, through the medium of a third (who\nwas to be the responsible) party. He made Sir Francis Burdett his\nspokesman in the House and to the country, often venting his chagrin or\nsingularity of sentiment at the expense of his friend; but what in the\nfirst was trick or reckless vanity, was in the last plain downright\nEnglish honesty and singleness of heart. In the case of the State\nTrials, in 1794, Mr. Tooke rather compromised his friends to screen\nhimself. He kept repeating that \u2018others might have gone on to Windsor,\nbut he had stopped at Hounslow,\u2019 as if to go farther might have been\ndangerous and unwarrantable. It was not the question how far he or\nothers had actually gone, but how far they had a right to go, according\nto the law. His conduct was not the limit of the law, nor did\ntreasonable excess begin where prudence or principle taught him to stop\nshort, though this was the oblique inference liable to be drawn from his\nline of defence. Mr. Tooke was uneasy and apprehensive for the issue of\nthe Government-prosecution while in confinement, and said, in speaking\nof it to a friend, with a morbid feeling and an emphasis quite unusual\nwith him\u2014\u2018They want our blood\u2014blood\u2014blood!\u2019 It was somewhat ridiculous\nto implicate Mr. Tooke in a charge of High Treason (and indeed the whole\ncharge was built on the mistaken purport of an intercepted letter\nrelating to an engagement for a private dinner-party)\u2014his politics were\nnot at all revolutionary. In this respect he was a mere pettifogger,\nfull of chicane, and captious objections, and unmeaning discontent; but\nhe had none of the grand whirling movements of the French Revolution,\nnor of the tumultuous glow of rebellion in his head or in his heart. His\npolitics were cast in a different mould, or confined to the party\ndistinctions and court intrigues and pittances of popular right, that\nmade a noise in the time of Junius and Wilkes\u2014and even if his\nunderstanding had gone along with more modern and unqualified\nprinciples, his cautious temper would have prevented his risking them in\npractice. Horne Tooke (though not of the same side in politics) had much\nof the tone of mind and more of the spirit of moral feeling of the\ncelebrated philosopher of Malmesbury. The narrow scale and fine-drawn\ndistinctions of his political creed made his conversation on such\nsubjects infinitely amusing, particularly when contrasted with that of\npersons who dealt in the sounding _common-places_ and sweeping clauses\nof abstract politics. He knew all the cabals and jealousies and\nheart-burnings in the beginning of the late reign, the changes of\nadministration and the springs of secret influence, the characters of\nthe leading men, Wilkes, Barre, Dunning, Chatham, Burke, the Marquis of\nRockingham, North, Shelburne, Fox, Pitt, and all the vacillating events\nof the American war:\u2014these formed a curious back-ground to the more\nprominent figures that occupied the present time, and Mr. Tooke worked\nout the minute details and touched in the evanescent _traits_ with the\npencil of a master. His conversation resembled a political _camera\nobscura_\u2014as quaint as it was magical. To some pompous pretenders he\nmight seem to narrate _fabellas aniles_ (old wives\u2019 fables)\u2014but not to\nthose who study human nature, and wish to know the materials of which it\nis composed. Mr. Tooke\u2019s faculties might appear to have ripened and\nacquired a finer flavour with age. In a former period of his life he was\nhardly the man he was latterly; or else he had greater abilities to\ncontend against. He no where makes so poor a figure as in his\ncontroversy with Junius. He has evidently the best of the argument, yet\nhe makes nothing out of it. He tells a long story about himself, without\nwit or point in it; and whines and whimpers like a school-boy under the\nrod of his master. Junius, after bringing a hasty charge against him,\nhas not a single fact to adduce in support of it; but keeps his ground\nand fairly beats his adversary out of the field by the mere force of\nstyle. One would think that \u2018Parson Horne\u2019 knew who Junius was, and was\nafraid of him. \u2018Under him his genius is\u2019 quite \u2018rebuked.\u2019 With the best\ncause to defend, he comes off more shabbily from the contest than any\nother person in the LETTERS, except Sir William Draper, who is the very\nhero of defeat.\n\nThe great thing which Mr. Horne Tooke has done, and which he has left\nbehind him to posterity, is his work on Grammar, oddly enough entitled\nTHE DIVERSIONS OF PURLEY. Many people have taken it up as a description\nof a game\u2014others supposing it to be a novel. It is, in truth, one of the\nfew philosophical works on Grammar that were ever written. The essence\nof it (and, indeed, almost all that is really valuable in it) is\ncontained in his _Letter to Dunning_, published about the year 1775. Mr.\nTooke\u2019s work is truly elementary. Dr. Lowth described Mr. Harris\u2019s\n_Hermes_ as \u2018the finest specimen of analysis since the days of\nAristotle\u2019\u2014a work in which there is no analysis at all, for analysis\nconsists in reducing things to their principles, and not in endless\ndetails and subdivisions. Mr. Harris multiplies distinctions, and\nconfounds his readers. Mr. Tooke clears away the rubbish of school-boy\ntechnicalities, and strikes at the root of his subject. In accomplishing\nhis arduous task, he was, perhaps, aided not more by the strength and\nresources of his mind than by its limits and defects. There is a web of\nold associations wound round language, that is a kind of veil over its\nnatural features; and custom puts on the mask of ignorance. But this\nveil, this mask the author of _The Diversions of Purley_ threw aside and\npenetrated to the naked truth of things, by the literal, matter-of-fact,\nunimaginative nature of his understanding, and because he was not\nsubject to prejudices or illusions of any kind. Words may be said to\n\u2018bear a charmed life, that must not yield to one of woman born\u2019\u2014with\nwomanish weaknesses and confused apprehensions. But this charm was\nbroken in the case of Mr. Tooke, whose mind was the reverse of\neffeminate\u2014hard, unbending, concrete, physical, half-savage\u2014and who saw\nlanguage stripped of the clothing of habit or sentiment, or the\ndisguises of doting pedantry, naked in its cradle, and in its primitive\nstate. Our author tells us that he found his discovery on Grammar among\na number of papers on other subjects, which he had thrown aside and\nforgotten. Is this an idle boast? Or had he made other discoveries of\nequal importance, which he did not think it worth his while to\ncommunicate to the world, but chose to die the churl of knowledge? The\nwhole of his reasoning turns upon showing that the Conjunction _That_ is\nthe pronoun _That_, which is itself the participle of a verb, and in\nlike manner that all the other mystical and hitherto unintelligible\nparts of speech are derived from the only two intelligible ones, the\nVerb and Noun. \u2018I affirm _that_ gold is yellow,\u2019 that is, \u2018I affirm\n_that_ fact, or that proposition, viz. gold is yellow.\u2019 The secret of\nthe Conjunction on which so many fine heads had split, on which so many\nlearned definitions were thrown away, as if it was its peculiar province\nand inborn virtue to announce oracles and formal propositions, and\nnothing else, like a Doctor of Laws, is here at once accounted for,\ninasmuch as it is clearly nothing but another part of speech, the\npronoun, _that_, with a third part of speech, the noun, _thing_,\nunderstood. This is getting at a solution of words into their component\nparts, not glossing over one difficulty by bringing another to parallel\nit, nor like saying with Mr. Harris, when it is asked, \u2018what a\nConjunction is?\u2019 that there are conjunctions copulative, conjunctions\ndisjunctive, and as many other frivolous varieties of the species as any\none chooses to hunt out \u2018with laborious foolery.\u2019 Our author hit upon\nhis parent-discovery in the course of a lawsuit, while he was examining,\nwith jealous watchfulness, the meaning of words to prevent being\nentrapped by them; or rather, this circumstance might itself be traced\nto the habit of satisfying his own mind as to the precise sense in which\nhe himself made use of words. Mr. Tooke, though he had no objection to\npuzzle others, was mightily averse to being puzzled or _mystified_\nhimself. All was, to his determined mind, either complete light or\ncomplete darkness. There was no hazy, doubtful _chiaro-scuro_ in his\nunderstanding. He wanted something \u2018palpable to feeling as to sight.\u2019\n\u2018What,\u2019 he would say to himself, \u2018do I mean when I use the conjunction\n_that_? Is it an anomaly, a class by itself, a word sealed against all\ninquisitive attempts? Is it enough to call it a _copula_, a bridge, a\nlink, a word connecting sentences? That is undoubtedly its use, but what\nis its origin?\u2019 Mr. Tooke thought he had answered this question\nsatisfactorily, and loosened the Gordian knot of grammarians, \u2018familiar\nas his garter,\u2019 when he said, \u2018It is the common pronoun, adjective, or\nparticiple, _that_, with the noun, _thing or proposition_, implied, and\nthe particular example following it.\u2019 So he thought, and so every reader\nhas thought since, with the exception of teachers and writers upon\nGrammar. Mr. Windham, indeed, who was a sophist, but not a logician,\ncharged him with having found \u2018a mare\u2019s-nest\u2019; but it is not to be\ndoubted that Mr. Tooke\u2019s etymologies will stand the test, and last\nlonger than Mr. Windham\u2019s ingenious derivation of the practice of\nbull-baiting from the principles of humanity!\n\nHaving thus laid the corner-stone, he proceeded to apply the same method\nof reasoning to other undecyphered and impracticable terms. Thus the\nword, _And_, he explained clearly enough to be the verb _add_, or a\ncorruption of the old Saxon, _anandad_. \u2018Two _and_ two make four,\u2019 that\nis, \u2018two _add_ two make four.\u2019 Mr. Tooke, in fact, treated words as the\nchemists do substances; he separated those which are compounded of\nothers from those which are not decompoundable. He did not explain the\nobscure by the more obscure, but the difficult by the plain, the complex\nby the simple. This alone is proceeding upon the true principles of\nscience: the rest is pedantry and _petit-ma\u00eetreship_. Our philosophical\nwriter distinguished all words into _names of things_, and directions\nadded for joining them together, or originally into _nouns_ and _verbs_.\nIt is a pity that he has left this matter short, by omitting to define\nthe Verb. After enumerating sixteen different definitions (all of which\nhe dismisses with scorn and contumely) at the end of two quarto volumes,\nhe refers the reader for the true solution to a third volume, which he\ndid not live to finish. This extraordinary man was in the habit of\ntantalizing his guests on a Sunday afternoon with sundry abstruse\nspeculations, and putting them off to the following week for a\nsatisfaction of their doubts; but why should he treat posterity in the\nsame scurvy manner, or leave the world without quitting scores with it?\nI question whether Mr. Tooke was himself in possession of his pretended\n_nostrum_, and whether, after trying hard at a definition of the verb as\na distinct part of speech, as a terrier-dog mumbles a hedge-hog, he did\nnot find it too much for him, and leave it to its fate. It is also a\npity that Mr. Tooke spun out his great work with prolix and dogmatical\ndissertations on irrelevant matters; and after denying the old\nmetaphysical theories of language, should attempt to found a\nmetaphysical theory of his own on the nature and mechanism of language.\nThe nature of words, he contended (it was the basis of his whole system)\nhad no connection with the nature of things or the objects of thought;\nyet he afterwards strove to limit the nature of things and of the human\nmind by the technical structure of language. Thus he endeavours to show\nthat there are no abstract ideas, by enumerating two thousand instances\nof words, expressing abstract ideas, that are the past participles of\ncertain verbs. It is difficult to know what he means by this. On the\nother hand, he maintains that \u2018a complex idea is as great an absurdity\nas a complex star,\u2019 and that words only are complex. He also makes out a\ntriumphant list of metaphysical and moral non-entities, proved to be so\non the pure principle that the names of these non-entities are\nparticiples, not nouns, or names of things. That is strange in so close\na reasoner, and in one who maintained that all language was a masquerade\nof words, and that the class to which they grammatically belonged had\nnothing to do with the class of ideas they represented.\n\nIt is now above twenty years since the two quarto volumes of the\n_Diversions of Purley_ were published, and fifty since the same theory\nwas promulgated in the celebrated _Letter to Dunning_. Yet it is a\ncurious example of the _Spirit of the Age_ that Mr. Lindley Murray\u2019s\nGrammar (a work out of which Mr. C*** helps himself to English, and Mr.\nM*** to style[42]) has proceeded to the thirtieth edition in complete\ndefiance of all the facts and arguments there laid down. He defines a\nnoun to be the name of a thing. Is quackery a thing, _i.e._ a substance?\nHe defines a verb to be a word signifying _to be, to do, or to suffer_.\nAre being, action, suffering, verbs? He defines an adjective to be the\nname of a quality. Are not _wooden_, _golden_, _substantial_ adjectives?\nHe maintains that there are six cases in English nouns, that is, six\nvarious terminations without any change of termination at all,[43] and\nthat English verbs have all the moods, tenses, and persons that the\nLatin ones have. This is an extraordinary stretch of blindness and\nobstinacy. He very formally translates the Latin Grammar into English,\n(as so many had done before him) and fancies he has written an English\nGrammar; and divines applaud, and schoolmasters usher him into the\npolite world, and English scholars carry on the jest, while Horne\nTooke\u2019s genuine anatomy of our native tongue is laid on the shelf. Can\nit be that our politicians smell a rat in the Member for Old Sarum? That\nour clergy do not relish Parson Horne? That the world at large are\nalarmed at acuteness and originality greater than their own? What has\nall this to do with the formation of the English language or with the\nfirst conditions and necessary foundation of speech itself? Is there\nnothing beyond the reach of prejudice and party-spirit? It seems in\nthis, as in so many other instances, as if there was a patent for\nabsurdity in the natural bias of the human mind, and that folly should\nbe _stereotyped_!\n\n\n\n\n                            SIR WALTER SCOTT\n\n\nSir Walter Scott is undoubtedly the most popular writer of the age\u2014the\n\u2018lord of the ascendant\u2019 for the time being. He is just half what the\nhuman intellect is capable of being: if you take the universe, and\ndivide it into two parts, he knows all that it _has been_; all that it\n_is to be_ is nothing to him. His is a mind brooding over\nantiquity\u2014scorning \u2018the present ignorant time.\u2019 He is \u2018laudator temporis\nacti\u2019\u2014a \u2018_prophesier_ of things past.\u2019 The old world is to him a crowded\nmap; the new one a dull, hateful blank. He dotes on all\nwell-authenticated superstitions; he shudders at the shadow of\ninnovation. His retentiveness of memory, his accumulated weight of\ninterested prejudice or romantic association have overlaid his other\nfaculties. The cells of his memory are vast, various, full even to\nbursting with life and motion; his speculative understanding is empty,\nflaccid, poor, and dead. His mind receives and treasures up every thing\nbrought to it by tradition or custom\u2014it does not project itself beyond\nthis into the world unknown, but mechanically shrinks back as from the\nedge of a precipice. The land of pure reason is to his apprehension like\n_Van Dieman\u2019s Land_;\u2014barren, miserable, distant, a place of exile, the\ndreary abode of savages, convicts, and adventurers. Sir Walter would\nmake a bad hand of a description of the _Millennium_, unless he could\nlay the scene in Scotland five hundred years ago, and then he would want\nfacts and worm-eaten parchments to support his drooping style. Our\nhistorical novelist firmly thinks that nothing _is_ but what _has\nbeen_\u2014that the moral world stands still, as the material one was\nsupposed to do of old\u2014and that we can never get beyond the point where\nwe actually are without utter destruction, though every thing changes\nand will change from what it was three hundred years ago to what it is\nnow,\u2014from what it is now to all that the bigoted admirer of the good old\ntimes most dreads and hates!\n\nIt is long since we read, and long since we thought of our author\u2019s\npoetry. It would probably have gone out of date with the immediate\noccasion, even if he himself had not contrived to banish it from our\nrecollection. It is not to be denied that it had great merit, both of an\nobvious and intrinsic kind. It abounded in vivid descriptions, in\nspirited action, in smooth and flowing versification. But it wanted\n_character_. It was \u2018poetry of no mark or likelihood.\u2019 It slid out of\nthe mind as soon as read, like a river; and would have been forgotten,\nbut that the public curiosity was fed with ever new supplies from the\nsame teeming liquid source. It is not every man that can write six\nquarto volumes in verse, that are caught up with avidity, even by\nfastidious judges. But what a difference between _their_ popularity and\nthat of the Scotch Novels! It is true, the public read and admired the\n_Lay of the last Minstrel_, _Marmion_, and so on, and each individual\nwas contented to read and admire because the public did so: but with\nregard to the prose-works of the same (supposed) author, it is quite\n_another-guess_ sort of thing. Here every one stands forward to applaud\non his own ground, would be thought to go before the public opinion, is\neager to extol his favourite characters louder, to understand them\nbetter than every body else, and has his own scale of comparative\nexcellence for each work, supported by nothing but his own enthusiastic\nand fearless convictions. It must be amusing to the _Author of Waverley_\nto hear his readers and admirers (and are not these the same thing?[44])\nquarrelling which of his novels is the best, opposing character to\ncharacter, quoting passage against passage, striving to surpass each\nother in the extravagance of their encomiums, and yet unable to settle\nthe precedence, or to do the author\u2019s writings justice\u2014so various, so\nequal, so transcendant are their merits! His volumes of poetry were\nreceived as fashionable and well-dressed acquaintances: we are ready to\ntear the others in pieces as old friends. There was something\nmeretricious in Sir Walter\u2019s ballad-rhymes; and like those who keep\nopera _figurantes_, we were willing to have our admiration shared, and\nour taste confirmed by the town: but the Novels are like the betrothed\nof our hearts, bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh, and we are\njealous that any one should be as much delighted or as thoroughly\nacquainted with their beauties as ourselves. For which of his poetical\nheroines would the reader break a lance so soon as for Jeanie Deans?\nWhat _Lady of the Lake_ can compare with the beautiful Rebecca? We\nbelieve the late Mr. John Scott went to his death-bed (though a painful\nand premature one) with some degree of satisfaction, inasmuch as he had\npenned the most elaborate panegyric on the _Scotch Novels_ that had as\nyet appeared!\u2014The _Epics_ are not poems, so much as metrical romances.\nThere is a glittering veil of verse thrown over the features of nature\nand of old romance. The deep incisions into character are \u2018skinned and\nfilmed over\u2019\u2014the details are lost or shaped into flimsy and insipid\ndecorum; and the truth of feeling and of circumstance is translated into\na tinkling sound, a tinsel _common-place_. It must be owned, there is a\npower in true poetry that lifts the mind from the ground of reality to a\nhigher sphere, that penetrates the inert, scattered, incoherent\nmaterials presented to it, and by a force and inspiration of its own,\nmelts and moulds them into sublimity and beauty. But Sir Walter (we\ncontend, under correction) has not this creative impulse, this plastic\npower, this capacity of reacting on his first impressions. He is a\nlearned, a literal, a _matter-of-fact_ expounder of truth or fable:[45]\nhe does not soar above and look down upon his subject, imparting his own\nlofty views and feelings to his descriptions of nature\u2014he relies upon\nit, is raised by it, is one with it, or he is nothing. A poet is\nessentially a _maker_; that is, he must atone for what he loses in\nindividuality and local resemblance by the energies and resources of his\nown mind. The writer of whom we speak is deficient in these last. He has\neither not the faculty or not the will to impregnate his subject by an\neffort of pure invention. The execution also is much upon a par with the\nmore ephemeral effusions of the press. It is light, agreeable,\neffeminate, diffuse. Sir Walter\u2019s Muse is a _Modern Antique_. The\nsmooth, glossy texture of his verse contrasts happily with the quaint,\nuncouth, rugged materials of which it is composed; and takes away any\nappearance of heaviness or harshness from the body of local traditions\nand obsolete costume. We see grim knights and iron armour; but then they\nare woven in silk with a careless, delicate hand, and have the softness\nof flowers. The poet\u2019s figures might be compared to old tapestries\ncopied on the finest velvet:\u2014they are not like Raphael\u2019s _Cartoons_, but\nthey are very like Mr. Westall\u2019s drawings, which accompany, and are\nintended to illustrate them. This facility and grace of execution is the\nmore remarkable, as a story goes that not long before the appearance of\nthe _Lay of the Last Minstrel_ Sir Walter (then Mr.) Scott, having, in\nthe company of a friend, to cross the Frith of Forth in a ferry-boat,\nthey proposed to beguile the time by writing a number of verses on a\ngiven subject, and that at the end of an hour\u2019s hard study, they found\nthey had produced only six lines between them. \u2018It is plain,\u2019 said the\nunconscious author to his fellow-labourer, \u2018that you and I need never\nthink of getting our living by writing poetry!\u2019 In a year or so after\nthis, he set to work, and poured out quarto upon quarto, as if they had\nbeen drops of water. As to the rest, and compared with true and great\npoets, our Scottish Minstrel is but \u2018a metre ballad-monger.\u2019 We would\nrather have written one song of Burns, or a single passage in Lord\nByron\u2019s _Heaven and Earth_, or one of Wordsworth\u2019s \u2018fancies and\ngood-nights,\u2019 than all his epics. What is he to Spenser, over whose\nimmortal, ever-amiable verse beauty hovers and trembles, and who has\nshed the purple light of Fancy, from his ambrosial wings, over all\nnature? What is there of the might of Milton, whose head is canopied in\nthe blue serene, and who takes us to sit with him there? What is there\n(in his ambling rhymes) of the deep pathos of Chaucer? Or of the\no\u2019er-informing power of Shakespear, whose eye, watching alike the\nminutest traces of characters and the strongest movements of passion,\n\u2018glances from heaven to earth, from earth to heaven,\u2019 and with the\nlambent flame of genius, playing round each object, lights up the\nuniverse in a robe of its own radiance? Sir Walter has no voluntary\npower of combination: all his associations (as we said before) are those\nof habit or of tradition. He is a mere narrative and descriptive poet,\ngarrulous of the old time. The definition of his poetry is a pleasing\nsuperficiality.\n\nNot so of his NOVELS AND ROMANCES. There we turn over a new\nleaf\u2014another and the same\u2014the same in matter, but in form, in power\nhow different! The author of Waverley has got rid of the tagging of\nrhymes, the eking out of syllables, the supplying of epithets, the\ncolours of style, the grouping of his characters, and the regular\nmarch of events, and comes to the point at once, and strikes at the\nheart of his subject, without dismay and without disguise. His\npoetry was a lady\u2019s waiting-maid, dressed out in cast-off finery:\nhis prose is a beautiful, rustic nymph, that, like Dorothea in Don\nQuixote, when she is surprised with dishevelled tresses bathing her\nnaked feet in the brook, looks round her, abashed at the admiration\nher charms have excited! The grand secret of the author\u2019s success in\nthese latter productions is that he has completely got rid of the\ntrammels of authorship; and torn off at one rent (as Lord Peter got\nrid of so many yards of lace in the _Tale of a Tub_) all the\nornaments of fine writing and worn-out sentimentality. All is fresh,\nas from the hand of nature: by going a century or two back and\nlaying the scene in a remote and uncultivated district, all becomes\nnew and startling in the present advanced period.\u2014Highland manners,\ncharacters, scenery, superstitions, Northern dialect and costume,\nthe wars, the religion, and politics of the sixteenth and\nseventeenth centuries, give a charming and wholesome relief to the\nfastidious refinement and \u2018over-laboured lassitude\u2019 of modern\nreaders, like the effect of plunging a nervous valetudinarian into a\ncold-bath. The _Scotch Novels_, for this reason, are not so much\nadmired in Scotland as in England. The contrast, the transition is\nless striking. From the top of the Calton Hill, the inhabitants of\n\u2018Auld Reekie\u2019 can descry, or fancy they descry the peaks of Ben\nLomond and the waving outline of Rob Roy\u2019s country: we who live at\nthe southern extremity of the island can only catch a glimpse of the\nbillowy scene in the descriptions of the Author of Waverley. The\nmountain air is most bracing to our languid nerves, and it is\nbrought us in ship-loads from the neighbourhood of Abbot\u2019s Ford.\nThere is another circumstance to be taken into the account. In\nEdinburgh there is a little opposition and something of the spirit\nof cabal between the partisans of works proceeding from Mr.\nConstable\u2019s and Mr. Blackwood\u2019s shops. Mr. Constable gives the\nhighest prices; but being the Whig bookseller, it is grudged that he\nshould do so. An attempt is therefore made to transfer a certain\nshare of popularity to the second-rate Scotch novels, \u2018the embryo\nfry, the little airy of _ricketty_ children,\u2019 issuing through Mr.\nBlackwood\u2019s shop-door. This operates a diversion, which does not\naffect us here. The Author of Waverley wears the palm of legendary\nlore alone. Sir Walter may, indeed, surfeit us: his imitators make\nus sick! It may be asked, it has been asked, \u2018Have we no materials\nfor romance in England? Must we look to Scotland for a supply of\nwhatever is original and striking in this kind?\u2019 And we\nanswer\u2014\u2018Yes!\u2019 Every foot of soil is with us worked up: nearly every\nmovement of the social machine is calculable. We have no room left\nfor violent catastrophes; for grotesque quaintnesses; for wizard\nspells. The last skirts of ignorance and barbarism are seen hovering\n(in Sir Walter\u2019s pages) over the Border. We have, it is true,\ngipsies in this country as well as at the Cairn of Derncleugh: but\nthey live under clipped hedges, and repose in camp-beds, and do not\nperch on crags, like eagles, or take shelter, like sea-mews, in\nbasaltic subterranean caverns. We have heaths with rude heaps of\nstones upon them: but no existing superstition converts them into\nthe Geese of Micklestane-Moor, or sees a Black Dwarf groping among\nthem. We have sects in religion: but the only thing sublime or\nridiculous in that way is Mr. Irving, the Caledonian preacher, who\n\u2018comes like a satyr staring from the woods, and yet speaks like an\norator!\u2019 We had a Parson Adams not quite a hundred years ago\u2014a Sir\nRoger de Coverley rather more than a hundred! Even Sir Walter is\nordinarily obliged to pitch his angle (strong as the hook is) a\nhundred miles to the North of the \u2018Modern Athens\u2019 or a century back.\nHis last work,[46] indeed, is mystical, is romantic in nothing but\nthe title-page. Instead of \u2018a holy-water sprinkle dipped in dew,\u2019 he\nhas given us a fashionable watering-place\u2014and we see what he has\nmade of it. He must not come down from his fastnesses in traditional\nbarbarism and native rusticity; the level, the littleness, the\nfrippery of modern civilization will undo him as it has undone us!\n\nSir Walter has found out (oh, rare discovery) that facts are better than\nfiction; that there is no romance like the romance of real life; and\nthat if we can but arrive at what men feel, do, and say in striking and\nsingular situations, the result will be \u2018more lively, audible, and full\nof vent,\u2019 than the fine-spun cobwebs of the brain. With reverence be it\nspoken, he is like the man who having to imitate the squeaking of a pig\nupon the stage, brought the animal under his coat with him. Our author\nhas conjured up the actual people he has to deal with, or as much as he\ncould get of them, in \u2018their habits as they lived.\u2019 He has ransacked old\nchronicles, and poured the contents upon his page; he has squeezed out\nmusty records; he has consulted wayfaring pilgrims, bed-rid sibyls; he\nhas invoked the spirits of the air; he has conversed with the living and\nthe dead, and let them tell their story their own way; and by borrowing\nof others, has enriched his own genius with everlasting variety, truth,\nand freedom. He has taken his materials from the original, authentic\nsources, in large concrete masses, and not tampered with or too much\nfrittered them away. He is only the amanuensis of truth and history. It\nis impossible to say how fine his writings in consequence are, unless we\ncould describe how fine nature is. All that portion of the history of\nhis country that he has touched upon (wide as the scope is) the manners,\nthe personages, the events, the scenery, lives over again in his\nvolumes. Nothing is wanting\u2014the illusion is complete. There is a\nhurtling in the air, a trampling of feet upon the ground, as these\nperfect representations of human character or fanciful belief come\nthronging back upon our imaginations. We will merely recall a few of the\nsubjects of his pencil to the reader\u2019s recollection; for nothing we\ncould add, by way of note or commendation, could make the impression\nmore vivid.\n\nThere is (first and foremost, because the earliest of our acquaintance)\nthe Baron of Bradwardine, stately, kind-hearted, whimsical, pedantic;\nand Flora MacIvor (whom even _we_ forgive for her Jacobitism), the\nfierce Vich Ian Vohr, and Evan Dhu, constant in death, and Davie\nGellatly roasting his eggs or turning his rhymes with restless\nvolubility, and the two stag-hounds that met Waverley, as fine as ever\nTitian painted, or Paul Veronese:\u2014then there is old Balfour of Burley,\nbrandishing his sword and his Bible with fire-eyed fury, trying a fall\nwith the insolent, gigantic Bothwell at the \u2018Changehouse, and\nvanquishing him at the noble battle of Loudon-hill; there is Bothwell\nhimself, drawn to the life, proud, cruel, selfish, profligate, but with\nthe love-letters of the gentle Alice (written thirty years before), and\nhis verses to her memory, found in his pocket after his death: in the\nsame volume of _Old Mortality_ is that lone figure, like a figure in\nScripture, of the woman sitting on the stone at the turning to the\nmountain, to warn Burley that there is a lion in his path; and the\nfawning Claverhouse, beautiful as a panther, smooth-looking,\nblood-spotted; and the fanatics, Macbriar and Mucklewrath, crazed with\nzeal and sufferings; and the inflexible Morton, and the faithful Edith,\nwho refused to \u2018give her hand to another while her heart was with her\nlover in the deep and dead sea.\u2019 And in _The Heart of Mid Lothian_ we\nhave Effie Deans (that sweet, faded flower) and Jeanie, her more than\nsister, and old David Deans, the patriarch of St. Leonard\u2019s Crags, and\nButler, and Dumbiedikes, eloquent in his silence, and Mr. Bartoline\nSaddle-tree and his prudent helpmate, and Porteous swinging in the wind,\nand Madge Wildfire, full of finery and madness, and her ghastly\nmother.\u2014Again, there is Meg Merrilies, standing on her rock, stretched\non her bier with \u2018her head to the east,\u2019 and Dirk Hatterick (equal to\nShakespear\u2019s Master Barnardine), and Glossin, the soul of an attorney,\nand Dandy Dinmont, with his terrier-pack and his pony Dumple, and the\nfiery Colonel Mannering, and the modish old counsellor Pleydell, and\nDominie Sampson,[47] and Rob Roy (like the eagle in his eyry), and\nBaillie Nicol Jarvie, and the inimitable Major Galbraith, and Rashleigh\nOsbaldistone, and Die Vernon, the best of secret-keepers; and in the\n_Antiquary_, the ingenious and abstruse Mr. Jonathan Oldbuck, and the\nold beadsman Edie Ochiltree, and that preternatural figure of old Edith\nElspeith, a living shadow, in whom the lamp of life had been long\nextinguished, had it not been fed by remorse and \u2018thick-coming\u2019\nrecollections; and that striking picture of the effects of feudal\ntyranny and fiendish pride, the unhappy Earl of Glenallan; and the Black\nDwarf, and his friend Habby of the Heughfoot (the cheerful hunter), and\nhis cousin Grace Armstrong, fresh and laughing like the morning; and the\n_Children of the Mist_, and the baying of the blood-hound that tracks\ntheir steps at a distance (the hollow echoes are in our ears now), and\nAmy and her hapless love, and the villain Varney, and the deep voice of\nGeorge of Douglas\u2014and the immoveable Balafre, and Master Oliver the\nBarber in Quentin Durward\u2014and the quaint humour of the Fortunes of\nNigel, and the comic spirit of Peveril of the Peak\u2014and the fine old\nEnglish romance of Ivanhoe. What a list of names! What a host of\nassociations! What a thing is human life! What a power is that of\ngenius! What a world of thought and feeling is thus rescued from\noblivion! How many hours of heartfelt satisfaction has our author given\nto the gay and thoughtless! How many sad hearts has he soothed in pain\nand solitude! It is no wonder that the public repay with lengthened\napplause and gratitude the pleasure they receive. He writes as fast as\nthey can read, and he does not write himself down. He is always in the\npublic eye, and we do not tire of him. His worst is better than any\nother person\u2019s best. His _back-grounds_ (and his later works are little\nelse but back-grounds capitally made out) are more attractive than the\nprincipal figures and most complicated actions of other writers. His\nworks (taken together) are almost like a new edition of human nature.\nThis is indeed to be an author!\n\nThe political bearing of the _Scotch Novels_ has been a considerable\nrecommendation to them. They are a relief to the mind, rarefied as it\nhas been with modern philosophy, and heated with ultra-radicalism. At a\ntime also, when we bid fair to revive the principles of the Stuarts, it\nis interesting to bring us acquainted with their persons and\nmisfortunes. The candour of Sir Walter\u2019s historic pen levels our\nbristling prejudices on this score, and sees fair play between\nRoundheads and Cavaliers, between Protestant and Papist. He is a writer\nreconciling all the diversities of human nature to the reader. He does\nnot enter into the distinctions of hostile sects or parties, but treats\nof the strength or the infirmity of the human mind, of the virtues or\nvices of the human breast, as they are to be found blended in the whole\nrace of mankind. Nothing can show more handsomely or be more gallantly\nexecuted. There was a talk at one time that our author was about to take\nGuy Faux for the subject of one of his novels, in order to put a more\nliberal and humane construction on the Gunpowder Plot than our \u2018No\nPopery\u2019 prejudices have hitherto permitted. Sir Walter is a professed\n_clarifier_ of the age from the vulgar and still lurking old-English\nantipathy to Popery and Slavery. Through some odd process of _servile_\nlogic, it should seem, that in restoring the claims of the Stuarts by\nthe courtesy of romance, the House of Brunswick are more firmly seated\nin point of fact, and the Bourbons, by collateral reasoning, become\nlegitimate! In any other point of view, we cannot possibly conceive how\nSir Walter imagines \u2018he has done something to revive the declining\nspirit of loyalty\u2019 by these novels. His loyalty is founded on _would-be_\ntreason: he props the actual throne by the shadow of rebellion. Does he\nreally think of making us enamoured of the \u2018good old times\u2019 by the\nfaithful and harrowing portraits he has drawn of them? Would he carry us\nback to the early stages of barbarism, of clanship, of the feudal system\nas \u2018a consummation devoutly to be wished?\u2019 Is he infatuated enough, or\ndoes he so dote and drivel over his own slothful and self-willed\nprejudices, as to believe that he will make a single convert to the\nbeauty of Legitimacy, that is, of lawless power and savage bigotry, when\nhe himself is obliged to apologise for the horrors he describes, and\neven render his descriptions credible to the modern reader by referring\nto the authentic history of these delectable times?[48] He is indeed so\nbesotted as to the moral of his own story, that he has even the\nblindness to go out of his way to have a fling at _flints_ and _dungs_\n(the contemptible ingredients, as he would have us believe, of a modern\nrabble) at the very time when he is describing a mob of the twelfth\ncentury\u2014a mob (one should think) after the writer\u2019s own heart, without\none particle of modern philosophy or revolutionary politics in their\ncomposition, who were to a man, to a hair, just what priests, and kings,\nand nobles _let_ them be, and who were collected to witness (a spectacle\nproper to the times) the burning of the lovely Rebecca at a stake for a\nsorceress, because she was a Jewess, beautiful and innocent, and the\nconsequent victim of insane bigotry and unbridled profligacy. And it is\nat this moment (when the heart is kindled and bursting with indignation\nat the revolting abuses of self-constituted power) that Sir Walter\n_stops the press_ to have a sneer at the people, and to put a spoke (as\nhe thinks) in the wheel of upstart innovation! This is what he \u2018calls\nbacking his friends\u2019\u2014it is thus he administers charms and philtres to\nour love of Legitimacy, makes us conceive a horror of all reform, civil,\npolitical, or religious, and would fain put down the _Spirit of the\nAge_. The author of Waverley might just as well get up and make a speech\nat a dinner at Edinburgh, abusing Mr. Mac-Adam for his improvements in\nthe roads, on the ground that they were nearly _impassable_ in many\nplaces \u2018sixty years since\u2019; or object to Mr. Peel\u2019s _Police-Bill_, by\ninsisting that Hounslow-Heath was formerly a scene of greater interest\nand terror to highwaymen and travellers, and cut a greater figure in the\nNewgate Calendar than it does at present.\u2014Oh! Wickliff, Luther, Hampden,\nSidney, Somers, mistaken Whigs, and thoughtless Reformers in religion\nand politics, and all ye, whether poets or philosophers, heroes or\nsages, inventors of arts or sciences, patriots, benefactors of the human\nrace, enlighteners and civilisers of the world, who have (so far)\nreduced opinion to reason, and power to law, who are the cause that we\nno longer burn witches and heretics at slow fires, that the thumb-screws\nare no longer applied by ghastly, smiling judges, to extort confession\nof imputed crimes from sufferers for conscience sake; that men are no\nlonger strung up like acorns on trees without judge or jury, or hunted\nlike wild beasts through thickets and glens, who have abated the cruelty\nof priests, the pride of nobles, the divinity of kings in former times;\nto whom we owe it, that we no longer wear round our necks the collar of\nGurth the swineherd, and of Wamba the jester; that the castles of great\nlords are no longer the dens of banditti, from whence they issue with\nfire and sword, to lay waste the land; that we no longer expire in\nloathsome dungeons without knowing the cause, or have our right hands\nstruck off for raising them in self-defence against wanton insult; that\nwe can sleep without fear of being burnt in our beds, or travel without\nmaking our wills; that no Amy Robsarts are thrown down trap-doors by\nRichard Varneys with impunity; that no Red Reiver of Westburn-Flat sets\nfire to peaceful cottages; that no Claverhouse signs cold-blooded\ndeath-warrants in sport; that we have no Tristan the Hermit, or\nPetit-Andr\u00e9, crawling near us, like spiders, and making our flesh creep,\nand our hearts sicken within us at every moment of our lives\u2014ye who have\nproduced this change in the face of nature and society, return to earth\nonce more, and beg pardon of Sir Walter and his patrons, who sigh at not\nbeing able to undo all that you have done! Leaving this question, there\nare two other remarks which we wished to make on the Novels. The one\nwas, to express our admiration of the good-nature of the mottos, in\nwhich the author has taken occasion to remember and quote almost every\nliving author (whether illustrious or obscure) but himself\u2014an indirect\nargument in favour of the general opinion as to the source from which\nthey spring\u2014and the other was, to hint our astonishment at the\ninnumerable and incessant instances of bad and slovenly English in them,\nmore, we believe, than in any other works now printed. We should think\nthe writer could not possibly read the manuscript after he has once\nwritten it, or overlook the press.\n\nIf there were a writer, who \u2018born for the universe\u2019\u2014\n\n                               \u2018\u2014\u2014Narrow\u2019d his mind,\n           And to party gave up what was meant for mankind\u2014\u2019\n\nwho, from the height of his genius looking abroad into nature, and\nscanning the recesses of the human heart, \u2018winked and shut his\napprehension up\u2019 to every thought or purpose that tended to the future\ngood of mankind\u2014who, raised by affluence, the reward of successful\nindustry, and by the voice of fame above the want of any but the most\nhonourable patronage, stooped to the unworthy arts of adulation, and\nabetted the views of the great with the pettifogging feelings of the\nmeanest dependant on office\u2014who, having secured the admiration of the\npublic (with the probable reversion of immortality), showed no respect\nfor himself, for that genius that had raised him to distinction, for\nthat nature which he trampled under foot\u2014who, amiable, frank, friendly,\nmanly in private life, was seized with the dotage of age and the fury of\na woman, the instant politics were concerned\u2014who reserved all his\ncandour and comprehensiveness of view for history, and vented his\nlittleness, pique, resentment, bigotry, and intolerance on his\ncontemporaries\u2014who took the wrong side, and defended it by unfair\nmeans\u2014who, the moment his own interest or the prejudices of others\ninterfered, seemed to forget all that was due to the pride of intellect,\nto the sense of manhood\u2014who, praised, admired by men of all parties\nalike, repaid the public liberality by striking a secret and envenomed\nblow at the reputation of every one who was not the ready tool of\npower\u2014who strewed the slime of rankling malice and mercenary scorn over\nthe bud and promise of genius, because it was not fostered in the\nhot-bed of corruption, or warped by the trammels of servility\u2014who\nsupported the worst abuses of authority in the worst spirit\u2014who joined a\ngang of desperadoes to spread calumny, contempt, infamy, wherever they\nwere merited by honesty or talent on a different side\u2014who officiously\nundertook to decide public questions by private insinuations, to prop\nthe throne by nicknames, and the altar by lies\u2014who being (by common\nconsent), the finest, the most humane and accomplished writer of his\nage, associated himself with and encouraged the lowest panders of a\nvenal press; deluging, nauseating the public mind with the offal and\ngarbage of Billingsgate abuse and vulgar _slang_; showing no remorse, no\nrelenting or compassion towards the victims of this nefarious and\norganized system of party-proscription, carried on under the mask of\nliterary criticism and fair discussion, insulting the misfortunes of\nsome, and trampling on the early grave of others\u2014\n\n             \u2018Who would not grieve if such a man there be?\n             Who would not weep if Atticus were he?\u2019\n\nBut we believe there is no other age or country of the world (but ours),\nin which such genius could have been so degraded!\n\n\n\n\n                               LORD BYRON\n\n\nLord Byron and Sir Walter Scott are among writers now living[49] the\ntwo, who would carry away a majority of suffrages as the greatest\ngeniuses of the age. The former would, perhaps, obtain the preference\nwith the fine gentlemen and ladies (squeamishness apart)\u2014the latter with\nthe critics and the vulgar. We shall treat of them in the same\nconnection, partly on account of their distinguished pre-eminence, and\npartly because they afford a complete contrast to each other. In their\npoetry, in their prose, in their politics, and in their tempers, no two\nmen can be more unlike.\n\nIf Sir Walter Scott may be thought by some to have been\n\n                 \u2018Born universal heir to all humanity,\u2019\n\nit is plain Lord Byron can set up no such pretension. He is, in a\nstriking degree, the creature of his own will. He holds no communion\nwith his kind; but stands alone, without mate or fellow\u2014\n\n                  \u2018As if a man were author of himself,\n                  And owned no other kin.\u2019\n\nHe is like a solitary peak, all access to which is cut off not more by\nelevation than distance. He is seated on a lofty eminence, \u2018cloud-capt,\u2019\nor reflecting the last rays of setting suns; and in his poetical moods,\nreminds us of the fabled Titans, retired to a ridgy steep, playing on\ntheir Pan\u2019s-pipes, and taking up ordinary men and things in their hands\nwith haughty indifference. He raises his subject to himself, or tramples\non it; he neither stoops to, nor loses himself in it. He exists not by\nsympathy, but by antipathy. He scorns all things, even himself. Nature\nmust come to him to sit for her picture\u2014he does not go to her. She must\nconsult his time, his convenience, and his humour; and wear a _sombre_\nor a fantastic garb, or his Lordship turns his back upon her. There is\nno ease, no unaffected simplicity of manner, no \u2018golden mean.\u2019 All is\nstrained, or petulant in the extreme. His thoughts are sphered and\ncrystalline; his style \u2018prouder than when blue Iris bends\u2019; his spirit\nfiery, impatient, wayward, indefatigable. Instead of taking his\nimpressions from without, in entire and almost unimpaired masses, he\nmoulds them according to his own temperament, and heats the materials of\nhis imagination in the furnace of his passions.\u2014Lord Byron\u2019s verse glows\nlike a flame, consuming every thing in its way; Sir Walter Scott\u2019s\nglides like a river, clear, gentle, harmless. The poetry of the first\nscorches, that of the last scarcely warms. The light of the one proceeds\nfrom an internal source, ensanguined, sullen, fixed; the others reflects\nthe hues of Heaven, or the face of nature, glancing vivid and various.\nThe productions of the Northern Bard have the rust and the freshness of\nantiquity about them; those of the Noble Poet cease to startle from\ntheir extreme ambition of novelty, both in style and matter. Sir\nWalter\u2019s rhymes are \u2018silly sooth\u2019\u2014\n\n               \u2018And dally with the innocence of thought,\n               Like the old age\u2019\u2014\n\nhis Lordship\u2019s Muse spurns _the olden time_, and affects all the\nsupercilious airs of a modern fine lady and an upstart. The object of\nthe one writer is to restore us to truth and nature: the other chiefly\nthinks how he shall display his own power, or vent his spleen, or\nastonish the reader either by starting new subjects and trains of\nspeculation, or by expressing old ones in a more striking and emphatic\nmanner than they have been expressed before. He cares little what it is\nhe says, so that he can say it differently from others. This may account\nfor the charges of plagiarism which have been repeatedly brought against\nthe Noble Poet\u2014if he can borrow an image or sentiment from another, and\nheighten it by an epithet or an allusion of greater force and beauty\nthan is to be found in the original passage, he thinks he shows his\nsuperiority of execution in this in a more marked manner than if the\nfirst suggestion had been his own. It is not the value of the\nobservation itself he is solicitous about; but he wishes to shine by\ncontrast\u2014even nature only serves as a foil to set off his style. He\ntherefore takes the thoughts of others (whether contemporaries or not)\nout of their mouths, and is content to make them his own, to set his\nstamp upon them, by imparting to them a more meretricious gloss, a\nhigher relief, a greater loftiness of tone, and a characteristic\ninveteracy of purpose. Even in those collateral ornaments of modern\nstyle, slovenliness, abruptness, and eccentricity (as well as in\nterseness and significance), Lord Byron, when he pleases, defies\ncompetition and surpasses all his contemporaries. Whatever he does, he\nmust do in a more decided and daring manner than any one else\u2014he lounges\nwith extravagance, and yawns so as to alarm the reader! Self-will,\npassion, the love of singularity, a disdain of himself and of others\n(with a conscious sense that this is among the ways and means of\nprocuring admiration) are the proper categories of his mind: he is a\nlordly writer, is above his own reputation, and condescends to the Muses\nwith a scornful grace!\n\nLord Byron, who in his politics is a _liberal_, in his genius is haughty\nand aristocratic: Walter Scott, who is an aristocrat in principle, is\npopular in his writings, and is (as it were) equally _servile_ to nature\nand to opinion. The genius of Sir Walter is essentially imitative, or\n\u2018denotes a foregone conclusion\u2019: that of Lord Byron is self-dependent;\nor at least requires no aid, is governed by no law, but the impulses of\nits own will. We confess, however much we may admire independence of\nfeeling and erectness of spirit in general or practical questions, yet\nin works of genius we prefer him who bows to the authority of nature,\nwho appeals to actual objects, to mouldering superstitions, to history,\nobservation, and tradition, before him who only consults the pragmatical\nand restless workings of his own breast, and gives them out as oracles\nto the world. We like a writer (whether poet or prose-writer) who takes\nin (or is willing to take in) the range of half the universe in feeling,\ncharacter, description, much better than we do one who obstinately and\ninvariably shuts himself up in the Bastile of his own ruling passions.\nIn short, we had rather be Sir Walter Scott (meaning thereby the Author\nof Waverley) than Lord Byron, a hundred times over. And for the reason\njust given, namely, that he casts his descriptions in the mould of\nnature, ever-varying, never tiresome, always interesting and always\ninstructive, instead of casting them constantly in the mould of his own\nindividual impressions. He gives us man as he is, or as he was, in\nalmost every variety of situation, action, and feeling. Lord Byron makes\nman after his own image, woman after his own heart; the one is a\ncapricious tyrant, the other a yielding slave; he gives us the\nmisanthrope and the voluptuary by turns; and with these two characters,\nburning or melting in their own fires, he makes out everlasting centos\nof himself. He hangs the cloud, the film of his existence over all\noutward things\u2014sits in the centre of his thoughts, and enjoys dark\nnight, bright day, the glitter and the gloom \u2018in cell monastic\u2019\u2014we see\nthe mournful pall, the crucifix, the death\u2019s heads, the faded chaplet of\nflowers, the gleaming tapers, the agonized brow of genius, the wasted\nform of beauty\u2014but we are still imprisoned in a dungeon, a curtain\nintercepts our view, we do not breathe freely the air of nature or of\nour own thoughts\u2014the other admired author draws aside the curtain, and\nthe veil of egotism is rent, and he shows us the crowd of living men and\nwomen, the endless groups, the landscape back-ground, the cloud and the\nrainbow, and enriches our imaginations and relieves one passion by\nanother, and expands and lightens reflection, and takes away that\ntightness at the breast which arises from thinking or wishing to think\nthat there is nothing in the world out of a man\u2019s self!\u2014In this point of\nview, the Author of Waverley is one of the greatest teachers of morality\nthat ever lived, by emancipating the mind from petty, narrow, and\nbigotted prejudices: Lord Byron is the greatest pamperer of those\nprejudices, by seeming to think there is nothing else worth encouraging\nbut the seeds or the full luxuriant growth of dogmatism and\nself-conceit. In reading the _Scotch Novels_, we never think about the\nauthor, except from a feeling of curiosity respecting our unknown\nbenefactor: in reading Lord Byron\u2019s works, he himself is never absent\nfrom our minds. The colouring of Lord Byron\u2019s style, however rich and\ndipped in Tyrian dyes, is nevertheless opaque, is in itself an object of\ndelight and wonder: Sir Walter Scott\u2019s is perfectly transparent. In\nstudying the one, you seem to gaze at the figures cut in stained glass,\nwhich exclude the view beyond, and where the pure light of Heaven is\nonly a means of setting off the gorgeousness of art: in reading the\nother, you look through a noble window at the clear and varied landscape\nwithout. Or to sum up the distinction in one word, Sir Walter Scott is\nthe most _dramatic_ writer now living; and Lord Byron is the least so.\nIt would be difficult to imagine that the Author of Waverley is in the\nsmallest degree a pedant; as it would be hard to persuade ourselves that\nthe author of Childe Harold and Don Juan is not a coxcomb, though a\nprovoking and sublime one. In this decided preference given to Sir\nWalter Scott over Lord Byron, we distinctly include the prose-works of\nthe former; for we do not think his poetry alone, by any means entitles\nhim to that precedence. Sir Walter in his poetry, though pleasing and\nnatural, is a comparative trifler: it is in his anonymous productions\nthat he has shown himself for what he is!\u2014\n\n_Intensity_ is the great and prominent distinction of Lord Byron\u2019s\nwritings. He seldom gets beyond force of style, nor has he produced any\nregular work or masterly whole. He does not prepare any plan beforehand,\nnor revise and retouch what he has written with polished accuracy. His\nonly object seems to be to stimulate himself and his readers for the\nmoment\u2014to keep both alive, to drive away _ennui_, to substitute a\nfeverish and irritable state of excitement for listless indolence or\neven calm enjoyment. For this purpose he pitches on any subject at\nrandom without much thought or delicacy\u2014he is only impatient to\nbegin\u2014and takes care to adorn and enrich it as he proceeds with\n\u2018thoughts that breathe and words that burn.\u2019 He composes (as he himself\nhas said) whether he is in the bath, in his study, or on horseback\u2014he\nwrites as habitually as others talk or think\u2014and whether we have the\ninspiration of the Muse or not, we always find the spirit of the man of\ngenius breathing from his verse. He grapples with his subject, and\nmoves, penetrates, and animates it by the electric force of his own\nfeelings. He is often monotonous, extravagant, offensive; but he is\nnever dull, or tedious, but when he writes prose. Lord Byron does not\nexhibit a new view of nature, or raise insignificant objects into\nimportance by the romantic associations with which he surrounds them;\nbut generally (at least) takes common-place thoughts and events, and\nendeavours to express them in stronger and statelier language than\nothers. His poetry stands like a Martello tower by the side of his\nsubject. He does not, like Mr. Wordsworth, lift poetry from the ground,\nor create a sentiment out of nothing. He does not describe a daisy or a\nperiwinkle, but the cedar or the cypress: not \u2018poor men\u2019s cottages, but\nprinces\u2019 palaces.\u2019 His _Childe Harold_ contains a lofty and impassioned\nreview of the great events of history, of the mighty objects left as\nwrecks of time, but he dwells chiefly on what is familiar to the mind of\nevery school-boy; has brought out few new traits of feeling or thought;\nand has done no more than justice to the reader\u2019s preconceptions by the\nsustained force and brilliancy of his style and imagery.\n\nLord Byron\u2019s earlier productions, _Lara_, the _Corsair_, &c. were wild\nand gloomy romances, put into rapid and shining verse. They discover the\nmadness of poetry, together with the inspiration: sullen, moody,\ncapricious, fierce, inexorable, gloating on beauty, thirsting for\nrevenge, hurrying from the extremes of pleasure to pain, but with\nnothing permanent, nothing healthy or natural. The gaudy decorations and\nthe morbid sentiments remind one of flowers strewed over the face of\ndeath! In his _Childe Harold_ (as has been just observed) he assumes a\nlofty and philosophic tone, and \u2018reasons high of providence,\nfore-knowledge, will, and fate.\u2019 He takes the highest points in the\nhistory of the world, and comments on them from a more commanding\neminence: he shows us the crumbling monuments of time, he invokes the\ngreat names, the mighty spirit of antiquity. The universe is changed\ninto a stately mausoleum:\u2014in solemn measures he chaunts a hymn to fame.\nLord Byron has strength and elevation enough to fill up the moulds of\nour classical and time-hallowed recollections, and to rekindle the\nearliest aspirations of the mind after greatness and true glory with a\npen of fire. The names of Tasso, of Ariosto, of Dante, of Cincinnatus,\nof C\u00e6sar, of Scipio, lose nothing of their pomp or their lustre in his\nhands, and when he begins and continues a strain of panegyric on such\nsubjects, we indeed sit down with him to a banquet of rich praise,\nbrooding over imperishable glories,\n\n                   \u2018Till Contemplation has her fill.\u2019\n\nLord Byron seems to cast himself indignantly from \u2018this bank and shoal\nof time,\u2019 or the frail tottering bark that bears up modern reputation,\ninto the huge sea of ancient renown, and to revel there with untired,\noutspread plume. Even this in him is spleen\u2014his contempt of his\ncontemporaries makes him turn back to the lustrous past, or project\nhimself forward to the dim future!\u2014Lord Byron\u2019s tragedies, Faliero,[50]\nSardanapalus, &c. are not equal to his other works. They want the\nessence of the drama. They abound in speeches and descriptions, such as\nhe himself might make either to himself or others, lolling on his couch\nof a morning, but do not carry the reader out of the poet\u2019s mind to the\nscenes and events recorded. They have neither action, character, nor\ninterest, but are a sort of _gossamer_ tragedies, spun out, and\nglittering, and spreading a flimsy veil over the face of nature. Yet he\nspins them on. Of all that he has done in this way the _Heaven and\nEarth_ (the same subject as Mr. Moore\u2019s _Loves of the Angels_) is the\nbest. We prefer it even to _Manfred_. _Manfred_ is merely himself, with\na fancy-drapery on: but in the dramatic fragment published in the\n_Liberal_, the space between Heaven and Earth, the stage on which his\ncharacters have to pass to and fro, seems to fill his Lordship\u2019s\nimagination; and the Deluge, which he has so finely described, may be\nsaid to have drowned all his own idle humours.\n\nWe must say we think little of our author\u2019s turn for satire. His\n\u2018English Bards and Scotch Reviewers\u2019 is dogmatical and insolent, but\nwithout refinement or point. He calls people names, and tries to\ntransfix a character with an epithet, which does not stick, because it\nhas no other foundation than his own petulance and spite; or he\nendeavours to degrade by alluding to some circumstance of external\nsituation. He says of Mr. Wordsworth\u2019s poetry, that \u2018it is his\naversion.\u2019 That may be: but whose fault is it? This is the satire of a\nlord, who is accustomed to have all his whims or dislikes taken for\ngospel, and who cannot be at the pains to do more than signify his\ncontempt or displeasure. If a great man meets with a rebuff which he\ndoes not like, he turns on his heel, and this passes for a repartee. The\nNoble Author says of a celebrated barrister and critic, that he was\n\u2018born in a garret sixteen stories high.\u2019 The insinuation is not true; or\nif it were, it is low. The allusion degrades the person who makes, not\nhim to whom it is applied. This is also the satire of a person of birth\nand quality, who measures all merit by external rank, that is, by his\nown standard. So his Lordship, in a \u2018Letter to the Editor of My\nGrandmother\u2019s Review,\u2019 addresses him fifty times as \u2018_my dear Robarts_\u2018;\nnor is there any other wit in the article. This is surely a mere\nassumption of superiority from his Lordship\u2019s rank, and is the sort of\n_quizzing_ he might use to a person who came to hire himself as a valet\nto him at _Long\u2019s_\u2014the waiters might laugh, the public will not. In like\nmanner, in the controversy about Pope, he claps Mr. Bowles on the back\nwith a coarse facetious familiarity, as if he were his chaplain whom he\nhad invited to dine with him, or was about to present to a benefice. The\nreverend divine might submit to the obligation, but he has no occasion\nto subscribe to the jest. If it is a jest that Mr. Bowles should be a\nparson, and Lord Byron a peer, the world knew this before; there was no\nneed to write a pamphlet to prove it.\n\nThe _Don Juan_ indeed has great power; but its power is owing to the\nforce of the serious writing, and to the oddity of the contrast between\nthat and the flashy passages with which it is interlarded. From the\nsublime to the ridiculous there is but one step. You laugh and are\nsurprised that any one should turn round and _travestie_ himself: the\ndrollery is in the utter discontinuity of ideas and feelings. He makes\nvirtue serve as a foil to vice; _dandyism_ is (for want of any other) a\nvariety of genius. A classical intoxication is followed by the splashing\nof soda-water, by frothy effusions of ordinary bile. After the lightning\nand the hurricane, we are introduced to the interior of the cabin and\nthe contents of wash-hand basins. The solemn hero of tragedy plays\n_Scrub_ in the farce. This is \u2018very tolerable and not to be endured.\u2019\nThe Noble Lord is almost the only writer who has prostituted his talents\nin this way. He hallows in order to desecrate; takes a pleasure in\ndefacing the images of beauty his hands have wrought; and raises our\nhopes and our belief in goodness to Heaven only to dash them to the\nearth again, and break them in pieces the more effectually from the very\nheight they have fallen. Our enthusiasm for genius or virtue is thus\nturned into a jest by the very person who has kindled it, and who thus\nfatally quenches the sparks of both. It is not that Lord Byron is\nsometimes serious and sometimes trifling, sometimes profligate, and\nsometimes moral\u2014but when he is most serious and most moral, he is only\npreparing to mortify the unsuspecting reader by putting a pitiful _hoax_\nupon him. This is a most unaccountable anomaly. It is as if the eagle\nwere to build its eyry in a common sewer, or the owl were seen soaring\nto the mid-day sun. Such a sight might make one laugh, but one would not\nwish or expect it to occur more than once.[51]\n\nIn fact, Lord Byron is the spoiled child of fame as well as fortune. He\nhas taken a surfeit of popularity, and is not contented to delight,\nunless he can shock the public. He would force them to admire in spite\nof decency and common sense\u2014he would have them read what they would read\nin no one but himself, or he would not give a rush for their applause.\nHe is to be \u2018a chartered libertine,\u2019 from whom insults are favours,\nwhose contempt is to be a new incentive to admiration. His Lordship is\nhard to please: he is equally averse to notice or neglect, enraged at\ncensure and scorning praise. He tries the patience of the town to the\nvery utmost, and when they show signs of weariness or disgust, threatens\nto _discard_ them. He says he will write on, whether he is read or not.\nHe would never write another page, if it were not to court popular\napplause, or to affect a superiority over it. In this respect also, Lord\nByron presents a striking contrast to Sir Walter Scott. The latter takes\nwhat part of the public favour falls to his share, without grumbling (to\nbe sure he has no reason to complain); the former is always quarrelling\nwith the world about his _modicum_ of applause, the _spolia opima_ of\nvanity, and ungraciously throwing the offerings of incense heaped on his\nshrine back in the faces of his admirers. Again, there is no taint in\nthe writings of the Author of Waverley, all is fair and natural and\n_above-board_: he never outrages the public mind. He introduces no\nanomalous character: broaches no staggering opinion. If he goes back to\nold prejudices and superstitions as a relief to the modern reader, while\nLord Byron floats on swelling paradoxes\u2014\n\n                      \u2018Like proud seas under him\u2019;\n\nif the one defers too much to the spirit of antiquity, the other panders\nto the spirit of the age, goes to the very edge of extreme and\nlicentious speculation, and breaks his neck over it. Grossness and\nlevity are the playthings of his pen. It is a ludicrous circumstance\nthat he should have dedicated his _Cain_ to the worthy Baronet! Did the\nlatter ever acknowledge the obligation? We are not nice, not very nice;\nbut we do not particularly approve those subjects that shine chiefly\nfrom their rottenness: nor do we wish to see the Muses drest out in the\nflounces of a false or questionable philosophy, like _Portia_ and\n_Nerissa_ in the garb of Doctors of Law. We like metaphysics as well as\nLord Byron; but not to see them making flowery speeches, nor dancing a\nmeasure in the fetters of verse. We have as good as hinted, that his\nLordship\u2019s poetry consists mostly of a tissue of superb common-places;\neven his paradoxes are _common-place_. They are familiar in the schools:\nthey are only new and striking in his dramas and stanzas, by being out\nof place. In a word, we think that poetry moves best within the circle\nof nature and received opinion: speculative theory and subtle casuistry\nare forbidden ground to it. But Lord Byron often wanders into this\nground wantonly, wilfully, and unwarrantably. The only apology we can\nconceive for the spirit of some of Lord Byron\u2019s writings, is the spirit\nof some of those opposed to him. They would provoke a man to write\nanything. \u2018Farthest from them is best.\u2019 The extravagance and license of\nthe one seems a proper antidote to the bigotry and narrowness of the\nother. The first _Vision of Judgment_ was a set-off to the second,\nthough\n\n                \u2018None but itself could be its parallel.\u2019\n\nPerhaps the chief cause of most of Lord Byron\u2019s errors is, that he is\nthat anomaly in letters and in society, a Noble Poet. It is a double\nprivilege, almost too much for humanity. He has all the pride of birth\nand genius. The strength of his imagination leads him to indulge in\nfantastic opinions; the elevation of his rank sets censure at defiance.\nHe becomes a pampered egotist. He has a seat in the House of Lords, a\nniche in the Temple of Fame. Every-day mortals, opinions, things are not\ngood enough for him to touch or think of. A mere nobleman is, in his\nestimation, but \u2018the tenth transmitter of a foolish face\u2019: a mere man of\ngenius is no better than a worm. His Muse is also a lady of quality. The\npeople are not polite enough for him: the Court not sufficiently\nintellectual. He hates the one and despises the other. By hating and\ndespising others, he does not learn to be satisfied with himself. A\nfastidious man soon grows querulous and splenetic. If there is nobody\nbut ourselves to come up to our idea of fancied perfection, we easily\nget tired of our idol. When a man is tired of what he is, by a natural\nperversity he sets up for what he is not. If he is a poet, he pretends\nto be a metaphysician: if he is a patrician in rank and feeling, he\nwould fain be one of the people. His ruling motive is not the love of\nthe people, but of distinction; not of truth, but of singularity. He\npatronizes men of letters out of vanity, and deserts them from caprice,\nor from the advice of friends. He embarks in an obnoxious publication to\nprovoke censure, and leaves it to shift for itself for fear of scandal.\nWe do not like Sir Walter\u2019s gratuitous servility: we like Lord Byron\u2019s\npreposterous _liberalism_ little better. He may affect the principles of\nequality, but he resumes his privilege of peerage, upon occasion. His\nLordship has made great offers of service to the Greeks\u2014money and\nhorses. He is at present in Cephalonia, waiting the event!\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\nWe had written thus far when news came of the death of Lord Byron, and\nput an end at once to a strain of somewhat peevish invective, which was\nintended to meet his eye, not to insult his memory. Had we known that we\nwere writing his epitaph, we must have done it with a different feeling.\nAs it is, we think it better and more like himself, to let what we had\nwritten stand, than to take up our leaden shafts, and try to melt them\ninto \u2018tears of sensibility,\u2019 or mould them into dull praise, and an\naffected show of candour. We were not silent during the author\u2019s\nlife-time, either for his reproof or encouragement (such as we could\ngive, and _he_ did not disdain to accept) nor can we now turn\nundertakers\u2019 men to fix the glittering plate upon his coffin, or fall\ninto the procession of popular woe.\u2014Death cancels every thing but truth;\nand strips a man of every thing but genius and virtue. It is a sort of\nnatural canonization. It makes the meanest of us sacred\u2014it installs the\npoet in his immortality, and lifts him to the skies. Death is the great\nassayer of the sterling ore of talent. At his touch the drossy particles\nfall off, the irritable, the personal, the gross, and mingle with the\ndust\u2014the finer and more ethereal part mounts with the winged spirit to\nwatch over our latest memory, and protect our bones from insult. We\nconsign the least worthy qualities to oblivion, and cherish the nobler\nand imperishable nature with double pride and fondness. Nothing could\nshow the real superiority of genius in a more striking point of view\nthan the idle contests and the public indifference about the place of\nLord Byron\u2019s interment, whether in Westminster Abbey or his own\nfamily-vault. A king must have a coronation\u2014a nobleman a\nfuneral-procession.\u2014The man is nothing without the pageant. The poet\u2019s\ncemetery is the human mind, in which he sows the seeds of never-ending\nthought\u2014his monument is to be found in his works:\n\n              \u2018Nothing can cover his high fame but Heaven;\n              No pyramids set off his memory,\n              But the eternal substance of his greatness.\u2019\n\nLord Byron is dead: he also died a martyr to his zeal in the cause of\nfreedom, for the last, best hopes of man. Let that be his excuse and his\nepitaph!\n\n\n\n\n                              MR. SOUTHEY\n\n\nMr. Southey, as we formerly remember to have seen him, had a hectic\nflush upon his cheek, a roving fire in his eye, a falcon glance, a look\nat once aspiring and dejected\u2014it was the look that had been impressed\nupon his face by the events that marked the outset of his life, it was\nthe dawn of Liberty that still tinged his cheek, a smile betwixt hope\nand sadness that still played upon his quivering lip. Mr. Southey\u2019s mind\nis essentially sanguine, even to over-weeningness. It is prophetic of\ngood; it cordially embraces it; it casts a longing, lingering look after\nit, even when it is gone for ever. He cannot bear to give up the thought\nof happiness, his confidence in his fellow-man, when all else despair.\nIt is the very element, \u2018where he must live or have no life at all.\u2019\nWhile he supposed it possible that a better form of society could be\nintroduced than any that had hitherto existed, while the light of the\nFrench Revolution beamed into his soul (and long after, it was seen\nreflected on his brow, like the light of setting suns on the peak of\nsome high mountain, or lonely range of clouds, floating in purer ether!)\nwhile he had this hope, this faith in man left, he cherished it with\nchild-like simplicity, he clung to it with the fondness of a lover, he\nwas an enthusiast, a fanatic, a leveller; he stuck at nothing that he\nthought would banish all pain and misery from the world\u2014in his\nimpatience of the smallest error or injustice, he would have sacrificed\nhimself and the existing generation (a holocaust) to his devotion to the\nright cause. But when he once believed after many staggering doubts and\npainful struggles, that this was no longer possible, when his chimeras\nand golden dreams of human perfectibility vanished from him, he turned\nsuddenly round, and maintained that \u2018whatever _is_, is right.\u2019 Mr.\nSouthey has not fortitude of mind, has not patience to think that evil\nis inseparable from the nature of things. His irritable sense rejects\nthe alternative altogether, as a weak stomach rejects the food that is\ndistasteful to it. He hopes on against hope, he believes in all\nunbelief. He must either repose on actual or on imaginary good. He\nmissed his way in _Utopia_, he has found it at Old Sarum\u2014\n\n             \u2018His generous _ardour_ no cold medium knows:\u2019\n\nhis eagerness admits of no doubt or delay. He is ever in extremes, and\never in the wrong!\n\nThe reason is, that not truth, but self-opinion is the ruling principle\nof Mr. Southey\u2019s mind. The charm of novelty, the applause of the\nmultitude, the sanction of power, the venerableness of antiquity, pique,\nresentment, the spirit of contradiction have a good deal to do with his\npreferences. His inquiries are partial and hasty: his conclusions raw\nand unconcocted, and with a considerable infusion of whim and humour and\na monkish spleen. His opinions are like certain wines, warm and generous\nwhen new; but they will not keep, and soon turn flat or sour, for want\nof a stronger spirit of the understanding to give a body to them. He\nwooed Liberty as a youthful lover, but it was perhaps more as a mistress\nthan a bride; and he has since wedded with an elderly and not very\nreputable lady, called Legitimacy. _A wilful man_, according to the\nScotch proverb, _must have his way_. If it were the cause to which he\nwas sincerely attached, he would adhere to it through good report and\nevil report; but it is himself to whom he does homage, and would have\nothers do so; and he therefore changes sides, rather than submit to\napparent defeat or temporary mortification. Abstract principle has no\nrule but the understood distinction between right and wrong; the\nindulgence of vanity, of caprice, or prejudice is regulated by the\nconvenience or bias of the moment. The temperament of our politician\u2019s\nmind is poetical, not philosophical. He is more the creature of impulse,\nthan he is of reflection. He invents the unreal, he embellishes the\nfalse with the glosses of fancy, but pays little attention to \u2018the words\nof truth and soberness.\u2019 His impressions are accidental, immediate,\npersonal, instead of being permanent and universal. Of all mortals he is\nsurely the most impatient of contradiction, even when he has completely\nturned the tables on himself. Is not this very inconsistency the reason?\nIs he not tenacious of his opinions, in proportion as they are brittle\nand hastily formed? Is he not jealous of the grounds of his belief,\nbecause he fears they will not bear inspection, or is conscious he has\nshifted them? Does he not confine others to the strict line of\northodoxy, because he has himself taken every liberty? Is he not afraid\nto look to the right or the left, lest he should see the ghosts of his\nformer extravagances staring him in the face? Does he not refuse to\ntolerate the smallest shade of difference in others, because he feels\nthat he wants the utmost latitude of construction for differing so\nwidely from himself? Is he not captious, dogmatical, petulant in\ndelivering his sentiments, according as he has been inconsistent, rash,\nand fanciful in adopting them? He maintains that there can be no\npossible ground for differing from him, because he looks only at his own\nside of the question! He sets up his own favourite notions as the\nstandard of reason and honesty, because he has changed from one extreme\nto another! He treats his opponents with contempt, because he is himself\nafraid of meeting with disrespect! He says that \u2018a Reformer is a worse\ncharacter than a house-breaker,\u2019 in order to stifle the recollection\nthat he himself once was one!\n\nWe must say that \u2018we relish Mr. Southey more in the Reformer\u2019 than in\nhis lately acquired, but by no means natural or becoming character of\npoet-laureat and courtier. He may rest assured that a garland of wild\nflowers suits him better than the laureat-wreath: that his pastoral odes\nand popular inscriptions were far more adapted to his genius than his\npresentation-poems. He is nothing akin to birth-day suits and\ndrawing-room fopperies. \u2018He is nothing, if not fantastical.\u2019 In his\nfigure, in his movements, in his sentiments, he is sharp and angular,\nquaint and eccentric. Mr. Southey is not of the court, courtly. Every\nthing of him and about him is from the people. He is not classical, he\nis not legitimate. He is not a man cast in the mould of other men\u2019s\nopinions: he is not shaped on any model: he bows to no authority: he\nyields only to his own wayward peculiarities. He is wild, irregular,\nsingular, extreme. He is no formalist, not he! All is crude and chaotic,\nself-opinionated, vain. He wants proportion, keeping, system, standard\nrules. He is not _teres et rotundus_. Mr. Southey walks with his chin\nerect through the streets of London, and with an umbrella sticking out\nunder his arm, in the finest weather. He has not sacrificed to the\nGraces, nor studied decorum. With him every thing is projecting,\nstarting from its place, an episode, a digression, a poetic license. He\ndoes not move in any given orbit, but like a falling star, shoots from\nhis sphere. He is pragmatical, restless, unfixed, full of experiments,\nbeginning every thing anew, wiser than his betters, judging for himself,\ndictating to others. He is decidedly _revolutionary_. He may have given\nup the reform of the State: but depend upon it, he has some other\n_hobby_ of the same kind. Does he not dedicate to his present Majesty\nthat extraordinary poem on the death of his father, called _The Vision\nof Judgment_, as a specimen of what might be done in English hexameters?\nIn a court-poem all should be trite and on an approved model. He might\nas well have presented himself at the levee in a fancy or masquerade\ndress. Mr. Southey was not _to try conclusions_ with Majesty\u2014still less\non such an occasion. The extreme freedoms with departed greatness, the\nparty-petulance carried to the Throne of Grace, the unchecked indulgence\nof private humour, the assumption of infallibility and even of the voice\nof Heaven in this poem, are pointed instances of what we have said. They\nshow the singular state of over-excitement of Mr. Southey\u2019s mind, and\nthe force of old habits of independent and unbridled thinking, which\ncannot be kept down even in addressing his Sovereign! Look at Mr.\nSouthey\u2019s larger poems, his _Kehama_, his _Thalaba_, his _Madoc_, his\n_Roderic_. Who will deny the spirit, the scope, the splendid imagery,\nthe hurried and startling interest that pervades them? Who will say that\nthey are not sustained on fictions wilder than his own Glendoveer, that\nthey are not the daring creations of a mind curbed by no law, tamed by\nno fear, that they are not rather like the trances than the waking\ndreams of genius, that they are not the very paradoxes of poetry? All\nthis is very well, very intelligible, and very harmless, if we regard\nthe rank excrescences of Mr. Southey\u2019s poetry, like the red and blue\nflowers in corn, as the unweeded growth of a luxuriant and wandering\nfancy; or if we allow the yeasty workings of an ardent spirit to ferment\nand boil over\u2014the variety, the boldness, the lively stimulus given to\nthe mind may then atone for the violation of rules and the offences to\nbed-rid authority; but not if our poetic libertine sets up for a\nlaw-giver and judge, or an apprehender of vagrants in the regions either\nof taste or opinion. Our motley gentleman deserves the strait-waistcoat,\nif he is for setting others in the stocks of servility, or condemning\nthem to the pillory for a new mode of rhyme or reason. Or if a composer\nof sacred Dramas on classic models, or a translator of an old Latin\nauthor (that will hardly bear translation) or a vamper-up of vapid\ncantos and Odes set to music, were to turn pander to prescription and\npalliator of every dull, incorrigible abuse, it would not be much to be\nwondered at or even regretted. But in Mr. Southey it was a lamentable\nfalling-off. It is indeed to be deplored, it is a stain on genius, a\nblow to humanity, that the author of _Joan of Arc_\u2014that work in which\nthe love of Liberty is exhaled like the breath of spring, mild, balmy,\nheavenborn, that is full of tears and virgin-sighs, and yearnings of\naffection after truth and good, gushing warm and crimsoned from the\nheart\u2014should ever after turn to folly, or become the advocate of a\nrotten cause. After giving up his heart to that subject, he ought not\n(whatever others might do) ever to have set his foot within the\nthreshold of a court. He might be sure that he would not gain\nforgiveness or favour by it, nor obtain a single cordial smile from\ngreatness. All that Mr. Southey is or that he does best, is independent,\nspontaneous, free as the vital air he draws\u2014when he affects the courtier\nor the sophist, he is obliged to put a constraint upon himself, to hold\nin his breath, he loses his genius, and offers a violence to his nature.\nHis characteristic faults are the excess of a lively, unguarded\ntemperament:\u2014oh! let them not degenerate into cold-blooded, heartless\nvices! If we speak or have ever spoken of Mr. Southey with severity, it\nis with \u2018the malice of old friends,\u2019 for we count ourselves among his\nsincerest and heartiest well-wishers. But while he himself is anomalous,\nincalculable, eccentric, from youth to age (the _Wat Tyler_ and the\n_Vision of Judgment_ are the Alpha and Omega of his disjointed career)\nfull of sallies of humour, of ebullitions of spleen, making\n_jets-a\u2019eaux_, cascades, fountains, and water-works of his idle\nopinions, he would shut up the wits of others in leaden cisterns, to\nstagnate and corrupt, or bury them under ground\u2014\n\n                  \u2018Far from the sun and summer gale!\u2019\n\nHe would suppress the freedom of wit and humour, of which he has set the\nexample, and claim a privilege for playing antics. He would introduce an\nuniformity of intellectual weights and measures, of irregular metres and\nsettled opinions, and enforce it with a high hand. This has been judged\nhard by some, and has brought down a severity of recrimination, perhaps\ndisproportioned to the injury done. \u2018Because he is virtuous,\u2019 (it has\nbeen asked,) \u2018are there to be no more cakes and ale?\u2019 Because he is\nloyal, are we to take all our notions from the _Quarterly Review_?\nBecause he is orthodox, are we to do nothing but read the _Book of the\nChurch_? We declare we think his former poetical scepticism was not only\nmore amiable, but had more of the spirit of religion in it, implied a\nmore heartfelt trust in nature and providence than his present bigotry.\nWe are at the same time free to declare that we think his articles in\nthe _Quarterly Review_, notwithstanding their virulence and the talent\nthey display, have a tendency to qualify its most pernicious effects.\nThey have redeeming traits in them. \u2018A little leaven leaveneth the whole\nlump\u2019; and the spirit of humanity (thanks to Mr. Southey) is not quite\nexpelled from the _Quarterly Review_. At the corner of his pen, \u2018there\nhangs a vapourous drop profound\u2019 of independence and liberality, which\nfalls upon its pages, and oozes out through the pores of the public\nmind. There is a fortunate difference between writers whose hearts are\nnaturally callous to truth, and whose understandings are hermetically\nsealed against all impressions but those of self-interest, and a man\nlike Mr. Southey. _Once a philanthropist and always a philanthropist._\nNo man can entirely baulk his nature: it breaks out in spite of him. In\nall those questions, where the spirit of contradiction does not\ninterfere, on which he is not sore from old bruises, or sick from the\nextravagance of youthful intoxication, as from a last night\u2019s debauch,\nour \u2018laureate\u2019 is still bold, free, candid, open to conviction, a\nreformist without knowing it. He does not advocate the slave-trade, he\ndoes not arm Mr. Malthus\u2019s revolting ratios with his authority, he does\nnot strain hard to deluge Ireland with blood. On such points, where\nhumanity has not become obnoxious, where liberty has not passed into a\nby-word, Mr. Southey is still liberal and humane. The elasticity of his\nspirit is unbroken: the bow recoils to its old position. He still stands\nconvicted of his early passion for inquiry and improvement. He was not\nregularly articled as a Government-tool!\u2014Perhaps the most pleasing and\nstriking of all Mr. Southey\u2019s poems are not his triumphant taunts hurled\nagainst oppression, are not his glowing effusions to Liberty, but those\nin which, with a mild melancholy, he seems conscious of his own\ninfirmities of temper, and to feel a wish to correct by thought and time\nthe precocity and sharpness of his disposition. May the quaint but\naffecting aspiration expressed in one of these be fulfilled, that as he\nmellows into maturer age, all such asperities may wear off, and he\nhimself become\n\n              \u2018Like the high leaves upon the holly-tree!\u2019\n\nMr. Southey\u2019s prose-style can scarcely be too much praised. It is plain,\nclear, pointed, familiar, perfectly modern in its texture, but with a\ngrave and sparkling admixture of _archaisms_ in its ornaments and\noccasional phraseology. He is the best and most natural prose-writer of\nany poet of the day; we mean that he is far better than Lord Byron, Mr.\nWordsworth, or Mr. Coleridge, for instance. The manner is perhaps\nsuperior to the matter, that is, in his Essays and Reviews. There is\nrather a want of originality and even of _impetus_: but there is no want\nof playful or biting satire, of ingenuity, of casuistry, of learning and\nof information. He is \u2018full of wise saws and modern\u2019 (as well as\nancient) \u2018instances.\u2019 Mr. Southey may not always convince his opponents;\nbut he seldom fails to stagger, never to gall them. In a word, we may\ndescribe his style by saying that it has not the body or thickness of\nport wine, but is like clear sherry with kernels of old authors thrown\ninto it!\u2014He also excels as an historian and prose-translator. His\nhistories abound in information, and exhibit proofs of the most\nindefatigable patience and industry. By no uncommon process of the mind,\nMr. Southey seems willing to steady the extreme levity of his opinions\nand feelings by an appeal to facts. His translations of the Spanish and\nFrench romances are also executed _con amore_, and with the literal\nfidelity and care of a mere linguist. That of the _Cid_, in particular,\nis a masterpiece. Not a word could be altered for the better, in the old\nscriptural style which it adopts in conformity to the original. It is no\nless interesting in itself, or as a record of high and chivalrous\nfeelings and manners, than it is worthy of perusal as a literary\ncuriosity.\n\nMr. Southey\u2019s conversation has a little resemblance to a common-place\nbook; his habitual deportment to a piece of clock-work. He is not\nremarkable either as a reasoner or an observer: but he is quick,\nunaffected, replete with anecdote, various and retentive in his reading,\nand exceedingly happy in his play upon words, as most scholars are who\ngive their minds this sportive turn. We have chiefly seen Mr. Southey in\ncompany where few people appear to advantage, we mean in that of Mr.\nColeridge. He has not certainly the same range of speculation, nor the\nsame flow of sounding words, but he makes up by the details of\nknowledge, and by a scrupulous correctness of statement for what he\nwants in originality of thought, or impetuous declamation. The tones of\nMr. Coleridge\u2019s voice are eloquence: those of Mr. Southey are meagre,\nshrill, and dry. Mr. Coleridge\u2019s _forte_ is conversation, and he is\nconscious of this: Mr. Southey evidently considers writing as his\nstronghold, and if gravelled in an argument, or at a loss for an\nexplanation, refers to something he has written on the subject, or\nbrings out his port-folio, doubled down in dog-ears, in confirmation of\nsome fact. He is scholastic and professional in his ideas. He sets more\nvalue on what he writes than on what he says: he is perhaps prouder of\nhis library than of his own productions\u2014themselves a library! He is more\nsimple in his manners than his friend Mr. Coleridge; but at the same\ntime less cordial or conciliating. He is less vain, or has less hope of\npleasing, and therefore lays himself less out to please. There is an air\nof condescension in his civility. With a tall, loose figure, a peaked\nausterity of countenance, and no inclination to _embonpoint_, you would\nsay he has something puritanical, something ascetic in his appearance.\nHe answers to Mandeville\u2019s description of Addison, \u2018a parson in a\ntye-wig.\u2019 He is not a boon companion, nor does he indulge in the\npleasures of the table, nor in any other vice; nor are we aware that Mr.\nSouthey is chargeable with any human frailty but\u2014_want of charity_!\nHaving fewer errors to plead guilty to, he is less lenient to those of\nothers. He was born an age too late. Had he lived a century or two ago,\nhe would have been a happy as well as blameless character. But the\ndistraction of the time has unsettled him, and the multiplicity of his\npretensions have jostled with each other. No man in our day (at least no\nman of genius) has led so uniformly and entirely the life of a scholar\nfrom boyhood to the present hour, devoting himself to learning with the\nenthusiasm of an early love, with the severity and constancy of a\nreligious vow\u2014and well would it have been for him if he had confined\nhimself to this, and not undertaken to pull down or to patch up the\nState! However irregular in his opinions, Mr. Southey is constant,\nunremitting, mechanical in his studies, and the performance of his\nduties. There is nothing Pindaric or Shandean here. In all the relations\nand charities of private life, he is correct, exemplary, generous, just.\nWe never heard a single impropriety laid to his charge; and if he has\nmany enemies, few men can boast more numerous or stauncher friends.\u2014The\nvariety and piquancy of his writings form a striking contrast to the\nmode in which they are produced. He rises early, and writes or reads\ntill breakfast-time. He writes or reads after breakfast till dinner,\nafter dinner till tea, and from tea till bed-time\u2014\n\n                 \u2018And follows so the ever-running year\n                 With profitable labour to his grave\u2014\u2019\n\non Derwent\u2019s banks, beneath the foot of Skiddaw. Study serves him for\nbusiness, exercise, recreation. He passes from verse to prose, from\nhistory to poetry, from reading to writing, by a stopwatch. He writes a\nfair hand, without blots, sitting upright in his chair, leaves off when\nhe comes to the bottom of the page, and changes the subject for another,\nas opposite as the Antipodes. His mind is after all rather the recipient\nand transmitter of knowledge, than the originator of it. He has hardly\ngrasp of thought enough to arrive at any great leading truth. His\npassions do not amount to more than irritability. With some gall in his\npen, and coldness in his manner, he has a great deal of kindness in his\nheart. Rash in his opinions, he is steady in his attachments\u2014and is a\nman, in many particulars admirable, in all respectable\u2014his political\ninconsistency alone excepted!\n\n\n\n\n                             MR. WORDSWORTH\n\n\nMr. Wordsworth\u2019s genius is a pure emanation of the Spirit of the Age.\nHad he lived in any other period of the world, he would never have been\nheard of. As it is, he has some difficulty to contend with the hebetude\nof his intellect, and the meanness of his subject. With him \u2018lowliness\nis young ambition\u2019s ladder\u2019: but he finds it a toil to climb in this way\nthe steep of Fame. His homely Muse can hardly raise her wing from the\nground, nor spread her hidden glories to the sun. He has \u2018no figures nor\nno fantasies, which busy _passion_ draws in the brains of men:\u2019 neither\nthe gorgeous machinery of mythologic lore, nor the splendid colours of\npoetic diction. His style is vernacular: he delivers household truths.\nHe sees nothing loftier than human hopes; nothing deeper than the human\nheart. This he probes, this he tampers with, this he poises, with all\nits incalculable weight of thought and feeling, in his hands; and at the\nsame time calms the throbbing pulses of his own heart, by keeping his\neye ever fixed on the face of nature. If he can make the lifeblood flow\nfrom the wounded breast, this is the living colouring with which he\npaints his verse: if he can assuage the pain or close up the wound with\nthe balm of solitary musing, or the healing power of plants and herbs\nand \u2018skyey influences,\u2019 this is the sole triumph of his art. He takes\nthe simplest elements of nature and of the human mind, the mere abstract\nconditions inseparable from our being, and tries to compound a new\nsystem of poetry from them; and has perhaps succeeded as well as any one\ncould. \u2018_Nihil humani a me alienum puto_\u2019\u2014is the motto of his works. He\nthinks nothing low or indifferent of which this can be affirmed: every\nthing that professes to be more than this, that is not an absolute\nessence of truth and feeling, he holds to be vitiated, false, and\nspurious. In a word, his poetry is founded on setting up an opposition\n(and pushing it to the utmost length) between the natural and the\nartificial; between the spirit of humanity, and the spirit of fashion\nand of the world!\n\nIt is one of the innovations of the time. It partakes of, and is carried\nalong with, the revolutionary movement of our age: the political changes\nof the day were the model on which he formed and conducted his poetical\nexperiments. His Muse (it cannot be denied, and without this we cannot\nexplain its character at all) is a levelling one. It proceeds on a\nprinciple of equality, and strives to reduce all things to the same\nstandard. It is distinguished by a proud humility. It relies upon its\nown resources, and disdains external show and relief. It takes the\ncommonest events and objects, as a test to prove that nature is always\ninteresting from its inherent truth and beauty, without any of the\nornaments of dress or pomp of circumstances to set it off. Hence the\nunaccountable mixture of seeming simplicity and real abstruseness in the\n_Lyrical Ballads_. Fools have laughed at, wise men scarcely understand\nthem. He takes a subject or a story merely as pegs or loops to hang\nthought and feeling on; the incidents are trifling, in proportion to his\ncontempt for imposing appearances; the reflections are profound,\naccording to the gravity and the aspiring pretensions of his mind.\n\nHis popular, inartificial style gets rid (at a blow) of all the\ntrappings of verse, of all the high places of poetry: \u2018the cloud-capt\ntowers, the solemn temples, the gorgeous palaces,\u2019 are swept to the\nground, and \u2018like the baseless fabric of a vision, leave not a wreck\nbehind.\u2019 All the traditions of learning, all the superstitions of age,\nare obliterated and effaced. We begin _de novo_, on a _tabula rasa_ of\npoetry. The purple pall, the nodding plume of tragedy are exploded as\nmere pantomime and trick, to return to the simplicity of truth and\nnature. Kings, queens, priests, nobles, the altar and the throne, the\ndistinctions of rank, birth, wealth, power, \u2018the judge\u2019s robe, the\nmarshal\u2019s truncheon, the ceremony that to great ones \u2018longs,\u2019 are not to\nbe found here. The author tramples on the pride of art with greater\npride. The Ode and Epode, the Strophe and the Antistrophe, he laughs to\nscorn. The harp of Homer, the trump of Pindar and of Alc\u00e6us are still.\nThe decencies of costume, the decorations of vanity are stripped off\nwithout mercy as barbarous, idle, and Gothic. The jewels in the crisped\nhair, the diadem on the polished brow are thought meretricious,\ntheatrical, vulgar; and nothing contents his fastidious taste beyond a\nsimple garland of flowers. Neither does he avail himself of the\nadvantages which nature or accident holds out to him. He chooses to have\nhis subject a foil to his invention, to owe nothing but to himself. He\ngathers manna in the wilderness, he strikes the barren rock for the\ngushing moisture. He elevates the mean by the strength of his own\naspirations; he clothes the naked with beauty and grandeur from the\nstores of his own recollections. No cypress grove loads his verse with\nfuneral pomp: but his imagination lends \u2018a sense of joy\n\n                 \u2018To the bare trees and mountains bare,\n                 And grass in the green field.\u2019\n\nNo storm, no shipwreck startles us by its horrors: but the rainbow lifts\nits head in the cloud, and the breeze sighs through the withered fern.\nNo sad vicissitude of fate, no overwhelming catastrophe in nature\ndeforms his page: but the dew-drop glitters on the bending flower, the\ntear collects in the glistening eye.\n\n             \u2018Beneath the hills, along the flowery vales,\n             The generations are prepared; the pangs,\n             The internal pangs are ready; the dread strife\n             Of poor humanity\u2019s afflicted will,\n             Struggling in vain with ruthless destiny.\u2019\n\nAs the lark ascends from its low bed on fluttering wing, and salutes the\nmorning skies; so Mr. Wordsworth\u2019s unpretending Muse, in russet guise,\nscales the summits of reflection, while it makes the round earth its\nfootstool, and its home!\n\nPossibly a good deal of this may be regarded as the effect of\ndisappointed views and an inverted ambition. Prevented by native pride\nand indolence from climbing the ascent of learning or greatness, taught\nby political opinions to say to the vain pomp and glory of the world, \u2018I\nhate ye,\u2019 seeing the path of classical and artificial poetry blocked up\nby the cumbrous ornaments of style and turgid _common-places_, so that\nnothing more could be achieved in that direction but by the most\nridiculous bombast or the tamest servility; he has turned back partly\nfrom the bias of his mind, partly perhaps from a judicious policy\u2014has\nstruck into the sequestered vale of humble life, sought out the Muse\namong sheep-cotes and hamlets and the peasant\u2019s mountain-haunts, has\ndiscarded all the tinsel pageantry of verse, and endeavoured (not in\nvain) to aggrandise the trivial and add the charm of novelty to the\nfamiliar. No one has shown the same imagination in raising trifles into\nimportance: no one has displayed the same pathos in treating of the\nsimplest feelings of the heart. Reserved, yet haughty, having no unruly\nor violent passions, (or those passions having been early suppressed,)\nMr. Wordsworth has passed his life in solitary musing, or in daily\nconverse with the face of nature. He exemplifies in an eminent degree\nthe power of _association_; for his poetry has no other source or\ncharacter. He has dwelt among pastoral scenes, till each object has\nbecome connected with a thousand feelings, a link in the chain of\nthought, a fibre of his own heart. Every one is by habit and familiarity\nstrongly attached to the place of his birth, or to objects that recal\nthe most pleasing and eventful circumstances of his life. But to the\nauthor of the _Lyrical Ballads_, nature is a kind of home; and he may be\nsaid to take a personal interest in the universe. There is no image so\ninsignificant that it has not in some mood or other found the way into\nhis heart: no sound that does not awaken the memory of other years.\u2014\n\n            \u2018To him the meanest flower that blows can give\n            Thoughts that do often lie too deep for tears.\u2019\n\nThe daisy looks up to him with sparkling eye as an old acquaintance: the\ncuckoo haunts him with sounds of early youth not to be expressed: a\nlinnet\u2019s nest startles him with boyish delight: an old withered thorn is\nweighed down with a heap of recollections: a grey cloak, seen on some\nwild moor, torn by the wind, or drenched in the rain, afterwards becomes\nan object of imagination to him: even the lichens on the rock have a\nlife and being in his thoughts. He has described all these objects in a\nway and with an intensity of feeling that no one else had done before\nhim, and has given a new view or aspect of nature. He is in this sense\nthe most original poet now living, and the one whose writings could the\nleast be spared: for they have no substitute elsewhere. The vulgar do\nnot read them, the learned, who see all things through books, do not\nunderstand them, the great despise, the fashionable may ridicule them:\nbut the author has created himself an interest in the heart of the\nretired and lonely student of nature, which can never die. Persons of\nthis class will still continue to feel what he has felt: he has\nexpressed what they might in vain wish to express, except with\nglistening eye and faultering tongue! There is a lofty philosophic tone,\na thoughtful humanity, infused into his pastoral vein. Remote from the\npassions and events of the great world, he has communicated interest and\ndignity to the primal movements of the heart of man, and ingrafted his\nown conscious reflections on the casual thoughts of hinds and shepherds.\nNursed amidst the grandeur of mountain scenery, he has stooped to have a\nnearer view of the daisy under his feet, or plucked a branch of\nwhite-thorn from the spray: but in describing it, his mind seems imbued\nwith the majesty and solemnity of the objects around him\u2014the tall rock\nlifts its head in the erectness of his spirit; the cataract roars in the\nsound of his verse; and in its dim and mysterious meaning, the mists\nseem to gather in the hollows of Helvellyn, and the forked Skiddaw\nhovers in the distance. There is little mention of mountainous scenery\nin Mr. Wordsworth\u2019s poetry; but by internal evidence one might be almost\nsure that it was written in a mountainous country, from its bareness,\nits simplicity, its loftiness and its depth!\n\nHis later philosophic productions have a somewhat different character.\nThey are a departure from, a dereliction of his first principles. They\nare classical and courtly. They are polished in style, without being\ngaudy; dignified in subject, without affectation. They seem to have been\ncomposed not in a cottage at Grasmere, but among the half-inspired\ngroves and stately recollections of Cole-Orton. We might allude in\nparticular, for examples of what we mean, to the lines on a Picture by\nClaude Lorraine, and to the exquisite poem, entitled _Laodamia_. The\nlast of these breathes the pure spirit of the finest fragments of\nantiquity\u2014the sweetness, the gravity, the strength, the beauty and the\nlanguor of death\u2014\n\n                \u2018Calm contemplation and majestic pains.\u2019\n\nIts glossy brilliancy arises from the perfection of the finishing, like\nthat of careful sculpture, not from gaudy colouring\u2014the texture of the\nthoughts has the smoothness and solidity of marble. It is a poem that\nmight be read aloud in Elysium, and the spirits of departed heroes and\nsages would gather round to listen to it! Mr. Wordsworth\u2019s philosophic\npoetry, with a less glowing aspect and less tumult in the veins than\nLord Byron\u2019s on similar occasions, bends a calmer and keener eye on\nmortality; the impression, if less vivid, is more pleasing and\npermanent; and we confess it (perhaps it is a want of taste and proper\nfeeling) that there are lines and poems of our author\u2019s, that we think\nof ten times for once that we recur to any of Lord Byron\u2019s. Or if there\nare any of the latter\u2019s writings, that we can dwell upon in the same\nway, that is, as lasting and heartfelt sentiments, it is when laying\naside his usual pomp and pretension, he descends with Mr. Wordsworth to\nthe common ground of a disinterested humanity. It may be considered as\ncharacteristic of our poet\u2019s writings, that they either make no\nimpression on the mind at all, seem mere _nonsense-verses_, or that they\nleave a mark behind them that never wears out. They either\n\n               \u2018Fall blunted from the indurated breast\u2019\u2014\n\nwithout any perceptible result, or they absorb it like a passion. To one\nclass of readers he appears sublime, to another (and we fear the\nlargest) ridiculous. He has probably realised Milton\u2019s wish,\u2014\u2018and fit\naudience found, though few\u2019; but we suspect he is not reconciled to the\nalternative. There are delightful passages in the EXCURSION, both of\nnatural description and of inspired reflection (passages of the latter\nkind that in the sound of the thoughts and of the swelling language\nresemble heavenly symphonies, mournful _requiems_ over the grave of\nhuman hopes); but we must add, in justice and in sincerity, that we\nthink it impossible that this work should ever become popular, even in\nthe same degree as the _Lyrical Ballads_. It affects a system without\nhaving any intelligible clue to one; and instead of unfolding a\nprinciple in various and striking lights, repeats the same conclusions\ntill they become flat and insipid. Mr. Wordsworth\u2019s mind is obtuse,\nexcept as it is the organ and the receptacle of accumulated feelings: it\nis not analytic, but synthetic; it is reflecting, rather than\ntheoretical. The EXCURSION, we believe, fell still-born from the press.\nThere was something abortive, and clumsy, and ill-judged in the attempt.\nIt was long and laboured. The personages, for the most part, were low,\nthe fare rustic: the plan raised expectations which were not fulfilled,\nand the effect was like being ushered into a stately hall and invited to\nsit down to a splendid banquet in the company of clowns, and with\nnothing but successive courses of apple-dumplings served up. It was not\neven _toujours perdrix_!\n\nMr. Wordsworth, in his person, is above the middle size, with marked\nfeatures, and an air somewhat stately and Quixotic. He reminds one of\nsome of Holbein\u2019s heads, grave, saturnine, with a slight indication of\nsly humour, kept under by the manners of the age or by the pretensions\nof the person. He has a peculiar sweetness in his smile, and great depth\nand manliness and a rugged harmony, in the tones of his voice. His\nmanner of reading his own poetry is particularly imposing; and in his\nfavourite passages his eye beams with preternatural lustre, and the\nmeaning labours slowly up from his swelling breast. No one who has seen\nhim at these moments could go away with an impression that he was a \u2018man\nof no mark or likelihood.\u2019 Perhaps the comment of his face and voice is\nnecessary to convey a full idea of his poetry. His language may not be\nintelligible, but his manner is not to be mistaken. It is clear that he\nis either mad or inspired. In company, even in a _t\u00eate-\u00e0-t\u00eate_, Mr.\nWordsworth is often silent, indolent, and reserved. If he is become\nverbose and oracular of late years, he was not so in his better days. He\nthrew out a bold or an indifferent remark without either effort or\npretension, and relapsed into musing again. He shone most (because he\nseemed most roused and animated) in reciting his own poetry, or in\ntalking about it. He sometimes gave striking views of his feelings and\ntrains of association in composing certain passages; or if one did not\nalways understand his distinctions, still there was no want of\ninterest\u2014there was a latent meaning worth inquiring into, like a vein of\nore that one cannot exactly hit upon at the moment, but of which there\nare sure indications. His standard of poetry is high and severe, almost\nto exclusiveness. He admits of nothing below, scarcely of any thing\nabove himself. It is fine to hear him talk of the way in which certain\nsubjects should have been treated by eminent poets, according to his\nnotions of the art. Thus he finds fault with Dryden\u2019s description of\nBacchus in the _Alexander\u2019s Feast_, as if he were a mere good-looking\nyouth, or boon companion\u2014\n\n                     \u2018Flushed with a purple grace,\n                     He shows his honest face\u2019\u2014\n\ninstead of representing the God returning from the conquest of India,\ncrowned with vine-leaves, and drawn by panthers, and followed by troops\nof satyrs, of wild men and animals that he had tamed. You would think,\nin hearing him speak on this subject, that you saw Titian\u2019s picture of\nthe meeting of _Bacchus and Ariadne_\u2014so classic were his conceptions, so\nglowing his style. Milton is his great idol, and he sometimes dares to\ncompare himself with him. His Sonnets, indeed, have something of the\nsame high-raised tone and prophetic spirit. Chaucer is another prime\nfavourite of his, and he has been at the pains to modernize some of the\nCanterbury Tales. Those persons who look upon Mr. Wordsworth as a merely\npuerile writer, must be rather at a loss to account for his strong\npredilection for such geniuses as Dante and Michael Angelo. We do not\nthink our author has any very cordial sympathy with Shakespear. How\nshould he? Shakespear was the least of an egotist of any body in the\nworld. He does not much relish the variety and scope of dramatic\ncomposition. \u2018He hates those interlocutions between Lucius and Caius.\u2019\nYet Mr. Wordsworth himself wrote a tragedy when he was young; and we\nhave heard the following energetic lines quoted from it, as put into the\nmouth of a person smit with remorse for some rash crime:\n\n               \u2014\u2014\u2018Action is momentary,\n               The motion of a muscle this way or that;\n               Suffering is long, obscure, and infinite!\u2019\n\nPerhaps for want of light and shade, and the unshackled spirit of the\ndrama, this performance was never brought forward. Our critic has a\ngreat dislike to Gray, and a fondness for Thomson and Collins. It is\nmortifying to hear him speak of Pope and Dryden, whom, because they have\nbeen supposed to have all the possible excellences of poetry, he will\nallow to have none. Nothing, however, can be fairer, or more amusing,\nthan the way in which he sometimes exposes the unmeaning verbiage of\nmodern poetry. Thus, in the beginning of Dr. Johnson\u2019s _Vanity of Human\nWishes_\u2014\n\n                  \u2018Let observation with extensive view\n                  Survey mankind from China to Peru\u2019\u2014\n\nhe says there is a total want of imagination accompanying the words, the\nsame idea is repeated three times under the disguise of a different\nphraseology: it comes to this\u2014\u2018let _observation_, with extensive\n_observation_, _observe_ mankind\u2019; or take away the first line, and the\nsecond,\n\n                  \u2018Survey mankind from China to Peru,\u2019\n\nliterally conveys the whole. Mr. Wordsworth is, we must say, a perfect\nDrawcansir as to prose writers. He complains of the dry reasoners and\nmatter-of-fact people for their want of _passion_; and he is jealous of\nthe rhetorical declaimers and rhapsodists as trenching on the province\nof poetry. He condemns all French writers (as well of poetry as prose)\nin the lump. His list in this way is indeed small. He approves of\nWalton\u2019s Angler, Paley, and some other writers of an inoffensive modesty\nof pretension. He also likes books of voyages and travels, and Robinson\nCrusoe. In art, he greatly esteems Bewick\u2019s woodcuts, and Waterloo\u2019s\nsylvan etchings. But he sometimes takes a higher tone, and gives his\nmind fair play. We have known him enlarge with a noble intelligence and\nenthusiasm on Nicolas Poussin\u2019s fine landscape-compositions, pointing\nout the unity of design that pervades them, the superintending mind, the\nimaginative principle that brings all to bear on the same end; and\ndeclaring he would not give a rush for any landscape that did not\nexpress the time of day, the climate, the period of the world it was\nmeant to illustrate, or had not this character of _wholeness_ in it. His\neye also does justice to Rembrandt\u2019s fine and masterly effects. In the\nway in which that artist works something out of nothing, and transforms\nthe stump of a tree, a common figure into an _ideal_ object, by the\ngorgeous light and shade thrown upon it, he perceives an analogy to his\nown mode of investing the minute details of nature with an atmosphere of\nsentiment; and in pronouncing Rembrandt to be a man of genius, feels\nthat he strengthens his own claim to the title. It has been said of Mr.\nWordsworth, that \u2018he hates conchology, that he hates the Venus of\nMedicis.\u2019 But these, we hope, are mere epigrams and _jeux-d\u2019esprit_, as\nfar from truth as they are free from malice; a sort of running satire or\ncritical clenches\u2014\n\n                 \u2018Where one for sense and one for rhyme\n                 Is quite sufficient at one time.\u2019\n\nWe think, however, that if Mr. Wordsworth had been a more liberal and\ncandid critic, he would have been a more sterling writer. If a greater\nnumber of sources of pleasure had been open to him, he would have\ncommunicated pleasure to the world more frequently. Had he been less\nfastidious in pronouncing sentence on the works of others, his own would\nhave been received more favourably, and treated more leniently. The\ncurrent of his feelings is deep, but narrow; the range of his\nunderstanding is lofty and aspiring rather than discursive. The force,\nthe originality, the absolute truth and identity with which he feels\nsome things, makes him indifferent to so many others. The simplicity and\nenthusiasm of his feelings, with respect to nature, renders him bigotted\nand intolerant in his judgments of men and things. But it happens to\nhim, as to others, that his strength lies in his weakness; and perhaps\nwe have no right to complain. We might get rid of the cynic and the\negotist, and find in his stead a common-place man. We should \u2018take the\ngood the Gods provide us\u2019: a fine and original vein of poetry is not one\nof their most contemptible gifts, and the rest is scarcely worth\nthinking of, except as it may be a mortification to those who expect\nperfection from human nature; or who have been idle enough at some\nperiod of their lives, to deify men of genius as possessing claims above\nit. But this is a chord that jars, and we shall not dwell upon it.\n\nLord Byron we have called, according to the old proverb, \u2018the spoiled\nchild of fortune\u2019: Mr. Wordsworth might plead, in mitigation of some\npeculiarities, that he is \u2018the spoiled child of disappointment.\u2019 We are\nconvinced, if he had been early a popular poet, he would have borne his\nhonours meekly, and would have been a person of great _bonhommie_ and\nfrankness of disposition. But the sense of injustice and of undeserved\nridicule sours the temper and narrows the views. To have produced works\nof genius, and to find them neglected or treated with scorn, is one of\nthe heaviest trials of human patience. We exaggerate our own merits when\nthey are denied by others, and are apt to grudge and cavil at every\nparticle of praise bestowed on those to whom we feel a conscious\nsuperiority. In mere self-defence we turn against the world, when it\nturns against us; brood over the undeserved slights we receive; and thus\nthe genial current of the soul is stopped, or vents itself in effusions\nof petulance and self-conceit. Mr. Wordsworth has thought too much of\ncontemporary critics and criticism; and less than he ought of the award\nof posterity, and of the opinion, we do not say of private friends, but\nof those who were made so by their admiration of his genius. He did not\ncourt popularity by a conformity to established models, and he ought not\nto have been surprised that his originality was not understood as a\nmatter of course. He has _gnawed too much on the bridle_; and has often\nthrown out crusts to the critics, in mere defiance or as a point of\nhonour when he was challenged, which otherwise his own good sense would\nhave withheld. We suspect that Mr. Wordsworth\u2019s feelings are a little\nmorbid in this respect, or that he resents censure more than he is\ngratified by praise. Otherwise, the tide has turned much in his favour\nof late years\u2014he has a large body of determined partisans\u2014and is at\npresent sufficiently in request with the public to save or relieve him\nfrom the last necessity to which a man of genius can be reduced\u2014that of\nbecoming the God of his own idolatry!\n\n\n\n\n                          SIR JAMES MACKINTOSH\n\n\nThe subject of the present article is one of the ablest and most\naccomplished men of the age, both as a writer, a speaker, and a\nconverser. He is, in fact, master of almost every known topic, whether\nof a passing or of a more recondite nature. He has lived much in\nsociety, and is deeply conversant with books. He is a man of the world\nand a scholar; but the scholar gives the tone to all his other\nacquirements and pursuits. Sir James is by education and habit, and we\nwere going to add, by the original turn of his mind, a college-man; and\nperhaps he would have passed his time most happily and respectably, had\nhe devoted himself entirely to that kind of life. The strength of his\nfaculties would have been best developed, his ambition would have met\nits proudest reward, in the accumulation and elaborate display of grave\nand useful knowledge. As it is, it may be said, that in company he talks\nwell, but too much; that in writing he overlays the original subject and\nspirit of the composition, by an appeal to authorities and by too formal\na method; that in public speaking the logician takes place of the\norator, and that he fails to give effect to a particular point or to\nurge an immediate advantage home upon his adversary from the enlarged\nscope of his mind, and the wide career he takes in the field of\nargument.\n\nTo consider him in the last point of view, first. As a political\npartisan, he is rather the lecturer than the advocate. He is able to\ninstruct and delight an impartial and disinterested audience by the\nextent of his information, by his acquaintance with general principles,\nby the clearness and aptitude of his illustrations, by vigour and\ncopiousness of style; but where he has a prejudiced or unfair antagonist\nto contend with, he is just as likely to put weapons into his enemy\u2019s\nhands, as to wrest them from him, and his object seems to be rather to\ndeserve than to obtain success. The characteristics of his mind are\nretentiveness and comprehension, with facility of production: but he is\nnot equally remarkable for originality of view, or warmth of feeling, or\nliveliness of fancy. His eloquence is a little rhetorical; his reasoning\nchiefly logical: he can bring down the account of knowledge on a vast\nvariety of subjects to the present moment, he can embellish any cause he\nundertakes by the most approved and graceful ornaments, he can support\nit by a host of facts and examples, but he cannot advance it a step\nforward by placing it on a new and triumphant \u2018vantage-ground, nor can\nhe overwhelm and break down the artificial fences and bulwarks of\nsophistry by the irresistible tide of manly enthusiasm. Sir James\nMackintosh is an accomplished debater, rather than a powerful orator: he\nis distinguished more as a man of wonderful and variable talent than as\na man of commanding intellect. His mode of treating a question is\ncritical, and not parliamentary. It has been formed in the closet and\nthe schools, and is hardly fitted for scenes of active life, or the\ncollisions of party-spirit. Sir James reasons on the square; while the\narguments of his opponents are loaded with iron or gold. He makes,\nindeed, a respectable ally, but not a very formidable opponent. He is as\nlikely, however, to prevail on a neutral, as he is almost certain to be\nbaffled on a hotly contested ground. On any question of general policy\nor legislative improvement, the Member for Nairn is heard with\nadvantage, and his speeches are attended with effect: and he would have\nequal weight and influence at other times, if it were the object of the\nHouse to hear reason, as it is his aim to speak it. But on subjects of\npeace or war, of political rights or foreign interference, where the\nwaves of party run high, and the liberty of nations or the fate of\nmankind hangs trembling in the scales, though he probably displays equal\ntalent, and does full and heaped justice to the question (abstractedly\nspeaking, or if it were to be tried before an impartial assembly), yet\nwe confess we have seldom heard him, on such occasions, without pain for\nthe event. He did not slur his own character and pretensions, but he\ncompromised the argument. He spoke _the truth, the whole truth, and\nnothing but the truth_; but the House of Commons (we dare aver it) is\nnot the place where the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the\ntruth can be spoken with safety or with advantage. The judgment of the\nHouse is not a balance to weigh scruples and reasons to the turn of a\nfraction: another element, besides the love of truth enters into the\ncomposition of their decisions, the reaction of which must be calculated\nupon and guarded against. If our philosophical statesman had to open the\ncase before a class of tyros, or a circle of grey-beards, who wished to\nform or to strengthen their judgments upon fair and rational grounds,\nnothing could be more satisfactory, more luminous, more able or more\ndecisive than the view taken of it by Sir James Mackintosh. But the\nHouse of Commons, as a collective body, have not the docility of youth,\nthe calm wisdom of age; and often only want an excuse to do wrong, or to\nadhere to what they have already determined upon; and Sir James, in\ndetailing the inexhaustible stores of his memory and reading, in\nunfolding the wide range of his theory and practice, in laying down the\nrules and the exceptions, in insisting upon the advantages and the\nobjections with equal explicitness, would be sure to let something drop\nthat a dexterous and watchful adversary would easily pick up and turn\nagainst him, if this were found necessary; or if with so many _pros_ and\n_cons_, doubts and difficulties, dilemmas and alternatives thrown into\nit, the scale, with its natural bias to interest and power, did not\nalready fly up and kick the beam. There wanted unity of purpose,\nimpetuosity of feeling to break through the phalanx of hostile and\ninveterate prejudice arrayed against him. He gave a handle to his\nenemies; threw stumbling-blocks in the way of his friends. He raised so\nmany objections for the sake of answering them, proposed so many doubts\nfor the sake of solving them, and made so many concessions where none\nwere demanded, that his reasoning had the effect of neutralizing itself;\nit became a mere exercise of the understanding without zest or spirit\nleft in it; and the provident engineer who was to shatter in pieces the\nstrong-holds of corruption and oppression, by a well-directed and\nunsparing discharge of artillery, seemed to have brought not only his\nown cannon-balls, but his own wool-packs along with him to ward off the\nthreatened mischief. This was a good deal the effect of his maiden\nspeech on the transfer of Genoa, to which Lord Castlereagh did not deign\nan answer, and which another Honourable Member called \u2018a _finical_\nspeech.\u2019 It was a most able, candid, closely argued, and philosophical\nexposure of that unprincipled transaction; but for this very reason it\nwas a solecism in the place where it was delivered. Sir James has, since\nthis period, and with the help of practice, lowered himself to the tone\nof the House; and has also applied himself to questions more congenial\nto his habits of mind, and where the success would be more likely to be\nproportioned to his zeal and his exertions.\n\nThere was a greater degree of power, or of dashing and splendid effect\n(we wish we could add, an equally humane and liberal spirit) in the\n_Lectures on the Law of Nature and Nations_, formerly delivered by Sir\nJames (then Mr.) Mackintosh, in Lincoln\u2019s-Inn Hall. He showed greater\nconfidence; was more at home there. The effect was more electrical and\ninstantaneous, and this elicited a prouder display of intellectual\nriches, and a more animated and imposing mode of delivery. He grew\nwanton with success. Dazzling others by the brilliancy of his\nacquirements, dazzled himself by the admiration they excited, he lost\nfear as well as prudence; dared every thing, carried every thing before\nhim. The Modern Philosophy, counter-scarp, outworks, citadel, and all,\nfell without a blow, by \u2018the whiff and wind of his fell _doctrine_,\u2019 as\nif it had been a pack of cards. The volcano of the French Revolution was\nseen expiring in its own flames, like a bonfire made of straw: the\nprinciples of Reform were scattered in all directions, like chaff before\nthe keen northern blast. He laid about him like one inspired; nothing\ncould withstand his envenomed tooth. Like some savage beast got into the\ngarden of the fabled Hesperides, he made clear work of it, root and\nbranch, with white, foaming tusks\u2014\n\n          \u2018Laid waste the borders, and o\u2019erthrew the bowers.\u2019\n\nThe havoc was amazing, the desolation was complete. As to our visionary\nsceptics and Utopian philosophers, they stood no chance with our\nlecturer\u2014he did not \u2018carve them as a dish fit for the Gods, but hewed\nthem as a carcase fit for hounds.\u2019 Poor Godwin, who had come, in the\n_bonhommie_ and candour of his nature, to hear what new light had broken\nin upon his old friend, was obliged to quit the field, and slunk away\nafter an exulting taunt thrown out at \u2018such fanciful chimeras as a\ngolden mountain or a perfect man.\u2019 Mr. Mackintosh had something of the\nair, much of the dexterity and self-possession, of a political and\nphilosophical juggler; and an eager and admiring audience gaped and\ngreedily swallowed the gilded bait of sophistry, prepared for their\ncredulity and wonder. Those of us who attended day after day, and were\naccustomed to have all our previous notions confounded and struck out of\nour hands by some metaphysical legerdemain, were at last at some loss to\nknow _whether two and two made four_, till we had heard the lecturer\u2019s\nopinion on that head. He might have some mental reservation on the\nsubject, some pointed ridicule to pour upon the common supposition, some\nlearned authority to quote against it. To anticipate the line of\nargument he might pursue, was evidently presumptuous and premature. One\nthing only appeared certain, that whatever opinion he chose to take up,\nhe was able to make good either by the foils or the cudgels, by gross\nbanter or nice distinctions, by a well-timed mixture of paradox and\ncommon-place, by an appeal to vulgar prejudices or startling scepticism.\nIt seemed to be equally his object, or the tendency of his Discourses,\nto unsettle every principle of reason or of common sense, and to leave\nhis audience at the mercy of the _dictum_ of a lawyer, the nod of a\nminister, or the shout of a mob. To effect this purpose, he drew largely\non the learning of antiquity, on modern literature, on history, poetry,\nand the belles-lettres, on the Schoolmen and on writers of novels,\nFrench, English, and Italian. In mixing up the sparkling julep, that by\nits potent operation was to scour away the dregs and feculence and\npeccant humours of the body politic, he seemed to stand with his back to\nthe drawers in a metaphysical dispensary, and to take out of them\nwhatever ingredients suited his purpose. In this way he had an antidote\nfor every error, an answer to every folly. The writings of Burke, Hume,\nBerkeley, Paley, Lord Bacon, Jeremy Taylor, Grotius, Puffendorf, Cicero,\nAristotle, Tacitus, Livy, Sully, Machiavel, Guicciardini, Thuanus, lay\nopen beside him, and he could instantly lay his hand upon the passage,\nand quote them chapter and verse to the clearing up of all difficulties,\nand the silencing of all oppugners. Mr. Mackintosh\u2019s Lectures were after\nall but a kind of philosophical centos. They were profound, brilliant,\nnew to his hearers; but the profundity, the brilliancy, the novelty were\nnot his own. He was like Dr. Pangloss (not Voltaire\u2019s, but Coleman\u2019s)\nwho speaks only in quotations; and the pith, the marrow of Sir James\u2019s\nreasoning and rhetoric at that memorable period might be put within\ninverted commas. It, however, served its purpose and the loud echo died\naway. We remember an excellent man and a sound critic[52] going to hear\none of these elaborate effusions; and on his want of enthusiasm being\naccounted for from its not being one of the orator\u2019s brilliant days, he\nreplied, \u2018he did not think a man of genius could speak for two hours\nwithout saying something by which he would have been electrified.\u2019 We\nare only sorry, at this distance of time, for one thing in these\nLectures\u2014the tone and spirit in which they seemed to have been composed\nand to be delivered. If all that body of opinions and principles of\nwhich the orator read his recantation was unfounded, and there was an\nend of all those views and hopes that pointed to future improvement, it\nwas not a matter of triumph or exultation to the lecturer or any body\nelse, to the young or the old, the wise or the foolish; on the contrary,\nit was a subject of regret, of slow, reluctant, painful admission\u2014\n\n          \u2018Of lamentation loud heard through the rueful air.\u2019\n\nThe immediate occasion of this sudden and violent change in Sir James\u2019s\nviews and opinions was attributed to a personal interview which he had\nhad a little before his death with Mr. Burke, at his house at\nBeaconsfield. In the latter end of the year 1796, appeared the _Regicide\nPeace_, from the pen of the great apostate from liberty and betrayer of\nhis species into the hands of those who claimed it as their property by\ndivine right\u2014a work imposing, solid in many respects, abounding in facts\nand admirable reasoning, and in which all flashy ornaments were laid\naside for a testamentary gravity, (the eloquence of despair resembling\nthe throes and heaving and muttered threats of an earthquake, rather\nthan the loud thunderbolt)\u2014and soon after came out a criticism on it in\n_The Monthly Review_, doing justice to the author and the style, and\ncombating the inferences with force and at much length; but with candour\nand with respect, amounting to deference. It was new to Mr. Burke not to\nbe called names by persons of the opposite party; it was an additional\ntriumph to him to be spoken well of, to be loaded with well-earned\npraise by the author of the _Vindici\u00e6 Gallic\u00e6_. It was a testimony from\nan old, a powerful, and an admired antagonist.[53] He sent an invitation\nto the writer to come and see him; and in the course of three days\u2019\nanimated discussion of such subjects, Mr. Mackintosh became a convert\nnot merely to the graces and gravity of Mr. Burke\u2019s style, but to the\nliberality of his views, and the solidity of his opinions.\u2014The\nLincoln\u2019s-Inn Lectures were the fruit of this interview: such is the\ninfluence exercised by men of genius and imaginative power over those\nwho have nothing to oppose to their unforeseen flashes of thought and\ninvention, but the dry, cold, formal, deductions of the understanding.\nOur politician had time, during a few years of absence from his native\ncountry, and while the din of war and the cries of party-spirit \u2018were\nlost over a wide and unhearing ocean,\u2019 to recover from his surprise and\nfrom a temporary alienation of mind; and to return in spirit, and in the\nmild and mellowed maturity of age, to the principles and attachments of\nhis early life.\n\nThe appointment of Sir James Mackintosh to a Judgeship in India was one,\nwhich, however flattering to his vanity or favourable to his interests,\nwas entirely foreign to his feelings and habits. It was an honourable\nexile. He was out of his element among black slaves and sepoys, and\nNabobs and cadets, and writers to India. He had no one to exchange ideas\nwith. The \u2018unbought grace of life,\u2019 the charm of literary conversation\nwas gone. It was the habit of his mind, his ruling passion to enter into\nthe shock and conflict of opinions on philosophical, political, and\ncritical questions\u2014not to dictate to raw tyros or domineer over persons\nin subordinate situations\u2014but to obtain the guerdon and the laurels of\nsuperior sense and information by meeting with men of equal standing, to\nhave a fair field pitched, to argue, to distinguish, to reply, to hunt\ndown the game of intellect with eagerness and skill, to push an\nadvantage, to cover a retreat, to give and take a fall\u2014\n\n             \u2018And gladly would he learn, and gladly teach.\u2019\n\nIt is no wonder that this sort of friendly intellectual gladiatorship is\nSir James\u2019s greatest pleasure, for it is his peculiar _forte_. He has\nnot many equals, and scarcely any superior in it. He is too indolent for\nan author; too unimpassioned for an orator: but in society he is just\nvain enough to be pleased with immediate attention, good-humoured enough\nto listen with patience to others, with great coolness and\nself-possession, fluent, communicative, and with a manner equally free\nfrom violence and insipidity. Few subjects can be started, on which he\nis not qualified to appear to advantage as the gentleman and scholar. If\nthere is some tinge of pedantry, it is carried off by great affability\nof address and variety of amusing and interesting topics. There is\nscarce an author that he has not read; a period of history that he is\nnot conversant with; a celebrated name of which he has not a number of\nanecdotes to relate; an intricate question that he is not prepared to\nenter upon in a popular or scientific manner. If an opinion in an\nabstruse metaphysical author is referred to, he is probably able to\nrepeat the passage by heart, can tell the side of the page on which it\nis to be met with, can trace it back through various descents to Locke,\nHobbes, Lord Herbert of Cherbury, to a place in some obscure folio of\nthe Schoolmen or a note in one of the commentators on Aristotle or\nPlato, and thus give you in a few moments\u2019 space, and without any effort\nor previous notice, a chronological table of the progress of the human\nmind in that particular branch of inquiry. There is something, we think,\nperfectly admirable and delightful in an exhibition of this kind, and\nwhich is equally creditable to the speaker and gratifying to the hearer.\nBut this kind of talent was of no use in India: the intellectual wares,\nof which the Chief Judge delighted to make a display, were in no request\nthere. He languished after the friends and the society he had left\nbehind; and wrote over incessantly for books from England. One that was\nsent him at this time was an _Essay on the Principles of Human Action_;\nand the way in which he spoke of that dry, tough, metaphysical\n_choke-pear_, showed the dearth of intellectual intercourse in which he\nlived, and the craving in his mind after those studies which had once\nbeen his pride, and to which he still turned for consolation in his\nremote solitude.\u2014Perhaps to another, the novelty of the scene, the\ndifferences of mind and manners might have atoned for a want of social\nand literary _agr\u00e9mens_: but Sir James is one of those who see nature\nthrough the spectacles of books. He might like to read an account of\nIndia; but India itself with its burning, shining face would be a mere\nblank, an endless waste to him. To persons of this class of mind things\nmust be translated into words, visible images into abstract propositions\nto meet their refined apprehensions, and they have no more to say to a\nmatter-of-fact staring them in the face without a label in its mouth,\nthan they would to a hippopotamus!\u2014We may add, before we quit this\npoint, that we cannot conceive of any two persons more different in\ncolloquial talents, in which they both excel, than Sir James Mackintosh\nand Mr. Coleridge. They have nearly an equal range of reading and of\ntopics of conversation: but in the mind of the one we see nothing but\n_fixtures_, in the other every thing is fluid. The ideas of the one are\nas formal and tangible, as those of the other are shadowy and\nevanescent. Sir James Mackintosh walks over the ground, Mr. Coleridge is\nalways flying off from it. The first knows all that has been said upon a\nsubject; the last has something to say that was never said before. If\nthe one deals too much in learned _common-places_, the other teems with\nidle fancies. The one has a good deal of the _caput mortuum_ of genius,\nthe other is all volatile salt. The conversation of Sir James Mackintosh\nhas the effect of reading a well-written book, that of his friend is\nlike hearing a bewildered dream. The one is an Encyclopedia of\nknowledge, the other is a succession of _Sybilline Leaves_!\n\nAs an author, Sir James Mackintosh may claim the foremost rank among\nthose who pride themselves on artificial ornaments and acquired\nlearning, or who write what may be termed a _composite_ style. His\n_Vindici\u00e6 Gallic\u00e6_ is a work of great labour, great ingenuity, great\nbrilliancy, and great vigour. It is a little too antithetical in the\nstructure of its periods, too dogmatical in the announcement of its\nopinions. Sir James has, we believe, rejected something of the _false\nbrilliant_ of the one, as he has retracted some of the abrupt\nextravagance of the other. We apprehend, however, that our author is not\none of those who draw from their own resources and accumulated feelings,\nor who improve with age. He belongs to a class (common in Scotland and\nelsewhere) who get up school-exercises on any given subject in a\nmasterly manner at twenty, and who at forty are either where they\nwere\u2014or retrograde, if they are men of sense and modesty. The reason is,\ntheir vanity is weaned, after the first hey-day and animal spirits of\nyouth are flown, from making an affected display of knowledge, which,\nhowever useful, is not their own, and may be much more simply stated;\nthey are tired of repeating the same arguments over and over again,\nafter having exhausted and rung the changes on their whole stock for a\nnumber of times. Sir James Mackintosh is understood to be a writer in\nthe Edinburgh Review; and the articles attributed to him there are full\nof matter of great pith and moment. But they want the trim, pointed\nexpression, the ambitious ornaments, the ostentatious display and rapid\nvolubility of his early productions. We have heard it objected to his\nlater compositions, that his style is good as far as single words and\nphrases are concerned, but that his sentences are clumsy and disjointed,\nand that these make up still more awkward and sprawling paragraphs. This\nis a nice criticism, and we cannot speak to its truth; but if the fact\nbe so, we think we can account for it from the texture and obvious\nprocess of the author\u2019s mind. All his ideas may be said to be given\npreconceptions. They do not arise, as it were, out of the subject, or\nout of one another at the moment, and therefore do not flow naturally\nand gracefully from one another. They have been laid down beforehand in\na sort of formal division or frame-work of the understanding; and the\nconnection between the premises and the conclusion, between one branch\nof a subject and another, is made out in a bungling and unsatisfactory\nmanner. There is no principle of fusion in the work; he strikes after\nthe iron is cold, and there is a want of malleability in the style. Sir\nJames is at present said to be engaged in writing a _History of England_\nafter the downfall of the house of Stuart. May it be worthy of the\ntalents of the author, and of the principles of the period it is\nintended to illustrate!\n\n\n\n\n                              MR. MALTHUS\n\n\nMr. Malthus may be considered as one of those rare and fortunate writers\nwho have attained a _scientific_ reputation in questions of moral and\npolitical philosophy. His name undoubtedly stands very high in the\npresent age, and will in all probability go down to posterity with more\nor less of renown or obloquy. It was said by a person well qualified to\njudge both from strength and candour of mind, that \u2018it would take a\nthousand years at least to answer his work on Population.\u2019 He has\ncertainly thrown a new light on that question, and changed the aspect of\npolitical economy in a decided and material point of view\u2014whether he has\nnot also endeavoured to spread a gloom over the hopes and more sanguine\nspeculations of man, and to cast a slur upon the face of nature, is\nanother question. There is this to be said for Mr. Malthus, that in\nspeaking of him, one knows what one is talking about. He is something\nbeyond a mere name\u2014one has not to _beat the bush_ about his talents, his\nattainments, his vast reputation, and leave off without knowing what it\nall amounts to\u2014he is not one of those great men, who set themselves off\nand strut and fret an hour upon the stage, during a day-dream of\npopularity, with the ornaments and jewels borrowed from the common\nstock, to which nothing but their vanity and presumption gives them the\nleast individual claim\u2014he has dug into the mine of truth, and brought up\nore mixed with dross! In weighing his merits we come at once to the\nquestion of what he has done or failed to do. It is a specific claim\nthat he sets up. When we speak of Mr. Malthus, we mean the _Essay on\nPopulation_; and when we mention the Essay on Population, we mean a\ndistinct leading proposition, that stands out intelligibly from all\ntrashy pretence, and is a ground on which to fix the levers that may\nmove the world, backwards or forwards. He has not left opinion where he\nfound it; he has advanced or given it a wrong bias, or thrown a\nstumbling-block in its way. In a word, his name is not stuck, like so\nmany others, in the firmament of reputation, nobody knows why, inscribed\nin great letters, and with a transparency of TALENTS, GENIUS, LEARNING\nblazing round it\u2014it is tantamount to an idea, it is identified with a\nprinciple, it means that _the population cannot go on perpetually\nincreasing without pressing on the limits of the means of subsistence,\nand that a check of some kind or other must, sooner or later, be opposed\nto it_. This is the essence of the doctrine which Mr. Malthus has been\nthe first to bring into general notice, and as we think, to establish\nbeyond the fear of contradiction. Admitting then as we do the prominence\nand the value of his claims to public attention, it yet remains a\nquestion, how far those claims are (as to the talent displayed in them)\nstrictly original; how far (as to the logical accuracy with which he has\ntreated the subject) he has introduced foreign and doubtful matter into\nit; and how far (as to the spirit in which he has conducted his\ninquiries, and applied a general principle to particular objects) he has\nonly drawn fair and inevitable conclusions from it, or endeavoured to\ntamper with and wrest it to sinister and servile purposes. A writer who\nshrinks from following up a well-founded principle into its untoward\nconsequences from timidity or false delicacy, is not worthy of the name\nof a philosopher: a writer who assumes the garb of candour and an\ninflexible love of truth to garble and pervert it, to crouch to power\nand pander to prejudice, deserves a worse title than that of a sophist!\n\nMr. Malthus\u2019s first octavo volume on this subject (published in the year\n1798) was intended as an answer to Mr. Godwin\u2019s _Enquiry concerning\nPolitical Justice_. It was well got up for the purpose, and had an\nimmediate effect. It was what in the language of the ring is called _a\nfacer_. It made Mr. Godwin and the other advocates of Modern Philosophy\nlook about them. It may be almost doubted whether Mr. Malthus was in the\nfirst instance serious in many things that he threw out, or whether he\ndid not hazard the whole as an amusing and extreme paradox, which might\npuzzle the reader as it had done himself in an idle moment, but to which\nno practical consequence whatever could attach. This state of mind would\nprobably continue till the irritation of enemies and the encouragement\nof friends convinced him that what he had at first exhibited as an idle\nfancy was in fact a very valuable discovery, or \u2018like the toad ugly and\nvenomous, had yet a precious jewel in its head.\u2019 Such a supposition\nwould at least account for some things in the original Essay, which\nscarcely any writer would venture upon, except as professed exercises of\ningenuity, and which have been since in part retracted. But a wrong bias\nwas thus given, and the author\u2019s theory was thus rendered warped,\ndisjointed, and sophistical from the very outset.\n\nNothing could in fact be more illogical (not to say absurd) than the\nwhole of Mr. Malthus\u2019s reasoning applied as an answer (_par excellence_)\nto Mr. Godwin\u2019s book, or to the theories of other Utopian philosophers.\nMr. Godwin was not singular, but was kept in countenance by many\nauthorities, both ancient and modern, in supposing a state of society\npossible in which the passions and wills of individuals would be\nconformed to the general good, in which the knowledge of the best means\nof promoting human welfare and the desire of contributing to it would\nbanish vice and misery from the world, and in which, the\nstumbling-blocks of ignorance, of selfishness, and the indulgence of\ngross appetite being removed, all things would move on by the mere\nimpulse of wisdom and virtue, to still higher and higher degrees of\nperfection and happiness. Compared with the lamentable and gross\ndeficiencies of existing institutions, such a view of futurity as barely\npossible could not fail to allure the gaze and tempt the aspiring\nthoughts of the philanthropist and the philosopher: the hopes and the\nimaginations of speculative men could not but rush forward into this\nideal world as into a _vacuum_ of good; and from \u2018the mighty stream of\ntendency\u2019 (as Mr. Wordsworth in the cant of the day calls it,) there was\ndanger that the proud monuments of time-hallowed institutions, that the\nstrong-holds of power and corruption, that \u2018the Corinthian capitals of\npolished society,\u2019 with the base and pediments, might be overthrown and\nswept away as by a hurricane. There were not wanting persons whose\nignorance, whose fears, whose pride, or whose prejudices contemplated\nsuch an alternative with horror; and who would naturally feel no small\nobligation to the man who should relieve their apprehensions from the\nstunning roar of this mighty change of opinion that thundered at a\ndistance, and should be able, by some logical apparatus or unexpected\nturn of the argument, to prevent the vessel of the state from being\nhurried forward with the progress of improvement, and dashed in pieces\ndown the tremendous precipice of human perfectibility. Then comes Mr.\nMalthus forward with the geometrical and arithmetical ratios in his\nhands, and holds them out to his affrighted contemporaries as the only\nmeans of salvation. \u2018For\u2019 (so argued the author of the Essay) \u2018let the\nprinciples of Mr. Godwin\u2019s Enquiry and of other similar works be carried\nliterally and completely into effect; let every corruption and abuse of\npower be entirely got rid of; let virtue, knowledge, and civilization be\nadvanced to the greatest height that these visionary reformers would\nsuppose; let the passions and appetites be subjected to the utmost\ncontrol of reason and influence of public opinion: grant them, in a\nword, all that they ask, and the more completely their views are\nrealized, the sooner will they be overthrown again, and the more\ninevitable and fatal will be the catastrophe. For the principle of\npopulation will still prevail, and from the comfort, ease, and plenty\nthat will abound, will receive an increasing force and _impetus_; the\nnumber of mouths to be fed will have no limit, but the food that is to\nsupply them cannot keep pace with the demand for it; we must come to a\nstop somewhere, even though each square yard, by extreme improvements in\ncultivation, could maintain its man: in this state of things there will\nbe no remedy, the wholesome checks of vice and misery (which have\nhitherto kept this principle within bounds) will have been done away;\nthe voice of reason will be unheard; the passions only will bear sway;\nfamine, distress, havoc, and dismay will spread around; hatred,\nviolence, war, and bloodshed will be the infallible consequence, and\nfrom the pinnacle of happiness, peace, refinement, and social advantage,\nwe shall be hurled once more into a profounder abyss of misery, want,\nand barbarism than ever, by the sole operation of the principle of\npopulation!\u2019\u2014Such is a brief abstract of the argument of the Essay. Can\nany thing be less conclusive, a more complete fallacy and _petitio\nprincipii_? Mr. Malthus concedes, he assumes a state of perfectibility,\nsuch as his opponents imagined, in which the general good is to obtain\nthe entire mastery of individual interests, and reason of gross\nappetites and passions: and then he argues that such a perfect structure\nof society will fall by its own weight, or rather be undermined by the\nprinciple of population, because in the highest possible state of the\nsubjugation of the passions to reason, they will be absolutely lawless\nand unchecked, and because as men become enlightened, quick sighted and\npublic-spirited, they will show themselves utterly blind to the\nconsequences of their actions, utterly indifferent to their own\nwell-being and that of all succeeding generations, whose fate is placed\nin their hands. This we conceive to be the boldest paralogism that ever\nwas offered to the world, or palmed upon willing credulity. Against\nwhatever other scheme of reform this objection might be valid, the one\nit was brought expressly to overturn was impregnable against it,\ninvulnerable to its slightest graze. Say that the Utopian reasoners are\nvisionaries, unfounded; that the state of virtue and knowledge they\nsuppose, in which reason shall have become all-in-all, can never take\nplace, that it is inconsistent with the nature of man and with all\nexperience, well and good\u2014but to say that society will have attained\nthis high and \u2018palmy state,\u2019 that reason will have become the master-key\nto all our motives, and that when arrived at its greatest power it will\ncease to act at all, but will fall down dead, inert, and senseless\nbefore the principle of population, is an opinion which one would think\nfew people would choose to advance or assent to, without strong\ninducements for maintaining or believing it.\n\nThe fact, however, is, that Mr. Malthus found this argument entire (the\nprinciple and the application of it) in an obscure and almost forgotten\nwork published about the middle of the last century, entitled _Various\nProspects of Mankind, Nature, and Providence_, by a Scotch gentleman of\nthe name of Wallace. The chapter in this work on the Principle of\nPopulation, considered as a bar to all ultimate views of human\nimprovement, was probably written to amuse an idle hour, or read as a\npaper to exercise the wits of some literary society in the Northern\ncapital, and no farther responsibility or importance annexed to it. Mr.\nMalthus, by adopting and setting his name to it, has given it sufficient\ncurrency and effect. It sometimes happens that one writer is the first\nto discover a certain principle or lay down a given observation, and\nthat another makes an application of, or draws a remote or an immediate\ninference from it, totally unforeseen by the first, and from which, in\nall probability, he might have widely dissented. But this is not so in\nthe present instance. Mr. Malthus has borrowed (perhaps without\nconsciousness, at any rate without acknowledgment) both the preliminary\nstatement, that the increase in the supply of food \u2018from a limited earth\nand a limited fertility\u2019 must have an end, while the tendency to\nincrease in the principle of population has none, without some external\nand forcible restraint on it, and the subsequent use made of this\nstatement as an insuperable bar to all schemes of Utopian or progressive\nimprovement\u2014both these he has borrowed (whole) from Wallace, with all\ntheir imperfections on their heads, and has added more and greater ones\nto them out of his own store. In order to produce something of a\nstartling and dramatic effect, he has strained a point or two. In order\nto quell and frighten away the bugbear of Modern Philosophy, he was\nobliged to make a sort of monster of the principle of population, which\nwas brought into the field against it, and which was to swallow it up\nquick. No half-measures, no middle course of reasoning would do. With a\nview to meet the highest possible power of reason in the new order of\nthings, Mr. Malthus saw the necessity of giving the greatest possible\nphysical weight to the antagonist principle, and he accordingly lays it\ndown that its operation is mechanical and irresistible. He premises\nthese two propositions as the basis of all his reasoning, 1. _That food\nis necessary to man_; 2. _That the desire to propagate the species is an\nequally indispensable law of our existence_:\u2014thus making it appear that\nthese two wants or impulses are equal and coordinate principles of\naction. If this double statement had been true, the whole scope and\nstructure of his reasoning (as hostile to human hopes and sanguine\nspeculations) would have been irrefragable; but as it is not true, the\nwhole (in that view) falls to the ground. According to Mr. Malthus\u2019s\noctavo edition, the sexual passion is as necessary to be gratified as\nthe appetite of hunger, and a man can no more exist without propagating\nhis species than he can live without eating. Were it so, neither of\nthese passions would admit of any excuses, any delay, any restraint from\nreason or foresight; and the only checks to the principle of population\nmust be vice and misery. The argument would be triumphant and complete.\nBut there is no analogy, no parity in the two cases, such as our author\nhere assumes. No man can live for any length of time without food; many\npersons live all their lives without gratifying the other sense. The\nlonger the craving after food is unsatisfied, the more violent,\nimperious, and uncontroulable the desire becomes; whereas the longer the\ngratification of the sexual passion is resisted, the greater force does\nhabit and resolution acquire over it; and, generally speaking, it is a\nwell-known fact, attested by all observation and history, that this\nlatter passion is subject more or less to controul from personal\nfeelings and character, from public opinions and the institutions of\nsociety, so as to lead either to a lawful and regulated indulgence, or\nto partial or total abstinence, according to the dictates of _moral\nrestraint_, which latter check to the inordinate excesses and unheard-of\nconsequences of the principle of population, our author, having no\nlonger an extreme case to make out, admits and is willing to patronize\nin addition to the two former and exclusive ones of _vice_ and _misery_,\nin the second and remaining editions of his work. Mr. Malthus has shown\nsome awkwardness or even reluctance in softening down the harshness of\nhis first peremptory decision. He sometimes grants his grand exception\ncordially, proceeds to argue stoutly, and to try conclusions upon it; at\nother times he seems disposed to cavil about or retract it:\u2014\u2018the\ninfluence of moral restraint is very inconsiderable, or none at all.\u2019 It\nis indeed difficult (more particularly for so formal and nice a reasoner\nas Mr. Malthus) to piece such contradictions plausibly or gracefully\ntogether. We wonder how _he_ manages it\u2014how _any one_ should attempt it!\nThe whole question, the _gist_ of the argument of his early volume\nturned upon this, \u2018Whether vice and misery were the _only_ actual or\npossible checks to the principle of population?\u2019 He then said they were,\nand farewell to building castles in the air: he now says that _moral\nrestraint_ is to be coupled with these, and that its influence depends\ngreatly on the state of laws and manners\u2014and Utopia stands where it did,\na great way off indeed, but not turned _topsy-turvy_ by our magician\u2019s\nwand! Should we ever arrive there, that is, attain to a state of\n_perfect moral restraint_, we shall not be driven headlong back into\nEpicurus\u2019s stye for want of the only possible checks to population,\n_vice_ and _misery_; and in proportion as we advance that way, that is,\nas the influence of moral restraint is extended, the necessity for vice\nand misery will be diminished, instead of being increased according to\nthe first alarm given by the Essay. Again, the advance of civilization\nand of population in consequence with the same degree of moral restraint\n(as there exists in England at this present time, for instance) is a\ngood, and not an evil\u2014but this does not appear from the Essay. The Essay\nshows that population is not (as had been sometimes taken for granted)\nan abstract and unqualified good; but it led many persons to suppose\nthat it was an abstract and unqualified evil, to be checked only by vice\nand misery; and producing, according to its encouragement a greater\nquantity of vice and misery; and this error the author has not been at\nsufficient pains to do away. Another thing, in which Mr. Malthus\nattempted to _clench_ Wallace\u2019s argument, was in giving to the\ndisproportionate power of increase in the principle of population and\nthe supply of food a mathematical form, or reducing it to the\narithmetical and geometrical ratios, in which we believe Mr. Malthus is\nnow generally admitted, even by his friends and admirers, to have been\nwrong. There is evidently no inherent difference in the principle of\nincrease in food or population; since a grain of corn, for example, will\npropagate and multiply itself much faster even than the human species. A\nbushel of wheat will sow a field; that field will furnish seed for\ntwenty others. So that the limit to the means of subsistence is only the\nwant of room to raise it in, or, as Wallace expresses it, \u2018a limited\nfertility and a limited earth.\u2019 Up to the point where the earth or any\ngiven country is fully occupied or cultivated, the means of subsistence\nnaturally increase in a geometrical ratio, and will more than keep pace\nwith the natural and unrestrained progress of population; and beyond\nthat point, they do not go on increasing even in Mr. Malthus\u2019s\narithmetical ratio, but are stationary or nearly so. So far, then, is\nthis proportion from being universally and mathematically true, that in\nno part of the world or state of society does it hold good. But our\ntheorist, by laying down this double ratio as a law of nature, gains\nthis advantage, that at all times it seems as if, whether in new or\nold-peopled countries, in fertile or barren soils, the population was\npressing hard on the means of subsistence; and again, it seems as if the\nevil increased with the progress of improvement and civilization; for if\nyou cast your eye at the scale which is supposed to be calculated upon\ntrue and infallible _data_, you find that when the population is at 8,\nthe means of subsistence are at 4; so that here there is only a\n_deficit_ of one-half; but when it is at 32, they have only got to 6, so\nthat here there is a difference of 26 in 32, and so on in proportion;\nthe farther we proceed, the more enormous is the mass of vice and misery\nwe must undergo, as a consequence of the natural excess of the\npopulation over the means of subsistence and as a salutary check to its\nfarther desolating progress. The mathematical Table, placed at the front\nof the Essay, therefore leads to a secret suspicion or a barefaced\nassumption, that we ought in mere kindness and compassion to give every\nsort of indirect and under-hand encouragement (to say the least) to the\nprovidential checks of vice and misery; as the sooner we arrest this\nformidable and paramount evil in its course, the less opportunity we\nleave it of doing incalculable mischief. Accordingly, whenever there is\nthe least talk of colonizing new countries, of extending the population,\nor adding to social comforts and improvements, Mr. Malthus conjures up\nhis double ratios, and insists on the alarming results of advancing them\na single step forward in the series. By the same rule, it would be\nbetter to return at once to a state of barbarism; and to take the\nbenefit of acorns and scuttle-fish, as a security against the luxuries\nand wants of civilized life. But it is not our ingenious author\u2019s wish\nto hint at or recommend any alterations in existing institutions; and he\nis therefore silent on that unpalatable part of the subject and natural\ninference from his principles.\n\nMr. Malthus\u2019s \u2018gospel is preached to the poor.\u2019 He lectures them on\neconomy, on morality, the regulation of their passions (which, he says,\nat other times, are amenable to no restraint) and on the ungracious\ntopic, that \u2018the laws of nature, which are the laws of God, have doomed\nthem and their families to starve for want of a right to the smallest\nportion of food beyond what their labour will supply, or some charitable\nhand may hold out in compassion.\u2019 This is illiberal, and it is not\nphilosophical. The laws of nature or of God, to which the author\nappeals, are no other than a limited fertility and a limited earth.\nWithin those bounds, the rest is regulated by the laws of man. The\ndivision of the produce of the soil, the price of labour, the relief\nafforded to the poor, are matters of human arrangement: while any\ncharitable hand can extend relief, it is a proof that the means of\nsubsistence are not exhausted in themselves, that the \u2018tables are not\nfull!\u2019 Mr. Malthus says that the laws of nature, which are the laws of\nGod, have rendered that relief physically impossible; and yet he would\nabrogate the poor-laws by an act of the legislature, in order to take\naway that _impossible_ relief, which the laws of God deny, and which the\nlaws of man _actually_ afford. We cannot think that this view of his\nsubject, which is prominent and dwelt on at great length and with much\npertinacity, is dictated either by rigid logic or melting charity! A\nlabouring man is not allowed to knock down a hare or a partridge that\nspoils his garden: a country-squire keeps a pack of hounds: a lady of\nquality rides out with a footman behind her, on two sleek, well-fed\nhorses. We have not a word to say against all this as exemplifying the\nspirit of the English Constitution, as a part of the law of the land, or\nas an artful distribution of light and shade in the social picture; but\nif any one insists at the same time that \u2018the laws of nature, which are\nthe laws of God, have doomed the poor and their families to starve,\u2019\nbecause the principle of population has encroached upon and swallowed up\nthe means of subsistence, so that not a mouthful of food is left _by the\ngrinding law of necessity_ for the poor, we beg leave to deny both fact\nand inference\u2014and we put it to Mr. Malthus whether we are not, in\nstrictness, justified in doing so?\n\nWe have, perhaps, said enough to explain our feeling on the subject of\nMr. Malthus\u2019s merits and defects. We think he had the opportunity and\nthe means in his hands of producing a great work on the principle of\npopulation; but we believe he has let it slip from his having an eye to\nother things besides that broad and unexplored question. He wished not\nmerely to advance to the discovery of certain great and valuable truths,\nbut at the same time to overthrow certain unfashionable paradoxes by\nexaggerated statements\u2014to curry favour with existing prejudices and\ninterests by garbled representations. He has, in a word, as it appears\nto us on a candid retrospect and without any feelings of controversial\nasperity rankling in our minds, sunk the philosopher and the friend of\nhis species (a character to which he might have aspired) in the sophist\nand party-writer. The period at which Mr. Malthus came forward teemed\nwith answers to Modern Philosophy, with antidotes to liberty and\nhumanity, with abusive Histories of the Greek and Roman republics, with\nfulsome panegyrics on the Roman Emperors (at the very time when we were\nreviling Buonaparte for his strides to universal empire) with the slime\nand offal of desperate servility\u2014and we cannot but consider the Essay as\none of the poisonous ingredients thrown into the cauldron of Legitimacy\n\u2018to make it thick and slab.\u2019 Our author has, indeed, so far done service\nto the cause of truth, that he has counteracted many capital errors\nformerly prevailing as to the universal and indiscriminate encouragement\nof population under all circumstances; but he has countenanced opposite\nerrors, which if adopted in theory and practice would be even more\nmischievous, and has left it to future philosophers to follow up the\nprinciple, that some check must be provided for the unrestrained\nprogress of population, into a set of wiser and more humane\nconsequences. Mr. Godwin has lately attempted an answer to the Essay\n(thus giving Mr. Malthus a _Roland for his Oliver_) but we think he has\njudged ill in endeavouring to invalidate the principle, instead of\nconfining himself to point out the misapplication of it. There is one\nargument introduced in this Reply, which will, perhaps, amuse the reader\nas a sort of metaphysical puzzle.\n\n\u2018It has sometimes occurred to me whether Mr. Malthus did not catch the\nfirst hint of his geometrical ratio from a curious passage of Judge\nBlackstone, on consanguinity, which is as follows:\u2014\n\n\u2018The doctrine of lineal consanguinity is sufficiently plain and obvious;\nbut it is at the first view astonishing to consider the number of lineal\nancestors which every man has within no very great number of degrees;\nand so many different bloods is a man said to contain in his veins, as\nhe hath lineal ancestors. Of these he hath two in the first ascending\ndegree, his own parents; he hath four in the second, the parents of his\nfather and the parents of his mother; he hath eight in the third, the\nparents of his two grandfathers and two grand-mothers; and by the same\nrule of progression, he hath an hundred and twenty-eight in the seventh;\na thousand and twenty-four in the tenth; and at the twentieth degree, or\nthe distance of twenty generations, every man hath above a million of\nancestors, as common arithmetic will demonstrate.\n\n\u2018This will seem surprising to those who are unacquainted with the\nincreasing power of progressive numbers; but is palpably evident from\nthe following table of a geometrical progression, in which the first\nterm is 2, and the denominator also 2; or, to speak more intelligibly,\nit is evident, for that each of us has two ancestors in the first\ndegree; the number of which is doubled at every remove, because each of\nour ancestors had also two ancestors of his own.\n\n                _Lineal Degrees._ _Number of Ancestors._\n\n                                1                      2\n                                2                      4\n                                3                      8\n                                4                     16\n                                5                     32\n                                6                     64\n                                7                    128\n                                8                    256\n                                9                    512\n                               10                   1024\n                               11                   2048\n                               12                   4096\n                               13                   8192\n                               14                 16,384\n                               15                 32,768\n                               16                 65,536\n                               17                131,072\n                               18                262,144\n                               19                524,288\n                               20              1,048,576\n\n\u2018This argument, however,\u2019 (proceeds Mr. Godwin) \u2018from Judge Blackstone\nof a geometrical progression would much more naturally apply to\nMontesquieu\u2019s hypothesis of the depopulation of the world, and prove\nthat the human species is hastening fast to extinction, than to the\npurpose for which Mr. Malthus has employed it. An ingenious sophism\nmight be raised upon it, to show that the race of mankind will\nultimately terminate in unity. Mr. Malthus, indeed, should have\nreflected, that it is much more certain that every man has had ancestors\nthan that he will have posterity, and that it is still more doubtful,\nwhether he will have posterity to twenty or to an indefinite number of\ngenerations.\u2019\u2014ENQUIRY CONCERNING POPULATION, p. 100.\n\nMr. Malthus\u2019s style is correct and elegant; his tone of controversy mild\nand gentlemanly; and the care with which he has brought his facts and\ndocuments together, deserves the highest praise. He has lately quitted\nhis favourite subject of population, and broke a lance with Mr. Ricardo\non the question of rent and value. The partisans of Mr. Ricardo, who are\nalso the admirers of Mr. Malthus, say that the usual sagacity of the\nlatter has here failed him, and that he has shown himself to be a very\nillogical writer. To have said this of him formerly on another ground,\nwas accounted a heresy and a piece of presumption not easily to be\nforgiven. Indeed Mr. Malthus has always been a sort of \u2018darling in the\npublic eye,\u2019 whom it was unsafe to meddle with. He has contrived to make\nhimself as many friends by his attacks on the schemes of _Human\nPerfectibility_ and on the _Poor-Laws_, as Mandeville formerly procured\nenemies by his attacks on _Human Perfections_ and on _Charity-Schools_;\nand among other instances that we might mention, _Plug_ Pulteney, the\ncelebrated miser, of whom Mr. Burke said on his having a large estate\nleft him, \u2018that now it was to be hoped he would _set up a\npocket-handkerchief_,\u2019 was so enamoured with the saving schemes and\nhumane economy of the Essay, that he desired a friend to find out the\nauthor and offer him a church living! This liberal intention was (by\ndesign or accident) unhappily frustrated.\n\n\n\n\n                              MR. GIFFORD\n\n\nMr. Gifford was originally bred to some handicraft: he afterwards\ncontrived to learn Latin, and was for some time an usher in a school,\ntill he became a tutor in a nobleman\u2019s family. The low-bred, self-taught\nman, the pedant, and the dependant on the great contribute to form the\nEditor of the _Quarterly Review_. He is admirably qualified for this\nsituation, which he has held for some years, by a happy combination of\ndefects, natural and acquired; and in the event of his death, it will be\ndifficult to provide him a suitable successor.\n\nMr. Gifford has no pretensions to be thought a man of genius, of taste,\nor even of general knowledge. He merely understands the mechanical and\ninstrumental part of learning. He is a critic of the last age, when the\ndifferent editions of an author, or the dates of his several\nperformances were all that occupied the inquiries of a profound scholar,\nand the spirit of the writer or the beauties of his style were left to\nshift for themselves, or exercise the fancy of the light and superficial\nreader. In studying an old author, he has no notion of any thing beyond\nadjusting a point, proposing a different reading, or correcting, by the\ncollation of various copies, an error of the press. In appreciating a\nmodern one, if it is an enemy, the first thing he thinks of is to charge\nhim with bad grammar\u2014he scans his sentences instead of weighing his\nsense; or, if it is a friend, the highest compliment he conceives it\npossible to pay him is, that his thoughts and expressions are moulded on\nsome hackneyed model. His standard of _ideal_ perfection is what he\nhimself now is, a person of _mediocre_ literary attainments: his utmost\ncontempt is shown by reducing any one to what he himself once was, a\nperson without the ordinary advantages of education and learning. It is\naccordingly assumed, with much complacency in his critical pages, that\nTory writers are classical and courtly as a matter of course; as it is a\nstanding jest and evident truism, that Whigs and Reformers must be\npersons of low birth and breeding\u2014imputations from one of which he\nhimself has narrowly escaped, and both of which he holds in suitable\nabhorrence. He stands over a contemporary performance with all the\nself-conceit and self-importance of a country schoolmaster, tries it by\ntechnical rules, affects not to understand the meaning, examines the\nhand-writing, the spelling, shrugs up his shoulders and chuckles over a\nslip of the pen, and keeps a sharp look-out for a false concord and\u2014a\nflogging. There is nothing liberal, nothing humane in his style of\njudging: it is altogether petty, captious, and literal. The Editor\u2019s\npolitical subserviency adds the last finishing to his ridiculous\npedantry and vanity. He has all his life been a follower in the train of\nwealth and power\u2014strives to back his pretensions on Parnassus by a place\nat court, and to gild his reputation as a man of letters by the smile of\ngreatness. He thinks his works are stamped with additional value by\nhaving his name in the _Red-Book_. He looks up to the distinctions of\nrank and station as he does to those of learning, with the gross and\nover-weening adulation of his early origin. All his notions are low,\nupstart, servile. He thinks it the highest honour to a poet to be\npatronised by a peer or by some dowager of quality. He is prouder of a\ncourt-livery than of a laurel-wreath; and is only sure of having\nestablished his claims to respectability by having sacrificed those of\nindependence. He is a retainer to the Muses; a door-keeper to learning;\na lacquey in the state. He believes that modern literature should wear\nthe fetters of classical antiquity; that truth is to be weighed in the\nscales of opinion and prejudice; that power is equivalent to right; that\ngenius is dependent on rules; that taste and refinement of language\nconsist in _word-catching_. Many persons suppose that Mr. Gifford knows\nbetter than he pretends; and that he is shrewd, artful, and designing.\nBut perhaps it may be nearer the mark to suppose that his dulness is\nguarantee for his sincerity; or that before he is the tool of the\nprofligacy of others, he is the dupe of his own jaundiced feelings, and\nnarrow, hood-winked perceptions.\n\n                \u2018Destroy his fib or sophistry: in vain\u2014\n                The creature\u2019s at his dirty work again!\u2019\n\nBut this is less from choice or perversity, than because he cannot help\nit and can do nothing else. He damns a beautiful expression less out of\nspite than because he really does not understand it: any novelty of\nthought or sentiment gives him a shock from which he cannot recover for\nsome time, and he naturally takes his revenge for the alarm and\nuneasiness occasioned him, without referring to venal or party motives.\nHe garbles an author\u2019s meaning, not so much wilfully, as because it is a\npain to him to enlarge his microscopic view to take in the context, when\na particular sentence or passage has struck him as quaint and out of the\nway: he fly-blows an author\u2019s style, and picks out detached words and\nphrases for cynical reprobation, simply because he feels himself at\nhome, or takes a pride and pleasure in this sort of petty warfare. He is\ntetchy and impatient of contradiction; sore with wounded pride; angry at\nobvious faults, more angry at unforeseen beauties. He has the\n_chalk-stones_ in his understanding, and from being used to long\nconfinement, cannot bear the slightest jostling or irregularity of\nmotion. He may call out with the fellow in the _Tempest_\u2014\u2018I am not\nStephano, but a cramp!\u2019 He would go back to the standard of opinions,\nstyle, the faded ornaments, and insipid formalities that came into\nfashion about forty years ago. Flashes of thought, flights of fancy,\nidiomatic expressions, he sets down among the signs of the times\u2014the\nextraordinary occurrences of the age we live in. They are marks of a\nrestless and revolutionary spirit: they disturb his composure of mind,\nand threaten (by implication) the safety of the state. His slow,\nsnail-paced, bed-rid habits of reasoning, cannot keep up with the\nwhirling, eccentric motion, the rapid, perhaps extravagant combinations\nof modern literature. He has long been stationary himself, and is\ndetermined that others shall remain so. The hazarding a paradox is like\nletting off a pistol close to his ear: he is alarmed and offended. The\nusing an elliptical mode of expression (such as he did not use to find\nin Guides to the English Tongue) jars him like coming suddenly to a step\nin a flight of stairs that you were not aware of. He _pishes_ and\n_pshaws_ at all this, exercises a sort of interjectional criticism on\nwhat excites his spleen, his envy, or his wonder, and hurls his meagre\nanathemas _ex cathedr\u00e2_ at all those writers who are indifferent alike\nto his precepts and his example!\n\nMr. Gifford, in short, is possessed of that sort of learning which is\nlikely to result from an over-anxious desire to supply the want of the\nfirst rudiments of education; that sort of wit, which is the offspring\nof ill-humour or bodily pain; that sort of sense, which arises from a\nspirit of contradiction and a disposition to cavil at and dispute the\nopinions of others; and that sort of reputation, which is the\nconsequence of bowing to established authority and ministerial\ninfluence. He dedicates to some great man, and receives his compliments\nin return. He appeals to some great name, and the Under-graduates of the\ntwo Universities look up to him as an oracle of wisdom. He throws the\nweight of his verbal criticism and puny discoveries in _black-letter_\nreading into the gap, that is supposed to be making in the Constitution\nby Whigs and Radicals, whom he qualifies without mercy as dunces and\nmiscreants; and so entitles himself to the protection of Church and\nState. The character of his mind is an utter want of independence and\nmagnanimity in all that he attempts. He cannot go alone, he must have\ncrutches, a go-cart and trammels, or he is timid, fretful, and helpless\nas a child. He cannot conceive of any thing different from what he finds\nit, and hates those who pretend to a greater reach of intellect or\nboldness of spirit than himself. He inclines, by a natural and\ndeliberate bias, to the traditional in laws and government; to the\northodox in religion; to the safe in opinion; to the trite in\nimagination; to the technical in style; to whatever implies a surrender\nof individual judgment into the hands of authority, and a subjection of\nindividual feeling to mechanic rules. If he finds any one flying in the\nface of these, or straggling from the beaten path, he thinks he has them\nat a notable disadvantage, and falls foul of them without loss of time,\npartly to soothe his own sense of mortified self-consequence, and as an\nedifying spectacle to his legitimate friends. He takes none but unfair\nadvantages. He _twits_ his adversaries (that is, those who are not in\nthe leading-strings of his school or party) with some personal or\naccidental defect. If a writer has been punished for a political libel,\nhe is sure to hear of it in a literary criticism. If a lady goes on\ncrutches and is out of favour at court, she is reminded of it in Mr.\nGifford\u2019s manly satire. He sneers at people of low birth or who have not\nhad a college education, partly to hide his own want of certain\nadvantages, partly as well-timed flattery to those who possess them. He\nhas a right to laugh at poor, unfriended, untitled genius from wearing\nthe livery of rank and letters, as footmen behind a coronet-coach laugh\nat the rabble. He keeps good company, and forgets himself. He stands at\nthe door of Mr. Murray\u2019s shop, and will not let any body pass but the\nwell-dressed mob, or some followers of the court. To edge into the\n_Quarterly_ Temple of Fame the candidate must have a diploma from the\nUniversities, a passport from the Treasury. Otherwise, it is a breach of\netiquette to let him pass, an insult to the better sort who aspire to\nthe love of letters\u2014and may chance to drop in to the _Feast of the\nPoets_. Or, if he cannot manage it thus, or get rid of the claim on the\nbare ground of poverty or want of school-learning, he _trumps_ up an\nexcuse for the occasion, such as that \u2018a man was confined in Newgate a\nshort time before\u2019\u2014it is not a _lie_ on the part of the critic, it is\nonly an amiable subserviency to the will of his betters, like that of a\nmenial who is ordered to deny his master, a sense of propriety, a\nknowledge of the world, a poetical and moral license. Such fellows (such\nis his cue from his employers) should at any rate be kept out of\nprivileged places: persons who have been convicted of prose-libels ought\nnot to be suffered to write poetry\u2014if the fact was not exactly as it was\nstated, it was something of the kind, or it _ought_ to have been so, the\nassertion was a pious fraud,\u2014the public, the court, the prince himself\nmight read the work, but for this mark of opprobrium set upon it\u2014it was\nnot to be endured that an insolent plebeian should aspire to elegance,\ntaste, fancy\u2014it was throwing down the barriers which ought to separate\nthe higher and the lower classes, the loyal and the disloyal\u2014the\nparaphrase of the story of Dante was therefore to perform quarantine, it\nwas to seem not yet recovered from the gaol infection, there was to be a\ntaint upon it, as there was none in it\u2014and all this was performed by a\nsingle slip of Mr. Gifford\u2019s pen! We would willingly believe (if we\ncould) that in this case there was as much weakness and prejudice as\nthere was malice and cunning.\u2014Again, we do not think it possible that\nunder any circumstances the writer of the _Verses to Anna_ could enter\ninto the spirit or delicacy of Mr. Keats\u2019s poetry. The fate of the\nlatter somewhat resembled that of\n\n                        \u2018a bud bit by an envious worm,\n            Ere it could spread its sweet leaves to the air,\n            Or dedicate its beauty to the sun.\u2019\n\nMr. Keats\u2019s ostensible crime was that he had been praised in the\n_Examiner Newspaper_: a greater and more unpardonable offence probably\nwas, that he was a true poet, with all the errors and beauties of\nyouthful genius to answer for. Mr. Gifford was as insensible to the one\nas he was inexorable to the other. Let the reader judge from the two\nsubjoined specimens how far the one writer could ever, without a\npresumption equalled only by a want of self-knowledge, set himself in\njudgment on the other.\n\n          \u2018Out went the taper as she hurried in;\n          Its little smoke in pallid moonshine died:\n          She closed the door, she panted, all akin\n          To spirits of the air and visions wide:\n          No utter\u2019d syllable, or woe betide!\n          But to her heart, her heart was voluble,\n          Paining with eloquence her balmy side;\n          As though a tongueless nightingale should swell\n      Her heart in vain, and die, heart-stifled, in her dell.\n\n          \u2018A casement high and triple-arch\u2019d there was,\n          All garlanded with carven imag\u2019ries\n          Of fruits, and flowers, and bunches of knot-grass,\n          And diamonded with panes of quaint device,\n          Innumerable of stains and splendid dyes,\n          As are the tiger-moth\u2019s deep-damask\u2019d wings;\n          And in the midst, \u2019mong thousand heraldries,\n          And twilight saints and dim emblazonings,\n      A shielded scutcheon blush\u2019d with blood of queens and kings.\n\n          \u2018Full on this casement shone the wintry moon,\n          And threw warm gules on Madeline\u2019s fair breast,\n          As down she knelt for Heaven\u2019s grace and boon;\n          Rose-bloom fell on her hands, together prest,\n          And on her silver cross soft amethyst,\n          And on her hair a glory, like a saint:\n          She seem\u2019d a splendid angel, newly drest,\n          Save wings, for heaven:\u2014Porphyro grew faint:\n      She knelt, so pure a thing, so free from mortal taint.\n\n         \u2018Anon his heart revives: her vespers done,\n         Of all its wreathed pearls her hair she frees;\n          Unclasps her warmed jewels one by one;\n          Loosens her fragrant boddice; by degrees\n          Her rich attire creeps rustling to her knees:\n          Half-hidden, like a mermaid in sea-weed,\n          Pensive awhile she dreams awake, and sees,\n          In fancy, fair St. Agnes in her bed,\n      But dares not look behind, or all the charm is fled.\n\n          \u2018Soon trembling in her soft and chilly nest,\n          In sort of wakeful swoon, perplex\u2019d she lay,\n          Until the poppied warmth of sleep oppress\u2019d\n          Her soothed limbs, and soul fatigued away\n          Flown, like a thought, until the morrow-day:\n          Blissfully haven\u2019d both from joy and pain;\n          Clasp\u2019d like a missal where swart Paynims pray;\n          Blinded alike from sunshine and from rain,\n      As though a rose should shut, and be a bud again.\u2019\n                                            EVE OF ST. AGNES.\n\nWith the rich beauties and the dim obscurities of lines like these, let\nus contrast the Verses addressed _To a Tuft of early Violets_ by the\nfastidious author of the Baviad and M\u00e6viad.\u2014\n\n            \u2018Sweet flowers! that from your humble beds\n              Thus prematurely dare to rise,\n            And trust your unprotected heads\n              To cold Aquarius\u2019 watery skies.\n\n            \u2018Retire, retire! _These_ tepid airs\n              Are not the genial brood of May;\n            _That_ sun with light malignant glares,\n              And flatters only to betray.\n\n            \u2018Stern Winter\u2019s reign is not yet past\u2014\n              Lo! while your buds prepare to blow,\n            On icy pinions comes the blast,\n              And nips your root, and lays you low.\n\n            \u2018Alas, for such ungentle doom!\n              But I will shield you; and supply\n            A kindlier soil on which to bloom,\n              A nobler bed on which to die.\n\n            \u2018Come then\u2014\u2018ere yet the morning ray\n              Has drunk the dew that gems your crest,\n            And drawn your balmiest sweets away;\n              O come and grace my Anna\u2019s breast.\n\n            \u2018Ye droop, fond flowers! But did ye know\n              What worth, what goodness there reside,\n            Your cups with liveliest tints would glow;\n              And spread their leaves with conscious pride.\n\n            \u2018For there has liberal Nature joined\n              Her riches to the stores of Art,\n            And added to the vigorous mind\n              The soft, the sympathising heart.\n\n            \u2018Come then\u2014\u2018ere yet the morning ray\n              Has drunk the dew that gems your crest,\n            And drawn your balmiest sweets away;\n              O come and grace my Anna\u2019s breast.\n\n            \u2018O! I should think\u2014_that fragrant bed\n              Might I but hope with you to share_\u2014[54]\n            Years of anxiety repaid\n              By one short hour of transport there.\n\n            \u2018More blest than me, thus shall ye live\n              Your little day; and when ye die,\n            Sweet flowers! the grateful Muse shall give\n              A verse; the sorrowing maid, a sigh.\n\n            \u2018While I alas! no distant date,\n              Mix with the dust from whence I came,\n            Without a friend to weep my fate,\n              Without a stone to tell my name.\u2019\n\nWe subjoin one more specimen of these \u2018wild strains\u2019[55] said to be\n\u2018_Written two years after the preceding_.\u2019 ECCE ITERUM CRISPINUS.\n\n             \u2018I wish I was where Anna lies;\n               For I am sick of lingering here,\n             And every hour Affection cries,\n               Go, and partake her humble bier.\n\n             \u2018I wish I could! for when she died\n               I lost my all; and life has prov\u2019d\n             Since that sad hour a dreary void,\n               A waste unlovely and unlov\u2019d.\n\n             \u2018But who, when I am turned to clay,\n               Shall duly to her grave repair,\n             And pluck the ragged moss away,\n               And weeds that have \u201cno business there?\u201d\n\n             \u2018And who, with pious hand, shall bring\n               The flowers she cherish\u2019d, snow-drops cold,\n             And violets that unheeded spring,\n               To scatter o\u2019er her hallowed mould?\n\n             \u2018And who, while Memory loves to dwell\n               Upon her name for ever dear,\n             Shall feel his heart with passions swell,\n               And pour the bitter, bitter tear?\n\n             \u2018I DID IT; and would fate allow,\n               Should visit still, should still deplore\u2014\n             But health and strength have left me now,\n               But I, alas! can weep no more.\n\n             \u2018Take then, sweet maid! this simple strain,\n               The last I offer at thy shrine;\n             Thy grave must then undeck\u2019d remain,\n               And all thy memory fade with mine.\n\n             \u2018And can thy soft persuasive look,\n               That voice that might with music vie,\n             Thy air that every gazer took,\n               Thy matchless eloquence of eye,\n\n             \u2018Thy spirits, frolicsome as good,\n               Thy courage, by no ills dismay\u2019d,\n             Thy patience, by no wrongs subdued,\n               Thy gay good-humour\u2014can they \u201cfade?\u201d\n\n             \u2018Perhaps\u2014but sorrow dims my eye:\n               Cold turf, which I no more must view,\n             Dear name, which I no more must sigh,\n               A long, a last, a sad adieu!\u2019\n\nIt may be said in extenuation of the low, mechanic vein of these\nimpoverished lines, that they were written at an early age\u2014they were the\ninspired production of a youthful lover! Mr. Gifford was thirty when he\nwrote them, Mr. Keats died when he was scarce twenty! Farther it may be\nsaid, that Mr. Gifford hazarded his first poetical attempts under all\nthe disadvantages of a neglected education: but the same circumstance,\ntogether with a few unpruned redundancies of fancy and quaintnesses of\nexpression, was made the plea on which Mr. Keats was hooted out of the\nworld, and his fine talents and wounded sensibilities consigned to an\nearly grave. In short, the treatment of this heedless candidate for\npoetical fame might serve as a warning, and was intended to serve as a\nwarning to all unfledged tyros, how they venture upon any such doubtful\nexperiments, except under the auspices of some lord of the bedchamber or\nGovernment Aristarchus, and how they imprudently associate themselves\nwith men of mere popular talent or independence of feeling!\u2014It is the\nsame in prose works. The Editor scorns to enter the lists of argument\nwith any proscribed writer of the opposite party. He does not refute,\nbut denounces him. He makes no concessions to an adversary, lest they\nshould in some way be turned against him. He only feels himself safe in\nthe fancied insignificance of others: he only feels himself superior to\nthose whom he stigmatizes as the lowest of mankind. All persons are\nwithout common-sense and honesty who do not believe implicitly (with\nhim) in the immaculateness of Ministers and the divine origin of Kings.\nThus he informed the world that the author of TABLE-TALK was a person\nwho could not write a sentence of common English and could hardly spell\nhis own name, because he was not a friend to the restoration of the\nBourbons, and had the assurance to write _Characters of Shakespear\u2019s\nPlays_ in a style of criticism somewhat different from Mr. Gifford\u2019s. He\ncharged this writer with imposing on the public by a flowery style; and\nwhen the latter ventured to refer to a work of his, called _An Essay on\nthe Principles of Human Action_, which has not a single ornament in it,\nas a specimen of his original studies and the proper bias of his mind,\nthe learned critic, with a shrug of great self-satisfaction, said, \u2018It\nwas amusing to see this person, sitting like one of Brouwer\u2019s Dutch\nboors over his gin and tobacco-pipes, and fancying himself a Leibnitz!\u2019\nThe question was, whether the subject of Mr. Gifford\u2019s censure had ever\nwritten such a work or not; for if he had, he had amused himself with\nsomething besides gin and tobacco-pipes. But our Editor, by virtue of\nthe situation he holds, is superior to facts or arguments: he is\naccountable neither to the public nor to authors for what he says of\nthem, but owes it to his employers to prejudice the work and vilify the\nwriter, if the latter is not avowedly ready to range himself on the\nstronger side.\u2014The _Quarterly Review_, besides the political _tirades_\nand denunciations of suspected writers, intended for the guidance of the\nheads of families, is filled up with accounts of books of Voyages and\nTravels for the amusement of the younger branches. The poetical\ndepartment is almost a sinecure, consisting of mere summary decisions\nand a list of quotations. Mr. Croker is understood to contribute the St.\nHelena articles and the liberality, Mr. Canning the practical good\nsense, Mr. D\u2019Israeli the good-nature, Mr. Jacob the modesty, Mr. Southey\nthe consistency, and the Editor himself the chivalrous spirit and the\nattacks on Lady Morgan. It is a double crime, and excites a double\nportion of spleen in the Editor, when female writers are not advocates\nof passive obedience and non-resistance. This Journal, then, is a\ndepository for every species of political sophistry and personal\ncalumny. There is no abuse or corruption that does not there find a\njesuitical palliation or a barefaced vindication. There we meet the\nslime of hypocrisy, the varnish of courts, the cant of pedantry, the\ncobwebs of the law, the iron hand of power. Its object is as mischievous\nas the means by which it is pursued are odious. The intention is to\npoison the sources of public opinion and of individual fame\u2014to pervert\nliterature, from being the natural ally of freedom and humanity, into an\nengine of priestcraft and despotism, and to undermine the spirit of the\nEnglish constitution and the independence of the English character. The\nEditor and his friends systematically explode every principle of\nliberty, laugh patriotism and public spirit to scorn, resent every\npretence to integrity as a piece of singularity or insolence, and strike\nat the root of all free inquiry or discussion, by running down every\nwriter as a vile scribbler and a bad member of society, who is not a\nhireling and a slave. No means are stuck at in accomplishing this\nlaudable end. Strong in patronage, they trample on truth, justice, and\ndecency. They claim the privilege of court-favourites. They keep as\nlittle faith with the public, as with their opponents. No statement in\nthe _Quarterly Review_ is to be trusted: there is no fact that is not\nmisrepresented in it, no quotation that is not garbled, no character\nthat is not slandered, if it can answer the purposes of a party to do\nso. The weight of power, of wealth, of rank is thrown into the scale,\ngives its impulse to the machine; and the whole is under the guidance of\nMr. Gifford\u2019s instinctive genius\u2014of the inborn hatred of servility for\nindependence, of dulness for talent, of cunning and impudence for truth\nand honesty. It costs him no effort to execute his disreputable task\u2014in\nbeing the tool of a crooked policy, he but labours in his natural\nvocation. He patches up a rotten system as he would supply the chasms in\na worm-eaten manuscript, from a grovelling incapacity to do any thing\nbetter; thinks that if a single iota in the claims of prerogative and\npower were lost, the whole fabric of society would fall upon his head\nand crush him; and calculates that his best chance for literary\nreputation is by _black-balling_ one half of the competitors as Jacobins\nand levellers, and securing the suffrages of the other half in his\nfavour as a loyal subject and trusty partisan!\n\nMr. Gifford, as a satirist, is violent and abrupt. He takes obvious or\nphysical defects, and dwells upon them with much labour and harshness of\ninvective, but with very little wit or spirit. He expresses a great deal\nof anger and contempt, but you cannot tell very well why\u2014except that he\nseems to be sore and out of humour. His satire is mere peevishness and\nspleen, or something worse\u2014personal antipathy and rancour. We are in\nquite as much pain for the writer, as for the object of his resentment.\nHis address to Peter Pindar is laughable from its outrageousness. He\ndenounces him as a wretch hateful to God and man, for some of the most\nharmless and amusing trifles that ever were written\u2014and the very\ngood-humour and pleasantry of which, we suspect, constituted their\noffence in the eyes of this Drawcansir.\u2014His attacks on Mrs. Robinson\nwere unmanly, and even those on Mr. Merry and the Della-Cruscan School\n_were_ much more ferocious than the occasion warranted. A little\naffectation and quaintness of style did not merit such severity of\ncastigation.[56] As a translator, Mr. Gifford\u2019s version of the Roman\nsatirist is the baldest, and, in parts, the most offensive of all\nothers. We do not know why he attempted it, unless he had got it in his\nhead that he should thus follow in the steps of Dryden, as he had\nalready done in those of Pope in the Baviad and M\u00e6viad. As an editor of\nold authors, Mr. Gifford is entitled to considerable praise for the\npains he has taken in revising the text, and for some improvements he\nhas introduced into it. He had better have spared the notes, in which,\nthough he has detected the blunders of previous commentators, he has\nexposed his own ill-temper and narrowness of feeling more. As a critic,\nhe has thrown no light on the character and spirit of his authors. He\nhas shown no striking power of analysis nor of original illustration,\nthough he has chosen to exercise his pen on writers most congenial to\nhis own turn of mind, from their dry and caustic vein; Massinger, and\nBen Jonson. What he will make of Marlowe, it is difficult to guess. He\nhas none of \u2018the fiery quality\u2019 of the poet. Mr. Gifford does not take\nfor his motto on these occasions\u2014_Spiritus precipitandus est!_\u2014His most\nsuccessful efforts in this way are barely respectable. In general, his\nobservations are petty, ill-concocted, and discover as little _tact_, as\nthey do a habit of connected reasoning. Thus, for instance, in\nattempting to add the name of Massinger to the list of Catholic poets,\nour minute critic insists on the profusion of crucifixes, glories,\nangelic visions, garlands of roses, and clouds of incense scattered\nthrough the _Virgin-Martyr_, as evidence of the theological sentiments\nmeant to be inculcated by the play, when the least reflection might have\ntaught him, that they proved nothing but the author\u2019s poetical\nconception of the character and _costume_ of his subject. A writer\nmight, with the same sinister, short-sighted shrewdness, be accused of\nHeathenism for talking of Flora and Ceres in a poem on the Seasons! What\nare produced as the exclusive badges and occult proofs of Catholic\nbigotry, are nothing but the adventitious ornaments and external\nsymbols, the gross and sensible language, in a word, the _poetry_ of\nChristianity in general. What indeed shows the frivolousness of the\nwhole inference is that Deckar, who is asserted by our critic to have\ncontributed some of the most passionate and fantastic of these\ndevotional scenes, is not even suspected of a leaning to Popery. In like\nmanner, he excuses Massinger for the grossness of one of his plots (that\nof the _Unnatural Combat_) by saying that it was supposed to take place\nbefore the Christian era; by this shallow common-place persuading\nhimself, or fancying he could persuade others, that the crime in\nquestion (which yet on the very face of the story is made the ground of\na tragic catastrophe) was first made _statutory_ by the Christian\nreligion.\n\nThe foregoing is a harsh criticism, and may be thought illiberal. But as\nMr. Gifford assumes a right to say what he pleases of others\u2014they may be\nallowed to speak the truth of him!\n\n\n\n\n                              MR. JEFFREY\n\n\nThe _Quarterly Review_ arose out of the _Edinburgh_, not as a corollary,\nbut in contradiction to it. An article had appeared in the latter on Don\nPedro Cevallos, which stung the Tories to the quick by the free way in\nwhich it spoke of men and things, and something must be done to check\nthese _escapades_ of the _Edinburgh_. It was not to be endured that the\ntruth should out in this manner, even occasionally and half in jest. A\nstartling shock was thus given to established prejudices, the mask was\ntaken off from grave hypocrisy, and the most serious consequences were\nto be apprehended. The persons who wrote in this Review seemed \u2018to have\ntheir hands full of truths,\u2019 and now and then, in a fit of spleen or\ngaiety, let some of them fly; and while this practice continued, it was\nimpossible to say that the Monarchy or the Hierarchy was safe. Some of\nthe arrows glanced, others might stick, and in the end prove fatal. It\nwas not the principles of the _Edinburgh Review_, but the spirit that\nwas looked at with jealousy and alarm. The principles were by no means\ndecidedly hostile to existing institutions: but the spirit was that of\nfair and free discussion; a field was open to argument and wit; every\nquestion was tried upon its own ostensible merits, and there was no foul\nplay. The tone was that of a studied impartiality (which many called\n_trimming_) or of a sceptical indifference. This tone of impartiality\nand indifference, however, did not at all suit those who profited or\nexisted by abuses, who breathed the very air of corruption. They know\nwell enough that \u2018those who are not _for_ them are _against_ them.\u2019 They\nwanted a publication impervious alike to truth and candour; that,\nhood-winked itself, should lead public opinion blindfold; that should\nstick at nothing to serve the turn of a party; that should be the\nexclusive organ of prejudice, the sordid tool of power; that should go\nthe whole length of want of principle in palliating every dishonest\nmeasure, of want of decency in defaming every honest man; that should\nprejudge every question, traduce every opponent; that should give no\nquarter to fair inquiry or liberal sentiment; that should be \u2018ugly all\nover with hypocrisy,\u2019 and present one foul blotch of servility,\nintolerance, falsehood, spite, and ill manners. The _Quarterly Review_\nwas accordingly set up.\n\n              \u2018Sithence no fairy lights, no quickning ray,\n              Nor stir of pulse, nor object to entice\n              Abroad the spirits; but the cloister\u2019d heart\n              Sits squat at home, like Pagod in a niche\n              Obscure!\u2019\n\nThis event was accordingly hailed (and the omen has been fulfilled!) as\na great relief to all those of his Majesty\u2019s subjects who are firmly\nconvinced that the only way to have things remain exactly as they are is\nto put a stop to all inquiries whether they are right or wrong, and that\nif you cannot answer a man\u2019s arguments, you may at least try to take\naway his character.\n\nWe do not implicitly bow to the political opinions, nor to the critical\ndecisions of the _Edinburgh Review_; but we must do justice to the\ntalent with which they are supported, and to the tone of manly\nexplicitness in which they are delivered.[57] They are eminently\ncharacteristic of the Spirit of the Age; as it is the express object of\nthe _Quarterly Review_ to discountenance and extinguish that spirit,\nboth in theory and practice. The _Edinburgh Review_ stands upon the\nground of opinion; it asserts the supremacy of intellect: the\npre-eminence it claims is from an acknowledged superiority of talent and\ninformation and literary attainment, and it does not build one tittle of\nits influence on ignorance, or prejudice, or authority, or personal\nmalevolence. It takes up a question, and argues it _pro_ and _con_ with\ngreat knowledge and boldness and skill; it points out an absurdity, and\nruns it down, fairly, and according to the evidence adduced. In the\nformer case, its conclusions may be wrong, there may be a bias in the\nmind of the writer, but he states the arguments and circumstances on\nboth sides, from which a judgment is to be formed\u2014it is not his cue, he\nhas neither the effrontery nor the meanness to falsify facts or to\nsuppress objections. In the latter case, or where a vein of sarcasm or\nirony is resorted to, the ridicule is not barbed by some allusion (false\nor true) to private history; the object of it has brought the infliction\non himself by some literary folly or political delinquency which is\nreferred to as the understood and justifiable provocation, instead of\nbeing held up to scorn as a knave for not being a tool, or as a\nblockhead for thinking for himself. In the _Edinburgh Review_ the\ntalents of those on the opposite side are always extolled _pleno ore_\u2014in\nthe _Quarterly Review_ they are denied altogether, and the justice that\nis in this way withheld from them is compensated by a proportionable\nsupply of personal abuse. A man of genius who is a lord, and who\npublishes with Mr. Murray, may now and then stand as good a chance as a\nlord who is not a man of genius and who publishes with Messrs. Longman:\nbut that it the utmost extent of the impartiality of the _Quarterly_.\nFrom its account you would take Lord Byron and Mr. Stuart Rose for two\nvery pretty poets; but Mr. Moore\u2019s Magdalen Muse is sent to Bridewell\nwithout mercy, to beat hemp in silk-stockings. In the _Quarterly_\nnothing is regarded but the political creed or external circumstances of\na writer; in the _Edinburgh_ nothing is ever adverted to but his\nliterary merits. Or if there is a bias of any kind, it arises from an\naffectation of magnanimity and candour in giving heaped measure to those\non the aristocratic side in politics, and in being critically severe on\nothers. Thus Sir Walter Scott is lauded to the skies for his romantic\npowers, without any allusion to his political demerits (as if this would\nbe compromising the dignity of genius and of criticism by the\nintroduction of party-spirit)\u2014while Lord Byron is called to a grave\nmoral reckoning. There is, however, little of the cant of morality in\nthe _Edinburgh Review_\u2014and it is quite free from that of religion. It\nkeeps to its province, which is that of criticism\u2014or to the discussion\nof debateable topics, and acquits itself in both with force and spirit.\nThis is the natural consequence of the composition of the two Reviews.\nThe one appeals with confidence to its own intellectual resources, to\nthe variety of its topics, to its very character and existence as a\nliterary journal, which depend on its setting up no pretensions but\nthose which it can make good by the talent and ingenuity it can bring to\nbear upon them\u2014it therefore meets every question, whether of a lighter\nor a graver cast, on its own grounds; the other _blinks_ every question,\nfor it has no confidence but in the _powers that be_\u2014shuts itself up in\nthe impregnable fastnesses of authority, or makes some paltry cowardly\nattack (under cover of anonymous criticism) on individuals, or dispenses\nits award of merit entirely according to the rank or party of the\nwriter. The faults of the _Edinburgh Review_ arise out of the very\nconsciousness of critical and logical power. In political questions it\nrelies too little on the broad basis of liberty and humanity, enters too\nmuch into mere dry formalities, deals too often in _moot-points_, and\ndescends too readily to a sort of special-pleading in defence of _home_\ntruths and natural feelings: in matters of taste and criticism, its tone\nis sometimes apt to be supercilious and _cavalier_ from its habitual\nfaculty of analysing defects and beauties according to given principles,\nfrom its quickness in deciding, from its facility in illustrating its\nviews. In this latter department it has been guilty of some capital\noversights. The chief was in its treatment of the _Lyrical Ballads_ at\ntheir first appearance\u2014not in its ridicule of their puerilities, but in\nits denial of their beauties, because they were included in no school,\nbecause they were reducible to no previous standard or theory of\npoetical excellence. For this, however, considerable reparation has been\nmade by the prompt and liberal spirit that has been shown in bringing\nforward other examples of poetical genius. Its capital sin, in a\ndoctrinal point of view, has been (we shrewdly suspect) in the uniform\nand unqualified encouragement it has bestowed on Mr. Malthus\u2019s system.\nWe do not mean that the _Edinburgh Review_ was to join in the general\n_hue and cry_ that was raised against this writer; but while it asserted\nthe soundness of many of his arguments, and yielded its assent to the\ntruths he has divulged, it need not have screened his errors. On this\nsubject alone we think the _Quarterly_ has the advantage of it. But as\nthe _Quarterly Review_ is a mere mass and tissue of prejudices on all\nsubjects, it is the foible of the _Edinburgh Review_ to affect a\nsomewhat fastidious air of superiority over prejudices of all kinds, and\na determination not to indulge in any of the amiable weaknesses of our\nnature, except as it can give a reason for the faith that is in it.\nLuckily, it is seldom reduced to this alternative: \u2018reasons\u2019 are with it\n\u2018as plenty as blackberries!\u2019\n\nMr. Jeffrey is the Editor of the _Edinburgh Review_, and is understood\nto have contributed nearly a fourth part of the articles from its\ncommencement. No man is better qualified for this situation; nor indeed\nso much so. He is certainly a person in advance of the age, and yet\nperfectly fitted both from knowledge and habits of mind to put a curb\nupon its rash and headlong spirit. He is thoroughly acquainted with the\nprogress and pretensions of modern literature and philosophy; and to\nthis he adds the natural acuteness and discrimination of the logician\nwith the habitual caution and coolness of his profession. If the\n_Edinburgh Review_ may be considered as the organ of or at all pledged\nto a party, that party is at least a respectable one, and is placed in\nthe middle between two extremes. The Editor is bound to lend a patient\nhearing to the most paradoxical opinions and extravagant theories which\nhave resulted in our times from the \u2018infinite agitation of wit,\u2019 but he\nis disposed to qualify them by a number of practical objections, of\nspeculative doubts, of checks and drawbacks, arising out of actual\ncircumstances and prevailing opinions, or the frailties of human nature.\nHe has a great range of knowledge, an incessant activity of mind; but\nthe suspension of his judgment, the well-balanced moderation of his\nsentiments, is the consequence of the very discursiveness of his reason.\nWhat may be considered as a _common-place_ conclusion is often the\nresult of a comprehensive view of all the circumstances of a case.\nParadox, violence, nay even originality of conception is not seldom\nowing to our dwelling long and pertinaciously on some one part of a\nsubject, instead of attending to the whole. Mr. Jeffrey is neither a\nbigot nor an enthusiast. He is not the dupe of the prejudices of others,\nnor of his own. He is not wedded to any dogma, he is not long the sport\nof any whim; before he can settle in any fond or fantastic opinion,\nanother starts up to match it, like beads on sparkling wine. A too\nrestless display of talent, a too undisguised statement of all that can\nbe said for and against a question, is perhaps the great fault that is\nto be attributed to him. Where there is so much power and prejudice to\ncontend with in the opposite scale, it may be thought that the balance\nof truth can hardly be held with a slack or an even hand; and that the\ninfusion of a little more visionary speculation, of a little more\npopular indignation into the great Whig Review would be an advantage\nboth to itself and to the cause of freedom. Much of this effect is\nchargeable less on an Epicurean levity of feeling or on party-trammels,\nthan on real sanguineness of disposition, and a certain fineness of\nprofessional tact. Our sprightly Scotchman is not of a desponding and\ngloomy turn of mind. He argues well for the future hopes of mankind from\nthe smallest beginnings, watches the slow, gradual, reluctant growth of\nliberal views, and smiling sees the aloe of Reform blossom at the end of\na hundred years; while the habitual subtlety of his mind makes him\nperceive decided advantages where vulgar ignorance or passion sees only\ndoubts and difficulty; and a flaw in an adversary\u2019s argument stands him\ninstead of the shout of a mob, the votes of a majority, or the fate of a\npitched battle. The Editor is satisfied with his own conclusions, and\ndoes not make himself uneasy about the fate of mankind. The issue, he\nthinks, will verify his moderate and well-founded expectations.\u2014We\nbelieve also that late events have given a more decided turn to Mr.\nJeffrey\u2019s mind, and that he feels that as in the struggle between\nliberty and slavery, the views of the one party have been laid bare with\ntheir success, so the exertions on the other side should become more\nstrenuous, and a more positive stand be made against the avowed and\nappalling encroachments of priestcraft and arbitrary power.\n\nThe characteristics of Mr. Jeffrey\u2019s general style as a writer\ncorrespond, we think, with what we have here stated as the\ncharacteristics of his mind. He is a master of the foils; he makes an\nexulting display of the dazzling fence of wit and argument. His strength\nconsists in great range of knowledge, an equal familiarity with the\nprinciples and the details of a subject, and in a glancing brilliancy\nand rapidity of style. Indeed, we doubt whether the brilliancy of his\nmanner does not resolve itself into the rapidity, the variety and\naptness of his illustrations. His pen is never at a loss, never stands\nstill; and would dazzle for this reason alone, like an eye that is ever\nin motion. Mr. Jeffrey is far from a flowery or affected writer; he has\nfew tropes or figures, still less any odd startling thoughts or quaint\ninnovations in expression:\u2014but he has a constant supply of ingenious\nsolutions and pertinent examples; he never proses, never grows dull,\nnever wears an argument to tatters; and by the number, the liveliness\nand facility of his transitions, keeps up that appearance of vivacity,\nof novel and sparkling effect, for which others are too often indebted\nto singularity of combination or tinsel ornaments.\n\nIt may be discovered, by a nice observer, that Mr. Jeffrey\u2019s style of\ncomposition is that of a person accustomed to public speaking. There is\nno pause, no meagreness, no inanimateness, but a flow, a redundance and\nvolubility like that of a stream or of a rolling-stone. The language is\nmore copious than select, and sometimes two or three words perform the\noffice of one. This copiousness and facility is perhaps an advantage in\n_extempore_ speaking, where no stop or break is allowed in the\ndiscourse, and where any word or any number of words almost is better\nthan coming to a dead stand; but in written compositions it gives an air\nof either too much carelessness or too much labour. Mr. Jeffrey\u2019s\nexcellence, as a public speaker, has betrayed him into this peculiarity.\nHe makes fewer _blots_ in addressing an audience than any one we\nremember to have heard. There is not a hair\u2019s-breadth space between any\ntwo of his words, nor is there a single expression either ill-chosen or\nout of its place. He speaks without stopping to take breath, with ease,\nwith point, with elegance, and without \u2018spinning the thread of his\nverbosity finer than the staple of his argument.\u2019 He may be said to\nweave words into any shapes he pleases for use or ornament, as the\nglass-blower moulds the vitreous fluid with his breath; and his\nsentences shine like glass from their polished smoothness, and are\nequally transparent. His style of eloquence, indeed, is remarkable for\nneatness, for correctness, and epigrammatic point; and he has applied\nthis as a standard to his written compositions, where the very same\ndegree of correctness and precision produces, from the contrast between\nwriting and speaking, an agreeable diffuseness, freedom and animation.\nWhenever the Scotch advocate has appeared at the bar of the English\nHouse of Lords, he has been admired by those who were in the habit of\nattending to speeches there, as having the greatest fluency of language\nand the greatest subtlety of distinction of any one of the profession.\nThe law-reporters were as little able to follow him from the extreme\nrapidity of his utterance as from the tenuity and evanescent nature of\nhis reasoning.\n\nMr. Jeffrey\u2019s conversation is equally lively, various, and instructive.\nThere is no subject on which he is not _au fait_: no company in which he\nis not ready to scatter his pearls for sport. Whether it be politics, or\npoetry, or science, or anecdote, or wit, or raillery, he takes up his\ncue without effort, without preparation, and appears equally incapable\nof tiring himself or his hearers. His only difficulty seems to be, not\nto speak, but to be silent. There is a constitutional buoyancy and\nelasticity of mind about him that cannot subside into repose, much less\nsink into dulness. There may be more original talkers, persons who\noccasionally surprise or interest you more; few, if any, with a more\nuninterrupted flow of cheerfulness and animal spirits, with a greater\nfund of information, and with fewer specimens of the _bathos_ in their\nconversation. He is never absurd, nor has he any favourite points which\nhe is always bringing forward. It cannot be denied that there is\nsomething bordering on petulance of manner, but it is of that least\noffensive kind which may be accounted for from merit and from success,\nand implies no exclusive pretensions nor the least particle of ill-will\nto others. On the contrary, Mr. Jeffrey is profuse of his encomiums and\nadmiration of others, but still with a certain reservation of a right to\ndiffer or to blame. He cannot rest on one side of a question: he is\nobliged by a mercurial habit and disposition to vary his point of view.\nIf he is ever tedious, it is from an excess of liveliness: he oppresses\nfrom a sense of airy lightness. He is always setting out on a fresh\nscent: there are always _relays_ of topics; the harness is put to, and\nhe rattles away as delightfully and as briskly as ever. New causes are\ncalled; he holds a brief in his hand for every possible question. This\nis a fault. Mr. Jeffrey is not obtrusive, is not impatient of\nopposition, is not unwilling to be interrupted; but what is said by\nanother, seems to make no impression on him; he is bound to dispute, to\nanswer it, as if he was in Court, or as if it were in a paltry Debating\nSociety, where young beginners were trying their hands. This is not to\nmaintain a character, or for want of good-nature\u2014it is a thoughtless\nhabit. He cannot help cross-examining a witness, or stating the adverse\nview of the question. He listens not to judge, but to reply. In\nconsequence of this, you can as little tell the impression your\nobservations make on him as what weight to assign to his. Mr. Jeffrey\nshines in mixed company; he is not good in a _t\u00eate-\u00e0-t\u00eate_. You can only\nshow your wisdom or your wit in general society: but in private your\nfollies or your weaknesses are not the least interesting topics; and our\ncritic has neither any of his own to confess, nor does he take delight\nin hearing those of others. Indeed in Scotland generally, the display of\npersonal character, the indulging your whims and humours in the presence\nof a friend, is not much encouraged\u2014every one there is looked upon in\nthe light of a machine or a collection of topics. They turn you round\nlike a cylinder to see what use they can make of you, and drag you into\na dispute with as little ceremony as they would drag out an article from\nan Encyclopedia. They criticise every thing, analyse every thing, argue\nupon every thing, dogmatise upon every thing; and the bundle of your\nhabits, feelings, humours, follies and pursuits is regarded by them no\nmore than a bundle of old clothes. They stop you in a sentiment by a\nquestion or a stare, and cut you short in a narrative by the time of\nnight. The accomplished and ingenious person of whom we speak, has been\na little infected by the tone of his countrymen\u2014he is too didactic, too\npugnacious, too full of electrical shocks, too much like a voltaic\nbattery, and reposes too little on his own excellent good sense, his own\nlove of ease, his cordial frankness of temper and unaffected candour. He\nought to have belonged to us!\n\nThe severest of critics (as he has been sometimes termed) is the\nbest-natured of men. Whatever there may be of wavering or indecision in\nMr. Jeffrey\u2019s reasoning, or of harshness in his critical decisions, in\nhis disposition there is nothing but simplicity and kindness. He is a\nperson that no one knows without esteeming, and who both in his public\nconnections and private friendships, shows the same manly uprightness\nand unbiassed independence of spirit. At a distance, in his writings, or\neven in his manner, there may be something to excite a little uneasiness\nand apprehension: in his conduct there is nothing to except against. He\nis a person of strict integrity himself, without pretence or\naffectation; and knows how to respect this quality in others, without\nprudery or intolerance. He can censure a friend or a stranger, and serve\nhim effectually at the same time. He expresses his disapprobation, but\nnot as an excuse for closing up the avenues of his liberality. He is a\nScotchman without one particle of hypocrisy, of cant, of servility, or\nselfishness in his composition. He has not been spoiled by fortune\u2014has\nnot been tempted by power\u2014is firm without violence, friendly without\nweakness\u2014a critic and even-tempered, a casuist and an honest man\u2014and\namidst the toils of his profession and the distractions of the world,\nretains the gaiety, the unpretending carelessness and simplicity of\nyouth. Mr. Jeffrey in his person is slight, with a countenance of much\nexpression, and a voice of great flexibility and acuteness of tone.\n\n\n\n\n                      MR. BROUGHAM\u2014SIR F. BURDETT\n\n\nThere is a class of eloquence which has been described and particularly\ninsisted on, under the style and title of _Irish Eloquence_: there is\nanother class which it is not absolutely unfair to oppose to this, and\nthat is the Scotch. The first of these is entirely the offspring of\n_impulse_: the last of _mechanism_. The one is as full of fancy as it is\nbare of facts: the other excludes all fancy, and is weighed down with\nfacts. The one is all fire, the other all ice: the one nothing but\nenthusiasm, extravagance, eccentricity; the other nothing but logical\ndeductions, and the most approved postulates. The one without scruple,\nnay, with reckless zeal, throws the reins loose on the neck of the\nimagination: the other pulls up with a curb-bridle, and starts at every\ncasual object it meets in the way as a bugbear. The genius of Irish\noratory stands forth in the naked majesty of untutored nature, its eye\nglancing wildly round on all objects, its tongue darting forked fire:\nthe genius of Scottish eloquence is armed in all the panoply of the\nschools; its drawling, ambiguous dialect seconds its circumspect\ndialectics; from behind the vizor that guards its mouth and shadows its\npent-up brows, it sees no visions but its own set purpose, its own\n_data_, and its own dogmas. It \u2018has no figures, nor no fantasies,\u2019 but\n\u2018those which busy care draws in the brains of men,\u2019 or which set off its\nown superior acquirements and wisdom. It scorns to \u2018tread the primrose\npath of dalliance\u2019\u2014it shrinks back from it as from a precipice, and\nkeeps in the iron rail-way of the understanding. Irish oratory, on the\ncontrary, is a sort of a\u00ebronaut: it is always going up in a balloon, and\nbreaking its neck, or coming down in the parachute. It is filled full\nwith gaseous matter, with whim and fancy, with alliteration and\nantithesis, with heated passion and bloated metaphors, that burst the\nslender silken covering of sense; and the airy pageant, that glittered\nin empty space and rose in all the bliss of ignorance, flutters and\nsinks down to its native bogs! If the Irish orator riots in a studied\nneglect of his subject and a natural confusion of ideas, playing with\nwords, ranging them into all sorts of fantastic combinations, because in\nthe unlettered void or chaos of his mind there is no obstacle to their\ncoalescing into any shapes they please, it must be confessed that the\neloquence of the Scotch is encumbered with an excess of knowledge, that\nit cannot get on for a crowd of difficulties, that it staggers under a\nload of topics, that it is so environed in the forms of logic and\nrhetoric as to be equally precluded from originality or absurdity, from\nbeauty or deformity:\u2014the plea of humanity is lost by going through the\nprocess of law, the firm and manly tone of principle is exchanged for\nthe wavering and pitiful cant of policy, the living bursts of passion\nare reduced to a defunct _common-place_, and all true imagination is\nburied under the dust and rubbish of learned models and imposing\nauthorities. If the one is a bodiless phantom, the other is a lifeless\nskeleton: if the one in its feverish and hectic extravagance resembles a\nsick man\u2019s dream, the other is akin to the sleep of death\u2014cold, stiff,\nunfeeling, monumental! Upon the whole, we despair less of the first than\nof the last, for the principle of life and motion is, after all, the\nprimary condition of all genius. The luxuriant wildness of the one may\nbe disciplined, and its excesses sobered down into reason; but the dry\nand rigid formality of the other can never burst the shell or husk of\noratory. It is true that the one is disfigured by the puerilities and\naffectation of a Phillips; but then it is redeemed by the manly sense\nand fervour of a Plunket, the impassioned appeals and flashes of wit of\na Curran, and by the golden tide of wisdom, eloquence, and fancy, that\nflowed from the lips of a Burke. In the other, we do not sink so low in\nthe negative series; but we get no higher in the ascending scale than a\nMackintosh or a Brougham.[58] It may be suggested that the late Lord\nErskine enjoyed a higher reputation as an orator than either of these:\nbut he owed it to a dashing and graceful manner, to presence of mind,\nand to great animation in delivering his sentiments. Stripped of these\noutward and personal advantages, the matter of his speeches, like that\nof his writings, is nothing, or perfectly inert and dead.\n\nMr. Brougham is from the North of England, but he was educated in\nEdinburgh, and represents that school of politics and political economy\nin the House. He differs from Sir James Mackintosh in this, that he\ndeals less in abstract principles, and more in individual details. He\nmakes less use of general topics, and more of immediate facts. Sir James\nis better acquainted with the balance of an argument in old authors; Mr.\nBrougham with the balance of power in Europe. If the first is better\nversed in the progress of history, no man excels the last in a knowledge\nof the course of exchange. He is apprised of the exact state of our\nexports and imports, and scarce a ship clears out its cargo at Liverpool\nor Hull, but he has notice of the bill of lading. Our colonial policy,\nprison-discipline, the state of the Hulks, agricultural distress,\ncommerce and manufactures, the Bullion question, the Catholic question,\nthe Bourbons or the Inquisition, \u2018domestic treason, foreign levy,\u2019\nnothing can come amiss to him\u2014he is at home in the crooked mazes of\nrotten boroughs, is not baffled by Scotch law, and can follow the\nmeaning of one of Mr. Canning\u2019s speeches. With so many resources, with\nsuch variety and solidity of information, Mr. Brougham is rather a\npowerful and alarming, than an effectual debater. In so many details\n(which he himself goes through with unwearied and unshrinking\nresolution) the spirit of the question is lost to others who have not\nthe same voluntary power of attention or the same interest in hearing\nthat he has in speaking; the original impulse that urged him forward is\nforgotten in so wide a field, in so interminable a career. If he can,\nothers _cannot_ carry all he knows in their heads at the same time; a\nrope of circumstantial evidence does not hold well together, nor drag\nthe unwilling mind along with it (the willing mind hurries on before it,\nand grows impatient and absent)\u2014he moves in an unmanageable procession\nof facts and proofs, instead of coming to the point at once\u2014and his\npremises (so anxious is he to proceed on sure and ample grounds) overlay\nand block up his conclusion, so that you cannot arrive at it, or not\ntill the first fury and shock of the onset is over. The ball, from the\ntoo great width of the _calibre_ from which it is sent, and from\nstriking against such a number of hard, projecting points, is almost\nspent before it reaches its destination. He keeps a ledger or a\ndebtor-and-creditor account between the Government and the Country,\nposts so much actual crime, corruption, and injustice against so much\ncontingent advantage or sluggish prejudice, and at the bottom of the\npage brings in the balance of indignation and contempt, where it is due.\nBut people are not to be _calculated into_ contempt or indignation on\nabstract grounds; for however they may submit to this process where\ntheir own interests are concerned, in what regards the public good we\nbelieve they must see and feel instinctively, or not at all. There is\n(it is to be lamented) a good deal of froth as well as strength in the\npopular spirit, which will not admit of being _decanted_ or served out\nin formal driblets; nor will spleen (the soul of Opposition) bear to be\ncorked up in square patent bottles, and kept for future use! In a word,\nMr. Brougham\u2019s is ticketed and labelled eloquence, registered and in\nnumeros (like the successive parts of a Scotch Encyclopedia)\u2014it is\nclever, knowing, imposing, masterly, an extraordinary display of\nclearness of head, of quickness and energy of thought, of application\nand industry; but it is not the eloquence of the imagination or the\nheart, and will never save a nation or an individual from perdition.\n\nMr. Brougham has one considerable advantage in debate: he is overcome by\nno false modesty, no deference to others. But then, by a natural\nconsequence or parity of reasoning, he has little sympathy with other\npeople, and is liable to be mistaken in the effect his arguments will\nhave upon them. He relies too much, among other things, on the patience\nof his hearers, and on his ability to turn every thing to his own\nadvantage. He accordingly goes to the full length of _his tether_ (in\nvulgar phrase) and often overshoots the mark. _C\u2019est dommage._ He has no\nreserve of discretion, no retentiveness of mind or check upon himself.\nHe needs, with so much wit,\n\n                     \u2018As much again to govern it.\u2019\n\nHe cannot keep a good thing or a shrewd piece of information in his\npossession, though the letting it out should mar a cause. It is not that\nhe thinks too much of himself, too little of his cause: but he is\nabsorbed in the pursuit of truth as an abstract inquiry, he is led away\nby the headstrong and overmastering activity of his own mind. He is\nborne along, almost involuntarily, and not impossibly against his better\njudgment, by the throng and restlessness of his ideas as by a crowd of\npeople in motion. His perceptions are literal, tenacious,\n_epileptic_\u2014his understanding voracious of facts, and equally\ncommunicative of them\u2014and he proceeds to\n\n               \u2018\u2014\u2014Pour out all as plain\n               As downright Shippen or as old Montaigne\u2019\u2014\n\nwithout either the virulence of the one or the _bonhommie_ of the other.\nThe repeated, smart, unforeseen discharges of the truth jar those that\nare next him. He does not dislike this state of irritation and\ncollision, indulges his curiosity or his triumph, till by calling for\nmore facts or hazarding some extreme inference, he urges a question to\nthe verge of a precipice, his adversaries urge it _over_, and he himself\nshrinks back from the consequence\u2014\n\n                \u2018Scared at the sound himself has made!\u2019\n\nMr. Brougham has great fearlessness, but not equal firmness; and after\ngoing too far on the _forlorn hope_, turns short round without due\nwarning to others or respect for himself. He is adventurous, but easily\npanic-struck; and sacrifices the vanity of self-opinion to the necessity\nof self-preservation. He is too improvident for a leader, too petulant\nfor a partisan; and does not sufficiently consult those with whom he is\nsupposed to act in concert. He sometimes leaves them in the lurch, and\nis sometimes left in the lurch by them. He wants the principle of\nco-operation. He frequently, in a fit of thoughtless levity, gives an\nunexpected turn to the political machine, which alarms older and more\nexperienced heads: if he was not himself the first to get out of harm\u2019s\nway and escape from the danger, it would be well!\u2014We hold, indeed, as a\ngeneral rule, that no man born or bred in Scotland can be a great\norator, unless he is a mere quack; or a great statesman, unless he turns\nplain knave. The national gravity is against the first: the national\ncaution is against the last. To a Scotchman if a thing _is_, _it is_;\nthere is an end of the question with his opinion about it. He is\npositive and abrupt, and is not in the habit of conciliating the\nfeelings or soothing the follies of others. His only way therefore to\nproduce a popular effect is to sail with the stream of prejudice, and to\nvent common dogmas, \u2018the total grist, unsifted, husks and all,\u2019 from\nsome evangelical pulpit. This may answer, and it has answered. On the\nother hand, if a Scotchman, born or bred, comes to think at all of the\nfeelings of others, it is not as they regard them, but as their opinion\nreacts on his own interest and safety. He is therefore either\npragmatical and offensive, or if he tries to please, he becomes cowardly\nand fawning. His public spirit wants pliancy; his selfish compliances go\nall lengths. He is as impracticable as a popular partisan, as he is\nmischievous as a tool of Government. We do not wish to press this\nargument farther, and must leave it involved in some degree of\nobscurity, rather than bring the armed intellect of a whole nation on\nour heads.\n\nMr. Brougham speaks in a loud and unmitigated tone of voice, sometimes\nalmost approaching to a scream. He is fluent, rapid, vehement, full of\nhis subject, with evidently a great deal to say, and very regardless of\nthe manner of saying it. As a lawyer, he has not hitherto been\nremarkably successful. He is not profound in cases and reports, nor does\nhe take much interest in the peculiar features of a particular cause, or\nshow much adroitness in the management of it. He carries too much weight\nof metal for ordinary and petty occasions: he must have a pretty large\nquestion to discuss, and must make _thorough-stitch_ work of it. He,\nhowever, had an encounter with Mr. Phillips the other day, and shook all\nhis tender blossoms, so that they fell to the ground, and withered in an\nhour; but they soon bloomed again! Mr. Brougham writes almost, if not\nquite, as well as he speaks. In the midst of an Election contest he\ncomes out to address the populace, and goes back to his study to finish\nan article for the Edinburgh Review; sometimes indeed wedging three or\nfour articles (in the shape of _refaccimentos_ of his own pamphlets or\nspeeches in parliament) into a single number. Such indeed is the\nactivity of his mind that it appears to require neither repose, nor any\nother stimulus than a delight in its own exercise. He can turn his hand\nto any thing, but he cannot be idle. There are few intellectual\naccomplishments which he does not possess, and possess in a very high\ndegree. He speaks French (and, we believe, several other modern\nlanguages) fluently: is a capital mathematician, and obtained an\nintroduction to the celebrated Carnot in this latter character, when the\nconversation turned on squaring the circle, and not on the propriety of\nconfining France within the natural boundary of the Rhine. Mr. Brougham\nis, in fact, a striking instance of the versatility and strength of the\nhuman mind, and also in one sense of the length of human life, if we\nmake a good use of our time. There is room enough to crowd almost every\nart and science into it. If we pass \u2018no day without a line,\u2019 visit no\nplace without the company of a book, we may with ease fill libraries or\nempty them of their contents. Those who complain of the shortness of\nlife, let it slide by them without wishing to seize and make the most of\nits golden minutes. The more we do, the more we can do; the more busy we\nare, the more leisure we have. If any one possesses any advantage in a\nconsiderable degree, he may make himself master of nearly as many more\nas he pleases, by employing his spare time and cultivating the waste\nfaculties of his mind. While one person is determining on the choice of\na profession or study, another shall have made a fortune or gained a\nmerited reputation. While one person is dreaming over the meaning of a\nword, another will have learnt several languages. It is not incapacity,\nbut indolence, indecision, want of imagination, and a proneness to a\nsort of mental tautology, to repeat the same images and tread the same\ncircle, that leaves us so poor, so dull, and inert as we are, so naked\nof acquirement, so barren of resources! While we are walking backwards\nand forwards between Charing-Cross and Temple-Bar, and sitting in the\nsame coffee-house every day, we might make the grand tour of Europe, and\nvisit the Vatican and the Louvre. Mr. Brougham, among other means of\nstrengthening and enlarging his views, has visited, we believe, most of\nthe courts, and turned his attention to most of the Constitutions of the\ncontinent. He is, no doubt, a very accomplished, active-minded, and\nadmirable person.\n\nSir Francis Burdett, in many respects, affords a contrast to the\nforegoing character. He is a plain, unaffected, unsophisticated English\ngentleman. He is a person of great reading too and considerable\ninformation, but he makes very little display of these, unless it be to\nquote Shakespear, which he does often with extreme aptness and felicity.\nSir Francis is one of the most pleasing speakers in the House, and is a\nprodigious favourite of the English people. So he ought to be: for he is\none of the few remaining examples of the old English understanding and\nold English character. All that he pretends to is common sense and\ncommon honesty; and a greater compliment cannot be paid to these than\nthe attention with which he is listened to in the House of Commons. We\ncannot conceive a higher proof of courage than the saying things which\nhe has been known to say there; and we have seen him blush and appear\nashamed of the truths he has been obliged to utter, like a bashful\nnovice. He could not have uttered what he often did there, if, besides\nhis general respectability, he had not been a very honest, a very\ngood-tempered, and a very good-looking man. But there was evidently no\nwish to shine, nor any desire to offend: it was painful to him to hurt\nthe feelings of those who heard him, but it was a higher duty in him not\nto suppress his sincere and earnest convictions. It is wonderful how\nmuch virtue and plain-dealing a man may be guilty of with impunity, if\nhe has no vanity, or ill-nature, or duplicity to provoke the contempt or\nresentment of others, and to make them impatient of the superiority he\nsets up over them. We do not recollect that Sir Francis ever endeavoured\nto atone for any occasional indiscretions or intemperance by giving the\nDuke of York credit for the battle of Waterloo, or congratulating\nMinisters on the confinement of Buonaparte at St. Helena. There is no\nhonest cause which he dares not avow: no oppressed individual that he is\nnot forward to succour. He has the firmness of manhood with the\nunimpaired enthusiasm of youthful feeling about him. His principles are\nmellowed and improved, without having become less sound with time: for\nat one period he sometimes appeared to come charged to the House with\nthe petulance and caustic sententiousness he had imbibed at Wimbledon\nCommon. He is never violent or in extremes, except when the people or\nthe parliament happen to be out of their senses; and then he seems to\nregret the necessity of plainly telling them he thinks so, instead of\npluming himself upon it or exulting over impending calamities. There is\nonly one error he seems to labour under (which, we believe, he also\nborrowed from Mr. Horne Tooke or Major Cartwright), the wanting to go\nback to the early times of our Constitution and history in search of the\nprinciples of law and liberty. He might as well\n\n                \u2018Hunt half a day for a forgotten dream.\u2019\n\nLiberty, in our opinion, is but a modern invention (the growth of books\nand printing)\u2014and whether new or old, is not the less desirable. A man\nmay be a patriot, without being an antiquary. This is the only point on\nwhich Sir Francis is at all inclined to a tincture of pedantry. In\ngeneral, his love of liberty is pure, as it is warm and steady: his\nhumanity is unconstrained and free. His heart does not ask leave of his\nhead to feel; nor does prudence always keep a guard upon his tongue or\nhis pen. No man writes a better letter to his Constituents than the\nMember for Westminster; and his compositions of that kind ought to be\ngood, for they have occasionally cost him dear. He is the idol of the\npeople of Westminster: few persons have a greater number of friends and\nwell-wishers; and he has still greater reason to be proud of his\nenemies, for his integrity and independence have made them so. Sir\nFrancis Burdett has often been left in a Minority in the House of\nCommons, with only one or two on his side. We suspect, unfortunately for\nhis country, that History will be found to enter its protest on the same\nside of the question!\n\n\n\n\n                     LORD ELDON AND MR. WILBERFORCE\n\n\nLord Eldon is an exceedingly good-natured man; but this does not prevent\nhim, like other good-natured people, from consulting his own ease or\ninterest. The character of _good-nature_, as it is called, has been a\ngood deal mistaken; and the present Chancellor is not a bad illustration\nof the grounds of the prevailing error. When we happen to see an\nindividual whose countenance is \u2018all tranquillity and smiles;\u2019 who is\nfull of good-humour and pleasantry; whose manners are gentle and\nconciliating; who is uniformly temperate in his expressions, and\npunctual and just in his every-day dealings; we are apt to conclude from\nso fair an outside, that\n\n                  \u2018All is conscience and tender heart\u2019\n\nwithin also, and that such a one would not hurt a fly. And neither would\nhe without a motive. But mere good-nature (or what passes in the world\nfor such) is often no better than indolent selfishness. A person\ndistinguished and praised for this quality will not needlessly offend\nothers, because they may retaliate; and besides, it ruffles his own\ntemper. He likes to enjoy a perfect calm, and to live in an interchange\nof kind offices. He suffers few things to irritate or annoy him. He has\na fine oiliness in his disposition, which smooths the waves of passion\nas they rise. He does not enter into the quarrels or enmities of others;\nbears their calamities with patience; he listens to the din and clang of\nwar, the earthquake and the hurricane of the political and moral world\nwith the temper and spirit of a philosopher; no act of injustice puts\nhim beside himself, the follies and absurdities of mankind never give\nhim a moment\u2019s uneasiness, he has none of the ordinary causes of\nfretfulness or chagrin that torment others from the undue interest they\ntake in the conduct of their neighbours or in the public good. None of\nthese idle or frivolous sources of discontent, that make such havoc with\nthe peace of human life, ever discompose his features or alter the\nserenity of his pulse. If a nation is robbed of its rights,\n\n              \u2018If wretches hang that Ministers may dine,\u2019\u2014\n\nthe laughing jest still collects in his eye, the cordial squeeze of the\nhand is still the same. But tread on the toe of one of these amiable and\nimperturbable mortals, or let a lump of soot fall down the chimney and\nspoil their dinners, and see how they will bear it. All their patience\nis confined to the accidents that befal others: all their good-humour is\nto be resolved into giving themselves no concern about any thing but\ntheir own ease and self-indulgence. Their charity begins and ends at\nhome. Their being free from the common infirmities of temper is owing to\ntheir indifference to the common feelings of humanity; and if you touch\nthe sore place, they betray more resentment, and break out (like spoiled\nchildren) into greater fractiousness than others, partly from a greater\ndegree of selfishness, and partly because they are taken by surprise,\nand mad to think they have not guarded every point against annoyance or\nattack, by a habit of callous insensibility and pampered indolence.\n\nAn instance of what we mean occurred but the other day. An allusion was\nmade in the House of Commons to something in the proceedings in the\nCourt of Chancery, and the Lord Chancellor comes to his place in the\nCourt, with the statement in his hand, fire in his eyes, and a direct\ncharge of falsehood in his mouth, without knowing any thing certain of\nthe matter, without making any inquiry into it, without using any\nprecaution or putting the least restraint upon himself, and all on no\nbetter authority than a common newspaper report. The thing was (not that\nwe are imputing any strong blame in this case, we merely bring it as an\nillustration) it touched himself, his office, the inviolability of his\njurisdiction, the unexceptionableness of his proceedings, and the wet\nblanket of the Chancellor\u2019s temper instantly took fire like tinder! All\nthe fine balancing was at an end; all the doubts, all the delicacy, all\nthe candour real or affected, all the chances that there might be a\nmistake in the report, all the decencies to be observed towards a Member\nof the House, are overlooked by the blindness of passion, and the wary\nJudge pounces upon the paragraph without mercy, without a moment\u2019s\ndelay, or the smallest attention to forms! This was indeed serious\nbusiness, there was to be no trifling here; every instant was an age\ntill the Chancellor had discharged his sense of indignation on the head\nof the indiscreet interloper on his authority. Had it been another\nperson\u2019s case, another person\u2019s dignity that had been compromised,\nanother person\u2019s conduct that had been called in question, who doubts\nbut that the matter might have stood over till the next term, that the\nNoble Lord would have taken the Newspaper home in his pocket, that he\nwould have compared it carefully with other newspapers, that he would\nhave written in the most mild and gentlemanly terms to the Honourable\nMember to inquire into the truth of the statement, that he would have\nwatched a convenient opportunity good-humouredly to ask other Honourable\nMembers what all this was about, that the greatest caution and fairness\nwould have been observed, and that to this hour the lawyers\u2019 clerks and\nthe junior counsel would have been in the greatest admiration of the\nChancellor\u2019s nicety of discrimination, and the utter inefficacy of the\nheats, importunities, haste, and passions of others to influence his\njudgment? This would have been true; yet his readiness to decide and to\ncondemn where he himself is concerned, shows that passion is not dead in\nhim, nor subject to the control of reason; but that self-love is the\nmainspring that moves it, though on all beyond that limit he looks with\nthe most perfect calmness and philosophic indifference.\n\n                \u2018Resistless passion sways us to the mood\n                Of what it likes or loaths.\u2019\n\nAll people are passionate in what concerns themselves, or in what they\ntake an interest in. The range of this last is different in different\npersons; but the want of passion is but another name for the want of\nsympathy and imagination.\n\nThe Lord Chancellor\u2019s impartiality and conscientious exactness are\nproverbial; and is, we believe, as inflexible as it is delicate in all\ncases that occur in the stated routine of legal practice. The\nimpatience, the irritation, the hopes, the fears, the confident tone of\nthe applicants move him not a jot from his intended course, he looks at\ntheir claims with the \u2018lack lustre eye\u2019 of professional indifference.\nPower and influence apart, his next strongest passion is to indulge in\nthe exercise of professional learning and skill, to amuse himself with\nthe dry details and intricate windings of the law of equity. He delights\nto balance a straw, to see a feather turn the scale, or make it even\nagain; and divides and subdivides a scruple to the smallest fraction. He\nunravels the web of argument and pieces it together again; folds it up\nand lays it aside, that he may examine it more at his leisure. He hugs\nindecision to his breast, and takes home a modest doubt or a nice point\nto solace himself with it in protracted, luxurious dalliance. Delay\nseems, in his mind, to be of the very essence of justice. He no more\nhurries through a question than if no one was waiting for the result,\nand he was merely a _dilettanti_, fanciful judge, who played at my Lord\nChancellor, and busied himself with quibbles and punctilios as an idle\nhobby and harmless illusion. The phlegm of the Chancellor\u2019s disposition\ngives one almost a surfeit of impartiality and candour: we are sick of\nthe eternal poise of childish dilatoriness; and would wish law and\njustice to be decided at once by a cast of the dice (as they were in\nRabelais) rather than be kept in frivolous and tormenting suspense. But\nthere is a limit even to this extreme refinement and scrupulousness of\nthe Chancellor. The understanding acts only in the absence of the\npassions. At the approach of the loadstone, the needle trembles, and\npoints to it. The air of a political question has a wonderful tendency\nto brace and quicken the learned Lord\u2019s faculties. The breath of a court\nspeedily oversets a thousand objections, and scatters the cobwebs of his\nbrain. The secret wish of power is a thumping _make-weight_, where all\nis so nicely balanced beforehand. In the case of a celebrated beauty and\nheiress, and the brother of a Noble Lord, the Chancellor hesitated long,\nand went through the forms, as usual: but who ever doubted, where all\nthis indecision would end? No man in his senses, for a single instant!\nWe shall not press this point, which is rather a ticklish one. Some\npersons thought that from entertaining a fellow-feeling on the subject,\nthe Chancellor would have been ready to favour the Poet-Laureate\u2019s\napplication to the Court of Chancery for an injunction against Wat\nTyler. His Lordship\u2019s sentiments on such points are not so variable, he\nhas too much at stake. He recollected the year 1794, though Mr. Southey\nhad forgotten it!\u2014\n\nThe personal always prevails over the intellectual, where the latter is\nnot backed by strong feeling and principle. Where remote and speculative\nobjects do not excite a predominant interest and passion, gross and\nimmediate ones are sure to carry the day, even in ingenuous and\nwell-disposed minds. The will yields necessarily to some motive or\nother; and where the public good or distant consequences excite no\nsympathy in the breast, either from shortsightedness or an easiness of\ntemperament that shrinks from any violent effort or painful emotion,\nself-interest, indolence, the opinion of others, a desire to please, the\nsense of personal obligation, come in and fill up the void of public\nspirit, patriotism, and humanity. The best men in the world in their own\nnatural dispositions or in private life (for this reason) often become\nthe most dangerous public characters, from their pliancy to the unruly\npassions of others, and from their having no set-off in strong moral\n_stamina_ to the temptations that are held out to them, if, as is\nfrequently the case, they are men of versatile talent or patient\nindustry.\u2014Lord Eldon has one of the best-natured faces in the world; it\nis pleasant to meet him in the street, plodding along with an umbrella\nunder his arm, without one trace of pride, of spleen, or discontent in\nhis whole demeanour, void of offence, with almost rustic simplicity and\nhonesty of appearance\u2014a man that makes friends at first sight, and could\nhardly make enemies, if he would; and whose only fault is that he cannot\nsay _Nay_ to power, or subject himself to an unkind word or look from a\nKing or a Minister. He is a thorough-bred Tory. Others boggle or are at\nfault in their career, or give back at a pinch, they split into\ndifferent factions, have various objects to distract them, their private\nfriendships or antipathies stand in their way; but he has never\nflinched, never gone back, never missed his way, he is an\n_out-and-outer_ in this respect, his allegiance has been without flaw,\nlike \u2018one entire and perfect chrysolite,\u2019 his implicit understanding is\na kind of taffeta-lining to the Crown, his servility has assumed an air\nof the most determined independence, and he has\n\n                \u2018Read his history in a Prince\u2019s eyes!\u2019\u2014\n\nThere has been no stretch of power attempted in his time that he has not\nseconded: no existing abuse, so odious or so absurd, that he has not\nsanctioned it. He has gone the whole length of the most unpopular\ndesigns of Ministers. When the heavy artillery of interest, power, and\nprejudice is brought into the field, the paper pellets of the brain go\nfor nothing: his labyrinth of nice, lady-like doubts explodes like a\nmine of gunpowder. The Chancellor may weigh and palter\u2014the courtier is\ndecided, the politician is firm, and rivetted to his place in the\nCabinet! On all the great questions that have divided party opinion or\nagitated the public mind, the Chancellor has been found uniformly and\nwithout a single exception on the side of prerogative and power, and\nagainst every proposal for the advancement of freedom. He was a\nstrenuous supporter of the wars and coalitions against the principles of\nliberty abroad; he has been equally zealous in urging or defending every\nact and infringement of the Constitution, for abridging it at home: he\nat the same time opposes every amelioration of the penal laws, on the\nalleged ground of his abhorrence of even the shadow of innovation: he\nhas studiously set his face against Catholic emancipation; he laboured\nhard in his vocation to prevent the abolition of the Slave Trade; he was\nAttorney-General in the trials for High Treason in 1794; and the other\nday in giving his opinion on the Queen\u2019s Trial, shed tears and protested\nhis innocence before God! This was natural and to be expected; but on\nall occasions he is to be found at his post, true to the call of\nprejudice, of power, to the will of others and to his own interest. In\nthe whole of his public career, and with all the goodness of his\ndisposition, he has not shown \u2018so small a drop of pity as a wren\u2019s eye.\u2019\nHe seems to be on his guard against every thing liberal and humane as\nhis weak side. Others relax in their obsequiousness either from satiety\nor disgust, or a hankering after popularity, or a wish to be thought\nabove narrow prejudices. The Lord Chancellor alone is fixed and\nimmovable. Is it want of understanding or of principle? No\u2014it is want of\nimagination, a phlegmatic habit, an excess of false complaisance and\ngood-nature. He signs a warrant in Council, devoting ten thousand men to\nan untimely death, with steady nerves\u2014Is it that he is cruel and\nunfeeling? No!\u2014but he thinks neither of their sufferings nor their\ncries; he sees only the gracious smile, the ready hand stretched out to\nthank him for his compliance with the dictates of rooted hate. He dooms\na Continent to slavery. Is it that he is a tyrant, or an enemy to the\nhuman race? No!\u2014but he cannot find in his heart to resist the commands\nor to give pain to a kind and generous benefactor. Common sense and\njustice are little better than vague terms to him: he acts upon his\nimmediate feelings and least irksome impulses. The King\u2019s hand is velvet\nto the touch\u2014the Woolsack is a seat of honour and profit! That is all he\nknows about the matter. As to abstract metaphysical calculations, the ox\nthat stands staring at the corner of the street troubles his head as\nmuch about them as he does: yet this last is a very good sort of animal\nwith no harm or malice in him, unless he is goaded on to mischief, and\nthen it is necessary to keep out of his way, or warn others against him!\n\nMr. Wilberforce is a less perfect character in his way. He acts from\nmixed motives. He would willingly serve two masters, God and Mammon. He\nis a person of many excellent and admirable qualifications, but he has\nmade a mistake in wishing to reconcile those that are incompatible. He\nhas a most winning eloquence, specious, persuasive, familiar,\nsilver-tongued, is amiable, charitable, conscientious, pious, loyal,\nhumane, tractable to power, accessible to popularity, honouring the\nking, and no less charmed with the homage of his fellow-citizens. \u2018What\nlacks he then?\u2019 Nothing but an economy of good parts. By aiming at too\nmuch, he has spoiled all, and neutralised what might have been an\nestimable character, distinguished by signal services to mankind. A man\nmust take his choice not only between virtue and vice, but between\ndifferent virtues. Otherwise, he will not gain his own approbation, or\nsecure the respect of others. The graces and accomplishments of private\nlife mar the man of business and the statesman. There is a severity, a\nsternness, a self-denial, and a painful sense of duty required in the\none, which ill-befits the softness and sweetness which should\ncharacterise the other. Loyalty, patriotism, friendship, humanity, are\nall virtues; but may they not sometimes clash? By being unwilling to\nforego the praise due to any, we may forfeit the reputation of all; and,\ninstead of uniting the suffrages of the whole world in our favour, we\nmay end in becoming a sort of by-word for affectation, cant, hollow\nprofessions, trimming, fickleness, and effeminate imbecility. It is best\nto choose and act up to some one leading character, as it is best to\nhave some settled profession or regular pursuit in life.\n\nWe can readily believe that Mr. Wilberforce\u2019s first object and principle\nof action is to do what he thinks right: his next (and that we fear is\nof almost equal weight with the first) is to do what will be thought so\nby other people. He is always at a game of _hawk and buzzard_ between\nthese two: his \u2018conscience will not budge,\u2019 unless the world goes with\nit. He does not seem greatly to dread the denunciation in Scripture, but\nrather to court it\u2014\u2018Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you!\u2019\nWe suspect he is not quite easy in his mind, because West-India planters\nand Guinea traders do not join in his praise. His ears are not strongly\nenough tuned to drink in the execrations of the spoiler and the\noppressor as the sweetest music. It is not enough that one-half of the\nhuman species (the images of God carved in ebony, as old Fuller calls\nthem) shout his name as a champion and a saviour through vast burning\nzones, and moisten their parched lips with the gush of gratitude for\ndeliverance from chains\u2014he must have a Prime-Minister drink his health\nat a Cabinet-dinner for aiding to rivet on those of his country and of\nEurope! He goes hand and heart along with Government in all their\nnotions of legitimacy and political aggrandizement, in the hope that\nthey will leave him a sort of _no-man\u2019s ground_ of humanity in the Great\nDesert, where his reputation for benevolence and public spirit may\nspring up and flourish, till its head touches the clouds, and it\nstretches out its branches to the farthest part of the earth. He has no\nmercy on those who claim a property in negro-slaves as so much\nlive-stock on their estates; the country rings with the applause of his\nwit, his eloquence, and his indignant appeals to common sense and\nhumanity on this subject\u2014but not a word has he to say, not a whisper\ndoes he breathe against the claim set up by the Despots of the Earth\nover their Continental subjects, but does every thing in his power to\nconfirm and sanction it! He must give no offence. Mr. Wilberforce\u2019s\nhumanity will go all lengths that it can with safety and discretion: but\nit is not to be supposed that it should lose him his seat for Yorkshire,\nthe smile of Majesty, or the countenance of the loyal and pious. He is\nanxious to do all the good he can without hurting himself or his fair\nfame. His conscience and his character compound matters very amicably.\nHe rather patronises honesty than is a martyr to it. His patriotism, his\nphilanthropy are not so ill-bred, as to quarrel with his loyalty or to\nbanish him from the first circles. He preaches vital Christianity to\nuntutored savages; and tolerates its worst abuses in civilized states.\nHe thus shows his respect for religion without offending the clergy, or\ncircumscribing the sphere of his usefulness. There is in all this an\nappearance of a good deal of cant and tricking. His patriotism may be\naccused of being servile; his humanity ostentatious; his loyalty\nconditional; his religion a mixture of fashion and fanaticism. \u2018Out upon\nsuch half-faced fellowship!\u2019 Mr. Wilberforce has the pride of being\nfamiliar with the great; the vanity of being popular; the conceit of an\napproving conscience. He is coy in his approaches to power: his public\nspirit is, in a manner, _under the rose_. He thus reaps the credit of\nindependence, without the obloquy; and secures the advantages of\nservility, without incurring any obligations. He has two strings to his\nbow:\u2014he by no means neglects his worldly interests, while he expects a\nbright reversion in the skies. Mr. Wilberforce is far from being a\nhypocrite; but he is, we think, as fine a specimen of _moral\nequivocation_ as can well be conceived. A hypocrite is one who is the\nvery reverse of, or who despises the character he pretends to be: Mr.\nWilberforce would be all that he pretends to be, and he is it in fact,\nas far as words, plausible theories, good inclinations, and easy\nservices go, but not in heart and soul, or so as to give up the\nappearance of any one of his pretensions to preserve the reality of any\nother. He carefully chooses his ground to fight the battles of loyalty,\nreligion, and humanity, and it is such as is always safe and\nadvantageous to himself! This is perhaps hardly fair, and it is of\ndangerous or doubtful tendency. Lord Eldon, for instance, is known to be\na thorough-paced ministerialist: his opinion is only that of his party.\nBut Mr. Wilberforce is not a party-man. He is the more looked up to on\nthis account, but not with sufficient reason. By tampering with\ndifferent temptations and personal projects, he has all the air of the\nmost perfect independence, and gains a character for impartiality and\ncandour, when he is only striking a balance in his mind between the\n_\u00e9clat_ of differing from a Minister on some \u2018vantage ground, and the\nrisk or odium that may attend it. He carries all the weight of his\nartificial popularity over to the Government on vital points and hardrun\nquestions; while they, in return, lend him a little of the gilding of\ncourt-favour to set off his disinterested philanthropy and tramontane\nenthusiasm. As a leader or a follower, he makes an odd jumble of\ninterests. By virtue of religious sympathy, he has brought the Saints\nover to the side of the abolition of Negro slavery. This his adversaries\nthink hard and stealing a march upon them. What have the SAINTS to do\nwith freedom or reform of any kind?\u2014Mr. Wilberforce\u2019s style of speaking\nis not quite _parliamentary_, it is halfway between that and\n_evangelical_. He is altogether a _double-entendre_: the very tone of\nhis voice is a _double-entendre_. It winds, and undulates, and glides up\nand down on texts of Scriptures, and scraps from Paley, and trite\nsophistry, and pathetic appeals to his hearers in a faltering,\nin-progressive, side-long way, like those birds of weak wing, that are\nborne from their strait-forward course\n\n          \u2018By every little breath that under heaven is blown.\u2019\n\nSomething of this fluctuating, time-serving principle was visible even\nin the great question of the Abolition of the Slave Trade. He was, at\none time, half inclined to surrender it into Mr. Pitt\u2019s dilatory hands,\nand seemed to think the gloss of novelty was gone from it, and the gaudy\ncolouring of popularity sunk into the _sable_ ground from which it rose!\nIt was, however, persisted in and carried to a triumphant conclusion.\nMr. Wilberforce said too little on this occasion of one, compared with\nwhom he was but the frontispiece to that great chapter in the history of\nthe world\u2014the mask, the varnishing, and painting\u2014the man that effected\nit by Herculean labours of body, and equally gigantic labours of mind,\nwas Clarkson, the true Apostle of human Redemption on that occasion, and\nwho, it is remarkable, resembles in his person and lineaments more than\none of the Apostles in the _Cartoons_ of Raphael. He deserves to be\nadded to the Twelve![59]\n\n\n\n\n                              MR. COBBETT.\n\n\nPeople have about as substantial an idea of Cobbett as they have of\nCribb. His blows are as hard, and he himself is as impenetrable. One has\nno notion of him as making use of a fine pen, but a great mutton-fist;\nhis style stuns his readers, and he \u2018fillips the ear of the public with\na three-man beetle.\u2019 He is too much for any single newspaper antagonist;\n\u2018lays waste\u2019 a city orator or Member of Parliament, and bears hard upon\nthe Government itself. He is a kind of _fourth estate_ in the politics\nof the country. He is not only unquestionably the most powerful\npolitical writer of the present day, but one of the best writers in the\nlanguage. He speaks and thinks plain, broad, downright English. He might\nbe said to have the clearness of Swift, the naturalness of Defoe, and\nthe picturesque satirical description of Mandeville; if all such\ncomparisons were not impertinent. A really great and original writer is\nlike nobody but himself. In one sense, Sterne was not a wit, nor\nShakespear a poet. It is easy to describe second-rate talents, because\nthey fall into a class and enlist under a standard: but first-rate\npowers defy calculation or comparison, and can be defined only by\nthemselves. They are _sui generis_, and make the class to which they\nbelong. I have tried half-a-dozen times to describe Burke\u2019s style\nwithout ever succeeding;\u2014its severe extravagance; its literal boldness;\nits matter-of-fact hyperboles; its running away with a subject, and from\nit at the same time\u2014but there is no making it out, for there is no\nexample of the same thing any where else. We have no common measure to\nrefer to; and his qualities contradict even themselves.\n\nCobbett is not so difficult. He has been compared to Paine; and so far\nit is true there are no two writers who come more into juxtaposition\nfrom the nature of their subjects, from the internal resources on which\nthey draw, and from the popular effect of their writings and their\nadaptation (though that is a bad word in the present case) to the\ncapacity of every reader. But still if we turn to a volume of Paine\u2019s\n(his Common Sense or Rights of Man) we are struck (not to say somewhat\nrefreshed) by the difference. Paine is a much more sententious writer\nthan Cobbett. You cannot open a page in any of his best and earlier\nworks without meeting with some maxim, some antithetical and memorable\nsaying, which is a sort of starting-place for the argument, and the goal\nto which it returns. There is not a single _bon-mot_, a single sentence\nin Cobbett that has ever been quoted again. If any thing is ever quoted\nfrom him, it is an epithet of abuse or a nickname. He is an excellent\nhand at invention in that way, and has \u2018damnable iteration in him.\u2019 What\ncould be better than his pestering Erskine year after year with his\nsecond title of Baron Clackmannan? He is rather too fond of such phrases\nas _the Sons and Daughters of Corruption_. Paine affected to reduce\nthings to first principles, to announce self-evident truths. Cobbett\ntroubles himself about little but the details and local circumstances.\nThe first appeared to have made up his mind beforehand to certain\nopinions, and to try to find the most compendious and pointed\nexpressions for them: his successor appears to have no clue, no fixed or\nleading principles, nor ever to have thought on a question till he sits\ndown to write about it: but then there seems no end of his matters of\nfact and raw materials, which are brought out in all their strength and\nsharpness from not having been squared or frittered down or vamped up to\nsuit a theory\u2014he goes on with his descriptions and illustrations as if\nhe would never come to a stop; they have all the force of novelty with\nall the familiarity of old acquaintance; his knowledge grows out of the\nsubject, and his style is that of a man who has an absolute intuition of\nwhat he is talking about, and never thinks of any thing else. He deals\nin premises and speaks to evidence\u2014the coming to a conclusion and\nsumming up (which was Paine\u2019s _forte_) lies in a smaller compass. The\none could not compose an elementary treatise on politics to become a\nmanual for the popular reader; nor could the other in all probability\nhave kept up a weekly journal for the same number of years with the same\nspirit, interest, and untired perseverance. Paine\u2019s writings are a sort\nof introduction to political arithmetic on a new plan: Cobbett keeps a\nday-book, and makes an entry at full of all the occurrences and\ntroublesome questions that start up throughout the year. Cobbett, with\nvast industry, vast information, and the utmost power of making what he\nsays intelligible, never seems to get at the beginning or come to the\nend of any question: Paine in a few short sentences seems by his\nperemptory manner \u2018to clear it from all controversy, past, present, and\nto come.\u2019 Paine takes a bird\u2019s-eye view of things.\u2014Cobbett sticks close\nto them, inspects the component parts, and keeps fast hold of the\nsmallest advantages they afford him. Or if I might here be indulged in a\npastoral allusion, Paine tries to enclose his ideas in a fold for\nsecurity and repose; Cobbett lets _his_ pour out upon the plain like a\nflock of sheep to feed and batten. Cobbett is a pleasanter writer for\nthose to read who do not agree with him; for he is less dogmatical, goes\nmore into the common grounds of fact and argument to which all appeal,\nis more desultory and various, and appears less to be driving at a\nprevious conclusion than urged on by the force of present conviction. He\nis therefore tolerated by all parties, though he has made himself by\nturns obnoxious to all; and even those he abuses read him. The Reformers\nread him when he was a Tory, and the Tories read him now that he is a\nReformer. He must, I think, however, be _caviare_ to the Whigs.[60]\n\nIf he is less metaphysical and poetical than his celebrated prototype,\nhe is more picturesque and dramatic. His episodes, which are numerous as\nthey are pertinent, are striking, interesting, full of life and\n_na\u00efvet\u00e9_, minute, double measure running over, but never\ntedious\u2014_nunquam sufflaminandus erat_. He is one of those writers who\ncan never tire us\u2014not even of himself; and the reason is, he is always\n\u2018full of matter.\u2019 He never runs to lees, never gives us the vapid\nleavings of himself, is never \u2018weary, stale, and unprofitable,\u2019 but\nalways setting out afresh on his journey, clearing away some old\nnuisance, and turning up new mould. His egotism is delightful, for there\nis no affectation in it. He does not talk of himself for lack of\nsomething to write about, but because some circumstance that has\nhappened to himself is the best possible illustration of the subject,\nand he is not the man to shrink from giving the best possible\nillustration of the subject from a squeamish delicacy. He likes both\nhimself and his subject too well. He does not put himself before it, and\nsay \u2018admire me first\u2019; but places us in the same situation with himself,\nand makes us see all that he does. There is no blindman\u2019s buff, no\nconscious hints, no awkward ventriloquism, no testimonies of applause,\nno abstract, senseless self-complacency, no smuggled admiration of his\nown person by proxy; it is all plain and above-board. He writes himself\nplain William Cobbett, strips himself quite as naked as any body could\nwish\u2014in a word, his egotism is full of individuality, and has room for\nvery little vanity in it. We feel delighted, rub our hands, and draw our\nchair to the fire, when we come to a passage of this sort: we know it\nwill be something new and good, manly and simple, not the same insipid\nstory of self over again. We sit down at table with the writer, but it\nis of a course of rich viands\u2014flesh, fish, and wild fowl\u2014and not to a\nnominal entertainment, like that given to Barmecide in the Arabian\nNights, who put off his visitors with calling for a number of exquisite\nthings that never appeared, and with the honour of his company. Mr.\nCobbett is not a _make-believe_ writer. His worst enemy cannot say that\nof him. Still less is he a vulgar one. He must be a puny common-place\ncritic indeed, who thinks him so. How fine were the graphical\ndescriptions he sent us from America: what a transatlantic flavour, what\na native _gusto_, what a fine _sauce piquante_ of contempt they were\nseasoned with! If he had sat down to look at himself in the glass,\ninstead of looking about him like Adam in Paradise, he would not have\ngot up these articles in so capital a style. What a noble account of his\nfirst breakfast after his arrival in America! It might serve for a\nmonth. There is no scene on the stage more amusing. How well he paints\nthe gold and scarlet plumage of the American birds, only to lament more\npathetically the want of the wild wood-notes of his native land! The\ngroves of the Ohio that had just fallen beneath the axe\u2019s stroke, \u2018live\nin his description,\u2019 and the turnips that he transplanted from Botley\n\u2018look green\u2019 in prose! How well at another time he describes the poor\nsheep that had got the tick, and had tumbled down in the agonies of\ndeath! It is a portrait in the manner of Bewick, with the strength, the\nsimplicity, and feeling of that great naturalist. What havoc he makes,\nwhen he pleases, of the curls of Dr. Parr\u2019s wig and of the Whig\nconsistency of Mr. \u2014\u2014! His Grammar, too, is as entertaining as a\nstorybook. He is too hard, however, upon the style of others, and not\nenough (sometimes) on his own.\n\nAs a political partisan, no one can stand against him. With his\nbrandished club, like Giant Despair in the Pilgrim\u2019s Progress, he knocks\nout their brains: and not only no individual, but no corrupt system,\ncould hold out against his powerful and repeated attacks; but with the\nsame weapon, swung round like a flail, with which he levels his\nantagonists, he lays his friends low, and puts his own party _hors de\ncombat_. This is a bad propensity, and a worse principle in political\ntactics, though a common one. If his blows were straight forward and\nsteadily directed to the same object, no unpopular minister could live\nbefore him; instead of which he lays about right and left, impartially\nand remorselessly, makes a clear stage, has all the ring to himself, and\nthen runs out of it, just when he should stand his ground. He throws his\nhead into his adversary\u2019s stomach, and takes away from him all\ninclination for the fight, hits fair or foul, strikes at every thing,\nand as you come up to his aid or stand ready to pursue his advantage,\ntrips up your heels or lays you sprawling, and pummels you when down as\nmuch to his heart\u2019s content as ever the Yanguesian carriers belaboured\nRosinante with their packstaves. \u2018_He has the back-trick simply the best\nof any man in Illyria._\u2019 He pays off both scores of old friendship and\nnew-acquired enmity in a breath, in one perpetual volley, one raking\nfire of \u2018arrowy sleet\u2019 shot from his pen. However his own reputation or\nthe cause may suffer in consequence, he cares not one pin about that, so\nthat he disables all who oppose or who pretend to help him. In fact, he\ncannot bear success of any kind, not even of his own views or party; and\nif any principle were likely to become popular, would turn round against\nit, to show his power, in shouldering it on one side. In short, wherever\npower is, there is he against it; he naturally butts at all obstacles,\nas unicorns are attracted to oak-trees, and feels his own strength only\nby resistance to the opinions and wishes of the rest of the world. To\nsail with the stream, to agree with the company, is not his humour. If\nhe could bring about a Reform in Parliament, the odds are that he would\ninstantly fall foul of and try to mar his own handy-work; and he\nquarrels with his own creatures as soon as he has written them into a\nlittle vogue\u2014and a prison. I do not think this is vanity or fickleness\nso much as a pugnacious disposition, that must have an antagonist power\nto contend with, and only finds itself at ease in systematic opposition.\nIf it were not for this, the high towers and rotten places of the world\nwould fall before the battering-ram of his hard-headed reasoning: but if\nhe once found them tottering, he would apply his strength to prop them\nup, and disappoint the expectations of his followers. He cannot agree to\nany thing established, nor to set up any thing else in its stead. While\nit is established, he presses hard against it, because it presses upon\nhim, at least in imagination. Let it crumble under his grasp, and the\nmotive to resistance is gone. He then requires some other grievance to\nset his face against. His principle is repulsion, his nature\ncontradiction: he is made up of mere antipathies; an Ishmaelite indeed,\nwithout a fellow. He is always playing at _hunt-the-slipper_ in\npolitics. He turns round upon whoever is next to him. The way to wean\nhim from any opinion, and make him conceive an intolerable hatred\nagainst it, would be to place somebody near him who was perpetually\ndinning it in his ears. When he is in England, he does nothing but abuse\nthe Boroughmongers, and laugh at the whole system: when he is in\nAmerica, he grows impatient of freedom and a republic. If he had staid\nthere a little longer, he would have become a loyal and a loving subject\nof his Majesty King George IV. He lampooned the French Revolution when\nit was hailed as the dawn of liberty by millions: by the time it was\nbrought into almost universal ill-odour by some means or other (partly\nno doubt by himself) he had turned, with one or two or three others,\nstaunch Bonapartist. He is always of the militant, not of the triumphant\nparty: so far he bears a gallant show of magnanimity; but his gallantry\nis hardly of the right stamp: it wants principle. For though he is not\nservile or mercenary, he is the victim of self-will. He must pull down\nand pull in pieces: it is not in his disposition to do otherwise. It is\na pity; for with his great talents he might do great things, if he would\ngo right forward to any useful object, make thorough-stitch work of any\nquestion, or join hand and heart with any principle. He changes his\nopinions as he does his friends, and much on the same account. He has no\ncomfort in fixed principles: as soon as any thing is settled in his own\nmind, he quarrels with it. He has no satisfaction but in the chase after\ntruth, runs a question down, worries and kills it, then quits it like\nvermin, and starts some new game, to lead him a new dance, and give him\na fresh breathing through bog and brake, with the rabble yelping at his\nheels and the leaders perpetually at fault. This he calls sport-royal.\nHe thinks it as good as cudgel-playing or single-stick, or any thing\nelse that has life in it. He likes the cut and thrust, the falls,\nbruises, and dry blows of an argument: as to any good or useful results\nthat may come of the amicable settling of it, any one is welcome to them\nfor him. The amusement is over, when the matter is once fairly decided.\n\nThere is another point of view in which this may be put. I might say\nthat Mr. Cobbett is a very honest man, with a total want of principle;\nand I might explain this paradox thus, I mean that he is, I think, in\ndownright earnest in what he says, in the part he takes at the time; but\nin taking that part, he is led entirely by headstrong obstinacy,\ncaprice, novelty, pique or personal motive of some sort, and not by a\nsteadfast regard for truth or habitual anxiety for what is right\nuppermost in his mind. He is not a feed, time-serving, shuffling\nadvocate (no man could write as he does who did not believe himself\nsincere)\u2014but his understanding is the dupe and slave of his momentary,\nviolent, and irritable humours. He does not adopt an opinion\n\u2018deliberately or for money\u2019; yet his conscience is at the mercy of the\nfirst provocation he receives, of the first whim he takes in his head;\nhe sees things through the medium of heat and passion, not with\nreference to any general principles, and his whole system of thinking is\nderanged by the first object that strikes his fancy or sours his\ntemper.\u2014One cause of this phenomenon is perhaps his want of a regular\neducation. He is a self-taught man, and has the faults as well as\nexcellences of that class of persons in their most striking and glaring\nexcess. It must be acknowledged that the Editor of the Political\nRegister (the _two-penny trash_, as it was called, till a Bill passed\nthe House to raise the price to sixpence) is not \u2018the gentleman and\nscholar:\u2019 though he has qualities that, with a little better management,\nwould be worth (to the public) both those titles. For want of knowing\nwhat has been discovered before him, he has not certain general\nlandmarks to refer to, or a general standard of thought to apply to\nindividual cases. He relies on his own acuteness and the immediate\nevidence, without being acquainted with the comparative anatomy or\nphilosophical structure of opinion. He does not view things on a large\nscale or at the horizon (dim and airy enough perhaps); but as they\naffect himself,\u2014close, palpable, tangible. Whatever he finds out is his\nown, and he only knows what he finds out. He is in the constant hurry\nand fever of gestation: his brain teems incessantly with some fresh\nproject. Every new light is the birth of a new system, the dawn of a new\nworld to him. He is continually outstripping and overreaching himself.\nThe last opinion is the only true one. He is wiser to-day than he was\nyesterday. Why should he not be wiser to-morrow than he was to-day?\u2014Men\nof a learned education are not so sharp-witted as clever men without it;\nbut they know the balance of the human intellect better: if they are\nmore stupid, they are more steady; and are less liable to be led astray\nby their own sagacity and the over-weening petulance of hard-earned and\nlate-acquired wisdom. They do not fall in love with every meretricious\nextravagance at first sight, or mistake an old battered hypothesis for a\nvestal, because they are new to the ways of this old world. They do not\nseize upon it as a prize, but are safe from gross imposition by being as\nwise and no wiser than those who went before them.\n\nPaine said on some occasion, \u2018What I have written, I have written\u2019\u2014as\nrendering any farther declaration of his principles unnecessary. Not so\nMr. Cobbett. What he has written is no rule to him what he is to write.\nHe learns something every day, and every week he takes the field to\nmaintain the opinions of the last six days against friend or foe. I\ndoubt whether this outrageous inconsistency, this headstrong fickleness,\nthis understood want of all rule and method, does not enable him to go\non with the spirit, vigour, and variety that he does. He is not pledged\nto repeat himself. Every new Register is a kind of new Prospectus. He\nblesses himself from all ties and shackles on his understanding; he has\nno mortgages on his brain; his notions are free and unincumbered. If he\nwas put in trammels, he might become a vile hack like so many more. But\nhe gives himself \u2018ample scope and verge enough.\u2019 He takes both sides of\na question, and maintains one as sturdily as the other. If nobody else\ncan argue against him, he is a very good match for himself. He writes\nbetter in favour of reform than any body else; he used to write better\nagainst it. Wherever he is, there is the tug of war, the weight of the\nargument, the strength of abuse. He is not like a man in danger of being\n_bed-rid_ in his faculties\u2014he tosses and tumbles about his unwieldy\nbulk, and when he is tired of lying on one side, relieves himself by\nturning on the other. His shifting his point of view from time to time\nnot merely adds variety and greater comforts to his topics (so that the\nPolitical Register is an armoury and magazine for all the materials and\nweapons of political warfare), but it gives a greater zest and\nliveliness to his manner of treating them. Mr. Cobbett takes nothing for\ngranted, as what he has proved before; he does not write a book of\nreference. We see his ideas in their first concoction, fermenting and\noverflowing with the ebullitions of a lively conception. We look on at\nthe actual process, and are put in immediate possession of the grounds\nand materials on which he forms his sanguine, unsettled conclusions. He\ndoes not give us samples of reasoning, but the whole solid mass, refuse\nand all.\n\n               \u2014\u2014\u2018He pours out all as plain\n               As downright Shippen or as old Montaigne.\u2019\n\nThis is one cause of the clearness and force of his writings. An\nargument does not stop to stagnate and muddle in his brain, but passes\nat once to his paper. His ideas are served up, like pancakes, hot and\nhot. Fresh theories give him fresh courage. He is like a young and lusty\nbridegroom, that divorces a favourite speculation every morning, and\nmarries a new one every night. He is not wedded to his notions, not he.\nHe has not one Mrs. Cobbett among all his opinions. He makes the most of\nthe last thought that has come in his way, seizes fast hold of it,\nrumples it about in all directions with rough strong hands, has his\nwicked will of it, takes a surfeit, and throws it away.\u2014Our author\u2019s\nchanging his opinions for new ones is not so wonderful; what is more\nremarkable is his felicity in forgetting his old ones. He does not\npretend to consistency (like Mr. Coleridge); he frankly disavows all\nconnexion with himself. He feels no personal responsibility in this way,\nand cuts a friend or principle with the same decided indifference that\nAntipholis of Ephesus cuts \u00c6geon of Syracuse. It is a hollow thing. The\nonly time he ever grew romantic was in bringing over the relics of Mr.\nThomas Paine with him from America, to go a progress with them through\nthe disaffected districts. Scarce had he landed in Liverpool, when he\nleft the bones of a great man to shift for themselves; and no sooner did\nhe arrive in London, than he made a speech to disclaim all participation\nin the political and theological sentiments of his late idol, and to\nplace the whole stock of his admiration and enthusiasm towards him to\nthe account of his financial speculations, and of his having predicted\nthe fate of paper-money. If he had erected a little gold statue to him,\nit might have proved the sincerity of this assertion: but to make a\nmartyr and a patron-saint of a man, and to dig up \u2018his canonized bones\u2019\nin order to expose them as objects of devotion to the rabble\u2019s gaze,\nasks something that has more life and spirit in it, more mind and\nvivifying soul, than has to do with any calculation of pounds,\nshillings, and pence! The fact is, he _ratted_ from his own project. He\nfound the thing not so ripe as he had expected. His heart failed him:\nhis enthusiasm fled, and he made his retraction. His admiration is\nshort-lived: his contempt only is rooted, and his resentment\nlasting.\u2014The above was only one instance of his building too much on\npractical _data_. He has an ill habit of prophesying, and goes on,\nthough still deceived. The art of prophesying does not suit Mr.\nCobbett\u2019s style. He has a knack of fixing names and times and places.\nAccording to him, the Reformed Parliament was to meet in March, 1818: it\ndid not, and we heard no more of the matter. When his predictions fail,\nhe takes no farther notice of them, but applies himself to new ones\u2014like\nthe country-people, who turn to see what weather there is in the almanac\nfor the next week, though it has been out in its reckoning every day of\nthe last.\n\nMr. Cobbett is great in attack, not in defence: he cannot fight an\nup-hill battle. He will not bear the least punishing. If any one turns\nupon him (which few people like to do), he immediately turns tail. Like\nan overgrown school-boy, he is so used to have it all his own way, that\nhe cannot submit to any thing like competition, or a struggle for the\nmastery: he must lay on all the blows, and take none. He is bullying and\ncowardly; a Big Ben in politics, who will fall upon others and crush\nthem by his weight, but is not prepared for resistance, and is soon\nstaggered by a few smart blows. Whenever he has been set upon, he has\nslunk out of the controversy. The Edinburgh Review made (what is called)\na dead set at him some years ago, to which he only retorted by an eulogy\non the superior neatness of an English kitchen-garden to a Scotch one. I\nremember going one day into a bookseller\u2019s shop in Fleet-street to ask\nfor the Review; and on my expressing my opinion to a young Scotchman,\nwho stood behind the counter, that Mr. Cobbett might hit as hard in his\nreply, the North Briton said with some alarm\u2014\u2018But you don\u2019t think, Sir,\nMr. Cobbett will be able to injure the Scottish nation?\u2019 I said I could\nnot speak to that point, but I thought he was very well able to defend\nhimself. He however did not, but has born a grudge to the Edinburgh\nReview ever since, which he hates worse than the Quarterly. I cannot say\nI do.[61]\n\n\n\n\n                      MR. CAMPBELL AND MR. CRABBE.\n\n\nMr. Campbell may be said to hold a place (among modern poets) between\nLord Byron and Mr. Rogers. With much of the glossy splendour, the\npointed vigour, and romantic interest of the one, he possesses the\nfastidious refinement, the classic elegance of the other. Mr. Rogers, as\na writer, is too effeminate, Lord Byron too extravagant: Mr. Campbell is\nneither. The author of the _Pleasures of Memory_ polishes his lines till\nthey sparkle with the most exquisite finish; he attenuates them into the\nutmost degree of trembling softness: but we may complain, in spite of\nthe delicacy and brilliancy of the execution, of a want of strength and\nsolidity. The author of the _Pleasures of Hope_, with a richer and\ndeeper vein of thought and imagination, works it out into figures of\nequal grace and dazzling beauty, avoiding on the one hand the tinsel of\nflimsy affectation, and on the other the vices of a rude and barbarous\nnegligence. His Pegasus is not a rough, skittish colt, running wild\namong the mountains, covered with bur-docks and thistles, nor a tame,\nsleek pad, unable to get out of the same ambling pace; but a beautiful\n_man\u00e8ge_ horse, full of life and spirit in itself, and subject to the\ncomplete controul of the rider. Mr. Campbell gives scope to his feelings\nand his fancy, and embodies them in a noble and naturally interesting\nsubject; and he at the same time conceives himself called upon (in these\ndays of critical nicety) to pay the exact attention to the expression of\neach thought, and to modulate each line into the most faultless harmony.\nThe character of his mind is a lofty and self-scrutinising ambition,\nthat strives to reconcile the integrity of general design with the\nperfect elaboration of each component part, that aims at striking\neffect, but is jealous of the means by which this is to be produced. Our\npoet is not averse to popularity (nay, he is tremblingly alive to\nit)\u2014but self-respect is the primary law, the indispensable condition on\nwhich it must be obtained. We should dread to point out (even if we\ncould) a false concord, a mixed metaphor, an imperfect rhyme, in any of\nMr. Campbell\u2019s productions; for we think that all his fame would hardly\ncompensate to him for the discovery. He seeks for perfection, and\nnothing evidently short of it can satisfy his mind. He is a _high\nfinisher_ in poetry, whose every work must bear inspection, whose\nslightest touch is precious\u2014not a coarse dauber, who is contented to\nimpose on public wonder and credulity by some huge, ill-executed design,\nor who endeavours to wear out patience and opposition together by a load\nof lumbering, feeble, awkward, improgressive lines\u2014on the contrary, Mr.\nCampbell labours to lend every grace of execution to his subject, while\nhe borrows his ardour and inspiration from it, and to deserve the\nlaurels he has earned, by true genius and by true pains. There is an\napparent consciousness of this in most of his writings. He has attained\nto great excellence by aiming at the greatest, by a cautious and yet\ndaring selection of topics, and by studiously (and with a religious\nhorror) avoiding all those faults which arise from grossness, vulgarity,\nhaste, and disregard of public opinion. He seizes on the highest point\nof eminence, and strives to keep it to himself\u2014he \u2018snatches a grace\nbeyond the reach of art,\u2019 and will not let it go\u2014he steeps a single\nthought or image so deep in the Tyrian dyes of a gorgeous imagination,\nthat it throws its lustre over a whole page\u2014every where vivid _ideal_\nforms hover (in intense conception) over the poet\u2019s verse, which\nascends, like the aloe, to the clouds, with pure flowers at its top. Or,\nto take an humbler comparison (the pride of genius must sometimes stoop\nto the lowliness of criticism), Mr. Campbell\u2019s poetry often reminds us\nof the purple gilliflower, both for its colour and its scent, its\nglowing warmth, its rich, languid, sullen hue,\n\n               \u2018Yet sweeter than the lids of Juno\u2019s eyes,\n               Or Cytherea\u2019s breath!\u2019\n\nThere are those who complain of the little that Mr. Campbell has done in\npoetry, and who seem to insinuate that he is deterred by his own\nreputation from making any farther or higher attempts. But after having\nproduced two poems that have gone to the heart of a nation, and are\ngifts to a world, he may surely linger out the rest of his life in a\ndream of immortality. There are moments in our lives so exquisite that\nall that remains of them afterwards seems useless and barren; and there\nare lines and stanzas in our author\u2019s early writings in which he may be\nthought to have exhausted all the sweetness and all the essence of\npoetry, so that nothing farther was left to his efforts or his ambition.\nHappy is it for those few and fortunate worshippers of the Muse (not a\nsubject of grudging or envy to others) who already enjoy in their\nlife-time a foretaste of their future fame, who see their names\naccompanying them, like a cloud of glory, from youth to age,\n\n                      \u2018And by the vision splendid,\n                      Are on their way attended\u2019\u2014\n\nand who know that they have built a shrine for the thoughts and feelings\nthat were most dear to them, in the minds and memories of other men,\ntill the language which they lisped in childhood is forgotten, or the\nhuman heart shall beat no more!\n\nThe _Pleasures of Hope_ alone would not have called forth these remarks\nfrom us; but there are passages in the _Gertrude of Wyoming_ of so rare\nand ripe a beauty, that they challenge, as they exceed all praise. Such,\nfor instance, is the following peerless description of Gertrude\u2019s\nchildhood:-\n\n        \u2018A loved bequest,\u2014and I may half impart\n        To those that feel the strong paternal tie,\n        How like a new existence to his heart\n        That living flow\u2019r uprose beneath his eye,\n        Dear as she was from cherub infancy,\n        From hours when she would round his garden play,\n        To time when as the rip\u2019ning years went by,\n        Her lovely mind could culture well repay,\n      And more engaging grew, from pleasing day to day.\n\n        \u2018I may not paint those thousand infant charms;\n        (Unconscious fascination, undesign\u2019d!)\n        The orison repeated in his arms,\n        For God to bless her sire and all mankind;\n        The book, the bosom on his knee reclined,\n        Or how sweet fairy-lore he heard her con,\n        (The playmate ere the teacher of her mind):\n        All uncompanion\u2019d else her heart had gone\n      Till now, in Gertrude\u2019s eyes, their ninth blue summer shone.\n\n        \u2018And summer was the tide, and sweet the hour,\n        When sire and daughter saw, with fleet descent,\n        An Indian from his bark approach their bow\u2019r,\n        Of buskin\u2019d limb and swarthy lineament;\n        The red wild feathers on his brow were blent,\n        And bracelets bound the arm that help\u2019d to light\n        A boy, who seem\u2019d, as he beside him went,\n        Of Christian vesture and complexion bright,\n      Led by his dusky guide, like morning brought by night.\u2019\n\nIn the foregoing stanzas we particularly admire the line\u2014\n\n     \u2018Till now, in Gertrude\u2019s eyes, their ninth blue summer shone.\u2019\n\nIt appears to us like the ecstatic union of natural beauty and poetic\nfancy, and in its playful sublimity resembles the azure canopy mirrored\nin the smiling waters, bright, liquid, serene, heavenly! A great outcry,\nwe know, has prevailed for some time past against poetic diction and\naffected conceits, and, to a certain degree, we go along with it; but\nthis must not prevent us from feeling the thrill of pleasure when we see\nbeauty linked to beauty, like kindred flame to flame, or from applauding\nthe voluptuous fancy that raises and adorns the fairy fabric of thought,\nthat nature has begun! Pleasure is \u2018scattered in stray-gifts o\u2019er the\nearth\u2019\u2014beauty streaks the \u2018famous poet\u2019s page\u2019 in occasional lines of\ninconceivable brightness; and wherever this is the case, no splenetic\ncensures or \u2018jealous leer malign,\u2019 no idle theories or cold indifference\nshould hinder us from greeting it with rapture. There are other parts of\nthis poem equally delightful, in which there is a light startling as the\nred-bird\u2019s wing; a perfume like that of the magnolia; a music like the\nmurmuring of pathless woods or of the everlasting ocean. We conceive,\nhowever, that Mr. Campbell excels chiefly in sentiment and imagery. The\nstory moves slow, and is mechanically conducted, and rather resembles a\nScotch canal carried over lengthened aqueducts and with a number of\n_locks_ in it, than one of those rivers that sweep in their majestic\ncourse, broad and full, over Transatlantic plains and lose themselves in\nrolling gulfs, or thunder down lofty precipices. But in the centre, the\ninmost recesses of our poet\u2019s heart, the pearly dew of sensibility is\ndistilled and collects, like the diamond in the mine, and the structure\nof his fame rests on the crystal columns of a polished imagination. We\nprefer the _Gertrude_ to the _Pleasures of Hope_, because with perhaps\nless brilliancy, there is more of tenderness and natural imagery in the\nformer. In the _Pleasures of Hope_ Mr. Campbell had not completely\nemancipated himself from the trammels of the more artificial style of\npoetry\u2014from epigram, and antithesis, and hyperbole. The best line in it,\nin which earthly joys are said to be\u2014\n\n              \u2018Like angels\u2019 visits, few and far between\u2019\u2014\n\nis a borrowed one.[62] But in the Gertrude of Wyoming \u2018we perceive a\nsoftness coming over the heart of the author, and the scales and crust\nof formality, that fence in his couplets and give them a somewhat\nglittering and rigid appearance, fall off,\u2019 and he has succeeded in\nengrafting the wild and more expansive interest of the romantic school\nof poetry on classic elegance and precision. After the poem we have just\nnamed, Mr. Campbell\u2019s Songs are the happiest efforts of his\nMuse:\u2014breathing freshness, blushing like the morn, they seem, like\nclustering roses, to weave a chaplet for love and liberty; or their\nbleeding words gush out in mournful and hurried succession, like \u2018ruddy\ndrops that visit the sad heart\u2019 of thoughtful Humanity. The _Battle of\nHohenlinden_ is of all modern compositions the most lyrical in spirit\nand in sound. To justify this encomium, we need only recall the lines to\nthe reader\u2019s memory.\n\n              \u2018On Linden, when the sun was low,\n              All bloodless lay th\u2019 untrodden snow,\n              And dark as winter was the flow\n              Of Iser, rolling rapidly.\n\n              \u2018But Linden saw another sight,\n              When the drum beat at dead of night,\n              Commanding fires of death to light\n              The darkness of her scenery.\n\n              \u2018By torch and trumpet fast array\u2019d,\n              Each horseman drew his battle blade,\n              And furious every charger neigh\u2019d,\n              To join the dreadful revelry.\n\n              \u2018Then shook the hills with thunder riv\u2019n,\n              Then rush\u2019d the steed to battle driv\u2019n,\n              And louder than the bolts of heav\u2019n\n              Far flash\u2019d the red artillery.\n\n              \u2018But redder yet that light shall glow\n              On Linden\u2019s hills of stained snow,\n              And bloodier yet the torrent flow\n              Of Iser, rolling rapidly.\n\n              \u2018\u2019Tis morn, but scarce yon level sun\n              Can pierce the war-clouds, rolling[63] dun,\n              Where furious Frank and fiery Hun\n              Shout in their sulph\u2019rous canopy.\n\n              \u2018The combat deepens. On, ye brave,\n              Who rush to glory, or the grave!\n              Wave, Munich! all thy banners wave!\n              And charge with all thy chivalry!\n\n              \u2018Few, few shall part where many meet!\n              The snow shall be their winding-sheet,\n              And every turf beneath their feet\n              Shall be a soldier\u2019s sepulchre.\u2019\n\nMr. Campbell\u2019s prose-criticisms on contemporary and other poets (which\nhave appeared in the New Monthly Magazine) are in a style at once\nchaste, temperate, guarded, and just.\n\nMr. Crabbe presents an entire contrast to Mr. Campbell:\u2014The one is the\nmost ambitious and aspiring of living poets, the other the most humble\nand prosaic. If the poetry of the one is like the arch of the rainbow,\nspanning and adorning the earth, that of the other is like a dull,\nleaden cloud hanging over it. Mr. Crabbe\u2019s style might be cited as an\nanswer to Audrey\u2019s question\u2014\u2018Is poetry a true thing?\u2019 There are here no\nornaments, no flights of fancy, no illusions of sentiment, no tinsel of\nwords. His song is one sad reality, one unraised, unvaried note of\nunavailing woe. Literal fidelity serves him in the place of invention;\nhe assumes importance by a number of petty details; he rivets attention\nby being tedious. He not only deals in incessant matters of fact, but in\nmatters of fact of the most familiar, the least animating, and the most\nunpleasant kind; but he relies for the effect of novelty on the\nmicroscopic minuteness with which he dissects the most trivial\nobjects\u2014and for the interest he excites, on the unshrinking\ndetermination with which he handles the most painful. His poetry has an\nofficial and professional air. He is called in to cases of difficult\nbirths, of fractured limbs, or breaches of the peace; and makes out a\nparochial list of accidents and offences. He takes the most trite, the\nmost gross and obvious and revolting part of nature, for the subject of\nhis elaborate descriptions; but it is Nature still, and Nature is a\ngreat and mighty Goddess! It is well for the Reverend Author that it is\nso. Individuality is, in his theory, the only definition of poetry.\nWhatever _is_, he hitches into rhyme. Whoever makes an exact image of\nany thing on the earth, however deformed or insignificant, according to\nhim, must succeed\u2014and he himself has succeeded. Mr. Crabbe is one of the\nmost popular and admired of our living authors. That he is so, can be\naccounted for on no other principle than the strong ties that bind us to\nthe world about us, and our involuntary yearnings after whatever in any\nmanner powerfully and directly reminds us of it. His Muse is not one of\n_the Daughters of Memory_, but the old toothless, mumbling, dame\nherself, doling out the gossip and scandal of the neighbourhood,\nrecounting _totidem verbis et literis_, what happens in every place of\nthe kingdom every hour in the year, and fastening always on the worst as\nthe most palatable morsels. But she is a circumstantial old lady,\ncommunicative, scrupulous, leaving nothing to the imagination, harping\non the smallest grievances, a village oracle and critic, most veritable,\nmost identical, bringing us acquainted with persons and things just as\nthey chanced to exist, and giving us a local interest in all she knows\nand tells. Mr. Crabbe\u2019s Helicon is choked up with weeds and corruption;\nit reflects no light from heaven, it emits no cheerful sound: no flowers\nof love, of hope, or joy spring up near it, or they bloom only to wither\nin a moment. Our poet\u2019s verse does not put a spirit of youth in every\nthing, but a spirit of fear, despondency, and decay: it is not an\nelectric spark to kindle or expand, but acts like the torpedo\u2019s touch to\ndeaden or contract. It lends no dazzling tints to fancy, it aids no\nsoothing feelings in the heart, it gladdens no prospect, it stirs no\nwish; in its view the current of life runs slow, dull, cold, dispirited,\nhalf under ground, muddy, and clogged with all creeping things. The\nworld is one vast infirmary; the hill of Parnassus is a penitentiary, of\nwhich our author is the overseer: to read him is a penance, yet we read\non! Mr. Crabbe, it must be confessed, is a repulsive writer. He\ncontrives to \u2018turn diseases to commodities,\u2019 and makes a virtue of\nnecessity. He puts us out of conceit with this world, which perhaps a\nsevere divine should do; yet does not, as a charitable divine ought,\npoint to another. His morbid feelings droop and cling to the earth,\ngrovel where they should soar; and throw a dead weight on every\naspiration of the soul after the good or beautiful. By degrees we\nsubmit, and are reconciled to our fate, like patients to the physician,\nor prisoners in the condemned cell. We can only explain this by saying,\nas we said before, that Mr. Crabbe gives us one part of nature, the\nmean, the little, the disgusting, the distressing; that he does this\nthoroughly and like a master, and we forgive all the rest.\n\nMr. Crabbe\u2019s first poems were published so long ago as the year 1782,\nand received the approbation of Dr. Johnson only a little before he\ndied. This was a testimony from an enemy; for Dr. Johnson was not an\nadmirer of the simple in style or minute in description. Still he was an\nacute, strong-minded man, and could see truth when it was presented to\nhim, even through the mist of his prejudices and his foibles. There was\nsomething in Mr. Crabbe\u2019s intricate points that did not, after all, so\nill accord with the Doctor\u2019s purblind vision; and he knew quite enough\nof the petty ills of life to judge of the merit of our poet\u2019s\ndescriptions, though he himself chose to slur them over in high-sounding\ndogmas or general invectives. Mr. Crabbe\u2019s earliest poem of the\n_Village_ was recommended to the notice of Dr. Johnson by Sir Joshua\nReynolds; and we cannot help thinking that a taste for that sort of\npoetry, which leans for support on the truth and fidelity of its\nimitations of nature, began to display itself much about that time, and,\nin a good measure, in consequence of the direction of the public taste\nto the subject of painting. Book-learning, the accumulation of wordy\ncommon-places, the gaudy pretensions of poetical fiction, had enfeebled\nand perverted our eye for nature. The study of the fine arts, which came\ninto fashion about forty years ago, and was then first considered as a\npolite accomplishment, would tend imperceptibly to restore it. Painting\nis essentially an imitative art; it cannot subsist for a moment on empty\ngeneralities: the critic, therefore, who had been used to this sort of\nsubstantial entertainment, would be disposed to read poetry with the eye\nof a connoisseur, would be little captivated with smooth, polished,\nunmeaning periods, and would turn with double eagerness and relish to\nthe force and precision of individual details, transferred, as it were,\nto the page from the canvas. Thus an admirer of Teniers or Hobbima might\nthink little of the pastoral sketches of Pope or Goldsmith; even Thomson\ndescribes not so much the naked object as what he sees in his mind\u2019s\neye, surrounded and glowing with the mild, bland, genial vapours of his\nbrain:\u2014but the adept in Dutch interiors, hovels, and pig-styes must find\nin Mr. Crabbe a man after his own heart. He is the very thing itself; he\npaints in words, instead of colours: there is no other difference. As\nMr. Crabbe is not a painter, only because he does not use a brush and\ncolours, so he is for the most part a poet, only because he writes in\nlines of ten syllables. All the rest might be found in a newspaper, an\nold magazine, or a county-register. Our author is himself a little\njealous of the prudish fidelity of his homely Muse, and tries to justify\nhimself by precedents. He brings as a parallel instance of merely\nliteral description, Pope\u2019s lines on the gay Duke of Buckingham,\nbeginning \u2018In the worst inn\u2019s worst room see Villiers lies!\u2019 But surely\nnothing can be more dissimilar. Pope describes what is striking, Crabbe\nwould have described merely what was there. The objects in Pope stand\nout to the fancy from the mixture of the mean with the gaudy, from the\ncontrast of the scene and the character. There is an appeal to the\nimagination; you see what is passing in a poetical point of view. In\nCrabbe there is no foil, no contrast, no impulse given to the mind. It\nis all on a level and of a piece. In fact, there is so little connection\nbetween the subject-matter of Mr. Crabbe\u2019s lines and the ornament of\nrhyme which is tacked to them, that many of his verses read like serious\nburlesque, and the parodies which have been made upon them are hardly so\nquaint as the originals.\n\nMr. Crabbe\u2019s great fault is certainly that he is a sickly, a querulous,\na uniformly dissatisfied poet. He sings the country; and he sings it in\na pitiful tone. He chooses this subject only to take the charm out of\nit, and to dispel the illusion, the glory, and the dream, which had\nhovered over it in golden verse from Theocritus to Cowper. He sets out\nwith professing to overturn the theory which had hallowed a shepherd\u2019s\nlife, and made the names of grove and valley music to our ears, in order\nto give us truth in its stead; but why not lay aside the fool\u2019s cap and\nbells at once? Why not insist on the unwelcome reality in plain prose?\nIf our author is a poet, why trouble himself with statistics? If he is a\nstatistic writer, why set his ill news to harsh and grating verse? The\nphilosopher in painting the dark side of human nature may have reason on\nhis side, and a moral lesson or remedy in view. The tragic poet, who\nshows the sad vicissitudes of things and the disappointments of the\npassions, at least strengthens our yearnings after imaginary good, and\nlends wings to our desires, by which we, \u2018at one bound, high overleap\nall bound\u2019 of actual suffering. But Mr. Crabbe does neither. He gives us\ndiscoloured paintings of life; helpless, repining, unprofitable,\nunedifying distress. He is not a philosopher, but a sophist, a\nmisanthrope in verse; a _namby-pamby_ Mandeville, a Malthus turned\nmetrical romancer. He professes historical fidelity; but his vein is not\ndramatic; nor does he give us the _pros_ and _cons_ of that versatile\ngipsey, Nature. He does not indulge his fancy or sympathise with us, or\ntell us how the poor feel; but how he should feel in their situation,\nwhich we do not want to know. He does not weave the web of their lives\nof a mingled yarn, good and ill together, but clothes them all in the\nsame dingy linsey-woolsey, or tinges them with a green and yellow\nmelancholy. He blocks out all possibility of good, cancels the hope, or\neven the wish for it as a weakness; checkmates Tityrus and Virgil at the\ngame of pastoral cross-purposes, disables all his adversary\u2019s white\npieces, and leaves none but black ones on the board. The situation of a\ncountry clergyman is not necessarily favourable to the cultivation of\nthe Muse. He is set down, perhaps, as he thinks, in a small curacy for\nlife, and he takes his revenge by imprisoning the reader\u2019s imagination\nin luckless verse. Shut out from social converse, from learned colleges\nand halls, where he passed his youth, he has no cordial fellow-feeling\nwith the unlettered manners of the _Village_ or the _Borough_; and he\ndescribes his neighbours as more uncomfortable and discontented than\nhimself. All this while he dedicates successive volumes to rising\ngenerations of noble patrons; and while he desolates a line of coast\nwith sterile, blighting lines, the only leaf of his books where honour,\nbeauty, worth, or pleasure bloom, is that inscribed to the Rutland\nfamily! We might adduce instances of what we have said from every page\nof his works: let one suffice\u2014\n\n          \u2018Thus by himself compelled to live each day,\n          To wait for certain hours the tide\u2019s delay;\n          At the same times the same dull views to see,\n          The bounding marsh-bank and the blighted tree;\n          The water only when the tides were high,\n          When low, the mud half-covered and half-dry;\n          The sun-burnt tar that blisters on the planks,\n          And bank-side stakes in their uneven ranks;\n          Heaps of entangled weeds that slowly float,\n          As the tide rolls by the impeded boat.\n          When tides were neap, and in the sultry day,\n          Through the tall bounding mud-banks made their way,\n          Which on each side rose swelling, and below\n          The dark warm flood ran silently and slow;\n          There anchoring, Peter chose from man to hide,\n          There hang his head, and view the lazy tide\n          In its hot slimy channel slowly glide;\n          Where the small eels, that left the deeper way\n          For the warm shore, within the shallows play;\n          Where gaping muscles, left upon the mud,\n          Slope their slow passage to the fall\u2019n flood:\n          Here dull and hopeless he\u2019d lie down and trace\n          How side-long crabs had crawled their crooked race;\n          Or sadly listen to the tuneless cry\n          Of fishing gull or clanging golden-eye;\n          What time the sea-birds to the marsh would come,\n          And the loud bittern, from the bull-rush home,\n          Gave from the salt-ditch-side the bellowing boom:\n          He nursed the feelings these dull scenes produce\n          And loved to stop beside the opening sluice;\n          Where the small stream, confined in narrow bound,\n          Ran with a dull, unvaried, saddening sound;\n          Where all, presented to the eye or ear,\n          Oppressed the soul with misery, grief, and fear.\u2019\n\nThis is an exact _fac-simile_ of some of the most unlovely parts of the\ncreation. Indeed the whole of Mr. Crabbe\u2019s _Borough_, from which the\nabove passage is taken, is done so to the life, that it seems almost\nlike some sea-monster, crawled out of the neighbouring slime, and\nharbouring a breed of strange vermin, with a strong local scent of tar\nand bulge-water. Mr. Crabbe\u2019s _Tales_ are more readable than his\n_Poems_; but in proportion as the interest increases, they become more\noppressive. They turn, one and all, upon the same sort of teazing,\nhelpless, mechanical, unimaginative distress;\u2014and though it is not easy\nto lay them down, you never wish to take them up again. Still in this\nway, they are highly finished, striking, and original portraits, worked\nout with an eye to nature, and an intimate knowledge of the small and\nintricate folds of the human heart. Some of the best are the\n_Confidant_, the story of _Silly Shore_, the _Young Poet_, the\n_Painter_. The episode of _Ph\u0153be Dawson_ in the _Village_, is one of the\nmost tender and pensive; and the character of the methodist parson who\npersecutes the sailor\u2019s widow with his godly, selfish love is one of the\nmost profound. In a word, if Mr. Crabbe\u2019s writings do not add greatly to\nthe store of entertaining and delightful fiction, yet they will remain,\n\u2018as a thorn in the side of poetry,\u2019 perhaps for a century to come!\n\n\n\n\n                      MR. T. MOORE\u2014MR. LEIGH HUNT\n\n      \u2018Or winglet of the fairy humming-bird,\n      Like atoms of the rainbow fluttering round.\u2019\n                                                        CAMPBELL.\n\n\nThe lines placed at the head of this sketch, from a contemporary writer,\nappear to us very descriptive of Mr. Moore\u2019s poetry. His verse is like a\nshower of beauty; a dance of images; a stream of music; or like the\nspray of the water-fall, tinged by the morning-beam with rosy light. The\ncharacteristic distinction of our author\u2019s style is this continuous and\nincessant flow of voluptuous thoughts and shining allusions. He ought to\nwrite with a crystal pen on silver paper. His subject is set off by a\ndazzling veil of poetic diction, like a wreath of flowers gemmed with\ninnumerous dew-drops, that weep, tremble, and glitter in liquid softness\nand pearly light, while the song of birds ravishes the ear, and languid\nodours breathe around, and Aurora opens Heaven\u2019s smiling portals, Peris\nand nymphs peep through the golden glades, and an Angel\u2019s wing glances\nover the glossy scene.\n\n        \u2018No dainty flower or herb that grows on ground,\n        No arboret with painted blossoms drest,\n        And smelling sweet, but there it might be found\n        To bud out fair, and its sweet smells throw all around.\n\n        \u2018No tree, whose branches did not bravely spring;\n        No branch, whereon a fine bird did not sit;\n        No bird, but did her shrill notes sweetly sing;\n        No song, but did contain a lovely dit:\n        Trees, branches, birds, and songs were framed fit\n        For to allure frail minds to careless ease.\u2019\n\nMr. Campbell\u2019s imagination is fastidious and select; and hence, though\nwe meet with more exquisite beauties in his writings, we meet with them\nmore rarely: there is comparatively a dearth of ornament. But Mr.\nMoore\u2019s strictest economy is \u2018wasteful and superfluous excess\u2019: he is\nalways liberal, and never at a loss; for sooner than not stimulate and\ndelight the reader, he is willing to be tawdry, or superficial, or\ncommon-place. His Muse must be fine at any rate, though she should\npaint, and wear cast-off decorations. Rather than have any lack of\nexcitement, he repeats himself; and \u2018Eden, and Eblis, and cherub-smiles\u2019\nfill up the pauses of the sentiment with a sickly monotony.\u2014It has been\ntoo much our author\u2019s object to pander to the artificial taste of the\nage; and his productions, however brilliant and agreeable, are in\nconsequence somewhat meretricious and effeminate. It was thought\nformerly enough to have an occasionally fine passage in the progress of\na story or a poem, and an occasionally striking image or expression in a\nfine passage or description. But this style, it seems, was to be\nexploded as rude, Gothic, meagre, and dry. Now all must be raised to the\nsame tantalising and preposterous level. There must be no pause, no\ninterval, no repose, no gradation. Simplicity and truth yield up the\npalm to affectation and grimace. The craving of the public mind after\nnovelty and effect is a false and uneasy appetite that must be pampered\nwith fine words at every step\u2014we must be tickled with sound, startled\nwith show, and relieved by the importunate, uninterrupted display of\nfancy and verbal tinsel as much as possible from the fatigue of thought\nor shock of feeling. A poem is to resemble an exhibition of fire-works,\nwith a continual explosion of quaint figures and devices, flash after\nflash, that surprise for the moment, and leave no trace of light or\nwarmth behind them. Or modern poetry in its retrograde progress comes at\nlast to be constructed on the principles of the modern OPERA, where an\nattempt is made to gratify every sense at every instant, and where the\nunderstanding alone is insulted and the heart mocked. It is in this view\nonly that we can discover that Mr. Moore\u2019s poetry is vitiated or\nimmoral,\u2014it seduces the taste and enervates the imagination. It creates\na false standard of reference, and inverts or decompounds the natural\norder of association, in which objects strike the thoughts and feelings.\nHis is the poetry of the bath, of the toilette, of the saloon, of the\nfashionable world; not the poetry of nature, of the heart, or of human\nlife. He stunts and enfeebles equally the growth of the imagination and\nthe affections, by not taking the seed of poetry and sowing it in the\nground of truth, and letting it expand in the dew and rain, and shoot up\nto heaven,\n\n                \u2018And spread its sweet leaves to the air,\n                Or dedicate its beauty to the sun,\u2019\n\ninstead of which he anticipates and defeats his own object, by plucking\nflowers and blossoms from the stem, and setting them in the ground of\nidleness and folly\u2014or in the cap of his own vanity, where they soon\nwither and disappear, \u2018dying or ere they sicken!\u2019 This is but a sort of\nchild\u2019s play, a short-sighted ambition. In Milton we meet with many\nprosaic lines, either because the subject does not require raising or\nbecause they are necessary to connect the story, or serve as a relief to\nother passages\u2014there is not such a thing to be found in all Mr. Moore\u2019s\nwritings. His volumes present us with \u2018a perpetual feast of nectar\u2019d\nsweets\u2019\u2014but we cannot add\u2014\u2018where no crude surfeit reigns.\u2019 He indeed\ncloys with sweetness; he obscures with splendour; he fatigues with\ngaiety. We are stifled on beds of roses\u2014we literally lie \u2018on the rack of\nrestless ecstacy.\u2019 His flowery fancy \u2018looks so fair and smells so sweet,\nthat the sense aches at it.\u2019 His verse droops and languishes under a\nload of beauty, like a bough laden with fruit. His gorgeous style is\nlike \u2018another morn risen on mid-noon.\u2019 There is no passage that is not\nmade up of blushing lines, no line that is not enriched with a sparkling\nmetaphor, no image that is left unadorned with a double epithet\u2014all his\nverbs, nouns, adjectives, are equally glossy, smooth, and beautiful.\nEvery stanza is transparent with light, perfumed with odours, floating\nin liquid harmony, melting in luxurious, evanescent delights. His Muse\nis never contented with an offering from one sense alone, but brings\nanother rifled charm to match it, and revels in a fairy round of\npleasure. The interest is not dramatic, but melodramatic\u2014it is a mixture\nof painting, poetry, and music, of the natural and preternatural, of\nobvious sentiment and romantic costume. A rose is a _Gul_, a nightingale\na _Bulbul_. We might fancy ourselves in an eastern harem, amidst\nOttomans, and otto of roses, and veils and spangles, and marble pillars,\nand cool fountains, and Arab maids and Genii, and magicians, and Peris,\nand cherubs, and what not? Mr. Moore has a little mistaken the art of\npoetry for the _cosmetic art_. He does not compose an historic group, or\nwork out a single figure; but throws a variety of elementary sensations,\nof vivid impressions together, and calls it a description. He makes out\nan inventory of beauty\u2014the smile on the lips, the dimple on the cheeks,\n_item_, golden locks, _item_, a pair of blue wings, _item_, a silver\nsound, with breathing fragrance and radiant light, and thinks it a\ncharacter or a story. He gets together a number of fine things and fine\nnames, and thinks that, flung on heaps, they make up a fine poem. This\ndissipated, fulsome, painted, patchwork style may succeed in the levity\nand languor of the _boudoir_, or might have been adapted to the\nPavilions of royalty, but it is not the style of Parnassus, nor a\npassport to Immortality. It is not the taste of the ancients, \u2018\u2019tis not\nclassical lore\u2019\u2014nor the fashion of Tibullus, or Theocritus, or Anacreon,\nor Virgil, or Ariosto, or Pope, or Byron, or any great writer among the\nliving or the dead, but it is the style of our English Anacreon, and it\nis (or was) the fashion of the day! Let one example (and that an admired\none), taken from _Lalla Rookh_, suffice to explain the mystery and\nsoften the harshness of the foregoing criticism.\n\n               \u2018Now, upon Syria\u2019s land of roses\n               Softly the light of eve reposes,\n               And, like a glory, the broad sun\n               Hangs over sainted Lebanon;\n               Whose head in wintry grandeur towers,\n                 And whitens with eternal sleet,\n               While summer, in a vale of flowers,\n                 Is sleeping rosy at his feet.\n\n               \u2018To one who look\u2019d from upper air\n               O\u2019er all the enchanted regions there,\n               How beauteous must have been the glow,\n               The life, the sparkling from below!\n               Fair gardens, shining streams, with ranks\n               Of golden melons on their banks,\n               More golden where the sun-light falls;\u2014\n               Gay lizards, glittering on the walls\n               Of ruin\u2019d shrines, busy and bright\n               As they were all alive with light;\u2014\n               And, yet more splendid, numerous flocks\n               Of pigeons, settling on the rocks,\n               With their rich restless wings, that gleam\n               Variously in the crimson beam\n               Of the warm west,\u2014as if inlaid\n               With brilliants from the mine, or made\n               Of tearless rainbows, such as span\n               The unclouded skies of Peristan!\n               And then, the mingling sounds that come,\n               Of shepherd\u2019s ancient reed, with hum\n               Of the wild bees of Palestine,\n                 Banquetting through the flowery vales;\u2014\n               And, Jordan, those sweet banks of thine,\n                 And woods, so full of nightingales!\u2019\n\nThe following lines are the very perfection of Della Cruscan sentiment,\nand affected orientalism of style. The Peri exclaims on finding that old\ntalisman and hackneyed poetical machine, \u2018a penitent tear\u2019\u2014\n\n                \u2018Joy, joy for ever! my task is done\u2014\n                The gates are pass\u2019d, and Heaven is won!\n                Oh! am I not happy? I am, I am\u2014\n                  To thee, sweet Eden! how dark and sad\n                Are the diamond turrets of Shadukiam,\n                  And the fragrant bowers of Amberabad.\u2019\n\nThere is in all this a play of fancy, a glitter of words, a shallowness\nof thought, and a want of truth and solidity that is wonderful, and that\nnothing but the heedless, rapid glide of the verse could render\ntolerable:\u2014\u2014it seems that the poet, as well as the lover,\n\n                 \u2018May bestride the Gossamer,\n                 That wantons in the idle, summer air,\n                 And yet not fall, so light is vanity!\u2019\n\nMr. Moore ought not to contend with serious difficulties or with entire\nsubjects. He can write verses, not a poem. There is no principle of\nmassing or of continuity in his productions\u2014neither height nor breadth\nnor depth of capacity. There is no truth of representation, no strong\ninternal feeling\u2014but a continual flutter and display of affected airs\nand graces, like a finished coquette, who hides the want of symmetry by\nextravagance of dress, and the want of passion by flippant forwardness\nand unmeaning sentimentality. All is flimsy, all is florid to excess.\nHis imagination may dally with insect beauties, with Rosicrucian spells;\nmay describe a butterfly\u2019s wing, a flower-pot, a fan: but it should not\nattempt to span the great outlines of nature, or keep pace with the\nsounding march of events, or grapple with the strong fibres of the human\nheart. The great becomes turgid in his hands, the pathetic insipid. If\nMr. Moore were to describe the heights of Chimboraco, instead of the\nloneliness, the vastness and the shadowy might, he would only think of\nadorning it with roseate tints, like a strawberry-ice, and would\ntransform a magician\u2019s fortress in the Himmalaya (stripped of its\nmysterious gloom and frowning horrors) into a jeweller\u2019s toy, to be set\nupon a lady\u2019s toilette. In proof of this, see above \u2018the diamond turrets\nof Shadukiam,\u2019 &c. The description of Mokanna in the fight, though it\nhas spirit and grandeur of effect, has still a great alloy of the\nmock-heroic in it. The route of blood and death, which is otherwise well\nmarked, is infested with a swarm of \u2018fire-fly\u2019 fancies.\n\n            \u2018In vain Mokanna, \u2018midst the general flight,\n            Stands, like the red moon, in some stormy night,\n            Among the fugitive clouds, that hurrying by,\n            Leave only her unshaken in the sky.\u2019\n\nThis simile is fine, and would have been perfect, but that the moon is\nnot red, and that she seems to hurry by the clouds, not they by her.\n\nThe description of the warrior\u2019s youthful adversary,\n\n                       \u2014\u2014\u2018Whose coming seems\n             A light, a glory, such as breaks in dreams\u2014\u2014\u2019\n\nis fantastic and enervated\u2014a field of battle has nothing to do with\ndreams:\u2014and again, the two lines immediately after,\n\n            \u2018And every sword, true as o\u2019er billows dim\n            The needle tracks the load-star, following him\u2019\u2014\n\nare a mere piece of enigmatical ingenuity and scientific\n_mimminee-pimminee_.\n\nWe cannot except the _Irish Melodies_ from the same censure. If these\nnational airs do indeed express the soul of impassioned feeling in his\ncountrymen, the case of Ireland is hopeless. If these prettinesses pass\nfor patriotism, if a country can heave from its heart\u2019s core only these\nvapid, varnished sentiments, lip-deep, and let its tears of blood\nevaporate in an empty conceit, let it be governed as it has been. There\nare here no tones to waken Liberty, to console Humanity. Mr. Moore\nconverts the wild harp of Erin into a musical snuff-box![64]\u2014We _do_\nexcept from this censure the author\u2019s political squibs, and the\n\u2018Twopenny Post-bag.\u2019 These are essences, are \u2018nests of spicery,\u2019 bitter\nand sweet, honey and gall together. No one can so well describe the set\nspeech of a dull formalist,[65] or the flowing locks of a Dowager,\n\n            \u2018In the manner of Ackermann\u2019s dresses for May.\u2019\n\nHis light, agreeable, polished style pierces through the body of the\ncourt\u2014hits off the faded graces of \u2018an Adonis of fifty,\u2019 weighs the\nvanity of fashion in tremulous scales, mimics the grimace of affectation\nand folly, shows up the littleness of the great, and spears a phalanx of\nstatesmen with its glittering point as with a diamond broach.\n\n                \u2018In choosing songs the Regent named,\n                \u201cHad I a heart for falsehood fram\u2019d:\u201d\n                While gentle Hertford begg\u2019d and pray\u2019d\n                For \u201cYoung I am, and sore afraid.\u2019\u201d\n\nNothing in Pope or Prior ever surpassed the delicate insinuation and\nadroit satire of these lines, and hundreds more of our author\u2019s\ncomposition. We wish he would not take pains to make us think of them\nwith less pleasure than formerly.\u2014The \u2018Fudge Family\u2019 is in the same\nspirit, but with a little falling-off. There is too great a mixture of\nundisguised Jacobinism and fashionable _slang_. The \u2018divine Fanny Bias\u2019\nand \u2018the mountains _\u00e0 la Russe_\u2019 figure in somewhat quaintly with\nBuonaparte and the Bourbons. The poet also launches the lightning of\npolitical indignation; but it rather plays round and illumines his own\npen than reaches the devoted heads at which it is aimed!\n\nMr. Moore is in private life an amiable and estimable man. The\nembellished and voluptuous style of his poetry, his unpretending origin,\nand his _mignon_ figure, soon introduced him to the notice of the great,\nand his gaiety, his wit, his good-humour, and many agreeable\naccomplishments fixed him there, the darling of his friends and the idol\nof fashion. If he is no longer familiar with Royalty as with his garter,\nthe fault is not his\u2014his adherence to his principles caused the\nseparation\u2014his love of his country was the cloud that intercepted the\nsunshine of court-favour. This is so far well. Mr. Moore vindicates his\nown dignity; but the sense of intrinsic worth, of wide-spread fame, and\nof the intimacy of the great makes him perhaps a little too fastidious\nand _exigeant_ as to the pretensions of others. He has been so long\naccustomed to the society of Whig Lords, and so enchanted with the smile\nof beauty and fashion, that he really fancies himself one of the _set_,\nto which he is admitted on sufferance, and tries very unnecessarily to\nkeep others out of it. He talks familiarly of works that are or are not\nread \u2018in _our_ circle\u2019; and seated smiling and at his ease in a\ncoronet-coach, enlivening the owner by his brisk sallies and Attic\nconceits, is shocked, as he passes, to see a Peer of the realm shake\nhands with a poet. There is a little indulgence of spleen and envy, a\nlittle servility and pandering to aristocratic pride in this proceeding.\nIs Mr. Moore bound to advise a Noble Poet to get as fast as possible out\nof a certain publication, lest he should not be able to give an account\nat Holland or at Lansdown House, how his friend Lord B\u2014\u2014 had associated\nhimself with his friend L. H\u2014\u2014? Is he afraid that the \u2018Spirit of\nMonarchy\u2019 will eclipse the \u2018Fables for the Holy Alliance\u2019 in virulence\nand plain speaking? Or are the members of the \u2018Fudge Family\u2019 to secure a\nmonopoly for the abuse of the Bourbons and the doctrine of Divine Right?\nBecause he is genteel and sarcastic, may not others be paradoxical and\nargumentative? Or must no one bark at a Minister or General, unless they\nhave been first dandled, like a little French pug-dog, in the lap of a\nlady of quality? Does Mr. Moore insist on the double claim of birth and\ngenius as a title to respectability in all advocates of the popular\nside\u2014but himself? Or is he anxious to keep the pretensions of his\npatrician and plebeian friends quite separate, so as to be himself the\nonly point of union, a sort of _double meaning_, between the two? It is\nidle to think of setting bounds to the weakness and illusions of\nself-love as long as it is confined to a man\u2019s own breast; but it ought\nnot to be made a plea for holding back the powerful hand that is\nstretched out to save another struggling with the tide of popular\nprejudice, who has suffered shipwreck of health, fame, and fortune in a\ncommon cause, and who has deserved the aid and the good wishes of all\nwho are (on principle) embarked in the same cause by equal zeal and\nhonesty, if not by equal talents to support and to adorn it!\n\nWe shall conclude the present article with a short notice of an\nindividual who, in the cast of his mind and in political principle,\nbears no very remote resemblance to the patriot and wit just spoken of,\nand on whose merits we should descant at greater length, but that\npersonal intimacy might be supposed to render us partial. It is well\nwhen personal intimacy produces this effect; and when the light, that\ndazzled us at a distance, does not on a closer inspection turn out an\nopaque substance. This is a charge that none of his friends will bring\nagainst Mr. Leigh Hunt. He improves upon acquaintance. The author\ntranslates admirably into the man. Indeed the very faults of his style\nare virtues in the individual. His natural gaiety and sprightliness of\nmanner, his high animal spirits, and the _vinous_ quality of his mind,\nproduce an immediate fascination and intoxication in those who come in\ncontact with him, and carry off in society whatever in his writings may\nto some seem flat and impertinent. From great sanguineness of temper,\nfrom great quickness and unsuspecting simplicity, he runs on to the\npublic as he does at his own fireside, and talks about himself,\nforgetting that he is not always among friends. His look, his tone are\nrequired to point many things that he says: his frank, cordial manner\nreconciles you instantly to a little over-bearing, over-weening\nself-complacency. \u2018To be admired, he needs but to be seen\u2019: but perhaps\nhe ought to be seen to be fully appreciated. No one ever sought his\nsociety who did not come away with a more favourable opinion of him: no\none was ever disappointed, except those who had entertained idle\nprejudices against him. He sometimes trifles with his readers, or tires\nof a subject (from not being urged on by the stimulus of immediate\nsympathy)\u2014but in conversation he is all life and animation, combining\nthe vivacity of the school-boy with the resources of the wit and the\ntaste of the scholar. The personal character, the spontaneous impulses,\ndo not appear to excuse the author, unless you are acquainted with his\nsituation and habits\u2014like some proud beauty who gives herself what we\nthink strange airs and graces under a mask, but who is instantly\nforgiven when she shews her face. We have said that Lord Byron is a\nsublime coxcomb: why should we not say that Mr. Hunt is a delightful\none? There is certainly an exuberance of satisfaction in his manner\nwhich is more than the strict logical premises warrant, and which dull\nand phlegmatic constitutions know nothing of, and cannot understand till\nthey see it. He is the only poet or literary man we ever knew who puts\nus in mind of Sir John Suckling or Killigrew or Carew; or who united\nrare intellectual acquirements with outward grace and natural gentility.\nMr. Hunt ought to have been a gentleman born, and to have patronised men\nof letters. He might then have played, and sung, and laughed, and talked\nhis life away; have written manly prose, elegant verse; and his _Story\nof Rimini_ would have been praised by Mr. Blackwood. As it is, there is\nno man now living who at the same time writes prose and verse so well,\nwith the exception of Mr. Southey (an exception, we fear, that will be\nlittle palatable to either of these gentlemen). His prose writings,\nhowever, display more consistency of principle than the laureate\u2019s; his\nverses more taste. We will venture to oppose his Third Canto of the\n_Story of Rimini_ for classic elegance and natural feeling to any equal\nnumber of lines from Mr. Southey\u2019s Epics or from Mr. Moore\u2019s Lalla\nRookh. In a more gay and conversational style of writing, we think his\n_Epistle to Lord Byron_ on his going abroad, is a masterpiece;\u2014and the\n_Feast of the Poets_ has run through several editions. A light, familiar\ngrace, and mild unpretending pathos are the characteristics of his more\nsportive or serious writings, whether in poetry or prose. A smile plays\nround the sparkling features of the one; a tear is ready to start from\nthe thoughtful gaze of the other. He perhaps takes too little pains, and\nindulges in too much wayward caprice in both. A wit and a poet, Mr. Hunt\nis also distinguished by fineness of tact and sterling sense: he has\nonly been a visionary in humanity, the fool of virtue. What then is the\ndrawback to so many shining qualities, that has made them useless, or\neven hurtful to their owner? His crime is, to have been Editor of the\n_Examiner_ ten years ago, when some allusion was made in it to the age\nof the present King, and though his Majesty has grown older, our\nluckless politician is no wiser than he was then!\n\n\n\n\n                       ELIA, AND GEOFFREY CRAYON\n\n\nSo Mr. Charles Lamb and Mr. Washington Irvine choose to designate\nthemselves; and as their lucubrations under one or other of these _noms\nde guerre_ have gained considerable notice from the public, we shall\nhere attempt to discriminate their several styles and manner, and to\npoint out the beauties and defects of each in treating of somewhat\nsimilar subjects.\n\nMr. Irvine is, we take it, the more popular writer of the two, or a more\ngeneral favourite: Mr. Lamb has more devoted, and perhaps more judicious\npartisans. Mr. Irvine is by birth an American, and has, as it were,\n_skimmed the cream_, and taken off patterns with great skill and\ncleverness, from our best known and happiest writers, so that their\nthoughts and almost their reputation are indirectly transferred to his\npage, and smile upon us from another hemisphere, like \u2018the pale reflex\nof Cynthia\u2019s brow\u2019: he succeeds to our admiration and our sympathy by a\nsort of prescriptive title and traditional privilege. Mr. Lamb, on the\ncontrary, being \u2018native to the manner here,\u2019 though he too has borrowed\nfrom previous sources, instead of availing himself of the most popular\nand admired, has groped out his way, and made his most successful\nresearches among the more obscure and intricate, though certainly not\nthe least pithy or pleasant of our writers. Mr. Washington Irvine has\nculled and transplanted the flowers of modern literature, for the\namusement of the general reader: Mr. Lamb has raked among the dust and\ncobwebs of a more remote period, has exhibited specimens of curious\nrelics, and pored over moth-eaten, decayed manuscripts, for the benefit\nof the more inquisitive and discerning part of the public. Antiquity\nafter time has the grace of novelty, as old fashions revived are\nmistaken for new ones; and a certain quaintness and singularity of style\nis an agreeable relief to the smooth and insipid monotony of modern\ncomposition. Mr. Lamb has succeeded not by conforming to the _Spirit of\nthe Age_, but in opposition to it. He does not march boldly along with\nthe crowd, but steals off the pavement to pick his way in the contrary\ndirection. He prefers _bye-ways_ to _highways_. When the full tide of\nhuman life pours along to some festive show, to some pageant of a day,\nElia would stand on one side to look over an old book-stall, or stroll\ndown some deserted pathway in search of a pensive inscription over a\ntottering doorway, or some quaint device in architecture, illustrative\nof embryo art and ancient manners. Mr. Lamb has the very soul of an\nantiquarian, as this implies a reflecting humanity; the film of the past\nhovers forever before him. He is shy, sensitive, the reverse of every\nthing coarse, vulgar, obtrusive, and _common-place_. He would fain\n\u2018shuffle off this mortal coil,\u2019 and his spirit clothes itself in the\ngarb of elder time, homelier, but more durable. He is borne along with\nno pompous paradoxes, shines in no glittering tinsel of a fashionable\nphraseology; is neither fop nor sophist. He has none of the turbulence\nor froth of new-fangled opinions. His style runs pure and clear, though\nit may often take an underground course, or be conveyed through\nold-fashioned conduit-pipes. Mr. Lamb does not court popularity, nor\nstrut in gaudy plumes, but shrinks from every kind of ostentatious and\nobvious pretension into the retirement of his own mind.\n\n            \u2018The self-applauding bird, the peacock see:\u2014\n            Mark what a sumptuous pharisee is he!\n            Meridian sun-beams tempt him to unfold\n            His radiant glories, azure, green, and gold:\n            He treads as if, some solemn music near,\n            His measured step were governed by his ear:\n            And seems to say\u2014\u2018Ye meaner fowl, give place,\n            I am all splendour, dignity, and grace!\u2019\n            Not so the pheasant on his charms presumes,\n            Though he too has a glory in his plumes.\n            He, Christian-like, retreats with modest mien }\n            To the close copse or far sequestered green,  }\n            and shines without desiring to be seen.\u2019      }\n\nThese lines well describe the modest and delicate beauties of Mr. Lamb\u2019s\nwritings, contrasted with the lofty and vain-glorious pretensions of\nsome of his contemporaries. This gentleman is not one of those who pay\nall their homage to the prevailing idol: he thinks that\n\n         \u2018New-born gauds are made and moulded of things past,\u2019\n\nnor does he\n\n                  \u2018Give to dust that is a little gilt\n                  More laud than gilt o\u2019er-dusted.\u2019\n\nHis convictions \u2018do not in broad rumour lie,\u2019 nor are they \u2018set off to\nthe world in the glistering foil\u2019 of fashion; but \u2018live and breathe\naloft in those pure eyes, and perfect judgment of all-seeing _time_.\u2019\nMr. Lamb rather affects and is tenacious of the obscure and remote: of\nthat which rests on its own intrinsic and silent merit; which scorns all\nalliance, or even the suspicion of owing any thing to noisy clamour, to\nthe glare of circumstances. There is a fine tone of _chiaro-scuro_, a\nmoral perspective in his writings. He delights to dwell on that which is\nfresh to the eye of memory; he yearns after and covets what soothes the\nfrailty of human nature. That touches him most nearly which is withdrawn\nto a certain distance, which verges on the borders of oblivion:\u2014that\npiques and provokes his fancy most, which is hid from a superficial\nglance. That which, though gone by, is still remembered, is in his view\nmore genuine, and has given more \u2018vital signs that it will live,\u2019 than a\nthing of yesterday, that may be forgotten to-morrow. Death has in this\nsense the spirit of life in it; and the shadowy has to our author\nsomething substantial in it. Ideas savour most of reality in his mind;\nor rather his imagination loiters on the edge of each, and a page of his\nwritings recals to our fancy the _stranger_ on the grate, fluttering in\nits dusky tenuity, with its idle superstition and hospitable welcome!\n\nMr. Lamb has a distaste to new faces, to new books, to new buildings, to\nnew customs. He is shy of all imposing appearances, of all assumptions\nof self-importance, of all adventitious ornaments, of all mechanical\nadvantages, even to a nervous excess. It is not merely that he does not\nrely upon, or ordinarily avail himself of them; he holds them in\nabhorrence, he utterly abjures and discards them, and places a great\ngulph between him and them. He disdains all the vulgar artifices of\nauthorship, all the cant of criticism, and helps to notoriety. He has no\ngrand swelling theories to attract the visionary and the enthusiast, no\npassing topics to allure the thoughtless and the vain. He evades the\npresent, he mocks the future. His affections revert to, and settle on\nthe past, but then, even this must have something personal and local in\nit to interest him deeply and thoroughly; he pitches his tent in the\nsuburbs of existing manners; brings down the account of character to the\nfew straggling remains of the last generation; seldom ventures beyond\nthe bills of mortality, and occupies that nice point between egotism and\ndisinterested humanity. No one makes the tour of our southern\nmetropolis, or describes the manners of the last age, so well as Mr.\nLamb\u2014with so fine, and yet so formal an air\u2014with such vivid obscurity,\nwith such arch piquancy, such picturesque quaintness, such smiling\npathos. How admirably he has sketched the former inmates of the\nSouth-Sea House; what \u2018fine fretwork he makes of their double and single\nentries!\u2019 With what a firm, yet subtle pencil he has embodied _Mrs.\nBattle\u2019s Opinions on Whist_! How notably he embalms a battered _beau_;\nhow delightfully an amour, that was cold forty years ago, revives in his\npages! With what well-disguised humour, he introduces us to his\nrelations, and how freely he serves up his friends! Certainly, some of\nhis portraits are _fixtures_, and will do to hang up as lasting and\nlively emblems of human infirmity. Then there is no one who has so sure\nan ear for \u2018the chimes at midnight,\u2019 not even excepting Mr. Justice\nShallow; nor could Master Silence himself take his \u2018cheese and pippins\u2019\nwith a more significant and satisfactory air. With what a gusto Mr. Lamb\ndescribes the inns and courts of law, the Temple and Gray\u2019s-Inn, as if\nhe had been a student there for the last two hundred years, and had been\nas well acquainted with the person of Sir Francis Bacon as he is with\nhis portrait or writings! It is hard to say whether St. John\u2019s Gate is\nconnected with more intense and authentic associations in his mind, as a\npart of old London Wall, or as the frontispiece (time out of mind) of\nthe Gentleman\u2019s Magazine. He haunts Watling-street like a gentle spirit;\nthe avenues to the play-houses are thick with panting recollections, and\nChrist\u2019s-Hospital still breathes the balmy breath of infancy in his\ndescription of it! Whittington and his Cat are a fine hallucination for\nMr. Lamb\u2019s historic Muse, and we believe he never heartily forgave a\ncertain writer who took the subject of Guy Faux out of his hands. The\nstreets of London are his fairy-land, teeming with wonder, with life and\ninterest to his retrospective glance, as it did to the eager eye of\nchildhood; he has contrived to weave its tritest traditions into a\nbright and endless romance!\n\nMr. Lamb\u2019s taste in books is also fine, and it is peculiar. It is not\nthe worse for a little _idiosyncrasy_. He does not go deep into the\nScotch novels, but he is at home in Smollet or Fielding. He is little\nread in Junius or Gibbon, but no man can give a better account of\nBurton\u2019s Anatomy of Melancholy, or Sir Thomas Brown\u2019s Urn-Burial, or\nFuller\u2019s Worthies, or John Bunyan\u2019s Holy War. No one is more\nunimpressible to a specious declamation; no one relishes a recondite\nbeauty more. His admiration of Shakespear and Milton does not make him\ndespise Pope; and he can read Parnell with patience, and Gay with\ndelight. His taste in French and German literature is somewhat\ndefective; nor has he made much progress in the science of Political\nEconomy or other abstruse studies, though he has read vast folios of\ncontroversial divinity, merely for the sake of the intricacy of style,\nand to save himself the pain of thinking. Mr. Lamb is a good judge of\nprints and pictures. His admiration of Hogarth does credit to both,\nparticularly when it is considered that Leonardo da Vinci is his next\ngreatest favourite, and that his love of the _actual_ does not proceed\nfrom a want of taste for the _ideal_. His worst fault is an\nover-eagerness of enthusiasm, which occasionally makes him take a\nsurfeit of his highest favourites.\u2014Mr. Lamb excels in familiar\nconversation almost as much as in writing, when his modesty does not\noverpower his self-possession. He is as little of a proser as possible;\nbut he _blurts_ out the finest wit and sense in the world. He keeps a\ngood deal in the back-ground at first, till some excellent conceit\npushes him forward, and then he abounds in whim and pleasantry. There is\na primitive simplicity and self-denial about his manners; and a\nQuakerism in his personal appearance, which is, however, relieved by a\nfine Titian head, full of dumb eloquence! Mr. Lamb is a general\nfavourite with those who know him. His character is equally singular and\namiable. He is endeared to his friends not less by his foibles than his\nvirtues; he insures their esteem by the one, and does not wound their\nself-love by the other. He gains ground in the opinion of others, by\nmaking no advances in his own. We easily admire genius where the\ndiffidence of the possessor makes our acknowledgment of merit seem like\na sort of patronage, or act of condescension, as we willingly extend our\ngood offices where they are not exacted as obligations, or repaid with\nsullen indifference.\u2014The style of the Essays of Elia is liable to the\ncharge of a certain _mannerism_. His sentences are cast in the mould of\nold authors; his expressions are borrowed from them; but his feelings\nand observations are genuine and original, taken from actual life, or\nfrom his own breast; and he may be said (if any one can) \u2018to have coined\nhis heart for _jests_,\u2019 and to have split his brain for fine\ndistinctions! Mr. Lamb, from the peculiarity of his exterior and address\nas an author, would probably never have made his way by detached and\nindependent efforts; but, fortunately for himself and others, he has\ntaken advantage of the Periodical Press, where he has been stuck into\nnotice, and the texture of his compositions is assuredly fine enough to\nbear the broadest glare of popularity that has hitherto shone upon them.\nMr. Lamb\u2019s literary efforts have procured him civic honours (a thing\nunheard of in our times), and he has been invited, in his character of\nELIA, to dine at a select party with the Lord Mayor. We should prefer\nthis distinction to that of being poet-laureat. We would recommend to\nMr. Waithman\u2019s perusal (if Mr. Lamb has not anticipated us) the\n_Rosamond Gray_ and the _John Woodvil_ of the same author, as an\nagreeable relief to the noise of a City feast, and the heat of City\nelections. A friend, a short time ago, quoted some lines[66] from the\nlast-mentioned of these works, which meeting Mr. Godwin\u2019s eye, he was so\nstruck with the beauty of the passage, and with a consciousness of\nhaving seen it before, that he was uneasy till he could recollect where,\nand after hunting in vain for it in Ben Jonson, Beaumont and Fletcher,\nand other not unlikely places, sent to Mr. Lamb to know if he could help\nhim to the author!\n\nMr. Washington Irvine\u2019s acquaintance with English literature begins\nalmost where Mr. Lamb\u2019s ends,\u2014with the Spectator, Tom Brown\u2019s works and\nthe wits of Queen Anne. He is not bottomed in our elder writers, nor do\nwe think that he has tasked his own faculties much, at least on English\nground. Of the merit of his _Knicker-bocker_, and New York stories, we\ncannot pretend to judge. But in his _Sketch-book_ and _Bracebridge-Hall_\nhe gives us very good American copies of our British Essayists and\nNovelists, which may be very well on the other side of the water, or as\nproofs of the capabilities of the national genius, but which might be\ndispensed with here, where we have to boast of the originals. Not only\nMr. Irvine\u2019s language is with great taste and felicity modelled on that\nof Addison, Goldsmith, Sterne, or Mackenzie; but the thoughts and\nsentiments are taken at the rebound, and as they are brought forward at\nthe present period, want both freshness and probability. Mr. Irvine\u2019s\nwritings are literary _anachronisms_. He comes to England for the first\ntime; and being on the spot, fancies himself in the midst of those\ncharacters and manners which he had read of in the Spectator and other\napproved authors, and which were the only idea he had hitherto formed of\nthe parent country. Instead of looking round to see what _we are_, he\nsets to work to describe us as _we were_\u2014at second hand. He has Parson\nAdams, or Sir Roger de Coverley in his \u2018_mind\u2019s eye_\u2018; and he makes a\nvillage curate or a country \u2018squire in Yorkshire or Hampshire sit to\nthese admired models for their portraits in the beginning of the\nnineteenth century. Whatever the ingenious author has been most\ndelighted with in the representations of books, he transfers to his\nport-folio, and swears that he has found it actually existing in the\ncourse of his observation and travels through Great Britain. Instead of\ntracing the changes that have taken place in society since Addison or\nFielding wrote, he transcribes their account in a different\nhand-writing, and thus keeps us stationary, at least in our most\nattractive and praise-worthy qualities of simplicity, honesty, modesty,\nhospitality, and good-nature. This is a very flattering mode of turning\nfiction into history, or history into fiction; and we should scarcely\nknow ourselves again in the softened and altered likeness, but that it\nbears the date of 1820, and issues from the press in Albemarle-street.\nThis is one way of complimenting our national and Tory prejudices; and\ncoupled with literal or exaggerated portraits of _Yankee_ peculiarities,\ncould hardly fail to please. The first Essay in the _Sketch-book_, that\non national Antipathies, is the best; but after that, the sterling ore\nof wit or feeling is gradually spun thinner and thinner, till it fades\nto the shadow of a shade. Mr. Irvine is himself, we believe, a most\nagreeable and deserving man, and has been led into the natural and\npardonable error we speak of, by the tempting bait of European\npopularity, in which he thought there was no more likely method of\nsucceeding than by imitating the style of our standard authors, and\ngiving us credit for the virtues of our forefathers.\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\nWe should not feel that we had discharged our obligations to truth or\nfriendship, if we were to let this volume go without introducing into it\nthe name of the author of _Virginius_. This is the more proper, inasmuch\nas he is a character by himself, and the only poet now living that is a\nmere poet. If we were asked what sort of man Mr. Knowles is, we could\nonly say, \u2018he is the writer of Virginius.\u2019 His most intimate friends see\nnothing in him, by which they could trace the work to the author. The\nseeds of dramatic genius are contained and fostered in the warmth of the\nblood that flows in his veins; his heart dictates to his head. The most\nunconscious, the most unpretending, the most artless of mortals, he\ninstinctively obeys the impulses of natural feeling, and produces a\nperfect work of art. He has hardly read a poem or a play or seen any\nthing of the world, but he hears the anxious beatings of his own heart,\nand makes others feel them by the force of sympathy. Ignorant alike of\nrules, regardless of models, he follows the steps of truth and\nsimplicity; and strength, proportion, and delicacy are the infallible\nresults. By thinking of nothing but his subject, he rivets the attention\nof the audience to it. All his dialogue tends to action, all his\nsituations form classic groups. There is no doubt that Virginius is the\nbest acting tragedy that has been produced on the modern stage. Mr.\nKnowles himself was a player at one time, and this circumstance has\nprobably enabled him to judge of the picturesque and dramatic effect of\nhis lines, as we think it might have assisted Shakespear. There is no\nimpertinent display, no flaunting poetry; the writer immediately\nconceives how a thought would tell if he had to speak it himself. Mr.\nKnowles is the first tragic writer of the age; in other respects he is a\ncommon man; and divides his time and his affections between his plots\nand his fishing-tackle, between the Muses\u2019 spring, and those\nmountain-streams which sparkle like his own eye, that gush out like his\nown voice at the sight of an old friend. We have known him almost from a\nchild, and we must say he appears to us the same boy-poet that he ever\nwas. He has been cradled in song, and rocked in it as in a dream,\nforgetful of himself and of the world!\n\n\n                   The End of THE SPIRIT OF THE AGE.\n\n\n\n\n  PREFACE TO AN ABRIDGMENT OF ABRAHAM TUCKER\u2019S LIGHT OF NATURE PURSUED\n\n\n\n\n                          BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE\n\n\nPublished in 1807 in an 8vo volume (xlvii + 529 pp.) with the following\ntitle-page:\u2014\u2018An Abridgment of the Light of Nature Pursued, by Abraham\nTucker, Esq. originally published, in seven volumes, under the name of\nEdward Search, Esq. London: Printed for J. Johnson, St. Paul\u2019s\nChurchyard; By T. Bensley, Bolt Court. 1807.\u2019\n\n\n\n\n        PREFACE TO AN ABRIDGMENT OF THE LIGHT OF NATURE PURSUED\n\n\nThere are two considerations which seem necessary to be attended to in\nabridging any author; the size of the work, rendering it inaccessible to\nthe generality of readers, and the merit of the work, rendering it\ndesirable that it should be within every one\u2019s reach. It is easy to\nperceive, that these two conditions are not always united: there are\nsome works whose only merit seems to be, that they are so large that\nnobody can read them; whose ponderous bulk, and formidable appearance,\nhappily serve as a barrier to keep out the infection of their dulness.\n\nThe work, of which the following is an abridgment, notwithstanding its\nexcellence, has been little read. A philosophical work in seven large\nvolumes presents no very great attractions to the indolent curiosity of\nmost readers. Even the seven volumes of Clarissa, and Sir Charles\nGrandison, are at present viewed with doubtful looks by the eye of\ntaste, and reluctantly engaged in: and our modern novelists, that\nhappily privileged race of authors, whose works \u2018not sicklied o\u2019er with\nthe pale cast of thought,\u2019 are exempt from the charge of dulness or\n_ennui_, have been obliged to contract the boundless scenes of their\nimagination within four slender volumes, where the diminutive page vies\nin vain with the luxuriant margin. As to the studious and recluse\nreader, there is generally another obstacle which prevents him from\ngratifying his curiosity with respect to works of this extent, however\nvaluable or important.\n\nAgain, there are works of great length, which cannot, however, be\nreduced into a less compass, \u2018without suffering loss and diminution.\u2019\nThough vast, there is nothing useless, nothing superfluous in them; and\nnothing can be taken away or displaced, without destroying the symmetry\nand connection of the whole. This is certainly not the case with the\nwritings of Abraham Tucker: they are encumbered and weighed down with a\nload of unnecessary matter. Not that there are any great inequalities in\nthem, nor any parts which, taken separately, are not entertaining and\nvaluable; but the work is swelled out with endless repetitions of\nitself. The same thing is said over and over again; the same subjects\ndiscussed in a different shape, till the reader is tired, and his\nattention quite distracted. This radical defect, which is certainly a\ndrawback on the usefulness of the work, appears evidently to have arisen\nfrom the manner of composing it. The author was a private gentleman, who\nwrote at his ease, and for his own amusement: he had nothing to do but\nto take his time, and follow the whim of the moment. He wrote without\nany regular plan, and without foreseeing or being concerned about the\ndeviations, the shiftings and windings, and the intricate\ncross-movements in which he should be entangled. He had leisure on his\nhands; and provided he got out of the labyrinth at last, he was\nsatisfied\u2014no matter how often he had lost his way in it. When a subject\npresented itself to him, he exhausted all he had to say upon it, and\nthen dismissed it for another. The chapter was thrown aside, and\nforgotten. If the same subject recurred again in a different connection,\nhe turned it over in his thoughts afresh; as his ideas arose in his\nmind, he committed them to paper; he repeated the same things over\nagain, or inserted any new observation or example that suggested itself\nto him in confirmation of his argument; and thus by the help of a new\ntitle, and by giving a different application to the whole, a new chapter\nwas completed. By this means, as he himself remarks, his writings are\nrather a tissue of loose essays than a regular work; and indeed the\nleaves of the Sybils could not be more loose and unconnected. It is so\nfar then from being an injury, that it must be rather an advantage to\nthe original work to expunge its repetitions, and confine its\ndigressions, if this could be done properly.\n\nThis is, in fact, what I have attempted to do: whenever I came to a\npassage that was merely a repetition of a former one, I struck it out:\nand at the same time, I endeavoured to abridge those detailed parts of\nthe work which were the longest, and the least interesting, and to\ncorrect the general redundance of the style. I have not, however (that I\nknow of), omitted any thing essential to the merit of the work. All the\nsingular observations, all the fine illustrations, I have given nearly\nin an entire state to the reader: I was afraid to touch them, lest I\nshould spoil them. The rule that I went by was, to give every thing that\nI thought would strike the attention in reading the work itself, and to\nleave out every thing (except what was absolutely necessary to the\nunderstanding of the subject), that would be likely to make no lasting\nimpression on the mind. A good abridgment ought to contain just as much\nas we should wish to recollect of a book; it should give back (only in a\nmore perfect manner) to a reader well acquainted with the original, \u2018the\nimage of his mind,\u2019 so that he would miss no favourite passage, none of\nthe prominent parts, or distinguishing features of the work. How far I\nhave succeeded, must be left to the decision of others: and perhaps in\nsome respects one is less a judge of the execution of a work like this,\nthan of an original performance. The same deception takes place here,\nas, I have been told by painters, sometimes happens in copying a fine\npicture. Your mind is full of the original, and you see the imitation\nthrough this borrowed medium; you transfuse its grace and spirit into\nthe copy; you connect its glowing tints and delicate touches with a\nmeagre outline, and a warm fancy sheds its lustre over that which is\nlittle better than a blank: but when the original impression is faded,\nand you have nothing left but the copy for the imagination to feed on,\nyou find the spirit evaporated, the expression gone, and you wonder at\nyour own mistake. I can only say, that I have done my best to prevent my\ncopy of the Light of Nature from degenerating into a mere _caput\nmortuum_. As to the pains and labour it has cost me, or the time I have\ndevoted to it, I shall say nothing. However, if any one should be\nscrupulous on that head, I might answer, as Sir Joshua Reynolds is said\nto have done to some person who cavilled at the price of a picture, and\ndesired to know how long he had been doing it, \u2018All my life.\u2019\n\nOf the work itself, I can speak with more confidence. I do not know of\nany work in the shape of a philosophical treatise that contains so much\ngood sense so agreeably expressed. The character of the work is, in this\nrespect, altogether singular. Amidst all the abstruseness of the most\nsubtle disquisitions, it is as familiar as Montaigne, and as wild and\nentertaining as John Buncle. To the ingenuity and closeness of the\nmetaphysician, he unites the principal knowledge of the man of the\nworld, and the utmost sprightliness, and even levity of imagination. He\nis the only philosopher who appears to have had his senses always _about\nhim_, or to have possessed the enviable faculty of attending at the same\ntime to what was passing in his own mind, and what was going on without\nhim. He applied every thing to the purposes of philosophy; he could not\nsee any thing, the most familiar objects or the commonest events,\nwithout connecting them with the illustration of some difficult problem.\nThe tricks of a young kitten, or a little child at play, were sure to\nsuggest to him some useful observation, or nice distinction. To this\nhabit, he was, no doubt, indebted for what Paley justly calls \u2018his\nunrivalled power of illustration.\u2019 To be convinced that he possessed\nthis power in the highest degree, it is only necessary to look into\nalmost any page of his writings: at least, I think it impossible for any\none not to perceive the beauty, the _naivet\u00e9_, the force, the clearness,\nand propriety of his illustrations, who has not previously had his\nunderstanding strangely overlaid with logic and criticism.[67]\u2014If he was\nsurpassed by one or two writers in logical precision and systematic\nprofundity, there is no metaphysical writer who is equal to him in\nclearness of apprehension, and a various insight into human nature.\nThough he excelled greatly in both, yet, he excelled more in what is\ncalled the method of induction, than that of analysis: he convinces the\nreader oftener by shewing him the thing in dispute, than by defining its\nabstract qualities; as the philosopher is said to have proved the\nexistence of motion by getting up and walking. I do not, for my own\npart, look up with all that awe and admiration to the grave professors\nof abstract reasoning that it is usual to do. They are so far from being\nmen of great comprehension of mind, (if by this we are to understand\ncomprehending the whole of every subject) that the contrary is generally\nthe case. They are persons of few ideas, of slow perceptions, of narrow\ncapacities, of dull but retentive feelings, who cannot seize or enter\ninto the infinite variety and rapid succession of natural objects, and\nare only susceptible of those impressions of things, which being common\nto all objects, and constantly repeated, come at length to fix those\nlasting traces in the mind, which nothing can ever alter or wear out. By\nattending only to one aspect of things, and that the same, and by\nleaving out always those minute differences and perplexing\nirregularities which disturb the sluggish uniformity of our ideas, and\ngive life and motion to our being, men of formal understandings are\nsometimes able to pursue their inquiries with a steadiness and certainty\nthat are incompatible with a more extensive range of thought.\nAbstraction is a trick to supply the defect of comprehension. The moulds\nof the understanding may be said not to be large enough to contain the\ngross concrete objects of nature, but will still admit of their names,\nand descriptions, and general forms, which lie flatter and closer in the\nbrain, and are more easily managed. The most perfect abstraction is\nnothing more than the art of making use of only one half of the\nunderstanding, and never seeing more than one half of a subject, in the\nsame manner as we find that those persons have the acutest perceptions,\nwho have lost some one of their senses. A man, therefore, who disdains\nthe use of common sense, and thinks to arrive at the highest point of\nphilosophy, by thus denaturalizing his understanding, is like a person\nwho should deprive himself of the use of his eye-sight, in order that he\nmight be able to grope his way better in the dark!\n\nA man may set up for a system-maker, upon a single idea: he cannot write\na sensible book without a great many. I do not deny that one idea may\noften involve, and be the parent of many others: but I do not see how\nknowledge is at all the worse, because it brings us immediately\nacquainted with the very form of truth, instead of serving merely as an\nindex, or clue to direct us in the search of it. If the one method tends\nmore effectually to sharpen the understanding, the other enriches it\nmore. The one method puts you upon exerting your own faculties; the\nother, meeting you half way, wisely saves you from the necessity of\ntaking all that pains and trouble in the search after truth, which few\npersons are disposed to take, and is therefore more generally useful.\nThe great merit of our author\u2019s writings is undoubtedly that sound,\npractical, comprehensive good sense, which is to be found in every part\nof them. What is I believe the truest test of fine sense, is that\naffecting simplicity in his observations, which proceeds from their\nextreme truth and liveliness. Whatever recalls strongly to our\nremembrance the common feelings of human nature, and marks distinctly\nthe changes that take place in the human breast, must always be\naccompanied with some sense of emotion; for our own nature can never be\nindifferent to us.\n\nIf there is any fault in his practical reasonings, it is that they are\ntoo discursive, and without a determinate object. No difficulty ever\nescapes his penetration; every view of his subject, every consequence of\nhis principles is stated and examined with scrupulous exactness, and the\nweak sides and inconveniences of every rule are pointed out, till a sort\nof sceptical uncertainty is introduced, and the mind sinks into a\npassive indifference. This kind of reasoning is certainly not calculated\nto rouse the energy of our active powers; but I believe it is that which\ngenerally accompanies much dispassionate inquiry. I am afraid the most\npatient thinkers are those who have the most doubts and the fewest\nviolent prejudices; and perhaps, after all, we shall be forced to\nacknowledge with Sterne, as the truest philosophy, \u2018that there is not so\nmuch difference between good and evil as the world are apt to imagine.\u2019\nA writer, indeed, who has a system to support, is not likely to fall\ninto this error; but then, if it is only because he has a system to\nsupport, what is the value of that confidence in his opinions, which is\nthe result of wilful blindness? A man\u2019s living much in retirement (as\nwas the case with our author) where his thoughts have a calm and even\ncourse to flow in, may also contribute much to this indecision of mind.\nThere is many a champion who would soon sink into silent scepticism, if\nhe was not urged on by the necessity of maintaining opinions which he\nhas once avowed, and had nobody to dispute against but himself. The\nspirit of contradiction is the great source of dogmatism and pertinacity\nof opinion. I am aware, that a habit of much disputing also produces the\ncontrary effect. But even where it renders men sceptical, it does not\nrender them candid. It is therefore in great cities, in literary clubs,\nthat you meet with the fewest sincere opinions, and the most extravagant\nassertions.\n\nAs to his system of belief on the subject of religion, I am unable to\nsay what it was: and perhaps he did not know himself. I have however no\ndoubt, that he was sincere in his professions of attachment to the\nestablished doctrines, or that he was habitually accustomed to look upon\nthem as true. Still there is a distinction, which is not always attended\nto, between that kind of assent which is merely habitual, or the effect\nof choice, which depends upon a disposition to regard any object in a\ncertain point of view, and that internal conviction, in which the will\nhas no concern, which is the result of a free and unbiassed judgment,\nand which a man retains in spite of himself. Subtle distinctions are not\nalways the most palpable; and therefore sometimes require the aid of\nviolent suppositions to render them intelligible. I can conceive, that a\nperson may all his life live in the belief of a certain notion, without\nonce suspecting the contrary; yet, that if the case could be put to him,\nto declare his opinion freely to the best of his judgment, for that, if\nhe were mistaken, his life must answer for it, he would instantly find\nby what slender threads his former opinion hung. The sense of\nconvenience, humour, or vanity, are sufficient to blind the\nunderstanding, and determine our opinions in speculative points, and\nmatters of indifference. Common compliance, or good-nature, or personal\nregard, may lead them to give credit to, and defend the truth of a story\ntold by a friend, which yet, if I were put to my oath, I could not do.\nSo that we, in fact, very often believe that to be true, which we _know_\nto be false.[68] The atheist is no longer an atheist on a sickbed; and a\nviolent thunderstorm has been known not only to clear the air, but to\ncure the freethinker of his affected scruples with respect to the proofs\nof a superintending Providence. But the difference of our conclusions in\nsuch cases does not arise from any new evidence, or farther\ninvestigation of the subject, but from the greater interest we have to\nexamine carefully into the real state of our opinions, and to throw off\nall disguises that conceal them from ourselves. Now this ultimate test\ncannot very well be applied to a man\u2019s religious professions, because\nthe power of denouncing \u2018pains and penalties\u2019 is already lodged in other\nhands; but I cannot help suspecting, that if this test could have been\napplied to some of our author\u2019s notions, his external and internal, or,\nto use his own expressions, his exoteric and esoteric creed, would not\nhave been found to coalesce perfectly together. It is amusing to observe\nwith what gravity he sets himself to inveigh against freethinkers and\nfree-thinking; when he himself, as to his mode of reasoning, is one of\nthe greatest of freethinkers. He seems to have been willing to _keep the\ngame_ entirely in his own hands; or else to have supposed that the\nliberal exercise of reason was only proper for gentlemen of independent\nfortune; and that none but those who were in the commission of the\npeace, should be allowed to censure vulgar errors. This was certainly a\nweakness.\n\nWith respect to his metaphysical system, he must be considered as the\nfounder of his own school; or at least, the opinions of different sects\nare so mingled up in him, that he cannot be considered as belonging to\nany party. He professes himself indeed, and seems anxious to be thought,\na disciple of Locke, but this is evidently very much _against the\ngrain_; and he is perpetually put to it to reconcile the differences\nbetween them on the most essential points.\u2014I know but of two sorts of\nphilosophy; that of those who believe what they feel, and endeavour to\naccount for it, and that of those who only believe what they understand,\nand have already accounted for. The one is the philosophy of\nconsciousness, the other that of experiment; the one may be called the\nintellectual, the other the material philosophy. The one rests chiefly\non the general notions and conscious perceptions of mankind, and\nendeavours to discover what the mind is, by looking into the mind\nitself; the other denies the existence of every thing in the mind, of\nwhich it cannot find some rubbishly archetype, and visible image in its\ncrucibles and furnaces, or in the distinct forms of verbal analysis. The\nfirst of these is the only philosophy that is fit for men of sense, the\nother should be left to chymists and logicians. Of this last kind is the\nphilosophy of Locke; though I would be understood to speak of him rather\nas having laid the foundation, on which others have built absurd\nconclusions, than of what he was in himself. He was a man of much\nstudious thought and reflection; and if everything by being carried to\nextremes, were not converted into abuse, his writings might have been of\nlasting service to his country and mankind. He staggered under the\n\u2018petrific mace\u2019 of Hobbes\u2019s philosophy, which he had not strength to\nresist, but yet he attempted to make some stand; and was not quite\noverpowered by the gripe of that demon of the understanding. He took for\nhis basis a bad simile, that the mind is like a blank sheet of paper,\nequally adapted to receive every kind of external impression. Or at\nleast, if this illustration was proper for the purpose to which he\napplied it (which was to overturn the doctrine of innate ideas), a very\nbad use has been made of it since; as if it was meant to prove, that the\nmind is nothing in itself, nor the cause of any thing, never acting, but\nalways acted upon, the mere receiver and passive instrument of whatever\nimpressions are made upon it; so that being fairly _gutted_ of itself,\nand of all positive qualities, it in fact resembles the bare walls and\nempty rooms of an unfurnished lodging, into which you bring whatever\nfurniture you please; and which never contains any thing more than what\nis brought into it through the doors of the senses. Hence all those\nsuperadded feelings and ideas, all those operations and modifications\nwhich our impressions undergo from the active powers and independent\nnature of the mind itself, are treated as chimerical and visionary\nnotions by the profound adepts in this clear-sighted philosophy.[69] The\nobject of the German philosophy, or the system of professor Kant, as far\nas I can understand it, is to explode this mechanical ignorance, to take\nthe subject out of the hands of its present possessors, and to admit our\nown immediate perceptions to be some evidence of what passes in the\nhuman mind. It takes for granted the common notions prevalent among\nmankind, and then endeavours to explain them; or to shew their\nfoundation in nature, and the universal relations of things. This, at\nleast, is a modest proposal, and worthy of a philosopher. The\nunderstanding here pays a proper deference to the other parts of our\nbeing, and knows its own place: whereas our modern sophists, meddling,\nnoisy, and self-sufficient, think that truth is only made to be disputed\nabout; that it exists no where but in their experiments, demonstrations,\nand syllogisms; and leaving nothing to the silent operations of nature\nand common sense, believe that all our opinions, thoughts, and feelings,\nare of no value, till the understanding, like a pert commentator, comes\nforward to enforce and explain them; as if a book could be nothing\nwithout notes, or as if a picture had no meaning in it till it was\npointed out by the connoisseur! Tucker was certainly an arrant truant\nfrom the system he pretends to adopt, and one of the common sense\nschool. Thus he believed with professor Kant in the unity of\nconsciousness, or \u2018that the mind alone is formative,\u2019 that fundamental\narticle of the _transcendental_ creed; in the immateriality of the soul,\netc. His chapter on consciousness is one of the best in the whole work;\nand is perhaps as close an example of reasoning as is any where to be\nmet with. I would recommend it to the serious perusal of all our\nprofessed _reasoners_, but that they are so thoroughly satisfied with\nthe profession of the thing, so fortified and wrapped up in the mere\nname, that it is impossible to make any impression upon them with the\nthing itself. On some other questions, which form the great leading\noutlines of the two creeds, as that of self-love, for instance, his\nopinions seem to have been more unsettled and wavering. I have already\noffered what I have to say on this subject in a little work published by\nMr. Johnson; and I shall therefore say the less about it here.[71]\nHowever, as I may not soon have an opportunity of recurring to the same\nsubject, and as there is a part of that work with which I am not very\nwell satisfied, the subject of which is also treated of in the following\npages, it may not perhaps be altogether impertinent to add a few\nobservations for the further clearing of it up.\n\nWe are told, that sympathy is only self-love disguised in another form,\nthat it is a mere mechanical impulse or tendency to our own\ngratification. It is asked, Do we not attach ourselves to the idea of\nanother\u2019s welfare, because it is pleasing to us, and do we not feel an\naversion or dislike to certain objects, whether relating to ourselves or\nothers, merely because they are disagreeable to us; and is not this\nself-love? I answer no. Because, in this logical way of speaking, it is\na misnomer to call my attachment to any particular object or idea by a\nname that implies my attachment to a general principle, or to any thing\nbeyond itself. Numerically and absolutely speaking, the particular idea\nor modification which produces any given action, is as much a distinct,\nindividual, independent thing in nature, and has no more to do with\nmyself, that is, with other objects, and ideas which have no immediate\nconcern in producing it, than one individual has to do with another. The\nnotion that our motives are blind mechanical impulses, if it proves\nanything, proves, that instead of being always governed by self-love,\nthere is in reality no such thing. So that, as far as this argument\ngoes, it is no less absurd to trace our love of others to self-love,\nthan it would be to account for a man\u2019s love of reading from his\nfondness for bread and butter, or to say that his having an ear for\nmusic arose from his relish for port wine. It is therefore necessary to\nsuppose, that when we attempt to resolve all our motives into self-love,\nwe only mean to refer them to a certain class, and to say, that they all\nagree in having some circumstance in common which brings them under the\nsame general denomination. Now, there is one way in which this has been\nattempted, by proving that they are all _ours_, that they all belong to\nthe same being, and are therefore all equally selfish. This is as bad as\nSoame Jenyns\u2019s argument, that all men may be said to be born equal,\nbecause they are equally born. So, if it is contended, that sympathy is\na part of our nature, and therefore selfish; that the imagination and\nunderstanding are real efficient causes of action, and therefore operate\nmechanically; that our ideas of all external existences, of other\npersons, their names, qualities and feelings, are only impressions\nexisting in our own minds, and are therefore properly selfish, and ought\nto be called so; I shall have nothing to object to this kind of\nreasoning, but that it is taking a great deal of perverse pains to no\npurpose. The question stands just where it did, it is not moved a jot\nfurther. For what difference can be made in the question, by our calling\nbenevolence selfishness, or sympathy self-love, I cannot discover,\nexcept that we should lose the advantage of having a distinct word to\nexpress those affections and feelings which confessedly have nothing to\ndo with sympathy. The question therefore is, whether all our affections\nare of this latter class, or whether the two words do not express a\ndistinction which has no real foundation in nature. This is in fact what\nmust be meant by saying that sympathy is self-love in disguise; for this\nmust imply that sympathy does not operate as such, that it is only the\nostensible motive, the accidental circumstance, the form or vehicle that\nserves to transmit the efficacy of another principle lying hid beneath\nit, and that has no power but what it derives from its connection with\nsomething else. But, in order to establish this mechanical theory of\nself-love, it appears to me necessary to exhibit sympathy as it were\nabstracted from itself, to resolve it into another principle, and to\nshew that it would still produce exactly the same effects as it does at\npresent. Now there are two ways in which I can conceive that this might\nbe satisfactorily made out, viz. if it could be shewn, first, that our\nconcern for others only affects the mind as connected with physical or\nbodily uneasiness; or, 2ndly, as abstract uneasiness. Suppose, for\ninstance, that the imaginary feeling of what other persons suffer, as\nfar as it is confined to the mind only, does not affect me at all, or\nproduce the least disposition in my mind or wish to relieve them, but\nthat the idea of what they suffer gives me a pain in the head, or\nproduces an uneasiness at my stomach, and that then, for the first time,\nI begin to feel some concern for them, and try to relieve them, in order\nto get rid of my own uneasiness, because I do not like the head-ach or\nthe stomach-ach; this, I grant, would not entitle me to the character of\nmuch disinterestedness, but however I might attempt to gloss the matter\nover by an affectation of sensibility, and make a virtue of necessity,\nwould be downright, unequivocal selfishness. This first supposition,\nhowever, is not true. To prove this, I need only appeal to every one\u2019s\nown breast, or at least to our observation of human nature; for it must\nbe clear to every person, in one or other of these ways, that our\ninterest in the pleasures and pains of others is not excited in the\nmanner here described. Besides, how should the mind communicate an\nuneasiness to the body, which it does not feel itself? We must therefore\nhave recourse to the second supposition for resolving benevolence into a\nmere mechanical principle, or shewing that it is at bottom the same\nwith, and governed by the same laws as our most selfish impulses. There\nis no contradiction in supposing, that however great a disposition there\nmight be in the mind to be immediately affected by the pleasures and\npains of others, yet the impression made upon us by them might be\nnothing more than a mere abstract sensation of pleasure or pain, a\nsimple detached or insulated feeling, existing by itself, and operating\nas a motive to action no further than the individual was concerned, or\nthan he was affected by it as a positive, momentary thing. This would\nstill be a mechanical and selfish feeling. Compassion would in this case\nbe an immediate repugnance or aversion of the mind to an actual\nimpression, and a disposition to take the shortest way to escape from\nit, every thing else being a matter of perfect indifference. This\naccount supposes the particles of individual feeling to be as it were\ndrawn off by some metaphysical process, and thus disengaged from the\nlifeless unsubstantial forms, to which they were attached, to bend their\nwhole force to remove every thing that may cause the least disturbance\nor detriment to the mind to which they belong. You must believe, on this\nhypothesis, that our gross material desires setting themselves free from\nthe airy yoke of fancy, tend directly to the centre of self-interest, as\nthe lead and iron work, when once disengaged from the body of the ship,\nno longer float on the surface of the water, borne about by the winds,\nbut sink at once to the bottom. But I have already shewn at large, and\nthe reader may easily perceive, that this description of the manner in\nwhich our motives operate, has not the least foundation in nature. Our\nideas and feelings act in concert. The will cannot act without ideas,\nnor otherwise than as it is directed by them. The mind is not so loosely\nconstructed, as that the different parts can disengage themselves at\nwill from the rest of the system, and follow their own separate\nimpulses. It is governed by many different springs united together, and\nacting in subordination to the same conscious power. It is formed, that\nif it could only wish to get rid of its own immediate uneasiness, it\ncould never get rid of it at all, because it could not _will_ the\nnecessary means for that purpose, and would be perpetually tormented by\nideal causes of pain, without being able to exert itself to remove them.\nThe sore part might shrink, but the hand would not be stretched out to\nremove the object that irritated it. Without allowing an elastic power\nto the understanding; a power of collecting and concentrating its forces\nin any direction that seems necessary; and without supposing that our\nideas have a power to act as relative representative things, connected\ntogether in a certain regular order, and not as mere simple pleasure and\npain; the will would be entirely useless: indeed, there could be no such\nthing as volition, either with respect to our own affairs or those of\nothers. But the fact is, that our ideas of certain things are interwoven\ninto the finer texture of the mind, in a certain order and connection,\nas closely as the things themselves are joined in nature; and if, as\nthey exist and are perceived there, they are true and efficient causes\nof action, I see no reason for asserting that they act mechanically,\nwhen, by this expression, if we affix any distinct idea to it, we must\nmean something entirely different; nor for ascribing those actions and\nmotives to self-love, which neither take their rise from, nor are\ndirected by, nor end in securing the exclusive interest of the\nindividual as a numerical unit, a mere solitary existence. As the idea\nwhich influences the mind is not a detached idea starting up of its own\naccord, but an idea connected with other ideas and circumstances,\npresented involuntarily to the mind, and which cannot be separated from\none another, or the whole of them banished from our thoughts, without\noverturning the foundation of all our habits of judging and reasoning,\nand deranging the understanding itself; it follows that the object of\nthe mind, as an intelligent and rational agent, must be, not to remove\nthe idea itself immediately as it is impressed on itself, but to remove\nthose associated feelings and ideas which connect it with the world of\nexternal nature; that is, to make such an alteration in the relation of\nexternal objects, as, according to the necessary connection between\ncertain objects and certain ideas, can alone produce the desired effect\nupon the mind. Our mechanical, and voluntary motives are not therefore\nthe same, and it is absurd to attempt to reduce them under the same law.\nThey do not move in concentric spheres, but are like the opposite\ncurrents of a river running many different ways at the same time. The\nsprings that give birth to our social affections are, by means of the\nunderstanding, as much regulated by the feelings of others, as if they\nhad a real communication and sympathy with them, and are swayed by an\nimpulse that is altogether foreign to self-love.\n\nBut to return to my author: it may be expected that I should point out\nsome of those parts of the work which I think the most excellent. I have\nalready mentioned the chapter on the nature of consciousness. That on\nthe necessary connection of our motives is equally admirable for the\nclearness and closeness of the reasoning, though he afterwards, somehow\nor other, unaccountably deserts his own doctrine. Among the chapters on\nsubjects of morality, some of those, which I have entitled\nmiscellaneous, are perhaps the best, as those on vanity, education,\ndeath, etc. The last of these, I have sometimes conceived, has a\nresemblance, in a certain peculiar style of reasoning, in which truth\nand sophistry are artfully blended together, to Cicero\u2019s beautiful\nlittle treatise on Old Age; and, setting aside the exquisite polish of\nstyle, and gracefulness of the manner, in which it would be ridiculous\nto make any comparison with that elegant writer, I think the advantage\nis clearly on the side of our author, in ingenuity and richness of\nillustration.[72] But he has taken his boldest and most successful\nflight, in what he calls the Vision; this is the most singular part of\nthe work, and that by which our author\u2019s reputation as a man of genius\nmust stand or fall. I have given it with care, and more at large than\nany other part. The best things in it are his meeting with his wife, and\nthe lecture delivered by Pythagoras.\n\nHad our author been a vain man, his situation would not have been an\nenviable one. Even the sternest stoic of us all wishes at least for some\nperson to enter into his views and feelings, and confirm him in the\nopinion he entertains of himself. But he does not seem to have had his\nspirits once cheered by the animating cordial of friendly sympathy.\nDiscouraged by his friends, neglected by the public, and ridiculed by\nthe reviewers, he still drew sufficient encouragement from the testimony\nof his own mind, and the inward consciousness of truth. He still pursued\nhis inquiries with the same calmness and industry, and entered into the\nlittle round of his amusements with the same cheerfulness as ever. He\nrested satisfied with the enjoyment of himself, and of his own\nfaculties; and was not disgusted with his simple employments, because\nthis made no noise in the world. He did not seek for truth as the echo\nof loud folly; and he did not desist from the exercise of his own\nreason, because he could make no impression on ignorance and vulgarity.\nHe could contemplate the truth by its own clear light, without the aid\nof the false lustre and glittering appearance which it assumes in the\nadmiring eyes of the beholders. He sought for his reward, where only the\nphilosopher will find it, in the secret approbation of his own heart,\nand the clear convictions of an enlightened understanding. The man of\ndeep reflection is not likely to gain much popular applause; and he does\nnot stand in need of it. He has learned to live upon his own stock, and\ncan build his self-esteem on a better foundation than that of vanity. I\ncannot help mentioning, that though Mr. Tucker was blind when he wrote\nthe last volumes of his work, which he did with a machine contrived by\nhimself, he has not said a word of this circumstance: this would be with\nme a sufficient trait of his character.\n\n\n       THE AUTHOR OF An Essay on The Principles of Human Action.\n\n\n\n\n      PREFACE TO A NEW AND IMPROVED GRAMMAR OF THE ENGLISH TONGUE\n\n\n\n\n                          BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE\n\n\nPublished in one volume 12mo in 1810 (xvii. + 205 pp.) with the\nfollowing title-page: \u2018A new and improved Grammar of the English Tongue:\nfor the use of Schools In which the Genius of our Speech is especially\nattended to And the Discoveries of Mr. Horne Tooke and other Modern\nWriters on the Formation of Language are, for the first time\nincorporated By William Hazlitt. Author of an Essay on the Principles of\nHuman Action etc. etc. etc. To which is added A new Guide to the English\nTongue In a letter to Mr. W. F. Mylius, Author of the School Dictionary,\nBy Edward Baldwin, Esq. London: Printed for M. J. Godwin, at the\nJuvenile Library, No. 41, Skinner Street; And to be had of all\nBooksellers. 1810.\u2019 The volume was printed by Richard Taylor and Co.,\nShoe-Lane, London.\n\n\n\n\n      PREFACE TO A NEW AND IMPROVED GRAMMAR OF THE ENGLISH TONGUE\n\n\nIt is a circumstance which may at first excite some surprise, that,\namidst the various improvements in books of modern education, there has\nhitherto been no such thing as a real English Grammar. Those which we\nhave are little else than translations of the Latin Grammar into\nEnglish. We shall, however, no longer wonder at this circumstance, when\nwe recollect that the Latin Grammar was regularly taught in our schools\nseveral centuries before any attempt was made to introduce the study of\nthe mother-tongue; and that even since some attention has been paid to\nthe latter, the study of the learned languages still having the\nprecedence, our first notions of grammar are necessarily derived from\nthem. Those who have written on the subject have not been exempt from\nthe influence of early prejudice, and instead of correcting the error,\nhave strengthened it.\n\nThe following is an attempt to explain the principles of the English\nlanguage, such as it really is. We have endeavoured to admit no\ndistinctions, which, but for our acquaintance with other languages, we\nshould never have suspected to exist. The common method of teaching\nEnglish grammar by transferring the artificial rules of other languages\nto our own, not only occasions much unnecessary trouble and perplexity;\nbut by loading the memory with mere technical formalities, accustoms the\nmind to one of the worst habits that can be,\u2014that of mistaking words for\nthings, and of admitting a distinction without a difference. We might\nhere refer particularly to the accounts given, in the most approved and\npopular grammars, of the genders, and the objective case of English\nnouns, that is, of a case without any difference of termination, and of\ngenders without any mark denoting sex, &c. &c. In this respect the\nFrench seem to have much the advantage of us; as their grammars are,\ngenerally speaking, real descriptions of their language, not a fanciful\nand laboured account of what has no where any existence.\n\nIt is now above twenty years since Mr. Horne Tooke published his\ncelebrated work on grammar, called the Diversions of Purley. Though this\nhas produced a very important change in the theory of language, no\nnotice has been taken of it by grammarians in their definitions of the\nParts of Speech, or in that branch of grammar which usurps the name of\nEtymology\u2014an almost inexcusable neglect in those whose professed\nbusiness it was to instruct others in the nature and origin of language.\nIt is the object of the following compilation to take advantage of the\ndiscoveries contained in that work, without adopting its errors.[73]\n\nThe soundest and most useful parts of Mr. T.\u2019s system, are his\nresearches into the origin of indeclinable words, and we have engrafted\nthe result of most of these into our little work, so far at least as to\nmake the subject intelligible to the learner, though if we have merely\nexcited his curiosity, we shall not have entirely failed in our object.\n\nThe practical rules and observations in the following work are almost\nentirely selected from other works of the same kind: if it should be\nthought to have any advantage over them, it must be chiefly in the\ntheoretical and logical part. We shall here therefore present the reader\nwith a short general view of the subject, to enable him to judge in what\nwe differ from others, and whether it is for the better or worse.\n\nIt is common to suppose that the parts of speech, or different sorts of\nwords, relate to different sorts of things or ideas; and that it was to\nexpress this difference in the subject-matter of discourse, that one\nclass of words was originally appropriated to one class of things, and\nanother to another. We have endeavoured to show on the contrary, that\nthe grammatical distinctions of words do not relate to the nature of the\nthings or ideas spoken of, but to our manner of speaking of them, _i.e._\nto the particular point of view in which we have occasion to consider\nthem, or combine them with others in the same discourse. The difference\nbetween a substantive and an adjective for instance, does not depend on\nthe intrinsical nature of the object we think or speak of, but on its\nbeing that concerning which we affirm something, or that which we affirm\nof it. So if we say that snow is white, snow, the name of the subject of\ndiscourse, is a substantive, and white, the name of the quality we\nattribute to it, is an adjective, not because snow is a substance, and\nwhite a quality, for we may speak of a snowy mountain, or say that\nwhiteness is hurtful to the eyes, when these words will change their\ncharacter, though the things themselves cannot. The things themselves do\nnot change, but it is we who view them in a different connection with\nother things, and who accordingly use different sorts of words to show\nthe difference of the situation which they occupy in our thoughts and\ndiscourse.\n\nThe article is generally left quite unexplained, a mere anomaly in\nlanguage. We have endeavoured to show that it is either the numeral\nadjective (_un_, one) or that it belongs to the same class with the\ndemonstrative pronouns, _this_, _that_, &c.\n\nA substantive had been generally supposed to be a word expressing a real\nthing or substance, as A man, a tree, a house, &c. It was however found\nthat this definition would exclude many words from being substantives,\nwhich are universally allowed to be so; for example, all words\nexpressing qualities, actions, abstract ideas, &c. &c. such as,\nWhiteness, conquest, kingdom, virtue. The only definition which in\ncommon grammars has been substituted for this circumscribed one is as\nmuch too loose and general: for a substantive is defined by Lowth,\nMurray, &c., to be the name of any thing that exists, or of which we can\nform any notion. So that all words, _i.e._ all signs of our ideas, must\nbe substantives. We believe that a substantive is neither the name of a\nthing, nor the name of a substance, but the name of a substance or of\nany other thing or idea, considered as it is in itself, or as a distinct\nindividual. That is, it is not the name of a thing really subsisting by\nitself (according to the old definition), but of a thing _considered_ as\nsubsisting by itself. So if we speak of _white_ as a circumstance or\nquality of snow, it is an adjective; but if we abstract the idea of\n_white_ from the substance to which it belongs, and consider this colour\nas it really is in itself, or as a distinct subject of discourse, it\nthen becomes a substantive, as in the sentence, White or whiteness is\nhurtful to the sight.\n\nAdjectives are constantly defined as if they were the names of certain\nqualities, and of no other class of ideas. It is evident from what has\nbeen said that this definition is fallacious. We speak of a _stony_\nroad, a _golden_ mountain, a _leather_ girdle, where the words marked in\nitalics, and which refer to the substance of which a thing is made, not\nto its qualities, are confessedly adjectives. Any idea or thing,\nconsidered as a circumstance belonging to or connected with another, may\nbe an adjective. An adjective therefore differs from a substantive, not\nfrom its expressing some _quality_ of a substance, but from its\nexpressing any thing that is affirmed of or connected with another, to\nwit, its quality, number, form, size, substance, situation, &c. &c., as\nmay be seen in the instances, A _white_ horse, A _tenth_ part, A _round_\ntable, A _small_ book, An _iron_ crown, A _sea_ port. On the other hand,\nthe characteristic difference between the adjective and the verb is,\nthat the former expresses something that is usually known to belong to a\nthing, or which is taken for granted as a circumstance belonging to it;\nwhereas the latter or the verb expresses something not usually belonging\nto a thing, or known to make a part of it, and which therefore forms the\nsubject of a distinct proposition. The use of the adjective is to\ndescribe or define the subject of discourse, that of the verb to _mark_\nany addition which the speaker wishes to make to it, or any circumstance\nrespecting it which it is his immediate object to enforce upon the\nhearer. So if we speak of a \u2018_poisonous_ plant,\u2019 we take for granted the\nconnection between the subject and the attribute as a thing of course,\nor as already understood; but if we say, \u2018hemlock _poisons_, or _is\npoisonous_,\u2019 we then distinguish this connection of ideas as one which\nwe suppose the hearer to be ignorant of, or which we particularly wish\nto recal to his attention.\n\nWe have been led unintentionally in speaking of the adjectives to\nanticipate our account of the verb. Nothing can be more vague,\nunsatisfactory and confused than the definition commonly given of the\nlast, namely, that it is a word signifying To be, To do, or To suffer.\nFrom this definition the student may be tempted to suppose that Being,\nDoing, and Suffering are three particular classes of ideas, which are\nalways expressed by the verb, and by no other part of speech. Let us\nexamine how far this is the case. To love, then, is a verb, because it\nexpresses Being, Doing, or Suffering. Love (the substantive) is not a\nverb, and yet it surely expresses either Being, Doing, or Suffering.\nBattle, Conquest, &c., are the names of actions, yet they are not verbs,\nbut substantives. Active, Hasty, Cowardly, are adjectives, all of them\nexpressing Action, Suffering, Being, or a state of being. In fact, those\nwho have made and adopted this definition, have sheltered its weakness\nunder an ambiguous form of expression. If they had said that a verb is a\nword signifying Being, Doing, or Suffering, their account would not have\nbeen admitted. The prefix of the infinitive mood (To be, To do, &c.) is\nthe only resemblance which the definition has to the subject. Instead of\ndefining the verb, they make use of one. It remains however to show in\nwhat respect To Be, To Do, and To Suffer differ from Being, Doing, and\nSuffering. It cannot be in the subject-matter, or the ideas themselves,\nfor these are the same.\n\nSome persons have confined the signification of the verb to action. See\nIntroduction to an Analytical Dictionary by David Booth. But this\nhypothesis, which is more determinate than the other, and at least aims\nat a meaning, is hardly tenable. The verb To Be does not express action.\nTo belong to, To possess, To contain, To extend over, &c., do not\nexpress action, _i.e._ motion or change. Not to say that other classes\nof words, as nouns and adjectives, express action as well as verbs, as\nwe have shown above. It would be better to say that a verb expresses\nsome fact or event, that is to say, Being, Doing, or Suffering, as\ndistinguished from a state of Being, Doing, or Suffering. But neither do\nall verbs express a single act or instance of a thing. When we say Two\nand two make four, we do not mean they do so in a single instance, but\nalways. It is true, however, that verbs oftener express what happens to\na thing, than what belongs to it, and that they do not express any\nproposition more generally than the nature of the subject requires. They\nmake any thing known in a more marked and pointed, and therefore in a\nmore limited manner. This secondary quality in the verb, however, seems\nto form the chief distinction between the participle and the adjective.\nThose indeed who make the participle an essential part of the verb, must\nadopt the definition here referred to, _viz._ that a verb is a word\nsignifying a single, not a general attribution of one thing to another,\nor the actually being, doing, or suffering any thing, as distinct from a\nstate of being, doing, or suffering. If we were to adopt any other\ndefinition of the verb than the one we have inserted, it would certainly\nbe this. But we think it more consistent both with the particular\nmeaning of words, and with the logic of grammar, to divide adjectives\nand verbs into words intended to express a _given_, or known connection\nbetween our ideas, and words intended to communicate a new or unknown\none, than into words representing a continued connection between the\nsubject and the attribute, and an accidental or momentary one.\n\nWe shall here just notice by the way the very unsatisfactory account of\nactive and passive verbs given by grammarians. A verb is active, they\nsay, when it denotes the doing of an action, passive when it denotes the\nreceiving one. The words _To receive a blow_ will upon this principle\nsignify the doing of an action, and to say _that an action is performed_\nwill signify the receiving one. In fact the notion of agency or\npassiveness has no necessary connection with the active and passive\nforms of verbs. For an attempt to explain this subject, we refer to the\ngrammar itself.\n\nA pronoun is a general term to express an individual. Thus by the words\nHe, she, it, I, you, &c., we mean that particular person or thing, which\noccupies a certain situation in the discourse, the person speaking, or\nthe person spoken to, &c. A pronoun is literally a word used instead of,\nor which supplies the place of a noun, because instead of mentioning the\nname of the individual, we only refer to it by some known circumstance\nof situation which ascertains the object we mean. Pronouns are therefore\nadjectives defining some circumstance of a thing, and put absolutely.\n\nAdverbs are for the most part words expressing the circumstance, manner,\ndegree, &c., of an action, or attribute. Some of them, however, as the\nwords No, Yes, are properly abbreviations of whole sentences, that is,\nconvey assent to or dissent from an entire proposition. The last of\nthese words is in fact the French verb, _Ouis_, _I hear_, used as an\nindeclinable term, that is, a term having a definite sense and meaning\nlike declinable words, but not varied to adapt it to different\nsituations, because it is restricted by custom to a particular\napplication. The same account may be given of the other indeclinable\nwords. Prepositions and conjunctions are either nouns or verbs\nexpressing certain ideas like other nouns and verbs, but which are now\nused only for a particular purpose, and in a particular manner; that is\nto say, they are abruptly inserted between other words or sentences to\njoin them together, and point out some such abstract relation between\nthem as is implied in the original words themselves. So when we say All\nexcept John, we do not mean to address ourselves formally to any person\nwho is to except or leave out John, though the preposition Except is\nundoubtedly the imperative mood of the same verb. We merely mean to\nconvey the abstract idea, that John is to be excepted from the\nobservation we have made, or that what is true of the others is not true\nof him. So the word From is a noun originally signifying Beginning, and\nnow inserted before another noun to point it out as the source, cause,\nor first instance of any thing: as He speaks _from_ (source)\ninspiration, or inspiration being the _cause_ of his speaking.\nInterjections are the last class of indeclinable words, and they admit\nof a similar explanation. For they are merely words, conveying some\nsudden burst of passion, and left standing by themselves without any\nregular connection with the rest of the discourse. We also give an\ninterjectional form to half sentences, when we are hurried on by passion\ninto the middle of what we mean to express without making any\npreparation, as \u2018Oh virtue! how amiable thou art! _i.e._ _I cannot\nexpress_ how amiable thou art.\u2019\n\nWe have thus gone through the different parts of the subject, in order\nto enable those who are conversant in such questions, to judge at one\nview of the merits or demerits of our plan. It is, we confess, a little\ndifferent from others. But those, whose time is chiefly occupied in\nlearning grammar, whether Latin or English, are not very strongly\nprejudiced in favour of established systems. The imperfections of those\nsystems are obvious and unquestionable; and therefore an assiduous\nendeavour to improve upon them, and to place the fundamental articles of\ngrammatical knowledge on a clearer and more intelligible footing without\nimplicitly subscribing to error and absurdity merely because they are\nold, can scarcely fail to be received with favour, and examined with\nfairness, by competent judges.\n\n\n\n\n                                 NOTES\n\n\n\n\n                   A REPLY TO THE ESSAY ON POPULATION\n\n\nThomas Robert Malthus\u2019s (1766\u20131834) _Essay on the Principle of\nPopulation as it affects the Future Improvement of Society_ was\npublished anonymously in 1798. The second edition \u2018very much enlarged\u2019\nappeared with the author\u2019s name in a large 4to volume in 1803. For a\nsketch of Malthus\u2019s life and doctrine and of the Malthusian controversy,\nsee Sir Leslie Stephen\u2019s _The English Utilitarians_, II. 137\u2013185 and\n238\u2013259. The references in the following notes are to the second (1803)\nedition of the Essay. Cf. Hazlitt\u2019s essay on Malthus in _The Spirit of\nthe Age, ante_, pp. 287\u2013298, and the last five essays in _Political\nEssays_, vol. III. pp. 356\u2013385. A paper by De Quincey, entitled\n\u2018Malthus,\u2019 in the _London Magazine_ for Oct. 1823, led to a brief\ncontroversy between De Quincey and Hazlitt, the particulars of which\nwill be found in De Quincey\u2019s _Works_ (ed. Masson), IX. pp. 3, 20\u201331.\nHazlitt\u2019s _Reply to Malthus_ was reviewed in the _Edinburgh Review_ for\nAugust 1810 (vol. xvi. p. 464), or rather, as Hazlitt complains, the\ntitle of his _Reply_ was prefixed to an article in the _Edinburgh_ \u2018as a\npretence for making a formal eulogy\u2019 on Malthus\u2019s work. Hazlitt\nthereupon wrote the following letter to Cobbett\u2019s _Political Register_\n(Nov. 24, 1810, vol. xviii. p. 1014) under the heading \u2018Mr. Malthus and\nthe Edinburgh Reviewers\u2019:\u2014\n\n\u2018SIR,\u2014The title-page of a pamphlet which I published some time ago, and\npart of which appeared in the Political Register in answer to the Essay\non Population, having been lately prefixed to an article in the\nEdinburgh Review as a pretence for making a formal eulogy on that work,\nI take the liberty to request your insertion of a few queries, which may\nperhaps bring the dispute between Mr. Malthus\u2019s admirers and his\nopponents, to some sort of issue. It will, however, first of all be\nproper to say something of the article in the Review. The writer of the\narticle accuses the \u2018anonymous\u2019 writer of the reply to the Essay, of\nmisrepresenting and misunderstanding his author, and undertakes to give\na statement of the real principles of Mr. Malthus\u2019s work. He at the same\ntime informs us for whom this statement is intended, namely, for those\nwho are not likely even to read the work itself, and who take their\nopinions on all subjects moral, political, and religious, from the\nperiodical reports of the Edinburgh Review. For my own part, what I have\nto say will be addressed to those who have read Mr. Malthus\u2019s work, and\nwho may be disposed to form some opinion of their own on the\nsubject.\u2014The most remarkable circumstance in the Review is, that it is a\ncomplete confession of the force of the arguments which have been\nbrought against the Essay. The defence here set up of it may indeed be\nregarded as the euthanasia of that performance. For in what does this\ndefence consist but in an adoption, point by point, of the principal\nobjections and limitation, which have been offered to Mr. Malthus\u2019s\nsystem; and which being thus ingeniously applied to gloss its defects,\nthe Reviewer charges those who had pointed them out with misrepresenting\nand vilifying the author? In fact, the advocates of this celebrated work\ndo not at present defend its doctrines, but deny them. The only resource\nleft them is that of screening its fallacies from the notice of the\npublic by raising a cry of misrepresentation against those who attempt\nto expose them, and by holding a mask of flimsy affectation over the\nreal and distinguishing features of the work. Scarcely a glimpse remains\nof the striking peculiarities of Mr. Malthus\u2019s reasoning, his bold\nparadoxes dwindle by refined gradations into mere harmless\ncommon-places, and what is still more extraordinary, an almost entire\ncoincidence of sentiment is found to subsist between the author of the\nessay and his most zealous opponents, if the ignorance and prejudices of\nthe latter would but allow them to see it. Indeed the Edinburgh Reviewer\ngives pretty broad hints that neither friends nor foes have ever\nunderstood much of the matter, and kindly presents his readers for the\nfirst time, with the true key to this much admired production. He\naccordingly proceeds with considerable self-complacency to translate the\nlanguage of the essay into the dialect of the Scotch school of economy,\nto put quite on one side the author\u2019s geometrical and arithmetical\nratios, which had wrought such wonders, to state that Mr. Malthus never\npretended to make any new discovery, and to quote a passage from Adam\nSmith, which suggested the plan of his work; to shew that this far-famed\nwork which has been so idly magnified, and so unjustly decried as\noverturning all the commonly received axioms of political philosophy,\nproves absolutely nothing with respect to the prospects of mankind or\nthe means of social improvement, that the sole hopes either of the\npresent or of future generations do not centre (strange to tell!) in the\ncontinuance of vice and misery, but in the gradual removal of these, by\ndiffusing rational views of things and motives of action, and\nparticularly by ameliorating the condition, securing the independence,\nand raising the spirit, of the lower classes of society; and finally\nthat both the extent of population, and the degree of happiness enjoyed\nby the people of any country depend very much upon, and, as far as there\nis any difference observable between one country or state of society and\nanother, are wholly regulated by political institutions, a good or bad\ngovernment, moral habits, the state of civilization, commerce, or\nagriculture, the improvements in art or science, and a variety of other\ncauses quite distinct from the sole mechanical principle of population.\nAnd, this Sir, is what the Reviewer imposes on his unsuspecting readers\nas the sum and substance, the true scope and effect of Mr. Malthus\u2019s\nreasoning. It is in truth an almost literal recapitulation of the chief\ntopics insisted on in the Reply to the Essay, which the Reviewer seems\nsilently to regard as a kind of necessary supplement to that work.\u2014In\nthis account it is evident, both that Mr. Malthus\u2019s pretentions as an\noriginal discoverer are given up by the Reviewer, and that his obnoxious\nand extravagant conclusions are carefully suppressed. Now with regard to\nthe general principle of the disproportion between the power of increase\nin population, and in the means of subsistence, and the necessity of\nproviding some checks, moral or physical, to the former, in order to\nkeep it on a level with the means of subsistence, I have never in any\ninstance called in question either of \u201cthese important and radical\nfacts,\u201d which it is the business of Mr. M.\u2019s work to illustrate. All\nthat I undertook in the Reply to the Essay was to disprove Mr. Malthus\u2019s\nclaim to the discovery of these facts, and to shew that he had drawn\nsome very false and sophistical conclusions from them, which do not\nappear in the article in the Review. As far therefore as relates to the\nEdinburgh Reviewers, and their readers, I might consider my aim as\naccomplished, and leave Mr. Malthus\u2019s system and pretensions in the\nhands of these friendly critics, who will hardly set the seal of their\nauthority\u2014on either one or the other, till they have reduced both to\nsomething like their own ordinary standard. But against this I have\nseveral reasons. First, as I never looked upon Mr. Malthus as \u201ca man of\nno mark or likelihood,\u201d[74] I should be sorry to see him dandled into\ninsignificance, and made a mere puppet in the hands of the Reviewers.\nSecondly, I in some measure owe it to myself to prove that the\nobjections I have brought against his system are not the phantoms of my\nown imagination. Thirdly, Mr. Malthus\u2019s work cannot be considered as\nentirely superseded by the account of it in the Review, as there are, no\ndoubt, many persons who will still take their opinion of Mr. Malthus\u2019s\ndoctrines from his own writings, and abide by what they find in the text\nas good authority and sound argument, though not sanctioned in the\nCommentary.\u2014I will therefore proceed to put the questions I at first\nproposed as the best means I can devise for determining, both what the\ncontents of Mr. Malthus\u2019s work really are, and to what degree of credit\nthey are entitled, or how far they are true or false, original or\nborrowed.\u2019\n\nThe queries which follow were with a few alterations republished by\nHazlitt in _The Examiner_ (Oct. 29, 1815\u2014The _Round Table_, No. 23) and\nin _Political Essays_ (vol. III. pp. 381\u20135). The alterations are almost\nentirely confined to the omission of all reference to the _Edinburgh\nReview_, for which Hazlitt himself had begun to write in 1814. The\nletter concludes as follows: \u2018The drift of these questions, is, I\nbelieve, sufficiently obvious and direct; but if they should not be\nthought clear enough in themselves, I am ready to add a suitable\ncommentary to them, by collating a convenient number of passages from\nthe Essay, the Reply, and the Review.\u2019\n\n PAGE\n\n   1. LETTER I. First published in Cobbett\u2019s _Political Register_, March\n        14, 1807: xi. 398.\n\n      _The proposed alteration._ Hazlitt alludes to the poor-law bill of\n        Samuel Whitbread (1758\u20131815), introduced on February 19, 1807.\n        One of the main features of the scheme was the establishment of\n        a system of free education. The bill was attacked not only by\n        Cobbett (_Political Register_, August, September, and October,\n        1807), and Hazlitt, but also by Malthus. Portions of the scheme\n        passed their second readings as separate bills, but were\n        abandoned. See Martineau, _History of the Peace_, I. 116.\n\n   2. \u2018_Who have none to help them._\u2019 _Job_, xxix. 12.\n\n      \u2018_Pride and covetousness._\u2019 _St. Mark_, vii. 22.\n\n      \u2018_The compunctious visitings of nature._\u2019 _Macbeth_, Act I. Scene\n        5.\n\n      \u2018_Laying the flattering unction._\u2019 _Hamlet_, Act III. Scene 4.\n\n      \u2018_Grinding the faces of the poor._\u2019 _Isaiah_, iii. 15.\n\n      _Mandeville._ He refers to Bernard Mandeville (1670?\u20131733), whose\n        _Fable of the Bees, or Private Vices Public Benefits_, appeared\n        in 1714.\n\n      \u2018_Will but skin and film_,\u2019 _etc._ _Hamlet_, Act III. Scene 4.\n\n      Note. _The late Sir W. Pulteney._ Sir William Johnstone Pulteney,\n        5th bart. of Westerhall (1721\u20131805), M.P. for Shrewsbury in\n        seven successive parliaments. His name was originally Johnstone,\n        but he took the name of Pulteney on marrying the youngest\n        daughter and heiress of Daniel Pulteney, Lord of the Admiralty\n        in Sir R. Walpole\u2019s Ministry. \u2018In private life he was remarked\n        principally for his frugal habits, which were perhaps the more\n        striking, as he was supposed to be the richest Commoner in the\n        kingdom.... In the latter part of his life he was remarkable for\n        his abstemious manner of living, his food being composed of the\n        most simple nourishment, principally bread and milk.\u2019\n        _Gentleman\u2019s Magazine_, June, 1805, Vol. LXXV., p. 587. In 1804\n        he married the widow of Andrew Stuart, who fought a duel with\n        Thurlow in connection with the Douglas cause. Cf. _ante_, p.\n        298.\n\n   3. _In corpore vili._ This well known saying was quoted by Burke in\n        his great speech on conciliation with America. See _Select\n        Works_, ed. Payne, I. 224. The editor in a note (p. 325) quotes\n        from Menagiana (3rd ed., p. 129) an anecdote of Muretus which is\n        said to be the origin of the saying.\n\n   4. \u2018_Baser matter._\u2019 _Hamlet_, Act I. Scene 5.\n\n   5. _Leurre de dupe._ An expression of Rousseau\u2019s (_Confessions_, Liv.\n        IV.).\n\n      _Unsuccessful endeavours_, _etc._ Hazlitt refers to Whitbread\u2019s\n        management of the impeachment of Lord Melville for malversation\n        as Treasurer of the Navy. Melville was acquitted on June 12,\n        1806.\n\n   6. _The celebrated Howard._ John Howard died of camp fever at Kerson\n        on January 20, 1790, while investigating the condition of\n        Russian military hospitals.\n\n      _The \u2018champion,\u2019_ _etc._ A reference to Pitt\u2019s description of\n        Buonaparte as \u2018the child and champion of Jacobinism. See Vol.\n        III., note to page 99.\n\n   7. \u2018_The latter end_,\u2019 _etc._ _Tempest_, Act II. Scene 1.\n\n      LETTER II. _Political Register_, May 16, 1807: XI. 883.\n\n      _The English have been called_, _etc._ Diderot said this in his\n        _Lettre sur les aveugles_, ed. Tourneux, I. 312, but the opinion\n        was expressed more than once in France during the period of\n        Anglomania which prevailed in the middle of the eighteenth\n        century. Cf. Texte, _Jean-Jacques Rousseau_ (trans. Matthews)\n        pp. 96 _et. seq._\n\n   8. \u2018_Worthless importunity in rags._\u2019\n\n            \u2018\u2014\u2014Lib\u2019ral of their aid\n        To clam\u2019rous Importunity in rags.\u2019\n                                  Cowper, _The Task_, IV. 413\u20134.\n\n   9. \u2018_Its bane and antidote._\u2019 Addison\u2019s _Cato_, Act V. Scene 1.\n\n      _Multum abludit imago._ Horace, _Satires_, II. 3, 320.\n\n      _Wallace is the chief._ Robert Wallace (1697\u20131771), a minister of\n        the Scottish Church, published his _Various Prospects of\n        Mankind, Nature, and Providence_, in 1761. The British Museum\n        copy of Hazlitt\u2019s _Reply_ contains the following MS. note: \u2018The\n        writer of this note put into the hands of Mr. Hazlitt in the\n        year 1828 a small volume entitled \u201ca philosophical survey of the\n        animal creation, which is a translation (by the author) of the\n        Th\u00e9orie du Syst\u00e8me Animal,\u201d which the Rev. John Bruckner had\n        published some time before: after a perusal of the English\n        edition of this work, Mr. Hazlitt admitted that the principles\n        of the Essay on Population had been anticipated to a greater\n        extent by the Flemish Divine, who settled in England, than they\n        had been by Mr. Wallace.\u2019 The Rev. John Bruckner (1726\u20131804),\n        Minister of the Dutch Church at Norwich, published his _Th\u00e9orie\n        du Syst\u00e8me Animal_ in 1767, and _Criticisms on the Diversions of\n        Purley_ in 1790.\n\n  14. \u2018_Present circumstances of the earth._\u2019 In the _Political\n        Register_ Hazlitt has the following note: \u2018A different spirit\n        breathes through this chapter from that of the Essay; the spirit\n        of a gentleman, a philosopher, and a philanthropist. Mr.\n        Malthus, indeed, sometimes limps after his model, and _cants_\n        liberality in the true whine of hypocrisy.\u2019\n\n  15. \u2018_So will his anticipation_,\u2019 _etc._ \u2018So shall my anticipation\n        prevent your discovery.\u2019 _Hamlet_, Act II. Scene 2.\n\n      _Arithmetical series._ In the _Political Register_ the following\n        note is appended: \u2018As far as I understand the nature of an\n        arithmetical and geometrical series, I do not apprehend that Mr.\n        M. could make good their strict application to the subject. An\n        arithmetical series is where any number or quantity is increased\n        by the perpetual addition of the same given sum or quantity. But\n        how does Mr. M. know that this is true of the cultivation of the\n        land, or that much more rapid strides may not be made at one\n        time than at another?\u2019\n\n  15. _Mr. Shandy was of opinion, etc._ _Tristram Shandy_, Book I. chap.\n        xix.\n\n  18. LETTER III. _Political Register_, May 23, 1807: xi. 935. Hazlitt\n        published part of this letter in his _Political Essays_. See\n        vol. III. pp. 367\u2013374.\n\n      \u2018_A swaggering paradox_,\u2019 _etc._ Cf. \u2018The paradoxes of one age\n        become the common-places of the next.\u2019 Jowett, _Plato_, III.\n        155.\n\n  19. _The reply of the author of the Political Justice._ In _Thoughts\n        on Dr. Parr\u2019s Spital Sermon_ (1801) Godwin replied to Parr,\n        Mackintosh, and Malthus. Many years later, in 1820, he wrote _Of\n        Population. An Enquiry concerning the Power of Increase in the\n        Numbers of Mankind, in Answer to Mr. Malthus on that Subject_.\n\n  21. \u2018_The exuberant strength of my argument._\u2019 A phrase of Malthus\u2019s.\n        _Essay on Population_, p. 372.\n\n  22. \u2018_What conjuration_,\u2019 _etc._ _Othello_, Act I. Scene 3.\n\n  23. _And as Trim._ _Tristram Shandy_, Book VI. chap. xxiii.\n\n  24. \u2018_These three bear record_,\u2019 _etc._ Cf. _1 John_, v. 7.\n\n  25. \u2018_Tis as easy as lying_,\u2019 _etc._ _Hamlet_, Act III. Scene 2.\n\n      _To sum up the whole of the argument._ The conclusion of Letter\n        III. from this point is not in the _Political Register_.\n\n      \u2018_And less than smallest dwarfs_,\u2019 _etc._ _Paradise Lost_, I.\n        779\u2013781.\n\n  28. \u2018_It cannot but be_,\u2019 _etc._ Malthus, _Essay on Population_, pp.\n        353\u20134.\n\n  29. \u2018_Who am no great clerk._\u2019 Cf. Burke, _A Letter to a Noble Lord_\n        (_Works_, Bohn, V. 150). \u2018He [Lord Keppel] was no great clerk.\u2019\n\n  35. \u2018_It may be safely affirmed_,\u2019 _etc._ Malthus, pp. 7\u20138.\n\n  36. _Sancho Panza._ _Don Quixote_, Part II., Book III., chap. xlix.\n\n  38. \u2018_Fast by_,\u2019 _etc._ _Paradise Lost_, II. 1051\u20132.\n\n      \u2018_To nature\u2019s furthest verge_,\u2019 _etc._\n\n         \u2018Shoots far into the bosom of dim night\n         A glimmering dawn. Here Nature first begins\n         Her farthest verge, and Chaos to retire,\u2019 etc.\n                                   _Paradise Lost_, II. 1036\u20138.\n\n      \u2018_Come on, sir_,\u2019 _etc._ _King Lear_, Act IV. Scene 6.\n\n  41. _A new Iliad of woes._ See note to vol. III. p. 10.\n\n  42. \u2018_It keeps on its way_,\u2019 _etc._ Cf.\n\n       \u2018\u2014\u2014I do know but one\n       That unassailable holds on his rank,\n       Unshaked of motion.\u2019\n                               _Julius Caesar_, Act III. Scene 1.\n\n  44. \u2018_Squalid poverty._\u2019 Malthus, p. 516.\n\n      Note. \u2018_I am not as this poor Hottentot._\u2019 Cf. \u2018God, I thank thee,\n        that I am not as other men are, etc.\u2019 _St. Luke_, xviii. II.\n\n      Note. \u2018_Chill and comfortless._\u2019 Cf. \u2018All dark and comfortless.\u2019\n        _King Lear_, Act III. Scene 7.\n\n  45. \u2018_Palaces, her ladies and her pomp._\u2019\n\n   \u2018Our palaces, our ladies, and our pomp of equipage.\u2019\n                                         Cowper, _The Task_, I. 643\u20134.\n\n  46. \u2018_Upland swells_,\u2019 _etc._\n\n      \u2018The grassy uplands\u2019 gentle swells\n      Echo to the bleat of flocks.\u2019\n                Coleridge, _Ode on the Departing Year_, ll. 125\u20136.\n\n  53. _When Don Quixote had to encounter_, _etc._ See _Don Quixote_,\n        Part II., Book I. Chap. xiv.\n\n  55. \u2018_Their greatest merit_,\u2019 _etc._ _Othello_, Act III. Scene 3.\n\n      _No maid could live near such a man._ See note to vol. I. p. 305.\n\n  56. \u2018_Were they as prime_,\u2019 _etc._ _Othello_, Act III. Scene 3.\n\n      Note. _Even Miss Howe_, _etc._ In _Clarissa Harlowe_.\n\n  62. \u2018_The sin that most easily besets him._\u2019 _Hebrews_, xii. I.\n\n      \u2018_The rich golden shaft_,\u2019 _etc._ _Twelfth Night_, Act I. Scene 1.\n\n      \u2018_All for love, or the world well lost._\u2019 Dryden\u2019s version of\n        _Antony and Cleopatra_ (1678).\n\n  63. \u2018_But as the dust in the balance._\u2019 _Isaiah_, xl. 15.\n\n      _Aaron\u2019s rod._ _Exodus_, vii. 12.\n\n      \u2018_Sits umpire_,\u2019 _etc._ _Paradise Lost_, II. 907\u20139.\n\n      \u2018_Our greatest good_,\u2019 _etc._\n\n          \u2018Its former strength was but plethoric ill.\u2019\n                              Goldsmith, _The Traveller_, 144.\n\n  66. _Described by Hogarth._ In what Lamb calls the \u2018sublime print,\u2019\n        entitled \u2018Gin Lane.\u2019\n\n  70. _Hume\u2019s assertion._ _Dialogues on Natural Religion_, Part XI. p.\n        212. The assertion is denied by Malthus in his Essay, p. 587.\n\n  71. Note. _A late publication._ _Letters to Samuel Whitbread, M.P., on\n        his proposed Bill for the Amendment of the Poor Laws_ (1807).\n\n      Note. _Jactet_, _etc._ \u2018Illa se jactet in aula Aeolus.\u2019 Virgil,\n        _Aeneid_, I. 140\u20131.\n\n  81. _Algernon Sydney._ Sidney\u2019s _Discourses concerning Government_,\n        written about 1680, in reply to Sir Robert Filmer\u2019s\n        _Patriarcha_, were first published in 1698.\n\n  82. \u2018_The face of the clearest warning_,\u2019 _etc._ Quoted inaccurately\n        from Malthus. See _ante_, pp. 173\u20134.\n\n  83. Note. \u2018_Monks, eremites_,\u2019 _etc._\n\n    \u2018Embryos and idiots, eremites and friars,\n    White, black, and grey, with all their trumpery.\u2019\n                                        _Paradise Lost_, III. 474\u20135.\n\n  84. _Lord Kaims\u2019s account_, _etc._ See Lord Kaims\u2019s _Sketches of the\n        History of Man_, vol. II. pp. 240\u20131 (edit. 1788).\n\n  85. _A common-place book._ Hazlitt refers to James Burgh\u2019s (1714\u20131775)\n        _Political Disquisitions: or, an Enquiry into public Errors,\n        Defects, and Abuses. Illustrated by, and established upon Facts\n        and Remarks extracted from a Variety of Authors, ancient and\n        modern. Calculated to draw the timely attention of Government\n        and People to a due Consideration of the Necessity, and the\n        Means, of reforming those Errors, Defects, and Abuses; of\n        restoring the Constitution, and saving the State._ (3 vols.\n        1774\u20135).\n\n      \u2018_That honest Chronicler._\u2019 \u2018But such an honest chronicler as\n        Griffith.\u2019 _Henry VIII._, Act IV. Scene 2.\n\n      \u2018_The excellent Montague._\u2019 _Reflections on the Rise and Fall of\n        the Ancient Republics. Adapted to the Present State of Great\n        Britain_, by Edward Wortley Montagu (1713\u20131776), son of Lady\n        Mary Wortley Montagu, was published in 1759. See Burgh\u2019s\n        _Political Disquisitions_, III. 68 _et seq._\n\n  90. _The descendants of the heroes_, _etc._ This passage to the end of\n        the quotation is from Bolingbroke\u2019s _Political Tracts_, 270. See\n        Burgh, III. 414.\n\n  91. _The account which Voltaire gives._ Burgh (III. 410) quotes this\n        passage from _Essais sur l\u2019Histoire_, II. 60.\n\n      _Since that time it has fallen_, _etc._ It is difficult to\n        understand what such a worshipper of Napoleon as Hazlitt means\n        by this sentence. The Vienna Congress (1815) ultimately declared\n        the perpetual neutrality of Switzerland.\n\n  92. \u2018_I see_,\u2019 _he says, etc._ Burgh, III. 416.\n\n      \u2018_A consummation_,\u2019 _etc._ _Hamlet_, Act III. Scene 1.\n\n  93. _Lord Molesworth._ Robert Molesworth, first Viscount Molesworth\n        (1656\u20131725), was appointed envoy extraordinary at the Danish\n        Court in 1692, but left abruptly in 1694, and in the same year\n        published _An Account of Denmark as it was in the year 1692_.\n        See Burgh, III. 412.\n\n  95. \u2018_It must indeed be an answer_,\u2019 _etc._ _All\u2019s Well that Ends\n        Well_, Act II. Scene 2.\n\n      \u2018_A thing may serve_,\u2019 _etc._ _Ibid._\n\n      _Burnet\u2019s Travels._ Gilbert Burnet\u2019s _Some Letters containing an\n        Account of what seemed most remarkable in Switzerland, Italy,\n        etc._ (1686). See Burgh, III. 398\u20139.\n\n      \u2018_Italy shews_,\u2019 _etc._ _Ibid._ III. 399.\n\n      \u2018_In England_,\u2019 _etc._ _Ibid._ III. 400.\n\n  96. \u2018_The title of freemen_,\u2019 _etc._ From Spelman\u2019s _Glossary_, quoted\n        in Burgh, III. 400.\n\n      \u2018_It is constantly_,\u2019 _etc._ Quoted by Burgh (III. 400) from\n        Hume\u2019s _History of the Tudors_, II. 640.\n\n      \u2018_Nations have often_,\u2019 _etc._ Burgh, III. 34.\n\n      \u2018_A single genius_,\u2019 _etc._ _Ibid._ III. 220.\n\n      \u2018_Commerce_,\u2019 _etc._ _Ibid._ III. 83\u20134.\n\n      \u2018_The extreme poverty_,\u2019 _etc._ _Ibid._ III. 84.\n\n  97. \u2018_Government, according to Plato_,\u2019 _etc._ Cf. Burgh, III. 175\u20138.\n\n      \u2018_The great difference we see_,\u2019 _etc._ _Ibid._ III. 220.\n\n      \u2018_Among the Lacedemonians_,\u2019 _etc._ _Ibid._ III. 150.\n\n  98. \u2018_Aristotle lays down_,\u2019 _etc._ _Ibid._ III. 156.\n\n      \u2018_Lycurgus did not allow_,\u2019 _etc._ _Ibid._\n\n      \u2018_At Sparta_,\u2019 _etc._ _Ibid._ III. 181.\n\n      \u2018_A very wise man_,\u2019 _etc._ _Ibid._ III. 100.\n\n  99. \u2018_The grave Romans_,\u2019 _etc._ Cf. _Ibid._ III. 100. The saying\n        alluded to is Cicero\u2019s. \u2018Nemo enim fere saltat sobrius, nisi\n        forte insanit.\u2019 _Pro Murena._ Cap. 6.\n\n      \u2018_In the old English laws_,\u2019 _etc._ Quoted by Burgh (III. 139)\n        from Spelman\u2019s _Concilia_.\n\n      \u2018_Who elbow us aside_,\u2019 _etc._\n\n       \u2018Till prostitution elbow us aside\n       In all our crowded streets.\u2019\n                                   Cowper, _The Task_, III. 60\u20131.\n\n 100. \u2018_Insens\u00e9s qui vous plaignez_,\u2019 _etc._ Hazlitt seems to be\n        recalling imperfectly a passage in Rousseau\u2019s _\u00c9mile_ (Liv.\n        I.):\u2014\u2018Nous plaignons le sort de l\u2019enfance, et c\u2019est le n\u00f4tre\n        qu\u2019il faudroit plaindre. Nos plus grands maux nous viennent de\n        nous.\u2019 See also a letter to Voltaire, 18th August 1756.\n        _Correspondance_ (1822), I. 216 et seq.\n\n 101. _Zaleucus._ See Burgh, III. 180.\n\n      _The greedy eye_, _etc._ Cf. _The English Comic Writers_. (\u2018Comic\n        Writers of the last Century\u2019), and _The Round Table_ (\u2018On Modern\n        Comedy\u2019), vol. I., p. 13.\n\n 102. _Narcissus and the Graces._ A ballet by Sir Henry Rowley Bishop\n        (1786\u20131855), produced at the King\u2019s Theatre, June, 1806.\n\n      Note. _The Memoirs of Fanny Hill._ _Fanny Hill, or the Memoirs of\n        a Woman of Pleasure_, by John Cleland (1709\u20131789), was\n        published, Part I. in 1748, Part II. in 1749. In 1750 the work\n        was republished in a milder form by Ralph Griffiths, who is said\n        to have paid twenty guineas for the copyright, and made a profit\n        of \u00a310,000. Cleland was summoned before the Privy Council, and\n        received a pension of \u00a3100 from Lord Granville that he might\n        devote himself to worthier forms of literature.\n\n 104. \u2018_In which the wicked_,\u2019 _etc._ _Job_, iii. 17.\n\n      \u2018_Happy are they_,\u2019 _etc._ Hazlitt repeated this paragraph in a\n        paper in _The Yellow Dwarf_. See _Political Essays_, vol. III.,\n        note to p. 266.\n\n      \u2018_Hurt by the archers._\u2019 Cowper, _The Task_, III. 113.\n\n 105. \u2018_M. Condorcet\u2019s \u201cEsquisse,\u201d_\u2019 _etc._ Malthus, p. 354. Condorcet\u2019s\n        work appeared in 1794.\n\n 106. \u2018_This posthumous publication_,\u2019 _etc._ _Ibid._\n\n 107. \u2018_This would indeed_,\u2019 _etc._ _Ibid._ p. 368.\n\n 108. _White Conduit-House._ A \u2018popular place of entertainment and\n        tea-gardens\u2019 at Pentonville. See Wheatley and Cunningham\u2019s\n        _London Past and Present_, III. 496, and _ibid._, I. 86, for an\n        account of Bagnigge-Wells, a \u2018noted place of entertainment, much\n        resorted to the lower sort of tradesman,\u2019 in the neighbourhood\n        of King\u2019s Cross.\n\n      \u2018_There exists_,\u2019 _etc._ Malthus, p. 355.\n\n 109. \u2018_Such establishments_,\u2019 _etc._ _Ibid._ p. 356.\n\n 110. _\u2018Killing frost._\u2019 _Henry VIII._, Act III. Scene 2. See Malthus,\n        p. 356.\n\n 111. \u2018_Variations\u2019 etc._ Malthus, p, 359.\n\n 112. \u2018_It will be said, perhaps._\u2019 _Ibid._ p. 362.\n\n 113. \u2018_What can we reason_,\u2019 _etc._ Pope\u2019s _Essay on Man_, I. 18.\n\n 116. Note. Dr. Paley. See his _Evidences of Christianity_. Preparatory\n        Considerations. Of the antecedent credibility of miracles.\n\n 117. _The old argument of the Heap._ Hazlitt alludes to a favourite\n        logical _impasse_ of the Stoics: \u2018What constitutes a heap? Is it\n        two, three, or four atoms, and on taking them away, when does a\n        heap cease to exist?\u2019 Cf. Horace, _Ep._ II. 1\u201347; and Cicero,\n        _De Div._ II. 4.\n\n      _\u2018It does not, however_,\u2019 _etc._ Malthus, p. 363.\n\n      _Quotes Bickerstaff._ See _The Tatler_, No. 75.\n\n      \u2018_Mr. Godwin_,\u2019 _etc._ Malthus, p. 367.\n\n 118. \u2018_It is not, therefore_,\u2019 _etc._ _Ibid._ p. 43.\n\n 120. \u2018_They neither marry_,\u2019 _etc._ _St. Matthew_, xxii. 30.\n\n 122. \u2018_It may be curious_,\u2019 _etc._ Malthus, p. 374.\n\n 128. _The charge which he brings against Paine._ _Ibid._ p. 530.\n\n 130. \u2018_Those who were born_,\u2019 _etc._ _Ibid._ p. 377.\n\n 132. \u2018_\u2018A man\u2019 he says_,\u2019 _etc._ _Ibid._ p. 531.\n\n 134. \u2018_In most countries_,\u2019 _etc._ _Ibid._ p. 537.\n\n 135. \u2018_There is one right_,\u2019 _etc._ _Ibid._ p. 531.\n\n 138. \u2018_Sharpens his understanding_,\u2019 _etc._ \u2018Thy flinty heart,\u2019 occurs\n        in _Henry VI._, Part II., Act III. Scene 2.\n\n 139. \u2018_Metaphysical aid._\u2019 _Macbeth_, Act I. Scene 5.\n\n 140. \u2018_The quantity of food_,\u2019 _etc._ Malthus, p. 375.\n\n 142. \u2018_As Mr. Godwin_,\u2019 _etc._ _Ibid._ p. 381.\n\n 143. \u2018_He is himself again._\u2019 \u2018Richard\u2019s himself again.\u2019 Colley\n        Cibber\u2019s version of _Richard III._, Act V. Scene 3.\n\n 145. \u2018_Which after_,\u2019 _etc._ Butler, _Hudibras_, Part II., Canto I,\n        377\u20138.\n\n      \u2018_Suppose_,\u2019 _etc._ Malthus, p. 396.\n\n      \u2018_The question is_,\u2019 _etc._ _Ibid._ p. 422.\n\n 146. \u2018_It may at fist_,\u2019 _etc._ _Ibid._ p. 398.\n\n 150. \u2018_They lay heavy burthens_,\u2019 _etc._ _St. Matthew_, xxiii. 4.\n\n      \u2018_Fared sumptuously_,\u2019 _etc._ _St. Luke_, xvi. 19.\n\n 151. \u2018_If instead_,\u2019 _etc._ Malthus, p. 405.\n\n 153. \u2018_Whose solid virtue_,\u2019 _etc._ _Othello_, Act IV. Scene 1.\n\n 156. \u2018_Independently of any considerations_,\u2019 _etc._ Malthus, p. 409.\n\n 157. \u2018_Alas from what height fallen._\u2019 Cf.\n\n              \u2018\u2014\u2014into what pit thou seest\n              From what highth fallen.\u2019\n                                  _Paradise Lost_, I. 91\u20132.\n\n      And\n\n        \u2018Alas, from what high hope to what relapse\n        Unlooked for are we fallen!\u2019\n                                  _Paradise Regained_, II. 30\u20131.\n\n 158. \u2018_Comes to him_,\u2019 _etc._ _Romeo and Juliet_, Act I. Scene 4.\n\n      \u2018_Shall no more impart_,\u2019 _etc._ Goldsmith, _The Deserted\n        Village_, 239\u201340.\n\n      \u2018_Their drunkenness and dissipation._\u2019 Malthus, p. 411.\n\n      \u2018_Their squalid appearance._\u2019 See _Ibid._ p. 516.\n\n 159. \u2018_The symmetry of person_,\u2019 _etc._ This is a quotation of\n        Malthus\u2019s (p. 488) from Godwin (_Political Justice_, Vol. I.,\n        Book I., Chap. v).\n\n      \u2018_Our Doctors Commons_,\u2019 _etc._ Malthus, p. 576.\n\n      \u2018_Father Paul._\u2019 In Sheridan\u2019s _Duenna_, first performed in 1775\n        at Covent Garden.\n\n      \u2018_That the poor_,\u2019 _etc._ Malthus, p. 411.\n\n      \u2018_A man who_,\u2019 _etc._ _Ibid._\n\n 160. \u2018_\u201cIf,\u201d says he_,\u2019 _etc._ _Ibid._ p. 540.\n\n 161. \u2018_This is well said_,\u2019 _etc._ _Henry VIII._, Act III. Scene 2.\n\n 162. \u2018_I like not_,\u2019 _etc._ _Merry Wives of Windsor_, Act. IV. Scene 2.\n\n 165. _Omne tulit punctum._ Horace, _Ars Poetica_, 343.\n\n 166. _Mr. Burke has said._ \u2018Nobody will be argued into slavery.\u2019\n        _Speech on American Taxation_ (April 19, 1774, _Select Works_,\n        ed. Payne, I. 155).\n\n 166. \u2018_Among the prejudices_,\u2019 _etc._ Malthus, p. 477.\n\n      Note. _Tucker._ Abraham Tucker (1705\u20131774), whose chief work _The\n        Light of Nature Pursued_ (7 vols., 1768\u20131778) was abridged by\n        Hazlitt (1807). See _ante_, pp. 371\u2013385. Paley admitted his\n        obligations to Tucker.\n\n 168. \u2018_Will come when it will come._\u2019 _Julius Caesar_, Act II. Scene 2.\n\n      \u2018_The object of those_,\u2019 _etc._ Malthus, p. 508.\n\n 169. \u2018_The pressure of distress_,\u2019 _etc._ _Ibid._ p. 525.\n\n      _Blifil._ In _Tom Jones_.\n\n      _The euthanasia foretold by Hume._ See his Essay \u2018On the British\n        Government.\u2019 \u2018They talk,\u2019 said Burke, \u2018of Mr. Hume\u2019s Euthanasia\n        of the British Constitution gently expiring without a groan in\n        the paternal arms of a mere Monarchy. In a monarchy! Fine\n        trifling indeed! There is no such Euthanasia for the British\n        Constitution.\u2019 _Regicide Peace_ (ed. Payne), p. 352.\n\n 172. _Timeo Danaos, et dona ferentes._ Virgil, _Aeneid_, II. 49.\n\n      _As the husband secured the virtue of his wife_, _etc._ That is,\n        presumably, by cutting off her head, \u2018the Sign of the Good\n        Woman,\u2019 representing a headless woman carrying her head in her\n        hand.\n\n 173. \u2018_I should propose_,\u2019 _etc._ Malthus, p. 538. A great part of the\n        rest of Hazlitt\u2019s _Reply_ was repeated in the _Political\n        Essays_. See vol. III. pp. 374\u2013381.\n\n 176. \u2018_These paper bullets of the brain._\u2019 _Much Ado about Nothing_,\n        Act II. Scene 3.\n\n 177. \u2018_Would submit to the sufferings_\u2018, _etc._ Malthus, p. 539.\n\n 180. \u2018_The scanty relief_,\u2019 _etc._ _Ibid._ p. 415.\n\n      \u2018_If, as in Ireland_,\u2019 _etc._ _Ibid._ p. 548.\n\n 181. \u2018_It is not enough_,\u2019 _etc._ _Ibid._ p. 549.\n\n 183. \u2018_In some conversations_,\u2019 _etc._ _Ibid._ p. 553.\n\n      _Anthony\u2019s repeated declaration._ _Julius Caesar_, Act III. Scene\n        2.\n\n 184. \u2018_It very rarely_,\u2019 _etc._ Malthus\u2019s _Essay_ (1st edition, 1798),\n        p. 34.\n\n\n                         THE SPIRIT OF THE AGE\n\n 189. JEREMY BENTHAM. This essay appeared originally in the _New Monthly\n        Magazine_ (1824, vol. X. p. 68), of which Thomas Campbell was\n        editor from 1820 to 1830. For an account of Bentham\u2019s life and\n        work, see Sir Leslie Stephen\u2019s _The English Utilitarians_, vol.\n        I. pp. 169\u2013326.\n\n      _The old adage._ \u2018A prophet is not without honour, save in his own\n        country, and in his own house.\u2019 _St. Matthew_, xiii. 57.\n\n      _In the plains of Chili_, _etc._ Bentham had many disciples among\n        the patriots of South America, and in 1808 thought seriously of\n        going to Mexico.\n\n      _Westminster, where he lives._ In Queen Square Place, now Queen\n        Anne\u2019s Gate. Hazlitt himself was from 1812 to 1819 a tenant of\n        Bentham\u2019s in Milton\u2019s old house in Petty France, the garden of\n        which Bentham had added to his house in Queen Square. See\n        frontispiece to vol. III., and _ante_, p. 190.\n\n      \u2018_I know thee_,\u2019 _etc._ \u2018I have seen thee in her, and I do adore\n        thee: my mistress show\u2019d me thee, and thy dog, and thy bush.\u2019\n        _The Tempest_, Act II. Scene 2.\n\n      _Mr. Hobhouse._ John Cam Hobhouse (1786\u20131869) was defeated at\n        Westminster in February 1819, but was returned in the following\n        year.\n\n      _Lord Rolle._ John Rolle (1795\u20131842) was the hero of _The\n        Rolliad_, and sat for the great maritime county of Devonshire.\n        He was raised to the peerage in 1796. See Wraxall\u2019s _Historical\n        and Posthumous Memoirs_ (ed. Wheatley, IV. 116\u2013119).\n\n      \u2018_That waft a thought_,\u2019 _etc._ \u2018And waft a sigh from Indus to the\n        Pole.\u2019 Pope, _Eloisa to Abelard_, 58.\n\n      _Sir Samuel Romilly._ Romilly was returned for Westminster in July\n        1818. He had already taken an active part in Parliament as a\n        law-reformer.\n\n 190. \u2018_Lone island_,\u2019 _etc._ \u2018Some happier island in the watery waste.\u2019\n        Pope, _Essay on Man_, I. 106.\n\n      _Chrestomathic School._ The object of this was to apply\n        Lancasterian principles to the education of the middle classes.\n        An association, of which Mackintosh, Brougham, James Mill, and\n        others were trustees, was formed in 1814, and Bentham offered\n        his garden as a site, but the scheme came to nothing. See Sir\n        Leslie Stephen\u2019s _The English Utilitarians_, vol. II. p. 22.\n\n      _Franklin._ Bentham seems to have had a strong personal\n        resemblance to Benjamin Franklin.\n\n 191. _Foregone conclusion._ _Othello_, Act III. Scene 3.\n\n 192. _Mr. Bentham is not the first writer_, _etc._ The principle of\n        utility had been expressed by (among others) Priestley (_Essay\n        on Government_, 1768), Hutcheson (_Enquiry concerning Moral Good\n        and Evil_, 1725), and Beccaria (_On Crimes and Punishments_,\n        1764). See _The English Utilitarians_, vol. I. p. 178.\n\n      \u2018_He has not allowed for the wind._\u2019 A familiar expression which\n        Hazlitt may have seen in _Ivanhoe_, Chap. xiii.\n\n      \u2018_Bound volatile Hermes._\u2019 _Paradise Lost_, III. 602\u20133.\n\n 193. \u2018_All appliances_,\u2019 _etc._ _Henry IV._, Part II., Act III. Scene\n        1.\n\n      _Posth\u00e6c, etc._ \u2018Forsan et haec olim meminisse juvabit.\u2019 Virgil,\n        _Aeneid_, I. 203.\n\n 195. _No more than Montaigne_, _etc._ Essays, Booke II., Chap. xii. An\n        Apologie of Raymond Sebond. Florio\u2019s translation, _Temple\n        Classics_, Vol. II., p. 209.\n\n 196. \u2018_All men act_,\u2019 _etc._ \u2018Men calculate, some with less exactness,\n        indeed, some with more: but all men calculate. I would not say,\n        that even a madman does not calculate.\u2019 _Principles of Morals\n        and Legislation_, Chap. XIV. \u00a7 xxviii.\n\n 196. _Too knowing by half._ \u2018That\u2019s too civil by half.\u2019 Sheridan, _The\n        Rivals_, Act III. Scene 4.\n\n 197. _A Panopticon._ \u2018A mill for grinding rogues honest, and idle men\n        industrious\u2019 (Bentham, _Works_, X. 226). Bentham published an\n        account of the scheme in 1791 under the title of \u2018The\n        Panopticon, or the Inspection House,\u2019 and spent a great deal of\n        money in connection with it. Ultimately a committee reported\n        against the scheme and proceeded to found the Millbank\n        Penitentiary, which was opened in 1816. See _The English\n        Utilitarians_, I. 193\u2013206.\n\n 197. \u2018_Dip it in the ocean_,\u2019 _etc._ \u2018But I fear, friend, said I, this\n        buckle won\u2019t stand ... you may immerse it, replied he, into the\n        ocean, and it will stand.\u2019 _A Sentimental Journey_, The Wig,\n        Paris.\n\n 198. _Mr. Owen._ Cf. _Political Essays_ (vol. III. pp. 121\u20137) and\n        _Table-Talk_ (\u2018On People with one Idea\u2019).\n\n      _His address to the higher and middle classes._ The second of\n        Coleridge\u2019s Lay Sermons (1817) was \u2018addressed to the higher and\n        middle classes.\u2019\n\n      _Hunter\u2019s captivity among the North American Indians._ J. Dunn\n        Hunter\u2019s _Memoirs of a Captivity amongst the Indians of North\n        America, from Childhood to the Age of Nineteen_, _etc._, 1824.\n\n 199. _In nook monastic._ \u2018To forswear the full stream of the world and\n        to live in a nook merely monastic.\u2019 _As You Like It_, Act III.\n        Scene 2.\n\n      \u2018_Men of Ind._\u2019 _The Tempest_, Act II. Scene 2.\n\n      _Mr. Speaker Abbott._ Charles Abbot (1757\u20131829) was Speaker from\n        1802 to 1817, when he retired and became Lord Colchester. His\n        mother was the second wife of Bentham\u2019s father. His unique Diary\n        and Correspondence, extending from 1795 to 1829, were published\n        in 3 vols. in 1861.\n\n      _He was educated at Eton._ Bentham was a Westminster boy.\n\n 200. _At the University._ Bentham went to Queen\u2019s College, Oxford, in\n        1760, and took his M.A. degree in 1766.\n\n      _Church-of-Englandism._ _Church of Englandism and its Catechism\n        examined_, published in 1818.\n\n      \u2018_To be honest_,\u2019 _etc._ _Hamlet_, Act II. Scene 2.\n\n      \u2018_Looked enough abroad_,\u2019 _etc._ \u2018The corrupter sort of\n        politicians, who are not by learning established in a love of\n        duty, nor ever look abroad into universality.\u2019 _Advancement of\n        Learning_, Book I.\n\n      _Mr. Godwin._ For Godwin see C. Kegan Paul\u2019s _William Godwin: his\n        Friends and Contemporaries_, 2 vols. 1876.\n\n 201. _Political Justice._ Godwin\u2019s _Enquiry concerning Political\n        Justice and its Influence on Morals and Happiness_ was published\n        in 1793, _Things as they are; or the Adventures of Caleb\n        Williams_ in 1794.\n\n      _As Goldsmith used to say._ \u2018Whenever I write any thing, the\n        public _make a point_ to know nothing about it.\u2019 Boswell, _Life\n        of Johnson_ (ed. G. B. Hill), III. 252.\n\n      _Sedet, in eternumque, etc._\n\n               \u2018Sedet, aeternumque sedebit,\n           Infelix Theseus.\u2019\n                                 Virgil, _Aeneid_, VI. 617\u201318.\n\n      _The false Duessa._ _The Faerie Queene_, Book II., Canto ii., and\n        Canto viii. Stanzas 46\u20138.\n\n 201. _His House of Pride._\n\n    \u2018And all the hinder partes, that few could spie,\n    Were ruinous and old, but painted cunningly.\u2019\n                                _Ibid._ Book I., Canto iv. Stanza 5.\n\n      \u2018_The pillar\u2019d firmament_,\u2019 _etc._ _Comus_, 598\u20139.\n\n 202. \u2018_What, then_,\u2019 _etc._ _St. Matthew_, xi. 7.\n\n      _Mr. Southey\u2019s Inscriptions._ Southey\u2019s early \u2018Inscriptions\u2019\n        (1796\u20139), some of which he reprinted in the collected edition of\n        his poems (1837\u20138), are, like his _Joan of Arc_ and _Wat Tyler_,\n        strongly radical in sentiment. See Hazlitt\u2019s _Political Essays_\n        (vol. III. p. 205).\n\n      _Mr. Coleridge\u2019s Religious Musings._ Published in _Poems on\n        Various Subjects_, 1796.\n\n      \u2018_Like Cato_,\u2019 _etc._ Pope, _Prologue to the Satires_, 208. The\n        line is taken from Pope\u2019s own Prologue to Addison\u2019s _Cato_.\n\n      \u2018_By that sin fell the angels._\u2019 _Henry VIII._, Act III. Scene 2.\n\n 204. \u2018_There was the rub_,\u2019 _etc._\n\n                         \u2018There\u2019s the respect\n       That makes calamity of so long life.\u2019\n                                       _Hamlet_, Act III. Scene 1.\n\n 204. \u2018_Trenchant blade._\u2019\n\n                 \u2018Let not the virgin\u2019s cheek\n         Make soft thy trenchant sword.\u2019\n                             _Timon of Athens_, Act IV. Scene 3.\n\n      \u2018_All is conscience and tender heart._\u2019 Chaucer, _Prologue_, 150.\n\n      Note. See John Leland\u2019s _A View of the Deistical Writers_, _etc._,\n        Letter vii.\n\n 205. \u2018_So ran the tenour of the bond._\u2019 Cf. _The Merchant of Venice_,\n        Act IV. Scene 1.\n\n      \u2018_It was well said_,\u2019 _etc._ See _ante_, note to p. 161.\n\n      \u2018_Fallen first_,\u2019 _etc._ _Hamlet_, Act II. Scene 2.\n\n      \u2018_Lost the immortal part_,\u2019 _etc._ _Othello_, Act II. Scene 3.\n\n      \u2018_The guide_,\u2019 _etc._\n\n    \u2018The anchor of my purest thoughts, the nurse,\n    The guide, the guardian of my heart, and soul\n    Of all my moral being.\u2019\n        Wordsworth, _Lines composed a few miles above Tintern Abbey_.\n\n 206. _Sir Walter Scott._ \u2018Scott\u2019s baronetcy,\u2019 says Lockhart, \u2018was\n        conferred on him, not in consequence of any Ministerial\n        suggestion, but by the King personally, and of his own\n        unsolicited motion; and when the Poet kissed his hand he said to\n        him: \u201cI shall always reflect with pleasure on Sir Walter Scott\u2019s\n        having been the first creation of my reign.\u201d\u2019 The baronetcy was\n        Gazetted on March 30, 1820.\n\n      \u2018_When in Auvergne_,\u2019 _etc._ Quoted inaccurately from _Quentin\n        Durward_, Chap. i.\n\n      \u2018_Reason is the queen_,\u2019 _etc._ Hazlitt quotes a passage of his\n        own. See _Political Essays_, Vol. III., pp. 90\u20131.\n\n 207. \u2018_The unreasonableness of the reason_,\u2019 _etc._ See _Don Quixote_,\n        Book I., Chap. i.\n\n      \u2018_Flying an eagle flight_,\u2019 _etc._ _Timon of Athens_, Act I. Scene\n        1.\n\n      \u2018_Thus far_,\u2019 _etc._ _Job_, xxxviii. 11.\n\n      _Captain Parry._ Captain, afterwards Sir William Edward Parry\n        (1790\u20131855) had recently returned from the second of his voyages\n        for the discovery of a north-west passage.\n\n 208. \u2018_Championing it to the Outrance._\u2019 \u2018And champion me to the\n        utterance!\u2019 _Macbeth_, Act III. Scene 1.\n\n 208. _Caleb Williams._ Published in 1794. _St. Leon: A Tale of the\n        Sixteenth Century_, appeared in 1799.\n\n      Note. _Mr. Fuseli._ Henry Fuseli (1741\u20131825), the painter, for\n        whom, according to his biographer, Mary Wollstonecraft\n        (afterwards Godwin\u2019s wife) formed her first attachment.\n\n 209. \u2018_Bastards of his art._\u2019 Cf.\n\n   \u2018Thought characters and words merely but art\n   And bastards of his foul adulterate heart.\u2019\n                       Shakespeare, _A Lover\u2019s Complaint_, ll. 174\u20135.\n\n      _Allen-a-Dale._ This \u2018northern minstrel\u2019 figures in Scott\u2019s own\n        _Ivanhoe_.\n\n      _Fleetwood._ _Fleetwood; or, the New Man of Feeling_, was\n        published in 1805, _Mandeville: a Tale of the Seventeenth\n        Century_, in 1817.\n\n 210. _His Life of Chaucer._ Published in 1803. _His Remarks on Judge\n        Eyre\u2019s Charge to the Jury. Cursory Strictures on the Charge of\n        Chief-Justice Eyre_ appeared in the _Morning Chronicle_ on\n        October 20, 1794. Godwin\u2019s own note and the notes of his\n        daughter, Mrs. Shelley, on the political trials of that year,\n        will be found in C. Kegan Paul\u2019s _William Godwin: His Friends\n        and Contemporaries_ (I. 117\u2013137). Cf. Hazlitt\u2019s _Life of Thomas\n        Holcroft_, Vol. II., pp. 139 _et seq._\n\n      _Skulked behind a British throne._ See Vol. I., p. 378, note.\n\n      _A Volume of Sermons._ _Sketches of History, in Six Sermons_\n        (1784).\n\n      _A life of Chatham._ Published anonymously in 1783.\n\n      Note. _Antonio_, a tragedy in verse, was produced on December\n        13, 1800, and \u2018damned finally and hopelessly.\u2019 See Kegan Paul\n        (II. 36\u201355), where Lamb\u2019s account of the tragedy and its\n        representation (not reprinted in the _Essays of Elia_) is\n        quoted from a paper in the _London Magazine_ (April 1, 1822).\n        _Faulkener_ (not _Ferdinand_), a tragedy in prose, was\n        produced with more success on December 16, 1807. Lamb wrote\n        prologues to both plays. This play, which was sent to Holcroft\n        to be touched up for the stage, led to a quarrel between the\n        friends. See Kegan Paul, II. 122 _et seq._\n\n      _Mr. Fawcett._ For Hazlitt\u2019s account of Joseph Fawcett see _Table\n        Talk_ (On Criticism).\n\n      _A Speech on General Warrants._ Hazlitt refers to a speech of\n        Chatham\u2019s, not on General Warrants, but on the Cyder Tax in the\n        Budget of 1763. The Parliamentary History gives only a few\n        lines, but the passage quoted by Hazlitt will be found in Lord\n        Brougham\u2019s _Historical Studies of Statesmen during George III.\u2019s\n        reign_.\n\n 212. _Mr. Coleridge, who_, _etc._ Hazlitt seems to refer to Coleridge\u2019s\n        Lectures on Poetry, delivered at the Royal Institution in 1808.\n\n      _A History of the Commonwealth of England._ Published in 4\n        volumes, 1824\u20138.\n\n      _A very admirable likeness._ Reproduced as frontispiece to Vol. I.\n        of Kegan Paul\u2019s _William Godwin_, _etc._\n\n      _Mrs. Wollstonecraft._ Godwin married Mary Wollstonecraft on March\n        29, 1797. Mrs. Inchbald, according to Mrs. Shelley (Kegan Paul,\n        I. 239) shed tears when the announcement was made to her.\n\n 213. _And thank the bounteous Pan._ \u2018In wanton dance they praise the\n        bounteous Pan.\u2019 _Comus_, 176.\n\n      \u2018_A mind reflecting ages past._\u2019 These words occur in the first\n        line of a laudatory poem on Shakespeare printed in the second\n        folio (1632). The poem is signed \u2018J. M. S.\u2019 and was attributed\n        by Coleridge to \u2018John Milton, Student.\u2019 See his _Lectures on\n        Shakspere_ (ed. T. Ashe), pp. 129\u201330.\n\n 213. \u2018_Dark rearward and abyss._\u2019 Cf. \u2018In the dark backward and abysm\n        of time.\u2019 _The Tempest_, Act I., Scene 2.\n\n      \u2018_That which was now a horse_,\u2019 _etc._ _Antony and Cleopatra_, Act\n        IV. Scene 14.\n\n      \u2018_Quick, forgetive, apprehensive._\u2019 \u2018Makes it apprehensive, quick,\n        forgetive.\u2019 _Henry IV._, Part II., Act IV. Scene 3.\n\n 214. \u2018_What in him is weak_,\u2019 _etc._ Cf.\n\n      \u2018\u2014\u2014what in me is dark,\n      Illumine, what is low raise and support.\u2019\n                                          _Paradise Lost_, I. 22\u20133.\n\n      \u2018_And by the force_,\u2019 _etc._\n\n      \u2018As by the strength of their illusion\n      Shall draw him on to his confusion.\u2019\n                                      _Macbeth_, Act III. Scene 5.\n\n      \u2018_Blear_ illusion\u2019 is a phrase of Milton\u2019s (_Comus_, 155).\n\n      \u2018_Rich strond._\u2019 See _The Faerie Queene_, Book III., Canto iv.,\n        Stanzas 18., 29., and 34.\n\n      \u2018_Goes sounding on his way._\u2019 Hazlitt seems to have had a hazy\n        recollection of two passages in Chaucer\u2019s _Prologue_. In his\n        essay on \u2018My First Acquaintance with Poets,\u2019 he says, \u2018the\n        scholar in Chaucer is described as going \u201csounding on his way,\u201d\u2019\n        and in his _Lectures on the English Poets_ (see Vol. V., p. 13)\n        he says \u2018the merchant, as described in Chaucer, went on his way\n        \u201csounding always the increase of his winning.\u2019\u201d The scholar is\n        not described as \u2018sounding on his way,\u2019 but Chaucer says of him,\n        \u2018Souninge in moral vertu was his speche,\u2019 while the merchant,\n        though \u2018souninge alway th\u2019 encrees of his winning,\u2019 is\n        not described as going on his way. Wordsworth has a line\n        (_Excursion_, Book III.), \u2018Went sounding on a dim and perilous\n        way,\u2019 but it seems clear that Hazlitt thought he was quoting\n        Chaucer.\n\n      \u2018_His own nothings monstered._\u2019 _Coriolanus_, Act II. Scene 2.\n\n 215. \u2018_Letting contemplation_,\u2019 _etc._ Cf. \u2018Till Contemplation had her\n        fill.\u2019 Dyer, _Grongar Hill_, l. 26.\n\n      \u2018_Sailing with supreme dominion_,\u2019 _etc._ Gray, _The Progress of\n        Poesy_, 115\u20136.\n\n      \u2018_He lisped in numbers_,\u2019 _etc._ Pope, _Prologue to the Satires_,\n        128.\n\n      _Ode on Chatterton._ _Monody on the Death of Chatterton_, written\n        in 1790 when Coleridge was eighteen.\n\n      _Gained several prizes._ At Cambridge Coleridge won the Browne\n        Gold Medal for a Greek Ode in 1792.\n\n 216. \u2018_Struggling in vain_,\u2019 _etc._ Wordsworth, _The Excursion_, Book\n        VI.\n\n      \u2018_Etherial braid_,\u2019 _etc._ Hazlitt perhaps recalled two passages\n        from Collins, \u2018with brede etherial wove\u2019 (_Ode to Evening_), and\n        \u2018the shadowy tribes of mind, in braided dance their murmurs\n        joined\u2019 (_Ode on the Poetical Character_).\n\n      _Next he was engaged_, _etc._ Some foundation for this account of\n        Coleridge will be found in his published writings, especially in\n        _The Friend_ and _Biographia Literaria_, but Hazlitt seems to\n        have drawn largely upon his recollections of Coleridge\u2019s\n        conversation. See his essay, \u2018My First Acquaintance with the\n        Poets.\u2019\n\n      _Like Ariel._ _The Tempest_, Act I. Scene 2.\n\n      Note. \u2018_And so by many winding nooks_,\u2019 _etc._ _Two Gentlemen of\n        Verona_, Act II. Scene 7.\n\n      _Malebranche._ The _De la Recherche de la V\u00e9rit\u00e9_ of Nicolas\n        Malebranche (1638\u20131715) was published in 1674.\n\n      _Cudworth\u2019s Intellectual System._ Ralph Cudworth\u2019s (1617\u20131688)\n        _True Intellectual System of the Universe_ (1678).\n\n 216. _Lord Brook\u2019s hieroglyphic theories._ For Fulke Greville, Lord\n        Brooke (1554\u20131628), the friend of Sir Philip Sidney, see\n        Hazlitt\u2019s essay \u2018On persons one would wish to have seen\u2019\n        (_Literary Remains_), where Lamb speaks of Greville\u2019s\n        \u2018apocalyptical, cabalistical\u2019 style.\n\n      _The Duchess of Newcastle\u2019s fantastic folios._ Margaret Cavendish,\n        Duchess of Newcastle (1624\u20131674), published between 1653\n        and 1668 a number of folio volumes of poems, plays, and\n        philosophical treatises. Lamb speaks of her (_Essays of Elia_,\n        \u2018Mackery End in Hertfordshire\u2019) as \u2018the thrice noble,\n        chaste, and virtuous, but again somewhat fantastical, and\n        original-brained, generous Margaret Newcastle,\u2019 and in another\n        essay (The Two Races of Men) charges Kenney with having carried\n        off\u201d with him \u2018the letters of that princely woman, the thrice\n        noble Margaret Newcastle.\u2019\n\n      _The hortus siccus of Dissent._ Burke, _Reflections on the\n        Revolution in France_ (_Select Works_, ed. Payne, II. 14).\n\n 217. _John Huss_, _etc._ Cf. a passage in the _Political Essays_, vol,\n        III. p. 265, and notes thereon.\n\n      _His Religious Musings._ First published in _Poems on various\n        subjects_ (1796).\n\n      _The John Bull._ The first number of \u2018John Bull,\u2019 Theodore Hook\u2019s\n        rascally paper founded to oppose the agitation in favour of\n        Queen Caroline, appeared on Dec. 17, 1820. Arbuthnot\u2019s _History\n        of John Bull_ appeared in 1712.\n\n      \u2018_Laughed with Rabelais_,\u2019 _etc._\n\n      \u2018Or laugh and shake in Rab\u2019lais easy chair.\u2019\n                                        Pope, _The Dunciad_, I. 22.\n\n      \u2018_Spoke with rapture of Raphael_,\u2019 _etc._ Coleridge visited Rome\n        in 1806 on his way from Malta to England.\n\n 218. _Sang for joy_, _etc._ Coleridge\u2019s Stanzas entitled _Destruction\n        of the Bastile_ (of which the second and third are lost) were\n        first published in 1834. They were written about 1789, and\n        Hazlitt may have seen them.\n\n      \u2018_In Philarmonia\u2019s undivided dale._\u2019 Coleridge in his lines _To\n        the Rev. W. J. Hort_, plainly refers to the Pantisocracy scheme.\n        Stanza 3, begins\n\n       \u2018In Freedom\u2019s UNDIVIDED dell,\n       Where _Toil_ and _Health_ with mellowed _Love_ shall dwell,\n       Far from folly, far from men,\u2019 etc.\n\n      \u2018_Frailty_,\u2019 _etc._ \u2018Frailty, thy name is woman!\u2019 _Hamlet_, Act I.\n        Scene 2.\n\n      _Paragraphs in the Courier._ Many of Coleridge\u2019s contributions to\n        _The Courier_, chiefly from 1809 to 1811, are published in\n        _Essays on his own Times_ (1850).\n\n      _A poet-laureate or stamp-distributor._ The reference is of course\n        to Southey and Wordsworth.\n\n      \u2018_Bourne from whence_,\u2019 _etc._ _Hamlet_, Act III. Scene 1.\n\n 219. _One splendid passage._ \u2018Alas! they had been friends in youth,\u2019\n        etc., lines 408\u2013426. Cf. Hazlitt\u2019s _Lectures on the English\n        Poets_ (on the Living Poets).\n\n      _The Friend._ See note to vol. III. p. 139.\n\n 220. \u2018_He cannot be constrained by mastery._\u2019 Wordsworth, _The\n        Excursion_, Book VI. See note to vol. III. p. 166.\n\n 221. \u2018_Taught with the little nautilus to sail._\u2019 Pope, _Essay on Man_,\n        III. 177.\n\n      \u2018_Youth at its prow_,\u2019 _etc._ Gray, _The Bard_, II. 2.\n\n      _It was a misfortune_, _etc._ This concluding paragraph was added\n        in the second edition.\n\n      _Instead of gathering_, _etc._ Cf. Hazlitt\u2019s essay \u2018On Poetical\n        Versatility\u2019 in _The Round Table_ (vol. III. p. 151).\n\n      \u2018_From the pelting of the pitiless storm._\u2019 _King Lear_, Act III.\n        Scene 4.\n\n      \u2018_As with triple steel._\u2019 _Paradise Lost_, II. 569.\n\n      \u2018_His words were hollow_\u2019 _etc._ Cf. \u2018But all was false and\n        hollow ... yet he pleased the ear.\u2019 _Paradise Lost_, II. 112\u20137.\n\n 222. \u2018_And curs\u2019d the hour_,\u2019 _etc._\n\n   \u2018Sad was the hour, and luckless was the day,\n   When first from Schiraz\u2019 walls I bent my way!\u2019\n                                     Collins, _Oriental Eclogues_, II.\n\n      MR. IRVING. This essay is from the _New Monthly Magazine_ (1824,\n        vol. X. p. 187). Edward Irving (1792\u20131834), after having been\n        for a time Dr. Chalmers\u2019s assistant at Glasgow, came to London\n        in July 1822, as minister of the Caledonian Asylum Chapel in\n        Cross Street, Hatton Garden. In 1829 he removed into the new\n        church, built for him in Regent Square, where the \u2018unknown\n        tongues\u2019 began to be heard. Hazlitt wrote a paper for _The\n        Liberal_ (1823) entitled \u2018Pulpit Oratory, Dr. Chalmers and Mr.\n        Irving,\u2019 reprinted in the present edition.\n\n      _A burning and a shining light._ _St. John_, V. 35.\n\n      \u2018_Nothing extenuate_,\u2019 _etc._ _Othello_, Act V. Scene 2.\n\n 223. _After the last fight._ Between the Gas-man and Bill Neate\n        described by Hazlitt himself in the Essay entitled \u2018The Fight,\u2019\n        republished in _Literary Remains_.\n\n      _Shaw the Life-guardsman._ Apostrophised by Moore in his _Epistle\n        from Tom Crib to Big Ben_. In a note Moore describes him as \u2018a\n        Life Guardsman, one of the Fancy, who distinguished himself, and\n        was killed in the memorable _set-to_ at Waterloo.\u2019\n\n      _Crib or Molyneux._ Tom Cribb (1781\u20131848) the champion pugilist\n        defeated Tom Molineaux, an American black, in two fights (1810\n        and 1811). At the time of Hazlitt\u2019s essay, Cribb had retired,\n        and was proprietor of a public house, the King\u2019s Arms, at the\n        corner of Duke Street and King Street, St. James\u2019s.\n\n      _Miss Macauley\u2019s readings._ Elizabeth Wright Macauley (1785\u20131837),\n        poetess, actress, public reader, pamphleteer and preacher,\n        appeared at Covent Garden in 1819 in the r\u00f4les of Mary Stuart\n        and Jane Shore, but did not satisfy the managers, and was\n        dismissed. After that she gave public readings and became a\n        woman with a grievance. See her pamphlets, _Theatric Revolution_\n        (1819) and _Facts against Falsehood_ (1824). In 1833 she\n        published a fragment of _Autobiographical Memoirs_.\n\n      _Exeter-Change._ The upper rooms of Exeter \u2018Change in the Strand\n        were let for various purposes, among others for the purposes of\n        a menagerie. Byron writes in his Journal (Nov. 1813, ed.\n        Prothero, II. 319): \u2018Two nights ago I saw the tigers sup at\n        Exeter \u2018Change.\u2019\n\n 224. \u2018_Lies floating many a rood._\u2019 _Paradise Lost_, I. 196.\n\n      \u2018_Bestrode the world_,\u2019 _etc._ _Julius Caesar_, Act I. Scene 2.\n\n      \u2018_The player\u2019s province_,\u2019 _etc._ Robert Lloyd, _The Actor_\n        (1760), ll. 67\u20138.\n\n      \u2018_Damnation round the land._\u2019 Pope, _The Universal Prayer_, St. 7.\n\n      \u2018_Hath a smooth aspect_,\u2019 _etc._\n\n     \u2018He hath a person and a smooth dispose\n     To be suspected; framed to make women false.\u2019\n                                         _Othello_, Act I. Scene 3.\n\n      \u2018_Faultless monster._\u2019 From the _Essay on Poetry_ of John\n        Sheffield, Duke of Buckingham.\n\n 225. \u2018_Consummation_,\u2019 _etc._ _Hamlet_, Act III. Scene 1.\n\n      \u2018_A lusty man\u2019_, _etc._\n\n         \u2018A manly man, to been an abbot able.\u2019\n                                       Chaucer, _Prologue_, 167.\n\n 225. _Glanced an eye at Mr. Canning._ The immediate cause of Irving\u2019s\n        popularity is said to have been a flattering reference to him by\n        Canning in the House of Commons.\n\n      \u2018_Like an eagle_,\u2019 _etc._ _Coriolanus_, Act V. Scene 6.\n\n      _Peter Aretine._ Pietro Aretino (1492\u20131557) \u2018the scourge of\n        princes.\u2019\n\n 226. \u2018_God made the country_,\u2019 _etc._ Cowper, _The Task_, i. 749.\n\n 227. The \u2018Saints,\u2019 etc. Wilberforce was a prominent member of the\n        \u2018Clapham Sect,\u2019 and represented Yorkshire from 1784 to 1812.\n\n      \u2018_Hilting the house_,\u2019 _etc._ This expression is used by Burke in\n        his speech on American taxation (Ap. 19, 1774). See _Select\n        Works_ (ed. Payne), i. 147 and note.\n\n      _A Mr. Fox._ William Johnson Fox (1786\u20131864), the anti-corn law\n        orator, was at this time Unitarian preacher at the Chapel in\n        South Place, Finsbury, which was built for him, and opened in\n        1824.\n\n 228. _The Duke of Sussex._ The sixth son of George III., created Duke\n        of Sussex in 1801.\n\n      _Miraturque_, _etc._\n\n       \u2018Miraturque novas frondes et non sua poma.\u2019\n                                       Virgil, _Georgics_, II. 82.\n\n      _Dr. Chalmers._ Chalmers\u2019s _Astronomical Discourses_ (week-day\n        sermons delivered at the Tron Church, Glasgow) were published in\n        1817, and in the same year he visited London where his sermons,\n        at the Surrey Chapel, and at the Scotch Churches in London Wall\n        and Swallow Street, created extraordinary enthusiasm. Hazlitt\n        had heard him in Glasgow. See _Memoirs of W. Hazlitt_, II. 42.\n\n      \u2018_Four Orations_,\u2019 _etc._ Irving\u2019s _For the Oracles of God, four\n        Orations; for Judgment to Come, an Argument in nine Parts_ was\n        published in 1823. Lowndes mentions a third edition in 1824.\n\n 229. _Orator Henley._ John Henley (1692\u20131756), who preached at Newport\n        Market, and, later, in what Pope calls \u2018Henley\u2019s gilt tub,\u2019 at\n        Clare Market, is one of the heroes of the _Dunciad_\u2014\n\n    \u2018Embrowned with native bronze, lo! Henley stands,\n    Tuning his voice, and balancing his hands.\u2019\n                                              Act III. 199, _et seq._\n\n      Pope gives a long note upon him.\n\n      \u2018_A monkey preacher._\u2019 Hazlitt probably refers to the passage from\n        the _Dunciad_ referred to in the last note\u2014\n\n           \u2018Oh worthy thou of Aegypt\u2019s wise abodes,\n           A decent priest, where monkeys were the gods!\u2019\n                                                   III. 207\u20138.\n\n      \u2018_By the coinage_,\u2019 _etc._ A composite quotation. Cf. \u2018This is the\n        very coinage of your brain\u2019 (_Hamlet_, Act III. Scene 4), and \u2018A\n        false creation, proceeding from the heat-oppressed brain\u2019\n        (_Macbeth_, Act II. Scene 1).\n\n 230. \u2018_There\u2019s magic in the web._\u2019 _Othello_, Act III. Scene 4.\n\n      \u2018_By his so potent art_,\u2019 _etc._ _The Tempest_, Act V. Scene 1.\n\n      \u2018_Now of the planetary_,\u2019 _etc._ Cf.\n\n    \u2018And tell us whence the stars; why some are fix\u2019d,\n    And planetary some.\u2019\n                                  Cowper, _The Task_, Book III. 158.\n\n      \u2018_In the very storm_,\u2019 _etc._ _Hamlet_, Act III. Scene 2.\n\n 230. \u2018_To be admired_,\u2019 _etc._ Cf.\n\n        \u2018Religion, if in heavenly truths attired,\n        Needs only to be seen to be admired.\u2019\n                                  Cowper, _Expostulation_, 492\u20133.\n\n 231. _The late Mr. Horne Tooke._ Published originally in the _New\n        Monthly Magazine_ (1824, Vol. X. p. 246). Cf. _ante_, pp. 378\n        note and 389\u2013390, and an essay \u2018On the Diversions of Purley\u2019\n        (_Literary Remains_).\n\n      \u2018_So is the London Tavern!_\u2019 According to the usual version Horne\n        Tooke said: \u2018So is the London Tavern\u2014to those who can pay!\u2019\n\n      _Sir Allan Gardiner._ Alan Gardner (1742\u20131809) the admiral,\n        created a baronet in 1794, represented Westminster from 1796\n        till 1806, when he was raised to the peerage as Lord Gardner of\n        Uttoxeter. Hazlitt refers to the general election of 1796 when\n        Horne Tooke unsuccessfully stood for Westminster against Fox and\n        Gardner.\n\n 232. \u2018_The King\u2019s Old Courtier_\u2019 _etc._\n\n                  \u2018Like an old courtier of the queen\u2019s,\n                  And the queen\u2019s old courtier,\u2019\n\n      is the burden of \u2018The Old and Young Courtier.\u2019 (See Percy\u2019s\n        _Reliques_, ed. Wheatley, II. 315.)\n\n      \u2018_Lord of himself_,\u2019 _etc._ \u2018Lord of yourself, uncumbered with a\n        wife.\u2019 Dryden, _Epistle to John Driden_, 18.\n\n 233. _He used to plague Fuseli_, _etc._ \u2018He made strange havoc of\n        Fuseli\u2019s fantastic hieroglyphics, violent humours, and oddity of\n        dialect.\u2019 Hazlitt, \u2018On the Conversation of Authors.\u2019\n\n      _At G\u2014\u2014\u2018s._ Godwin\u2019s presumably.\n\n      _Young Betty\u2019s acting._ William Henry West Betty (1791\u20131874), the\n        young Roscius, made his first appearance in 1803 at the age of\n        eleven, and finally retired from the stage in 1824. Many critics\n        declared that his acting was finer than Kemble\u2019s, and Home said\n        that he had not seen his own creation of Douglas adequately\n        realised until he had seen Betty in the part. Cf. Hazlitt\u2019s\n        essay on \u2018On Patronage and Puffing\u2019 in _Table-Talk_.\n\n      _A professed orator._ This was Coleridge. See Hazlitt\u2019s Essay \u2018On\n        the Conversation of Authors\u2019 in _The Plain Speaker_, where Horne\n        Tooke\u2019s conversational powers are described again.\n\n 235. \u2018_Sacred vehemence._\u2019 _Comus_, 795.\n\n      _Lord Camelford._ Thomas Pitt (1775\u20131804), second Lord Camelford,\n        duellist and naval commander.\n\n      _The only palpable hit_, _etc._ Hazlitt included in his _Eloquence\n        of the British Senate_ Horne Tooke\u2019s speech (on the eligibility\n        of clergymen to sit in Parliament), in which this hit was made.\n        The reference in the note is to Letter LXVIII., to Lord\n        Chief-Justice Mansfield.\n\n 236. \u2018_Native and endued_,\u2019 _etc._ _Hamlet_, Act IV. Scene 7.\n\n      _His trial before Lord Kenyon._ In 1790 Horne Tooke unsuccessfully\n        contested Westminster against Fox and presented a petition to\n        the House of Commons complaining of the riotous conduct of the\n        electors. The House voted the petition \u2018frivolous and\n        vexatious,\u2019 and Fox brought an action against Horne Tooke to\n        recover the costs. An account of this action, which was tried by\n        Lord Kenyon, was published in 1792.\n\n      _His examination before the Commissioners of the Income-Tax._ See\n        Stephens\u2019s _Life of John Horne Tooke_ (II. 157).\n\n      _The State Trials in 1794._ See _ante_, p. 211 note, and Hazlitt\u2019s\n        _Memoirs of Thomas Holcroft_ (Vol. II. pp. 139 _et seq._). Home\n        Tooke was acquitted on Nov. 22, 1794.\n\n 236. _An intercepted letter._ See Stephens\u2019s _Life of John Horne Tooke_\n        (II. 119). The letter related, not to a social invitation, but\n        to the preparation of a list of sinecures held by the\n        Grenvilles. The letter closed with these words: \u2018Query, is it\n        possible to get ready by Thursday?\u2019\n\n 237. _The celebrated philosopher of Malmesbury._ Thomas Hobbes\n        (1588\u20131679), born at Malmesbury.\n\n      _Fabellas aniles._ Horace, _Satires_, II. 6, 77\u20138.\n\n      _A hasty charge._ Junius accused Horne Tooke of having deserted\n        Wilkes in connection with the election of Sheriffs for the city\n        in 1771. See the Letters of Junius (1805, Vol. II. pp. 104 _et\n        seq._).\n\n      \u2018_Under him_,\u2019 _etc._ _Macbeth_, Act. _III._ Scene 1.\n\n      _He comes off more shabbily_, _etc._ Sir Leslie Stephen takes a\n        different view and speaks of Horne Tooke as \u2018the most successful\n        antagonist of his formidable enemy.\u2019\n\n 238. Sir William Draper (1721\u20131787), who had commanded the expedition\n        against Manilla, involved himself in a controversy with Junius\n        by his defence of Lord Granby who was one of the persons\n        attacked in Junius\u2019s first letter (21st Jan. 1769).\n\n      _His work on Grammar._ Part I. of Horne Tooke\u2019s \u2018Diversions of\n        Purley,\u2019 appeared in 1786, another edition containing Part II.\n        in 1798\u20131805.\n\n      _The essence of it_, _etc._ The _Letter to Dunning_ was written\n        and published in 1778 when Horne Tooke was undergoing a term\n        of imprisonment in consequence of a resolution of the\n        Constitutional Society in favour of \u2018our beloved American\n        fellow-subjects.\u2019 The letter contained his reasoning on the\n        word _That_. Coleridge (_Table-Talk_, May 7, 1830) said: \u2018All\n        that is worth anything (and that is but little) in the\n        Diversions of Purley is contained in a short pamphlet-letter\n        which he addressed to Mr. Dunning.\u2019\n\n      _Mr. Harris\u2019s Hermes._ The _Hermes, or a Philosophical Inquiry\n        concerning Universal Grammar_ of James Harris (1709\u20131780),\n        father of the first Earl of Malmesbury, was published in 1751.\n        Johnson said, \u2018Harris, however, is a prig, and a bad prig. I\n        looked into his book, and thought he did not understand his own\n        system.\u2019 (Boswell, _Life of Johnson_, ed. G. B. Hill, III. 245.)\n\n 239. \u2018_Bear a charmed life_,\u2019 _etc._ _Macbeth_, Act V. Scene 8.\n\n      \u2018_Palpable to feeling as to sight._\u2019 Cf. \u2018If \u2019tis not gross in\n        sense ... \u2019tis probable and palpable to thinking.\u2019 _Othello_,\n        Act I. Scene 2.\n\n      \u2018_Familiar as his garter._\u2019\n\n         \u2018The Gordian knot of it he will unloose,\n         Familiar as his garter.\u2019\n                                     _Henry V._, Act I. Scene 1.\n\n      _Mr. Windham._ Horne Tooke in the 4to edition of his _Diversions_,\n        speaking of Bruckner\u2019s _Criticisms on the Diversions of Purley_\n        (1790) says that the substance of that work \u2018was, with singular\n        industry and a characteristical affectation, gossiped by the\n        present precious Secretary at War, in Payne the bookseller\u2019s\n        shop; the cannibal commencing with this modest observation,\n        that\u2014\u201cI had found a mare\u2019s nest.\u201d\u2019 See the _Diversions_ (ed. R.\n        Taylor, 1860 ed.), p. 122.\n\n      _Bull-baiting._ Windham spoke twice in defence of bull-baiting, on\n        April 18, 1800, and May 24, 1802. See his _Speeches_, i.\n        331\u2013356.\n\n 240. \u2018_A complex idea_,\u2019 _etc._ See Horne Tooke\u2019s _Diversions_ (ed. R.\n        Taylor, 1860), p. 19.\n\n 240. _Mr. Lindley Murray\u2019s Grammar._ Published in 1795 at York, where\n        Lindley Murray (1745\u20131826) settled on coming to England from\n        America in 1784. De Quincey refers to Murray as \u2018an imbecile\n        stranger\u2019 (_Works_, ed. Masson, x. 127), and speaks (_ib._ XI.\n        352) of Hazlitt\u2019s _New and Improved Grammar of the English\n        Tongue_, _etc._ (see _ante_, p. 389) as an \u2018examination\u2019 of\n        Lindley Murray\u2019s English Grammar.\n\n 241. _Mr. C***_ ... _Mr. M***_. Probably Croker and Malthus.\n\n      SIR WALTER SCOTT. Published originally in the _New Monthly\n        Magazine_ (1824, Vol. X. p. 297). Cf. Hazlitt\u2019s Essay on Scott,\n        Racine, and Shakespeare in _The Plain Speaker_.\n\n      \u2018_The present ignorant time._\u2019 _Macbeth_, Act I. Scene 5.\n\n      \u2018_Laudator temporis acti._\u2019 Horace, _Ars Poetica_, 173.\n\n 242. \u2018_Poetry of no mark_,\u2019 _etc._ \u2018A fellow of no mark nor\n        likelihood.\u2019 _Henry IV._, Part I., Act III. Scene 2.\n\n      In the _New Monthly Magazine_ there is the following editorial\n        note on this passage: \u2018The writer of this paper, and not the\n        Editor, must be considered as here presuming to be the critical\n        arbiter of Sir Walter\u2019s poetry. A journal such as this cannot be\n        supported without the aid of writers of a certain degree of\n        talent, and it is not possible to modify all their opinions so\n        as to suit everybody\u2019s taste.\u2019\n\n 243. Note. _Agnes._ _Agnes, or the Triumph of Principle_, 1822.\n\n      _The late Mr. John Scott._ John Scott (1783\u20131821), editor of the\n        _London Magazine_, died in Feb. 1821, from a wound received in a\n        duel with Lockhart\u2019s friend Christie, arising out of a quarrel\n        between _Blackwood\u2019s Magazine_ and the _London Magazine_. The\n        \u2018elaborate panegyric\u2019 of the Scotch Novels had appeared in the\n        latter magazine early in 1820.\n\n      \u2018_Skinned and filmed over._\u2019 \u2018It will but skin and film the\n        ulcerous place.\u2019 _Hamlet_, Act III. Scene 4.\n\n 244. _Mr. Westall\u2019s drawings._ Richard Westall illustrated _Marmion_\n        (1809) and _The Lord of the Isles_ (1813).\n\n      _A story goes_, _etc._ A very unlikely story. Long before the\n        publication of _The Lay of the Last Minstrel_ (1805), Scott had\n        written not only the translations from the German, but a good\n        deal of original work in _The Minstrelsy of the Scottish Border_\n        (1802\u20133).\n\n      \u2018_A metre ballad-monger._\u2019 _Henry IV._, Part I., Act III. Scene 1.\n\n      \u2018_Fancies and good-nights._\u2019 _Henry IV._, Part II., Act III. Scene\n        2.\n\n      \u2018_Glances from heaven to earth_\u2019 _etc._ _Midsummer Night\u2019s Dream_,\n        Act V. Scene 1.\n\n 245. _Like Dorothea._ _Don Quixote_, Part I., Book IV., Chap. xxviii.\n\n      _As Lord Peter_, _etc._ It was Martin who \u2018at one twitch brought\n        off a large handful of points; and, with a second pull, stripped\n        away ten dozen yards of fringe,\u2019 and Jack, who, \u2018stripping down\n        a parcel of gold lace a little too hastily,\u2019 \u2018rent the main body\n        of his coat from top to bottom.\u2019 _A Tale of a Tub_, Sect. VI.\n\n      \u2018_Over-laboured lassitude_.\u2019 Burke, _Reflections on the Revolution\n        in France_ (_Select Works_, ed. Payne, II. 120).\n\n      _Mr. Constable._ Archibald Constable (1774\u20131827) was publisher of\n        the _Edinburgh Review_, of _Marmion_, and of _Waverley_, and the\n        greater number of the novels.\n\n 246. \u2018_The embryo fry_,\u2019 _etc._ Cf. \u2018An eyrie of children, little\n        eyases, that cry out on the top of question,\u2019 etc. _Hamlet_, Act\n        II. Scene 2.\n\n      \u2018_Comes like a satyr_,\u2019 _etc._\n\n               \u2018A satyr that comes staring from the woods,\n               Must not at first speak like an orator.\u2019\n\n      Earl of Roscommon, Translation of Horace\u2019s _Ars Poetica_, ll.\n        281\u20132. Cf. _Ars Poetica_, ll. 244 _et seq._\n\n 246. \u2018_A holy water sprinkle_,\u2019 _etc._ _The Faerie Queene_, Book III.,\n        Canto xii. Stanza 13.\n\n      \u2018_More lively_,\u2019 _etc._ \u2018It\u2019s spritely, waking, audible, and full\n        of vent.\u2019 _Coriolanus_, Act IV. Scene 5.\n\n      \u2018_Their habits as they lived._\u2019 _Hamlet_, Act III. Scene 4.\n\n      \u2018_Give her hand to another_,\u2019 _etc._ _Old Mortality_, Chap.\n        xxxviii.\n\n 248. \u2018_Her head to the east._\u2019 \u2018Na, na! Not that way, the feet to the\n        east.\u2019 _Guy Mannering_, Chap. XV.\n\n      \u2018_Thick-coming._\u2019 \u2018Thick-coming fancies.\u2019 _Macbeth_, Act V. Scene\n        3.\n\n      Note. _Perhaps the finest scene._ _Guy Mannering_, Chap. li.\n\n 249. \u2018_Consummation_,\u2019 _etc._ _Hamlet_, Act III. Scene 1.\n\n      Note. _Ivanhoe_, Chap. xxiii.\n\n 250. _Flints and dungs._ Hazlitt refers to a passage at the beginning\n        of Chap. xliii. of _Ivanhoe_.\n\n      \u2018_Calls backing his friends._\u2019 \u2018Call you that backing of your\n        friends?\u2019 _Henry IV._, Part I., Act II. Scene 4.\n\n      _Mr. Mac-Adam._ John Loudon McAdam (1756\u20131836), whose services in\n        the improvement of highways had been recognised and rewarded by\n        Parliament in 1823.\n\n      \u2018_Sixty years since._\u2019 \u2018\u2019Tis sixty years since,\u2019 the second title\n        of _Waverley_.\n\n      _Mr. Peel\u2019s Police-Bill._ Peel succeeded in establishing the\n        Metropolitan Police in 1829.\n\n 251. _Every living author ... but himself_. Many of the mottoes were of\n        course written by Scott himself, though that does not affect\n        Hazlitt\u2019s argument.\n\n      \u2018_If there were a writer_,\u2019 _etc._ This concluding paragraph did\n        not appear in the _New Monthly Magazine_.\n\n      \u2018_Born for the universe_,\u2019 _etc._ Goldsmith, _Retaliation_, 31\u20132.\n\n \u2018Winked and shut his apprehension up.\u2019\n             Prologue to _Antonio\u2019s Revenge_ (_History of Antonio and\n                Mellida_, Part II.). By John Marston.\n\n 252. _A gang of desperadoes._ Hazlitt seems to refer to the founders of\n        _The Quarterly Review_.\n\n      _The lowest panders of a venal press._ The writers in _Blackwood\u2019s\n        Magazine_, presumably.\n\n      \u2018_Who would not grieve_,\u2019 _etc._\n\n     \u2018Who but must laugh, if such a man there be?\n     Who would not weep, if Atticus were he?\u2019\n                             Pope, _Prologue to the Satires_, 213\u20134.\n\n 253. \u2018_As if a man_,\u2019 _etc._ _Coriolanus_, Act V. Scene 3.\n\n      \u2018_Cloud-capt._\u2019 _The Tempest._ Act IV. Scene 1.\n\n      \u2018_Golden mean._\u2019 The English form of Horace\u2019s \u2018auream\n        mediocritatem.\u2019 Odes, II. 10\u20135.\n\n      \u2018_Prouder than_,\u2019 _etc._\n\n                   \u2018and make him fall\n   His crest that prouder than blue Iris bends.\u2019\n                               _Troilus and Cressida_, Act I. Scene 3.\n\n      Note. Byron died at Mesolonghi on April 19, 1824.\n\n 254. \u2018_Silly sooth_,\u2019 _etc._ _Twelfth Night_, Act II. Scene 4.\n\n 255. \u2018_Denotes a foregone conclusion._\u2019 _Othello_, Act III. Scene 3.\n\n 255. \u2018_In cell monastic._\u2019 \u2018To live in a nook merely monastic.\u2019 _As You\n        Like It_, Act III. Scene 2.\n\n 256. \u2018_Thoughts that breathe_,\u2019 _etc._ Gray, _The Progress of Poesy_,\n        l. 110.\n\n 257. \u2018_Poor men\u2019s cottages_,\u2019 _etc._ _The Merchant of Venice_, Act I.\n        Scene 2.\n\n      \u2018_Reasons high_,\u2019 _etc._ _Paradise Lost_, II. 558\u20139.\n\n      \u2018_Till contemplation_,\u2019 _etc._ Dyer, _Grongar Hill_, l. 26.\n\n      \u2018_This bank and shoal of time._\u2019 _Macbeth_, Act I. Scene 7.\n\n 258. _Published in the Liberal._ Byron\u2019s fragment _Heaven and Earth: A\n        Mystery_, was published in the second number of _The Liberal:\n        Verse and Prose from the South_, the ill-fated quarterly review\n        established by Shelley, Byron, and Leigh Hunt in Italy. Byron\n        and Hunt found themselves unable to work together, especially\n        after Shelley\u2019s death in July, 1822, and the review only lived\n        through four numbers (1822\u20133).\n\n      \u2018_It is his aversion._\u2019\n\n      \u2018A drowsy frowzy poem, call\u2019d the \u201cExcursion,\u201d\n      Writ in a manner which is my aversion.\u2019\n                                  _Don Juan_, Canto III. Stanza 94.\n\n      \u2018_Born in a garret_,\u2019 _etc._\n\n   \u2018The Tolbooth felt defrauded of his charms,\n   If Jeffrey died, except within her arms:\n   Nay last not least, on that portentous morn,\n   The sixteenth story, where himself was born,\n   His patrimonial garret, fell to ground.\u2019\n                                 _English Bards and Scotch Reviewers._\n\n      \u2018_Letter to the Editor_,\u2019 _etc._ Byron\u2019s letter to William\n        Roberts, Editor of the _British Review_, was published in No. 1\n        of _The Liberal_. See Byron\u2019s _Letters and Journals_ (ed.\n        Prothero), Vol. IV., Appendix vii.\n\n 259. Long\u2019s. \u2018I saw Byron for the last time in 1815, after I returned\n        from France. He dined, or lunched, with me at Long\u2019s, in Bond\n        Street.\u2019 Lockhart\u2019s _Life of Scott_, III. 336.\n\n      _The controversy about Pope._ See Byron\u2019s _Letters and Journals_\n        (ed. Prothero), Vol. V. Appendix iii. Byron wrote two letters to\n        John Murray \u2018on the Rev. W. L. Bowles\u2019s Strictures on the Life\n        and Writings of Pope,\u2019 the first of which was published in 1821,\n        the second not till 1835. Hazlitt himself wrote a paper in the\n        _New Scots Magazine_ (Feb. 1818) \u2018on the question whether Pope\n        was a poet.\u2019\n\n      _From the sublime_, _etc._ \u2018Du sublime au ridicule il n\u2019y a qu\u2019un\n        pas,\u2019 was a saying of Napoleon\u2019s. Paine, in _The Age of Reason_,\n        (Part II.) had already expressed the same thought less\n        concisely.\n\n      _Scrub in the Farce._ Scrub, in Farquhar\u2019s _Beaux\u2019 Stratagem_, is\n        quoted for the variety of his occupations in the household of\n        Squire Sullen. See Act III. Scene 3.\n\n      \u2018_Very tolerable_,\u2019 _etc._ _Much Ado About Nothing_, Act III.\n        Scene 3.\n\n 260. \u2018_A chartered libertine._\u2019 _Henry V._, Act I. Scene 1.\n\n      \u2018_Like proud seas under him._\u2019 _Two Noble Kinsmen_, Act II. Scene\n        1.\n\n      _It is a ludicrous circumstance_, _etc._ Scott acknowledged the\n        obligation in a letter to John Murray (Dec. 17, 1821), in which\n        he says: \u2018I accept with feelings of great obligation, the\n        flattering proposal of Lord Byron to prefix my name to the very\n        grand and tremendous drama of \u201cCain.\u201d I may be partial to it,\n        and you will allow I have cause; but I do not think that his\n        Muse has ever taken so lofty a flight amid her former soarings,\u2019\n        etc., Lockhart, v. 150. In a letter to Rose (Dec. 18, 1821),\n        after comparing Byron\u2019s devil with Milton\u2019s he says: \u2018I think,\n        however, the work will not escape censure, for it is scarce\n        possible to make the devil speak as the devil without giving\n        offence,\u2019 and adds, \u2018I question whether our noble friend has\n        brought up his friend sufficiently cleanly.\u2019 _Familiar Letters\n        of Sir Walter Scott_, II. 127.\n\n 261. \u2018_Furthest from them is best._\u2019 Paradise Lost, I. 247.\n\n      _The first Vision of Judgment._ Southey\u2019s, published in 1821, and\n        dedicated to the King.\n\n      \u2018_None but itself_,\u2019 _etc._ From _The Double Falsehood_, produced\n        in 1727, and written or adapted by Lewis Theobald. The line is\n        quoted by Burke (_Regicide Peace_, ed. Payne, p. 40).\n\n      \u2018_The tenth transmitter_,\u2019 _etc._ Richard Savage\u2019s _The Bastard_,\n        l. 8.\n\n      _Lord Byron\u2019s preposterous liberalism._ Hazlitt probably refers\n        specially to Byron\u2019s relations with Leigh Hunt and _The\n        Liberal_. See _ante_, note to p. 258.\n\n 262. \u2018_Nothing can cover_,\u2019 _etc._ Beaumont and Fletcher, or Fletcher\n        and Massinger, _The False One_, Act II. Scene 1.\n\n      MR. SOUTHEY. Cf. _Political Essays_, Vol. III. pp. 48\u201351, 192\u2013232.\n\n 263. \u2018_Where he must live_,\u2019 _etc._. _Othello_, Act IV. Scene 2.\n\n      \u2018_Whatever is, is right._\u2019 Pope, _Essay on Man_, IV. 394.\n\n      _Old Sarum._ The allusion is to Southey\u2019s early radical\n        inscription for Old Sarum.\n\n      \u2018_His generous ardour_,\u2019 _etc._ \u2018A generous friendship no cold\n        medium knows.\u2019\n\n                     Pope, Homer\u2019s _Iliad_, IX. 725.\n\n 264. \u2018_The words of truth and soberness._\u2019 _Acts_, xxvi. 25.\n\n      \u2018_We relish Mr. Southey_,\u2019 _etc._ \u2018You may relish him more in the\n        soldier than in the scholar.\u2019 _Othello_, Act II. Scene 1.\n\n      \u2018_He is nothing_,\u2019 _etc._ Cf. \u2018For I am nothing, if not critical.\u2019\n        _Ibid._\n\n 265. _Teres et rotundus._ \u2018Fortis, et in se ipso totus, teres atque\n        rotundus.\u2019\n\n                        Horace, _Sat._ II. 7, 86.\n\n      \u2018_Does he not dedicate_,\u2019 _etc._ See _ante_, note to p. 261.\n\n      _His own Glendoveer._ _Curse of Kehama_, vi. 2.\n\n 266. \u2018_Or if a composer_,\u2019 _etc._ Perhaps Hazlitt refers to William\n        Sotheby (1757\u20131833), author of _Orestes_ (1802) and _Saul_\n        (1807), or to Henry Hart Milman (1791\u20131868), afterwards Dean of\n        St. Paul\u2019s, who had published _Samor_ (1818), _The Fall of\n        Jerusalem_ (1820), and _The Martyr of Antioch_ (1822), and was a\n        constant contributor to _The Quarterly Review_. \u2018A translator of\n        an old Latin author\u2019 is presumably Gifford.\n\n      \u2018_Far from the sun_,\u2019 _etc._ Gray, _The Progress of Poesy_, l. 83.\n\n 267. \u2018_Because he is virtuous_,\u2019 _etc._ _Twelfth Night_, Act II. Scene\n        3.\n\n      _The Book of the Church._ Southey\u2019s _The Book of the Church_,\n        published in 2 vols. 1824.\n\n      \u2018_A little leaven_,\u2019 _etc._ _Galatians_, V. 9.\n\n      \u2018_There hangs_,\u2019 _etc._ _Macbeth_, Act III. Scene 5.\n\n      _Once a philanthropist_, _etc._ Cf. \u2018Once a Jacobin, always a\n        Jacobin.\u2019 See vol. III. pp. 110, 159.\n\n 268. \u2018_Like the high leaves_,\u2019 _etc._ Southey\u2019s _The Holly Tree_,\n        Stanza 5.\n\n      \u2018_Full of wise saws_,\u2019 _etc._ _As You Like It_, Act II. Scene 7.\n\n 269. _Mandeville\u2019s description of Addison._ Cf. _The Round Table_, vol.\n        I. p. 9.\n\n      \u2018_And follows so_,\u2019 _etc._ _Henry V._, Act IV. Scene 1.\n\n 270. MR. WORDSWORTH. Hazlitt had met Wordsworth at Alfoxden in 1798\n        (see the essay \u2018My First Acquaintance with Poets\u2019), and in the\n        Lake District in 1803, when he painted a portrait of the poet\n        which proved unsatisfactory and was destroyed. In a letter to\n        Hazlitt\u2019s son (May 23, 1831), Wordsworth says that he does not\n        recollect having met Hazlitt on more than one occasion after\n        their meeting at the Lakes. Some of the opinions which Hazlitt\n        attributes to Wordsworth appear to be recollections of the\n        poet\u2019s conversation. Hazlitt reviewed _The Excursion_ in _The\n        Examiner_ (see _The Round Table_, vol. I. pp. 111\u2013125), and\n        spoke of him in his Lecture \u2018On the Living Poets\u2019 (see _English\n        Poets_, vol. V. 161\u20134).\n\n 270. \u2018_Lowliness_,\u2019 _etc._ _Julius Caesar_, Act II. Scene 1.\n\n      \u2018_No figures_,\u2019 _etc._\n\n          \u2018Thou hast no figures nor no fantasies,\n          Which busy care draws in the brains of men.\u2019\u2014_Ibid._\n\n      \u2018_Skyey influences._\u2019 _Measure for Measure_, Act III. Scene 1.\n\n      \u2018_Nihil humani_,\u2019 _etc._ Terence, _Heautontimorumenos_, Act I.\n        Scene 1.\n\n 271. _The Lyrical Ballads._ _Lyrical Ballads, with a few other Poems_,\n        published in 1798.\n\n      \u2018_The cloud-capt towers_,\u2019 _etc._ _The Tempest_, Act IV. Scene 1.\n\n      \u2018_The judge\u2019s robe_,\u2019 _etc._ Quoted inaccurately from _Measure for\n        Measure_, Act II. Scene 2.\n\n 272. \u2018_A sense of joy_,\u2019 _etc._ Wordsworth, _To my Sister_.\n\n      \u2018_Beneath the hills_,\u2019 _etc._ _The Excursion_, Book VI.\n\n      _Vain pomp and glory_, _etc._ _Henry VIII._, Act III. Scene 2.\n\n 273. \u2018_To him_,\u2019 _etc._ _Ode on the Intimations of Immortality._\n\n 274. _Cole-Orton._ The seat of Wordsworth\u2019s friend, Sir George Howland\n        Beaumont, to whom he dedicated the 1815 edition of his Poems.\n        \u2018Some of the best pieces were composed under the shade of your\n        own groves, upon the classic ground of Coleorton.\u2019\n\n      \u2018_Calm contemplation_,\u2019 _etc._\n\n            \u2018Calm pleasures there abide\u2014majestic pains.\u2019\n                                          _Laodamia_, l. 72.\n\n      \u2018_Fall blunted_,\u2019 _etc._\n\n         \u2018Fall blunted from each indurated heart.\u2019\n                                     Goldsmith, _The Traveller_.\n\n 275. _Milton\u2019s wish._ Wordsworth, in that part of _The Recluse_ which\n        he published at the beginning of _The Excursion_, quotes\n        Milton\u2019s words (_Paradise Lost_, VII. 31)\n\n            \u2018\u2014\u2014\u201cfit audience let me find though few!\u201d\n            So prayed, more gaining than he asked, the Bard\u2014\n            In holiest mood.\u2019\n\n      _Toujours perdrix._ Attributed to the confessor of Henry IV. of\n        France, when the King illustrated the advantage of variety by\n        ordering every course to consist of partridge. See _Notes and\n        Queries_, 4th Ser. IV. 336\u20137.\n\n      \u2018_A man of no mark_,\u2019 _etc._ \u2018A fellow of no mark nor likelihood.\u2019\n        _Henry IV._ Part I., Act III. Scene 2.\n\n 276. \u2018_Flushed with a purple grace_,\u2019 _etc._ _Alexander\u2019s Feast_, III.\n        51\u20132. Byron, in his \u2018Reply to Blackwood\u2019s Magazine\u2019 (_Letters\n        and Journals_, ed. Prothero, IV., Appendix IX. p. 484) says of\n        Southey and Wordsworth, \u2018Are they not of those who called\n        Dryden\u2019s _Ode_ \u201ca drunken song\u201d?\u2019\n\n      _Dares to compare himself_, _etc._ Byron in the same essay refers\n        to Wordsworth\u2019s postscripts to Lyrical Ballads, \u2018where the two\n        great instances of the sublime are taken from himself and\n        Milton.\u2019\n\n      Wordsworth\u2019s \u2018Selections from Chaucer Modernised,\u2019 written in\n        1801, were published, _The Prioress\u2019 Tale_ in 1820, _The Cuckoo\n        and the Nightingale_, and _Troilus and Cressida_ in 1841.\n\n      \u2018_Action is momentary_,\u2019 _etc._ Quoted inaccurately from _The\n        Borderers_ (written 1795\u20136, published 1842), Act III. In a note\n        to _The White Doe of Rylstone_, to which these lines were added\n        as a kind of motto in 1837, Wordsworth writes: \u2018This, and the\n        five lines that follow, were either read or recited by me, more\n        than thirty years since, to the late Mr. Hazlitt, who quoted\n        some expressions in them (imperfectly remembered) in a work of\n        his published several years ago.\u2019\n\n 277. _A great dislike to Gray._ Coleridge was induced \u2018by Mr.\n        Wordsworth\u2019s conversation ... to re-examine with impartial\n        strictness Gray\u2019s celebrated Elegy.\u2019 (_Biographia Literaria_,\n        Chap. II.)\n\n      \u2018_Let observation_,\u2019 _etc._ De Quincey (_Works_ ed. Masson, X.\n        128) attributes this criticism to the author of \u2018a little\n        biographic sketch of Dr. Johnson, published immediately after\n        his death.\u2019 Coleridge makes the same criticism. _Lectures on\n        Shakspere and Milton_, 1811\u201312 (ed. Ashe, p. 72).\n\n      _Drawcansir._ In the Duke of Buckingham\u2019s play, _The Rehearsal_\n        (1671).\n\n       \u2018Let petty Kings the names of parties know:\n       Where\u2019er I come, I slay both friend and foe.\u2019\n                                                   Act V. Scene 1.\n\n      _Bewick\u2019s woodcuts._ Thomas Bewick (1753\u20131828), the famous\n        wood-engraver.\n\n      _Waterloo\u2019s Sylvan etchings._ Antoine Waterloo (1609?\u20131676?), a\n        native of Lille, painter, engraver, and etcher.\n\n      \u2018_He hates conchology_,\u2019 _etc._ Hazlitt quotes from himself. See\n        his Lecture on the Living Poets (_English Poets_, Vol. V. pp.\n        163\u20134).\n\n 278. \u2018_Where one for sense_,\u2019 _etc._ _Hudibras_, II. l. 29\u201330.\n\n      \u2018_Take the good_,\u2019 _etc._ Plautus, _Rudens_, Act IV. Scene 7.\n\n 279. SIR JAMES MACKINTOSH. Sir James Mackintosh (1765\u20131832), born in\n        Inverness-shire, and educated at Aberdeen and Edinburgh\n        Universities, with a view to the medical profession, came to\n        London in 1788, and soon turned to politics. His _Vindici\u00e6\n        Gallic\u00e6_, in reply to Burke\u2019s _Reflections on the Revolution in\n        France_, appeared in 1791. Called to the bar in 1795, he soon\n        gained a considerable practice. In 1803 he was appointed to a\n        Judgeship in India, where he remained till 1811. Soon after his\n        return he was elected (in 1813) for Nairn. From 1819 till his\n        death, he sat for Knaresborough. In 1818 he was appointed to the\n        professorship of law and general politics at Haileybury, a post\n        which he held till 1824. He was made a privy councillor in 1827,\n        and a Commissioner of the Board of Control in 1830. His\n        _Dissertation on the Progress of Ethical Philosophy, chiefly\n        during the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries_, contributed to\n        the seventh edition of the _Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica_, was\n        republished in 1836 with a preface by Whewell. See Macaulay\u2019s\n        Essay on Mackintosh\u2019s _History of the Revolution_.\n\n 281. _His maiden speech._ The speech referred to was delivered on Dec.\n        20, 1813. Colonel St. Paul said: \u2018A more finical opposition to\n        any measure he had never heard in that House.\u2019 _Parl. Hist._,\n        XXVII. pp. 301 _et seq._ Mackintosh had spoken before on Dec.\n        14.\n\n 282. _Lectures on the Law of Nature and Nations._ A course of\n        thirty-nine lectures, delivered between February and June 1799.\n        An \u2018Introductory Discourse,\u2019 published in 1798, contains a\n        recantation of the revolutionary doctrines of the _Vindici\u00e6\n        Gallic\u00e6_, and an attack on Godwin. The lectures do not appear to\n        have been published, but some ms. notes, taken by Sir John\n        Stoddart at the time, are still preserved.\n\n      \u2018_The whiff and wind_,\u2019 _etc._ \u2018The whiff and wind of his fell\n        sword.\u2019 _Hamlet_, Act II. Scene 2.\n\n 282. \u2018_Laid waste the borders_,\u2019 _etc._ Cf. \u2018Lay waste thy woods,\n        destroy thy blissful bower.\u2019 Dryden, _The Hind and the Panther_,\n        Part 1. l. 158.\n\n      \u2018_Carve them as a dish_,\u2019 _etc._ _Julius Caesar_, Act II. Scene 1.\n\n 283. _Guicciardini._ Francesco Guicciardini (1483\u20131540), author of a\n        History of Italy from 1494 to 1532.\n\n      _Thuanus._ Jacques Auguste de Thou (1553\u20131617), whose _Historia\n        sui Temporis_ Johnson \u2018seriously entertained the thought of\n        translating.\u2019\n\n      _Dr. Pangloss._ In George Colman, the younger\u2019s (1762\u20131836), _The\n        Heir-at-law_, produced in 1797.\n\n 284. \u2018_Of lamentation_,\u2019 _etc._\n\n         \u2018Cocytus, named of lamentation loud\n         Heard on the rueful stream.\u2019\n                                   _Paradise Lost_, II. 579\u201380.\n\n 285. \u2018_Unbought grace of life._\u2019 Burke, _Reflections on the Revolution\n        in France_ (_Select Works_, ed. Payne, II. 89).\n\n      \u2018_And gladly_,\u2019 _etc._ Chaucer, _The Canterbury Tales_, the\n        Prologue, l. 308.\n\n 286. _An Essay on the Principles of Human Action._ By Hazlitt,\n        published in 1805.\n\n 287. _A History of England._ Mackintosh collected materials for a\n        history of England from 1688 to the French Revolution, but left\n        only a fragment posthumously published in 1834 under the title\n        of \u2018A History of the Revolution in England in 1688.\u2019\n\n      MR. MALTHUS. Cf. _ante_, pp. 1\u2013184 and Vol. III. pp. 356\u2013385.\n\n 289. \u2018_Like the toad_,\u2019 _etc._ _As You Like It_, Act. II. Scene 1.\n\n 290. \u2018_The mighty stream of tendency._\u2019 Wordsworth, _The Excursion_,\n        Book IX.\n\n      \u2018_The Corinthian capitals of polished society._\u2019 Burke,\n        _Reflections on the Revolution in France_ (_Select Works_, ed.\n        Payne, II. 164).\n\n 291. \u2018_Palmy state._\u2019 \u2018In the most high and palmy state of Rome.\u2019\n        _Hamlet_, Act I. Scene 1.\n\n      _An obscure and almost forgotten work._ Cf. Hazlitt\u2019s essay \u2018On\n        the Originality of Mr. Malthus\u2019s Essay\u2019 (_Political Essays_,\n        Vol. III. pp. 361\u20137), where long passages are quoted from\n        Wallace\u2019s book.\n\n 295. \u2018_Gospel is preached to the poor._\u2019 \u2018The Spirit of the Lord is\n        upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the\n        poor.\u2019 _Luke_, iv. 18.\n\n      \u2018_The laws of nature_,\u2019 _etc._ Malthus, _Essay on Population_, 4to\n        ed., 1803, Book IV., Chap. vii. p. 540.\n\n      _The \u2018tables are not full.\u2019_ Hazlitt refers to Malthus\u2019s figure of\n        \u2018nature\u2019s mighty feast.\u2019 _Ibid._ Book IV., Chap. vi. pp. 531\u20132.\n\n 296. \u2018_To make it thick and slab._\u2019 _Macbeth_, Act IV. Scene 1.\n\n      _Mr. Godwin has lately attempted an answer._ \u2018Of Population. An\n        Enquiry concerning the Power of Increase in the Numbers of\n        Mankind, in Answer to Mr. Malthus on that Subject,\u2019 1820.\n\n      _A curious passage of Judge Blackstone._ _Commentaries on the Laws\n        of England_, Book II. Chap. xiv.\n\n 298. _Broke a lance with Mr. Ricardo._ In 1814 and 1815 Malthus\n        published two pamphlets on the corn laws, to which Ricardo\n        replied in an _Essay on the Influence of a low price of Corn on\n        the Profits of Stock_ (1815). Hazlitt probably refers to\n        Malthus\u2019s _Political Economy_ (1820), in which his differences\n        with Ricardo are explained. See Sir Leslie Stephen\u2019s _The\n        English Utilitarians_, II. 189 _et seq._\n\n      _Mandeville._ The second edition (1723) of Bernard Mandeville\u2019s\n        _The Fable of the Bees, or Private Vices Public Benefits_,\n        contained _An Essay on Charity and Charity Schools_.\n\n 298. _Plug Pulteney._ See _ante_, note to p. 2, note.\n\n      MR. GIFFORD. Cf. _A Letter to William Gifford_, Vol. I. pp.\n        365\u2013411.\n\n      \u2018_In the event of his death_,\u2019 _etc._ Gifford resigned the\n        editorship of _The Quarterly Review_ in 1824, and after a short\n        interval, during which John Taylor Coleridge was editor, was\n        succeeded by J. G. Lockhart.\n\n 299. _In his critical pages._ Gifford, though he used his editorial pen\n        very freely, does not seem to have written so many articles in\n        the _Quarterly_ as his contemporaries imagined. \u2018The only entire\n        article ever contributed to the _Review_ by Gifford himself was\n        that which he wrote, in conjunction with Barron Field, on Ford\u2019s\n        \u201cDramatic works.\u201d\u2019 See Smiles, _Memoirs of John Murray_, I. 180,\n        200; II. 44, 49. Sometimes he appears to have inserted what Dr.\n        Smiles calls \u2018the pungent wit, the Attic salt\u2019 into the articles\n        of his contributors.\n\n 300. \u2018_Destroy his fib_,\u2019 _etc._ Pope, _Prologue to the Satires_, 91\u20132.\n\n      \u2018_I am not Stephano_,\u2019 _etc._ _The Tempest_, Act V. Scene 1.\n\n 301. _If a lady goes on crutches_, _etc._ The allusion is to Gifford\u2019s\n        lines on Mrs. Robinson. See _A Letter to William Gifford_, Vol.\n        I. note to p. 378.\n\n 302. _The Feast of the Poets._ By Leigh Hunt, published in 1814. See\n        Vol. I. p. 377.\n\n      \u2018_A man was confined in Newgate_,\u2019 _etc._ See Vol. I. p. 378 for\n        an account of the _Quarterly review_ of Leigh Hunt\u2019s _Rimini_.\n\n      _Verses to Anna._ _Ibid._ p. 375.\n\n      \u2018_A bud_,\u2019 _etc._ _Romeo and Juliet_, Act I. Scene 1.\n\n      _Mr. Keats\u2019s ostensible crime_, _etc._ The famous _Quarterly\n        Review_ article on _Endymion_ appeared in September 1818, and\n        was written by Croker.\n\n 303. \u2018_Out went the taper_,\u2019 _etc._ Stanzas XXIII. to XXVII. of _The\n        Eve of St. Agnes_, published in 1820.\n\n 304. _Ecce iterum Crispinus._ Juvenal, _Sat._ IV. 1.\n\n 305. \u2018_I wish I was_,\u2019 _etc._ See Vol. I. p. 375.\n\n      Note. \u2018_He! jam satis est._\u2019 \u2018Ohe jam satis est.\u2019 Horace, _Sat._,\n        l. 5, 12\u20133.\n\n      Note. \u2018_Why rack a grub_,\u2019 _etc._\n\n \u2018Satire or sense, alas! can Sporus feel,\n Who breaks a butterfly upon a wheel?\n Yet let me flap this bug with gilded wings,\n This painted child of dirt, that stinks and stings,\u2019 etc.\n                               Pope, _Prologue to the Satires_, 307 _et\n                                  seq._\n\n 306. _Keats died when he was scarce twenty!_ Keats died in his 26th\n        year.\n\n 307. _Thus he informed the world_, _etc._ See a review of Hazlitt\u2019s\n        _Characters of Shakespear\u2019s Plays_ in the _Quarterly Review_\n        (Vol. XVIII., p. 458).\n\n      \u2018_It was amusing_,\u2019 _etc._ See a review of _Political Essays_ in\n        the _Quarterly Review_ (Vol. XXII. p. 162), and _A Letter to\n        William Gifford_, Vol. I. p. 410. In the _Quarterly_ review of\n        _Table Talk_ Hazlitt is described as a \u2018slang-whanger.\u2019\n\n 308. _The St. Helena articles._ Two articles, in which Hudson Lowe\u2019s\n        treatment of Buonaparte is defended, appeared in the _Quarterly\n        Review_ shortly after Buonaparte\u2019s death. See Vol. XXVIII. p.\n        219, and Vol. XXXIII. 177.\n\n      _Lady Morgan._ Sydney Owenson, Lady Morgan (1783?\u20131859), authoress\n        of _The Wild Irish Girl_ (1806) was a favourite subject for the\n        vulgar personal abuse of the _Quarterly Review_.\n\n 309. _Peter Pindar._ John Wolcot, \u2018Peter Pindar,\u2019 assaulted Gifford,\n        mistaking him for his namesake John Gifford, editor of the\n        _Anti-Jacobin Review and Magazine_. The result was Gifford\u2019s\n        _Epistle to Peter Pindar_ (1800).\n\n      _This Drawcansir._ See _ante_, note to p. 277.\n\n 309. _His attacks on Mrs. Robinson_, _etc._ See _A Letter to William\n        Gifford_. (Vol. I., p. 378 note).\n\n      _What he will make of Marlowe._ Gifford did not publish an edition\n        of Marlowe.\n\n      \u2018_The fiery quality._\u2019 _King Lear_, Act II. Scene 4.\n\n      _Spiritus_, _etc._ Petronius Arbiter (_Satirae_, 118, 3rd ed.\n        B\u00fccheler, p. 84), quoted by Coleridge in _Biographia Literaria_,\n        Chap. xiv. \u2018Praecipitandus est liber spiritus\u2019 in the original.\n\n      _In attempting to add the name_, _etc._ See Gifford\u2019s edition of\n        _Massinger_ (2nd ed. 1813, Vol. I., p. 14).\n\n 310. _An article had appeared_, _etc._ John Murray had conceived the\n        scheme of establishing a Tory review, and had obtained many\n        promises of support before the appearance of Jeffrey\u2019s article\n        in the _Edinburgh_ (Oct. 1808, Vol. XIII., p. 215), on Cevallos\n        and the affairs of Spain. (See Smiles, _Memoirs of John Murray_,\n        I. 97). The first number of the _Quarterly Review_ appeared in\n        Feb. 1809.\n\n 311. \u2018_Those who are not for them_,\u2019 _etc._ _St. Matthew_, xii. 30.\n\n      \u2018_Ugly all over with hypocrisy._\u2019 See nowowte to Vol. I., p. 211.\n\n      Note. William Taylor (1765\u20131836), whose version of B\u00fcrger\u2019s\n        _Lenore_ so fired the imagination of Scott, was a regular\n        contributor to _The Monthly Review_ from 1793 to 1800, and from\n        1809 to 1824.\n\n 312. _Mr. Stuart Rose._ William Stewart Rose (1775\u20131843), the friend of\n        Scott, and translator of Ariosto (1823\u20131831).\n\n 313. _The Lyrical Ballads._ Hazlitt presumably refers to some\n        introductory remarks on a new \u2018sect of poets\u2019 in a review by\n        Jeffrey of Southey\u2019s _Thalaba_. (_Edinburgh Review_, Oct. 1802,\n        Vol. I., p. 63).\n\n      _Unqualified encouragement_, _etc._ For favourable references to\n        Malthus see _Edinburgh Review_, Oct. 1807 (Vol. XI., p. 100),\n        August 1810 (Vol. XVI., p. 464), and March 1817 (Vol. XXVIII.,\n        p. 1). Southey attacked Malthus in the _Quarterly Review_ (Dec.\n        1812), but the _Essay on Population_ was defended five years\n        later (July 1817) by Sumner.\n\n      \u2018_Reasons_,\u2019 _etc._ _Henry IV._, Part I., Act II., Scene 4.\n\n      _Mr. Jeffrey is the Editor of the Edinburgh Review._ Sydney Smith\n        claimed to have been editor of the first number (Oct. 1802),\n        Jeffrey was editor from that time till 1829, when he retired on\n        being appointed Dean of the Faculty of Advocates.\n\n 314. _Nearly a fourth part of the articles._ Lord Cockburn in his _Life\n        of Lord Jeffrey_ (1874 ed., p. 404 _et seq._) gives a total list\n        of 200 contributions. A selection was published in four volumes\n        in 1844.\n\n      \u2018_Infinite agitation of wit._\u2019 Bacon, _Advancement of Learning_,\n        Book I., IV. 5.\n\n 316. \u2018_Spinning the thread_,\u2019 _etc._ _Love\u2019s Labour\u2019s Lost_, Act V.\n        Scene 1.\n\n 317. _But in private your follies_, _etc._ Hazlitt very likely put\n        Jeffrey to this test when he was in Edinburgh in 1823 on his\n        divorce business. See Vol. II., p. 314 and note.\n\n 319. \u2018_Has no figures_,\u2019 _etc._ _Julius Caesar_, Act II. Scene 1.\n\n      \u2018_Tread the primrose path_,\u2019 _etc._ _Hamlet_, Act I. Scene 3.\n\n      _A Phillips._ Charles Phillips (1787?\u20131859), a native of Sligo,\n        who enjoyed a great reputation, both at the Irish bar, and at\n        the English bar, to which he was called in 1821. Brougham\n        himself described his speeches as \u2018horticultural.\u2019\n\n      _A Plunket._ William Conyngham Plunket (1764\u20131854), the advocate\n        of Catholic Emancipation, famous for his eloquence both at the\n        bar and in Parliament, created Baron Plunket in 1827,\n        chief-justice of the Irish common pleas (1827\u201330), and Lord\n        Chancellor of Ireland (1830\u20131841).\n\n 319. Note. Brougham was born in Edinburgh, where he was educated. His\n        mother was Scotch (a niece of Robertson the historian), and his\n        father belonged to an old Westmoreland family.\n\n      _The late Lord Erskine._ Erskine died in November, 1823.\n\n 320. \u2018_Domestic treason_,\u2019 _etc._\n\n          \u2018Malice domestic, foreign levy, nothing,\n          Can touch him further.\u2019\n                                  _Macbeth_, Act III. Scene 2.\n\n 321. \u2018_As much again to govern it._\u2019 In _Table Talk_ Hazlitt quotes\n        this line as Butler\u2019s.\n\n      \u2018_Pour out all as plain_,\u2019 _etc._ Pope, _Imitations of Horace_,\n        Sat. I. 51\u20132.\n\n 322. \u2018_Scared at the sound_,\u2019 _etc._ Cf.\n\n     \u2018And back recoiled, he knew not why,\n     Even at the sound himself had made.\u2019\n                                 Collins, _The Passions_, ll. 19\u201320.\n\n      \u2018_The total grist_,\u2019 _etc._ Cowper, _The Task_, Book VI., 108.\n\n 323. _There are few intellectual accomplishments_, _etc._ It was said\n        of Brougham that if he had known a little law, he would have\n        known a little of everything.\n\n      _The celebrated Carnot._ Lazare Nicolas Marguerite Carnot\n        (1753\u20131823), the first organiser of the armies of the\n        Revolution. He left Napoleon in 1800, but returned to him in\n        1814, and was Minister of the Interior during the Hundred Days.\n        He wrote many works on mathematical subjects.\n\n      \u2018_No day without a line._\u2019 \u2018Nulla dies sine linea,\u2019 a phrase based\n        on a saying of Apelles reported by Pliny. (_Nat. Hist._ XXXV.,\n        36, 10).\n\n 325. _Imbibed at Wimbledon Common._ Where Horne Tooke lived.\n\n      \u2018_Hunt half a day_,\u2019 _etc._ Wordsworth, _Hart-Leap Well_, Part II.\n\n      LORD ELDON AND MR. WILBERFORCE. The paper on Lord Eldon appeared\n        in the _New Monthly Magazine_ (1824, Vol. XI., p. 17).\n\n      \u2018_All tranquillity and smiles._\u2019 Cowper, _The Task_, Book IV., 49.\n\n 326. \u2018_All is conscience_,\u2019 _etc._ Chaucer, _Prologue_, 150.\n\n      \u2018_If wretches hang_,\u2019 _etc._\n\n     \u2018And wretches hang that jurymen may dine.\u2019\n                                 Pope, _Rape of the Lock_, III. 22.\n\n      _An instance_, _etc._ For John Williams\u2019s attack on the Court of\n        Chancery, see _Parl. Hist._ (June 4, 1823, and Feb. 24, 1824),\n        and Walpole\u2019s _History of England_, III. 281. An inaccurate\n        report of a speech of Abercromby\u2019s on the second of John\n        Williams\u2019s motions led the Chancellor to make some angry\n        observations from the bench. The incident created a considerable\n        sensation and led to a debate in Parliament. (See Twiss\u2019s _Life\n        of Lord Eldon_, II. 490\u2013502).\n\n 327. \u2018_Resistless passion_,\u2019 _etc._\n\n                     \u2018\u2014\u2014 for affection,\n     Mistress of passion, sways it to the mood\n     Of what it likes or loathes.\u2019\n                             _Merchant of Venice_, Act IV. Scene 1.\n\n 328. \u2018_Lack lustre eye._\u2019 _As You Like It_, Act II. 7.\n\n      \u2018_As they were in Rabelais._\u2019 See _Pantagruel_, Liv. II., Chap.\n        xxxix _et seq._\n\n      _An injunction against Wat Tyler._ See Vol. III., note to p. 192.\n\n 329. _The Year 1794._ The Year of unsuccessful prosecutions of Horne\n        Tooke, Hardy, Thelwall, Holcroft, and others, and the year in\n        which _Wat Tyler_ was written.\n\n      \u2018_One entire and perfect chrysolite._\u2019 _Othello_, Act V. Scene 2.\n\n      \u2018_Read his history_,\u2019 _etc._\n\n    \u2018And read their history in a nation\u2019s eyes.\u2019\n                    Gray, _Elegy in a Country Churchyard_, Stanza 16.\n\n 330. \u2018_So small a drop_,\u2019 _etc._ _Cymbeline_, Act IV. Scene 2.\n\n 331. _Mr. Wilberforce._ William Wilberforce (1759\u20131833), member for\n        Hull 1780\u20134, for Yorkshire 1784\u20131812, and for Bramber 1812\u20131825,\n        was early converted to the evangelical party known as the\n        \u2018Clapham Sect\u2019 or the \u2018Saints,\u2019 and became the parliamentary\n        leader of the anti-slavery cause. The slave trade was abolished\n        by the coalition government in 1807, and emancipation was\n        carried in 1833, the year of Wilberforce\u2019s death. Apart from his\n        efforts in this cause and on behalf of missionary work in India,\n        he gave a general support to the Tory ministries of Pitt (his\n        intimate friend), and of the Duke of Portland, Perceval, and\n        Lord Liverpool. In particular he approved the coercive measures\n        of 1795 and 1817. This partly accounts for the bitter attack not\n        only of Hazlitt, but of Cobbett (_Political Register_, Aug.\n        1823).\n\n      \u2018_What lacks he then._\u2019 _King John_, Act IV. Scene 1.\n\n      \u2018_Conscience will not budge._\u2019 \u2018Well, my conscience says,\n        \u201cLauncelot, budge not.\u201d \u201cBudge,\u201d says the fiend. \u201cBudge not,\u201d\n        says my conscience. \u201cConscience,\u201d say I, \u201cYou counsel well.\u201d\u2019\n        _Merchant of Venice_, Act II. Scene 2.\n\n      \u2018_Woe unto you_,\u2019 _etc._ _St. Luke_, vi. 26.\n\n      _As old Fuller calls them._ _Holy and Profane State._ _The Good\n        Sea Captain_, Maxim 5.\n\n 332. \u2018_Out upon such half-faced fellowship._\u2019 _Henry IV._, Part I., Act\n        I. Scene 3.\n\n 333. \u2018_By every little breath_,\u2019 _etc._ _The Faerie Queene_, Book I.,\n        Canto vii. Stanza 32.\n\n      _Clarkson._ Thomas Clarkson (1760\u20131846). The most indefatigable of\n        the extra-parliamentary agitators against slavery. Coleridge\n        referred to him as \u2018the moral steam engine, or Giant with one\n        idea.\u2019\n\n 334. Note. Byron in his _Detached Notes_ (see _Letters and Journals_,\n        ed. Prothero, II. 241 note) relates this well-known story as\n        having been told to him by Sheridan himself.\n\n      MR. COBBETT. This essay appeared in _Table Talk_ (Vol. I., 1821)\n        and was republished in a small volume in 1835, the year of\n        Cobbett\u2019s death. Cf. a passage on Cobbett in the _Examiner_\n        printed in notes to the _Round Table_, Vol. I. p. 424.\n\n      _Cribb._ See _ante_, note to p. 223.\n\n      \u2018_Fillips the ear_,\u2019 _etc._ _Henry IV._, Part II., Act I. Scene 2.\n\n      _\u2018Lays waste\u2019 a city orator_, _etc._ The reference is probably to\n        an attack on Robert Waithman in the _Political Register_. (See\n        _Political Works_, IV. 319 and V. 298.) Waithman was member for\n        the City of London from 1816 till 1820, and from 1826 till his\n        death in 1833. See _ante_, p. 282, and _post_, note to p. 366.\n\n 335. \u2018_Damnable iteration._\u2019 _Henry IV._, Part I., Act I. Scene 2.\n\n 336. _Nunquam sufflaminandus erat._ \u2018Itaque D. Augustus optime dixit,\n        Aterius noster sufflaminandus est.\u2019 M. Annaeus Seneca,\n        _Controversiae_, 4, praef. \u00a7 7. The saying is quoted by Ben\n        Jonson (_Timber_, LXIV.).\n\n      \u2018_Weary, stale_,\u2019 _etc._ _Hamlet_, Act I. Scene 2.\n\n 337. _Barmecide._ _Arabian Nights_, The Barber\u2019s Story of his Sixth\n        Brother.\n\n      \u2018_Live in his description._\u2019 A reminiscence, perhaps of the line\n        in Pope\u2019s _Dunciad_ (I. 69), \u2018But liv\u2019d in Settle\u2019s numbers one\n        day more.\u2019\n\n      _Mr. \u2014\u2014._ Probably Brougham. See _Political Works_, V. 145 _et\n        seq._\n\n      _His Grammar._ \u2018A Grammar of the English Language, in a Series of\n        Letters\u2019 (1818).\n\n      _Like Giant Despair._ \u2018So, when he arose, he getteth him a\n        grievous crab-tree cudgel.... Then he falls upon them, and beats\n        them fearfully, in such sort, that they were not able to help\n        themselves, or to turn them upon the floor.\u2019 _Pilgrim\u2019s\n        Progress_, Part I.\n\n 338. _The Yanguesian carriers._ _Don Quixote_, Part I., Book III. Chap.\n        xv.\n\n      \u2018_He has the back-trick_,\u2019 _etc._ _Twelfth Night_, Act I. Scene 3.\n\n      \u2018_Arrowy sleet._\u2019\n\n      \u2018\u2014\u2014and flying behind them shot\n      Sharp sleet of arrowy showers against the face\n      Of their pursuers.\u2019\n                                  _Paradise Regained_, III. 323\u20135.\n\n      _An Ishmaelite indeed._ Cf. \u2018Behold an Israelite indeed,\u2019 etc.\n        _St. John_, i. 47. Hazlitt has in mind the description\n        (_Genesis_, xvi. 12) of Ishmael: \u2018And he will be a wild man; his\n        hand will be against every man, and every man\u2019s hand against\n        him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.\u2019\n\n 340. _The two-penny trash._ Set _Political Register_, August 1817\n        (_Political Works_, V. 236).\n\n      \u2018_Till a Bill passed the House_,\u2019 _etc._ Cobbett\u2019s _Political\n        Register_ had evaded the stamp duty until 1819, when it was\n        rendered liable to duty by the fifth of the famous Six Acts\n        passed in that year.\n\n      \u2018_Ample scope_,\u2019 _etc._ \u2018Give ample room, and verge enough.\u2019 Gray,\n        _The Bard_, II. 1.\n\n 341. \u2018_He pours out_,\u2019 _etc._ Pope, _Imitations of Horace_, Sat. I.\n        51\u20132.\n\n      _Antipholis of Ephesus_, _etc._ See _The Comedy of Errors_, Act V.\n        Scene 1.\n\n      _The relics of Mr. Thomas Paine_, _etc._ When Cobbett returned to\n        England from America in 1819 he brought Paine\u2019s bones to\n        Liverpool and left them there. After Cobbett\u2019s death they were\n        seized as part of the property of Paine\u2019s son who became a\n        bankrupt.\n\n      \u2018_His canonized bones._\u2019 _Hamlet_, Act I. Scene 4.\n\n 342. _The Edinburgh Review_, _etc._ In an article by Jeffrey, July\n        1807, Vol. X. 386. The reply of Cobbett referred to by Hazlitt\n        appeared in the _Political Register_, August 1807. _Political\n        Works_, II. 294.\n\n 343. _The Pleasures of Memory._ By Rogers, published in 1792.\n\n      _The Pleasures of Hope._ By Campbell, published in 1799.\n\n 344. _We should dread to point out_, _etc._ Scott said to Washington\n        Irving (Lockhart, IV. 93): \u2018The fact is, Campbell is, in a\n        manner, a bugbear to himself. The brightness of his early\n        success is a detriment to all his further efforts. _He is afraid\n        of the shadow that his own fame casts before him._\u2019\n\n      \u2018_Snatches a grace_,\u2019 _etc._ Pope, _Essay on Criticism_, 155.\n\n      \u2018_Yet sweeter_,\u2019 _etc._ _Winter\u2019s Tale_, Act. IV. Scene 4.\n\n 345. \u2018_And by the vision_,\u2019 _etc._ Wordsworth\u2019s _Ode, Intimations of\n        Immortality_, 73\u20134.\n\n      _Gertrude of Wyoming._ Published in 1809.\n\n      \u2018_A loved bequest_,\u2019 _etc._ Part I. Stanzas 11\u201313.\n\n 346. \u2018_Famous poet\u2019s page._\u2019 Cf. \u2018A most famous Poet\u2019s witt.\u2019 Spenser,\n        _Verses addressed by the Author of the Faerie Queene_ (to the\n        Earl of Essex).\n\n      \u2018_Jealous leer malign._\u2019 _Paradise Lost_, IV. 503.\n\n 346. \u2018_Scattered in stray-gifts_,\u2019 _etc._ Wordsworth, _Stray\n        Pleasures_.\n\n      \u2018_Like angel\u2019s visits_,\u2019 _etc._ _Pleasures of Hope_, Part II. l.\n        378. Cf. _Lectures on the English Poets_ (Vol. V. p. 150), where\n        Hazlitt adds: \u2018Mr. Campbell in altering the expression has\n        spoiled it. \u201cFew,\u201d and \u201cfar between\u201d are the same thing.\u2019\n\n      \u2018_We perceive a softness_,\u2019 _etc._ Cf. Vol. V. p. 184.\n\n 347. \u2018_Ruddy drops_,\u2019 _etc._ _Julius Caesar_, Act II. Scene 1.\n\n      _Hohenlinden._ Published anonymously with _Lochiel_ in 1802, and\n        included in the 4to (1803) edition of _The Pleasures of Hope_.\n\n 348. _Mr. Campbell\u2019s prose-criticisms._ Campbell\u2019s \u2018Lectures on Poetry\n        Re-written\u2019 appeared in the _New Monthly Magazine_ of which he\n        was editor from 1820 to 1830. Hazlitt does not refer to his\n        _Specimens of the British Poets, with biographical and critical\n        notices, and an Essay on English Poetry_ (7 vols. 1819).\n\n      _Mr. Crabbe._ The Poems of George Crabbe (1754\u20131832), with a Life\n        by his son George, were published in 8 vols. 1834, and in one\n        volume 1847. The one volume edition has recently been re-issued,\n        as a result of the praises bestowed on Crabbe by Edward\n        Fitzgerald, who himself made a Selection from the _Tales of the\n        Hall_.\n\n      _Audrey\u2019s question._ _As You Like It._ Act III. Scene 3.\n\n 349. \u2018_Turns diseases_,\u2019 _etc._ _Henry IV._, Part II., Act I. Scene 2.\n\n      _Mr. Crabbe\u2019s first poems_, _etc._ Crabbe\u2019s first poems were\n        _Inebriety_ (published anonymously in 1775), _The Candidate_\n        (1780), and _The Library_ (1781). It was _The Village_ (1783)\n        that Johnson read and approved. (See Boswell\u2019s _Life_, ed. G. B.\n        Hill, IV. 175.) Crabbe\u2019s patron was Burke, by whom he was no\n        doubt introduced to Reynolds, and later to Johnson.\n\n 350. _He brings as a parallel instance_, _etc._ In the Preface to the\n        _Tales_ (1812). See _Works_ (1834, IV. 144).\n\n      \u2018_In the worst inn\u2019s worst room_,\u2019 _etc._ Pope, _Moral Essays_,\n        III. 299.\n\n 351. _He sets out with professing_, _etc._ Hazlitt refers to the\n        opening lines of _The Village_.\n\n      _The sad vicissitudes of things._ This phrase occurs in a poem,\n        _Contemplation_, by the Rev. Richard Gifford, which was quoted\n        by Johnson. See _Tour to the Hebrides_ (Boswell\u2019s _Life_, ed. G.\n        B. Hill, V. 117\u20138). The phrase also occurs in Sterne\u2019s _Sermons_\n        (No. XVI.).\n\n      \u2018_At one bound_,\u2019 _etc._ _Paradise Lost_, IV. 181.\n\n      _He does not weave the web_, _etc._ An unacknowledged quotation\n        from _All\u2019s Well that Ends Well_, Act IV. Scene 3.\n\n      _The only leaf_, _etc._ Crabbe resided for some time at Belvoir\n        Castle as chaplain to the fourth Duke of Rutland. He dedicated\n        _The Borough_ to the fifth Duke, and _Tales of the Hall_ to the\n        Duchess.\n\n 352. \u2018_Thus by himself_,\u2019 _etc._ _The Borough_, Letter xxii., Peter\n        Grimes.\n\n 353. _The episode of Ph\u0153be Dawson._ In _The Parish Register_ (Part\n        II.). The tale interested Fox on his death-bed. (See _Works_,\n        1834, II. 16, 180.)\n\n      _The character of the Methodist parson_, _etc._ Hazlitt probably\n        refers to the story of Ruth (_Tales of the Hall_, Book V.,\n        _Works_, 1834, VI. 93).\n\n      _Mr. T. Moore._ Cf. _Political Essays_ (Vol. III., pp. 311\u2013321).\n\n      \u2018_Or winglet_,\u2019 _etc._ Campbell, _Gertrude of Wyoming_, Part II.,\n        Stanza 12.\n\n      \u2018_No dainty flower_,\u2019 _etc._ Spenser, _The Faerie Queene_, Book\n        II., Canto vi., Stanzas 12 and 13.\n\n 354. \u2018_Wasteful and superfluous excess._\u2019 \u2018Wasteful and ridiculous\n        excess.\u2019 _King John_, Act IV. Scene 2.\n\n 355. \u2018_And spread_,\u2019 _etc._ _Romeo and Juliet_, Act I. Scene 1.\n\n      \u2018_Dying or ere they sicken._\u2019 _Macbeth_, Act IV. Scene 3.\n\n 355. \u2018_A perpetual feast_,\u2019 _etc._ Milton, _Comus_, 478\u20139.\n\n      \u2018_On the rack_,\u2019 _etc._ Cf. \u2018That on the torture of the mind to\n        lie in restless ecstasy.\u2019 _Macbeth_, Act III. Scene 2.\n\n      \u2018_Looks so fair_,\u2019 _etc._ _Othello_, Act IV. Scene 2.\n\n      \u2018_Another morn_,\u2019 _etc._ _Paradise Lost_, V. 310\u20131.\n\n 356. \u2018_Now, upon Syria\u2019s_,\u2019 _etc._ _Lalla Rookh_, \u2018Paradise and the\n        Peri.\u2019\n\n      _Della Cruscan sentiment._ See the essay on Gifford, _ante_, p.\n        309.\n\n 357. \u2018_A penitent tear._\u2019\n\n        \u2018\u2014\u2014the tear that, warm and meek,\n        Dew\u2019d that repentant sinner\u2019s cheek.\u2019\n                                        \u2018Paradise and the Peri.\u2019\n\n      \u2018_Joy, joy for ever_,\u2019 _etc._ _Ibid._\n\n      \u2018_May bestride the Gossamer_,\u2019 _etc._ _Romeo and Juliet_, Act II.\n        Scene 6.\n\n      \u2018_In vain Mokanna_,\u2019 _etc._ _Lalla Rookh_, \u2018The Veiled Prophet of\n        Khorassan.\u2019\n\n 358. \u2018_Whose coming_,\u2019 _etc._ _Ibid._\n\n      _The \u2018Twopenny Post-bag.\u2019_ Published in 1812.\n\n      \u2018_Nests of spicery._\u2019 _Richard III._, Act IV. Scene 4.\n\n      \u2018_In the manner_,\u2019 _etc._ Moore, _Horace_, Ode XI. Lib. II. Freely\n        translated by the Pr\u2014ce R\u2014g\u2014t.\n\n      \u2018_An Adonis of fifty._\u2019 \u2018This Adonis in loveliness was a corpulent\n        man of fifty.\u2019 These words occur in a paper in _The Examiner_\n        (March 22, 1812), for which Leigh Hunt and his brother John were\n        sent to prison.\n\n      Note 2. Moore\u2019s _Little Man and Little Soul_ was dedicated to\n        Charles Abbot (1757\u20131829) the Speaker, afterwards Lord\n        Colchester. Abbot, in his address to the Regent in July\n        1813, referred to a Bill for the removal of Roman Catholic\n        disabilities which had been defeated.\n\n 359. \u2018_In choosing songs_,\u2019 _etc._ Moore, _Satirical and Humorous\n        Poems. Extracts from the Diary of a Politician_.\n\n      _The \u2018Fudge Family.\u2019_ See Hazlitt\u2019s _Political Essays_, Vol. III.,\n        pp. 311\u2013321.\n\n      _The \u2018divine Fanny Bias.\u2019_ _The \u2018Fudge Family in Paris._\u2019 Letter\n        V.\n\n      _The \u2018mountains_ \u00e0 la Russe.\u2019 _Ibid._ Letter VIII.\n\n      _Is Mr. Moore bound_, _etc._ Moore had urged Byron not to become\n        associated with Leigh Hunt in _The Liberal_. See Byron\u2019s\n        _Letters and Journals_, ed. Prothero, VI. 22. Hazlitt himself\n        deals with this matter at some length in an essay in the _Plain\n        Speaker_, entitled, \u2018On the Jealousy and Spleen of Party.\u2019 See\n        also _Memoirs of William Hazlitt_, II., 69\u201373. \u2018The Spirit of\n        Monarchy\u2019 was a paper contributed by Hazlitt to _The Liberal_;\n        \u2018Fables for the Holy Alliance,\u2019 a skit of Moore\u2019s, published in\n        1823.\n\n 360. \u2018_To be admired_,\u2019 _etc._ \u2018Needs only to be seen to be admired.\u2019\n        Cowper, _Expostulation_, 493.\n\n 361. _His Story of Rimini._ Published in 1816. A savage review appeared\n        in _Blackwood\u2019s Magazine_ for May 1818.\n\n      _His Epistle to Lord Byron._ Included in _Foliage; or, Poems,\n        Original and Translated_ (1818).\n\n      _The Feast of the Poets._ Published in 1814. See Vol. I., p. 377.\n\n 362. _Some allusion was made_, _etc._ See _ante_, note to p. 358.\n\n      _Elia, and Geoffrey Crayon._ Cf. Hazlitt\u2019s essay \u2018On Persons one\n        would wish to have seen\u2019 (_Literary Remains_), for another\n        account of Lamb. In a letter to Bernard Barton (Feb. 10, 1825)\n        Lamb says: \u2018The \u201cSpirit of the Age\u201d is by Hazlitt. The\n        characters of Coleridge, etc., he had done better in former\n        publications, the praise and abuse much stronger, etc., but the\n        new ones are capitally done. Horne Tooke is a matchless\n        portrait. My advice is to borrow it rather than buy it. I have\n        it. He has laid too many colours on my likeness; but I have had\n        so much injustice done me in my own name, that I make a rule of\n        accepting as much over-measure to \u201cElia\u201d as gentlemen think\n        proper to bestow.\u2019 In a letter to J. Taylor (_Letters_, ed.\n        Ainger, II., 35) he explains how he came to take the name of\n        \u2018Elia.\u2019\n\n 362. \u2018_The pale reflex_,\u2019 _etc._ _Romeo and Juliet_, Act III. Scene 5.\n\n      \u2018_Native to_,\u2019 _etc._ \u2018Though I am native here, and to the manner\n        born.\u2019 _Hamlet_ Act I. Scene 4.\n\n 363. \u2018_Shuffle off_,\u2019 _etc._ _Ibid._, Act III. Scene 1.\n\n      \u2018_The self-applauding bird_,\u2019 _etc._ Cowper, _Truth_, l. 58 _et\n        seq._\n\n      \u2018_New-born gauds_,\u2019 _etc._ _Troilus and Cressida_, Act III. Scene\n        3.\n\n      \u2018_Give to dust_,\u2019 _etc._ _Ibid._\n\n      \u2018_Do not in broad_,\u2019 _etc._\n\n      \u2018Fame is no plant that grows on mortal soil,\n      Nor in the glistering foil\n      Set off to the world, nor in the broad rumour lies,\n      But lives and spreads aloft by those pure eyes\n      And perfect witness of all-judging love.\u2019\n                                                  _Lycidas_, 78\u201382.\n\n 364. \u2018_Fine fretwork_,\u2019 _etc._ _Essays of Elia._ The South-Sea House.\n\n 365. \u2018_The chimes at midnight._\u2019 \u2018We have heard the chimes at midnight,\n        Master Shallow.\u2019 _Henry IV._, Part II., Act III. Scene 2.\n\n      \u2018_Cheese and pippins._\u2019 Cf. _Merry Wives of Windsor_. Act I. Scene\n        2, and _Henry IV._, Part II., Act V. Scene 3.\n\n      _A certain writer._ Hazlitt himself, who contributed three papers\n        on Guy Faux to _The Examiner_ in 1821, reprinted for the first\n        time in the present edition. Lamb wrote a paper on the same\n        subject in _The London Magazine_ for November 1823, _Works_, ed.\n        R. H. Shepherd, vol. I. p. 345. See Hazlitt\u2019s essay \u2018On Persons\n        one would wish to have seen\u2019 (_Literary Remains_).\n\n 366. \u2018_To have coined_,\u2019 _etc._ _Julius Caesar_, Act IV. Scene 3.\n\n      \u2018_Civic honours._\u2019 See _Letters of Charles Lamb_, ed. W. C.\n        Hazlitt, II. 159, where, in a letter to Mrs. Hazlitt, Lamb\n        describes his dinner at the Mansion House.\n\n      _Mr. Waithman\u2019s perusal._ Robert Waithman (1764\u20131833), the\n        political reformer, was Lord Mayor in 1823. See _ante_, note to\n        p. 334.\n\n      Note. _John Woodvil_ was published in 1802. The lines quoted are\n        in Act II.\n\n 367. _Mr. Washington Irvine\u2019s acquaintance_, _etc._ Washington Irving\n        (1783\u20131859), published in New York _The History of New York, By\n        Diedrich Knickerbocker_ (1809), and came in 1815 to Europe,\n        where he stayed for seventeen years. His _Sketch Book of\n        Geoffrey Crayon, Gent_, was published in America in 1819, and in\n        London first in part by Miller, then by Murray in 1820; his\n        _Bracebridge Hall_ by Murray in 1822. These and his later books,\n        _Tales of a Traveller_ (1824), _Tales of the Alhambra_ (1832),\n        _Life of Oliver Goldsmith_ (1849), _Life of Mahomet_ (1850),\n        _Life of Washington_ (1855), and others are now included in\n        fifteen volumes of Bohn\u2019s Standard Library. For an account of\n        their publication and of Murray\u2019s lawsuit against Bohn, see\n        Smiles\u2019s _Memoirs of John Murray_, Vol. II. _passim_.\n\n      _In his_ \u2018mind\u2019s eye.\u2019 _Hamlet_, Act I. Scene 2.\n\n 368. _Mr. Knowles._ James Sheridan Knowles (1784\u20131862) whose\n        _Virginius_ was produced at Covent Garden in May 1820, had\n        recently been a confidant of Hazlitt\u2019s in the matter of Sarah\n        Walker. See Vol. II. p. 328 (_Liber Amoris_).\n\n 368. _Mr. Knowles himself_, _etc._ Knowles who had acted in the\n        provinces as early as 1802, returned to the stage in 1832, when\n        he played Master Walter in his own comedy of _The Hunchback_. He\n        continued to act till 1843.\n\n 371. _Preface to An Abridgment_, _etc._ The first four volumes of\n        Abraham Tucker\u2019s (1705\u20131774) _The Light of Nature Pursued_ were\n        published under the name of \u2018Edward Search\u2019 in 1768, the\n        remaining three, edited by his daughter, appearing posthumously\n        in 1778.\n\n      _Clarissa._ The _eight_ volumes of _Clarissa Harlowe_ were\n        abridged by E. S. Dallas in 1868, the _six_ volumes of _Sir\n        Charles Grandison_ by Mary Howitt in 1873.\n\n      _Without suffering_, _etc._ Apparently a kind of legal formula, as\n        in Hall\u2019s Chronicles (Henry V. 70 b.): \u2018that we suffre harm or\n        diminucion in person estate worship or goods.\u2019\n\n      \u2018_Not sicklied o\u2019er_,\u2019 _etc._ _Hamlet_, Act III. Scene 1.\n\n 373. _John Buncle._ See Vol. I. pp. 51\u20137 (_The Round Table_).\n\n      \u2018_His unrivalled power of illustration._\u2019 See the Preface to\n        Paley\u2019s _Moral Philosophy_.\n\n 377. \u2018_Petrific mace._\u2019 \u2018Death with his mace petrific.\u2019 _Paradise\n        Lost_, X. 294.\n\n 378. Note. \u2018_Just such shard-born beetle things._\u2019 _Macbeth_, Act III.\n        Scene 2.\n\n      Note. _Mr. Horne Tooke._ Cf. _ante_, 231\u2013241.\n\n      Note. _Promontory of noses._ _Tristram Shandy_, Slaukenbergius\u2019s\n        Tale.\n\n      Note. _Andrew Paraeus\u2019s._ Ambrose Paraeus\u2019s \u2018Solution of noses\u2019 is\n        in _Tristram Shandy_, Book III. Chap, xxviii.\n\n      Note. \u2018_It is as absurd_,\u2019 _etc._ Cf. _ante_, p. 240.\n\n 381. _Soame Jenyns\u2019s argument._ See Disquisition VII. (_Works_, 1790,\n        III. 258 _et seq._). The argument is controverted by Jenyns.\n\n 384. Note. _There is one argument_, _etc._ \u2018At sperat adolescens diu se\n        victurum: quod sperare idem senex non potest. Insipienter\n        sperat. Quid enim stultius, quam incerta pro certis habere,\n        falsa pro veris! Senex, ne quod speret quidem, habet: at est eo\n        meliore conditione, quam adolescens, quum id, quod ille sperat,\n        his jam consecutus est. Ille vult diu vivere: his diu vixit.\u2019\n        _De Senectute_, Cap. xix.\n\n 388. _Edward Baldwin._ The name under which Godwin wrote various works\n        published by his wife.\n\n 393. _David Booth._ David Booth (1766\u20131846) published an _Introduction\n        to an Analytical Dictionary of the English Language_ in 1806.\n        Only one volume of the Dictionary itself was published (1835).\n\n\n Printed by T. and A. CONSTABLE, (late) Printers to Her Majesty at the\n                       Edinburgh University Press\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 1:\n\n  The late Sir W. Pulteney, whose character for liberality is well\n  known, was firmly persuaded that the author of the Essay on Population\n  was the greatest man that ever lived, and really wished to have\n  bestowed some personal remuneration on Mr. M. as his political\n  confessor, for having absolved him from all doubts and scruples in the\n  exercise of his favourite virtue.\n\nFootnote 2:\n\n  Among the former are Hume, Wallace, Smith, and Price; among the latter\n  are the Economists, Montesquieu, Franklin, Sir James Steuart, Arthur\n  Young, Mr. Townshend, Plato, and Aristotle.\n\nFootnote 3:\n\n  I beg leave to refer the reader to some letters which appeared on this\n  subject, in the Monthly Magazine, written by a well informed and\n  ingenious man, who had too much good sense and firmness to be carried\n  away by the tide of vulgar prejudice.\n\nFootnote 4:\n\n  Yet it is extraordinary that with all their wisdom and virtue they\n  would not be able to take any steps to prevent this distress. This is\n  a species of fascination, of which it is difficult to form any\n  conception.\n\nFootnote 5:\n\n  The prevalence of this check may be estimated _by the general\n  proportion_ of virtue and happiness in the world, for if there had\n  been no such check there could have been nothing but vice and misery.\n\nFootnote 6:\n\n  In the second edition, it says, _moral restraint_, vice or misery.\n  What are we to think of a man who writes a book to prove that vice and\n  misery are the only security for the happiness of the human race, and\n  then writes another to say, that vice and folly are not the only\n  security, but that our only resource must be either in vice and folly,\n  or in wisdom and virtue? This is like making a white skin part of the\n  definition of a man, and defending it by saying that they are all\n  _white_, except those who are _black_ or _tawny_.\n\nFootnote 7:\n\n  I here follow the text of Mr. Malthus, who takes great pains to give a\n  striking description of the savage tribes, as a pleasing contrast, no\n  doubt, to the elegancies and comforts of polished life. Mr. Malthus\u2019s\n  extreme sensibility to the grossness and inconveniences of the savage\n  state, may be construed into refinement and delicacy. But it does not\n  strike me so. There is something in this mis-placed and selfish\n  fastidiousness, that shocks me more than the objects of it. It does\n  not lead to compassion but to hatred. We strive to get rid of our\n  uneasiness, by hardening ourselves towards the objects which occasion\n  it, and lose the passive feelings of disgust excited in us by others\n  in the active desire to inflict pain upon them. Aversion too easily\n  changes into malice. Mr. Malthus seems fond of indulging this feeling\n  against all those who have not the same advantages as himself. With a\n  pious gratitude he seems fond of repeating to himself, \u2018I am not as\n  this poor Hottentot.\u2019 He then gives you his bill of fare, which is\n  none of the most delicate, without omitting a single article, and by\n  shrugging up his shoulders, making wry mouths at him, and fairly\n  turning your stomach, excites in you the same loathing and abhorrence\n  of this poor creature that he takes delight in feeling himself. \u2018Your\n  very nice people have the nastiest imaginations.\u2019 He triumphs over the\n  calamities and degradation of his fellow-creatures. He lays open all\n  the sores and blotches of humanity with the same calmness and alacrity\n  as a hospital surgeon does those of a diseased body. He turns the\n  world into a charnel-house. Through a dreary space of 300 \u2018chill and\n  comfortless\u2019 pages, he ransacks all quarters of the globe only \u2018to\n  present a speaking picture of hunger and nakedness, in quest of\n  objects best suited to his feelings, in anxious search of calamities\n  most akin to his _invalid_ imagination,\u2019 and eagerly gropes into every\n  hole and corner of wretchedness to collect evidence in support of his\n  grand misery-scheme, as at the time of an election, you see the\n  city-candidates sneaking into the dirty alleys, and putrid cellars of\n  Shoreditch or Whitechapel, and the candidates for Westminster into\n  those of St. Giles\u2019s, canvassing for votes, their patriotic zeal\n  prevailing over their sense of dignity, and sense of smell.\n\nFootnote 8:\n\n  I mention these names because it is always customary to mention them\n  in speaking on this subject: and there are some readers who are more\n  impressed with a thing, the oftener it is repeated.\n\nFootnote 9:\n\n  I here leave out of the question, as not essential to it, the effect\n  of sudden rises or falls, and other accidental variations in the\n  produce of a country which cannot be foreseen or provided against, on\n  the state of population.\n\nFootnote 10:\n\n  I find there is here some transposition of names and circumstances,\n  but it does not much matter.\n\nFootnote 11:\n\n  I am happy to find that a philosophical work, like Mr. Malthus\u2019s, has\n  got a good deal into the hands of young ladies of a liberal education\n  and an inquisitive turn of mind. The question is no doubt highly\n  interesting; and the author has thrown over it a warmth of colouring,\n  that can hardly fail to please. Even Miss Howe was fond of ardours.\n\nFootnote 12:\n\n  I have here purposely left an opening for Mr. Malthus\u2019s ingenuity. He\n  will I hope take the hint and write another quarto volume to prove by\n  anatomical and medical inquiries into the state of all countries,\n  beginning at the north and ending at the south pole, that there is the\n  same variation in the quantity and kind of food required by the human\n  stomach in different climates and countries, as there is in the\n  quantity of sexual indulgence.\n\nFootnote 13:\n\n  Such a change would not require the perfect subjugation, or rather\n  annihilation of these passions, or perfect virtue, in the literal\n  sense, as Mr. Malthus seems to imply in a late publication\u2014which I\n  have not read. It might as well be pretended that no man could ever\n  keep his fingers off bank-notes, or pay his debts, who was not\n  perfectly honest. In neither case is there required any thing more\n  than such a superiority in one set for motives over another, from\n  pride, habit, example, opinion, &c. as just to incline the balance.\n  The gentlemen of the society of Lloyd\u2019s fund would no doubt scorn to\n  touch a shilling of the money entrusted to their care: yet we should\n  hardly conclude from hence that they are all of them persons of\n  perfectly disinterested characters, and altogether indifferent to\n  money-matters. The Turks, it is said, who are very far from the\n  character of perfection, leave their goods for sale on an open stall,\n  and the buyer comes and takes what he wants, and leaves the money on\n  the stall. Men are not governed by extreme motives. If perfect virtue\n  were necessary to common honesty, fair dealing, and propriety of\n  conduct, there would be nothing but swindlers and black-guards in the\n  world. Men steer clear of the law not so much through fear, as because\n  it stamps the public opinion. It is a positive thing. If men could\n  make up their minds as decidedly about the general characters and\n  conduct of individuals without, as they do with, the rough rebuke of\n  the law to sharpen their moral sense (to which by the bye Mr. Godwin\u2019s\n  plan of plain speaking would contribute not a little) this would go a\n  great way towards rendering a system of equality practicable. But I\n  meddle with these questions only as things of idle speculation.\n  _Jactet se in aulis, &c._\n\nFootnote 14:\n\n  See also other passages giving an account of the state of population\n  in Africa, &c. which will be found at the end.\n\nFootnote 15:\n\n  This is a work which I would recommend to every reader of whatever\n  party, not only for the knowledge it contains, but for the purity,\n  simplicity, and noble dignity of the style. It smacks of the old Roman\n  elevation.\n\nFootnote 16:\n\n  I should like to know whether Mr. Malthus would go so far as to say\n  that all the wars and rebellions occasioned by religion, that all the\n  plots, assassinations, burnings, massacres, the persecutions, feuds,\n  animosities, hatreds and jealousy of different sects, that the\n  cruelty, bigotry, the pernicious customs, and abominable practices of\n  the Pagan and other superstitions, such as human sacrifices, &c.\n  whether all those mischiefs and enormities of which religion has been\n  made a tool, whether the martyrdom of the first christians, the\n  massacre of St. Bartholomew, the fires of Smithfield, the expeditions\n  to the holy land, the Gunpowder Plot, the Inquisition, the long\n  Parliament, the Reformation and the Revolution,\u2014Popery, Protestantism,\n  monks, eremites, and friars, with all their trumpery\u2019 were the\n  offspring of the principle of population.\n\nFootnote 17:\n\n  See the extracts from Davenant, Montague, and Bolingbroke.\n\nFootnote 18:\n\n  See the ingenious and elegant defence of the Slave-Trade, attributed\n  in the newspapers to his Royal Highness the Duke of Clarence. There is\n  a magnanimity and noble ingenuousness in the avowal of such a\n  sentiment, which can only be expected from those, who from the\n  elevated superiority of their situation can look down with contempt on\n  the opinion of mankind, and the vulgar notions of decency and order.\n\nFootnote 19:\n\n  Mr. Malthus, for what reason I know not, in his account of the state\n  of population in the different countries of modern Europe, has\n  declined giving any account of the state of population in Italy.\n\nFootnote 20:\n\n  Among other instances it is mentioned, that every vassal was obliged\n  to give the first night of his bride to the lord of the manor, if he\n  demanded it. It is hard to be sure for a man to be cuckolded the very\n  first night of his marriage. But even at present, though the formality\n  of the thing is abolished, there are very few husbands who are not\n  tolerably certain of being cuckolded by the first lord, or duke, who\n  thinks it worth his while to attempt it. It is some consolation to us\n  poor devils of authors, that we have no chance of getting a wife who\n  is at all likely to meet with any such distinction. But if I were a\n  snug tradesman or city-merchant, and had bargained for a sweet girl\n  whose smile was Elysium, whose air was enchantment, and her looks all\n  love,\u2014I should be terribly afraid of the cocked hats at the opera. I\n  should tremble at every coronet coach that passed the door, and should\n  run mad at the sight of a prince\u2019s feather.\n\nFootnote 21:\n\n  Even this is making a very large concession to Mr. Malthus. The real\n  points to be given are the possible power of productiveness in the\n  earth and the necessary tendency of population to increase.\n\nFootnote 22:\n\n  Fletcher of Saltoun.\n\nFootnote 23:\n\n  Spelman\u2019s Glossary.\n\nFootnote 24:\n\n  Have Dryden\u2019s Fables, the New Eloise, or the Memoirs of Fanny Hill\n  never added any thing to the pressure of the principle of population,\n  without any reference to the parish registers of deaths and marriages?\n\nFootnote 25:\n\n  Mr. M. always translates the word _misere_ or want misery, and has\n  adopted it as the burthen of his song. He has made a very significant\n  use of this equivoque in many parts of his work.\n\nFootnote 26:\n\n  The engrafting of trees might be mentioned as an instance in point.\n\nFootnote 27:\n\n  Dr. Paley, of whose depth or originality I have in general but a\n  slender opinion, has made one very shrewd and effectual observation in\n  reply to Hume\u2019s argument upon miracles; which is, that according to\n  Hume\u2019s reasoning, miracles must be _equally_ inadmissible and\n  improbable, whether we believe in a superintending Providence or not.\n  There must therefore be some fallacy in an argument, which completely\n  sets aside so material a consideration. I would recommend this answer,\n  which I think a true and philosophical one, to Mr. Malthus\u2019s\n  attention, as it may perhaps lead him \u2018to new-model some of his\n  arguments\u2019 about experience.\n\nFootnote 28:\n\n  It is to no purpose to object, that they would hinder the poor from\n  increasing in proportion. This would be merely a negative\n  check,\u2014preventing the increase on one side, but setting no bounds to\n  it on the other. Besides, not having the poor to work for them, they\n  must work for themselves. Neither can it be said that property is a\n  fluctuating thing, that changes hands, and passes from the rich to the\n  poor and from the poor back again to the rich, still keeping up the\n  same inequality; for the greatest wealth would soon be melted down by\n  the principle of population, and it is only by the accumulation and\n  transmission of property in regular descents that any great inequality\n  can subsist. Mr. Malthus wishes to preserve the balance of society by\n  hindering the poor from marrying; perhaps it would be preserved as\n  effectually by forcing the rich to marry.\n\nFootnote 29:\n\n  Thus the shop-keeper cannot in general be supposed to be actuated by\n  any fear of want. His exertions are animated entirely by the prospect\n  of gain, or advantage. Yet how trifling are his profits compared with\n  those of the merchant. This however does not abate his diligence. It\n  may be said that the advantage is as great to him. That is, it is the\n  greatest in his power to make; which is the very thing I mean to say.\n  In fact we are wound up to a certain pitch of resolution and activity\n  almost as mechanically as we wind up a clock.\n\nFootnote 30:\n\n  The immediate rise in the price of manufactured articles upon any rise\n  in the price of labour is either a foolish impatience of loss, or a\n  trick to make the labourer refund his own earnings by paying more for\n  what he wants himself, and by being _pigeoned_ by others that they may\n  be able to pay the additional price. It has nothing to do with a fair\n  and liberal determination to raise the price of labour, which of\n  itself, and if not immediately counteracted by the power and artifices\n  of the rich must always tend to the benefit of the labouring part of\n  the community.\n\nFootnote 31:\n\n  This is something like Mr. Godwin\u2019s saying, he does not regard a\n  new-born infant with any peculiar complacency. They both differ from\n  the founder of the Christian religion, who has said, Bring unto me\n  little children. But modern philosophers scorn to pin their faith on\n  musty sayings.\n\nFootnote 32:\n\n  But a moment ago the subject was involved in the most profound\n  obscurity, and great advantages were expected from the manner in which\n  Mr. Malthus was to bring it home to each man\u2019s comprehension. In the\n  passage immediately following the above, our author quotes Dr. Paley\u2019s\n  Moral Philosophy, and as he often refers to this work, I shall here\n  take the liberty of entering my protest against it. It is a school in\n  which a man learns to tamper with his own mind, and will become any\n  thing sooner than an honest man. It is a directory, shewing him how to\n  disguise and palliate his real motives (however unworthy) by\n  metaphysical subterfuges, and where to look for every infirmity which\n  can beset him, with its appropriate apology, taken from the common\n  topics of religion and morality. All that is good in Paley is taken\n  from Tucker; and even _his_ morality is not the most bracing that can\n  be imagined.\n\nFootnote 33:\n\n  Now Lord Colchester.\n\nFootnote 34:\n\n  Lord Bacon\u2019s Advancement of Learning.\n\nFootnote 35:\n\n  Shaftesbury made this an objection to Christianity, which was answered\n  by Foster, Leland, and other eminent divines, on the ground that\n  Christianity had a higher object in view, namely, general\n  philanthropy.\n\nFootnote 36:\n\n  Mr. Fuseli used to object to this striking delineation a want of\n  historical correctness, inasmuch as the animating principle of the\n  true chivalrous character was the sense of honour, not the mere regard\n  to, or saving of, appearances. This, we think, must be an\n  hypercriticism, from all we remember of books of chivalry and heroes\n  of romance.\n\nFootnote 37:\n\n  We had forgotten the tragedies of Antonio and Ferdinand. Peace be with\n  their _manes_!\n\nFootnote 38:\n\n  To be sure, it was redeemed by a high respect and by some magnificent\n  compliments. Once in particular, at his own table, after a good deal\n  of _badinage_ and cross-questioning about his being the author of the\n  Reply to Judge Eyre\u2019s Charge, on Mr. Godwin\u2019s acknowledging that he\n  was, Mr. Tooke said, \u2018Come here then,\u2019\u2014and when his guest went round\n  to his chair, he took his hand, and pressed it to his lips, saying\u2014\u2018I\n  can do no less for the hand that saved my life!\u2018\n\nFootnote 39:\n\n  Mr. Coleridge named his eldest son (the writer of some beautiful\n  Sonnets) after Hartley, and the second after Berkeley. The third was\n  called Derwent, after the river of that name. Nothing can be more\n  characteristic of his mind than this circumstance. All his ideas\n  indeed are like a river, flowing on for ever, and still murmuring as\n  it flows, discharging its waters and still replenished\u2014\n\n                 \u2018And so by many winding nooks it strays,\n                 With willing sport to the wild ocean!\u2019\n\nFootnote 40:\n\n  We remember finding the volume in the orchard at Burford-bridge near\n  Boxhill, and passing a whole and very delightful morning in reading\n  it, without quitting the shade of an apple-tree. We have not been able\n  to pay Mr. Irving\u2019s book the same compliment of reading it at a\n  sitting.\n\nFootnote 41:\n\n  \u2018They receive him like a virgin at the Magdalen, _Go thou and do\n  likewise_\u2019\u2014JUNIUS.\n\nFootnote 42:\n\n  This work is not without merit in the details and examples of English\n  construction. But its fault even in that part is that he confounds the\n  genius of the English language, making it periphrastic and literal,\n  instead of elliptical and idiomatic. According to Mr. Murray, hardly\n  any of our best writers ever wrote a word of English.\n\nFootnote 43:\n\n  At least, with only one change in the genitive case.\n\nFootnote 44:\n\n  No! For we met with a young lady who kept a circulating library and a\n  milliner\u2019s shop, in a watering-place in the country, who, when we\n  inquired for the _Scotch Novels_, spoke indifferently about them, said\n  they were \u2018so dry she could hardly get through them,\u2019 and recommended\n  us to read _Agnes_. We never thought of it before; but we would\n  venture to lay a wager that there are many other young ladies in the\n  same situation, and who think \u2018Old Mortality\u2019 \u2018dry.\u2019\n\nFootnote 45:\n\n  Just as Cobbett is a matter-of-fact reasoner.\n\nFootnote 46:\n\n  St. Ronan\u2019s Well.\n\nFootnote 47:\n\n  Perhaps the finest scene in all these novels, is that where the\n  Dominie meets his pupil, Miss Lucy, the morning after her brother\u2019s\n  arrival.\n\nFootnote 48:\n\n  \u2018And here we cannot but think it necessary to offer some better proof\n  than the incidents of an idle tale, to vindicate the melancholy\n  representation of manners which has been just laid before the reader.\n  It is grievous to think that those valiant Barons, to whose stand\n  against the crown the liberties of England were indebted for their\n  existence, should themselves have been such dreadful oppressors, and\n  capable of excesses, contrary not only to the laws of England, but to\n  those of nature and humanity. But alas! we have only to extract from\n  the industrious Henry one of those numerous passages which he has\n  collected from contemporary historians, to prove that fiction itself\n  can hardly reach the dark reality of the horrors of the period.\n\n  \u2018The description given by the author of the Saxon Chronicle of the\n  cruelties exercised in the reign of King Stephen by the great barons\n  and lords of castles, who were all Normans, affords a strong proof of\n  the excesses of which they were capable when their passions were\n  inflamed. \u201cThey grievously oppressed the poor people by building\n  castles; and when they were built, they filled them with wicked men or\n  rather devils, who seized both men and women who they imagined had any\n  money, threw them into prison, and put them to more cruel tortures\n  than the martyrs ever endured. They suffocated some in mud, and\n  suspended others by the feet, or the head, or the thumbs, kindling\n  fires below them. They squeezed the heads of some with knotted cords\n  till they pierced their brains, while they threw others into dungeons\n  swarming with serpents, snakes, and toads.\u201d But it would be cruel to\n  put the reader to the pain of perusing the remainder of the\n  description.\u2019\u2014_Henry\u2019s Hist._ edit. 1805, vol. vii. p. 346.\n\nFootnote 49:\n\n  This Essay was written just before Lord Byron\u2019s death.\n\nFootnote 50:\n\n        \u2018Don Juan was my Moscow, and Faliero\n        My Leipsic, and my Mont St. Jean seems Cain.\u2019\n                                            _Don Juan_, Canto xi.\n\nFootnote 51:\n\n  This censure applies to the first Cantos of DON JUAN much more than to\n  the last. It has been called a TRISTRAM SHANDY in rhyme: it is rather\n  a poem written about itself.\n\nFootnote 52:\n\n  The late Rev. Joseph Fawcett, of Walthamstow.\n\nFootnote 53:\n\n  At the time when the _Vindici\u00e6 Gallic\u00e6_ first made its appearance, as\n  a reply to the _Reflections on the French Revolution_, it was cried up\n  by the partisans of the new school, as a work superior in the charms\n  of composition to its redoubted rival: in acuteness, depth, and\n  soundness of reasoning, of course there was supposed to be no\n  comparison.\n\nFootnote 54:\n\n  What an awkward bedfellow for a tuft of violets!\n\nFootnote 55:\n\n      \u2018How oft, O Dart! what time the faithful pair\n      Walk\u2019d forth, the fragrant hour of eve to share,\n      On thy romantic banks, have my _wild strains_\n      (Not yet forgot amidst my native plains)\n      While thou hast sweetly gurgled down the vale,\n      Filled up the pause of love\u2019s delightful tale!\n      While, ever as she read, the conscious maid,\n      By faultering voice and downcast looks betray\u2019d,\n      Would blushing on her lover\u2019s neck recline,\n      And with her finger\u2014point the tenderest line!\u2019\n                                          _M\u00e6viad_, _pp._ 194, 202.\n\n  Yet the author assures us just before, that in these \u2018wild strains\u2019\n  \u2018all was plain.\u2019\n\n    \u2018Even then (admire, John Bell! my simple ways)\n    No heaven and hell danced madly through my lays,\n    No oaths, no execrations; _all was plain_;\n    Yet trust me, while thy ever jingling train\n    Chime their sonorous woes with frigid art,\n    And shock the reason and revolt the heart;\n    My hopes and fears, in nature\u2019s language drest,\n    Awakened love in many a gentle breast.\u2019\n                                                _Ibid._, _v._ 185\u201392.\n\n  If any one else had composed these \u2018wild strains,\u2019 in which \u2018all is\n  plain,\u2019 Mr. Gifford would have accused them of three things. \u20181.\n  Downright nonsense. 2. Downright frigidity. 3. Downright doggrel;\u2019 and\n  proceeded to anatomise them very cordially in his way. As it is, he is\n  thrilled with a very pleasing horror at his former scenes of\n  tenderness, and \u2018gasps at the recollection\u2019 \u2018of _watery Aquarius_!\u2019\n  _he! jam satis est!_ \u2018Why rack a grub\u2014a butterfly upon a wheel?\u2018\n\nFootnote 56:\n\n  Mr. Merry was even with our author in personality of abuse. See his\n  Lines on the Story of the Ape that was given in charge to the\n  ex-tutor.\n\nFootnote 57:\n\n  The style of philosophical criticism, which has been the boast of the\n  Edinburgh Review, was first introduced into the Monthly Review about\n  the year 1796, in a series of articles by Mr. William Taylor, of\n  Norwich.\n\nFootnote 58:\n\n  Mr. Brougham is not a Scotchman literally, but by adoption.\n\nFootnote 59:\n\n  After all, the best as well as most amusing comment on the character\n  just described was that made by Sheridan, who being picked up in no\n  very creditable plight by the watch, and asked rather roughly who he\n  was, made answer\u2014\u2018I am Mr. Wilberforce!\u2019 The guardians of the night\n  conducted him home with all the honours due to Grace and Nature.\n\nFootnote 60:\n\n  The late Lord Chancellor Thurlow used to say that Cobbett was the only\n  writer that deserved the name of a political reasoner.\n\nFootnote 61:\n\n  Mr. Cobbett speaks almost as well as he writes. The only time I ever\n  saw him he seemed to me a very pleasant man\u2014easy of access, affable,\n  clear-headed, simple and mild in his manner, deliberate and unruffled\n  in his speech, though some of his expressions were not very qualified.\n  His figure is tall and portly: he has a good sensible face\u2014rather\n  full, with little grey eyes, a hard, square forehead, a ruddy\n  complexion, with hair grey or powdered; and had on a scarlet\n  broad-cloth waistcoat, with the flaps of the pockets hanging down, as\n  was the custom for gentlemen-farmers in the last century, or as we see\n  it in the pictures of Members of Parliament in the reign of George I.\n  I certainly did not think less favourably of him for seeing him.\n\nFootnote 62:\n\n      Like angels\u2019 visits, short and far between\u2019\u2014\n                                                   _Blair\u2019s Grave._\n\nFootnote 63:\n\n  Is not this word, which occurs in the last line but one, (as well as\n  before) an instance of that repetition, which we so often meet with in\n  the most correct and elegant writers?\n\nFootnote 64:\n\n  Compare his songs with Burns\u2019s.\n\nFootnote 65:\n\n            \u2018There was a little man, and he had a little soul,\n            And he said, Little soul, let us try,\u2019 &c.\n\n  Parody on\n\n            \u2018There was a little man, and he had a little gun.\u2014\n\n  One should think this exquisite ridicule of a pedantic effusion might\n  have silenced for ever the automaton that delivered it: but the\n  official personage in question at the close of the Session addressed\n  an extra-official congratulation to the Prince Regent on a bill that\n  had _not_ passed\u2014as if to repeat and insist upon our errors were to\n  justify them.\n\nFootnote 66:\n\n  The description of sports in the forest:\n\n              \u2018To see the sun to bed and to arise,\n              Like some hot amourist with glowing eyes,\u2019 &c.\n\nFootnote 67:\n\n  These persons who have been so long on the rack of incomprehensible\n  theories and captious disputes, whose minds have been stretched on the\n  Procrustes\u2019 bed of metaphysical systems, till they have acquired a\n  horror of any thing like common sense or familiar expression, put me\n  in mind of what is said of those who have been really put to the rack:\n  they can bear their unnatural distorted state tolerably well; it is\n  the return of sense and motion which is death to them.\n\nFootnote 68:\n\n  How difficult do we find it, to believe that a person is telling us a\n  falsehood, while we are with him, though we may at the same time be\n  thoroughly convinced that this is the case.\n\nFootnote 69:\n\n  In this age of solid reason, it is always necessary to refer to\n  particular examples, as it was formerly necessary to explain all hard\n  words to the ladies. Condillac, in his Logic, that favourite manual of\n  the modern sciolist, with admirable clearness proves, that our idea of\n  virtue is a sensible image; because virtue implies a law, and that law\n  must be written in a book, which must consist of letters, or figures\n  of a certain shape, colour, and dimensions, which are real things, the\n  objects of sense: that we are therefore right in asserting virtue to\n  have a real existence, namely on paper, and in supposing that we have\n  some idea of it, that is, as consisting of the letters of the\n  alphabet. Mr. Horne Tooke, a man of wonderful wit, knowledge, and\n  acuteness, but who, with my consent, shall not be empanelled as a\n  juror to decide upon any question of abstruse reasoning, has\n  endeavoured to explain away the whole meaning of language, by doing\n  away its habitual or customary meaning, by denying that words have any\n  meaning but what is derived to them from the umbilical root which\n  first unites them to matter; and by making it out, that our thoughts\n  having no life or motion in them, but as they are dragged about\n  mechanically by words, are \u2018just such shard-born beetle things\u2019\n\n              \u2018As only buz to heav\u2019n on ev\u2019ning wings;\n              Strike in the dark, offending but by chance;\n\n                     \u00b7       \u00b7       \u00b7       \u00b7       \u00b7\n\n              They know not beings, and but _bear_ a name.\u2019\n\n  Mr. Tooke\u2019s description of the formation of language[70] is a sort of\n  pantomime or masquerade, where you see the trunks of our abstract\n  ideas going about in search of their _heads_, or clumsily setting on\n  their own _noses_, and afterwards pointing to them in answer to all\n  questions: it reminds you of the island of Pantagruel (or some such\n  place), where the men carry their heads before them\n\nFootnote 70:\n\n  See his account of the terminations head and ness, or nez. in their\n  hands, or you would fancy that our author had lately been at the\n  Promontory of noses. Andrew Paraeus, on the solution of noses, was a\n  novice to him. I am a little uneasy at this scheme of reducing all our\n  ideas to points and solid substances. It is like the project to the\n  philosopher, who contended that all the solid matter in the universe\n  might be contained in a nutshell. This is ticklish ground to tread\n  upon. At this rate, and if the proportion holds, each man will hardly\n  have a single particle of understanding left to his share; and in two\n  large quarto volumes, there may not perhaps be three grains of solid\n  sense. Mr. Tooke, as a man of wit, may naturally wish to turn every\n  thing to _point_. But this method will not hold in metaphysics: it is\n  necessary to spin the thread of our ideas a little finer, and to take\n  up with the flimsy texture of mental appearances. It is not easy to\n  philosophize in solid epigrams, or explain abstruse questions by the\n  tagging of points. I do not, however, mean to object to Mr. Tooke\u2019s\n  etymological system as an actual history of language, but to that\n  superficial gloss of philosophy which is spread over it, and to the\n  whole of his logic: I might instance in the axiom, on which the whole\n  turns, that \u2018it is as absurd to talk of a complex idea as of a complex\n  star.\u2019 Now this and such like phrases had better have been left out:\n  it is a good antithesis, but it is nothing more. Or if it had been put\n  into the mouth of Sir Francis, who is a young man of lively parts, and\n  then gravely answered by Mr. Tooke, it would have been all very well.\n  But as it stands, it is injurious to the interests of philosophy, and\n  an affront to common sense. Hartley proceeded a good way in making a\n  dissected map of the brain; and did all he could to prove the human\n  soul to consist of a white curd. After all, he was forced to confess,\n  that it was impossible to get at the mind itself; and he was obliged\n  to rest satisfied with having spent many years, and wasted immense\n  ingenuity, in \u2018vicariously torturing and defacing\u2019 its nearest\n  representative in matter. He was too great a man not to perceive the\n  impossibility of ever reconciling matter and motion with the nature of\n  thought; and he therefore left his system imperfect. But it fell into\n  good hands, and soon had all its deficiencies supplied, and its doubts\n  cleared up, to the entire satisfaction and admiration of all the dull,\n  the superficial, and the ignorant.\n\nFootnote 71:\n\n  Essay on Human Action.\n\nFootnote 72:\n\n  There is one argument in defence of Old Age, in Cicero, which is so\n  exquisitely put, that nothing can surpass it: it is a perfect _bon\n  bouche_ for a metaphysician. It is where some one objects to old age,\n  that the old man, whatever comforts he may enjoy, cannot hope to live\n  long, which the young man at least expects to do. To which is\n  answered: So much the better; the one has already done what the other\n  only hopes to do: the old man has already lived long: the young man\n  only hopes that he may. A man would be happy a whole day after having\n  such a thought as this.\n\nFootnote 73:\n\n  Mr. Tooke has fallen into the same mistake with which he reproaches\n  preceding writers, that of supposing the different sorts of words to\n  be the measure of the different sorts of things. He has only reversed\n  their inference: for as the old grammarians, who admitted more\n  different sorts of words, contended for more differences of things, so\n  Mr. Tooke, who admits of fewer sorts of words, argues that there can\n  be only as many different ideas or things, as are expressed by the\n  different parts of speech. Thus, if substantives and adjectives do not\n  represent substance and quality, there can be no such difference in\n  nature, or in the human understanding. This we conceive to be a piece\n  of as false philosophy, as if we were to affirm that there can be no\n  difference between blue or yellow, because they are both adjectives,\n  or between light and sound, because they are both substantives. Mr.\n  Tooke\u2019s whole object is to show that the different parts of speech do\n  not relate to the differences in ideas or things, and yet he would\n  make the difference in the one, the test of the difference in the\n  other. As to all that he has said of abstraction, and the real or\n  physical meaning of words, we believe that we do not understand him;\n  for, as far as we do, his facts and cases seem to us to prove the very\n  reverse of his conclusions. So he has brought 2000 instances of the\n  meaning of words to demonstrate that we have no abstract ideas, not\n  one of which 2000 meanings is any thing else but an abstract idea.\n  Logic and metaphysics are the weak sides of his reasoning. But he has\n  rendered essential services to grammar, which cannot be overlooked or\n  forgotten.\n\nFootnote 74:\n\n  \u2018A fellow of no mark nor likelihood,\u2019 _Henry IV._, Part I., Act III.\n  Scene 2.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                          TRANSCRIBER\u2019S NOTES\n\n\n 1. Silently corrected typographical errors and variations in spelling.\n 2. Archaic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings retained as printed.\n 3. Footnotes have been re-indexed using numbers and collected together\n      at the end of the last chapter.\n 4. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.","title":"The collected works of William Hazlitt, Vol. 04 (of 12)","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":206555}