A pure despotism may continue in the same state from the beginning to the end of time: by the same names the same things may be always signified. But a mixt monarchy such as the English never can continue the same: the names may continue in use for any length of time; but by the same names the same state of things is never, for two days together, signified. The quantity of the matter of corruption in the hands of the monarch being every day greater and greater; the practice in the application of it to its purpose, and thence the skill with which application is made of it on the one hand, and the patience and indifference with which the application of it is witnessed, being every day greater and greater, the comparative quantity of the influence of the people, and of the security it aftbrds, is every day growing less and less.
While the same names continue, no difference in the things signified is ever perceived, but by the very few who, having no interest in being themselves deceived, nor in deceiving others, turn their attention to the means of political improvement. Hence it was, that with a stupid indifference or acquiescence the Roman people sat still, while their constitution, a bad and confused mixture of aristocracy and democracy, was converted into a pure despotism.
With the title of representatives of the people, the people behold a set of men meeting in the House of Commons, originating the laws by which they are taxed, and concurring in all the other laws by which they are oppressed. Only in proportion as these their nominal representatives are chosen by the free suffrages of the people, and, in case of their betraying the people, are removable by them, can such representatives be of any use. But except in a small number of instances, — too small to be on any one occasion soever capable of producing any visible effect, — neither are these pretended representatives ever removable by them, nor have they ever been chosen by them. If, instead of a House of Commons and a House of Lords, there were two Houses of Lords, and no House of Commons, the ultimate effect would be just the same. If it depended on the vote of a reflecting man whether, instead of the present House of Commons, there should be another House of Lords, his vote would be for the affirmative: the existing delusion would be completely dissipated, and the real state of the nation be visible to all eyes; and a deal of time and trouble which is now expended in those debates, which, for the purpose of keeping on foot the delusion, are still suffered, would be saved.
As to representation, no man can even now be found so insensible to shame, as to affirm that any real representation has place: but though there is no 248 FALLACIES OF CONFUSION. [C//. 3.
real representation, there is, it is said, a virtual one: and with this, those who think it worth their while to keep up the delusion, and those who are, or act and speak as if they were, deluded, are satisfied. If those who are so well satisfied with a virtual representation which is not real, would be satisfied with a like virtual receipt of taxes on the one part, and a virtual payment of taxes on the other, all would be well; but this unfortunately is not the case. The payment is but too real, while the falsity of the only ground on which the exaction of it is so much as pretended to be justified, is matter of such incontestable verity, and such universal notoriety, that the assertion of its existence is a cruel mockery.
4. Balance of Power.
In general, those by whom this phrase has been used, have not known what they meant by it: it has had no determinate meaning in their minds. Should any man ever find for it any determinate meaning, it will be this — that of the three branches between which, in this constitution, the aggregate powers of government are divided, it depends upon the will of each to prevent the two others from doing any thing — froni giving effect to any proposed measure. How, by such arrangement, evil should be produced, is easy enough to say: for of this state of things one sure effect is — that whatsoever is in the judgment of any one of them contrary to its own sinister interest, will not be done; on tlie other hand, notwithstanding the supposed security, whatsoever measure is by them all seen or supposed to be conducive to the aggregate interest of them all, will be carried into effect, how plainly soever it may be contrary to the universal interest of the people. No abuse, in the preservation of which they have each an interest, will ever, so long as they can help it, be removed: no improvement in the prevention of which any one of them has an interest, will ever be made.
The fact is, that wherever on this occasion the word balance is employed, the sentence is mere nonsense. By the word balance in its original import, is meant a pair of scales. In an arithmetical account, by an ellipsis to which, harsh as it is, custom has given its sanction, it is employed to signify that sum by which the aggregate of the sums that stand on one side of an account, exceeds the aggregate of the sums that stand on the other side of that same account. To the idea which, in the sort of occasion in question, the word balance, is employed to bring to view, this word corresponds not in any degree in either of these senses. To accord with the sort of conception which, if any, it seems designed to convey, the word should be — not balance, but equipoise. When two bodies are so connected that whenever the one is in motion, the other is in motion likewise, and that in such sort that in proportion as one rises the other falls, and yet at the moment in question no such motion has place, the two bodies may be said to be in equipoise; one weighs exactly as much as the other. But of the figure of speech here in question, the object is not to present a clear view of the matter, but to prevent any such view of it from being taken: to this purpose therefore, the nonsensical expression serves better than any significant one. The ideas belonging to the subject are thrown into confusion, the mind's eye in its endeavours to see into it is bewildered; and this is what is wanted.
It is by a series of simultaneous operations that the business of government is carried on: by a series of actions: — action ceasing, the body politic, like the body natural, is at an end. By a balance, if any thing, is meant a pair of scales with a weight in each: the scales being even, if the weights are uneven, that in which is the heaviest weight begins to move; it moves downward, and at the same time the othei* scale with the weight in it moves upwards. All the while this motion is going on no equipoise has place; the two forces do not balance each other; if the wish is that they should balance each other, then into the scale which has in it the lighter weight must be added such other weight as shall make it exactly equal to the heavier weight: or, what comes to the same thing, a correspondent weight taken from that scale which has in it the heavier weight.
The balance is now restored. The two scales hang even; neither of the two forces preponderates over the other. But with reference to the end in view, or 6ec/. 4.] FALLACIES OF CONFUSION. 251 which ought to be in view — the use to be derived from the machine — what is the consequence? — All motion is at an end.
In the case in question, instead of two, as in a common pair of scales, there are three forces which are supposed, or said to be, antagonizing with one another. But were this all the difference, no conclusive objection to the metaphor could be derived from it; for, from one and the same fulcrum or fixed point you might have three scales hanging with weights in them, if there were any use in it: in the expression the image would be more complicated, but in substance it would be still the same.
Preeminently indeterminate, indistinct, and confused, on every occasion, is the language in which, to the purpose in question, application is made to this image of a balance; and on every occasion, when thus steadily looked into, it will be found to be neither better nor worse than so much nonsense. Nothing can it serve for the justification of: nothing can it serve for the explanation of The fallacy often assumes a more elaborate shape. " The constitution is composed of three forces, which, antagonizing with each other, cause the business of government to be carried on in a course which is different from the course in which it would be carried on if directed solely by any one, and is that which results from the joint influence of them all, each one of them contributing in the same proportion to the production of it."
252 FALLACIES OF CONFUSION. [Ch. S.
Composition aed resolution of forces. This image, though not so familiar as the other, is free from the particular absurdity which attaches upon the other: but upon the whole the matter will not be found much mended by it. In proportion as it is well conducted, the business of Government is uniformly carried on in a direction tending to a certain end, — the greatest happiness of the greatest number: — in proportion as they are well conducted, the operations of all the agents concerned, tend to that same end. In the case in question, here are three forces each tending to a certain end: take any one of these forces; take the direction in which it acts; suppose that direction tending to the same exclusively legitimate end, and suppose it acting alone, undisturbed, and unopposed, the end will be obtained by it: add now another of these forces; suppose it acting exactly in the same direction, the same end will be attained with the same exactness, and attained so much the sooner: and so again if you add the third. But that second force— if the direction in which it acts be supposed to be ever so little different from that exclusively legitimate direction in which the first force acts, the greater the difference, the further will the aggregate or compound force be from attaining the exact position of that legitimate end.
But in the case in que'ition how is it with the three forces? So far from their all tending to that end, the end they tend to is in each instance as opposite to that end as [)ossible. True it is, that amongst these three several forces, that sort of relation really has place by which the sort of compromise in question is produced: a sort of direction which is not exactly the same as that which would be taken on the supposition that any one of the three acted alone, clear of the influence of both the others. But with all this complication, what is the direction taken by the machine? Not that which carries it to the only legitimate end, but that which carries it to an end not very widely distant from the exact opposite one.
In plain language, here are two bodies of men, and one individual more powerful than the two bodies put together — say three powers — each pursuing its own interest, each interest a little different from each of the two others, and not only different from, but opposite to, that of the greatest number of the people: — of the substance of the people, each gets to itself and devours as much as it can. Each of them, were it alone, would be able to get more of that substance, and accordingly would get more of that substance, than it does at present. But in its endeavours to get that more, it would find itself counteracted bv the two others: each therefore permits the two others to get their respective shares, and thus it is that harmony is preserved.
Balance of forces. — A case there is in which this metaphor, this image, may be employed with propriety: this is the case of international law and international relations. Supposing it attainable, what is meant by a balance of forces or a balance of power is 254 FALLACEF.S OF CONFUSION. [Cli. 3.
a iegitiinate object; — an object, the effectuation of which is beneficial to all the parties interested. What is that object? It is in one word rest; — rest, the absence of all hostile motion, together with the absence of all coercion exercised by one of the parties over another: that rest which is the fruit of mutual and universal indej)endence. Here then, as between nation and nation, that rest which is the result of wellbalanced forces is peace and prosperity. But on the part of the several official authorities and persons by whose operations the business of Government in its several departments is carried on, is it prosperity that rest has for its consequence? No: on the contrary, of universal rest, in the forces of the body politic as in those of the body natural, the consequence is death. No action on the part of the officers of Government, no money collected in their hands, — no money, no subsistence, — no subsistence, no service, — no service, every thing falls to pieces, anarchy takes the place of government, government gives place to anarchy.
The metaphor of the balance, though so far from being applicable to the purpose in question, is in itself plain enough: it presents an image. The metaphor of the composition of forces is far from being so, — it presents not any image. To all but the comparatively few to whom the principles of mechanics, together with those principles of geometry that are associated with them, are thus far familiar, they present no conception at all: the conversion of the two tracts described by two bodies meeting with one another at Sect. 4.] lALLACir.s of coNrusioN. Q55 an angle formed by the two sides of a parallelogram into tlie tract described by the diagonal of the parallelogram, is an operation never performed for any purpose of ordinary life, and incapable of being performed otherwise than by some elaborate mechanism, constructed for this and no other purpose.
When the metaphor here in question is employed, the three forces in question, the three powers in question, are, according to the description given of them, the power of the monarch, the power of the House of Lords, and the power of the people. Even according to this statement, no more than as to a third part of it would the interest of the people be promoted: as to two- thirds it would be sacrificed. For example: — out of every 300/. raised upon the whole people, one hundred would be raised for the sake and applied to the use of the whole people; — the two other thirds for the sake and to the use of the two confederative powers, to wit the monarch and the House of Lords.
Not very advantageous to the majority of the people, not very eminently conducive to good government, would be this state of things; in a prodigious degree, however, more conducive would it be than is the real state of things. For, in the respect in question, what is this real state of things? The power described as above by the name of the power of the people, is, instead of being the power of the people, the power of the monarch and the power of the House of Lords, together with that of the rest of the aristocracy under that other name.
Q56 FALLACIES OF CONFUSION. [Ch. 3.
5. Glorious Revolution.
This is a Whig's cry, as often as it is a time to look bold, and make the people believe that he had rather be hanged than not stand by them. What? a revolution for the people? No: but, what is so much better, a revolution for the Whigs, — a revolution of 1688. There is your revolution: the only one that should ever be thought of without horror, — a revolution for discarding kings? No: only a revolution for changing them. There would be some use in changing them, there would be something to be got by it. When their forefathers of 16SS changed James for William and Mary, William got a good slice of the cake, and they got the rest among them. If, instead of being changed, kings were discarded, what would the Whigs get by it? They would get nothing; — they would lose not a little: they would lose their seats, unless they really sat and did the business they were sent to do, and then they would lose their ease.
The real uses of this revolution were the putting an end to the tyranny, political and religious, of the Stuarts: — the political, governing without parliament, and forcing the people to pay taxes without even so much as the show of consenting to them by deputies chosen by themselves: — the religious, forcing men to join in a system of religion which they believed not to be true.
But the deficiencies of the revolution were, leaving the power of governing, and in particular that of taxing, Sect. 5.] FALLACIES OF CONFUSION. ^57 in the hands of men whose interest it was to make the amount of the taxes excessive, and to exercise misrule to a great extent in a great variety of other ways.
So far as by security given to all, and thence, by check put to the power of the crown, the particular interest of the aristocratical leaders in the revolution promised to be served, such security was established, such check was applied. But where security could not be afforded to the whole community without trenching on the power of the ruling few, there it was denied. Freedom of election, as against the despotic power of the monarch, was established; — freedom of election, as against the disguised despotism of the aristocracy, Tories and Whigs together, remained excluded.
258 FALLACIES OF CONFUSION. [C/l. 4.
Allegojncal Idols.
Ad imaginationem.
Exposition, The use of this fallacy is the securing to persons in office, respect independent of good behaviour. This is in truth only a modification of the fallacy of vague generalities, exposed in the preceding chapter. It consists in substituting for men's proper official denomination the name of some fictitious entity, to whom, by customary language, and thence opinion, the attribute of excellence has been attached.
Examples 1. Government; for members of the governing body. 2. The church; for churchmen. 3. The law; for lawyers. The advantage is, obtaining for them more respect than might be bestowed on the class under its proper name.
Exposure.
I. Government. — In its proper sense, in which it designates the set of operations, it is true, and universally acknowledged, that every thing valuable to man depends upon it: security against evil in all shapes, from external adversaries as well as domestic. II. Laiv: execution of the law. — By this it is that men receive whatsoever protection they receive against domestic adversaries and disturbers of their peace. By government, — law — the /«w,— are therefore brought to view the naturalest and worthiest objects of respect and attachment within the sphere of a man's observance: and for conciseness and ornament (not to speak of deception) the corresponding fictitious entities are feigned, and represented as constandy occupied in the performance of the above-mentioned allpreserving operations. As to the real persons so occupied, if they were presented in their proper character, M'hether collectively or individually, they would appear clothed in their real qualities, good and bad together. But, as presented by means of this contrivance, they are, decked out in all their good and acceptable qualities, divested of all their bad and unacceptable ones. Under the name of the god -^sculapius, Alexander the impostor, his self-constituted high priest, received to his own use the homage and offerings addressed to his god. Acquired, as it is believed, comparatively within late years, this word government has obtained a latitude of import in a peculiar degree adapted to the sinister purpose here in question. From abstract, the signification has become, as the phrase is, concrete. From the system, in all its parts taken together, it has been employed to denote the whole assemblage of the individuals employed in the carrying on of the system: of the individuals who, for the time being, happen to be members of the official establishment, and of these more particularly, and even exclusively, such of them as are members of the ads2 260 FALLxlCIES OF CONFUSION. [C/l. 4.
ministralive branch of that establishment. For the designation either of the branch of the system or of the members that belong to it, the language had already furnished the word Administration. But the word Administration would not have suited the purpose of this fallacy: accordingly, by those who feel themselves to have an interest in the turning it to account, to the proper word Administration the too ample and thence improper word Government has been, probably by a mixture of design and accident, commonly substituted.
This impropriety of speech being thus happily and successfully established, the fruits of it are gathered in every day. Point out an abuse, — point to this or that individual deriving a profit from the abuse, up comes the cry, " You are an enemy to government!" then, with a little news in advance, " Your endeavour is to destroy government!" thus you are a Jacobin, an anarchist, and so forth: and the greater the pains you take for causing government to fulfill, to the greatest perfection, the professed ends of its institution, the greater the pains taken to persuade those who wish, or are content, to be deceived, that you wish and endeavour to destroy it.
III. Church. — This is a word particularly well adapted to the purpose of this fallacy: to the elements of confusion shared by it with government and law, it adds divers, proper to itself. The significations indifferently attachable to the word Churchy are, 1. Place of worship; 2. Inferior officers engaged by Government to take a leading part in the ceremonies of worship ^ 3. All the people considered as worshippers. 4. The superior officers of Government by whom the inferior, as above, are engaged and managed. 5. The rules and customs respecting those ceremonies.
The use of this fallacy to churchmen, is the giving and securing to them a share of coercive power; their sole public use and even original destination being the serving the people in the capacity of instructors, — instructing them in a branch of learning, now more thoroughly learnt without than from them ^. In the phrase " church and state,'' churchmemxe represented as superior to all non-churchmen. By " church and king,''' churchmen are represented as superior to the king. Fox and Norfolk were struck off the list of privy counsellors for drinking " The sovereignty of the people;"' the reduction would be greater were all struck off who have ever drank " Church and king." According to Bishop Warburton's Alliance, the people in the character of the church, meeting with all themselves in the character of the state, agreed to invest the expounders of the sacred volume with a large share of the sovereignty. Against this system, the lawyers, their only rivals, were estopped from pleading its seditiousness in bar. In Catholic countries, the churchmen who compose holy mother church possess one beautiful female, by whom the people are governed in '' ex. gr. from iinordiiined Metliodists, &c, and Quakers.
the field of spiritual law, within which has been inclosed as much as possible of profane law. By Protestants, on holy mother church the title of Whore of Babylon has been conferred: they recognise no holy mother church. But in England, churchmen, a large portion of them, compose two AlmcB Matres Academice — kind Mother Academies or Universities. By ingenuity such as this, out of " lubberly post-masters' boys" in any number, one "sweet Mrs. Anne Page" is composed, fit to be decked out in elements of amiability to any extent. The object and fruit of this ingenuity is the affording protection to all abuses and imperfections attached to this part of the official establishment. Church being so excellent a being, none but a monster can be an enemij^ aybe, to her. Monster^ i. e. anarchist. Jacobin, leveller, &c. To every question having reform or improvement in view as to this part of the official establishment, the answer is one and the same — " You are an enemy to the church." For instance, among others, to such questions as follow: 1. What does this part of the official establishment do, but read or give further explanation to one book, of which more explanation has been given already than the longest life would suffice to hear?
2. Does not this suppose a people incapable of being taught to read? 3. Would it not be more read if each of them, being able to read, had it constantly by him to read all through, than by their being at liberty some of them to go miles to hear small parts of it? — Suppose it admitted, that by the addition of other ser- 67/. 4.J FALLACIES OF CONFUSION. il63 vices conducive to good morals and good government, business for offices not much inferior to the existing ecclesiastical offices might be found, — then go on and ask, — 1, As to the connexion between reward and service, do not the same rules apply to these as to profane offices? 2. Pay unconditioned for service, is it more effectual in producing service here than there? 3. Here more than there, can a man serve in a place without being there? 4. Here, as there, is not a man's relish for the business proved the greater, the smaller the factitious reward he is content to receive for doing it? 5. The stronger such his relish, is not his service likely to be the better? 6. Over and above what, if any thing, is necessary to engage him to render the service, does not every penny contribute to turn him aside to other and expensive occupations, by furnishing him with the means? 7. In Scotland, where there is less pay, is not residence more general, and clerical service more abundant and efficient?
Answer, — Enemy! — and, if English-bred, — Apostate!
1. In Scotland, does any evil arise from the nonexistence of bishops? 2. In the House of Lords, any good? 3. Is not non-attendance there more general than even non-residence elsewhere? 4. In judicially does any bishop ever attend, who is not laid hold of after reading prayers? 5. In legislatura, ever, except where personal interest wears the mask of gratitude? 6. Such non-attendance, is it not felt rather as a relief than as a grievance?
<i6'4 FALLACIES OF CONFUSION. [C//. 4.
Answer, — " Enemy to the church! " 1. In Ireland, what is the use of Protestant priests to Catholics, who will neither hear nor see them, to whom they are known but as plunderers? 2. By such exemption from service, is not value of preferment increased? 3. By patrons, as by incumbents, are not bishopricks thus estimated? 4. Is it not there a maxim, that service and pay should be kept in separate hands? 5. In eyes not less religious than gracious, is not the value of religion inversely as the labour, as well as directly as the profit? 6. Is not this estimate the root of those scruples, by which oaths imposed to protect Protestantism from being oppressed are employed in securing to it the pleasure of oppressing?
Answer, — " Enemy to the church!"
C/i. 5.] TALLACIES Oi CONFUSION. Q65 Sweeping Classifications.
Ad judicium.
E.vposition.
The device of those who employ in the way of fallacy, sweeping classifications, is that of ascribing to an individual object (person or thing), any properties of another, only because the object in question is ranked in the class with that other, by being designated by the same name.
In its nature, this fallacy is equally applicable to undeserved eulogy as to undeserved censure; but it is more frequently applied to the purpose of censure, its efficiency being greater in that direction.
E.rposure. Example 1. — Kings; — Crimes of Kings.
In the heat of the French revolution, when the lot of Louis XVI. was standing between life and death, among the means employed for bringing about the catastrophe that ensued, was the publication of a multitude of inflammatory pamphlets, one of which had for its title " The Crimes of Kings."
Kings being men, and all men standing exposed to those temptations by which some of them are led into crimes, matter could not be wanting for a book so en- Q66 FALLACIES Of CONFUSION. [Ch. 5.
titled: and if there are some crimes to the temptation of which men thus elevated stand less exposed than the inferior orders, there are other crimes to which, perhaps, that elevation renders them but the more prone.
But of the man by whom on that occasion a book with such a title was published, the object, it is but too probable, was to compose out of it this argument; criminals ought to be punished; kings are criminals, and Louis is a king: therefore Louis ought to be punished.
Example 2. — Catholics; cruelties of Catholics.
Not long ago, in the course, and for the purpose of the controversy on the question whether that part of the community which is composed of persons of the Catholic persuasion, ought, or ought not, to be kept any longer in a state of degradation under the predominant sect, a book made its appearance under the title of " Cruelties of the Catholics."
Of any such complete success, as the consigning in a body to the fate in which that Catholic king was, with so many of his nearest connections, involved, all such British subjects as participate with him in that odious name, there could not be much hope: but whatsoever could, by the species of fallacy here in question, be done towards the promoting of it, was done by that publication. The object of it was to keep them still debarred from whatsoever relief remains yet to be administered to the oppressions under which they labour: either it had this object, or it had none.
To the complexion of this argument, and of the mind that could bring it forward, justice will not be done, unless an adequate conception be formed of the practical consequences to which, if to any thing, it leads.
Of the Catholics of the present and of all future time, whatsoever be the character, the cruelties and other enormities committed by persons who in former times were called by the same indefinitely comprehensive name, will still remain what they were. Whatsoever harsh treatment, therefore, this argument warrants the bestowing on these their namesakes at the present time, the same harsh treatment will, from the same argument, continue to receive the same justification so long as there remains one individual who, consistently with truth, is capable of being characterized by the same name.
Be they what they may, the barbarities of the Catholics of those times had their limits: but of this abhorrer of Catholic barbarities, the barbarity has, in respect of the number of intended victims, no limits other than those of time.
Of the man who, to put an end to the cruelties of kings, did what depended upon him towards extirpating the class of kings, the barbarity, so far as regarded this object, was, comparatively speaking, confined within a very narrow range. All Europe would not have sufficed to supply his scaffold with a dozen victims. But after crushing as many millions of the vermin whom his piety and his charity marked out for sacrifice, the zeal of the abhorrer of Catholic cruelties would have been in the condition of the tiger whom in the plains of Southern Africa a traveller depicted to us as lying breathless with fatigue amidst a flock of antelopes.
In the same injurious device the painter of the crimes of kings might, by a no less conclusive argument, have proved the necessity of crushing the English form of the Protestant religion, and consigning to the fate of Louis XVI. the present head of it.