troduction of any Poor-law into Ireland; and now they appear, all at once, anxious to plunge us into extremities from which there will be no retreat." The biographer adds, "A more expressive though involuntary tribute to the power and efficacy of Mr. Sadler's work could not possibly have been offered." We differ from this conclusion; for it was not upon Mr. Sadler's principles that "the leading men in the House, of all parties," or of any party, voted for the introduction of poor-laws into Ireland; some men even vindicated it upon what are called Malthusian principles, and many more, as Lord Althorp, upon general principles of benevolence, and the hope of relieving urgent want, without reference to any system of political economy, and with many expressions of fear as to what might be the ultimate result; and the measure was introduced and carried, in consequence of a combination of circumstances unconnected with either Malthusian or Sadlerian views ;-such, at least, is our opinion; but our biographer decidedly expresses his conviction that the promulgation of Mr. Sadler's doctrines had effected a general change in the opinions of men of all parties; and he states this still more strongly, when referring to Mr. Sadler's work an Population; as for example :

""The greatest triumph of Mr. Sadler's work, however, consisted, in this case, as in the former, much less in the plaudits of friends, or the struggles and contentions of foes, than in the gradual but immediate and perceptible crumbling away of the rival system. The Malthusian theory received its death-wound on the day when Mr. Sadler's work appeared; its dying struggles were decently concealed by the mantle cast over them by its friends; but the whole system has now passed away, and must be reckoned among the things that were. The silence which has been maintained, though it may have rendered the decease of the system an unobserved event in the minds of the multitude, cannot prevent us from comparing the ascendancy of Malthusianism in 1820-1830, with its utter oblivion in 1830-1840. We might apply to it the expressive language of the Psalmist; 'I sought for it, but lo, it could nowhere be found.""

"The legislative history of the last fifteen years, if a rapid retrospect be taken of it, affords the best proof of the fact, that Malthusianism, once so paramouut, must now be reckoned among the things gone by."

"Such, then, has been the success of Mr. Sadler's greatest work; the most complete, however imperceptible to a cursory view, - that could possibly be conceived. With far less of public applause than greeted and followed his treatise on Ireland, its effect on the mind and legislation of the country has been equally signal and triumphant. The one, in fact, carried the poor-laws into Ireland; the other saved the poor-laws of England; and both may be safely said to have exerted a more powerful influence on the bent, and purposes, and opinions of the English people, than any other production of a similar class, during the present century." pp. 193

198.

These are extracts; but let our readers peruse the whole work for themselves, and then decide whether they think we meant to misrepresent the author in speaking as we did of the change which we understood him to say had taken place in public opinion upon the questions at issue-such as the laws which affect population, the circumstances which regulate the market for labour, emigration, poor-laws, &c.-by the promulgation of the Sadlerian system. Doubtless we must have traduced him, or he would not complain; and yet we cannot even now see where lay our mistake.

Our friendly remonstrant's next complaint is, that we have made him include "such men as Dr. Chalmers," and the Bishops of London and Chester, in the animadversions of the Sadlerians against Malthusians, as "men of barren theories," "sages of the Satanic," or, as Sadler himself called it, the "diabolical" school; whereas he eulogised Dr. Chalmers as "one of the brightest ornaments of the Scottish Church," and Dr. J. B. Sumner and Dr. Blomfield as " prelates of the highest character;" adding that though this cannot make him "give up the word of God for the dogmas of Mr. Malthus,"

>

which these "great and good men" have so unhappily embraced, yet "their support of even the atrocities of Malthus should teach us not to be highminded, but fear." Now if, in the very extract which the writer adduces in proof of the terms of respect in which he speaks of these three "great and good men," he makes them "give up the word of God for the dogmas of Mr. Malthus," and support "even his atrocities," it would not be going much farther to suppose him adopting, by implication at least, the far milder phrase "men of barren theories," and perhaps some of the more sonorous vocables which are applied in his volume, in the approbatory extracts from Sadler and others, to the doctrines which they have espoused and "supported." He, even in the eulogistic extract. fastens on them the charge of Malthusianism, and therefore whatever epithets he personally uses, or approvingly selects, as applicatory to that "Satanic school," must stick like burs upon them, though he may have hurled them at other persons. This we say in abstract criticism; but we are equally sure that he had really no intention of writing disrespectfully of those individuals, much as he laments what he considers their unhappy mistake.

It was not we who forced the names of these three individuals into juxta-position with the animadversions upon the "Political Economists." Our author feels painfully constrained to name them; and at anti-new-poor-law and other Sadlerian meetings during the last ten years, they have been assailed with the grossest calumnies. Dr. Chalmers has been for more than a quarter of a century a zealous upholder of those views of Christian political economy, in regard to the poor, poor-laws, population, and cognate topics, which Mr. Sadler declared to be "diabolical," and which have been publicly called foul, beastly, tyrannical, and atheistic. The particular phrases, "men of barren theories," and "sages of the Satanic school," occur in a passage which our author quotes with approbation from Blackwood's Magazine, to shew the position in which Mr. Sadler stood towards the "Economists." As for the Bishops of London and Chester, the poor-law Report to which they subscribed their names, and in the framing of which they took a large share, urged extensive changes in the poor-laws upon principles which the Sadlerians called " diabolical." The Bishop of Chester had long before, in his able work on the Creation, vindicated those general doctrines of political economy which Mr. Malthus had elucidated.* It is impossible, therefore, to prevent the severe words

* Of course we do not mean that the Bishop of Chester adopted every one of Mr. Malthus's opinions, much less that he was responsible for the harsh and unjustifiable language which that writer sometimes employed. His facts and reasonings ought not to have been invested in the repulsive garb which he threw around them. We had, in former days, many controversies with Mr. Malthus upon his system of "expediency;" and we also animadverted upon exceptionable matters in his work on population; but this could not blind us to the important facts which he promulgated, and the legitimate inferences from them. Yet while we blame his exceptionable statements, it is but justice to add that he regretted and struck out many of his first words, though they still continue to be quoted against him. He also CHRIST. OBSERV. NO. 55.

strongly urged the duty and also the blessedness of all the exercises of Christian mercy, both in a pecuniary manner and all other useful modes; though he relied for the real welfare of the poor upon other machinery than that of poorlaws; and Dr. Chalmers has followed up and enlarged upon his plans in his work on "Civic Economy" and elsewhere. He thought it better to build a school than an almshouse, a church than a poor-house; that there were more benevolent and effectual ways of dealing with pauperism than by raising rates to encourage it; and he considered Savings'-banks or Benefit-clubs, worth more than the Act of 45 Elizabeth, Cap. 2. Grant that he was quite wrong yet he might not intend anything "diabolical," or to found a "Satanic school."

3 H

which are levelled at the school of the "Economists" glancing against these individuals; for a "school" is made up of its preceptors and scholars, and they were both. Nay, if we wished to press the matter, we could adduce passages from our author's work, in which he seems in his own name to point the application. For example, in speaking of the Poor-law Commission, of which the Bishops of London and Chester were leading and distinguished members (the others being Mr. Sturges Bourne, Mr. Senior, Mr. Bishop, Mr. Gawler, and Mr. Coulson) he says their commission is "well-described in Cobbett's Magazine," where we are told of "men bearing a fund of prejudice against poorlaws, population, improvident marriages, and the whole system and routine of nature;" "frantic speculators, who live for the greater part in London, and have become possessed of a devil." "The whole volume of Evidence published by authority' [namely, the evidence collected and set forth by the commissioners who are accused of adopting 'the Malthusian system,' and therefore 'contemning all kindness to the poor,' and 'invariably slighting or misrepresenting' the cow-and-cottage system) is nothing more than a broad, open, barefaced attempt to establish certain assumptions of the Malthus party."

We might have added, that not only does the censure implicate the three individuals above mentioned, but the great majority of the most able and benevolent men of all parties in Church and State; especially at this moment Sir R. Peel and his cabinet, particularly Sir J. Graham, aided by the chiefs of the several sections of public opinion; including independent members of unimpeached piety and benevolence, such as Sir R. H. Inglis and Mr. Plump

tre.

"Should such an insane attempt," says our author, as that "of maintaining the present poor-law, or any enactment at all resembling it," be made, "it will unquestionably be seen, before many months elapse, that the same folly which has already shipwrecked the Whig administration, will most impartially ruin the prospects of their Conservative successors."

So much for the general question; but after all, if our reprover will read our words more carefully he will see that we did not accuse him of having personally applied the expressions "men of barren theories" and "sages of the Satanic school" to the three "great and good men" above mentioned. We only wrote generally of such accusations as follows:

"We deprecate that cold-blooded economy which does not feel that Christian philanthropy ought to be blended with its elements, without which its science is delusive, for half a truth is a lie; but we also protest against the injustice of the antieconomists, who assume to themselves all the charities, and represent that every man who cannot work his way to their conclusions is hard-hearted and irreligious. But may not a man be as tender-hearted who sees and laments the sad condition to which sin, original and actual, has reduced a world which, when God made it, he pronounced to be 'good,' and endeavours to check vice and relieve misery in the way which he believes to be best adapted for those purposes; as another who, upon a different persuasion, pursues a different course? Is it just or decent that such a man as Dr. Chalmers, &c. &c."

There

We have replied at large to the allegations in which we are charged with having misrepresented our worthy correspondent; but we are not anxious to add many words about those in which he has mistaken us. was nothing "invidious" in our mentioning "Christian prudence" and "honest industry," for we certainly did not mean that Mr. Sadler intended to inculcate imprudence or sloth, whatever we may consider would be the inevitable results of his system. Nor have we any question as to how "the rich should contemplate and deal with the poor." The mutual obligations of mankind are well summed up in the catechism in reply to the question, "What is thy duty towards thy neighbour?" Almsgiving and all other exercises of Christian benevolence are included in the general duty of love; but it may be, and is, questioned, what are the best means of really benefitting the poor; and that which we complain of in the Sadlerians is, that they consider those as hard-hearted, cruel, and anti-scriptural, who differ from them as to what is most largely and lastingly benevolent.

But chiefly does our correspondent misrepresent us, when he assumes, that upon our principles "plenty and comfort are dangerous things, while poverty may be hailed as a wholesome regulator of the population." On the contrary, we regard plenty and comfort as great mercies bestowed by our heavenly Father, and not least in this, that they enable their possessors to marry, and provide things honest in the sight of all men, and to rear children, with God's blessing, in health and happiness, children well-trained and brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; and the blessing being so great, we wish to see it largely extended, and not sacrificed by premature reckless improvident marriages, with no prospect but a poor-house. Again, so far from accounting abject poverty a blessing, it is a great evil, and for this reason, among others, that it does not allow of marriage with a reasonable prospect of comfort, and of perpetuating a healthy, happy, well-ordered progeny. The principle of our political economy lies within a very brief compass. Its basis is, "to do justly, and to love mercy." Would that we could believe, with Mr. Sadler and his biographer, that the British legislature has it in its power to realize their rainbow visions. Giving a Poor-law to Ireland, (this has been accomplished) and in England throwing open the wastes and commons which have been inclosed; "raising cottages" by the aid of Parliament, "sufficient to lodge the labouring poor;" "setting apart plots of garden-ground for them," "checking the inordinate spirit of competition exhibited by the great manufacturers in so far as it trampled down not only the adult but the youthful labourer, and even the tender and defenceless child;" (which, says Mr. Sadler's biographer, "were his three main propositions in Parliament;") and, moreover, "looking with jealousy at the advance of the Free Trade system;" instituting a system of Poor-laws, which, instead of "aiming to drive the poor to forethought and provident habits by the fear of want," which is described as the characteristic of the New Poor-law, shall "draw them by the inducements of hope, and the prospects of advancement;" and, above all, enlarging the paper currency, the diminution of which our biographer considers to be "the main and sufficient cause of all the depression and suffering which now exist ;"-all these measures, even if they were all unexceptionable, nay excellent, in themselves, would have no decided and lasting effect upon the great mass of our national interests. But are they all really beneficial? Our great statesmen of every party think most of them demonstrably otherwise; and especially returning to that ruinous, that most fraudful and wicked, system of paper-currency, which Sir Robert Peel wisely and effectually checked by his measure for the resumption of metallic payments. Even where, as in some of the particulars above mentioned, an object is in itself good, the Sadlerian theory injures it, by placing it on a false basis; as for instance in the matter of restricting infant and juvenile labour in the factories (and, we may add, the mines, and elsewhere) for the clear, unequivocal duty of the legislature is to interpose its shield in such cases as a bounden obligation of humanity and Christianity; but Mr. Sadler's biographer describes him as wishing to do it expressly in order "to check competition;" and he himself lays down the general maxims (p. 605), that the cupidity of the masters has brought about the present want of employment, and consequent low rate of wages; and that

the legislature "ought to look with a jealous eye on this result of excessive competition, and to embrace every opportunity of checking it." The statement is incorrect; for the cupidity and the competition of masters, however morally wrong, or in the end nationally injurious, enlarge for the time the market for labour, and enable the labourer to demand better wages. Masters cannot procure labour under its market value; and that value mainly depends upon the number of persons who wish to purchase an article, and the facilities for supplying it. If the masters over speculate, they injure themselves, but the workman in the mean time has the advantage of a brisk demand for his labour. What next follows, in the usual order of events, is what would be called a Malthusian result; and a Sadlerian cannot consistently urge it; for the influx of labourers who had been attracted in the good day, but without forethought of possible reverses, will become-" diabolical" as is the doctrine"an overplus population" pressing upon the means of subsistence when employers begin to fail from having over-speculated; and needing resources which no cow-and-cottage system, no wastes and commons, no extension of parochial relief, can adequately afford them. The best thing which a legislature in ordinary circumstances can do, is to leave supply and demand to regulate themselves; but if a case occur in which humanity and duty require their interference, as in the protection of factory children-they ought to interfere ; but that they thereby cause some curtailment of the liberty of individuals, in using their capital or labour, is not a reason for the measure, but a difficulty to be surmounted in adopting it. Our author admits that it is not advisable to interfere between the employer and the employed, so long as no positive offence against equity or morals is committed; and we maintain, that when such offences occur, they ought to interfere. So far we agree; but we altogether differ as to other questions collaterally involved in the proceeding. Our author's argument implies that the operatives would in the end get as much wages if the legislature restricted the number of hours of labour, as if the employer and the employed were left to their own arrangements; but this is not the fact, as can be easily shewn upon the first principles of political economy; and if, by the sum spent for labour being reduced, the operatives were deterred from marrying, or their families were thinned by penury, these we should account evils, not blessings. The truth is, that much that Mr. Sadler and his biographer write about "a paternal government" is merely well-sounding theory. A "paternal" government is an arbitrary government; a father is, and ought to be, arbitrary, in the proper sense of that word, -not as meaning being unjust or capricious, but as acting towards, and for, his children to the best of his understanding and ability, regarding them as unable in their tender years to judge for themselves; and since he provides the money he has a right to control it; and his affection for his children is the best guarantee that can be had (though, alas, even this often fails) that he will seek what he considers to be for their best welfare. But this is not the relationship in which a government stands towards the people. The ruler does not "paternally" furnish the money out of his own purse, but takes it out of that of the people themselves; who being not children but men, have a good right to consider whether he is disposing of it to the best account. Nor can he decide each particular respecting millions of human beings as a father does the affairs of his family; nor indeed does even a father forcibly take (without special cause) some of Tom's pocket-money for John, because John has improvidently spent his. Austria and Russia are "paternal" governments, and they exercise their prerogatives, we doubt not, with a full persuasion