) 
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES
 
 THE 
 
 ART OF FALSE REASONING 
 EXEMPLIFIED ; 
 
 IN SOME EXTRACTS FROM THE REPORT OF 
 SIR ROBERT PEEL'S SPEECPI IN " THE TIMES" PAPER 
 
 OF JULY 7th, 1849. 
 
 "Now most politicians in England !>hi>w, it is iviie, but little liking to tlie 
 gospel; yet there is something in the people which can still inspire nuicli 
 hope; and this is the power of religious feeling, and of Christian principle, 
 so strong in T>nt&m."—I)'Aufngni"s Recollections of German;/, Knglund and 
 Scotliintl. 
 
 LONDON: 
 OLLIVIER, 59, PALL MALL; 
 
 AND 
 
 EFFINGHAM WILSON, 11, ROYAL EXCHANGE. 
 
 M.nccc.L.
 
 LONDON: 
 
 PRINTED BY J. WUnTUKlMF.R AM) CO, 
 
 CIRCUS PLACE, FINSBURY CincUS.
 
 DC 
 
 111 
 
 CONTENTS, 
 
 CHAPTER I.— Section I. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 The origin of the art of false reasoning — Its improvement 
 in modern times — The perfection of the art an indication 
 of a nation's downfall ....--. 7 
 
 Section II. 
 
 A specimen of the mode in which arguments, whether true or 
 false, may be jucUciously commenced — How an argument 
 commenced with great fairness may be conducted to a 
 delusive conclusion, and made subservient to the commend- 
 ation of the speaker's own policy — How false assumptions 
 may be successfully used - - - - - - 1 
 
 Section III. 
 
 The expediency of a delusive speaker laying down strict rules 
 for the government of others and eluding them himself — 
 The advantage of a positive denial being repeated in two 
 or three different forms — The wisdom of repudiating 
 government returns when adverse to the speaker's wishes — 
 Fastidious notions of consistency to be avoided by any one 
 who expects to excel as a delusive reasoner — Allusion to 
 Alderman Waithman, and the danger of misusing the power 
 of ridicule - -- - - . - - -14 
 
 3022382
 
 IV CONTENTS. 
 
 Chapter I. {^Continued) — Section IV. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Another instance of the use of the jwsitive denial, and the 
 advantage to be gained by accompanying it with an inver- 
 sion of the right order of ccmse and effect. A digression 
 concluding with a declamatory appeal to the superficial 
 compassion of the audience very successfid - - - 1 8 
 
 Section V. 
 Expediency, the only tribunal which the delusive reasoner should 
 acknowledge — An illustration derived from the supposed case 
 of a tailor and shoemaker, which shews the danger of a de- 
 lusive reasoner attempting to address the common sense 
 of common men in a common way — The difference between 
 the reasoning of Dr. Adam Smith and Sir Robert Peel - 22 
 
 Section VI. 
 The advantage of a long parliamentary experience — The dis- 
 advantage to which a just cause may be exposed, if its 
 advocates omit to trace to its 7-eal beginning the error they 
 wish to expose — An argument true in itself may be made the 
 means of leading others into error — Unjust for legislators to 
 enjoy the honours and emoluments of legislation, unless they 
 are prepared to take its responsibility - - - - 26 
 
 Section VII. 
 The influential name of " Alexander Baring " (the late Lord 
 Ashburton) attached to a London petition thirty years ago, 
 skilfully impressed into the support of an opinion which is 
 contradicted by the general tenor of his Lordship's subsequent 
 public life — A brief sketch of the political circumstances 
 which led to that petition - - - - - -31 
 
 Section VIII. 
 Allow error sufficient latitude and it will work its own cure — 
 The opinion of Lord Ashburton totally disregarded on 
 another question, whereon, from his great practical expe- 
 rience of the subject, it wag entitled to special attention - 36
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Chapter I. {Continued) — Section IX. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 A delusive argument may obtain considerable weight from a 
 display of religious feeling ; but unless it be introduced with 
 great discretion, it may expose the speaker to be suspected of 
 madness, enthusiasm, or hypocrisy — To disclaim any pre- 
 tension to the spirit of foresight may sometimes indicate the 
 absence of a common-sense knowledge of cause and effect 
 rather than the presence of modesty and humilitj - - 3S 
 
 CHAPTER II.— Section I. 
 
 Why the study of the art of false reasoning may be deserving 
 of public attention. It is not expected that any one truly 
 wise, wlU study it for the purpose of practising it — A know- 
 ledge of its devices useful as a preservative against its 
 deceptions — For practising the art succcssftilly several 
 qualifications are necessary — For guarding against its delu- 
 sions, a good common understanding and a sincere love of 
 truth are the only qualifications which are requisite - - 44 
 
 Section II. 
 Secondary considerations, the means of often diverting the public 
 mind from objects of primary importance. Tlic mischief 
 arising from this source illustrated by our own national 
 experience -.-..----46 
 
 Section III. 
 A remarkable instance of self-delusion which has been allowed 
 to prevail in our national councils — The folly of Senators not 
 saying Yes, or No, according to their own honest convic- 
 tions — Mr. Cobdcn's speech at Sheffield — The popular 
 orator, a powerful agent for good or for evil — Important that 
 the working classes shoidd be on their guard against the 
 delusions of the false reasoner — The popular orator in Parlia- 
 ment and the popular orator out — Their relative influence in es- 
 tablishing and pcr]>cluating some erroneous monetary notion^^ 41)
 
 Vi CONTENTS. 
 
 Chapter II. {Continued) — Section IV. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 The use and abuse of the power of public speaking further 
 illustrated by some brief remarks on the popular questions of 
 "Cheap Bread;" "Free Trade;" "Protection;" and 
 " Liberty, or the Right of Self-control" — Concluding 
 remarks >_-._-. --54
 
 THE ART OF FALSE REASONING 
 EXEMPLIFIED. 
 
 CHAPTER I.— Section I. 
 
 The art of false reasoning is of great antiquity. It is nearly 
 as old as the creation. We learn from the Bible, that it was 
 first discovered and successfully made use of by the Angel of 
 Deceit, when, in the apparent light of reason, he availed him- 
 self of the serpent's ingenuity to seduce our first parents from 
 their state of happiness to his own state of misery — from a state 
 of peaceful enjoyment, the natural consequence of obedience to 
 their Creator, to a state of misery, the never-failing result of 
 disobedience. This art is very simple in itself, and may easily 
 be acquired by any one who possesses an ordinary share of the 
 actor's talent, and is endowed with a persuasive tongue and 
 an unscrupulous conscience. 
 
 The process, as set forth in the third chapter of the first 
 book in the Bible, is very short and simple. A doubt as to 
 the truth of God's word is first ingeniously suggested — " Yea, 
 kalh God said, ye shall surely not eat of every tree of the gar- 
 den?" T/ie7i the truth of that word is positively denied — 
 " Ye shall not surely die. " And, lastly, the expediency of 
 acting in opposition to the command of God is adroitly intro- 
 duced into the argument of the arch deceiver, namelj'-, the 
 beauty of the fruit, and its virtue to make ivise those that par- 
 take of it, — " God doth know that in the day ye cat thereof, 
 then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, 
 knoAving good and evil."
 
 8 FALSE REASONING EXEMPLIFIED. 
 
 This kind of reasoning seldom fails to succeed with persons 
 who are themselves imconscious of deceit, if they once begin to 
 palter with the Truth, — if Error be allowed to insinuate the first 
 doubt of the truthfulness of God's word. But to perfect the 
 delusion, the plea in a false argument should not be altogether 
 false — a little truth should be interwoven with it — truth so 
 stated as to constitute a practical lie. In the case just stated, 
 the Great Deceiver spoke truth when he told the woman, that 
 after she had tasted the forbidden fruit her eyes would be 
 opened to discern both good and evil — so it proved : hitherto 
 Adam and herself had known only GoOD ; now, to their sor- 
 row, they knew what Ea'IL was also. 
 
 But in these latter days, the art of false reasoning has been 
 greatly elaborated. The short strai2;ht-forward process adopted 
 by the inventor of the science would scarcely answer the 
 purposes to which it is now applied. The mischievous result 
 which was then attained in a day, is now often made the work 
 of years, requiring the support of many positive and reiterated 
 denials of the truth for its completion. Sometimes we see 
 one error established, and the supposed impossibility of uproot- 
 ing it made the reason for engrafting upon it many others. 
 At other times a dexterou.s trans|)Osition of the right order, of 
 things — inverting the order of cause and effect, or, in other 
 words, " putting the cart before the horse" — proves a very suc- 
 cessfid method of thwarting the truth, and of preparing the 
 way for the establishment of false conclusions. But when the 
 truth to be opposed is so self-evidently true as to baffle every 
 attempt to find a plausible argument against it, tlie Advocate 
 of Error may even then possibly succeed by availing himself of 
 the power of ridicule — the power of which is oftentimes the 
 greater in its effect w^ow shallow-minded men, in proportion as 
 the truth which it assails is grave and important. This may 
 occasionally be seen when the sacred truths of scrijoture are 
 made the subject of profane jokes. Eidicide may, howevt-r, be
 
 ITS IMPROVEMENT IN MODERN TIMES. 9 
 
 used with great effect in support of the truth as well as against 
 it, as is evident in the conflict which the prophet Elijah had 
 with the prophets of Baal. It is a powerful weapon for good 
 or evil, just as the object to which it is made subservient is 
 true or false. 
 
 Then, again, the Advocate of Error may often obtain great 
 temporary influence over the minds of that large multitude of 
 people who are carried away by mere outward appearances, 
 by the manner in which he addresses them. One class of 
 these advocates will enlist the prejudices of the multitude on 
 their side by sheer impudence, aiTogating to themselves a 
 monopoly of wisdom, and imputing to all who are opposed to 
 them a monopoly of ignorance and stupidity. The success of 
 this class depends chiefly upon the readiness with which they 
 can make use of superficial arguments, hard names, and rude 
 speeches; and very successful they often are when addressing 
 the multitude in opposition to those who are placed in the 
 hio-her stations of life. Men of the same character of mind, 
 but better provided with scholastic logic, succeed by another 
 process. In advocating a bad cause, their forte is to intro- 
 duce their case by assuming it to be unanswerably good; 
 and, after expressing in many words and various ways their 
 conviction that the truthfulness of their case will be made as 
 clear as the sun at noon-day, they then diverge into a large 
 mass of minor and unimportant particulars, until those whom 
 thev wish to delude become sufficiently confused to lose sight 
 of the main question : the main question being thus got rid of, 
 the fluent orator has then little difllcidty in persuading his 
 unreflecting hearers, that the case is almost as clear as he had 
 declared he would ;;ror6' it to be. Another class succeed in 
 making error wear the appearance of truth, by the solemnity 
 with which they can advocate a fallacy, and the gravity 
 with wliich they can give utterance to a few common-place 
 remarks, winch liavc some trutli in ihcm. but whicli are quite
 
 10 FALSE REASONING EXEMPLIFIED. 
 
 delusive in the use to which they are applied by the speaker. 
 And there is another class of delusive reasoners, whose chief 
 power consists in the skill with which they can administer 
 flattery, either in large or small doses, so as to suit the vanity 
 of those whom they wish to delude. This is a power which 
 requires to be used with great discretion — when applied too 
 strongly it defeats its own object. 
 
 These are some of the improvements in the art of false 
 reasoning which have generally distinguished nations and 
 individuals when they have attained a high state of civiliza- 
 tion and a low state of moral rectitude — when national rulers 
 can avow, without shame or public censure, that measures 
 morally wrong may be politically right — when the publication 
 of delusive reports is encouraged by those in power — when the 
 ministers of the crown scruple not to avail themselves of those 
 reports to deceive the people, and when the people are wilhng 
 to be deceived — when wealth is more honoured than wisdom 
 and virtue — when successful error is allowed to usurp the 
 the honours which rightly belong to unobtrusive truth; and 
 when, if we may judge from the past history of the world, a 
 nation is ripe for its destruction. May God for ever avert 
 this kind of civilization from Britain ! 
 
 Section II. 
 
 Though it is to be hoped, that Great Britain is very far from 
 having attained that fearful pre-eminence in civilization which 
 would establish it, not on the Kock of Christian Truth, but on 
 its Ruins, yet every well-wisher to his cov;ntry must have seen, 
 with much sorrow, that the art of false reasoning has been, of 
 late years, too much patronized among us; that the people, and 
 sometimes those who aspire to the grave character of legislators, 
 have been so miich enamoured with the manner, style, and wit 
 of aspeakcr, as to render them insensible to the delusive character
 
 A SPECIMEN OF FALSE REASONING. 11 
 
 of his arguments. Of this our parliamentary records aiFord 
 many examples; but, without multiplying instances, it is pro- 
 posed to take a few extracts from a single speech of one of the 
 most distinguished members of the House of Commons, which, 
 while they illustrate the skill and success of the speaker, will 
 also show how very little a majority of his hearers must have 
 availed themselves of the use of their own judgment and 
 common sense, not to see the fallacy of tlie arguments ad- 
 dressed to them. 
 
 The speech here referred to, is Sir Robert Peel's, on the 6th 
 
 of July, 1849; in reply to Mr. Disraeli's remarks on the general 
 
 imbecility of the Queen's ministers; as it is reported in the 
 
 Times paper of the 7th of July. In this speech, Sir Eobert, with 
 
 great discretion and much effect, prefaces his observations by 
 
 disclaiming the use of those aids that are derived from the arts 
 
 of false reasoning. He denounces vague declamation, and 
 
 proposes to subject the discussion to the plain, simple test of 
 
 reason. According to the Times report, his words are, " In 
 
 " examining the arguments of the Hon. Member for Bucking- 
 
 " hamshire, I shall take that course which appears to me by far 
 
 " the best, and the most likely to conduce to the elucidation of 
 
 " the truth, namely, to state each argument separately, and 
 
 " as nearly as I can in the words in which it was conveyed, and 
 
 " then to give that which appears to me to be the answer to 
 
 " such argument; and I cannot help thinking, that if that were 
 
 " the course generally pursued in this House in the conduct of 
 
 " these discussions, substituting the plain simple test of reason 
 
 " for vague declamation, it would perhaps, upon the whole, 
 
 " conduce more to the full elucidation of the matters with 
 
 " which we have to deal." 
 
 This very temperate appeal to the judgment of the House, 
 is an admirable specimen of the way in which any argument, 
 whether true or false, may be profitably commenced; and deli- 
 vered, as it no doubt would be, in Sir Robert's most bland and
 
 12 FALSE REASONING EXEMPLIFIED. 
 
 courteous manner; it is very likely that this appeal was alone 
 sufficient to convince many of his unsuspicious hearers, that 
 they were quite safe in trusting their judgment to be led 
 by a gentleman who could urge the propriety of submitting 
 every question to the plain simple test of renson ; and who 
 could so admirably caution others against the use of vague 
 declamation. Having, by this modest appeal, possessed himself 
 of the friendly attention of the unsuspicious portion of his 
 audience, and being quite sure of the hearty support of those 
 with whom he had co-operated in carrying the very measures 
 which were the subject of Mr. Disraeli's censure, Sir Kobert 
 then avails himself of the brief prosperity of 1845 and 1846 
 (which Mr. Disraeli had admitted) to assume that it was not 
 produced by the Eailway mania, but by the Income Tax and 
 Tariff, which he had himself introduced in the year 1842; in- 
 sinuating at the same time, that the impoverished state of the 
 Exchequer in 1841, was chiefly attributable to the blundering 
 policy of those who had preceded him in the ministry. " I 
 " find," says he, " that in the year ] S41 there was a deficit of 
 " about £2,500,000. I find, that in the preceding year, 1840, 
 " you had adopted the system of imposing additional duties 
 " upon Imports, etc. ... I find, that that addition, so 
 " placed upon Imports, had produced no corresponding aug- 
 " mentation of the revenue (Cheers); but directly the reverse. 
 " But," adds Sir Robert, " in 1842, you adopted a different 
 " principle; you imposed an Income Tax, and you reduced 
 " taxation upon all the great articles of subsistence (Hear ! and 
 " Cheers). . .You imposed an Income Tax, by which £5,000,000 
 " were raised. You removed the prohibitions upon the import 
 ' ' of Animals 'and Meat. You reduced the duties upon every 
 " article which enters into the subsistence of the people. You 
 '^ greatly reduced the protective duties upon Corn. You reduced 
 " the duties upon 565 articles of Customs; and the result was 
 " what the Hon. gentleman has represented to luive been the
 
 A SPECIMEN OF FALSE REASONING. 13 
 
 " state of this coantry in 1846 " (Cheers). Sir Robert then 
 indulges himself in giving vent to this enthusiastic declamation, 
 " Agriculturists looking forward with hope — Ireland in a state 
 " of comparative prosperity — the greatest Export Trade that 
 '* ever was known to take place — all this was, I won't say the 
 '^ result of, but at least coincident with, that reformation of 
 " your commercial system." 
 
 Here we have an admirable specimen of a delusive argument. 
 If it had been true that the deficit in the revenue, and the 
 distress of 1841, arose from an increase of Import duties in 
 1840; if it had been true, that the temporary prosperity of 
 1845 and 1846 was the result of the removal of protective 
 duties, and the imposition of the Income Tax — if it had been 
 true that the continuance of these measures had continued to 
 produce prosperity — if it had not been true, that the temporary 
 prosperity of 1845 and 1846 arose and declined in exact 
 harmony with the expenditure connected with the Railway 
 mania; and if the hopes which Sir Robert tells us the Agri- 
 culturists were indulging in 1846 had been since realized, or if 
 the "greatest Export Trade ever known "(which he alleges to 
 have taken place at that time), had not been attended with the 
 greatest ruin to the mercantile men engaged in it that was 
 ever experienced, then the argument would have been deser- 
 ving of serious attention ; but scarcely any man having the 
 right use of his eyes and his ears can fail to perceive, what 
 many have grievously felt, that the assumptions involved in Sir 
 Robert's argument, are all either unfounded, misplaced, or 
 attributed to wrong causes; and yet, if we may judge from the 
 cheers which he elicited, liis argument was as successful as he 
 could wish it to be. 
 
 Sir Robert must have executed this piece of delusive 
 reasoning in a very masterly manner. In many other parts 
 of his speech, he docs not trouble himself with the forms of 
 a connected arguiiK'iit. Having got the favorable ear of the
 
 14 FALSE REASONING EXEMPLIFIED. 
 
 House, he merely gives, in many cases, a positive denial to 
 tlie argument of his opponent, and reiterates his denial in 
 two or three different forms ; but in this case there is a show 
 of reasoning, and he very cleverly avails himself of this 
 display to impress his good-natured hearers with a belief, 
 that all his arguments will be conducted with as much pre- 
 cision and truthfulness as if he were investigating a purely 
 scientific question. 
 
 Section III. 
 
 Although Sir Robert, in the foregoing extract, manifests a 
 very laudable desire that others should not avail themselves of 
 the use of vague declamation; yet the concluding paragraph 
 shews how much more easy it is to profess sound maxims, than 
 to act upon them. There is more than ordinary wisdom in the 
 clause commencing " All this was, I won't say," etc. This 
 cautious qualification indicates great forethought. It provides 
 a way by which, when expediency requires it, the speaker 
 may take up the opposite side of the question. It is as if he 
 had said, " I won't say that Tenterden Church-steeple is the 
 cause of the Goodwin Sands ; but if you are foolish enough to 
 think so, I won't be the man to undeceive you, at least for the 
 present." 
 
 In another part of the same speech, the Rt. Hon. Baronet 
 says, " I come now to view the second ground on which the 
 " Hon. gentleman impeached our commercial policy. I think 
 " he said, the average official value of all Exports in 1845 
 " and 1846, was £133,000,000; and that the average declared 
 " value in those two years, was £59,500,000: that in 1848, 
 " the official value, which signified quantity, did not fall very 
 " far short of the official value in 1845 and 1846; but that 
 " the declared value in 1848" (which of course signifies price), 
 " fell by £6,500,000; and amounted to only £53,000,000. 
 " and the Hon. Gentleman drew this conclusion. — That the 
 " working-classes had received £6,500,000 less in 1848 than 
 " they did before."
 
 REPETITION OF POSITIVE DENIALS. 15 
 
 This is a very fair statement of jSIr. Disraeli's argument, and 
 
 to any man of plain common sense and fair understanding, the 
 
 soundness of the inference seems to be obvious. No man who 
 
 works for his living can fail to perceive, that if he were to sell 
 
 a given quantity of goods in one year for 59/. 10s., and in the 
 
 next year he could only get 53/. for the same quantity of 
 
 goods, being the aggregate quantity in both years of the goods 
 
 he had to dispose of, that he would undoubtedly have 61. lOs. 
 
 less money in the second year than he had in the former, 
 
 wherewith to pay rent, taxes, debts, interest of money, or, in 
 
 fiict, any money obligation to which he was liable. It is 
 
 equally clear, that with the specific price of goods thus reduced 
 
 about 12 per cent., the receiver of rent, taxes, interest of 
 
 money, etc., would find the value of his money enhanced just 
 
 in proportion as the products of the working-people were 
 
 diminished in money value; and it requires only a very 
 
 moderate share of the reasoning faculties to perceive, that if 
 
 this be true in the case of an individual workman, where only 
 
 pounds arc concerned, it is equally true of a nation of workmen 
 
 where millions of pounds are involved in the transaction. This 
 
 is the simple and natural inference, which it appears Mr. Disraeli 
 
 haidrawn; and it is probable that few men besides Sir Robert 
 
 Peel would have ventured to impugn it. But Sir Robert 
 
 shows us how an argument, clear and conclusive as this is, 
 
 may be successfully opposed. Having, as we have seen, stated 
 
 the substance of Mr. Disraeli's case very fairly. Sir Robert 
 
 at once meets it with a decided negative. " I totally deny," 
 
 says he, "the inference which the honourable member drew 
 
 " from that circumstance. I deny, because there wasa fallinor 
 
 " off in X\\(i declared value of exports in 1848, as compared with 
 
 " the average declared value of those of 1845 and 1846 to the 
 
 " extent of 6,500,000/., that therefore the working classes 
 
 " received in 1848, 6,500,000/. less for their labour, than they 
 
 " obtained in 1845 and 1846." This bare assertion, it seems.
 
 IG FALSE REASONING EXEMPLIFIED. 
 
 was received with cheers by his liearers, even before a single 
 argument was adduced to substantiate it. Then he supports 
 his first assertion with another, which elicited renewed cheers. 
 " It would," he said, " be melancholy, indeed, if that were the 
 case" (that the working classes had received six and a half 
 millions less for their labour than in 1845 and 1846); "but," 
 he adds, " my consolation is, that nothing of the kind has 
 taken place;" and without troubling himself or the House to 
 ascertain whether the working classes themselves enjoy the 
 same consolation, he then supports his two previous assertions, 
 by assuring the House that " nothing can be more fallacious 
 than any inference drawn from a falling off in the declared 
 value of manufactures exported." He then boldly repudiates 
 the Government returns of exports and imports, and declares, 
 that " owing to the manner in which the accounts are pre- 
 pared, all arguments drawn from that source must be exceed- 
 ingly fallacious;" and thus by indirectly charging the Govern- 
 ment with the modern vice of " cooking'^ their accoimts, and 
 the sin of giving currency to delusive reports, he gets rid of 
 the fact — the important fact — upon which the argument 
 depends, and upon which IVIr. Disraeli was fairly entitled to 
 rest it, and rest it with success, if bold assertions had not been 
 allowed to usurp the place of the " plain simple test of reason." 
 Here we have an instance of the success with which two or 
 three bare denials may be used where the speaker has obtained 
 the favourable prejudices of his audience, and where a majority 
 of his hearers would feel their own policy condemned, if the 
 original argument were suffered to pass without contradiction. 
 It is, however, very important to any one who has frequent 
 occasion to avail himself of the arts of delusive reasoning, that 
 he should not encumber himself with any fastidious notions 
 about consistency. It would only have embarrassed Sir Robert 
 if, in the foregoing case, he had recollected how often the 
 supposed tnithfulness of these Government reports had enabled
 
 FASTIDIOUS CONSISTENCY TO BE UNHEEDED. 17 
 
 him to carry some favourite project; or, when carried, and 
 proved defective, to screen it from parliamentary censure ; and, 
 even in the present instance, we may see that he could not 
 have taken the next step in his argument, if he had not 
 acquired the habit of holding his convictions with very great 
 laxity: for though he denies that the working classes had 
 received 6,500,000/. less for their labour in 1848 than in 
 1845 and 1846, and admits that it would be melancholy, 
 indeed, if it were true, he immediately afterwards admits, that 
 the working classes have, for more than thirty years, been 
 receiving less and less for their labour, and that they now 
 actually receive, on an average, only the same quantity of 
 money for four hundred pieces of manufactured goods, which 
 they would have obtained for one hundred pieces in 1815. 
 He tells his audience, that the working classes have by their 
 skill and industry multiplied the fruits of their lahoMr four-fold 
 since 1815: but why the moneyed classes have not proportion- 
 ately increased the quantity of money to represent those goods 
 he does not explain ; or why the most stringent measures 
 have been enacted to prevent money increasing in an equal 
 proportion with the increase of commodities : although to any 
 man of the least reflection it must be obvious, that if com- 
 modities be increased fourfold, while the money to represent 
 them is not increased, the exchangeable value of the money 
 will increase fourfold, the money value of the goods being 
 proportionately decreased, and that thus the moneyed class may 
 actually obtain by their ingenuihj the lion's share of those 
 increased fruits which the working class produce by their labour. 
 There is no man upon whom the public have greater claims 
 for rectifying this injustice than upon Sir Robert Peel, but 
 there is no one more skilful than he in steering clear of dis- 
 agreeable truths; and, in this case, availing himself of an 
 allusion to the views of the late Alderman Waithman, he suc- 
 ceeds in showing how truths which would stand " the plain 
 
 c
 
 18 FALSE REASONING EXEMPLIFIED. 
 
 simple test of reason," may, for the occasion, be neutralised by 
 the force of ridicule. Alderman Waithman, like Sir Robert 
 Peel's father, had sense enough to foresee that cheap labour, 
 arising in this manner from dear money, must ultimately bring 
 upon the working classes of this nation those sufferings which 
 they now experience; and though the consciousness of those 
 sufferings may for a time be removed from the minds of the 
 rich members of the House of Commons hy a joke, yet the 
 recent experience of France shows that the oppression of the 
 working classes is a dangerous subject to joke upon. The 
 reckless and exasperated power of a Sampson was no doubt 
 very droll in the eyes of his tormentors, until it was so applied 
 as suddenly to involve the oppressed and the oppressors in one 
 common destruction. 
 
 Section IV. 
 
 The same speech affords another specimen of the success 
 with which two or three positive and reiterated denials may 
 be used, for getting rid of an argument which would baffle the 
 opposition of those who confine themselves to the means which 
 the simple test of reason would sanction. Sir Eobert, having 
 quoted Lord Stanley's remarks on the necessity of protection 
 for domestic industry^ says, " The same doctrine as propounded 
 " by the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, is, that we have 
 " established a new commercial system which mistakes the 
 " principle upon which a profitable exchange can take place 
 " between nations;" and, that these protectionists tell us, "We 
 " can only encounter the hostile tariff of foreign countries by 
 " countervailing duties: that such a system occasions not scar- 
 
 " city and dearness, but cheapness and abundance," etc 
 
 " That" says Sir Robert, " / utterly deny. But," he adds, 
 " I come now to the merits of the doctrine itself I boldly 
 " maintain that the principle of protection to domestic industry, 
 " meaning thereby legislative encouragement for the purposes 
 '• of protection, not for revenue, is a vicious principle. I deny
 
 PUTTING AN EFFECT FOR A CAUSE. 19 
 
 " the Hon. Gentleman's assumption that you cannot fight 
 " hostile tariffs by free imports. I so totally differ on that 
 " point, that I maintain that your true policy is to compete 
 " with hostile tariffs by free imports (Loud cheers). I deny 
 " that you ought to return to protection as a principle; and I 
 " say that the wider you extend your principle of protection, 
 " the greater injury you will inflict on the national wealth and 
 *' on the interests of the people (Cheers). Surely," continues he, 
 *' the capital of the country is a fund from which the industry 
 " of the country must be maintained — surely the industry of 
 " the country must be promoted in proportion to the capital 
 " which can be employed in its manufactures — surely the 
 *' augmentation of capital as our population increases must 
 " depend on the saving of annual revenue (Cheers)." 
 
 The declamatory character of these remarks of Sir Kobert 
 again show, that it is not necessary for a popular orator to 
 practise the rules which he prescribes for the use of others, 
 and the ready cheers with which the former portion of them 
 was received, is a further evidence of the success which may 
 attend a succession of bare assertions, if delivered with great 
 confidence ; while the latter portion is illustrative of the advan- 
 tage which a delusive argument may gain by changing the 
 natural order of things, so that an effect may seem to take 
 precedence of the cause from which it really emanates. If 
 Sir Robert's /<2//<er had been called upon to describe cause and 
 effect^ as evidenced in individual and national prosperity, there 
 is little doubt, that, speaking from his own experience, he 
 would have placed industry before capital in the series. He 
 would have said, " Surely the industry of the country is the 
 source from whence capital is derived — surely the industry of 
 the country is the power by which it must be maintained," etc. 
 And any political economist of Lord Bacon's school, would 
 have added, " Surely the augmentation of capital as our 
 population increases must depend on the using, rather than on 
 
 C 2
 
 20 FALSE REASONING EXEMPLIFIED. 
 
 the saving, of annual revenue." But tlie junior Sir Robert 
 having entered into possession of a large capital, probably 
 without any practical experience of the way in whicli it was 
 generated, assumes capital to be the cause and industry the 
 consequence. And many of his hearers appear to have fallen 
 in with the same notion, while all the economists of the 
 modern school were no doubt captivated with Sir Robert's 
 saving system. Though probably there is no man who in his 
 individual capacity understands the system of self-preservation 
 better than Sir Robert Peel, yet he appears to have been 
 successful in his public capacity in persuading Parliament that 
 Lord Stanley and Mr. Disraeli were wrong in recommending 
 them to apply the same principle to our national affairs. 
 
 Wliile Sir Robert, in the foregoing passage, makes the 
 employment of industry to depend upon the augmentation of 
 capital, and the augmentation of capital upon the saving of 
 annual revenue, the following passage from the same speech 
 is a justification of an extravagant expenditure on the part of 
 the people, and of a total disregard of the means of paying it. 
 He says, "some contend that it is the amount of the imports 
 " without any corresponding amount of exports, which has 
 " caused the depression of industry in this country." And we 
 may add, there are few men who do not know that to buy more 
 than their sales will repay is a very natural source of embarrass- 
 ment; but, with great discretion. Sir Robert avoids any direct 
 and plain answer to this question. Instead thereof, he enters 
 upon an elaborate analysis of the articles purchased, as if the 
 excess of expenditure depended, not on the cost, but on the 
 kind of articles purchased. He admits that, in the year 1846 
 we had purchased imports amounting to seventy-three millions, 
 and that in 1848 we had increased our purchases to eighty- 
 nine millions, without any corresponding increase in our 
 exports; or, in other words, without increasing our sales. This 
 would be an awful balance-sheet for a tradesman — an addition
 
 AN INSTANCE OF VAGUE DECLAMATION. 21 
 
 of sixteen millions to his expenditure, without any increase to 
 his receipts. But this troubles not Sir Kobert. He proceeds 
 to analyse the articles which make up this eighty-nine millions 
 of outlay, and having discovered that thirty-two and a-half 
 millions out of the eighty-nine millions, had been expended in 
 the purchase of eatable and drinkable materials^ he finds ample 
 consolation for a bad balance-sheet, in a string of reasons which, 
 if urged in the case of an ordinary bankrupt, would probably 
 deprive the unhappy culprit of his certificate. Instead of 
 answering the real question [at issue. Sir Eobert proceeds to 
 give vent to his humanity in the following eloquent remarks : 
 '* Will any man tell me that he grudges the payment of any 
 " one single pound of that money for articles of consumption? 
 *' (Hear). Wliat have those articles been done with ? (Hear, 
 " hear.) They have been imported ; they have been paid for; 
 " and they have been eaten by some one or other (Cheers). 
 " Can you deny any one of these three propositions — that the 
 " articles in question have been imported, paid for, and con- 
 *' sumed (Hear, hear). And how paid for ?" The proper 
 answer to this inquiry would have been, that sixteen millions 
 at least must have been paid for out of capital and not out of 
 annual income, — eight millions of which had been added to 
 the National Debt, — but Sir Robert in answering his own 
 interrogatory branches off into a currency digression, and then 
 asks again : — " Who have consumed this £32,500,000 worth 
 " of eatable and drinkable materials ? (Hear, hear.) Who 
 '* grudges the expenditure? Has there been any case of surfeit? 
 " (Cheers and laughter). Is the cholera attributable to that con- 
 ** sumption, or have disease and suffering been entailed in con- 
 " sequence of this increase of imports? (Hear, hear.)" And then, 
 in defiance of the fact which he himself states : viz. that we had 
 thus increased our purchases without increasing our sales; he 
 winds up this piece of declamatory eloquence by declaring his 
 belief, " that the import of these commodities, being articles of
 
 22 FALSE REASONING EXEMPLIFIED. 
 
 subsistence, lias not only contributed directly to tbe material 
 comfort of those who consumed them, but has also encouraged 
 their labour, because," says he " theij have been paid for by the 
 proceeds of their labour" Inconsistent as this concluding 
 remark is with the fact he had just admitted, his hearers 
 received it with cheers. Sir Kobert had not then told them 
 that the profitable employment of labour depended upon the 
 augmentation of capital, and the augmentation of capital 
 depended ^^ upon the saving of annual revenue," and not on 
 SPENDING more than they could earn. Cleverly as Sir Robert 
 managed this part of his subject, and much as it appears to 
 have been applauded in the House, one cannot help thinking 
 that he would himself look very grave, if any bankrupt who 
 had failed in his debt, were to vindicate an excess of expendi- 
 ture after the same manner. The debtor might assure Sir 
 Robert that the lost property had been expended in eatable 
 and drinkable materials, which had been bought, paid for, and 
 consumed by some one or other : that no case of surfeit had 
 occurred — neither could any case of cholera be attributed to the 
 expenditure ; but if he were to address Sir Robert in this 
 manner, and boldly to dare him to grudge such an expendi- 
 ture, it is very probable that Sir Robert would think the man 
 an impudent scoundrel as well as an improvident bankrupt. 
 
 Section V. 
 
 For illustrations of the successful use of the art of false 
 reasoning, it is perhaps impossible to find anywhere, within 
 the same compass, a greater number and variety of examples 
 than may be found in the speech from which these specimens 
 have been taken. To go through the whole of them would 
 be wearisome; but one general rule appears to pervade the 
 whole, and it is a rule which must be strictly observed by all 
 who wish to excel in this delusive art. The reasoner must
 
 INSTANCE OF FAILURE IN PLAIN ILLUSTRATION. 2 
 
 acknowledge no authority in the determination of a question 
 higher than that of expediency. To attempt to preserve a 
 consistent line of conduct through a long course of years, or a 
 consistent line of argument through a single speech — so long 
 and varied as that from which these extracts have been taken 
 — must embarrass the advocate, and, probably, prove fatal to 
 his success. Under any circumstances, however, the school of 
 false reasoning is a dangerous school to practise in. The 
 most ingenious professors of the science have frequently failed, 
 when they least expected it. Sometimes we have seen the 
 talented advocate lose his own character in his endeavour to 
 save that of a guilty client, and sometimes we have seen a 
 reasoner, who excels in ingenuity and succeeds well while 
 addressing those whose knowledge of men and things is 
 theoretical rather than prnctical, make a sad blunder when he 
 attempts to address the common sense of common men in a com- 
 mon way. Of this kind of failure, the speech in question, also 
 affords an apt illustration. In the following extract, it will 
 be seen that the argument commences very scientifically, and 
 then descends to an example supposed to be furnished by the 
 experience of tailors and shoemakers ; but, if the speaker 
 had consulted any practical tailor or shoemaker, he would 
 have found that the argument is calculated to prove the reverse 
 of the inference which he attempts to deduce from it : and 
 that used, as he uses it, it is a piece of perfect absurdity. 
 
 " i\fy belief," says Sir Robert, " is, that the laws which 
 " regulate the intercourse of nations in the accumulation of 
 " wealth are precisely the same laws which regulate the deal- 
 " ings of individuals (cheers); that as the law which regulates 
 " the planetary movements is the same as that which account 
 " for the earthquake, so the law which regulates the dealings 
 " of individuals is, in principle, the law which regulates the 
 " commercial intercourse of powerful communities ; and we mys- 
 " tify the subject and make it unintelligible by not considering
 
 24 FALSE REASONING EXEMPLIFIED. 
 
 " the principle wliicli regulates the dealings of men of common 
 " sense." Notwithstanding the planetary and earthquake part 
 of this introduction, Sir Robertas meaning is sufficiently plain. 
 He then avails himself of Dr. Adam Smith's name and style 
 of reasoning, and says, " The tailor does not make his own 
 " shoes, but finds it more convenient to buy them from a man 
 " who can make them better and cheaper than he. Nor does 
 " the shoemaker make his own clothes, but he takes them 
 " from the tailor. Let us take two individuals living in the 
 " same town. Take a tailor and a shoemaker. Supposing the 
 " shoemaker determines to levy from the tailor a certain 
 " amount of goods which is represented by IO5. What are the 
 " \0s.? They merely represent hours of labour. Instead of 1 Os. , 
 " call them hours of labour. The labour of an hour is worth 
 " one shilling. The tailor can make goods which are worth 
 " 10s. ; the shoemaker can make certain goods which are worth 
 " 10s. But each of them could buy the same goods in a neigh- 
 " bouring town for 7s. You say they live in the same town, 
 " and they are to deal together. If the shoemaker pays 10s. 
 " for that which he might obtain for 7s.; and if the tailor pays 
 " 10s. for that which he might obtain for 7s. — is there not posi- 
 " tivelyalossof 6s. by the transaction? (cheers). If the shillings 
 ' ' represented hours, is there not a loss of six hours' labour?( cheers.) 
 " Would it not be manifestly for the interest of the parties to 
 " appropriate seven hours of labour to buy from the stranger 
 " that for which they are giving 10s. or ten hours' labour; and 
 " would they not do it? Suppose they argued thus: — House- 
 ' ' rent is higher in this town than in the other — would that 
 •' be a reason why they should pay 3s. more for their boots?" 
 Sir Robert continues to run on in this strain, regardless of its 
 total inconsistency with his own recorded notions of monetary 
 value, and apparently unconscious of the absurdities involved 
 in his argument — absurdities which no tailor or shoemaker 
 can fail to perceive. They know, if Sir Robert does not, that
 
 THE TAILOR AND SHOEMAKER FALLACY. 25 
 
 before they can give 7s. for anything, which it is their business 
 to make for themselves, they must get the 7s. ; and if they 
 cannot earn it in their own trade, it is not likely they should 
 be able to earn it in any other. They know also, that if they 
 were such simpletons as Sir Robert assumes them to be — if 
 instead of exchanging their ten hours' labour with each other, 
 they were to spend their previous savings in each paying 75. 
 to strangers, for things they could have made for themselves, 
 that so far from the transaction putting 6s. into their pockets, 
 it would take 14s. out, leaving them in lieu thereof 20 hours 
 — not worth 20 shillings, but 20 hours worth nothing. Sir 
 Robert evidently assumes that the money flows into the pockets 
 of tailors and shoemakers whether they work or not, just 
 as it flows into his own. It is a pity that he did 
 not consult some tailor or shoemaker, before he ven- 
 tured to make use of an argument so palpably ridi- 
 culous: and had Sir Robert been a tailor or shoemaker 
 instead of a landlord, he would no doubt have perceived that 
 though high rents paid by tailors and shoemakers are no reason 
 why the tailor should pay 3s. more for his boots unless the 
 bootmaker paid the tailor after the same scale of prices, yet 
 they constitute a very sufficient reason why the landlord should 
 not pay 3s. less for his coats and his shoes to the tailor and 
 shoemaker. Obvious as Sir Robert's blunder in this part of his 
 speech must appear to any tailor or shoemaker, or indeed to 
 any one who has a practical knowledge of the way in which 
 every working man must first get his money before he can 
 spend it; and knowing, as almost all tailors and shoemakers 
 know to their sorrow, that the cheap coats and cheap shoes of 
 which Sir Robert speaks are oftener the cause or consequence 
 of bankruptcy than of the superior industry and skill of the 
 people who sell them ; yet even this argument, with all its 
 defects, was cheered by some members of the house ; probably 
 by those economists who advocate the maxim of buying cheap
 
 26 FALSE REASONING EXEMPLIFIED. 
 
 and selling dear: those who have no objection to high rents — 
 dear money, and a high rate of interest for the use of money, 
 when they are the receivers ; but who are quite ready to screw 
 down the price of labour and every thing else to the lowest 
 possible point when they are the payers. Thanks, however, to 
 our parliamentary reports, this fallacious argument has found 
 its way to those who will not fail to subject it to the plain 
 simple test of reason — the test which Sir Robert professes to 
 admire so greatly. But it is too bad of Sir Robert to attempt 
 to make Adam Smith responsible for these delusions, by con- 
 necting them with his name. When Smith argues in favour 
 of getting things from other countries instead of making them 
 at home, it is always on the assumption that the labour at 
 home can be employed on other things more suited to our 
 domestic industry. It would be great folly for the English 
 people to attempt to grow cotton or to make port or sherry 
 wines, because we well know that our climate is unsuitable for 
 one or the other, and that by employing our labour on the 
 natural productions of our own country and in the manufacture 
 of cotton rather than in attempting to grow it, we can obtain 
 more raw cotton and more wine for the same quantity of 
 labour, than if we strove to produce them at home : but Adam 
 Smith knew very well, as any practical workman of common 
 sense must know, that if tailors and shoemakers, here or any 
 where else, were to buy their coats and shoes instead of making 
 them, such a thriftless policy must soon produce individual 
 imbecilitv and end in national poverty. 
 
 Section VI. 
 
 Sir Robert Peel's long parliamentary experience gives him 
 great advantage over any opponent whose practical acquaintance 
 with our parlimentary history does not go back more than ten 
 or twelve years. In tlic concluding portion of the speech in
 
 ADVANTAGE OF PARLIAMENTARY EXPERIENCE. 27 
 
 question, he is enabled to avail himself of his parliamentary 
 knowledge with much success, in consequence of his chief oppo- 
 nent, Mr. Disraeli, having rested his cause too exclusively on 
 the Free Trade Act of 1846. 
 
 Sir Robert, having reported Lord March to have said, "that 
 " in 1836 the abundance of produce compensated the farmers 
 '* for low prices, and that there were no complaints from far- 
 " mers in 1836 and 1837," proceeds to show, from the evidence 
 adduced before a parlimentary committee in 1836, that very 
 great distress did exist among the farmers from the year 1828 
 to the beginning of 1836. And every one conversant with the 
 domestic condition of England during that period must recol • 
 lect, that, in the years 1829 and 1830, public meetings of great 
 excitement were held in almost every county of England: that 
 incendiary fires raged to a terrible extent : that the distress of 
 the agriculturists contributed in no little degree to the carrying 
 of the Reform Bill: that the distress, which continued to 
 exist with great intensity after the passing of the Reform 
 Bill, caused the Whig newspapers to declare in 1833 that 
 the salvation of the farmers depended upon the reduction of 
 labourers' wages ;* that the continuance of the distress enabled 
 
 * The following- paragraph is extracted from the Morning Chronicle and the 
 Globe newspapers of October 8, 1833: — 
 
 " The evidence taken before the Select Committee on agriculture is, in many- 
 respects, consolatory; but, to one class, it holds forth a prospect of utter ruin. 
 It seems to be the opinion of witnesses from all parts of the country, that a great 
 reduction of rents is absolutely necessary to present the destraction of tlie 
 fanners; and as landlords are, with very few exceptions, veiy much in debt, 
 reduction of rent means neither more nor less than ousting them from their 
 estates. One main cause of the distrest of both landlord and tenant is, the 
 increased prosperity of the labourers. It would appear that, without playing 
 tricks with the cun-ency, by which the labourer is cheated without his knowing 
 it, it is hardly possible to lower wages materially." 
 
 And at that time it was not unusual for Ireland to be held forth by the advo- 
 cates of the New Poor Law as a model for England to copy in the treatment of the 
 pool'. A writer in the Edinburgh Review, of October 1837, ha-ving praised the new 
 workhouse system of England as *' a valuable instrument for enabling a wealthy 
 but highly pauperised country to shake off a burden which had better never have been
 
 28 FALSE REASONING EXEMPLIFIED. 
 
 Lord Brougliam, in 1834, to persuade many noblemen and 
 land proprietors, that liis and their preservation from pauperism 
 depended upon the immediate passing of the New Poor-Law 
 Act; and that the distress of that period was at length re- 
 lieved through the influence of the Joint- Stock Bank mania, 
 which, while it ruined many of the unfortunate shareholders, 
 had the effect, in the early part of 1836, of lifting the agri- 
 cultural class out of the slough of despond, of unduly stimulating 
 commercial speculations, and, at the latter end of 1836, of 
 placing the manufacturing and commercial classes under the 
 screw of the Bank of England. Sir Robert Peel could not 
 fail to know all this perfectly well ; and, therefore, when 
 Lord March, in supporting Mr. Disraelis motion, spoke of the 
 contentment of our farmers in 1836 and 1837, Sir Robert was 
 enabled to refer to the evidence which was taken before the 
 Parliamentary Committee of 1836, and to show, from the 
 
 taken up " (viz., its legal liability to protect the poor), comforts those who wish 
 to shake off this obhgation with the Scriptural declaration, that '• The poor are 
 never to cease out of the land." Then, comparing the poor of Ireland with 
 those of England, the reviewer says,—" Her people, low as their condition is, 
 are in no such perverted and unnatm-al condition" as the poor of England; 
 and he adds, " they have happily never been brought up to depend on any 
 bread but that of industry." It is worthy of notice, that while the poor Irish 
 were thus flattered in the Edinburgh Review, the same writer admits that, " the 
 great bulk of the Irish people were at that time in a state of unparalleled distress 
 and destitution.''' 
 
 N.B.—^nom the recent expositions in the columns of the Morning Chronicle 
 of the condition to which the working classes of England have been reduced, 
 the present editor of that paper has discovered, that means have been foimd for 
 bringing down the wages of labour in England quite as low as any one could 
 wish. And if the editor of the Edinburgh Review would be equally candid, he 
 would no doubt also confess, from subsequent experience, that liis contributor 
 was under the influence of a marvellous delusion when, in 1837, he held up the 
 state and condition of the Irish poor as an example for England to emulate. 
 Happily the harsh treatment of the poor, which the new Poor Law of England was 
 originally intended to encotu-age, is now greatly counteracted in many unions by 
 the kindly feelings of the guardians; bo that, in the end, it is not improbable the 
 chief difference between the old law and the new one will be the costly machinery 
 which the latter 'has introduced and fastened upon the ratepayers.
 
 TRUTH USED TO LEAD INTO ERROR. 29 
 
 testimony of the six first witnesses examined, that they had 
 sustained very great losses during the preceding seven or 
 eight years; and though their evidence could not, of course, 
 have any reference to the improvement which the agriculturists 
 experienced in the latter part of 1836 and in 1837, yet it 
 seemed to impugn the correctness of Lord March's information. 
 Thus Sir Eobert, by showing that very great agricultural 
 distress existed for a series of years prior to the introduction of 
 that Free-trade Measure of 1846, on which the argument of 
 the opposition had been chiefly rested, the basis of Mr. Disraeli's 
 motion appeared to be taken away. This was a successful 
 part of Sir Eobert's reply to Mr. Disraeli's motion — not that 
 it in the least disproved the existence of that distress which it 
 was the real object of Mr. Disraeli's motion to prove, for Sir 
 Robert's evidence establishes it — but because Mr. Disraeli had 
 indiscreetly rested his case too much upon Sir Robert's last 
 Act of 184:6. Mr. Disraeli might very fairly have shown, 
 that the Act of 1846 had greatly aggravated the mischief aris- 
 ing from Sir Robert's previous measures; but he should not 
 have made that measure the primary cause of agricultural 
 distress. Sir Robert succeeded admirably, in this instance, in 
 profiting by the oversight of his opponent; and this portion 
 of his speech affords a brilliant illustration of that species of 
 delusive reasoning whichj though true in itself, may be so 
 used as to lead others into error. Sir Robert admits the dis- 
 tress to which the agriculturists had been subjected, and brings 
 forward evidence to prove the fearful extent of the evil — 
 stronger than that adduced by Mr. Disraeli ; but he does not 
 admit it after the manner of a wise phj^sician, for the purpose 
 of discovering a remedy. He admits that agricultural distress 
 of a very aggravated character existed from 1828 to 1836, and 
 that it was succeeded by great commercial distress, which con- 
 tinued till 1842, when the railway mania commenced; and he 
 admits the recurrence of agricultural distress at the present
 
 30 FALSE REASONING EXEMPLIFIED. 
 
 time ; but, instead of attempting to suggest any rational means 
 for extricating the agriculturists out of their difficulties, and 
 for averting the recurrence of these national calamities, he 
 reverses the advice of Jupiter to the waggoner, and recom- 
 mends to the people " patience and resignation." Sir Robert 
 flatters the men of Stockport, Paisley, and Manchester, by 
 holding them forth as an example to the agricultural population 
 of the kingdom. " See," says he^ " when the manufacturing 
 ** interests were deeply suifering, when there was loss of em- 
 '* ployment, and when there were great privations among the 
 " people — see the patience and resiffnationwithwhich their suffer- 
 " ings were borne (cheers). Why? Because," adds Sir Robert, 
 " it was felt that human legislation was not responsible for the 
 " evils under which they laboured (loud cheers)." Thus, instead 
 of feeling responsible^ as all wise rulers should feel, for the 
 well-being of those whom Divine Providence has placed under 
 their care, and assisting the people in their exertions to re- 
 move the difficulties under which they labour. Sir Robert 
 abandons the responsibility of the legislator, feeds the people 
 in their affliction with vain and flattering words, and enjoins 
 upon thein ''^patience and resignation" where faith, hope, and 
 perseverance are the virtues which are chiefly required. Sir 
 Robert not only faiis himself in aiding the people to discover 
 the cause of their afflictions with a view to their remedy, but 
 he applies his talents to obstruct the benevolent exertions of 
 others, by persuading the rulers that the afflictions of the 
 people are beyond the reach of human legislation. The 
 " loud cheer s^^ with which it is said Sir Robert's doctrines were 
 received in Parliament^ is a melancholy proof that we have 
 many legislators who are too willing to relinquish the respon- 
 sibility of taking care of the sheep ; but, as Divine Wisdom 
 often brings good out of evil, let us hope that the people will 
 become more cautious in future in trusting such men with the 
 care of tlie fleece. Why should the people pay taxes, if their
 
 dextp:rous use of lord ashburton's name. 31 
 
 shepherds can do no more for them in keeping the wolf from 
 i}\efold than recommend " patience and resignation?" 
 
 Section VII. 
 
 There is one other passage in this comprehensive speech, 
 which ought not to be unnoticed, as it furnishes an example 
 illustrative of the power which a skilful debater possesses of 
 impressing into his service the apparent sanction of an influen- 
 tial name. Sir Robert has displayed great tact and ingenuity 
 in connecting the name of the late Lord Ashburton (formerly 
 Mr. Alexander Baring) with a London petition of the year 
 1820, and in picking out of that petition a passage which 
 seems to sanction Sir Robert's favourite maxim of buying cheap 
 and selling dear; and Sir Robert displayed great discretion in 
 availing himself of this petition just after Lord Ashburton's 
 death, without accompanying the quotation with any allusion 
 to the counter sentiments which his Lordship was accustomed 
 to express during the twenty-nine years, which, as an active 
 legislator, he subsequently spent in the service of his country. 
 
 No one, who has any knowledge of Lord Ashburton's 
 opinions, can for a moment suspect him of ever intending to 
 countenance the maxim of "buying cheap and selling dear" 
 in the unphilosophical sense in which it is applied in Sir 
 Robert's case of the tailor and shoemaker; and, therefore, it is 
 unnecessary to enter into a lengthened explanation of his Lord- 
 ship's views on that point; but as Sir Robert, in his desire to 
 obtain for his own opinions the verbal sanction of that dis- 
 tinguished nobleman, has gone back to the year 1820, and told 
 us, that this country was then suffering from a great depression 
 of trade, it may be instructive to refer to that period of depres- 
 sion, and to take a brief survey of the circumstances by which 
 the petition of 1820 was preceded and followed, as it may 
 throw some light on the primary cause of those national troubles 
 which we have since experienced.
 
 32 FALSE REASONING EXEMPLIFIED. 
 
 Those who are well acquainted with our national history 
 from the time when the last French war terminated in the 
 year 1815, will recollect that the termination of the war was 
 attended with a good deal of pecuniary embarrassment, partly 
 owing to the expected removal of the Bank Restriction Act of 
 1797, and partly owing to the great changes to which our 
 commercial intercourse with foreign nations was then subjected ; 
 and they will know that these perplexities were in a great 
 measure surmounted in the years 1817 and 1818. They will 
 also know that, in the year 1819, a monetary system was adopted 
 in Great Britain which has ever since been identified with the 
 name of the present Sir Robert Peel. This system was in- 
 troduced into parliament and passed, as if it had been a restor- 
 ation of the system of cash payments that had been suspended 
 in 1797 — many members of parliament voted for it on this 
 assumption. It was, however, essentially a new system, as 
 will easily be seen. The system of 1797 allowed silver as well 
 as gold coin to be a legal tender to an unlimited extent, whereas 
 the new system restricted the power of legal tender to gold alone 
 for all payments exceeding 21. sterling. The old system 
 regarded the royal impression upon the metal as the principle 
 which constituted its money character — the new system con- 
 ferred the essential character of money on a specific weight of 
 metal itself : so that under the new system, whenever the royal 
 money becomes reduced by wear half a grain below the weight 
 fixed by our money law, its virtue as money is taken from it, 
 and the royal impression upon it is thenceforth only a deceitful 
 sign to cheat the poor and the ignorant who have no means of 
 weighing and testing the metal. Another principle, recognized 
 in this new monetary system, was this: — While credit engage- 
 ments, bills of exchange, and promissory notes representing all 
 sorts of commodities, were allowed to exist and to circulate as 
 theretofore to an unlimited extent, the legal payment of all 
 sums above 21. was thenceforward limited solely to the specific
 
 MONEY LAW OF 1819.. 33 
 
 pieces of gold before named : so that there were practically in 
 authorized circulation instruments representing two or three 
 hundred millions of pounds sterling, while the legal pounds 
 sterling for liquidating them were probably not more than une- 
 tenth of that amount, and yet, if this smaller amount could not 
 be made equal at all times to the liquidation of the larger sum, 
 the bankruptcy of some parties must be the consequence. 
 
 Sir Robert Peel's father, the late Mr. Rothschild, the Directors 
 of the Bank of England, and indeed every man who was philo- 
 sopher enough to know tliat a part can never be made cqiLul 
 to the whole, foresaw, that this neiv system must be productive 
 of very great embarrassment; that it would cause great fluctu- 
 ations in the value of money; that it would increase the value 
 of money and equally decrease the value of labour; that it 
 would cause prudent capitalists to hoard their money rather 
 than to employ it in works of enterprize ; that by thus checking 
 the accustomed demand for labour, it would be productive of 
 great distress to the working classes in the first instance, check 
 the accumulations from productive labour, pull down the 
 higher classes afterwards, and ultimately endanger all the great 
 interests of the nation. The apprehension that this neiv mone- 
 tary system would " comj)romise the universal interests of the 
 empire in all the relations of agriculture, manvfacture , commerce 
 and revenue,^' is distinctly stated in a printed memoritd of the 
 Court of Bank Directors against the new law in J\Iay 18 IS), 
 and stated in the words hero quoted. 
 
 But these evil consequences were as positively denied by 
 Messrs. Ricardo, Iluskisson, the younger Peel, and tlieir col- 
 leagues, who claimed for themselves at that time a superlative 
 knowledge of the true principles of money and political 
 economy. They asserted, that the utmost variation in the 
 value of money to be occasioned by this new measure could 
 not exceed three or four per cent., and they predicted that 
 within a year after the project should become law, its benefit 
 
 I)
 
 34 FALSE RE.VSOXIXG EXEMPLIFIED. 
 
 wouW prove so great, and its disadvantage so small, that 
 everybody would wonder that a single objection could ever 
 have been urged against it. It was assumed by Lord Liver- 
 pool, in support of this new system, that it would discourage 
 rash speculation, avoid unsound dealing, and prevent the 
 accumulation of fictitious capital. But the delusion which 
 was most efficient in the hands of the Eicardo and Peel 
 party, was the successful manner in which they excited the 
 prejudices of the multitude against the Bank Directors, — 
 Mr. Ricardo accusing them of a " total ignorance of the prin- 
 ciples of political economy," — ]\Ir. Peel and Lord Grcnville 
 accusing them of great presumption in offering their advice 
 to Parliament, and the whole party encouraging the most 
 unfounded suspicions, that the Directors of the Bank, and the 
 other experienced men who advocated the same views, were 
 actuated by a narrow-minded selfishness in giving their 
 advice. Thus the counsels of our most experienced men 
 were not only disregarded in Parliament and lost to the 
 community, but the parties themselves were rendered hateful 
 to the multitude out of doors. The younger Peel, as a 
 modern Rehoboam, was held to be more wise than his father. 
 His promises and those of his coadjutors were believed, — the 
 new measures were carried; and many simpletons expected to 
 see the Bank of England cut up like the goose in the fable, — 
 her guineas poured forth, and, by some unaccountable process 
 of legerdemain, that every poor man would soon find a guinea 
 in his pocket and a fowl with a piece of bacon in his pot, in 
 fulfilment of Mr. Canning's poetical prophecy. Alas ! in less 
 than a year afterwards, instead of these golden promises being 
 realised, the fearful predictions of the elder Peel and his friends 
 were found to be too true. Prudent men began to husband 
 their resources, workpeople were thrown out of employment, 
 and agriculture and commerce became seriously depressed. 
 The great depression in the value of agricultural produce was
 
 LONDON PETITION OF 1820. 35 
 
 most severely felt in Ireland, — farmers were ruined, — many 
 Irish banks were compelled to suspend their operations, and 
 a foundation was laid for all the subsequent troubles of that 
 unhappy country ; but there is one remarkable difference 
 between the Irish distress of that time and the present : then 
 it was attributed to a superabundance of the fruits of the field, 
 — this time it has been attributed to the opposite extreme : 
 then it was alleged by Lord Liverpool that our corn laws had 
 so excited the cultivation of land in Ireland as to cause 
 English markets to be glutted with Irish produce, to the 
 great injury of English farmers: now, it appears that our 
 subsequent legislation has so impaired tlie productiveness of 
 Ireland, that we are told by Sir Eobert Peel, Great Britain 
 has only been saved from the horrors of famine and revolution 
 liy the repeal of those corn laws : then, as noiv, any reason for 
 the national distress, rather than the true one, received a 
 ready assent from those whose reputation had become iden- 
 tified with Peel's Bill: then, as now, ships, colonies, commerce, 
 manufactures, and agriculture, might share the fate of the 
 " ten tribes," so that our mistaken money laws wore screened 
 from popular censure: then, as now, everybody felt there was 
 something seriously wrong, but, though nearly all felt it, com- 
 paratively few were state doctors enough to know the real 
 cause. Those who ought to have known and remedied the 
 evil, felt their political reputation jeopardised if they admitted 
 it to be in the new money system; while those practical men 
 who had foreseen the consequences of the new law, and could 
 liave suggested an efficient remedy, were not allowed to be 
 heard. 
 
 In the early stage of these calamities, the public attention 
 was drawn aside to the question of free trade, as if the special 
 troubles then endured liy merchants and agriculturists were 
 attributable t(j British laws which had been in existence for 
 ucarlv two centuries, and under which Great Britain had become 
 
 D 2
 
 36 FALSE HEASONING EXEMrLTFIED. 
 
 tlic first commcrciiil nation of the world; and it was under 
 tliese circumstances that the London free-trade petition of 
 1820 originated, to which, among other names, that of 
 " Alexander Baring " was appended. 
 
 Section VIII. 
 
 Sir Robert Peel, in his management of our national affairs, 
 has certainly had as much license given to him as was ever 
 conceded to any one; and happy will it be, if, in the excessive 
 exercise of the inrjenuity of his reasoning powers, he should at 
 length succeed in drawing public attention to the circum- 
 stances in which this petition of 1820 originated. The fair 
 investigation of those circumstances, whenever it is permitted 
 to take place, will reveal to our tailors and shoemakers the 
 real principle upon which their wages have been reduced from 
 ten to seven shillings; and will go very far towards explaining 
 the cause and suggesting the remedy of those pecuniary evils, 
 which, after thirty years of increasing pressure upon the 
 w^orking classes, have at last reduced them to the wretched 
 state in which they have been depicted in the columns of tlie 
 Morning Chronicle ; and such an investigation may further 
 explain the reason why so many of our active, skilful, liberal, 
 and enterprising merchants and manufacturers, have been 
 ruined during the same period; while those professed liberals, 
 who, in their zeal to buy cheap and sell dear, having pursued 
 a more selfish and screwing policy, have sometimes accumu- 
 lated immense wealth. 
 
 Any one with a moderate share of common sense, can re- 
 quire no argument to convince him that a nation can no more 
 exist in health with its circulating medium sometimes crip- 
 pled — sometimes overflowing— «and always liable to unnatural 
 obsti'uctions, than the human frame can continue in health and 
 comfort while its circulation is subject to similar unnatural
 
 EIIROR ULTIMATELY WOllKS ITS OWN CUKE. 37 
 
 contingencies; and if Sir Robert Peel had been really anxious 
 that the House of Commons should profit by the practical 
 wisdom of Lord Ashburton, he would not have referred 
 them to an expression in a petition twenty-nine years ago, to 
 which the name of Alexander Baring was appended, in com- 
 mon with several other names; but he would have reminded 
 the House of the subsequent opinions of that eminent merchant- 
 banker, on the Currency Question, as showing that our 
 national circulation was exposed to these fearful contingencies. 
 Sir Robert would have told the House that in 1828 — eight 
 years after this free-trade petition — Lord Ashburton had dis- 
 covered that the Peel Act of 1819 was the pernicious agent 
 tliat had embarrassed the operations of British industry, and 
 that our national troubles were to be traced to the laws which 
 o-ovcrned our internal circulation, rather than to those laws 
 
 to 
 
 which regulated our external commerce. He would have di- 
 rected the attention of the House to the valuable evidence 
 which his Lordship gave before a special commission on April 
 2Gth, 1828, wherein he testifies that the Peel Act of 1819 had 
 been a very great mistake — that it actually placed the whole 
 circulation of the nation under the restrictive control of a few 
 large capitalists, at those times when the welfare of the country 
 required it to be the most unrestricted, and that those few 
 individuals could avail themselves of this power to enrich 
 themselves enormously, and to impoverish the rest of the com- 
 munity. And if the discovery of truth with a view to acting 
 upon it had been Sir Robert's ol)jcct in appealing to the re- 
 corded opinions of this great capitalist, he would have candidly 
 confessed that the new monetary system of 1819, had Ix-en 
 adopted without due knowledge of the subject; that it had 
 produced efTects directly the reverse of those which its advo- 
 cates anticipated ; that instead of discouraging rnA\ specula- 
 tions — avoiding unsoimd dealings, and giving steadiness to the 
 value of money and realised property, it had rendered common
 
 38 FALSE REASONING KXEMFLIFIED. 
 
 trade a dangerous speculation — given rise to extravagant 
 schemes and unsound dealings — and had caused the value of" 
 money and the rate of interest to fluctuate in a degree which 
 surpassed anything that had heen witnessed in England since 
 the time of the Commonwealth; he would have stated these 
 truths to the House, and urged upon its members a faithful 
 re-consideration of our monetary system ; and then he might 
 with great fairness have justified the wisdom of this appeal by 
 the authority of that eminent nobleman whose name he so 
 highly values, by quoting the following passage from his speech 
 in the House of Commons in the debate, June 3rd, 1828. 
 
 " After all that had been so plainly and dogmatically laid 
 *' down on the subject of the currency, it was now clear, that 
 " there were no great questions on which most persons both 
 " within and without these walls were so completely, as it 
 " were, learning their lessons, as upon the question of the cir- 
 " culation and the banking system." 
 
 If a man so distinguished for practical monetary knowledge 
 as Lord Ashburton was, did not deem it derogatory to his 
 wisdom to make this modest confession, nine years after the Act 
 of 1819 had been passed, there can be no rational doubt that 
 Sir Robert Peel, with the great powers of speech which he 
 possesses, would have found it an easy task to convince the 
 House, that his Lordship's judgment in 1828, in regard to our 
 monetary system, was, at least, entitled to equal weight with 
 his opinion in 1820, on the question of " buying cheap and 
 selling dear." 
 
 Section IX. 
 
 But the grand climax of Sir Robert Peel's eloquence in the 
 speech which has furnished the preceding extracts, is et to 
 be noticed. Sir Robert appears to have been in happy ignor- 
 ance of the afflictions of his fellow-countrymen and country-
 
 NEED OF GREAT DEXTERITY. 39 
 
 women. The correspondent of the Morning Chronicle had 
 not then removed the veil which screened the sorrows of our 
 distressed brothers and sisters from the sight of those who 
 fared sumptuously every day — sorrows, in many cases, more 
 grievous to be borne than the horrors of war and famine, — 
 the sorrows of a wounded spirit. How many, among those 
 who a few years ago were honoured with Sir Robert's friend- 
 ship, have been reduced to the humiliating necessity of 
 acknowledging to their creditors that they have lost all their 
 property and more than all ! How many, to shun this painful 
 exposure before their fellow-mortals, have rushed unbidden into 
 their Maker's presence ! How many of the poorer classes, under 
 the dread of being driven with their families into our new work- 
 houses, have destroyed or attempted to destroy themselves and 
 their children ! Let the correspondent of the Morning Chronicle 
 tell how many arc now prolonging a miserable existence — 
 keeping body and soul together by the wages of iniquity, or 
 by the most precarious and distressing labour ! But of these 
 afflictions. Sir Robert must have been in total ignorance, or, 
 with all his talent as a delusive speaker, it is scarcely possible 
 that he could have given utterance to the following passage. 
 The Act to which the passage alludes, and which elicits the 
 following pious ejaculations, is Sir Robert's own corn-law 
 measure of 1846. 
 
 " But, Sir, it was no act of a sagacious minister. The great 
 " and coming crisis was not foreseen by any statesman. It was 
 " not a lucky accident. My belief is, that it pleased Ahnighty 
 " God to listen to your prayers to turn scarcity and dearth into 
 " cheapness and plenty (cheers), and so to direct and prosper 
 " your consultations on the brink of a great precipice, and on 
 " the coming of a tremendous calamity, that you ' established 
 " peace and happiness' on the foundations of ' truth and justice.' 
 " (enthusiastic cheering). You have reaped the reward of that 
 " policy. You have passed unscathed through the sternest
 
 40 FALSE REASONING EXEMl'LIFIED. 
 
 " trials to which the institutions of any nation were ever 
 " subjected. You stood erect amid the convulsions of Europe 
 " (great cheering), and now you are to have a proposal 
 " made to you of some paltry fixed duty (cheers and counter 
 " cheers)." 
 
 If it liad been true, when these words were spoken, that 
 the people of Great Britain and its dependencies were in the 
 enjoyment o^ ^^ peace and happiness estahlished on the founda- 
 tion of truth and justice" it would have been some apology 
 for this bold flight of Sir Robert's imagination; but when it 
 is notorious that discord and miser?/, attributed by the sufferers 
 to misrejiresentation and injustice, were bursting the bonds of 
 society in many parts of tlie British dominions, and producing 
 effects little short of rebellion, — when the miserable condition 
 to which Ireland had become reduced had furnished the 
 speaker himself with an excuse for suggesting measures for 
 that unhappy country, which, if applied to England, would 
 jeopardise the rights of real property, and when the misery, 
 since described in the Chronicle, was known to exist in the 
 metropolis itself and at tine doors of Parliament, the passage 
 seems to be totally destitute of truth or reason, or even the 
 appearance of reason, for its support. The appearance of piety 
 with which it is adorned seems to be its only merit, and yet 
 this covering has so little of real religious wisdom in its com- 
 position as to require but a moderate share of religious honesty 
 to detect its fallac3^ What, for instance, can be more absurd 
 (if not worse than absurd) than to pretend to attribute our 
 deliverance from scarcity and dearth to the special jjrovidence 
 of Almighty God, totally irrespective of all human agency, and, 
 immediately afterwards, for the speaker to flatter those around 
 him by telling them that this great deliverance was accom- 
 plished through " YOUli consultations," — that "YOU estab- 
 lished peace and happiness on the foundations of truth and 
 justice. You have reaped the reward of that policyV
 
 SLXCES^5 OF A KELIGIOUS APPEAL. 41 
 
 Whether this means the policy o^ jjr (tying to the Ahiiighty, or 
 the policy of the new corn laws, Sir Eobert does not tell us ; 
 but it is plain, from the succeeding remarks, that it is a poli^^y 
 more akin to earthly boasting than to heavenly humility. "You 
 have passed unscathed througli the sternest trials .... You 
 stood erect amid the convulsions of Europe." 
 
 But who are they who have thus passed unscathed through 
 that fearful ordeal? Is there a man in these realms whom 
 Providence has blessed with the kindly sympathies of humanity, 
 and with a tolerably large circle of kindred and friends, who, 
 if he has personally passed through these stern trials unscathed, 
 has not had to mourn over the ruin, and ^qx\\^^s broken-hearted 
 death of some relative or friend whose welfare was very dear 
 to him ! 
 
 Sir Eobert, no doubt, executed this solemn part of his per- 
 formance with great ability, and from the enthusiastic cheering 
 with which it is stated this portion of his speech w\as received, 
 we see how successfully a little religious display may be intro- 
 duced by a clever speaker into a delusive address. These 
 religious appeals must not, however, be introduced before a 
 courtly assembly of modern economists with that blunt honesty 
 with which religious men of the common order arc sometimes 
 tempted to quote the sacred writings: such indiscreet conduct 
 often subjects the speaker to the charge of madness, enthu- 
 siasm, or hypocrisy. If religion be introduced at all before 
 such a tribunal, it should be introduced, as in this case, in 
 terms so delicate as, while they flatter the vanity of the hearers, 
 pacify rather than arouse their consciences; and, generally 
 speaking, a quotation from the liturgy of the National Church 
 will be found more successful than a quotation from the Bible. 
 Prophets who speak smooth things gracefully arc generally 
 more popular than those who give utterance to truths that 
 disturb the conscience. 
 
 It will also be observed, that Sir Robert, in speaking of the
 
 42 FALSE REASONING EXEMPLIFIED. 
 
 fearful orJcal through which the nation had passed, tells the 
 House that this " great and coming crisis was not foreseen by 
 any statesman." Now there is, in this declaration, the appear- 
 ance of great modesty, but there is something more than 
 modesty in it — it contains an avowal of the absence of common 
 foresight ; and though Sir Robert might be entitled to make this 
 declaration for himself, he was not entitled to assume that every- 
 body else was equally insensible to the natural connexion which 
 always exists between cause and effect. If the superintendent 
 of a railway, who had suffered two trains to run towards each 
 other from opposite directions on the same line until a great 
 concussion took place, were to assert that the great and coming 
 crisis was not foreseen by any one, his modest confession of 
 ignorance would scarcely be allowed by any jury to exonerate 
 him from the responsibility he had incurred: and how stands 
 the case in regard to the " great and coming crisis" which 
 Sir Robert speaks of ? We all know that the failure of the 
 potatoe crop woidd not have produced half the misery which 
 was produced by it, if it had not been accompanied with the 
 severe money-famine of 1847. We also know, that this money 
 famine would not have been nearly so severe as it was, if it had 
 not been for Sir Robert's Money Act of 1844, because as soon 
 as that act was suspended the money-famine ceased. But no 
 statesman of ordinary observation can fail to see that while Sir 
 Robert by his Complement Act of 1844, had expressly restricted 
 the supply of our circulating medium within a limit strictly 
 defined; he had himself been one of the foremost to cause an 
 almost unlimited amount of circulating medium to be absolute- 
 ly required, by the encouragement which his influence gave 
 to new lines of railway. When, under these circumstances, the 
 current medium of exchange was already rendered too little 
 for the ordinary work which it had to perform, and was daily 
 becoming more contracted by the export of specie for the 
 purchase of foreign corn, and when there was no possibility of
 
 CRISIS OF 1047. 43 
 
 increasing the amount of money for our home circulation 
 without breaking the law of 1844; then we know, tliat the 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer was authorised by Parliament to 
 come into the London money-market with government credit 
 and to sweep away eight millions of our greatly contracted 
 currency for foreign outlay, a large portion of which passing 
 through the hands of the corn factors whose profits increased 
 as the price of corn increased, had a natural tendency to 
 enhance the price of bread enormously. Surely it could 
 require but a very moderate share of the spirit of prophecy, to 
 foresee that these circumstances must speedily produce a crisis 
 quite as fearful as that which occurred ; and it may well be 
 believed, that those statesmen who cannot account for the 
 relief which was obtained as soon as the Act of 1844 was sus- 
 pended, without attributing it to the special providence of 
 God, would, when that Act was on its trial before them in 
 Committee, require nothing less than a miracle to convince 
 them of its delinquency. No doubt it was under the influence 
 of a similar miraculous power that some of our statesmen were 
 enabled to vote upon that Committee without hearing the 
 evidence; and I think it is equally clear, that Sir Robert's 
 declaration that '* the great and coming crisis was not foreseen 
 by any statesman," is entitled to be more regarded as a mani- 
 festation on his part of a skilful use of the art of delusive 
 reasoning than of religious humility.
 
 44 FALSE REASONING EXEMrLIFIED. 
 
 CHAPTER II.-Section I. 
 
 In concluding tins essay, it may be proper to offer a few 
 remarks upon the advantages to be derived from studying the 
 art of fldse reasoning-: — the art by which those who are skilled 
 in it, can often "put darkness for light, and light for darkness; 
 bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter." 
 
 After the remarks which the writcr^has already made, it will 
 not be expected, that he is prepared to recommend any one, 
 however talented he may be, to study the art for the purpose 
 o^ practising it. The most finished scholar can never expect 
 to surpass Sir Robert Peel ; and yet, when we see how totally 
 his great talents have failed to bring credit to himself or good 
 to his country, — when we see how those great advantages 
 which this nation possessed thirty years ago have one by one 
 been frittered away; first, by his reckless adoption of a new 
 monetary system; secondly, by the obstinacy of his resistance 
 to reasonable concessions on this and other public questions ; 
 and lastly, by his weakness in yielding to the most unreason- 
 able demands when pressed upon the ministers of the crown 
 by popular clamour, — his example allords one of the strongest 
 reasons for discouraging any rational man from ever attempt- 
 ing to equal him in the practice of this delusive art. 
 
 There is now, I believe, only one great public measure of the 
 last thirty years, upon which Sir Robert has not been one of the 
 most eloquent advocates both for and against it ; £0 that it is im- 
 possible to commend his judgment vipon any one of those ques- 
 tions without condemning him at the same time; and that one 
 2:)ublic question on which he has yet to change his mind, has 
 now had so much light thrown upon it by the repeated panics 
 we have undergone^ and especially by our miserable experience 
 in 1847; by the beneficial results which have attended the
 
 ARTS OF DELUSIVE SPEAKING. 45 
 
 adoption in France, in March 1848, of a system directly 
 opposed to Sir Robert's; and by the increased supply of 
 gold itself which is anticipated from California ; as to make 
 it quite manifest that the sooner he changes his mind upon 
 this last question, the better it will be for his own reputation 
 and for his country's good. 
 
 With Sir Robert's example and experience before him, we 
 may safely assume, that no wise man, however clever he may 
 be, will ever think of studying the art of false reasoning with 
 the intention of practising it; but although no wise man 
 would wish to make use of this delusive art himself, he may 
 find it very useful to be so far acquainted with it, as to enable 
 him to see through the ingenuity of those who are disposed to 
 use it, and thus to avail himself of the serpent's wisdom to 
 neutralize its sting. To be very skilful in the practice of the 
 science, it requires the professor to possess several qualifications 
 natural and acquired; but to guard against its mischievous 
 power, the only qualifications which are essentially necessary, 
 are a sound judgment and a sincere love of the truth; and 
 these qualifications are happily within the reach of every 
 honest man, though his sphere may be ever so humble, and 
 his literary acquirements e(|ually small. When it has falleii to 
 the lot of any of these humble disciples of the truth to become 
 its active advocates, they have often accomplished by a few 
 words, judlciotisly spoken, effects most beneficial to mankind. 
 We are told that the truly great General Washington rarely 
 required so much as ten minutes to give utterance to the 
 remarks which he had to offer to the American Senate, and it 
 may generally be assumed that where a practised speaker requires 
 an hour or two to make a speech on a simple question, and 
 has the power of charming his hearers for that Icngtli of time, 
 there is great reason for his audience to be on their guard, lest 
 the brilliancy of the orator should conceal some duplicity in 
 Ills argument; but, wherever this duplicity docs exist, the more
 
 46 FALSE REASONING EXEMPLIFIED. 
 
 any one is acquainted with the devices of the false rcasoner, 
 the better able he will of course be, to detect and expose the 
 cloven foot ^ which even in these days may sometimes be found 
 under a garment of light. 
 
 Section II. 
 
 Then the study of this delusive art, may enable the honest 
 advocate of truth to see and avoid all crooked means of attain- 
 ing his object. Like the late Lord George Bentinck, when 
 he knows what ought to be done, he will not attempt to attain 
 it by the round-about methods to which the men of expediency 
 are in the habit of resorting. He will direct his attention to 
 the main object; he will not pursue a tub when a whale ought 
 to be attacked ; but, fixing his eyes on the point at issue, he 
 will waste neither time nor speech on secondary matters, but 
 take the shortest way and most direct means to attain that 
 which is of primary importance. For want of seeing the 
 importance of acting upon this bold and straightforward system 
 of attacking error at its root, many talented and well meaning 
 men have been beguiled into the pursuit and adoption of 
 secondary measures, which, being engrafted on a stock, itself 
 unsound, have in the end aggravated the evil they wished to 
 remedy, although perchance a little temporary relief may have 
 been obtained by their superficial policy. There arc three or 
 four instances of this error having been committed by the 
 ministers of the British crown within the last thirty years, so 
 remarkable as to be deserving of special notice. 
 
 In the year 1822, when Lords Liverpool and Castlereagh, 
 with Mr. Huskisson and some others, saw that the poor of 
 Ireland were starving for want of food, although Irish produce 
 was alleged to be superabundant ; and when both England and 
 Ireland were still more distressed for want of money, — con- 
 sequences which, as we have shev.-n, v/cre tlic natural result of
 
 FAILURE OF SECONDARY VIEV/S. 47 
 
 the Money Act of 1819, — these distinguished statesmen, 
 instead of going to the root of the evil, and fairly probing and 
 curing it as they ought to have done, satisfied themselves by 
 engrafting, upon the Act of 1819, another Act, known by the 
 name of the Small Note Act. They avowed it to be their 
 object, in passing \h\s Small Note Act, to encourage bankers to 
 add four millions of paper money to the national circulation, 
 for the purpose of stimulating enterprise and speculation. 
 Many bankers took the bait — they ventured to discount more 
 freely — four millions were added to the note circulation of the 
 nation — prosperity was restored — the ministers attained their 
 object, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer congratulated the 
 House of Commons on their wisdom and success. But it was 
 Boon found that prosperity had been restored in the same way 
 that a cancer sometimes appears to be cured — there was a worm 
 at the root of that seeming prosperity — there was rottenness at 
 the core. The Act of 1819, like a snake in the grass, was still 
 in existence, and only awaited the warmth of returning con- 
 fidence and apparent prosperity to allow of its becoming more 
 destructive than it had proved in 1822. At the very time 
 Avhen trade, manufactures, and agriculture appeared to be most 
 flourishing in 1824 and 1825, certain parties, availing them- 
 selves of Peel's Act, were withdrawing gold from the Bunk of 
 England; the withdrawal of gold embarrassed the Bank; the 
 Directors, to save their establishment from a suspension of 
 cash payments, were compelled to ruin many of those bankers, 
 who, in fulfilment of the wishes of the King's Ministers, had 
 been the means of producing the fleeting prosperity which had 
 been so loudly eulogised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. 
 Had those statesmen gone to the root of the evil in 1822, and 
 rectified the error of 1819, instead of adopting the palliative 
 of their Small A^ofe Act, there might still have been some little 
 reaction in 1825; but, in all probability, the most fearful part 
 of the panic of that year woidd have been entirely averted.
 
 48 FALSE REASONING EXEMPLIFIED. 
 
 It might have been expected, that Lord l^ivcrpool and his 
 collcao-ues, who had thus drawn the bankers of the country 
 into their troubles, would at least have done all they could to 
 mitigate the evil ; but liei-e, again, these statesmen shrunk 
 from their duty. Instead of admitting their own error in 1822, 
 and regretting that they had been the means of drawing the 
 bankers into so much loss and trouble, they were among the 
 foremost to upbraid their victims with indiscretion, in suffering 
 themselves to be so betrayed ; and, still refusing to rectify their 
 first false step, they availed themselves of the panic of 1825 
 to recommend another palliative, the Joint-Stock Bank Act, 
 which, grafted upon the same delusive basis, the Act of 1819, 
 has since proved more destructive in its eiFects than the Small 
 Note Act of 1822. But a burned child dreads the fire, and 
 the people were slow to avail themselves of the new banking 
 panacea proposed to them in 1826 by the Premier and his 
 friends. It was not until 1834, that it became extensively 
 acted upon. In the meantime, the contraction of the cir- 
 culating medium to the golden limit prescribed in the Act of 
 1819, caused labour and skill, and their products, to decrease 
 in money value ; as the people got less money, they became 
 more poor, and, consequently, more discontented ; Catholic 
 Emancipation and the Reform Bill were resorted to as remedies, 
 without yielding their promised benefits; and then the New 
 Poor Law was introduced, with many flattering promises in its 
 svipport. There can be no doubt that the new Poor Law 
 would have proved as inefficient a palliative then to the poor 
 and the rate-payers as it does now ; but, contemporaneously 
 with its introduction, the Joint-Stock Bank mania commenced. 
 Those who had not known, or forgotten the delusion of 1822, 
 became shareholders in the new banks. LTnconsclous of the 
 dano-cr to which the Act of 1819 rendered them liable when- 
 ever gold should become scarce, the shareholders suffered their 
 joint credit to form an addition to the circulating medium of
 
 INSTANCE OF SELF-DELUSION. 49 
 
 the nation, just as the private bankers had done in 1823, 1824, 
 and 1825. For a short time, prosperity appeared to be re- 
 stored — the people became employed at improved wages, and 
 the new banks provided the medium wherein those wages 
 were paid. But, alas ! those who had been thus induced to 
 allow their credit to furnish the means of producing this 
 revival of trade, soon found themselves cruelly deceived. 
 They were not only subjected to a loss similar to that which 
 was inflicted upon private bankers in the panic of 1825, but 
 many shareholders in the new banks were subjected to a 
 further loss, from the race of swindlers and gambling specu- 
 lators which the new system had called into existence as 
 directors, managers, or customers of the new establishments. 
 
 These instances may be sufficient to expose the danger of 
 any one, who wishes to judge and act rightly, himself sufier- 
 mg to be drawn aside hj Q.nj palliative and secondary measures, 
 from searching out faithfully the original cause of any national 
 evil, and applying his talents to cure the evil at its source. 
 
 Section III. 
 
 But there is one further public instance where the practice 
 of self-delusion is so marvellous, and has been so baneful, as to 
 entitle it to more particular notice. It has been remarked, 
 that the Act of 1819 was the special production of t\io present 
 Sir Robert Peel. This Act was originally adopted as a mea- 
 sure complete in itself; it was to settle the currency question 
 for ever. To doubt the perfection of that Act has been held 
 by the ministers of the crown as enough to condemn any indi- 
 vidual as a political heretic, however talented he may have 
 been. Sir James Graham had to abandon his currency con- 
 victions before he could join the ministry. Lord Ashburton, 
 with all his monetary wisdom and commercial experience, was 
 deemed unorthodox when he questioned the perfection of the 
 
 E
 
 50 FALSE REASONING EXEMPLIFIED. 
 
 Act of 1819. The measure by which Mr. Pitt was the means 
 of saving his country from the power of Napoleon, and which, 
 in its beneficial G^QQis, affords a practical proof of the folly of our 
 present monetary system, has been denounced as a fatal mea- 
 sure by the author of the Act of 1819. For twenty-five years 
 had Sir Robert claimed, and was allowed to assume, such a high 
 degree of perfection for this Act, that on all those occasions 
 when the pecuniary difficulties of the nation have been so 
 oppressive as to force Parliament to inquire into the cause of 
 them, the committees appointed have always been interdicted 
 from discovering by any chance the least imperfection in Sir 
 Robert's immaculate Act. How strange then it must appear to 
 any man capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, 
 that the Author of this measure should, after the expiration of 
 these twenty-five years, have introduced into Parliament an- 
 other bill for the declared purpose of completing this perfect 
 measure, and that he should have been allowed to pass it with- 
 out first subjecting the original Act to a full and impartial 
 investigation, to ascertain its real defects; but it is yet more 
 marvellous, after three years' trial had been given to this com- 
 pleting Act, and it was found to possess no other virtue than 
 that of aggravating the mischief it was intended to cure, and 
 when the Queen's ministers had, from its intolerable pressure, 
 been compelled to suspend it on their own authority, that Par- 
 liament should still allow both those self-condemned measures 
 to remain unrepealed. Now, these afflictive and disgraceful 
 errors would have been entirely avoided, if only a majority of 
 our legislators had been men of fair judgment — possessing suf- 
 ficient moral courage to say " Yes," or " No," according to 
 their convictions ; and if they had been so far acquainted with 
 the art of false reasoning, as to have put them on their guard 
 against the delusive skill of a few plausible speech-makers. 
 
 * 
 
 • Mr. Cobden in his recent speech at SheflSeld, speaking of the repeal of the 
 corn laws, says, " After the measure of Sir Robert Peel was passed in 1826, do
 
 I 
 
 POPULAR ORATORS. 51 
 
 The working classes may also be benefited, if they so far 
 study this delusive art as to enable them to detect the sophis- 
 tries by which they have been imposed upon by popular orators 
 cut of Parliament. To excel in the eloquence which, acting 
 upon the passions of the multitude, has often proved very 
 influential in arousing the public mind, — for good, if em- 
 ployed in the cause of truth, but for evil, if unfortunately 
 enlisted in the cause of error, — much the same natural talents 
 are required as those which the parliamentary orator requires, 
 but a different kind of schooling. Where the requisite talents 
 exist, a good memory, quickness of observation, a natural and 
 ready flow of words, a fair practical education, acuteness to 
 detect, and tact to expose the weak points of an adversary, and 
 a good share of moral courage, the study of mankind in the 
 world rather than zn books, or even in the senate^ a free and 
 constant intercourse with all classes of society and frequent 
 dealings with them in the way of buying and selling, is a 
 school better fitted for producing an out-door speaker than 
 either Oxford or Cambridge; and, therefore, it is not surprising 
 that Sir Robert Peel should sometimes have been surpassed in 
 this kind of eloquence by those who have no pretension to vie 
 with him in preparing an address for the House of Commons. 
 
 When these two classes of public speakers are engaged in 
 advocating the cause of truth, the services of both are so 
 valuable as to render it unnecessary to attempt to determine 
 their relative worth ; but when unhappily both become engaged 
 
 you think that there was a majority in the House in favour of free trade? 
 Nothing of the kind. I went over the list with a man very experienced in these 
 matters in London. We went over the names, and couhl not find 200, out of 
 the 656 members, who had voted with a good heart in favour of total repeal, 
 although a majority, and a large majority, voted for it; and I went over tlie list 
 of Peers, and out of 400 and odd, I coiild not find more than twelve of them 
 whose hearts were favourable to a total repeal of the com law." 
 
 If this statement be true, what a lamentable proof it aflbrds of the lack of 
 common Avisdom and moral courage among our legislators !
 
 52 [false reasoning exemplified. 
 
 in the cause of error, it will generally be found that while the 
 orator of the populace has been most powerful in effecting the 
 first establishment of the delusion, the scAoZa^/fc orator has been 
 the most successful in perpetuating it. It is natural that it 
 should be so, for large popular assemblies are chiefly composed 
 of those who see only one object at a time, and who seldom 
 trouble themselves with the second step in an argument. Their 
 senses rather than their reasoning faculties constitute the 
 passport to their convictions. If the theme of delusive declam- 
 ation be one which at first sight appears to hold out benefit to 
 the assembly — no matter how surely soever it may be to injure 
 them in its reaction — an orator of the out-door school, when 
 unrestrained by any conscientious scruples, will have no dif- 
 ficulty in getting a passionate support for his object from a 
 large majority of a popular public meeting; and the more 
 superficial the apparent advantage may be, the more easy the 
 speaker will generally find the attainment of his object. Let 
 a clever talker, for instance, tell an assembly of unreflecting 
 labourers, that it is his object to secure for them the payment 
 of their wages in gold and silver money, and to do away with 
 money made of dirty rags, as he would designate bank notes, 
 and the speaker would probably elicit the hearty cheers oi nine- 
 tenths of his audience: yet any labouring man of the least 
 reflection may know from his own experience, that it is really 
 of no consequence to him whether he receives his wages in a 
 bank note or a gold sovereign, so that he can buy food and 
 clothing, and pay rent and taxes as easily and efficiently with 
 one as the other. He knows, moreover, that before a working 
 man can receive any wages at all, he must obtain employment; 
 and he now has learnt, to his sorrow, that under the pretext of 
 paying him his wages in gold money, he has frequently been 
 deprived of half his employment, and compelled to take for 
 the work he could obtain, one fourth of the wages he was once 
 accustomed to receive. This is no imaginary illustration, it is
 
 ORATORS IN PARLIAMENT AND OUT. 53 
 
 one derived from the historical experience of the present gener- 
 ation ; the fact of a given amount of money being now made to 
 command on the average four times the quantity of the products 
 of skill and labour which it did command in 1815, is attested, 
 as we have seen, by Sir Robert Peel himself Sir Robert would 
 probably deny that his own act of 1819 is the cause of this 
 great injustice being inflicted upon the working classes; but 
 we have also seen, that his father forewarned both him and us, 
 that this consequence would result from his son^s gold-law; and 
 facts have proved that the father was right. This case affords 
 also an illustration of the influence that orators in Parliament 
 may derive from those out of the House, when both are engaged 
 in establishing the same error. It is not at all improbable, that 
 the remonstrances of the late Sir Robert Peel against his son's 
 measure, supported as those remonstrances were by some of the 
 most experienced merchants and bankers of London, might 
 have succeeded in Parliament in preventing this injustice from 
 being inflicted upon the working classes, had not the thought- 
 less people out of the House been dazzled with the golden 
 prospect held out to them ; and had not the sons views been 
 supported at the time by Messrs. Hunt and Wooler, and those 
 whom their popular eloquence deluded. But although the 
 oraters out of Parliament were thus instrumental in the first 
 carrying of our delusive gold-law, the orators in the House may 
 be regarded as the means by which it has been perpetuated. 
 The common sense of the common people is quickly wrought 
 upon ; and there is much reason to believe, that as soon as they 
 began to feel the pressure of that monetary oppression which 
 they had contributed to bring upon themselves, they would 
 have honestly reconsidered the question. Unrestrained by any 
 false shame, they would probably have discovered the original 
 error, and, honestly confessing it, would have retraced their 
 steps and applied a radical cure, whereas the gentlemen in Par- 
 liament, whose names are identified with the Act of 1819, have
 
 54 FALSE REASONING EXEMPLIFIED. 
 
 vainly attempted to conceal their original error; and while tliey 
 have preserved the existence of that Act, they have incurred 
 the mortification which never fails to accompany every attempt 
 to conceal one error by adding others to it. Had the bulk of 
 the people been a little more om their guard against the delusive 
 arts of the false reasoner, nearly all this mischief might have 
 been averted. 
 
 Section IV. 
 
 The cheap-iread question has always been a very successful 
 theme for exciting the enthusiastic cheers of the multitude in 
 public meetings; and yet there are few of those who may be 
 thus acted upon in a popular assembly, who, when left to 
 their sober reflections, are not well aware that cheapness in 
 bread, as in other things, is a mere relative term. They 
 know perfectly well, that 7s. or 8s. per bushel for wheat was 
 cheaper in England when the labouring population could 
 obtain regular employment at 2s. 4d. or 2s. 6d. per day, than 
 5s. per bushel is now, when wages are reduced, and employ- 
 ment very precarious. They also know that 4s. per bushel 
 for wheat is very dear in those countries where the average 
 rate of labourers' wages does not exceed 8d. per day. An 
 acquaintance with the art of false reasoning may be expected 
 to put the working population on their guard against those 
 who try to captivate them with the promise of this superficial 
 cheapness, which is rather an indication of dear money and 
 cheap labour than o? cheap bread; or, in other words, of bread 
 being really easy of attainment, which is the true test of cheap- 
 
 o 
 ness. 
 
 In connection with the cheap-bread cry, the " Free-Trade" 
 question has been made a very stirring theme in the mouth of 
 the popular speaker. No rational man can object to " Free 
 Trade" properly so called. To object to real freedom of trade, 
 is as absurd as it would be to denounce real liberality. But
 
 FREE TRADE AND PROTECTION. 55 
 
 " Free Trade" and " Liberalism" are terms wliich have a very 
 different meaning in modern phraseology to that which naturally 
 belongs to them. In modern times, those who are most skilful 
 in buying cheap and selling dear, and most successful in 
 extracting the greatest amount of labour for the least amount 
 of wages, have not scrupled to arrogate to themselves an 
 exclusive right to be called " Liberals"; and there are those 
 that claim a special right to the title of " Free-Traders," who 
 think it fair and free, that American and French workmen 
 should be allowed to sell the produce of their labour in the 
 English market, without paying those local charges to which 
 English workmen are subjected; while British workmen are 
 not allowed to sell the produce of their labour in the American 
 and French markets, without having it taxed enormously. 
 To call this " Free Trade" is obviously an abuse of the term. 
 It is free enough for the foreigner, but a most unfair restriction 
 on our own people. The advantage is all on one side, and 
 the disadvantage on the other. 
 
 The terra " Protection," too, has also a very different mean- 
 ing when used by different persons. It may mean that unfair 
 power, which is sometimes obtained by one branch of the 
 national family to protect itself, by laying grievous burdens 
 upon all the other branches for its own aggrandisement; or it 
 may mean the general protection of the whole people, by con- 
 ferring special privileges upon each class, to enable it to per- 
 form certain duties for the benefit of the whole. The national 
 rulers, while they judiciously protect the nation from external 
 foes, are doubtless entitled to have the means guaranteed 
 to them of comfortably supporting themselves, and those 
 employed under them. The possessors of the soil hold it 
 subject to the reliyious obligation, and in this nation (since the 
 reign of Queen Elizabeth) to the legal obligation also, of pro- 
 tecting the industrious classes, as well as the needy and 
 unfortunate from oppression and extreme distress : and if 
 the possessors of the soil acquit themselves faithfully in the
 
 56 FALSE REASONING EXEMPLIFIED. 
 
 discharge of this public duty, it is doubtless the duty and the 
 interest of the whole people to protect the owners of real pro- 
 perty in the enjoyment of their possessions, and to guard 
 them from any unfair competition with those persons who live 
 in other countries, and do not participate in the obligations to 
 which the British landowner is subjected. On the same prin- 
 ciple that it is the duty of a parent to protect his own family 
 from impoverishment before he extends his bounty to others, 
 it is the duty of the national rulers to take due care that the 
 people under their protection are secured in the enjoyment of 
 a full share of the fruits of their own labour, and a fair remu- 
 neration for their skill and industry, before a stranger, who 
 does not participate in their burdens, is allowed the privilege 
 of participating in the receipt of their wages. 
 
 But, between the honest advocates of "free trade" and those 
 who honestly advocate protection to native industry, there are 
 really no differences of opinion that would not admit of an 
 easy reconciliation, were it not for the skill with which some 
 selfish and ambitious men can, by the art of false reasoning, so 
 mystify the terms "free trade" and "protection" as to promote 
 their private ends by deluding the unwary. Now the more the 
 people are acquainted with the quibbles to which the false rea- 
 soner resorts, the better able they will be to guard against them, 
 and the more disposed to verify the wisdom of the well-known 
 fable of "the old man and the bundle of sticks." 
 
 Many landowners of England erred greatly in 1834, when 
 they allowed themselves to be seduced by the Malthusian 
 Delusion into the adoption of the new poor-law — vainly hoping 
 that ultimately they might relieve their estates by it from the 
 legal claims of the poor. It is now evident, that the short- 
 sighted policy which tempted them to adopt this mischievous 
 delusion has done them no good — neither can the proposition 
 which is now suggested to them of charging upon the general 
 taxation of the nation those obligations which rightfully belong 
 to its real property, be of any other use than that of diverting
 
 THE NEW SYSTEM OF USURY. 5^ 
 
 the attention of landlords from objects of far more importance 
 to their welfare than any little saving which this scheme holds 
 out to them : their true policy is to hold to their duties, and 
 then they will retain a fair claim to the sympathy and energetic 
 support of every honest man in securing to them their posses- 
 sions. Had a poor-law similar to the old poor-law of England 
 been established in Ireland a century ago, it is more than pro- 
 bable that the owners of property there would have found out 
 some useful employment for the labouring poor : that the labour 
 so employed would have improved the country while it encou- 
 raged habits of industry among the peasantry ; and though less 
 rent might have been received in consequence of the farmeis 
 having more wages to jiay, yet it is very probable that many of 
 those proprietors who have now been ruined, might have 
 retained possession of their estates to this day, and have been 
 surrounded by Irish labourers, who being fairly paid would no 
 doubt have worked as diligently in Ireland, as they have often 
 been found to work in England. 
 
 " Liberty" and the " Eight of self-control" are words which 
 sound well in a popular harangue; and the cunning usurer 
 has preached so eloquently upon the right of every one to take 
 rare of himself, and the impolicy of the Government interfering 
 to protect needy borrowers against the rapacity o^ greedy lenders, 
 as to induce our rulers to withdraw those restraints which the 
 laws of God and man had formerly sanctioned. This neiv 
 system of usury has only been in operation a few years ; but it 
 has been at work long enough to show, that, however mode- 
 rately conscientious men may have used their power, the right 
 of self-government and self-protection thus established, is 
 pretty much the same as conferring upon the weak the privi- 
 lege of protecting themselves against the strong — sheep against 
 wolves. This is an error which a more general acquaintance 
 on the part of the public with the sophistries of the false 
 reasoner may be expected to rectify. j\Iany other illustrations
 
 58 
 
 FALSE REASONING EXEMPLIFIED. 
 
 to the same^ effect will probably suggest themselves to the 
 recollection of the thoughtful reader. 
 
 But the more the art of false reasoning is understood by the 
 people, the more they will see, that, while it is the policy of 
 those who wish to avail themselves of it for selfish ends, to 
 excite the jealousy of one class against any other, so that, like 
 the lawyer in the fable, they may swallow the oyster and 
 leave the disputants to divide 4he shell : it is the policy of 
 all true reasoners to promote unity among all classes of the 
 people, and to encourage each individual to seek his own 
 security and ultimate prosperity, by exerting himself to pro- 
 mote the welfare of all around him ; and especially to teach j 
 mankind that it is not merely the duty but the true self- 
 interest of all classes, to exert their power to protect eachj 
 other in the possession of their just rights. Experience has 
 shewn, that if we wait till the artful and delusive reasoner can 
 bring the tide of mis-directed popular clamour to bear upon! 
 our OAvn class, it may then be too late for us to repel thej 
 torrent, although it miglit have been checked with compa- 
 rative ease if we had attempted to stem the evil when somel 
 other class was becoming overwhelmed by it. We ma} 
 indeed fairly hope that when mankind in general shall become 
 acquainted with the devices of the false reasoner " to destroy 
 the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketi 
 right;" they will no longer " judge after the sight of th^ 
 eyes," nor " after the hearing of the ears:" they will no longe:^ 
 be led astray by the mere exhibition of a '' little loaf," nor will 
 they be deceived by a " selfish churl" being called a " Liberal;! 
 but that they will become endowed with " a quick underl 
 standing," and be enabled to exercise generally a " righteoul 
 judgment:" and then may we also hope, that " the spirit oj 
 wisdom and understanding — the spirit of counsel and might- 
 the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord," will 
 rest upon and direct our national councils, so as eflfectually td 
 promote God's gloiy and maris happiness.
 
 ^ 
 
 illMiniMiiiiiiju 
 
 L 007 316 400 6 
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY 
 
 FACILI 
 
 AA 000 512 113 2
 
 ^^p^^ 
 
 -■ "^.r^*. 
 
 "C