MR. BENTHAM AND THE WESTMINSTER REVIEW. TO THE EDITOR OF

THE WESTMINSTER REVIEW.

99th October 1834.

Sin—For the purpose of helping you to establish the Anti-Ben- thamite character of a certain article in the Westminster, I have under- taken to furnish you with evidence whereby the writer of the said ar- ticle may be convicted of ignorance, stupidity, fraud, envy, and spite. Here follow the proofs which I have collected. I place them in the form which the author of the Catechism on the Corn-Laws has employed with great effect while supporting the Corn-Laws—yes, sup- porting them, by means of incessantly repeating to the landlords, that a free trade in corn would utterly ruin that influential class.

IGNORANCE.

I. "The great cause of the 1. Nearly all "newly-settled colonies" rapid prosperity of ALL have suffered dire adversity. Since the time newly-settled colonies." of the ancient Greeks, scarce any have pros-

pered; none have prospered rapidly; and of the colonies planted by modern Europe, the greater portion have miserably perished. The rapid prosperity of newly-settled colonies ! Of such a thing there is not one well-authenticated Instance. A Ben- thamite would not have stated the exception for the rule ; but this writer states as a rule without exceptions, that of which there never was an example.

2. "In new colonies, capi- tal increases rapidly, and there is an eager demand for labour ; and the authentic experience of at least two centuries has never failed to exhibit a proportionate sup- ply." 2. Amidst the great number of colonies planted by modern Europe, some few have, after they became pretty old, been distin- guished for a rapid increase of capital; but in such cases, "the authentic experience of at least two centuries has never failed to exhibit a proportionate" scarcity of labour. In every old colony that prospers (new colonies have never prospered) one great want IS felt continually ; the want of labour. A continued want, of course is never supplied. Various expedients, indeed, have been devised for counteracting in some measure the want of labourers,—such as kidnapping, the trans- portation of convicts, and slavery ; but the want itself—the want of labourers ftr hire—has never been supplied. This fact was as well known to BENTHAM in his closet, as it is to every one connected with a colony that happens to flourish.

3. "The Government of 3. Five shillings per acre is the minimum the Union disposes of its price of the United States ;,the price, that is, best lands at Ss. per acre." at which land is put up for safe by auction.

The price at which land is "disposed of," or sold, varies from the upset price to many pounds sterling per acre. Throughout the Union, public land is sold by auction ! Is there a Benthamite who would mistake the upset price of land, or of any thing sold by auction, for the selling price ? 'Tell GEORGE Roams or Lord FAREUROTHER that a Westminste 1Reviewer has done this, and see what a face be will make.

4. On the contrary, it was a slave colony so long as it was Dutch, and long after. wards.

5. In England, more hops are grown by large capitalists than by small ones ; but there may still be more small capitalists than large ones who grow hops. At all events, it is something new to learn, that lea for sale—market-gaideners—are a race el 6. Not one of the thirteen great English colonies in North America was founded by the State : every one of them was planted

by " from persons," without any assist. ance from Government. From the landing of the first Englishman in Virginia to the Declaration of Independence, the whole cost of their local government was defrayed by themselves. In like man. ner, all the new American states which have grown up since the Re- volution, were founded by private persons without any help whatever from Government. The greater part of the colonies of the French, Dutch, and Spaniards, were founded by individuals or private com- panies ; and our Indian empire is the offspring of private adventure. Governments have often seized colonies, but have seldom founded any. The Reviewer's ignorance is matched by nothing but the rashness of his assertions.

4. " The Dutch colony of New York flourished with- out slavery."

5. "In England no small capitalist attempts to grow hops, and iso la rye one ve- getables."

persons who grow vegetab small capitalists.

6. "It is the duty of the State to found colonies when they are necessary ; and the notion that private persons can plant thou without loss, is a mere delusion."

7. No part of America! In which of the four quarters of the world, then, are the immense plains of Buenos Ayres and Brazil, and the wide grassy meadows of the Ohio and Mississippi, which contain hun. dreds of millions of acres, covered with natural herbage far richer than any that has been found in Australia, and which actually feed count. less herds and flocks ? Is it from Europe, Asia, or Africa, that the 14,000,000 tariff-bound inhabitants of the United States get all the wool they wear, or that the English obtain South American hides ? The Pampas and the Prairies not yet found fit for pastoral husbandry! not even fit/ It would be as wise to say, that the Atlantic had not yet been found fit for navigation, or the county of Northumberland for getting at coals. For his own sake, if ever you employ this writer again, make him read HEAD'S Rough Notes, and STUART'S Three Years in North America ; or, if that should be too stiff a job, tell him that he will find an account of the Pampas and the Prairies, either in the Penny Maga- zine or in Rummies little boy's Catechism of Geography.

STUPIDITY.

I. Abundance, in common English, sig. nifies enough ; not, as this Benthamite will have it, more than enough. Any excess of labour in proportion to capital is, if I mis- take not, generally called, not abundance,

but superabundance. Well, proceeding with the alphabet of political economy, supera- bundant labour is cheap, that is, ill paid—it obtains low wages. But is this the object of these schemers ? On the contrary, they say, let there be enough labour, not too much ; meaning by enough, such a quantity in propor- tion to capital as shall enable every capitalist to employ his capital in the most productive manner. "I can't understand you," says one Igno- ramus ; "what has the quantity of labour to do with the productiveness of capital ?"—Only this, my dull Sir, that where there is no labour at all, capital cannot be employed at all, but will perish for want of hands to use it, as has been the case in many a modern colony: that nearly all the most productive operations of industry require the employment of many pairs of hands at the same time and in the same place; that where the quantity of labour is sufficient for this, where every capitalist can obtain as many hands as he wants, the produce is great in proportion to the capital and labour employed ; and that where the produce is great in proportion to the capital and labour employed, both profits and wages will be high "in amount," whatever they may be "in share." The object, then, of these schemers, is a quantity of labour sufficient, but not more than sufficient, for obtaining so great a produce as would enable the capitalist to give high wages after keeping high profits. No! says the Reviewer, their object is to make labour "cheap." By you dubbed a Benthamite, he wants brains to get even a glimpse of what BENTHAM was pleased to call "the new and very important principle of Com- bination of Labour."

7. " Australia is also suited for pastoral husbandry, which no part of America has yet been Fund to be."

1. " But what does

abundant labour ' mean with these schemers? Why, if it have any meaning at all, it means cheap labour ; that is, labour depreciated by its being disproportioned to capital. It this be so, and it cannot be otherwise.. . ."

2. Elsewhere he describes the principle to be "most mischievous ; " here all the mischief lies in violating the principle. Which is good—the principle or the viola- tion? Which bad—the violation or the pun- ciple ? Oh, patience, exclaims Dulness, how you bother me !

But let us see whether the projectors vio- late their own principle in proposing to form a new settlement. It is because, in existing colonies, there prevails a mode of treating public land which necessitates dispersion, that a colony has been pro- jected with the view of trying a different system. The projectors say, People who go to settle in Canada, must suffer from dispersion : there- fore, let us found a colony with provisions for concentration.

That, answers Puzzle-head, is a most mischievous violation of your own principle : in order to exhibit a concentrated settlement, you ought to send people to colonies where concentration is impossible.

3. When it happened to serve his turn in another place, he was positive that "in all new colonies" capital increases rapidly, and is always accompanied by a proportionate supply of labour. Here he informs us that, "in new colonies both capital and labour are scant." But let the self-contradiction 2. "The projectors should themselves remember, that the formation of a new settle- nient on the scale which they contemplate, is, in itself, a mostmisch ievous violation of the principle of concentra- tion, which they so much in- sist upon. In the existing colo- nies,there is roomenough, and to spare, for emigration."

3. " The fallacy of the man who should say, 'Beef, bread, and potatoes, in equal proportions, make the best possible dinner. Of the two first, there happens to be but an ounce a day per man ; therefore, take especial care

pass, with a hundred more, and this remark, that all the statements in the article, how- ever at varianee with each other, are brought to bear against the measure under review. Coming to the substance of the para- graphs quoted, a gross " fallacy" appears in the way of stating the comparison be-

tween colonization and a dinner. If a South Australian projector had chosen to illustrate his subject by the case of beef, bread, and pet itues, he would have said, Beware of laying out all your money on potatoes, lest you should have no bread or beef. In the book reviewed, it is stated

over and over again, that, in new colonies, superabundance of land is the cause of a scarcity of labour, and of' capital, which is formed by labour. There are people more stupid than those who will not understand —those who cannot. he does not consume potatoes to make up. Keep &special wateli that he gets no more than his ounce of potatoes; fur if not, you spoil the leality of the best possible propertions.' There is no- body who would be taken in be such a proposal as this. 'there is nobody that does tot see, that if beef and bread are scant, that is the lery reason why potatoes sliould be looked to for sup- port. In new colonies, both eapital and labour are scant ; and the facility of obtaining and to work on, is what na- ture has given for a compen- l.ation." 4. Here, as on fifty other occasions when the Reviewer uses the word " concentra- tion," he confounds concentration of people and combination of labour,-two things which have hardly any connexion. The'pcople of

i

some districts n Ireland are concentrated or dense ; but their labour is very much separa- ted. Though they live near each other, they do not work together. In New South 1Va1es, on the contrary, though the people are not cow e itrated—though as a whole, they are widely dispersed-- still many bodies of them do work together. One capitalist employs ten convicts ; another, twenty ; a third, forty or fifty. Thus, in New South Wales, it is possible, to the extent of the supply of convict lateen.' to un- dertake modes of production which require the united labour of many persons. This is the advantage combination of labour in particular works—which New South Wales derives from having con- lict labourers. The nature and causes of that advantage, and the means of obtaining it without either convicts or slaves, were fully un- derstood by BENTHAM, and have been described at length in the treatise on Colonization, which was written at his suggestion. The writer of England and America must have expressed himself very stupidly, if it be not rare stupidity in this Reviewer, to imagine, that the authors of the new scheme have talked of slavery as producing concentration. His blunders of apprehension strike one even more than his ignorance of facts. Was there ever such a Bentharnite !

5. "Thus, there is a sum 5. "Anticipating the sales of lands' is

of 100,000/. to be raised at one and the same thing with "mortgaging once, either by anticipating the whole public lands of the colony." One the sales of land, or by might as well say. Shoes must be made mortgaging the whole public either of hides. or of skins ; there are but lands of the colony." two means of curing sickness, either by taking medicine, or by swallowing physic ; if the creature I am thinking of be not an ass, most assuredly he is a donkey.

6. In other words—If your object be to raise 100,000/. on mortgage, beware of ac- cepting 100,000/. on mortgage, lest you fore- stall and impair your security. This is a repetition of the blunder last noticed. The sagacious Benthamite imagines, that by at- taining an object, one is prevented from accomplishing it. Certainly one can't eat one's pudding and have it to eat. But fancy BENTHAM saying, If you want to go to Hounslow, take care you don't go to Kensington; still more, avoid going to Brentford ; above all, beware of going the whole way to Hounslow. What a pity that the cheerful old soul is not with us to laugh at this reckless blunderer ! I say, my dear Sir, don't you feel rather hot when yea think of the "Finally, a particular object of am- bition in this article," &c. Well, well, let us change the subject.

4. "The success of the colonies of New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land is ascribed by the authors of the new scheme wholly to the existence of slavery ;- vet surely slave labour has pranced no concentration there ; for the 60,000 of the frst are dispersed over a silaCe exceeding that of Great Britain."

6. "The sum to be raised by anticipating the sale of lands, it may safely be pre- sumed, will be minute in- deed ; and whatever its amount, it must necessarily tend to enhance the difficulty of raising funds by mort- gage, since it forestalls and impairs the security."

FRAUD.

I. This is a most dishonest statement. The authors of the new scheme have, in- deed, often referred to the example of slave colonies, but never in terms of approbation. On the contrary, they have taken great pains to show, that their plan is chiefly valuable because slavery could not exist in any colony where it was adopted. Slavery is one of

the evils which they propose to cure where it exists, and to prevent in all new colonies, by means of dealing with waste land in such a way as to provide free labour; by means of "the new scheme." Mr. RUME, in supporting his proposal for a new House of Commons, used to refer repeatedly to the inconveniences of the old building ; but did he therefore recommend a new building "after the model" of the cld one ? Our Reviewer asserts as much of "the new scheme." This time we must not let him off on the score of ignorance or dulness. He wanted, it seems, to create a prejudice against those w!torn it was his object to disparage, by connecting them in some way with a bated word ; and he does so by saying, As they repeatedly refer to the example of slave colonies, it is clear they propose something "after that model." Many examples of this kind of fraud are given in BENTHAM'S Book of Fallacies. It is not the conscience of the Reviewer that would binder him from saying, Therefore BENTHA.M recommends this kind of fraud. 1. "The new scheme pro- poses to draw an artificial, broad, and organized distinc- tion between labourers and capitalists, after the model— for the example is repeatedly referred to—which exists in nave colonies."

2. "The demand for land must be in proportion to wealth and numbers; and let these be taken to bear a Proper ratio to the .wealth

2. This fraud is one of concealment. The Reviewer keeps out of sight the fact, that, in 1832, when the plan of selling pub- lic land instead of giving it away was set on foot in New South Wales, the 60000 inha-

bitants of that colony had already obtained for nothing many millions of acres, not a tenth part of which has ever been cultivated. The wonder is, that they should have bought a single acre. This, at least, will be sur- prising to those who do not know, that the new plan of selling enabled them to get at certain spots very favourably situate&with respect to markets, which had been "re- served " by a jobbing government. Dr. LANG, who is often quoted by the Re- viewer, says that there is public land in the neighbourhood of Sydney, which would fetch 200,0001., if the Government should please to sell it. But this is only by way of explanation : let us mark the trick, which consists in hiding from the reader, that in New South Wales the people have obtained by gift ten times as much land as they are able to cultivate.

Another fruud of concealment in this statement of a likeness between circum- stances widely different, is the hiding of another important fact, viz. that though in the new colony the purchaser of land may appear to buy land, he will really buy labour,--since all the purchase-money of land is to be employed in taking labourers to the settlement ; while the pur- chase-money of land in New South Wales is expended in providing prostitutes for the male convicts.

If it had not been for these two tricks of concealment, the conclu. sion of the Reviewer would have appeared absurd on the face of it. But his absurdities are not the question here : let us note only the dishonesty by means of which he has passed off nonsense for reasoning. The article contains many more examples of fraud. If you "repeatedly refer" to them, he may charge you with admiring something "after the model" of fraud. It is not on that account, however, that I stop : it is too easy, and therefore too disgusting, to go on with the exposure of such palpable trickery. and population of New South Wales. To 1832, the joint exports and imports of that colony amounted to very nearly 1,000,000/., and the popuiation was in round numbers 60,000; while the number of emigrants who arrived, exclusive of con- victs, was 2,006, or equal to two.filths of the supposed number of the pfojected co- lony. Now what was the sum derived from the sale of lands in this prosperous co- lony for the year in question? Exactly 5,135/. 16s. 4d. This, at 5s. per acre, shows a sale of 20,540 acres, or thereabouts. At this rate, a colony of 3000 persons would afford an emigration fund of 427/."

ENVY.

I. This writer treats of persons as well

as things; and a reference to his person will show that he writes with a personal feeling. He has no right, therefore, to expect that the anonymous will be respected in this ease. Two of a trade can never agree ; and pro-

jectors area jealous race. One observes, that projectors who fail are apt to hate pro- jectors who succeed. An act of' the Re- formed Parliament has sanctioned the new Utopia. Is the Reviewer, or is he not, a well-known projector? and have not all his various projects (including two for getting into the Reformed Parliament) lamentably failed ? How many of these thirty " com- purgators " are personally acquainted with him? and has he undergone the mortifica- tion of not being asked to join them? Make him answer these questions, Mr. Editor. For the rest, I will assert instead of inquir- ing. He has had "practical experience," both "personal and official," in "actual co- -Ionization." Two attempts at colonization have failed under his mismanagement. Here we may discover why he underwent the mortification of not being asked to join the " compurgators :" this explains his soreness, as shown under the following head of

3. " Here is the day- dream of an ingenious man, whoever he may be. At least thirty compurgators, in the shape of Members of Parliament, country gentle- men, political economists, London merchants, and Lon- don bankers, are ready to swear to its verily, and an act of the Reformed Parlia- ment is to sanction the new Utopia." " * * • "Thin, as indeed is boasted by the framers of the scheme, ex- ceeds the superficies of all France, Germany, and Spain put together ; and it may safely be assumed, is a charge somewhat large for the di- rection and appropriation of the commissioners of a few private, and, as far as colo- nies are concerned, inexperi- enced individuals; for it IMBit be observed, that of the thirty Directors, not one has ever had either official, per- sonal, or in any other shape practical experience of actual colonization." SPITE.

1. The Company did trot ask for a grant of even one acre. They proposed to buy land of the Crown, not to sell land which they had obtained for nothing. They pro- posed to pay to the Crown the sum of 125,000/. for the same quantity of land as was given at the Swan River to Mr. PEEL, the cousin of Sir ROBERT. The sneer, how- ever, at the objects of the Company, is not the less malicious for resting on a falsehood.

2. All this, and much more of the same kind, is sheer spite ; and, as such, it would be unworthy of notice, if you, with your "Finally," &e. had not endeavoured to fix it on the Bentharnites.

1. " The project, when it was first broached in 1831, had the form of a joint-stock company, who were to have received from the Crown a grant of some millions of acres in Southern Australia, to be sold for their own benefit and that of their country."

2. "Who the subscribers to the loan or loans will be under such circumstances, it will be difficult to con- jecture; but it may be pre- sumed that the speculators in the Mining, Milking, and Washing Companies of 1825, or those who associated themselves to pick up pearls dollars in Vigo Bay, or dive for in the Pacific, will not be of the number." " These schemers " — " Thirty compurgators "—" A groundless invention of the projectors "—" It is a botchery worthy of a bench of justices."

Have you enough ? If you want more, it will be easy to supply you. These instances of spite, envy, fraud, stupidity, and ignorance, have been taken almost at random from a far greater mass of the same kind of stuff. But they will suffice, I should think, for our purpose; which is, recollect, merely to show the Anti-Bentharnite character of the article on South Australia. Is that established? I think so; and, if you agree with me, I would suggest, that instead of troubling yourself to write an article with the view of blotting out that unlucky" Finally" &c., you might print my Letters in your next Number. In this way, you would acknowledge your distressing blunder, without the pain of writingabout it yourself. "Finally," I am happy to let you know, that some of BENTHAM'S written arguments in favour of the new colony are about to be published. Can I do better than conclude with so pleasant a piece of news ?

A BENTtwaTE.