date

1819 May 10 To Erskine ult
1819 May 10

To Erskine

ult o

Lett 6. Whigs Anti Reform

17

6

How should they have done otherwise? As to the conjunct points of economy and influence of influence that is to say of power in its sweetest and least obnoxious shape the principles of the most plausible and popular of the two parties – I mean the Whigs had already been declared.

In two papers published in two successive numbers of the Pamphleteer I have already denounced two publications, one from a Whig the other from a Tory source in which principles were advocated, by the observance of which as by a painful dedication I there observed the financial ruin of this or any other country how much more wealthy so ever would, sooner or later with unerring certainty be accomplished. In this rain of ruin, the Whigs started first. I mean in the person of Edmund Burke. The course he took was of the most artful kind. The character in which he stood forth was that of an advocate of Economy, it was in his pamphlet on the subject of the Economy. His object was to disserve the cause he professed to serve: in other words to betray it. I have shewn with what effect and ingenuity he betrayed it: every proposition advanced by him for the purpose of reconciling their[?] people as to the boundless encrease of waste and its inseparable concomitant sinister and corruptive influence, was given /produced/ in the character of a confession wrung from him. You hear from the Tories side comes forth on the same side /for the same purpose/ the pamphlet of George Rose. But his path had been prepared and made straight for him by his Whig primer by Edmund Burke.
Similar Items
  • Title: [1819 June 16 To Erskine Let]
    Description: 1819 June 16

    To Erskine

    Let. 7. Whigs AntiReformists

    §.5. Pos. 4. Whig Excellence

    7

    After the distress /distressful state/ to which Your Lordship’s Clients have been reduced it may seem barbarous to push them on the ground any farther. But the /this/ barbarity – it is none of mine – these troublesome questions they have already been pressed with them. It is by M r H. they have been thus pushed. Against this logic what are the resources of Your Lordships eloquence /rhetoric/? Had it been Edmund Burke been on Your Lordships case he would have had his answer /argument/ ready I hate metaphysics: this is a question about identity: this is metaphysics: I hate metaphysics. Thieves hate gas-lights: Burke hated metaphysics.

    ☞ Give a sketch of what Wilkins[?] says on this ground.
  • Title: [1819 June 17 + §.5 To Erskine]
    Description: 1819 June 17 + §.5

    To Erskine

    ult o

    Lett. 7. Whigs AntiReformists

    §.5. Pos. 4. Whig Excellence

    1

    §.5. Position 4. By the Whig theory of Whig excellence the desire is not proved.

    Had any other set of men been the set in question, the task of this letter had been already at an end.

    But the set of men in question are the Whigs: and in relation to this set Your Lordship it seems has a theory. To be spoken of, this theory, like every thing else, must have a name. Till Your Lordship shall have been pleased to furnish me with a letter, I will take the liberty of giving it one, and styling it The Theory of Whig Excellence.

    Of this theory I regard Edmund Burke as the Fundator incipiens: incipiens with a c not an s: the incipient founder as the phrase is /in the language of Common Law/ /to borrow a phrase from Blackstone/: Your Lordship as the Fundator perficiens – the perfunctory founder. Speaking from this theory – “Your argument, Sir, might have had some truth in it” (I hear Your Lordship saying) your argument might have had some truth in it, had the Whigs been as other men are. But Whigs are not as other men are: they are of an opposite nature: they are of a finer, a superior nature. Other men care for nobody but themselves: Whigs think of every thing /care for every body/ but themselves.

    My Lord, with submission excellence in this case is still open to dispute: authority is here silent. The Church indeed is excellent; the king most excellent: excellent and most excellent, as syllables are long and short, by authority: the Church excellent, by authority of advertisements published by the Members of the Upper House of Convocation: the King most excellent, as testified in and by the Liturgy, ordained by Act of Parliament. Convocation and Parliament are constituted authorities. But the Whigs of England who ever they are, are not yet constituted authorities. My Lord, when either Parliament or the Upper House of Convocation acknowledge this their assumed /supposed/ title, then will I acknowledge it. As it is, {I must dispute it as well as I am able} to the best of my poor ability, I must dispute it.
  • Title: [PRIVATE Example the | | th.]
    Description: PRIVATE

    Example the | | th.

    In his pamphlet on his Official Economy Bill, to give up official emolument is by Edmund Burke declared, in so many words, to be 'a mark of the basest profligacy'.

    See 103-451 above.

    On somewhat more defensible grounds might this position itself be pronounced as strong a mark as ever was exhibited or ever could be exhibited of the most shameless profligacy.

    An assumption contained in it not to speak of others too numerous to admitt of their being here detailed is - that in the eyes of man there is nothing that has any value nothing that is capable of actuating and giving direction to his conduct but the matter of wealth: that not only the love of reputation but the love of power are themselves, both of them without efficient power over the human heart.

    So opposite is this position of his to the truth - it has in several works been shewn that the less the quantity of money which in return for his engagement to render official service a man not palpably unfit for the business of it is content to accept, the stronger is the presumptive evidence - the proof thereby afforded of his aptitude in all points, with relation to that same business: since it is a proof of the pleasure he anticipates from the performance of it.

    In the text, Bentham has noted at this point: 'See Bentham par Dumont Traité des Peines & des Recompenses: and Defences of Economy against Edmund Burke and George Rose.' Théorie des peines et des récompenses, ed. Etienne Dumont, 2 vols., London, 1811; 'Defence of Economy against the Right Honourable Edmund Burke' and 'Defence of Economy against the Right Honourable George Rose', Official Aptitude Maximised; Expense Minimized, ed. P. Schofield, Oxford, 1993 ( CW), pp. 39-155.