The collected works of William Hazlitt, Vol. 03 (of 12)Hazlitt, William
General
The collected works of William Hazlitt, Vol. 03 (of 12)
Hazlitt, William
English essays -- 19th century
with a sort of _Do-me-good_ air, as if in giving his advice he had
performed an act of charity. We did not hear Mr. Owen’s answer, but we
know that a nod is as good as a wink to that gentleman. Mr. Southey
then talks of the Established Church, whom, as well as the Government,
in his courtly way, he accuses of having for centuries ‘neglected its
first and paramount duty,’ the bettering the condition of the people;
of Saving Banks; of colonies of disbanded soldiers and sailors; of
columns of Waterloo and Trafalgar; of diminishing the poor-rates, and
improving the morals of the people, so that they may live without
eating; of the glories of our war-expenditure, and of the necessity of
keeping up the same expenditure in time of peace. ‘Never indeed,’ he
exclaims, ‘was there a more senseless cry than that which is at this
time raised for retrenchment in the public expenditure, as a means of
alleviating the present distress.’ [This senseless cry, however, is
either an echo of, or was echoed by, the Prince Regent in his Speech
from the Throne. Is there no better understanding between Mr. Southey
and the Prince Regent’s advisers?]—‘That distress arises from a great
and sudden diminution of employment, occasioned by many coinciding
causes, the chief of which is, that the war-expenditure of from forty
to fifty millions yearly, has ceased.’—[No, the chief is, that our
war-expenses of from forty to fifty millions yearly and for ever, are
continued, and that our war-monopoly of trade to pay them with has
ceased.]—‘Men are out of employ’—[True.]... ‘the evil is, that too
little is spent,’ [Because we have wasted too much.]—‘and as a remedy,
we are exhorted to spend less.’ [‘Yes, to waste less, or to spend what
we have left in things useful to ourselves, and not in Government
gimcracks, whether of peace or war.’] Is it better, does Mr. Southey
think, that ten poor men should keep ten pounds a-piece in their
pockets, which they would of course spend in food, clothing, fuel, &c.
for themselves and families, or that this hundred pounds, that is, ten
pounds a-piece, should be paid out of the pockets of these ten poor
men in _taxes_, which, added to Mr. Croker’s salary, would enable him
to keep another horse, to pay for the feed, furniture, saddle, bridle,
whip, and spurs? We ask Mr. Southey this question, and will put the
issue of the whole argument upon the answer to it. The money would be
spent equally in either case, say in agriculture, in raising corn for
instance, wheat or oats: but the corn raised and paid for by it in the
one instance would go into the belly of the poor man and his family:
in the other, into the belly of Mr. Croker’s horse. Does that make no
difference to Mr. Southey? Answer, Man of Humanity! Or, if Mr.
Southey, the Man of Humanity, will not answer, let Mr. Malthus, the
Man of God, answer for him! Again, what would go to pay for a new
saddle for the Secretary of the Admiralty, would buy the poor man and
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account