[124] Mr. Conway, in his _Life of Paine_, attributes, I think, a little more to his hero than is consistent with due regard to his predecessors; but, in any case, he took an early part in the movement.
[125] See upon this subject Mr. Jephson"s interesting book on _The Platform_.
V. THE FRENCH REVOLUTION
The English society which I have endeavoured to characterise was now to be thrown into the vortex of the revolutionary wars. The surpa.s.sing dramatic interest of the French Revolution has tended to obscure our perception of the continuity of even English history. It has been easy to ascribe to the contagion of French example political movements which were already beginning in England and which were modified rather than materially altered by our share in the great European convulsion. The impression made upon Englishmen by the French Revolution is, however, in the highest degree characteristic. The most vehement sympathies and antipathies were aroused, and showed at least what principles were congenial to the various English parties. To praise or blame the revolution, as if it could be called simply good or bad, is for the historian as absurd as to praise or blame an earthquake. It was simply inevitable under the conditions. We may, of course, take it as an essential stage in a social evolution, which if described as progress is therefore to be blessed, or if as degeneration may provoke lamentation.
We may, if we please, ask whether superior statesmanship might have attained the good results without the violent catastrophes, or whether a wise and good man who could appreciate the real position would have approved or condemned the actual policy. But to answer such problems with any confidence would imply a claim to a quasi-omniscience.
Partisans at the time, however, answered them without hesitation, and saw in the Revolution the dawn of a new era of reason and justice, or the outburst of the fires of h.e.l.l. Their view is at any rate indicative of their own position. The extreme opinions need no exposition. They are represented by the controversy between Burke and Paine. The general doctrine of the "Rights of Men"--that all men are by nature free and equal--covered at least the doctrine that the inequality and despotism of the existing order was hateful, and people with a taste for abstract principles accepted this short cut to political wisdom. The "minor"
premise being obviously true, they took the major for granted. To Burke, who idealised the traditional element in the British Const.i.tution, and so attached an excessive importance to historical continuity, the new doctrine seemed to imply the breaking up of the very foundations of order and the pulverisation of society. Burke and Paine both a.s.sumed too easily that the dogmas which they defended expressed the real and ultimate beliefs, and that the belief was the cause, not the consequence, of the political condition. Without touching upon the logic of either position, I may notice how the problem presented itself to the average English politician whose position implied acceptance of traditional compromises and who yet prided himself on possessing the liberties which were now being claimed by Frenchmen. The Whig could heartily sympathise with the French Revolution so long as it appeared to be an attempt to a.s.similate British principles. When Fox hailed the fall of the Bastille as the greatest and best event that had ever happened, he was expressing a generous enthusiasm shared by all the ardent and enlightened youth of the time. The French, it seemed, were abolishing an arbitrary despotism and adopting the principles of Magna Charta and the "Habeas Corpus" Act. Difficulties, however, already suggested themselves to the true Whig. Would the French, as Young asked just after the same event, "copy the const.i.tution of England, freed from its faults, or attempt, from theory, to frame something absolutely speculative"?[126] On that issue depended the future of the country. It was soon decided in the sense opposed to Young"s wishes. The reign of terror alienated the average Whig. But though the argument from atrocities is the popular one, the opposition was really more fundamental. Burke put the case, savagely and coa.r.s.ely enough, in his "Letter to a n.o.ble Lord." How would the duke of Bedford like to be treated as the revolutionists were treating the n.o.bility in France? The duke might be a sincere lover of political liberty, but he certainly would not be prepared to approve the confiscation of his estates. The aristocratic Whigs, dependent for their whole property and for every privilege which they prized upon ancient tradition and prescription, could not really be in favour of sweeping away the whole complex social structure, levelling Windsor Castle as Burke put it in his famous metaphor, and making a "Bedford level" of the whole country. The Whigs had to disavow any approval of the Jacobins; Mackintosh, who had given his answer to Burke"s diatribes, met Burke himself on friendly terms (9th July 1797), and in 1800 took an opportunity of public recantation.
He only expressed the natural awakening of the genuine Whig to the aspects of the case which he had hitherto ignored. The effect upon the middle-cla.s.s Whigs is, however, more to my purpose. It may be ill.u.s.trated by the history of John Horne Tooke[127] (1736-1812), who at this time represented what may be called the home-bred British radicalism. He was the son of a London tradesman, who had distinguished himself by establishing, and afterwards declining to enforce, certain legal rights against Frederick Prince of Wales. The prince recognised the tradesman"s generosity by making his antagonist purveyor to his household. A debt of some thousand pounds was thus run up before the prince"s death which was never discharged. Possibly the son"s hostility to the royal family was edged by this circ.u.mstance. John Horne, forced to take orders in order to hold a living, soon showed himself to have been intended by nature for the law. He took up the cause of Wilkes in the early part of the reign; defended him energetically in later years; and in 1769 helped to start the "Society for supporting the Bill of Rights." He then attacked Wilkes, who, as he maintained, misapplied for his own private use the funds subscribed for public purposes to this society; and set up a rival "Const.i.tutional Society." In 1775, as spokesman of this body, he denounced the "king"s troops" for "inhumanly murdering" their fellow-subjects at Lexington for the sole crime of "preferring death to slavery." He was imprisoned for the libel, and thus became a martyr to the cause. When the country a.s.sociations were formed in 1780 to protest against the abuses revealed by the war, Horne became a member of the "Society for Const.i.tutional Information," of which Major Cartwright--afterwards the revered, but rather tiresome, patriarch of the Radicals--was called the "father." Horne Tooke (as he was now named), by these and other exhibitions of boundless pugnacity, became a leader among the middle-cla.s.s Whigs, who found their main support among London citizens, such as Beckford, Troutbeck and Oliver; supported them in his later days; and after the American war, preferred Pitt, as an advocate of parliamentary reform, to Fox, the favourite of the aristocratic Whigs. He denounced the Fox coalition ministry, and in later years opposed Fox at Westminster. The "Society for Const.i.tutional Information" was still extant in the revolutionary period, and Tooke, a bluff, jovial companion, who had by this time got rid of his clerical character, often took the chair at the taverns where they met to talk sound politics over their port. The revolution infused new spirit into politics. In March 1791[128] Tooke"s society pa.s.sed a vote of thanks to Paine for the first part of his _Rights of Man_. Next year Thomas Hardy, a radical shoemaker, started a "Corresponding Society." Others sprang up throughout the country, especially in the manufacturing towns.[129]
These societies took Paine for their oracle, and circulated his writings as their manifesto. They communicated occasionally with Horne Tooke"s society, which more or less sympathised with them. The Whigs of the upper sphere started the "Friends of the People" in April 1792, in order to direct the discontent into safer channels. Grey, Sheridan and Erskine were members; Fox sympathised but declined to join; Mackintosh was secretary; and Sir Philip Francis drew up the opening address, citing the authority of Pitt and Blackstone, and declaring that the society wished "not to change but to restore."[130] It remonstrated cautiously with the other societies, and only excited their distrust. Grey, as its representative, made a motion for parliamentary reform which was rejected (May 1793) by two hundred and eighty-two to forty-one. Later motions in May 1797 and April 1800 showed that, for the present, parliamentary reform was out of the question. Meanwhile the English Jacobins got up a "convention" which met at Edinburgh at the end of 1793. The very name was alarming: the leaders were tried and transported; the cruelty of the sentences and the severity of the judges, especially Braxfield, shocked such men as Parr and Jeffrey, and unsuccessful appeals for mercy were made in parliament. The Habeas Corpus Act was suspended in 1794: Horne Tooke and Hardy were both arrested and tried for high treason in November. An English jury fortunately showed itself less subservient than the Scottish; the judge was scrupulously fair: and both Hardy and Horne Tooke were acquitted.
The societies, however, though they were encouraged for a time, were attacked by severe measures pa.s.sed by Pitt in 1795. The "Friends of the People" ceased to exist The seizure of the committee of the Corresponding Societies in 1798 put an end to their activity. A report presented to parliament in 1799[131] declares that the societies had gone to dangerous lengths: they had communicated with the French revolutionists and with the "United Irishmen" (founded 1791); and societies of "United Englishmen" and "United Scotsmen" had had some concern in the mutinies of the fleet in 1797 and in the Irish rebellion of 1798. Place says, probably with truth, that the danger was much exaggerated: but in any case, an act for the suppression of the Corresponding Societies was pa.s.sed in 1799, and put an end to the movement.
This summary is significant of the state of opinion. The genuine old-fashioned Whig dreaded revolution, and guarded himself carefully against any appearance of complicity. Jacobinism, on the other hand, was always an exotic. Such men as the leading Nonconformists Priestley and Price were familiar with the speculative movement on the continent, and sympathised with the enlightenment. Young men of genius, like Wordsworth and Coleridge, imbibed the same doctrines more or less thoroughly, and took G.o.dwin for their English representative. The same creed was accepted by the artisans in the growing towns, from whom the Corresponding Societies drew their recruits. But the revolutionary sentiment was not so widely spread as its adherents hoped or its enemies feared. The Birmingham mob of 1791 acted, with a certain unconscious humour, on the side of church and king. They had perhaps an instinctive perception that it was an advantage to plunder on the side of the constable. In fact, however, the general feeling in all cla.s.ses was anti-Jacobin. Place, an excellent witness, himself a member of the Corresponding Societies, declares that the repressive measures were generally popular even among the workmen.[132] They were certainly not penetrated with revolutionary fervour. Had it been otherwise, the repressive measures, severe as they were, would have stimulated rather than suppressed the societies, and, instead of silencing the revolutionists, have provoked a rising.
At the early period the Jacobin and the home-bred Radical might combine against government. A manifesto of the Corresponding Societies begins by declaring that "all men are by nature free and equal and independent of each other," and argues also that these are the "original principles of English government."[133] Magna Charta is an early expression of the Declaration of Rights, and thus pure reason confirms British tradition.
The adoption of a common platform, however, covered a profound difference of sentiment. Horne Tooke represents the old type of reformer. He was fully resolved not to be carried away by the enthusiasm of his allies. "My companions in a stage," he said to Cartwright, "may be going to Windsor: I will go with them to Hounslow. But there I will get out: no further will I go, by G.o.d!"[134] When Sheridan supported a vote of sympathy for the French revolutionists, Tooke insisted upon adding a rider declaring the content of Englishmen with their own const.i.tution.[135] He offended some of his allies by a.s.serting that the "main timbers" of the const.i.tution were sound though the dry-rot had got into the superstructure. He maintained, according to G.o.dwin,[136]
that the best of all governments had been that of England under George I. Though Cartwright said at the trial that Horne Tooke was taken to "have no religion whatever," he was, according to Stephens, "a great stickler for the church of England": and stood up for the House of Lords as well as the church on grounds of utility.[137] He always ridiculed Paine and the doctrine of abstract rights,[138] and told Cartwright that though all men had an equal right to a share of property, they had not a right to an equal share. Horne Tooke"s Radicalism (I use the word by antic.i.p.ation) was that of the st.u.r.dy tradesman. He opposed the government because he hated war, taxation and sinecures. He argued against universal suffrage with equal pertinacity. A comfortable old gentleman, with a good cellar of Madeira, and proud of his wall-fruit in a well-tilled garden, had no desire to see George III. at the guillotine, and still less to see a mob supreme in Lombard Street or banknotes superseded by a.s.signats. He might be jealous of the great n.o.bles, but he dreaded mob-rule. He could denounce abuses, but he could not desire anarchy. He is said to have retorted upon some one who had boasted that English courts of justice were open to all cla.s.ses: "So is the London tavern--to all who can pay."[139] That is in the spirit of Bentham; and yet Bentham complains that Horne Tooke"s disciple, Burdett, believed in the common law, and revered the authority of c.o.ke.[140] In brief, the creed of Horne Tooke meant "liberty" founded upon tradition.
I shall presently notice the consistency of this with what may be called his philosophy. Meanwhile it was only natural that radicals of this variety should retire from active politics, having sufficiently burnt their fingers by flirtation with the more thoroughgoing party. How they came to life again will appear hereafter. Horne Tooke himself took warning from his narrow escape. He stayed quietly in his house at Wimbledon.[141] There he divided his time between his books and his garden, and received his friends to Sunday dinners. Bentham, Mackintosh, Coleridge, and G.o.dwin were among his visitors. Coleridge calls him a "keen iron man," and reports that he made a b.u.t.t of G.o.dwin as he had done of Paine.[142] Porson and Boswell encountered him in drinking matches and were both left under the table.[143] The house was thus a small centre of intellectual life, though the symposia were not altogether such as became philosophers. Horne Tooke was a keen and shrewd disputant, well able to impress weaker natures. His neighbour, Sir Francis Burdett, became his political disciple, and in later years was accepted as the radical leader. Tooke died at Wimbledon 18th March 1812.
NOTES:
[126] _France_, p. 206 (20th July 1789).
[127] See the _Life of Horne Tooke_, by Alexander Stephens (2 vols. 8vo, 1813). John Horne added the name Tooke in 1782.
[128] _Parl. Hist._ x.x.xi. 751.
[129] The history of these societies may be found in the trials reported in the twenty-third, twenty-fourth, and twenty-fifth volumes of Cobbett"s _State Trials_, and in the reports of the secret committees in the thirty-first and thirty-fourth volumes of the _Parl. History_. There are materials in Place"s papers in the British Museum which have been used in E. Smith"s _English Jacobins_.
[130] _Parl. Hist._ xxix. 1300-1341.
[131] _Parl. Hist._ x.x.xiv. 574-655.
[132] Mr. Wallas"s _Life of Place_, p. 25 _n._
[133] _State Trials_, xxiv. 575.
[134] _Ibid._ xxv. 330.
[135] _Ibid._ xxv. 390.
[136] Paul"s _G.o.dwin_, i. 147.
[137] Stephens, ii. 48, 477.
[138] _Ibid._ ii. 34-41, 323, 478-481.
[139] _Ibid._ ii. 483.
[140] Bentham"s _Works_, x. 404.
[141] He was member for Old Sarum 1801-2; but his career ended by a declaratory act disqualifying for a seat men who had received holy orders.
[142] Bentham"s _Works_, x. 404; _Life of Mackintosh_, i. 52; Paul"s _G.o.dwin_, i. 71; Coleridge"s _Table-Talk_, 8th May 1830 and 16th August 1833.
[143] Stephens, ii. 316, 334, 438.
VI. INDIVIDUALISM
The general tendencies which I have so far tried to indicate will have to be frequently noticed in the course of the following pages. One point may be emphasised before proceeding: a main characteristic of the whole social and political order is what is now called its "individualism." That phrase is generally supposed to convey some censure. It may connote, however, some of the most essential virtues that a race can possess. Energy, self-reliance, and independence, a strong conviction that a man"s fate should depend upon his own character and conduct, are qualities without which no nation can be great. They are the conditions of its vital power. They were manifested in a high degree by the Englishmen of the eighteenth century. How far they were due to the inherited qualities of the race, to the political or social history, or to external circ.u.mstances, I need not ask. They were the qualities which had especially impressed foreign observers. The fierce, proud, intractable Briton was elbowing his way to a high place in the world, and showing a vigour not always amiable, but destined to bring him successfully through tremendous struggles. In the earlier part of the century, Voltaire and French philosophers admired English freedom of thought and free speech, even when it led to eccentricity and brutality of manners, and to barbarism in matters of taste. Englishmen, conscious and proud of their "liberty," were the models of all who desired liberty for themselves. Liberty, as they understood it, involved, among other things, an a.s.sault upon the old restrictive system, which at every turn hampered the rising industrial energy. This is the sense in which "Individualism," or the gospel according to Adam Smith--_laissez faire_, and so forth--has been specially denounced in recent times. Without asking at present how far such attacks are justifiable, I must be content to a.s.sume that the old restrictive system was in its actual form mischievous, guided by entirely false theories, and the great barrier to the development of industry. The same spirit appeared in purely political questions. "Liberty," as is often remarked, may be interpreted in two ways; not necessarily consistent with each other. It means sometimes simply the diminution of the sphere of law and the power of legislators, or, again, the transference to subjects of the power of legislating, and, therefore, not less control, but control by self-made laws alone. The Englishman, who was in presence of no centralised administrative power, who regarded the Government rather as receiving power from individuals than as delegating the power of a central body, took liberty mainly in the sense of restricting law. Government in general was a nuisance, though a necessity; and properly employed only in mediating between conflicting interests, and restraining the violence of individuals forced into contact by outward circ.u.mstances. When he demanded that a greater share of influence should be given to the people, he always took for granted that their power would be used to diminish the activity of the sovereign power; that there would be less government and therefore less jobbery, less interference with free speech and free action, and smaller perquisites to be bestowed in return for the necessary services. The people would use their authority to tie the hands of the rulers, and limit them strictly to their proper and narrow functions.
The absence, again, of the idea of a state in any other sense implies another tendency. The "idea" was not required. Englishmen were concerned rather with details than with first principles. Satisfied, in a general way, with their const.i.tution, they did not want to be bothered with theories. Abstract and absolute doctrines of right, when imported from France, fell flat upon the average Englishman. He was eager enough to discuss the utility of this or that part of the machinery, but without inquiring into first principles of mechanism. The argument from "utility" deals with concrete facts, and presupposes an acceptance of some common criterion of the useful. The constant discussion of political matters in parliament and the press implied a tacit acceptance on all hands of const.i.tutional methods. Practical men, asking whether this or that policy shall be adopted in view of actual events, no more want to go back to right reason and "laws of nature" than a surveyor to investigate the nature of geometrical demonstration. Very important questions were raised as to the rights of the press, for example, or the system of representation. But everybody agreed that the representative system and freedom of speech were good things; and argued the immediate questions of fact. The order, only established by experience and tradition, was accepted, subject to criticism of detail, and men turned impatiently from abstract argument, and left the inquiry into "social contracts" to philosophers, that is, to silly people in libraries.
Politics were properly a matter of business, to be discussed in a business-like spirit. In this sense, "individualism" is congenial to "empiricism," because it starts from facts and particular interests, and resents the intrusion of first principles.
The characteristic individualism, again, suggests one other remark.
Individual energy and sense of responsibility are good--as even extreme socialists may admit--if they do not exclude a sense of duties to others. It may be a question how far the stimulation of individual enterprise and the vigorous spirit of industrial compet.i.tion really led to a disregard of the interests of the weaker. But it would be a complete misunderstanding of the time if we inferred that it meant a decline of humane feeling. Undoubtedly great evils had grown up, and some continued to grow which were tolerated by the indifference, or even stimulated by the selfish aims, of the dominant cla.s.ses. But, in the first place, many of the most active prophets of the individualist spirit were acting, and acting sincerely, in the name of humanity. They were attacking a system which they held, and to a great extent, I believe, held rightly, to be especially injurious to the weakest cla.s.ses. Possibly they expected too much from the simple removal of restrictions; but certainly they denounced the restrictions as unjust to all, not simply as hindrances to the wealth of the rich. Adam Smith"s position is intelligible: it was, he thought, a proof of a providential order that each man, by helping himself, unintentionally helped his neighbours. The moral sense based upon sympathy was therefore not opposed to, but justified, the economic principles that each man should first attend to his own interest. The unintentional co-operation would thus become conscious and compatible with the established order. And, in the next place, so far from there being a want of humane feeling, the most marked characteristic of the eighteenth century was precisely the growth of humanity. In the next generation, the eighteenth century came to be denounced as cold, heartless, faithless, and so forth. The established mode of writing history is partly responsible for this perversion. Men speak as though some great man, who first called attention to an evil, was a supernatural being who had suddenly dropped into the world from another sphere. His condemnation of evil is therefore taken to be a proof that the time must be evil. Any century is bad if we a.s.sume all the good men to be exceptions. But the great man is really also the product of his time. He is the mouthpiece of its prevailing sentiments, and only the first to see clearly what many are beginning to perceive obscurely. The emergence of the prophet is a proof of the growing demand of his hearers for sound teaching. Because he is in advance of men generally, he sees existing abuses more clearly, and we take his evidence against his contemporaries as conclusive. But the fact that they listened shows how widely the same sensibility to evil was already diffused. In fact, as I think, the humane spirit of the eighteenth century, due to the vast variety of causes which we call social progress or evolution--not to the teaching of any individual--was permeating the whole civilised world, and showed itself in the philosophic movement as well as in the teaching of the religious leaders, who took the philosophers to be their enemies. I have briefly noticed the various philanthropic movements which were characteristic of the period. Some of them may indicate the growth of new evils; others, that evils which had once been regarded with indifference were now attracting attention and exciting indignation. But even the growth of new evils does not show general indifference so much as the incapacity of the existing system to deal with new conditions. It may, I think, be safely said that a growing philanthropy was characteristic of the whole period, and in particular animated the Utilitarian movement, as I shall have to show in detail. Modern writers have often spoken of the Wesleyan propaganda and the contemporary "evangelical revival" as the most important movements of the time. They are apt to speak, in conformity with the view just described, as though Wesley or some of his contemporaries had originated or created the better spirit. Without asking what was good or bad in some aspects of these movements, I fully believe that Wesley was essentially a moral reformer, and that he deserves corresponding respect. But instead of holding that his contemporaries were bad people, awakened by a stimulus from without, I hold that the movement, so far as really indicating moral improvement, must be set down to the credit of the century itself. It was one manifestation of a general progress, of which Bentham was another outcome. Though Bentham might have thought Wesley a fanatic or perhaps a hypocrite, and Wesley would certainly have considered that Bentham"s heart was much in need of a change, they were really allies as much as antagonists, and both mark a great and beneficial change.
CHAPTER IV
PHILOSOPHY
I. JOHN HORNE TOOKE
I have so far dwelt upon the social and political environment of the early Utilitarian movement; and have tried also to point out some of the speculative tendencies fostered by the position. If it be asked what philosophical doctrines were explicitly taught, the answer must be a very short one. English philosophy barely existed. Parr was supposed to know something about metaphysics--apparently because he could write good Latin. But the inference was hasty. Of one book, however, which had a real influence, I must say something, for though it contained little definite philosophy, it showed what kind of philosophy was congenial to the common sense of the time.
The st.u.r.dy radical, Horne Tooke, had been led to the study of philology by a characteristic incident. The legal question had arisen whether the words, "_She, knowing that Crooke had been indicted for forgery_," did so and so, contained an averment that Crooke had been indicted. Tooke argued in a letter to Dunning[144] that they did; because they were equivalent to the phrase, "Crooke had been indicted for forgery: she, _knowing that_," did so and so. This raises the question: What is the meaning of "that"? Tooke took up the study, thinking, as he says, that it would throw light upon some philosophical questions. He learned some Anglo-Saxon and Gothic to test his theory and, of course, confirmed it.[145] The book shows ingenuity, shrewdness, and industry, and Tooke deserves credit for seeing the necessity of applying a really historical method to his problem, though his results were necessarily crude in the pre-scientific stage of philology.
The book is mainly a long string of etymologies, which readers of different tastes have found intolerably dull or an amusing collection of curiosities. Tooke held, and surely with reason, that an investigation of language, the great instrument of thought, may help to throw light upon the process of thinking. He professes to be a disciple of Locke in philosophy as in politics. Locke, he said,[146] made a lucky mistake in calling his book an essay upon human understanding; for he thus attracted many who would have been repelled had he called it what it really was, "a treatise upon words and language." According to Tooke, in fact,[147] what we call "operations of mind" are only "operations of language." The mind contemplates nothing but "impressions," that is, "sensations or feelings," which Locke called "ideas," Locke mistook composition of terms for composition of ideas. To compound ideas is impossible. We can only use one term as a sign of many ideas. Locke, again, supposed that affirming and denying were operations of the mind, whereas they are only artifices of language.[148]
The mind, then, can only contemplate, separately or together, aggregates of "ideas," ultimate atoms, incapable of being parted or dissolved.
There are, therefore, only two cla.s.ses of words, nouns and verbs; all others, prepositions, conjunctions, and so forth, being abbreviations, a kind of mental shorthand to save the trouble of enumerating the separate items. Tooke, in short, is a thoroughgoing nominalist. The realities, according to him, are sticks, stones, and material objects, or the "ideas" which "represent" them. They can be stuck together or taken apart, but all the words which express relations, categories, and the like, are in themselves meaningless. The special objects of his scorn are "Hermes" Harris, and Monboddo, who had tried to defend Aristotle against Locke. Monboddo had a.s.serted that "every kind of relation" is a pure "idea of the intellect" not to be apprehended by sense.[149] If so, according to Tooke, it would be a nonent.i.ty.
This doctrine gives a short cut to the abolition of metaphysics. The word "metaphysics," says Tooke,[150] is nonsense. All metaphysical controversies are "founded on the grossest ignorance of words and the nature of speech." The greatest part of his second volume is concerned with etymologies intended to prove that an "abstract idea" is a mere word. Abstract words, he says,[151] are generally "participles without a substantive and therefore in construction used as substantives." From a misunderstanding of this has arisen "metaphysical jargon" and "false morality." In ill.u.s.tration he gives a singular list of words, including "fate, chance, heaven, h.e.l.l, providence, prudence, innocence, substance, fiend, angel, apostle, spirit, true, false, desert, merit, faith, etc., all of which are mere participles poetically embodied and substantiated by those who use them." A couple of specific applications, often quoted by later writers, will sufficiently indicate his drift.
Such words, he remarks,[152] as "right" and "just" mean simply that which is ordered or commanded. The chapter is headed "rights of man,"
and Tooke"s interlocutor naturally observes that this is a singular result for a democrat. Man, it would seem, has no rights except the rights created by the law. Tooke admits the inference to be correct, but replies that the democrat in disobeying human law may be obeying the law of G.o.d, and is obeying the law of G.o.d when he obeys the law of nature.
The interlocutor does not inquire what Tooke could mean by the "law of nature." We can guess what Tooke would have said to Paine in the Wimbledon garden. In fact, however, Tooke is here, as elsewhere, following Hobbes, though, it seems, unconsciously. Another famous etymology is that of "truth" from "troweth."[153] Truth is what each man thinks. There is no such thing, therefore, as "eternal, immutable, everlasting truth, unless mankind, _such as they are at present_, be eternal, immutable, everlasting." Two persons may contradict each other and yet each may be speaking what is true for him. Truth may be a vice as well as a virtue; for on many occasions it is wrong to speak the truth.
These phrases may possibly be interpreted in a sense less paradoxical than the obvious one. Tooke"s philosophy, if so it is to be called, was never fully expounded. He burned his papers before his death, and we do not know what he would have said about "verbs," which must have led, one would suppose, to some further treatment of relations, nor upon the subject, which as Stephens tells us, was most fully treated in his continuation, the value of human testimony.
If Tooke was not a philosopher he was a man of remarkably shrewd cynical common sense, who thought philosophy idle foppery. His book made a great success. Stephens tells us[154] that it brought him 4000 or 5000.
Hazlitt in 1810 published a grammar professing to incorporate for the first time Horne Tooke"s "discoveries." The book was admired by Mackintosh,[155] who, of course, did not accept the principles, and had a warm disciple in Charles Richardson (1775-1865), who wrote in its defence against Dugald Stewart and accepted its authority in his elaborate dictionary of the English language.[156] But its chief interest for us is that it was a great authority with James Mill. Mill accepts the etymologies, and there is much in common between the two writers, though Mill had learned his main doctrines elsewhere, especially from Hobbes. What the agreement really shows is how the intellectual idiosyncrasy which is congenial to "nominalism" in philosophy was also congenial to Tooke"s matter of fact radicalism and to the Utilitarian position of Bentham and his followers.