KE6215 Notes And.Indd
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
【Notes and Communications】 * ‘As One of the Swinish Multitude’: A Note on Malthus’s Allusion to Burke’s Reflections Nobuhiko Nakazawa I In my previous article on Thomas Robert Malthus’s( 1766-1834) political views during his early years( Nakazawa 2012), I demonstrated that he was an earnest sympathizer of Charles James Fox and his opposition Whig party, as well as a harsh critic of William Pitt’s administration, and discussed how this shaped his first Essay on the Principle of Population (1798). At the same time, though his first Essay is widely known as a counter-revolutionary work, similar in some ways to Edmund Burke’s( 1729/30-97) Reflections on the Revolution in France( 1790), I suggested the not insignificant ideological gap that existed between the two great thinkers. In my earlier paper, however, I refrained from exploring the details of that gap primarily because I was concerned that the clarity of my article would be compromised by further exposition. Through this small note, I aim to undertake a part of my work I chose to sideline in the previous article. Further, the problem that we are now facing arises because less direct reference regarding Burke or any of his writings has been noticed in Malthus’s officially published texts. As far as I can determine, the best point to overlap is that An Account of the European Settlements in America( 1757), which was co-authored by Burke and his cousin William Burke, was favoura- bly mentioned in the second and subsequent editions of the Essay (1803, 1806, 1807, 1817 and 1826) alongside other historical writings such as Abbé Raynal’s Histoire des deux Indes( 1770) and William Robertson’s History of America( 1777). In other words, Malthus never explicitly mentioned Burke’s * I am grateful to many who commented on drafts of this paper or provided other indis- pensable help, particularly Shin Kubo, Seiichiro Ito, Miriam Bankovsky, Fabio Petri and Tony Aspromourgos. I would also like to thank the journal editors and reviewers for their useful comments and suggestions. However, any errors and omissions are my re- sponsibility alone. This research was supported in part by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Num- ber 18K01536. Notes and Communications 79 post-revolutionary writings, such as Reflections, although whether this was intentional is unclear. Alongside the influence of a series of separate but similar attacks by Marx on both Burke and Malthus (Marx [1867-1894] 1976-1981, I, 766-77, 925-26), lack of specific reference to Burke’s post- revolutionary output by Malthus has contributed to the two writers being view- ed as equally ideological reactionary conservatives, denouncing the democratic upsurge associated with the French Revolution and the impoverished masses (Himmelfarb 1984, 66-73, 100-32; McNally 2000, 435-36; Mizuta 1969; Okochi 1951, 116, 149-50). II On this point, for example, Robert Mayhew, the author of the latest authorita- tive biography of Malthus, remarked that ‘Burke attracted notoriety in his own age and ever since for only one comment he made about population in the Reflections, the reference to the common people of France as “a swinish mul- titude”’( Mayhew 2014, 46-47) and that ‘Malthus’s comments on “Nature’s mighty feast” were equivalent in their infamy to Burke’s “swinish multitude”’ (Mayhew 2014, 125). In Reflections, Burke indeed referred to the starving French masses as the ‘swinish multitude’ when he warned readers of the perils of allowing the lower classes to gain political power. He thus wrote the following. Nothing is more certain, than that our manners, our civilisation, and all the good things which are connected with manners, and with civilisation, have, in this European world of ours, depended for ages upon two prin- ciples; and were indeed the result of both combined; I mean the spirit of a gentleman, and the spirit of religion. The nobility and the clergy, the one by profession, the other by patronage, kept learning in existence, even in the midst of arms and confusions, and whilst governments were rather in their causes than formed. Learning paid back what it received to nobility and to priesthood; and paid it with usury, by enlarging their ideas, and by furnishing their minds. Happy if they had all continued to know their indissoluble union, and their proper place! Happy if learning, not debauched by ambition, had been satisfied to continue the instructor, and not aspired to be the master! Along with its natural protectors and guardians, learning will be cast into the mire, and trodden down under the hoofs of a swinish multitude. ( Burke[ 1790] 1989, 129-30) As an indicator of the established prejudice entertained by the upper class 80 経済学史研究 62 巻 1 号(The History of Economic Thought, Vol. 62, No. 1) against the lower orders, the phrase ‘swinish multitude’ soon became short- hand for any political philosophy defending and perpetuating a rigid social hierarchy. Interestingly, the phrase was consequently re-appropriated by many of his contemporary popular radicals, including Thomas Spence, an English pamphleteer known as a pioneer of socialist land-nationalization, and William Drennan, one of the founding members of the United Irishmen.1 Spence called his weekly periodical Pig’s Meat; or Lessons for the Swinish Multitude (1793-95), precisely to parody Burke’s derogatory opinion of the lower orders-those who were neither of the nobility nor of the clergy and desired equity in areas such as education. In Ireland, Drennan was delighted to em- ploy this contemptuous phrase in that manner in a 1795 pamphlet, while the rebel army which marched to the Battle of Antrim against the British army on 7 June 1798 struck up a song, ‘The Swinish Multitude’( Herzog 1998, ch. 12; Im 2018; McNally 2000, 435; Newman 2013, 139-40; Smyth 2010, 9-10; Thompson 1968, 98; Thuente 1998, 23-24). In the second edition of Essay( 1803), in contrast, Malthus spoke of ‘nature’s mighty feast’ to stress his principled rejection of the poor’s right to subsistence. He thereby wrote the following. A man who is born into a world already possessed, if he cannot get subsistence from his parents on whom he has a just demand, and if the society do[ sic] not want his labour, has no claim of right to the small- est portion of food, and, in fact, has no business to be where he is. At nature’s mighty feast there is no vacant cover for him. She tells him to be gone, and will quickly execute her own orders, if he does not work upon the compassion of some of her guests. If these guests get up and make room for him, other intruders immediately appear demanding the same favour. The report of a provision for all that come, fills the hall with numerous claimants. The order and harmony of the feast is disturbed, the plenty that before reigned is changed into scarcity; and the happiness of the guests is destroyed by the spectacle of misery and dependence in every part of the hall, and by the clamorous importunity of those, who are justly enraged at not finding the provision which they had been taught to expect. The guests learn too late their error, in coun- teracting those strict orders to all intruders, issued by the great mistress of the feast, who, wishing that all her guests should have plenty, and knowing that she could not provide for unlimited numbers, humanely 1 A radical nationalist group founded in 1791 in Ireland with the objective to reform Parliament and, if necessary, separate from Britain. Notes and Communications 81 refused to admit fresh comers when her table was already full. (Malthus[ 1803-1826] 1989, II, 127-28; italics in original) A less widely known Robert Southey’s (1774-1843), who was a romantic poet, vitriolic review of Malthus’s second Essay, found in the Annual Review of 1803( but published in 1804), has contributed decisively to the image of Malthus as a backward and reactionary person (Nakazawa and Ou 2019). Southey’s review was, however, sharply contrasting to Malthus portrait as a moderate reformer in 1798 (discussed in more detail later). According to Southey, the Essay is ‘the political bible of the rich, the selfish and the sensual’ (Southey[ 1804] 1994, 129) and its author ‘calls for no sacrifice from the rich; on the contrary, he proposes to relieve them from their parish rates: he recommends nothing to them but that they should harden their hearts. He writes advice to the poor for the rich to read’( Southey[ 1804] 1994, 135- 36). Southey considered that the folly and wickedness of this book was typi- cally represented in the ‘nature’s mighty feast’ metaphor-the entire paragraph of which he quoted in his review to show that this metaphor sanctioned those social evils he wished to eradicate. Southey’s hostile, but influential, review earned Malthus a level of notoriety that has persisted, although the referenced paragraph appeared only in the 1803 version of Essay and was deleted from 1806 onwards. Thus, as noted by Mayhew, Malthus was an unwilling recipient of the same stigma with which Burke had been marked. III Focusing on the phrase ‘swinish multitude,’ I hope to illustrate the sharp contrast between Burke’s and Malthus’s political terminology in the remainder of this note. Malthus’s library catalogue covers most of Burke’s major works, including Reflections, An Account of the European Settlements in America, Speech on American Taxation (1774), Thoughts and Details on Scarcity (1795; posthumously published in 1800) and A Letter to a Noble Lord (1796)( Jesus College, ed. 1983, 24-25).