Misc Writings and Speeches, vol 1 | Page 4

have been anticipated something like the third chapter of
the History of England. It may be amusing to notice that in the article
on Mitford, appears the first sketch of the New Zealander, afterwards
filled up in a passage in the review of Mrs Austin's translation of Ranke,
a passage which at one time was the subject of allusion, two or three
times a week, in speeches and leading articles. In this, too, appear,
perhaps for the first time, the author's views on the representative
system. These he retained to the very last; they are brought forward
repeatedly in the articles published in this collection and elsewhere, and
in his speeches in parliament; and they coincide with the opinions
expressed in the letter to an American correspondent, which was so
often cited in the late debate on the Reform Bill.
Some explanation appears to be necessary as to the publication of the
three articles "Mill on Government," "Westminster Reviewer's Defence
of Mill" and "Utilitarian Theory of Government."
In 1828 Mr James Mill, the author of the History of British India,

reprinted some essays which he had contributed to the Supplement to
the Encyclopaedia Britannica; and among these was an Essay on
Government. The method of inquiry and reasoning adopted in this
essay appeared to Macaulay to be essentially wrong. He entertained a
very strong conviction that the only sound foundation for a theory of
Government must be laid in careful and copious historical induction;
and he believed that Mr Mill's work rested upon a vicious reasoning a
priori. Upon this point he felt the more earnestly, owing to his own
passion for historical research, and to his devout admiration of Bacon,
whose works he was at that time studying with intense attention. There
can, however, be little doubt that he was also provoked by the
pretensions of some members of a sect which then commonly went by
the name of Benthamites, or Utilitarians. This sect included many of
his contemporaries, who had quitted Cambridge at about the same time
with him. It had succeeded, in some measure, to the sect of the
Byronians, whom he has described in the review of Moore's Life of
Lord Byron, who discarded their neckcloths, and fixed little models of
skulls on the sand-glasses by which they regulated the boiling of their
eggs for breakfast. The members of these sects, and of many others that
have succeeded, have probably long ago learned to smile at the
temporary humours. But Macaulay, himself a sincere admirer of
Bentham, was irritated by what he considered the unwarranted tone
assumed by several of the class of Utilitarians. "We apprehend," he said,
"that many of them are persons who, having read little or nothing, are
delighted to be rescued from the sense of their own inferiority by some
teacher who assures them that the studies which they have neglected
are of no value, puts five or six phrases into their mouths, lends them
an odd number of the Westminster Review, and in a month transforms
them into philosophers;" and he spoke of them as "smatterers, whose
attainments just suffice to elevate them from the insignificance of
dunces to the dignity of bores, and to spread dismay among their pious
aunts and grand mothers." The sect, of course, like other sects,
comprehended some pretenders, and these the most arrogant and
intolerant among its members. He, however, went so far as to apply the
following language to the majority:--"As to the greater part of the sect,
it is, we apprehend, of little consequence what they study or under
whom. It would be more amusing, to be sure, and more reputable, if

they would take up the old republican cant and declaim about Brutus
and Timoleon, the duty of killing tyrants and the blessedness of dying
for liberty. But, on the whole, they might have chosen worse. They may
as well be Utilitarians as jockeys or dandies. And, though quibbling
about self-interest and motives, and objects of desire, and the greatest
happiness of the greatest number, is but a poor employment for a
grown man, it certainly hurts the health less than hard drinking and the
fortune less than high play; it is not much more laughable than
phrenology, and is immeasurably more humane than cock-fighting."
Macaulay inserted in the Edinburgh Review of March, 1829, an article
upon Mr Mill's Essay. He attacked the method with much vehemence;
and, to the end of his life, he never saw any ground for believing that in
this he had gone too far. But before long he felt that he had not spoken
of the author of the Essay with the respect due to so eminent a man. In
1833, he described Mr mill, during the debate on the India Bill of that
year, as a "gentleman extremely