He was,they held,telling the tyrants that it was not their fault if the poor were miserable.The essay was thus all apology for the heartlessness of the rich.This view was set forth by Hazlitt in an attack upon Malthus in 1807.40It appears again in the Enquiry by G.Ensor (1769-1843)--a vivacious though rather longwinded Irishman,who was known both to O'Connell and to Bentham.41Godwin himself was roused by the appearance of the fifth edition of Malthus's Essay to write a reply,which appeared in 1820.He was helped by David Booth (1766-1846),42a man of some mathematical and statistical knowledge.Hazlitt's performance is sufficiently significant of the general tendency.Hazlitt had been an enthusiastic admirer of Godwin,and retained as much of the enthusiasm as his wayward prejudices would allow.He was through life what may be called a sentimental Radical,so far as Radicalism was compatible with an ardent worship of Napoleon.
To him Napoleon meant the enemy of Pitt and Liverpool and Castlereagh and the Holy Alliance.Hazlitt could forgive any policy which meant the humiliation of the men whom he most heartily hated.His attack upon Malthus was such as might satisfy even Cobbett,whose capacity for hatred,and especially for this particular object of hatred,was equal to Hazlitt's.The personal rancour of which Hazlitt was unfortunately capable leads to monstrous imputations.
Not only does Malthus's essay show the 'little low rankling malice of a parish beadle.disguised in the garb of philosophy,'and bury 'false logic'under 'a heap of garbled calculations,'43and so forth;but he founds insinuations upon Malthus's argument as to the constancy of the sexual passion.Malthus,he fully believes,has none of the ordinary passions,anger,pride,avarice,or the like,but declares that he must be a slave to an 'amorous complexion,'and believe all other men to be made ,of the same combustible materials.'44This foul blow is too characteristic of Hazlitt's usual method;but indicates also the tone which could be taken by contemporary journalism.
The more serious argument is really that the second version of Malthus is an answer to his first.
Briefly,the 'moral check'which came in only as a kind of afterthought is a normal part of the process by which population is kept within limits,and prevents the monstrous results of the 'geometrical ratio.'Hazlitt,after insisting upon this,admits that there is nothing in ,the general principles here stated that Mr.Malthus is at present disposed to deny,or that he has not himself expressly insisted upon in some part or other of his various works.'45He only argues that Malthus's concessions are made at the cost of self-contradiction.Why then,it may be asked,should not Hazlitt take the position of an improver and harmoniser of the doctrine rather than of a fierce opponent?The answer has been already implied.He regards Malthus as an apologist for an unjust inequality.Malthus,he says,in classifying the evils of life,has 'allotted to the poor all the misery,and to the rich as much vice as they please.'46The check of starvation will keep down the numbers of the poor;and the check of luxury and profligacy will restrain the multiplication of the rich,'the poor are to make a formal surrender of their right to provoke charity or parish assistance that the rich may be able to lay out all their money on their vices,'47The misery of the lower orders is the result of the power of the upper.A man born into a world where he is not wanted has no right,said Malthus,to a share of the food,that might be true if the poor were a set of lazy supernumeraries living on the industrious,But the truth is that the poor man does the work,and is forced to put up in return with a part of the produce of his labour,48The poor-laws recognise the principle that those who get all from the labour of others should provide from their superfluities for the necessities of those in want.49The 'grinding necessity'of which Malthus had spoken does not raise but lower the standard;and a system of equality would lessen instead of increasing the pressure.Malthus,again,has proposed that parents should be responsible for their children.That is,says Hazlitt,Malthus would leave children to starvation,though he professes to disapprove infanticide.He would 'extinguish every spark of humanity.towards the children of others'on pretence of preserving the 'ties of parental affection.'
Malthus tries to argue that the 'iniquity of government 'is not the cause of poverty.That belief,he says,has generated discontent and revolution.
That is,says Hazlitt,the way to prevent revolutions and produce reforms is to persuade people that all the evils which government may inflict are their own fault.Government is to do as much mischief as it pleases,without being answerable for it.50The poor-laws,as Hazlitt admits,are bad,but do not show the root of the evil,the evils are really due to increasing tyranny,dependence,indolence,and unhappiness due to other causes,Pauperism has increased because the government and the rich have had their way in everything.They have squandered our revenues,multiplied sinecures and pensions,doubled salaries,given monopolies and encouraged jobs,and depressed the poor and industrious,the 'poor create their own fund,'and the necessity for it has arisen from the exorbitant demands made by the rich,51Malthus is a Blifil,52hypocritically insinuating arguments in favour of tyranny under pretence of benevolence.