the miscellaneous writings and speeches-1- 第1部分

The　Miscellaneous　Writings　and　Speeches…Volume　I

　by　Lord　Macaulay







PREFACE。

Lord　Macaulay　always　looked　forward　to　a　publication　of　his　miscellaneous　works；　either　by　himself　or　by　those　who　should　represent　him　after　his　death。　　And　latterly　he　expressly　reserved；　whenever　the　arrangements　as　to　copyright　made　it　necessary；　the　right　of　such　publication。

The　collection　which　is　now　published　comprehends　some　of　the　earliest　and　some　of　the　latest　works　which　he　composed。　　He　was　born　on　25th　October；　1800；　commenced　residence　at　Trinity　College；　Cambridge；　in　October；　1818；　was　elected　Craven　University　Scholar　in　1821；　graduated　as　B。A。　in　1822；　was　elected　fellow　of　the　college　in　October；　1824；　was　called　to　the　bar　in　February；　1826；　when　he　joined　the　Northern　Circuit；　and　was　elected　member　for　Calne　in　1830。　　After　this　last　event；　he　did　not　long　continue　to　practise　at　the　bar。　　He　went　to　India　in　1834；　whence　he　returned　in　June；　1838。　　He　was　elected　member　for　Edinburgh；　in　1839；　and　lost　this　seat　in　July；　1847；　and　this　（though　he　was　afterwards　again　elected　for　that　city　in　July；　1852；　without　being　a　candidate）　may　be　considered　as　the　last　instance　of　his　taking　an　active　part　in　the　contests　of　public　life。　　These　few　dates　are　mentioned　for　the　purpose　of　enabling　the　reader　to　assign　the　articles；　now　and　previously　published；　to　the　principal　periods　into　which　the　author's　life　may　be　divided。

The　admirers　of　his　later　works　will　probably　be　interested　by　watching　the　gradual　formation　of　his　style；　and　will　notice　in　his　earlier　productions；　vigorous　and　clear　as　their　language　always　was；　the　occurrence　of　faults　against　which　he　afterwards　most　anxiously　guarded　himself。　　A　much　greater　interest　will　undoubtedly　be　felt　in　tracing　the　date　and　development　of　his　opinions。

The　articles　published　in　Knight's　Quarterly　Magazine　were　composed　during　the　author's　residence　at　college；　as　B。A。　　It　may　be　remarked　that　the　first　two　of　these　exhibit　the　earnestness　with　which　he　already　endeavoured　to　represent　to　himself　and　to　others　the　scenes　and　persons　of　past　times　as　in　actual　existence。　　Of　the　Dialogue　between　Milton　and　Cowley　he　spoke；　many　years　after　its　publication；　as　that　one　of　his　works　which　he　remembered　with　most　satisfaction。　　The　article　on　Mitford's　Greece　he　did　not　himself　value　so　highly　as　others　thought　it　deserved。　　This　article；　at　any　rate；　contains　the　first　distinct　enunciation　of　his　views；　as　to　the　office　of　an　historian；　views　afterwards　more　fully　set　forth　in　his　Essay；　upon　History；　in　the　Edinburgh　Review。　　From　the　protest；　in　the　last　mentioned　essay；　against　the　conventional　notions　respecting　the　majesty　of　history　might　perhaps　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　well　acquainted　with　the　affairs　of　our　Eastern　Empire；　a　most　valuable　servant　of　the　Company；　and　the　author　of　a　history　of　India；　which；　though　certainly　not　free　from　faults；　is；　I　think；　on　the　whole；　the　greatest　historical　work　which　has　appeared　in　our　language　since　that　of　Gibbon。〃

Almost　immediately　upon　the　appearance　of　the　article　in　the　Edinburgh　Review；　an　answer　was　published　in　the　Westminster　Review。　　It　was　untruly　attributed；　in　the　newspapers　of　the　day；　to　Mr　Bentham　himself。　　Macaulay's　answer　to　this　appeared　in　the　Edinburgh　Review；　June；　1829。　　He　wrote　the　answer　under　the　belief　that　he　was　answering　Mr　Bentham；　and　was　undeceived　in　time　only　to　add　the　postscript。　　The　author　of　the　article　in　the　Westminster　Review　had　not　perceived　that　the　question　raised　was　not　as　to　the　truth　or　falsehood　of　the　result　at　which　Mr　Mill　had　arrived；　but　as　to　the　soundness　or　unsoundness　of　the　method　which　he　pursued；　a　misunderstanding　at　which　Macaulay；　while　he　supposed　the　article　to　be　the　work　of　Mr　Bentham；　expressed　much　surprise。　　The　controversy　soon　became　principally　a　dispute　as　to　the　theory　which　was　commonly　known　by　the　name　of　The　Greatest　Happiness　Principle。　　Another　article　in　the　Westminster　Review　followed；　and　a　surrejoinder　by　Macaulay　in　the　Edinburgh　Review　of　October；　1829。　　Macaulay　was　irritated　at　what　he　conceived　to　be　either　extreme　dullness　or　gross　unfairness　on　the　part　of　his　unknown　antagonist；　and　struck　as　hard　as　he　could；　and　he　struck　very　hard　indeed。

The　ethical　question　thus　raised　was　afterwards　discussed　by　Sir　James　Mackintosh；　in　the　Dissertation　contributed　by　him　to　the　seventh　edition　of　the　Encyclopaedia　Britannica；　page　284…313　（Whewell's　Edition）。　　Sir　James　Mackintosh　notices　the　part　taken　in　the　controversy　by　Macaulay；　in　t