1831.] Mr. Sadler and the Political Economists. 543 



that he picks out instances, jumbles them,, contrasts them at his own 

 pleasure to suit his own views, and that while he is accusing Mr. Sadler, 

 who gives the facts in arithmetical progression, of " packing," he 

 is most shamelessly " packing" them himself ? The parade of phrases 

 about placing one department twenty-second, that ought to be third, 

 and another fiftieth, that ought to be eighth, &c., is a mere confusion of 

 words to perplex the reader, who will never take the trouble to ascertain 

 whether the Reviewer's calculations be correct, but will probably take 

 it for granted that Mr. Sadler's tables must be constituted of a mass of 

 fallacies. Another method of " shuffling" ( ' ' I thank thee^ Jew, for 

 teaching me that word,") used by our veracious critic, may be thus 

 imitated, although any imitation must fall short of the original 



" Take away the two first departments, then draw a line at the sixth ; 

 omit the next department, and add together the tenth and twelfth ; 

 then take the last but one, and run up to the fourteenth ; and by calcu- 

 lating the average of these you will perceive that the result is diametri- 

 cally opposed to Mr. Sadler's principle." 



We can only say, that if it were not, the Reviewer would be dedicating 

 his ingenuity to a very idle purpose. It must not be supposed that our 

 imitation is far-fetched. We assure the unconscious public that such is 

 the mode of examination adopted, and also that the Reviewer has the 

 impudence to call the results he thus produces " strong cases !" Why, 

 give us any table except Lord Althorp's budget, which we candidly 

 declare we could not render more perplexing than its noble propounder 

 made it and permit us to slash it in this manner, and if we do not 

 make it prove the very reverse of that which it actually proves, we hereby 

 allow all the clubs in London to put Old Mag. upon the same shelves 

 with Old Blue-and-Yellow than which we cannot conceive ourselves 

 submitting to a greater indignity. 



We cannot dismiss Mr. Macauley until we give the following passage 

 from the last article in the Edinburgh. He is herein nibbling at the 

 tables of the French population. 



"" By dividing the departments in a particular manner, Mr. Sadler has 

 produced results which he contemplates with great satisfaction. Bui if 

 we draw the lines a little higher up, or a little lower down, we shall find 

 that all his calculations are thrown into utter confusion ; and that the 

 phenomena, if they indicate any thing, indicate a law the very reverse of 

 that which he has propounded." E. R. No. CIV. p. 516. 



Here our reviewer betrays himself, by letting out the secret of his 

 refutatory process. The drawing the lines a little higher up, or a little 

 lower down, means no more than the disturbing of the natural order of 

 the proofs, and the distortion of facts to suit a purpose. He is not can- 

 did enough to tell his readers that Mr. Sadler does not calculate one table 

 in one way, and another in another, but that he adopts throughout the whole 

 of his table the same uniform mode of investigation. There is no capricious, 

 or dishonest method adopted ; there is no Procrustean bed to make the 

 table suit the proof, or the proof the table ; but each table harmonizes 

 with the rest, in' its arrangement, its divisions, and its results. Now, the 

 reviewer's method is altogether different from this. Instead of letting the 

 tables speak for themselves, he selects only such parts as he wants, and 

 places those only in such relative positions as will produce contradictions. 

 Of course he must by this process distort each table differently. There 

 is no uniformity of plan, progressing distinctly to the one given end ; 

 but all is contrariety, sophistry, and chaos. The operation of the laws 

 of nature is uniform and universal ; so ought to be the method of prov- 



