An Essay on the Principle of Population [first edition]

Thomas Robert Malthus

Published by Liberty Fund, Inc.

Liberty Fund, Inc.

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals. It was founded in 1960 thus making 2010 its 50th Anniversary Year.

The Foundation develops, supervises, and finances its own educational activities to foster thought and encourage discourse on enduring intellectual issues pertaining to liberty. This is done through the implementation of different programs:

1. Each year, Liberty Fund conducts over 150 conferences throughout the United States, Canada, Latin America, and Europe.

2. Liberty Fund publishes about 10 books each year, many of which are classic works which have gone out of print. There is an online catalog where these books can be ordered <http://www.libertyfund.org/books.aspx>.

3. Liberty Fund has produced video and audio tapes including The Intellectual Portrait Series of videotapes and DVDs which records conversations with some of the most significant thinkers of our time.

4. Liberty Fund hosts two websites which contain books, articles, discussion, and podcasts about liberty: the Library of Economics and Liberty <http://www.econlib.org/> and the Online Library of Liberty <http://oll.libertyfund.org/>.

These programs focus on the place individual liberty has in an intellectual heritage evident from ancient times and continuing through our own times. The programs are intended to enrich understanding and appreciation of the complex nature of a society of free and responsible individuals and to contribute to its preservation.

Liberty Fund also sponsors the following websites:

1. Liberty Fund’s main website <http://www.libertyfund.org>

2. LF online catalog <http://www.libertyfund.org/books.aspx>

3. The Goodrich Seminar Room Virtual Tour <http://goodrich.libertyfund.org/goodrich/>

4. The Online Library of Liberty <http://oll.libertyfund.org/>

5. Library of Economics and Liberty <http://www.econlib.org/>

As a tax-exempt, private operating foundation, Liberty Fund’s purposes are educational. It does not, therefore, engage in political action of any kind. It fulfills its mission by conducting programs, not by awarding grants to outside organizations or individuals.

The cuneiform inscription that appears in the logo and serves as a design element in all Liberty Fund books and websites is the earliest-known written appearance of the word “freedom” (amagi), or “liberty.” It is taken from a clay document written about 2300 B.C. in the Sumerian city-state of Lagash.

LIBERTY FUND, INC.

8335 Allison Pointe Trail, Suite 300

Indianapolis, Indiana 46250-1684

U.S.A.

Phone no.: 1.800.955.8335

Liberty Fund’s Collection of Epub Titles on Liberty

The text you are currently reading comes from Liberty Fund’s Online Library of Liberty (OLL) <http://oll.libertyfund.org>. Additional titles in ePub format can be downloaded from the main OLL website from each title’s Table of Contents page or from this list <http://files.libertyfund.org/output/epub/>. One convenient way to load titles directly into your iPad is to email yourself this link, click on the title of your choice, and open it directly in iBook on your iPad (thus circumventing the need to load titles from your laptop or desktop computer.

Epub and Kindle versions of books published by Liberty Fund are not available for free download. They can be purchased from Amazon.com.

The Online Library of Liberty

The OLL was established in 2004 in order to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc, namely “to encourage study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals”. It is a multi-award winning website which makes available at no charge to the public outstanding resources for teaching and learning about the humanities and the social sciences.

Awards

The OLL has won a number of international awards for its outstanding collection of online material in the humanities and social sciences. It has been recognised by

- the Library of Congress for its Minerva archiving project

- the National Endowment for the Humanities

- the British Arts and Humanities Research Council, and

- the International Political Science Association.

The Portable Library of Liberty

The 50th Anniversary Edition (2010) of the Portable Library of Liberty data DVD (PLL) contains 1,002 books in PDF format & 34 hours of MP3 audio files from Liberty Fund’s website The Online Library of Liberty (OLL) <oll.libertyfund.org>. Highlights include the complete scholarly editions of the works of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, J.S. Mill, the collected works of Jefferson, Madison, J. Adams,and 166 books published by Liberty Fund. It also contains a collection of Quotations about Liberty and Power, MP3 audio files from the Intellectual Portrait Series: Conversations with Leading Classical Liberal Figures of Our Time and the lecture series The Legacy of Friedrich Hayek.

The books and other resources in the Portable Library of Liberty data DVD are designed to be read or listened to on portable devices such as MP3 Players, smart phones, and E-Book Readers. Hence, this collection is called the “Portable” Library of Liberty and has material in the following formats: text-based PDF, MP3, and ePub.

Liberty Fund is happy to send a copy of this data DVD free of charge upon request for educational purposes. Please email the Director at <oll@libertyfund.org> and make sure you include your postal address.

Copyright and Fair Use Statement

There are four different types of texts which Liberty Fund has made available as part of the Online Library of Liberty website, the Portable Library of Liberty data DVD (PLL), and ePub titles for hand held reading devices:

1. public domain texts published before 1923. These texts are no longer under copyright and are in the public domain. We have put them online in order to further the educational aims of Liberty Fund.

2. texts to which the Liberty Fund has electronic rights, such as the books published by Liberty Fund in both print and online formats

3. other texts to which Liberty Fund has acquired the electronic rights from third parties, such as the journal Literature of Liberty (from the Institute for Humane Studies)

4. titles which are put online under license from third parties, such as the Glasgow Edition of the Works of Adam Smith (from Oxford University Press).

For titles in the first three categories listed above, no special permission from Liberty Fund is required for quoting material in papers and essays, or for limited photocopying and distribution for academic or other educational or non-profit purposes. The only requirements are that you include proper attribution on the first page of the document being distributed - e.g. for John Locke’s The Two Treatises of Government you would say one of the following:

- if using the OLL website - “This material originally appeared on the Online Library of Liberty hosted by Liberty Fund, Inc. URL: http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/222 and accessed on 2010-01-22.” This information can be found in the “Citation” button on the title’s table of contents page.

- or if using the copy on the PLL DVD - “This material originally appeared in the Portable Library of Liberty published by Liberty Fund, Inc. URL: http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/222 and PLL v5 (generated 22 January, 2010).” This information can be found in the footer of the EBook PDF.

- or if using the ePub version on a portable reading device: “This material is part of the collection of ePub titles in the Online Library of Liberty website hosted by Liberty Fund, Inc. Source Text URL http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/222 accessed on 2010-04-20.” This information can be found on the “Introduction to the Book” page in this file.

For titles in category two and three, any reprint of material “for profit”, such as a chapter or a substantial section of an online book for inclusion in a book or other publication for sale, requires written permission from Liberty Fund.

For titles in the fourth category you must follow the specific requirements of the copyright holder whose work we publish online under license. This information can be found in the “Introduction to the Book” page under the section “Copyright Information.” In the case of the Glasgow Edition of the Works of Adam Smith published under license from Oxford University Press, for reprint or copying permission you need to contact OUP directly. Under our contractual obligations with OUP we have placed the following declaration on the front page of every book and section of the online version of the Glasgow Edition of the Works of Adam Smith:

The Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith and the associated volumes are published in hardcover by Oxford University Press. The six titles of the Glasgow Edition, but not the associated volumes, are being published in soft cover by Liberty Fund. The online edition is published by Liberty Fund under license from Oxford University Press.

© Oxford University Press 1976. All rights reserved. No part of this material may be stored transmitted retransmitted lent or reproduced in any form or medium without the permission of Oxford University Press.

Thus, for reprint or copying permission you need to contact OUP directly. Liberty Fund cannot grant you this permission because it is not the copyright holder.

CONTENTS

- Preface

- Chapter I

- Chapter II

- Chapter III

- Chapter IV

- Chapter V

- Chapter VI

- Chapter VII

- Chapter VIII

- Chapter IX

- Chapter X

- Chapter XI

- Chapter XII

- Chapter XIII

- Chapter XIV

- Chapter XV

- Chapter XVI

- Chapter XVII

- Chapter XVIII

- Chapter XIX

Preface

The following Essay owes its origin to a conversation with afriend, on the subject of Mr. Godwin's Essay, on avarice andprofusion, in his Enquirer. The discussion, started the generalquestion of the future improvement of society; and the Author atfirst sat down with an intention of merely stating his thoughtsto his friend, upon paper, in a clearer manner than he thought hecould do in conversation. But as the subject opened upon him,some ideas occurred, which he did not recollect to have met withbefore; and as he conceived, that every, the least light, on a topic sogenerally interesting, might be received with candour, hedetermined to put his thoughts in a form for publication.

The Essay might, undoubtedly, have been rendered much morecomplete by a collection of a greater number of facts inelucidation of the general argument. But a long and almost totalinterruption, from very particular business, joined to a desire(perhaps imprudent) of not delaying the publication much beyondthe time that he originally proposed, prevented the Author fromgiving to the subject an undivided attention. He presumes,however, that the facts which he has adduced, will be found, toform no inconsiderable evidence for the truth of his opinionrespecting the future improvement of mankind. As the Authorcontemplates this opinion at present, little more appears to himto be necessary than a plain statement, in addition to the mostcursory view of society, to establish it.

It is an obvious truth, which has been taken notice of bymany writers, that population must always be kept down to thelevel of the means of subsistence; but no writer, that the Authorrecollects, has inquired particularly into the means by which thislevel is effected: and it is a view of these means, which forms,to his mind, the strongest obstacle in the way to any very greatfuture improvement of society. He hopes it will appear that, inthe discussion of this interesting subject, he is actuated solelyby a love of truth; and not by any prejudices against anyparticular set of men, or of opinions. He professes to have readsome of the speculations on the future improvement of society, ina temper very different from a wish to find them visionary; buthe has not acquired that command over his understanding whichwould enable him to believe what he wishes, without evidence, orto refuse his assent to what might be unpleasing, whenaccompanied with evidence.

The view which he has given of human life has a melancholyhue; but he feels conscious, that he has drawn these dark tints,from a conviction that they are really in the picture; and notfrom a jaundiced eye or an inherent spleen of disposition. Thetheory of mind which he has sketched in the two last chapters,accounts to his own understanding in a satisfactory manner, forthe existence of most of the evils of life; but whether it willhave the same effect upon others, must be left to the judgement ofhis readers.

If he should succeed in drawing the attention of more able men, to what he conceives to be the principal difficulty in the way to the improvement of society, and should, in consequence, see this difficulty removed, even in theory, he will gladly retract his present opinions and rejoice in a conviction of his error.

June 7, 1798

Chapter I

Question stated—Little prospect of a determination of it, fromthe enmity of the opposing parties—The principal argumentagainst the perfectibility of man and of society has never beenfairly answered—Nature of the difficulty arising frompopulation—Outline of the principal argument of the essay

The great and unlooked for discoveries that have taken place oflate years in natural philosophy; the increasing diffusion ofgeneral knowledge from the extension of the art of printing; theardent and unshackled spirit of inquiry that prevails throughoutthe lettered and even unlettered world; the new and extraordinarylights that have been thrown on political subjects, which dazzle,and astonish the understanding; and particularly that tremendousphenomenon in the political horizon the French Revolution,which, like a blazing comet, seems destined either to inspirewith fresh life and vigour, or to scorch up and destroy theshrinking inhabitants of the earth, have all concurred to leadmany able men into the opinion that we were touching on a periodbig with the most important changes, changes that would in somemeasure be decisive of the future fate of mankind.

It has been said that the great question is now at issue,whether man shall henceforth start forwards with acceleratedvelocity towards illimitable, and hitherto unconceivedimprovement; or be condemned to a perpetual oscillation betweenhappiness and misery, and after every effort remain still at animmeasurable distance from the wished-for goal.

Yet, anxiously as every friend of mankind must look forwardsto the termination of this painful suspense, and eagerly as theinquiring mind would hail every ray of light that might assistits view into futurity, it is much to be lamented that thewriters on each side of this momentous question still keep faraloof from each other. Their mutual arguments do not meet with acandid examination. The question is not brought to rest on fewerpoints; and even in theory scarcely seems to be approaching to adecision.

The advocate for the present order of things, is apt to treatthe sect of speculative philosophers either as a set of artfuland designing knaves, who preach up ardent benevolence, and drawcaptivating pictures of a happier state of society only thebetter to enable them to destroy the present establishments andto forward their own deep-laid schemes of ambition: or as wildand mad-headed enthusiasts whose silly speculations and absurdparadoxes, are not worthy the attention of any reasonable man.

The advocate for the perfectibility of man, and of society,retorts on the defender of establishments a more than equalcontempt. He brands him as the slave of the most miserable andnarrow prejudices; or as the defender of the abuses of civilsociety only because he profits by them. He paints him either asa character who prostitutes his understanding to his interest; oras one whose powers of mind are not of a size to grasp any thinggreat and noble; who cannot see above five yards before him; andwho must therefore be utterly unable to take in the views of theenlightened benefactor of mankind.

In this unamicable contest, the cause of truth cannot butsuffer. The really good arguments on each side of the questionare not allowed to have their proper weight. Each pursues his owntheory, little solicitous to correct, or improve it, by anattention to what is advanced by his opponents.

The friend of the present order of things condemns allpolitical speculations in the gross. He will not even condescendto examine the grounds from which the perfectibility of societyis inferred. Much less will he give himself the trouble in a fairand candid manner to attempt an exposition of their fallacy.

The speculative philosopher equally offends against the causeof truth. With eyes fixed on a happier state of society, theblessings of which he paints in the most captivating colours, heallows himself to indulge in the most bitter invectives againstevery present establishment, without applying his talents toconsider the best and safest means of removing abuses and withoutseeming to be aware of the tremendous obstacles that threaten,even in theory, to oppose the progress of man towards perfection.

It is an acknowledged truth in philosophy, that a just theorywill always be confirmed by experiment. Yet so much friction, andso many minute circumstances occur in practice, which it is nextto impossible for the most enlarged and penetrating mind toforesee, that on few subjects can any theory be pronounced just, that has not stood the test of experience. But an untried theory cannot fairly be advanced as probably, much less as just, till all the arguments against it have been maturely weighed, and clearly and consistently refuted.

I have read some of the speculations on the perfectibility ofman and of society with great pleasure. I have been warmed anddelighted with the enchanting picture which they hold forth. Iardently wish for such happy improvements. But I see great, and,to my understanding, unconquerable difficulties in the way tothem. These difficulties it is my present purpose to state;declaring, at the same time, that so far from exulting in them,as a cause of triumph over the friends of innovation, nothingwould give me greater pleasure than to see them completelyremoved.

The most important argument that I shall adduce is certainlynot new. The principles on which it depends have been explainedin part by Hume, and more at large by Dr. Adam Smith. It has beenadvanced and applied to the present subject, though not with itsproper weight, or in the most forcible point of view, by Mr.Wallace, and it may probably have been stated by many writersthat I have never met with. I should certainly therefore notthink of advancing it again, though I mean to place it in a pointof view in some degree different from any that I have hithertoseen, if it had ever been fairly and satisfactorily answered.

The cause of this neglect on the part of the advocates forthe perfectibility of mankind, is not easily accounted for. I cannot doubt the talents of such men as Godwin and Condorcet. I am unwilling to doubt their candour. To my understanding, and probably to that of most others, the difficulty appears insurmountable. Yet these men of acknowledged ability and penetration scarcely deign to notice it, and hold on their course in such speculations, with unabated ardour and undiminished confidence. I have certainly no right to say that they purposely shut their eyes to such arguments. I ought rather to doubt the validity of them, when neglected by such men, however forcibly their truth may strike my own mind. Yet in this respect it must be acknowledged that we are all of us too prone to err. If I saw a glass of wine repeatedly presented to a man, and he took no notice of it, I should be apt to think that he was blind or uncivil. A juster philosophy might teach me rather to think that my eyes deceived me, and that the offer was not really what I conceived it to be.

In entering upon the argument I must premise that I put outof the question, at present, all mere conjectures; that is, allsuppositions, the probable realization of which cannot beinferred upon any just philosophical grounds. A writer may tellme that he thinks man will ultimately become an ostrich. I cannotproperly contradict him. But before he can expect to bring anyreasonable person over to his opinion, he ought to shew that thenecks of mankind have been gradually elongating; that the lipshave grown harder and more prominent; that the legs and feet aredaily altering their shape; and that the hair is beginning tochange into stubs of feathers. And till the probability of sowonderful a conversion can be shewn, it is surely lost time andlost eloquence to expatiate on the happiness of man in such astate; to describe his powers, both of running and flying; topaint him in a condition where all narrow luxuries would becontemned; where he would be employed only in collecting thenecessaries of life; and where, consequently, each man's share oflabour would be light, and his portion of leisure ample.

I think I may fairly make two postulata.

- First, That food is necessary to the existence of man.

- Secondly, That the passion between the sexes is necessary andwill remain nearly in its present state.

These two laws, ever since we have had any knowledge ofmankind, appear to have been fixed laws of our nature; and, as wehave not hitherto seen any alteration in them, we have no rightto conclude that they will ever cease to be what they now are,without an immediate act of power in that Being who firstarranged the system of the universe; and for the advantage of hiscreatures, still executes, according to fixed laws, all itsvarious operations.

I do not know that any writer has supposed that on this earthman will ultimately be able to live without food. But Mr. Godwinhas conjectured that the passion between the sexes may in time beextinguished. As, however, he calls this part of his work adeviation into the land of conjecture, I will not dwell longerupon it at present than to say that the best arguments for theperfectibility of man, are drawn from a contemplation of the greatprogress that he has already made from the savage state, and thedifficulty of saying where he is to stop. But towards theextinction of the passion between the sexes, no progress whateverhas hitherto been made. It appears to exist in as much force atpresent as it did two thousand or four thousand years ago. Thereare individual exceptions now as there always have been. But, asthese exceptions do not appear to increase in number, it wouldsurely be a very unphilosophical mode of arguing, to infer merelyfrom the existence of an exception, that the exception would, intime, become the rule, and the rule the exception.

Assuming then, my postulata as granted, I say, that the powerof population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earthto produce subsistence for man.

Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio.Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio. A slightacquaintance with numbers will shew the immensity of the firstpower in comparison of the second.

By that law of our nature which makes food necessary to thelife of man, the effects of these two unequal powers must be keptequal.

This implies a strong and constantly operating check onpopulation from the difficulty of subsistence. This difficultymust fall somewhere; and must necessarily be severely felt by alarge portion of mankind.

Through the animal and vegetable kingdoms, nature hasscattered the seeds of life abroad with the most profuse andliberal hand. She has been comparatively sparing in the room andthe nourishment necessary to rear them. The germs of existencecontained in this spot of earth, with ample food, and ample roomto expand in, would fill millions of worlds in the course of afew thousand years. Necessity, that imperious all pervading lawof nature, restrains them within the prescribed bounds. The raceof plants, and the race of animals shrink under this greatrestrictive law. And the race of man cannot, by any efforts ofreason, escape from it. Among plants and animals its effects arewaste of seed, sickness, and premature death. Among mankind,misery and vice. The former, misery, is an absolutely necessaryconsequence of it. Vice is a highly probable consequence, and wetherefore see it abundantly prevail; but it ought not, perhaps,to be called an absolutely necessary consequence. The ordeal ofvirtue is to resist all temptation to evil.

This natural inequality of the two powers of population, andof production in the earth, and that great law of our naturewhich must constantly keep their effects equal, form the greatdifficulty that to me appears insurmountable in the way to theperfectibility of society. All other arguments are of slight andsubordinate consideration in comparison of this. I see no way bywhich man can escape from the weight of this law which pervadesall animated nature. No fancied equality, no agrarian regulationsin their utmost extent, could remove the pressure of it even fora single century. And it appears, therefore, to be decisiveagainst the possible existence of a society, all the members ofwhich, should live in ease, happiness, and comparative leisure;and feel no anxiety about providing the means of subsistence forthemselves and families.

Consequently, if the premises are just, the argument isconclusive against the perfectibility of the mass of mankind.

I have thus sketched the general outline of the argument; butI will examine it more particularly; and I think it will be foundthat experience, the true source and foundation of all knowledge,invariably confirms its truth.

Chapter II

The different ratios in which population and food increase—Thenecessary effects of these different ratios of increase—Oscillation produced by them in the condition of the lowerclasses of society—Reasons why this oscillation has not been somuch observed as might be expected—Three propositions on whichthe general argument of the essay depends—The different statesin which mankind have been known to exist proposed to be examinedwith reference to these three propositions.

I said that population, when unchecked, increased in ageometrical ratio; and subsistence for man in an arithmeticalratio.

Let us examine whether this position be just.

I think it will be allowed, that no state has hitherto existed (at least that we have any account of) where the manners were so pure and simple, and the means of subsistence so abundant, that no check whatever has existed to early marriages; among the lower classes, from a fear of not providing well for their families; or among the higher classes, from a fear of lowering their condition in life. Consequently in no state that we have yet known has the power of population been left to exert itself with perfect freedom.

Whether the law of marriage be instituted, or not, the dictateof nature and virtue, seems to be an early attachment to onewoman. Supposing a liberty of changing in the case of anunfortunate choice, this liberty would not affect population tillit arose to a height greatly vicious; and we are now supposingthe existence of a society where vice is scarcely known.

In a state therefore of great equality and virtue, where pureand simple manners prevailed, and where the means of subsistencewere so abundant, that no part of the society could have any fearsabout providing amply for a family, the power of population beingleft to exert itself unchecked, the increase of the human specieswould evidently be much greater than any increase that has beenhitherto known.

In the United States of America, where the means of subsistence have been more ample, the manners of the people morepure, and consequently the checks to early marriages fewer, thanin any of the modern states of Europe, the population has beenfound to double itself in twenty-five years.

This ratio of increase, though short of the utmost power ofpopulation, yet as the result of actual experience, we will takeas our rule; and say,

- That population, when unchecked, goes on doubling itself every twenty-five years or increases in a geometrical ratio.

Let us now take any spot of earth, this Island for instance,and see in what ratio the subsistence it affords can be supposedto increase. We will begin with it under its present state ofcultivation.

If I allow that by the best possible policy, by breaking upmore land and by great encouragements to agriculture, the produceof this Island may be doubled in the first twenty-five years, Ithink it will be allowing as much as any person can well demand.

In the next twenty-five years, it is impossible to supposethat the produce could be quadrupled. It would be contrary to allour knowledge of the qualities of land. The very utmost that wecan conceive, is, that the increase in the second twenty-fiveyears might equal the present produce. Let us then take this forour rule, though certainly far beyond the truth; and allow that,by great exertion, the whole produce of the Island might beincreased every twenty-five years, by a quantity of subsistenceequal to what it at present produces. The most enthusiasticspeculator cannot suppose a greater increase than this. In a fewcenturies it would make every acre of land in the Island like agarden.

Yet this ratio of increase is evidently arithmetical.

It may be fairly said, therefore, that the means ofsubsistence increase in an arithmetical ratio.

Let us now bring the effects of these two ratios together.

The population of the Island is computed to be about sevenMillions; and we will suppose the present produce equal to thesupport of such a number. In the first twenty-five years thepopulation would be fourteen millions; and the food being alsodoubled, the means of subsistence would be equal to thisincrease. In the next twenty-five years the population would betwenty-eight millions; and the means of subsistence only equal tothe support of twenty-one millions. In the next period, thepopulation would be fifty-six millions, and the means ofsubsistence just sufficient for half that number. And at theconclusion of the first century the population would be onehundred and twelve millions and the means of subsistence onlyequal to the support of thirty-five millions; which would leave apopulation of seventy-seven millions totally unprovided for.

A great emigration necessarily implies unhappiness of somekind or other in the country that is deserted. For few personswill leave their families, connections, friends, and native land,to seek a settlement in untried foreign climes, without somestrong subsisting causes of uneasiness where they are, or thehope of some great advantages in the place to which they aregoing.

But to make the argument more general and less interrupted bythe partial views of emigration, let us take the whole earth,instead of one spot, and suppose that the restraints topopulation were universally removed. If the subsistence for manthat the earth affords was to be increased every twenty-fiveyears by a quantity equal to what the whole world at presentproduces; this would allow the power of production in the earthto be absolutely unlimited, and its ratio of increase muchgreater than we can conceive that any possible exertions ofmankind could make it.

Taking the population of the world at any number, a thousandmillions, for instance, the human species would increase in theratio of—1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, c. andsubsistence as—1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, c. In twocenturies and a quarter, the population would be to the means ofsubsistence as 512 to 10: in three centuries as 4096 to 13; andin two thousand years the difference would be almostincalculabel, though the produce in that time would haveincreased to an immense extent.

No limits whatever are placed to the productions of theearth; they may increase for ever and be greater than anyassignable quantity; yet still the power of population being apower of a superior order, the increase of the human species canonly be kept commensurate to the increase of the means ofsubsistence, by the constant operation of the strong law ofnecessity acting as a check upon the greater power.

The effects of this check remain now to be considered.

Among plants and animals the view of the subject is simple.They are all impelled by a powerful instinct to the increase oftheir species; and this instinct is interrupted by no reasoning, or doubts about providing for their offspring. Wherever thereforethere is liberty, the power of increase is exerted; and thesuperabundant effects are repressed afterwards by want of roomand nourishment, which is common to animals and plants; and amonganimals by becoming the prey of others.

The effects of this check on man are more complicated.

Impelled to the increase of his species by an equally powerfulinstinct, reason interrupts his career, and asks him whether hemay not bring beings into the world, for whom he cannot providethe means of subsistence. In a state of equality, this would bethe simple question. In the present state of society, otherconsiderations occur. Will he not lower his rank in life? Will henot subject himself to greater difficulties than he at presentfeels? Will he not be obliged to labour harder? and if he has alarge family, will his utmost exertions enable him to supportthem? May he not see his offspring in rags and misery, andclamouring for bread that he cannot give them? And may he not bereduced to the grating necessity of forfeiting his independence,and of being obliged to the sparing hand of charity for support?

These considerations are calculated to prevent, and certainlydo prevent, a very great number in all civilized nations frompursuing the dictate of nature in an early attachment to onewoman. And this restraint almost necessarily, though notabsolutely so, produces vice. Yet in all societies, even thosethat are most vicious, the tendency to a virtuous attachment isso strong that there is a constant effort towards an increase ofpopulation. This constant effort as constantly tends to subjectthe lower classes of the society to distress and to prevent anygreat permanent amelioration of their condition.

The way in which these effects are produced seems to bethis.

We will suppose the means of subsistence in any countryjust equal to the easy support of its inhabitants. The constanteffort towards population, which is found to act even in the mostvicious societies, increases the number of people before themeans of subsistence are increased. The food therefore whichbefore supported seven millions, must now be divided among sevenmillions and a half or eight millions. The poor consequently mustlive much worse, and many of them be reduced to severe distress.The number of labourers also being above the proportion of thework in the market, the price of labour must tend toward adecrease; while the price of provisions would at the same timetend to rise. The labourer therefore must work harder to earn thesame as he did before. During this season of distress, thediscouragements to marriage, and the difficulty of rearing afamily are so great, that population is at a stand. In the meantime the cheapness of labour, the plenty of labourers, and thenecessity of an increased industry amongst them, encouragecultivators to employ more labour upon their land; to turn upfresh soil, and to manure and improve more completely what isalready in tillage; till ultimately the means of subsistencebecome in the same proportion to the population as at the periodfrom which we set out. The situation of the labourer being thenagain tolerably comfortable, the restraints to population are insome degree loosened; and the same retrograde and progressivemovements with respect to happiness are repeated.

This sort of oscillation will not be remarked by superficialObservers; and it may be difficult even for the most penetratingmind to calculate its periods. Yet that in all old states somesuch vibration does exist; though from various transverse causes,in a much less marked, and in a much more irregular manner than Ihave described it, no reflecting man who considers the subjectdeeply can well doubt.

Many reasons occur why this oscillation has been lessobvious, and less decidedly confirmed by experience, than mightnaturally be expected.

One principal reason is, that the histories of mankind that wepossess, are histories only of the higher classes. We have but fewaccounts that can be depended upon of the manners and customs ofthat part of mankind, where these retrograde and progressivemovements chiefly take place. A satisfactory history of thiskind, of one people, and of one period, would require theconstant and minute attention of an observing mind during a longlife. Some of the objects of inquiry would be, in what proportionto the number of adults was the number of marriages: to whatextent vicious customs prevailed in consequence of the restraintsupon matrimony: what was the comparative mortality among thechildren of the most distressed part of the community, and thosewho lived rather more at their ease: what were the variations inthe real price of labour: and what were the observabledifferences in the state of the lower classes of society withrespect to ease and happiness, at different times during acertain period.

Such a history would tend greatly to elucidate the manner inwhich the constant check upon population acts; and would probablyprove the existence of the retrograde and progressive movementsthat have been mentioned; though the times of their vibrationsmust necessarily be rendered irregular, from the operation of manyinterrupting causes; such as, the introduction or failure ofcertain manufactures: a greater or less prevalent spirit ofagricultural enterprize: years of plenty, or years of scarcity:wars and pestilence: poor laws: the invention of processes forshortening labour without the proportional extension of themarket for the commodity: and, particularly, the differencebetween the nominal and real price of labour; a circumstance,which has perhaps more than any other, contributed to conceal thisoscillation from common view.

It very rarely happens that the nominal price of labouruniversally falls; but we well know that it frequently remainsthe same, while the nominal price of provisions has beengradually increasing. This is, in effect, a real fall in theprice of labour; and during this period, the condition of thelower orders of the community must gradually grow worse andworse. But the farmers and capitalists are growing rich from thereal cheapness of labour. Their increased capitals enable them toemploy a greater number of men. Work therefore may be plentiful;and the price of labour would consequently rise. But the want offreedom in the market of labour, which occurs more or less in allcommunities, either from parish laws, or the more general causeof the facility of combination among the rich, and its difficultyamong the poor, operates to prevent the price of labour fromrising at the natural period, and keeps it down some time longer;perhaps till a year of scarcity, when the clamour is too loud, andthe necessity too apparent to be resisted.

The true cause of the advance in the price of labour is thusConcealed; and the rich affect to grant it as an act ofcompassion and favour to the poor, in consideration of a year ofscarcity; and when plenty returns, indulge themselves in themost unreasonable of all complaints, that the price does notagain fall; when a little reflection would shew them that it musthave risen long before but from an unjust conspiracy of theirown.

But though the rich by unfair combinations, contributefrequently to prolong a season of distress among the poor; yet nopossible form of society could prevent the almost constant actionof misery upon a great part of mankind, if in a state ofinequality, and upon all, if all were equal.

The theory on which the truth of this position dependsappears to me so extremely clear; that I feel at a loss toconjecture what part of it can be denied.

That population cannot increase without the means ofSubsistence, is a proposition so evident, that it needs noillustration.

That population does invariably increase, where there are themeans of subsistence, the history of every people that have everexisted will abundantly prove.

And, that the superior power of population cannot be checked, without producing misery or vice, the ample portion of these toobitter ingredients in the cup of human life, and the continuanceof the physical causes that seem to have produced them, bear tooconvincing a testimony.

But in order more fully to ascertain the validity of thesethree propositions, let us examine the different states in whichmankind have been known to exist. Even a cursory review will, Ithink, be sufficient to convince us, that these propositions areincontrovertible truths.

Chapter III

The savage or hunter state shortly reviewed—The shepherd state,or the tribes of barbarians that overran the Roman Empire—Thesuperiority of the power of population to the means ofsubsistence—the cause of the great tide of Northern Emigration.

In the rudest state of mankind, in which hunting is the principalOccupation, and the only mode of acquiring food; the means ofsubsistence being scattered over a large extent of territory, thecomparative population must necessarily be thin. It is said, thatthe passion between the sexes is less ardent among the NorthAmerican Indians, than among any other race of men. Yetnotwithstanding this apathy, the effort towards population, evenin this people, seems to be always greater than the means tosupport it. This appears from the comparatively rapid populationthat takes place whenever any of the tribes happen to settle insome fertile spot, and to draw nourishment from more fruitfulsources than that of hunting; and it has been frequently remarked, that when an Indian family has taken up its abode near anyEuropean settlement, and adopted a more easy and civilized mode oflife, that one woman has reared five, or six, or more children; though in the savage state, it rarely happens that above one ortwo in a family grow up to maturity. The same observation hasbeen made with regard to the Hottentots near the Cape. Thesefacts prove the superior power of population to the means ofsubsistence in nations of hunters; and that this power alwaysshews itself the moment it is left to act with freedom.

It remains to inquire, whether this power can be checked, andits effects kept equal to the means of subsistence, without vice,or misery.

The North American Indians, considered as a people, cannotjustly be called free and equal. In all the accounts we have ofthem, and, indeed, of most other savage nations, the women arerepresented as much more completely in a state of slavery to themen, than the poor are to the rich in civilized countries. Onehalf the nation appears to act as Helots to the other half: andthe misery that checks population falls chiefly, as it alwaysmust do, upon that part whose condition is lowest in the scale ofsociety. The infancy of man in the simplest state requiresconsiderable attention; but this necessary attention the womencannot give, condemned as they are to the inconveniences andhardships of frequent change of place and to the constant andunremitting drudgery of preparing every thing for the receptionof their tyrannic lords. These exertions, sometimes, duringpregnancy, or with children at their backs, must occasion frequentmiscarriages, and prevent any but the most robust infants fromgrowing to maturity. Add to these hardships of the women theconstant war that prevails among savages, and the necessity whichthey frequently labour under of exposing their aged and helplessparents, and of thus violating the first feelings of nature; andthe picture will not appear very free from the blot of misery. Inestimating the happiness of a savage nation, we must not fix oureyes only on the warrior in the prime of life: he is one of ahundred: he is the gentleman, the man of fortune, the chanceshave been in his favour; and many efforts have failed ere thisfortunate being was produced, whose guardian genius shouldpreserve him through the numberless dangers with which he wouldbe surrounded from infancy to manhood. The true points ofcomparison between two nations, seem to be, the ranks in each whichappear nearest to answer to each other. And in this view, Ishould compare the warriors in the prime of life with thegentlemen; and the women, children, and aged, with the lowerclasses of the community in civilized states.

May we not then fairly infer from this short review, orrather, from the accounts that may be referred to of nations ofhunters; that their population is thin from the scarcity of food; that it would immediately increase if food was in greater plenty; and that, putting vice out of the question among savages, miseryis the check that represses the superior power of population, andkeeps its effects equal to the means of subsistence. Actualobservation and experience, tell us that this check, with a fewlocal and temporary exceptions, is constantly acting now upon allsavage nations; and the theory indicates that it probably actedwith nearly equal strength a thousand years ago, and it may notbe much greater a thousand years hence.

Of the manners and habits that prevail among nations ofshepherds, the next state of mankind, we are even more ignorantthan of the savage state. But that these nations could not escapethe general lot of misery arising from the want of subsistence,Europe, and all the fairest countries in the world, bear ampletestimony. Want was the goad that drove the Scythian shepherdsfrom their native haunts, like so many famished wolves in searchof prey. Set in motion by this all powerful cause, clouds ofBarbarians seemed to collect, from all points of the northernhemisphere. Gathering fresh darkness, and terror, as they rolledon, the congregated bodies at length obscured the sun of Italy, and sunk the whole world in universal night. These tremendouseffects, so long and so deeply felt throughout the fairestportions of the earth, may be traced to the simple cause of thesuperior power of population, to the means of subsistence.

It is well known, that a country in pasture cannot support somany inhabitants as a country in tillage; but what rendersnations of shepherds so formidable, is, the power which theypossess of moving all together, and the necessity they frequentlyfeel of exerting this power in search of fresh pasture for theirherds. A tribe that was rich in cattle, had an immediate plenty offood. Even the parent stock might be devoured in a case ofabsolute necessity. The women lived in greater ease than amongnations of hunters. The men bold in their united strength andconfiding in their power of procuring pasture for their cattle bychange of place, felt, probably, but few fears about providingfor a family. These combined causes soon produced their naturaland invariable effect, an extended population. A more frequentand rapid change of place became then necessary. A wider and moreextensive territory was successively occupied. A broaderdesolation extended all around them. Want pinched the lessfortunate members of the society: and, at length, theimpossibility of supporting such a number together became tooevident to be resisted. Young scions were then pushed out fromthe parent-stock, and instructed to explore fresh regions, and togain happier seats for themselves by their swords. "The world wasall before them where to chuse." Restless from present distress;flushed with the hope of fairer prospects; and animated with thespirit of hardy enterprize, these daring adventurers were likelyto become formidable adversaries to all who opposed them. Thepeaceful inhabitants of the countries on which they rushed, couldnot long withstand the energy of men acting under such powerfulmotives of exertion. And when they fell in with any tribes liketheir own, the contest was a struggle for existence; and theyfought with a desperate courage, inspired by the reflection thatdeath was the punishment of defeat, and life the prize of victory.

In these savage contests many tribes must have been utterlyexterminated. Some, probably, perished by hardship and famine.Others, whose leading star had given them a happier direction,became great and powerful tribes; and, in their turns, sent offfresh adventurers in search of still more fertile seats. Theprodigious waste of human life occasioned by this perpetualstruggle for room and food, was more than supplied by the mightypower of population, acting, in some degree, unshackled, from theconsent habit of emigration. The tribes that migrated towards theSouth, though they won these more fruitful regions by continualbattles, rapidly increased in number and power, from theincreased means of subsistence. Till, at length the wholeterritory, from the confines of China to the shores of theBaltic, was peopled by a various race of Barbarians, brave,robust, and enterprising; inured to hardship, and delighting inwar. Some tribes maintained their independence. Others rangedthemselves under the standard of some barbaric chieftain, who ledthem to victory after victory; and what was of more importance,to regions abounding in corn, wine, and oil, the long wished forconsummation, and great reward of their labours. An Alaric, anAttila, or a Zingis Khan, and the chiefs around them, might fightfor glory, for the fame of extensive conquests; but the truecause that set in motion the great tide of northern emigration,and that continued to propel it till it rolled at differentperiods against China, Persia, Italy, and even Egypt, was ascarcity of food, a population extended beyond the means ofsupporting it.

The absolute population at any one period, in proportion tothe extent of territory, could never be great, on account of theunproductive nature of some of the regions occupied: but thereappears to have been a most rapid succession of human beings; andas fast as some were mowed down by the scythe of war, or offamine, others rose in increased numbers to supply their place.Among these bold and improvident Barbarians, population wasprobably but little checked, as in modern states, from a fear offuture difficulties. A prevailing hope of bettering theircondition by change of place; a constant expectation of plunder;a power even, if distressed, of selling their children as slaves,added to the natural carelessness of the barbaric character, allconspired to raise a population which remained to be repressedafterwards by famine or war.

Where there is any inequality of conditions, and amongnations of shepherds this soon takes place, the distress arisingfrom a scarcity of provisions, must fall hardest upon the leastfortunate members of the society. This distress also mustfrequently have been felt by the women, exposed to casual plunderin the absence of their husbands, and subject to continualdisappointments in their expected return.

But without knowing enough of the minute and intimate historyof these people, to point out precisely on what part the distressfor want of food chiefly fell; and to what extent it wasgenerally felt; I think we may fairly say, from all the accountsthat we have of nations of shepherds, that population invariablyincreased among them, whenever, by emigration, or any other cause,the means of subsistence were increased; and that a furtherpopulation was checked, and the actual population kept equal tothe means of subsistence, by misery and vice.

For, independently of any vicious customs that might haveprevailed amongst them with regard to women, which always operateas checks to population, it must be acknowledged, I think, thatthe commission of war is vice, and the effect of it misery, andnone can doubt the misery of want of food.

Chapter IV

State of civilized nations—Probability that Europe is much morepopulous now than in the time of Julius Cæsar—Best criterionof population—Probable error of Hume in one the criterions thathe proposes as assisting in an estimate of population—Slowincrease of population at present in most of the states of Europe—The two principal checks to population—The first, orpreventive check examined with regard to England.

In examining the next state of mankind with relation to thequestion before us, the state of mixed pasture and tillage, inwhich with some variation in the proportions, the most civilizednations must always remain; we shall be assisted in our review bywhat we daily see around us, by actual experience, by facts thatcome within the scope of every man's observation.

Notwithstanding the exaggerations of some old historians,there can remain no doubt in the mind of any thinking man, thatthe population of the principal countries of Europe, France,England, Germany, Russia, Poland, Sweden, and Denmark is muchgreater than ever it was in former times. The obvious reason ofthese exaggerations, is the formidable aspect that even a thinlypeopled nation must have, when collected together and moving allat once in search of fresh seats. If to this tremendousappearance be added a succession at certain intervals of similaremigrations, we shall not be much surprised that the fears ofthe timid nations of the South, represented the North as a regionabsolutely swarming with human beings. A nearer and juster viewof the subject at present, enables us to see that the inferencewas as absurd, as if a man in this country, who was continuallymeeting on the road droves of cattle from Wales and the North,was immediately to conclude that these countries were the mostproductive of all the parts of the kingdom.

The reason that the greater part of Europe is more populousnow than it was in former times, is, that the industry of theinhabitants has made these countries produce a greater quantityof human subsistence. For, I conceive, that it may be laid down asa position not to be controverted, that, taking a sufficientextent of territory to include within it exportation andimportation; and allowing some variation for the prevalence ofluxury, or of frugal habits; that population constantly bears aregular proportion to the food that the earth is made to produce.In the controversy concerning the populousness of ancient andmodern nations, could it be clearly ascertained that the averageproduce of the countries in question, taken altogether, isgreater now than it was in the times of Julius Cæsar, thedispute would be at once determined.

When we are assured that China is the most fertile country inthe world; that almost all the land is in tillage; and that agreat part of it bears two crops every year; and further, thatthe people live very frugally, we may infer with certainty, thatthe population must be immense, without busying ourselves ininquiries into the manners and habits of the lower classes, andthe encouragements to early marriages. But these inquiries, are ofthe utmost importance, and a minute history of the customs of thelower Chinese would be of the greatest use in ascertaining inwhat manner the checks to a further population operate; what arethe vices, and what are the distresses that prevent an increaseof numbers beyond the ability of the country to support.

Hume, in his essay on the populousness of ancient and modernnations, when he intermingles, as he says, an inquiry concerningcauses, with that concerning facts, does not seem to see with hisusual penetration, how very little some of the causes he alludesto could enable him to form any judgment of the actualpopulation of ancient nations. If any inference can be drawn fromthem, perhaps it should be directly the reverse of what Humedraws, though I certainly ought to speak with great diffidence indissenting from a man, who of all others on such subjects was theleast likely to be deceived by first appearances. If I find thatat a certain period in ancient history, the encouragements tohave a family were great, that early marriages were consequentlyvery prevalent, and that few persons remained single, I shouldinfer with certainty that population was rapidly increasing, butby no means that it was then actually very great; rather, indeed,the contrary, that it was then thin and that there was room andfood for a much greater number. On the other hand, if I find thatat this period the difficulties attending a family were verygreat; that, consequently, few early marriages took place, andthat a great number of both sexes remained single, I infer withcertainty that population was at a stand; and, probably, becausethe actual population was very great in proportion to thefertility of the land, and that there was scarcely room and foodfor more. The number of footmen, housemaids, and other personsremaining unmarried in modern states, Hume allows to be rather anargument against their population. I should rather draw acontrary inference, and consider it an argument of their fullness;though this inference is not certain, because there are manythinly inhabited states that are yet stationary in theirpopulation. To speak, therefore, correctly, perhaps it may besaid that the number of unmarried persons in proportion to thewhole number, existing at different periods, in the same, ordifferent states, will enable us to judge whether population atthese periods, was increasing, stationary, or decreasing, but willform no criterion by which we can determine the actualpopulation.

There is, however, a circumstance taken notice of in most ofthe accounts we have of China, that it seems difficult toreconcile with this reasoning. It is said, that early marriagesvery generally prevail through all the ranks of the Chinese. YetDr. Adam Smith supposes that population in China is stationary.These two circumstances appear to be irreconcilabel. It certainlyseems very little probable that the population of China is fastincreasing. Every acre of land has been so long in cultivation,that we can hardly conceive there is any great yearly addition tothe average produce. The fact, perhaps, of the universality ofearly marriages may not be sufficiently ascertained. If it besupposed true, the only way of accounting for the difficulty,with our present knowledge of the subject, appears to be, that theredundant population, necessarily occasioned by the prevalence ofearly marriages, must be repressed by occasional famines, and bythe custom of exposing children, which, in times of distress, isprobably more frequent than is ever acknowledged to Europeans.Relative to this barbarous practice, it is difficult to avoidremarking, that there cannot be a stronger proof of thedistresses that have been felt by mankind for want of food, thanthe existence of a custom that thus violates the most naturalprinciple of the human heart. It appears to have been verygeneral among ancient nations, and certainly tended rather toincrease population.

In examining the principal states of modern Europe, we shallFind, that though they have increased very considerably inpopulation since they were nations of shepherds, yet that, atpresent their progress is but slow; and instead of doubling theirnumbers every twenty-five years, they require three or fourhundred years, or more, for that purpose. Some, indeed, may beabsolutely stationary, and others even retrograde. The cause ofthis slow progress in population cannot be traced to a decay ofthe passion between the sexes. We have sufficient reason to thinkthat this natural propensity exists still in undiminished vigour.Why then do not its effects appear in a rapid increase of thehuman species? An intimate view of the state of society in anyone country in Europe, which may serve equally for all, willenable us to answer this question, and to say, that a foresight ofthe difficulties attending the rearing of a family acts as apreventive check; and the actual distresses of some of the lowerclasses, by which they are disabled from giving the proper foodand attention to their children, act as a positive check, to thenatural increase of population.

England, as one of the most flourishing states of Europe, maybe fairly taken for an example, and the observations made willapply with but little variation to any other country where thepopulation increases slowly.

The preventive check appears to operate in some degreethrough all the ranks of society in England. There are some men,even in the highest rank, who are prevented from marrying by theidea of the expenses that they must retrench, and the fanciedpleasures that they must deprive themselves of, on thesupposition of having a family. These considerations arecertainly trivial; but a preventive foresight of this kind hasobjects of much greater weight for its contemplation as we golower.

A man of liberal education, but with an income only justsufficient to enable him to associate in the rank of gentlemen,must feel absolutely certain, that if he marries and has a familyhe shall be obliged, if he mixes at all in society, to rankhimself with moderate farmers, and the lower class of tradesmen.The woman that a man of education would naturally make the objectof his choice, would be one brought up in the same tastes andsentiments with himself and used to the familiar intercourse of asociety totally different from that to which she must be reducedby marriage. Can a man consent to place the object of hisaffection in a situation so discordant, probably, to her tastesand inclinations? Two or three steps of descent in society,particularly at this round of the ladder, where education ends,and ignorance begins, will not be considered by the generality ofpeople, as a fancied and chimerical, but a real and essentialevil. If society be held desirable, it surely must be free,equal, and reciprocal society, where benefits are conferred aswell as received; and not such as the dependent finds with hispatron, or the poor with the rich.

These considerations undoubtedly prevent a great number inthis rank of life from following the bent of their inclinationsin an early attachment. Others, guided either by a strongerpassion, or a weaker judgment, break through these restraints;and it would be hard indeed, if the gratification of sodelightful a passion as virtuous love, did not, sometimes, morethan counterbalance all its attendant evils. But I fear it mustbe owned, that the more general consequences of such marriages, arerather calculated to justify, than to repress, the forebodings ofthe prudent.

The sons of tradesmen and farmers are exhorted not to marry,and generally find it necessary to pursue this advice till theyare settled in some business, or farm, that may enable them tosupport a family. These events may not, perhaps, occur till theyare far advanced in life. The scarcity of farms is a very generalcomplaint in England. And the competition in every kind ofbusiness is so great that it is not possible that all should besuccessful.

The labourer who earns eighteen pence a day, and lives withsome degree of comfort as a single man, will hesitate a littlebefore he divides that pittance among four or five, which seemsto be but just sufficient for one. Harder fare and harder labourhe would submit to for the sake of living with the woman that heloves; but he must feel conscious, if he thinks at all, that,should he have a large family, and any ill luck whatever, nodegree of frugality, no possible exertion of his manual strength,could preserve him from the heart rending sensation of seeing hischildren starve, or of forfeiting his independence, and beingobliged to the parish for their support. The love of independenceis a sentiment that surely none would wish to be erased from thebreast of man: though the parish law of England, it must beconfessed, is a system of all others the most calculatedgradually to weaken this sentiment, and in the end may eradicateit completely.

The servants who live in gentlemen's families, have restraintsthat are yet stronger to break through, in venturing uponmarriage. They possess the necessaries, and even the comforts oflife, almost in as great plenty as their masters. Their work iseasy, and their food luxurious compared with the class oflabourers. And their sense of dependence is weakened by theconscious power of changing their masters, if they feelthemselves offended. Thus comfortably situated at present, whatare their prospects in marrying? Without knowledge or capital,either for business, or farming, and unused, and therefore unableto earn a subsistence by daily labour, their only refuge seems tobe a miserable alehouse, which certainly offers no veryenchanting prospect of a happy evening to their lives. By muchthe greater part, therefore, deterred by this uninviting view oftheir future situation, content themselves with remaining singlewhere they are.

If this sketch of the state of society in England be near thetruth, and I do not conceive that it is exaggerated, it will beallowed that the preventive check to population in this countryoperates, though with varied force, through all the classes ofthe community. The same observation will hold true with regard toall old states. The effects, indeed, of these restraints uponmarriage are but too conspicuous in the consequent vices that areproduced in almost every part of the world; vices that arecontinually involving both sexes in inextricable unhappiness.

Chapter V

The second, or positive check to population examined, in England—The true cause why the immense sum collected in England for thepoor does not better their condition—The powerful tendency ofthe poor-laws to defeat their own purpose—Palliative of thedistresses of the poor proposed—The absolute impossibilityfrom the fixed laws of our nature, that the pressure of want canever be completely removed from the lower classes of society—All the checks to population may be resolved into misery or vice.

The positive check to population, by which I mean, the check thatrepresses an increase which is already begun, is confinedchiefly, though not perhaps solely, to the lowest orders ofsociety.

This check is not so obvious to common view as the other I haveMentioned; and, to prove distinctly the force and extent of itsoperation would require, perhaps, more data than we are inpossession of. But I believe it has been very generally remarkedby those who have attended to bills of mortality, that of thenumber of children who die annually, much too great a proportionbelongs to those, who may be supposed unable to give theiroffspring proper food and attention; exposed as they areoccasionally to severe distress, and confined, perhaps, tounwholesome habitations and hard labour. This mortality among thechildren of the poor has been constantly taken notice of in alltowns. It certainly does not prevail in an equal degree in thecountry; but the subject has not hitherto received sufficientattention to enable any one to say, that there are not more deathsin proportion, among the children of the poor, even in thecountry, than among those of the middling and higher classes.Indeed, it seems difficult to suppose that a labourer's wife whohas six children, and who is sometimes in absolute want of bread,should be able always to give them the food and attentionnecessary to support life. The sons and daughters of peasantswill not be found such rosy cherubs in real life as they aredescribed to be in romances. It cannot fail to be remarked bythose who live much in the country that the sons of labourers arevery apt to be stunted in their growth, and are a long whilearriving at maturity. Boys that you would guess to be fourteen orfifteen, are upon inquiry, frequently found to be eighteen ornineteen. And the lads who drive plough, which must certainly bea healthy exercise, are very rarely seen with any appearance ofcalves to their legs; a circumstance which can only be attributedto a want either of proper, or of sufficient nourishment.

To remedy the frequent distresses of the common people, thepoor-laws of England have been instituted; but it is to befeared, that though they may have alleviated a little theintensity of individual misfortune, they have spread the generalevil over a much larger surface. It is a subject often started inconversation and mentioned always as a matter of great surprise,that notwithstanding the immense sum that is annually collectedfor the poor in England, there is still so much distress amongthem. Some think that the money must be embezzled; others thatthe church-wardens and overseers consume the greater part of itin dinners. All agree that somehow or other it must be veryill-managed. In short the fact, that nearly three millions arecollected annually for the poor and yet that their distresses arenot removed, is the subject of continual astonishment. But a manwho sees a little below the surface of things, would be very muchmore astonished, if the fact were otherwise than it is observed tobe, or even if a collection universally of eighteen shillings inthe pound instead of four, were materially to alter it. I willstate a case which I hope will elucidate my meaning.

Suppose, that by a subscription of the rich the eighteen pencea day which men earn now, was made up five shillings, it might beimagined, perhaps, that they would then be able to livecomfortably and have a piece of meat every day for their dinners.But this would be a very false conclusion. The transfer of threeshillings and sixpence a day to every labourer, would not increasethe quantity of meat in the country. There is not at presentenough for all to have a decent share. What would then be theconsequence? The competition among the buyers in the market ofmeat would rapidly raise the price from six pence or seven pence,to two or three shillings in the pound; and the commodity wouldnot be divided among many more than it is at present. When anarticle is scarce, and cannot be distributed to all, he that canshew the most valid patent, that is, he that offers most money,becomes the possessor. If we can suppose the competition amongthe buyers of meat to continue long enough for a greater numberof cattle to be reared annually, this could only be done at theexpense of the corn, which would be a very disadvantagousexchange; for it is well known that the country could not thensupport the same population; and when subsistence is scarce inproportion to the number of people, it is of little consequencewhether the lowest members of the society possess eighteen penceor five shillings. They must at all events be reduced to liveupon the hardest fare, and in the smallest quantity.

It will be said, perhaps, that the increased number ofpurchasers in every article would give a spur to productiveindustry, and that the whole produce of the island would beincreased. This might in some degree be the case. But the spurthat these fancied riches would give to population, would morethan counterbalance it, and the increased produce would be to bedivided among a more than proportionably increased number ofpeople. All this time I am supposing that the same quantity ofwork would be done as before. But this would not really takeplace. The receipt of five shillings a day, instead of eighteenpence, would make every man fancy himself comparatively rich, andable to indulge himself in many hours or days of leisure. Thiswould give a strong and immediate check to productive industry;and in a short time, not only the nation would be poorer, butthe lower classes themselves would be much more distressed thanwhen they received only eighteen pence a day.

A collection from the rich of eighteen shillings in thepound, even if distributed in the most judicious manner, wouldhave a little the same effect as that resulting from thesupposition I have just made; and no possible contributions orsacrifices of the rich, particularly in money, could for any timeprevent the recurrence of distress among the lower members ofsociety whoever they were. Great changes might, indeed, be made.The rich might become poor, and some of the poor rich: but a partof the society must necessarily feel a difficulty of living; andthis difficulty will naturally fall on the least fortunatemembers.

It may at first appear strange, but I believe it is true,that I cannot by means of money raise a poor man, and enable himto live much better than he did before, without proportionablydepressing others in the same class. If I retrench the quantityof food consumed in my house, and give him what I have cut off, Ithen benefit him, without depressing any but myself and family,who, perhaps, may be well able to bear it. If I turn up a pieceof uncultivated land, and give him the produce, I then benefitboth him and all the members of the society, because what hebefore consumed is thrown into the common stock, and probablysome of the new produce with it. But if I only give him money,supposing the produce of the country to remain the same, I givehim a title to a larger share of that produce than formerly,which share he cannot receive without diminishing the shares ofothers. It is evident that this effect, in individual instances,must be so small as to be totally imperceptible; but still itmust exist, as many other effects do, which like some of theinsects that people the air, elude our grosser perceptions.

Supposing the quantity of food in any country to remain thesame for many years together; it is evident that this food mustbe divided according to the value of each man's patent, [1] or thesum of money that he can afford to spend on this commodity souniversally in request. It is a demonstrative truth, therefore, that the patents ofone set of men could not be increased in value withoutdiminishing the value of the patents of some other set of men. Ifthe rich were to subscribe, and give five shillings a day to fivehundred thousand men without retrenching their own tables, nodoubt can exist, that as these men would naturally live more attheir ease, and consume a greater quantity of provisions, therewould be less food remaining to divide among the rest; andconsequently each man's patent would be diminished in value, orthe same number of pieces of silver would purchase a smallerquantity of subsistence.

An increase of population without a proportional increase offood will evidently have the same effect in lowering the value ofeach man's patent. The food must necessarily be distributed insmaller quantities, and consequently a day's labour will purchasea smaller quantity of provisions. An increase in the price ofprovisions would arise, either from an increase of populationfaster than the means of subsistence; or from a differentdistribution of the money of the society. The food of a countrythat has been long occupied, if it be increasing, increasesslowly and regularly, and cannot be made to answer any suddendemands; but variations in the distribution of the money of asociety are not infrequently occurring, and are undoubtedly amongthe causes that occasion the continual variations which weobserve in the price of provisions.

The poor-laws of England tend to depress the generalcondition of the poor in these two ways. Their first obvioustendency is to increase population without increasing the foodfor its support. A poor man may marry with little or no prospectof being able to support a family in independence. They may besaid therefore in some measure to create the poor which theymaintain; and as the provisions of the country must, inconsequence of the increased population, be distributed to everyman in smaller proportions, it is evident that the labour ofthose who are not supported by parish assistance, will purchase asmaller quantity of provisions than before, and consequently moreof them must be driven to ask for support.

Secondly, the quantity of provisions consumed in workhousesupon a part of the society, that cannot in general be consideredas the most valuable part, diminishes the shares that wouldotherwise belong to more industrious and more worthy members; andthus in the same manner forces more to become dependent. If thepoor in the workhouses were to live better than they now do, thisnew distribution of the money of the society would tend moreconspicuously to depress the condition of those out of theworkhouses by occasioning a rise in the price of provisions.

Fortunately for England, a spirit of independence stillremains among the peasantry. The poor-laws are stronglycalculated to eradicate this spirit. They have succeeded in part;but had they succeeded as completely as might have been expected,their pernicious tendency would not have been so long concealed.

Hard as it may appear in individual instances, dependentpoverty ought to be held disgraceful. Such a stimulus seems to beabsolutely necessary to promote the happiness of the great massof mankind; and every general attempt to weaken this stimulus,however benevolent its apparent intention, will always defeat itsown purpose. If men are induced to marry from a prospect ofparish provision, with little or no chance of maintaining theirfamilies in independence, they are not only unjustly tempted tobring unhappiness and dependence upon themselves and children;but they are tempted, without knowing it, to injure all in thesame class with themselves. A labourer who marries without beingable to support a family may in some respects be considered as anenemy to all his fellow-labourers.

I feel no doubt whatever that the parish laws of England havecontributed to raise the price of provisions, and to lower thereal price of labour. They have therefore contributed toimpoverish that class of people whose only possession is theirlabour. It is also difficult to suppose that they have notpowerfully contributed to generate that carelessness, and want offrugality observable among the poor, so contrary to thedisposition frequently to be remarked among petty tradesmen andsmall farmers. The labouring poor, to use a vulgar expression,seem always to live from hand to mouth. Their present wantsemploy their whole attention, and they seldom think of thefuture. Even when they have an opportunity of saving they seldomexercise it; but all that is beyond their present necessitiesgoes, generally speaking, to the ale-house. The poor-laws ofEngland may therefore be said to diminish both the power and thewill to save, among the common people, and thus to weaken one ofthe strongest incentives to sobriety and industry, andconsequently to happiness.

It is a general complaint among master manufacturers, thathigh wages ruin all their workmen; but it is difficult toconceive that these men would not save a part of their high wagesfor the future support of their families, instead of spending itin drunkenness and dissipation, if they did not rely on parishassistance for support in case of accidents. And that the pooremployed in manufactures consider this assistance as a reason whythey may spend all the wages they earn, and enjoy themselves whilethey can, appears to be evident from the number of families that,upon the failure of any great manufactory, immediately fall uponthe parish; when perhaps the wages earned in this manufactory,while it flourished, were sufficiently above the price of commoncountry labour, to have allowed them to save enough for theirsupport till they could find some other channel for theirindustry.

A man who might not be deterred from going to the ale-house,from the consideration that on his death, or sickness, he shouldleave his wife and family upon the parish, might yet hesitate inthus dissipating his earnings, if he were assured that, in eitherof these cases, his family must starve, or be left to the supportof casual bounty. In China, where the real as well as nominalprice of labour is very low, sons are yet obliged by law tosupport their aged and helpless parents. Whether such a law wouldbe advisable in this country, I will not pretend to determine. Butit seems at any rate highly improper, by positive institutions,which render dependent poverty so general, to weaken thatdisgrace, which for the best and most humane reasons ought toattach to it.

The mass of happiness among the common people cannot but bediminished when one of the strongest checks to idleness anddissipation is thus removed; and when men are thus allured tomarry with little or no prospect of being able to maintain afamily in independence. Every obstacle in the way of marriagemust undoubtedly be considered as a species of unhappiness. Butas from the laws of our nature some check to population mustexist, it is better that it should be checked from a foresight ofthe difficulties attending a family, and the fear of dependentpoverty, than that it should be encouraged, only to be repressedafterwards by want and sickness.

It should be remembered always that there is an essentialdifference between food, and those wrought commodities, the rawmaterials of which are in great plenty. A demand for these lastwill not fail to create them in as great a quantity as they arewanted. The demand for food has by no means the same creativepower. In a country where all the fertile spots have been seized,high offers are necessary to encourage the farmer to lay hisdressing on land, from which he cannot expect a profitable returnfor some years. And before the prospect of advantage issufficiently great to encourage this sort of agriculturalenterprize, and while the new produce is rising, great distressesmay be suffered from the want of it. The demand for an increasedquantity of subsistence is, with few exceptions, constanteverywhere, yet we see how slowly it is answered in all thosecountries that have been long occupied.

The poor-laws of England were undoubtedly instituted for themost benevolent purpose; but there is great reason to think thatthey have not succeeded in their intention. They certainlymitigate some cases of very severe distress which might otherwiseoccur; yet the state of the poor who are supported by parishes,considered in all its circumstances, is very far from being freefrom misery. But one of the principal objections to them is, thatfor this assistance which some of the poor receive, in itselfalmost a doubtful blessing, the whole class of the common peopleof England is subjected to a set of grating, inconvenient, andtyrannical laws, totally inconsistent with the genuine spirit ofthe constitution. The whole business of settlements, even in itspresent amended state, is utterly contradictory to all ideas offreedom. The parish persecution of men whose families are likelyto become chargeable, and of poor women who are near lying-in, isa most disgraceful and disgusting tyranny. And the obstructionscontinually occasioned in the market of labour by these laws, havea constant tendency to add to the difficulties of those who arestruggling to support themselves without assistance.

These evils attendant on the poor-laws, are in some degreeirremediable. If assistance be to be distributed to a certainclass of people, a power must be given somewhere of discriminating the proper objects, and of managing the concerns ofthe institutions that are necessary; but any great interferencewith the affairs of other people, is a species of tyranny; and inthe common course of things, the exercise of this power may beexpected to become grating to those who are driven to ask forsupport. The tyranny of Justices, Churchwardens, and Overseers,is a common complaint among the poor: but the fault does not lieso much in these persons, who probably, before they were inpower, were not worse than other people; but in the nature of allsuch institutions.

The evil is perhaps gone too far to be remedied; but I feellittle doubt in my own mind that if the poor-laws had neverexisted, though there might have been a few more instances ofvery severe distress, yet that the aggregate mass of happinessamong the common people would have been much greater than it isat present.

Mr. Pitt's Poor-bill has the appearance of being framed withbenevolent intentions, and the clamour raised against it was inmany respects ill directed, and unreasonable. But it must beconfessed that it possesses in a high degree the great andradical defect of all systems of the kind, that, of tending toincrease population without increasing the means for its support,and thus to depress the condition of those that are not supportedby parishes, and, consequently, to create more poor.

To remove the wants of the lower classes of society, is indeedan arduous task. The truth is, that the pressure of distress onthis part of a community is an evil so deeply seated, that nohuman ingenuity can reach it. Were I to propose a palliative; andpalliatives are all that the nature of the case will admit; itshould be, in the first place, the total abolition of all thepresent parish-laws. This would at any rate give liberty andfreedom of action to the peasantry of England, which they canhardly be said to possess at present. They would then be able tosettle without interruption, wherever there was a prospect of agreater plenty of work, and a higher price for labour. The marketof labour would then be free, and those obstacles removed which,as things are now, often for a considerable time prevent theprice from rising according to the demand.

Secondly, Premiums might be given for turning up fresh land,and it possible encouragements held out to agriculture abovemanufactures, and to tillage above grazing. Every endeavourshould be used to weaken and destroy all those institutionsrelating to corporations, apprenticeships, c., which cause thelabours of agriculture to be worse paid than the labours of tradeand manufactures. For a country can never produce its properquantity of food while these distinctions remain in favour ofartizans. Such encouragements to agriculture would tend tofurnish the market with an increasing quantity of healthy work,and at the same time, by augmenting the produce of the country,would raise the comparative price of labour and ameliorate thecondition of the labourer. Being now in better circumstances, andseeing no prospect of parish assistance, he would be more able,as well as more inclined, to enter into associations forproviding against the sickness of himself or family.

Lastly, for cases of extreme distress, county workhousesmight be established, supported by rates upon the whole kingdom,and free for persons of all counties, and indeed of all nations.The fare should be hard, and those that were able obliged towork. It would be desirable that they should not be considered ascomfortable asylums in all difficulties; but merely as placeswhere severe distress might find some alleviation. A part ofthese houses might be separated, or others built for a mostbeneficial purpose, which has not been infrequently taken noticeof, that of providing a place, where any person, whether native orforeigner, might do a day's work at all times and receive themarket price for it. Many cases would undoubtedly be left for theexertion of individual benevolence.

A plan of this kind, the preliminary of which should be anabolition of all the present parish laws, seems to be the bestcalculated to increase the mass of happiness among the commonpeople of England. To prevent the recurrence of misery, is, alas!beyond the power of man. In the vain endeavour to attain whatin the nature of things is impossible, we now sacrifice not onlypossible but certain benefits. We tell the common people, that ifthey will submit to a code of tyrannical regulations, they shallnever be in want. They do submit to these regulations. Theyperform their part of the contract: but we do not, nay cannot,perform ours: and thus the poor sacrifice the valuable blessingof liberty, and receive nothing that can be called an equivalentin return.

Notwithstanding, then, the institution of the poor-laws inEngland, I think it will be allowed, that considering the state ofthe lower classes altogether, both in the towns and in thecountry, the distresses which they suffer from the want of properand sufficient food, from hard labour and unwholesomehabitations, must operate as a constant check to incipientpopulation.

To these two great checks to population, in all long occupiedcountries, which I have called the preventive and the positivechecks, may be added vicious customs with respect to women, greatcities, unwholesome manufactures, luxury, pestilence, and war.

All these checks may be fairly resolved into misery and vice.

And that these are the true causes of the slow increase ofpopulation in all the states of modern Europe, will appearsufficiently evident, from the comparatively rapid increase thathas invariably taken place whenever these causes have been in anyconsiderable degree removed.

Chapter VI

New colonies—Reasons for their rapid increase—North AmericanColonies—Extraordinary instance of increase in the backsettlements—Rapidity with which even old states recover theravages of war, pestilence, famine, or the convulsions of nature.

It has been universally remarked, that all new colonies settled inhealthy countries, where there was plenty of room and food, haveconstantly increased with astonishing rapidity in theirpopulation. Some of the colonies from ancient Greece, in no verylong period, more than equalled their parent states in numbersand strength. And not to dwell on remote instances, the Europeansettlements in the new world bear ample testimony to the truth ofa remark, which, indeed, has never, that I know of, been doubted.A plenty of rich land, to be had for little or nothing, is sopowerful a cause of population as to overcome all otherobstacles. No settlements could well have been worse managed thanthose of Spain in Mexico, Peru, and Quito. The tyranny,superstition, and vices of the mother-country, were introduced inample quantities among her children. Exorbitant taxes wereexacted by the Crown. The most arbitrary restrictions wereimposed on their trade. And the governors were not behind hand inrapacity and extortion for themselves as well as their master.Yet, under all these difficulties, the colonies made a quickprogress in population. The city of Lima, founded since theconquest, is represented by Ulloa as containing fifty thousandinhabitants near fifty years ago. Quito, which had been but ahamlet of Indians, is represented by the same author as in histime equally populous. Mexico is said to contain a hundredthousand inhabitants, which, notwithstanding the exaggerations ofthe Spanish writers, is supposed to be five times greater thanwhat it contained in the time of Montezuma.

In the Portuguese colony of Brasil, governed with almostequal tyranny, there were supposed to be, thirty years since, sixhundred thousand inhabitants of European extraction.

The Dutch and French colonies, though under the government ofexclusive companies of merchants, which, as Dr. Adam Smith saysvery justly, is the worst of all possible governments, stillpersisted in thriving under every disadvantage.

But the English North American colonies, now the powerfulpeople of the United States of America, made by far the mostrapid progress. To the plenty of good land which they possessedin common with the Spanish and Portuguese settlements, they addeda greater degree of liberty and equality. Though not without somerestrictions on their foreign commerce, they were allowed aperfect liberty of managing their own internal affairs. Thepolitical institutions that prevailed were favourable to thealienation and division of property. Lands that were notcultivated by the proprietor within a limited time, were declaredgrantable to any other person. In Pennsylvania there was no rightof primogeniture; and in the provinces of New England, the eldesthad only a double share. There were no tythes in any of theStates, and scarcely any taxes. And on account of the extremecheapness of good land, a capital could not be more advantageouslyemployed than in agriculture, which at the same time that itsupplies the greatest quantity of healthy work affords much themost valuable produce to the society.

The consequence of these favourable circumstances united, wasa rapidity of increase probably without parallel in history.Throughout all the northern colonies, the population was found todouble itself in 25 years. The original number ofpersons who had settled in the four provinces of new England in1643, was 21,200. [2] Afterwards, it is supposed, that more left them, than went to them. In the year 1760, they were increased to halfa million. They had therefore all along doubled their own numberin 25 years. In New Jersey the period of doublingappeared to be 22 years; and in Rhode Island still less.In the back settlements, where the inhabitants applied themselvessolely to agriculture, and luxury was not known, they were foundto double their own number in 15 years, a most extraordinaryinstance of increase. [3] Along the sea coast, which would naturallybe first inhabited, the period of doubling was about 35years; and in some of the maritime towns, the population wasabsolutely at a stand.

These facts seem to shew that population increases exactly inthe proportion, that the two great checks to it, misery and vice,are removed; and that there is not a truer criterion of thehappiness and innocence of a people than the rapidity of theirincrease. The unwholesomeness of towns, to which some persons arenecessarily driven, from the nature of their trades, must beconsidered as a species of misery; and every the slightest checkto marriage, from a prospect of the difficulty of maintaining afamily, may be fairly classed under the same head. In short, it isdifficult to conceive any check to population which does not comeunder the description of some species of misery or vice.

The population of the thirteen American States before the war,was reckoned at about three millions. Nobody imagines that GreatBritain is less populous at present for the emigration of thesmall parent stock that produced these numbers. On the contrary,a certain degree of emigration is known to be favourable to thepopulation of the mother country. It has been particularlyremarked that the two Spanish provinces from which the greatestnumber of people emigrated to America, became in consequence morepopulous. Whatever was the original number of British Emigrantsthat increased so fast in the North American Colonies; let usask, why does not an equal number produce an equal increase, inthe same time, in Great Britain? The great and obvious cause to beassigned, is the want of room and food, or, in other words,misery; and that this is a much more powerful cause even thanvice, appears sufficiently evident from the rapidity with whicheven old States recover the desolations of war, pestilence, orthe accidents of nature. They are then for a short time placed alittle in the situation of new states; and the effect is alwaysanswerable to what might be expected. If the industry of theinhabitants be not destroyed by fear or tyranny, subsistence willsoon increase beyond the wants of the reduced numbers; and theinvariable consequence will be, that population which before,perhaps, was nearly stationary, will begin immediately toincrease.

The fertile province of Flanders, which has been so often theseat of the most destructive wars, after a respite of a fewyears, has appeared always as fruitful and as populous as ever.Even the Palatinate lifted up its head again after the execrableravages of Lewis the Fourteenth. The effects of the dreadfulplague in London in 1666, were not perceptible 15 or 20years afterwards. The traces of the most destructive famines inChina and Indostan, are by all accounts very soon obliterated.It may even be doubted whether Turkey and Egypt are upon anaverage much less populous for the plagues that periodically laythem waste. If the number of people which they contain be lessnow than formerly, it is, probably, rather to be attributed tothe tyranny and oppression of the government under which theygroan, and the consequent discouragements to agriculture, than tothe loss which they sustain by the plague. The most tremendousconvulsions of nature, such as volcanic eruptions andearthquakes, if they do not happen so frequently as to drive awaythe inhabitants, or to destroy their spirit of industry, have buta trifling effect on the average population of any state. Naples,and the country under Vesuvius, are still very populous,notwithstanding the repeated eruptions of that mountain. AndLisbon and Lima are now, probably, nearly in the same state withregard to population as they were before the last earthquakes.

Chapter VII

A probable cause of epidemics—Extracts from Mr. Sussmilch'stables—Periodical returns of sickly seasons to be expected incertain cases—Proportion of births to burials for short periodsin any country an inadequate criterion of the real averageincrease of population—Best criterion of a permanent increaseof population—Great frugality of living one of the causes ofthe famines of China and Indostan—Evil tendency of one of theclauses in Mr. Pitt's Poor Bill—Only one proper way ofencouraging population—Causes of the happiness of nations—Famine, the last and most dreadful mode by which nature represses a redundant population—The three propositions considered as established.

By great attention to cleanliness, the plague seems at length tobe completely expelled from London. But it is not improbable, thatamong the secondary causes that produce even sickly seasons andepidemics, ought to be ranked a crowded population and unwholesomeand insufficient food. I have been led to this remark, by lookingover some of the tables of Mr. Sussmilch, which Dr. Price hasextracted in one of his notes to the postscript on thecontroversy respecting the population of England and Wales. Theyare considered as very correct; and if such tables were general,they would throw great light on the different ways by whichpopulation is repressed, and prevented from increasing beyond themeans of subsistence in any country. I will extract a part of thetables, with Dr. Price's remarks.

In the Kingdom of Prussia, and Dukedom of Lithuania.

Annual Average

Births

Burials

Marriages

Proportionof Births toMarriages

Proportionof Births toBurials

10 Yrs. to 1702

21,963

14,718

5,928

37 to 10

150 to 100

5 Yrs. to 1716

21,602

11,984

4,968

37 to 10

180 to 100

5 Yrs. to 1756

28,392

19,154

5,599

50 to 10

148 to 100

"N.B. In 1709 and 1710, a pestilence carried off 247,733 of the inhabitants of this country, and in 1736 and 1737, epidemicsprevailed, which again checked its increase."

It may be remarked, that the greatest proportion of births toburials, was in the five years after the great pestilence.

Dutchy of Pomerania.

Annual Average

Births

Burials

Marriages

Proportionof Births toMarriages

Proportionof Births toBurials

6 Yrs. to 1702

6,540

4,647

1,810

36 to 10

140 to 100

6 Yrs. to 1708

7,455

4,208

1,875

39 to 10

177 to 100

6 Yrs. to 1726

8,432

5,627

2,131

39 to 10

150 to 100

6 Yrs. to 1756

12,767

9,281

2,957

43 to 10

137 to 100

"In this instance the inhabitants appear to have been almostdoubled in 56 years, no very bad epidemics having onceinterrupted the increase, but the three years immediately followingthe last period (to 1759,) were so sickly that the births weresunk to 10,229 and the burials raised to 15,068."

Is it not probable, that in this case, the number ofinhabitants had increased faster than the food and theaccommodations necessary to preserve them in health? The mass ofthe people would, upon this supposition, be obliged to liveharder, and a greater number would be crowded together in onehouse; and it is not surely improbable that these were among thenatural causes that produced the three sickly years. These causesmay produce such an effect, though the country, absolutelyconsidered, may not be extremely crowded and populous. In acountry even thinly inhabited, if an increase of population takeplace, before more food is raised, and more houses are built, theinhabitants must be distressed in some degree for room andsubsistence. Were the marriages in England, for the next eight orten years, to be more prolifick than usual, or even were agreater number of marriages than usual to take place, supposingthe number of houses to remain the same; instead of five or sixto a cottage, there must be seven or eight; and this, added tothe necessity of harder living, would probably have a veryunfavourable effect on the health of the common people.

Neumark of Brandenburgh.

Annual Average

Births

Burials

Marriages

Proportionof Births toMarriages

Proportionof Births toBurials

5 Yrs. to 1701

5,433

3,483

1,436

37 to 10

155 to 100

5 Yrs. to 1726

7,012

4,254

1,713

40 to 10

164 to 100

5 Yrs. to 1756

7,978

5,567

1,891

42 to 10

143 to 100

"Epidemics prevailed for six years, from 1736, to 1741, whichchecked the increase."

Dukedom of Magdeburgh.

Annual Average

Births

Burials

Marriages

Proportionof Births toMarriages

Proportionof Births toBurials

5 Yrs. to 1702

6,431

4,103

1,681

38 to 10

156 to 100

5 Yrs. to 1717

7,590

5,335

2,076

36 to 10

142 to 100

5 Yrs. to 1756

8,850

8,069

2,193

40 to 10

109 to 100

"The years 1738, 1740, 1750, and 1751, were particularlysickly."

For further information on this subject, I refer the readerto Mr. Sussmilch's tables. The extracts that I have made aresufficient to shew the periodical, though irregular, returns ofsickly seasons, and it seems highly probable, that a scantiness ofroom and food was one of the principal causes that occasionedthem.

It appears from the tables, that these countries wereincreasing rather fast for old states, notwithstanding theoccasional seasons that prevailed. Cultivation must have beenimproving, and marriages, consequently, encouraged. For thechecks to population appear to have been rather of the positive,than of the preventive kind. When from a prospect of increasingplenty in any country, the weight that represses population is insome degree removed; it is highly probable that the motion willbe continued beyond the operation of the cause that firstimpelled it. Or, to be more particular, when the increasingproduce of a country, and the increasing demand for labour, sofar ameliorate the condition of the labourer, as greatly toencourage marriage, it is probable that the custom of earlymarriages will continue, till the population of the country hasgone beyond the increased produce: and sickly seasons appear tobe the natural and necessary consequence. I should expect,therefore, that those countries where subsistence was increasingsufficiency at times to encourage population, but not to answerall its demands, would be more subject to periodical epidemicsthan those where the population could more completely accommodateitself to the average produce.

An observation the converse of this will probably also befound true. In those countries that are subject to periodicalsicknesses, the increase of population, or the excess of birthsabove the burials, will be greater in the intervals of theseperiods, than is usual, cæteris paribus, in the countries not somuch subject to such disorders. If Turkey and Egypt have beennearly stationary in their average population for the lastcentury, in the intervals of their periodical plagues, the birthsmust have exceeded the burials in a greater proportion than insuch countries as France and England.

The average proportion of births to burials in any countryfor a period of five to ten years, will hence appear to be a veryinadequate criterion by which to judge of its real progress inpopulation. This proportion certainly shews the rate of increaseduring those five or ten years; but we can by no means thenceinfer, what had been the increase for the twenty years before, orwhat would be the increase for the twenty years after. Dr. Priceobserves, that Sweden, Norway, Russia, and the kingdom of Naples,are increasing fast; but the extracts from registers that he hasgiven are not for periods of sufficient extent to establish thefact. It is highly probable, however, that Sweden, Norway, andRussia, are really increasing their population, though not at therate that the proportion of births to burials for the shortperiods that Dr. Price takes would seem to shew. [4] For five years, ending in 1777,the proportion of births to burials in the kingdom of Naples was144 to 100; but there is reason to suppose that this proportionwould indicate an increase much greater than would be reallyfound to have taken place in that kingdom during a period of ahundred years.

Dr. Short compared the registers of many villages and markettowns in England for two periods; the first, from Queen Elizabethto the middle of the last century, and the second, from differentyears at the end of the last century, to the middle of thepresent. And from a comparison of these extracts, it appears thatin the former period the births exceeded the burials in theproportion of 124 to 100; but in the latter, only in theproportion of 111 to 100. Dr. Price thinks that the registers inthe former period are not to be depended upon; but, probably, inthis instance, they do not give incorrect proportions. At least,there are many reasons for expecting to find a greater excess ofbirths above the burials in the former period than in the latter.In the natural progress of the population of any country, moregood land will, cæteris paribus, [5] be taken into cultivation inthe earlier stages of it than in the later. And a greater proportional yearly increase of produce will almost invariably be followed by a greater proportionalincrease of population. But, besides this great cause, whichwould naturally give the excess of births above burials greaterat the end of Queen Elizabeth's reign, than in the middle of thepresent century, I cannot help thinking that the occasionalravages of the plague in the former period, must have had sometendency to increase this proportion. If an average of ten yearshad been taken in the intervals of the returns of this dreadfuldisorder; or if the years of plague had been rejected asaccidental, the registers would certainly give the proportion ofbirths to burials too high for the real average increase of thepopulation. For some few years after the great plague in 1666, itis probable that there was a more than usual excess of birthsabove burials, particularly if Dr. Price's opinion be founded,that England was more populous at the revolution (which happenedonly 22 years afterwards) than it is at present.

Mr. King, in 1693, stated the proportion of the births to theburials throughout the Kingdom, exclusive of London, as 115 to100. Dr. Short makes it, in the middle of the present century, 111to 100, including London. The proportion in France for fiveyears, ending in 1774, was 117 to 100. If these statements arenear the truth; and if there are no very great variations atparticular periods in the proportions, it would appear that thepopulation of France and England has accommodated itself verynearly to the average produce of each country. Thediscouragements to marriage, the consequent vicious habits, war,luxury, the silent though certain depopulation of large towns,and the close habitations, and insufficient food of many of thepoor, prevent population from increasing beyond the means ofsubsistence; and, if I may use an expression which certainly atfirst appears strange, supercede the necessity of great andravaging epidemics to repress what is redundant. Were a wastingplague to sweep off two millions in England, and six millions inFrance, there can be no doubt whatever that, after theinhabitants had recovered from the dreadful shock, the proportionof births to burials would be much above what it is in eithercountry at present.

In New Jersey, the proportion of births to deaths on anaverage of seven years, ending in 1743, was as 300 to 100. InFrance and England, taking the highest proportion, it is as 117to 100. Great and astonishing as this difference is, we ought notto be so wonder-struck at it, as to attribute it to the miraculousinterposition of heaven. The causes of it are not remote, latentand mysterious; but near us, round about us, and open to theinvestigation of every inquiring mind. It accords with the mostliberal spirit of philosophy, to suppose that not a stone canfall, or a plant rise, without the immediate agency of divinepower. But we know from experience, that these operations of whatwe call nature have been conducted almost invariably according tofixed laws. And since the world began, the causes of populationand depopulation have probably been as constant as any of thelaws of nature with which we are acquainted.

The passion between the sexes has appeared in every age to beso nearly the same that it may always be considered, in algebraiclanguage, as a given quantity. The great law of necessity whichprevents population from increasing in any country beyond thefood which it can either produce or acquire, is a law, so open toour view, so obvious and evident to our understandings, and socompletely confirmed by the experience of every age, that wecannot for a moment doubt it. The different modes which naturetakes to prevent or repress a redundant population, do not appear,indeed, to us so certain and regular; but though we cannot alwayspredict the mode, we may with certainty predict the fact. If theproportion of births to deaths for a few years, indicate anincrease of numbers much beyond the proportional increased oracquired produce of the country, we may be perfectly certain, thatunless an emigration takes place, the deaths will shortly exceedthe births; and that the increase that had taken place for a fewyears cannot be the real average increase of the population ofthe country. Were there no other depopulating causes, everycountry would, without doubt, be subject to periodicalpestilences or famine.

The only true criterion of a real and permanent increase inthe population of any country, is the increase of the means ofsubsistence. But even this criterion is subject to some slightvariations which are, however, completely open to our view andobservations. In some countries population appears to have beenforced; that is, the people have been habituated by degrees tolive almost upon the smallest possible quantity of food. Theremust have been periods in such counties when population increasedpermanently, without an increase in the means of subsistence.China seems to answer to this description. If the accounts wehave of it are to be trusted, the lower classes of people are inthe habit of living almost upon the smallest possible quantity offood, and are glad to get any putrid offals that Europeanlabourers would rather starve than eat. The law in China whichpermits parents to expose their children, has tended principallythus to force the population. A nation in this state mustnecessarily be subject to famines. Where a country is so populousin proportion to the means of subsistence, that the averageproduce of it is but barely sufficient to support the lives ofthe inhabitants, any deficiency from the badness of seasons mustbe fatal. It is probable that the very frugal manner in which theGentoos are in the habit of living, contributes in some degree tothe famines of Indostan.

In America, where the reward of labour is at present soliberal, the lower classes might retrench very considerably in ayear of scarcity without materially distressing themselves. Afamine therefore seems to be almost impossible. It may beexpected, that in the progress of the population of America, thelabourers will in time be much less liberally rewarded. Thenumbers will in this case permanently increase without aproportional increase in the means of subsistence.

In the different States of Europe there must be somevariations in the proportion between the number of inhabitantsand the quantity of food consumed, arising from the differenthabits of living that prevail in each State. The labourers of theSouth of England are so accustomed to eat fine wheaten bread, thatthey will suffer themselves to be half starved before they willsubmit to live like the Scotch peasants. They might perhaps intime, by the constant operation of the hard law of necessity, bereduced to live even like the lower Chinese: and the countrywould then, with the same quantity of food, support a greaterpopulation. But to effect this must always be a most difficult,and every friend to humanity will hope, an abortive attempt.Nothing is so common as to hear of encouragements that ought tobe given to population. If the tendency of mankind to increase beso great as I have represented it to be, it may appear strangethat this increase does not come when it is thus repeatedlycalled for. The true reason is, that the demand for a greaterpopulation is made without preparing the funds necessary tosupport it. Increase the demand for agricultural labour bypromoting cultivation, and with it consequently increase theproduce of the country, and ameliorate the condition of thelabourer, and no apprehensions whatever need be entertained ofthe proportional increase of population. An attempt to effectthis purpose in any other way is vicious, cruel, and tyrannical,and in any state of tolerable freedom cannot therefore succeed.It may appear to be the interest of the rulers, and the rich of aState, to force population, and thereby lower the price oflabour, and consequently the expense of fleets and armies, andthe cost of manufactures for foreign sale: but every attempt ofthe kind should be carefully watched and strenuously resisted bythe friends of the poor, particularly when it comes under thedeceitful garb of benevolence, and is likely, on that account, tobe cheerfully and cordially received by the common people.

I entirely acquit Mr. Pitt of any sinister intention in thatclause of his poor bill which allows a shilling a week to everylabourer for each child he has above three. I confess, thatbefore the bill was brought into Parliament, and for some timeafter, I thought that such a regulation would be highlybeneficial; but further reflection on the subject has convincedme, that if its object be to better the condition of the poor, itis calculated to defeat the very purpose which it has in view. Ithas no tendency that I can discover to increase the produce ofthe country; and if it tend to increase the population, withoutincreasing the produce, the necessary and inevitable consequenceappears to be that the same produce must be divided among agreater number, and consequently that a day's labour willpurchase a smaller quantity of provisions, and the poor thereforein general must be more distressed.

I have mentioned some cases where population may permanentlyIncrease, without a proportional increase in the means ofsubsistence. But it is evident that the variation in differentStates, between the food and the numbers supported by it, isrestricted to a limit beyond which it cannot pass. In everycountry, the population of which is not absolutely decreasing,the food must be necessarily sufficient to support, and tocontinue, the race of labourers.

Other circumstances being the same, it may be affirmed thatcountries are populous, according to the quantity of human foodwhich they produce; and happy, according to the liberality withwhich that food is divided, or the quantity which a day's labourwill purchase. Corn countries are more populous than pasturecountries; and rice countries more populous than corn countries.The lands in England are not suited to rice, but they would allbear potatoes: and Dr. Adam Smith observes, that if potatoes wereto become the favourite vegetable food of the common people, andif the same quantity of land was employed in their culture, as isnow employed in the culture of corn, the country would be able tosupport a much greater population; and would consequently in avery short time have it.

The happiness of a country does not depend, absolutely, uponits poverty, or its riches, upon its youth, or its age, upon itsbeing thinly, or fully inhabited, but upon the rapidity with whichit is increasing, upon the degree in which the yearly increase offood approaches to the yearly increase of an unrestrictedpopulation. This approximation is always the nearest in newcolonies, where the knowledge and industry of an old Stateoperate on the fertile unappropriated land of a new one. In othercases, the youth or the age of a State is not in this respect ofvery great importance. It is probable that the food of GreatBritain is divided in as great plenty to the inhabitants, at thepresent period, as it was two thousand, three thousand, or fourthousand years ago. And there is reason to believe that the poorand thinly inhabited tracts of the Scotch Highlands, are as muchdistressed by an overcharged population as the rich and populousprovince of Flanders.

Were a country never to be over-run by a people more advancedin arts, but left to its own natural progress in civilization;from the time that its produce might be considered as an unit, tothe time that it might be considered as a million, during thelapse of many hundred years, there would not be a single period,when the mass of the people could be said to be free fromdistress, either directly or indirectly, for want of food. Inevery State in Europe, since we have first had accounts of it,millions and millions of human existences have been repressedfrom this simple cause; though perhaps in some of these States, anabsolute famine has never been known.

Famine seems to be the last, the most dreadful resource ofnature. The power of population is so superior to the power inthe earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature deathmust in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices ofmankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They arethe precursors in the great army of destruction; and often finishthe dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war ofextermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague,advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tenthousands. Should success be still incomplete, giganticinevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blowlevels the population with the food of the world.

Must it not then be acknowledged by an attentive examiner ofthe histories of mankind, that in every age and in every State inwhich man has existed, or does now exist,

- That the increase of population is necessarily limited by themeans of subsistence.

- That population does invariably increase when the means ofsubsistence increase. And,That the superior power ofpopulation it repressed, and the actual population kept equal tothe means of subsistence, by misery and vice.

Chapter VIII

Mr. Wallace—Error of supposing that the difficulty arising frompopulation is at a great distance—Mr. Condorcet's sketch of theprogress of the human mind—Period when the oscillation,mentioned by Mr. Condorcet, ought to be applied to the human race.

To a person who draws the preceding obvious inferences, from aview of the past and present state of mankind, it cannot but be amatter of astonishment, that all the writers on the perfectibilityof man and of society, who have noticed the argument of anovercharged population, treat it always very slightly andinvariably represent the difficulties arising from it as at agreat and almost immeasurable distance. Even Mr. Wallace, whothought the argument itself of so much weight as to destroy hiswhole system of equality, did not seem to be aware that anydifficulty would occur from this cause till the whole earth hadbeen cultivated like a garden and was incapable of any furtherincrease of produce. Were this really the case, and were abeautiful system of equality in other respects practicable, Icannot think that our ardour in the pursuit of such a schemeought to be damped by the contemplation of so remote adifficulty. An event at such a distance might fairly be left toprovidence: but the truth is that if the view of the argumentgiven in this essay be just, the difficulty so far from beingremote, would be imminent, and immediate. At every period duringthe progress of cultivation, from the present moment to the timewhen the whole earth was become like a garden, the distress forwant of food would be constantly pressing on all mankind, if theywere equal. Though the produce of the earth might be increasingevery year, population would be increasing much faster; and theredundancy must necessarily be repressed by the periodical orconstant action of misery or vice.

Mr. Condorcet's Esquisse d'un tableau historique des progrèsde l'esprit humain, was written, it is said, under the pressureof that cruel proscription which terminated in his death. If hehad no hopes of its being seen during his life, and of itsinteresting France in his favour, it is a singular instance ofthe attachment of a man to principles, which every day'sexperience was so fatally for himself contradicting. To see thehuman mind in one of the most enlightened nations of the world,and after a lapse of some thousand years, debased by such afermentation of disgusting passions, of fear, cruelty, malice,revenge, ambition, madness, and folly, as would have disgraced themost savage nation in the most barbarous age, must have been sucha tremendous shock to his ideas of the necessary and inevitableprogress of the human mind, that nothing but the firmestconviction of the truth of his principles, in spite of allappearances, could have withstood.

This posthumous publication, is only a sketch of a much largerwork, which he proposed should be executed. It necessarily,therefore, wants that detail and application, which can aloneprove the truth of any theory. A few observations will besufficient to shew how completely the theory is contradicted, whenit is applied to the real, and not to an imaginary, state ofthings.

In the last division of the work, which treats of the futureprogress of man towards perfection, he says, that comparing, inthe different civilized nations of Europe, the actual populationwith the extent of territory; and observing their cultivation,their industry, their divisions of labour, and their means ofsubsistence, we shall see that it would be impossible to preservethe same means of subsistence, and, consequently, the samepopulation, without a number of individuals, who have no othermeans of supplying their wants, than their industry. Havingallowed the necessity of such a class of men, and advertingafterwards to the precarious revenue of those families that woulddepend so entirely on the life and health of their chief, [6] he says, very justly: "There exists then, a necessary cause ofinequality, of dependence, and even of misery, which menaces,without ceasing, the most numerous and active class of oursocieties." Thedifficulty is just, and well stated, and I am afraid that the modeby which he proposes it should be removed, will be foundinefficacious. By the application of calculations to theprobabilities of life, and the interest of money, he proposes thata fund should be established which should assure to the old anassistance, produced, in part, by their own former savings, and,in part, by the savings of individuals, who in making the samesacrifice die before they reap the benefit of it. The same, or asimilar fund, should give assistance to women and children, wholose their husbands, or fathers; and afford a capital to thosewho were of an age to found a new family, sufficient for theproper development of their industry. These establishments, heobserves, might be made in the name, and under the protection, ofthe society. Going still further, he says, that by the justapplication of calculations, means might be found of morecompletely preserving a state of equality, by preventing creditfrom being the exclusive privilege of great fortunes, and yetgiving it a basis equally solid, and by rendering the progress ofindustry, and the activity of commerce, less dependent on greatcapitalists.

Such establishments and calculations, may appear verypromising upon paper, but when applied to real life, they will befound to be absolutely nugatory. Mr. Condorcet allows, that a classof people which maintains itself entirely by industry, isnecessary to every state. Why does he allow this? No other reasoncan well be assigned, than that he conceives that the labournecessary to procure subsistence for an extended population, willnot be performed without the goad of necessity. If byestablishments of this kind, this spur to industry be removed, ifthe idle and the negligent are placed upon the same footing withregard to their credit, and the future support of their wives andfamilies, as the active and industrious; can we expect to see menexert that animated activity in bettering their condition, whichnow forms the master spring of public prosperity? If aninquisition were to be established, to examine the claims of eachindividual, and to determine whether he had or had not exertedhimself to the utmost, and to grant or refuse assistanceaccordingly, this would be little else than a repetition upon alarger scale of the English poor laws, and would be completelydestructive of the true principles of liberty and equality.

But independent of this great objection to theseestablishments, and supposing for a moment that they would giveno check to productive industry, by far the greatest difficultyremains yet behind.

Were every man sure of a comfortable provision for hisfamily, almost every man would have one; and were the risinggeneration free from the "killing frost" of misery, populationmust rapidly increase. Of this, Mr. Condorcet seems to be fullyaware himself; and after having described further improvements,he says:"But in this progress of industry and happiness, each generationwill be called to more extended enjoyments, and in consequence,by the physical constitution of the human frame, to an increasein the number of individuals. Must not there arrive a periodthen, when these laws, equally necessary, shall counteract eachother? When the increase of the number of men surpassing theirmeans of subsistence, the necessary result must be, either acontinual diminution of happiness and population, a movementtruly retrograde, or at least, a kind of oscillation betweengood and evil? In societies arrived at this term, will not thisoscillation be a constantly subsisting cause of periodicalmisery? Will it not mark the limit when all further ameliorationwill become impossible, and point out that term to theperfectibility of the human race, which it may reach in the courseof ages, but can never pass?"

He then adds,"There is no person who does not see how very distant such aperiod is from us; but shall we ever arrive at it? It is equallyimpossible to pronounce for or against the future realization ofan event, which cannot take place, but at an æra, when the humanrace will have attained improvements, of which we can at presentscarcely form a conception."

Mr. Condorcet's picture of what may be expected to happen whenthe number of men shall surpass the means of their subsistence, isjustly drawn. The oscillation which he describes, will certainlytake place, and will, without doubt, be a constantly subsistingcause of periodical misery. The only point in which I differ fromMr. Condorcet with regard to this picture, is, the period, when itmay be applied to the human race. Mr. Condorcet thinks, that itcannot possibly be applicable but at an æra extremely distant. Ifthe proportion between the natural increase of population andfood, which I have given, be in any degree near the truth, it willappear, on the contrary, that the period when the number of mensurpass their means of subsistence, has long since arrived; andthat this necessity oscillation, this constantly subsisting causeof periodical misery, has existed ever since we have had anyhistories of mankind, does exist at present, and will for evercontinue to exist, unless some decided change take place in thephysical constitution of our nature.

Mr. Condorcet, however, goes on to say that should the period,which he conceives to be so distant, ever arrive, the human race,and the advocates for the perfectibility of man, need not bealarmed at it. He then proceeds to remove the difficulty in amanner which I profess not to understand. Having observed, thatthe ridiculous prejudices of superstition, would by that time haveceased to throw over morals, a corrupt and degrading austerity, healludes, either to a promiscuous concubinage, which would preventbreeding, or to something else as unnatural. To remove thedifficulty in this way, will, surely, in the opinion of most men,be to destroy that virtue, and purity of manners, which theadvocates of equality, and of the perfectibility of man, professto be the end and object of their views.

Chapter IX

Mr. Condorcet's conjecture concerning the organic perfectibilityof man, and the indefinite prolongation of human life—Fallacyof the argument, which infers an unlimited progress from apartial improvement, the limit of which cannot be ascertained,illustrated in the breeding of animals, and the cultivation ofplants.

The last question which Mr. Condorcet proposes for examination, is,the organic perfectibility of man. He observes, that if the proofswhich have been already given, and which, in their developmentwill receive greater force in the work itself, are sufficient toestablish the indefinite perfectibility of man, upon thesupposition of the same natural faculties, and the sameorganization which he has at present; what will be the certainty,what the extent of our hope, if this organization, these naturalfaculties themselves, are susceptible of amelioration?

From the improvement of medicine, from the use of morewholesome food and habitations; from a manner of living whichwill improve the strength of the body by exercise, withoutimpairing it by excess; from the destruction of the two greatcauses of the degradation of man, misery, and too great riches;from the gradual removal of transmissible and contagiousdisorders, by the improvement of physical knowledge, rendered moreefficacious by the progress of reason and of social order; heinfers, that though man will not absolutely become immortal, yetthat the duration between his birth and natural death willincrease without ceasing, will have no assignable term, and mayproperly be expressed by the word indefinite. He then definesthis word to mean, either a constant approach to an unlimitedextent, without ever reaching it; or, an increase in theimmensity of ages to an extent greater than any assignablequantity.

But surely the application of this term in either of thesesenses, to the duration of human life, is in the highest degreeunphilosophical, and totally unwarranted by any appearances in thelaws of nature. Variations from different causes are essentiallydistinct from a regular and unretrograde increase. The averageduration of human life will, to a certain degree, vary, from healthyor unhealthy climates, from wholesome or unwholesome food, fromvirtuous or vicious manners, and other causes; but it may befairly doubted, whether there is really the smallest perceptibleadvance in the natural duration of human life, since first we havehad any authentic history of man. The prejudices of all ages haveindeed been directly contrary to this supposition, and though Iwould not lay much stress upon these prejudices, they will insome measure tend to prove that there has been no marked advancein an opposite direction.

It may perhaps be said, that the world is yet so young, socompletely in its infancy, that it ought not to be expected thatany difference should appear so soon.

If this be the case, there is at once an end of all humanscience. The whole train of reasonings from effects to causeswill be destroyed. We may shut our eyes to the book of nature, asit will no longer be of any use to read it. The wildest and mostimprobable conjectures may be advanced with as much certainty asthe most just and sublime theories, founded on careful andreiterated experiments. We may return again to the old mode ofphilosophizing, and make facts bend to systems, instead ofestablishing systems upon facts. The grand and consistent theoryof Newton, will be placed upon the same footing as the wild andeccentric hypotheses of Descartes. In short, if the laws ofnature are thus fickle and inconstant; if it can be affirmed, andbe believed, that they will change, when for ages and ages theyhave appeared immutable, the human mind will no longer have anyincitements to inquiry, but must remain fixed in inactive torpor,or amuse itself only in bewildering dreams and extravagantfancies.

The constancy of the laws of nature, and of effects and causes,is the foundation of all human knowledge; though far be it fromme to say, that the same power which framed and executes the lawsof nature, may not change them all "in a moment, in the twinklingof an eye." Such a change may undoubtedly happen. All that Imean to say is, that it is impossible to infer it from reasoning.If without any previous observable symptoms or indications of achange, we can infer that a change will take place, we may aswell make any assertion whatever, and think it as unreasonable tobe contradicted, in affirming that the moon will come in contactwith the earth to-morrow, as in saying, that the sun will rise atits usual time.

With regard to the duration of human life, there does notappear to have existed, from the earliest ages of the world to thepresent moment, the smallest permanent symptom, or indication, ofincreasing prolongation. [7] The observable effects of climate,habit, diet, and other causes, on length of life, have furnishedthe pretext for asserting its indefinite extension; and the sandyfoundation on which the argument rests, is, that because the limitof human life is undefined; because you cannot mark its preciseterm, and say so far exactly shall it go and no further; thattherefore its extent may increase for ever, and be properlytermed indefinite or unlimited. But the fallacy and absurdity ofthis argument will sufficiently appear from a slight examinationof what Mr. Condorcet calls the organic perfectibility, ordegeneration, of the race of plants and animals, which he saysmay be regarded as one of the general laws of nature.

I am told that it is a maxim among the improvers of cattle,that you may breed to any degree of nicety you please, and theyfound this maxim upon another, which is, that some of theoffspring will possess the desirable qualities of the parents ina greater degree. In the famous Leicestershire breed of sheep,the object is to procure them with small heads and small legs.Proceeding upon these breeding maxims, it is evident, that wemight go on till the heads and legs were evanescent quantities;but this is so palpable an absurdity, that we may be quite surethat the premises are not just, and that there really is a limit,though we cannot see it, or say exactly where it is. In this case,the point of the greatest degree of improvement, or the smallestsize of the head and legs, may be said to be undefined, but thisis very different from unlimited, or from indefinite, in Mr.Condorcet's acceptation of the term. Though I may not be able, inthe present instance, to mark the limit, at which furtherimprovement will stop, I can very easily mention a point at whichit will not arrive. I should not scruple to assert, that were thebreeding to continue for ever, the head and legs of these sheepwould never be so small as the head and legs of a rat.

It cannot be true, therefore, that among animals, some of theoffspring will possess the desirable qualities of the parents ina greater degree; or that animals are indefinitely perfectible.

The progress of a wild plant, to a beautiful garden flower, isperhaps more marked and striking, than any thing that takes placeamong animals, yet even here, it would be the height of absurdityto assert, that the progress was unlimited or indefinite. One of the most obvious features of the improvement is theincrease of size. The flower has grown gradually larger bycultivation. If the progress were really unlimited, it might beincreased ad infinitum; but this is so gross an absurdity, that wemay be quite sure, that among plants, as well as among animals,there is a limit to improvement, though we do not exactly knowwhere it is. It is probable that the gardeners who contend forflower prizes have often applied stronger dressing withoutsuccess. At the same time, it would be highly presumptuous in anyman to say, that he had seen the finest carnation or anemone thatcould ever be made to grow. He might however assert without thesmallest chance of being contradicted by a future fact, that nocarnation or anemone could ever by cultivation be increased tothe size of a large cabbage; and yet there are assignablequantities much greater than a cabbage. No man can say that hehas seen the largest ear of wheat, or the largest oak that couldever grow; but he might easily, and with perfect certainty, namea point of magnitude, at which they would not arrive. In all thesecases therefore, a careful distinction should be made, between anunlimited progress, and a progress where the limit is merelyundefined.

It will be said, perhaps, that the reason why plants andanimals cannot increase indefinitely in size is, that they wouldfall by their own weight. I answer, how do we know this but fromexperience? from experience of the degree of strength withwhich these bodies are formed. I know that a carnation, longbefore it reached the size of a cabbage, would not be supportedby its stalk; but I only know this from my experience of theweakness, and want of tenacity in the materials of a carnationstalk. There are many substances in nature of the same size thatwould support as large a head as a cabbage.

The reasons of the mortality of plants are at presentperfectly unknown to us. No man can say why such a plant isannual, another biennial, and another endures for ages. The wholeaffair in all these cases, in plants, animals, and in the humanrace, is an affair of experience; and I only conclude that man ismortal because the invariable experience of all ages has provedthe mortality of those materials of which his visible body ismade."What can we reason but from what we know."

Sound philosophy will not authorize me to alter this opinionof the mortality of man on earth, till it can be clearly proved,that the human race has made, and is making, a decided progresstowards an illimitable extent of life. And the chief reason why Iadduced the two particular instances from animals and plants, wasto expose, and illustrate, if I could, the fallacy of thatargument, which infers an unlimited progress, merely because somepartial improvement has taken place, and that the limit of thisimprovement cannot be precisely ascertained.

The capacity of improvement in plants and animals, to acertain degree, no person can possibly doubt. A clear and decidedprogress has already been made; and yet, I think it appears, thatit would be highly absurd to say that this progress has nolimits. In human life, though there are great variations fromdifferent causes, it may be doubted, whether, since the worldbegan, any organic improvement whatever in the human frame can beclearly ascertained. The foundations therefore, on which thearguments for the organic perfectibility of man rest, areunusually weak, and can only be considered as mere conjectures.It does not, however, by any means seem impossible, that by anattention to breed, a certain degree of improvement, similar tothat among animals, might take place among men. Whether intellectcould be communicated may be a matter of doubt: but size,strength, beauty, complexion, and perhaps even longevity are in adegree transmissible. The error does not seem to lie, in supposinga small degree of improvement possible, but in not discriminatingbetween a small improvement, the limit of which is undefined, andan improvement really unlimited. As the human race howevercould not be improved in this way, without condemning all the badspecimens to celibacy, it is not probable, that an attention tobreed should ever become general; indeed, I know of nowell-directed attempts of this kind, except in the ancient familyof the Bickerstaffs, who are said to have been very successful inwhitening the skins, and increasing the height of their race byprudent marriages, particularly by that very judicious cross withMaud, the milk-maid, by which some capital defects in theconstitutions of the family were corrected.

It will not be necessary, I think, in order more completelyto shew the improbability of any approach in man towardsimmortality on earth, to urge the very great additional weightthat an increase in the duration of life would give to theargument of population.

Mr. Condorcet's book may be considered, not only as a sketch ofthe opinions of a celebrated individual, but of many of theliterary men in France at the beginning of the revolution. Assuch, though merely a sketch, it seems worthy of attention.

Chapter X

Mr. Godwin's system of equality—Error of attributing all thevices of mankind to human institutions—Mr. Godwin's first answerto the difficulty arising from population totally insufficient—Mr. Godwin's beautiful system of equality supposed to be realized—Its utter destruction simply from the principle of population inso short a time as thirty years.

In reading Mr. Godwin's ingenious and able work on politicaljustice, it is impossible not to be struck with the spirit andenergy of his style, the force and precision of some of hisreasonings, the ardent tone of his thoughts, and particularlywith that impressive earnestness of manner which gives an air oftruth to the whole. At the same time, it must be confessed, thathe has not proceeded in his inquiries with the caution that soundphilosophy seems to require. His conclusions are oftenunwarranted by his premises. He fails sometimes in removing theobjections which he himself brings forward. He relies too much ongeneral and abstract propositions which will not admit ofapplication. And his conjectures certainly far outstrip themodesty of nature.

The system of equality which Mr. Godwin proposes, is, withoutdoubt, by far the most beautiful and engaging of any that has yetappeared. An amelioration of society to be produced merely byreason and conviction, wears much more the promise of permanence,than any change effected and maintained by force. The unlimitedexercise of private judgement, is a doctrine inexpressibly grandand captivating, and has a vast superiority over those systemswhere every individual is in a manner the slave of the public.The substitution of benevolence as the master-spring, and movingprinciple of society, instead of self-love, is a consummationdevoutly to be wished. In short, it is impossible to contemplatethe whole of this fair structure, without emotions of delight andadmiration, accompanied with ardent longing for the period of itsaccomplishment. But, alas! that moment can never arrive. Thewhole is little better than a dream, a beautiful phantom of theimagination. These "gorgeous palaces" of happiness andimmortality, these "solemn temples" of truth and virtue willdissolve, "like the baseless fabric of a vision," when we awakento real life, and contemplate the true and genuine situation ofman on earth.

Mr. Godwin, at the conclusion of the third chapterof his eighth book, speaking of population, says, "There is a principle in human society, by which population isperpetually kept down to the level of the means of subsistence.Thus among the wandering tribes of America and Asia, we neverfind through the lapse of ages that population has so increasedas to render necessary the cultivation of the earth." This principle, which Mr. Godwin thus mentions as somemysterious and occult cause and which he does not attempt toinvestigate, will be found to be the grinding law of necessity;misery, and the fear of misery.

The great error under which Mr. Godwin labours throughout hiswhole work, is, the attributing almost all the vices and miserythat are seen in civil society to human institutions. Politicalregulations, and the established administration of property, arewith him the fruitful sources of all evil, the hotbeds of all thecrimes that degrade mankind. Were this really a true state of thecase, it would not seem a hopeless task to remove evil completelyfrom the world; and reason seems to be the proper and adequateinstrument for effecting so great a purpose. But the truth is,that though human institutions appear to be the obvious andobtrusive causes of much mischief to mankind; yet, in reality, theyare light and superficial, they are mere feathers that float onthe surface, in comparison with those deeper seated causes ofimpurity that corrupt the springs, and render turbid the wholestream of human life.

Mr. Godwin, in his chapter on the benefits attendant on asystem of equality, says, "The spirit of oppression, the spirit of servility, and thespirit of fraud, these are the immediate growth of theestablished administration of property. They are alike hostile tointellectual improvement. The other vices of envy, malice, andrevenge are their inseparable companions. In a state of society,where men lived in the midst of plenty, and where all shared alikethe bounties of nature, these sentiments would inevitably expire.The narrow principle of selfishness would vanish. No man beingobliged to guard his little store, or provide with anxiety andpain for his restless wants, each would lose his individualexistence in the thought of the general good. No man would be anenemy to his neighbour, for they would have no subject ofcontention; and, of consequence, philanthropy would resume theempire which reason assigns her. Mind would be delivered from herperpetual anxiety about corporal support, and free to expatiatein the field of thought, which is congenial to her. Each wouldassist the inquiries of all."

This would, indeed, be a happy state. But that it is merelyan imaginary picture, with scarcely a feature near the truth, thereader, I am afraid, is already too well convinced.

Man cannot live in the midst of plenty. All cannot sharealike the bounties of nature. Were there no establishedadministration of property, every man would be obliged to guardwith force his little store. Selfishness would be triumphant. Thesubjects of contention would be perpetual. Every individual mindwould be under a constant anxiety about corporal support; and nota single intellect would be left free to expatiate in the fieldof thought.

How little Mr. Godwin has turned the attention of hispenetrating mind to the real state of man on earth, willsufficiently appear from the manner in which he endeavours toremove the difficulty of an overcharged population. He says, "The obvious answer to this objection, is, that to reason thusis to foresee difficulties at a great distance. Three fourths ofthe habitable globe is now uncultivated. The parts alreadycultivated are capable of immeasurable improvement. Myriads ofcenturies of still increasing population may pass away, and theearth be still found sufficient for the subsistence of itsinhabitants."

I have already pointed out the error of supposing that nodistress and difficulty would arise from an overchargedpopulation before the earth absolutely refused to produce anymore. But let us imagine for a moment Mr. Godwin's beautifulsystem of equality realized in its utmost purity, and see howsoon this difficulty might be expected to press under so perfecta form of society. A theory that will not admit of applicationcannot possibly be just.

Let us suppose all the causes of misery and vice in thisisland removed. War and contention cease. Unwholesome trades andmanufactories do not exist. Crowds no longer collect together ingreat and pestilent cities for purposes of court intrigue, ofcommerce, and vicious gratifications. Simple, healthy, andrational amusements take place of drinking, gaming, anddebauchery. There are no towns sufficiently large to have anyprejudicial effects on the human constitution. The greater partof the happy inhabitants of this terrestrial paradise live inhamlets and farm-houses scattered over the face of the country.Every house is clean, airy, sufficiently roomy, and in a healthysituation. All men are equal. The labours of luxury are at end.And the necessary labours of agriculture are shared amicablyamong all. The number of persons, and the produce of the island,we suppose to be the same as at present. The spirit ofbenevolence, guided by impartial justice, will divide thisproduce among all the members of the society according to theirwants. Though it would be impossible that they should all haveanimal food every day, yet vegetable food, with meatoccasionally, would satisfy the desires of a frugal people, andwould be sufficient to preserve them in health, strength, andspirits.

Mr. Godwin considers marriage as a fraud and a monopoly. Letus suppose the commerce of the sexes established upon principlesof the most perfect freedom. Mr. Godwin does not think himselfthat this freedom would lead to a promiscuous intercourse; and inthis I perfectly agree with him. The love of variety is a vicious, corrupt, and unnatural taste, and could not prevail in any great degree in a simple and virtuous state of society. Each man would probably select himself a partner, to whom he would adhere as long as that adherence continued to be the choice of both parties. It would be of little consequence, according to Mr. Godwin, how many children a woman had, or to whom they belonged. Provisions and assistance would spontaneously flow from the quarter in which they abounded, to the quarter that was deficient. [8] And every man would be ready to furnish instruction to the rising generation according to his capacity.

I cannot conceive a form of society so favourable upon thewhole to population. The irremediableness of marriage, as it isat present constituted, undoubtedly deters many from enteringinto that state. An unshackled intercourse on the contrary, wouldbe a most powerful incitement to early attachments: and as we aresupposing no anxiety about the future support of children toexist, I do not conceive that there would be one woman in ahundred, of twenty three, without a family.

With these extraordinary encouragements to population, andevery cause of depopulation, as we have supposed, removed, thenumbers would necessarily increase faster than in any societythat has ever yet been known. I have mentioned, on the authorityof a pamphlet published by a Dr. Styles and referred to by Dr.Price, that the inhabitants of the back settlements of Americadoubled their numbers in fifteen years. England is certainly amore healthy country than the back settlements of America; and aswe have supposed every house in the island to be airy andwholesome, and the encouragements to have a family greater eventhan with the back settlers, no probable reason can be assigned,why the population should not double itself in less, if possible,than fifteen years. But to be quite sure that we do not go beyondthe truth, we will only suppose the period of doubling to betwenty-five years, a ratio of increase, which is well known tohave taken place throughout all the Northern States of America.

There can be little doubt, that the equalization of propertywhich we have supposed, added to the circumstance of the labourof the whole community being directed chiefly to agriculture,would tend greatly to augment the produce of the country. But toanswer the demands of a population increasing so rapidly, Mr.Godwin's calculation of half an hour a day for each man wouldcertainly not be sufficient. It is probable that the half ofevery man's time must be employed for this purpose. Yet withsuch, or much greater exertions, a person who is acquainted withthe nature of the soil in this country, and who reflects on thefertility of the lands already in cultivation, and the barrennessof those that are not cultivated, will be very much disposed todoubt whether the whole average produce could possibly be doubledin twenty-five years from the present period. The only chance ofsuccess would be the ploughing up all the grazing countries andputting an end almost entirely to the use of animal food. Yet apart of this scheme might defeat itself. The soil of England willnot produce much without dressing; and cattle seem to benecessary to make that species of manure which best suits theland. In China, it is said that the soil in some of the provincesis so fertile, as to produce two crops of rice in the year withoutdressing. None of the lands in England will answer to thisdescription.

Difficult, however, as it might be to double the averageproduce of the island in twenty-five years, let us suppose iteffected. At the expiration of the first period therefore, thefood, though almost entirely vegetable, would be sufficient tosupport in health the doubled population of fourteen millions.

During the next period of doubling, where will the food befound to satisfy the importunate demands of the increasingnumbers. Where is the fresh land to turn up? where is thedressing necessary to improve that which is already incultivation? There is no person with the smallest knowledge ofland, but would say that it was impossible that the averageproduce of the country could be increased during the secondtwenty-five years by a quantity equal to what it at presentyields. Yet we will suppose this increase, however improbable, totake place. The exuberant strength of the argument allows ofalmost any concession. Even with this concession, however, therewould be seven millions at the expiration of the second term,unprovided for. A quantity of food equal to the frugal support oftwenty-one millions, would be to be divided among twenty-eightmillions.

Alas! what becomes of the picture where men lived in themidst of plenty: where no man was obliged to provide with anxietyand pain for his restless wants: where the narrow principle ofselfishness did not exist:where Mind was delivered from herperpetual anxiety about corporal support, and free to expatiate inthe field of thought which is congenial to her. This beautifulfabric of imagination vanishes at the severe touch of truth. Thespirit of benevolence, cherished and invigorated by plenty, isrepressed by the chilling breath of want. The hateful passionsthat had vanished reappear. The mighty law of self-preservationexpels all the softer and more exalted emotions of the soul. Thetemptations to evil are too strong for human nature to resist.The corn is plucked before it is ripe, or secreted in unfairProportions; and the whole black train of vices that belong tofalsehood are immediately generated. Provisions no longer flow infor the support of the mother with a large family. The childrenare sickly from insufficient food. The rosy flush of health givesplace to the pallid cheek and hollow eye of misery. Benevolenceyet lingering in a few bosoms, makes some faint expiringstruggles, till at length self-love resumes his wonted empire, andlords it triumphant over the world.

No human institutions here existed, to the perverseness ofwhich Mr. Godwin ascribes the original sin of the worst men. [9] No oppositionhad been produced by them between public and private good. Nomonopoly had been created of those advantages which reasondirects to be left in common. No man had been goaded to thebreach of order by unjust laws. Benevolence had established herreign in all hearts: and yet in so short a period as within fiftyyears, violence, oppression, falsehood, misery, every hatefulvice, and every form of distress, which degrade and sadden thepresent state of society, seem to have been generated by the mostimperious circumstances, by laws inherent in the nature of man,and absolutely independent of it human regulations.

If we are not yet too well convinced of the reality of thismelancholy picture, let us but look for a moment into the nextperiod of twenty-five years; and we shall see twenty-eightmillions of human beings without the means of support; and beforethe conclusion of the first century, the population would be onehundred and twelve millions, and the food only sufficient forthirty-five millions, leaving seventy-seven millions unprovidedfor. In these ages want would be indeed triumphant, and rapineand murder must reign at large: and yet all this time we aresupposing the produce of the earth absolutely unlimited, and theyearly increase greater than the boldest speculator can imagine.

This is undoubtedly a very different view of the difficultyarising from population, from that which Mr. Godwin gives, when hesays, "Myriads of centuries of still increasing population maypass away, and the earth be still found sufficient for thesubsistence of its inhabitants."

I am sufficiently aware that the redundant twenty-eightmillions, or seventy-seven millions, that I have mentioned, couldnever have existed. It is a perfectly just observation of Mr. Godwin, that, "There is a principle in human society, by whichpopulation is perpetually kept down to the level of the means ofsubsistence." The sole question is, what is this principle? Is itsome obscure and occult cause? Is it some mysterious interferenceof heaven, which at a certain period, strikes the men withimpotence, and the women with barrenness? Or is it a cause, opento our researches, within our view, a cause, which has constantlybeen observed to operate, though with varied force, in everystate in which man has been placed? Is it not a degree of misery,the necessary and inevitable result of the laws of nature, whichhuman institutions, so far from aggravating, have tendedconsiderably to mitigate, though they never can remove?

It may be curious to observe, in the case that we have beensupposing, how some of the laws which at present govern civilizedsociety, would be successively dictated by the most imperiousnecessity. As man, according to Mr. Godwin, is the creature of theimpressions to which he is subject, the goadings of want couldnot continue long, before some violations of public or privatestock would necessarily take place. As these violations increasedin number and extent, the more active and comprehensiveintellects of the society would soon perceive, that whilepopulation was fast increasing, the yearly produce of the countrywould shortly begin to diminish. The urgency of the case wouldsuggest the necessity of some mediate measures to be taken forthe general safety. Some kind of convention would then be called,and the dangerous situation of the country stated in thestrongest terms. It would be observed, that while they lived inthe midst of plenty, it was of little consequence who labouredthe least, or who possessed the least, as every man was perfectlywilling and ready to supply the wants of his neighbour. But thatthe question was no longer, whether one man should give to another,that which he did not use himself; but whether he should give tohis neighbour the food which was absolutely necessary to his ownexistence. It would be represented, that the number of those thatwere in want very greatly exceeded the number and means of thosewho should supply them: that these pressing wants, which from thestate of the produce of the country could not all be gratified,had occasioned some flagrant violations of justice: that theseviolations had already checked the increase of food, and would,if they were not by some means or other prevented, throw thewhole community in confusion: that imperious necessity seemed todictate that a yearly increase of produce should, if possible, beobtained at all events: that in order to effect this first,great, and indispensable purpose, it would be advisable to make amore complete division of land, and to secure every man's stockagainst violation by the most powerful sanctions, even by deathitself.

It might be urged perhaps by some objectors, that, as thefertility of the land increased, and various accidents occurred,the share of some men might be much more than sufficient fortheir support, and that when the reign of self-love was onceestablished, they would not distribute their surplus producewithout some compensation in return. It would be observed, inanswer, that this was an inconvenience greatly to be lamented;but that it was an evil which bore no comparison to the blacktrain of distresses, that would inevitably be occasioned by theinsecurity of property: that the quantity of food which one mancould consume, was necessarily limited by the narrow capacity ofthe human stomach: that it was not certainly probable that heshould throw away the rest; but that even if he exchanged hissurplus food for the labour of others, and made them in somedegree dependent on him, this would still be better than thatthese others should absolutely starve.

It seems highly probable, therefore, that an administrationof property, not very different from that which prevails incivilized States at present, would be established, as the best,though inadequate, remedy, for the evils which were pressing onthe society.

The next subject that would come under discussion, intimatelyconnected with the preceding, is, the commerce between the sexes.It would be urged by those who had turned their attention to thetrue cause of the difficulties under which the communitylaboured, that while every man felt secure that all his childrenwould be well provided for by general benevolence, the powers ofthe earth would be absolutely inadequate to produce food for thepopulation which would inevitably ensue: that even, if the wholeattention and labour of the society were directed to this solepoint, and if, by the most perfect security of property, andevery other encouragement that could be thought of, the greatestpossible increase of produce were yearly obtained; yet still,that the increase of food would by no means keep pace with themuch more rapid increase of population: that some check topopulation therefore was imperiously called for: that the mostnatural and obvious check seemed to be, to make every man providefor his own children: that this would operate in some respect, asa measure and guide, in the increase of population; as it might beexpected that no man would bring beings into the world, for whomhe could not find the means of support: that where thisnotwithstanding was the case, it seemed necessary, for theexample of others, that the disgrace and inconvenience attendingsuch a conduct, should fall upon the individual, who had thusinconsiderately plunged himself and innocent children in miseryand want.

The institution of marriage, or at least, of some express orimplied obligation on every man to support his own children,seems to be the natural result of these reasonings in a communityunder the difficulties that we have supposed.s

The view of these difficulties, presents us with a verynatural origin of the superior disgrace which attends a breach ofchastity in the woman, than in the man. It could not be expectedthat women should have resources sufficient to support their ownchildren. When therefore a woman was connected with a man, whohad entered into no compact to maintain her children; and awareof the inconveniences that he might bring upon himself, haddeserted her, these children must necessarily fall for supportupon the society, or starve. And to prevent the frequentrecurrence of such an inconvenience, as it would be highly unjustto punish so natural a fault by personal restraint or infliction,the men might agree to punish it with disgrace. The offence isbesides more obvious and conspicuous in the woman, and lessliable to any mistake. The father of a child may not always beknown, but the same uncertainty cannot easily exist with regardto the mother. Where the evidence of the offence was mostcomplete, and the inconvenience to the society at the same timethe greatest, there, it was agreed that the large share of blameshould fall. The obligation on every man to maintain hischildren, the society would enforce, if there were occasion; andthe greater degree of inconvenience or labour, to which a familywould necessarily subject him, added to some portion of disgracewhich every human being must incur who leads another intounhappiness, might be considered as a sufficient punishment forthe man.

That a woman should at present be almost driven from societyfor an offence, which men commit nearly with impunity, seems to beundoubtedly a breach of natural justice. But the origin of thecustom, as the most obvious and effectual method of preventingthe frequent recurrence of a serious inconvenience to acommunity, appears to be natural, though not perhaps perfectlyjustifiable. This origin, however, is now lost in the new trainof ideas which the custom has since generated. What at firstmight be dictated by state necessity, is now supported by femaledelicacy; and operates with the greatest force on that part ofsociety, where, if the original intention of the custom werepreserved, there is the least real occasion for it.

When these two fundamental laws of society, the security ofproperty, and the institution of marriage, were once established,inequality of conditions must necessarily follow. Those who wereborn after the division of property, would come into a worldalready possessed. If their parents, from having too large afamily, could not give them sufficient for their support, whatare they to do in a world where every thing is appropriated? Wehave seen the fatal effects that would result to a society, ifevery man had a valid claim to an equal share of the produce ofthe earth. The members of a family which was grown too large forthe original division of land appropriated to it, could not thendemand a part of the surplus produce of others, as a debt ofjustice. It has appeared, that from the inevitable laws of ournature, some human beings must suffer from want. These are theunhappy persons who, in the great lottery of life, have drawn ablank. The number of these claimants would soon exceed theability of the surplus produce to supply. Moral merit is a verydifficult distinguishing criterion, except in extreme cases. Theowners of surplus produce would in general seek some more obviousmark of distinction. And it seems both natural and just, thatexcept upon particular occasions, their choice should fall uponthose, who were able, and professed themselves willing, to exerttheir strength in procuring a further surplus produce; and thusat once benefiting the community, and enabling these proprietorsto afford assistance to greater numbers. All who were in want offood would be urged by imperious necessity to offer their labourin exchange for this article so absolutely essential toexistence. The fund appropriated to the maintenance of labour,would be, the aggregate quantity of food possessed by the ownersof land beyond their own consumption. When the demands upon thisfund were great and numerous, it would naturally be divided invery small shares. Labour would be ill paid. Men would offer towork for a bare subsistence, and the rearing of families would bechecked by sickness and misery. On the contrary, when this fundwas increasing fast; when it was great in proportion to thenumber of claimants; it would be divided in much larger shares.No man would exchange his labour without receiving an amplequantity of food in return. Labourers would live in ease andcomfort, and would consequently be able to rear a numerous andvigorous offspring.

On the state of this fund, the happiness, or the degree ofmisery, prevailing among the lower classes of people in everyknown State, at present chiefly depends. And on this happiness, ordegree of misery, depends the increase, stationariness, ordecrease of population.

And thus it appears, that a society constituted according tothe most beautiful form that imagination can conceive, withbenevolence for its moving principle, instead of self-love, andwith every evil disposition in all its members corrected byreason and not force, would, from the inevitable laws of nature,and not from any original depravity of man, in a very shortperiod, degenerate into a society, constructed upon a plan notessentially different from that which prevails in every knownState at present; I mean, a society divided into a class ofproprietors, and a class of labourers, and with self-love themain-spring of the great machine.

In the supposition I have made, I have undoubtedly taken theincrease of population smaller, and the increase of producegreater, than they really would be. No reason can be assigned,why, under the circumstances I have supposed, population shouldnot increase faster than in any known instance. If then we wereto take the period of doubling at fifteen years, instead oftwenty-five years; and reflect upon the labour necessary todouble the produce in so short a time, even if we allow itpossible; we may venture to pronounce with certainty that if Mr.Godwin's system of society was established in its utmostperfection, instead of myriads of centuries, not thirty yearscould elapse, before its utter destruction from the simpleprinciple of population.

I have taken no notice of emigration for obvious reasons. Ifsuch societies were instituted in other parts of Europe, thesecountries would be under the same difficulties with regard topopulation, and could admit no fresh members into their bosoms.If this beautiful society were confined to this island, it musthave degenerated strangely from its original purity, andadminister but a very small portion of the happiness it proposed;in short, its essential principle must be completely destroyed,before any of its members would voluntarily consent to leave it,and live under such governments as at present exist in Europe, orsubmit to the extreme hardships of first settlers in new regions.We well know, from repeated experience, how much misery andhardship men will undergo in their own country, before they candetermine to desert it; and how often the most tempting proposalsof embarking for new settlements have been rejected by people whoappeared to be almost starving.

Chapter XI

Mr. Godwin's conjecture concerning the future extinction of thepassion between the sexes—Little apparent grounds for such aconjecture—Passion of love not inconsistent either with reasonor virtue.

We have supported Mr. Godwin's system of society once completelyestablished. But it is supposing an impossibility. The samecauses in nature which would destroy it so rapidly, were it onceestablished, would prevent the possibility of its establishment.And upon what grounds we can presume a change in these naturalcauses, I am utterly at a loss to conjecture. No move towards theextinction of the passion between the sexes has taken place inthe five or six thousand years that the world has existed. Men inthe decline of life have, in all ages, declaimed against a passionwhich they have ceased to feel, but with as little reason assuccess. Those who from coldness of constitutional temperamenthave never felt what love is, will surely be allowed to be veryincompetent judges, with regard to the power of this passion, tocontribute to the sum of pleasurable sensations in life. Thosewho have spent their youth in criminal excesses, and have preparedfor themselves, as the comforts of their age, corporeal debility,and mental remorse, may well inveigh against such pleasures asvain and futile, and unproductive of lasting satisfaction. Butthe pleasures of pure love will bear the contemplation of themost improved reason, and the most exalted virtue. Perhaps thereis scarcely a man who has once experienced the genuine delight ofvirtuous love, however great his intellectual pleasure may havebeen, that does not look back to the period, as the sunny spot inhis whole life, where his imagination loves to bask, which herecollects and contemplates with the fondest regrets, and whichhe would most wish to live over again. The superiority ofintellectual, to sensual pleasures, consists rather in theirfilling up more time, in their having a larger range, and intheir being less liable to satiety, than in their being more realand essential.

Intemperance in every enjoyment defeats its own purpose. Awalk in the finest day, through the most beautiful country, ifpursued too far, ends in pain and fatigue. The most wholesome andinvigorating food, eaten with an unrestrained appetite, producesweakness instead of strength. Even intellectual pleasures, thoughcertainly less liable than others to satiety, pursued with toolittle intermission, debilitate the body, and impair the vigourof the mind. To argue against the reality of these pleasures fromtheir abuse seems to be hardly just. Morality, according to Mr.Godwin, is a calculation of consequences, or, as Archdeacon Paleyvery justly expresses it, the will of God, as collected fromgeneral expediency. According to either of these definitions, asensual pleasure, not attended with the probability of unhappyconsequences, does not offend against the laws of morality; and ifit be pursued with such a degree of temperance as to leave themost ample room for intellectual attainments, it must undoubtedlyadd to the sum of pleasurable sensations in life. Virtuous love,exalted by friendship, seems to be that sort of mixture ofsensual and intellectual enjoyment particularly suited to thenature of man, and most powerfully calculated to awaken thesympathies of the soul, and produce the most exquisitegratifications.

Mr. Godwin says, in order to shew the evident inferiority ofthe pleasures of sense, "Strip the commerce of the sexes of allits attendant circumstances, [10] and it would be generally despised." He mightas well say to a man who admired trees; strip them of theirspreading branches and lovely foliage, and what beauty can yousee in a bare pole? But it was the tree with the branches andfoliage, and not without them, that excited admiration. Onefeature of an object may be as distinct, and excite as differentemotions, from the aggregate, as any two things the most remote,as a beautiful woman, and a map of Madagascar. It is "thesymmetry of person, the vivacity, the voluptuous softness oftemper, the affectionate kindness of feelings, the imaginationand the wit" of a woman that excite the passion of love, and notthe mere distinction of her being female. Urged by the passion oflove, men have been driven into acts highly prejudicial to thegeneral interests of society; but probably they would have foundno difficulty in resisting the temptation, had it appeared in theform of a woman with no other attractions whatever but her sex.To strip sensual pleasures of all their adjuncts, in order toprove their inferiority, is to deprive a magnet of some of itsmost essential causes of attraction, and then to say that it isweak and inefficient.

In the pursuit of every enjoyment, whether sensual orintellectual, Reason, that faculty which enables us to calculateconsequences, is the proper corrective and guide. It is probabletherefore that improved reason will always tend to prevent theabuse of sensual pleasures, though it by no means follows that itwill extinguish them.

I have endeavoured to expose the fallacy of that argumentwhich infers an unlimited progress from a partial improvement,the limits of which cannot be exactly ascertained. It hasappeared, I think, that there are many instances in which adecided progress has been observed, where yet it would be a grossabsurdity to suppose that progress indefinite. But towards theextinction of the passion between the sexes, no observableprogress whatever has hitherto been made. To suppose such anextinction, therefore, is merely to offer an unfoundedconjecture, unsupported by any philosophical probabilities.

It is a truth, which history I am afraid makes too clear,that some men of the highest mental powers, have been addicted notonly to a moderate, but even to an immoderate indulgence in thepleasures of sensual love. But allowing, as I should be inclinedto do, notwithstanding numerous instances to the contrary, thatgreat intellectual exertions tend to diminish the empire of thispassion over man; it is evident that the mass of mankind must beimproved more highly than the brightest ornaments of the speciesat present, before any difference can take place sufficientsensibly to affect population. I would by no means suppose thatthe mass of mankind has reached its term of improvement; but theprincipal argument of this essay tends to place in a strong pointof view, the improbability, that the lower classes of people in anycountry, should ever be sufficiently free from want and labour, toobtain any high degree of intellectual improvement.

Chapter XII

Mr. Godwin's conjecture concerning the indefinite prolongation ofhuman life—Improper inference drawn from the effects of mentalstimulants on the human frame, illustrated in various instances—Conjectures not founded on any indications in the past, not to be considered as philosophical conjectures—Mr. Godwin's and Mr. Condorcet's conjecture respecting the approach of man towards immortality on earth, a curious instance of the inconsistency of scepticism.

Mr. Godwin's conjecture respecting the future approach of mantowards immortality on earth, seems to be rather oddly placed in achapter, which professes to remove the objection to his system ofequality from the principle of population. Unless he supposes thepassion between the sexes to decrease faster, than the duration oflife increases, the earth would be more encumbered than ever. Butleaving this difficulty to Mr. Godwin, let us examine a few of theappearances from which the probable immortality of man isinferred.

To prove the power of the mind over the body, Mr. Godwinobserves, "How often do we find a piece of good news dissipating adistemper? How common is the remark that those accidents whichare to the indolent a source of disease, are forgotten andextirpated in the busy and active? I walk twenty miles in anindolent and half determined temper, and am extremely fatigued. Iwalk twenty miles full of ardour, and with a motive thatengrosses my soul, and I come in as fresh and as alert as when Ibegan my journey. Emotion excited by some unexpected word, by aletter that is delivered to us, occasions the most extraordinaryrevolutions in our frame, accelerates the circulation, causes theheart to palpitate, the tongue to refuse its office, and has beenknown to occasion death by extreme anguish or extreme joy. Thereis nothing indeed of which the physician is more aware than ofthe power of the mind in assisting or reading convalescence."

The instances here mentioned, are chiefly instances of theeffects of mental stimulants on the bodily frame. No person hasever for a moment doubted the near, though mysterious connection,of mind and body. But it is arguing totally without knowledge ofthe nature of stimulants to suppose, either that they can beapplied continually with equal strength, or if they could be soapplied, for a time, that they would not exhaust and wear out thesubject. In some of the cases here noticed, the strength of thestimulus depends upon its novelty and unexpectedness. Such astimulus cannot, from its nature, be repeated often with the sameeffect, as it would by repetition lose that property which givesit its strength.

In the other cases, the argument is from a small and partialeffect, to a great and general effect, which will in numberlessinstances be found to be a very fallacious mode of reasoning. Thebusy and active man may in some degree counteract, or what isperhaps nearer the truth, may disregard those slight disorders offrame which fix the attention of a man who has nothing else tothink of; but this does not tend to prove that activity of mindwill enable a man to disregard a high fever, the smallpox, or theplague.

The man who walks twenty miles with a motive that engrosseshis soul, does not attend to his slight fatigue of body when hecomes in; but double his motive, and set him to walk anothertwenty miles, quadruple it, and let him start a third time, andso on; and the length of his walk will ultimately depend uponmuscle and not mind. Powel, for a motive of ten guineas, wouldhave walked further probably than Mr. Godwin, for a motive of halfa million. A motive of uncommon power acting upon a frame ofmoderate strength, would, perhaps, make the man kill himself byhis exertions, but it would not make him walk a hundred miles intwenty-four hours. This statement of the case, shews the fallacyof supposing, that the person was really not at all tired in hisfirst walk of twenty miles, because he did not appear to be so,or, perhaps, scarcely felt any fatigue himself. The mind cannotfix its attention strongly on more than one object at once. Thetwenty thousand pounds so engrossed his thoughts, that he did notattend to any slight soreness of foot, or stiffness of limb. Buthad he been really as fresh and as alert, as when he first setoff, he would be able to go the second twenty miles with as muchease as the first, and so on, the third, c. which leads to apalpable absurdity. When a horse of spirit is nearly half tired,by the stimulus of the spur, added to the proper management ofthe bit, he may be put so much upon his mettle, that he wouldappear to a stander-by, as fresh and as high spirited as if he hadnot gone a mile. Nay, probably, the horse himself, while in theheat and passion occasioned by this stimulus, would not feel anyfatigue; but it would be strangely contrary to all reason andexperience, to argue from such an appearance, that if thestimulus were continued, the horse would never be tired. The cryof a pack of hounds will make some horses, after a journey offorty miles on the road, appear as fresh, and as lively, as whenthey first set out. Were they then to be hunted, no perceptibleabatement would at first be felt by their riders in theirstrength and spirits, but towards the end of a hard day, theprevious fatigue would have its full weight and effect, and makethem tire sooner. When I have taken a long walk with my gun, andmet with no success, I have frequently returned home feeling aconsiderable degree of uncomfortableness from fatigue. Anotherday, perhaps, going over nearly the same extent of ground with agood deal of sport, I have come home fresh, and alert. The difference in the sensation of fatigue upon coming in, on the different days, may have been very striking, but on the followingmornings I have found no such difference. I have not perceivedthat I was less stiff in my limbs, or less footsore, on themorning after the day of the sport, than on the other morning.

In all these cases, stimulants upon the mind seem to actrather by taking off the attention from the bodily fatigue, thanby really and truly counteracting it. If the energy of my mindhad really counteracted the fatigue of my body, why should I feeltired the next morning? If the stimulus of the hounds had ascompletely overcome the fatigue of the journey in reality, as itdid in appearance, why should the horse be tired sooner than ifhe had not gone the forty miles? I happen to have a very bad fitof the tooth-ache at the time I am writing this. In the eagernessof composition, I every now and then, for a moment or two, forgetit. Yet I cannot help thinking that the process, which causes thepain, is still going forwards, and that the nerves which carrythe information of it to the brain, are even during these momentsdemanding attention, and room for their appropriate vibrations.The multiplicity of vibrations of another kind, may perhapsprevent their admission, or overcome them for a time whenadmitted, till a shoot of extraordinary energy puts all othervibration to the rout, destroys the vividness of my argumentativeconceptions, and rides triumphant in the brain. In this case, asin the others, the mind seems to have little or no power incounteracting, or curing the disorder, but merely possesses apower, if strongly excited, of fixing its attention on othersubjects.

I do not, however, mean to say that a sound and vigorous mindhas no tendency whatever to keep the body in a similar state. Soclose and intimate is the union of mind and body that it would behighly extraordinary, if they did not mutually assist each other'sfunctions. But, perhaps, upon a comparison, the body has moreeffect upon the mind than the mind upon the body. The firstobject of the mind is to act as purveyor to the wants of thebody. When these wants are completely satisfied, an active mindis indeed apt to wander further, to range over the fields ofscience, or sport in the regions of imagination, to fancy thatit has "shuffled off this mortal coil," and is seeking itskindred element. But all these efforts are like the vainexertions of the hare in the fable. The slowly moving tortoise,the body, never fails to overtake the mind, however widely andextensively it may have ranged, and the brightest and mostenergetic intellects, unwillingly as they may attend to the firstor second summons, must ultimately yield the empire of the brainto the calls of hunger, or sink with the exhausted body in sleep.

It seems as if one might say with certainty, that if amedicine could be found to immortalize the body there would be nofear of its being accompanied by the immortality of themind. But the immortality of the mind by no means seems to inferthe immortality of the body. On the contrary, the greatestconceivable energy of mind would probably exhaust and destroy thestrength of the body. A temperate vigour of mind appears to befavourable to health; but very great intellectual exertions tendrather, as has been often observed, to wear out the scabbard.Most of the instances which Mr. Godwin has brought to prove thepower of the mind over the body, and the consequent probabilityof the immortality of man, are of this latter description, andcould such stimulants be continually applied, instead of tendingto immortalize, they would tend very rapidly to destroy the humanframe.

The probable increase of the voluntary power of man over hisanimal frame, comes next under Mr. Godwin's consideration, and heconcludes by saying, that the voluntary power of some men, inthis respect, is found to extend to various articles in whichother men are impotent. But this is reasoning against an almostuniversal rule from a few exceptions: and these exceptions seemto be rather tricks, than powers that may be exerted to any goodpurpose. I have never heard of any man who could regulate hispulse in a fever; and doubt much, if any of the persons herealluded to, have made the smallest perceptible progress in theregular correction of the disorders of their frames and theconsequent prolongation of their lives.

Mr. Godwin says, "Nothing can be more unphilosophical, than toconclude, that, because a certain species of power is beyond thetrain of our present observation, that it is beyond the limits ofthe human mind." I own my ideas of philosophy are in this respectwidely different from Mr. Godwin's. The only distinction that Isee, between a philosophical conjecture, and the assertions ofthe Prophet Mr. Brothers, is, that one is founded upon indicationsarising from the train of our present observations, and the otherhas no foundation at all. I expect that great discoveries are yetto take place in all the branches of human science, particularlyin physics; but the moment we leave past experience as thefoundation of our conjectures concerning the future; and stillmore, if our conjectures absolutely contradict past experience,we are thrown upon a wide field of uncertainty, and any onesupposition is then just as good as another. If a person were totell me that men would ultimately have eyes and hands behind themas well as before them, I should admit the usefulness of theaddition, but should give as a reason for my disbelief of it,that I saw no indications whatever in the past from which I couldinfer the smallest probability of such a change. If this be notallowed a valid objection, all conjectures are alike, and allequally philosophical. I own it appears to me, that in the trainof our present observations, there are no more genuineindications that man will become immortal upon earth, than that hewill have four eyes and four hands, or that trees will growhorizontally instead of perpendicularly.

It will be said, perhaps, that many discoveries have alreadytaken place in the world that were totally unforeseen andunexpected. This I grant to be true; but if a person hadpredicted these discoveries, without being guided by any analogiesor indications from past facts, he would deserve the name of seeror prophet, but not of philosopher. The wonder that some of ourmodern discoveries would excite in the savage inhabitants ofEurope in the times of Theseus and Achilles, proves but little.Persons almost entirely unacquainted with the powers of a machinecannot be expected to guess at its effects. I am far from saying,that we are at present by any means fully acquainted with thepowers of the human mind; but we certainly know more of thisinstrument than was known four thousand years ago; and therefore,though not to be called competent judges, we are certainly muchbetter able, than savages, to say what is, or is not, within itsgrasp. A watch would strike a Savage with as much surprize as aperpetual motion; yet one, is to us a most familiar piece ofmechanism, and the other, has constantly eluded the efforts of themost acute intellects. In many instances, we are now able toperceive the causes, which prevent an unlimited improvement inthose inventions, which seemed to promise fairly for it at first.The original improvers of telescopes would probably think, thatas long as the size of the specula, and the length of the tubescould be increased, the powers and advantages of the instrumentwould increase; but experience has since taught us, that thesmallness of the field, the deficiency of light, and thecircumstance of the atmosphere being magnified, prevent thebeneficial results that were to be expected from telescopes ofextraordinary size and power. In many parts of knowledge, man hasbeen almost constantly making some progress; in other parts, hisefforts have been invariably baffled. The Savage would notprobably be able to guess at the causes of this mightydifference. Our further experience has given us some littleinsight into these causes, and has therefore enabled us better tojudge, if not, of what we are to expect in future, at least ofwhat we are not to expect, which, though negative, is a veryuseful piece of information.

As the necessity of sleep seems rather to depend upon thebody than the mind, it does not appear how the improvement of themind can tend very greatly to supersede this "conspicuousinfirmity." A man who by great excitements on his mind is ableto pass two or three nights without sleep, proportionablyexhausts the vigour of his body: and this diminution of healthand strength will soon disturb the operations of hisunderstanding; so that by these great efforts he appears to havemade no real progress whatever, in superseding the necessity ofthis species of rest.

There is certainly a sufficiently marked difference in thevarious characters of which we have some knowledge, relative tothe energies of their minds, their benevolent pursuits, c. toenable us to judge, whether the operations of intellect have anydecided effect in prolonging the duration of human life. It iscertain, that no decided effect of this kind has yet beenobserved. Though no attention of any kind has ever produced suchan effect, as could be construed into the smallest semblance of anapproach towards immortality; yet of the two, a certain attentionto the body, seems to have more effect in this respect than anattention to the mind. The man who takes his temperate meals andhis bodily exercise, with scrupulous regularity, will generallybe found more healthy, than the man who, very deeply engaged inintellectual pursuits, often forgets for a time these bodilycravings. The citizen who has retired, and whose ideas, perhaps,scarcely soar above, or extend beyond his little garden, puddlingall the morning about his borders of box, will, perhaps, live aslong as the philosopher whose range of intellect is the mostextensive, and whose views are the clearest of any of hiscontemporaries. It has been positively observed by those who haveattended to the bills of mortality, that women live longer upon anaverage than men; and, though I would not by any means say thattheir intellectual faculties are inferior, yet, I think, it mustbe allowed, that from their different education, there are not somany women as men, who are excited to vigorous mental exertion.

As in these and similar instances, or to take a larger range,as in the great diversity of characters that have existed duringsome thousand years, no decided difference has been observed inthe duration of human life from the operation of intellect, the mortality of man on earth seems to be as completely established,and exactly upon the same grounds, as any one, the most constant,of the laws of nature. An immediate act of power in the Creatorof the Universe might, indeed, change one or all of these laws,either suddenly or gradually; but without some indications ofsuch a change, and such indications do not exist, it is just asunphilosophical to suppose that the life of man may be prolongedbeyond any assignable limits, as to suppose that the attractionof the earth will gradually be changed into repulsion, and thatstones will ultimately rise instead of fall, or that the earthwill fly off at a certain period to some more genial and warmersun.

The conclusion of this chapter presents us, undoubtedly, witha very beautiful and desirable picture, but like some of thelandscapes, drawn from fancy and not imagined with truth, it failsof that interest in the heart which nature and probability canalone give.

I cannot quit this subject without taking notice of theseconjectures of Mr. Godwin and Mr. Condorcet, concerning theindefinite prolongation of human life, as a very curious instanceof the longing of the soul after immortality. Both thesegentlemen have rejected the light of revelation which absolutelypromises eternal life in another state. They have also rejectedthe light of natural religion, which to the ablest intellects inall ages, has indicated the future existence of the soul. Yet socongenial is the idea of immortality to the mind of man, that theycannot consent entirely to throw it out of their systems. Afterall their fastidious scepticisms concerning the only probablemode of immortality, they introduce a species of immortality oftheir own, not only completely contradictory to every law ofphilosophical probability, but in itself in the highest degreenarrow, partial, and unjust. They suppose that all the great,virtuous, and exalted minds, that have ever existed, or that mayexist for some thousands, perhaps millions of years, will be sunkin annihilation; and that only a few beings, not greater innumber than can exist at once upon the earth, will be ultimatelycrowned with immortality. Had such a tenet been advanced as atenet of revelation, I am very sure that all the enemies ofreligion, and probably Mr. Godwin and Mr. Condorcet among the rest,would have exhausted the whole force of their ridicule upon it,as the most puerile, the most absurd, the poorest, the mostpitiful, the most iniquitously unjust, and, consequently, themost unworthy of the Deity that the superstitious folly of mancould invent.

What a strange and curious proof do these conjectures exhibitof the inconsistency of scepticism! For it should be observed,that there is a very striking and essential difference, betweenbelieving an assertion which absolutely contradicts the mostuniform experience, and an assertion which contradicts nothing,but is merely beyond the power of our present observation andknowledge. [11] So diversified are the natural objects around us, somany instances of mighty power daily offer themselves to ourview, that we may fairly presume, that there are many forms andoperations of nature which we have not yet observed, or which,perhaps, we are not capable of observing with our presentconfined inlets of knowledge. The resurrection of a spiritualbody from a natural body, does not appear in itself a morewonderful instance of power, than the germination of a blade ofwheat from the grain, or of an oak from an acorn. Could weconceive an intelligent being, so placed, as to be conversant onlywith inanimate or full grown objects, and never to have witnessedthe process of vegetation and growth; and were another being toshew him two little pieces of matter, a grain of wheat, and anacorn, to desire him to examine them, to analize them if hepleased, and endeavour to find out their properties and essences;and then to tell him, that however trifling these little bits ofmatter might appear to him, that they possessed such curiouspowers of selection, combination, arrangement, and almost ofcreation, that upon being put into the ground, they would chuse,amongst all the dirt and moisture that surrounded them, thoseparts which best suited their purpose, that they would collectand arrange these parts with wonderful taste, judgement, andexecution, and would rise up into beautiful forms, scarcely inany respect analogous to the little bits of matter which werefirst placed in the earth. I feel very little doubt that theimaginary being which I have supposed, would hesitate more, wouldrequire better authority, and stronger proofs, before he believedthese strange assertions, than if he had been told, that a beingof mighty power, who had been the cause of all that he saw aroundhim, and of that existence of which he himself was conscious,would, by a great act of power upon the death and corruption ofhuman creatures, raise up the essence of thought in an incorporeal, or at least invisible form, to give it a happier existence in another state.

The only difference, with regard to our own apprehensions,that is not in favour of the latter assertion, is, that the firstmiracle [12] we have repeatedly seen, and the last miracle we have notseen. I admit the full weight of this prodigious difference; butsurely no man can hesitate a moment in saying, that puttingRevelation out of the question, the resurrection of a spiritualbody from a natural body, which may be merely one among the manyoperations of nature which we cannot see, is an eventindefinitely more probable than the immortality of man on earth,which is not only an event, of which no symptoms or indicationshave yet appeared, but is a positive contradiction to one of themost constant of the laws of nature that has ever come within theobservation of man.

I ought perhaps again to make an apology to my readers fordwelling so long upon a conjecture, which many I know, will thinktoo absurd and improbable, to require the least discussion. But ifit be as improbable and as contrary to the genuine spirit ofphilosophy as I own I think it is, why should it not be shewn tobe so in a candid examination? A conjecture, however improbableon the first view of it, advanced by able and ingenious men,seems at least to deserve investigation. For my own part I feelno disinclination whatever to give that degree of credit to theopinion of the probable immortality of man on earth, which theappearances that can be brought in support of it deserve. Beforewe decide upon the utter improbability of such an event, it isbut fair impartially to examine these appearances; and from suchan examination I think we may conclude, that we have rather lessreason for supposing that the life of man may be indefinitelyprolonged, than that trees may be made to grow indefinitely high,or potatoes indefinitely large. [13]

Chapter XIII

Error of Mr. Godwin in considering man too much in the light of abeing merely rational—In the compound being, man, the passionswill always act as disturbing forces in the decisions of theunderstanding—Reasonings of Mr. Godwin on the subject ofcoercion—Some truths of a nature not to be communicated fromone man to another.

In the chapter which I have been examining, Mr. Godwin professesto consider the objection to his system of equality from theprinciple of population. It has appeared I think clearly, thathe is greatly erroneous in his statement of the distance of thisdifficulty; and that instead of myriads of centuries, it isreally not thirty years, or even thirty days, distant from us.The supposition of the approach of man to immortality on earth, iscertainly not of a kind to soften the difficulty. The onlyargument, therefore, in the chapter which has any tendency toremove the objection, is the conjecture concerning the extinctionof the passion between the sexes; but as this is a mereconjecture, unsupported by the smallest shadow of proof, theforce of the objection may be fairly said to remain unimpaired;and it is undoubtedly of sufficient weight of itself completelyto overturn Mr. Godwin's whole system of equality. I will,however, make one or two observations on a few of the prominentparts of Mr. Godwin's reasonings which will contribute to place ina still clearer point of view the little hope that we canreasonably entertain of those vast improvements in the nature ofman and of society which he holds up to our admiring gaze in hispolitical justice.

Mr. Godwin considers man too much in the light of a beingmerely intellectual. This error, at least such I conceive it tobe, pervades his whole work and mixes itself with all hisreasonings. The voluntary actions of men may originate in theiropinions; but these opinions will be very differently modified increatures compounded of a rational faculty and corporalpropensities from what they would be, in beings whollyintellectual. Mr. Godwin, in proving that sound reasoning andtruth, are capable of being adequately communicated, examines theproposition first practically; and then adds, "Such is theappearance which this proposition assumes, when examined in aloose and practical view. In strict consideration it will notadmit of debate. Man is a rational being, c." [14] So far from calling this astrict consideration of the subject, I own I should call it theloosest, and most erroneous way possible, of considering it. Itis the calculating the velocity of a falling body in vacuo; andpersisting in it, that it would be the same through whateverresisting mediums it might fall. This was not Newton's mode ofphilosophizing. Very few general propositions are just inapplication to a particular subject. The moon is not kept in herorbit round the earth, nor the earth in her orbit round the sun,by a force that varies merely in the inverse ratio of the squaresof the distances. To make the general theory just in applicationto the revolutions of these bodies, it was necessary to calculateaccurately, the disturbing force of the sun upon the moon, and ofthe moon upon the earth; and till these disturbing forces wereproperly estimated, actual observations on the motions of thesebodies, would have proved that the theory was not accurately true.

I am willing to allow that every voluntary act is preceded bya decision of the mind; but it is strangely opposite to what Ishould conceive to be the just theory upon the subject, and apalpable contradiction to all experience, to say that thecorporal propensities of man do not act very powerfully, asdisturbing forces, in these decisions. The question, therefore,does not merely depend, upon whether a man may be made tounderstand a distinct proposition, or be convinced by anunanswerable argument. A truth may be brought home to hisconviction as a rational being, though he may determine to actcontrary to it, as a compound being. The cravings of hunger, thelove of liquor, the desire of possessing a beautiful woman, willurge men to actions, of the fatal consequences of which, to thegeneral interests of society, they are perfectly well convinced,even at the very time they commit them. Remove their bodilycravings, and they would not hesitate a moment in determiningagainst such actions. Ask them their opinion of the same conductin another person, and they would immediately reprobate it. Butin their own case, and under all the circumstances of theirsituation with these bodily cravings, the decision of thecompound being is different from the conviction of the rationalbeing.

If this be the just view of the subject; and both theory andexperience unite to prove that it is; almost all Mr. Godwin'sreasonings on the subject of coercion in his 7th chapter,will appear to be founded on error. He spends some time inplacing in a ridiculous point of view, the attempt to convince aman's understanding, and to clear up a doubtful proposition in hismind, by blows. Undoubtedly it is both ridiculous and barbarous; and so is cock-fighting; but one has little more to do with thereal object of human punishments, than the other. One frequent(indeed much too frequent) mode of punishment is death. Mr. Godwinwill hardly think this intended for conviction; at least it doesnot appear how the individual, or the society, could reap muchfuture benefit from an understanding enlightened in this manner.

The principal objects which human punishments have in view,are undoubtedly restraint and example: restraint, or removal ofan individual member, whose vicious habits are likely to beprejudicial to the society. And example, which by expressing thesense of the community with regard to a particular crime, and byassociating more nearly and visibly, crime and punishment, holdsout a moral motive to dissuade others from the commission of it.

Restraint, Mr. Godwin thinks, may be permitted as a temporaryexpedient, though he reprobates solitary imprisonment, which hascertainly been the most successful, and, indeed, almost the onlyattempt towards the moral amelioration of offenders. He talks ofthe selfish passions that are fostered by solitude, and of thevirtues generated in society. But surely these virtues are notgenerated in the society of a prison. Were the offender confinedto the society of able and virtuous men, he would probably be moreimproved than in solitude. But is this practicable? Mr. Godwin'singenuity is more frequently employed in finding out evils thanin suggesting practical remedies.

Punishment, for example, is totally reprobated. Byendeavouring to make examples too impressive and terrible,nations have, indeed, been led into the most barbarous cruelties;but the abuse of any practice is not a good argument against itsuse. The indefatigable pains taken in this country to find out amurder, and the certainty of its punishment, has powerfullycontributed to generate that sentiment which is frequent in themouths of the common people, that a murder will sooner or latercome to light; and the habitual horror in which murder is inconsequence held will make a man, in the agony of passion, throwdown his knife, for fear he should be tempted to use it in thegratification of his revenge. In Italy, where murderers, byflying to a sanctuary, are allowed more frequently to escape, thecrime has never been held in the same detestation, and hasconsequently been more frequent. No man, who is at all aware ofthe operation of moral motives, can doubt for a moment, that ifevery murder in Italy had been invariably punished, the use ofthe stiletto in transports of passion, would have beencomparatively but little known.

That human laws, either do, or can, proportion the punishmentaccurately to the offence, no person will have the folly toassert. From the inscrutability of motives the thing isabsolutely impossible: but this imperfection, though it may becalled a species of injustice, is no valid argument against humanlaws. It is the lot of man, that he will frequently have tochuse between two evils; and it is a sufficient reason for theadoption of any institution, that it is the best mode thatsuggests itself of preventing greater evils. A continualendeavour should undoubtedly prevail to make these institutionsas perfect as the nature of them will admit. But nothing is soeasy, as to find fault with human institutions; nothing sodifficult, as to suggest adequate practical improvements. It is tobe lamented, that more men of talents employ their time in theformer occupation, than in the tatter.

The frequency of crime among men, who, as the common sayingis, know better, sufficiently proves, that some truths may bebrought home to the conviction of the mind without alwaysproducing the proper effect upon the conduct. There are othertruths of a nature that perhaps never can be adequatelycommunicated from one man to another. The superiority of thepleasures of intellect to those of sense, Mr. Godwin considers asa fundamental truth. Taking all circumstances into consideration,I should be disposed to agree with him; but how am I tocommunicate this truth to a person who has scarcely ever feltintellectual pleasure. I may as well attempt to explain thenature and beauty of colours to a blind man. If I am ever solaborious, patient, and clear, and have the most repeatedopportunities of expostulation, any real progress toward theaccomplishment of my purpose seems absolutely hopeless. There isno common measure between us. I cannot proceed step by step: itis a truth of a nature absolutely incapable of demonstration. Allthat I can say is, that the wisest and best men in all ages hadagreed in giving the preference, very greatly, to the pleasuresof intellect; and that my own experience completely confirmed thetruth of their decisions; that I had found sensual pleasuresvain, transient, and continually attended with tedium anddisgust; but that intellectual pleasures appeared to me everfresh and young, filled up all my hours satisfactorily, gave anew zest to life, and diffused a lasting serenity over my mind.If he believe me, it can only be from respect and veneration formy authority: it is credulity, and not conviction. I have notsaid any thing, nor can any thing be said, of a nature to producereal conviction. The affair is not an affair of reasoning, but ofexperience. He would probably observe in reply, what you say maybe very true with regard to yourself and many other good men, butfor my own part I feel very differently upon the subject. I havevery frequently taken up a book and almost as frequently gone tosleep over it; but when I pass an evening with a gay party, or apretty woman, I feel alive, and in spirits, and truly enjoy myexistence.

Under such circumstances, reasoning and arguments are notinstruments from which success can be expected. At some futuretime perhaps, real satiety of sensual pleasures, or someaccidental impressions that awakened the energies of his mind,might effect that, in a month, which the most patient and ableexpostulations might be incapable of effecting in forty years.

Chapter XIV

Mr. Godwin's five propositions respecting political truth, onwhich his whole work hinges, not established—Reasons we havefor supposing, from the distress occasioned by the principle ofpopulation, that the vices and moral weakness of man can never bewholly eradicated—Perfectibility, in the sense in which Mr.Godwin uses the term, not applicable to man—Nature of the realperfectibility of man illustrated.

If the reasonings of the preceding chapter are just, thecorollaries respecting political truth, which Mr. Godwin drawsfrom the proposition, that the voluntary actions of men originatein their opinions, will not appear to be clearly established.These corollaries are, "Sound reasoning and truth, whenadequately communicated, must always be victorious over error:Sound reasoning and truth are capable of being so communicated:Truth is omnipotent: The vices and moral weakness of man are notinvincible: Man is perfectible, or in other words, susceptible ofperpetual improvement."

The first three propositions may be considered a completesyllogism. If by adequately communicated, be meant such aconviction as to produce an adequate effect upon the conduct; themajor may be allowed and the minor denied. The consequent, or theomnipotence of truth, of course falls to the ground. If byadequately communicated be meant merely the conviction of therational faculty; the major must be denied, the minor will beonly true in cases capable of demonstration, and the consequentequally falls. The fourth proposition, Mr. Godwin calls thepreceding proposition, with a slight variation in the statement.If so, it must accompany the preceding proposition in its fall.But it may be worth while to inquire, with reference to theprincipal argument of this essay, into the particular reasonswhich we have for supposing, that the vices and moral weakness ofman can never be wholly overcome in this world.

Man, according to Mr. Godwin, is a creature, formed what he is,by the successive impressions which he has received, from thefirst moment that the germ from which he sprung was animated.Could he be placed in a situation, where he was subject to noevil impressions whatever, though it might be doubted whether insuch a situation virtue could exist, vice would certainly bebanished. The great bent of Mr. Godwin's work on politicaljustice, if I understand it rightly, is to shew that the greaterpart of the vices and weaknesses of men, proceed from theinjustice of their political and social institutions: and that ifthese were removed, and the understandings of men moreenlightened, there would be little or no temptation in the worldto evil. As it has been clearly proved, however, (at least as Ithink) that this is entirely a false conception, and that,independent of any political or social institutions whatever, thegreater part of mankind, from the fixed and unalterable laws ofnature, must ever be subject to the evil temptations arising fromwant, besides other passions; it follows from Mr. Godwin'sdefinition of man, that such impressions, and combinations ofimpressions, cannot be afloat in the world, without generating avariety of bad men. According to Mr. Godwin's own conception ofthe formation of character, it is surely as improbable that undersuch circumstances, all men will be virtuous, as that sixes willcome up a hundred times following upon the dice. The greatvariety of combinations upon the dice in a repeated succession ofthrows, appears to me not inaptly to represent the great varietyof character that must necessarily exist in the world, supposingevery individual to be formed what he is, by that combination ofimpressions which he has received since his first existence. Andthis comparison will, in some measure, shew the absurdity ofsupposing, that exceptions will ever become general rules; thatextraordinary and unusual combinations will be frequent; or thatthe individual instances of great virtue which had appeared inall ages of the world will ever prevail universally.

I am aware that Mr. Godwin might say that the comparison is inone respect inaccurate; that in the case of the dice, thepreceding causes, or rather the chances respecting the precedingcauses, were always the same; and that, therefore, I could haveno good reason for supposing that a greater number of sixes wouldcome up in the next hundred times of throwing, than in thepreceding same number of throws. But, that man had in some sort apower of influencing those causes that formed character; and thatevery good and virtuous man that was produced, by the influencewhich he must necessarily have, rather increased the probabilitythat another such virtuous character would be generated; whereasthe coming up of sixes upon the dice once, would certainly notincrease the probability of their coming up a second time. Iadmit this objection to the accuracy of the comparison, but it isonly partially valid. Repeated experience has assured us, thatthe influence of the most virtuous character will rarely prevailagainst very strong temptations to evil. It will undoubtedlyaffect some, but it will fail with a much greater number. Had Mr.Godwin succeeded in his attempt to prove that these temptationsto evil could by the exertions of man be removed, I would give upthe comparison; or at least allow, that a man might be so farenlightened with regard to the mode of shaking his elbow, that hewould be able to throw sixes every time. But as long as a greatnumber of those impressions which form character, like the nicemotions of the arm, remain absolutely independent of the will ofman; though it would be the height of folly and presumption, toattempt to calculate the relative proportions of virtue and viceat the future periods of the world; it may be safely asserted,that the vices and moral weakness of mankind, taken in the mass,are invincible.

The fifth proposition, is the general deduction from the fourFormer, and will consequently fall, as the foundations whichsupport it have given way. In the sense in which Mr. Godwinunderstands the term perfectible, the perfectibility of mancannot be asserted, unless the preceding propositions could havebeen clearly established. There is, however, one sense, which theterm will bear, in which it is, perhaps, just. It may be saidwith truth, that man is always susceptible of improvement; or thatthere never has been, or will be, a period of his history, inwhich he can be said to have reached his possible achmè ofperfection. Yet it does not by any means follow from this, thatour efforts to improve man will always succeed; or even that hewill ever make, in the greatest number of ages, any extraordinarystrides towards perfection. The only inference that can be drawn,is, that the precise limit of his improvement cannot possibly beknown. And I cannot help again reminding the reader of adistinction, which, it appears to me, ought particularly to beattended to in the present question; I mean, the essentialdifference there is between an unlimited improvement, and animprovement the limit of which cannot be ascertained. The formeris an improvement not applicable to man under the present laws ofhis nature. The latter, undoubtedly, is applicable.

The real perfectibility of man may be illustrated, as I havementioned before, by the perfectibility of a plant. The object ofthe enterprizing florist is, as I conceive, to unite size,symmetry, and beauty of colour. It would surely be presumptuousin the most successful improver to affirm, that he possessed acarnation in which these qualities existed in the greatestpossible state of perfection. However beautiful his flower maybe, other care, other soil, or other suns, might produce onestill more beautiful. Yet, although he may be aware of the absurdity of supposingthat he has reached perfection; and though he may know by whatmeans he attained that degree of beauty in the flower which he atpresent possesses, yet he cannot be sure that by pursuing similarmeans, rather increased in strength, he will obtain a morebeautiful blossom. By endeavouring to improve one quality, he mayimpair the beauty of another. The richer mould which he wouldemploy to increase the size of his plant, would probably burst thecalyx, and destroy at once its symmetry. In a similar manner, theforcing manure used to bring about the French revolution, and togive a greater freedom and energy to the human mind, has burstthe calyx of humanity, the restraining bond of all society; and,however large the separate petals have grown, however strongly,or even beautifully a few of them have been marked; the whole isat present a loose, deformed, disjointed mass, without union,symmetry, or harmony of colouring.

Were it of consequence to improve pinks and carnations,though we could have no hope of raising them as large ascabbages, we might undoubtedly expect, by successive efforts, toobtain more beautiful specimens than we at present possess. Noperson can deny the importance of improving the happiness of thehuman species. Every, the least advance in this respect, is highlyvaluable. But an experiment with the human race is not like anexperiment upon inanimate objects. The bursting of a flower maybe a trifle. Another will soon succeed it. But the bursting ofthe bonds of society is such a separation of parts as cannot takeplace without giving the most acute pain to thousands: and a longtime may elapse, and much misery may be endured, before the woundgrows up again.

As the five propositions which I have been examining may beconsidered as the corner stones of Mr. Godwin's fancifulstructure; and, indeed, as expressing the aim and bent of hiswhole work; however excellent much of his detached reasoning maybe, he must be considered as having failed in the great object ofhis undertaking. Besides the difficulties arising from thecompound nature of man, which he has by no means sufficientlysmoothed; the principal argument against the perfectibility ofman and society remains whole and unimpaired from any thing thathe has advanced. And as far as I can trust my own judgement, thisargument appears to be conclusive, not only against theperfectibility of man, in the enlarged sense in which Mr. Godwinunderstands the term, but against any very marked and strikingchange for the better, in the form and structure of generalsociety; by which I mean, any great and decided amelioration ofthe condition of the lower classes of mankind, the most numerous,and, consequently, in a general view of the subject, the mostimportant part of the human race. Were I to live a thousandyears, and the laws of nature to remain the same, I should littlefear, or rather little hope, a contradiction from experience, inasserting, that no possible sacrifices or exertions of the rich,in a country which had been long inhabited, could for any timeplace the lower classes of the community in a situation equal,with regard to circumstances, to the situation of the commonpeople about thirty years ago in the northern States of America.

The lower classes of people in Europe may, at some futurePeriod, be much better instructed than they are at present; theymay be taught to employ the little spare time they have in manybetter ways than at the ale-house; they may live under better andmore equal laws than they have ever hitherto done, perhaps, inany country; and I even conceive it possible, though not probable,that they may have more leisure; but it is not in the nature ofthings, that they can be awarded such a quantity of money orsubsistence as will allow them all to marry early, in the fullconfidence that they shall be able to provide with ease for anumerous family.

Chapter XV

Models too perfect may sometimes rather impede than promoteimprovement—Mr. Godwin's essay on avarice and profusion—Impossibility of dividing the necessary labour of a societyamicably among all—Invectives against labour may produce presentevil, with little or no chance of producing future good—Anaccession to the mass of agricultural labour must always be anadvantage to the labourer.

Mr. Godwin in the preface to his Enquirer, drops a few expressionswhich seem to hint at some change in his opinions since he wrotethe Political Justice; and as this is a work now of some yearsstanding, I should certainly think that I had been arguingagainst opinions, which the author had himself seen reason toalter, but that in some of the essays of the Enquirer, Mr. Godwin's peculiar mode of thinking appears in as striking a light as ever.

It has been frequently observed, that though we cannot hope toreach perfection in any thing, yet that it must always beadvantageous to us, to place before our eyes the most perfectmodels. This observation has a plausible appearance, but is veryfar from being generally true. I even doubt its truth in one ofthe most obvious exemplifications that would occur. I doubtwhether a very young painter would receive so much benefit, froman attempt to copy a highly finished and perfect picture, as fromcopying one where the outlines were more strongly marked, and themanner of laying on the colours was more easily discoverable. Butin cases, where the perfection of the model is a perfection of adifferent and superior nature from that, towards which we shouldnaturally advance, we shall not always fail in making anyprogress towards it, but we shall in all probability impede theprogress which we might have expected to make, had we not fixedour eyes upon so perfect a model. A highly intellectualbeing, exempt from the infirm calls of hunger or sleep, isundoubtedly a much more perfect existence than man: but were manto attempt to copy such a model, he would not only fail in makingany advances towards it; but by unwisely straining to imitatewhat was inimitable, he would probably destroy the littleintellect which he was endeavouring to improve.

The form and structure of society which Mr. Godwin describesis as essentially distinct from any forms of society which havehitherto prevailed in the world, as a being that can live withoutfood or sleep is from a man. By improving society in its presentform, we are making no more advances towards such a state ofthings as he pictures, than we should make approaches towards aline, with regard to which we were walking parallel. Thequestion, therefore is, whether, by looking to such a form ofsociety as our polar star, we are likely to advance or retard theimprovement of the human species? Mr. Godwin appears to me to havedecided this question against himself in his essay on avariceand profusion in the Enquirer.

Dr. Adam Smith has very justly observed, that nations, as wellas individuals, grow rich by parsimony, and poor by profusion; andthat, therefore, every frugal man was a friend, and everyspendthrift an enemy to his country. The reason he gives is, thatwhat is saved from revenue is always added to stock, and istherefore taken from the maintenance of labour that is generallyunproductive, and employed in the maintenance of labour thatrealizes itself in valuable commodities. No observation can bemore evidently just. The subject of Mr. Godwin's essay is a littlesimilar in its first appearance, but in essence is as distinct aspossible. He considers the mischief of profusion, as anacknowledged truth; and therefore makes his comparison betweenthe avaricious man, and the man who spends his income. But theavaricious man of Mr. Godwin, is totally a distinct character, atleast with regard to his effect upon the prosperity of the state,from the frugal man of Dr. Adam Smith. The frugal man in order tomake more money, saves from his income and adds to his capital;and this capital he either employs himself in the maintenance ofproductive labour, or he lends it to some other person, who willprobably employ it in this way. He benefits the state because headds to its general capital; and because wealth employed ascapital, not only sets in motion more labour, than when spent asincome, but the labour is besides of a more valuable kind. Butthe avaricious man of Mr. Godwin locks up his wealth in a chestand sets in motion no labour of any kind, either productive orunproductive. This is so essential a difference that Mr. Godwin'sdecision in his essay, appears at once as evidently false, as Dr.Adam Smith's position is evidently true. It could not, indeed,but occur to Mr. Godwin, that some present inconvenience mightarise to the poor, from thus locking up the funds destined for themaintenance of labour. The only way, therefore, he had ofweakening this objection, was to compare the two characterschiefly with regard to their tendency to accelerate the approachof that happy state of cultivated equality, on which he says weought always to fix our eyes as our polar star.

I think it has been proved in the former parts of this essay,that such a state of society is absolutely impracticable. Whatconsequences then are we to expect from looking to such a point,as our guide and polar star in the great sea of politicaldiscovery? Reason would teach us to expect no other, than windsperpetually adverse, constant but fruitless toil, frequentshipwreck, and certain misery. We shall not only fail in makingthe smallest real approach towards such a perfect form ofsociety; but by wasting our strength of mind and body, in adirection in which it is impossible to proceed, and by thefrequent distress which we must necessarily occasion by ourrepeated failures, we shall evidently impede that degree ofimprovement in society, which is really attainable.

It has appeared that a society constituted according to Mr. Godwin's system, must, from the inevitable laws of our nature,degenerate into a class of proprietors, and a class of labourers;and that the substitution of benevolence for self-love, as themoving principle of society, instead of producing the happyeffects that might be expected from so fair a name, would causethe same pressure of want to be felt by the whole of society,which is now felt only by a part. It is to the establishedadministration of property, and to the apparently narrow principleof self-love, that we are indebted for all the noblest exertionsof human genius, all the finer and more delicate emotions of thesoul, for every thing, indeed, that distinguishes the civilized,from the savage state; and no sufficient change, has as yet takenplace in the nature of civilized man, to enable us to say, that heeither is, or ever will be, in a state, when he may safely throwdown the ladder by which he has risen to this eminence.

If in every society that has advanced beyond the savagestate, a class of proprietors, and a class of labourers, [15] mustnecessarily exist, it is evident, that, as labour is the onlyproperty of the class of labourers, every thing that tends todiminish the value of this property, must tend to diminish thepossessions of this part of society. The only way that a poor manhas of supporting himself in independence, is by the exertion ofhis bodily strength. This is the only commodity he has to give inexchange for the necessaries of life. It would hardly appear thenthat you benefit him, by narrowing the market for this commodity,by decreasing the demand for labour, and lessening the value ofthe only property that he possesses.

Mr. Godwin would perhaps say, that the whole system of barterand exchange, is a vile and iniquitous traffic. If you wouldessentially relieve the poor man, you should take a part of hislabour upon yourself, or give him your money, without exacting sosevere a return for it. In answer to the first method proposed,it may be observed, that even if the rich could be persuaded toassist the poor in this way, the value of the assistance would becomparatively trifling. The rich, though they think themselves ofgreat importance, bear but a small proportion in point of numbersto the poor, and would, therefore, relieve them but of a smallpart of their burdens by taking a share. Were all those that areemployed in the labours of luxuries, added to the number of thoseemployed in producing necessaries; and could these necessarylabours be amicably divided among all, each man's share mightindeed be comparatively light; but desirable as such an amicabledivision would undoubtedly be, I cannot conceive any practicalprinciple [16] according to which it could take place. It has beenshewn, that the spirit of benevolence, guided by the strictimpartial justice that Mr. Godwin describes, would, if vigorouslyacted upon, depress in want and misery the whole human race. Letus examine what would be the consequence, if the proprietor wereto retain a decent share for himself; but to give the rest awayto the poor, without exacting a task from them in return. Not tomention the idleness and the vice that such a proceeding, ifgeneral, would probably create in the present state of society,and the great risk there would be, of diminishing the produce ofland, as well as the labours of luxury, another objection yetremains.

It has appeared that from the principle of population, morewill always be in want than can be adequately supplied. Thesurplus of the rich man might be sufficient for three, but fourwill be desirous to obtain it. He cannot make this selection ofthree out of the four, without conferring a great favour on thosethat are the objects of his choice. These persons must considerthemselves as under a great obligation to him, and as dependentupon him for their support. The rich man would feel his power, andthe poor man his dependence; and the evil effects of these twoimpressions on the human heart are well known. Though I perfectlyagree with Mr. Godwin therefore in the evil of hard labour; yet Istill think it a less evil, and less calculated to debase thehuman mind, than dependence; and every history of man that wehave ever read, places in a strong point of view, the danger towhich that mind is exposed, which is entrusted with constantpower.

In the present state of things, and particularly when labouris in request, the man who does a day's work for me, confers fullas great an obligation upon me, as I do upon him. I possess whathe wants; he possesses what I want. We make an amicable exchange.The poor man walks erect in conscious independence; and the mindof his employer is not vitiated by a sense of power.

Three or four hundred years ago, there was undoubtedly muchless labour in England, in proportion to the population, than atpresent; but there was much more dependence: and we probablyshould not now enjoy our present degree of civil liberty, if thepoor, by the introduction of manufactures, had not been enabledto give something in exchange for the provisions of the greatLords, instead of being dependent upon their bounty. Even thegreatest enemies of trade and manufactures, and I do not reckonmyself a very determined friend to them, must allow that whenthey were introduced into England, liberty came in their train.

Nothing that has been said, tends in the most remote degree toundervalue the principle of benevolence. It is one of the noblestand most godlike qualities of the human heart, generatedperhaps, slowly and gradually from self-love; and afterwardsintended to act as a general law, whose kind office it should be,to soften the partial deformities, to correct the asperities, andto smooth the wrinkles of its parent: and this seems to be theanalogy of all nature. Perhaps there is no one general law ofnature that will not appear, to us at least, to produce partialevil; and we frequently observe at the same time, some bountifulprovision which, acting as another general law, corrects theinequalities of the first.

The proper office of benevolence is to soften the partialevils arising from self-love, but it can never be substituted inits place. If no man were to allow himself to act, till he hadcompletely determined that the action he was about to perform, wasmore conducive than any other to the general good, the mostenlightened minds would hesitate in perplexity and amazement; andthe unenlightened would be continually committing the grossestmistakes.

As Mr. Godwin, therefore, has not laid down any practicalprinciple, according to which the necessary labours of agriculturemight be amicably shared among the whole class of labourers; bygeneral invectives against employing the poor, he appears topursue an unattainable good through much present evil. For ifevery man who employs the poor, ought to be considered as theirenemy, and as adding to the weight of their oppressions; and ifthe miser is, for this reason, to be preferred to the man whospends his income, it follows that any number of men who nowspend their incomes, might, to the advantage of society, beconverted into misers. Suppose then, that a hundred thousandpersons who now employ ten men each, were to lock up their wealthfrom general use, it is evident, that a million of working men ofdifferent kinds would be completely thrown out of all employment.The extensive misery that such an event would produce in thepresent state of society, Mr. Godwin himself could hardly refuse toacknowledge; and I question whether he might not find somedifficulty in proving that a conduct of this kind tended morethan the conduct of those who spend their incomes to "place humanbeings in the condition in which they ought to be placed."

But Mr. Godwin says that the miser really locks up nothing; that thepoint has not been rightly understood, and that the truedevelopment and definition of the nature of wealth have not beenapplied to illustrate it. Having defined therefore wealth, veryjustly, to be the commodities raised and fostered by humanlabour, he observes, that the miser locks up neither corn, noroxen, nor clothes, nor houses. Undoubtedly he does not reallylock up these articles, but he locks up the power of producingthem, which is virtually the same. These things are certainlyused and consumed by his contemporaries, as truly, and to asgreat an extent, as if he were a beggar; but not to as great anextent, as if he had employed his wealth, in turning up more land,in breeding more oxen, in employing more taylors, and in buildingmore houses. But supposing, for a moment, that the conduct of themiser did not tend to check any really useful produce, how areall those, who are thrown out of employment, to obtain patentswhich they may shew in order to be awarded a proper share of thefood and raiment produced by the society? This is theunconquerable difficulty.

I am perfectly willing to concede to Mr. Godwin that there ismuch more labour in the world than is really necessary; and that,if the lower classes of society could agree among themselvesnever to work more than six or seven hours in the day, thecommodities essential to human happiness might still be producedin as great abundance as at present. But it is almost impossibleto conceive that such an agreement could be adhered to. From theprinciple of population, some would necessarily be more in wantthan others. Those that had large families, would naturally bedesirous of exchanging two hours more of their labour for anampler quantity of subsistence. How are they to be prevented frommaking this exchange? It would be a violation of the first andmost sacred property that a man possesses, to attempt, by positiveinstitutions, to interfere with his command over his own labour.

Till Mr. Godwin, therefore, can point out some practical planaccording to which the necessary labour in a society might beequitably divided; his invectives against labour, if they wereattended to, would certainly produce much present evil, withoutapproximating us to that state of cultivated equality to which helooks forward as his polar star; and which, he seems to think,should at present be our guide in determining the nature andtendency of human actions. A mariner guided by such a polar staris in danger of shipwreck.

Perhaps there is no possible way in which wealth could, inGeneral, be employed so beneficially to a state, and particularlyto the lower orders of it, as by improving and renderingproductive that land, which to a farmer would not answer theexpense of cultivation. Had Mr. Godwin exerted his energeticeloquence in painting the superior worth and usefulness of thecharacter who employed the poor in this way, to him who employedthem in narrow luxuries, every enlightened man must haveapplauded his efforts. The increasing demand for agriculturallabour must always tend to better the condition of the poor; andif the accession of work be of this kind, so far is it from beingtrue, that the poor would be obliged to work ten hours, for thesame price, that they before worked eight, that the very reversewould be the fact; and a labourer might then support his wife andfamily as well by the labour of six hours, as he could before bythe labour of eight.

The labour created by luxuries, though useful in distributingthe produce of the country, without vitiating the proprietor bypower, or debasing the labourer by dependence, has not, indeed,the same beneficial effects on the state of the poor. A greataccession of work from manufacturers, though it may raise theprice of labour even more than an increasing demand foragricultural labour; yet, as in this case, the quantity of food inthe country may not be proportionably increasing, the advantageto the poor will be but temporary, as the price of provisionsmust necessarily rise in proportion to the price of labour.Relative to this subject, I cannot avoid venturing a few remarkson a part of Dr. Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations; speaking at thesame time with that diffidence, which I ought certainly to feel, indiffering from a person so justly celebrated in the politicalworld.

Chapter XVI

Probable error of Dr. Adam Smith in representing every increase ofthe revenue or stock of a society as an increase in the funds forthe maintenance of labour—Instances where an increase of wealthcan have no tendency to better the condition of the labouringpoor—England has increased in riches without a proportionalincrease in the funds for the maintenance of labour—The stateof the poor in China would not be improved by an increase ofwealth from manufactures.

The professed object of Dr. Adam Smith's inquiry, is, the nature andcauses of the wealth of nations. There is another inquiry,however, perhaps still more interesting, which he occasionallymixes with it; I mean an inquiry into the causes which affect thehappiness of nations, or the happiness and comfort of the lowerorders of society, which is the most numerous class in everynation. I am sufficiency aware of the near connection of thesetwo subjects, and that the causes which tend to increase thewealth of a State, tend also, generally speaking, to increase thehappiness of the lower classes of the people. But perhaps Dr. AdamSmith has considered these two inquiries as still more nearlyconnected than they really are; at least, he has not stopped totake notice of those instances, where the wealth of a society mayincrease (according to his definition of wealth) without havingany tendency to increase the comforts of the labouring part ofit. I do not mean to enter into a philosophical discussion ofwhat constitutes the proper happiness of man; but shall merelyconsider two universally acknowledged ingredients, health, andthe command of the necessaries and conveniences of life.

Little or no doubt can exist, that the comforts of thelabouring poor depend upon the increase of the funds destined forthe maintenance of labour; and will be very exactly in proportionto the rapidity of this increase. The demand for labour whichsuch increase would occasion, by creating a competition in themarket, must necessarily raise the value of labour; and, till theadditional number of hands required were reared, the increasedfunds would be distributed to the same number of persons asbefore the increase, and therefore every labourer would livecomparatively at his ease. But perhaps Dr. Adam Smith errs inrepresenting every increase of the revenue or stock of a societyas an increase of these funds. Such surplus stock or revenuewill, indeed, always be considered by the individual possessingit, as an additional fund from which he may maintain more labour:but it will not be a real and effectual fund for the maintenanceof an additional number of labourers, unless the whole, or atleast a great part of this increase of the stock or revenue ofthe society, be convertible into a proportional quantity ofprovisions; and it will not be so convertible, where the increasehas arisen merely from the produce of labour, and not from theproduce of land. A distinction will in this case occur, betweenthe number of hands which the stock of the society could employ,and the number which its territory can maintain.

To explain myself by an instance. Dr. Adam Smith defines thewealth of a nation to consist in the annual produce of its landand labour. This definition evidently includes manufacturedproduce, as well as the produce of the land. Now supposing anation, for a course of years, was to add what it saved from itsyearly revenue, to its manufacturing capital solely, and not toits capital employed upon land, it is evident, that it might growricher according to the above definition, without a power ofsupporting a greater number of labourers, and therefore, withoutan increase in the real funds for the maintenance of labour.There would, notwithstanding, be a demand for labour, from thepower which each manufacturer would possess, or at least think hepossessed, of extending his old stock in trade, or of setting upfresh works. This demand would of course raise the price oflabour; but if the yearly stock of provisions in the country wasnot increasing, this rise would soon turn out to be merelynominal, as the price of provisions must necessarily rise withit. The demand for manufacturing labourers might, indeed, enticemany from agriculture, and thus tend to diminish the annualproduce of the land; but we will suppose any effect of this kindto be compensated by improvements in the instruments ofagriculture, and the quantity of provisions therefore to remainthe same. Improvements in manufacturing machinery would of coursetake place; and this circumstance, added to the greater number ofhands employed in manufactures, would cause the annual produce ofthe labour of the country to be upon the whole greatly increased.The wealth, therefore of the country would be increasing annually,according to the definition, and might not, perhaps, be increasing very slowly.

The question is, whether wealth, increasing in this way, hasany tendency to better the condition of the labouring poor. It isa self-evident proposition, that any general rise in the price oflabour, the stock of provisions remaining the same, can only be anominal rise, as it must very shortly be followed by aproportional rise in the price of provisions. The increase in theprice of labour, therefore, which we have supposed, would havelittle or no effect in giving the labouring poor a greatercommand over the necessaries and conveniences of life. In thisrespect they would be nearly in the same state as before. In oneother respect they would be in a worse state. A greaterproportion of them would be employed in manufactures, and fewer,consequently, in agriculture. And this exchange of professionswill be allowed, I think, by all, to be very unfavourable inrespect of health, one essential ingredient of happiness, besidesthe greater uncertainty of manufacturing labour, arising from thecapricious taste of man, the accidents of war, and other causes.

It may be said, perhaps, that such an instance as I havesupposed could not occur, because the rise in the price ofprovisions would immediately turn some additional capital intothe channel of agriculture. But this is an event which may takeplace very slowly, as it should be remarked that a rise in theprice of labour, had preceded the rise of provisions, and would,therefore, impede the good effects upon agriculture, which theincreased value of the produce of the land might otherwise haveoccasioned.

It might also be said, that the additional capital of thenation would enable it to import provisions sufficient for themaintenance of those whom its stock could employ. A small countrywith a large navy, and great inland accommodations for carriage,such as Holland, may, indeed, import and distribute an effectualquantity of provisions; but the price of provisions must be veryhigh, to make such an importation and distribution answer in largecountries, less advantageously circumstanced in this respect.

An instance, accurately such as I have supposed, may not,perhaps, ever have occurred; but I have little doubt thatinstances nearly approximating to it may be found without anyvery laborious search. Indeed I am strongly inclined to think,that England herself, since the revolution, affords a verystriking elucidation of the argument in question.

The commerce of this country, internal as well as external,has certainly been rapidly advancing during the last century. Theexchangeable value, in the market of Europe, of the annual produceof its land and labour, has, without doubt, increased veryconsiderably. But, upon examination, it will be found, that theincrease has been chiefly in the produce of labour, and not in theproduce of land; and therefore, though the wealth of the nationhas been advancing with a quick pace, the effectual funds for themaintenance of labour have been increasing very slowly; and theresult is such as might be expected. The increasing wealth of thenation has had little or no tendency to better the condition ofthe labouring poor. They have not, I believe, a greater commandof the necessaries and conveniences of life; and a much greaterproportion of them, than at the period of the revolution, isemployed in manufactures, and crowded together in close andunwholesome rooms.

Could we believe the statement of Dr. Price, that thepopulation of England has decreased since the revolution, itwould even appear, that the effectual funds for the maintenance oflabour had been declining during the progress of wealth in otherrespects. For I conceive that it may be laid down as a generalrule, that if the effectual funds for the maintenance of labourare increasing, that is, if the territory can maintain, as well asthe stock employ, a greater number of labourers, this additionalnumber will quickly spring up, even in spite of such wars as Dr.Price enumerates. And, consequently, if the population of anycountry has been stationary, or declining, we may safely infer,that, however it may have advanced in manufacturing wealth, itseffectual funds for the maintenance of labour cannot haveincreased.

It is difficult, however, to conceive that the population ofEngland has been declining since the revolution; though everytestimony concurs to prove that its increase, if it hasincreased, has been very slow. In the controversy which thequestion has occasioned, Dr. Price undoubtedly appears to be muchmore completely master of his subject, and to possess moreaccurate information, than his opponents. Judging simply fromthis controversy, I think one should say, that Dr. Price's point isnearer being proved than Mr. Howlett's. Truth, probably, liesbetween the two statements, but this supposition makes theincrease of population, since the revolution, to have been veryslow, in comparison with the increase of wealth.

That the produce of the land has been decreasing, or eventhat it has been absolutely stationary during the last century,few will be disposed to believe. The inclosure of commons andwaste lands, certainly tends to increase the food of the country;but it has been asserted with confidence, that the inclosure ofcommon fields, has frequently had a contrary effect; and thatlarge tracts of land which formerly produced great quantities ofcorn, by being converted into pasture, both employ fewer hands, andfeed fewer mouths, than before their inclosure. It is, indeed, anacknowledged truth, that pasture land produces a smaller quantityof human subsistence, than corn land of the same naturalfertility; and could it be clearly ascertained, that from theincreased demand for butchers meat of the best quality, and itsincreased price in consequence, a greater quantity of good landhas annually been employed in grazing, the diminution of humansubsistence, which this circumstance would occasion, might havecounterbalanced the advantages derived from the inclosure ofwaste lands, and the general improvements in husbandry.

It scarcely need be remarked, that the high price of butchersmeat at present, and its low price formerly, were not caused bythe scarcity in the one case or the plenty in the other, but bythe different expense sustained at the different periods, inpreparing cattle for the market. It is, however, possible, thatthere might have been more cattle a hundred years ago in thecountry, than at present; but no doubt can be entertained, thatthere is much more meat of a superior quality brought to marketat present, than ever there was. When the price of butchers meatwas very low, cattle were reared chiefly upon waste lands; andexcept for some of the principal markets, were probably killedwith but little other fatting. The veal that is sold so cheap insome distant counties at present, bears little other resemblancethan the name, to that which is bought in London. Formerly, theprice of butchers meat would not pay for rearing, and scarcelyfor feeding cattle on land that would answer in tillage; but thepresent price will not only pay for fatting cattle on the verybest land, but will even allow of the rearing many, on land thatwould bear good crops of corn. The same number of cattle, or eventhe same weight of cattle at the different periods when killed,will have consumed (if I may be allowed the expression) verydifferent quantities of human subsistance. A fatted beast may insome respects be considered, in the language of the Frenchœconomists, as an unproductive labourer: he has added nothingto the value of the raw produce that he has consumed. The presentsystem of grazing, undoubtedly tends more than the former systemto diminish the quantity of human subsistence in the country, inproportion to the general fertility of the land.

I would not by any means be understood to say, that the formersystem either could, or ought, to have continued. The increasingprice of butchers meat, is a natural and inevitable consequenceof the general progress of cultivation; but I cannot helpthinking, that the present great demand for butchers meat of thebest quality, and the quantity of good land that is inconsequence annually employed to produce it, together with thegreat number of horses at present kept for pleasure, are thechief causes, that have prevented the quantity of human food inthe country, from keeping pace with the generally increasedfertility of the soil; and a change of custom in these respects,would, I have little doubt, have a very sensible effect on thequantity of subsistence in the country, and consequently on itspopulation.

The employment of much of the most fertile land in grazing,the improvements in agricultural instruments, the increase oflarge farms, and particularly the diminution of the number ofcottages throughout the kingdom, all concur to prove, that thereare not probably, so many persons employed in agricultural labournow, as at the period of the revolution. Whatever increase ofpopulation, therefore, has taken place, must be employed almostwholly in manufactures, and it is well known, that the failure ofsome of these manufactures, merely from the caprice of fashion,such as, the adoption of muslins instead of silks, or ofshoe-strings, and covered buttons, instead of buckles and metalbuttons, combined with the restraints in the market of labourarising from corporation, and parish laws, have frequently driventhousands on charity for support. The great increase of the poorrates is, indeed, of itself a strong evidence, that the poor havenot a greater command of the necessaries and conveniences oflife; and if to the consideration, that their condition in thisrespect is rather worse than better, be added the circumstance,that a much greater proportion of them is employed in largemanufactories, unfavourable both to health and virtue, it must beacknowledged, that the increase of wealth of late years, has hadno tendency to increase the happiness of the labouring poor.

That every increase of the stock or revenue of a nation,cannot be considered as an increase of the real funds for themaintenance of labour, and, therefore, cannot have the same goodeffect upon the condition of the poor, will appear in a stronglight, if the argument be applied to China.

Dr. Adam Smith observes, that China has probably long been asrich, as the nature of her laws and institutions will admit; butthat with other laws and institutions, and if foreign commercewere had in honour, she might still be much richer. The questionis, would such an increase of wealth be an increase of the realfunds for the maintenance of labour, and consequently, tend toplace the lower classes of people in China in a state of greaterplenty?

It is evident, that if trade and foreign commerce were heldin great honour in China; from the plenty of labourers, and thecheapness of labour, she might work up manufactures for foreignsale to an immense amount. It is equally evident, that from thegreat bulk of provisions, and the amazing extent of her inlandterritory, she could not in return import such a quantity, as wouldbe any sensible addition to the annual stock of subsistence inthe country. Her immense amount of manufactures, therefore, shewould exchange, chiefly, for luxuries collected from all parts ofthe world. At present, it appears, that no labour whatever isspared in the production of food. The country is ratherover peopled in proportion to what its stock can employ, andlabour is, therefore, so abundant, that no pains are taken toabridge it. The consequence of this, is, probably, the greatestproduction of food that the soil can possibly afford: for it willbe generally observed, that processes for abridging labour,though they may enable a farmer to bring a certain quantity ofgrain cheaper to market, tend rather to diminish than increasethe whole produce; and in agriculture, therefore, may, in somerespects, be considered rather as private than public advantages. An immense capital could not be employed in China inpreparing manufactures for foreign trade, without taking off somany labourers from agriculture, as to alter this state of things,and in some degree to diminish the produce of the country. Thedemand for manufacturing labourers would naturally raise theprice of labour; but as the quantity of subsistence would not beincreased, the price of provisions would keep pace with it; oreven more than keep pace with it if the quantity of provisionswere really decreasing. The country would be evidently advancingin wealth: the exchangeable value of the annual produce of itsland and labour, would be annually augmented; yet the real fundsfor the maintenance of labour would be stationary, or evendeclining; and, consequently, the increasing wealth of the nationwould rather tend to depress, than to raise, the condition of thepoor. With regard to the command over the necessaries andcomforts of life, they would be in the same or rather worse statethan before; and a great part of them would have exchanged thehealthy labours of agriculture, for the unhealthy occupations ofmanufacturing industry.

The argument, perhaps, appears clearer when applied to China,because it is generally allowed, that the wealth of China has beenlong stationary. With regard to any other country it might bealways a matter of dispute, at which of the two periods, compared,wealth was increasing the fastest; as it is upon the rapidity ofthe increase of wealth at any particular period that Dr. AdamSmith says the condition of the poor depends. It is evident,however, that two nations might increase, exactly with the samerapidity in the exchangeable value of the annual produce of theirland and labour; yet if one had applied itself chiefly toagriculture, and the other chiefly to commerce, the funds for themaintenance of labour, and consequently the effect of theincrease of wealth in each nation, would be extremely different.In that which had applied itself chiefly to agriculture, the poorwould live in great plenty, and population would rapidlyincrease. In that which had applied itself chiefly to commerce,the poor would be comparatively but little benefited, andconsequently population would increase slowly.

Chapter XVII

Question of the proper definition of the wealth of a state—Reason given by the French Œconomists for considering allmanufacturers as unproductive labourers, not the true reason—The labour of artificers and manufacturers sufficientlyproductive to individuals, though not to the state—A remarkablepassage in Dr. Price's two volumes of observations—Error of Dr.Price in attributing the happiness and rapid population ofAmerica, chiefly, to its peculiar state of civilization—Noadvantage can be expected from shutting our eyes to thedifficulties in the way to the improvement of society.

A question seems naturally to arise here, whether the exchangeablevalue of the annual produce of the land and labour, be the properdefinition of the wealth of a country; or whether the grossproduce of the land, according to the French œconomists, may notbe a more accurate definition. Certain it is, that every increaseof wealth, according to the definition of the Œconomists, will bean increase of the funds for the maintenance of labour, andconsequently will always tend to ameliorate the condition of thelabouring poor; though an increase of wealth, according to Dr.Adam Smith's definition, will by no means invariably have thesame tendency. And yet it may not follow from this consideration,that Dr. Adam Smith's definition is not just. It seems in manyrespects improper, to exclude the clothing and lodging of a wholepeople from any part of their revenue. Much of it may, indeed, beof very trivial and unimportant value, in comparison with the foodof the country; yet still it may be fairly considered as a partof its revenue: and, therefore, the only point in which I shoulddiffer from Dr. Adam Smith, is, where he seems to consider everyincrease of the revenue or stock of a society, as an increase ofthe funds for the maintenance of labour, and consequently astending always to ameliorate the condition of the poor.

The fine silks and cottons, the laces, and other ornamentalLuxuries, of a rich country, may contribute very considerably toaugment the exchangeable value of its annual produce; yet theycontribute but in a very small degree, to augment the mass ofhappiness in the society: and it appears to me, that it is withsome view to the real utility of the produce, that we ought toestimate the productiveness, or unproductiveness of differentsorts of labour. The French Œconomists consider all labouremployed in manufactures as unproductive. Comparing it with thelabour employed upon land, I should be perfectly disposed toagree with them; but not exactly for the reasons which they give.They say, that labour employed upon land is productive, because theproduce, over and above completely paying the labourer and thefarmer, affords a clear rent to the landlord; and that the labouremployed upon a piece of lace is unproductive, because it merelyreplaces the provisions that the workman had consumed, and thestock of his employer, without affording any clear rent whatever.But supposing the value of the wrought lace to be such, as thatbesides paying in the most complete manner the workman and hisemployer, it could afford a clear rent to a third person; itappears to me that, in comparison with the labour employed uponland, it would be still as unproductive as ever. Thoughaccording to the reasoning used by the French Œconomists, the manemployed in the manufacture of lace would, in this case, seem tobe a productive labourer; yet according to their definition ofthe wealth of a state, he ought not to be considered in thatlight. He will have added nothing to the gross produce of theland: he has consumed a portion of this gross produce, and hasleft a bit of lace in return; and though he may sell this bit oflace for three times the quantity of provisions that he consumedwhilst he was making it, and thus be a very productive labourerwith regard to himself; yet he cannot be considered as havingadded by his labour to any essential part of the riches of thestate. The clear rent, therefore, that a certain produce canafford, after paying the expenses of procuring it, does notappear to be the sole criterion, by which to judge of theproductiveness or unproductiveness to a state, of any particularspecies of labour.

Suppose, that two hundred thousand men, who are now employedin producing manufactures, that only tend to gratify the vanity ofa few rich people, were to be employed upon some barren anduncultivated lands, and to produce only half the quantity of foodthat they themselves consumed; they would be still, moreproductive labourers with regard to the state, than they werebefore; though their labour, so far from affording a rent to athird person, would but half replace the provisions used inobtaining the produce. In their former employment, they consumed acertain portion of the food of the country, and left in return,some silks and laces. In their latter employment, they consumedthe same quantity of food, and left in return provision for ahundred thousand men. There can be little doubt, which of the twolegacies would be the most really beneficial to the country; andit will, I think, be allowed that the wealth which supported thetwo hundred thousand men, while they were producing silks andlaces, would have been more usefully employed in supporting themwhile they were producing the additional quantity of food.

A capital employed upon land, may be unproductive to theindividual that employs it, and yet be highly productive to thesociety. A capital employed in trade, on the contrary, may behighly productive to the individual, and yet be almost totallyunproductive to the society: and this is the reason why I shouldcall manufacturing labour unproductive, in comparison of thatwhich is employed in agriculture, and not for the reason given bythe French Œconomists. It is, indeed, almost impossible, to seethe great fortunes that are made in trade, and the liberalitywith which so many merchants live, and yet agree in the statementof the Œconomists, that manufacturers can only grow rich bydepriving themselves of the funds destined for their support. Inmany branches of trade the profits are so great, as would allow ofa clear rent to a third person: but as there is no third personin the case, and as all the profits centre in the mastermanufacturer, or merchant, he seems to have a fair chance ofgrowing rich, without much privation; and we consequently seelarge fortunes acquired in trade by persons who have not beenremarked for their parsimony.

Daily experience proves, that the labour employed in trade andManufactures, is sufficiently productive to individuals; but itcertainly is not productive in the same degree to the state.Every accession to the food of a country, tends to the immediatebenefit of the whole society; but the fortunes made in trade, tend,but in a remote and uncertain manner, to the same end, and in somerespects have even a contrary tendency. The home trade ofconsumption, is by far the most important trade of every nation.China is the richest country in the world, without any other.Putting then, for a moment, foreign trade out of the question,the man, who by an ingenious manufacture, obtains a double portion out of the old stock of provisions, will certainly not be so useful to the state, as the man who, by his labour, adds a single share to the former stock. The consumable commodities of silks, laces, trinkets, and expensive furniture, are undoubtedlya part of the revenue of the society; but they are the revenueonly of the rich, and not of the society in general. An increasein this part of the revenue of a state, cannot, therefore, beconsidered of the same importance, as an increase of food, whichforms the principal revenue of the great mass of the people.

Foreign commerce adds to the wealth of a state, according toDr. Adam Smith's definition, though not according to thedefinition of the œconomists. Its principal use, and the reason,probably, that it has in general been held in such highestimation, is, that it adds greatly to the external power of anation, or to its power of commanding the labour of othercountries; but it will be found, upon a near examination, tocontribute but little to the increase of the internal funds forthe maintenance of labour, and consequently but little to thehappiness of the greatest part of society. In the naturalprogress of a state towards riches, manufactures, and foreigncommerce would follow, in their order, the high cultivation ofthe soil. In Europe, this natural order of things has beeninverted; and the soil has been cultivated from the redundancy ofmanufacturing capital, instead of manufactures rising from theredundancy of capital employed upon land. The superiorencouragement that has been given to the industry of the towns,and the consequent higher price that is paid for the labour ofartificers, than for the labour of those employed in husbandry,are probably the reasons why so much soil in Europe remainsuncultivated. Had a different policy been pursued throughoutEurope, it might undoubtedly have been much more populous than atpresent, and yet not be more incumbered by its population.

I cannot quit this curious subject of the difficulty arisingfrom population, a subject, that appears to me to deserve a minuteinvestigation, and able discussion, much beyond my power to giveit, without taking notice of an extraordinary passage in Dr.Price's two volumes of Observations. Having given some tables onthe probabilities of life, in towns and in the country, he says, [17] "From this comparison, it appears, with how much truth great citieshave been called the graves of mankind. It must also convince allwho consider it, that according to the observation, at the end ofthe fourth essay, in the former volume, it is by no meansstrictly proper to consider our diseases as the originalintention of nature. They are, without doubt, in general our owncreation. Were there a country where the inhabitants led livesentirely natural and virtuous, few of them would die withoutmeasuring out the whole period of present existence allotted tothem; pain and distemper would be unknown among them, and deathwould come upon them like a sleep, in consequence of no othercause than gradual and unavoidable decay."

I own, that I felt myself obliged to draw a very oppositeconclusion from the facts advanced in Dr. Price's two volumes. Ihad for some time been aware, that population and food, increasedin different ratios; and a vague opinion had been floating in mymind, that they could only be kept equal by some species of miseryor vice; but the perusal of Dr. Price's two volumes ofObservations, after that opinion had been conceived, raised it atonce to conviction. With so many facts in his view, to prove theextraordinary rapidity with which population increases, whenunchecked; and with such a body of evidence before him, toelucidate, even the manner, by which the general laws of naturerepress a redundant population; it is perfectly inconceivable tome, how he could write the passage that I have quoted. He was astrenuous advocate for early marriages, as the best preservativeagainst vicious manners. He had no fanciful conceptions about theextinction of the passion between the sexes, like Mr. Godwin, nordid he ever think of eluding the difficulty in the ways hinted atby Mr. Condorcet. He frequently talks of giving the prolifickpowers of nature room to exert themselves. Yet with these ideas,that his understanding could escape from the obvious andnecessary inference, that an unchecked population would increase,beyond comparison, faster than the earth, by the best directedexertions of man, could produce food for its support, appears tome as astonishing, as if he had resisted the conclusion of one ofthe plainest propositions of Euclid.

Dr. Price, speaking of the different stages of the civilizedstate, says, "The first, or simple stages of civilization, arethose which favour most the increase and the happiness ofmankind." He then instances the American colonies, as being atthat time in the first, and happiest of the states, that he haddescribed; and as affording a very striking proof of the effectsof the different stages of civilization on population. But hedoes not seem to be aware, that the happiness of the Americans,depended much less upon their peculiar degree of civilization,than upon the peculiarity of their situation, as new colonies,upon their having a great plenty of fertile uncultivated land. Inparts of Norway, Denmark, or Sweden, or in this country, two orthree hundred years ago, he might have found perhaps nearly thesame degree of civilization; but by no means the same happiness,or the same increase of population. He quotes himself a statuteof Henry the Eighth, complaining of the decay of tillage, and theenhanced price of provisions, "whereby a marvellous number ofpeople were rendered incapable of maintaining themselves andfamilies." The superior degree of civil liberty which prevailedin America, contributed, without doubt, its share, to promote theindustry, happiness, and population of these states: but evencivil liberty, all powerful as it is, will not create fresh land.The Americans may be said, perhaps, to enjoy a greater degree ofcivil liberty, now they are an independent people, than whilethey were in subjection to England; but we may be perfectly surethat population will not long continue to increase with the samerapidity as it did then.

A person who contemplated the happy state of the lowerclasses of people in America twenty years ago, would naturallywish to retain them for ever in that state; and might think,perhaps, that by preventing the introduction of manufactures andluxury, he might effect his purpose: but he might as reasonablyexpect to prevent a wife or mistress from growing old by neverexposing her to the sun or air. The situation of new colonies,well governed, is a bloom of youth that no efforts can arrest.There are, indeed, many modes of treatment in the political, aswell as animal body, that contribute to accelerate or retard theapproaches of age: but there can be no chance of success, in anymode that could be devised, for keeping either of them inperpetual youth. By encouraging the industry of the towns morethan the industry of the country, Europe may be said, perhaps, tohave brought on a premature old age. A different policy in thisrespect, would infuse fresh life and vigour into every state.While from the law of primogeniture, and other European customs,land bears a monopoly price, a capital can never be employed init with much advantage to the individual; and, therefore, it isnot probable that the soil should be properly cultivated. And,though in every civilized state, a class of proprietors and aclass of labourers must exist; yet one permanent advantage wouldalways result from a nearer equalization of property. The greaterthe number of proprietors, the smaller must be the number oflabourers: a greater part of society would be in the happy stateof possessing property; and a smaller part in the unhappy stateof possessing no other property than their labour. But the bestdirected exertions, though they may alleviate, can never removethe pressure of want; and it will be difficult for any person whocontemplates the genuine situation of man on earth, and thegeneral laws of nature, to suppose it possible that any, the mostenlightened efforts, could place mankind in a state where "fewwould die without measuring out the whole period of presentexistence allotted to them; where pain and distemper would beunknown among them; and death would come upon them like a sleep,in consequence of no other cause than gradual and unavoidabledecay."

It is, undoubtedly, a most disheartening reflection, that thegreat obstacle in the way to any extraordinary improvement insociety, is of a nature that we can never hope to overcome. Theperpetual tendency in the race of man to increase beyond themeans of subsistence, is one of the general laws of animatednature, which we can have no reason to expect will change. Yet,discouraging as the contemplation of this difficulty must be, tothose whose exertions are laudably directed to the improvement ofthe human species, it is evident, that no possible good can arisefrom any endeavours to slur it over, or keep it in the background.On the contrary, the most baleful mischiefs may be expected fromthe unmanly conduct of not daring to face truth, because it isunpleasing. Independently of what relates to this great obstacle,sufficient yet remains to be done for mankind, to animate us tothe most unremitted exertion. But if we proceed without athorough knowledge, and accurate comprehension of the nature,extent, and magnitude of the difficulties we have to encounter,or if we unwisely direct our efforts towards an object, in whichwe cannot hope for success; we shall not only exhaust ourstrength in fruitless exertions and remain at as great a distanceas ever from the summit of our wishes; but we shall beperpetually crushed by the recoil of this rock of Sisyphus.

Chapter XVIII

The constant pressure of distress on man, from the principle ofpopulation, seems to direct our hopes to the future—State oftrial inconsistent with our ideas of the foreknowledge of God—The world, probably, a mighty process for awakening matter intomind—Theory of the formation of mind—Excitements from thewants of the body—Excitements from the operation of generallaws—Excitements from the difficulties of life arising from theprinciple of population.

The view of human life, which results from the contemplation ofthe constant pressure of distress on man from the difficulty ofsubsistence, by shewing the little expectation that he canreasonably entertain of perfectibility on earth, seems stronglyto point his hopes to the future. And the temptations to which hemust necessarily be exposed, from the operation of those laws ofnature which we have been examining, would seem to represent theworld, in the light in which it has been frequently considered, asa state of trial, and school of virtue, preparatory to a superiorstate of happiness. But I hope I shall be pardoned, if I attemptto give a view in some degree different of the situation of manon earth, which appears to me, to be more consistent with thevarious phenomena of nature which we observe around us, and moreconsonant to our ideas of the power, goodness, and foreknowledgeof the Deity.

It cannot be considered as an unimproving exercise of thehuman mind to endeavour to"Vindicate the ways of God to man."

ifwe proceed with a proper distrust of our own understandings, and ajust sense of our insufficiency to comprehend the reason of allwe see; if we hail every ray of light with gratitude; and whenno light appears, think that the darkness is from within, and notfrom without; and bow with humble deference to the supreme wisdomof him whose "thoughts are above our thoughts," "as the heavensare high above the earth."

In all our feeble attempts, however, to "find out theAlmighty to perfection," it seems absolutely necessary, that weshould reason from nature up to nature's God, and not presume toreason from God to nature. The moment we allow ourselves to askwhy some things are not otherwise, instead of endeavouring toaccount for them as they are, we shall never know where to stop;we shall be led into the grossest, and most childish absurdities;all progress in the knowledge of the ways of Providence mustnecessarily be at an end; and the study will even cease to be animproving exercise of the human mind. Infinite power is so vastand incomprehensible an idea, that the mind of man mustnecessarily be bewildered in the contemplation of it. With thecrude and puerile conceptions which we sometimes form of thisattribute of the Deity, we might imagine that God could call intobeing myriads, and myriads of existences; all free from pain andimperfection; all eminent in goodness and wisdom; all capable ofthe highest enjoyments; and unnumbered as the points throughoutinfinite space. But when from these vain and extravagant dreamsof fancy, we turn our eyes to the book of nature, where alone wecan read God as he is, we see a constant succession of sentientbeings, rising apparently from so many specks of matter, goingthrough a long and sometimes painful process in this world; butmany of them attaining, ere the termination of it, such highqualities and powers, as seem to indicate their fitness for somesuperior state. Ought we not then to correct our crude andpuerile ideas of Infinite Power from the contemplation of what weactually see existing? Can we judge of the Creator but from hiscreation? And, unless we wish to exalt the power of God at theexpense of his goodness, ought we not to conclude, that even tothe Great Creator, Almighty as he is, a certain process may benecessary, a certain time (or at least what appears to us astime) may be requisite, in order to form beings with thoseexalted qualities of mind which will fit them for his highpurposes?

A state of trial seems to imply a previously formed existence,that does not agree with the appearance of man in infancy, andindicates something like suspicion and want of foreknowledge,inconsistent with those ideas which we wish to cherish of theSupreme Being. I should be inclined, therefore, as I have hintedbefore in a note, to consider the world, and this life, as the mighty process of God, not for the trial, but for the creation and formation ofmind; a process necessary, to awaken inert, chaotic matter, intospirit; to sublimate the dust of the earth into soul; to elicitan æthereal spark from the clod of clay. And in this view of thesubject, the various impressions and excitements which manreceives through life, may be considered as the forming hand ofhis Creator, acting by general laws, and awakening his sluggishexistence, by the animating touches of the Divinity, into acapacity of superior enjoyment. The original sin of man, is thetorpor and corruption of the chaotic matter, in which he may besaid to be born.

It could answer no good purpose to enter into the question,whether mind be a distinct substance from matter, or only a finerform of it. The question is, perhaps, after all, a questionmerely of words. Mind is as essentially mind, whether formed frommatter or any other substance. We know, from experience, that souland body are most intimately united; and every appearance seemsto indicate, that they grow from infancy together. It would be asupposition attended with very little probability, to believe thata complete and full formed spirit existed in every infant; butthat it was clogged and impeded in its operations, during thefirst twenty years of life, by the weakness, or hebetude, of theorgans in which it was enclosed. As we shall all be disposed toagree, that God is the creator of mind as well as of body; and asthey both seem to be forming and unfolding themselves at the sametime; it cannot appear inconsistent either with reason orrevelation, if it appear to be consistent with phenomena ofnature, to suppose that God is constantly occupied in formingmind out of matter, and that the various impressions that manreceives through life, is the process for that purpose. Theemployment is surely worthy of the highest attributes of theDeity.

This view of the state of man on earth will not seem to beunattended with probability, if, judging from the littleexperience we have of the nature of mind, it shall appear, uponinvestigation, that the phenomena around us, and the variousevents of human life, seem peculiarly calculated to promote thisgreat end; and especially, if, upon this supposition, we canaccount, even to our own narrow understandings, for many of thoseroughnesses and inequalities in life, which querulous man toofrequently makes the subject of his complaint against the God ofnature.

The first great awakeners of the mind seem to be the wants ofthe body. [18] They are the first stimulants that rousethe brain of infant man into sentient activity: and such seems tobe the sluggishness of original matter, that unless, by a peculiarcourse of excitements, other wants, equally powerful, aregenerated, these stimulants seem, even afterwards, to benecessary, to continue that activity which they first awakened.The savage would slumber for ever under his tree, unless he wereroused from his torpor by the cravings of hunger or the pinchingsof cold; and the exertions that he makes to avoid these evils, byprocuring food, and building himself a covering, are theexercises which form and keep in motion his faculties, whichotherwise would sink into listless inactivity. From all thatexperience has taught us concerning the structure of the humanmind, if those stimulants to exertion, which arise from the wantsof the body, were removed from the mass of mankind, we have muchmore reason to think, that they would be sunk to the level ofbrutes, from a deficiency of excitements, than that they would beraised to the rank of philosophers by the possession of leisure.In those countries, where nature is the most redundant inspontaneous produce, the inhabitants will not be found the mostremarkable for acuteness of intellect. Necessity has been withgreat truth called the mother of invention. Some of the noblestexertions of the human mind have been set in motion by thenecessity of satisfying the wants of the body. Want has notunfrequently given wings to the imagination of the poet; pointedthe flowing periods of the historian; and added acuteness to theresearches of the philosopher: and though there are undoubtedlymany minds at present, so far improved by the various excitementsof knowledge, or of social sympathy, that they would not relapseinto listlessness, if their bodily stimulants were removed; yet itcan scarcely be doubted, that these stimulants could not bewithdrawn from the mass of mankind, without producing a generaland fatal torpor, destructive of all the germs of futureimprovement.

Locke, if I recollect, says that the endeavour to avoid pain,rather than the pursuit of pleasure, is the great stimulus toaction in life: and that in looking to any particular pleasure,we shall not be roused into action in order to obtain it, tillthe contemplation of it has continued so long, as to amount to asensation of pain or uneasiness under the absence of it. To avoidevil, and to pursue good, seem to be the great duty and business ofman; and this world appears to be peculiarly calculated to affordopportunity of the most unremitted exertion of this kind: and itis by this exertion, by these stimulants, that mind is formed. IfLocke's idea be just, and there is great reason to think that itis, evil seems to be necessary to create exertion; and exertionseems evidently necessary to create mind.

The necessity of food for the support of life, gives rise,probably, to a greater quantity of exertion, than any other want,bodily or mental. The supreme Being has ordained, that the earthshall not produce food in great quantities, till much preparatorylabour and ingenuity has been exercised upon its surface. Thereis no conceivable connection to our comprehensions, between theseed; and the plant, or tree, that rises from it. The SupremeCreator might, undoubtedly, raise up plants of all kinds, for theuse of his creatures, without the assistance of those little bitsof matter, which we call seed, or even without the assistinglabour and attention of man. The processes of ploughing andclearing the ground, of collecting and sowing seeds, are notsurely for the assistance of God in his creation, but are madepreviously necessary to the enjoyment of the blessings of life,in order to rouse man into action, and form his mind to reason.

To furnish the most unremitted excitements of this kind, andto urge man to further the gracious designs of Providence, by thefull cultivation of the earth, it has been ordained, thatpopulation should increase much faster than food. This generallaw (as it has appeared in the former parts of this essay)undoubtedly produces much partial evil; but a little reflectionmay, perhaps, satisfy us, that it produces a great overbalance ofgood. Strong excitements seem necessary to create exertion, andto direct this exertion, and form the reasoning faculty, it seemsabsolutely necessary, that the Supreme Being should act alwaysaccording to general laws. The constancy of the laws of nature,or the certainty, with which we may expect the same effect, fromthe same causes, is the foundation of the faculty of reason. Ifin the ordinary course of things, the finger of God werefrequently visible; or to speak more correctly, if God werefrequently to change his purpose, (for the finger of God is,indeed, visible in every blade of grass that we see) a generaland fatal torpor of the human faculties would probably ensue;even the bodily wants of mankind would cease to stimulate them toexertion, could they not reasonably expect, that if their effortswere well directed, they would be crowned with success. Theconstancy of the laws of nature, is the foundation of the industryand foresight of the husbandman; the indefatigable ingenuity ofthe artificer; the skilful researches of the physician, andanatomist; and the watchful observation, and patient investigation,of the natural philosopher. To this constancy we owe all thegreatest, and noblest efforts of intellect. To this constancy weowe the immortal mind of a Newton.

As the reasons, therefore, for the constancy of the laws ofNature, seem, even to our understandings, obvious and striking; ifwe return to the principle of population, and consider man as hereally is, inert, sluggish, and averse from labour, unlesscompelled by necessity, (and it is surely the height of folly totalk of man, according to our crude fancies, of what he might be)we may pronounce, with certainty, that the world would not havebeen peopled, but for the superiority of the power of populationto the means of subsistence. Strong, and constantly operative asthis stimulus is on man, to urge him to the cultivation of theearth; if we still see that cultivation proceeds very slowly, wemay fairly conclude, that a less stimulus would have beeninsufficient. Even under the operation of this constantexcitement, savages will inhabit countries of the greatestnatural fertility, for a long period, before they betake themselvesto pasturage or agriculture. Had population and food increased inthe same ratio, it is probable that man might never have emergedfrom the savage state. But supposing the earth once well peopled,an Alexander, a Julius Cæsar, a Tamerlane, or a bloodyrevolution might irrecoverably thin the human race, and defeatthe great designs of the Creator. The ravages of a contagiousdisorder would be felt for ages; and an earthquake might unpeoplea region for ever. The principle, according to which populationincreases, prevents the vices of mankind, or the accidents ofnature, the partial evils arising from general laws, fromobstructing the high purpose of the creation. It keeps theinhabitants of the earth always fully up to the level of themeans of subsistence; and is constantly acting upon man as apowerful stimulus, urging him to the further cultivation of theearth, and to enable it, consequently, to support a more extendedpopulation. But it is impossible that this law can operate, andproduce the effects apparently intended by the Supreme Being,without occasioning partial evil. Unless the principle ofpopulation were to be altered, according to the circumstances ofeach separate country, (which would not only be contrary to ouruniversal experience, with regard to the laws of nature, butwould contradict even our own reason, which sees the absolutenecessity of general laws for the formation of intellect;) it isevident that the same principle which, seconded by industry, willpeople a fertile region in a few years, must produce distress incountries that have been long inhabited.

It seems, however, every way probable, that even theacknowledged difficulties occasioned by the law of population,tend rather to promote, than impede the general purpose ofProvidence. They excite universal exertion, and contribute to thatinfinite variety of situations, and consequently of impressions,which seems, upon the whole, favourable to the growth of mind. Itis probable, that too great, or too little excitement, extremepoverty, or too great riches, may be alike unfavourable in thisrespect. The middle regions of society seem to be best suited tointellectual improvement; but it is contrary to the analogy ofall nature, to expect that the whole of society can be a middleregion. The temperate zones of the earth, seem to be the mostfavourable to the mental, and corporal energies of man; but allcannot be temperate zones. A world, warmed and enlightened but byone sun, must, from the laws of matter, have some parts chilled byperpetual frosts, and others scorched by perpetual heats. Everypiece of matter lying on a surface, must have an upper, and anunder side: all the particles cannot be in the middle. The mostvaluable parts of an oak, to a timber merchant, are not eitherthe roots, or the branches; but these are absolutely necessary tothe existence of the middle part, or stem, which is the object inrequest. The timber merchant could not possibly expect to make anoak grow without roots or branches; but if he could find out amode of cultivation, which would cause more of the substance to goto stem, and less to root and branch, he would be right to exerthimself in bringing such a system into general use.

In the same manner, though we cannot possibly expect toexclude riches, and poverty, from society; yet if we could find outa mode of government, by which, the numbers in the extreme regionswould be lessened, and the numbers in the middle regionsincreased, it would be undoubtedly our duty to adopt it. It isnot, however, improbable, that as in the oak, the roots andbranches could not be diminished very greatly without weakeningthe vigorous circulation of the sap in the stem; so in society,the extreme parts could not be diminished beyond a certain degree,without lessening that animated exertion throughout the middleparts, which is the very cause, that they are the most favourableto the growth of intellect. If no man could hope to rise, or fearto fall, in society; if industry did not bring with it its reward,and idleness its punishment, the middle parts would not certainlybe what they now are. In reasoning upon this subject, it isevident, that we ought to consider chiefly the mass of mankind, andnot individual instances. There are undoubtedly many minds, andthere ought to be many, according to the chances, out of so greata mass, that, having been vivified early, by a peculiar course ofexcitements, would not need the constant action of narrow motives,to continue them in activity. But if we were to review thevarious useful discoveries, the valuable writings, and otherlaudable exertions of mankind; I believe we should find, that morewere to be attributed to the narrow motives that operate upon themany, than to the apparently more enlarged motives that operateupon the few.

Leisure is, without doubt, highly valuable to man; but takingMan, as he is, the probability seems to be, that in the greaternumber of instances, it will produce evil rather than good. It hasbeen not infrequently remarked, that talents are more common amongyounger brothers, than among elder brothers; but it can scarcelybe imagined, that younger brothers are, upon an average, born witha greater original susceptibility of parts. The difference, ifthere really is any observable difference, can only arise fromtheir different situations. Exertion and activity, are in generalabsolutely necessary in one case, and are only optional in theother.

That the difficulties of life, contribute to generate talents,every day's experience must convince us. The exertions that menfind it necessary to make, in order to support themselves orfamilies, frequently awaken faculties, that might otherwise havelain for ever dormant: and it has been commonly remarked, that newand extraordinary situations generally create minds adequate tograpple with the difficulties in which they are involved.

Chapter XIX

The sorrows of life necessary to soften and humanize the heart—The excitement of social sympathy often produce characters of ahigher order than the mere possessors of talents—Moral evilprobably necessary to the production of moral excellence—Excitements from intellectual wants continually kept up by theinfinite variety of nature, and the obscurity that involvesmetaphysical subjects—The difficulties in Revelation to beaccounted for upon this principle—The degree of evidence whichthe scriptures contain, probably, best suited to the improvementsof the human faculties, and the moral amelioration of mankind—The idea that mind is created by excitements, seems to account forthe existence of natural and moral evil.

The sorrows and distresses of life form another class ofexcitements, which seem to be necessary, by a peculiar train ofimpressions, to soften and humanize the heart, to awaken socialsympathy, to generate all the Christian virtues, and to affordscope for the ample exertion of benevolence. The general tendencyof an uniform course of prosperity is rather, to degrade, thanexalt the character. The heart that has never known sorrow itself,will seldom be feelingly alive, to the pains and pleasures, thewants and wishes, of its fellow beings. It will seldom beoverflowing with that warmth of brotherly love, those kind andamiable affections, which dignify the human character, even morethan the possession of the highest talents. Talents, indeed,though undoubtedly a very prominent and fine feature of mind, canby no means be considered as constituting the whole of it. Thereare many minds which have not been exposed to those excitements,that usually form talents, that have yet been vivified to a highdegree, by the excitements of social sympathy. In every rank oflife, in the lowest as frequently as in the highest, charactersare to be found, overflowing with the milk of human kindness,breathing love towards God and man; and, though without thosepeculiar powers of mind called talents, evidently holding ahigher rank in the scale of beings, than many who possess them.Evangelical charity, meekness, piety, and all that class ofVirtues, distinguished particularly by the name of ChristianVirtues, do not seem necessarily to include abilities; yet a soulpossessed of these amiable qualities, a soul awakened andvivified by these delightful sympathies, seems to hold a nearercommerce with the skies, than mere acuteness of intellect.

The greatest talents have been frequently misapplied, and haveproduced evil proportionate to the extent of their powers. Bothreason and revelation seem to assure us, that such minds will becondemned to eternal death; but while on earth, these viciousinstruments performed their part in the great mass ofimpressions, by the disgust and abhorrence which they excited. Itseems highly probable, that moral evil is absolutely necessary tothe production of moral excellence. A being with only good placedin view, may be justly said to be impelled by a blind necessity.The pursuit of good in this case, can be no indication of virtuouspropensities. It might be said, perhaps, that Infinite Wisdomcannot want such an indication as outward action, but wouldforeknow, with certainty, whether the being would chuse good orevil. This might be a plausible argument against a state oftrial; but will not hold against the supposition, that mind inthis world is in a state of formation. Upon this idea, the beingthat has seen moral evil, and has felt disapprobation and disgustat it, is essentially different from the being that has seen onlygood. They are pieces of clay that have received distinctimpressions: they must, therefore, necessarily be in differentshapes; or, even if we allow them both to have the same lovelyform of virtue, it must be acknowledged that one has undergonethe further process, necessary to give firmness and durability toits substance; while the other is still exposed to injury, andliable to be broken by every accidental impulse. An ardent loveand admiration of virtue seems to imply the existence ofsomething opposite to it; and it seems highly probable, that thesame beauty of form and substance, the same perfection ofcharacter, could not be generated without the impressions ofdisapprobation which arise from the spectacle of moral evil.

When the mind has been awakened into activity by thepassions, and the wants of the body, intellectual wants arise;and the desire of knowledge, and the impatience under ignorance,form a new and important class of excitements. Every part ofnature seems peculiarly calculated to furnish stimulants tomental exertion of this kind, and to offer inexhaustible food forthe most unremitted inquiry. Our mortal Bard says of Cleopatra——"Custom cannot stale"Her infinite variety."

The expression, when applied to any one object, may be consideredas a poetical amplification, but it is accurately true whenapplied to nature. Infinite variety, seems, indeed, eminently hercharacteristic feature. The shades that are here and thereblended in the picture, give spirit, life, and prominence to herexuberant beauties; and those roughnesses and inequalities, thoseinferior parts that support the superior, though they sometimesoffend the fastidious microscopic eye of short sighted man,contribute to the symmetry, grace, and fair proportion of thewhole.

The infinite variety of the forms and operations of nature,besides tending immediately to awaken and improve the mind by thevariety of impressions that it creates, opens other fertilesources of improvement, by offering so wide and extensive a fieldfor investigation and research. Uniform, undiversified perfection,could not possess the same awakening powers. When we endeavourthen to contemplate the system of the universe; when we think ofthe stars as the suns of other systems, scattered throughoutinfinite space; when we reflect, that we do not probably see amillionth part of those bright orbs, that are beaming light andlife to unnumbered worlds; when our minds, unable to grasp theimmeasurable conception, sink, lost and confounded, in admirationat the mighty incomprehensible power of the Creator; let us notquerulously complain that all climates are not equally genial;that perpetual spring does not reign throughout the year; that all God's creatures do not possess the same advantages; that cloudsand tempests sometimes darken the natural world, and vice andmisery, the moral world; and that all the works of the creationare not formed with equal perfection. Both reason and experienceseem to indicate to us, that the infinite variety of nature (andvariety cannot exist without inferior parts, or apparentblemishes) is admirably adapted to further the high purpose ofthe creation and to produce the greatest possible quantity ofgood.

The obscurity that involves all metaphysical subjects, appearsto me, in the same manner peculiarly calculated, to add to thatclass of excitements which arise from the thirst of knowledge. Itis probable that man, while on earth, will never be able toattain complete satisfaction on these subjects; but this is by nomeans a reason that he should not engage in them. The darknessthat surrounds these interesting topics of human curiosity, may beintended to furnish endless motives to intellectual activity andexertion. The constant effort to dispel this darkness, even if itfail of success, invigorates and improves the thinking faculty.If the subjects of human inquiry were once exhausted, mind wouldprobably stagnate; but the infinitely diversified forms andoperations of nature, together with the endless food forspeculation which metaphysical subjects offer, prevent thepossibility that such a period should ever arrive.

It is by no means one of the wisest sayings of Solomon, that"there is no new thing under the sun." On the contrary, it isprobable, that were the present system to continue for millions ofyears, continual additions would be making to the mass of humanknowledge; and yet, perhaps, it may be a matter of doubt, whether,what may be called the capacity of mind, be in any marked anddecided manner increasing. A Socrates, a Plato, or an Aristotle,however confessedly inferior in knowledge to the philosophers ofthe present day, do not appear to have been much below them inintellectual capacity. Intellect rises from a speck, continues invigour only for a certain period, and will not, perhaps, admit,while on earth, of above a certain number of impressions. Theseimpressions may, indeed, be infinitely modified, and from thesevarious modifications, added probably to a difference in thesusceptibility of the original germs, [19] arise the endless diversityof character that we see in the world; but reason and experienceseem both to assure us, that the capacity of individual minds doesnot increase in proportion to the mass of existing knowledge. The finest minds seem to be formed rather by efforts at original thinking, by endeavours to form new combinations, and to discover new truths, than by passively receiving the impressions of other men's ideas. Could we suppose the period arrived, when there was no further hope of future discoveries; and the only employment of mind was to acquire pre-existing knowledge, without any efforts to form new and original combinations; though the mass of human knowledge were a thousand times greater than it is at present; yet it is evident that one of the noblest stimulantsto mental exertion would have ceased; the finest feature ofintellect would be lost; everything allied to genius would be atan end; and it appears to be impossible, that, under suchcircumstances, any individuals could possess the sameintellectual energies, as were possessed by a Locke, a Newton, ora Shakespear, or even by a Socrates, a Plato, an Aristotle or aHomer.

If a revelation from heaven, of which no person could feel thesmallest doubt, were to dispel the mists that now hang overmetaphysical subjects; were to explain the nature and structureof mind, the affections and essences of all substances, the modein which the Supreme Being operates in the works of the creation,and the whole plan and scheme of the Universe; such an accessionof knowledge, so obtained, instead of giving additional vigour andactivity to the human mind, would, in all probability, tend torepress future exertion, and to damp the soaring wings ofintellect.

For this reason I have never considered the doubts anddifficulties that involve some parts of the sacred writings, asany argument against their divine original. The Supreme Beingmight, undoubtedly, have accompanied his revelations to man bysuch a succession of miracles, and of such a nature, as wouldhave produced universal overpowering conviction, and have put anend at once to all hesitation and discussion. But weak as ourreason is to comprehend the plans of the Great Creator, it is yetsufficiently strong, to see the most striking objections to such arevelation. From the little we know of the structure of the humanunderstanding, we must be convinced, that an overpoweringconviction of this kind, instead of tending to the improvementand moral amelioration of man, would act like the touch of atorpedo on all intellectual exertion, and would almost put an endto the existence of virtue. If the scriptural denunciations ofeternal punishment were brought home with the same certainty toevery man's mind, as that the night will follow the day, this onevast and gloomy idea would take such full possession of the humanfaculties, as to leave no room for any other conceptions: theexternal actions of men would be all nearly alike: virtuousconduct would be no indication of virtuous disposition: vice andvirtue would be blended together in one common mass; and thoughthe all-seeing eye of God might distinguish them, they mustnecessarily make the same impressions on man, who can judge onlyfrom external appearances. Under such a dispensation, it isdifficult to conceive how human beings could be formed to adetestation of moral evil, and a love and admiration of God, andof moral excellence.

Our ideas of virtue and vice are not, perhaps, very accurateand well-defined; but few, I think, would call an action reallyvirtuous, which was performed simply and solely from the dread ofa very great punishment, or the expectation of a very greatreward. The fear of the Lord is very justly said to be thebeginning of wisdom; but the end of wisdom is the love of theLord, and the admiration of moral good. The denunciations offuture punishment, contained in the scriptures, seem to be wellcalculated to arrest the progress of the vicious, and awaken theattention of the careless; but we see, from repeated experience,that they are not accompanied with evidence of such a nature, asto overpower the human will, and to make men lead virtuous liveswith vicious dispositions, merely from a dread of hereafter. Agenuine faith, by which I mean a faith that shews itself in allthe virtues of a truly christian life, may generally beconsidered as an indication of an amiable and virtuousdisposition, operated upon more by love than by pure unmixedfear.

When we reflect on the temptations to which man mustnecessarily be exposed in this world, from the structure of hisframe, and the operation of the laws of nature; and theconsequent moral certainty, that many vessels will come out ofthis mighty creative furnace in wrong shapes; it is perfectlyimpossible to conceive, that any of these creatures of God's handcan be condemned to eternal suffering. Could we once admit suchan idea, all our natural conceptions of goodness and justice wouldbe completely overthrown; and we could no longer look up to Godas a merciful and righteous Being. But the doctrine of life and immortality which was brought to light by the gospel, the doctrinethat the end of righteousness is everlasting life, but that thewages of sin are death, is in every respect just and merciful,and worthy of the Great Creator. Nothing can appear moreconsonant to our reason, than that those beings which come out ofthe creative process of the world in lovely and beautiful forms,should be crowned with immortality; while those which come outmisshapen, those whose minds are not suited to a purer andhappier state of existence, should perish and be condemned to mixagain with their original clay. Eternal condemnation of this kindmay be considered as a species of eternal punishment; and it isnot wonderful that it should be represented, sometimes, underimages of suffering. But life and death, salvation anddestruction, are more frequently opposed to each other in the NewTestament than happiness and misery. The Supreme Being would appear to us in a very different view, if we were to consider himas pursuing the creatures that had offended him with eternal hateand torture, instead of merely condemning to their originalinsensibility those beings, that, by the operation of generallaws, had not been formed with qualities suited to a purer stateof happiness.

Life is, generally speaking, a blessing independent of afuture state. It is a gift which the vicious would not always beready to throw away, even if they had no fear of death. Thepartial pain, therefore, that is inflicted by the SupremeCreator, while he is forming numberless beings to a capacity ofthe highest enjoyments, is but as the dust of the balance incomparison of the happiness that is communicated; and we haveevery reason to think, that there is no more evil in the world,than what is absolutely necessary as one of the ingredients inthe mighty process.

The striking necessity of general laws for the formation of intellect, will not in any respect be contradicted by one or twoexceptions; and these evidently not intended for partialpurposes, but calculated to operate upon a great part of mankind,and through many ages. Upon the idea that I have given of theformation of mind, the infringement of the general law of nature,by a divine revelation, will appear in the light of the immediatehand of God mixing new ingredients in the mighty mass, suited tothe particular state of the process, and calculated to give riseto a new and powerful train of impressions, tending to purify,exalt, and improve the human mind. The miracles that accompaniedthese revelations when they had once excited the attention ofmankind, and rendered it a matter of most interesting discussion,whether the doctrine was from God or man, had performed theirpart, had answered the purpose of the Creator; and thesecommunications of the divine will were afterwards left to maketheir way by their own intrinsic excellence; and by operating asmoral motives, gradually to influence and improve, and not tooverpower and stagnate the faculties of man.

It would be, undoubtedly, presumptuous to say, that theSupreme Being could not possibly have effected his purpose in anyother way than that which he has chosen; but as the revelation ofthe divine will, which we possess, is attended with some doubts anddifficulties; and as our reason points out to us the strongestobjections to a revelation, which would force immediate, implicit,universal belief; we have surely just cause to think that thesedoubts and difficulties are no argument against the divine originof the scriptures; and that the species of evidence which theypossess is best suited to the improvement of the human faculties,and the moral amelioration of mankind.

The idea that the impressions and excitements of this worldare the instruments with which the Supreme Being forms matterinto mind; and that the necessity of constant exertion to avoidevil, and to pursue good, is the principal spring of theseimpressions and excitements, seems to smooth many of thedifficulties that occur in a contemplation of human life; andappears to me to give a satisfactory reason for the existence ofnatural and moral evil; and, consequently, for that part of both,and it certainly is not a very small part, which arises from theprinciple of population. But, though upon this supposition, itseems highly improbable that evil should ever be removed from theworld; yet it is evident that this impression would not answerthe apparent purpose of the Creator; it would not act sopowerfully as an excitement to exertion, if the quantity of itdid not diminish or increase, with the activity or the indolenceof man. The continual variations in the weight, and in thedistribution of this pressure, keep alive a constant expectationof throwing it off."Hope springs eternal in the human breast,"Man never is, but always to be blest."

Evil exists in the world, not to create despair, but activity.We are not patiently to submit to it, but to exert ourselves toavoid it. It is not only the interest, but the duty of everyindividual, to use his utmost efforts to remove evil from himself;and from as large a circle as he can influence; and the more heexercises himself in this duty, the more wisely he directs hisefforts, and the more successful these efforts are; the more hewill probably improve and exalt his own mind, and the morecompletely does he appear to fulfil the will of his Creator.

1.

Mr. Godwin calls the wealth that a man receives from his ancestors a mouldy patent. It may, I think, very properly be termed a patent; but I hardly see the propriety of calling it a mouldy one, as it is an article in such constant use.

Chapter VI.

2.

I take these figures from Dr. Price's two volumesof Observations, not having Dr. Styles's pamphlet, from which hequotes, by me.

3.

In instances of this kind the powers of the earth appear tobe fully equal to answer all the demands for food that can be madeupon it by man. But we should be led into an error, if we werethence to suppose that population and food ever really increasein the same ratio. The one is still a geometrical and the otheran arithmetical ratio, that is, one increases by multiplication,and the other by addition. Where there are few people, and agreat quantity of fertile land, the power of the earth to afforda yearly increase of food may be compared to a great reservoir ofwater, supplied by a moderate stream. The faster populationincreases, the more help will be got to draw off the water, andconsequently an increasing quantity will be taken every year. Butthe sooner, undoubtedly, will the reservoir be exhausted, and thestreams only remain. When acre has been added to acre, till allthe fertile land is occupied, the yearly increase of food willdepend upon the amelioration of the land already in possession;and even this moderate stream will be gradually diminishing. Butpopulation, could it be supplied with food, would go on withunexhausted vigour, and the increase of one period would furnishthe power of a greater increase the next, and this without anylimit.

Chapter VII.

4.

See Dr. Price's Observations, 2 Vol. Postscript to the controversy on the population of England and Wales.

5.

I say cæteris paribus, because the increase of the produce of any country will always very greatly depend on the spirit of industry thatprevails, and the way in which it is directed. The knowledge andhabits of the people, and other temporary causes, particularlythe degree of civil liberty and equality existing at the time,must always have great influence in exciting and directing thisspirit.

Chapter VIII.

6.

To save time and long quotations, I shall here givethe substance of some of Mr. Condorcet's sentiments, and hope Ishall not misrepresent them, but I refer the reader to the workitself, which will amuse, if it does not convince him.

Chapter IX.

7.

Many, I doubt not, will think that the attempting gravely to controvert so absurd a paradox, as the immortality of man on earth, or indeed, even the perfectibility of man and society, is a waste of time and words; and that such unfounded conjectures are best answered by neglect. I profess, however, to be of a different opinion. When paradoxes of this kind are advanced by ingenious and able men, neglect has no tendency to convince them of their mistakes. Priding themselves on what they conceive to be a mark of the reach and size of their own understandings, of the extent and comprehensiveness of their views; they will look upon this neglect merely as an indication of poverty, and narrowness, in the mental exertions of their contemporaries; and only think, that the world is not yet prepared to receive their sublime truths.

On the contrary, a candid investigation of these subjects, accompanied with a perfect readiness to adopt any theory, warranted by sound philosophy, may have a tendency to convince them, that in forming improbable and unfounded hypotheses, so far from enlarging the bounds of human science, they are contracting it; so far from promoting the improvement of the human mind, they are obstructing it: they are throwing us back again almost into the infancy of knowledge; and weakening the foundations of that mode of philosophising, under the auspices of which, science has of late made such rapid advances. The present rage for wide and unrestrained speculation, seems to be a kind of mental intoxication, arising, perhaps, from the great and unexpected discoveries which have been made of late years, in various branches of science. To men elate, and giddy with such successes, every thing appeared to be within the grasp of human powers; and, under this illusion, they confounded subjects where no real progress could be proved, with those, where the progress had been marked, certain, and acknowledged. Could they be persuaded to sober themselves with a little severe and chastized thinking, they would see, that the cause of truth, and of sound philosophy, cannot but suffer by substituting wild flights and unsupported assertions, for patient investigation, and well authenticated proofs.

Chapter X.

8.

See B. 8. Chap. 8. P. 504.

9.

B. 8. C. 3. P. 340.

Chapter XI.

10.

B. 1. C. 5. P. 73.

Chapter XII.

11.

When we extend our view beyond this life, it is evident thatwe can have no other guides than authority, or conjecture, andperhaps, indeed, an obscure and undefined feeling. What I sayhere, therefore, does not appear to me in any respect tocontradict what I said before, when I observed that it wasunphilosophical to expect any specifick event that was notindicated by some kind of analogy in the past. In ranging beyondthe bourne from which no traveller returns, we must necessarilyquit this rule; but with regard to events that may be expected tohappen on earth, we can seldom quit it consistently with truephilosophy. Analogy has, however, as I conceive, great latitude.For instance, man has discovered many of the laws of nature:analogy seems to indicate that he will discover many more; but noanalogy seems to indicate that he will discover a sixth sense, ora new species of power in the human mind, entirely beyond thetrain of our present observations.

12.

The powers of selection, combination, and transmutation,which every seed shews, are truly miraculous. Who can imaginethat these wonderful faculties are contained in these little bitsof matter? To me it appears much more philosophical to supposethat the mighty God of nature is present in full energy in allthese operations. To this all powerful Being, it would be equallyeasy to raise an oak without an acorn as with one. Thepreparatory process of putting seeds into the ground, is merelyordained for the use of man, as one among the various otherexcitements necessary to awaken matter into mind. It is an ideathat will be found, consistent equally with the natural phenomenaaround us, with the various events of human life, and with thesuccessive Revelations of God to man, to suppose that the worldis a mighty process for the creation and formation of mind. Manyvessels will necessarily come out of this great furnace in wrongshapes. These will be broken and thrown aside as useless; whilethose vessels whose forms are full of truth, grace, andloveliness, will be wafted into happier situations, nearer thepresence of the mighty maker.

13.

Though Mr. Godwin advances the idea of the indefinite prolongation of human life, merely as a conjecture, yet as he has produced some appearances, which in his conception favour the supposition, he must certainly intend that these appearances should be examined; and this is all that I have meant to do.

Chapter XIII.

14.

B. 1. C. 5. P. 89.

Chapter XV.

15.

It should be observed, that the principal argument of thisessay only goes to prove the necessity of a class of proprietors,and a class of labourers, but by no means infers, that the presentgreat inequality of property, is either necessary or useful tosociety. On the contrary, it must certainly be considered as anevil, and every institution that promotes it, is essentially badand impolitic. But whether a government could with advantage tosociety actively interfere to repress inequality of fortunes, maybe a matter of doubt. Perhaps the generous system of perfectliberty, adopted by Dr. Adam Smith, and the French œconomists wouldbe ill exchanged for any system of restraint.

16.

Mr. Godwin seems to have but little respect for practicalprinciples; but I own it appears to me, that he is a much greaterbenefactor to mankind, who points out how an inferior good may beattained, than he who merely expatiates on the deformity of thepresent state of society, and the beauty of a different state,without pointing out a practical method, that might beimmediately applied, of accelerating our advances from the one,to the other.

Chapter XVII.

17.

Vol. 2, page 243.

Chapter XVIII.

18.

It was my intention to have entered at some lengthinto this subject, as a kind of second part to the essay. A longinterruption, from particular business, has obliged me to layaside this intention, at least for the present. I shall now,therefore, only give a sketch of a few of the leadingcircumstances that appear to me to favour the general suppositionthat I have advanced.

Chapter XIX.

19.

It is probable that no two grains of wheat are exactly alike. Soilundoubtedly makes the principal difference in the blades thatspring up; but probably not all. It seems natural to suppose somesort of difference in the original germs that are afterwardsawakened into thought; and the extraordinary difference ofsusceptibility in very young children seems to confirm thesupposition.

Table of Contents

About Liberty Fund

About The Online Library of Liberty

Copyright and Fair Use

CONTENTS

Preface

Chapter I

Chapter II

Chapter III

Chapter IV

Chapter V

Chapter VI

Chapter VII

Chapter VIII

Chapter IX

Chapter X

Chapter XI

Chapter XII

Chapter XIII

Chapter XIV

Chapter XV

Chapter XVI

Chapter XVII

Chapter XVIII

Chapter XIX