{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_4239/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_4239","id":"gutenberg_4239","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4239","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Economics","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Sociology","Population"],"text":"Produced by Charles Aldarondo.  HTML version by Al Haines.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nAn Essay on the Principle of Population\n\nThomas Malthus\n\n\n\n1798\n\n\n\n\n\nAN ESSAY ON THE PRINCIPLE OF POPULATION, AS IT AFFECTS THE FUTURE\nIMPROVEMENT OF SOCIETY WITH REMARKS ON THE SPECULATIONS OF MR. GODWIN,\nM. CONDORCET, AND OTHER WRITERS.\n\nLONDON, PRINTED FOR J. JOHNSON, IN ST. PAUL'S CHURCH-YARD, 1798.\n\n\n\n\nPreface\n\n\nThe following Essay owes its origin to a conversation with a friend, on\nthe subject of Mr Godwin's essay on avarice and profusion, in his\nEnquirer. The discussion started the general question of the future\nimprovement of society, and the Author at first sat down with an\nintention of merely stating his thoughts to his friend, upon paper, in\na clearer manner than he thought he could do in conversation. But as\nthe subject opened upon him, some ideas occurred, which he did not\nrecollect to have met with before; and as he conceived that every least\nlight, on a topic so generally interesting, might be received with\ncandour, he determined to put his thoughts in a form for publication.\n\nThe Essay might, undoubtedly, have been rendered much more complete by\na collection of a greater number of facts in elucidation of the general\nargument. But a long and almost total interruption from very particular\nbusiness, joined to a desire (perhaps imprudent) of not delaying the\npublication much beyond the time that he originally proposed, prevented\nthe Author from giving to the subject an undivided attention. He\npresumes, however, that the facts which he has adduced will be found to\nform no inconsiderable evidence for the truth of his opinion respecting\nthe future improvement of mankind. As the Author contemplates this\nopinion at present, little more appears to him to be necessary than a\nplain statement, in addition to the most cursory view of society, to\nestablish it.\n\nIt is an obvious truth, which has been taken notice of by many writers,\nthat population must always be kept down to the level of the means of\nsubsistence; but no writer that the Author recollects has inquired\nparticularly into the means by which this level is effected: and it is\na view of these means which forms, to his mind, the strongest obstacle\nin the way to any very great future improvement of society. He hopes it\nwill appear that, in the discussion of this interesting subject, he is\nactuated solely by a love of truth, and not by any prejudices against\nany particular set of men, or of opinions. He professes to have read\nsome of the speculations on the future improvement of society in a\ntemper very different from a wish to find them visionary, but he has\nnot acquired that command over his understanding which would enable him\nto believe what he wishes, without evidence, or to refuse his assent to\nwhat might be unpleasing, when accompanied with evidence.\n\nThe view which he has given of human life has a melancholy hue, but he\nfeels conscious that he has drawn these dark tints from a conviction\nthat they are really in the picture, and not from a jaundiced eye or an\ninherent spleen of disposition. The theory of mind which he has\nsketched in the two last chapters accounts to his own understanding in\na satisfactory manner for the existence of most of the evils of life,\nbut whether it will have the same effect upon others must be left to\nthe judgement of his readers.\n\nIf he should succeed in drawing the attention of more able men to what\nhe conceives to be the principal difficulty in the way to the\nimprovement of society and should, in consequence, see this difficulty\nremoved, even in theory, he will gladly retract his present opinions\nand rejoice in a conviction of his error.\n\n                                     7 June 1798\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER 1\n\nQuestion stated--Little prospect of a determination of it, from the\nenmity of the opposing parties--The principal argument against the\nperfectibility of man and of society has never been fairly\nanswered--Nature of the difficulty arising from population--Outline of\nthe principal argument of the Essay\n\n\nThe great and unlooked for discoveries that have taken place of late\nyears in natural philosophy, the increasing diffusion of general\nknowledge from the extension of the art of printing, the ardent and\nunshackled spirit of inquiry that prevails throughout the lettered and\neven unlettered world, the new and extraordinary lights that have been\nthrown on political subjects which dazzle and astonish the\nunderstanding, and particularly that tremendous phenomenon in the\npolitical horizon, the French Revolution, which, like a blazing comet,\nseems destined either to inspire with fresh life and vigour, or to\nscorch up and destroy the shrinking inhabitants of the earth, have all\nconcurred to lead many able men into the opinion that we were touching\non a period big with the most important changes, changes that would in\nsome measure be decisive of the future fate of mankind.\n\nIt has been said that the great question is now at issue, whether man\nshall henceforth start forwards with accelerated velocity towards\nillimitable, and hitherto unconceived improvement, or be condemned to a\nperpetual oscillation between happiness and misery, and after every\neffort remain still at an immeasurable distance from the wished-for\ngoal.\n\nYet, anxiously as every friend of mankind must look forwards to the\ntermination of this painful suspense, and eagerly as the inquiring mind\nwould hail every ray of light that might assist its view into futurity,\nit is much to be lamented that the writers on each side of this\nmomentous question still keep far aloof from each other. Their mutual\narguments do not meet with a candid examination. The question is not\nbrought to rest on fewer points, and even in theory scarcely seems to\nbe approaching to a decision.\n\nThe advocate for the present order of things is apt to treat the sect\nof speculative philosophers either as a set of artful and designing\nknaves who preach up ardent benevolence and draw captivating pictures\nof a happier state of society only the better to enable them to destroy\nthe present establishments and to forward their own deep-laid schemes\nof ambition, or as wild and mad-headed enthusiasts whose silly\nspeculations and absurd paradoxes are not worthy the attention of any\nreasonable man.\n\nThe advocate for the perfectibility of man, and of society, retorts on\nthe defender of establishments a more than equal contempt. He brands\nhim as the slave of the most miserable and narrow prejudices; or as the\ndefender of the abuses of civil society only because he profits by\nthem. He paints him either as a character who prostitutes his\nunderstanding to his interest, or as one whose powers of mind are not\nof a size to grasp any thing great and noble, who cannot see above five\nyards before him, and who must therefore be utterly unable to take in\nthe views of the enlightened benefactor of mankind.\n\nIn this unamicable contest the cause of truth cannot but suffer. The\nreally good arguments on each side of the question are not allowed to\nhave their proper weight. Each pursues his own theory, little\nsolicitous to correct or improve it by an attention to what is advanced\nby his opponents.\n\nThe friend of the present order of things condemns all political\nspeculations in the gross. He will not even condescend to examine the\ngrounds from which the perfectibility of society is inferred. Much less\nwill he give himself the trouble in a fair and candid manner to attempt\nan exposition of their fallacy.\n\nThe speculative philosopher equally offends against the cause of truth.\nWith eyes fixed on a happier state of society, the blessings of which\nhe paints in the most captivating colours, he allows himself to indulge\nin the most bitter invectives against every present establishment,\nwithout applying his talents to consider the best and safest means of\nremoving abuses and without seeming to be aware of the tremendous\nobstacles that threaten, even in theory, to oppose the progress of man\ntowards perfection.\n\nIt is an acknowledged truth in philosophy that a just theory will\nalways be confirmed by experiment. Yet so much friction, and so many\nminute circumstances occur in practice, which it is next to impossible\nfor the most enlarged and penetrating mind to foresee, that on few\nsubjects can any theory be pronounced just, till all the arguments\nagainst it have been maturely weighed and clearly and consistently\nrefuted.\n\nI have read some of the speculations on the perfectibility of man and\nof society with great pleasure. I have been warmed and delighted with\nthe enchanting picture which they hold forth. I ardently wish for such\nhappy improvements. But I see great, and, to my understanding,\nunconquerable difficulties in the way to them. These difficulties it is\nmy present purpose to state, declaring, at the same time, that so far\nfrom exulting in them, as a cause of triumph over the friends of\ninnovation, nothing would give me greater pleasure than to see them\ncompletely removed.\n\nThe most important argument that I shall adduce is certainly not new.\nThe principles on which it depends have been explained in part by Hume,\nand more at large by Dr Adam Smith. It has been advanced and applied to\nthe present subject, though not with its proper weight, or in the most\nforcible point of view, by Mr Wallace, and it may probably have been\nstated by many writers that I have never met with. I should certainly\ntherefore not think of advancing it again, though I mean to place it in\na point of view in some degree different from any that I have hitherto\nseen, if it had ever been fairly and satisfactorily answered.\n\nThe cause of this neglect on the part of the advocates for the\nperfectibility of mankind is not easily accounted for. I cannot doubt\nthe talents of such men as Godwin and Condorcet. I am unwilling to\ndoubt their candour. To my understanding, and probably to that of most\nothers, the difficulty appears insurmountable. Yet these men of\nacknowledged ability and penetration scarcely deign to notice it, and\nhold on their course in such speculations with unabated ardour and\nundiminished confidence. I have certainly no right to say that they\npurposely shut their eyes to such arguments. I ought rather to doubt\nthe validity of them, when neglected by such men, however forcibly\ntheir truth may strike my own mind. Yet in this respect it must be\nacknowledged that we are all of us too prone to err. If I saw a glass\nof wine repeatedly presented to a man, and he took no notice of it, I\nshould be apt to think that he was blind or uncivil. A juster\nphilosophy might teach me rather to think that my eyes deceived me and\nthat the offer was not really what I conceived it to be.\n\nIn entering upon the argument I must premise that I put out of the\nquestion, at present, all mere conjectures, that is, all suppositions,\nthe probable realization of which cannot be inferred upon any just\nphilosophical grounds. A writer may tell me that he thinks man will\nultimately become an ostrich. I cannot properly contradict him. But\nbefore he can expect to bring any reasonable person over to his\nopinion, he ought to shew that the necks of mankind have been gradually\nelongating, that the lips have grown harder and more prominent, that\nthe legs and feet are daily altering their shape, and that the hair is\nbeginning to change into stubs of feathers. And till the probability of\nso wonderful a conversion can be shewn, it is surely lost time and lost\neloquence to expatiate on the happiness of man in such a state; to\ndescribe his powers, both of running and flying, to paint him in a\ncondition where all narrow luxuries would be contemned, where he would\nbe employed only in collecting the necessaries of life, and where,\nconsequently, each man's share of labour would be light, and his\nportion of leisure ample.\n\nI think I may fairly make two postulata.\n\nFirst, That food is necessary to the existence of man.\n\nSecondly, That the passion between the sexes is necessary and will\nremain nearly in its present state.\n\nThese two laws, ever since we have had any knowledge of mankind, appear\nto have been fixed laws of our nature, and, as we have not hitherto\nseen any alteration in them, we have no right to conclude that they\nwill ever cease to be what they now are, without an immediate act of\npower in that Being who first arranged the system of the universe, and\nfor the advantage of his creatures, still executes, according to fixed\nlaws, all its various operations.\n\nI do not know that any writer has supposed that on this earth man will\nultimately be able to live without food. But Mr Godwin has conjectured\nthat the passion between the sexes may in time be extinguished. As,\nhowever, he calls this part of his work a deviation into the land of\nconjecture, I will not dwell longer upon it at present than to say that\nthe best arguments for the perfectibility of man are drawn from a\ncontemplation of the great progress that he has already made from the\nsavage state and the difficulty of saying where he is to stop. But\ntowards the extinction of the passion between the sexes, no progress\nwhatever has hitherto been made. It appears to exist in as much force\nat present as it did two thousand or four thousand years ago. There are\nindividual exceptions now as there always have been. But, as these\nexceptions do not appear to increase in number, it would surely be a\nvery unphilosophical mode of arguing to infer, merely from the\nexistence of an exception, that the exception would, in time, become\nthe rule, and the rule the exception.\n\nAssuming then my postulata as granted, I say, that the power of\npopulation is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to\nproduce subsistence for man.\n\nPopulation, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio.\nSubsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio. A slight\nacquaintance with numbers will shew the immensity of the first power in\ncomparison of the second.\n\nBy that law of our nature which makes food necessary to the life of\nman, the effects of these two unequal powers must be kept equal.\n\nThis implies a strong and constantly operating check on population from\nthe difficulty of subsistence. This difficulty must fall somewhere and\nmust necessarily be severely felt by a large portion of mankind.\n\nThrough the animal and vegetable kingdoms, nature has scattered the\nseeds of life abroad with the most profuse and liberal hand. She has\nbeen comparatively sparing in the room and the nourishment necessary to\nrear them. The germs of existence contained in this spot of earth, with\nample food, and ample room to expand in, would fill millions of worlds\nin the course of a few thousand years. Necessity, that imperious all\npervading law of nature, restrains them within the prescribed bounds.\nThe race of plants and the race of animals shrink under this great\nrestrictive law. And the race of man cannot, by any efforts of reason,\nescape from it. Among plants and animals its effects are waste of seed,\nsickness, and premature death. Among mankind, misery and vice. The\nformer, misery, is an absolutely necessary consequence of it. Vice is a\nhighly probable consequence, and we therefore see it abundantly\nprevail, but it ought not, perhaps, to be called an absolutely\nnecessary consequence. The ordeal of virtue is to resist all temptation\nto evil.\n\nThis natural inequality of the two powers of population and of\nproduction in the earth, and that great law of our nature which must\nconstantly keep their effects equal, form the great difficulty that to\nme appears insurmountable in the way to the perfectibility of society.\nAll other arguments are of slight and subordinate consideration in\ncomparison of this. I see no way by which man can escape from the\nweight of this law which pervades all animated nature. No fancied\nequality, no agrarian regulations in their utmost extent, could remove\nthe pressure of it even for a single century. And it appears,\ntherefore, to be decisive against the possible existence of a society,\nall the members of which should live in ease, happiness, and\ncomparative leisure; and feel no anxiety about providing the means of\nsubsistence for themselves and families.\n\nConsequently, if the premises are just, the argument is conclusive\nagainst the perfectibility of the mass of mankind.\n\nI have thus sketched the general outline of the argument, but I will\nexamine it more particularly, and I think it will be found that\nexperience, the true source and foundation of all knowledge, invariably\nconfirms its truth.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER 2\n\nThe different ratio in which population and food increase--The\nnecessary effects of these different ratios of increase--Oscillation\nproduced by them in the condition of the lower classes of\nsociety--Reasons why this oscillation has not been so much observed as\nmight be expected--Three propositions on which the general argument of\nthe Essay depends--The different states in which mankind have been\nknown to exist proposed to be examined with reference to these three\npropositions.\n\n\nI said that population, when unchecked, increased in a geometrical\nratio, and subsistence for man in an arithmetical ratio.\n\nLet us examine whether this position be just. I think it will be\nallowed, that no state has hitherto existed (at least that we have any\naccount of) where the manners were so pure and simple, and the means of\nsubsistence so abundant, that no check whatever has existed to early\nmarriages, among the lower classes, from a fear of not providing well\nfor their families, or among the higher classes, from a fear of\nlowering their condition in life. Consequently in no state that we have\nyet known has the power of population been left to exert itself with\nperfect freedom.\n\nWhether the law of marriage be instituted or not, the dictate of nature\nand virtue seems to be an early attachment to one woman. Supposing a\nliberty of changing in the case of an unfortunate choice, this liberty\nwould not affect population till it arose to a height greatly vicious;\nand we are now supposing the existence of a society where vice is\nscarcely known.\n\nIn a state therefore of great equality and virtue, where pure and\nsimple manners prevailed, and where the means of subsistence were so\nabundant that no part of the society could have any fears about\nproviding amply for a family, the power of population being left to\nexert itself unchecked, the increase of the human species would\nevidently be much greater than any increase that has been hitherto\nknown.\n\nIn the United States of America, where the means of subsistence have\nbeen more ample, the manners of the people more pure, and consequently\nthe checks to early marriages fewer, than in any of the modern states\nof Europe, the population has been found to double itself in\ntwenty-five years.\n\nThis ratio of increase, though short of the utmost power of population,\nyet as the result of actual experience, we will take as our rule, and\nsay, that population, when unchecked, goes on doubling itself every\ntwenty-five years or increases in a geometrical ratio.\n\nLet us now take any spot of earth, this Island for instance, and see in\nwhat ratio the subsistence it affords can be supposed to increase. We\nwill begin with it under its present state of cultivation.\n\nIf I allow that by the best possible policy, by breaking up more land\nand by great encouragements to agriculture, the produce of this Island\nmay be doubled in the first twenty-five years, I think it will be\nallowing as much as any person can well demand.\n\nIn the next twenty-five years, it is impossible to suppose that the\nproduce could be quadrupled. It would be contrary to all our knowledge\nof the qualities of land. The very utmost that we can conceive, is,\nthat the increase in the second twenty-five years might equal the\npresent produce. Let us then take this for our rule, though certainly\nfar beyond the truth, and allow that, by great exertion, the whole\nproduce of the Island might be increased every twenty-five years, by a\nquantity of subsistence equal to what it at present produces. The most\nenthusiastic speculator cannot suppose a greater increase than this. In\na few centuries it would make every acre of land in the Island like a\ngarden.\n\nYet this ratio of increase is evidently arithmetical.\n\nIt may be fairly said, therefore, that the means of subsistence\nincrease in an arithmetical ratio. Let us now bring the effects of\nthese two ratios together.\n\nThe population of the Island is computed to be about seven millions,\nand we will suppose the present produce equal to the support of such a\nnumber. In the first twenty-five years the population would be fourteen\nmillions, and the food being also doubled, the means of subsistence\nwould be equal to this increase. In the next twenty-five years the\npopulation would be twenty-eight millions, and the means of subsistence\nonly equal to the support of twenty-one millions. In the next period,\nthe population would be fifty-six millions, and the means of\nsubsistence just sufficient for half that number. And at the conclusion\nof the first century the population would be one hundred and twelve\nmillions and the means of subsistence only equal to the support of\nthirty-five millions, which would leave a population of seventy-seven\nmillions totally unprovided for.\n\nA great emigration necessarily implies unhappiness of some kind or\nother in the country that is deserted. For few persons will leave their\nfamilies, connections, friends, and native land, to seek a settlement\nin untried foreign climes, without some strong subsisting causes of\nuneasiness where they are, or the hope of some great advantages in the\nplace to which they are going.\n\nBut to make the argument more general and less interrupted by the\npartial views of emigration, let us take the whole earth, instead of\none spot, and suppose that the restraints to population were\nuniversally removed. If the subsistence for man that the earth affords\nwas to be increased every twenty-five years by a quantity equal to what\nthe whole world at present produces, this would allow the power of\nproduction in the earth to be absolutely unlimited, and its ratio of\nincrease much greater than we can conceive that any possible exertions\nof mankind could make it.\n\nTaking the population of the world at any number, a thousand millions,\nfor instance, the human species would increase in the ratio of--1, 2,\n4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, etc. and subsistence as--1, 2, 3, 4,\n5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, etc. In two centuries and a quarter, the population\nwould be to the means of subsistence as 512 to 10: in three centuries\nas 4096 to 13, and in two thousand years the difference would be almost\nincalculable, though the produce in that time would have increased to\nan immense extent.\n\nNo limits whatever are placed to the productions of the earth; they may\nincrease for ever and be greater than any assignable quantity, yet\nstill the power of population being a power of a superior order, the\nincrease of the human species can only be kept commensurate to the\nincrease of the means of subsistence by the constant operation of the\nstrong law of necessity acting as a check upon the greater power.\n\nThe effects of this check remain now to be considered.\n\nAmong plants and animals the view of the subject is simple. They are\nall impelled by a powerful instinct to the increase of their species,\nand this instinct is interrupted by no reasoning or doubts about\nproviding for their offspring. Wherever therefore there is liberty, the\npower of increase is exerted, and the superabundant effects are\nrepressed afterwards by want of room and nourishment, which is common\nto animals and plants, and among animals by becoming the prey of others.\n\nThe effects of this check on man are more complicated. Impelled to the\nincrease of his species by an equally powerful instinct, reason\ninterrupts his career and asks him whether he may not bring beings into\nthe world for whom he cannot provide the means of subsistence. In a\nstate of equality, this would be the simple question. In the present\nstate of society, other considerations occur. Will he not lower his\nrank in life? Will he not subject himself to greater difficulties than\nhe at present feels? Will he not be obliged to labour harder? and if he\nhas a large family, will his utmost exertions enable him to support\nthem? May he not see his offspring in rags and misery, and clamouring\nfor bread that he cannot give them? And may he not be reduced to the\ngrating necessity of forfeiting his independence, and of being obliged\nto the sparing hand of charity for support?\n\nThese considerations are calculated to prevent, and certainly do\nprevent, a very great number in all civilized nations from pursuing the\ndictate of nature in an early attachment to one woman. And this\nrestraint almost necessarily, though not absolutely so, produces vice.\nYet in all societies, even those that are most vicious, the tendency to\na virtuous attachment is so strong that there is a constant effort\ntowards an increase of population. This constant effort as constantly\ntends to subject the lower classes of the society to distress and to\nprevent any great permanent amelioration of their condition.\n\nThe way in which, these effects are produced seems to be this. We will\nsuppose the means of subsistence in any country just equal to the easy\nsupport of its inhabitants. The constant effort towards population,\nwhich is found to act even in the most vicious societies, increases the\nnumber of people before the means of subsistence are increased. The\nfood therefore which before supported seven millions must now be\ndivided among seven millions and a half or eight millions. The poor\nconsequently must live much worse, and many of them be reduced to\nsevere distress. The number of labourers also being above the\nproportion of the work in the market, the price of labour must tend\ntoward a decrease, while the price of provisions would at the same time\ntend to rise. The labourer therefore must work harder to earn the same\nas he did before. During this season of distress, the discouragements\nto marriage, and the difficulty of rearing a family are so great that\npopulation is at a stand. In the mean time the cheapness of labour, the\nplenty of labourers, and the necessity of an increased industry amongst\nthem, encourage cultivators to employ more labour upon their land, to\nturn up fresh soil, and to manure and improve more completely what is\nalready in tillage, till ultimately the means of subsistence become in\nthe same proportion to the population as at the period from which we\nset out. The situation of the labourer being then again tolerably\ncomfortable, the restraints to population are in some degree loosened,\nand the same retrograde and progressive movements with respect to\nhappiness are repeated.\n\nThis sort of oscillation will not be remarked by superficial observers,\nand it may be difficult even for the most penetrating mind to calculate\nits periods. Yet that in all old states some such vibration does exist,\nthough from various transverse causes, in a much less marked, and in a\nmuch more irregular manner than I have described it, no reflecting man\nwho considers the subject deeply can well doubt.\n\nMany reasons occur why this oscillation has been less obvious, and less\ndecidedly confirmed by experience, than might naturally be expected.\n\nOne principal reason is that the histories of mankind that we possess\nare histories only of the higher classes. We have but few accounts that\ncan be depended upon of the manners and customs of that part of mankind\nwhere these retrograde and progressive movements chiefly take place. A\nsatisfactory history of this kind, on one people, and of one period,\nwould require the constant and minute attention of an observing mind\nduring a long life. Some of the objects of inquiry would be, in what\nproportion to the number of adults was the number of marriages, to what\nextent vicious customs prevailed in consequence of the restraints upon\nmatrimony, what was the comparative mortality among the children of the\nmost distressed part of the community and those who lived rather more\nat their ease, what were the variations in the real price of labour,\nand what were the observable differences in the state of the lower\nclasses of society with respect to ease and happiness, at different\ntimes during a certain period.\n\nSuch a history would tend greatly to elucidate the manner in which the\nconstant check upon population acts and would probably prove the\nexistence of the retrograde and progressive movements that have been\nmentioned, though the times of their vibrations must necessarily be\nrendered irregular from the operation of many interrupting causes, such\nas the introduction or failure of certain manufactures, a greater or\nless prevalent spirit of agricultural enterprise, years of plenty, or\nyears of scarcity, wars and pestilence, poor laws, the invention of\nprocesses for shortening labour without the proportional extension of\nthe market for the commodity, and, particularly, the difference between\nthe nominal and real price of labour, a circumstance which has perhaps\nmore than any other contributed to conceal this oscillation from common\nview.\n\nIt very rarely happens that the nominal price of labour universally\nfalls, but we well know that it frequently remains the same, while the\nnominal price of provisions has been gradually increasing. This is, in\neffect, a real fall in the price of labour, and during this period the\ncondition of the lower orders of the community must gradually grow\nworse and worse. But the farmers and capitalists are growing rich from\nthe real cheapness of labour. Their increased capitals enable them to\nemploy a greater number of men. Work therefore may be plentiful, and\nthe price of labour would consequently rise. But the want of freedom in\nthe market of labour, which occurs more or less in all communities,\neither from parish laws, or the more general cause of the facility of\ncombination among the rich, and its difficulty among the poor, operates\nto prevent the price of labour from rising at the natural period, and\nkeeps it down some time longer; perhaps till a year of scarcity, when\nthe clamour is too loud and the necessity too apparent to be resisted.\n\nThe true cause of the advance in the price of labour is thus concealed,\nand the rich affect to grant it as an act of compassion and favour to\nthe poor, in consideration of a year of scarcity, and, when plenty\nreturns, indulge themselves in the most unreasonable of all complaints,\nthat the price does not again fall, when a little rejection would shew\nthem that it must have risen long before but from an unjust conspiracy\nof their own.\n\nBut though the rich by unfair combinations contribute frequently to\nprolong a season of distress among the poor, yet no possible form of\nsociety could prevent the almost constant action of misery upon a great\npart of mankind, if in a state of inequality, and upon all, if all were\nequal.\n\nThe theory on which the truth of this position depends appears to me so\nextremely clear that I feel at a loss to conjecture what part of it can\nbe denied.\n\nThat population cannot increase without the means of subsistence is a\nproposition so evident that it needs no illustration.\n\nThat population does invariably increase where there are the means of\nsubsistence, the history of every people that have ever existed will\nabundantly prove.\n\nAnd that the superior power of population cannot be checked without\nproducing misery or vice, the ample portion of these too bitter\ningredients in the cup of human life and the continuance of the\nphysical causes that seem to have produced them bear too convincing a\ntestimony.\n\nBut, in order more fully to ascertain the validity of these three\npropositions, let us examine the different states in which mankind have\nbeen known to exist. Even a cursory review will, I think, be sufficient\nto convince us that these propositions are incontrovertible truths.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER 3\n\nThe savage or hunter state shortly reviewed--The shepherd state, or the\ntribes of barbarians that overran the Roman Empire--The superiority of\nthe power of population to the means of subsistence--the cause of the\ngreat tide of Northern Emigration.\n\n\nIn the rudest state of mankind, in which hunting is the principal\noccupation, and the only mode of acquiring food; the means of\nsubsistence being scattered over a large extent of territory, the\ncomparative population must necessarily be thin. It is said that the\npassion between the sexes is less ardent among the North American\nIndians, than among any other race of men. Yet, notwithstanding this\napathy, the effort towards population, even in this people, seems to be\nalways greater than the means to support it. This appears, from the\ncomparatively rapid population that takes place, whenever any of the\ntribes happen to settle in some fertile spot, and to draw nourishment\nfrom more fruitful sources than that of hunting; and it has been\nfrequently remarked that when an Indian family has taken up its abode\nnear any European settlement, and adopted a more easy and civilized\nmode of life, that one woman has reared five, or six, or more children;\nthough in the savage state it rarely happens that above one or two in a\nfamily grow up to maturity. The same observation has been made with\nregard to the Hottentots near the Cape. These facts prove the superior\npower of population to the means of subsistence in nations of hunters,\nand that this power always shews itself the moment it is left to act\nwith freedom.\n\nIt remains to inquire whether this power can be checked, and its\neffects kept equal to the means of subsistence, without vice or misery.\n\nThe North American Indians, considered as a people, cannot justly be\ncalled free and equal. In all the accounts we have of them, and,\nindeed, of most other savage nations, the women are represented as much\nmore completely in a state of slavery to the men than the poor are to\nthe rich in civilized countries. One half the nation appears to act as\nHelots to the other half, and the misery that checks population falls\nchiefly, as it always must do, upon that part whose condition is lowest\nin the scale of society. The infancy of man in the simplest state\nrequires considerable attention, but this necessary attention the women\ncannot give, condemned as they are to the inconveniences and hardships\nof frequent change of place and to the constant and unremitting\ndrudgery of preparing every thing for the reception of their tyrannic\nlords. These exertions, sometimes during pregnancy or with children at\ntheir backs, must occasion frequent miscarriages, and prevent any but\nthe most robust infants from growing to maturity. Add to these\nhardships of the women the constant war that prevails among savages,\nand the necessity which they frequently labour under of exposing their\naged and helpless parents, and of thus violating the first feelings of\nnature, and the picture will not appear very free from the blot of\nmisery. In estimating the happiness of a savage nation, we must not fix\nour eyes only on the warrior in the prime of life: he is one of a\nhundred: he is the gentleman, the man of fortune, the chances have been\nin his favour and many efforts have failed ere this fortunate being was\nproduced, whose guardian genius should preserve him through the\nnumberless dangers with which he would be surrounded from infancy to\nmanhood. The true points of comparison between two nations seem to be\nthe ranks in each which appear nearest to answer to each other. And in\nthis view, I should compare the warriors in the prime of life with the\ngentlemen, and the women, children, and aged, with the lower classes of\nthe community in civilized states.\n\nMay we not then fairly infer from this short review, or rather, from\nthe accounts that may be referred to of nations of hunters, that their\npopulation is thin from the scarcity of food, that it would immediately\nincrease if food was in greater plenty, and that, putting vice out of\nthe question among savages, misery is the check that represses the\nsuperior power of population and keeps its effects equal to the means\nof subsistence. Actual observation and experience tell us that this\ncheck, with a few local and temporary exceptions, is constantly acting\nnow upon all savage nations, and the theory indicates that it probably\nacted with nearly equal strength a thousand years ago, and it may not\nbe much greater a thousand years hence.\n\nOf the manners and habits that prevail among nations of shepherds, the\nnext state of mankind, we are even more ignorant than of the savage\nstate. But that these nations could not escape the general lot of\nmisery arising from the want of subsistence, Europe, and all the\nfairest countries in the world, bear ample testimony. Want was the goad\nthat drove the Scythian shepherds from their native haunts, like so\nmany famished wolves in search of prey. Set in motion by this all\npowerful cause, clouds of Barbarians seemed to collect from all points\nof the northern hemisphere. Gathering fresh darkness and terror as they\nrolled on, the congregated bodies at length obscured the sun of Italy\nand sunk the whole world in universal night. These tremendous effects,\nso long and so deeply felt throughout the fairest portions of the\nearth, may be traced to the simple cause of the superior power of\npopulation to the means of subsistence.\n\nIt is well known that a country in pasture cannot support so many\ninhabitants as a country in tillage, but what renders nations of\nshepherds so formidable is the power which they possess of moving all\ntogether and the necessity they frequently feel of exerting this power\nin search of fresh pasture for their herds. A tribe that was rich in\ncattle had an immediate plenty of food. Even the parent stock might be\ndevoured in a case of absolute necessity. The women lived in greater\nease than among nations of hunters. The men bold in their united\nstrength and confiding in their power of procuring pasture for their\ncattle by change of place, felt, probably, but few fears about\nproviding for a family. These combined causes soon produced their\nnatural and invariable effect, an extended population. A more frequent\nand rapid change of place became then necessary. A wider and more\nextensive territory was successively occupied. A broader desolation\nextended all around them. Want pinched the less fortunate members of\nthe society, and, at length, the impossibility of supporting such a\nnumber together became too evident to be resisted. Young scions were\nthen pushed out from the parent-stock and instructed to explore fresh\nregions and to gain happier seats for themselves by their swords. 'The\nworld was all before them where to choose.' Restless from present\ndistress, flushed with the hope of fairer prospects, and animated with\nthe spirit of hardy enterprise, these daring adventurers were likely to\nbecome formidable adversaries to all who opposed them. The peaceful\ninhabitants of the countries on which they rushed could not long\nwithstand the energy of men acting under such powerful motives of\nexertion. And when they fell in with any tribes like their own, the\ncontest was a struggle for existence, and they fought with a desperate\ncourage, inspired by the rejection that death was the punishment of\ndefeat and life the prize of victory.\n\nIn these savage contests many tribes must have been utterly\nexterminated. Some, probably, perished by hardship and famine. Others,\nwhose leading star had given them a happier direction, became great and\npowerful tribes, and, in their turns, sent off fresh adventurers in\nsearch of still more fertile seats. The prodigious waste of human life\noccasioned by this perpetual struggle for room and food was more than\nsupplied by the mighty power of population, acting, in some degree,\nunshackled from the consent habit of emigration. The tribes that\nmigrated towards the South, though they won these more fruitful regions\nby continual battles, rapidly increased in number and power, from the\nincreased means of subsistence. Till at length the whole territory,\nfrom the confines of China to the shores of the Baltic, was peopled by\na various race of Barbarians, brave, robust, and enterprising, inured\nto hardship, and delighting in war. Some tribes maintained their\nindependence. Others ranged themselves under the standard of some\nbarbaric chieftain who led them to victory after victory, and what was\nof more importance, to regions abounding in corn, wine, and oil, the\nlong wished for consummation, and great reward of their labours. An\nAlaric, an Attila, or a Zingis Khan, and the chiefs around them, might\nfight for glory, for the fame of extensive conquests, but the true\ncause that set in motion the great tide of northern emigration, and\nthat continued to propel it till it rolled at different periods against\nChina, Persia, Italy, and even Egypt, was a scarcity of food, a\npopulation extended beyond the means of supporting it.\n\nThe absolute population at any one period, in proportion to the extent\nof territory, could never be great, on account of the unproductive\nnature of some of the regions occupied; but there appears to have been\na most rapid succession of human beings, and as fast as some were mowed\ndown by the scythe of war or of famine, others rose in increased\nnumbers to supply their place. Among these bold and improvident\nBarbarians, population was probably but little checked, as in modern\nstates, from a fear of future difficulties. A prevailing hope of\nbettering their condition by change of place, a constant expectation of\nplunder, a power even, if distressed, of selling their children as\nslaves, added to the natural carelessness of the barbaric character,\nall conspired to raise a population which remained to be repressed\nafterwards by famine or war.\n\nWhere there is any inequality of conditions, and among nations of\nshepherds this soon takes place, the distress arising from a scarcity\nof provisions must fall hardest upon the least fortunate members of the\nsociety. This distress also must frequently have been felt by the\nwomen, exposed to casual plunder in the absence of their husbands, and\nsubject to continual disappointments in their expected return.\n\nBut without knowing enough of the minute and intimate history of these\npeople, to point out precisely on what part the distress for want of\nfood chiefly fell, and to what extent it was generally felt, I think we\nmay fairly say, from all the accounts that we have of nations of\nshepherds, that population invariably increased among them whenever, by\nemigration or any other cause, the means of subsistence were increased,\nand that a further population was checked, and the actual population\nkept equal to the means of subsistence, by misery and vice.\n\nFor, independently of any vicious customs that might have prevailed\namongst them with regard to women, which always operate as checks to\npopulation, it must be acknowledged, I think, that the commission of\nwar is vice, and the effect of it misery, and none can doubt the misery\nof want of food.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER 4\n\nState of civilized nations--Probability that Europe is much more\npopulous now than in the time of Julius Caesar--Best criterion of\npopulation--Probable error of Hume in one the criterions that he\nproposes as assisting in an estimate of population--Slow increase of\npopulation at present in most of the states of Europe--The two\nprincipal checks to population--The first, or preventive check examined\nwith regard to England.\n\n\nIn examining the next state of mankind with relation to the question\nbefore us, the state of mixed pasture and tillage, in which with some\nvariation in the proportions the most civilized nations must always\nremain, we shall be assisted in our review by what we daily see around\nus, by actual experience, by facts that come within the scope of every\nman's observation.\n\nNotwithstanding the exaggerations of some old historians, there can\nremain no doubt in the mind of any thinking man that the population of\nthe principal countries of Europe, France, England, Germany, Russia,\nPoland, Sweden, and Denmark is much greater than ever it was in former\ntimes. The obvious reason of these exaggerations is the formidable\naspect that even a thinly peopled nation must have, when collected\ntogether and moving all at once in search of fresh seats. If to this\ntremendous appearance be added a succession at certain intervals of\nsimilar emigrations, we shall not be much surprised that the fears of\nthe timid nations of the South represented the North as a region\nabsolutely swarming with human beings. A nearer and juster view of the\nsubject at present enables us to see that the inference was as absurd\nas if a man in this country, who was continually meeting on the road\ndroves of cattle from Wales and the North, was immediately to conclude\nthat these countries were the most productive of all the parts of the\nkingdom.\n\nThe reason that the greater part of Europe is more populous now than it\nwas in former times, is that the industry of the inhabitants has made\nthese countries produce a greater quantity of human subsistence. For I\nconceive that it may be laid down as a position not to be controverted,\nthat, taking a sufficient extent of territory to include within it\nexportation and importation, and allowing some variation for the\nprevalence of luxury, or of frugal habits, that population constantly\nbears a regular proportion to the food that the earth is made to\nproduce. In the controversy concerning the populousness of ancient and\nmodern nations, could it be clearly ascertained that the average\nproduce of the countries in question, taken altogether, is greater now\nthan it was in the times of Julius Caesar, the dispute would be at once\ndetermined.\n\nWhen we are assured that China is the most fertile country in the\nworld, that almost all the land is in tillage, and that a great part of\nit bears two crops every year, and further, that the people live very\nfrugally, we may infer with certainty that the population must be\nimmense, without busying ourselves in inquiries into the manners and\nhabits of the lower classes and the encouragements to early marriages.\nBut these inquiries are of the utmost importance, and a minute history\nof the customs of the lower Chinese would be of the greatest use in\nascertaining in what manner the checks to a further population operate;\nwhat are the vices, and what are the distresses that prevent an\nincrease of numbers beyond the ability of the country to support.\n\nHume, in his essay on the populousness of ancient and modern nations,\nwhen he intermingles, as he says, an inquiry concerning causes with\nthat concerning facts, does not seem to see with his usual penetration\nhow very little some of the causes he alludes to could enable him to\nform any judgement of the actual population of ancient nations. If any\ninference can be drawn from them, perhaps it should be directly the\nreverse of what Hume draws, though I certainly ought to speak with\ngreat diffidence in dissenting from a man who of all others on such\nsubjects was the least likely to be deceived by first appearances. If I\nfind that at a certain period in ancient history, the encouragements to\nhave a family were great, that early marriages were consequently very\nprevalent, and that few persons remained single, I should infer with\ncertainty that population was rapidly increasing, but by no means that\nit was then actually very great, rather; indeed, the contrary, that it\nwas then thin and that there was room and food for a much greater\nnumber. On the other hand, if I find that at this period the\ndifficulties attending a family were very great, that, consequently,\nfew early marriages took place, and that a great number of both sexes\nremained single, I infer with certainty that population was at a stand,\nand, probably, because the actual population was very great in\nproportion to the fertility of the land and that there was scarcely\nroom and food for more. The number of footmen, housemaids, and other\npersons remaining unmarried in modern states, Hume allows to be rather\nan argument against their population. I should rather draw a contrary\ninference and consider it an argument of their fullness, though this\ninference is not certain, because there are many thinly inhabited\nstates that are yet stationary in their population. To speak,\ntherefore, correctly, perhaps it may be said that the number of\nunmarried persons in proportion to the whole number, existing at\ndifferent periods, in the same or different states will enable us to\njudge whether population at these periods was increasing, stationary,\nor decreasing, but will form no criterion by which we can determine the\nactual population.\n\nThere is, however, a circumstance taken notice of in most of the\naccounts we have of China that it seems difficult to reconcile with\nthis reasoning. It is said that early marriages very generally prevail\nthrough all the ranks of the Chinese. Yet Dr Adam Smith supposes that\npopulation in China is stationary. These two circumstances appear to be\nirreconcilable. It certainly seems very little probable that the\npopulation of China is fast increasing. Every acre of land has been so\nlong in cultivation that we can hardly conceive there is any great\nyearly addition to the average produce. The fact, perhaps, of the\nuniversality of early marriages may not be sufficiently ascertained. If\nit be supposed true, the only way of accounting for the difficulty,\nwith our present knowledge of the subject, appears to be that the\nredundant population, necessarily occasioned by the prevalence of early\nmarriages, must be repressed by occasional famines, and by the custom\nof exposing children, which, in times of distress, is probably more\nfrequent than is ever acknowledged to Europeans. Relative to this\nbarbarous practice, it is difficult to avoid remarking, that there\ncannot be a stronger proof of the distresses that have been felt by\nmankind for want of food, than the existence of a custom that thus\nviolates the most natural principle of the human heart. It appears to\nhave been very general among ancient nations, and certainly tended\nrather to increase population.\n\nIn examining the principal states of modern Europe, we shall find that\nthough they have increased very considerably in population since they\nwere nations of shepherds, yet that at present their progress is but\nslow, and instead of doubling their numbers every twenty-five years\nthey require three or four hundred years, or more, for that purpose.\nSome, indeed, may be absolutely stationary, and others even retrograde.\nThe cause of this slow progress in population cannot be traced to a\ndecay of the passion between the sexes. We have sufficient reason to\nthink that this natural propensity exists still in undiminished vigour.\nWhy then do not its effects appear in a rapid increase of the human\nspecies? An intimate view of the state of society in any one country in\nEurope, which may serve equally for all, will enable us to answer this\nquestion, and to say that a foresight of the difficulties attending the\nrearing of a family acts as a preventive check, and the actual\ndistresses of some of the lower classes, by which they are disabled\nfrom giving the proper food and attention to their children, act as a\npositive check to the natural increase of population.\n\nEngland, as one of the most flourishing states of Europe, may be fairly\ntaken for an example, and the observations made will apply with but\nlittle variation to any other country where the population increases\nslowly.\n\nThe preventive check appears to operate in some degree through all the\nranks of society in England. There are some men, even in the highest\nrank, who are prevented from marrying by the idea of the expenses that\nthey must retrench, and the fancied pleasures that they must deprive\nthemselves of, on the supposition of having a family. These\nconsiderations are certainly trivial, but a preventive foresight of\nthis kind has objects of much greater weight for its contemplation as\nwe go lower.\n\nA man of liberal education, but with an income only just sufficient to\nenable him to associate in the rank of gentlemen, must feel absolutely\ncertain that if he marries and has a family he shall be obliged, if he\nmixes at all in society, to rank himself with moderate farmers and the\nlower class of tradesmen. The woman that a man of education would\nnaturally make the object of his choice would be one brought up in the\nsame tastes and sentiments with himself and used to the familiar\nintercourse of a society totally different from that to which she must\nbe reduced by marriage. Can a man consent to place the object of his\naffection in a situation so discordant, probably, to her tastes and\ninclinations? Two or three steps of descent in society, particularly at\nthis round of the ladder, where education ends and ignorance begins,\nwill not be considered by the generality of people as a fancied and\nchimerical, but a real and essential evil. If society be held\ndesirable, it surely must be free, equal, and reciprocal society, where\nbenefits are conferred as well as received, and not such as the\ndependent finds with his patron or the poor with the rich.\n\nThese considerations undoubtedly prevent a great number in this rank of\nlife from following the bent of their inclinations in an early\nattachment. Others, guided either by a stronger passion, or a weaker\njudgement, break through these restraints, and it would be hard indeed,\nif the gratification of so delightful a passion as virtuous love, did\nnot, sometimes, more than counterbalance all its attendant evils. But I\nfear it must be owned that the more general consequences of such\nmarriages are rather calculated to justify than to repress the\nforebodings of the prudent.\n\nThe sons of tradesmen and farmers are exhorted not to marry, and\ngenerally find it necessary to pursue this advice till they are settled\nin some business or farm that may enable them to support a family.\nThese events may not, perhaps, occur till they are far advanced in\nlife. The scarcity of farms is a very general complaint in England. And\nthe competition in every kind of business is so great that it is not\npossible that all should be successful.\n\nThe labourer who earns eighteen pence a day and lives with some degree\nof comfort as a single man, will hesitate a little before he divides\nthat pittance among four or five, which seems to be but just sufficient\nfor one. Harder fare and harder labour he would submit to for the sake\nof living with the woman that he loves, but he must feel conscious, if\nhe thinks at all, that should he have a large family, and any ill luck\nwhatever, no degree of frugality, no possible exertion of his manual\nstrength could preserve him from the heart-rending sensation of seeing\nhis children starve, or of forfeiting his independence, and being\nobliged to the parish for their support. The love of independence is a\nsentiment that surely none would wish to be erased from the breast of\nman, though the parish law of England, it must be confessed, is a\nsystem of all others the most calculated gradually to weaken this\nsentiment, and in the end may eradicate it completely.\n\nThe servants who live in gentlemen's families have restraints that are\nyet stronger to break through in venturing upon marriage. They possess\nthe necessaries, and even the comforts of life, almost in as great\nplenty as their masters. Their work is easy and their food luxurious\ncompared with the class of labourers. And their sense of dependence is\nweakened by the conscious power of changing their masters, if they feel\nthemselves offended. Thus comfortably situated at present, what are\ntheir prospects in marrying? Without knowledge or capital, either for\nbusiness, or farming, and unused and therefore unable, to earn a\nsubsistence by daily labour, their only refuge seems to be a miserable\nale-house, which certainly offers no very enchanting prospect of a\nhappy evening to their lives. By much the greater part, therefore,\ndeterred by this uninviting view of their future situation, content\nthemselves with remaining single where they are.\n\nIf this sketch of the state of society in England be near the truth,\nand I do not conceive that it is exaggerated, it will be allowed that\nthe preventive check to population in this country operates, though\nwith varied force, through all the classes of the community. The same\nobservation will hold true with regard to all old states. The effects,\nindeed, of these restraints upon marriage are but too conspicuous in\nthe consequent vices that are produced in almost every part of the\nworld, vices that are continually involving both sexes in inextricable\nunhappiness.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER 5\n\nThe second, or positive check to population examined, in England--The\ntrue cause why the immense sum collected in England for the poor does\nnot better their condition--The powerful tendency of the poor laws to\ndefeat their own purpose--Palliative of the distresses of the poor\nproposed--The absolute impossibility, from the fixed laws of our\nnature, that the pressure of want can ever be completely removed from\nthe lower classes of society--All the checks to population may be\nresolved into misery or vice.\n\n\nThe positive check to population, by which I mean the check that\nrepresses an increase which is already begun, is confined chiefly,\nthough not perhaps solely, to the lowest orders of society.\n\nThis check is not so obvious to common view as the other I have\nmentioned, and, to prove distinctly the force and extent of its\noperation would require, perhaps, more data than we are in possession\nof. But I believe it has been very generally remarked by those who have\nattended to bills of mortality that of the number of children who die\nannually, much too great a proportion belongs to those who may be\nsupposed unable to give their offspring proper food and attention,\nexposed as they are occasionally to severe distress and confined,\nperhaps, to unwholesome habitations and hard labour. This mortality\namong the children of the poor has been constantly taken notice of in\nall towns. It certainly does not prevail in an equal degree in the\ncountry, but the subject has not hitherto received sufficient attention\nto enable anyone to say that there are not more deaths in proportion\namong the children of the poor, even in the country, than among those\nof the middling and higher classes. Indeed, it seems difficult to\nsuppose that a labourer's wife who has six children, and who is\nsometimes in absolute want of bread, should be able always to give them\nthe food and attention necessary to support life. The sons and\ndaughters of peasants will not be found such rosy cherubs in real life\nas they are described to be in romances. It cannot fail to be remarked\nby those who live much in the country that the sons of labourers are\nvery apt to be stunted in their growth, and are a long while arriving\nat maturity. Boys that you would guess to be fourteen or fifteen are,\nupon inquiry, frequently found to be eighteen or nineteen. And the lads\nwho drive plough, which must certainly be a healthy exercise, are very\nrarely seen with any appearance of calves to their legs: a circumstance\nwhich can only be attributed to a want either of proper or of\nsufficient nourishment.\n\nTo remedy the frequent distresses of the common people, the poor laws\nof England have been instituted; but it is to be feared, that though\nthey may have alleviated a little the intensity of individual\nmisfortune, they have spread the general evil over a much larger\nsurface. It is a subject often started in conversation and mentioned\nalways as a matter of great surprise that, notwithstanding the immense\nsum that is annually collected for the poor in England, there is still\nso much distress among them. Some think that the money must be\nembezzled, others that the church-wardens and overseers consume the\ngreater part of it in dinners. All agree that somehow or other it must\nbe very ill-managed. In short the fact that nearly three millions are\ncollected annually for the poor and yet that their distresses are not\nremoved is the subject of continual astonishment. But a man who sees a\nlittle below the surface of things would be very much more astonished\nif the fact were otherwise than it is observed to be, or even if a\ncollection universally of eighteen shillings in the pound, instead of\nfour, were materially to alter it. I will state a case which I hope\nwill elucidate my meaning.\n\nSuppose that by a subscription of the rich the eighteen pence a day\nwhich men earn now was made up five shillings, it might be imagined,\nperhaps, that they would then be able to live comfortably and have a\npiece of meat every day for their dinners. But this would be a very\nfalse conclusion. The transfer of three shillings and sixpence a day to\nevery labourer would not increase the quantity of meat in the country.\nThere is not at present enough for all to have a decent share. What\nwould then be the consequence? The competition among the buyers in the\nmarket of meat would rapidly raise the price from sixpence or\nsevenpence, to two or three shillings in the pound, and the commodity\nwould not be divided among many more than it is at present. When an\narticle is scarce, and cannot be distributed to all, he that can shew\nthe most valid patent, that is, he that offers most money, becomes the\npossessor. If we can suppose the competition among the buyers of meat\nto continue long enough for a greater number of cattle to be reared\nannually, this could only be done at the expense of the corn, which\nwould be a very disadvantagous exchange, for it is well known that the\ncountry could not then support the same population, and when\nsubsistence is scarce in proportion to the number of people, it is of\nlittle consequence whether the lowest members of the society possess\neighteen pence or five shillings. They must at all events be reduced to\nlive upon the hardest fare and in the smallest quantity.\n\nIt will be said, perhaps, that the increased number of purchasers in\nevery article would give a spur to productive industry and that the\nwhole produce of the island would be increased. This might in some\ndegree be the case. But the spur that these fancied riches would give\nto population would more than counterbalance it, and the increased\nproduce would be to be divided among a more than proportionably\nincreased number of people. All this time I am supposing that the same\nquantity of work would be done as before. But this would not really\ntake place. The receipt of five shillings a day, instead of eighteen\npence, would make every man fancy himself comparatively rich and able\nto indulge himself in many hours or days of leisure. This would give a\nstrong and immediate check to productive industry, and, in a short\ntime, not only the nation would be poorer, but the lower classes\nthemselves would be much more distressed than when they received only\neighteen pence a day.\n\nA collection from the rich of eighteen shillings in the pound, even if\ndistributed in the most judicious manner, would have a little the same\neffect as that resulting from the supposition I have just made, and no\npossible contributions or sacrifices of the rich, particularly in\nmoney, could for any time prevent the recurrence of distress among the\nlower members of society, whoever they were. Great changes might,\nindeed, be made. The rich might become poor, and some of the poor rich,\nbut a part of the society must necessarily feel a difficulty of living,\nand this difficulty will naturally fall on the least fortunate members.\n\nIt may at first appear strange, but I believe it is true, that I cannot\nby means of money raise a poor man and enable him to live much better\nthan he did before, without proportionably depressing others in the\nsame class. If I retrench the quantity of food consumed in my house,\nand give him what I have cut off, I then benefit him, without\ndepressing any but myself and family, who, perhaps, may be well able to\nbear it. If I turn up a piece of uncultivated land, and give him the\nproduce, I then benefit both him and all the members of the society,\nbecause what he before consumed is thrown into the common stock, and\nprobably some of the new produce with it. But if I only give him money,\nsupposing the produce of the country to remain the same, I give him a\ntitle to a larger share of that produce than formerly, which share he\ncannot receive without diminishing the shares of others. It is evident\nthat this effect, in individual instances, must be so small as to be\ntotally imperceptible; but still it must exist, as many other effects\ndo, which, like some of the insects that people the air, elude our\ngrosser perceptions.\n\nSupposing the quantity of food in any country to remain the same for\nmany years together, it is evident that this food must be divided\naccording to the value of each man's patent, or the sum of money that\nhe can afford to spend on this commodity so universally in request. (Mr\nGodwin calls the wealth that a man receives from his ancestors a mouldy\npatent. It may, I think, very properly be termed a patent, but I hardly\nsee the propriety of calling it a mouldy one, as it is an article in\nsuch constant use.) It is a demonstrative truth, therefore, that the\npatents of one set of men could not be increased in value without\ndiminishing the value of the patents of some other set of men. If the\nrich were to subscribe and give five shillings a day to five hundred\nthousand men without retrenching their own tables, no doubt can exist,\nthat as these men would naturally live more at their ease and consume a\ngreater quantity of provisions, there would be less food remaining to\ndivide among the rest, and consequently each man's patent would be\ndiminished in value or the same number of pieces of silver would\npurchase a smaller quantity of subsistence.\n\nAn increase of population without a proportional increase of food will\nevidently have the same effect in lowering the value of each man's\npatent. The food must necessarily be distributed in smaller quantities,\nand consequently a day's labour will purchase a smaller quantity of\nprovisions. An increase in the price of provisions would arise either\nfrom an increase of population faster than the means of subsistence, or\nfrom a different distribution of the money of the society. The food of\na country that has been long occupied, if it be increasing, increases\nslowly and regularly and cannot be made to answer any sudden demands,\nbut variations in the distribution of the money of a society are not\ninfrequently occurring, and are undoubtedly among the causes that\noccasion the continual variations which we observe in the price of\nprovisions.\n\nThe poor laws of England tend to depress the general condition of the\npoor in these two ways. Their first obvious tendency is to increase\npopulation without increasing the food for its support. A poor man may\nmarry with little or no prospect of being able to support a family in\nindependence. They may be said therefore in some measure to create the\npoor which they maintain, and as the provisions of the country must, in\nconsequence of the increased population, be distributed to every man in\nsmaller proportions, it is evident that the labour of those who are not\nsupported by parish assistance will purchase a smaller quantity of\nprovisions than before and consequently more of them must be driven to\nask for support.\n\nSecondly, the quantity of provisions consumed in workhouses upon a part\nof the society that cannot in general be considered as the most\nvaluable part diminishes the shares that would otherwise belong to more\nindustrious and more worthy members, and thus in the same manner forces\nmore to become dependent. If the poor in the workhouses were to live\nbetter than they now do, this new distribution of the money of the\nsociety would tend more conspicuously to depress the condition of those\nout of the workhouses by occasioning a rise in the price of provisions.\n\nFortunately for England, a spirit of independence still remains among\nthe peasantry. The poor laws are strongly calculated to eradicate this\nspirit. They have succeeded in part, but had they succeeded as\ncompletely as might have been expected their pernicious tendency would\nnot have been so long concealed.\n\nHard as it may appear in individual instances, dependent poverty ought\nto be held disgraceful. Such a stimulus seems to be absolutely\nnecessary to promote the happiness of the great mass of mankind, and\nevery general attempt to weaken this stimulus, however benevolent its\napparent intention, will always defeat its own purpose. If men are\ninduced to marry from a prospect of parish provision, with little or no\nchance of maintaining their families in independence, they are not only\nunjustly tempted to bring unhappiness and dependence upon themselves\nand children, but they are tempted, without knowing it, to injure all\nin the same class with themselves. A labourer who marries without being\nable to support a family may in some respects be considered as an enemy\nto all his fellow-labourers.\n\nI feel no doubt whatever that the parish laws of England have\ncontributed to raise the price of provisions and to lower the real\nprice of labour. They have therefore contributed to impoverish that\nclass of people whose only possession is their labour. It is also\ndifficult to suppose that they have not powerfully contributed to\ngenerate that carelessness and want of frugality observable among the\npoor, so contrary to the disposition frequently to be remarked among\npetty tradesmen and small farmers. The labouring poor, to use a vulgar\nexpression, seem always to live from hand to mouth. Their present wants\nemploy their whole attention, and they seldom think of the future. Even\nwhen they have an opportunity of saving they seldom exercise it, but\nall that is beyond their present necessities goes, generally speaking,\nto the ale-house. The poor laws of England may therefore be said to\ndiminish both the power and the will to save among the common people,\nand thus to weaken one of the strongest incentives to sobriety and\nindustry, and consequently to happiness.\n\nIt is a general complaint among master manufacturers that high wages\nruin all their workmen, but it is difficult to conceive that these men\nwould not save a part of their high wages for the future support of\ntheir families, instead of spending it in drunkenness and dissipation,\nif they did not rely on parish assistance for support in case of\naccidents. And that the poor employed in manufactures consider this\nassistance as a reason why they may spend all the wages they earn and\nenjoy themselves while they can appears to be evident from the number\nof families that, upon the failure of any great manufactory,\nimmediately fall upon the parish, when perhaps the wages earned in this\nmanufactory while it flourished were sufficiently above the price of\ncommon country labour to have allowed them to save enough for their\nsupport till they could find some other channel for their industry.\n\nA man who might not be deterred from going to the ale-house from the\nconsideration that on his death, or sickness, he should leave his wife\nand family upon the parish might yet hesitate in thus dissipating his\nearnings if he were assured that, in either of these cases, his family\nmust starve or be left to the support of casual bounty. In China, where\nthe real as well as nominal price of labour is very low, sons are yet\nobliged by law to support their aged and helpless parents. Whether such\na law would be advisable in this country I will not pretend to\ndetermine. But it seems at any rate highly improper, by positive\ninstitutions, which render dependent poverty so general, to weaken that\ndisgrace, which for the best and most humane reasons ought to attach to\nit.\n\nThe mass of happiness among the common people cannot but be diminished\nwhen one of the strongest checks to idleness and dissipation is thus\nremoved, and when men are thus allured to marry with little or no\nprospect of being able to maintain a family in independence. Every\nobstacle in the way of marriage must undoubtedly be considered as a\nspecies of unhappiness. But as from the laws of our nature some check\nto population must exist, it is better that it should be checked from a\nforesight of the difficulties attending a family and the fear of\ndependent poverty than that it should be encouraged, only to be\nrepressed afterwards by want and sickness.\n\nIt should be remembered always that there is an essential difference\nbetween food and those wrought commodities, the raw materials of which\nare in great plenty. A demand for these last will not fail to create\nthem in as great a quantity as they are wanted. The demand for food has\nby no means the same creative power. In a country where all the fertile\nspots have been seized, high offers are necessary to encourage the\nfarmer to lay his dressing on land from which he cannot expect a\nprofitable return for some years. And before the prospect of advantage\nis sufficiently great to encourage this sort of agricultural\nenterprise, and while the new produce is rising, great distresses may\nbe suffered from the want of it. The demand for an increased quantity\nof subsistence is, with few exceptions, constant everywhere, yet we see\nhow slowly it is answered in all those countries that have been long\noccupied.\n\nThe poor laws of England were undoubtedly instituted for the most\nbenevolent purpose, but there is great reason to think that they have\nnot succeeded in their intention. They certainly mitigate some cases of\nvery severe distress which might otherwise occur, yet the state of the\npoor who are supported by parishes, considered in all its\ncircumstances, is very far from being free from misery. But one of the\nprincipal objections to them is that for this assistance which some of\nthe poor receive, in itself almost a doubtful blessing, the whole class\nof the common people of England is subjected to a set of grating,\ninconvenient, and tyrannical laws, totally inconsistent with the\ngenuine spirit of the constitution. The whole business of settlements,\neven in its present amended state, is utterly contradictory to all\nideas of freedom. The parish persecution of men whose families are\nlikely to become chargeable, and of poor women who are near lying-in,\nis a most disgraceful and disgusting tyranny. And the obstructions\ncontinuity occasioned in the market of labour by these laws have a\nconstant tendency to add to the difficulties of those who are\nstruggling to support themselves without assistance.\n\nThese evils attendant on the poor laws are in some degree irremediable.\nIf assistance be to be distributed to a certain class of people, a\npower must be given somewhere of discriminating the proper objects and\nof managing the concerns of the institutions that are necessary, but\nany great interference with the affairs of other people is a species of\ntyranny, and in the common course of things the exercise of this power\nmay be expected to become grating to those who are driven to ask for\nsupport. The tyranny of Justices, Church-wardens, and Overseers, is a\ncommon complaint among the poor, but the fault does not lie so much in\nthese persons, who probably, before they were in power, were not worse\nthan other people, but in the nature of all such institutions.\n\nThe evil is perhaps gone too far to be remedied, but I feel little\ndoubt in my own mind that if the poor laws had never existed, though\nthere might have been a few more instances of very severe distress, yet\nthat the aggregate mass of happiness among the common people would have\nbeen much greater than it is at present.\n\nMr Pitt's Poor Bill has the appearance of being framed with benevolent\nintentions, and the clamour raised against it was in many respects ill\ndirected, and unreasonable. But it must be confessed that it possesses\nin a high degree the great and radical defect of all systems of the\nkind, that of tending to increase population without increasing the\nmeans for its support, and thus to depress the condition of those that\nare not supported by parishes, and, consequently, to create more poor.\n\nTo remove the wants of the lower classes of society is indeed an\narduous task. The truth is that the pressure of distress on this part\nof a community is an evil so deeply seated that no human ingenuity can\nreach it. Were I to propose a palliative, and palliatives are all that\nthe nature of the case will admit, it should be, in the first place,\nthe total abolition of all the present parish-laws. This would at any\nrate give liberty and freedom of action to the peasantry of England,\nwhich they can hardly be said to possess at present. They would then be\nable to settle without interruption, wherever there was a prospect of a\ngreater plenty of work and a higher price for labour. The market of\nlabour would then be free, and those obstacles removed which, as things\nare now, often for a considerable time prevent the price from rising\naccording to the demand.\n\nSecondly, premiums might be given for turning up fresh land, and it\npossible encouragements held out to agriculture above manufactures, and\nto tillage above grazing. Every endeavour should be used to weaken and\ndestroy all those institutions relating to corporations,\napprenticeships, etc., which cause the labours of agriculture to be\nworse paid than the labours of trade and manufactures. For a country\ncan never produce its proper quantity of food while these distinctions\nremain in favour of artisans. Such encouragements to agriculture would\ntend to furnish the market with an increasing quantity of healthy work,\nand at the same time, by augmenting the produce of the country, would\nraise the comparative price of labour and ameliorate the condition of\nthe labourer. Being now in better circumstances, and seeing no prospect\nof parish assistance, he would be more able, as well as more inclined,\nto enter into associations for providing against the sickness of\nhimself or family.\n\nLastly, for cases of extreme distress, county workhouses might be\nestablished, supported by rates upon the whole kingdom, and free for\npersons of all counties, and indeed of all nations. The fare should be\nhard, and those that were able obliged to work. It would be desirable\nthat they should not be considered as comfortable asylums in all\ndifficulties, but merely as places where severe distress might find\nsome alleviation. A part of these houses might be separated, or others\nbuilt for a most beneficial purpose, which has not been infrequently\ntaken notice of, that of providing a place where any person, whether\nnative or foreigner, might do a day's work at all times and receive the\nmarket price for it. Many cases would undoubtedly be left for the\nexertion of individual benevolence.\n\nA plan of this kind, the preliminary of which should be an abolition of\nall the present parish laws, seems to be the best calculated to\nincrease the mass of happiness among the common people of England. To\nprevent the recurrence of misery, is, alas! beyond the power of man. In\nthe vain endeavour to attain what in the nature of things is\nimpossible, we now sacrifice not only possible but certain benefits. We\ntell the common people that if they will submit to a code of tyrannical\nregulations, they shall never be in want. They do submit to these\nregulations. They perform their part of the contract, but we do not,\nnay cannot, perform ours, and thus the poor sacrifice the valuable\nblessing of liberty and receive nothing that can be called an\nequivalent in return.\n\nNotwithstanding, then, the institution of the poor laws in England, I\nthink it will be allowed that considering the state of the lower\nclasses altogether, both in the towns and in the country, the\ndistresses which they suffer from the want of proper and sufficient\nfood, from hard labour and unwholesome habitations, must operate as a\nconstant check to incipient population.\n\nTo these two great checks to population, in all long occupied\ncountries, which I have called the preventive and the positive checks,\nmay be added vicious customs with respect to women, great cities,\nunwholesome manufactures, luxury, pestilence, and war.\n\nAll these checks may be fairly resolved into misery and vice. And that\nthese are the true causes of the slow increase of population in all the\nstates of modern Europe, will appear sufficiently evident from the\ncomparatively rapid increase that has invariably taken place whenever\nthese causes have been in any considerable degree removed.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER 6\n\nNew colonies--Reasons for their rapid increase--North American\nColonies--Extraordinary instance of increase in the back\nsettlements--Rapidity with which even old states recover the ravages of\nwar, pestilence, famine, or the convulsions of nature.\n\n\nIt has been universally remarked that all new colonies settled in\nhealthy countries, where there was plenty of room and food, have\nconstantly increased with astonishing rapidity in their population.\nSome of the colonies from ancient Greece, in no very long period, more\nthan equalled their parent states in numbers and strength. And not to\ndwell on remote instances, the European settlements in the new world\nbear ample testimony to the truth of a remark, which, indeed, has\nnever, that I know of, been doubted. A plenty of rich land, to be had\nfor little or nothing, is so powerful a cause of population as to\novercome all other obstacles. No settlements could well have been worse\nmanaged than those of Spain in Mexico, Peru, and Quito. The tyranny,\nsuperstition, and vices of the mother-country were introduced in ample\nquantities among her children. Exorbitant taxes were exacted by the\nCrown. The most arbitrary restrictions were imposed on their trade. And\nthe governors were not behind hand in rapacity and extortion for\nthemselves as well as their master. Yet, under all these difficulties,\nthe colonies made a quick progress in population. The city of Lima,\nfounded since the conquest, is represented by Ulloa as containing fifty\nthousand inhabitants near fifty years ago. Quito, which had been but a\nhamlet of indians, is represented by the same author as in his time\nequally populous. Mexico is said to contain a hundred thousand\ninhabitants, which, notwithstanding the exaggerations of the Spanish\nwriters, is supposed to be five times greater than what it contained in\nthe time of Montezuma.\n\nIn the Portuguese colony of Brazil, governed with almost equal tyranny,\nthere were supposed to be, thirty years since, six hundred thousand\ninhabitants of European extraction.\n\nThe Dutch and French colonies, though under the government of exclusive\ncompanies of merchants, which, as Dr Adam Smith says very justly, is\nthe worst of all possible governments, still persisted in thriving\nunder every disadvantage.\n\nBut the English North American colonies, now the powerful people of the\nUnited States of America, made by far the most rapid progress. To the\nplenty of good land which they possessed in common with the Spanish and\nPortuguese settlements, they added a greater degree of liberty and\nequality. Though not without some restrictions on their foreign\ncommerce, they were allowed a perfect liberty of managing their own\ninternal affairs. The political institutions that prevailed were\nfavourable to the alienation and division of property. Lands that were\nnot cultivated by the proprietor within a limited time were declared\ngrantable to any other person. In Pennsylvania there was no right of\nprimogeniture, and in the provinces of New England the eldest had only\na double share. There were no tithes in any of the States, and scarcely\nany taxes. And on account of the extreme cheapness of good land a\ncapital could not be more advantageously employed than in agriculture,\nwhich at the same time that it supplies the greatest quantity of\nhealthy work affords much the most valuable produce to the society.\n\nThe consequence of these favourable circumstances united was a rapidity\nof increase probably without parallel in history. Throughout all the\nnorthern colonies, the population was found to double itself in\ntwenty-five years. The original number of persons who had settled in\nthe four provinces of new England in 1643 was 21,200.(I take these\nfigures from Dr Price's two volumes of Observations; not having Dr\nStyles' pamphlet, from which he quotes, by me.) Afterwards, it is\nsupposed that more left them than went to them. In the year 1760, they\nwere increased to half a million. They had therefore all along doubled\ntheir own number in twenty-five years. In New Jersey the period of\ndoubling appeared to be twenty-two years; and in Rhode island still\nless. In the back settlements, where the inhabitants applied themselves\nsolely to agriculture, and luxury was not known, they were found to\ndouble their own number in fifteen years, a most extraordinary instance\nof increase. Along the sea coast, which would naturally be first\ninhabited, the period of doubling was about thirty-five years; and in\nsome of the maritime towns, the population was absolutely at a stand.\n\n(In instances of this kind the powers of the earth appear to be fully\nequal to answer it the demands for food that can be made upon it by\nman. But we should be led into an error if we were thence to suppose\nthat population and food ever really increase in the same ratio. The\none is still a geometrical and the other an arithmetical ratio, that\nis, one increases by multiplication, and the other by addition. Where\nthere are few people, and a great quantity of fertile land, the power\nof the earth to afford a yearly increase of food may be compared to a\ngreat reservoir of water, supplied by a moderate stream. The faster\npopulation increases, the more help will be got to draw off the water,\nand consequently an increasing quantity will be taken every year. But\nthe sooner, undoubtedly, will the reservoir be exhausted, and the\nstreams only remain. When acre has been added to acre, till all the\nfertile land is occupied, the yearly increase of food will depend upon\nthe amelioration of the land already in possession; and even this\nmoderate stream will be gradually diminishing. But population, could it\nbe supplied with food, would go on with unexhausted vigour, and the\nincrease of one period would furnish the power of a greater increase\nthe next, and this without any limit.)\n\nThese facts seem to shew that population increases exactly in the\nproportion that the two great checks to it, misery and vice, are\nremoved, and that there is not a truer criterion of the happiness and\ninnocence of a people than the rapidity of their increase. The\nunwholesomeness of towns, to which some persons are necessarily driven\nfrom the nature of their trades, must be considered as a species of\nmisery, and every the slightest check to marriage, from a prospect of\nthe difficulty of maintaining a family, may be fairly classed under the\nsame head. In short it is difficult to conceive any check to population\nwhich does not come under the description of some species of misery or\nvice.\n\nThe population of the thirteen American States before the war was\nreckoned at about three millions. Nobody imagines that Great Britain is\nless populous at present for the emigration of the small parent stock\nthat produced these numbers. On the contrary, a certain degree of\nemigration is known to be favourable to the population of the mother\ncountry. It has been particularly remarked that the two Spanish\nprovinces from which the greatest number of people emigrated to\nAmerica, became in consequence more populous. Whatever was the original\nnumber of British emigrants that increased so fast in the North\nAmerican Colonies, let us ask, why does not an equal number produce an\nequal increase in the same time in Great Britain? The great and obvious\ncause to be assigned is the want of room and food, or, in other words,\nmisery, and that this is a much more powerful cause even than vice\nappears sufficiently evident from the rapidity with which even old\nstates recover the desolations of war, pestilence, or the accidents of\nnature. They are then for a short time placed a little in the situation\nof new states, and the effect is always answerable to what might be\nexpected. If the industry of the inhabitants be not destroyed by fear\nor tyranny, subsistence will soon increase beyond the wants of the\nreduced numbers, and the invariable consequence will be that population\nwhich before, perhaps, was nearly stationary, will begin immediately to\nincrease.\n\nThe fertile province of Flanders, which has been so often the seat of\nthe most destructive wars, after a respite of a few years, has appeared\nalways as fruitful and as populous as ever. Even the Palatinate lifted\nup its head again after the execrable ravages of Louis the Fourteenth.\nThe effects of the dreadful plague in London in 1666 were not\nperceptible fifteen or twenty years afterwards. The traces of the most\ndestructive famines in China and Indostan are by all accounts very soon\nobliterated. It may even be doubted whether Turkey and Egypt are upon\nan average much less populous for the plagues that periodically lay\nthem waste. If the number of people which they contain be less now than\nformerly, it is, probably, rather to be attributed to the tyranny and\noppression of the government under which they groan, and the consequent\ndiscouragements to agriculture, than to the loss which they sustain by\nthe plague. The most tremendous convulsions of nature, such as volcanic\neruptions and earthquakes, if they do not happen so frequently as to\ndrive away the inhabitants, or to destroy their spirit of industry,\nhave but a trifling effect on the average population of any state.\nNaples, and the country under Vesuvius, are still very populous,\nnotwithstanding the repeated eruptions of that mountain. And Lisbon and\nLima are now, probably, nearly in the same state with regard to\npopulation as they were before the last earthquakes.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER 7\n\nA probable cause of epidemics--Extracts from Mr Suessmilch's\ntables--Periodical returns of sickly seasons to be expected in certain\ncases--Proportion of births to burials for short periods in any country\nan inadequate criterion of the real average increase of\npopulation--Best criterion of a permanent increase of population--Great\nfrugality of living one of the causes of the famines of China and\nIndostan--Evil tendency of one of the clauses in Mr Pitt's Poor\nBill--Only one proper way of encouraging population--Causes of the\nHappiness of nations--Famine, the last and most dreadful mode by which\nnature represses a redundant population--The three propositions\nconsidered as established.\n\n\nBy great attention to cleanliness, the plague seems at length to be\ncompletely expelled from London. But it is not improbable that among\nthe secondary causes that produce even sickly seasons and epidemics\nought to be ranked a crowded population and unwholesome and\ninsufficient food. I have been led to this remark, by looking over some\nof the tables of Mr Suessmilch, which Dr Price has extracted in one of\nhis notes to the postscript on the controversy respecting the\npopulation of England and Wales. They are considered as very correct,\nand if such tables were general, they would throw great light on the\ndifferent ways by which population is repressed and prevented from\nincreasing beyond the means of subsistence in any country. I will\nextract a part of the tables, with Dr Price's remarks.\n\n\n  IN THE KINGDOM OF PRUSSIA, AND DUKEDOM OF LITHUANIA\n\n                                              Proportion   Proportion\n                   Births  Burials Marriages of Births to of Births to\n                                              Marriages     Burials\n  10 Yrs to 1702   21,963  14,718   5,928      37 to 10    150 to 100\n  5 Yrs to 1716    21,602  11,984   4,968      37 to 10    180 to 100\n  5 Yrs to 1756    28,392  19,154   5,599      50 to 10    148 to 100\n\n\"N.B. In 1709 and 1710, a pestilence carried off 247,733 of the\ninhabitants of this country, and in 1736 and 1737, epidemics prevailed,\nwhich again checked its increase.\"\n\n\nIt may be remarked, that the greatest proportion of births to burials,\nwas in the five years after the great pestilence.\n\n\n  DUCHY OF POMERANIA\n\n                                              Proportion   Proportion\n  Annual Average   Births  Burials Marriages of Births to of Births to\n                                              Marriages     Burials\n  6 yrs to 1702   6,540     4,647   1,810      36 to 10    140 to 100\n  6 yrs to 1708   7,455     4,208   1,875      39 to 10    177 to 100\n  6 yrs to 1726   8,432     5,627   2,131      39 to 10    150 to 100\n  6 yrs to 1756  12,767     9,281   2,957      43 to 10    137 to 100\n\n\"In this instance the inhabitants appear to have been almost doubled in\nfifty-six years, no very bad epidemics having once interrupted the\nincrease, but the three years immediately follow ing the last period\n(to 1759) were so sickly that the births were sunk to 10,229 and the\nburials raised to 15,068.\"\n\n\nIs it not probable that in this case the number of inhabitants had\nincreased faster than the food and the accommodations necessary to\npreserve them in health? The mass of the people would, upon this\nsupposition, be obliged to live harder, and a greater number would be\ncrowded together in one house, and it is not surely improbable that\nthese were among the natural causes that produced the three sickly\nyears. These causes may produce such an effect, though the country,\nabsolutely considered, may not be extremely crowded and populous. In a\ncountry even thinly inhabited, if an increase of population take place,\nbefore more food is raised, and more houses are built, the inhabitants\nmust be distressed in some degree for room and subsistence. Were the\nmarriages in England, for the next eight or ten years, to be more\nprolifick than usual, or even were a greater number of marriages than\nusual to take place, supposing the number of houses to remain the same,\ninstead of five or six to a cottage, there must be seven or eight, and\nthis, added to the necessity of harder living, would probably have a\nvery unfavourable effect on the health of the common people.\n\n\n  NEUMARK OF BRANDENBURGH\n\n                                              Proportion   Proportion\n  Annual Average   Births  Burials Marriages of Births to of Births to\n                                              Marriages    Burials\n  5 yrs to 1701    5,433    3,483  1,436      37 to 10    155 to 100\n  5 yrs to 1726    7,012    4,254  1,713      40 to 10    164 to 100\n  5 yrs to 1756    7,978    5,567  1,891      42 to 10    143 to 100\n\n\"Epidemics prevailed for six years, from 1736, to 1741, which checked\nthe increase.\"\n\n\n  DUKEDOM OF MAGDEBURGH\n\n                                              Proportion   Proportion\n  Annual Average   Births  Burials Marriages of Births to of Births to\n                                              Marriages    Burials\n  5 yrs to 1702    6,431   4,103   1,681      38 to 10    156 to 100\n  5 yrs to 1717    7,590   5,335   2,076      36 to 10    142 to 100\n  5 yrs to 1756    8,850   8,069   2,193      40 to 10    109 to 100\n\n\"The years 1738, 1740, 1750, and 1751, were particularly sickly.\"\n\n\nFor further information on this subject, I refer the reader to Mr\nSuessmilch's tables. The extracts that I have made are sufficient to\nshew the periodical, though irregular, returns of sickly seasons, and\nit seems highly probable that a scantiness of room and food was one of\nthe principal causes that occasioned them.\n\nIt appears from the tables that these countries were increasing rather\nfast for old states, notwithstanding the occasional seasons that\nprevailed. Cultivation must have been improving, and marriages,\nconsequently, encouraged. For the checks to population appear to have\nbeen rather of the positive, than of the preventive kind. When from a\nprospect of increasing plenty in any country, the weight that represses\npopulation is in some degree removed, it is highly probable that the\nmotion will be continued beyond the operation of the cause that first\nimpelled it. Or, to be more particular, when the increasing produce of\na country, and the increasing demand for labour, so far ameliorate the\ncondition of the labourer as greatly to encourage marriage, it is\nprobable that the custom of early marriages will continue till the\npopulation of the country has gone beyond the increased produce, and\nsickly seasons appear to be the natural and necessary consequence. I\nshould expect, therefore, that those countries where subsistence was\nincreasing sufficiency at times to encourage population but not to\nanswer all its demands, would be more subject to periodical epidemics\nthan those where the population could more completely accommodate\nitself to the average produce.\n\nAn observation the converse of this will probably also be found true.\nIn those countries that are subject to periodical sicknesses, the\nincrease of population, or the excess of births above the burials, will\nbe greater in the intervals of these periods than is usual, caeteris\nparibus, in the countries not so much subject to such disorders. If\nTurkey and Egypt have been nearly stationary in their average\npopulation for the last century, in the intervals of their periodical\nplagues, the births must have exceeded the burials in a greater\nproportion than in such countries as France and England.\n\nThe average proportion of births to burials in any country for a period\nof five to ten years, will hence appear to be a very inadequate\ncriterion by which to judge of its real progress in population. This\nproportion certainly shews the rate of increase during those five or\nten years; but we can by no means thence infer what had been the\nincrease for the twenty years before, or what would be the increase for\nthe twenty years after. Dr Price observes that Sweden, Norway, Russia,\nand the kingdom of Naples, are increasing fast; but the extracts from\nregisters that he has given are not for periods of sufficient extent to\nestablish the fact. It is highly probable, however, that Sweden,\nNorway, and Russia, are really increasing their population, though not\nat the rate that the proportion of births to burials for the short\nperiods that Dr Price takes would seem to shew. (See Dr Price's\nObservations, Vol. ii, postscript to the controversy on the population\nof England and Wales.) For five years, ending in 1777, the proportion\nof births to burials in the kingdom of Naples was 144 to 100, but there\nis reason to suppose that this proportion would indicate an increase\nmuch greater than would be really found to have taken place in that\nkingdom during a period of a hundred years.\n\nDr Short compared the registers of many villages and market towns in\nEngland for two periods; the first, from Queen Elizabeth to the middle\nof the last century, and the second, from different years at the end of\nthe last century to the middle of the present. And from a comparison of\nthese extracts, it appears that in the former period the births\nexceeded the burials in the proportion of 124 to 100, but in the\nlatter, only in the proportion of 111 to 100. Dr Price thinks that the\nregisters in the former period are not to be depended upon, but,\nprobably, in this instance they do not give incorrect proportions. At\nleast there are many reasons for expecting to find a greater excess of\nbirths above the burials in the former period than in the latter. In\nthe natural progress of the population of any country, more good land\nwill, caeteris paribus, be taken into cultivation in the earlier stages\nof it than in the later. (I say 'caeteris paribus', because the\nincrease of the produce of any country will always very greatly depend\non the spirit of industry that prevails, and the way in which it is\ndirected. The knowledge and habits of the people, and other temporary\ncauses, particularly the degree of civil liberty and equality existing\nat the time, must always have great influence in exciting and directing\nthis spirit.) And a greater proportional yearly increase of produce\nwill almost invariably be followed by a greater proportional increase\nof population. But, besides this great cause, which would naturally\ngive the excess of births above burials greater at the end of Queen\nElizabeth's reign than in the middle of the present century, I cannot\nhelp thinking that the occasional ravages of the plague in the former\nperiod must have had some tendency to increase this proportion. If an\naverage of ten years had been taken in the intervals of the returns of\nthis dreadful disorder, or if the years of plague had been rejected as\naccidental, the registers would certainly give the proportion of births\nto burials too high for the real average increase of the population.\nFor some few years after the great plague in 1666, it is probable that\nthere was a more than usual excess of births above burials,\nparticularly if Dr Price's opinion be founded, that England was more\npopulous at the revolution (which happened only twenty-two years\nafterwards) than it is at present.\n\nMr King, in 1693, stated the proportion of the births to the burials\nthroughout the Kingdom, exclusive of London, as 115 to 100. Dr Short\nmakes it, in the middle of the present century, 111 to 100, including\nLondon. The proportion in France for five years, ending in 1774, was\n117 to 100. If these statements are near the truth; and if there are no\nvery great variations at particular periods in the proportions, it\nwould appear that the population of France and England has accommodated\nitself very nearly to the average produce of each country. The\ndiscouragements to marriage, the consequent vicious habits, war,\nluxury, the silent though certain depopulation of large towns, and the\nclose habitations, and insufficient food of many of the poor, prevent\npopulation from increasing beyond the means of subsistence; and, if I\nmay use an expression which certainly at first appears strange,\nsupercede the necessity of great and ravaging epidemics to repress what\nis redundant. Were a wasting plague to sweep off two millions in\nEngland, and six millions in France, there can be no doubt whatever\nthat, after the inhabitants had recovered from the dreadful shock, the\nproportion of births to burials would be much above what it is in\neither country at present.\n\nIn New Jersey, the proportion of births to deaths on an average of\nseven years, ending in 1743, was as 300 to 100. In France and England,\ntaking the highest proportion, it is as 117 to 100. Great and\nastonishing as this difference is, we ought not to be so wonder-struck\nat it as to attribute it to the miraculous interposition of heaven. The\ncauses of it are not remote, latent and mysterious; but near us, round\nabout us, and open to the investigation of every inquiring mind. It\naccords with the most liberal spirit of philosophy to suppose that not\na stone can fall, or a plant rise, without the immediate agency of\ndivine power. But we know from experience that these operations of what\nwe call nature have been conducted almost invariably according to fixed\nlaws. And since the world began, the causes of population and\ndepopulation have probably been as constant as any of the laws of\nnature with which we are acquainted.\n\nThe passion between the sexes has appeared in every age to be so nearly\nthe same that it may always be considered, in algebraic language, as a\ngiven quantity. The great law of necessity which prevents population\nfrom increasing in any country beyond the food which it can either\nproduce or acquire, is a law so open to our view, so obvious and\nevident to our understandings, and so completely confirmed by the\nexperience of every age, that we cannot for a moment doubt it. The\ndifferent modes which nature takes to prevent or repress a redundant\npopulation do not appear, indeed, to us so certain and regular, but\nthough we cannot always predict the mode we may with certainty predict\nthe fact. If the proportion of births to deaths for a few years\nindicate an increase of numbers much beyond the proportional increased\nor acquired produce of the country, we may be perfectly certain that\nunless an emigration takes place, the deaths will shortly exceed the\nbirths; and that the increase that had taken place for a few years\ncannot be the real average increase of the population of the country.\nWere there no other depopulating causes, every country would, without\ndoubt, be subject to periodical pestilences or famine.\n\nThe only true criterion of a real and permanent increase in the\npopulation of any country is the increase of the means of subsistence.\nBut even, this criterion is subject to some slight variations which\nare, however, completely open to our view and observations. In some\ncountries population appears to have been forced, that is, the people\nhave been habituated by degrees to live almost upon the smallest\npossible quantity of food. There must have been periods in such\ncounties when population increased permanently, without an increase in\nthe means of subsistence. China seems to answer to this description. If\nthe accounts we have of it are to be trusted, the lower classes of\npeople are in the habit of living almost upon the smallest possible\nquantity of food and are glad to get any putrid offals that European\nlabourers would rather starve than eat. The law in China which permits\nparents to expose their children has tended principally thus to force\nthe population. A nation in this state must necessarily be subject to\nfamines. Where a country is so populous in proportion to the means of\nsubsistence that the average produce of it is but barely sufficient to\nsupport the lives of the inhabitants, any deficiency from the badness\nof seasons must be fatal. It is probable that the very frugal manner in\nwhich the Gentoos are in the habit of living contributes in some degree\nto the famines of Indostan.\n\nIn America, where the reward of labour is at present so liberal, the\nlower classes might retrench very considerably in a year of scarcity\nwithout materially distressing themselves. A famine therefore seems to\nbe almost impossible. It may be expected that in the progress of the\npopulation of America, the labourers will in time be much less\nliberally rewarded. The numbers will in this case permanently increase\nwithout a proportional increase in the means of subsistence.\n\nIn the different states of Europe there must be some variations in the\nproportion between the number of inhabitants and the quantity of food\nconsumed, arising from the different habits of living that prevail in\neach state. The labourers of the South of England are so accustomed to\neat fine wheaten bread that they will suffer themselves to be half\nstarved before they will submit to live like the Scotch peasants. They\nmight perhaps in time, by the constant operation of the hard law of\nnecessity, be reduced to live even like the Lower Chinese, and the\ncountry would then, with the same quantity of food, support a greater\npopulation. But to effect this must always be a most difficult, and,\nevery friend to humanity will hope, an abortive attempt. Nothing is so\ncommon as to hear of encouragements that ought to be given to\npopulation. If the tendency of mankind to increase be so great as I\nhave represented it to be, it may appear strange that this increase\ndoes not come when it is thus repeatedly called for. The true reason is\nthat the demand for a greater population is made without preparing the\nfunds necessary to support it. Increase the demand for agricultural\nlabour by promoting cultivation, and with it consequently increase the\nproduce of the country, and ameliorate the condition of the labourer,\nand no apprehensions whatever need be entertained of the proportional\nincrease of population. An attempt to effect this purpose in any other\nway is vicious, cruel, and tyrannical, and in any state of tolerable\nfreedom cannot therefore succeed. It may appear to be the interest of\nthe rulers, and the rich of a state, to force population, and thereby\nlower the price of labour, and consequently the expense of fleets and\narmies, and the cost of manufactures for foreign sale; but every\nattempt of the kind should be carefully watched and strenuously\nresisted by the friends of the poor, particularly when it comes under\nthe deceitful garb of benevolence, and is likely, on that account, to\nbe cheerfully and cordially received by the common people.\n\nI entirely acquit Mr Pitt of any sinister intention in that clause of\nhis Poor Bill which allows a shilling a week to every labourer for each\nchild he has above three. I confess, that before the bill was brought\ninto Parliament, and for some time after, I thought that such a\nregulation would be highly beneficial, but further reflection on the\nsubject has convinced me that if its object be to better the condition\nof the poor, it is calculated to defeat the very purpose which it has\nin view. It has no tendency that I can discover to increase the produce\nof the country, and if it tend to increase the population, without\nincreasing the produce, the necessary and inevitable consequence\nappears to be that the same produce must be divided among a greater\nnumber, and consequently that a day's labour will purchase a smaller\nquantity of provisions, and the poor therefore in general must be more\ndistressed.\n\nI have mentioned some cases where population may permanently increase\nwithout a proportional increase in the means of subsistence. But it is\nevident that the variation in different states, between the food and\nthe numbers supported by it, is restricted to a limit beyond which it\ncannot pass. In every country, the population of which is not\nabsolutely decreasing, the food must be necessarily sufficient to\nsupport, and to continue, the race of labourers.\n\nOther circumstances being the same, it may be affirmed that countries\nare populous according to the quantity of human food which they\nproduce, and happy according to the liberality with which that food is\ndivided, or the quantity which a day's labour will purchase. Corn\ncountries are more populous than pasture countries, and rice countries\nmore populous than corn countries. The lands in England are not suited\nto rice, but they would all bear potatoes; and Dr Adam Smith observes\nthat if potatoes were to become the favourite vegetable food of the\ncommon people, and if the same quantity of land was employed in their\nculture as is now employed in the culture of corn, the country would be\nable to support a much greater population, and would consequently in a\nvery short time have it.\n\nThe happiness of a country does not depend, absolutely, upon its\npoverty or its riches, upon its youth or its age, upon its being thinly\nor fully inhabited, but upon the rapidity with which it is increasing,\nupon the degree in which the yearly increase of food approaches to the\nyearly increase of an unrestricted population. This approximation is\nalways the nearest in new colonies, where the knowledge and industry of\nan old state operate on the fertile unappropriated land of a new one.\nIn other cases, the youth or the age of a state is not in this respect\nof very great importance. It is probable that the food of Great Britain\nis divided in as great plenty to the inhabitants, at the present\nperiod, as it was two thousand, three thousand, or four thousand years\nago. And there is reason to believe that the poor and thinly inhabited\ntracts of the Scotch Highlands are as much distressed by an overcharged\npopulation as the rich and populous province of Flanders.\n\nWere a country never to be overrun by a people more advanced in arts,\nbut left to its own natural progress in civilization; from the time\nthat its produce might be considered as an unit, to the time that it\nmight be considered as a million, during the lapse of many hundred\nyears, there would not be a single period when the mass of the people\ncould be said to be free from distress, either directly or indirectly,\nfor want of food. In every state in Europe, since we have first had\naccounts of it, millions and millions of human existences have been\nrepressed from this simple cause; though perhaps in some of these\nstates an absolute famine has never been known.\n\nFamine seems to be the last, the most dreadful resource of nature. The\npower of population is so superior to the power in the earth to produce\nsubsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other\nvisit the human race. The vices of mankind are active and able\nministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of\ndestruction; and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should\nthey fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics,\npestilence, and plague, advance in terrific array, and sweep off their\nthousands and ten thousands. Should success be still incomplete,\ngigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow\nlevels the population with the food of the world.\n\nMust it not then be acknowledged by an attentive examiner of the\nhistories of mankind, that in every age and in every state in which man\nhas existed, or does now exist.\n\nThat the increase of population is necessarily limited by the means of\nsubsistence.\n\nThat population does invariably increase when the means of subsistence\nincrease. And that the superior power of population it repressed, and\nthe actual population kept equal to the means of subsistence, by misery\nand vice?\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER 8\n\nMr Wallace--Error of supposing that the difficulty arising from\npopulation is at a great distance--Mr Condorcet's sketch of the\nprogress of the human mind--Period when the oscillation, mentioned by\nMr Condorcet, ought to be applied to the human race.\n\n\nTo a person who draws the preceding obvious inferences, from a view of\nthe past and present state of mankind, it cannot but be a matter of\nastonishment that all the writers on the perfectibility of man and of\nsociety who have noticed the argument of an overcharged population,\ntreat it always very slightly and invariably represent the difficulties\narising from it as at a great and almost immeasurable distance. Even Mr\nWallace, who thought the argument itself of so much weight as to\ndestroy his whole system of equality, did not seem to be aware that any\ndifficulty would occur from this cause till the whole earth had been\ncultivated like a garden and was incapable of any further increase of\nproduce. Were this really the case, and were a beautiful system of\nequality in other respects practicable, I cannot think that our ardour\nin the pursuit of such a scheme ought to be damped by the contemplation\nof so remote a difficulty. An event at such a distance might fairly be\nleft to providence, but the truth is that if the view of the argument\ngiven in this Essay be just the difficulty, so far from being remote,\nwould be imminent and immediate. At every period during the progress of\ncultivation, from the present moment to the time when the whole earth\nwas become like a garden, the distress for want of food would be\nconstantly pressing on all mankind, if they were equal. Though the\nproduce of the earth might be increasing every year, population would\nbe increasing much faster, and the redundancy must necessarily be\nrepressed by the periodical or constant action of misery or vice.\n\nMr Condorcet's Esquisse d'un Tableau Historique des Progres de l'Esprit\nHumain, was written, it is said, under the pressure of that cruel\nproscription which terminated in his death. If he had no hopes of its\nbeing seen during his life and of its interesting France in his favour,\nit is a singular instance of the attachment of a man to principles,\nwhich every day's experience was so fatally for himself contradicting.\nTo see the human mind in one of the most enlightened nations of the\nworld, and after a lapse of some thousand years, debased by such a\nfermentation of disgusting passions, of fear, cruelty, malice, revenge,\nambition, madness, and folly as would have disgraced the most savage\nnation in the most barbarous age must have been such a tremendous shock\nto his ideas of the necessary and inevitable progress of the human mind\nthat nothing but the firmest conviction of the truth of his principles,\nin spite of all appearances, could have withstood.\n\nThis posthumous publication is only a sketch of a much larger work,\nwhich he proposed should be executed. It necessarily, therefore, wants\nthat detail and application which can alone prove the truth of any\ntheory. A few observations will be sufficient to shew how completely\nthe theory is contradicted when it is applied to the real, and not to\nan imaginary, state of things.\n\nIn the last division of the work, which treats of the future progress\nof man towards perfection, he says, that comparing, in the different\ncivilized nations of Europe, the actual population with the extent of\nterritory, and observing their cultivation, their industry, their\ndivisions of labour, and their means of subsistence, we shall see that\nit would be impossible to preserve the same means of subsistence, and,\nconsequently, the same population, without a number of individuals who\nhave no other means of supplying their wants than their industry.\nHaving allowed the necessity of such a class of men, and adverting\nafterwards to the precarious revenue of those families that would\ndepend so entirely on the life and health of their chief, he says, very\njustly: 'There exists then, a necessary cause of inequality, of\ndependence, and even of misery, which menaces, without ceasing, the\nmost numerous and active class of our societies.' (To save time and\nlong quotations, I shall here give the substance of some of Mr\nCondorcet's sentiments, and hope I shall not misrepresent them. But I\nrefer the reader to the work itself, which will amuse, if it does not\nconvince him.) The difficulty is just and well stated, and I am afraid\nthat the mode by which he proposes it should be removed will be found\ninefficacious. By the application of calculations to the probabilities\nof life and the interest of money, he proposes that a fund should be\nestablished which should assure to the old an assistance, produced, in\npart, by their own former savings, and, in part, by the savings of\nindividuals who in making the same sacrifice die before they reap the\nbenefit of it. The same, or a similar fund, should give assistance to\nwomen and children who lose their husbands, or fathers, and afford a\ncapital to those who were of an age to found a new family, sufficient\nfor the proper development of their industry. These establishments, he\nobserves, might be made in the name and under the protection of the\nsociety. Going still further, he says that, by the just application of\ncalculations, means might be found of more completely preserving a\nstate of equality, by preventing credit from being the exclusive\nprivilege of great fortunes, and yet giving it a basis equally solid,\nand by rendering the progress of industry, and the activity of\ncommerce, less dependent on great capitalists.\n\nSuch establishments and calculations may appear very promising upon\npaper, but when applied to real life they will be found to be\nabsolutely nugatory. Mr Condorcet allows that a class of people which\nmaintains itself entirely by industry is necessary to every state. Why\ndoes he allow this? No other reason can well be assigned than that he\nconceives that the labour necessary to procure subsistence for an\nextended population will not be performed without the goad of\nnecessity. If by establishments of this kind of spur to industry be\nremoved, if the idle and the negligent are placed upon the same footing\nwith regard to their credit, and the future support of their wives and\nfamilies, as the active and industrious, can we expect to see men exert\nthat animated activity in bettering their condition which now forms the\nmaster spring of public prosperity? If an inquisition were to be\nestablished to examine the claims of each individual and to determine\nwhether he had or had not exerted himself to the utmost, and to grant\nor refuse assistance accordingly, this would be little else than a\nrepetition upon a larger scale of the English poor laws and would be\ncompletely destructive of the true principles of liberty and equality.\n\nBut independent of this great objection to these establishments, and\nsupposing for a moment that they would give no check to productive\nindustry, by far the greatest difficulty remains yet behind.\n\nWere every man sure of a comfortable provision for his family, almost\nevery man would have one, and were the rising generation free from the\n'killing frost' of misery, population must rapidly increase. Of this Mr\nCondorcet seems to be fully aware himself, and after having described\nfurther improvements, he says:\n\nBut in this process of industry and happiness, each generation will be\ncalled to more extended enjoyments, and in consequence, by the physical\nconstitution of the human frame, to an increase in the number of\nindividuals. Must not there arrive a period then, when these laws,\nequally necessary, shall counteract each other? When the increase of\nthe number of men surpassing their means of subsistence, the necessary\nresult must be either a continual diminution of happiness and\npopulation, a movement truly retrograde, or, at least, a kind of\noscillation between good and evil? In societies arrived at this term,\nwill not this oscillation be a constantly subsisting cause of\nperiodical misery? Will it not mark the limit when all further\namelioration will become impossible, and point out that term to the\nperfectibility of the human race which it may reach in the course of\nages, but can never pass?\n\nHe then adds,\n\nThere is no person who does not see how very distant such a period is\nfrom us, but shall we ever arrive at it? It is equally impossible to\npronounce for or against the future realization of an event which\ncannot take place but at an era when the human race will have attained\nimprovements, of which we can at present scarcely form a conception.\n\nMr Condorcet's picture of what may be expected to happen when the\nnumber of men shall surpass the means of their subsistence is justly\ndrawn. The oscillation which he describes will certainly take place and\nwill without doubt be a constantly subsisting cause of periodical\nmisery. The only point in which I differ from Mr Condorcet with regard\nto this picture is the period when it may be applied to the human race.\nMr Condorcet thinks that it cannot possibly be applicable but at an era\nextremely distant. If the proportion between the natural increase of\npopulation and food which I have given be in any degree near the truth,\nit will appear, on the contrary, that the period when the number of men\nsurpass their means of subsistence has long since arrived, and that\nthis necessity oscillation, this constantly subsisting cause of\nperiodical misery, has existed ever since we have had any histories of\nmankind, does exist at present, and will for ever continue to exist,\nunless some decided change take place in the physical constitution of\nour nature.\n\nMr Condorcet, however, goes on to say that should the period, which he\nconceives to be so distant, ever arrive, the human race, and the\nadvocates for the perfectibility of man, need not be alarmed at it. He\nthen proceeds to remove the difficulty in a manner which I profess not\nto understand. Having observed, that the ridiculous prejudices of\nsuperstition would by that time have ceased to throw over morals a\ncorrupt and degrading austerity, he alludes, either to a promiscuous\nconcubinage, which would prevent breeding, or to something else as\nunnatural. To remove the difficulty in this way will, surely, in the\nopinion of most men, be to destroy that virtue and purity of manners,\nwhich the advocates of equality, and of the perfectibility of man,\nprofess to be the end and object of their views.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER 9\n\nMr Condorcet's conjecture concerning the organic perfectibility of man,\nand the indefinite prolongation of human life--Fallacy of the argument,\nwhich infers an unlimited progress from a partial improvement, the\nlimit of which cannot be ascertained, illustrated in the breeding of\nanimals, and the cultivation of plants.\n\n\nThe last question which Mr Condorcet proposes for examination is the\norganic perfectibility of man. He observes that if the proofs which\nhave been already given and which, in their development will receive\ngreater force in the work itself, are sufficient to establish the\nindefinite perfectibility of man upon the supposition of the same\nnatural faculties and the same organization which he has at present,\nwhat will be the certainty, what the extent of our hope, if this\norganization, these natural faculties themselves, are susceptible of\namelioration?\n\nFrom the improvement of medicine, from the use of more wholesome food\nand habitations, from a manner of living which will improve the\nstrength of the body by exercise without impairing it by excess, from\nthe destruction of the two great causes of the degradation of man,\nmisery, and too great riches, from the gradual removal of transmissible\nand contagious disorders by the improvement of physical knowledge,\nrendered more efficacious by the progress of reason and of social\norder, he infers that though man will not absolutely become immortal,\nyet that the duration between his birth and natural death will increase\nwithout ceasing, will have no assignable term, and may properly be\nexpressed by the word 'indefinite'. He then defines this word to mean\neither a constant approach to an unlimited extent, without ever\nreaching it, or an increase. In the immensity of ages to an extent\ngreater than any assignable quantity.\n\nBut surely the application of this term in either of these senses to\nthe duration of human life is in the highest degree unphilosophical and\ntotally unwarranted by any appearances in the laws of nature.\nVariations from different causes are essentially distinct from a\nregular and unretrograde increase. The average duration of human life\nwill to a certain degree vary from healthy or unhealthy climates, from\nwholesome or unwholesome food, from virtuous or vicious manners, and\nother causes, but it may be fairly doubted whether there is really the\nsmallest perceptible advance in the natural duration of human life\nsince first we have had any authentic history of man. The prejudices of\nall ages have indeed been directly contrary to this supposition, and\nthough I would not lay much stress upon these prejudices, they will in\nsome measure tend to prove that there has been no marked advance in an\nopposite direction.\n\nIt may perhaps be said that the world is yet so young, so completely in\nits infancy, that it ought not to be expected that any difference\nshould appear so soon.\n\nIf this be the case, there is at once an end of all human science. The\nwhole train of reasonings from effects to causes will be destroyed. We\nmay shut our eyes to the book of nature, as it will no longer be of any\nuse to read it. The wildest and most improbable conjectures may be\nadvanced with as much certainty as the most just and sublime theories,\nfounded on careful and reiterated experiments. We may return again to\nthe old mode of philosophising and make facts bend to systems, instead\nof establishing systems upon facts. The grand and consistent theory of\nNewton will be placed upon the same footing as the wild and eccentric\nhypotheses of Descartes. In short, if the laws of nature are thus\nfickle and inconstant, if it can be affirmed and be believed that they\nwill change, when for ages and ages they have appeared immutable, the\nhuman mind will no longer have any incitements to inquiry, but must\nremain fixed in inactive torpor, or amuse itself only in bewildering\ndreams and extravagant fancies.\n\nThe constancy of the laws of nature and of effects and causes is the\nfoundation of all human knowledge, though far be it from me to say that\nthe same power which framed and executes the laws of nature may not\nchange them all 'in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye.'  Such a\nchange may undoubtedly happen. All that I mean to say is that it is\nimpossible to infer it from reasoning. If without any previous\nobservable symptoms or indications of a change, we can infer that a\nchange will take place, we may as well make any assertion whatever and\nthink it as unreasonable to be contradicted in affirming that the moon\nwill come in contact with the earth tomorrow, as in saying that the sun\nwill rise at its usual time.\n\nWith regard to the duration of human life, there does not appear to\nhave existed from the earliest ages of the world to the present moment\nthe smallest permanent symptom or indication of increasing\nprolongation. The observable effects of climate, habit, diet, and other\ncauses, on length of life have furnished the pretext for asserting its\nindefinite extension; and the sandy foundation on which the argument\nrests is that because the limit of human life is undefined; because you\ncannot mark its precise term, and say so far exactly shall it go and no\nfurther; that therefore its extent may increase for ever, and be\nproperly termed indefinite or unlimited. But the fallacy and absurdity\nof this argument will sufficiently appear from a slight examination of\nwhat Mr Condorcet calls the organic perfectibility, or degeneration, of\nthe race of plants and animals, which he says may be regarded as one of\nthe general laws of nature.\n\nI am told that it is a maxim among the improvers of cattle that you may\nbreed to any degree of nicety you please, and they found this maxim\nupon another, which is that some of the offspring will possess the\ndesirable qualities of the parents in a greater degree. In the famous\nLeicestershire breed of sheep, the object is to procure them with small\nheads and small legs. Proceeding upon these breeding maxims, it is\nevident that we might go on till the heads and legs were evanescent\nquantities, but this is so palpable an absurdity that we may be quite\nsure that the premises are not just and that there really is a limit,\nthough we cannot see it or say exactly where it is. In this case, the\npoint of the greatest degree of improvement, or the smallest size of\nthe head and legs, may be said to be undefined, but this is very\ndifferent from unlimited, or from indefinite, in Mr Condorcet's\nacceptation of the term. Though I may not be able in the present\ninstance to mark the limit at which further improvement will stop, I\ncan very easily mention a point at which it will not arrive. I should\nnot scruple to assert that were the breeding to continue for ever, the\nhead and legs of these sheep would never be so small as the head and\nlegs of a rat.\n\nIt cannot be true, therefore, that among animals, some of the offspring\nwill possess the desirable qualities of the parents in a greater\ndegree, or that animals are indefinitely perfectible.\n\nThe progress of a wild plant to a beautiful garden flower is perhaps\nmore marked and striking than anything that takes place among animals,\nyet even here it would be the height of absurdity to assert that the\nprogress was unlimited or indefinite.\n\nOne of the most obvious features of the improvement is the increase of\nsize. The flower has grown gradually larger by cultivation. If the\nprogress were really unlimited it might be increased ad infinitum, but\nthis is so gross an absurdity that we may be quite sure that among\nplants as well as among animals there is a limit to improvement, though\nwe do not exactly know where it is. It is probable that the gardeners\nwho contend for flower prizes have often applied stronger dressing\nwithout success. At the same time it would be highly presumptuous in\nany man to say that he had seen the finest carnation or anemone that\ncould ever be made to grow. He might however assert without the\nsmallest chance of being contradicted by a future fact, that no\ncarnation or anemone could ever by cultivation be increased to the size\nof a large cabbage; and yet there are assignable quantities much\ngreater than a cabbage. No man can say that he has seen the largest ear\nof wheat, or the largest oak that could ever grow; but he might easily,\nand with perfect certainty, name a point of magnitude at which they\nwould not arrive. In all these cases therefore, a careful distinction\nshould be made, between an unlimited progress, and a progress where the\nlimit is merely undefined.\n\nIt will be said, perhaps, that the reason why plants and animals cannot\nincrease indefinitely in size is, that they would fall by their own\nweight. I answer, how do we know this but from experience?--from\nexperience of the degree of strength with which these bodies are\nformed. I know that a carnation, long before it reached the size of a\ncabbage, would not be supported by its stalk, but I only know this from\nmy experience of the weakness and want of tenacity in the materials of\na carnation stalk. There are many substances in nature of the same size\nthat would support as large a head as a cabbage.\n\nThe reasons of the mortality of plants are at present perfectly unknown\nto us. No man can say why such a plant is annual, another biennial, and\nanother endures for ages. The whole affair in all these cases, in\nplants, animals, and in the human race, is an affair of experience, and\nI only conclude that man is mortal because the invariable experience of\nall ages has proved the mortality of those materials of which his\nvisible body is made:\n\nWhat can we reason, but from what we know?\n\nSound philosophy will not authorize me to alter this opinion of the\nmortality of man on earth, till it can be clearly proved that the human\nrace has made, and is making, a decided progress towards an illimitable\nextent of life. And the chief reason why I adduced the two particular\ninstances from animals and plants was to expose and illustrate, if I\ncould, the fallacy of that argument which infers an unlimited progress,\nmerely because some partial improvement has taken place, and that the\nlimit of this improvement cannot be precisely ascertained.\n\nThe capacity of improvement in plants and animals, to a certain degree,\nno person can possibly doubt. A clear and decided progress has already\nbeen made, and yet, I think, it appears that it would be highly absurd\nto say that this progress has no limits. In human life, though there\nare great variations from different causes, it may be doubted whether,\nsince the world began, any organic improvement whatever in the human\nframe can be clearly ascertained. The foundations, therefore, on which\nthe arguments for the organic perfectibility of man rest, are unusually\nweak, and can only be considered as mere conjectures. It does not,\nhowever, by any means seem impossible that by an attention to breed, a\ncertain degree of improvement, similar to that among animals, might\ntake place among men. Whether intellect could be communicated may be a\nmatter of doubt: but size, strength, beauty, complexion, and perhaps\neven longevity are in a degree transmissible. The error does not seem\nto lie in supposing a small degree of improvement possible, but in not\ndiscriminating between a small improvement, the limit of which is\nundefined, and an improvement really unlimited. As the human race,\nhowever, could not be improved in this way, without condemning all the\nbad specimens to celibacy, it is not probable that an attention to\nbreed should ever become general; indeed, I know of no well-directed\nattempts of this kind, except in the ancient family of the\nBickerstaffs, who are said to have been very successful in whitening\nthe skins and increasing the height of their race by prudent marriages,\nparticularly by that very judicious cross with Maud, the milk-maid, by\nwhich some capital defects in the constitutions of the family were\ncorrected.\n\nIt will not be necessary, I think, in order more completely to shew the\nimprobability of any approach in man towards immortality on earth, to\nurge the very great additional weight that an increase in the duration\nof life would give to the argument of population.\n\nMany, I doubt not, will think that the attempting gravely to controvert\nso absurd a paradox as the immortality of man on earth, or indeed, even\nthe perfectibility of man and society, is a waste of time and words,\nand that such unfounded conjectures are best answered by neglect. I\nprofess, however, to be of a different opinion. When paradoxes of this\nkind are advanced by ingenious and able men, neglect has no tendency to\nconvince them of their mistakes. Priding themselves on what they\nconceive to be a mark of the reach and size of their own\nunderstandings, of the extent and comprehensiveness of their views,\nthey will look upon this neglect merely as an indication of poverty,\nand narrowness, in the mental exertions of their contemporaries, and\nonly think that the world is not yet prepared to receive their sublime\ntruths.\n\nOn the contrary, a candid investigation of these subjects, accompanied\nwith a perfect readiness to adopt any theory warranted by sound\nphilosophy, may have a tendency to convince them that in forming\nimprobable and unfounded hypotheses, so far from enlarging the bounds\nof human science, they are contracting it, so far from promoting the\nimprovement of the human mind, they are obstructing it; they are\nthrowing us back again almost into the infancy of knowledge and\nweakening the foundations of that mode of philosophising, under the\nauspices of which science has of late made such rapid advances. The\npresent rage for wide and unrestrained speculation seems to be a kind\nof mental intoxication, arising, perhaps, from the great and unexpected\ndiscoveries which have been made of late years, in various branches of\nscience. To men elate and giddy with such successes, every thing\nappeared to be within the grasp of human powers; and, under this\nillusion, they confounded subjects where no real progress could be\nproved with those where the progress had been marked, certain, and\nacknowledged. Could they be persuaded to sober themselves with a little\nsevere and chastised thinking, they would see, that the cause of truth,\nand of sound philosophy, cannot but suffer by substituting wild flights\nand unsupported assertions for patient investigation, and well\nauthenticated proofs.\n\nMr Condorcet's book may be considered not only as a sketch of the\nopinions of a celebrated individual, but of many of the literary men in\nFrance at the beginning of the Revolution. As such, though merely a\nsketch, it seems worthy of attention.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER 10\n\nMr Godwin's system of equality--Error of attributing all the vices of\nmankind to human institutions--Mr Godwin's first answer to the\ndifficulty arising from population totally insufficient--Mr Godwin's\nbeautiful system of equality supposed to be realized--Its utter\ndestruction simply from the principle of population in so short a time\nas thirty years.\n\n\nIn reading Mr Godwin's ingenious and able work on political justice, it\nis impossible not to be struck with the spirit and energy of his style,\nthe force and precision of some of his reasonings, the ardent tone of\nhis thoughts, and particularly with that impressive earnestness of\nmanner which gives an air of truth to the whole. At the same time, it\nmust be confessed that he has not proceeded in his inquiries with the\ncaution that sound philosophy seems to require. His conclusions are\noften unwarranted by his premises. He fails sometimes in removing the\nobjections which he himself brings forward. He relies too much on\ngeneral and abstract propositions which will not admit of application.\nAnd his conjectures certainly far outstrip the modesty of nature.\n\nThe system of equality which Mr Godwin proposes is, without doubt, by\nfar the most beautiful and engaging of any that has yet appeared. An\namelioration of society to be produced merely by reason and conviction\nwears much more the promise of permanence than any change effected and\nmaintained by force. The unlimited exercise of private judgement is a\ndoctrine inexpressibly grand and captivating and has a vast superiority\nover those systems where every individual is in a manner the slave of\nthe public. The substitution of benevolence as the master-spring and\nmoving principle of society, instead of self-love, is a consummation\ndevoutly to be wished. In short, it is impossible to contemplate the\nwhole of this fair structure without emotions of delight and\nadmiration, accompanied with ardent longing for the period of its\naccomplishment. But, alas! that moment can never arrive. The whole is\nlittle better than a dream, a beautiful phantom of the imagination.\nThese 'gorgeous palaces' of happiness and immortality, these 'solemn\ntemples' of truth and virtue will dissolve, 'like the baseless fabric\nof a vision', when we awaken to real life and contemplate the true and\ngenuine situation of man on earth. Mr Godwin, at the conclusion of the\nthird chapter of his eighth book, speaking of population, says:\n\nThere is a principle in human society, by which population is\nperpetually kept down to the level of the means of subsistence. Thus\namong the wandering tribes of America and Asia, we never find through\nthe lapse of ages that population has so increased as to render\nnecessary the cultivation of the earth.\n\nThis principle, which Mr Godwin thus mentions as some mysterious and\noccult cause and which he does not attempt to investigate, will be\nfound to be the grinding law of necessity, misery, and the fear of\nmisery.\n\nThe great error under which Mr Godwin labours throughout his whole work\nis the attributing almost all the vices and misery that are seen in\ncivil society to human institutions. Political regulations and the\nestablished administration of property are with him the fruitful\nsources of all evil, the hotbeds of all the crimes that degrade\nmankind. Were this really a true state of the case, it would not seem a\nhopeless task to remove evil completely from the world, and reason\nseems to be the proper and adequate instrument for effecting so great a\npurpose. But the truth is, that though human institutions appear to be\nthe obvious and obtrusive causes of much mischief to mankind, yet in\nreality they are light and superficial, they are mere feathers that\nfloat on the surface, in comparison with those deeper seated causes of\nimpurity that corrupt the springs and render turbid the whole stream of\nhuman life.\n\nMr Godwin, in his chapter on the benefits attendant on a system of\nequality, says:\n\nThe spirit of oppression, the spirit of servility, and the spirit of\nfraud, these are the immediate growth of the established administration\nof property. They are alike hostile to intellectual improvement. The\nother vices of envy, malice, and revenge are their inseparable\ncompanions. In a state of society where men lived in the midst of\nplenty and where all shared alike the bounties of nature, these\nsentiments would inevitably expire. The narrow principle of selfishness\nwould vanish. No man being obliged to guard his little store or provide\nwith anxiety and pain for his restless wants, each would lose his\nindividual existence in the thought of the general good. No man would\nbe an enemy to his neighbour, for they would have no subject of\ncontention, and, of consequence, philanthropy would resume the empire\nwhich reason assigns her. Mind would be delivered from her perpetual\nanxiety about corporal support, and free to expatiate in the field of\nthought, which is congenial to her. Each would assist the inquiries of\nall.\n\nThis would, indeed, be a happy state. But that it is merely an\nimaginary picture, with scarcely a feature near the truth, the reader,\nI am afraid, is already too well convinced.\n\nMan cannot live in the midst of plenty. All cannot share alike the\nbounties of nature. Were there no established administration of\nproperty, every man would be obliged to guard with force his little\nstore. Selfishness would be triumphant. The subjects of contention\nwould be perpetual. Every individual mind would be under a constant\nanxiety about corporal support, and not a single intellect would be\nleft free to expatiate in the field of thought.\n\nHow little Mr Godwin has turned the attention of his penetrating mind\nto the real state of man on earth will sufficiently appear from the\nmanner in which he endeavours to remove the difficulty of an\novercharged population. He says:\n\nThe obvious answer to this objection, is, that to reason thus is to\nforesee difficulties at a great distance. Three fourths of the\nhabitable globe is now uncultivated. The parts already cultivated are\ncapable of immeasurable improvement. Myriads of centuries of still\nincreasing population may pass away, and the earth be still found\nsufficient for the subsistence of its inhabitants.\n\nI have already pointed out the error of supposing that no distress and\ndifficulty would arise from an overcharged population before the earth\nabsolutely refused to produce any more. But let us imagine for a moment\nMr Godwin's beautiful system of equality realized in its utmost purity,\nand see how soon this difficulty might be expected to press under so\nperfect a form of society. A theory that will not admit of application\ncannot possibly be just.\n\nLet us suppose all the causes of misery and vice in this island\nremoved. War and contention cease. Unwholesome trades and manufactories\ndo not exist. Crowds no longer collect together in great and pestilent\ncities for purposes of court intrigue, of commerce, and vicious\ngratifications. Simple, healthy, and rational amusements take place of\ndrinking, gaming, and debauchery. There are no towns sufficiently large\nto have any prejudicial effects on the human constitution. The greater\npart of the happy inhabitants of this terrestrial paradise live in\nhamlets and farmhouses scattered over the face of the country. Every\nhouse is clean, airy, sufficiently roomy, and in a healthy situation.\nAll men are equal. The labours of luxury are at end. And the necessary\nlabours of agriculture are shared amicably among all. The number of\npersons, and the produce of the island, we suppose to be the same as at\npresent. The spirit of benevolence, guided by impartial justice, will\ndivide this produce among all the members of the society according to\ntheir wants. Though it would be impossible that they should all have\nanimal food every day, yet vegetable food, with meat occasionally,\nwould satisfy the desires of a frugal people and would be sufficient to\npreserve them in health, strength, and spirits.\n\nMr Godwin considers marriage as a fraud and a monopoly. Let us suppose\nthe commerce of the sexes established upon principles of the most\nperfect freedom. Mr Godwin does not think himself that this freedom\nwould lead to a promiscuous intercourse, and in this I perfectly agree\nwith him. The love of variety is a vicious, corrupt, and unnatural\ntaste and could not prevail in any great degree in a simple and\nvirtuous state of society. Each man would probably select himself a\npartner, to whom he would adhere as long as that adherence continued to\nbe the choice of both parties. It would be of little consequence,\naccording to Mr Godwin, how many children a woman had or to whom they\nbelonged. Provisions and assistance would spontaneously flow from the\nquarter in which they abounded, to the quarter that was deficient. (See\nBk VIII, ch. 8; in the third edition, Vol II, p. 512) And every man\nwould be ready to furnish instruction to the rising generation\naccording to his capacity.\n\nI cannot conceive a form of society so favourable upon the whole to\npopulation. The irremediableness of marriage, as it is at present\nconstituted, undoubtedly deters many from entering into that state. An\nunshackled intercourse on the contrary would be a most powerful\nincitement to early attachments, and as we are supposing no anxiety\nabout the future support of children to exist, I do not conceive that\nthere would be one woman in a hundred, of twenty-three, without a\nfamily.\n\nWith these extraordinary encouragements to population, and every cause\nof depopulation, as we have supposed, removed, the numbers would\nnecessarily increase faster than in any society that has ever yet been\nknown. I have mentioned, on the authority of a pamphlet published by a\nDr Styles and referred to by Dr Price, that the inhabitants of the back\nsettlements of America doubled their numbers in fifteen years. England\nis certainly a more healthy country than the back settlements of\nAmerica, and as we have supposed every house in the island to be airy\nand wholesome, and the encouragements to have a family greater even\nthan with the back settlers, no probable reason can be assigned why the\npopulation should not double itself in less, if possible, than fifteen\nyears. But to be quite sure that we do not go beyond the truth, we will\nonly suppose the period of doubling to be twenty-five years, a ratio of\nincrease which is well known to have taken place throughout all the\nNorthern States of America.\n\nThere can be little doubt that the equalization of property which we\nhave supposed, added to the circumstance of the labour of the whole\ncommunity being directed chiefly to agriculture, would tend greatly to\naugment the produce of the country. But to answer the demands of a\npopulation increasing so rapidly, Mr Godwin's calculation of half an\nhour a day for each man would certainly not be sufficient. It is\nprobable that the half of every man's time must be employed for this\npurpose. Yet with such, or much greater exertions, a person who is\nacquainted with the nature of the soil in this country, and who\nreflects on the fertility of the lands already in cultivation, and the\nbarrenness of those that are not cultivated, will be very much disposed\nto doubt whether the whole average produce could possibly be doubled in\ntwenty-five years from the present period. The only chance of success\nwould be the ploughing up all the grazing countries and putting an end\nalmost entirely to the use of animal food. Yet a part of this scheme\nmight defeat itself. The soil of England will not produce much without\ndressing, and cattle seem to be necessary to make that species of\nmanure which best suits the land. In China it is said that the soil in\nsome of the provinces is so fertile as to produce two crops of rice in\nthe year without dressing. None of the lands in England will answer to\nthis description.\n\nDifficult, however, as it might be to double the average produce of the\nisland in twenty-five years, let us suppose it effected. At the\nexpiration of the first period therefore, the food, though almost\nentirely vegetable, would be sufficient to support in health the\ndoubled population of fourteen millions.\n\nDuring the next period of doubling, where will the food be found to\nsatisfy the importunate demands of the increasing numbers? Where is the\nfresh land to turn up? Where is the dressing necessary to improve that\nwhich is already in cultivation? There is no person with the smallest\nknowledge of land but would say that it was impossible that the average\nproduce of the country could be increased during the second twenty-five\nyears by a quantity equal to what it at present yields. Yet we will\nsuppose this increase, however improbable, to take place. The exuberant\nstrength of the argument allows of almost any concession. Even with\nthis concession, however, there would be seven millions at the\nexpiration of the second term unprovided for. A quantity of food equal\nto the frugal support of twenty-one millions, would be to be divided\namong twenty-eight millions.\n\nAlas! what becomes of the picture where men lived in the midst of\nplenty, where no man was obliged to provide with anxiety and pain for\nhis restless wants, where the narrow principle of selfishness did not\nexist, where Mind was delivered from her perpetual anxiety about\ncorporal support and free to expatiate in the field of thought which is\ncongenial to her. This beautiful fabric of imagination vanishes at the\nsevere touch of truth. The spirit of benevolence, cherished and\ninvigorated by plenty, is repressed by the chilling breath of want. The\nhateful passions that had vanished reappear. The mighty law of\nself-preservation expels all the softer and more exalted emotions of\nthe soul. The temptations to evil are too strong for human nature to\nresist. The corn is plucked before it is ripe, or secreted in unfair\nproportions, and the whole black train of vices that belong to\nfalsehood are immediately generated. Provisions no longer flow in for\nthe support of the mother with a large family. The children are sickly\nfrom insufficient food. The rosy flush of health gives place to the\npallid cheek and hollow eye of misery. Benevolence, yet lingering in a\nfew bosoms, makes some faint expiring struggles, till at length\nself-love resumes his wonted empire and lords it triumphant over the\nworld.\n\nNo human institutions here existed, to the perverseness of which Mr\nGodwin ascribes the original sin of the worst men. (Bk VIII, ch. 3; in\nthe third edition, Vol. II, p. 462) No opposition had been produced by\nthem between public and private good. No monopoly had been created of\nthose advantages which reason directs to be left in common. No man had\nbeen goaded to the breach of order by unjust laws. Benevolence had\nestablished her reign in all hearts: and yet in so short a period as\nwithin fifty years, violence, oppression, falsehood, misery, every\nhateful vice, and every form of distress, which degrade and sadden the\npresent state of society, seem to have been generated by the most\nimperious circumstances, by laws inherent in the nature of man, and\nabsolutely independent of it human regulations.\n\nIf we are not yet too well convinced of the reality of this melancholy\npicture, let us but look for a moment into the next period of\ntwenty-five years; and we shall see twenty-eight millions of human\nbeings without the means of support; and before the conclusion of the\nfirst century, the population would be one hundred and twelve millions,\nand the food only sufficient for thirty-five millions, leaving\nseventy-seven millions unprovided for. In these ages want would be\nindeed triumphant, and rapine and murder must reign at large: and yet\nall this time we are supposing the produce of the earth absolutely\nunlimited, and the yearly increase greater than the boldest speculator\ncan imagine.\n\nThis is undoubtedly a very different view of the difficulty arising\nfrom population from that which Mr Godwin gives, when he says, 'Myriads\nof centuries of still increasing population may pass away, and the\nearth be still found sufficient for the subsistence of its inhabitants.'\n\nI am sufficiently aware that the redundant twenty-eight millions, or\nseventy-seven millions, that I have mentioned, could never have\nexisted. It is a perfectly just observation of Mr Godwin, that, 'There\nis a principle in human society, by which population is perpetually\nkept down to the level of the means of subsistence.' The sole question\nis, what is this principle? is it some obscure and occult cause? Is it\nsome mysterious interference of heaven which, at a certain period,\nstrikes the men with impotence, and the women with barrenness? Or is it\na cause, open to our researches, within our view, a cause, which has\nconstantly been observed to operate, though with varied force, in every\nstate in which man has been placed? Is it not a degree of misery, the\nnecessary and inevitable result of the laws of nature, which human\ninstitutions, so far from aggravating, have tended considerably to\nmitigate, though they never can remove?\n\nIt may be curious to observe, in the case that we have been supposing,\nhow some of the laws which at present govern civilized society, would\nbe successively dictated by the most imperious necessity. As man,\naccording to Mr Godwin, is the creature of the impressions to which he\nis subject, the goadings of want could not continue long, before some\nviolations of public or private stock would necessarily take place. As\nthese violations increased in number and extent, the more active and\ncomprehensive intellects of the society would soon perceive, that while\npopulation was fast increasing, the yearly produce of the country would\nshortly begin to diminish. The urgency of the case would suggest the\nnecessity of some mediate measures to be taken for the general safety.\nSome kind of convention would then be called, and the dangerous\nsituation of the country stated in the strongest terms. It would be\nobserved, that while they lived in the midst of plenty, it was of\nlittle consequence who laboured the least, or who possessed the least,\nas every man was perfectly willing and ready to supply the wants of his\nneighbour. But that the question was no longer whether one man should\ngive to another that which he did not use himself, but whether he\nshould give to his neighbour the food which was absolutely necessary to\nhis own existence. It would be represented, that the number of those\nthat were in want very greatly exceeded the number and means of those\nwho should supply them; that these pressing wants, which from the state\nof the produce of the country could not all be gratified, had\noccasioned some flagrant violations of justice; that these violations\nhad already checked the increase of food, and would, if they were not\nby some means or other prevented, throw the whole community in\nconfusion; that imperious necessity seemed to dictate that a yearly\nincrease of produce should, if possible, be obtained at all events;\nthat in order to effect this first, great, and indispensable purpose,\nit would be advisable to make a more complete division of land, and to\nsecure every man's stock against violation by the most powerful\nsanctions, even by death itself.\n\nIt might be urged perhaps by some objectors that, as the fertility of\nthe land increased, and various accidents occurred, the share of some\nmen might be much more than sufficient for their support, and that when\nthe reign of self-love was once established, they would not distribute\ntheir surplus produce without some compensation in return. It would be\nobserved, in answer, that this was an inconvenience greatly to be\nlamented; but that it was an evil which bore no comparison to the black\ntrain of distresses that would inevitably be occasioned by the\ninsecurity of property; that the quantity of food which one man could\nconsume was necessarily limited by the narrow capacity of the human\nstomach; that it was not certainly probable that he should throw away\nthe rest; but that even if he exchanged his surplus food for the labour\nof others, and made them in some degree dependent on him, this would\nstill be better than that these others should absolutely starve.\n\nIt seems highly probable, therefore, that an administration of\nproperty, not very different from that which prevails in civilized\nstates at present, would be established, as the best, though\ninadequate, remedy for the evils which were pressing on the society.\n\nThe next subject that would come under discussion, intimately connected\nwith the preceding, is the commerce between the sexes. It would be\nurged by those who had turned their attention to the true cause of the\ndifficulties under which the community laboured, that while every man\nfelt secure that all his children would be well provided for by general\nbenevolence, the powers of the earth would be absolutely inadequate to\nproduce food for the population which would inevitably ensue; that even\nif the whole attention and labour of the society were directed to this\nsole point, and if, by the most perfect security of property, and every\nother encouragement that could be thought of, the greatest possible\nincrease of produce were yearly obtained; yet still, that the increase\nof food would by no means keep pace with the much more rapid increase\nof population; that some check to population therefore was imperiously\ncalled for; that the most natural and obvious check seemed to be to\nmake every man provide for his own children; that this would operate in\nsome respect as a measure and guide in the increase of population, as\nit might be expected that no man would bring beings into the world, for\nwhom he could not find the means of support; that where this\nnotwithstanding was the case, it seemed necessary, for the example of\nothers, that the disgrace and inconvenience attending such a conduct\nshould fall upon the individual, who had thus inconsiderately plunged\nhimself and innocent children in misery and want.\n\nThe institution of marriage, or at least, of some express or implied\nobligation on every man to support his own children, seems to be the\nnatural result of these reasonings in a community under the\ndifficulties that we have supposed.\n\nThe view of these difficulties presents us with a very natural origin\nof the superior disgrace which attends a breach of chastity in the\nwoman than in the man. It could not be expected that women should have\nresources sufficient to support their own children. When therefore a\nwoman was connected with a man, who had entered into no compact to\nmaintain her children, and, aware of the inconveniences that he might\nbring upon himself, had deserted her, these children must necessarily\nfall for support upon the society, or starve. And to prevent the\nfrequent recurrence of such an inconvenience, as it would be highly\nunjust to punish so natural a fault by personal restraint or\ninfliction, the men might agree to punish it with disgrace. The offence\nis besides more obvious and conspicuous in the woman, and less liable\nto any mistake. The father of a child may not always be known, but the\nsame uncertainty cannot easily exist with regard to the mother. Where\nthe evidence of the offence was most complete, and the inconvenience to\nthe society at the same time the greatest, there it was agreed that the\nlarge share of blame should fall. The obligation on every man to\nmaintain his children, the society would enforce, if there were\noccasion; and the greater degree of inconvenience or labour, to which a\nfamily would necessarily subject him, added to some portion of disgrace\nwhich every human being must incur who leads another into unhappiness,\nmight be considered as a sufficient punishment for the man.\n\nThat a woman should at present be almost driven from society for an\noffence which men commit nearly with impunity, seems to be undoubtedly\na breach of natural justice. But the origin of the custom, as the most\nobvious and effectual method of preventing the frequent recurrence of a\nserious inconvenience to a community, appears to be natural, though not\nperhaps perfectly justifiable. This origin, however, is now lost in the\nnew train of ideas which the custom has since generated. What at first\nmight be dictated by state necessity is now supported by female\ndelicacy, and operates with the greatest force on that part of society\nwhere, if the original intention of the custom were preserved, there is\nthe least real occasion for it.\n\nWhen these two fundamental laws of society, the security of property,\nand the institution of marriage, were once established, inequality of\nconditions must necessarily follow. Those who were born after the\ndivision of property would come into a world already possessed. If\ntheir parents, from having too large a family, could not give them\nsufficient for their support, what are they to do in a world where\neverything is appropriated? We have seen the fatal effects that would\nresult to a society, if every man had a valid claim to an equal share\nof the produce of the earth. The members of a family which was grown\ntoo large for the original division of land appropriated to it could\nnot then demand a part of the surplus produce of others, as a debt of\njustice. It has appeared, that from the inevitable laws of our nature\nsome human beings must suffer from want. These are the unhappy persons\nwho, in the great lottery of life, have drawn a blank. The number of\nthese claimants would soon exceed the ability of the surplus produce to\nsupply. Moral merit is a very difficult distinguishing criterion,\nexcept in extreme cases. The owners of surplus produce would in general\nseek some more obvious mark of distinction. And it seems both natural\nand just that, except upon particular occasions, their choice should\nfall upon those who were able, and professed themselves willing, to\nexert their strength in procuring a further surplus produce; and thus\nat once benefiting the community, and enabling these proprietors to\nafford assistance to greater numbers. All who were in want of food\nwould be urged by imperious necessity to offer their labour in exchange\nfor this article so absolutely essential to existence. The fund\nappropriated to the maintenance of labour would be the aggregate\nquantity of food possessed by the owners of land beyond their own\nconsumption. When the demands upon this fund were great and numerous,\nit would naturally be divided in very small shares. Labour would be ill\npaid. Men would offer to work for a bare subsistence, and the rearing\nof families would be checked by sickness and misery. On the contrary,\nwhen this fund was increasing fast, when it was great in proportion to\nthe number of claimants, it would be divided in much larger shares. No\nman would exchange his labour without receiving an ample quantity of\nfood in return. Labourers would live in ease and comfort, and would\nconsequently be able to rear a numerous and vigorous offspring.\n\nOn the state of this fund, the happiness, or the degree of misery,\nprevailing among the lower classes of people in every known state at\npresent chiefly depends. And on this happiness, or degree of misery,\ndepends the increase, stationariness, or decrease of population.\n\nAnd thus it appears, that a society constituted according to the most\nbeautiful form that imagination can conceive, with benevolence for its\nmoving principle, instead of self-love, and with every evil disposition\nin all its members corrected by reason and not force, would, from the\ninevitable laws of nature, and not from any original depravity of man,\nin a very short period degenerate into a society constructed upon a\nplan not essentially different from that which prevails in every known\nstate at present; I mean, a society divided into a class of\nproprietors, and a class of labourers, and with self-love the\nmain-spring of the great machine.\n\nIn the supposition I have made, I have undoubtedly taken the increase\nof population smaller, and the increase of produce greater, than they\nreally would be. No reason can be assigned why, under the circumstances\nI have supposed, population should not increase faster than in any\nknown instance. If then we were to take the period of doubling at\nfifteen years, instead of twenty-five years, and reflect upon the\nlabour necessary to double the produce in so short a time, even if we\nallow it possible, we may venture to pronounce with certainty that if\nMr Godwin's system of society was established in its utmost perfection,\ninstead of myriads of centuries, not thirty years could elapse before\nits utter destruction from the simple principle of population.\n\nI have taken no notice of emigration for obvious reasons. If such\nsocieties were instituted in other parts of Europe, these countries\nwould be under the same difficulties with regard to population, and\ncould admit no fresh members into their bosoms. If this beautiful\nsociety were confined to this island, it must have degenerated\nstrangely from its original purity, and administer but a very small\nportion of the happiness it proposed; in short, its essential principle\nmust be completely destroyed, before any of its members would\nvoluntarily consent to leave it, and live under such governments as at\npresent exist in Europe, or submit to the extreme hardships of first\nsettlers in new regions. We well know, from repeated experience, how\nmuch misery and hardship men will undergo in their own country, before\nthey can determine to desert it; and how often the most tempting\nproposals of embarking for new settlements have been rejected by people\nwho appeared to be almost starving.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER 11\n\nMr Godwin's conjecture concerning the future extinction of the passion\nbetween the sexes--Little apparent grounds for such a\nconjecture--Passion of love not inconsistent either with reason or\nvirtue.\n\n\nWe have supported Mr Godwin's system of society once completely\nestablished. But it is supposing an impossibility. The same causes in\nnature which would destroy it so rapidly, were it once established,\nwould prevent the possibility of its establishment. And upon what\ngrounds we can presume a change in these natural causes, I am utterly\nat a loss to conjecture. No move towards the extinction of the passion\nbetween the sexes has taken place in the five or six thousand years\nthat the world has existed. Men in the decline of life have in all ages\ndeclaimed against a passion which they have ceased to feel, but with as\nlittle reason as success. Those who from coldness of constitutional\ntemperament have never felt what love is, will surely be allowed to be\nvery incompetent judges with regard to the power of this passion to\ncontribute to the sum of pleasurable sensations in life. Those who have\nspent their youth in criminal excesses and have prepared for\nthemselves, as the comforts of their age, corporeal debility and mental\nremorse may well inveigh against such pleasures as vain and futile, and\nunproductive of lasting satisfaction. But the pleasures of pure love\nwill bear the contemplation of the most improved reason, and the most\nexalted virtue. Perhaps there is scarcely a man who has once\nexperienced the genuine delight of virtuous love, however great his\nintellectual pleasure may have been, that does not look back to the\nperiod as the sunny spot in his whole life, where his imagination loves\nto bask, which he recollects and contemplates with the fondest regrets,\nand which he would most wish to live over again. The superiority of\nintellectual to sensual pleasures consists rather in their filling up\nmore time, in their having a larger range, and in their being less\nliable to satiety, than in their being more real and essential.\n\nIntemperance in every enjoyment defeats its own purpose. A walk in the\nfinest day through the most beautiful country, if pursued too far, ends\nin pain and fatigue. The most wholesome and invigorating food, eaten\nwith an unrestrained appetite, produces weakness instead of strength.\nEven intellectual pleasures, though certainly less liable than others\nto satiety, pursued with too little intermission, debilitate the body,\nand impair the vigour of the mind. To argue against the reality of\nthese pleasures from their abuse seems to be hardly just. Morality,\naccording to Mr Godwin, is a calculation of consequences, or, as\nArchdeacon Paley very justly expresses it, the will of God, as\ncollected from general expediency. According to either of these\ndefinitions, a sensual pleasure not attended with the probability of\nunhappy consequences does not offend against the laws of morality, and\nif it be pursued with such a degree of temperance as to leave the most\nample room for intellectual attainments, it must undoubtedly add to the\nsum of pleasurable sensations in life. Virtuous love, exalted by\nfriendship, seems to be that sort of mixture of sensual and\nintellectual enjoyment particularly suited to the nature of man, and\nmost powerfully calculated to awaken the sympathies of the soul, and\nproduce the most exquisite gratifications.\n\nMr Godwin says, in order to shew the evident inferiority of the\npleasures of sense, 'Strip the commerce of the sexes of all its\nattendant circumstances, and it would be generally despised' (Bk. I,\nch. 5; in the third edition, Vol. I, pp. 71-72). He might as well say\nto a man who admired trees: strip them of their spreading branches and\nlovely foliage, and what beauty can you see in a bare pole? But it was\nthe tree with the branches and foliage, and not without them, that\nexcited admiration. One feature of an object may be as distinct, and\nexcite as different emotions, from the aggregate as any two things the\nmost remote, as a beautiful woman, and a map of Madagascar. It is 'the\nsymmetry of person, the vivacity, the voluptuous softness of temper,\nthe affectionate kindness of feelings, the imagination and the wit' of\na woman that excite the passion of love, and not the mere distinction\nof her being female. Urged by the passion of love, men have been driven\ninto acts highly prejudicial to the general interests of society, but\nprobably they would have found no difficulty in resisting the\ntemptation, had it appeared in the form of a woman with no other\nattractions whatever but her sex. To strip sensual pleasures of all\ntheir adjuncts, in order to prove their inferiority, is to deprive a\nmagnet of some of its most essential causes of attraction, and then to\nsay that it is weak and inefficient.\n\nIn the pursuit of every enjoyment, whether sensual or intellectual,\nreason, that faculty which enables us to calculate consequences, is the\nproper corrective and guide. It is probable therefore that improved\nreason will always tend to prevent the abuse of sensual pleasures,\nthough it by no means follows that it will extinguish them.\n\nI have endeavoured to expose the fallacy of that argument which infers\nan unlimited progress from a partial improvement, the limits of which\ncannot be exactly ascertained. It has appeared, I think, that there are\nmany instances in which a decided progress has been observed, where yet\nit would be a gross absurdity to suppose that progress indefinite. But\ntowards the extinction of the passion between the sexes, no observable\nprogress whatever has hitherto been made. To suppose such an\nextinction, therefore, is merely to offer an unfounded conjecture,\nunsupported by any philosophical probabilities.\n\nIt is a truth, which history I am afraid makes too clear, that some men\nof the highest mental powers have been addicted not only to a moderate,\nbut even to an immoderate indulgence in the pleasures of sensual love.\nBut allowing, as I should be inclined to do, notwithstanding numerous\ninstances to the contrary, that great intellectual exertions tend to\ndiminish the empire of this passion over man, it is evident that the\nmass of mankind must be improved more highly than the brightest\nornaments of the species at present before any difference can take\nplace sufficient sensibly to affect population. I would by no means\nsuppose that the mass of mankind has reached its term of improvement,\nbut the principal argument of this essay tends to place in a strong\npoint of view the improbability that the lower classes of people in any\ncountry should ever be sufficiently free from want and labour to obtain\nany high degree of intellectual improvement.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER 12\n\nMr Godwin's conjecture concerning the indefinite prolongation of human\nlife--Improper inference drawn from the effects of mental stimulants on\nthe human frame, illustrated in various instances--Conjectures not\nfounded on any indications in the past not to be considered as\nphilosophical conjectures--Mr Godwin's and Mr Condorcet's conjecture\nrespecting the approach of man towards immortality on earth, a curious\ninstance of the inconsistency of scepticism.\n\n\nMr Godwin's conjecture respecting the future approach of man towards\nimmortality on earth seems to be rather oddly placed in a chapter which\nprofesses to remove the objection to his system of equality from the\nprinciple of population. Unless he supposes the passion between the\nsexes to decrease faster than the duration of life increases, the earth\nwould be more encumbered than ever. But leaving this difficulty to Mr\nGodwin, let us examine a few of the appearances from which the probable\nimmortality of man is inferred.\n\nTo prove the power of the mind over the body, Mr Godwin observes, \"How\noften do we find a piece of good news dissipating a distemper? How\ncommon is the remark that those accidents which are to the indolent a\nsource of disease are forgotten and extirpated in the busy and active?\nI walk twenty miles in an indolent and half determined temper and am\nextremely fatigued. I walk twenty miles full of ardour, and with a\nmotive that engrosses my soul, and I come in as fresh and as alert as\nwhen I began my journey. Emotion excited by some unexpected word, by a\nletter that is delivered to us, occasions the most extraordinary\nrevolutions in our frame, accelerates the circulation, causes the heart\nto palpitate, the tongue to refuse its office, and has been known to\noccasion death by extreme anguish or extreme joy. There is nothing\nindeed of which the physician is more aware than of the power of the\nmind in assisting or reading convalescence.\"\n\nThe instances here mentioned are chiefly instances of the effects of\nmental stimulants on the bodily frame. No person has ever for a moment\ndoubted the near, though mysterious, connection of mind and body. But\nit is arguing totally without knowledge of the nature of stimulants to\nsuppose, either that they can be applied continually with equal\nstrength, or if they could be so applied, for a time, that they would\nnot exhaust and wear out the subject. In some of the cases here\nnoticed, the strength of the stimulus depends upon its novelty and\nunexpectedness. Such a stimulus cannot, from its nature, be repeated\noften with the same effect, as it would by repetition lose that\nproperty which gives it its strength.\n\nIn the other cases, the argument is from a small and partial effect, to\na great and general effect, which will in numberless instances be found\nto be a very fallacious mode of reasoning. The busy and active man may\nin some degree counteract, or what is perhaps nearer the truth, may\ndisregard those slight disorders of frame which fix the attention of a\nman who has nothing else to think of; but this does not tend to prove\nthat activity of mind will enable a man to disregard a high fever, the\nsmallpox, or the plague.\n\nThe man who walks twenty miles with a motive that engrosses his soul\ndoes not attend to his slight fatigue of body when he comes in; but\ndouble his motive, and set him to walk another twenty miles, quadruple\nit, and let him start a third time, and so on; and the length of his\nwalk will ultimately depend upon muscle and not mind. Powell, for a\nmotive of ten guineas, would have walked further probably than Mr\nGodwin, for a motive of half a million. A motive of uncommon power\nacting upon a frame of moderate strength would, perhaps, make the man\nkill himself by his exertions, but it would not make him walk a hundred\nmiles in twenty-four hours. This statement of the case shews the\nfallacy of supposing that the person was really not at all tired in his\nfirst walk of twenty miles, because he did not appear to be so, or,\nperhaps, scarcely felt any fatigue himself. The mind cannot fix its\nattention strongly on more than one object at once. The twenty thousand\npounds so engrossed his thoughts that he did not attend to any slight\nsoreness of foot, or stiffness of limb. But had he been really as fresh\nand as alert, as when he first set off, he would be able to go the\nsecond twenty miles with as much ease as the first, and so on, the\nthird, &c. Which leads to a palpable absurdity. When a horse of spirit\nis nearly half tired, by the stimulus of the spur, added to the proper\nmanagement of the bit, he may be put so much upon his mettle, that he\nwould appear to a standerby, as fresh and as high spirited as if he had\nnot gone a mile. Nay, probably, the horse himself, while in the heat\nand passion occasioned by this stimulus, would not feel any fatigue;\nbut it would be strangely contrary to all reason and experience, to\nargue from such an appearance that, if the stimulus were continued, the\nhorse would never be tired. The cry of a pack of hounds will make some\nhorses, after a journey of forty miles on the road, appear as fresh,\nand as lively, as when they first set out. Were they then to be hunted,\nno perceptible abatement would at first be felt by their riders in\ntheir strength and spirits, but towards the end of a hard day, the\nprevious fatigue would have its full weight and effect, and make them\ntire sooner. When I have taken a long walk with my gun, and met with no\nsuccess, I have frequently returned home feeling a considerable degree\nof uncomfortableness from fatigue. Another day, perhaps, going over\nnearly the same extent of ground with a good deal of sport, I have come\nhome fresh, and alert. The difference in the sensation of fatigue upon\ncoming in, on the different days, may have been very striking, but on\nthe following mornings I have found no such difference. I have not\nperceived that I was less stiff in my limbs, or less footsore, on the\nmorning after the day of the sport, than on the other morning.\n\nIn all these cases, stimulants upon the mind seem to act rather by\ntaking off the attention from the bodily fatigue, than by really and\ntruly counteracting it. If the energy of my mind had really\ncounteracted the fatigue of my body, why should I feel tired the next\nmorning? if the stimulus of the hounds had as completely overcome the\nfatigue of the journey in reality, as it did in appearance, why should\nthe horse be tired sooner than if he had not gone the forty miles? I\nhappen to have a very bad fit of the toothache at the time I am writing\nthis. In the eagerness of composition, I every now and then, for a\nmoment or two, forget it. Yet I cannot help thinking that the process,\nwhich causes the pain, is still going forwards, and that the nerves\nwhich carry the information of it to the brain are even during these\nmoments demanding attention and room for their appropriate vibrations.\nThe multiplicity of vibrations of another kind may perhaps prevent\ntheir admission, or overcome them for a time when admitted, till a\nshoot of extraordinary energy puts all other vibration to the rout,\ndestroys the vividness of my argumentative conceptions, and rides\ntriumphant in the brain. In this case, as in the others, the mind seems\nto have little or no power in counteracting or curing the disorder, but\nmerely possesses a power, if strongly excited, of fixing its attention\non other subjects.\n\nI do not, however, mean to say that a sound and vigorous mind has no\ntendency whatever to keep the body in a similar state. So close and\nintimate is the union of mind and body that it would be highly\nextraordinary if they did not mutually assist each other's functions.\nBut, perhaps, upon a comparison, the body has more effect upon the mind\nthan the mind upon the body. The first object of the mind is to act as\npurveyor to the wants of the body. When these wants are completely\nsatisfied, an active mind is indeed apt to wander further, to range\nover the fields of science, or sport in the regions of. Imagination, to\nfancy that it has 'shuffled off this mortal coil', and is seeking its\nkindred element. But all these efforts are like the vain exertions of\nthe hare in the fable. The slowly moving tortoise, the body, never\nfails to overtake the mind, however widely and extensively it may have\nranged, and the brightest and most energetic intellects, unwillingly as\nthey may attend to the first or second summons, must ultimately yield\nthe empire of the brain to the calls of hunger, or sink with the\nexhausted body in sleep.\n\nIt seems as if one might say with certainty that if a medicine could be\nfound to immortalize the body there would be no fear of its [not] being\naccompanied by the immortality of the mind. But the immortality of the\nmind by no means seems to infer the immortality of the body. On the\ncontrary, the greatest conceivable energy of mind would probably\nexhaust and destroy the strength of the body. A temperate vigour of\nmind appears to be favourable to health, but very great intellectual\nexertions tend rather, as has been often observed, to wear out the\nscabbard. Most of the instances which Mr Godwin has brought to prove\nthe power of the mind over the body, and the consequent probability of\nthe immortality of man, are of this latter description, and could such\nstimulants be continually applied, instead of tending to immortalize,\nthey would tend very rapidly to destroy the human frame.\n\nThe probable increase of the voluntary power of man over his animal\nframe comes next under Mr Godwin's consideration, and he concludes by\nsaying, that the voluntary power of some men, in this respect, is found\nto extend to various articles in which other men are impotent. But this\nis reasoning against an almost universal rule from a few exceptions;\nand these exceptions seem to be rather tricks, than powers that may be\nexerted to any good purpose. I have never heard of any man who could\nregulate his pulse in a fever, and doubt much, if any of the persons\nhere alluded to have made the smallest perceptible progress in the\nregular correction of the disorders of their frames and the consequent\nprolongation of their lives.\n\nMr Godwin says, 'Nothing can be more unphilosophical than to conclude,\nthat, because a certain species of power is beyond the train of our\npresent observation, that it is beyond the limits of the human mind.' I\nown my ideas of philosophy are in this respect widely different from Mr\nGodwin's. The only distinction that I see, between a philosophical\nconjecture, and the assertions of the Prophet Mr Brothers, is, that one\nis founded upon indications arising from the train of our present\nobservations, and the other has no foundation at all. I expect that\ngreat discoveries are yet to take place in all the branches of human\nscience, particularly in physics; but the moment we leave past\nexperience as the foundation of our conjectures concerning the future,\nand, still more, if our conjectures absolutely contradict past\nexperience, we are thrown upon a wide field of uncertainty, and any one\nsupposition is then just as good as another. If a person were to tell\nme that men would ultimately have eyes and hands behind them as well as\nbefore them, I should admit the usefulness of the addition, but should\ngive as a reason for my disbelief of it, that I saw no indications\nwhatever in the past from which I could infer the smallest probability\nof such a change. If this be not allowed a valid objection, all\nconjectures are alike, and all equally philosophical. I own it appears\nto me that in the train of our present observations, there are no more\ngenuine indications that man will become immortal upon earth than that\nhe will have four eyes and four hands, or that trees will grow\nhorizontally instead of perpendicularly.\n\nIt will be said, perhaps, that many discoveries have already taken\nplace in the world that were totally unforeseen and unexpected. This I\ngrant to be true; but if a person had predicted these discoveries\nwithout being guided by any analogies or indications from past facts,\nhe would deserve the name of seer or prophet, but not of philosopher.\nThe wonder that some of our modern discoveries would excite in the\nsavage inhabitants of Europe in the times of Theseus and Achilles,\nproves but little. Persons almost entirely unacquainted with the powers\nof a machine cannot be expected to guess at its effects. I am far from\nsaying, that we are at present by any means fully acquainted with the\npowers of the human mind; but we certainly know more of this instrument\nthan was known four thousand years ago; and therefore, though not to be\ncalled competent judges, we are certainly much better able than savages\nto say what is, or is not, within its grasp. A watch would strike a\nsavage with as much surprise as a perpetual motion; yet one is to us a\nmost familiar piece of mechanism, and the other has constantly eluded\nthe efforts of the most acute intellects. In many instances we are now\nable to perceive the causes, which prevent an unlimited improvement in\nthose inventions, which seemed to promise fairly for it at first. The\noriginal improvers of telescopes would probably think, that as long as\nthe size of the specula and the length of the tubes could be increased,\nthe powers and advantages of the instrument would increase; but\nexperience has since taught us, that the smallness of the field, the\ndeficiency of light, and the circumstance of the atmosphere being\nmagnified, prevent the beneficial results that were to be expected from\ntelescopes of extraordinary size and power. In many parts of knowledge,\nman has been almost constantly making some progress; in other parts,\nhis efforts have been invariably baffled. The savage would not probably\nbe able to guess at the causes of this mighty difference. Our further\nexperience has given us some little insight into these causes, and has\ntherefore enabled us better to judge, if not of what we are to expect\nin future, at least of what we are not to expect, which, though\nnegative, is a very useful piece of information.\n\nAs the necessity of sleep seems rather to depend upon the body than the\nmind, it does not appear how the improvement of the mind can tend very\ngreatly to supersede this 'conspicuous infirmity'. A man who by great\nexcitements on his mind is able to pass two or three nights without\nsleep, proportionably exhausts the vigour of his body, and this\ndiminution of health and strength will soon disturb the operations of\nhis understanding, so that by these great efforts he appears to have\nmade no real progress whatever in superseding the necessity of this\nspecies of rest.\n\nThere is certainly a sufficiently marked difference in the various\ncharacters of which we have some knowledge, relative to the energies of\ntheir minds, their benevolent pursuits, etc., to enable us to judge\nwhether the operations of intellect have any decided effect in\nprolonging the duration of human life. It is certain that no decided\neffect of this kind has yet been observed. Though no attention of any\nkind has ever produced such an effect as could be construed into the\nsmallest semblance of an approach towards immortality, yet of the two,\na certain attention to the body seems to have more effect in this\nrespect than an attention to the mind. The man who takes his temperate\nmeals and his bodily exercise, with scrupulous regularity, will\ngenerally be found more healthy than the man who, very deeply engaged\nin intellectual pursuits, often forgets for a time these bodily\ncravings. The citizen who has retired, and whose ideas, perhaps,\nscarcely soar above or extend beyond his little garden, puddling all\nthe morning about his borders of box, will, perhaps, live as long as\nthe philosopher whose range of intellect is the most extensive, and\nwhose views are the clearest of any of his contemporaries. It has been\npositively observed by those who have attended to the bills of\nmortality that women live longer upon an average than men, and, though\nI would not by any means say that their intellectual faculties are\ninferior, yet, I think, it must be allowed that, from their different\neducation, there are not so many women as men, who are excited to\nvigorous mental exertion.\n\nAs in these and similar instances, or to take a larger range, as in the\ngreat diversity of characters that have existed during some thousand\nyears, no decided difference has been observed in the duration of human\nlife from the operation of intellect, the mortality of man on earth\nseems to be as completely established, and exactly upon the same\ngrounds, as any one, the most constant, of the laws of nature. An\nimmediate act of power in the Creator of the Universe might, indeed,\nchange one or all of these laws, either suddenly or gradually, but\nwithout some indications of such a change, and such indications do not\nexist, it. Is just as unphilosophical to suppose that the life of man\nmay be prolonged beyond any assignable limits, as to suppose that the\nattraction of the earth will gradually be changed into repulsion and\nthat stones will ultimately rise instead of fall or that the earth will\nfly off at a certain period to some more genial and warmer sun.\n\nThe conclusion of this chapter presents us, undoubtedly, with a very\nbeautiful and desirable picture, but like some of the landscapes drawn\nfrom fancy and not imagined with truth, it fails of that interest in\nthe heart which nature and probability can alone give.\n\nI cannot quit this subject without taking notice of these conjectures\nof Mr Godwin and Mr Condorcet concerning the indefinite prolongation of\nhuman life, as a very curious instance of the longing of the soul after\nimmortality. Both these gentlemen have rejected the light of revelation\nwhich absolutely promises eternal life in another state. They have also\nrejected the light of natural religion, which to the ablest intellects\nin all ages has indicated the future existence of the soul. Yet so\ncongenial is the idea of immortality to the mind of man that they\ncannot consent entirely to throw it out of their systems. After all\ntheir fastidious scepticisms concerning the only probable mode of\nimmortality, they introduce a species of immortality of their own, not\nonly completely contradictory to every law of philosophical\nprobability, but in itself in the highest degree narrow, partial, and\nunjust. They suppose that all the great, virtuous, and exalted minds\nthat have ever existed or that may exist for some thousands, perhaps\nmillions of years, will be sunk in annihilation, and that only a few\nbeings, not greater in number than can exist at once upon the earth,\nwill be ultimately crowned with immortality. Had such a tenet been\nadvanced as a tenet of revelation I am very sure that all the enemies\nof religion, and probably Mr Godwin and Mr Condorcet among the rest,\nwould have exhausted the whole force of their ridicule upon it, as the\nmost puerile, the most absurd, the poorest, the most pitiful, the most\niniquitously unjust, and, consequently, the most unworthy of the Deity\nthat the superstitious folly of man could invent.\n\nWhat a strange and curious proof do these conjectures exhibit of the\ninconsistency of scepticism! For it should be observed, that there is a\nvery striking and essential difference between believing an assertion\nwhich absolutely contradicts the most uniform experience, and an\nassertion which contradicts nothing, but is merely beyond the power of\nour present observation and knowledge. So diversified are the natural\nobjects around us, so many instances of mighty power daily offer\nthemselves to our view, that we may fairly presume, that there are many\nforms and operations of nature which we have not yet observed, or\nwhich, perhaps, we are not capable of observing with our present\nconfined inlets of knowledge. The resurrection of a spiritual body from\na natural body does not appear in itself a more wonderful instance of\npower than the germination of a blade of wheat from the grain, or of an\noak from an acorn. Could we conceive an intelligent being, so placed as\nto be conversant only with inanimate or full grown objects, and never\nto have witnessed the process of vegetation and growth; and were\nanother being to shew him two little pieces of matter, a grain of\nwheat, and an acorn, to desire him to examine them, to analyse them if\nhe pleased, and endeavour to find out their properties and essences;\nand then to tell him, that however trifling these little bits of matter\nmight appear to him, that they possessed such curious powers of\nselection, combination, arrangement, and almost of creation, that upon\nbeing put into the ground, they would choose, amongst all the dirt and\nmoisture that surrounded them, those parts which best suited their\npurpose, that they would collect and arrange these parts with wonderful\ntaste, judgement, and execution, and would rise up into beautiful\nforms, scarcely in any respect analogous to the little bits of matter\nwhich were first placed in the earth. I feel very little doubt that the\nimaginary being which I have supposed would hesitate more, would\nrequire better authority, and stronger proofs, before he believed these\nstrange assertions, than if he had been told, that a being of mighty\npower, who had been the cause of all that he saw around him, and of\nthat existence of which he himself was conscious, would, by a great act\nof power upon the death and corruption of human creatures, raise up the\nessence of thought in an incorporeal, or at least invisible form, to\ngive it a happier existence in another state.\n\nThe only difference, with regard to our own apprehensions, that is not\nin favour of the latter assertion is that the first miracle we have\nrepeatedly seen, and the last miracle we have not seen. I admit the\nfull weight of this prodigious difference, but surely no man can\nhesitate a moment in saying that, putting Revelation out of the\nquestion, the resurrection of a spiritual body from a natural body,\nwhich may be merely one among the many operations of nature which we\ncannot see, is an event indefinitely more probable than the immortality\nof man on earth, which is not only an event of which no symptoms or\nindications have yet appeared, but is a positive contradiction to one\nof the most constant of the laws of nature that has ever come within\nthe observation of man.\n\nWhen we extend our view beyond this life, it is evident that we can\nhave no other guides than authority, or conjecture, and perhaps,\nindeed, an obscure and undefined feeling. What I say here, therefore,\ndoes not appear to me in any respect to contradict what I said before,\nwhen I observed that it was unphilosophical to expect any specifick\nevent that was not indicated by some kind of analogy in the past. In\nranging beyond the bourne from which no traveller returns, we must\nnecessarily quit this rule; but with regard to events that may be\nexpected to happen on earth, we can seldom quit it consistently with\ntrue philosophy. Analogy has, however, as I conceive, great latitude.\nFor instance, man has discovered many of the laws of nature: analogy\nseems to indicate that he will discover many more; but no analogy seems\nto indicate that he will discover a sixth sense, or a new species of\npower in the human mind, entirely beyond the train of our present\nobservations.\n\nThe powers of selection, combination, and transmutation, which every\nseed shews, are truly miraculous. Who can imagine that these wonderful\nfaculties are contained in these little bits of matter? To me it\nappears much more philosophical to suppose that the mighty God of\nnature is present in full energy in all these operations. To this all\npowerful Being, it would be equally easy to raise an oak without an\nacorn as with one. The preparatory process of putting seeds into the\nground is merely ordained for the use of man, as one among the various\nother excitements necessary to awaken matter into mind. It is an idea\nthat will be found consistent, equally with the natural phenomena\naround us, with the various events of human life, and with the\nsuccessive revelations of God to man, to suppose that the world is a\nmighty process for the creation and formation of mind. Many vessels\nwill necessarily come out of this great furnace in wrong shapes. These\nwill be broken and thrown aside as useless; while those vessels whose\nforms are full of truth, grace, and loveliness, will be wafted into\nhappier situations, nearer the presence of the mighty maker.\n\nI ought perhaps again to make an apology to my readers for dwelling so\nlong upon a conjecture which many, I know, will think too absurd and\nimprobable to require the least discussion. But if it be as improbable\nand as contrary to the genuine spirit of philosophy as I own I think it\nis, why should it not be shewn to be so in a candid examination? A\nconjecture, however improbable on the first view of it, advanced by\nable and ingenious men, seems at least to deserve investigation. For my\nown part I feel no disinclination whatever to give that degree of\ncredit to the opinion of the probable immortality of man on earth,\nwhich the appearances that can be brought in support of it deserve.\nBefore we decide upon the utter improbability of such an event, it is\nbut fair impartially to examine these appearances; and from such an\nexamination I think we may conclude, that we have rather less reason\nfor supposing that the life of man may be indefinitely prolonged, than\nthat trees may be made to grow indefinitely high, or potatoes\nindefinitely large. Though Mr Godwin advances the idea of the\nindefinite prolongation of human life merely as a conjecture, yet as he\nhas produced some appearances, which in his conception favour the\nsupposition, he must certainly intend that these appearances should be\nexamined and this is all that I have meant to do.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER 13\n\nError of Mr Godwin is considering man too much in the light of a being\nmerely rational--In the compound being, man, the passions will always\nact as disturbing forces in the decisions of the\nunderstanding--Reasonings of Mr Godwin on the subject of coercion--Some\ntruths of a nature not to be communicated from one man to another.\n\n\nIn the chapter which I have been examining, Mr Godwin professes to\nconsider the objection to his system of equality from the principle of\npopulation. It has appeared, I think clearly, that he is greatly\nerroneous in his statement of the distance of this difficulty, and that\ninstead of myriads of centuries, it is really not thirty years, or even\nthirty days, distant from us. The supposition of the approach of man to\nimmortality on earth is certainly not of a kind to soften the\ndifficulty. The only argument, therefore, in the chapter which has any\ntendency to remove the objection is the conjecture concerning the\nextinction of the passion between the sexes, but as this is a mere\nconjecture, unsupported by the smallest shadow of proof, the force of\nthe objection may be fairly said to remain unimpaired, and it is\nundoubtedly of sufficient weight of itself completely to overturn Mr\nGodwin's whole system of equality. I will, however, make one or two\nobservations on a few of the prominent parts of Mr Godwin's reasonings\nwhich will contribute to place in a still clearer point of view the\nlittle hope that we can reasonably entertain of those vast improvements\nin the nature of man and of society which he holds up to our admiring\ngaze in his Political Justice.\n\nMr Godwin considers man too much in the light of a being merely\nintellectual. This error, at least such I conceive it to be, pervades\nhis whole work and mixes itself with all his reasonings. The voluntary\nactions of men may originate in their opinions, but these opinions will\nbe very differently modified in creatures compounded of a rational\nfaculty and corporal propensities from what they would be in beings\nwholly intellectual. Mr Godwin, in proving that sound reasoning and\ntruth are capable of being adequately communicated, examines the\nproposition first practically, and then adds, 'Such is the appearance\nwhich this proposition assumes, when examined in a loose and practical\nview. In strict consideration it will not admit of debate. Man is a\nrational being, etc.' (Bk. I, ch. 5; in the third edition Vol. I, p.\n88). So far from calling this a strict consideration of the subject, I\nown I should call it the loosest, and most erroneous, way possible, of\nconsidering it. It is the calculating the velocity of a falling body in\nvacuo, and persisting in it, that it would be the same through whatever\nresisting mediums it might fall. This was not Newton's mode of\nphilosophizing. Very few general propositions are just in application\nto a particular subject. The moon is not kept in her orbit round the\nearth, nor the earth in her orbit round the sun, by a force that varies\nmerely in the inverse ratio of the squares of the distances. To make\nthe general theory just in application to the revolutions of these\nbodies, it was necessary to calculate accurately the disturbing force\nof the sun upon the moon, and of the moon upon the earth; and till\nthese disturbing forces were properly estimated, actual observations on\nthe motions of these bodies would have proved that the theory was not\naccurately true.\n\nI am willing to allow that every voluntary act is preceded by a\ndecision of the mind, but it is strangely opposite to what I should\nconceive to be the just theory upon the subject, and a palpable\ncontradiction to all experience, to say that the corporal propensities\nof man do not act very powerfully, as disturbing forces, in these\ndecisions. The question, therefore, does not merely depend upon whether\na man may be made to understand a distinct proposition or be convinced\nby an unanswerable argument. A truth may be brought home to his\nconviction as a rational being, though he may determine to act contrary\nto it, as a compound being. The cravings of hunger, the love of liquor,\nthe desire of possessing a beautiful woman, will urge men to actions,\nof the fatal consequences of which, to the general interests of\nsociety, they are perfectly well convinced, even at the very time they\ncommit them. Remove their bodily cravings, and they would not hesitate\na moment in determining against such actions. Ask them their opinion of\nthe same conduct in another person, and they would immediately\nreprobate it. But in their own case, and under all the circumstances of\ntheir situation with these bodily cravings, the decision of the\ncompound being is different from the conviction of the rational being.\n\nIf this be the just view of the subject, and both theory and experience\nunite to prove that it is, almost all Mr Godwin's reasonings on the\nsubject of coercion in his seventh chapter, will appear to be founded\non error. He spends some time in placing in a ridiculous point of view\nthe attempt to convince a man's understanding and to clear up a\ndoubtful proposition in his mind, by blows. Undoubtedly it is both\nridiculous and barbarous, and so is cock-fighting, but one has little\nmore to do with the real object of human punishments than the other.\nOne frequent (indeed much too frequent) mode of punishment is death. Mr\nGodwin will hardly think this intended for conviction, at least it does\nnot appear how the individual or the society could reap much future\nbenefit from an understanding enlightened in this manner.\n\nThe principal objects which human punishments have in view are\nundoubtedly restraint and example; restraint, or removal, of an\nindividual member whose vicious habits are likely to be prejudicial to\nthe society'; and example, which by expressing the sense of the\ncommunity with regard to a particular crime, and by associating more\nnearly and visibly crime and punishment, holds out a moral motive to\ndissuade others from the commission of it.\n\nRestraint, Mr Godwin thinks, may be permitted as a temporary expedient,\nthough he reprobates solitary imprisonment, which has certainly been\nthe most successful, and, indeed, almost the only attempt towards the\nmoral amelioration of offenders. He talks of the selfish passions that\nare fostered by solitude and of the virtues generated in society. But\nsurely these virtues are not generated in the society of a prison. Were\nthe offender confined to the society of able and virtuous men he would\nprobably be more improved than in solitude. But is this practicable? Mr\nGodwin's ingenuity is more frequently employed in finding out evils\nthan in suggesting practical remedies.\n\nPunishment, for example, is totally reprobated. By endeavouring to make\nexamples too impressive and terrible, nations have, indeed, been led\ninto the most barbarous cruelties, but the abuse of any practice is not\na good argument against its use. The indefatigable pains taken in this\ncountry to find out a murder, and the certainty of its punishment, has\npowerfully contributed to generate that sentiment which is frequent in\nthe mouths of the common people, that a murder will sooner or later\ncome to light; and the habitual horror in which murder is in\nconsequence held will make a man, in the agony of passion, throw down\nhis knife for fear he should be tempted to use it in the gratification\nof his revenge. In Italy, where murderers, by flying to a sanctuary,\nare allowed more frequently to escape, the crime has never been held in\nthe same detestation and has consequently been more frequent. No man,\nwho is at all aware of the operation of moral motives, can doubt for a\nmoment, that if every murder in Italy had been invariably punished, the\nuse of the stiletto in transports of passion would have been\ncomparatively but little known.\n\nThat human laws either do, or can, proportion the punishment accurately\nto the offence, no person will have the folly to assert. From the\ninscrutability of motives the thing is absolutely impossible, but this\nimperfection, though it may be called a species of injustice, is no\nvalid argument against human laws. It is the lot of man, that he will\nfrequently have to choose between two evils; and it is a sufficient\nreason for the adoption of any institution, that it is the best mode\nthat suggests itself of preventing greater evils. A continual endeavour\nshould undoubtedly prevail to make these institutions as perfect as the\nnature of them will admit. But nothing is so easy as to find fault with\nhuman institutions; nothing so difficult as to suggest adequate\npractical improvements. It is to be lamented, that more men of talents\nemploy their time in the former occupation than in the latter.\n\nThe frequency of crime among men, who, as the common saying is, know\nbetter, sufficiently proves, that some truths may be brought home to\nthe conviction of the mind without always producing the proper effect\nupon the conduct. There are other truths of a nature that perhaps never\ncan be adequately communicated from one man to another. The superiority\nof the pleasures of intellect to those of sense, Mr Godwin considers as\na fundamental truth. Taking all circumstances into consideration, I\nshould be disposed to agree with him; but how am I to communicate this\ntruth to a person who has scarcely ever felt intellectual pleasure? I\nmay as well attempt to explain the nature and beauty of colours to a\nblind man. If I am ever so laborious, patient, and clear, and have the\nmost repeated opportunities of expostulation, any real progress toward\nthe accomplishment of my purpose seems absolutely hopeless. There is no\ncommon measure between us. I cannot proceed step by step.. It is a\ntruth of a nature absolutely incapable of demonstration. All that I can\nsay is, that the wisest and best men in all ages had agreed in giving\nthe preference, very greatly, to the pleasures of intellect; and that\nmy own experience completely confirmed the truth of their decisions;\nthat I had found sensual pleasures vain, transient, and continually\nattended with tedium and disgust; but that intellectual pleasures\nappeared to me ever fresh and young, filled up all my hours\nsatisfactorily, gave a new zest to life, and diffused a lasting\nserenity over my mind. If he believe me, it can only be from respect\nand veneration for my authority. It is credulity, and not conviction. I\nhave not said any thing, nor can any thing be said, of a nature to\nproduce real conviction. The affair is not an affair of reasoning, but\nof experience. He would probably observe in reply, what you say may be\nvery true with regard to yourself and many other good men, but for my\nown part I feel very differently upon the subject. I have very\nfrequently taken up a book and almost as frequently gone to sleep over\nit; but when I pass an evening with a gay party, or a pretty woman, I\nfeel alive, and in spirits, and truly enjoy my existence.\n\nUnder such circumstances, reasoning and arguments are not instruments\nfrom which success can be expected. At some future time perhaps, real\nsatiety of sensual pleasures, or some accidental impressions that\nawakened the energies of his mind, might effect that, in a month, which\nthe most patient and able expostulations might be incapable of\neffecting in forty years.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER 14\n\nMr Godwin's five propositions respecting political truth, on which his\nwhole work hinges, not established--Reasons we have for supposing, from\nthe distress occasioned by the principle of population, that the vices\nand moral weakness of man can never be wholly\neradicated--Perfectibility, in the sense in which Mr Godwin uses the\nterm, not applicable to man--Nature of the real perfectibility of man\nillustrated.\n\n\nIf the reasonings of the preceding chapter are just, the corollaries\nrespecting political truth, which Mr Godwin draws from the proposition,\nthat the voluntary actions of men originate in their opinions, will not\nappear to be clearly established. These corollaries are, \"Sound\nreasoning and truth, when adequately communicated, must always be\nvictorious over error: Sound reasoning and truth are capable of being\nso communicated: Truth is omnipotent: The vices and moral weakness of\nman are not invincible: Man is perfectible, or in other words,\nsusceptible of perpetual improvement.\"\n\nThe first three propositions may be considered a complete syllogism. If\nby adequately communicated, be meant such a conviction as to produce an\nadequate effect upon the conduct, the major may be allowed and the\nminor denied. The consequent, or the omnipotence of truth, of course\nfalls to the ground. If by 'adequately communicated' be meant merely\nthe conviction of the rational faculty, the major must be denied, the\nminor will be only true in cases capable of demonstration, and the\nconsequent equally falls. The fourth proposition Mr Godwin calls the\npreceding proposition, with a slight variation in the statement. If so,\nit must accompany the preceding proposition in its fall. But it may be\nworth while to inquire, with reference to the principal argument of\nthis essay, into the particular reasons which we have for supposing\nthat the vices and moral weakness of man can never be wholly overcome\nin this world.\n\nMan, according to Mr Godwin, is a creature formed what he is by the\nsuccessive impressions which he has received, from the first moment\nthat the germ from which he sprung was animated. Could he be placed in\na situation, where he was subject to no evil impressions whatever,\nthough it might be doubted whether in such a situation virtue could\nexist, vice would certainly be banished. The great bent of Mr Godwin's\nwork on Political Justice, if I understand it rightly, is to shew that\nthe greater part of the vices and weaknesses of men proceed from the\ninjustice of their political and social institutions, and that if these\nwere removed and the understandings of men more enlightened, there\nwould be little or no temptation in the world to evil. As it has been\nclearly proved, however, (at least as I think) that this is entirely a\nfalse conception, and that, independent of any political or social\ninstitutions whatever, the greater part of mankind, from the fixed and\nunalterable laws of nature, must ever be subject to the evil\ntemptations arising from want, besides other passions, it follows from\nMr Godwin's definition of man that such impressions, and combinations\nof impressions, cannot be afloat in the world without generating a\nvariety of bad men. According to Mr Godwin's own conception of the\nformation of character, it is surely as improbable that under such\ncircumstances all men will be virtuous as that sixes will come up a\nhundred times following upon the dice. The great variety of\ncombinations upon the dice in a repeated succession of throws appears\nto me not inaptly to represent the great variety of character that must\nnecessarily exist in the world, supposing every individual to be formed\nwhat he is by that combination of impressions which he has received\nsince his first existence. And this comparison will, in some measure,\nshew the absurdity of supposing, that exceptions will ever become\ngeneral rules; that extraordinary and unusual combinations will be\nfrequent; or that the individual instances of great virtue which had\nappeared in all ages of the world will ever prevail universally.\n\nI am aware that Mr Godwin might say that the comparison is in one\nrespect inaccurate, that in the case of the dice, the preceding causes,\nor rather the chances respecting the preceding causes, were always the\nsame, and that, therefore, I could have no good reason for supposing\nthat a greater number of sixes would come up in the next hundred times\nof throwing than in the preceding same number of throws. But, that man\nhad in some sort a power of influencing those causes that formed\ncharacter, and that every good and virtuous man that was produced, by\nthe influence which he must necessarily have, rather increased the\nprobability that another such virtuous character would be generated,\nwhereas the coming up of sixes upon the dice once, would certainly not\nincrease the probability of their coming up a second time. I admit this\nobjection to the accuracy of the comparison, but it is only partially\nvalid. Repeated experience has assured us, that the influence of the\nmost virtuous character will rarely prevail against very strong\ntemptations to evil. It will undoubtedly affect some, but it will fail\nwith a much greater number. Had Mr Godwin succeeded in his attempt to\nprove that these temptations to evil could by the exertions of man be\nremoved, I would give up the comparison; or at least allow, that a man\nmight be so far enlightened with regard to the mode of shaking his\nelbow, that he would be able to throw sixes every time. But as long as\na great number of those impressions which form character, like the nice\nmotions of the arm, remain absolutely independent of the will of man,\nthough it would be the height of folly and presumption to attempt to\ncalculate the relative proportions of virtue and vice at the future\nperiods of the world, it may be safely asserted that the vices and\nmoral weakness of mankind, taken in the mass, are invincible.\n\nThe fifth proposition is the general deduction from the four former and\nwill consequently fall, as the foundations which support it have given\nway. In the sense in which Mr Godwin understands the term\n'perfectible', the perfectibility of man cannot be asserted, unless the\npreceding propositions could have been clearly established. There is,\nhowever, one sense, which the term will bear, in which it is, perhaps,\njust. It may be said with truth that man is always susceptible of\nimprovement, or that there never has been, or will be, a period of his\nhistory, in which he can be said to have reached his possible acme of\nperfection. Yet it does not by any means follow from this, that our\nefforts to improve man will always succeed, or even that he will ever\nmake, in the greatest number of ages, any extraordinary strides towards\nperfection. The only inference that can be drawn is that the precise\nlimit of his improvement cannot possibly be known. And I cannot help\nagain reminding the reader of a distinction which, it appears to me,\nought particularly to be attended to in the present question: I mean,\nthe essential difference there is between an unlimited improvement and\nan improvement the limit of which cannot be ascertained. The former is\nan improvement not applicable to man under the present laws of his\nnature. The latter, undoubtedly, is applicable.\n\nThe real perfectibility of man may be illustrated, as I have mentioned\nbefore, by the perfectibility of a plant. The object of the\nenterprising florist is, as I conceive, to unite size, symmetry, and\nbeauty of colour. It would surely be presumptuous in the most\nsuccessful improver to affirm, that he possessed a carnation in which\nthese qualities existed in the greatest possible state of perfection.\nHowever beautiful his flower may be, other care, other soil, or other\nsuns, might produce one still more beautiful.\n\nYet, although he may be aware of the absurdity of supposing that he has\nreached perfection, and though he may know by what means he attained\nthat degree of beauty in the flower which he at present possesses, yet\nhe cannot be sure that by pursuing similar means, rather increased in\nstrength, he will obtain a more beautiful blossom. By endeavouring to\nimprove one quality, he may impair the beauty of another. The richer\nmould which he would employ to increase the size of his plant would\nprobably burst the calyx, and destroy at once its symmetry. In a\nsimilar manner, the forcing manure used to bring about the French\nRevolution, and to give a greater freedom and energy to the human mind,\nhas burst the calyx of humanity, the restraining bond of all society;\nand, however large the separate petals have grown, however strongly, or\neven beautifully, a few of them have been marked, the whole is at\npresent a loose, deformed, disjointed mass, without union, symmetry, or\nharmony of colouring.\n\nWere it of consequence to improve pinks and carnations, though we could\nhave no hope of raising them as large as cabbages, we might undoubtedly\nexpect, by successive efforts, to obtain more beautiful specimens than\nwe at present possess. No person can deny the importance of improving\nthe happiness of the human species. Every the least advance in this\nrespect is highly valuable. But an experiment with the human race is\nnot like an experiment upon inanimate objects. The bursting of a flower\nmay be a trifle. Another will soon succeed it. But the bursting of the\nbonds of society is such a separation of parts as cannot take place\nwithout giving the most acute pain to thousands: and a long time may\nelapse, and much misery may be endured, before the wound grows up again.\n\nAs the five propositions which I have been examining may be considered\nas the corner stones of Mr Godwin's fanciful structure, and, indeed, as\nexpressing the aim and bent of his whole work, however excellent much\nof his detached reasoning may be, he must be considered as having\nfailed in the great object of his undertaking. Besides the difficulties\narising from the compound nature of man, which he has by no means\nsufficiently smoothed, the principal argument against the\nperfectibility of man and society remains whole and unimpaired from any\nthing that he has advanced. And as far as I can trust my own judgement,\nthis argument appears to be conclusive, not only against the\nperfectibility of man, in the enlarged sense in which Mr Godwin\nunderstands the term, but against any very marked and striking change\nfor the better, in the form and structure of general society; by which\nI mean any great and decided amelioration of the condition of the lower\nclasses of mankind, the most numerous, and, consequently, in a general\nview of the subject, the most important part of the human race. Were I\nto live a thousand years, and the laws of nature to remain the same, I\nshould little fear, or rather little hope, a contradiction from\nexperience in asserting that no possible sacrifices or exertions of the\nrich, in a country which had been long inhabited, could for any time\nplace the lower classes of the community in a situation equal, with\nregard to circumstances, to the situation of the common people about\nthirty years ago in the northern States of America.\n\nThe lower classes of people in Europe may at some future period be much\nbetter instructed than they are at present; they may be taught to\nemploy the little spare time they have in many better ways than at the\nale-house; they may live under better and more equal laws than they\nhave ever hitherto done, perhaps, in any country; and I even conceive\nit possible, though not probable that they may have more leisure; but\nit is not in the nature of things that they can be awarded such a\nquantity of money or subsistence as will allow them all to marry early,\nin the full confidence that they shall be able to provide with ease for\na numerous family.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER 15\n\nModels too perfect may sometimes rather impede than promote\nimprovement--Mr Godwin's essay on 'Avarice and\nProfusion'--Impossibility of dividing the necessary labour of a society\namicably among all--Invectives against labour may produce present evil,\nwith little or no chance of producing future good--An accession to the\nmass of agricultural labour must always be an advantage to the labourer.\n\n\nMr Godwin in the preface to his Enquirer, drops a few expressions which\nseem to hint at some change in his opinions since he wrote the\nPolitical Justice; and as this is a work now of some years standing, I\nshould certainly think that I had been arguing against opinions which\nthe author had himself seen reason to alter, but that in some of the\nessays of the Enquirer, Mr Godwin's peculiar mode of thinking appears\nin as striking a light as ever.\n\nIt has been frequently observed that though we cannot hope to reach\nperfection in any thing, yet that it must always be advantageous to us\nto place before our eyes the most perfect models. This observation has\na plausible appearance, but is very far from being generally true. I\neven doubt its truth in one of the most obvious exemplifications that\nwould occur. I doubt whether a very young painter would receive so much\nbenefit, from an attempt to copy a highly finished and perfect picture,\nas from copying one where the outlines were more strongly marked and\nthe manner of laying on the colours was more easily discoverable. But\nin cases where the perfection of the model is a perfection of a\ndifferent and superior nature from that towards which we should\nnaturally advance, we shall not always fail in making any progress\ntowards it, but we shall in all probability impede the progress which\nwe might have expected to make had we not fixed our eyes upon so\nperfect a model. A highly intellectual being, exempt from the infirm\ncalls of hunger or sleep, is undoubtedly a much more perfect existence\nthan man, but were man to attempt to copy such a model, he would not\nonly fail in making any advances towards it; but by unwisely straining\nto imitate what was inimitable, he would probably destroy the little\nintellect which he was endeavouring to improve.\n\nThe form and structure of society which Mr Godwin describes is as\nessentially distinct from any forms of society which have hitherto\nprevailed in the world as a being that can live without food or sleep\nis from a man. By improving society in its present form, we are making\nno more advances towards such a state of things as he pictures than we\nshould make approaches towards a line, with regard to which we were\nwalking parallel. The question, therefore, is whether, by looking to\nsuch a form of society as our polar star, we are likely to advance or\nretard the improvement of the human species? Mr Godwin appears to me to\nhave decided this question against himself in his essay on 'Avarice and\nProfusion' in the Enquirer.\n\nDr Adam Smith has very justly observed that nations as well as\nindividuals grow rich by parsimony and poor by profusion, and that,\ntherefore, every frugal man was a friend and every spendthrift an enemy\nto his country. The reason he gives is that what is saved from revenue\nis always added to stock, and is therefore taken from the maintenance\nof labour that is generally unproductive and employed in the\nmaintenance of labour that realizes itself in valuable commodities. No\nobservation can be more evidently just. The subject of Mr Godwin's\nessay is a little similar in its first appearance, but in essence is as\ndistinct as possible. He considers the mischief of profusion as an\nacknowledged truth, and therefore makes his comparison between the\navaricious man, and the man who spends his income. But the avaricious\nman of Mr Godwin is totally a distinct character, at least with regard\nto his effect upon the prosperity of the state, from the frugal man of\nDr Adam Smith. The frugal man in order to make more money saves from\nhis income and adds to his capital, and this capital he either employs\nhimself in the maintenance of productive labour, or he lends it to some\nother person who will probably employ it in this way. He benefits the\nstate because he adds to its general capital, and because wealth\nemployed as capital not only sets in motion more labour than when spent\nas income, but the labour is besides of a more valuable kind. But the\navaricious man of Mr Godwin locks up his wealth in a chest and sets in\nmotion no labour of any kind, either productive or unproductive. This\nis so essential a difference that Mr Godwin's decision in his essay\nappears at once as evidently false as Dr Adam Smith's position is\nevidently true. It could not, indeed, but occur to Mr Godwin that some\npresent inconvenience might arise to the poor from thus locking up the\nfunds destined for the maintenance of labour. The only way, therefore,\nhe had of weakening this objection was to compare the two characters\nchiefly with regard to their tendency to accelerate the approach of\nthat happy state of cultivated equality, on which he says we ought\nalways to fix our eyes as our polar star.\n\nI think it has been proved in the former parts of this essay that such\na state of society is absolutely impracticable. What consequences then\nare we to expect from looking to such a point as our guide and polar\nstar in the great sea of political discovery? Reason would teach us to\nexpect no other than winds perpetually adverse, constant but fruitless\ntoil, frequent shipwreck, and certain misery. We shall not only fail in\nmaking the smallest real approach towards such a perfect form of\nsociety; but by wasting our strength of mind and body, in a direction\nin which it is impossible to proceed, and by the frequent distress\nwhich we must necessarily occasion by our repeated failures, we shall\nevidently impede that degree of improvement in society, which is really\nattainable.\n\nIt has appeared that a society constituted according to Mr Godwin's\nsystem must, from the inevitable laws of our nature, degenerate into a\nclass of proprietors and a class of labourers, and that the\nsubstitution of benevolence for self-love as the moving principle of\nsociety, instead of producing the happy effects that might be expected\nfrom so fair a name, would cause the same pressure of want to be felt\nby the whole of society, which is now felt only by a part. It is to the\nestablished administration of property and to the apparently narrow\nprinciple of self-love that we are indebted for all the noblest\nexertions of human genius, all the finer and more delicate emotions of\nthe soul, for everything, indeed, that distinguishes the civilized from\nthe savage state; and no sufficient change has as yet taken place in\nthe nature of civilized man to enable us to say that he either is, or\never will be, in a state when he may safely throw down the ladder by\nwhich he has risen to this eminence.\n\nIf in every society that has advanced beyond the savage state, a class\nof proprietors and a class of labourers must necessarily exist, it is\nevident that, as labour is the only property of the class of labourers,\nevery thing that tends to diminish the value of this property must tend\nto diminish the possession of this part of society. The only way that a\npoor man has of supporting himself in independence is by the exertion\nof his bodily strength. This is the only commodity he has to give in\nexchange for the necessaries of life. It would hardly appear then that\nyou benefit him by narrowing the market for this commodity, by\ndecreasing the demand for labour, and lessening the value of the only\nproperty that he possesses.\n\nIt should be observed that the principal argument of this Essay only\ngoes to prove the necessity of a class of proprietors, and a class of\nlabourers, but by no means infers that the present great inequality of\nproperty is either necessary or useful to society. On the contrary, it\nmust certainly be considered as an evil, and every institution that\npromotes it is essentially bad and impolitic. But whether a government\ncould with advantage to society actively interfere to repress\ninequality of fortunes may be a matter of doubt. Perhaps the generous\nsystem of perfect liberty adopted by Dr Adam Smith and the French\neconomists would be ill exchanged for any system of restraint.\n\nMr Godwin would perhaps say that the whole system of barter and\nexchange is a vile and iniquitous traffic. If you would essentially\nrelieve the poor man, you should take a part of his labour upon\nyourself, or give him your money, without exacting so severe a return\nfor it. In answer to the first method proposed, it may be observed,\nthat even if the rich could be persuaded to assist the poor in this\nway, the value of the assistance would be comparatively trifling. The\nrich, though they think themselves of great importance, bear but a\nsmall proportion in point of numbers to the poor, and would, therefore,\nrelieve them but of a small part of their burdens by taking a share.\nWere all those that are employed in the labours of luxuries added to\nthe number of those employed in producing necessaries, and could these\nnecessary labours be amicably divided among all, each man's share might\nindeed be comparatively light; but desirable as such an amicable\ndivision would undoubtedly be, I cannot conceive any practical\nprinciple according to which it could take place. It has been shewn,\nthat the spirit of benevolence, guided by the strict impartial justice\nthat Mr Godwin describes, would, if vigorously acted upon, depress in\nwant and misery the whole human race. Let us examine what would be the\nconsequence, if the proprietor were to retain a decent share for\nhimself, but to give the rest away to the poor, without exacting a task\nfrom them in return. Not to mention the idleness and the vice that such\na proceeding, if general, would probably create in the present state of\nsociety, and the great risk there would be, of diminishing the produce\nof land, as well as the labours of luxury, another objection yet\nremains.\n\nMr Godwin seems to have but little respect for practical principles;\nbut I own it appears to me, that he is a much greater benefactor to\nmankind, who points out how an inferior good may be attained, than he\nwho merely expatiates on the deformity of the present state of society,\nand the beauty of a different state, without pointing out a practical\nmethod, that might be immediately applied, of accelerating our advances\nfrom the one, to the other.\n\nIt has appeared that from the principle of population more will always\nbe in want than can be adequately supplied. The surplus of the rich man\nmight be sufficient for three, but four will be desirous to obtain it.\nHe cannot make this selection of three out of the four without\nconferring a great favour on those that are the objects of his choice.\nThese persons must consider themselves as under a great obligation to\nhim and as dependent upon him for their support. The rich man would\nfeel his power and the poor man his dependence, and the evil effects of\nthese two impressions on the human heart are well known. Though I\nperfectly agree with Mr Godwin therefore in the evil of hard labour,\nyet I still think it a less evil, and less calculated to debase the\nhuman mind, than dependence, and every history of man that we have ever\nread places in a strong point of view the danger to which that mind is\nexposed which is entrusted with constant power.\n\nIn the present state of things, and particularly when labour is in\nrequest, the man who does a day's work for me confers full as great an\nobligation upon me as I do upon him. I possess what he wants, he\npossesses what I want. We make an amicable exchange. The poor man walks\nerect in conscious independence; and the mind of his employer is not\nvitiated by a sense of power.\n\nThree or four hundred years ago there was undoubtedly much less labour\nin England, in proportion to the population, than at present, but there\nwas much more dependence, and we probably should not now enjoy our\npresent degree of civil liberty if the poor, by the introduction of\nmanufactures, had not been enabled to give something in exchange for\nthe provisions of the great Lords, instead of being dependent upon\ntheir bounty. Even the greatest enemies of trade and manufactures, and\nI do not reckon myself a very determined friend to them, must allow\nthat when they were introduced into England, liberty came in their\ntrain.\n\nNothing that has been said tends in the most remote degree to\nundervalue the principle of benevolence. It is one of the noblest and\nmost godlike qualities of the human heart, generated, perhaps, slowly\nand gradually from self-love, and afterwards intended to act as a\ngeneral law, whose kind office it should be, to soften the partial\ndeformities, to correct the asperities, and to smooth the wrinkles of\nits parent: and this seems to be the analog of all nature. Perhaps\nthere is no one general law of nature that will not appear, to us at\nleast, to produce partial evil; and we frequently observe at the same\ntime, some bountiful provision which, acting as another general law,\ncorrects the inequalities of the first.\n\nThe proper office of benevolence is to soften the partial evils arising\nfrom self-love, but it can never be substituted in its place. If no man\nwere to allow himself to act till he had completely determined that the\naction he was about to perform was more conducive than any other to the\ngeneral good, the most enlightened minds would hesitate in perplexity\nand amazement; and the unenlightened would be continually committing\nthe grossest mistakes.\n\nAs Mr Godwin, therefore, has not laid down any practical principle\naccording to which the necessary labours of agriculture might be\namicably shared among the whole class of labourers, by general\ninvectives against employing the poor he appears to pursue an\nunattainable good through much present evil. For if every man who\nemploys the poor ought to be considered as their enemy, and as adding\nto the weight of their oppressions, and if the miser is for this reason\nto be preferred to the man who spends his income, it follows that any\nnumber of men who now spend their incomes might, to the advantage of\nsociety, be converted into misers. Suppose then that a hundred thousand\npersons who now employ ten men each were to lock up their wealth from\ngeneral use, it is evident, that a million of working men of different\nkinds would be completely thrown out of all employment. The extensive\nmisery that such an event would produce in the present state of society\nMr Godwin himself could hardly refuse to acknowledge, and I question\nwhether he might not find some difficulty in proving that a conduct of\nthis kind tended more than the conduct of those who spend their incomes\nto 'place human beings in the condition in which they ought to be\nplaced.' But Mr Godwin says that the miser really locks up nothing,\nthat the point has not been rightly understood, and that the true\ndevelopment and definition of the nature of wealth have not been\napplied to illustrate it. Having defined therefore wealth, very justly,\nto be the commodities raised and fostered by human labour, he observes\nthat the miser locks up neither corn, nor oxen, nor clothes, nor\nhouses. Undoubtedly he does not really lock up these articles, but he\nlocks up the power of producing them, which is virtually the same.\nThese things are certainly used and consumed by his contemporaries, as\ntruly, and to as great an extent, as if he were a beggar; but not to as\ngreat an extent as if he had employed his wealth in turning up more\nland, in breeding more oxen, in employing more tailors, and in building\nmore houses. But supposing, for a moment, that the conduct of the miser\ndid not tend to check any really useful produce, how are all those who\nare thrown out of employment to obtain patents which they may shew in\norder to be awarded a proper share of the food and raiment produced by\nthe society? This is the unconquerable difficulty.\n\nI am perfectly willing to concede to Mr Godwin that there is much more\nlabour in the world than is really necessary, and that, if the lower\nclasses of society could agree among themselves never to work more than\nsix or seven hours in the day, the commodities essential to human\nhappiness might still be produced in as great abundance as at present.\nBut it is almost impossible to conceive that such an agreement could be\nadhered to. From the principle of population, some would necessarily be\nmore in want than others. Those that had large families would naturally\nbe desirous of exchanging two hours more of their labour for an ampler\nquantity of subsistence. How are they to be prevented from making this\nexchange? it would be a violation of the first and most sacred property\nthat a man possesses to attempt, by positive institutions, to interfere\nwith his command over his own labour.\n\nTill Mr Godwin, therefore, can point out some practical plan according\nto which the necessary labour in a society might be equitably divided,\nhis invectives against labour, if they were attended to, would\ncertainly produce much present evil without approximating us to that\nstate of cultivated equality to which he looks forward as his polar\nstar, and which, he seems to think, should at present be our guide in\ndetermining the nature and tendency of human actions. A mariner guided\nby such a polar star is in danger of shipwreck.\n\nPerhaps there is no possible way in which wealth could in general be\nemployed so beneficially to a state, and particularly to the lower\norders of it, as by improving and rendering productive that land which\nto a farmer would not answer the expense of cultivation. Had Mr Godwin\nexerted his energetic eloquence in painting the superior worth and\nusefulness of the character who employed the poor in this way, to him\nwho employed them in narrow luxuries, every enlightened man must have\napplauded his efforts. The increasing demand for agricultural labour\nmust always tend to better the condition of the poor; and if the\naccession of work be of this kind, so far is it from being true that\nthe poor would be obliged to work ten hours for the same price that\nthey before worked eight, that the very reverse would be the fact; and\na labourer might then support his wife and family as well by the labour\nof six hours as he could before by the labour of eight.\n\nThe labour created by luxuries, though useful in distributing the\nproduce of the country, without vitiating the proprietor by power, or\ndebasing the labourer by dependence, has not, indeed, the same\nbeneficial effects on the state of the poor. A great accession of work\nfrom manufacturers, though it may raise the price of labour even more\nthan an increasing demand for agricultural labour, yet, as in this case\nthe quantity of food in the country may not be proportionably\nincreasing, the advantage to the poor will be but temporary, as the\nprice of provisions must necessarily rise in proportion to the price of\nlabour. Relative to this subject, I cannot avoid venturing a few\nremarks on a part of Dr Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, speaking at the\nsame time with that diffidence which I ought certainly to feel in\ndiffering from a person so justly celebrated in the political world.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER 16\n\nProbable error of Dr Adam Smith in representing every increase of the\nrevenue or stock of a society as an increase in the funds for the\nmaintenance of labour--Instances where an increase of wealth can have\nno tendency to better the condition of the labouring poor--England has\nincreased in riches without a proportional increase in the funds for\nthe maintenance of labour--The state of the poor in China would not be\nimproved by an increase of wealth from manufactures.\n\n\nThe professed object of Dr Adam Smith's inquiry is the nature and\ncauses of the wealth of nations. There is another inquiry, however,\nperhaps still more interesting, which he occasionally mixes with it; I\nmean an inquiry into the causes which affect the happiness of nations\nor the happiness and comfort of the lower orders of society, which is\nthe most numerous class in every nation. I am sufficiency aware of the\nnear connection of these two subjects, and that the causes which tend\nto increase the wealth of a state tend also, generally speaking, to\nincrease the happiness of the lower classes of the people. But perhaps\nDr Adam Smith has considered these two inquiries as still more nearly\nconnected than they really are; at least, he has not stopped to take\nnotice of those instances where the wealth of a society may increase\n(according to his definition of 'wealth') without having any tendency\nto increase the comforts of the labouring part of it. I do not mean to\nenter into a philosophical discussion of what constitutes the proper\nhappiness of man, but shall merely consider two universally\nacknowledged ingredients, health, and the command of the necessaries\nand conveniences of life.\n\nLittle or no doubt can exist that the comforts of the labouring poor\ndepend upon the increase of the funds destined for the maintenance of\nlabour, and will be very exactly in proportion to the rapidity of this\nincrease. The demand for labour which such increase would occasion, by\ncreating a competition in the market, must necessarily raise the value\nof labour, and, till the additional number of hands required were\nreared, the increased funds would be distributed to the same number of\npersons as before the increase, and therefore every labourer would live\ncomparatively at his ease. But perhaps Dr Adam Smith errs in\nrepresenting every increase of the revenue or stock of a society as an\nincrease of these funds. Such surplus stock or revenue will, indeed,\nalways be considered by the individual possessing it as an additional\nfund from which he may maintain more labour: but it will not be a real\nand effectual fund for the maintenance of an additional number of\nlabourers, unless the whole, or at least a great part of this increase\nof the stock or revenue of the society, be convertible into a\nproportional quantity of provisions; and it will not be so convertible\nwhere the increase has arisen merely from the produce of labour, and\nnot from the produce of land. A distinction will in this case occur,\nbetween the number of hands which the stock of the society could\nemploy, and the number which its territory can maintain.\n\nTo explain myself by an instance. Dr Adam Smith defines the wealth of a\nnation to consist. In the annual produce of its land and labour. This\ndefinition evidently includes manufactured produce, as well as the\nproduce of the land. Now supposing a nation for a course of years was\nto add what it saved from its yearly revenue to its manufacturing\ncapital solely, and not to its capital employed upon land, it is\nevident that it might grow richer according to the above definition,\nwithout a power of supporting a greater number of labourers, and,\ntherefore, without an increase in the real funds for the maintenance of\nlabour. There would, notwithstanding, be a demand for labour from the\npower which each manufacturer would possess, or at least think he\npossessed, of extending his old stock in trade or of setting up fresh\nworks. This demand would of course raise the price of labour, but if\nthe yearly stock of provisions in the country was not increasing, this\nrise would soon turn out to be merely nominal, as the price of\nprovisions must necessarily rise with it. The demand for manufacturing\nlabourers might, indeed, entice many from agriculture and thus tend to\ndiminish the annual produce of the land, but we will suppose any effect\nof this kind to be compensated by improvements in the instruments of\nagriculture, and the quantity of provisions therefore to remain the\nsame. Improvements in manufacturing machinery would of course take\nplace, and this circumstance, added to the greater number of hands\nemployed in manufactures, would cause the annual produce of the labour\nof the country to be upon the whole greatly increased. The wealth\ntherefore of the country would be increasing annually, according to the\ndefinition, and might not, perhaps, be increasing very slowly.\n\nThe question is whether wealth, increasing in this way, has any\ntendency to better the condition of the labouring poor. It is a\nself-evident proposition that any general rise in the price of labour,\nthe stock of provisions remaining the same, can only be a nominal rise,\nas it must very shortly be followed by a proportional rise in the price\nof provisions. The increase in the price of labour, therefore, which we\nhave supposed, would have little or no effect in giving the labouring\npoor a greater command over the necessaries and conveniences of life.\nIn this respect they would be nearly in the same state as before. In\none other respect they would be in a worse state. A greater proportion\nof them would be employed in manufactures, and fewer, consequently, in\nagriculture. And this exchange of professions will be allowed, I think,\nby all, to be very unfavourable in respect of health, one essential\ningredient of happiness, besides the greater uncertainty of\nmanufacturing labour, arising from the capricious taste of man, the\naccidents of war, and other causes.\n\nIt may be said, perhaps, that such an instance as I have supposed could\nnot occur, because the rise in the price of provisions would\nimmediately turn some additional capital into the channel of\nagriculture. But this is an event which may take place very slowly, as\nit should be remarked that a rise in the price of labour had preceded\nthe rise of provisions, and would, therefore, impede the good effects\nupon agriculture, which the increased value of the produce of the land\nmight otherwise have occasioned.\n\nIt might also be said, that the additional capital of the nation would\nenable it to import provisions sufficient for the maintenance of those\nwhom its stock could employ. A small country with a large navy, and\ngreat inland accommodations for carriage, such as Holland, may, indeed,\nimport and distribute an effectual quantity of provisions; but the\nprice of provisions must be very high to make such an importation and\ndistribution answer in large countries less advantageously\ncircumstanced in this respect.\n\nAn instance, accurately such as I have supposed, may not, perhaps, ever\nhave occurred, but I have little doubt that instances nearly\napproximating to it may be found without any very laborious search.\nIndeed I am strongly inclined to think that England herself, since the\nRevolution, affords a very striking elucidation of the argument in\nquestion.\n\nThe commerce of this country, internal as well as external, has\ncertainly been rapidly advancing during the last century. The\nexchangeable value in the market of Europe of the annual produce of its\nland and labour has, without doubt, increased very considerably. But,\nupon examination, it will be found that the increase has been chiefly\nin the produce of labour and not in the produce of land, and therefore,\nthough the wealth of the nation has been advancing with a quick pace,\nthe effectual funds for the maintenance of labour have been increasing\nvery slowly, and the result is such as might be expected. The\nincreasing wealth of the nation has had little or no tendency to better\nthe condition of the labouring poor. They have not, I believe, a\ngreater command of the necessaries and conveniences of life, and a much\ngreater proportion of them than at the period of the Revolution is\nemployed in manufactures and crowded together in close and unwholesome\nrooms.\n\nCould we believe the statement of Dr Price that the population of\nEngland has decreased since the Revolution, it would even appear that\nthe effectual funds for the maintenance of labour had been declining\nduring the progress of wealth in other respects. For I conceive that it\nmay be laid down as a general rule that if the effectual funds for the\nmaintenance of labour are increasing, that is, if the territory can\nmaintain as well as the stock employ a greater number of labourers,\nthis additional number will quickly spring up, even in spite of such\nwars as Dr Price enumerates. And, consequently, if the population of\nany country has been stationary, or declining, we may safely infer,\nthat, however it may have advanced in manufacturing wealth, its\neffectual funds for the maintenance of labour cannot have increased.\n\nIt is difficult, however, to conceive that the population of England\nhas been declining since the Revolution, though every testimony concurs\nto prove that its increase, if it has increased, has been very slow. In\nthe controversy which the question has occasioned, Dr Price undoubtedly\nappears to be much more completely master of his subject, and to\npossess more accurate information, than his opponents. Judging simply\nfrom this controversy, I think one should say that Dr Price's point is\nnearer being proved than Mr Howlett's. Truth, probably, lies between\nthe two statements, but this supposition makes the increase of\npopulation since the Revolution to have been very slow in comparison\nwith the increase of wealth.\n\nThat the produce of the land has been decreasing, or even that it has\nbeen absolutely stationary during the last century, few will be\ndisposed to believe. The enclosure of commons and waste lands certainly\ntends to increase the food of the country, but it has been asserted\nwith confidence that the enclosure of common fields has frequently had\na contrary effect, and that large tracts of land which formerly\nproduced great quantities of corn, by being converted into pasture both\nemploy fewer hands and feed fewer mouths than before their enclosure.\nIt is, indeed, an acknowledged truth, that pasture land produces a\nsmaller quantity of human subsistence than corn land of the same\nnatural fertility, and could it be clearly ascertained that from the\nincreased demand for butchers' meat of the best quality, and its\nincreased price in consequence, a greater quantity of good land has\nannually been employed in grazing, the diminution of human subsistence,\nwhich this circumstance would occasion, might have counterbalanced the\nadvantages derived from the enclosure of waste lands, and the general\nimprovements in husbandry.\n\nIt scarcely need be remarked that the high price of butchers' meat at\npresent, and its low price formerly, were not caused by the scarcity in\nthe one case or the plenty in the other, but by the different expense\nsustained at the different periods, in preparing cattle for the market.\nIt is, however, possible, that there might have been more cattle a\nhundred years ago in the country than at present; but no doubt can be\nentertained, that there is much more meat of a superior quality brought\nto market at present than ever there was. When the price of butchers'\nmeat was very low, cattle were reared chiefly upon waste lands; and\nexcept for some of the principal markets, were probably killed with but\nlittle other fatting. The veal that is sold so cheap in some distant\ncounties at present bears little other resemblance than the name, to\nthat which is bought in London. Formerly, the price of butchers, meat\nwould not pay for rearing, and scarcely for feeding, cattle on land\nthat would answer in tillage; but the present price will not only pay\nfor fatting cattle on the very best land, but will even allow of the\nrearing many, on land that would bear good crops of corn. The same\nnumber of cattle, or even the same weight of cattle at the different\nperiods when killed, will have consumed (if I may be allowed the\nexpression) very different quantities of human substance. A fatted\nbeast may in some respects be considered, in the language of the French\neconomists, as an unproductive labourer: he has added nothing to the\nvalue of the raw produce that he has consumed. The present system of\ngrating, undoubtedly tends more than the former system to diminish the\nquantity of human subsistence in the country, in proportion to the\ngeneral fertility of the land.\n\nI would not by any means be understood to say that the former system\neither could or ought to have continued. The increasing price of\nbutchers' meat is a natural and inevitable consequence of the general\nprogress of cultivation; but I cannot help thinking, that the present\ngreat demand for butchers' meat of the best quality, and the quantity\nof good land that is in consequence annually employed to produce it,\ntogether with the great number of horses at present kept for pleasure,\nare the chief causes that have prevented the quantity of human food in\nthe country from keeping pace with the generally increased fertility of\nthe soil; and a change of custom in these respects would, I have little\ndoubt, have a very sensible effect on the quantity of subsistence in\nthe country, and consequently on its population.\n\nThe employment of much of the most fertile land in grating, the\nimprovements in agricultural instruments, the increase of large farms,\nand particularly the diminution of the number of cottages throughout\nthe kingdom, all concur to prove, that there are not probably so many\npersons employed in agricultural labour now as at the period of the\nRevolution. Whatever increase of population, therefore, has taken\nplace, must be employed almost wholly in manufactures, and it is well\nknown that the failure of some of these manufactures, merely from the\ncaprice of fashion, such as the adoption of muslins instead of silks,\nor of shoe-strings and covered buttons, instead of buckles and metal\nbuttons, combined with the restraints in the market of labour arising\nfrom corporation and parish laws, have frequently driven thousands on\ncharity for support. The great increase of the poor rates is, indeed,\nof itself a strong evidence that the poor have not a greater command of\nthe necessaries and conveniences of life, and if to the consideration,\nthat their condition in this respect is rather worse than better, be\nadded the circumstance, that a much greater proportion of them is\nemployed in large manufactories, unfavourable both to health and\nvirtue, it must be acknowledged, that the increase of wealth of late\nyears has had no tendency to increase the happiness of the labouring\npoor.\n\nThat every increase of the stock or revenue of a nation cannot be\nconsidered as an increase of the real funds for the maintenance of\nlabour and, therefore, cannot have the same good effect upon the\ncondition of the poor, will appear in a strong light if the argument be\napplied to China.\n\nDr Adam Smith observes that China has probably long been as rich as the\nnature of her laws and institutions will admit, but that with other\nlaws and institutions, and if foreign commerce were had in honour, she\nmight still be much richer. The question is, would such an increase of\nwealth be an increase of the real funds for the maintenance of labour,\nand consequently tend to place the lower classes of people in China in\na state of greater plenty?\n\nIt is evident, that if trade and foreign commerce were held in great\nhonour in China, from the plenty of labourers, and the cheapness of\nlabour, she might work up manufactures for foreign sale to an immense\namount. It is equally evident that from the great bulk of provisions\nand the amazing extent of her inland territory she could not in return\nimport such a quantity as would be any sensible addition to the annual\nstock of subsistence in the country. Her immense amount of\nmanufactures, therefore, she would exchange, chiefly, for luxuries\ncollected from all parts of the world. At present, it appears, that no\nlabour whatever is spared in the production of food. The country is\nrather over-people in proportion to what its stock can employ, and\nlabour is, therefore, so abundant, that no pains are taken to abridge\nit. The consequence of this is, probably, the greatest production of\nfood that the soil can possibly afford, for it will be generally\nobserved, that processes for abridging labour, though they may enable a\nfarmer to bring a certain quantity of grain cheaper to market, tend\nrather to diminish than increase the whole produce; and in agriculture,\ntherefore, may, in some respects, be considered rather as private than\npublic advantages.\n\nAn immense capital could not be employed in China in preparing\nmanufactures for foreign trade without taking off so many labourers\nfrom agriculture as to alter this state of things, and in some degree\nto diminish the produce of the country. The demand for manufacturing\nlabourers would naturally raise the price of labour, but as the\nquantity of subsistence would not be increased, the price of provisions\nwould keep pace with it, or even more than keep pace with it if the\nquantity of provisions were really decreasing. The country would be\nevidently advancing in wealth, the exchangeable value of the annual\nproduce of its land and labour would be annually augmented, yet the\nreal funds for the maintenance of labour would be stationary, or even\ndeclining, and, consequently, the increasing wealth of the nation would\nrather tend to depress than to raise the condition of the poor. With\nregard to the command over the necessaries and comforts of life, they\nwould be in the same or rather worse state than before; and a great\npart of them would have exchanged the healthy labours of agriculture\nfor the unhealthy occupations of manufacturing industry.\n\nThe argument, perhaps, appears clearer when applied to China, because\nit is generally allowed that the wealth of China has been long\nstationary. With regard to any other country it might be always a\nmatter of dispute at which of the two periods, compared, wealth was\nincreasing the fastest, as it is upon the rapidity of the increase of\nwealth at any particular period that Dr Adam Smith says the condition\nof the poor depends. It is evident, however, that two nations might\nincrease exactly with the same rapidity in the exchangeable value of\nthe annual produce of their land and labour, yet if one had applied\nitself chiefly to agriculture, and the other chiefly to commerce, the\nfunds for the maintenance of labour, and consequently the effect of the\nincrease of wealth in each nation, would be extremely different. In\nthat which had applied itself chiefly to agriculture, the poor would\nlive in great plenty, and population would rapidly increase. In that\nwhich had applied itself chiefly to commerce, the poor would be\ncomparatively but little benefited and consequently population would\nincrease slowly.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER 17\n\nQuestion of the proper definition of the wealth of a state--Reason\ngiven by the French economists for considering all manufacturers as\nunproductive labourers, not the true reason--The labour of artificers\nand manufacturers sufficiently productive to individuals, though not to\nthe state--A remarkable passage in Dr Price's two volumes of\nObservations--Error of Dr Price in attributing the happiness and rapid\npopulation of America, chiefly, to its peculiar state of\ncivilization--No advantage can be expected from shutting our eyes to\nthe difficulties in the way to the improvement of society.\n\n\nA question seems naturally to arise here whether the exchangeable value\nof the annual produce of the land and labour be the proper definition\nof the wealth of a country, or whether the gross produce of the land,\naccording to the French economists, may not be a more accurate\ndefinition. Certain it is that every increase of wealth, according to\nthe definition of the economists, will be an increase of the funds for\nthe maintenance of labour, and consequently will always tend to\nameliorate the condition of the labouring poor, though an increase of\nwealth, according to Dr Adam Smith's definition, will by no means\ninvariably have the same tendency. And yet it may not follow from this\nconsideration that Dr Adam Smith's definition is not just. It seems in\nmany respects improper to exclude the clothing and lodging of a whole\npeople from any part of their revenue. Much of it may, indeed, be of\nvery trivial and unimportant value in comparison with the food of the\ncountry, yet still it may be fairly considered as a part of its\nrevenue; and, therefore, the only point in which I should differ from\nDr Adam Smith is where he seems to consider every increase of the\nrevenue or stock of a society as an increase of the funds for the\nmaintenance of labour, and consequently as tending always to ameliorate\nthe condition of the poor.\n\nThe fine silks and cottons, the laces, and other ornamental luxuries of\na rich country, may contribute very considerably to augment the\nexchangeable value of its annual produce; yet they contribute but in a\nvery small degree to augment the mass of happiness in the society, and\nit appears to me that it is with some view to the real utility of the\nproduce that we ought to estimate the productiveness or\nunproductiveness of different sorts of labour. The French economists\nconsider all labour employed in manufactures as unproductive. Comparing\nit with the labour employed upon land, I should be perfectly disposed\nto agree with them, but not exactly for the reasons which they give.\nThey say that labour employed upon land is productive because the\nproduce, over and above completely paying the labourer and the farmer,\naffords a clear rent to the landlord, and that the labour employed upon\na piece of lace is unproductive because it merely replaces the\nprovisions that the workman had consumed, and the stock of his\nemployer, without affording any clear rent whatever. But supposing the\nvalue of the wrought lace to be such as that, besides paying in the\nmost complete manner the workman and his employer, it could afford a\nclear rent to a third person, it appears to me that, in comparison with\nthe labour employed upon land, it would be still as unproductive as\never. Though, according to the reasoning used by the French economists,\nthe man employed in the manufacture of lace would, in this case, seem\nto be a productive labourer. Yet according to their definition of the\nwealth of a state, he ought not to be considered in that light. He will\nhave added nothing to the gross produce of the land: he has consumed a\nportion of this gross produce, and has left a bit of lace in return;\nand though he may sell this bit of lace for three times the quantity of\nprovisions that he consumed whilst he was making it, and thus be a very\nproductive labourer with regard to himself, yet he cannot be considered\nas having added by his labour to any essential part of the riches of\nthe state. The clear rent, therefore, that a certain produce can\nafford, after paying the expenses of procuring it, does not appear to\nbe the sole criterion, by which to judge of the productiveness or\nunproductiveness to a state of any particular species of labour.\n\nSuppose that two hundred thousand men, who are now employed in\nproducing manufactures that only tend to gratify the vanity of a few\nrich people, were to be employed upon some barren and uncultivated\nlands, and to produce only half the quantity of food that they\nthemselves consumed; they would be still more productive labourers with\nregard to the state than they were before, though their labour, so far\nfrom affording a rent to a third person, would but half replace the\nprovisions used in obtaining the produce. In their former employment\nthey consumed a certain portion of the food of the country and left in\nreturn some silks and laces. In their latter employment they consumed\nthe same quantity of food and left in return provision for a hundred\nthousand men. There can be little doubt which of the two legacies would\nbe the most really beneficial to the country, and it will, I think, be\nallowed that the wealth which supported the two hundred thousand men\nwhile they were producing silks and laces would have been more usefully\nemployed in supporting them while they were producing the additional\nquantity of food.\n\nA capital employed upon land may be unproductive to the individual that\nemploys it and yet be highly productive to the society. A capital\nemployed in trade, on the contrary, may be highly productive to the\nindividual, and yet be almost totally unproductive to the society: and\nthis is the reason why I should call manufacturing labour unproductive,\nin comparison of that which is employed in agriculture, and not for the\nreason given by the French economists. It is, indeed, almost impossible\nto see the great fortunes that are made in trade, and the liberality\nwith which so many merchants live, and yet agree in the statement of\nthe economists, that manufacturers can only grow rich by depriving\nthemselves of the funds destined for their support. In many branches of\ntrade the profits are so great as would allow of a clear rent to a\nthird person; but as there is no third person in the case, and as all\nthe profits centre in the master manufacturer, or merchant, he seems to\nhave a fair chance of growing rich, without much privation; and we\nconsequently see large fortunes acquired in trade by persons who have\nnot been remarked for their parsimony.\n\nDaily experience proves that the labour employed in trade and\nmanufactures is sufficiently productive to individuals, but it\ncertainly is not productive in the same degree to the state. Every\naccession to the food of a country tends to the immediate benefit of\nthe whole society; but the fortunes made in trade tend but in a remote\nand uncertain manner to the same end, and in some respects have even a\ncontrary tendency. The home trade of consumption is by far the most\nimportant trade of every nation. China is the richest country in the\nworld, without any other. Putting then, for a moment, foreign trade out\nof the question, the man who, by an ingenious manufacture, obtains a\ndouble portion out of the old stock of provisions, will certainly not\nto be so useful to the state as the man who, by his labour, adds a\nsingle share to the former stock. The consumable commodities of silks,\nlaces, trinkets, and expensive furniture, are undoubtedly a part of the\nrevenue of the society; but they are the revenue only of the rich, and\nnot of the society in general. An increase in this part of the revenue\nof a state, cannot, therefore, be considered of the same importance as\nan increase of food, which forms the principal revenue of the great\nmass of the people.\n\nForeign commerce adds to the wealth of a state, according to Dr Adam\nSmith's definition, though not according to the definition of the\neconomists. Its principal use, and the reason, probably, that it has in\ngeneral been held in such high estimation is that it adds greatly to\nthe external power of a nation or to its power of commanding the labour\nof other countries; but it will be found, upon a near examination, to\ncontribute but little to the increase of the internal funds for the\nmaintenance of labour, and consequently but little to the happiness of\nthe greatest part of society. In the natural progress of a state\ntowards riches, manufactures, and foreign commerce would follow, in\ntheir order, the high cultivation of the soil. In Europe, this natural\norder of things has been inverted, and the soil has been cultivated\nfrom the redundancy of manufacturing capital, instead of manufactures\nrising from the redundancy of capital employed upon land. The superior\nencouragement that has been given to the industry of the towns, and the\nconsequent higher price that is paid for the labour of artificers than\nfor the labour of those employed in husbandry, are probably the reasons\nwhy so much soil in Europe remains uncultivated. Had a different policy\nbeen pursued throughout Europe, it might undoubtedly have been much\nmore populous than at present, and yet not be more incumbered by its\npopulation.\n\nI cannot quit this curious subject of the difficulty arising from\npopulation, a subject that appears to me to deserve a minute\ninvestigation and able discussion much beyond my power to give it,\nwithout taking notice of an extraordinary passage in Dr Price's two\nvolumes of Observations. Having given some tables on the probabilities\nof life, in towns and in the country, he says (Vol. II, p. 243):\n\nFrom this comparison, it appears with how much truth great cities have\nbeen called the graves of mankind. It must also convince all who\nconsider it, that according to the observation, at the end of the\nfourth essay, in the former volume, it is by no means strictly proper\nto consider our diseases as the original intention of nature. They are,\nwithout doubt, in general our own creation. Were there a country where\nthe inhabitants led lives entirely natural and virtuous, few of them\nwould die without measuring out the whole period of present existence\nallotted to them; pain and distemper would be unknown among them, and\ndeath would come upon them like a sleep, in consequence of no other\ncause than gradual and unavoidable decay.\n\nI own that I felt myself obliged to draw a very opposite conclusion\nfrom the facts advanced in Dr Price's two volumes. I had for some time\nbeen aware that population and food increased in different ratios, and\na vague opinion had been floating in my mind that they could only be\nkept equal by some species of misery or vice, but the perusal of Dr\nPrice's two volumes of Observations, after that opinion had been\nconceived, raised it at once to conviction. With so many facts in his\nview to prove the extraordinary rapidity with which population\nincreases when unchecked, and with such a body of evidence before him\nto elucidate even the manner by which the general laws of nature\nrepress a redundant population, it is perfectly inconceivable to me how\nhe could write the passage that I have quoted. He was a strenuous\nadvocate for early marriages, as the best preservative against vicious\nmanners. He had no fanciful conceptions about the extinction of the\npassion between the sexes, like Mr Godwin, nor did he ever think of\neluding the difficulty in the ways hinted at by Mr Condorcet. He\nfrequently talks of giving the prolifick powers of nature room to exert\nthemselves. Yet with these ideas, that his understanding could escape\nfrom the obvious and necessary inference that an unchecked population\nwould increase, beyond comparison, faster than the earth, by the best\ndirected exertions of man, could produce food for its support, appears\nto me as astonishing as if he had resisted the conclusion of one of the\nplainest propositions of Euclid.\n\nDr Price, speaking of the different stages of the civilized state,\nsays, 'The first, or simple stages of civilization, are those which\nfavour most the increase and the happiness of mankind.' He then\ninstances the American colonies, as being at that time in the first and\nhappiest of the states that he had described, and as affording a very\nstriking proof of the effects of the different stages of civilization\non population. But he does not seem to be aware that the happiness of\nthe Americans depended much less upon their peculiar degree of\ncivilization than upon the peculiarity of their situation, as new\ncolonies, upon their having a great plenty of fertile uncultivated\nland. In parts of Norway, Denmark, or Sweden, or in this country, two\nor three hundred years ago, he might have found perhaps nearly the same\ndegree of civilization, but by no means the same happiness or the same\nincrease of population. He quotes himself a statute of Henry the\nEighth, complaining of the decay of tillage, and the enhanced price of\nprovisions, 'whereby a marvellous number of people were rendered\nincapable of maintaining themselves and families.' The superior degree\nof civil liberty which prevailed in America contributed, without doubt,\nits share to promote the industry, happiness, and population of these\nstates, but even civil liberty, all powerful as it is, will not create\nfresh land. The Americans may be said, perhaps, to enjoy a greater\ndegree of civil liberty, now they are an independent people, than while\nthey were in subjection in England, but we may be perfectly sure that\npopulation will not long continue to increase with the same rapidity as\nit did then.\n\nA person who contemplated the happy state of the lower classes of\npeople in America twenty years ago would naturally wish to retain them\nfor ever in that state, and might think, perhaps, that by preventing\nthe introduction of manufactures and luxury he might effect his\npurpose, but he might as reasonably expect to prevent a wife or\nmistress from growing old by never exposing her to the sun or air. The\nsituation of new colonies, well governed, is a bloom of youth that no\nefforts can arrest. There are, indeed, many modes of treatment in the\npolitical, as well as animal, body, that contribute to accelerate or\nretard the approaches of age, but there can be no chance of success, in\nany mode that could be devised, for keeping either of them in perpetual\nyouth. By encouraging the industry of the towns more than the industry\nof the country, Europe may be said, perhaps, to have brought on a\npremature old age. A different policy in this respect would infuse\nfresh life and vigour into every state. While from the law of\nprimogeniture, and other European customs, land bears a monopoly price,\na capital can never be employed in it with much advantage to the\nindividual; and, therefore, it is not probable that the soil should be\nproperly cultivated. And, though in every civilized state a class of\nproprietors and a class of labourers must exist, yet one permanent\nadvantage would always result from a nearer equalization of property.\nThe greater the number of proprietors, the smaller must be the number\nof labourers: a greater part of society would be in the happy state of\npossessing property: and a smaller part in the unhappy state of\npossessing no other property than their labour. But the best directed\nexertions, though they may alleviate, can never remove the pressure of\nwant, and it will be difficult for any person who contemplates the\ngenuine situation of man on earth, and the general laws of nature, to\nsuppose it possible that any, the most enlightened, efforts could place\nmankind in a state where 'few would die without measuring out the whole\nperiod of present existence allotted to them; where pain and distemper\nwould be unknown among them; and death would come upon them like a\nsleep, in consequence of no other cause than gradual and unavoidable\ndecay.'\n\nIt is, undoubtedly, a most disheartening reflection that the great\nobstacle in the way to any extraordinary improvement in society is of a\nnature that we can never hope to overcome. The perpetual tendency in\nthe race of man to increase beyond the means of subsistence is one of\nthe general laws of animated nature which we can have no reason to\nexpect will change. Yet, discouraging as the contemplation of this\ndifficulty must be to those whose exertions are laudably directed to\nthe improvement of the human species, it is evident that no possible\ngood can arise from any endeavours to slur it over or keep it in the\nbackground. On the contrary, the most baleful mischiefs may be expected\nfrom the unmanly conduct of not daring to face truth because it is\nunpleasing. Independently of what relates to this great obstacle,\nsufficient yet remains to be done for mankind to animate us to the most\nunremitted exertion. But if we proceed without a thorough knowledge and\naccurate comprehension of the nature, extent, and magnitude of the\ndifficulties we have to encounter, or if we unwisely direct our efforts\ntowards an object in which we cannot hope for success, we shall not\nonly exhaust our strength in fruitless exertions and remain at as great\na distance as ever from the summit of our wishes, but we shall be\nperpetually crushed by the recoil of this rock of Sisyphus.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER 18\n\nThe constant pressure of distress on man, from the principle of\npopulation, seems to direct our hopes to the future--State of trial\ninconsistent with our ideas of the foreknowledge of God--The world,\nprobably, a mighty process for awakening matter into mind--Theory of\nthe formation of mind--Excitements from the wants of the\nbody--Excitements from the operation of general laws--Excitements from\nthe difficulties of life arising from the principle of population.\n\n\nThe view of human life which results from the contemplation of the\nconstant pressure of distress on man from the difficulty of\nsubsistence, by shewing the little expectation that he can reasonably\nentertain of perfectibility on earth, seems strongly to point his hopes\nto the future. And the temptations to which he must necessarily be\nexposed, from the operation of those laws of nature which we have been\nexamining, would seem to represent the world in the light in which it\nhas been frequently considered, as a state of trial and school of\nvirtue preparatory to a superior state of happiness. But I hope I shall\nbe pardoned if I attempt to give a view in some degree different of the\nsituation of man on earth, which appears to me to be more consistent\nwith the various phenomena of nature which we observe around us and\nmore consonant to our ideas of the power, goodness, and foreknowledge\nof the Deity.\n\nIt cannot be considered as an unimproving exercise of the human mind to\nendeavour to 'vindicate the ways of God to man' if we proceed with a\nproper distrust of our own understandings and a just sense of our\ninsufficiency to comprehend the reason of all we see, if we hail every\nray of light with gratitude, and, when no light appears, think that the\ndarkness is from within and not from without, and bow with humble\ndeference to the supreme wisdom of him whose 'thoughts are above our\nthoughts' 'as the heavens are high above the earth.'\n\nIn all our feeble attempts, however, to 'find out the Almighty to\nperfection', it seems absolutely necessary that we should reason from\nnature up to nature's God and not presume to reason from God to nature.\nThe moment we allow ourselves to ask why some things are not otherwise,\ninstead of endeavouring to account for them as they are, we shall never\nknow where to stop, we shall be led into the grossest and most childish\nabsurdities, all progress in the knowledge of the ways of Providence\nmust necessarily be at an end, and the study will even cease to be an\nimproving exercise of the human mind. Infinite power is so vast and\nincomprehensible an idea that the mind of man must necessarily be\nbewildered in the contemplation of it. With the crude and puerile\nconceptions which we sometimes form of this attribute of the Deity, we\nmight imagine that God could call into being myriads and myriads of\nexistences, all free from pain and imperfection, all eminent in\ngoodness and wisdom, all capable of the highest enjoyments, and\nunnumbered as the points throughout infinite space. But when from these\nvain and extravagant dreams of fancy, we turn our eyes to the book of\nnature, where alone we can read God as he is, we see a constant\nsuccession of sentient beings, rising apparently from so many specks of\nmatter, going through a long and sometimes painful process in this\nworld, but many of them attaining, ere the termination of it, such high\nqualities and powers as seem to indicate their fitness for some\nsuperior state. Ought we not then to correct our crude and puerile\nideas of infinite Power from the contemplation of what we actually see\nexisting? Can we judge of the Creator but from his creation? And,\nunless we wish to exalt the power of God at the expense of his\ngoodness, ought we not to conclude that even to the great Creator,\nalmighty as he is, a certain process may be necessary, a certain time\n(or at least what appears to us as time) may be requisite, in order to\nform beings with those exalted qualities of mind which will fit them\nfor his high purposes?\n\nA state of trial seems to imply a previously formed existence that does\nnot agree with the appearance of man in infancy and indicates something\nlike suspicion and want of foreknowledge, inconsistent with those ideas\nwhich we wish to cherish of the Supreme Being. I should be inclined,\ntherefore, as I have hinted before, to consider the world and this life\nas the mighty process of God, not for the trial, but for the creation\nand formation of mind, a process necessary to awaken inert, chaotic\nmatter into spirit, to sublimate the dust of the earth into soul, to\nelicit an ethereal spark from the clod of clay. And in this view of the\nsubject, the various impressions and excitements which man receives\nthrough life may be considered as the forming hand of his Creator,\nacting by general laws, and awakening his sluggish existence, by the\nanimating touches of the Divinity, into a capacity of superior\nenjoyment. The original sin of man is the torpor and corruption of the\nchaotic matter in which he may be said to be born.\n\nIt could answer no good purpose to enter into the question whether mind\nbe a distinct substance from matter, or only a finer form of it. The\nquestion is, perhaps, after all, a question merely of words. Mind is as\nessentially mind, whether formed from matter or any other substance. We\nknow from experience that soul and body are most intimately united, and\nevery appearance seems to indicate that they grow from infancy\ntogether. It would be a supposition attended with very little\nprobability to believe that a complete and full formed spirit existed\nin every infant, but that it was clogged and impeded in its operations\nduring the first twenty years of life by the weakness, or hebetude, of\nthe organs in which it was enclosed. As we shall all be disposed to\nagree that God is the creator of mind as well as of body, and as they\nboth seem to be forming and unfolding themselves at the same time, it\ncannot appear inconsistent either with reason or revelation, if it\nappear to be consistent with phenomena of nature, to suppose that God\nis constantly occupied in forming mind out of matter and that the\nvarious impressions that man receives through life is the process for\nthat purpose. The employment is surely worthy of the highest attributes\nof the Deity.\n\nThis view of the state of man on earth will not seem to be unattended\nwith probability, if, judging from the little experience we have of the\nnature of mind, it shall appear upon investigation that the phenomena\naround us, and the various events of human life, seem peculiarly\ncalculated to promote this great end, and especially if, upon this\nsupposition, we can account, even to our own narrow understandings, for\nmany of those roughnesses and inequalities in life which querulous man\ntoo frequently makes the subject of his complaint against the God of\nnature.\n\nThe first great awakeners of the mind seem to be the wants of the body.\n(It was my intention to have entered at some length into this subject\nas a kind of second part to the Essay. A long interruption, from\nparticular business, has obliged me to lay aside this intention, at\nleast for the present. I shall now, therefore, only give a sketch of a\nfew of the leading circumstances that appear to me to favour the\ngeneral supposition that I have advanced.) They are the first\nstimulants that rouse the brain of infant man into sentient activity,\nand such seems to be the sluggishness of original matter that unless by\na peculiar course of excitements other wants, equally powerful, are\ngenerated, these stimulants seem, even afterwards, to be necessary to\ncontinue that activity which they first awakened. The savage would\nslumber for ever under his tree unless he were roused from his torpor\nby the cravings of hunger or the pinchings of cold, and the exertions\nthat he makes to avoid these evils, by procuring food, and building\nhimself a covering, are the exercises which form and keep in motion his\nfaculties, which otherwise would sink into listless inactivity. From\nall that experience has taught us concerning the structure of the human\nmind, if those stimulants to exertion which arise from the wants of the\nbody were removed from the mass of mankind, we have much more reason to\nthink that they would be sunk to the level of brutes, from a deficiency\nof excitements, than that they would be raised to the rank of\nphilosophers by the possession of leisure. In those countries where\nnature is the most redundant in spontaneous produce the inhabitants\nwill not be found the most remarkable for acuteness of intellect.\nNecessity has been with great truth called the mother of invention.\nSome of the noblest exertions of the human mind have been set in motion\nby the necessity of satisfying the wants of the body. Want has not\nunfrequently given wings to the imagination of the poet, pointed the\nflowing periods of the historian, and added acuteness to the researches\nof the philosopher, and though there are undoubtedly many minds at\npresent so far improved by the various excitements of knowledge, or of\nsocial sympathy, that they would not relapse into listlessness if their\nbodily stimulants were removed, yet it can scarcely be doubted that\nthese stimulants could not be withdrawn from the mass of mankind\nwithout producing a general and fatal torpor, destructive of all the\ngerms of future improvement.\n\nLocke, if I recollect, says that the endeavour to avoid pain rather\nthan the pursuit of pleasure is the great stimulus to action in life:\nand that in looking to any particular pleasure, we shall not be roused\ninto action in order to obtain it, till the contemplation of it has\ncontinued so long as to amount to a sensation of pain or uneasiness\nunder the absence of it. To avoid evil and to pursue good seem to be\nthe great duty and business of man, and this world appears to be\npeculiarly calculated to afford opportunity of the most unremitted\nexertion of this kind, and it is by this exertion, by these stimulants,\nthat mind is formed. If Locke's idea be just, and there is great reason\nto think that it is, evil seems to be necessary to create exertion, and\nexertion seems evidently necessary to create mind.\n\nThe necessity of food for the support of life gives rise, probably, to\na greater quantity of exertion than any other want, bodily or mental.\nThe Supreme Being has ordained that the earth shall not produce good in\ngreat quantities till much preparatory labour and ingenuity has been\nexercised upon its surface. There is no conceivable connection to our\ncomprehensions, between the seed and the plant or tree that rises from\nit. The Supreme Creator might, undoubtedly, raise up plants of all\nkinds, for the use of his creatures, without the assistance of those\nlittle bits of matter, which we call seed, or even without the\nassisting labour and attention of man. The processes of ploughing and\nclearing the ground, of collecting and sowing seeds, are not surely for\nthe assistance of God in his creation, but are made previously\nnecessary to the enjoyment of the blessings of life, in order to rouse\nman into action, and form his mind to reason.\n\nTo furnish the most unremitted excitements of this kind, and to urge\nman to further the gracious designs of Providence by the full\ncultivation of the earth, it has been ordained that population should\nincrease much faster than food. This general law (as it has appeared in\nthe former parts of this Essay) undoubtedly produces much partial evil,\nbut a little reflection may, perhaps, satisfy us, that it produces a\ngreat overbalance of good. Strong excitements seem necessary to create\nexertion, and to direct this exertion, and form the reasoning faculty,\nit seems absolutely necessary, that the Supreme Being should act always\naccording to general laws. The constancy of the laws of nature, or the\ncertainty with which we may expect the same effects from the same\ncauses, is the foundation of the faculty of reason. If in the ordinary\ncourse of things, the finger of God were frequently visible, or to\nspeak more correctly, if God were frequently to change his purpose (for\nthe finger of God is, indeed, visible in every blade of grass that we\nsee), a general and fatal torpor of the human faculties would probably\nensue; even the bodily wants of mankind would cease to stimulate them\nto exertion, could they not reasonably expect that if their efforts\nwere well directed they would be crowned with success. The constancy of\nthe laws of nature is the foundation of the industry and foresight of\nthe husbandman, the indefatigable ingenuity of the artificer, the\nskilful researches of the physician and anatomist, and the watchful\nobservation and patient investigation of the natural philosopher. To\nthis constancy we owe all the greatest and noblest efforts of\nintellect. To this constancy we owe the immortal mind of a Newton.\n\nAs the reasons, therefore, for the constancy of the laws of nature\nseem, even to our understandings, obvious and striking; if we return to\nthe principle of population and consider man as he really is, inert,\nsluggish, and averse from labour, unless compelled by necessity (and it\nis surely the height of folly to talk of man, according to our crude\nfancies of what he might be), we may pronounce with certainty that the\nworld would not have been peopled, but for the superiority of the power\nof population to the means of subsistence. Strong and constantly\noperative as this stimulus is on man to urge him to the cultivation of\nthe earth, if we still see that cultivation proceeds very slowly, we\nmay fairly conclude that a less stimulus would have been insufficient.\nEven under the operation of this constant excitement, savages will\ninhabit countries of the greatest natural fertility for a long period\nbefore they betake themselves to pasturage or agriculture. Had\npopulation and food increased in the same ratio, it is probable that\nman might never have emerged from the savage state. But supposing the\nearth once well peopled, an Alexander, a Julius Caesar, a Tamberlane,\nor a bloody revolution might irrecoverably thin the human race, and\ndefeat the great designs of the Creator. The ravages of a contagious\ndisorder would be felt for ages; and an earthquake might unpeople a\nregion for ever. The principle, according to which population\nincreases, prevents the vices of mankind, or the accidents of nature,\nthe partial evils arising from general laws, from obstructing the high\npurpose of the creation. It keeps the inhabitants of the earth always\nfully up to the level of the means of subsistence; and is constantly\nacting upon man as a powerful stimulus, urging him to the further\ncultivation of the earth, and to enable it, consequently, to support a\nmore extended population. But it is impossible that this law can\noperate, and produce the effects apparently intended by the Supreme\nBeing, without occasioning partial evil. Unless the principle of\npopulation were to be altered according to the circumstances of each\nseparate country (which would not only be contrary to our universal\nexperience, with regard to the laws of nature, but would contradict\neven our own reason, which sees the absolute necessity of general laws\nfor the formation of intellect), it is evident that the same principle\nwhich, seconded by industry, will people a fertile region in a few\nyears must produce distress in countries that have been long inhabited.\n\nIt seems, however, every way probable that even the acknowledged\ndifficulties occasioned by the law of population tend rather to promote\nthan impede the general purpose of Providence. They excite universal\nexertion and contribute to that infinite variety of situations, and\nconsequently of impressions, which seems upon the whole favourable to\nthe growth of mind. It is probable, that too great or too little\nexcitement, extreme poverty, or too great riches may be alike\nunfavourable in this respect. The middle regions of society seem to be\nbest suited to intellectual improvement, but it is contrary to the\nanalogy of all nature to expect that the whole of society can be a\nmiddle region. The temperate zones of the earth seem to be the most\nfavourable to the mental and corporal energies of man, but all cannot\nbe temperate zones. A world, warmed and enlightened but by one sun,\nmust from the laws of matter have some parts chilled by perpetual\nfrosts and others scorched by perpetual heats. Every piece of matter\nlying on a surface must have an upper and an under side, all the\nparticles cannot be in the middle. The most valuable parts of an oak,\nto a timber merchant, are not either the roots or the branches, but\nthese are absolutely necessary to the existence of the middle part, or\nstem, which is the object in request. The timber merchant could not\npossibly expect to make an oak grow without roots or branches, but if\nhe could find out a mode of cultivation which would cause more of the\nsubstance to go to stem, and less to root and branch, he would be right\nto exert himself in bringing such a system into general use.\n\nIn the same manner, though we cannot possibly expect to exclude riches\nand poverty from society, yet if we could find out a mode of government\nby which the numbers in the extreme regions would be lessened and the\nnumbers in the middle regions increased, it would be undoubtedly our\nduty to adopt it. It is not, however, improbable that as in the oak,\nthe roots and branches could not be diminished very greatly without\nweakening the vigorous circulation of the sap in the stem, so in\nsociety the extreme parts could not be diminished beyond a certain\ndegree without lessening that animated exertion throughout the middle\nparts, which is the very cause that they are the most favourable to the\ngrowth of intellect. If no man could hope to rise or fear to fall, in\nsociety, if industry did not bring with it its reward and idleness its\npunishment, the middle parts would not certainly be what they now are.\nIn reasoning upon this subject, it is evident that we ought to consider\nchiefly the mass of mankind and not individual instances. There are\nundoubtedly many minds, and there ought to be many, according to the\nchances out of so great a mass, that, having been vivified early by a\npeculiar course of excitements, would not need the constant action of\nnarrow motives to continue them in activity. But if we were to review\nthe various useful discoveries, the valuable writings, and other\nlaudable exertions of mankind, I believe we should find that more were\nto be attributed to the narrow motives that operate upon the many than\nto the apparently more enlarged motives that operate upon the few.\n\nLeisure is, without doubt, highly valuable to man, but taking man as he\nis, the probability seems to be that in the greater number of instances\nit will produce evil rather than good. It has been not infrequently\nremarked that talents are more common among younger brothers than among\nelder brothers, but it can scarcely be imagined that younger brothers\nare, upon an average, born with a greater original susceptibility of\nparts. The difference, if there really is any observable difference,\ncan only arise from their different situations. Exertion and activity\nare in general absolutely necessary in one case and are only optional\nin the other.\n\nThat the difficulties of life contribute to generate talents, every\nday's experience must convince us. The exertions that men find it\nnecessary to make, in order to support themselves or families,\nfrequently awaken faculties that might otherwise have lain for ever\ndormant, and it has been commonly remarked that new and extraordinary\nsituations generally create minds adequate to grapple with the\ndifficulties in which they are involved.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER 19\n\nThe sorrows of life necessary to soften and humanize the heart--The\nexcitement of social sympathy often produce characters of a higher\norder than the mere possessors of talents--Moral evil probably\nnecessary to the production of moral excellence--Excitements from\nintellectual wants continually kept up by the infinite variety of\nnature, and the obscurity that involves metaphysical subjects--The\ndifficulties in revelation to be accounted for upon this principle--The\ndegree of evidence which the scriptures contain, probably, best suited\nto the improvements of the human faculties, and the moral amelioration\nof mankind--The idea that mind is created by excitements seems to\naccount for the existence of natural and moral evil.\n\n\nThe sorrows and distresses of life form another class of excitements,\nwhich seem to be necessary, by a peculiar train of impressions, to\nsoften and humanize the heart, to awaken social sympathy, to generate\nall the Christian virtues, and to afford scope for the ample exertion\nof benevolence. The general tendency of an uniform course of prosperity\nis rather to degrade than exalt the character. The heart that has never\nknown sorrow itself will seldom be feelingly alive to the pains and\npleasures, the wants and wishes, of its fellow beings. It will seldom\nbe overflowing with that warmth of brotherly love, those kind and\namiable affections, which dignify the human character even more than\nthe possession of the highest talents. Talents, indeed, though\nundoubtedly a very prominent and fine feature of mind, can by no means\nbe considered as constituting the whole of it. There are many minds\nwhich have not been exposed to those excitements that usually form\ntalents, that have yet been vivified to a high degree by the\nexcitements of social sympathy. In every rank of life, in the lowest as\nfrequently as in the highest, characters are to be found overflowing\nwith the milk of human kindness, breathing love towards God and man,\nand, though without those peculiar powers of mind called talents,\nevidently holding a higher rank in the scale of beings than many who\npossess them. Evangelical charity, meekness, piety, and all that class\nof virtues distinguished particularly by the name of Christian virtues\ndo not seem necessarily to include abilities; yet a soul possessed of\nthese amiable qualities, a soul awakened and vivified by these\ndelightful sympathies, seems to hold a nearer commerce with the skies\nthan mere acuteness of intellect.\n\nThe greatest talents have been frequently misapplied and have produced\nevil proportionate to the extent of their powers. Both reason and\nrevelation seem to assure us that such minds will be condemned to\neternal death, but while on earth, these vicious instruments performed\ntheir part in the great mass of impressions, by the disgust and\nabhorrence which they excited. It seems highly probable that moral evil\nis absolutely necessary to the production of moral excellence. A being\nwith only good placed in view may be justly said to be impelled by a\nblind necessity. The pursuit of good in this case can be no indication\nof virtuous propensities. It might be said, perhaps, that infinite\nWisdom cannot want such an indication as outward action, but would\nforeknow with certainly whether the being would choose good or evil.\nThis might be a plausible argument against a state of trial, but will\nnot hold against the supposition that mind in this world is in a state\nof formation. Upon this idea, the being that has seen moral evil and\nhas felt disapprobation and disgust at it is essentially different from\nthe being that has seen only good. They are pieces of clay that have\nreceived distinct impressions: they must, therefore, necessarily be in\ndifferent shapes; or, even if we allow them both to have the same\nlovely form of virtue, it must be acknowledged that one has undergone\nthe further process, necessary to give firmness and durability to its\nsubstance, while the other is still exposed to injury, and liable to be\nbroken by every accidental impulse. An ardent love and admiration of\nvirtue seems to imply the existence of something opposite to it, and it\nseems highly probable that the same beauty of form and substance, the\nsame perfection of character, could not be generated without the\nimpressions of disapprobation which arise from the spectacle of moral\nevil.\n\nWhen the mind has been awakened into activity by the passions, and the\nwants of the body, intellectual wants arise; and the desire of\nknowledge, and the impatience under ignorance, form a new and important\nclass of excitements. Every part of nature seems peculiarly calculated\nto furnish stimulants to mental exertion of this kind, and to offer\ninexhaustible food for the most unremitted inquiry. Our mortal Bard\nsays of Cleopatra:\n\n  Custom cannot stale\n  Her infinite variety.\n\nThe expression, when applied to any one object, may be considered as a\npoetical amplification, but it is accurately true when applied to\nnature. Infinite variety seems, indeed, eminently her characteristic\nfeature. The shades that are here and there blended in the picture give\nspirit, life, and prominence to her exuberant beauties, and those\nroughnesses and inequalities, those inferior parts that support the\nsuperior, though they sometimes offend the fastidious microscopic eye\nof short-sighted man, contribute to the symmetry, grace, and fair\nproportion of the whole.\n\nThe infinite variety of the forms and operations of nature, besides\ntending immediately to awaken and improve the mind by the variety of\nimpressions that it creates, opens other fertile sources of improvement\nby offering so wide and extensive a field for investigation and\nresearch. Uniform, undiversified perfection could not possess the same\nawakening powers. When we endeavour then to contemplate the system of\nthe universe, when we think of the stars as the suns of other systems\nscattered throughout infinite space, when we reflect that we do not\nprobably see a millionth part of those bright orbs that are beaming\nlight and life to unnumbered worlds, when our minds, unable to grasp\nthe immeasurable conception, sink, lost and confounded, in admiration\nat the mighty incomprehensible power of the Creator, let us not\nquerulously complain that all climates are not equally genial, that\nperpetual spring does not reign throughout the year, that God's\ncreatures do not possess the same advantages, that clouds and tempests\nsometimes darken the natural world and vice and misery the moral world,\nand that all the works of the creation are not formed with equal\nperfection. Both reason and experience seem to indicate to us that the\ninfinite variety of nature (and variety cannot exist without inferior\nparts, or apparent blemishes) is admirably adapted to further the high\npurpose of the creation and to produce the greatest possible quantity\nof good.\n\nThe obscurity that involves all metaphysical subjects appears to me, in\nthe same manner, peculiarly calculated to add to that class of\nexcitements which arise from the thirst of knowledge. It is probable\nthat man, while on earth, will never be able to attain complete\nsatisfaction on these subjects; but this is by no means a reason that\nhe should not engage in them. The darkness that surrounds these\ninteresting topics of human curiosity may be intended to furnish\nendless motives to intellectual activity and exertion. The constant\neffort to dispel this darkness, even if it fail of success, invigorates\nand improves the thinking faculty. If the subjects of human inquiry\nwere once exhausted, mind would probably stagnate; but the infinitely\ndiversified forms and operations of nature, together with the endless\nfood for speculation which metaphysical subjects offer, prevent the\npossibility that such a period should ever arrive.\n\nIt is by no means one of the wisest sayings of Solomon that 'there is\nno new thing under the sun.' On the contrary, it is probable that were\nthe present system to continue for millions of years, continual\nadditions would be making to the mass of human knowledge, and yet,\nperhaps, it may be a matter of doubt whether what may be called the\ncapacity of mind be in any marked and decided manner increasing. A\nSocrates, a Plato, or an Aristotle, however confessedly inferior in\nknowledge to the philosophers of the present day, do not appear to have\nbeen much below them in intellectual capacity. Intellect rises from a\nspeck, continues in vigour only for a certain period, and will not\nperhaps admit while on earth of above a certain number of impressions.\nThese impressions may, indeed, be infinitely modified, and from these\nvarious modifications, added probably to a difference in the\nsusceptibility of the original germs, arise the endless diversity of\ncharacter that we see in the world; but reason and experience seem both\nto assure us that the capacity of individual minds does not increase in\nproportion to the mass of existing knowledge. (It is probable that no\ntwo grains of wheat are exactly alike. Soil undoubtedly makes the\nprincipal difference in the blades that spring up, but probably not\nall. It seems natural to suppose some sort of difference in the\noriginal germs that are afterwards awakened into thought, and the\nextraordinary difference of susceptibility in very young children seems\nto confirm the supposition.)\n\nThe finest minds seem to be formed rather by efforts at original\nthinking, by endeavours to form new combinations, and to discover new\ntruths, than by passively receiving the impressions of other men's\nideas. Could we suppose the period arrived, when there was not further\nhope of future discoveries, and the only employment of mind was to\nacquire pre-existing knowledge, without any efforts to form new and\noriginal combinations, though the mass of human knowledge were a\nthousand times greater than it is at present, yet it is evident that\none of the noblest stimulants to mental exertion would have ceased; the\nfinest feature of intellect would be lost; everything allied to genius\nwould be at an end; and it appears to be impossible, that, under such\ncircumstances, any individuals could possess the same intellectual\nenergies as were possessed by a Locke, a Newton, or a Shakespeare, or\neven by a Socrates, a Plato, an Aristotle or a Homer.\n\nIf a revelation from heaven of which no person could feel the smallest\ndoubt were to dispel the mists that now hang over metaphysical\nsubjects, were to explain the nature and structure of mind, the\naffections and essences of all substances, the mode in which the\nSupreme Being operates in the works of the creation, and the whole plan\nand scheme of the Universe, such an accession of knowledge so obtained,\ninstead of giving additional vigour and activity to the human mind,\nwould in all probability tend to repress future exertion and to damp\nthe soaring wings of intellect.\n\nFor this reason I have never considered the doubts and difficulties\nthat involve some parts of the sacred writings as any ardent against\ntheir divine original. The Supreme Being might, undoubtedly, have\naccompanied his revelations to man by such a succession of miracles,\nand of such a nature, as would have produced universal overpowering\nconviction and have put an end at once to all hesitation and\ndiscussion. But weak as our reason is to comprehend the plans of the\ngreat Creator, it is yet sufficiently strong to see the most striking\nobjections to such a revelation. From the little we know of the\nstructure of the human understanding, we must be convinced that an\noverpowering conviction of this kind, instead of tending to the\nimprovement and moral amelioration of man, would act like the touch of\na torpedo on all intellectual exertion and would almost put an end to\nthe existence of virtue. If the scriptural denunciations of eternal\npunishment were brought home with the same certainty to every man's\nmind as that the night will follow the day, this one vast and gloomy\nidea would take such full possession of the human faculties as to leave\nno room for any other conceptions, the external actions of men would be\nall nearly alike, virtuous conduct would be no indication of virtuous\ndisposition, vice and virtue would be blended together in one common\nmass, and though the all-seeing eye of God might distinguish them they\nmust necessarily make the same impressions on man, who can judge only\nfrom external appearances. Under such a dispensation, it is difficult\nto conceive how human beings could be formed to a detestation of moral\nevil, and a love and admiration of God, and of moral excellence.\n\nOur ideas of virtue and vice are not, perhaps, very accurate and\nwell-defined; but few, I think, would call an action really virtuous\nwhich was performed simply and solely from the dread of a very great\npunishment or the expectation of a very great reward. The fear of the\nLord is very justly said to be the beginning of wisdom, but the end of\nwisdom is the love of the Lord and the admiration of moral good. The\ndenunciations of future punishment contained in the scriptures seem to\nbe well calculated to arrest the progress of the vicious and awaken the\nattention of the careless, but we see from repeated experience that\nthey are not accompanied with evidence of such a nature as to overpower\nthe human will and to make men lead virtuous lives with vicious\ndispositions, merely from a dread of hereafter. A genuine faith, by\nwhich I mean a faith that shews itself in it the virtues of a truly\nChristian life, may generally be considered as an indication of an\namiable and virtuous disposition, operated upon more by love than by\npure unmixed fear.\n\nWhen we reflect on the temptations to which man must necessarily be\nexposed in this world, from the structure of his frame, and the\noperation of the laws of nature, and the consequent moral certainty\nthat many vessels will come out of this mighty creative furnace in\nwrong shapes, it is perfectly impossible to conceive that any of these\ncreatures of God's hand can be condemned to eternal suffering. Could we\nonce admit such an idea, it our natural conceptions of goodness and\njustice would be completely overthrown, and we could no longer look up\nto God as a merciful and righteous Being. But the doctrine of life and\nMortality which was brought to light by the gospel, the doctrine that\nthe end of righteousness is everlasting life, but that the wages of sin\nare death, is in every respect just and merciful, and worthy of the\ngreat Creator. Nothing can appear more consonant to our reason than\nthat those beings which come out of the creative process of the world\nin lovely and beautiful forms should be crowned with immortality, while\nthose which come out misshapen, those whose minds are not suited to a\npurer and happier state of existence, should perish and be condemned to\nmix again with their original clay. Eternal condemnation of this kind\nmay be considered as a species of eternal punishment, and it is not\nwonderful that it should be represented, sometimes, under images of\nsuffering. But life and death, salvation and destruction, are more\nfrequently opposed to each other in the New Testament than happiness\nand misery. The Supreme Being would appear to us in a very different\nview if we were to consider him as pursuing the creatures that had\noffended him with eternal hate and torture, instead of merely\ncondemning to their original insensibility those beings that, by the\noperation of general laws, had not been formed with qualities suited to\na purer state of happiness.\n\nLife is, generally speaking, a blessing independent of a future state.\nIt is a gift which the vicious would not always be ready to throw away,\neven if they had no fear of death. The partial pain, therefore, that is\ninflicted by the supreme Creator, while he is forming numberless beings\nto a capacity of the highest enjoyments, is but as the dust of the\nbalance in comparison of the happiness that is communicated, and we\nhave every reason to think that there is no more evil in the world than\nwhat is absolutely necessary as one of the ingredients in the mighty\nprocess.\n\nThe striking necessity of general laws for the formation of intellect\nwill not in any respect be contradicted by one or two exceptions, and\nthese evidently not intended for partial purposes, but calculated to\noperate upon a great part of mankind, and through many ages. Upon the\nidea that I have given of the formation of mind, the infringement of\nthe general law of nature, by a divine revelation, will appear in the\nlight of the immediate hand of God mixing new ingredients in the mighty\nmass, suited to the particular state of the process, and calculated to\ngive rise to a new and powerful train of impressions, tending to\npurify, exalt, and improve the human mind. The miracles that\naccompanied these revelations when they had once excited the attention\nof mankind, and rendered it a matter of most interesting discussion,\nwhether the doctrine was from God or man, had performed their part, had\nanswered the purpose of the Creator, and these communications of the\ndivine will were afterwards left to make their way by their own\nintrinsic excellence; and, by operating as moral motives, gradually to\ninfluence and improve, and not to overpower and stagnate the faculties\nof man.\n\nIt would be, undoubtedly, presumptuous to say that the Supreme Being\ncould not possibly have effected his purpose in any other way than that\nwhich he has chosen, but as the revelation of the divine will which we\npossess is attended with some doubts and difficulties, and as our\nreason points out to us the strongest objections to a revelation which\nwould force immediate, implicit, universal belief, we have surely just\ncause to think that these doubts and difficulties are no argument\nagainst the divine origin of the scriptures, and that the species of\nevidence which they possess is best suited to the improvement of the\nhuman faculties and the moral amelioration of mankind.\n\nThe idea that the impressions and excitements of this world are the\ninstruments with which the Supreme Being forms matter into mind, and\nthat the necessity of constant exertion to avoid evil and to pursue\ngood is the principal spring of these impressions and excitements,\nseems to smooth many of the difficulties that occur in a contemplation\nof human life, and appears to me to give a satisfactory reason for the\nexistence of natural and moral evil, and, consequently, for that part\nof both, and it certainly is not a very small part, which arises from\nthe principle of population. But, though, upon this supposition, it\nseems highly improbable that evil should ever be removed from the\nworld; yet it is evident that this impression would not answer the\napparent purpose of the Creator; it would not act so powerfully as an\nexcitement to exertion, if the quantity of it did not diminish or\nincrease with the activity or the indolence of man. The continual\nvariations in the weight and in the distribution of this pressure keep\nalive a constant expectation of throwing it off.\n\n  \"Hope springs eternal in the Human breast,\n  Man never is, but always to be blest.\"\n\nEvil exists in the world not to create despair but activity. We are not\npatiently to submit to it, but to exert ourselves to avoid it. It is\nnot only the interest but the duty of every individual to use his\nutmost efforts to remove evil from himself and from as large a circle\nas he can influence, and the more he exercises himself in this duty,\nthe more wisely he directs his efforts, and the more successful these\nefforts are; the more he will probably improve and exalt his own mind,\nand the more completely does he appear to fulfil the will of his\nCreator.","title":"An Essay on the Principle of Population","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":54356}