and would fain entirely displace, to raise the value and multiply the numbers of our countrymen; to spread the utmost possible degree of happiness amongst the greatest possible number,-objects of identical instead of incompatible pursuit, their notions to the contrary notwithstanding. On the other hand, it is the purpose of the new school to treat and regard men as animated machines, and indeed to supplant them by inanimate ones were it possible; to pronounce them as worthless or otherwise, just as it may please the capitalists (who, in proportion as they are diminishing in number, are becoming more powerful) to employ them or not; instructing the latter at the same time that they are under no imaginable obligation but what selfishness dictates, to encourage the labour of those by whom themselves are supported. Nay, so far has the mercenary principle of this school advanced, as to pronounce the virtues themselves marketable commodities1. The perfection of their system, therefore, would be the utter degradation of the species.

(11) It is not, however, by such dogmas as these that the momentous dispute before us will be determined; the question lies not between the people and the capitalists; if it did, and the latter pursue the course on which they seem bent, it would, I fear, be determined at length, very little to their satisfaction;-it is one which lies between the people and their God! It is simply whether, in reference to the present number of human beings, the earth is sufficiently productive; and, if we must carry our views into futurity, whether its potential produce, when fully developed, will still suffice for the numbers whom the Author of nature shall call into being, agreeably to those laws of increase which he has established. This is the precise question: meantime, it is somewhat strange, that the political

1 Malthus, Essay on Population, p. 64.

economists can reconcile the unanimous conclusion at which they have arrived, with some of their own notions. They have produced volumes filled with definitions of the word capital, and yet they seem to forget that whatever it may be called, or however defined, it is that, and that only, which gives its possessor a command of the product of human labour; consequently that human beings constitute the wealth of the world. It is they only who create that wealth; it is they only who give it its value, when created. They have written, likewise, very much about the market of labour, as it is called, and yet they seem not to know, or, at all events, frequently to forget, that mankind are reciprocally producers and consumers; that, under proper regulations, they are equally necessary to each other, whatever be their numbers; that mutual wants are so balanced and connected in the mechanism of the social system, of which necessity is the main spring, as to produce that perpetual motion, the harmonious movements of which nothing but the interference of such philosophers can disturb or destroy. This mutual dependence of man upon his fellow man, whatever be the attempts to weaken it, and however successful they may be for a time, will ultimately be found as strong in the last, as it was in the first, stages of human existence; nay, far stronger, for reasons which are too obvious to be pointed out. As the body politic enlarges, all its members partake of the general growth; when, therefore, it has attained to its gigantic stature, still less than when it was in its infant state, can the hand say to the foot, "I have no need of thee." But the idea that mankind should outgrow their dependence upon each other, whimsical as it is, is far more tolerable than that they should become too numerous for the provision of their common Parent. Yet this last is the idea that Political Economy, and “the

Principle of Population," share in common, and continue to spread abroad by united and too successful efforts.

(12) There are, however, reasons of a less objectionable nature, that have greatly contributed to spread the principle about to be examined. It is so propounded as to avail itself of the weaknesses of the human intellect, as well as those of the heart. It is delivered forth as an abstract truth, in those generalities, in which, as the most exalted intellect the world perhaps ever beheld, observes, "the mind of man, to the extreme prejudice of knowledge, so much delighteth." The philosophy of Bacon was, indeed, especially opposed to them, and hence we find him constantly guarding us against empty," "superficial," "barren" generalities, which, says he, "do but offer knowledge to scorn of practical men'," and we are plainly warned against acting upon them by a mind hardly inferior to his own. "Rules, suggested by a view of such generalities," says Hooker, "however plain they may appear at first sight, ought "not to be trusted." The theory of population about to be considered is founded, however, upon "general and abstract ideas," which an authority of a very different order has well observed, “are, generally speaking, the source of all human error2."

(13) But the use of terms from the exact sciences, geometry and arithmetic, to which mankind have long been in the habit of associating the idea of certainty, in the enunciation and pretended demonstration of this theory, has more than all contributed to betray many ingenuous minds into this prevailing delusion. The former science, indeed, it is almost unnecessary to remark, has nothing whatsoever to do with the ratio which bears its name. Applied to the mensuration of human fecundity, "the most fallacious of all things,"

1 Bacon's Works, vol. iii., p. 155.

2 Rousseau.

66

to avail myself of the language of Burke, "is geometrical demonstration." The arithmetical ratio, the other pillar, as is supposed, of this system, is still more inadequate to the office to which it is assigned. Those who set about computing or expressing the magnitude or amount of the mercies of the Eternal Parent of mankind, by its utmost powers, will find themselves baffled, and will have to exclaim, with a sacred bard of ancient times, "If I would count them, they are more in number than the sands; if I would declare "and speak them, they are more than can be num-. "bered!" At all events, they ever have been, and will still remain, equal to the wants of all human beings; vet, strange as it may appear, two rows of figures, calculated on different principles, and placed parallel to each other, have convinced numbers to the contrary. So true is the observation of a writer, not very remarkable for his humanity or religion, that "the mathe"matics are made use of in every thing, even where "ridiculous, and men seem to repose no greater trust "in Providence than they would in a broken mer"chant1." In darker ages, indeed, many busied themselves in pourtraying the person of the unseen God, or, in illustrating his mysterious essence by mathematical diagrams; and such, I humbly conceive, acted a far less irrational and irreverent part, than those who affect to measure the mighty deep of his mercies by their arithmetic, and to demonstrate, by their geometrical ratios, that it is inadequate to receive and contain the efflux of that fountain of life which is in Him!

(14) Let it not be imagined, however, that the sciences which have done so much to serve the interest, and enlarge the understanding of mankind, are impugned. It is their misapplication, in reference to the

Mandeville's Essay on Charity, p. 368.

subject about to be considered, and their consequent degradation, that is the sole ground of the preceding remarks. On the other hand, I trust it will appear in the ensuing treatise, that, when rightly applied, they add their demonstrations to those in the volume of nature, "known and read of all men," which establish the principle of population as one of equal wisdom and benevolence.

(15) The last reason that shall be here adduced for the spread of this notion of the superfecundity of the human race, is the confidence with which it is pronounced and repeated, and the strong facts by which it professes to be demonstrated. The human mind, thus assailed, generally declines the labour of an apparently useless examination, and naturally reposing some degree of trust in the authorities it consults, surrenders itself up to a settled conviction, which it is unwilling afterwards to have disturbed. The present controversy, it is hoped, will furnish another and a striking proof, how detrimental to the cause of truth it is thus to resign the judgment without due examination, especially in regard to those specious novelties which affect the feel ings or touch the interests of mankind, and which are generally the more vehemently maintained the less satisfactorily they are proved. In this instance, it will be found that the theory about to be examined cannot stand the test of even its own principles, much less those of truth. It has neither taken sufficient heed that its facts, which are denominated demonstrations, should be truths, nor been mindful of the ancient maxim, that its suppositions should be possibilities. These are grave charges; the ensuing pages, it is believed, will fully substantiate them: the attempt to do so will necessarily throw much of the work into a controversial form, so little desirable in an elementary treatise, and indeed into what is still less so, under any circumstances,