« ForrigeFortsett »
starvation, since the revolutionary war. If, therefore, Mr. Malthus maintains the proposition ascribed to him, he maintains that which every one's experience proves to be untrue. We have no later edition of his work than that published in 1809, and therefore do not know what alteration his opinions may have undergone since that period. But, the fact is, that at that time, he certainly did not maintain the existence of a perpetual famine. In chap. 2, he says, " The ultimate check to population, appears then to be a want of food, arising necessarily from the different ratios, according to which population and food increase. But this ultimate check is never the immediale check, except in cases of actual famine. The immediate check, may be stated to consist in all those customs, and all those diseases, which seem to be generated by a scarcity of the means of subsistence; and all those causes independent of this scarcity, whether of a moral or physical nature, which tend prematurely to weaken and destroy the human frame." Chap. 2, vol. 1.
In this, as well as in a variety of other passages, it apo pears evident, that Mr. Malthus intended to use means of subsistence," in its most comprehensive signification. The wants of mankind are almost infinite ; and there are many of them, besides want of food, which will deprive us of existence, if not satisfied. In this climate for example, means of subsistence certainly includes a house, fuel and clothing; and we may even go much farther, and with the strictest accuracy, extend it to medicine, nursing, exercise and rest; in a word, to every thing which wealth can procure towards preservation of life. It is in this sense we have always understood the words; and in this sense, Mr. Everett will admit, that in all places and at all times, a portion of mankind are perishing for the want of means of subsistence. Thus it evidently appears that Mr. Everett and Mr. Malthus are not debating on a common topic of difference, and we may, therefore, dismiss so much of the work as is devoted to an examination of this point.
The next division of Mr. Everett's work is very important, and on the subjects debated in it, the author and Mr. Malthus appear to be precisely at issue.
The economical effect of an increase of population is an augmentation in the supply of labour, and in the demand for its products. The wants of the new comers create the new demand, and their labour furnishes the new supply.” p. 21.
In cases of emigration, where individuals carry with them some little capital and robust bodies, this proposition is certainly correct; but it is not so, when applied to the natural manner of
the increase of the species. It seems to us, the author as well as the reviewer has fallen into an error, to which philosophy seem's peculiarly liable ; a too great getieralization of ideas, without sufficient allowance for the operation of local or temporary causes. This propensity is always to be deprecated, because it opens the door to ridicule, to those who are not able to estimate the value of general principles. The above proposition appears to be true in the abstract; but when we test it by facts we find there is a variety of data which ought absolutely to be taken into the estimate. These 6
new comers" infants ; they necessarily create a demand not only of commodities but also of the time and attention of their parents ; on the other hand, they cannot for many years furnish a supply equal to their consumption, and a large proportion of them never furnishes the supply at all, being prevented by death; all these are circumstances of the argument to be taken into con. sideration, and place the proposition before us in a much more questionable shape ; and in fact, in such a shape that we cannot give our assent to it at present. But Mr. E. has another source whence to draw a supply sufficient to meet the increased demand. Let us see what this is.
“ It is sufficiently notorious that an increase of population, on a given territory, is followed immediately by a division of labour; which produces in its turn the invention of new machines, an improvement in the method in all the departments of industry, and a rapid progress in the various branches of art and science. The increase effected by these improvements in the productiveness of labor, is obviously much greater in proportion than the increase of population, to which it is ow. ing. The population of Great Britain, for example, doubled itself in the course of the last century, while the improvements in the modes of applying labour made in the same period have increased its productiveness so much that it would probably be a moderate estimate to consider its products a thousand times greater than before. If, however, we suppose the increase in the products of labour naturally resulting from a doubling of a population on a given territory to be only in the proportion of ten to one, the means of subsistence will still be more abundant in the proportion of five to one than they were before. And on this very low calculation the respective rates of increase in the amount of population, and the means of subsistence, comparatively stated, will be as follows, to wit: for the population, 1, 2. 4. 8. 16. &c., and for the means of subsistence, 1. 10. 100. 1000. &c." p. 27,
As this, taken in conjunction with the proposition last quoted, forms the very basis of Mr. Everett's theory, and the exact point of difference between him and Malthus, we regret extremely that he has not thought proper to explain himself a little more at large. We have already hinted at the most prominent difficulties of the first proposition, and we now proceed to a free discussion of the second.
In a pin manufactory, each workman is able to produce about two hundred and forty times the number of pins which he could do, if alone; a prodigious increase of productiveness, but still far short of a thousand fold. As far as we know, there is no article in which a division of labour, or the productiveness of labour has been pushed to equal extent; in many departments of industry the productiveness of labour has not been increas. ed at all, or at farthest, not doubled. In agriculture, it does not appear
that a farther division of labour would be attended with any advantage. One man cannot devote all his time to ploughing, or sowing, or any other single department. The same may be said of maritime commerce. But why multiply instances ? Test the above proposition by facts, and we cannot see how it is to be supported. The products of labour are divided in certain proportions between the labourer himself, the capitalist, the land owner, and the government. As it would be difficulty to assign their real proportions to each, we will suppose the three first united in one individual, for example, a farmer. The government of England certainly does not now exact, in taxes, a sum equal to the gross revenue of that country in 1700. But admit that it does, then if Mr. Everett's lowest estimate be correct, the revenue arising from the farm, which, in 1700, yielded one thousand pounds sterling, must in 1800, yield nine thousand pounds, exclusive of the taxes; and to piirsue the subject a step farther, will yield, in 1900, ninety thousand pounds sterling, yearly income. This estimate is certainly far too high. An inquiry into the real state of Great Britain will show that the whole population are somewhat better clothed and fed than they were a century ago ; and being doubled in numbers, the true conclusion appears to be, that production is rather more than doubled, owing to the causes assigned by Mr. Everett. But, after admitting this, we do not feel parpared to go farther, and say the same causes will continue to operate forever. On the contrary, it really appears to us that there is but little prospect of the productiveness of labour being again doubled, in a long course of time ; division of labour seems nearly arrived at its ultimatum ; and any material in
crease of production of natural agents, is a subject rather of hope than or expectation. Regarding Mr. Everett's theory in the oniy point of view which we can do, namely, that an increase of population, though followed by a certain increased demand, does not of itself furnish a proportionately increased supply; and as the increasing productiveness of labour does not appear sufficicut to supply the deficiency, we are reluctantly driven back to the belief that the increase of population is limited by the causes assigned by Mr. Malthus.
In page 46, Mr. Everett says, that Mr. Malthus maintains that the inhabitants of a given tract of territory' must necessarily subsist upon the direct products of the soil they occupy. We do not recollect in what part of his essay Mr. Malthus makes the above remark, but as his work extends over eleven hundred octavo pages, it may possibly have escaped us. We think Mr. Everett's ridicule is misplaced on this occasion; the most that can be said is that Mr. Malthus has been guilty of an inaccuracy in the use of terms, as every one must know that he never could maintain that blacksmiths actually eat horse shoes, or cutlers' knife blades. His meaning is evidently that the amount of consumption, on a given territory, must be limited to the sum of its products. A blacksmith lives upon the products of his industry, as much as a farmer; aye, and as directly too.
We regret that our limits absolutely compel us to omit many things which we wished to notice. For example, the charge against Malthus that his system justifies infanticide and other crimes, ought to be repelled. We cannot help thinking, that a cool and candid reflection could never have drawn such conclusions; and we are confident, that Mr. Everett, on a reperusal of Malthus' Essay, will acknowledge bis error. We must, bowever, extend this article so far as to notice what appears to us some further objectionable views of Mr. Everett's, as connected with the subject under discussion. This gentleman appears to maintain, that those principles, which go to forbid the general indulgence of natural appetites must, of necessity, be founded in error. “ The instinct of love," he remarks, " is the natural motive to marriage. As it is given to every individual, it is evidently the intention of nature that all should marry: and as it is stronger at an early period of life, than at any other, it is equally evident that youth was the time intended by nature for the gratification of this instinct in marriage. As a neral rule, therefore, the order of nature has provided that all should marry young; and the accomplishment of this, as of
every other law of nature, must tend to promote the general good, at the same time it advances the bappiness of individų.
Now, it does appear to us that the general indications of rea. son, are as much to be regarded in this question as the general indications of instinct; nor can we agree with Mr. Everett that there are only two forms in which the same common law of nature declares itself.” The considerations which deter us from marriage, as soon as we are capable of executing its otti ces, are either the dictates of reason or the suggestions of instinct. Suppose that they are dictates of reason. 'i ben according to our author's opinion, they are equally in fact the suggestions of instinct. Here, it is plain, we have instincts which oppose, as well as instincts that urye early marriages; so that while nature, on the one hand, by the early formation of procreative powers and desires, indicates the propriety of marriajes in youth, the same nature, on the other hand, by subjecting early marriages to the consequences of moral and cora poreal sutfering, forbids by one instinct, or faculty, what she urges by another.
Now we ask Mr. Everett, why we are not to obey the reasons which every man perceives as deterring him from indiscreet matrimony, viz. the apprehension of some future inability to support an ordinary family, and the suffering which such inability threatens to create. These apprehensions, we maintain, thus dictated by reason, are a part of nature's
general plan. They are motives, though not, in our opinion, instinctive, yet immediately, easily and uniformly presenting themselves to the mind of every individual not absolutely reckless of the future contingencies of life. This result will be equally brought about, whether we adopt the coincidence of rational and instinctive suggestions or not; and the fact is, that the real intention of nature seems to be, that man shall do that which harmonises most with the compounded indication, which results from the assemblage of all of her impulses. This, Mr. Malthus maintains to be, marriage, as soon as the means of supporting the anticipated family are secured, and not until then. It is true, that at first sight, in this point of view, nature appears to have created, to no purpose, early physical capaci. ties. But reflection shows that these powers and desires are by no means inoperative because marriage is not the immediate result. The desire produces, by interposing a powerful incentive to industry, a very salutary influence, long before the power, though existing, has an opportunity to be called into exercise, and this appears to use