An Essay on the Principle of Population

Thomas Malthus

1798

AN ESSAY ON THE PRINCIPLE OF POPULATION, AS IT AFFECTS THE FUTUREIMPROVEMENT OF SOCIETY WITH REMARKS ON THE SPECULATIONS OF MR. GODWIN, M. CONDORCET, AND OTHER WRITERS. 

LONDON, PRINTED FOR J. JOHNSON, IN ST. PAUL'S CHURCH-YARD, 1798. 

Preface

The following Essay owes its origin to a conversation with a friend, onthe subject of Mr Godwin's essay on avarice and profusion, in hisEnquirer. The discussion started the general question of the futureimprovement of society, and the Author at first sat down with anintention of merely stating his thoughts to his friend, upon paper, ina clearer manner than he thought he could do in conversation. But asthe subject opened upon him, some ideas occurred, which he did notrecollect to have met with before; and as he conceived that every leastlight, on a topic so generally interesting, might be received withcandour, he determined to put his thoughts in a form for publication. 

The Essay might, undoubtedly, have been rendered much more complete bya collection of a greater number of facts in elucidation of the generalargument. But a long and almost total interruption from very particularbusiness, joined to a desire (perhaps imprudent) of not delaying thepublication much beyond the time that he originally proposed, preventedthe Author from giving to the subject an undivided attention. Hepresumes, however, that the facts which he has adduced will be found toform no inconsiderable evidence for the truth of his opinion respectingthe future improvement of mankind. As the Author contemplates thisopinion at present, little more appears to him to be necessary than aplain statement, in addition to the most cursory view of society, toestablish it. 

It is an obvious truth, which has been taken notice of by many writers, that population must always be kept down to the level of the means ofsubsistence; but no writer that the Author recollects has inquiredparticularly into the means by which this level is effected: and it isa view of these means which forms, to his mind, the strongest obstaclein the way to any very great future improvement of society. He hopes itwill appear that, in the discussion of this interesting subject, he isactuated solely by a love of truth, and not by any prejudices againstany particular set of men, or of opinions. He professes to have readsome of the speculations on the future improvement of society in atemper very different from a wish to find them visionary, but he hasnot acquired that command over his understanding which would enable himto believe what he wishes, without evidence, or to refuse his assent towhat might be unpleasing, when accompanied with evidence. 

The view which he has given of human life has a melancholy hue, but hefeels conscious that he has drawn these dark tints from a convictionthat they are really in the picture, and not from a jaundiced eye or aninherent spleen of disposition. The theory of mind which he hassketched in the two last chapters accounts to his own understanding ina satisfactory manner for the existence of most of the evils of life, but whether it will have the same effect upon others must be left tothe judgement of his readers. 

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

 7 June 1798

CHAPTER 1

Question stated--Little prospect of a determination of it, from theenmity of the opposing parties--The principal argument against theperfectibility of man and of society has never been fairlyanswered--Nature of the difficulty arising from population--Outline ofthe principal argument of the Essay

The great and unlooked for discoveries that have taken place of lateyears in natural philosophy, the increasing diffusion of generalknowledge from the extension of the art of printing, the ardent andunshackled spirit of inquiry that prevails throughout the lettered andeven unlettered world, the new and extraordinary lights that have beenthrown on political subjects which dazzle and astonish theunderstanding, and particularly that tremendous phenomenon in thepolitical horizon, the French Revolution, which, like a blazing comet, seems destined either to inspire with fresh life and vigour, or toscorch up and destroy the shrinking inhabitants of the earth, have allconcurred to lead many able men into the opinion that we were touchingon a period big with the most important changes, changes that would insome measure be decisive of the future fate of mankind. 

It has been said that the great question is now at issue, whether manshall henceforth start forwards with accelerated velocity towardsillimitable, and hitherto unconceived improvement, or be condemned to aperpetual oscillation between happiness and misery, and after everyeffort remain still at an immeasurable distance from the wished-forgoal. 

Yet, anxiously as every friend of mankind must look forwards to thetermination of this painful suspense, and eagerly as the inquiring mindwould hail every ray of light that might assist its view into futurity, it is much to be lamented that the writers on each side of thismomentous question still keep far aloof from each other. Their mutualarguments do not meet with a candid examination. The question is notbrought to rest on fewer points, and even in theory scarcely seems tobe approaching to a decision. 

The advocate for the present order of things is apt to treat the sectof speculative philosophers either as a set of artful and designingknaves who preach up ardent benevolence and draw captivating picturesof a happier state of society only the better to enable them to destroythe present establishments and to forward their own deep-laid schemesof ambition, or as wild and mad-headed enthusiasts whose sillyspeculations and absurd paradoxes are not worthy the attention of anyreasonable man. 

The advocate for the perfectibility of man, and of society, retorts onthe defender of establishments a more than equal contempt. He brandshim as the slave of the most miserable and narrow prejudices; or as thedefender of the abuses of civil society only because he profits bythem. He paints him either as a character who prostitutes hisunderstanding to his interest, or as one whose powers of mind are notof a size to grasp any thing great and noble, who cannot see above fiveyards before him, and who must therefore be utterly unable to take inthe views of the enlightened benefactor of mankind. 

In this unamicable contest the cause of truth cannot but suffer. Thereally good arguments on each side of the question are not allowed tohave their proper weight. Each pursues his own theory, littlesolicitous to correct or improve it by an attention to what is advancedby his opponents. 

The friend of the present order of things condemns all politicalspeculations in the gross. He will not even condescend to examine thegrounds from which the perfectibility of society is inferred. Much lesswill he give himself the trouble in a fair and candid manner to attemptan exposition of their fallacy. 

The speculative philosopher equally offends against the cause of truth. With eyes fixed on a happier state of society, the blessings of whichhe paints in the most captivating colours, he allows himself to indulgein the most bitter invectives against every present establishment, without applying his talents to consider the best and safest means ofremoving abuses and without seeming to be aware of the tremendousobstacles that threaten, even in theory, to oppose the progress of mantowards perfection. 

It is an acknowledged truth in philosophy that a just theory willalways be confirmed by experiment. Yet so much friction, and so manyminute circumstances occur in practice, which it is next to impossiblefor the most enlarged and penetrating mind to foresee, that on fewsubjects can any theory be pronounced just, till all the argumentsagainst it have been maturely weighed and clearly and consistentlyrefuted. 

I have read some of the speculations on the perfectibility of man andof society with great pleasure. I have been warmed and delighted withthe enchanting picture which they hold forth. I ardently wish for suchhappy improvements. But I see great, and, to my understanding, unconquerable difficulties in the way to them. These difficulties it ismy present purpose to state, declaring, at the same time, that so farfrom exulting in them, as a cause of triumph over the friends ofinnovation, nothing would give me greater pleasure than to see themcompletely removed. 

The most important argument that I shall adduce is certainly not new. The principles on which it depends have been explained in part by Hume, and more at large by Dr Adam Smith. It has been advanced and applied tothe present subject, though not with its proper weight, or in the mostforcible point of view, by Mr Wallace, and it may probably have beenstated by many writers that I have never met with. I should certainlytherefore not think of advancing it again, though I mean to place it ina point of view in some degree different from any that I have hithertoseen, if it had ever been fairly and satisfactorily answered. 

The cause of this neglect on the part of the advocates for theperfectibility of mankind is not easily accounted for. I cannot doubtthe talents of such men as Godwin and Condorcet. I am unwilling todoubt their candour. To my understanding, and probably to that of mostothers, the difficulty appears insurmountable. Yet these men ofacknowledged ability and penetration scarcely deign to notice it, andhold on their course in such speculations with unabated ardour andundiminished confidence. I have certainly no right to say that theypurposely shut their eyes to such arguments. I ought rather to doubtthe validity of them, when neglected by such men, however forciblytheir truth may strike my own mind. Yet in this respect it must beacknowledged that we are all of us too prone to err. If I saw a glassof wine repeatedly presented to a man, and he took no notice of it, Ishould be apt to think that he was blind or uncivil. A justerphilosophy might teach me rather to think that my eyes deceived me andthat the offer was not really what I conceived it to be. 

In entering upon the argument I must premise that I put out of thequestion, at present, all mere conjectures, that is, all suppositions, the probable realization of which cannot be inferred upon any justphilosophical grounds. A writer may tell me that he thinks man willultimately become an ostrich. I cannot properly contradict him. Butbefore he can expect to bring any reasonable person over to hisopinion, he ought to shew that the necks of mankind have been graduallyelongating, that the lips have grown harder and more prominent, thatthe legs and feet are daily altering their shape, and that the hair isbeginning to change into stubs of feathers. And till the probability ofso wonderful a conversion can be shewn, it is surely lost time and losteloquence to expatiate on the happiness of man in such a state; todescribe his powers, both of running and flying, to paint him in acondition where all narrow luxuries would be contemned, where he wouldbe employed only in collecting the necessaries of life, and where, consequently, each man's share of labour would be light, and hisportion of leisure ample. 

I think I may fairly make two postulata. 

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

Secondly, That the passion between the sexes is necessary and willremain nearly in its present state. 

These two laws, ever since we have had any knowledge of mankind, appearto have been fixed laws of our nature, and, as we have not hithertoseen any alteration in them, we have no right to conclude that theywill ever cease to be what they now are, without an immediate act ofpower in that Being who first arranged the system of the universe, andfor the advantage of his creatures, still executes, according to fixedlaws, all its various operations. 

I do not know that any writer has supposed that on this earth man willultimately be able to live without food. But Mr Godwin has conjecturedthat the passion between the sexes may in time be extinguished. As, however, he calls this part of his work a deviation into the land ofconjecture, I will not dwell longer upon it at present than to say thatthe best arguments for the perfectibility of man are drawn from acontemplation of the great progress that he has already made from thesavage state and the difficulty of saying where he is to stop. Buttowards the extinction of the passion between the sexes, no progresswhatever has hitherto been made. It appears to exist in as much forceat present as it did two thousand or four thousand years ago. There areindividual exceptions now as there always have been. But, as theseexceptions do not appear to increase in number, it would surely be avery unphilosophical mode of arguing to infer, merely from theexistence of an exception, that the exception would, in time, becomethe rule, and the rule the exception. 

Assuming then my postulata as granted, I say, that the power ofpopulation is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth toproduce subsistence for man. 

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

By that law of our nature which makes food necessary to the life ofman, the effects of these two unequal powers must be kept equal. 

This implies a strong and constantly operating check on population fromthe difficulty of subsistence. This difficulty must fall somewhere andmust necessarily be severely felt by a large portion of mankind. 

Through the animal and vegetable kingdoms, nature has scattered theseeds of life abroad with the most profuse and liberal hand. She hasbeen comparatively sparing in the room and the nourishment necessary torear them. The germs of existence contained in this spot of earth, withample food, and ample room to expand in, would fill millions of worldsin the course of a few thousand years. Necessity, that imperious allpervading law of nature, restrains them within the prescribed bounds. The race of plants and the race of animals shrink under this greatrestrictive law. And the race of man cannot, by any efforts of reason, escape from it. Among plants and animals its effects are waste of seed, sickness, and premature death. Among mankind, misery and vice. Theformer, misery, is an absolutely necessary consequence of it. Vice is ahighly probable consequence, and we therefore see it abundantlyprevail, but it ought not, perhaps, to be called an absolutelynecessary consequence. The ordeal of virtue is to resist all temptationto evil. 

This natural inequality of the two powers of population and ofproduction in the earth, and that great law of our nature which mustconstantly keep their effects equal, form the great difficulty that tome appears insurmountable in the way to the perfectibility of society. All other arguments are of slight and subordinate consideration incomparison of this. I see no way by which man can escape from theweight of this law which pervades all animated nature. No fanciedequality, no agrarian regulations in their utmost extent, could removethe pressure of it even for a single century. And it appears, therefore, to be decisive against the possible existence of a society, all the members of which should live in ease, happiness, andcomparative leisure; and feel no anxiety about providing the means ofsubsistence for themselves and families. 

Consequently, if the premises are just, the argument is conclusiveagainst the perfectibility of the mass of mankind. 

I have thus sketched the general outline of the argument, but I willexamine it more particularly, and I think it will be found thatexperience, the true source and foundation of all knowledge, invariablyconfirms its truth. 

CHAPTER 2

The different ratio in which population and food increase--Thenecessary effects of these different ratios of increase--Oscillationproduced by them in the condition of the lower classes ofsociety--Reasons why this oscillation has not been so much observed asmight be expected--Three propositions on which the general argument ofthe Essay depends--The different states in which mankind have beenknown to exist proposed to be examined with reference to these threepropositions. 

I said that population, when unchecked, increased in a geometricalratio, and subsistence for man in an arithmetical ratio. 

Let us examine whether this position be just. I think it will beallowed, that no state has hitherto existed (at least that we have anyaccount of) where the manners were so pure and simple, and the means ofsubsistence so abundant, that no check whatever has existed to earlymarriages, among the lower classes, from a fear of not providing wellfor their families, or among the higher classes, from a fear oflowering their condition in life. Consequently in no state that we haveyet known has the power of population been left to exert itself withperfect freedom. 

Whether the law of marriage be instituted or not, the dictate of natureand virtue seems to be an early attachment to one woman. Supposing aliberty of changing in the case of an unfortunate choice, this libertywould not affect population till it arose to a height greatly vicious;and we are now supposing the existence of a society where vice isscarcely known. 

In a state therefore of great equality and virtue, where pure andsimple manners prevailed, and where the means of subsistence were soabundant that no part of the society could have any fears aboutproviding amply for a family, the power of population being left toexert itself unchecked, the increase of the human species wouldevidently be much greater than any increase that has been hithertoknown. 

In the United States of America, where the means of subsistence havebeen more ample, the manners of the people more pure, and consequentlythe checks to early marriages fewer, than in any of the modern statesof Europe, the population has been found to double itself intwenty-five years. 

This ratio of increase, though short of the utmost power of population, yet as the result of actual experience, we will take as our rule, andsay, that population, when unchecked, goes on doubling itself everytwenty-five years or increases in a geometrical ratio. 

Let us now take any spot of earth, this Island for instance, and see inwhat ratio the subsistence it affords can be supposed to increase. Wewill begin with it under its present state of cultivation. 

If I allow that by the best possible policy, by breaking up more landand by great encouragements to agriculture, the produce of this Islandmay be doubled in the first twenty-five years, I think it will beallowing as much as any person can well demand. 

In the next twenty-five years, it is impossible to suppose that theproduce could be quadrupled. It would be contrary to all our knowledgeof the qualities of land. The very utmost that we can conceive, is, that the increase in the second twenty-five years might equal thepresent produce. Let us then take this for our rule, though certainlyfar beyond the truth, and allow that, by great exertion, the wholeproduce of the Island might be increased every twenty-five years, by aquantity of subsistence equal to what it at present produces. The mostenthusiastic speculator cannot suppose a greater increase than this. Ina few centuries it would make every acre of land in the Island like agarden. 

Yet this ratio of increase is evidently arithmetical. 

It may be fairly said, therefore, that the means of subsistenceincrease in an arithmetical ratio. Let us now bring the effects ofthese two ratios together. 

The population of the Island is computed to be about seven millions, and we will suppose the present produce equal to the support of such anumber. In the first twenty-five years the population would be fourteenmillions, and the food being also doubled, the means of subsistencewould be equal to this increase. In the next twenty-five years thepopulation would be twenty-eight millions, and the means of subsistenceonly equal to the support of twenty-one millions. In the next period, the population would be fifty-six millions, and the means ofsubsistence just sufficient for half that number. And at the conclusionof the first century the population would be one hundred and twelvemillions and the means of subsistence only equal to the support ofthirty-five millions, which would leave a population of seventy-sevenmillions totally unprovided for. 

A great emigration necessarily implies unhappiness of some kind orother in the country that is deserted. For few persons will leave theirfamilies, connections, friends, and native land, to seek a settlementin untried foreign climes, without some strong subsisting causes ofuneasiness where they are, or the hope of some great advantages in theplace to which they are going. 

But to make the argument more general and less interrupted by thepartial views of emigration, let us take the whole earth, instead ofone spot, and suppose that the restraints to population wereuniversally removed. If the subsistence for man that the earth affordswas to be increased every twenty-five years by a quantity equal to whatthe whole world at present produces, this would allow the power ofproduction in the earth to be absolutely unlimited, and its ratio ofincrease much greater than we can conceive that any possible exertionsof mankind could make it. 

Taking the population of the world at any number, a thousand millions, for instance, the human species would increase in the ratio of--1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, etc. And subsistence as--1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, etc. In two centuries and a quarter, the populationwould be to the means of subsistence as 512 to 10: in three centuriesas 4096 to 13, and in two thousand years the difference would be almostincalculable, though the produce in that time would have increased toan immense extent. 

No limits whatever are placed to the productions of the earth; they mayincrease for ever and be greater than any assignable quantity, yetstill the power of population being a power of a superior order, theincrease of the human species can only be kept commensurate to theincrease of the means of subsistence by the constant operation of thestrong law of necessity acting as a check upon the greater power. 

The effects of this check remain now to be considered. 

Among plants and animals the view of the subject is simple. They areall impelled by a powerful instinct to the increase of their species, and this instinct is interrupted by no reasoning or doubts aboutproviding for their offspring. Wherever therefore there is liberty, thepower of increase is exerted, and the superabundant effects arerepressed afterwards by want of room and nourishment, which is commonto animals and plants, and among animals by becoming the prey of others. 

The effects of this check on man are more complicated. Impelled to theincrease of his species by an equally powerful instinct, reasoninterrupts his career and asks him whether he may not bring beings intothe world for whom he cannot provide the means of subsistence. In astate of equality, this would be the simple question. In the presentstate of society, other considerations occur. Will he not lower hisrank in life? Will he not subject himself to greater difficulties thanhe at present feels? Will he not be obliged to labour harder? and if hehas a large family, will his utmost exertions enable him to supportthem? May he not see his offspring in rags and misery, and clamouringfor bread that he cannot give them? And may he not be reduced to thegrating necessity of forfeiting his independence, and of being obligedto the sparing hand of charity for support?

These considerations are calculated to prevent, and certainly doprevent, a very great number in all civilized nations from pursuing thedictate of nature in an early attachment to one woman. And thisrestraint almost necessarily, though not absolutely so, produces vice. Yet in all societies, even those that are most vicious, the tendency toa virtuous attachment is so strong that there is a constant efforttowards an increase of population. This constant effort as constantlytends to subject the lower classes of the society to distress and toprevent any great permanent amelioration of their condition. 

The way in which, these effects are produced seems to be this. We willsuppose the means of subsistence in any country just equal to the easysupport of its inhabitants. The constant effort towards population, which is found to act even in the most vicious societies, increases thenumber of people before the means of subsistence are increased. Thefood therefore which before supported seven millions must now bedivided among seven millions and a half or eight millions. The poorconsequently must live much worse, and many of them be reduced tosevere distress. The number of labourers also being above theproportion of the work in the market, the price of labour must tendtoward a decrease, while the price of provisions would at the same timetend to rise. The labourer therefore must work harder to earn the sameas he did before. During this season of distress, the discouragementsto marriage, and the difficulty of rearing a family are so great thatpopulation is at a stand. In the mean time the cheapness of labour, theplenty of labourers, and the necessity of an increased industry amongstthem, encourage cultivators to employ more labour upon their land, toturn up fresh soil, and to manure and improve more completely what isalready in tillage, till ultimately the means of subsistence become inthe same proportion to the population as at the period from which weset out. The situation of the labourer being then again tolerablycomfortable, the restraints to population are in some degree loosened, and the same retrograde and progressive movements with respect tohappiness are repeated. 

This sort of oscillation will not be remarked by superficial observers, and it may be difficult even for the most penetrating mind to calculateits periods. Yet that in all old states some such vibration does exist, though from various transverse causes, in a much less marked, and in amuch more irregular manner than I have described it, no reflecting manwho considers the subject deeply can well doubt. 

Many reasons occur why this oscillation has been less obvious, and lessdecidedly confirmed by experience, than might naturally be expected. 

One principal reason is that the histories of mankind that we possessare histories only of the higher classes. We have but few accounts thatcan be depended upon of the manners and customs of that part of mankindwhere these retrograde and progressive movements chiefly take place. Asatisfactory history of this kind, on one people, and of one period, would require the constant and minute attention of an observing mindduring a long life. Some of the objects of inquiry would be, in whatproportion to the number of adults was the number of marriages, to whatextent vicious customs prevailed in consequence of the restraints uponmatrimony, what was the comparative mortality among the children of themost distressed part of the community and those who lived rather moreat their ease, what were the variations in the real price of labour, and what were the observable differences in the state of the lowerclasses of society with respect to ease and happiness, at differenttimes during a certain period. 

Such a history would tend greatly to elucidate the manner in which theconstant check upon population acts and would probably prove theexistence of the retrograde and progressive movements that have beenmentioned, though the times of their vibrations must necessarily berendered irregular from the operation of many interrupting causes, suchas the introduction or failure of certain manufactures, a greater orless prevalent spirit of agricultural enterprise, years of plenty, oryears of scarcity, wars and pestilence, poor laws, the invention ofprocesses for shortening labour without the proportional extension ofthe market for the commodity, and, particularly, the difference betweenthe nominal and real price of labour, a circumstance which has perhapsmore than any other contributed to conceal this oscillation from commonview. 

It very rarely happens that the nominal price of labour universallyfalls, but we well know that it frequently remains the same, while thenominal price of provisions has been gradually increasing. This is, ineffect, a real fall in the price of labour, and during this period thecondition of the lower orders of the community must gradually growworse and worse. But the farmers and capitalists are growing rich fromthe real cheapness of labour. Their increased capitals enable them toemploy a greater number of men. Work therefore may be plentiful, andthe price of labour would consequently rise. But the want of freedom inthe market of labour, which occurs more or less in all communities, either from parish laws, or the more general cause of the facility ofcombination among the rich, and its difficulty among the poor, operatesto prevent the price of labour from rising at the natural period, andkeeps it down some time longer; perhaps till a year of scarcity, whenthe clamour is too loud and the necessity too apparent to be resisted. 

The true cause of the advance in the price of labour is thus concealed, and the rich affect to grant it as an act of compassion and favour tothe poor, in consideration of a year of scarcity, and, when plentyreturns, indulge themselves in the most unreasonable of all complaints, that the price does not again fall, when a little rejection would shewthem that it must have risen long before but from an unjust conspiracyof their own. 

But though the rich by unfair combinations contribute frequently toprolong a season of distress among the poor, yet no possible form ofsociety could prevent the almost constant action of misery upon a greatpart of mankind, if in a state of inequality, and upon all, if all wereequal. 

The theory on which the truth of this position depends appears to me soextremely clear that I feel at a loss to conjecture what part of it canbe denied. 

That population cannot increase without the means of subsistence is aproposition so evident that it needs no illustration. 

That population does invariably increase where there are the means ofsubsistence, the history of every people that have ever existed willabundantly prove. 

And that the superior power of population cannot be checked withoutproducing misery or vice, the ample portion of these too bitteringredients in the cup of human life and the continuance of thephysical causes that seem to have produced them bear too convincing atestimony. 

But, in order more fully to ascertain the validity of these threepropositions, let us examine the different states in which mankind havebeen known to exist. Even a cursory review will, I think, be sufficientto convince us that these propositions are incontrovertible truths. 

CHAPTER 3

The savage or hunter state shortly reviewed--The shepherd state, or thetribes of barbarians that overran the Roman Empire--The superiority ofthe power of population to the means of subsistence--the cause of thegreat tide of Northern Emigration. 

In the rudest state of mankind, in which hunting is the principaloccupation, and the only mode of acquiring food; the means ofsubsistence being scattered over a large extent of territory, thecomparative population must necessarily be thin. It is said that thepassion between the sexes is less ardent among the North AmericanIndians, than among any other race of men. Yet, notwithstanding thisapathy, the effort towards population, even in this people, seems to bealways greater than the means to support it. This appears, from thecomparatively rapid population that takes place, whenever any of thetribes happen to settle in some fertile spot, and to draw nourishmentfrom more fruitful sources than that of hunting; and it has beenfrequently remarked that when an Indian family has taken up its abodenear any European settlement, and adopted a more easy and civilizedmode of life, that one woman has reared five, or six, or more children;though in the savage state it rarely happens that above one or two in afamily grow up to maturity. The same observation has been made withregard to the Hottentots near the Cape. These facts prove the superiorpower of population to the means of subsistence in nations of hunters, and that this power always shews itself the moment it is left to actwith freedom. 

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

The North American Indians, considered as a people, cannot justly becalled free and equal. In all the accounts we have of them, and, indeed, of most other savage nations, the women are represented as muchmore completely in a state of slavery to the men than the poor are tothe rich in civilized countries. One half the nation appears to act asHelots to the other half, and the misery that checks population fallschiefly, as it always must do, upon that part whose condition is lowestin the scale of society. The infancy of man in the simplest staterequires considerable attention, but this necessary attention the womencannot give, condemned as they are to the inconveniences and hardshipsof frequent change of place and to the constant and unremittingdrudgery of preparing every thing for the reception of their tyranniclords. These exertions, sometimes during pregnancy or with children attheir backs, must occasion frequent miscarriages, and prevent any butthe most robust infants from growing to maturity. Add to thesehardships of the women the constant war that prevails among savages, and the necessity which they frequently labour under of exposing theiraged and helpless parents, and of thus violating the first feelings ofnature, and the picture will not appear very free from the blot ofmisery. In estimating the happiness of a savage nation, we must not fixour eyes only on the warrior in the prime of life: he is one of ahundred: he is the gentleman, the man of fortune, the chances have beenin his favour and many efforts have failed ere this fortunate being wasproduced, whose guardian genius should preserve him through thenumberless dangers with which he would be surrounded from infancy tomanhood. The true points of comparison between two nations seem to bethe ranks in each which appear nearest to answer to each other. And inthis view, I should compare the warriors in the prime of life with thegentlemen, and the women, children, and aged, with the lower classes ofthe community in civilized states. 

May we not then fairly infer from this short review, or rather, fromthe accounts that may be referred to of nations of hunters, that theirpopulation is thin from the scarcity of food, that it would immediatelyincrease if food was in greater plenty, and that, putting vice out ofthe question among savages, misery is the check that represses thesuperior power of population and keeps its effects equal to the meansof subsistence. Actual observation and experience tell us that thischeck, with a few local and temporary exceptions, is constantly actingnow upon all savage nations, and the theory indicates that it probablyacted with nearly equal strength a thousand years ago, and it may notbe much greater a thousand years hence. 

Of the manners and habits that prevail among nations of shepherds, thenext state of mankind, we are even more ignorant than of the savagestate. But that these nations could not escape the general lot ofmisery arising from the want of subsistence, Europe, and all thefairest countries in the world, bear ample testimony. Want was the goadthat drove the Scythian shepherds from their native haunts, like somany famished wolves in search of prey. Set in motion by this allpowerful cause, clouds of Barbarians seemed to collect from all pointsof the northern hemisphere. Gathering fresh darkness and terror as theyrolled on, the congregated bodies at length obscured the sun of Italyand sunk the whole world in universal night. These tremendous effects, so long and so deeply felt throughout the fairest portions of theearth, may be traced to the simple cause of the superior power ofpopulation to the means of subsistence. 

It is well known that a country in pasture cannot support so manyinhabitants as a country in tillage, but what renders nations ofshepherds so formidable is the power which they possess of moving alltogether and the necessity they frequently feel of exerting this powerin search of fresh pasture for their herds. A tribe that was rich incattle had an immediate plenty of food. Even the parent stock might bedevoured in a case of absolute necessity. The women lived in greaterease than among nations of hunters. The men bold in their unitedstrength and confiding in their power of procuring pasture for theircattle by change of place, felt, probably, but few fears aboutproviding for a family. These combined causes soon produced theirnatural and invariable effect, an extended population. A more frequentand rapid change of place became then necessary. A wider and moreextensive territory was successively occupied. A broader desolationextended all around them. Want pinched the less fortunate members ofthe society, and, at length, the impossibility of supporting such anumber together became too evident to be resisted. Young scions werethen pushed out from the parent-stock and instructed to explore freshregions and to gain happier seats for themselves by their swords. 'Theworld was all before them where to choose. ' Restless from presentdistress, flushed with the hope of fairer prospects, and animated withthe spirit of hardy enterprise, these daring adventurers were likely tobecome formidable adversaries to all who opposed them. The peacefulinhabitants of the countries on which they rushed could not longwithstand the energy of men acting under such powerful motives ofexertion. And when they fell in with any tribes like their own, thecontest was a struggle for existence, and they fought with a desperatecourage, inspired by the rejection that death was the punishment ofdefeat and life the prize of victory. 

In these savage contests many tribes must have been utterlyexterminated. Some, probably, perished by hardship and famine. Others, whose leading star had given them a happier direction, became great andpowerful tribes, and, in their turns, sent off fresh adventurers insearch of still more fertile seats. The prodigious waste of human lifeoccasioned by this perpetual struggle for room and food was more thansupplied by the mighty power of population, acting, in some degree, unshackled from the consent habit of emigration. The tribes thatmigrated towards the South, though they won these more fruitful regionsby continual battles, rapidly increased in number and power, from theincreased means of subsistence. Till at length the whole territory, from the confines of China to the shores of the Baltic, was peopled bya various race of Barbarians, brave, robust, and enterprising, inuredto hardship, and delighting in war. Some tribes maintained theirindependence. Others ranged themselves under the standard of somebarbaric chieftain who led them to victory after victory, and what wasof more importance, to regions abounding in corn, wine, and oil, thelong wished for consummation, and great reward of their labours. AnAlaric, an Attila, or a Zingis Khan, and the chiefs around them, mightfight for glory, for the fame of extensive conquests, but the truecause that set in motion the great tide of northern emigration, andthat continued to propel it till it rolled at different periods againstChina, Persia, Italy, and even Egypt, was a scarcity of food, apopulation extended beyond the means of supporting it. 

The absolute population at any one period, in proportion to the extentof territory, could never be great, on account of the unproductivenature of some of the regions occupied; but there appears to have beena most rapid succession of human beings, and as fast as some were moweddown by the scythe of war or of famine, others rose in increasednumbers to supply their place. Among these bold and improvidentBarbarians, population was probably but little checked, as in modernstates, from a fear of future difficulties. A prevailing hope ofbettering their condition by change of place, a constant expectation ofplunder, a power even, if distressed, of selling their children asslaves, added to the natural carelessness of the barbaric character, all conspired to raise a population which remained to be repressedafterwards by famine or war. 

Where there is any inequality of conditions, and among nations ofshepherds this soon takes place, the distress arising from a scarcityof provisions must fall hardest upon the least fortunate members of thesociety. This distress also must frequently have been felt by thewomen, exposed to casual plunder in the absence of their husbands, andsubject to continual disappointments in their expected return. 

But without knowing enough of the minute and intimate history of thesepeople, to point out precisely on what part the distress for want offood chiefly fell, and to what extent it was generally felt, I think wemay fairly say, from all the accounts that we have of nations ofshepherds, that population invariably increased among them whenever, byemigration or any other cause, the means of subsistence were increased, and that a further population was checked, and the actual populationkept equal to the means of subsistence, by misery and vice. 

For, independently of any vicious customs that might have prevailedamongst them with regard to women, which always operate as checks topopulation, it must be acknowledged, I think, that the commission ofwar is vice, and the effect of it misery, and none can doubt the miseryof want of food. 

CHAPTER 4

State of civilized nations--Probability that Europe is much morepopulous now than in the time of Julius Caesar--Best criterion ofpopulation--Probable error of Hume in one the criterions that heproposes as assisting in an estimate of population--Slow increase ofpopulation at present in most of the states of Europe--The twoprincipal checks to population--The first, or preventive check examinedwith regard to England. 

In examining the next state of mankind with relation to the questionbefore us, the state of mixed pasture and tillage, in which with somevariation in the proportions the most civilized nations must alwaysremain, we shall be assisted in our review by what we daily see aroundus, by actual experience, by facts that come within the scope of everyman's observation. 

Notwithstanding the exaggerations of some old historians, there canremain no doubt in the mind of any thinking man that the population ofthe principal countries of Europe, France, England, Germany, Russia, Poland, Sweden, and Denmark is much greater than ever it was in formertimes. The obvious reason of these exaggerations is the formidableaspect that even a thinly peopled nation must have, when collectedtogether and moving all at once in search of fresh seats. If to thistremendous appearance be added a succession at certain intervals ofsimilar emigrations, we shall not be much surprised that the fears ofthe timid nations of the South represented the North as a regionabsolutely swarming with human beings. A nearer and juster view of thesubject at present enables us to see that the inference was as absurdas if a man in this country, who was continually meeting on the roaddroves of cattle from Wales and the North, was immediately to concludethat these countries were the most productive of all the parts of thekingdom. 

The reason that the greater part of Europe is more populous now than itwas in former times, is that the industry of the inhabitants has madethese countries produce a greater quantity of human subsistence. For Iconceive that it may be laid down as a position not to be controverted, that, taking a sufficient extent of territory to include within itexportation and importation, and allowing some variation for theprevalence of luxury, or of frugal habits, that population constantlybears a regular proportion to the food that the earth is made toproduce. In the controversy concerning the populousness of ancient andmodern nations, could it be clearly ascertained that the averageproduce of the countries in question, taken altogether, is greater nowthan it was in the times of Julius Caesar, the dispute would be at oncedetermined. 

When we are assured that China is the most fertile country in theworld, that almost all the land is in tillage, and that a great part ofit bears two crops every year, and further, that the people live veryfrugally, we may infer with certainty that the population must beimmense, without busying ourselves in inquiries into the manners andhabits of the lower classes and the encouragements to early marriages. But these inquiries are of the utmost importance, and a minute historyof the customs of the lower Chinese would be of the greatest use inascertaining in what manner the checks to a further population operate;what are the vices, and what are the distresses that prevent anincrease of numbers beyond the ability of the country to support. 

Hume, in his essay on the populousness of ancient and modern nations, when he intermingles, as he says, an inquiry concerning causes withthat concerning facts, does not seem to see with his usual penetrationhow very little some of the causes he alludes to could enable him toform any judgement of the actual population of ancient nations. If anyinference can be drawn from them, perhaps it should be directly thereverse of what Hume draws, though I certainly ought to speak withgreat diffidence in dissenting from a man who of all others on suchsubjects was the least likely to be deceived by first appearances. If Ifind that at a certain period in ancient history, the encouragements tohave a family were great, that early marriages were consequently veryprevalent, and that few persons remained single, I should infer withcertainty that population was rapidly increasing, but by no means thatit was then actually very great, rather; indeed, the contrary, that itwas then thin and that there was room and food for a much greaternumber. On the other hand, if I find that at this period thedifficulties attending a family were very great, that, consequently, few early marriages took place, and that a great number of both sexesremained single, I infer with certainty that population was at a stand, and, probably, because the actual population was very great inproportion to the fertility of the land and that there was scarcelyroom and food for more. The number of footmen, housemaids, and otherpersons remaining unmarried in modern states, Hume allows to be ratheran argument against their population. I should rather draw a contraryinference and consider it an argument of their fullness, though thisinference is not certain, because there are many thinly inhabitedstates that are yet stationary in their population. To speak, therefore, correctly, perhaps it may be said that the number ofunmarried persons in proportion to the whole number, existing atdifferent periods, in the same or different states will enable us tojudge whether population at these periods was increasing, stationary, or decreasing, but will form no criterion by which we can determine theactual population. 

There is, however, a circumstance taken notice of in most of theaccounts we have of China that it seems difficult to reconcile withthis reasoning. It is said that early marriages very generally prevailthrough all the ranks of the Chinese. Yet Dr Adam Smith supposes thatpopulation in China is stationary. These two circumstances appear to beirreconcilable. It certainly seems very little probable that thepopulation of China is fast increasing. Every acre of land has been solong in cultivation that we can hardly conceive there is any greatyearly addition to the average produce. The fact, perhaps, of theuniversality of early marriages may not be sufficiently ascertained. Ifit be supposed true, the only way of accounting for the difficulty, with our present knowledge of the subject, appears to be that theredundant population, necessarily occasioned by the prevalence of earlymarriages, must be repressed by occasional famines, and by the customof exposing children, which, in times of distress, is probably morefrequent than is ever acknowledged to Europeans. Relative to thisbarbarous practice, it is difficult to avoid remarking, that therecannot be a stronger proof of the distresses that have been felt bymankind for want of food, than the existence of a custom that thusviolates the most natural principle of the human heart. It appears tohave been very general among ancient nations, and certainly tendedrather to increase population. 

In examining the principal states of modern Europe, we shall find thatthough they have increased very considerably in population since theywere nations of shepherds, yet that at present their progress is butslow, and instead of doubling their numbers every twenty-five yearsthey require three or four hundred years, or more, for that purpose. Some, indeed, may be absolutely stationary, and others even retrograde. The cause of this slow progress in population cannot be traced to adecay of the passion between the sexes. We have sufficient reason tothink that this natural propensity exists still in undiminished vigour. Why then do not its effects appear in a rapid increase of the humanspecies? An intimate view of the state of society in any one country inEurope, which may serve equally for all, will enable us to answer thisquestion, and to say that a foresight of the difficulties attending therearing of a family acts as a preventive check, and the actualdistresses of some of the lower classes, by which they are disabledfrom giving the proper food and attention to their children, act as apositive check to the natural increase of population. 

England, as one of the most flourishing states of Europe, may be fairlytaken for an example, and the observations made will apply with butlittle variation to any other country where the population increasesslowly. 

The preventive check appears to operate in some degree through all theranks of society in England. There are some men, even in the highestrank, who are prevented from marrying by the idea of the expenses thatthey must retrench, and the fancied pleasures that they must deprivethemselves of, on the supposition of having a family. Theseconsiderations are certainly trivial, but a preventive foresight ofthis kind has objects of much greater weight for its contemplation aswe go lower. 

A man of liberal education, but with an income only just sufficient toenable him to associate in the rank of gentlemen, must feel absolutelycertain that if he marries and has a family he shall be obliged, if hemixes at all in society, to rank himself with moderate farmers and thelower class of tradesmen. The woman that a man of education wouldnaturally make the object of his choice would be one brought up in thesame tastes and sentiments with himself and used to the familiarintercourse of a society totally different from that to which she mustbe reduced by marriage. Can a man consent to place the object of hisaffection in a situation so discordant, probably, to her tastes andinclinations? Two or three steps of descent in society, particularly atthis round of the ladder, where education ends and ignorance begins, will not be considered by the generality of people as a fancied andchimerical, but a real and essential evil. If society be helddesirable, it surely must be free, equal, and reciprocal society, wherebenefits are conferred as well as received, and not such as thedependent finds with his patron or the poor with the rich. 

These considerations undoubtedly prevent a great number in this rank oflife from following the bent of their inclinations in an earlyattachment. Others, guided either by a stronger passion, or a weakerjudgement, break through these restraints, and it would be hard indeed, if the gratification of so delightful a passion as virtuous love, didnot, sometimes, more than counterbalance all its attendant evils. But Ifear it must be owned that the more general consequences of suchmarriages are rather calculated to justify than to repress theforebodings of the prudent. 

The sons of tradesmen and farmers are exhorted not to marry, andgenerally find it necessary to pursue this advice till they are settledin some business or farm that may enable them to support a family. These events may not, perhaps, occur till they are far advanced inlife. The scarcity of farms is a very general complaint in England. Andthe competition in every kind of business is so great that it is notpossible that all should be successful. 

The labourer who earns eighteen pence a day and lives with some degreeof comfort as a single man, will hesitate a little before he dividesthat pittance among four or five, which seems to be but just sufficientfor one. Harder fare and harder labour he would submit to for the sakeof living with the woman that he loves, but he must feel conscious, ifhe thinks at all, that should he have a large family, and any ill luckwhatever, no degree of frugality, no possible exertion of his manualstrength could preserve him from the heart-rending sensation of seeinghis children starve, or of forfeiting his independence, and beingobliged to the parish for their support. The love of independence is asentiment that surely none would wish to be erased from the breast ofman, though the parish law of England, it must be confessed, is asystem of all others the most calculated gradually to weaken thissentiment, and in the end may eradicate it completely. 

The servants who live in gentlemen's families have restraints that areyet stronger to break through in venturing upon marriage. They possessthe necessaries, and even the comforts of life, almost in as greatplenty as their masters. Their work is easy and their food luxuriouscompared with the class of labourers. And their sense of dependence isweakened by the conscious power of changing their masters, if they feelthemselves offended. Thus comfortably situated at present, what aretheir prospects in marrying? Without knowledge or capital, either forbusiness, or farming, and unused and therefore unable, to earn asubsistence by daily labour, their only refuge seems to be a miserableale-house, which certainly offers no very enchanting prospect of ahappy evening to their lives. By much the greater part, therefore, deterred by this uninviting view of their future situation, contentthemselves with remaining single where they are. 

If this sketch of the state of society in England be near the truth, and I do not conceive that it is exaggerated, it will be allowed thatthe preventive check to population in this country operates, thoughwith varied force, through all the classes of the community. The sameobservation will hold true with regard to all old states. The effects, indeed, of these restraints upon marriage are but too conspicuous inthe consequent vices that are produced in almost every part of theworld, vices that are continually involving both sexes in inextricableunhappiness. 

CHAPTER 5

The second, or positive check to population examined, in England--Thetrue cause why the immense sum collected in England for the poor doesnot better their condition--The powerful tendency of the poor laws todefeat their own purpose--Palliative of the distresses of the poorproposed--The absolute impossibility, from the fixed laws of ournature, that the pressure of want can ever be completely removed fromthe lower classes of society--All the checks to population may beresolved into misery or vice. 

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

This check is not so obvious to common view as the other I havementioned, and, to prove distinctly the force and extent of itsoperation would require, perhaps, more data than we are in possessionof. But I believe it has been very generally remarked by those who haveattended to bills of mortality that of the number of children who dieannually, much too great a proportion belongs to those who may besupposed unable to give their offspring proper food and attention, exposed as they are occasionally to severe distress and confined, perhaps, to unwholesome habitations and hard labour. This mortalityamong the children of the poor has been constantly taken notice of inall towns. It certainly does not prevail in an equal degree in thecountry, but the subject has not hitherto received sufficient attentionto enable anyone to say that there are not more deaths in proportionamong the children of the poor, even in the country, than among thoseof the middling and higher classes. Indeed, it seems difficult tosuppose that a labourer's wife who has six children, and who issometimes in absolute want of bread, should be able always to give themthe food and attention necessary to support life. The sons anddaughters of peasants will not be found such rosy cherubs in real lifeas they are described to be in romances. It cannot fail to be remarkedby those who live much in the country that the sons of labourers arevery apt to be stunted in their growth, and are a long while arrivingat maturity. Boys that you would guess to be fourteen or fifteen are, upon inquiry, frequently found to be eighteen or nineteen. And the ladswho drive plough, which must certainly be a healthy exercise, are veryrarely seen with any appearance of calves to their legs: a circumstancewhich can only be attributed to a want either of proper or ofsufficient nourishment. 

To remedy the frequent distresses of the common people, the poor lawsof England have been instituted; but it is to be feared, that thoughthey may have alleviated a little the intensity of individualmisfortune, they have spread the general evil over a much largersurface. It is a subject often started in conversation and mentionedalways as a matter of great surprise that, notwithstanding the immensesum that is annually collected for the poor in England, there is stillso much distress among them. Some think that the money must beembezzled, others that the church-wardens and overseers consume thegreater part of it in dinners. All agree that somehow or other it mustbe very ill-managed. In short the fact that nearly three millions arecollected annually for the poor and yet that their distresses are notremoved is the subject of continual astonishment. But a man who sees alittle below the surface of things would be very much more astonishedif the fact were otherwise than it is observed to be, or even if acollection universally of eighteen shillings in the pound, instead offour, were materially to alter it. I will state a case which I hopewill elucidate my meaning. 

Suppose that by a subscription of the rich the eighteen pence a daywhich men earn now was made up five shillings, it might be imagined, perhaps, that they would then be able to live comfortably and have apiece of meat every day for their dinners. But this would be a veryfalse conclusion. The transfer of three shillings and sixpence a day toevery labourer would not increase the quantity of meat in the country. There is not at present enough for all to have a decent share. Whatwould then be the consequence? The competition among the buyers in themarket of meat would rapidly raise the price from sixpence orsevenpence, to two or three shillings in the pound, and the commoditywould not be divided among many more than it is at present. When anarticle is scarce, and cannot be distributed to all, he that can shewthe most valid patent, that is, he that offers most money, becomes thepossessor. If we can suppose the competition among the buyers of meatto continue long enough for a greater number of cattle to be rearedannually, this could only be done at the expense of the corn, whichwould be a very disadvantagous exchange, for it is well known that thecountry could not then support the same population, and whensubsistence is scarce in proportion to the number of people, it is oflittle consequence whether the lowest members of the society possesseighteen pence or five shillings. They must at all events be reduced tolive upon the hardest fare and in the smallest quantity. 

It will be said, perhaps, that the increased number of purchasers inevery article would give a spur to productive industry and that thewhole produce of the island would be increased. This might in somedegree be the case. But the spur that these fancied riches would giveto population would more than counterbalance it, and the increasedproduce would be to be divided among a more than proportionablyincreased number of people. All this time I am supposing that the samequantity of work would be done as before. But this would not reallytake place. The receipt of five shillings a day, instead of eighteenpence, would make every man fancy himself comparatively rich and ableto indulge himself in many hours or days of leisure. This would give astrong and immediate check to productive industry, and, in a shorttime, not only the nation would be poorer, but the lower classesthemselves would be much more distressed than when they received onlyeighteen pence a day. 

A collection from the rich of eighteen shillings in the pound, even ifdistributed in the most judicious manner, would have a little the sameeffect as that resulting from the supposition I have just made, and nopossible contributions or sacrifices of the rich, particularly inmoney, could for any time prevent the recurrence of distress among thelower members of society, whoever they were. Great changes might, indeed, be made. The rich might become poor, and some of the poor rich, but a part of the society must necessarily feel a difficulty of living, and this difficulty will naturally fall on the least fortunate members. 

It may at first appear strange, but I believe it is true, that I cannotby means of money raise a poor man and enable him to live much betterthan he did before, without proportionably depressing others in thesame class. If I retrench the quantity of food consumed in my house, and give him what I have cut off, I then benefit him, withoutdepressing any but myself and family, who, perhaps, may be well able tobear it. If I turn up a piece of uncultivated land, and give him theproduce, I then benefit both him and all the members of the society, because what he before consumed is thrown into the common stock, andprobably some of the new produce with it. But if I only give him money, supposing the produce of the country to remain the same, I give him atitle to a larger share of that produce than formerly, which share hecannot receive without diminishing the shares of others. It is evidentthat this effect, in individual instances, must be so small as to betotally imperceptible; but still it must exist, as many other effectsdo, which, like some of the insects that people the air, elude ourgrosser perceptions. 

Supposing the quantity of food in any country to remain the same formany years together, it is evident that this food must be dividedaccording to the value of each man's patent, or the sum of money thathe can afford to spend on this commodity so universally in request. (MrGodwin calls the wealth that a man receives from his ancestors a mouldypatent. It may, I think, very properly be termed a patent, but I hardlysee the propriety of calling it a mouldy one, as it is an article insuch constant use. ) It is a demonstrative truth, therefore, that thepatents of one set of men could not be increased in value withoutdiminishing the value of the patents of some other set of men. If therich were to subscribe and give five shillings a day to five hundredthousand men without retrenching their own tables, no doubt can exist, that as these men would naturally live more at their ease and consume agreater quantity of provisions, there would be less food remaining todivide among the rest, and consequently each man's patent would bediminished in value or the same number of pieces of silver wouldpurchase a smaller quantity of subsistence. 

An increase of population without a proportional increase of food willevidently have the same effect in lowering the value of each man'spatent. The food must necessarily be distributed in smaller quantities, and consequently a day's labour will purchase a smaller quantity ofprovisions. An increase in the price of provisions would arise eitherfrom an increase of population faster than the means of subsistence, orfrom a different distribution of the money of the society. The food ofa country that has been long occupied, if it be increasing, increasesslowly and regularly and cannot be made to answer any sudden demands, but variations in the distribution of the money of a society are notinfrequently occurring, and are undoubtedly among the causes thatoccasion the continual variations which we observe in the price ofprovisions. 

The poor laws of England tend to depress the general condition of thepoor in these two ways. Their first obvious tendency is to increasepopulation without increasing the food for its support. A poor man maymarry with little or no prospect of being able to support a family inindependence. They may be said therefore in some measure to create thepoor which they maintain, and as the provisions of the country must, inconsequence of the increased population, be distributed to every man insmaller proportions, it is evident that the labour of those who are notsupported by parish assistance will purchase a smaller quantity ofprovisions than before and consequently more of them must be driven toask for support. 

Secondly, the quantity of provisions consumed in workhouses upon a partof the society that cannot in general be considered as the mostvaluable part diminishes the shares that would otherwise belong to moreindustrious and more worthy members, and thus in the same manner forcesmore to become dependent. If the poor in the workhouses were to livebetter than they now do, this new distribution of the money of thesociety would tend more conspicuously to depress the condition of thoseout of the workhouses by occasioning a rise in the price of provisions. 

Fortunately for England, a spirit of independence still remains amongthe peasantry. The poor laws are strongly calculated to eradicate thisspirit. They have succeeded in part, but had they succeeded ascompletely as might have been expected their pernicious tendency wouldnot have been so long concealed. 

Hard as it may appear in individual instances, dependent poverty oughtto be held disgraceful. Such a stimulus seems to be absolutelynecessary to promote the happiness of the great mass of mankind, andevery general attempt to weaken this stimulus, however benevolent itsapparent intention, will always defeat its own purpose. If men areinduced to marry from a prospect of parish provision, with little or nochance of maintaining their families in independence, they are not onlyunjustly tempted to bring unhappiness and dependence upon themselvesand children, but they are tempted, without knowing it, to injure allin the same class with themselves. A labourer who marries without beingable to support a family may in some respects be considered as an enemyto all his fellow-labourers. 

I feel no doubt whatever that the parish laws of England havecontributed to raise the price of provisions and to lower the realprice of labour. They have therefore contributed to impoverish thatclass of people whose only possession is their labour. It is alsodifficult to suppose that they have not powerfully contributed togenerate that carelessness and want of frugality observable among thepoor, so contrary to the disposition frequently to be remarked amongpetty tradesmen and small farmers. The labouring poor, to use a vulgarexpression, seem always to live from hand to mouth. Their present wantsemploy their whole attention, and they seldom think of the future. Evenwhen they have an opportunity of saving they seldom exercise it, butall that is beyond their present necessities goes, generally speaking, to the ale-house. The poor laws of England may therefore be said todiminish both the power and the will to save among the common people, and thus to weaken one of the strongest incentives to sobriety andindustry, and consequently to happiness. 

It is a general complaint among master manufacturers that high wagesruin all their workmen, but it is difficult to conceive that these menwould not save a part of their high wages for the future support oftheir families, instead of spending it in drunkenness and dissipation, if they did not rely on parish assistance for support in case ofaccidents. And that the poor employed in manufactures consider thisassistance as a reason why they may spend all the wages they earn andenjoy themselves while they can appears to be evident from the numberof families that, upon the failure of any great manufactory, immediately fall upon the parish, when perhaps the wages earned in thismanufactory while it flourished were sufficiently above the price ofcommon country labour to have allowed them to save enough for theirsupport till they could find some other channel for their industry. 

A man who might not be deterred from going to the ale-house from theconsideration that on his death, or sickness, he should leave his wifeand family upon the parish might yet hesitate in thus dissipating hisearnings if he were assured that, in either of these cases, his familymust starve or be left to the support of casual bounty. In China, wherethe real as well as nominal price of labour is very low, sons are yetobliged by law to support their aged and helpless parents. Whether sucha law would be advisable in this country I will not pretend todetermine. But it seems at any rate highly improper, by positiveinstitutions, which render dependent poverty so general, to weaken thatdisgrace, which for the best and most humane reasons ought to attach toit. 

The mass of happiness among the common people cannot but be diminishedwhen one of the strongest checks to idleness and dissipation is thusremoved, and when men are thus allured to marry with little or noprospect of being able to maintain a family in independence. Everyobstacle in the way of marriage must undoubtedly be considered as aspecies of unhappiness. But as from the laws of our nature some checkto population must exist, it is better that it should be checked from aforesight of the difficulties attending a family and the fear ofdependent poverty than that it should be encouraged, only to berepressed afterwards by want and sickness. 

It should be remembered always that there is an essential differencebetween food and those wrought commodities, the raw materials of whichare in great plenty. A demand for these last will not fail to createthem in as great a quantity as they are wanted. The demand for food hasby no means the same creative power. In a country where all the fertilespots have been seized, high offers are necessary to encourage thefarmer to lay his dressing on land from which he cannot expect aprofitable return for some years. And before the prospect of advantageis sufficiently great to encourage this sort of agriculturalenterprise, and while the new produce is rising, great distresses maybe suffered from the want of it. The demand for an increased quantityof subsistence is, with few exceptions, constant everywhere, yet we seehow slowly it is answered in all those countries that have been longoccupied. 

The poor laws of England were undoubtedly instituted for the mostbenevolent purpose, but there is great reason to think that they havenot succeeded in their intention. They certainly mitigate some cases ofvery severe distress which might otherwise occur, yet the state of thepoor who are supported by parishes, considered in all itscircumstances, is very far from being free from misery. But one of theprincipal objections to them is that for this assistance which some ofthe poor receive, in itself almost a doubtful blessing, the whole classof the common people of England is subjected to a set of grating, inconvenient, and tyrannical laws, totally inconsistent with thegenuine spirit of the constitution. The whole business of settlements, even in its present amended state, is utterly contradictory to allideas of freedom. The parish persecution of men whose families arelikely to become chargeable, and of poor women who are near lying-in, is a most disgraceful and disgusting tyranny. And the obstructionscontinuity occasioned in the market of labour by these laws have aconstant tendency to add to the difficulties of those who arestruggling to support themselves without assistance. 

These evils attendant on the poor laws are in some degree irremediable. If assistance be to be distributed to a certain class of people, apower must be given somewhere of discriminating the proper objects andof managing the concerns of the institutions that are necessary, butany great interference with the affairs of other people is a species oftyranny, and in the common course of things the exercise of this powermay be expected to become grating to those who are driven to ask forsupport. The tyranny of Justices, Church-wardens, and Overseers, is acommon complaint among the poor, but the fault does not lie so much inthese persons, who probably, before they were in power, were not worsethan other people, but in the nature of all such institutions. 

The evil is perhaps gone too far to be remedied, but I feel littledoubt in my own mind that if the poor laws had never existed, thoughthere might have been a few more instances of very severe distress, yetthat the aggregate mass of happiness among the common people would havebeen much greater than it is at present. 

Mr Pitt's Poor Bill has the appearance of being framed with benevolentintentions, and the clamour raised against it was in many respects illdirected, and unreasonable. But it must be confessed that it possessesin a high degree the great and radical defect of all systems of thekind, that of tending to increase population without increasing themeans for its support, and thus to depress the condition of those thatare not supported by parishes, and, consequently, to create more poor. 

To remove the wants of the lower classes of society is indeed anarduous task. The truth is that the pressure of distress on this partof a community is an evil so deeply seated that no human ingenuity canreach it. Were I to propose a palliative, and palliatives are all thatthe nature of the case will admit, it should be, in the first place, the total abolition of all the present parish-laws. This would at anyrate give liberty and freedom of action to the peasantry of England, which they can hardly be said to possess at present. They would then beable to settle without interruption, wherever there was a prospect of agreater plenty of work and a higher price for labour. The market oflabour would then be free, and those obstacles removed which, as thingsare now, often for a considerable time prevent the price from risingaccording to the demand. 

Secondly, premiums might be given for turning up fresh land, and itpossible encouragements held out to agriculture above manufactures, andto tillage above grazing. Every endeavour should be used to weaken anddestroy all those institutions relating to corporations, apprenticeships, etc. , which cause the labours of agriculture to beworse paid than the labours of trade and manufactures. For a countrycan never produce its proper quantity of food while these distinctionsremain in favour of artisans. Such encouragements to agriculture wouldtend to furnish the market with an increasing quantity of healthy work, and at the same time, by augmenting the produce of the country, wouldraise the comparative price of labour and ameliorate the condition ofthe labourer. Being now in better circumstances, and seeing no prospectof parish assistance, he would be more able, as well as more inclined, to enter into associations for providing against the sickness ofhimself or family. 

Lastly, for cases of extreme distress, county workhouses might beestablished, supported by rates upon the whole kingdom, and free forpersons of all counties, and indeed of all nations. The fare should behard, and those that were able obliged to work. It would be desirablethat they should not be considered as comfortable asylums in alldifficulties, but merely as places where severe distress might findsome alleviation. A part of these houses might be separated, or othersbuilt for a most beneficial purpose, which has not been infrequentlytaken notice of, that of providing a place where any person, whethernative or foreigner, might do a day's work at all times and receive themarket price for it. Many cases would undoubtedly be left for theexertion of individual benevolence. 

A plan of this kind, the preliminary of which should be an abolition ofall the present parish laws, seems to be the best calculated toincrease the mass of happiness among the common people of England. Toprevent the recurrence of misery, is, alas! beyond the power of man. Inthe vain endeavour to attain what in the nature of things isimpossible, we now sacrifice not only possible but certain benefits. Wetell the common people that if they will submit to a code of tyrannicalregulations, they shall never be in want. They do submit to theseregulations. They perform their part of the contract, but we do not, nay cannot, perform ours, and thus the poor sacrifice the valuableblessing of liberty and receive nothing that can be called anequivalent in return. 

Notwithstanding, then, the institution of the poor laws in England, Ithink it will be allowed that considering the state of the lowerclasses altogether, both in the towns and in the country, thedistresses which they suffer from the want of proper and sufficientfood, from hard labour and unwholesome habitations, must operate as aconstant check to incipient population. 

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

All these checks may be fairly resolved into misery and vice. And thatthese are the true causes of the slow increase of population in all thestates of modern Europe, will appear sufficiently evident from thecomparatively rapid increase that has invariably taken place wheneverthese causes have been in any considerable degree removed. 

CHAPTER 6

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

It has been universally remarked that all new colonies settled inhealthy countries, where there was plenty of room and food, haveconstantly increased with astonishing rapidity in their population. Some of the colonies from ancient Greece, in no very long period, morethan equalled their parent states in numbers and strength. And not todwell on remote instances, the European settlements in the new worldbear ample testimony to the truth of a remark, which, indeed, hasnever, that I know of, been doubted. A plenty of rich land, to be hadfor little or nothing, is so powerful a cause of population as toovercome all other obstacles. No settlements could well have been worsemanaged than those of Spain in Mexico, Peru, and Quito. The tyranny, superstition, and vices of the mother-country were introduced in amplequantities among her children. Exorbitant taxes were exacted by theCrown. The most arbitrary restrictions were imposed on their trade. Andthe governors were not behind hand in rapacity and extortion forthemselves as well as their master. Yet, under all these difficulties, the colonies made a quick progress in population. The city of Lima, founded since the conquest, is represented by Ulloa as containing fiftythousand inhabitants near fifty years ago. Quito, which had been but ahamlet of indians, is represented by the same author as in his timeequally populous. Mexico is said to contain a hundred thousandinhabitants, which, notwithstanding the exaggerations of the Spanishwriters, is supposed to be five times greater than what it contained inthe time of Montezuma. 

In the Portuguese colony of Brazil, governed with almost equal tyranny, there were supposed to be, thirty years since, six hundred thousandinhabitants of European extraction. 

The Dutch and French colonies, though under the government of exclusivecompanies of merchants, which, as Dr Adam Smith says very justly, isthe worst of all possible governments, still persisted in thrivingunder every disadvantage. 

But the English North American colonies, now the powerful people of theUnited States of America, made by far the most rapid progress. To theplenty of good land which they possessed in common with the Spanish andPortuguese settlements, they added a greater degree of liberty andequality. Though not without some restrictions on their foreigncommerce, they were allowed a perfect liberty of managing their owninternal affairs. The political institutions that prevailed werefavourable to the alienation and division of property. Lands that werenot cultivated by the proprietor within a limited time were declaredgrantable to any other person. In Pennsylvania there was no right ofprimogeniture, and in the provinces of New England the eldest had onlya double share. There were no tithes in any of the States, and scarcelyany taxes. And on account of the extreme cheapness of good land acapital could not be more advantageously employed than in agriculture, which at the same time that it supplies the greatest quantity ofhealthy work affords much the most valuable produce to the society. 

The consequence of these favourable circumstances united was a rapidityof increase probably without parallel in history. Throughout all thenorthern colonies, the population was found to double itself intwenty-five years. The original number of persons who had settled inthe four provinces of new England in 1643 was 21, 200. (I take thesefigures from Dr Price's two volumes of Observations; not having DrStyles' pamphlet, from which he quotes, by me. ) Afterwards, it issupposed that more left them than went to them. In the year 1760, theywere increased to half a million. They had therefore all along doubledtheir own number in twenty-five years. In New Jersey the period ofdoubling appeared to be twenty-two years; and in Rhode island stillless. In the back settlements, where the inhabitants applied themselvessolely to agriculture, and luxury was not known, they were found todouble their own number in fifteen years, a most extraordinary instanceof increase. Along the sea coast, which would naturally be firstinhabited, the period of doubling was about thirty-five years; and insome of the maritime towns, the population was absolutely at a stand. 

(In instances of this kind the powers of the earth appear to be fullyequal to answer it the demands for food that can be made upon it byman. But we should be led into an error if we were thence to supposethat population and food ever really increase in the same ratio. Theone is still a geometrical and the other an arithmetical ratio, thatis, one increases by multiplication, and the other by addition. Wherethere are few people, and a great quantity of fertile land, the powerof the earth to afford a yearly increase of food may be compared to agreat reservoir of water, supplied by a moderate stream. The fasterpopulation increases, the more help will be got to draw off the water, and consequently an increasing quantity will be taken every year. Butthe sooner, undoubtedly, will the reservoir be exhausted, and thestreams only remain. When acre has been added to acre, till all thefertile land is occupied, the yearly increase of food will depend uponthe amelioration of the land already in possession; and even thismoderate stream will be gradually diminishing. But population, could itbe supplied with food, would go on with unexhausted vigour, and theincrease of one period would furnish the power of a greater increasethe next, and this without any limit. )

These facts seem to shew that population increases exactly in theproportion that the two great checks to it, misery and vice, areremoved, and that there is not a truer criterion of the happiness andinnocence of a people than the rapidity of their increase. Theunwholesomeness of towns, to which some persons are necessarily drivenfrom the nature of their trades, must be considered as a species ofmisery, and every the slightest check to marriage, from a prospect ofthe difficulty of maintaining a family, may be fairly classed under thesame head. In short it is difficult to conceive any check to populationwhich does not come under the description of some species of misery orvice. 

The population of the thirteen American States before the war wasreckoned at about three millions. Nobody imagines that Great Britain isless populous at present for the emigration of the small parent stockthat produced these numbers. On the contrary, a certain degree ofemigration is known to be favourable to the population of the mothercountry. It has been particularly remarked that the two Spanishprovinces from which the greatest number of people emigrated toAmerica, became in consequence more populous. Whatever was the originalnumber of British emigrants that increased so fast in the NorthAmerican Colonies, let us ask, why does not an equal number produce anequal increase in the same time in Great Britain? The great and obviouscause to be assigned is the want of room and food, or, in other words, misery, and that this is a much more powerful cause even than viceappears sufficiently evident from the rapidity with which even oldstates recover the desolations of war, pestilence, or the accidents ofnature. They are then for a short time placed a little in the situationof new states, and the effect is always answerable to what might beexpected. If the industry of the inhabitants be not destroyed by fearor tyranny, subsistence will soon increase beyond the wants of thereduced numbers, and the invariable consequence will be that populationwhich before, perhaps, was nearly stationary, will begin immediately toincrease. 

The fertile province of Flanders, which has been so often the seat ofthe most destructive wars, after a respite of a few years, has appearedalways as fruitful and as populous as ever. Even the Palatinate liftedup its head again after the execrable ravages of Louis the Fourteenth. The effects of the dreadful plague in London in 1666 were notperceptible fifteen or twenty years afterwards. The traces of the mostdestructive famines in China and Indostan are by all accounts very soonobliterated. It may even be doubted whether Turkey and Egypt are uponan average much less populous for the plagues that periodically laythem waste. If the number of people which they contain be less now thanformerly, it is, probably, rather to be attributed to the tyranny andoppression of the government under which they groan, and the consequentdiscouragements to agriculture, than to the loss which they sustain bythe plague. The most tremendous convulsions of nature, such as volcaniceruptions and earthquakes, if they do not happen so frequently as todrive away the inhabitants, or to destroy their spirit of industry, have but a trifling effect on the average population of any state. Naples, and the country under Vesuvius, are still very populous, notwithstanding the repeated eruptions of that mountain. And Lisbon andLima are now, probably, nearly in the same state with regard topopulation as they were before the last earthquakes. 

CHAPTER 7

A probable cause of epidemics--Extracts from Mr Suessmilch'stables--Periodical returns of sickly seasons to be expected in certaincases--Proportion of births to burials for short periods in any countryan inadequate criterion of the real average increase ofpopulation--Best criterion of a permanent increase of population--Greatfrugality of living one of the causes of the famines of China andIndostan--Evil tendency of one of the clauses in Mr Pitt's PoorBill--Only one proper way of encouraging population--Causes of theHappiness of nations--Famine, the last and most dreadful mode by whichnature represses a redundant population--The three propositionsconsidered as established. 

By great attention to cleanliness, the plague seems at length to becompletely expelled from London. But it is not improbable that amongthe secondary causes that produce even sickly seasons and epidemicsought to be ranked a crowded population and unwholesome andinsufficient food. I have been led to this remark, by looking over someof the tables of Mr Suessmilch, which Dr Price has extracted in one ofhis notes to the postscript on the controversy respecting thepopulation of England and Wales. They are considered as very correct, and if such tables were general, they would throw great light on thedifferent ways by which population is repressed and prevented fromincreasing beyond the means of subsistence in any country. I willextract a part of the tables, with Dr Price's remarks. 

 IN THE KINGDOM OF PRUSSIA, AND DUKEDOM OF LITHUANIA

 Proportion Proportion Births Burials Marriages of Births to of Births to Marriages Burials 10 Yrs to 1702 21, 963 14, 718 5, 928 37 to 10 150 to 100 5 Yrs to 1716 21, 602 11, 984 4, 968 37 to 10 180 to 100 5 Yrs to 1756 28, 392 19, 154 5, 599 50 to 10 148 to 100

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

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

 DUCHY OF POMERANIA

 Proportion Proportion Annual Average Births Burials Marriages of Births to of Births to Marriages Burials 6 yrs to 1702 6, 540 4, 647 1, 810 36 to 10 140 to 100 6 yrs to 1708 7, 455 4, 208 1, 875 39 to 10 177 to 100 6 yrs to 1726 8, 432 5, 627 2, 131 39 to 10 150 to 100 6 yrs to 1756 12, 767 9, 281 2, 957 43 to 10 137 to 100

"In this instance the inhabitants appear to have been almost doubled infifty-six years, no very bad epidemics having once interrupted theincrease, but the three years immediately follow ing the last period(to 1759) were so sickly that the births were sunk to 10, 229 and theburials raised to 15, 068. "

Is it not probable that in this case the number of inhabitants hadincreased faster than the food and the accommodations necessary topreserve them in health? The mass of the people would, upon thissupposition, be obliged to live harder, and a greater number would becrowded together in one house, and it is not surely improbable thatthese were among the natural causes that produced the three sicklyyears. These causes may produce such an effect, though the country, absolutely considered, may not be extremely crowded and populous. In acountry even thinly inhabited, if an increase of population take place, before more food is raised, and more houses are built, the inhabitantsmust be distressed in some degree for room and subsistence. Were themarriages in England, for the next eight or ten years, to be moreprolifick than usual, or even were a greater number of marriages thanusual to take place, supposing the number of houses to remain the same, instead of five or six to a cottage, there must be seven or eight, andthis, added to the necessity of harder living, would probably have avery unfavourable effect on the health of the common people. 

 NEUMARK OF BRANDENBURGH

 Proportion Proportion Annual Average Births Burials Marriages of Births to of Births to Marriages Burials 5 yrs to 1701 5, 433 3, 483 1, 436 37 to 10 155 to 100 5 yrs to 1726 7, 012 4, 254 1, 713 40 to 10 164 to 100 5 yrs to 1756 7, 978 5, 567 1, 891 42 to 10 143 to 100

"Epidemics prevailed for six years, from 1736, to 1741, which checkedthe increase. "

 DUKEDOM OF MAGDEBURGH

 Proportion Proportion Annual Average Births Burials Marriages of Births to of Births to Marriages Burials 5 yrs to 1702 6, 431 4, 103 1, 681 38 to 10 156 to 100 5 yrs to 1717 7, 590 5, 335 2, 076 36 to 10 142 to 100 5 yrs to 1756 8, 850 8, 069 2, 193 40 to 10 109 to 100

"The years 1738, 1740, 1750, and 1751, were particularly sickly. "

For further information on this subject, I refer the reader to MrSuessmilch's tables. The extracts that I have made are sufficient toshew the periodical, though irregular, returns of sickly seasons, andit seems highly probable that a scantiness of room and food was one ofthe principal causes that occasioned them. 

It appears from the tables that these countries were increasing ratherfast for old states, notwithstanding the occasional seasons thatprevailed. Cultivation must have been improving, and marriages, consequently, encouraged. For the checks to population appear to havebeen rather of the positive, than of the preventive kind. When from aprospect of increasing plenty in any country, the weight that repressespopulation is in some degree removed, it is highly probable that themotion will be continued beyond the operation of the cause that firstimpelled it. Or, to be more particular, when the increasing produce ofa country, and the increasing demand for labour, so far ameliorate thecondition of the labourer as greatly to encourage marriage, it isprobable that the custom of early marriages will continue till thepopulation of the country has gone beyond the increased produce, andsickly seasons appear to be the natural and necessary consequence. Ishould expect, therefore, that those countries where subsistence wasincreasing sufficiency at times to encourage population but not toanswer all its demands, would be more subject to periodical epidemicsthan those where the population could more completely accommodateitself to the average produce. 

An observation the converse of this will probably also be found true. In those countries that are subject to periodical sicknesses, theincrease of population, or the excess of births above the burials, willbe greater in the intervals of these periods than is usual, caeterisparibus, in the countries not so much subject to such disorders. IfTurkey and Egypt have been nearly stationary in their averagepopulation for the last century, in the intervals of their periodicalplagues, the births must have exceeded the burials in a greaterproportion than in such countries as France and England. 

The average proportion of births to burials in any country for a periodof five to ten years, will hence appear to be a very inadequatecriterion by which to judge of its real progress in population. Thisproportion certainly shews the rate of increase during those five orten years; but we can by no means thence infer what had been theincrease for the twenty years before, or what would be the increase forthe twenty years after. Dr Price observes that Sweden, Norway, Russia, and the kingdom of Naples, are increasing fast; but the extracts fromregisters that he has given are not for periods of sufficient extent toestablish the fact. It is highly probable, however, that Sweden, Norway, and Russia, are really increasing their population, though notat the rate that the proportion of births to burials for the shortperiods that Dr Price takes would seem to shew. (See Dr Price'sObservations, Vol. Ii, postscript to the controversy on the populationof England and Wales. ) For five years, ending in 1777, the proportionof births to burials in the kingdom of Naples was 144 to 100, but thereis reason to suppose that this proportion would indicate an increasemuch greater than would be really found to have taken place in thatkingdom during a period of a hundred years. 

Dr Short compared the registers of many villages and market towns inEngland for two periods; the first, from Queen Elizabeth to the middleof the last century, and the second, from different years at the end ofthe last century to the middle of the present. And from a comparison ofthese extracts, it appears that in the former period the birthsexceeded the burials in the proportion of 124 to 100, but in thelatter, only in the proportion of 111 to 100. Dr Price thinks that theregisters in the former period are not to be depended upon, but, probably, in this instance they do not give incorrect proportions. Atleast there are many reasons for expecting to find a greater excess ofbirths above the burials in the former period than in the latter. Inthe natural progress of the population of any country, more good landwill, caeteris paribus, be taken into cultivation in the earlier stagesof it than in the later. (I say 'caeteris paribus', because theincrease of the produce of any country will always very greatly dependon the spirit of industry that prevails, and the way in which it isdirected. The knowledge and habits of the people, and other temporarycauses, particularly the degree of civil liberty and equality existingat the time, must always have great influence in exciting and directingthis spirit. ) And a greater proportional yearly increase of producewill almost invariably be followed by a greater proportional increaseof population. But, besides this great cause, which would naturallygive the excess of births above burials greater at the end of QueenElizabeth's reign than in the middle of the present century, I cannothelp thinking that the occasional ravages of the plague in the formerperiod must have had some tendency to increase this proportion. If anaverage of ten years had been taken in the intervals of the returns ofthis dreadful disorder, or if the years of plague had been rejected asaccidental, the registers would certainly give the proportion of birthsto burials too high for the real average increase of the population. For some few years after the great plague in 1666, it is probable thatthere was a more than usual excess of births above burials, particularly if Dr Price's opinion be founded, that England was morepopulous at the revolution (which happened only twenty-two yearsafterwards) than it is at present. 

Mr King, in 1693, stated the proportion of the births to the burialsthroughout the Kingdom, exclusive of London, as 115 to 100. Dr Shortmakes it, in the middle of the present century, 111 to 100, includingLondon. The proportion in France for five years, ending in 1774, was117 to 100. If these statements are near the truth; and if there are novery great variations at particular periods in the proportions, itwould appear that the population of France and England has accommodateditself very nearly to the average produce of each country. Thediscouragements to marriage, the consequent vicious habits, war, luxury, the silent though certain depopulation of large towns, and theclose habitations, and insufficient food of many of the poor, preventpopulation from increasing beyond the means of subsistence; and, if Imay use an expression which certainly at first appears strange, supercede the necessity of great and ravaging epidemics to repress whatis redundant. Were a wasting plague to sweep off two millions inEngland, and six millions in France, there can be no doubt whateverthat, after the inhabitants had recovered from the dreadful shock, theproportion of births to burials would be much above what it is ineither country at present. 

In New Jersey, the proportion of births to deaths on an average ofseven years, ending in 1743, was as 300 to 100. In France and England, taking the highest proportion, it is as 117 to 100. Great andastonishing as this difference is, we ought not to be so wonder-struckat it as to attribute it to the miraculous interposition of heaven. Thecauses of it are not remote, latent and mysterious; but near us, roundabout us, and open to the investigation of every inquiring mind. Itaccords with the most liberal spirit of philosophy to suppose that nota stone can fall, or a plant rise, without the immediate agency ofdivine power. But we know from experience that these operations of whatwe call nature have been conducted almost invariably according to fixedlaws. And since the world began, the causes of population anddepopulation have probably been as constant as any of the laws ofnature with which we are acquainted. 

The passion between the sexes has appeared in every age to be so nearlythe same that it may always be considered, in algebraic language, as agiven quantity. The great law of necessity which prevents populationfrom increasing in any country beyond the food which it can eitherproduce or acquire, is a law so open to our view, so obvious andevident to our understandings, and so completely confirmed by theexperience of every age, that we cannot for a moment doubt it. Thedifferent modes which nature takes to prevent or repress a redundantpopulation do not appear, indeed, to us so certain and regular, butthough we cannot always predict the mode we may with certainty predictthe fact. If the proportion of births to deaths for a few yearsindicate an increase of numbers much beyond the proportional increasedor acquired produce of the country, we may be perfectly certain thatunless an emigration takes place, the deaths will shortly exceed thebirths; and that the increase that had taken place for a few yearscannot be the real average increase of the population of the country. Were there no other depopulating causes, every country would, withoutdoubt, be subject to periodical pestilences or famine. 

The only true criterion of a real and permanent increase in thepopulation of any country is the increase of the means of subsistence. But even, this criterion is subject to some slight variations whichare, however, completely open to our view and observations. In somecountries population appears to have been forced, that is, the peoplehave been habituated by degrees to live almost upon the smallestpossible quantity of food. There must have been periods in suchcounties when population increased permanently, without an increase inthe means of subsistence. China seems to answer to this description. Ifthe accounts we have of it are to be trusted, the lower classes ofpeople are in the habit of living almost upon the smallest possiblequantity of food and are glad to get any putrid offals that Europeanlabourers would rather starve than eat. The law in China which permitsparents to expose their children has tended principally thus to forcethe population. A nation in this state must necessarily be subject tofamines. Where a country is so populous in proportion to the means ofsubsistence that the average produce of it is but barely sufficient tosupport the lives of the inhabitants, any deficiency from the badnessof seasons must be fatal. It is probable that the very frugal manner inwhich the Gentoos are in the habit of living contributes in some degreeto the famines of Indostan. 

In America, where the reward of labour is at present so liberal, thelower classes might retrench very considerably in a year of scarcitywithout materially distressing themselves. A famine therefore seems tobe almost impossible. It may be expected that in the progress of thepopulation of America, the labourers will in time be much lessliberally rewarded. The numbers will in this case permanently increasewithout a proportional increase in the means of subsistence. 

In the different states of Europe there must be some variations in theproportion between the number of inhabitants and the quantity of foodconsumed, arising from the different habits of living that prevail ineach state. The labourers of the South of England are so accustomed toeat fine wheaten bread that they will suffer themselves to be halfstarved before they will submit to live like the Scotch peasants. Theymight perhaps in time, by the constant operation of the hard law ofnecessity, be reduced to live even like the Lower Chinese, and thecountry would then, with the same quantity of food, support a greaterpopulation. But to effect this must always be a most difficult, and, every friend to humanity will hope, an abortive attempt. Nothing is socommon as to hear of encouragements that ought to be given topopulation. If the tendency of mankind to increase be so great as Ihave represented it to be, it may appear strange that this increasedoes not come when it is thus repeatedly called for. The true reason isthat the demand for a greater population is made without preparing thefunds necessary to support it. Increase the demand for agriculturallabour by promoting cultivation, and with it consequently increase theproduce of the country, and ameliorate the condition of the labourer, and no apprehensions whatever need be entertained of the proportionalincrease of population. An attempt to effect this purpose in any otherway is vicious, cruel, and tyrannical, and in any state of tolerablefreedom cannot therefore succeed. It may appear to be the interest ofthe rulers, and the rich of a state, to force population, and therebylower the price of labour, and consequently the expense of fleets andarmies, and the cost of manufactures for foreign sale; but everyattempt of the kind should be carefully watched and strenuouslyresisted by the friends of the poor, particularly when it comes underthe deceitful garb of benevolence, and is likely, on that account, tobe cheerfully and cordially received by the common people. 

I entirely acquit Mr Pitt of any sinister intention in that clause ofhis Poor Bill which allows a shilling a week to every labourer for eachchild he has above three. I confess, that before the bill was broughtinto Parliament, and for some time after, I thought that such aregulation would be highly beneficial, but further reflection on thesubject has convinced me that if its object be to better the conditionof the poor, it is calculated to defeat the very purpose which it hasin view. It has no tendency that I can discover to increase the produceof the country, and if it tend to increase the population, withoutincreasing the produce, the necessary and inevitable consequenceappears to be that the same produce must be divided among a greaternumber, and consequently that a day's labour will purchase a smallerquantity of provisions, and the poor therefore in general must be moredistressed. 

I have mentioned some cases where population may permanently increasewithout a proportional increase in the means of subsistence. But it isevident that the variation in different states, between the food andthe numbers supported by it, is restricted to a limit beyond which itcannot pass. In every country, the population of which is notabsolutely decreasing, the food must be necessarily sufficient tosupport, and to continue, the race of labourers. 

Other circumstances being the same, it may be affirmed that countriesare populous according to the quantity of human food which theyproduce, and happy according to the liberality with which that food isdivided, or the quantity which a day's labour will purchase. Corncountries are more populous than pasture countries, and rice countriesmore populous than corn countries. The lands in England are not suitedto rice, but they would all bear potatoes; and Dr Adam Smith observesthat if potatoes were to become the favourite vegetable food of thecommon people, and if the same quantity of land was employed in theirculture as is now employed in the culture of corn, the country would beable to support a much greater population, and would consequently in avery short time have it. 

The happiness of a country does not depend, absolutely, upon itspoverty or its riches, upon its youth or its age, upon its being thinlyor fully inhabited, but upon the rapidity with which it is increasing, upon the degree in which the yearly increase of food approaches to theyearly increase of an unrestricted population. This approximation isalways the nearest in new colonies, where the knowledge and industry ofan old state operate on the fertile unappropriated land of a new one. In other cases, the youth or the age of a state is not in this respectof very great importance. It is probable that the food of Great Britainis divided in as great plenty to the inhabitants, at the presentperiod, as it was two thousand, three thousand, or four thousand yearsago. And there is reason to believe that the poor and thinly inhabitedtracts of the Scotch Highlands are as much distressed by an overchargedpopulation as the rich and populous province of Flanders. 

Were a country never to be overrun by a people more advanced in arts, but left to its own natural progress in civilization; from the timethat its produce might be considered as an unit, to the time that itmight be considered as a million, during the lapse of many hundredyears, there would not be a single period when the mass of the peoplecould be said to be free from distress, either directly or indirectly, for want of food. In every state in Europe, since we have first hadaccounts of it, millions and millions of human existences have beenrepressed from this simple cause; though perhaps in some of thesestates an absolute famine has never been known. 

Famine seems to be the last, the most dreadful resource of nature. Thepower of population is so superior to the power in the earth to producesubsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or othervisit the human race. The vices of mankind are active and ableministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army ofdestruction; and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But shouldthey fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague, advance in terrific array, and sweep off theirthousands and ten thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blowlevels the population with the food of the world. 

Must it not then be acknowledged by an attentive examiner of thehistories of mankind, that in every age and in every state in which manhas existed, or does now exist. 

That the increase of population is necessarily limited by the means ofsubsistence. 

That population does invariably increase when the means of subsistenceincrease. And that the superior power of population it repressed, andthe actual population kept equal to the means of subsistence, by miseryand vice?

CHAPTER 8

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

To a person who draws the preceding obvious inferences, from a view ofthe past and present state of mankind, it cannot but be a matter ofastonishment that all the writers on the perfectibility of man and ofsociety who have noticed the argument of an overcharged population, treat it always very slightly and invariably represent the difficultiesarising from it as at a great and almost immeasurable distance. Even MrWallace, who thought the argument itself of so much weight as todestroy his whole system of equality, did not seem to be aware that anydifficulty would occur from this cause till the whole earth had beencultivated like a garden and was incapable of any further increase ofproduce. Were this really the case, and were a beautiful system ofequality in other respects practicable, I cannot think that our ardourin the pursuit of such a scheme ought to be damped by the contemplationof so remote a difficulty. An event at such a distance might fairly beleft to providence, but the truth is that if the view of the argumentgiven in this Essay be just the difficulty, so far from being remote, would be imminent and immediate. At every period during the progress ofcultivation, from the present moment to the time when the whole earthwas become like a garden, the distress for want of food would beconstantly pressing on all mankind, if they were equal. Though theproduce of the earth might be increasing every year, population wouldbe increasing much faster, and the redundancy must necessarily berepressed by the periodical or constant action of misery or vice. 

Mr Condorcet's Esquisse d'un Tableau Historique des Progres de l'EspritHumain, was written, it is said, under the pressure of that cruelproscription which terminated in his death. If he had no hopes of itsbeing seen during his life and of its interesting France in his favour, it is a singular instance of the attachment of a man to principles, which every day's experience was so fatally for himself contradicting. To see the human mind in one of the most enlightened nations of theworld, and after a lapse of some thousand years, debased by such afermentation of disgusting passions, of fear, cruelty, malice, revenge, ambition, madness, and folly as would have disgraced the most savagenation in the most barbarous age must have been such a tremendous shockto his ideas of the necessary and inevitable progress of the human mindthat nothing but the firmest conviction of the truth of his principles, in spite of all appearances, could have withstood. 

This posthumous publication is only a sketch of a much larger work, which he proposed should be executed. It necessarily, therefore, wantsthat detail and application which can alone prove the truth of anytheory. A few observations will be sufficient to shew how completelythe theory is contradicted when it is applied to the real, and not toan imaginary, state of things. 

In the last division of the work, which treats of the future progressof man towards perfection, he says, that comparing, in the differentcivilized nations of Europe, the actual population with the extent ofterritory, and observing their cultivation, their industry, theirdivisions of labour, and their means of subsistence, we shall see thatit would be impossible to preserve the same means of subsistence, and, consequently, the same population, without a number of individuals whohave no other means of supplying their wants than their industry. Having allowed the necessity of such a class of men, and advertingafterwards to the precarious revenue of those families that woulddepend so entirely on the life and health of their chief, he says, veryjustly: 'There exists then, a necessary cause of inequality, ofdependence, and even of misery, which menaces, without ceasing, themost numerous and active class of our societies. ' (To save time andlong quotations, I shall here give the substance of some of MrCondorcet's sentiments, and hope I shall not misrepresent them. But Irefer the reader to the work itself, which will amuse, if it does notconvince him. ) The difficulty is just and well stated, and I am afraidthat the mode by which he proposes it should be removed will be foundinefficacious. By the application of calculations to the probabilitiesof life and the interest of money, he proposes that a fund should beestablished which should assure to the old an assistance, produced, inpart, by their own former savings, and, in part, by the savings ofindividuals who in making the same sacrifice die before they reap thebenefit of it. The same, or a similar fund, should give assistance towomen and children who lose their husbands, or fathers, and afford acapital to those who were of an age to found a new family, sufficientfor the proper development of their industry. These establishments, heobserves, might be made in the name and under the protection of thesociety. Going still further, he says that, by the just application ofcalculations, means might be found of more completely preserving astate of equality, by preventing credit from being the exclusiveprivilege of great fortunes, and yet giving it a basis equally solid, and by rendering the progress of industry, and the activity ofcommerce, less dependent on great capitalists. 

Such establishments and calculations may appear very promising uponpaper, but when applied to real life they will be found to beabsolutely nugatory. Mr Condorcet allows that a class of people whichmaintains itself entirely by industry is necessary to every state. Whydoes he allow this? No other reason can well be assigned than that heconceives that the labour necessary to procure subsistence for anextended population will not be performed without the goad ofnecessity. If by establishments of this kind of spur to industry beremoved, if the idle and the negligent are placed upon the same footingwith regard to their credit, and the future support of their wives andfamilies, as the active and industrious, can we expect to see men exertthat animated activity in bettering their condition which now forms themaster spring of public prosperity? If an inquisition were to beestablished to examine the claims of each individual and to determinewhether he had or had not exerted himself to the utmost, and to grantor refuse assistance accordingly, this would be little else than arepetition upon a larger scale of the English poor laws and would becompletely destructive of the true principles of liberty and equality. 

But independent of this great objection to these establishments, andsupposing for a moment that they would give no check to productiveindustry, by far the greatest difficulty remains yet behind. 

Were every man sure of a comfortable provision for his family, almostevery man would have one, and were the rising generation free from the'killing frost' of misery, population must rapidly increase. Of this MrCondorcet seems to be fully aware himself, and after having describedfurther improvements, he says:

But in this process of industry and happiness, each generation will becalled to more extended enjoyments, and in consequence, by the physicalconstitution of the human frame, to an increase in the number ofindividuals. Must not there arrive a period then, when these laws, equally necessary, shall counteract each other? When the increase ofthe number of men surpassing their means of subsistence, the necessaryresult must be either a continual diminution of happiness andpopulation, a movement truly retrograde, or, at least, a kind ofoscillation between good and evil? In societies arrived at this term, will not this oscillation be a constantly subsisting cause ofperiodical misery? Will it not mark the limit when all furtheramelioration will become impossible, and point out that term to theperfectibility of the human race which it may reach in the course ofages, but can never pass?

He then adds, There is no person who does not see how very distant such a period isfrom us, but shall we ever arrive at it? It is equally impossible topronounce for or against the future realization of an event whichcannot take place but at an era when the human race will have attainedimprovements, of which we can at present scarcely form a conception. 

Mr Condorcet's picture of what may be expected to happen when thenumber of men shall surpass the means of their subsistence is justlydrawn. The oscillation which he describes will certainly take place andwill without doubt be a constantly subsisting cause of periodicalmisery. The only point in which I differ from Mr Condorcet with regardto this picture is the period when it may be applied to the human race. Mr Condorcet thinks that it cannot possibly be applicable but at an eraextremely distant. If the proportion between the natural increase ofpopulation and food which I have given be in any degree near the truth, it will appear, on the contrary, that the period when the number of mensurpass their means of subsistence has long since arrived, and thatthis necessity oscillation, this constantly subsisting cause ofperiodical misery, has existed ever since we have had any histories ofmankind, does exist at present, and will for ever continue to exist, unless some decided change take place in the physical constitution ofour nature. 

Mr Condorcet, however, goes on to say that should the period, which heconceives to be so distant, ever arrive, the human race, and theadvocates for the perfectibility of man, need not be alarmed at it. Hethen proceeds to remove the difficulty in a manner which I profess notto understand. Having observed, that the ridiculous prejudices ofsuperstition would by that time have ceased to throw over morals acorrupt and degrading austerity, he alludes, either to a promiscuousconcubinage, which would prevent breeding, or to something else asunnatural. To remove the difficulty in this way will, surely, in theopinion of most men, be to destroy that virtue and purity of manners, which the advocates of equality, and of the perfectibility of man, profess to be the end and object of their views. 

CHAPTER 9

Mr Condorcet's conjecture concerning the organic perfectibility of man, and the indefinite prolongation of human life--Fallacy of the argument, which infers an unlimited progress from a partial improvement, thelimit of which cannot be ascertained, illustrated in the breeding ofanimals, and the cultivation of plants. 

The last question which Mr Condorcet proposes for examination is theorganic perfectibility of man. He observes that if the proofs whichhave been already given and which, in their development will receivegreater force in the work itself, are sufficient to establish theindefinite perfectibility of man upon the supposition of the samenatural faculties and the same organization which he has at present, what will be the certainty, what the extent of our hope, if thisorganization, these natural faculties themselves, are susceptible ofamelioration?

From the improvement of medicine, from the use of more wholesome foodand habitations, from a manner of living which will improve thestrength of the body by exercise without impairing it by excess, fromthe destruction of the two great causes of the degradation of man, misery, and too great riches, from the gradual removal of transmissibleand contagious disorders by the improvement of physical knowledge, rendered more efficacious by the progress of reason and of socialorder, he infers that though man will not absolutely become immortal, yet that the duration between his birth and natural death will increasewithout ceasing, will have no assignable term, and may properly beexpressed by the word 'indefinite'. He then defines this word to meaneither a constant approach to an unlimited extent, without everreaching it, or an increase. In the immensity of ages to an extentgreater than any assignable quantity. 

But surely the application of this term in either of these senses tothe duration of human life is in the highest degree unphilosophical andtotally unwarranted by any appearances in the laws of nature. Variations from different causes are essentially distinct from aregular and unretrograde increase. The average duration of human lifewill to a certain degree vary from healthy or unhealthy climates, fromwholesome or unwholesome food, from virtuous or vicious manners, andother causes, but it may be fairly doubted whether there is really thesmallest perceptible advance in the natural duration of human lifesince first we have had any authentic history of man. The prejudices ofall ages have indeed been directly contrary to this supposition, andthough I would not lay much stress upon these prejudices, they will insome measure tend to prove that there has been no marked advance in anopposite direction. 

It may perhaps be said that the world is yet so young, so completely inits infancy, that it ought not to be expected that any differenceshould appear so soon. 

If this be the case, there is at once an end of all human science. Thewhole train of reasonings from effects to causes will be destroyed. Wemay shut our eyes to the book of nature, as it will no longer be of anyuse to read it. The wildest and most improbable conjectures may beadvanced with as much certainty as the most just and sublime theories, founded on careful and reiterated experiments. We may return again tothe old mode of philosophising and make facts bend to systems, insteadof establishing systems upon facts. The grand and consistent theory ofNewton will be placed upon the same footing as the wild and eccentrichypotheses of Descartes. In short, if the laws of nature are thusfickle and inconstant, if it can be affirmed and be believed that theywill change, when for ages and ages they have appeared immutable, thehuman mind will no longer have any incitements to inquiry, but mustremain fixed in inactive torpor, or amuse itself only in bewilderingdreams and extravagant fancies. 

The constancy of the laws of nature and of effects and causes is thefoundation of all human knowledge, though far be it from me to say thatthe same power which framed and executes the laws of nature may notchange them all 'in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye. ' Such achange may undoubtedly happen. All that I mean to say is that it isimpossible to infer it from reasoning. If without any previousobservable symptoms or indications of a change, we can infer that achange will take place, we may as well make any assertion whatever andthink it as unreasonable to be contradicted in affirming that the moonwill come in contact with the earth tomorrow, as in saying that the sunwill rise at its usual time. 

With regard to the duration of human life, there does not appear tohave existed from the earliest ages of the world to the present momentthe smallest permanent symptom or indication of increasingprolongation. The observable effects of climate, habit, diet, and othercauses, on length of life have furnished the pretext for asserting itsindefinite extension; and the sandy foundation on which the argumentrests is that because the limit of human life is undefined; because youcannot mark its precise term, and say so far exactly shall it go and nofurther; that therefore its extent may increase for ever, and beproperly termed indefinite or unlimited. But the fallacy and absurdityof this argument will sufficiently appear from a slight examination ofwhat Mr Condorcet calls the organic perfectibility, or degeneration, ofthe race of plants and animals, which he says may be regarded as one ofthe general laws of nature. 

I am told that it is a maxim among the improvers of cattle that you maybreed to any degree of nicety you please, and they found this maximupon another, which is that some of the offspring will possess thedesirable qualities of the parents in a greater degree. In the famousLeicestershire breed of sheep, the object is to procure them with smallheads and small legs. Proceeding upon these breeding maxims, it isevident that we might go on till the heads and legs were evanescentquantities, but this is so palpable an absurdity that we may be quitesure that the premises are not just and that there really is a limit, though we cannot see it or say exactly where it is. In this case, thepoint of the greatest degree of improvement, or the smallest size ofthe head and legs, may be said to be undefined, but this is verydifferent from unlimited, or from indefinite, in Mr Condorcet'sacceptation of the term. Though I may not be able in the presentinstance to mark the limit at which further improvement will stop, Ican very easily mention a point at which it will not arrive. I shouldnot scruple to assert that were the breeding to continue for ever, thehead and legs of these sheep would never be so small as the head andlegs of a rat. 

It cannot be true, therefore, that among animals, some of the offspringwill possess the desirable qualities of the parents in a greaterdegree, or that animals are indefinitely perfectible. 

The progress of a wild plant to a beautiful garden flower is perhapsmore marked and striking than anything that takes place among animals, yet even here it would be the height of absurdity to assert that theprogress was unlimited or indefinite. 

One of the most obvious features of the improvement is the increase ofsize. The flower has grown gradually larger by cultivation. If theprogress were really unlimited it might be increased ad infinitum, butthis is so gross an absurdity that we may be quite sure that amongplants as well as among animals there is a limit to improvement, thoughwe do not exactly know where it is. It is probable that the gardenerswho contend for flower prizes have often applied stronger dressingwithout success. At the same time it would be highly presumptuous inany man to say that he had seen the finest carnation or anemone thatcould ever be made to grow. He might however assert without thesmallest chance of being contradicted by a future fact, that nocarnation or anemone could ever by cultivation be increased to the sizeof a large cabbage; and yet there are assignable quantities muchgreater than a cabbage. No man can say that he has seen the largest earof wheat, or the largest oak that could ever grow; but he might easily, and with perfect certainty, name a point of magnitude at which theywould not arrive. In all these cases therefore, a careful distinctionshould be made, between an unlimited progress, and a progress where thelimit is merely undefined. 

It will be said, perhaps, that the reason why plants and animals cannotincrease indefinitely in size is, that they would fall by their ownweight. I answer, how do we know this but from experience?--fromexperience of the degree of strength with which these bodies areformed. I know that a carnation, long before it reached the size of acabbage, would not be supported by its stalk, but I only know this frommy experience of the weakness and want of tenacity in the materials ofa carnation stalk. There are many substances in nature of the same sizethat would support as large a head as a cabbage. 

The reasons of the mortality of plants are at present perfectly unknownto us. No man can say why such a plant is annual, another biennial, andanother endures for ages. The whole affair in all these cases, inplants, animals, and in the human race, is an affair of experience, andI only conclude that man is mortal because the invariable experience ofall ages has proved the mortality of those materials of which hisvisible body is made:

What can we reason, but from what we know?

Sound philosophy will not authorize me to alter this opinion of themortality of man on earth, till it can be clearly proved that the humanrace has made, and is making, a decided progress towards an illimitableextent of life. And the chief reason why I adduced the two particularinstances from animals and plants was to expose and illustrate, if Icould, the fallacy of that argument which infers an unlimited progress, merely because some partial improvement has taken place, and that thelimit of this improvement cannot be precisely ascertained. 

The capacity of improvement in plants and animals, to a certain degree, no person can possibly doubt. A clear and decided progress has alreadybeen made, and yet, I think, it appears that it would be highly absurdto say that this progress has no limits. In human life, though thereare great variations from different causes, it may be doubted whether, since the world began, any organic improvement whatever in the humanframe can be clearly ascertained. The foundations, therefore, on whichthe arguments for the organic perfectibility of man rest, are unusuallyweak, and can only be considered as mere conjectures. It does not, however, by any means seem impossible that by an attention to breed, acertain degree of improvement, similar to that among animals, mighttake place among men. Whether intellect could be communicated may be amatter of doubt: but size, strength, beauty, complexion, and perhapseven longevity are in a degree transmissible. The error does not seemto lie in supposing a small degree of improvement possible, but in notdiscriminating between a small improvement, the limit of which isundefined, and an improvement really unlimited. As the human race, however, could not be improved in this way, without condemning all thebad specimens to celibacy, it is not probable that an attention tobreed should ever become general; indeed, I know of no well-directedattempts of this kind, except in the ancient family of theBickerstaffs, who are said to have been very successful in whiteningthe skins and increasing the height of their race by prudent marriages, particularly by that very judicious cross with Maud, the milk-maid, bywhich some capital defects in the constitutions of the family werecorrected. 

It will not be necessary, I think, in order more completely to shew theimprobability of any approach in man towards immortality on earth, tourge the very great additional weight that an increase in the durationof life would give to the argument of population. 

Many, I doubt not, will think that the attempting gravely to controvertso absurd a paradox as the immortality of man on earth, or indeed, eventhe perfectibility of man and society, is a waste of time and words, and that such unfounded conjectures are best answered by neglect. Iprofess, however, to be of a different opinion. When paradoxes of thiskind are advanced by ingenious and able men, neglect has no tendency toconvince them of their mistakes. Priding themselves on what theyconceive to be a mark of the reach and size of their ownunderstandings, of the extent and comprehensiveness of their views, they will look upon this neglect merely as an indication of poverty, and narrowness, in the mental exertions of their contemporaries, andonly think that the world is not yet prepared to receive their sublimetruths. 

On the contrary, a candid investigation of these subjects, accompaniedwith a perfect readiness to adopt any theory warranted by soundphilosophy, may have a tendency to convince them that in formingimprobable and unfounded hypotheses, so far from enlarging the boundsof human science, they are contracting it, so far from promoting theimprovement of the human mind, they are obstructing it; they arethrowing us back again almost into the infancy of knowledge andweakening the foundations of that mode of philosophising, under theauspices of which science has of late made such rapid advances. Thepresent rage for wide and unrestrained speculation seems to be a kindof mental intoxication, arising, perhaps, from the great and unexpecteddiscoveries which have been made of late years, in various branches ofscience. To men elate and giddy with such successes, every thingappeared to be within the grasp of human powers; and, under thisillusion, they confounded subjects where no real progress could beproved with those where the progress had been marked, certain, andacknowledged. Could they be persuaded to sober themselves with a littlesevere and chastised thinking, they would see, that the cause of truth, and of sound philosophy, cannot but suffer by substituting wild flightsand unsupported assertions for patient investigation, and wellauthenticated proofs. 

Mr Condorcet's book may be considered not only as a sketch of theopinions of a celebrated individual, but of many of the literary men inFrance at the beginning of the Revolution. As such, though merely asketch, it seems worthy of attention. 

CHAPTER 10

Mr Godwin's system of equality--Error of attributing all the vices ofmankind to human institutions--Mr Godwin's first answer to thedifficulty arising from population totally insufficient--Mr Godwin'sbeautiful system of equality supposed to be realized--Its utterdestruction simply from the principle of population in so short a timeas thirty years. 

In reading Mr Godwin's ingenious and able work on political justice, itis impossible not to be struck with the spirit and energy of his style, the force and precision of some of his reasonings, the ardent tone ofhis thoughts, and particularly with that impressive earnestness ofmanner which gives an air of truth to the whole. At the same time, itmust be confessed that he has not proceeded in his inquiries with thecaution that sound philosophy seems to require. His conclusions areoften unwarranted by his premises. He fails sometimes in removing theobjections which he himself brings forward. He relies too much ongeneral and abstract propositions which will not admit of application. And his conjectures certainly far outstrip the modesty of nature. 

The system of equality which Mr Godwin proposes is, without doubt, byfar the most beautiful and engaging of any that has yet appeared. Anamelioration of society to be produced merely by reason and convictionwears much more the promise of permanence than any change effected andmaintained by force. The unlimited exercise of private judgement is adoctrine inexpressibly grand and captivating and has a vast superiorityover those systems where every individual is in a manner the slave ofthe public. The substitution of benevolence as the master-spring andmoving principle of society, instead of self-love, is a consummationdevoutly to be wished. In short, it is impossible to contemplate thewhole of this fair structure without emotions of delight andadmiration, accompanied with ardent longing for the period of itsaccomplishment. But, alas! that moment can never arrive. The whole islittle better than a dream, a beautiful phantom of the imagination. These 'gorgeous palaces' of happiness and immortality, these 'solemntemples' of truth and virtue will dissolve, 'like the baseless fabricof a vision', when we awaken to real life and contemplate the true andgenuine situation of man on earth. Mr Godwin, at the conclusion of thethird chapter of his eighth book, speaking of population, says:

There is a principle in human society, by which population isperpetually kept down to the level of the means of subsistence. Thusamong the wandering tribes of America and Asia, we never find throughthe lapse of ages that population has so increased as to rendernecessary the cultivation of the earth. 

This principle, which Mr Godwin thus mentions as some mysterious andoccult cause and which he does not attempt to investigate, will befound to be the grinding law of necessity, misery, and the fear ofmisery. 

The great error under which Mr Godwin labours throughout his whole workis the attributing almost all the vices and misery that are seen incivil society to human institutions. Political regulations and theestablished administration of property are with him the fruitfulsources of all evil, the hotbeds of all the crimes that degrademankind. Were this really a true state of the case, it would not seem ahopeless task to remove evil completely from the world, and reasonseems to be the proper and adequate instrument for effecting so great apurpose. But the truth is, that though human institutions appear to bethe obvious and obtrusive causes of much mischief to mankind, yet inreality they are light and superficial, they are mere feathers thatfloat on the surface, in comparison with those deeper seated causes ofimpurity that corrupt the springs and render turbid the whole stream ofhuman life. 

Mr Godwin, in his chapter on the benefits attendant on a system ofequality, says:

The spirit of oppression, the spirit of servility, and the spirit offraud, these are the immediate growth of the established administrationof property. They are alike hostile to intellectual improvement. Theother vices of envy, malice, and revenge are their inseparablecompanions. In a state of society where men lived in the midst ofplenty and where all shared alike the bounties of nature, thesesentiments would inevitably expire. The narrow principle of selfishnesswould vanish. No man being obliged to guard his little store or providewith anxiety and pain for his restless wants, each would lose hisindividual existence in the thought of the general good. No man wouldbe an enemy to his neighbour, for they would have no subject ofcontention, and, of consequence, philanthropy would resume the empirewhich reason assigns her. Mind would be delivered from her perpetualanxiety about corporal support, and free to expatiate in the field ofthought, which is congenial to her. Each would assist the inquiries ofall. 

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

Man cannot live in the midst of plenty. All cannot share alike thebounties of nature. Were there no established administration ofproperty, every man would be obliged to guard with force his littlestore. Selfishness would be triumphant. The subjects of contentionwould be perpetual. Every individual mind would be under a constantanxiety about corporal support, and not a single intellect would beleft free to expatiate in the field of thought. 

How little Mr Godwin has turned the attention of his penetrating mindto the real state of man on earth will sufficiently appear from themanner in which he endeavours to remove the difficulty of anovercharged population. He says:

The obvious answer to this objection, is, that to reason thus is toforesee difficulties at a great distance. Three fourths of thehabitable globe is now uncultivated. The parts already cultivated arecapable of immeasurable improvement. Myriads of centuries of stillincreasing population may pass away, and the earth be still foundsufficient for the subsistence of its inhabitants. 

I have already pointed out the error of supposing that no distress anddifficulty would arise from an overcharged population before the earthabsolutely refused to produce any more. But let us imagine for a momentMr Godwin's beautiful system of equality realized in its utmost purity, and see how soon this difficulty might be expected to press under soperfect a form of society. A theory that will not admit of applicationcannot possibly be just. 

Let us suppose all the causes of misery and vice in this islandremoved. War and contention cease. Unwholesome trades and manufactoriesdo not exist. Crowds no longer collect together in great and pestilentcities for purposes of court intrigue, of commerce, and viciousgratifications. Simple, healthy, and rational amusements take place ofdrinking, gaming, and debauchery. There are no towns sufficiently largeto have any prejudicial effects on the human constitution. The greaterpart of the happy inhabitants of this terrestrial paradise live inhamlets and farmhouses scattered over the face of the country. Everyhouse is clean, airy, sufficiently roomy, and in a healthy situation. All men are equal. The labours of luxury are at end. And the necessarylabours of agriculture are shared amicably among all. The number ofpersons, and the produce of the island, we suppose to be the same as atpresent. The spirit of benevolence, guided by impartial justice, willdivide this produce among all the members of the society according totheir wants. Though it would be impossible that they should all haveanimal food every day, yet vegetable food, with meat occasionally, would satisfy the desires of a frugal people and would be sufficient topreserve them in health, strength, and spirits. 

Mr Godwin considers marriage as a fraud and a monopoly. Let us supposethe commerce of the sexes established upon principles of the mostperfect freedom. Mr Godwin does not think himself that this freedomwould lead to a promiscuous intercourse, and in this I perfectly agreewith him. The love of variety is a vicious, corrupt, and unnaturaltaste and could not prevail in any great degree in a simple andvirtuous state of society. Each man would probably select himself apartner, to whom he would adhere as long as that adherence continued tobe the choice of both parties. It would be of little consequence, according to Mr Godwin, how many children a woman had or to whom theybelonged. Provisions and assistance would spontaneously flow from thequarter in which they abounded, to the quarter that was deficient. (SeeBk VIII, ch. 8; in the third edition, Vol II, p. 512) And every manwould be ready to furnish instruction to the rising generationaccording to his capacity. 

I cannot conceive a form of society so favourable upon the whole topopulation. The irremediableness of marriage, as it is at presentconstituted, undoubtedly deters many from entering into that state. Anunshackled intercourse on the contrary would be a most powerfulincitement to early attachments, and as we are supposing no anxietyabout the future support of children to exist, I do not conceive thatthere would be one woman in a hundred, of twenty-three, without afamily. 

With these extraordinary encouragements to population, and every causeof depopulation, as we have supposed, removed, the numbers wouldnecessarily increase faster than in any society that has ever yet beenknown. I have mentioned, on the authority of a pamphlet published by aDr Styles and referred to by Dr Price, that the inhabitants of the backsettlements of America doubled their numbers in fifteen years. Englandis certainly a more healthy country than the back settlements ofAmerica, and as we have supposed every house in the island to be airyand wholesome, and the encouragements to have a family greater eventhan with the back settlers, no probable reason can be assigned why thepopulation should not double itself in less, if possible, than fifteenyears. But to be quite sure that we do not go beyond the truth, we willonly suppose the period of doubling to be twenty-five years, a ratio ofincrease which is well known to have taken place throughout all theNorthern States of America. 

There can be little doubt that the equalization of property which wehave supposed, added to the circumstance of the labour of the wholecommunity being directed chiefly to agriculture, would tend greatly toaugment the produce of the country. But to answer the demands of apopulation increasing so rapidly, Mr Godwin's calculation of half anhour a day for each man would certainly not be sufficient. It isprobable that the half of every man's time must be employed for thispurpose. Yet with such, or much greater exertions, a person who isacquainted with the nature of the soil in this country, and whoreflects on the fertility of the lands already in cultivation, and thebarrenness of those that are not cultivated, will be very much disposedto doubt whether the whole average produce could possibly be doubled intwenty-five years from the present period. The only chance of successwould be the ploughing up all the grazing countries and putting an endalmost entirely to the use of animal food. Yet a part of this schememight defeat itself. The soil of England will not produce much withoutdressing, and cattle seem to be necessary to make that species ofmanure which best suits the land. In China it is said that the soil insome of the provinces is so fertile as to produce two crops of rice inthe year without dressing. None of the lands in England will answer tothis description. 

Difficult, however, as it might be to double the average produce of theisland in twenty-five years, let us suppose it effected. At theexpiration of the first period therefore, the food, though almostentirely vegetable, would be sufficient to support in health thedoubled population of fourteen millions. 

During the next period of doubling, where will the food be found tosatisfy the importunate demands of the increasing numbers? Where is thefresh land to turn up? Where is the dressing necessary to improve thatwhich is already in cultivation? There is no person with the smallestknowledge of land but would say that it was impossible that the averageproduce of the country could be increased during the second twenty-fiveyears by a quantity equal to what it at present yields. Yet we willsuppose this increase, however improbable, to take place. The exuberantstrength of the argument allows of almost any concession. Even withthis concession, however, there would be seven millions at theexpiration of the second term unprovided for. A quantity of food equalto the frugal support of twenty-one millions, would be to be dividedamong twenty-eight millions. 

Alas! what becomes of the picture where men lived in the midst ofplenty, where no man was obliged to provide with anxiety and pain forhis restless wants, where the narrow principle of selfishness did notexist, where Mind was delivered from her perpetual anxiety aboutcorporal support and free to expatiate in the field of thought which iscongenial to her. This beautiful fabric of imagination vanishes at thesevere touch of truth. The spirit of benevolence, cherished andinvigorated by plenty, is repressed by the chilling breath of want. Thehateful passions that had vanished reappear. The mighty law ofself-preservation expels all the softer and more exalted emotions ofthe soul. The temptations to evil are too strong for human nature toresist. The corn is plucked before it is ripe, or secreted in unfairproportions, and the whole black train of vices that belong tofalsehood are immediately generated. Provisions no longer flow in forthe support of the mother with a large family. The children are sicklyfrom insufficient food. The rosy flush of health gives place to thepallid cheek and hollow eye of misery. Benevolence, yet lingering in afew bosoms, makes some faint expiring struggles, till at lengthself-love resumes his wonted empire and lords it triumphant over theworld. 

No human institutions here existed, to the perverseness of which MrGodwin ascribes the original sin of the worst men. (Bk VIII, ch. 3; inthe third edition, Vol. II, p. 462) No opposition had been produced bythem between public and private good. No monopoly had been created ofthose advantages which reason directs to be left in common. No man hadbeen goaded to the breach of order by unjust laws. Benevolence hadestablished her reign in all hearts: and yet in so short a period aswithin fifty years, violence, oppression, falsehood, misery, everyhateful vice, and every form of distress, which degrade and sadden thepresent state of society, seem to have been generated by the mostimperious circumstances, by laws inherent in the nature of man, andabsolutely independent of it human regulations. 

If we are not yet too well convinced of the reality of this melancholypicture, let us but look for a moment into the next period oftwenty-five years; and we shall see twenty-eight millions of humanbeings without the means of support; and before the conclusion of thefirst century, the population would be one hundred and twelve millions, and the food only sufficient for thirty-five millions, leavingseventy-seven millions unprovided for. In these ages want would beindeed triumphant, and rapine and murder must reign at large: and yetall this time we are supposing the produce of the earth absolutelyunlimited, and the yearly increase greater than the boldest speculatorcan imagine. 

This is undoubtedly a very different view of the difficulty arisingfrom population from that which Mr Godwin gives, when he says, 'Myriadsof centuries of still increasing population may pass away, and theearth be still found sufficient for the subsistence of its inhabitants. '

I am sufficiently aware that the redundant twenty-eight millions, orseventy-seven millions, that I have mentioned, could never haveexisted. It is a perfectly just observation of Mr Godwin, that, 'Thereis a principle in human society, by which population is perpetuallykept down to the level of the means of subsistence. ' The sole questionis, what is this principle? is it some obscure and occult cause? Is itsome mysterious interference of heaven which, at a certain period, strikes the men with impotence, and the women with barrenness? Or is ita cause, open to our researches, within our view, a cause, which hasconstantly been observed to operate, though with varied force, in everystate in which man has been placed? Is it not a degree of misery, thenecessary and inevitable result of the laws of nature, which humaninstitutions, so far from aggravating, have tended considerably tomitigate, though they never can remove?

It may be curious to observe, in the case that we have been supposing, how some of the laws which at present govern civilized society, wouldbe successively dictated by the most imperious necessity. As man, according to Mr Godwin, is the creature of the impressions to which heis subject, the goadings of want could not continue long, before someviolations of public or private stock would necessarily take place. Asthese violations increased in number and extent, the more active andcomprehensive intellects of the society would soon perceive, that whilepopulation was fast increasing, the yearly produce of the country wouldshortly begin to diminish. The urgency of the case would suggest thenecessity of some mediate measures to be taken for the general safety. Some kind of convention would then be called, and the dangeroussituation of the country stated in the strongest terms. It would beobserved, that while they lived in the midst of plenty, it was oflittle consequence who laboured the least, or who possessed the least, as every man was perfectly willing and ready to supply the wants of hisneighbour. But that the question was no longer whether one man shouldgive to another that which he did not use himself, but whether heshould give to his neighbour the food which was absolutely necessary tohis own existence. It would be represented, that the number of thosethat were in want very greatly exceeded the number and means of thosewho should supply them; that these pressing wants, which from the stateof the produce of the country could not all be gratified, hadoccasioned some flagrant violations of justice; that these violationshad already checked the increase of food, and would, if they were notby some means or other prevented, throw the whole community inconfusion; that imperious necessity seemed to dictate that a yearlyincrease of produce should, if possible, be obtained at all events;that in order to effect this first, great, and indispensable purpose, it would be advisable to make a more complete division of land, and tosecure every man's stock against violation by the most powerfulsanctions, even by death itself. 

It might be urged perhaps by some objectors that, as the fertility ofthe land increased, and various accidents occurred, the share of somemen might be much more than sufficient for their support, and that whenthe reign of self-love was once established, they would not distributetheir surplus produce without some compensation in return. It would beobserved, in answer, that this was an inconvenience greatly to belamented; but that it was an evil which bore no comparison to the blacktrain of distresses that would inevitably be occasioned by theinsecurity of property; that the quantity of food which one man couldconsume was necessarily limited by the narrow capacity of the humanstomach; that it was not certainly probable that he should throw awaythe rest; but that even if he exchanged his surplus food for the labourof others, and made them in some degree dependent on him, this wouldstill be better than that these others should absolutely starve. 

It seems highly probable, therefore, that an administration ofproperty, not very different from that which prevails in civilizedstates at present, would be established, as the best, thoughinadequate, remedy for the evils which were pressing on the society. 

The next subject that would come under discussion, intimately connectedwith the preceding, is the commerce between the sexes. It would beurged by those who had turned their attention to the true cause of thedifficulties under which the community laboured, that while every manfelt secure that all his children would be well provided for by generalbenevolence, the powers of the earth would be absolutely inadequate toproduce food for the population which would inevitably ensue; that evenif the whole attention and labour of the society were directed to thissole point, and if, by the most perfect security of property, and everyother encouragement that could be thought of, the greatest possibleincrease of produce were yearly obtained; yet still, that the increaseof food would by no means keep pace with the much more rapid increaseof population; that some check to population therefore was imperiouslycalled for; that the most natural and obvious check seemed to be tomake every man provide for his own children; that this would operate insome respect as a measure and guide in the increase of population, asit might be expected that no man would bring beings into the world, forwhom he could not find the means of support; that where thisnotwithstanding was the case, it seemed necessary, for the example ofothers, that the disgrace and inconvenience attending such a conductshould fall upon the individual, who had thus inconsiderately plungedhimself and innocent children in misery and want. 

The institution of marriage, or at least, of some express or impliedobligation on every man to support his own children, seems to be thenatural result of these reasonings in a community under thedifficulties that we have supposed. 

The view of these difficulties presents us with a very natural originof the superior disgrace which attends a breach of chastity in thewoman than in the man. It could not be expected that women should haveresources sufficient to support their own children. When therefore awoman was connected with a man, who had entered into no compact tomaintain her children, and, aware of the inconveniences that he mightbring upon himself, had deserted her, these children must necessarilyfall for support upon the society, or starve. And to prevent thefrequent recurrence of such an inconvenience, as it would be highlyunjust to punish so natural a fault by personal restraint orinfliction, the men might agree to punish it with disgrace. The offenceis besides more obvious and conspicuous in the woman, and less liableto any mistake. The father of a child may not always be known, but thesame uncertainty cannot easily exist with regard to the mother. Wherethe evidence of the offence was most complete, and the inconvenience tothe society at the same time the greatest, there it was agreed that thelarge share of blame should fall. The obligation on every man tomaintain his children, the society would enforce, if there wereoccasion; and the greater degree of inconvenience or labour, to which afamily would necessarily subject him, added to some portion of disgracewhich every human being must incur who leads another into unhappiness, might be considered as a sufficient punishment for the man. 

That a woman should at present be almost driven from society for anoffence which men commit nearly with impunity, seems to be undoubtedlya breach of natural justice. But the origin of the custom, as the mostobvious and effectual method of preventing the frequent recurrence of aserious inconvenience to a community, appears to be natural, though notperhaps perfectly justifiable. This origin, however, is now lost in thenew train of ideas which the custom has since generated. What at firstmight be dictated by state necessity is now supported by femaledelicacy, and operates with the greatest force on that part of societywhere, if the original intention of the custom were preserved, there isthe least real occasion for it. 

When these two fundamental laws of society, the security of property, and the institution of marriage, were once established, inequality ofconditions must necessarily follow. Those who were born after thedivision of property would come into a world already possessed. Iftheir parents, from having too large a family, could not give themsufficient for their support, what are they to do in a world whereeverything is appropriated? We have seen the fatal effects that wouldresult to a society, if every man had a valid claim to an equal shareof the produce of the earth. The members of a family which was growntoo large for the original division of land appropriated to it couldnot then demand a part of the surplus produce of others, as a debt ofjustice. It has appeared, that from the inevitable laws of our naturesome human beings must suffer from want. These are the unhappy personswho, in the great lottery of life, have drawn a blank. The number ofthese claimants would soon exceed the ability of the surplus produce tosupply. Moral merit is a very difficult distinguishing criterion, except in extreme cases. The owners of surplus produce would in generalseek some more obvious mark of distinction. And it seems both naturaland just that, except upon particular occasions, their choice shouldfall upon those who were able, and professed themselves willing, toexert their strength in procuring a further surplus produce; and thusat once benefiting the community, and enabling these proprietors toafford assistance to greater numbers. All who were in want of foodwould be urged by imperious necessity to offer their labour in exchangefor this article so absolutely essential to existence. The fundappropriated to the maintenance of labour would be the aggregatequantity of food possessed by the owners of land beyond their ownconsumption. When the demands upon this fund were great and numerous, it would naturally be divided in very small shares. Labour would be illpaid. Men would offer to work for a bare subsistence, and the rearingof families would be checked by sickness and misery. On the contrary, when this fund was increasing fast, when it was great in proportion tothe number of claimants, it would be divided in much larger shares. Noman would exchange his labour without receiving an ample quantity offood in return. Labourers would live in ease and comfort, and wouldconsequently be able to rear a numerous and vigorous offspring. 

On the state of this fund, the happiness, or the degree of misery, prevailing among the lower classes of people in every known state atpresent chiefly depends. And on this happiness, or degree of misery, depends the increase, stationariness, or decrease of population. 

And thus it appears, that a society constituted according to the mostbeautiful form that imagination can conceive, with benevolence for itsmoving principle, instead of self-love, and with every evil dispositionin all its members corrected by reason and not force, would, from theinevitable laws of nature, and not from any original depravity of man, in a very short period degenerate into a society constructed upon aplan not essentially different from that which prevails in every knownstate at present; I mean, a society divided into a class ofproprietors, and a class of labourers, and with self-love themain-spring of the great machine. 

In the supposition I have made, I have undoubtedly taken the increaseof population smaller, and the increase of produce greater, than theyreally would be. No reason can be assigned why, under the circumstancesI have supposed, population should not increase faster than in anyknown instance. If then we were to take the period of doubling atfifteen years, instead of twenty-five years, and reflect upon thelabour necessary to double the produce in so short a time, even if weallow it possible, we may venture to pronounce with certainty that ifMr Godwin's system of society was established in its utmost perfection, instead of myriads of centuries, not thirty years could elapse beforeits utter destruction from the simple principle of population. 

I have taken no notice of emigration for obvious reasons. If suchsocieties were instituted in other parts of Europe, these countrieswould be under the same difficulties with regard to population, andcould admit no fresh members into their bosoms. If this beautifulsociety were confined to this island, it must have degeneratedstrangely from its original purity, and administer but a very smallportion of the happiness it proposed; in short, its essential principlemust be completely destroyed, before any of its members wouldvoluntarily consent to leave it, and live under such governments as atpresent exist in Europe, or submit to the extreme hardships of firstsettlers in new regions. We well know, from repeated experience, howmuch misery and hardship men will undergo in their own country, beforethey can determine to desert it; and how often the most temptingproposals of embarking for new settlements have been rejected by peoplewho appeared to be almost starving. 

CHAPTER 11

Mr Godwin's conjecture concerning the future extinction of the passionbetween the sexes--Little apparent grounds for such aconjecture--Passion of love not inconsistent either with reason orvirtue. 

We have supported Mr Godwin's system of society once completelyestablished. But it is supposing an impossibility. The same causes innature which would destroy it so rapidly, were it once established, would prevent the possibility of its establishment. And upon whatgrounds we can presume a change in these natural causes, I am utterlyat a loss to conjecture. No move towards the extinction of the passionbetween the sexes has taken place in the five or six thousand yearsthat the world has existed. Men in the decline of life have in all agesdeclaimed against a passion which they have ceased to feel, but with aslittle reason as success. Those who from coldness of constitutionaltemperament have never felt what love is, will surely be allowed to bevery incompetent judges with regard to the power of this passion tocontribute to the sum of pleasurable sensations in life. Those who havespent their youth in criminal excesses and have prepared forthemselves, as the comforts of their age, corporeal debility and mentalremorse may well inveigh against such pleasures as vain and futile, andunproductive of lasting satisfaction. But the pleasures of pure lovewill bear the contemplation of the most improved reason, and the mostexalted virtue. Perhaps there is scarcely a man who has onceexperienced the genuine delight of virtuous love, however great hisintellectual pleasure may have been, that does not look back to theperiod as the sunny spot in his whole life, where his imagination lovesto bask, which he recollects and contemplates with the fondest regrets, and which he would most wish to live over again. The superiority ofintellectual to sensual pleasures consists rather in their filling upmore time, in their having a larger range, and in their being lessliable to satiety, than in their being more real and essential. 

Intemperance in every enjoyment defeats its own purpose. A walk in thefinest day through the most beautiful country, if pursued too far, endsin pain and fatigue. The most wholesome and invigorating food, eatenwith an unrestrained appetite, produces weakness instead of strength. Even intellectual pleasures, though certainly less liable than othersto satiety, pursued with too little intermission, debilitate the body, and impair the vigour of the mind. To argue against the reality ofthese pleasures from their abuse seems to be hardly just. Morality, according to Mr Godwin, is a calculation of consequences, or, asArchdeacon Paley very justly expresses it, the will of God, ascollected from general expediency. According to either of thesedefinitions, a sensual pleasure not attended with the probability ofunhappy consequences does not offend against the laws of morality, andif it be pursued with such a degree of temperance as to leave the mostample room for intellectual attainments, it must undoubtedly add to thesum of pleasurable sensations in life. Virtuous love, exalted byfriendship, seems to be that sort of mixture of sensual andintellectual enjoyment particularly suited to the nature of man, andmost powerfully calculated to awaken the sympathies of the soul, andproduce the most exquisite gratifications. 

Mr Godwin says, in order to shew the evident inferiority of thepleasures of sense, 'Strip the commerce of the sexes of all itsattendant circumstances, and it would be generally despised' (Bk. I, ch. 5; in the third edition, Vol. I, pp. 71-72). He might as well sayto a man who admired trees: strip them of their spreading branches andlovely foliage, and what beauty can you see in a bare pole? But it wasthe tree with the branches and foliage, and not without them, thatexcited admiration. One feature of an object may be as distinct, andexcite as different emotions, from the aggregate as any two things themost remote, as a beautiful woman, and a map of Madagascar. It is 'thesymmetry of person, the vivacity, the voluptuous softness of temper, the affectionate kindness of feelings, the imagination and the wit' ofa woman that excite the passion of love, and not the mere distinctionof her being female. Urged by the passion of love, men have been driveninto acts highly prejudicial to the general interests of society, butprobably they would have found no difficulty in resisting thetemptation, had it appeared in the form of a woman with no otherattractions whatever but her sex. To strip sensual pleasures of alltheir adjuncts, in order to prove their inferiority, is to deprive amagnet of some of its most essential causes of attraction, and then tosay that it is weak and inefficient. 

In the pursuit of every enjoyment, whether sensual or intellectual, reason, that faculty which enables us to calculate consequences, is theproper corrective and guide. It is probable therefore that improvedreason will always tend to prevent the abuse of sensual pleasures, though it by no means follows that it will extinguish them. 

I have endeavoured to expose the fallacy of that argument which infersan unlimited progress from a partial improvement, the limits of whichcannot be exactly ascertained. It has appeared, I think, that there aremany instances in which a decided progress has been observed, where yetit would be a gross absurdity to suppose that progress indefinite. Buttowards the extinction of the passion between the sexes, no observableprogress whatever has hitherto been made. To suppose such anextinction, therefore, is merely to offer an unfounded conjecture, unsupported by any philosophical probabilities. 

It is a truth, which history I am afraid makes too clear, that some menof the highest mental powers have been addicted not only to a moderate, but even to an immoderate indulgence in the pleasures of sensual love. But allowing, as I should be inclined to do, notwithstanding numerousinstances to the contrary, that great intellectual exertions tend todiminish the empire of this passion over man, it is evident that themass of mankind must be improved more highly than the brightestornaments of the species at present before any difference can takeplace sufficient sensibly to affect population. I would by no meanssuppose that the mass of mankind has reached its term of improvement, but the principal argument of this essay tends to place in a strongpoint of view the improbability that the lower classes of people in anycountry should ever be sufficiently free from want and labour to obtainany high degree of intellectual improvement. 

CHAPTER 12

Mr Godwin's conjecture concerning the indefinite prolongation of humanlife--Improper inference drawn from the effects of mental stimulants onthe human frame, illustrated in various instances--Conjectures notfounded on any indications in the past not to be considered asphilosophical conjectures--Mr Godwin's and Mr Condorcet's conjecturerespecting the approach of man towards immortality on earth, a curiousinstance of the inconsistency of scepticism. 

Mr Godwin's conjecture respecting the future approach of man towardsimmortality on earth seems to be rather oddly placed in a chapter whichprofesses to remove the objection to his system of equality from theprinciple of population. Unless he supposes the passion between thesexes to decrease faster than the duration of life increases, the earthwould be more encumbered than ever. But leaving this difficulty to MrGodwin, let us examine a few of the appearances from which the probableimmortality of man is inferred. 

To prove the power of the mind over the body, Mr Godwin observes, "Howoften do we find a piece of good news dissipating a distemper? Howcommon is the remark that those accidents which are to the indolent asource of disease are forgotten and extirpated in the busy and active?I walk twenty miles in an indolent and half determined temper and amextremely fatigued. I walk twenty miles full of ardour, and with amotive that engrosses my soul, and I come in as fresh and as alert aswhen I began my journey. Emotion excited by some unexpected word, by aletter that is delivered to us, occasions the most extraordinaryrevolutions in our frame, accelerates the circulation, causes the heartto palpitate, the tongue to refuse its office, and has been known tooccasion death by extreme anguish or extreme joy. There is nothingindeed of which the physician is more aware than of the power of themind in assisting or reading convalescence. "

The instances here mentioned are chiefly instances of the effects ofmental stimulants on the bodily frame. No person has ever for a momentdoubted the near, though mysterious, connection of mind and body. Butit is arguing totally without knowledge of the nature of stimulants tosuppose, either that they can be applied continually with equalstrength, or if they could be so applied, for a time, that they wouldnot exhaust and wear out the subject. In some of the cases herenoticed, the strength of the stimulus depends upon its novelty andunexpectedness. Such a stimulus cannot, from its nature, be repeatedoften with the same effect, as it would by repetition lose thatproperty which gives it its strength. 

In the other cases, the argument is from a small and partial effect, toa great and general effect, which will in numberless instances be foundto be a very fallacious mode of reasoning. The busy and active man mayin some degree counteract, or what is perhaps nearer the truth, maydisregard those slight disorders of frame which fix the attention of aman who has nothing else to think of; but this does not tend to provethat activity of mind will enable a man to disregard a high fever, thesmallpox, or the plague. 

The man who walks twenty miles with a motive that engrosses his souldoes not attend to his slight fatigue of body when he comes in; butdouble his motive, and set him to walk another twenty miles, quadrupleit, and let him start a third time, and so on; and the length of hiswalk will ultimately depend upon muscle and not mind. Powell, for amotive of ten guineas, would have walked further probably than MrGodwin, for a motive of half a million. A motive of uncommon poweracting upon a frame of moderate strength would, perhaps, make the mankill himself by his exertions, but it would not make him walk a hundredmiles in twenty-four hours. This statement of the case shews thefallacy of supposing that the person was really not at all tired in hisfirst walk of twenty miles, because he did not appear to be so, or, perhaps, scarcely felt any fatigue himself. The mind cannot fix itsattention strongly on more than one object at once. The twenty thousandpounds so engrossed his thoughts that he did not attend to any slightsoreness of foot, or stiffness of limb. But had he been really as freshand as alert, as when he first set off, he would be able to go thesecond twenty miles with as much ease as the first, and so on, thethird, &c. Which leads to a palpable absurdity. When a horse of spiritis nearly half tired, by the stimulus of the spur, added to the propermanagement of the bit, he may be put so much upon his mettle, that hewould appear to a standerby, as fresh and as high spirited as if he hadnot gone a mile. Nay, probably, the horse himself, while in the heatand passion occasioned by this stimulus, would not feel any fatigue;but it would be strangely contrary to all reason and experience, toargue from such an appearance that, if the stimulus were continued, thehorse would never be tired. The cry of a pack of hounds will make somehorses, after a journey of forty miles on the road, appear as fresh, and as lively, as when they first set out. Were they then to be hunted, no perceptible abatement would at first be felt by their riders intheir strength and spirits, but towards the end of a hard day, theprevious fatigue would have its full weight and effect, and make themtire sooner. When I have taken a long walk with my gun, and met with nosuccess, I have frequently returned home feeling a considerable degreeof uncomfortableness from fatigue. Another day, perhaps, going overnearly the same extent of ground with a good deal of sport, I have comehome fresh, and alert. The difference in the sensation of fatigue uponcoming in, on the different days, may have been very striking, but onthe following mornings I have found no such difference. I have notperceived that I was less stiff in my limbs, or less footsore, on themorning after the day of the sport, than on the other morning. 

In all these cases, stimulants upon the mind seem to act rather bytaking off the attention from the bodily fatigue, than by really andtruly counteracting it. If the energy of my mind had reallycounteracted the fatigue of my body, why should I feel tired the nextmorning? if the stimulus of the hounds had as completely overcome thefatigue of the journey in reality, as it did in appearance, why shouldthe horse be tired sooner than if he had not gone the forty miles? Ihappen to have a very bad fit of the toothache at the time I am writingthis. In the eagerness of composition, I every now and then, for amoment or two, forget it. Yet I cannot help thinking that the process, which causes the pain, is still going forwards, and that the nerveswhich carry the information of it to the brain are even during thesemoments demanding attention and room for their appropriate vibrations. The multiplicity of vibrations of another kind may perhaps preventtheir admission, or overcome them for a time when admitted, till ashoot of extraordinary energy puts all other vibration to the rout, destroys the vividness of my argumentative conceptions, and ridestriumphant in the brain. In this case, as in the others, the mind seemsto have little or no power in counteracting or curing the disorder, butmerely possesses a power, if strongly excited, of fixing its attentionon other subjects. 

I do not, however, mean to say that a sound and vigorous mind has notendency whatever to keep the body in a similar state. So close andintimate is the union of mind and body that it would be highlyextraordinary if they did not mutually assist each other's functions. But, perhaps, upon a comparison, the body has more effect upon the mindthan the mind upon the body. The first object of the mind is to act aspurveyor to the wants of the body. When these wants are completelysatisfied, an active mind is indeed apt to wander further, to rangeover the fields of science, or sport in the regions of. Imagination, tofancy that it has 'shuffled off this mortal coil', and is seeking itskindred element. But all these efforts are like the vain exertions ofthe hare in the fable. The slowly moving tortoise, the body, neverfails to overtake the mind, however widely and extensively it may haveranged, and the brightest and most energetic intellects, unwillingly asthey may attend to the first or second summons, must ultimately yieldthe empire of the brain to the calls of hunger, or sink with theexhausted body in sleep. 

It seems as if one might say with certainty that if a medicine could befound to immortalize the body there would be no fear of its [not] beingaccompanied by the immortality of the mind. But the immortality of themind by no means seems to infer the immortality of the body. On thecontrary, the greatest conceivable energy of mind would probablyexhaust and destroy the strength of the body. A temperate vigour ofmind appears to be favourable to health, but very great intellectualexertions tend rather, as has been often observed, to wear out thescabbard. Most of the instances which Mr Godwin has brought to provethe power of the mind over the body, and the consequent probability ofthe immortality of man, are of this latter description, and could suchstimulants be continually applied, instead of tending to immortalize, they would tend very rapidly to destroy the human frame. 

The probable increase of the voluntary power of man over his animalframe comes next under Mr Godwin's consideration, and he concludes bysaying, that the voluntary power of some men, in this respect, is foundto extend to various articles in which other men are impotent. But thisis reasoning against an almost universal rule from a few exceptions;and these exceptions seem to be rather tricks, than powers that may beexerted to any good purpose. I have never heard of any man who couldregulate his pulse in a fever, and doubt much, if any of the personshere alluded to have made the smallest perceptible progress in theregular correction of the disorders of their frames and the consequentprolongation of their lives. 

Mr Godwin says, 'Nothing can be more unphilosophical than to conclude, that, because a certain species of power is beyond the train of ourpresent observation, that it is beyond the limits of the human mind. ' Iown my ideas of philosophy are in this respect widely different from MrGodwin's. The only distinction that I see, between a philosophicalconjecture, and the assertions of the Prophet Mr Brothers, is, that oneis founded upon indications arising from the train of our presentobservations, and the other has no foundation at all. I expect thatgreat discoveries are yet to take place in all the branches of humanscience, particularly in physics; but the moment we leave pastexperience as the foundation of our conjectures concerning the future, and, still more, if our conjectures absolutely contradict pastexperience, we are thrown upon a wide field of uncertainty, and any onesupposition is then just as good as another. If a person were to tellme that men would ultimately have eyes and hands behind them as well asbefore them, I should admit the usefulness of the addition, but shouldgive as a reason for my disbelief of it, that I saw no indicationswhatever in the past from which I could infer the smallest probabilityof such a change. If this be not allowed a valid objection, allconjectures are alike, and all equally philosophical. I own it appearsto me that in the train of our present observations, there are no moregenuine indications that man will become immortal upon earth than thathe will have four eyes and four hands, or that trees will growhorizontally instead of perpendicularly. 

It will be said, perhaps, that many discoveries have already takenplace in the world that were totally unforeseen and unexpected. This Igrant to be true; but if a person had predicted these discoverieswithout being guided by any analogies or indications from past facts, he would deserve the name of seer or prophet, but not of philosopher. The wonder that some of our modern discoveries would excite in thesavage inhabitants of Europe in the times of Theseus and Achilles, proves but little. Persons almost entirely unacquainted with the powersof a machine cannot be expected to guess at its effects. I am far fromsaying, that we are at present by any means fully acquainted with thepowers of the human mind; but we certainly know more of this instrumentthan was known four thousand years ago; and therefore, though not to becalled competent judges, we are certainly much better able than savagesto say what is, or is not, within its grasp. A watch would strike asavage with as much surprise as a perpetual motion; yet one is to us amost familiar piece of mechanism, and the other has constantly eludedthe efforts of the most acute intellects. In many instances we are nowable to perceive the causes, which prevent an unlimited improvement inthose inventions, which seemed to promise fairly for it at first. Theoriginal improvers of telescopes would probably think, that as long asthe size of the specula and the length of the tubes could be increased, the powers and advantages of the instrument would increase; butexperience has since taught us, that the smallness of the field, thedeficiency of light, and the circumstance of the atmosphere beingmagnified, prevent the beneficial results that were to be expected fromtelescopes of extraordinary size and power. In many parts of knowledge, man has been almost constantly making some progress; in other parts, his efforts have been invariably baffled. The savage would not probablybe able to guess at the causes of this mighty difference. Our furtherexperience has given us some little insight into these causes, and hastherefore enabled us better to judge, if not of what we are to expectin future, at least of what we are not to expect, which, thoughnegative, is a very useful piece of information. 

As the necessity of sleep seems rather to depend upon the body than themind, it does not appear how the improvement of the mind can tend verygreatly to supersede this 'conspicuous infirmity'. A man who by greatexcitements on his mind is able to pass two or three nights withoutsleep, proportionably exhausts the vigour of his body, and thisdiminution of health and strength will soon disturb the operations ofhis understanding, so that by these great efforts he appears to havemade no real progress whatever in superseding the necessity of thisspecies of rest. 

There is certainly a sufficiently marked difference in the variouscharacters of which we have some knowledge, relative to the energies oftheir minds, their benevolent pursuits, etc. , to enable us to judgewhether the operations of intellect have any decided effect inprolonging the duration of human life. It is certain that no decidedeffect of this kind has yet been observed. Though no attention of anykind has ever produced such an effect as could be construed into thesmallest semblance of an approach towards immortality, yet of the two, a certain attention to the body seems to have more effect in thisrespect than an attention to the mind. The man who takes his temperatemeals and his bodily exercise, with scrupulous regularity, willgenerally be found more healthy than the man who, very deeply engagedin intellectual pursuits, often forgets for a time these bodilycravings. The citizen who has retired, and whose ideas, perhaps, scarcely soar above or extend beyond his little garden, puddling allthe morning about his borders of box, will, perhaps, live as long asthe philosopher whose range of intellect is the most extensive, andwhose views are the clearest of any of his contemporaries. It has beenpositively observed by those who have attended to the bills ofmortality that women live longer upon an average than men, and, thoughI would not by any means say that their intellectual faculties areinferior, yet, I think, it must be allowed that, from their differenteducation, there are not so many women as men, who are excited tovigorous mental exertion. 

As in these and similar instances, or to take a larger range, as in thegreat diversity of characters that have existed during some thousandyears, no decided difference has been observed in the duration of humanlife from the operation of intellect, the mortality of man on earthseems to be as completely established, and exactly upon the samegrounds, as any one, the most constant, of the laws of nature. Animmediate act of power in the Creator of the Universe might, indeed, change one or all of these laws, either suddenly or gradually, butwithout some indications of such a change, and such indications do notexist, it. Is just as unphilosophical to suppose that the life of manmay be prolonged beyond any assignable limits, as to suppose that theattraction of the earth will gradually be changed into repulsion andthat stones will ultimately rise instead of fall or that the earth willfly off at a certain period to some more genial and warmer sun. 

The conclusion of this chapter presents us, undoubtedly, with a verybeautiful and desirable picture, but like some of the landscapes drawnfrom fancy and not imagined with truth, it fails of that interest inthe heart which nature and probability can alone give. 

I cannot quit this subject without taking notice of these conjecturesof Mr Godwin and Mr Condorcet concerning the indefinite prolongation ofhuman life, as a very curious instance of the longing of the soul afterimmortality. Both these gentlemen have rejected the light of revelationwhich absolutely promises eternal life in another state. They have alsorejected the light of natural religion, which to the ablest intellectsin all ages has indicated the future existence of the soul. Yet socongenial is the idea of immortality to the mind of man that theycannot consent entirely to throw it out of their systems. After alltheir fastidious scepticisms concerning the only probable mode ofimmortality, they introduce a species of immortality of their own, notonly completely contradictory to every law of philosophicalprobability, but in itself in the highest degree narrow, partial, andunjust. They suppose that all the great, virtuous, and exalted mindsthat have ever existed or that may exist for some thousands, perhapsmillions of years, will be sunk in annihilation, and that only a fewbeings, not greater in number than can exist at once upon the earth, will be ultimately crowned with immortality. Had such a tenet beenadvanced as a tenet of revelation I am very sure that all the enemiesof religion, and probably Mr Godwin and Mr Condorcet among the rest, would have exhausted the whole force of their ridicule upon it, as themost puerile, the most absurd, the poorest, the most pitiful, the mostiniquitously unjust, and, consequently, the most unworthy of the Deitythat the superstitious folly of man could invent. 

What a strange and curious proof do these conjectures exhibit of theinconsistency of scepticism! For it should be observed, that there is avery striking and essential difference between believing an assertionwhich absolutely contradicts the most uniform experience, and anassertion which contradicts nothing, but is merely beyond the power ofour present observation and knowledge. So diversified are the naturalobjects around us, so many instances of mighty power daily offerthemselves to our view, that we may fairly presume, that there are manyforms and operations of nature which we have not yet observed, orwhich, perhaps, we are not capable of observing with our presentconfined inlets of knowledge. The resurrection of a spiritual body froma natural body does not appear in itself a more wonderful instance ofpower than the germination of a blade of wheat from the grain, or of anoak from an acorn. Could we conceive an intelligent being, so placed asto be conversant only with inanimate or full grown objects, and neverto have witnessed the process of vegetation and growth; and wereanother being to shew him two little pieces of matter, a grain ofwheat, and an acorn, to desire him to examine them, to analyse them ifhe pleased, and endeavour to find out their properties and essences;and then to tell him, that however trifling these little bits of mattermight appear to him, that they possessed such curious powers ofselection, combination, arrangement, and almost of creation, that uponbeing put into the ground, they would choose, amongst all the dirt andmoisture that surrounded them, those parts which best suited theirpurpose, that they would collect and arrange these parts with wonderfultaste, judgement, and execution, and would rise up into beautifulforms, scarcely in any respect analogous to the little bits of matterwhich were first placed in the earth. I feel very little doubt that theimaginary being which I have supposed would hesitate more, wouldrequire better authority, and stronger proofs, before he believed thesestrange assertions, than if he had been told, that a being of mightypower, who had been the cause of all that he saw around him, and ofthat existence of which he himself was conscious, would, by a great actof power upon the death and corruption of human creatures, raise up theessence of thought in an incorporeal, or at least invisible form, togive it a happier existence in another state. 

The only difference, with regard to our own apprehensions, that is notin favour of the latter assertion is that the first miracle we haverepeatedly seen, and the last miracle we have not seen. I admit thefull weight of this prodigious difference, but surely no man canhesitate a moment in saying that, putting Revelation out of thequestion, the resurrection of a spiritual body from a natural body, which may be merely one among the many operations of nature which wecannot see, is an event indefinitely more probable than the immortalityof man on earth, which is not only an event of which no symptoms orindications have yet appeared, but is a positive contradiction to oneof the most constant of the laws of nature that has ever come withinthe observation of man. 

When we extend our view beyond this life, it is evident that we canhave no other guides than authority, or conjecture, and perhaps, indeed, an obscure and undefined feeling. What I say here, therefore, does not appear to me in any respect to contradict what I said before, when I observed that it was unphilosophical to expect any specifickevent that was not indicated by some kind of analogy in the past. Inranging beyond the bourne from which no traveller returns, we mustnecessarily quit this rule; but with regard to events that may beexpected to happen on earth, we can seldom quit it consistently withtrue philosophy. Analogy has, however, as I conceive, great latitude. For instance, man has discovered many of the laws of nature: analogyseems to indicate that he will discover many more; but no analogy seemsto indicate that he will discover a sixth sense, or a new species ofpower in the human mind, entirely beyond the train of our presentobservations. 

The powers of selection, combination, and transmutation, which everyseed shews, are truly miraculous. Who can imagine that these wonderfulfaculties are contained in these little bits of matter? To me itappears much more philosophical to suppose that the mighty God ofnature is present in full energy in all these operations. To this allpowerful Being, it would be equally easy to raise an oak without anacorn as with one. The preparatory process of putting seeds into theground is merely ordained for the use of man, as one among the variousother excitements necessary to awaken matter into mind. It is an ideathat will be found consistent, equally with the natural phenomenaaround us, with the various events of human life, and with thesuccessive revelations of God to man, to suppose that the world is amighty process for the creation and formation of mind. Many vesselswill necessarily come out of this great furnace in wrong shapes. Thesewill be broken and thrown aside as useless; while those vessels whoseforms are full of truth, grace, and loveliness, will be wafted intohappier situations, nearer the presence of the mighty maker. 

I ought perhaps again to make an apology to my readers for dwelling solong upon a conjecture which many, I know, will think too absurd andimprobable to require the least discussion. But if it be as improbableand as contrary to the genuine spirit of philosophy as I own I think itis, why should it not be shewn to be so in a candid examination? Aconjecture, however improbable on the first view of it, advanced byable and ingenious men, seems at least to deserve investigation. For myown part I feel no disinclination whatever to give that degree ofcredit to the opinion of the probable immortality of man on earth, which the appearances that can be brought in support of it deserve. Before we decide upon the utter improbability of such an event, it isbut fair impartially to examine these appearances; and from such anexamination I think we may conclude, that we have rather less reasonfor supposing that the life of man may be indefinitely prolonged, thanthat trees may be made to grow indefinitely high, or potatoesindefinitely large. Though Mr Godwin advances the idea of theindefinite prolongation of human life merely as a conjecture, yet as hehas produced some appearances, which in his conception favour thesupposition, he must certainly intend that these appearances should beexamined and this is all that I have meant to do. 

CHAPTER 13

Error of Mr Godwin is considering man too much in the light of a beingmerely rational--In the compound being, man, the passions will alwaysact as disturbing forces in the decisions of theunderstanding--Reasonings of Mr Godwin on the subject of coercion--Sometruths of a nature not to be communicated from one man to another. 

In the chapter which I have been examining, Mr Godwin professes toconsider the objection to his system of equality from the principle ofpopulation. It has appeared, I think clearly, that he is greatlyerroneous in his statement of the distance of this difficulty, and thatinstead of myriads of centuries, it is really not thirty years, or eventhirty days, distant from us. The supposition of the approach of man toimmortality on earth is certainly not of a kind to soften thedifficulty. The only argument, therefore, in the chapter which has anytendency to remove the objection is the conjecture concerning theextinction of the passion between the sexes, but as this is a mereconjecture, unsupported by the smallest shadow of proof, the force ofthe objection may be fairly said to remain unimpaired, and it isundoubtedly of sufficient weight of itself completely to overturn MrGodwin's whole system of equality. I will, however, make one or twoobservations on a few of the prominent parts of Mr Godwin's reasoningswhich will contribute to place in a still clearer point of view thelittle hope that we can reasonably entertain of those vast improvementsin the nature of man and of society which he holds up to our admiringgaze in his Political Justice. 

Mr Godwin considers man too much in the light of a being merelyintellectual. This error, at least such I conceive it to be, pervadeshis whole work and mixes itself with all his reasonings. The voluntaryactions of men may originate in their opinions, but these opinions willbe very differently modified in creatures compounded of a rationalfaculty and corporal propensities from what they would be in beingswholly intellectual. Mr Godwin, in proving that sound reasoning andtruth are capable of being adequately communicated, examines theproposition first practically, and then adds, 'Such is the appearancewhich this proposition assumes, when examined in a loose and practicalview. In strict consideration it will not admit of debate. Man is arational being, etc. ' (Bk. I, ch. 5; in the third edition Vol. I, p. 88). So far from calling this a strict consideration of the subject, Iown I should call it the loosest, and most erroneous, way possible, ofconsidering it. It is the calculating the velocity of a falling body invacuo, and persisting in it, that it would be the same through whateverresisting mediums it might fall. This was not Newton's mode ofphilosophizing. Very few general propositions are just in applicationto a particular subject. The moon is not kept in her orbit round theearth, nor the earth in her orbit round the sun, by a force that variesmerely in the inverse ratio of the squares of the distances. To makethe general theory just in application to the revolutions of thesebodies, it was necessary to calculate accurately the disturbing forceof the sun upon the moon, and of the moon upon the earth; and tillthese disturbing forces were properly estimated, actual observations onthe motions of these bodies would have proved that the theory was notaccurately true. 

I am willing to allow that every voluntary act is preceded by adecision of the mind, but it is strangely opposite to what I shouldconceive to be the just theory upon the subject, and a palpablecontradiction to all experience, to say that the corporal propensitiesof man do not act very powerfully, as disturbing forces, in thesedecisions. The question, therefore, does not merely depend upon whethera man may be made to understand a distinct proposition or be convincedby an unanswerable argument. A truth may be brought home to hisconviction as a rational being, though he may determine to act contraryto it, as a compound being. The cravings of hunger, the love of liquor, the desire of possessing a beautiful woman, will urge men to actions, of the fatal consequences of which, to the general interests ofsociety, they are perfectly well convinced, even at the very time theycommit them. Remove their bodily cravings, and they would not hesitatea moment in determining against such actions. Ask them their opinion ofthe same conduct in another person, and they would immediatelyreprobate it. But in their own case, and under all the circumstances oftheir situation with these bodily cravings, the decision of thecompound being is different from the conviction of the rational being. 

If this be the just view of the subject, and both theory and experienceunite to prove that it is, almost all Mr Godwin's reasonings on thesubject of coercion in his seventh chapter, will appear to be foundedon error. He spends some time in placing in a ridiculous point of viewthe attempt to convince a man's understanding and to clear up adoubtful proposition in his mind, by blows. Undoubtedly it is bothridiculous and barbarous, and so is cock-fighting, but one has littlemore to do with the real object of human punishments than the other. One frequent (indeed much too frequent) mode of punishment is death. MrGodwin will hardly think this intended for conviction, at least it doesnot appear how the individual or the society could reap much futurebenefit from an understanding enlightened in this manner. 

The principal objects which human punishments have in view areundoubtedly restraint and example; restraint, or removal, of anindividual member whose vicious habits are likely to be prejudicial tothe society'; and example, which by expressing the sense of thecommunity with regard to a particular crime, and by associating morenearly and visibly crime and punishment, holds out a moral motive todissuade others from the commission of it. 

Restraint, Mr Godwin thinks, may be permitted as a temporary expedient, though he reprobates solitary imprisonment, which has certainly beenthe most successful, and, indeed, almost the only attempt towards themoral amelioration of offenders. He talks of the selfish passions thatare fostered by solitude and of the virtues generated in society. Butsurely these virtues are not generated in the society of a prison. Werethe offender confined to the society of able and virtuous men he wouldprobably be more improved than in solitude. But is this practicable? MrGodwin's ingenuity is more frequently employed in finding out evilsthan in suggesting practical remedies. 

Punishment, for example, is totally reprobated. By endeavouring to makeexamples too impressive and terrible, nations have, indeed, been ledinto the most barbarous cruelties, but the abuse of any practice is nota good argument against its use. The indefatigable pains taken in thiscountry to find out a murder, and the certainty of its punishment, haspowerfully contributed to generate that sentiment which is frequent inthe mouths of the common people, that a murder will sooner or latercome to light; and the habitual horror in which murder is inconsequence held will make a man, in the agony of passion, throw downhis knife for fear he should be tempted to use it in the gratificationof his revenge. In Italy, where murderers, by flying to a sanctuary, are allowed more frequently to escape, the crime has never been held inthe same detestation and has consequently been more frequent. No man, who is at all aware of the operation of moral motives, can doubt for amoment, that if every murder in Italy had been invariably punished, theuse of the stiletto in transports of passion would have beencomparatively but little known. 

That human laws either do, or can, proportion the punishment accuratelyto the offence, no person will have the folly to assert. From theinscrutability of motives the thing is absolutely impossible, but thisimperfection, though it may be called a species of injustice, is novalid argument against human laws. It is the lot of man, that he willfrequently have to choose between two evils; and it is a sufficientreason for the adoption of any institution, that it is the best modethat suggests itself of preventing greater evils. A continual endeavourshould undoubtedly prevail to make these institutions as perfect as thenature of them will admit. But nothing is so easy as to find fault withhuman institutions; nothing so difficult as to suggest adequatepractical improvements. It is to be lamented, that more men of talentsemploy their time in the former occupation than in the latter. 

The frequency of crime among men, who, as the common saying is, knowbetter, sufficiently proves, that some truths may be brought home tothe conviction of the mind without always producing the proper effectupon the conduct. There are other truths of a nature that perhaps nevercan be adequately communicated from one man to another. The superiorityof the pleasures of intellect to those of sense, Mr Godwin considers asa fundamental truth. Taking all circumstances into consideration, Ishould be disposed to agree with him; but how am I to communicate thistruth to a person who has scarcely ever felt intellectual pleasure? Imay as well attempt to explain the nature and beauty of colours to ablind man. If I am ever so laborious, patient, and clear, and have themost repeated opportunities of expostulation, any real progress towardthe accomplishment of my purpose seems absolutely hopeless. There is nocommon measure between us. I cannot proceed step by step. . It is atruth of a nature absolutely incapable of demonstration. All that I cansay is, that the wisest and best men in all ages had agreed in givingthe preference, very greatly, to the pleasures of intellect; and thatmy own experience completely confirmed the truth of their decisions;that I had found sensual pleasures vain, transient, and continuallyattended with tedium and disgust; but that intellectual pleasuresappeared to me ever fresh and young, filled up all my hourssatisfactorily, gave a new zest to life, and diffused a lastingserenity over my mind. If he believe me, it can only be from respectand veneration for my authority. It is credulity, and not conviction. Ihave not said any thing, nor can any thing be said, of a nature toproduce real conviction. The affair is not an affair of reasoning, butof experience. He would probably observe in reply, what you say may bevery true with regard to yourself and many other good men, but for myown part I feel very differently upon the subject. I have veryfrequently taken up a book and almost as frequently gone to sleep overit; but when I pass an evening with a gay party, or a pretty woman, Ifeel alive, and in spirits, and truly enjoy my existence. 

Under such circumstances, reasoning and arguments are not instrumentsfrom which success can be expected. At some future time perhaps, realsatiety of sensual pleasures, or some accidental impressions thatawakened the energies of his mind, might effect that, in a month, whichthe most patient and able expostulations might be incapable ofeffecting in forty years. 

CHAPTER 14

Mr Godwin's five propositions respecting political truth, on which hiswhole work hinges, not established--Reasons we have for supposing, fromthe distress occasioned by the principle of population, that the vicesand moral weakness of man can never be whollyeradicated--Perfectibility, in the sense in which Mr Godwin uses theterm, not applicable to man--Nature of the real perfectibility of manillustrated. 

If the reasonings of the preceding chapter are just, the corollariesrespecting political truth, which Mr Godwin draws from the proposition, that the voluntary actions of men originate in their opinions, will notappear to be clearly established. These corollaries are, "Soundreasoning and truth, when adequately communicated, must always bevictorious over error: Sound reasoning and truth are capable of beingso communicated: Truth is omnipotent: The vices and moral weakness ofman are not invincible: Man is perfectible, or in other words, susceptible of perpetual improvement. "

The first three propositions may be considered a complete syllogism. Ifby adequately communicated, be meant such a conviction as to produce anadequate effect upon the conduct, the major may be allowed and theminor denied. The consequent, or the omnipotence of truth, of coursefalls to the ground. If by 'adequately communicated' be meant merelythe conviction of the rational faculty, the major must be denied, theminor will be only true in cases capable of demonstration, and theconsequent equally falls. The fourth proposition Mr Godwin calls thepreceding proposition, with a slight variation in the statement. If so, it must accompany the preceding proposition in its fall. But it may beworth while to inquire, with reference to the principal argument ofthis essay, into the particular reasons which we have for supposingthat the vices and moral weakness of man can never be wholly overcomein this world. 

Man, according to Mr Godwin, is a creature formed what he is by thesuccessive impressions which he has received, from the first momentthat the germ from which he sprung was animated. Could he be placed ina situation, where he was subject to no evil impressions whatever, though it might be doubted whether in such a situation virtue couldexist, vice would certainly be banished. The great bent of Mr Godwin'swork on Political Justice, if I understand it rightly, is to shew thatthe greater part of the vices and weaknesses of men proceed from theinjustice of their political and social institutions, and that if thesewere removed and the understandings of men more enlightened, therewould be little or no temptation in the world to evil. As it has beenclearly proved, however, (at least as I think) that this is entirely afalse conception, and that, independent of any political or socialinstitutions whatever, the greater part of mankind, from the fixed andunalterable laws of nature, must ever be subject to the eviltemptations arising from want, besides other passions, it follows fromMr Godwin's definition of man that such impressions, and combinationsof impressions, cannot be afloat in the world without generating avariety of bad men. According to Mr Godwin's own conception of theformation of character, it is surely as improbable that under suchcircumstances all men will be virtuous as that sixes will come up ahundred times following upon the dice. The great variety ofcombinations upon the dice in a repeated succession of throws appearsto me not inaptly to represent the great variety of character that mustnecessarily exist in the world, supposing every individual to be formedwhat he is by that combination of impressions which he has receivedsince his first existence. And this comparison will, in some measure, shew the absurdity of supposing, that exceptions will ever becomegeneral rules; that extraordinary and unusual combinations will befrequent; or that the individual instances of great virtue which hadappeared in all ages of the world will ever prevail universally. 

I am aware that Mr Godwin might say that the comparison is in onerespect inaccurate, that in the case of the dice, the preceding causes, or rather the chances respecting the preceding causes, were always thesame, and that, therefore, I could have no good reason for supposingthat a greater number of sixes would come up in the next hundred timesof throwing than in the preceding same number of throws. But, that manhad in some sort a power of influencing those causes that formedcharacter, and that every good and virtuous man that was produced, bythe influence which he must necessarily have, rather increased theprobability that another such virtuous character would be generated, whereas the coming up of sixes upon the dice once, would certainly notincrease the probability of their coming up a second time. I admit thisobjection to the accuracy of the comparison, but it is only partiallyvalid. Repeated experience has assured us, that the influence of themost virtuous character will rarely prevail against very strongtemptations to evil. It will undoubtedly affect some, but it will failwith a much greater number. Had Mr Godwin succeeded in his attempt toprove that these temptations to evil could by the exertions of man beremoved, I would give up the comparison; or at least allow, that a manmight be so far enlightened with regard to the mode of shaking hiselbow, that he would be able to throw sixes every time. But as long asa great number of those impressions which form character, like the nicemotions of the arm, remain absolutely independent of the will of man, though it would be the height of folly and presumption to attempt tocalculate the relative proportions of virtue and vice at the futureperiods of the world, it may be safely asserted that the vices andmoral weakness of mankind, taken in the mass, are invincible. 

The fifth proposition is the general deduction from the four former andwill consequently fall, as the foundations which support it have givenway. In the sense in which Mr Godwin understands the term'perfectible', the perfectibility of man cannot be asserted, unless thepreceding propositions could have been clearly established. There is, however, one sense, which the term will bear, in which it is, perhaps, just. It may be said with truth that man is always susceptible ofimprovement, or that there never has been, or will be, a period of hishistory, in which he can be said to have reached his possible acme ofperfection. Yet it does not by any means follow from this, that ourefforts to improve man will always succeed, or even that he will evermake, in the greatest number of ages, any extraordinary strides towardsperfection. The only inference that can be drawn is that the preciselimit of his improvement cannot possibly be known. And I cannot helpagain reminding the reader of a distinction which, it appears to me, ought particularly to be attended to in the present question: I mean, the essential difference there is between an unlimited improvement andan improvement the limit of which cannot be ascertained. The former isan improvement not applicable to man under the present laws of hisnature. The latter, undoubtedly, is applicable. 

The real perfectibility of man may be illustrated, as I have mentionedbefore, by the perfectibility of a plant. The object of theenterprising florist is, as I conceive, to unite size, symmetry, andbeauty of colour. It would surely be presumptuous in the mostsuccessful improver to affirm, that he possessed a carnation in whichthese qualities existed in the greatest possible state of perfection. However beautiful his flower may be, other care, other soil, or othersuns, might produce one still more beautiful. 

Yet, although he may be aware of the absurdity of supposing that he hasreached perfection, and though he may know by what means he attainedthat degree of beauty in the flower which he at present possesses, yethe cannot be sure that by pursuing similar means, rather increased instrength, he will obtain a more beautiful blossom. By endeavouring toimprove one quality, he may impair the beauty of another. The richermould which he would employ to increase the size of his plant wouldprobably burst the calyx, and destroy at once its symmetry. In asimilar manner, the forcing manure used to bring about the FrenchRevolution, and to give a greater freedom and energy to the human mind, has burst the calyx of humanity, the restraining bond of all society;and, however large the separate petals have grown, however strongly, oreven beautifully, a few of them have been marked, the whole is atpresent a loose, deformed, disjointed mass, without union, symmetry, orharmony of colouring. 

Were it of consequence to improve pinks and carnations, though we couldhave no hope of raising them as large as cabbages, we might undoubtedlyexpect, by successive efforts, to obtain more beautiful specimens thanwe at present possess. No person can deny the importance of improvingthe happiness of the human species. Every the least advance in thisrespect is highly valuable. But an experiment with the human race isnot like an experiment upon inanimate objects. The bursting of a flowermay be a trifle. Another will soon succeed it. But the bursting of thebonds of society is such a separation of parts as cannot take placewithout giving the most acute pain to thousands: and a long time mayelapse, and much misery may be endured, before the wound grows up again. 

As the five propositions which I have been examining may be consideredas the corner stones of Mr Godwin's fanciful structure, and, indeed, asexpressing the aim and bent of his whole work, however excellent muchof his detached reasoning may be, he must be considered as havingfailed in the great object of his undertaking. Besides the difficultiesarising from the compound nature of man, which he has by no meanssufficiently smoothed, the principal argument against theperfectibility of man and society remains whole and unimpaired from anything that he has advanced. And as far as I can trust my own judgement, this argument appears to be conclusive, not only against theperfectibility of man, in the enlarged sense in which Mr Godwinunderstands the term, but against any very marked and striking changefor the better, in the form and structure of general society; by whichI mean any great and decided amelioration of the condition of the lowerclasses of mankind, the most numerous, and, consequently, in a generalview of the subject, the most important part of the human race. Were Ito live a thousand years, and the laws of nature to remain the same, Ishould little fear, or rather little hope, a contradiction fromexperience in asserting that no possible sacrifices or exertions of therich, in a country which had been long inhabited, could for any timeplace the lower classes of the community in a situation equal, withregard to circumstances, to the situation of the common people aboutthirty years ago in the northern States of America. 

The lower classes of people in Europe may at some future period be muchbetter instructed than they are at present; they may be taught toemploy the little spare time they have in many better ways than at theale-house; they may live under better and more equal laws than theyhave ever hitherto done, perhaps, in any country; and I even conceiveit possible, though not probable that they may have more leisure; butit is not in the nature of things that they can be awarded such aquantity of money or subsistence as will allow them all to marry early, in the full confidence that they shall be able to provide with ease fora numerous family. 

CHAPTER 15

Models too perfect may sometimes rather impede than promoteimprovement--Mr Godwin's essay on 'Avarice andProfusion'--Impossibility of dividing the necessary labour of a societyamicably among all--Invectives against labour may produce present evil, with little or no chance of producing future good--An accession to themass of agricultural labour must always be an advantage to the labourer. 

Mr Godwin in the preface to his Enquirer, drops a few expressions whichseem to hint at some change in his opinions since he wrote thePolitical Justice; and as this is a work now of some years standing, Ishould certainly think that I had been arguing against opinions whichthe author had himself seen reason to alter, but that in some of theessays of the Enquirer, Mr Godwin's peculiar mode of thinking appearsin as striking a light as ever. 

It has been frequently observed that though we cannot hope to reachperfection in any thing, yet that it must always be advantageous to usto place before our eyes the most perfect models. This observation hasa plausible appearance, but is very far from being generally true. Ieven doubt its truth in one of the most obvious exemplifications thatwould occur. I doubt whether a very young painter would receive so muchbenefit, from an attempt to copy a highly finished and perfect picture, as from copying one where the outlines were more strongly marked andthe manner of laying on the colours was more easily discoverable. Butin cases where the perfection of the model is a perfection of adifferent and superior nature from that towards which we shouldnaturally advance, we shall not always fail in making any progresstowards it, but we shall in all probability impede the progress whichwe might have expected to make had we not fixed our eyes upon soperfect a model. A highly intellectual being, exempt from the infirmcalls of hunger or sleep, is undoubtedly a much more perfect existencethan man, but were man to attempt to copy such a model, he would notonly fail in making any advances towards it; but by unwisely strainingto imitate what was inimitable, he would probably destroy the littleintellect which he was endeavouring to improve. 

The form and structure of society which Mr Godwin describes is asessentially distinct from any forms of society which have hithertoprevailed in the world as a being that can live without food or sleepis from a man. By improving society in its present form, we are makingno more advances towards such a state of things as he pictures than weshould make approaches towards a line, with regard to which we werewalking parallel. The question, therefore, is whether, by looking tosuch a form of society as our polar star, we are likely to advance orretard the improvement of the human species? Mr Godwin appears to me tohave decided this question against himself in his essay on 'Avarice andProfusion' in the Enquirer. 

Dr Adam Smith has very justly observed that nations as well asindividuals grow rich by parsimony and poor by profusion, and that, therefore, every frugal man was a friend and every spendthrift an enemyto his country. The reason he gives is that what is saved from revenueis always added to stock, and is therefore taken from the maintenanceof labour that is generally unproductive and employed in themaintenance of labour that realizes itself in valuable commodities. Noobservation can be more evidently just. The subject of Mr Godwin'sessay is a little similar in its first appearance, but in essence is asdistinct as possible. He considers the mischief of profusion as anacknowledged truth, and therefore makes his comparison between theavaricious man, and the man who spends his income. But the avariciousman of Mr Godwin is totally a distinct character, at least with regardto his effect upon the prosperity of the state, from the frugal man ofDr Adam Smith. The frugal man in order to make more money saves fromhis income and adds to his capital, and this capital he either employshimself in the maintenance of productive labour, or he lends it to someother person who will probably employ it in this way. He benefits thestate because he adds to its general capital, and because wealthemployed as capital not only sets in motion more labour than when spentas income, but the labour is besides of a more valuable kind. But theavaricious man of Mr Godwin locks up his wealth in a chest and sets inmotion no labour of any kind, either productive or unproductive. Thisis so essential a difference that Mr Godwin's decision in his essayappears at once as evidently false as Dr Adam Smith's position isevidently true. It could not, indeed, but occur to Mr Godwin that somepresent inconvenience might arise to the poor from thus locking up thefunds destined for the maintenance of labour. The only way, therefore, he had of weakening this objection was to compare the two characterschiefly with regard to their tendency to accelerate the approach ofthat happy state of cultivated equality, on which he says we oughtalways to fix our eyes as our polar star. 

I think it has been proved in the former parts of this essay that sucha state of society is absolutely impracticable. What consequences thenare we to expect from looking to such a point as our guide and polarstar in the great sea of political discovery? Reason would teach us toexpect no other than winds perpetually adverse, constant but fruitlesstoil, frequent shipwreck, and certain misery. We shall not only fail inmaking the smallest real approach towards such a perfect form ofsociety; but by wasting our strength of mind and body, in a directionin which it is impossible to proceed, and by the frequent distresswhich we must necessarily occasion by our repeated failures, we shallevidently impede that degree of improvement in society, which is reallyattainable. 

It has appeared that a society constituted according to Mr Godwin'ssystem must, from the inevitable laws of our nature, degenerate into aclass of proprietors and a class of labourers, and that thesubstitution of benevolence for self-love as the moving principle ofsociety, instead of producing the happy effects that might be expectedfrom so fair a name, would cause the same pressure of want to be feltby the whole of society, which is now felt only by a part. It is to theestablished administration of property and to the apparently narrowprinciple of self-love that we are indebted for all the noblestexertions of human genius, all the finer and more delicate emotions ofthe soul, for everything, indeed, that distinguishes the civilized fromthe savage state; and no sufficient change has as yet taken place inthe nature of civilized man to enable us to say that he either is, orever will be, in a state when he may safely throw down the ladder bywhich he has risen to this eminence. 

If in every society that has advanced beyond the savage state, a classof proprietors and a class of labourers must necessarily exist, it isevident that, as labour is the only property of the class of labourers, every thing that tends to diminish the value of this property must tendto diminish the possession of this part of society. The only way that apoor man has of supporting himself in independence is by the exertionof his bodily strength. This is the only commodity he has to give inexchange for the necessaries of life. It would hardly appear then thatyou benefit him by narrowing the market for this commodity, bydecreasing the demand for labour, and lessening the value of the onlyproperty that he possesses. 

It should be observed that the principal argument of this Essay onlygoes to prove the necessity of a class of proprietors, and a class oflabourers, but by no means infers that the present great inequality ofproperty is either necessary or useful to society. On the contrary, itmust certainly be considered as an evil, and every institution thatpromotes it is essentially bad and impolitic. But whether a governmentcould with advantage to society actively interfere to repressinequality of fortunes may be a matter of doubt. Perhaps the generoussystem of perfect liberty adopted by Dr Adam Smith and the Frencheconomists would be ill exchanged for any system of restraint. 

Mr Godwin would perhaps say that the whole system of barter andexchange is a vile and iniquitous traffic. If you would essentiallyrelieve the poor man, you should take a part of his labour uponyourself, or give him your money, without exacting so severe a returnfor it. In answer to the first method proposed, it may be observed, that even if the rich could be persuaded to assist the poor in thisway, the value of the assistance would be comparatively trifling. Therich, though they think themselves of great importance, bear but asmall proportion in point of numbers to the poor, and would, therefore, relieve them but of a small part of their burdens by taking a share. Were all those that are employed in the labours of luxuries added tothe number of those employed in producing necessaries, and could thesenecessary labours be amicably divided among all, each man's share mightindeed be comparatively light; but desirable as such an amicabledivision would undoubtedly be, I cannot conceive any practicalprinciple according to which it could take place. It has been shewn, that the spirit of benevolence, guided by the strict impartial justicethat Mr Godwin describes, would, if vigorously acted upon, depress inwant and misery the whole human race. Let us examine what would be theconsequence, if the proprietor were to retain a decent share forhimself, but to give the rest away to the poor, without exacting a taskfrom them in return. Not to mention the idleness and the vice that sucha proceeding, if general, would probably create in the present state ofsociety, and the great risk there would be, of diminishing the produceof land, as well as the labours of luxury, another objection yetremains. 

Mr Godwin seems to have but little respect for practical principles;but I own it appears to me, that he is a much greater benefactor tomankind, who points out how an inferior good may be attained, than hewho merely expatiates on the deformity of the present state of society, and the beauty of a different state, without pointing out a practicalmethod, that might be immediately applied, of accelerating our advancesfrom the one, to the other. 

It has appeared that from the principle of population more will alwaysbe in want than can be adequately supplied. The surplus of the rich manmight be sufficient for three, but four will be desirous to obtain it. He cannot make this selection of three out of the four withoutconferring a great favour on those that are the objects of his choice. These persons must consider themselves as under a great obligation tohim and as dependent upon him for their support. The rich man wouldfeel his power and the poor man his dependence, and the evil effects ofthese two impressions on the human heart are well known. Though Iperfectly agree with Mr Godwin therefore in the evil of hard labour, yet I still think it a less evil, and less calculated to debase thehuman mind, than dependence, and every history of man that we have everread places in a strong point of view the danger to which that mind isexposed which is entrusted with constant power. 

In the present state of things, and particularly when labour is inrequest, the man who does a day's work for me confers full as great anobligation upon me as I do upon him. I possess what he wants, hepossesses what I want. We make an amicable exchange. The poor man walkserect in conscious independence; and the mind of his employer is notvitiated by a sense of power. 

Three or four hundred years ago there was undoubtedly much less labourin England, in proportion to the population, than at present, but therewas much more dependence, and we probably should not now enjoy ourpresent degree of civil liberty if the poor, by the introduction ofmanufactures, had not been enabled to give something in exchange forthe provisions of the great Lords, instead of being dependent upontheir bounty. Even the greatest enemies of trade and manufactures, andI do not reckon myself a very determined friend to them, must allowthat when they were introduced into England, liberty came in theirtrain. 

Nothing that has been said tends in the most remote degree toundervalue the principle of benevolence. It is one of the noblest andmost godlike qualities of the human heart, generated, perhaps, slowlyand gradually from self-love, and afterwards intended to act as ageneral law, whose kind office it should be, to soften the partialdeformities, to correct the asperities, and to smooth the wrinkles ofits parent: and this seems to be the analog of all nature. Perhapsthere is no one general law of nature that will not appear, to us atleast, to produce partial evil; and we frequently observe at the sametime, some bountiful provision which, acting as another general law, corrects the inequalities of the first. 

The proper office of benevolence is to soften the partial evils arisingfrom self-love, but it can never be substituted in its place. If no manwere to allow himself to act till he had completely determined that theaction he was about to perform was more conducive than any other to thegeneral good, the most enlightened minds would hesitate in perplexityand amazement; and the unenlightened would be continually committingthe grossest mistakes. 

As Mr Godwin, therefore, has not laid down any practical principleaccording to which the necessary labours of agriculture might beamicably shared among the whole class of labourers, by generalinvectives against employing the poor he appears to pursue anunattainable good through much present evil. For if every man whoemploys the poor ought to be considered as their enemy, and as addingto the weight of their oppressions, and if the miser is for this reasonto be preferred to the man who spends his income, it follows that anynumber of men who now spend their incomes might, to the advantage ofsociety, be converted into misers. Suppose then that a hundred thousandpersons who now employ ten men each were to lock up their wealth fromgeneral use, it is evident, that a million of working men of differentkinds would be completely thrown out of all employment. The extensivemisery that such an event would produce in the present state of societyMr Godwin himself could hardly refuse to acknowledge, and I questionwhether he might not find some difficulty in proving that a conduct ofthis kind tended more than the conduct of those who spend their incomesto 'place human beings in the condition in which they ought to beplaced. ' But Mr Godwin says that the miser really locks up nothing, that the point has not been rightly understood, and that the truedevelopment and definition of the nature of wealth have not beenapplied to illustrate it. Having defined therefore wealth, very justly, to be the commodities raised and fostered by human labour, he observesthat the miser locks up neither corn, nor oxen, nor clothes, norhouses. Undoubtedly he does not really lock up these articles, but helocks up the power of producing them, which is virtually the same. These things are certainly used and consumed by his contemporaries, astruly, and to as great an extent, as if he were a beggar; but not to asgreat an extent as if he had employed his wealth in turning up moreland, in breeding more oxen, in employing more tailors, and in buildingmore houses. But supposing, for a moment, that the conduct of the miserdid not tend to check any really useful produce, how are all those whoare thrown out of employment to obtain patents which they may shew inorder to be awarded a proper share of the food and raiment produced bythe society? This is the unconquerable difficulty. 

I am perfectly willing to concede to Mr Godwin that there is much morelabour in the world than is really necessary, and that, if the lowerclasses of society could agree among themselves never to work more thansix or seven hours in the day, the commodities essential to humanhappiness might still be produced in as great abundance as at present. But it is almost impossible to conceive that such an agreement could beadhered to. From the principle of population, some would necessarily bemore in want than others. Those that had large families would naturallybe desirous of exchanging two hours more of their labour for an amplerquantity of subsistence. How are they to be prevented from making thisexchange? it would be a violation of the first and most sacred propertythat a man possesses to attempt, by positive institutions, to interferewith his command over his own labour. 

Till Mr Godwin, therefore, can point out some practical plan accordingto which the necessary labour in a society might be equitably divided, his invectives against labour, if they were attended to, wouldcertainly produce much present evil without approximating us to thatstate of cultivated equality to which he looks forward as his polarstar, and which, he seems to think, should at present be our guide indetermining the nature and tendency of human actions. A mariner guidedby such a polar star is in danger of shipwreck. 

Perhaps there is no possible way in which wealth could in general beemployed so beneficially to a state, and particularly to the lowerorders of it, as by improving and rendering productive that land whichto a farmer would not answer the expense of cultivation. Had Mr Godwinexerted his energetic eloquence in painting the superior worth andusefulness of the character who employed the poor in this way, to himwho employed them in narrow luxuries, every enlightened man must haveapplauded his efforts. The increasing demand for agricultural labourmust always tend to better the condition of the poor; and if theaccession of work be of this kind, so far is it from being true thatthe poor would be obliged to work ten hours for the same price thatthey before worked eight, that the very reverse would be the fact; anda labourer might then support his wife and family as well by the labourof six hours as he could before by the labour of eight. 

The labour created by luxuries, though useful in distributing theproduce of the country, without vitiating the proprietor by power, ordebasing the labourer by dependence, has not, indeed, the samebeneficial effects on the state of the poor. A great accession of workfrom manufacturers, though it may raise the price of labour even morethan an increasing demand for agricultural labour, yet, as in this casethe quantity of food in the country may not be proportionablyincreasing, the advantage to the poor will be but temporary, as theprice of provisions must necessarily rise in proportion to the price oflabour. Relative to this subject, I cannot avoid venturing a fewremarks on a part of Dr Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, speaking at thesame time with that diffidence which I ought certainly to feel indiffering from a person so justly celebrated in the political world. 

CHAPTER 16

Probable error of Dr Adam Smith in representing every increase of therevenue or stock of a society as an increase in the funds for themaintenance of labour--Instances where an increase of wealth can haveno tendency to better the condition of the labouring poor--England hasincreased in riches without a proportional increase in the funds forthe maintenance of labour--The state of the poor in China would not beimproved by an increase of wealth from manufactures. 

The professed object of Dr Adam Smith's inquiry is the nature andcauses of the wealth of nations. There is another inquiry, however, perhaps still more interesting, which he occasionally mixes with it; Imean an inquiry into the causes which affect the happiness of nationsor the happiness and comfort of the lower orders of society, which isthe most numerous class in every nation. I am sufficiency aware of thenear connection of these two subjects, and that the causes which tendto increase the wealth of a state tend also, generally speaking, toincrease the happiness of the lower classes of the people. But perhapsDr Adam Smith has considered these two inquiries as still more nearlyconnected than they really are; at least, he has not stopped to takenotice of those instances where the wealth of a society may increase(according to his definition of 'wealth') without having any tendencyto increase the comforts of the labouring part of it. I do not mean toenter into a philosophical discussion of what constitutes the properhappiness of man, but shall merely consider two universallyacknowledged ingredients, health, and the command of the necessariesand conveniences of life. 

Little or no doubt can exist that the comforts of the labouring poordepend upon the increase of the funds destined for the maintenance oflabour, and will be very exactly in proportion to the rapidity of thisincrease. The demand for labour which such increase would occasion, bycreating a competition in the market, must necessarily raise the valueof labour, and, till the additional number of hands required werereared, the increased funds would be distributed to the same number ofpersons as before the increase, and therefore every labourer would livecomparatively at his ease. But perhaps Dr Adam Smith errs inrepresenting every increase of the revenue or stock of a society as anincrease of these funds. Such surplus stock or revenue will, indeed, always be considered by the individual possessing it as an additionalfund from which he may maintain more labour: but it will not be a realand effectual fund for the maintenance of an additional number oflabourers, unless the whole, or at least a great part of this increaseof the stock or revenue of the society, be convertible into aproportional quantity of provisions; and it will not be so convertiblewhere the increase has arisen merely from the produce of labour, andnot from the produce of land. A distinction will in this case occur, between the number of hands which the stock of the society couldemploy, and the number which its territory can maintain. 

To explain myself by an instance. Dr Adam Smith defines the wealth of anation to consist. In the annual produce of its land and labour. Thisdefinition evidently includes manufactured produce, as well as theproduce of the land. Now supposing a nation for a course of years wasto add what it saved from its yearly revenue to its manufacturingcapital solely, and not to its capital employed upon land, it isevident that it might grow richer according to the above definition, without a power of supporting a greater number of labourers, and, therefore, without an increase in the real funds for the maintenance oflabour. There would, notwithstanding, be a demand for labour from thepower which each manufacturer would possess, or at least think hepossessed, of extending his old stock in trade or of setting up freshworks. This demand would of course raise the price of labour, but ifthe yearly stock of provisions in the country was not increasing, thisrise would soon turn out to be merely nominal, as the price ofprovisions must necessarily rise with it. The demand for manufacturinglabourers might, indeed, entice many from agriculture and thus tend todiminish the annual produce of the land, but we will suppose any effectof this kind to be compensated by improvements in the instruments ofagriculture, and the quantity of provisions therefore to remain thesame. Improvements in manufacturing machinery would of course takeplace, and this circumstance, added to the greater number of handsemployed in manufactures, would cause the annual produce of the labourof the country to be upon the whole greatly increased. The wealththerefore of the country would be increasing annually, according to thedefinition, and might not, perhaps, be increasing very slowly. 

The question is whether wealth, increasing in this way, has anytendency to better the condition of the labouring poor. It is aself-evident proposition that any general rise in the price of labour, the stock of provisions remaining the same, can only be a nominal rise, as it must very shortly be followed by a proportional rise in the priceof provisions. The increase in the price of labour, therefore, which wehave supposed, would have little or no effect in giving the labouringpoor a greater command over the necessaries and conveniences of life. In this respect they would be nearly in the same state as before. Inone other respect they would be in a worse state. A greater proportionof them would be employed in manufactures, and fewer, consequently, inagriculture. And this exchange of professions will be allowed, I think, by all, to be very unfavourable in respect of health, one essentialingredient of happiness, besides the greater uncertainty ofmanufacturing labour, arising from the capricious taste of man, theaccidents of war, and other causes. 

It may be said, perhaps, that such an instance as I have supposed couldnot occur, because the rise in the price of provisions wouldimmediately turn some additional capital into the channel ofagriculture. But this is an event which may take place very slowly, asit should be remarked that a rise in the price of labour had precededthe rise of provisions, and would, therefore, impede the good effectsupon agriculture, which the increased value of the produce of the landmight otherwise have occasioned. 

It might also be said, that the additional capital of the nation wouldenable it to import provisions sufficient for the maintenance of thosewhom its stock could employ. A small country with a large navy, andgreat inland accommodations for carriage, such as Holland, may, indeed, import and distribute an effectual quantity of provisions; but theprice of provisions must be very high to make such an importation anddistribution answer in large countries less advantageouslycircumstanced in this respect. 

An instance, accurately such as I have supposed, may not, perhaps, everhave occurred, but I have little doubt that instances nearlyapproximating to it may be found without any very laborious search. Indeed I am strongly inclined to think that England herself, since theRevolution, affords a very striking elucidation of the argument inquestion. 

The commerce of this country, internal as well as external, hascertainly been rapidly advancing during the last century. Theexchangeable value in the market of Europe of the annual produce of itsland and labour has, without doubt, increased very considerably. But, upon examination, it will be found that the increase has been chieflyin the produce of labour and not in the produce of land, and therefore, though the wealth of the nation has been advancing with a quick pace, the effectual funds for the maintenance of labour have been increasingvery slowly, and the result is such as might be expected. Theincreasing wealth of the nation has had little or no tendency to betterthe condition of the labouring poor. They have not, I believe, agreater command of the necessaries and conveniences of life, and a muchgreater proportion of them than at the period of the Revolution isemployed in manufactures and crowded together in close and unwholesomerooms. 

Could we believe the statement of Dr Price that the population ofEngland has decreased since the Revolution, it would even appear thatthe effectual funds for the maintenance of labour had been decliningduring the progress of wealth in other respects. For I conceive that itmay be laid down as a general rule that if the effectual funds for themaintenance of labour are increasing, that is, if the territory canmaintain as well as the stock employ a greater number of labourers, this additional number will quickly spring up, even in spite of suchwars as Dr Price enumerates. And, consequently, if the population ofany country has been stationary, or declining, we may safely infer, that, however it may have advanced in manufacturing wealth, itseffectual funds for the maintenance of labour cannot have increased. 

It is difficult, however, to conceive that the population of Englandhas been declining since the Revolution, though every testimony concursto prove that its increase, if it has increased, has been very slow. Inthe controversy which the question has occasioned, Dr Price undoubtedlyappears to be much more completely master of his subject, and topossess more accurate information, than his opponents. Judging simplyfrom this controversy, I think one should say that Dr Price's point isnearer being proved than Mr Howlett's. Truth, probably, lies betweenthe two statements, but this supposition makes the increase ofpopulation since the Revolution to have been very slow in comparisonwith the increase of wealth. 

That the produce of the land has been decreasing, or even that it hasbeen absolutely stationary during the last century, few will bedisposed to believe. The enclosure of commons and waste lands certainlytends to increase the food of the country, but it has been assertedwith confidence that the enclosure of common fields has frequently hada contrary effect, and that large tracts of land which formerlyproduced great quantities of corn, by being converted into pasture bothemploy fewer hands and feed fewer mouths than before their enclosure. It is, indeed, an acknowledged truth, that pasture land produces asmaller quantity of human subsistence than corn land of the samenatural fertility, and could it be clearly ascertained that from theincreased demand for butchers' meat of the best quality, and itsincreased price in consequence, a greater quantity of good land hasannually been employed in grazing, the diminution of human subsistence, which this circumstance would occasion, might have counterbalanced theadvantages derived from the enclosure of waste lands, and the generalimprovements in husbandry. 

It scarcely need be remarked that the high price of butchers' meat atpresent, and its low price formerly, were not caused by the scarcity inthe one case or the plenty in the other, but by the different expensesustained at the different periods, in preparing cattle for the market. It is, however, possible, that there might have been more cattle ahundred years ago in the country than at present; but no doubt can beentertained, that there is much more meat of a superior quality broughtto market at present than ever there was. When the price of butchers'meat was very low, cattle were reared chiefly upon waste lands; andexcept for some of the principal markets, were probably killed with butlittle other fatting. The veal that is sold so cheap in some distantcounties at present bears little other resemblance than the name, tothat which is bought in London. Formerly, the price of butchers, meatwould not pay for rearing, and scarcely for feeding, cattle on landthat would answer in tillage; but the present price will not only payfor fatting cattle on the very best land, but will even allow of therearing many, on land that would bear good crops of corn. The samenumber of cattle, or even the same weight of cattle at the differentperiods when killed, will have consumed (if I may be allowed theexpression) very different quantities of human substance. A fattedbeast may in some respects be considered, in the language of the Frencheconomists, as an unproductive labourer: he has added nothing to thevalue of the raw produce that he has consumed. The present system ofgrating, undoubtedly tends more than the former system to diminish thequantity of human subsistence in the country, in proportion to thegeneral fertility of the land. 

I would not by any means be understood to say that the former systemeither could or ought to have continued. The increasing price ofbutchers' meat is a natural and inevitable consequence of the generalprogress of cultivation; but I cannot help thinking, that the presentgreat demand for butchers' meat of the best quality, and the quantityof good land that is in consequence annually employed to produce it, together with the great number of horses at present kept for pleasure, are the chief causes that have prevented the quantity of human food inthe country from keeping pace with the generally increased fertility ofthe soil; and a change of custom in these respects would, I have littledoubt, have a very sensible effect on the quantity of subsistence inthe country, and consequently on its population. 

The employment of much of the most fertile land in grating, theimprovements in agricultural instruments, the increase of large farms, and particularly the diminution of the number of cottages throughoutthe kingdom, all concur to prove, that there are not probably so manypersons employed in agricultural labour now as at the period of theRevolution. Whatever increase of population, therefore, has takenplace, must be employed almost wholly in manufactures, and it is wellknown that the failure of some of these manufactures, merely from thecaprice of fashion, such as the adoption of muslins instead of silks, or of shoe-strings and covered buttons, instead of buckles and metalbuttons, combined with the restraints in the market of labour arisingfrom corporation and parish laws, have frequently driven thousands oncharity for support. The great increase of the poor rates is, indeed, of itself a strong evidence that the poor have not a greater command ofthe necessaries and conveniences of life, and if to the consideration, that their condition in this respect is rather worse than better, beadded the circumstance, that a much greater proportion of them isemployed in large manufactories, unfavourable both to health andvirtue, it must be acknowledged, that the increase of wealth of lateyears has had no tendency to increase the happiness of the labouringpoor. 

That every increase of the stock or revenue of a nation cannot beconsidered as an increase of the real funds for the maintenance oflabour and, therefore, cannot have the same good effect upon thecondition of the poor, will appear in a strong light if the argument beapplied to China. 

Dr Adam Smith observes that China has probably long been as rich as thenature of her laws and institutions will admit, but that with otherlaws and institutions, and if foreign commerce were had in honour, shemight still be much richer. The question is, would such an increase ofwealth be an increase of the real funds for the maintenance of labour, and consequently tend to place the lower classes of people in China ina state of greater plenty?

It is evident, that if trade and foreign commerce were held in greathonour in China, from the plenty of labourers, and the cheapness oflabour, she might work up manufactures for foreign sale to an immenseamount. It is equally evident that from the great bulk of provisionsand the amazing extent of her inland territory she could not in returnimport such a quantity as would be any sensible addition to the annualstock of subsistence in the country. Her immense amount ofmanufactures, therefore, she would exchange, chiefly, for luxuriescollected from all parts of the world. At present, it appears, that nolabour whatever is spared in the production of food. The country israther over-people in proportion to what its stock can employ, andlabour is, therefore, so abundant, that no pains are taken to abridgeit. The consequence of this is, probably, the greatest production offood that the soil can possibly afford, for it will be generallyobserved, that processes for abridging labour, though they may enable afarmer to bring a certain quantity of grain cheaper to market, tendrather to diminish than increase the whole produce; and in agriculture, therefore, may, in some respects, be considered rather as private thanpublic advantages. 

An immense capital could not be employed in China in preparingmanufactures for foreign trade without taking off so many labourersfrom agriculture as to alter this state of things, and in some degreeto diminish the produce of the country. The demand for manufacturinglabourers would naturally raise the price of labour, but as thequantity of subsistence would not be increased, the price of provisionswould keep pace with it, or even more than keep pace with it if thequantity of provisions were really decreasing. The country would beevidently advancing in wealth, the exchangeable value of the annualproduce of its land and labour would be annually augmented, yet thereal funds for the maintenance of labour would be stationary, or evendeclining, and, consequently, the increasing wealth of the nation wouldrather tend to depress than to raise the condition of the poor. Withregard to the command over the necessaries and comforts of life, theywould be in the same or rather worse state than before; and a greatpart of them would have exchanged the healthy labours of agriculturefor the unhealthy occupations of manufacturing industry. 

The argument, perhaps, appears clearer when applied to China, becauseit is generally allowed that the wealth of China has been longstationary. With regard to any other country it might be always amatter of dispute at which of the two periods, compared, wealth wasincreasing the fastest, as it is upon the rapidity of the increase ofwealth at any particular period that Dr Adam Smith says the conditionof the poor depends. It is evident, however, that two nations mightincrease exactly with the same rapidity in the exchangeable value ofthe annual produce of their land and labour, yet if one had applieditself chiefly to agriculture, and the other chiefly to commerce, thefunds for the maintenance of labour, and consequently the effect of theincrease of wealth in each nation, would be extremely different. Inthat which had applied itself chiefly to agriculture, the poor wouldlive in great plenty, and population would rapidly increase. In thatwhich had applied itself chiefly to commerce, the poor would becomparatively but little benefited and consequently population wouldincrease slowly. 

CHAPTER 17

Question of the proper definition of the wealth of a state--Reasongiven by the French economists for considering all manufacturers asunproductive labourers, not the true reason--The labour of artificersand manufacturers sufficiently productive to individuals, though not tothe state--A remarkable passage in Dr Price's two volumes ofObservations--Error of Dr Price in attributing the happiness and rapidpopulation of America, chiefly, to its peculiar state ofcivilization--No advantage can be expected from shutting our eyes tothe difficulties in the way to the improvement of society. 

A question seems naturally to arise here whether the exchangeable valueof the annual produce of the land and labour be the proper definitionof the wealth of a country, or whether the gross produce of the land, according to the French economists, may not be a more accuratedefinition. Certain it is that every increase of wealth, according tothe definition of the economists, will be an increase of the funds forthe maintenance of labour, and consequently will always tend toameliorate the condition of the labouring poor, though an increase ofwealth, according to Dr Adam Smith's definition, will by no meansinvariably have the same tendency. And yet it may not follow from thisconsideration that Dr Adam Smith's definition is not just. It seems inmany respects improper to exclude the clothing and lodging of a wholepeople from any part of their revenue. Much of it may, indeed, be ofvery trivial and unimportant value in comparison with the food of thecountry, yet still it may be fairly considered as a part of itsrevenue; and, therefore, the only point in which I should differ fromDr Adam Smith is where he seems to consider every increase of therevenue or stock of a society as an increase of the funds for themaintenance of labour, and consequently as tending always to amelioratethe condition of the poor. 

The fine silks and cottons, the laces, and other ornamental luxuries ofa rich country, may contribute very considerably to augment theexchangeable value of its annual produce; yet they contribute but in avery small degree to augment the mass of happiness in the society, andit appears to me that it is with some view to the real utility of theproduce that we ought to estimate the productiveness orunproductiveness of different sorts of labour. The French economistsconsider all labour employed in manufactures as unproductive. Comparingit with the labour employed upon land, I should be perfectly disposedto agree with them, but not exactly for the reasons which they give. They say that labour employed upon land is productive because theproduce, over and above completely paying the labourer and the farmer, affords a clear rent to the landlord, and that the labour employed upona piece of lace is unproductive because it merely replaces theprovisions that the workman had consumed, and the stock of hisemployer, without affording any clear rent whatever. But supposing thevalue of the wrought lace to be such as that, besides paying in themost complete manner the workman and his employer, it could afford aclear rent to a third person, it appears to me that, in comparison withthe labour employed upon land, it would be still as unproductive asever. Though, according to the reasoning used by the French economists, the man employed in the manufacture of lace would, in this case, seemto be a productive labourer. Yet according to their definition of thewealth of a state, he ought not to be considered in that light. He willhave added nothing to the gross produce of the land: he has consumed aportion of this gross produce, and has left a bit of lace in return;and though he may sell this bit of lace for three times the quantity ofprovisions that he consumed whilst he was making it, and thus be a veryproductive labourer with regard to himself, yet he cannot be consideredas having added by his labour to any essential part of the riches ofthe state. The clear rent, therefore, that a certain produce canafford, after paying the expenses of procuring it, does not appear tobe the sole criterion, by which to judge of the productiveness orunproductiveness to a state of any particular species of labour. 

Suppose that two hundred thousand men, who are now employed inproducing manufactures that only tend to gratify the vanity of a fewrich people, were to be employed upon some barren and uncultivatedlands, and to produce only half the quantity of food that theythemselves consumed; they would be still more productive labourers withregard to the state than they were before, though their labour, so farfrom affording a rent to a third person, would but half replace theprovisions used in obtaining the produce. In their former employmentthey consumed a certain portion of the food of the country and left inreturn some silks and laces. In their latter employment they consumedthe same quantity of food and left in return provision for a hundredthousand men. There can be little doubt which of the two legacies wouldbe the most really beneficial to the country, and it will, I think, beallowed that the wealth which supported the two hundred thousand menwhile they were producing silks and laces would have been more usefullyemployed in supporting them while they were producing the additionalquantity of food. 

A capital employed upon land may be unproductive to the individual thatemploys it and yet be highly productive to the society. A capitalemployed in trade, on the contrary, may be highly productive to theindividual, and yet be almost totally unproductive to the society: andthis is the reason why I should call manufacturing labour unproductive, in comparison of that which is employed in agriculture, and not for thereason given by the French economists. It is, indeed, almost impossibleto see the great fortunes that are made in trade, and the liberalitywith which so many merchants live, and yet agree in the statement ofthe economists, that manufacturers can only grow rich by deprivingthemselves of the funds destined for their support. In many branches oftrade the profits are so great as would allow of a clear rent to athird person; but as there is no third person in the case, and as allthe profits centre in the master manufacturer, or merchant, he seems tohave a fair chance of growing rich, without much privation; and weconsequently see large fortunes acquired in trade by persons who havenot been remarked for their parsimony. 

Daily experience proves that the labour employed in trade andmanufactures is sufficiently productive to individuals, but itcertainly is not productive in the same degree to the state. Everyaccession to the food of a country tends to the immediate benefit ofthe whole society; but the fortunes made in trade tend but in a remoteand uncertain manner to the same end, and in some respects have even acontrary tendency. The home trade of consumption is by far the mostimportant trade of every nation. China is the richest country in theworld, without any other. Putting then, for a moment, foreign trade outof the question, the man who, by an ingenious manufacture, obtains adouble portion out of the old stock of provisions, will certainly notto be so useful to the state as the man who, by his labour, adds asingle share to the former stock. The consumable commodities of silks, laces, trinkets, and expensive furniture, are undoubtedly a part of therevenue of the society; but they are the revenue only of the rich, andnot of the society in general. An increase in this part of the revenueof a state, cannot, therefore, be considered of the same importance asan increase of food, which forms the principal revenue of the greatmass of the people. 

Foreign commerce adds to the wealth of a state, according to Dr AdamSmith's definition, though not according to the definition of theeconomists. Its principal use, and the reason, probably, that it has ingeneral been held in such high estimation is that it adds greatly tothe external power of a nation or to its power of commanding the labourof other countries; but it will be found, upon a near examination, tocontribute but little to the increase of the internal funds for themaintenance of labour, and consequently but little to the happiness ofthe greatest part of society. In the natural progress of a statetowards riches, manufactures, and foreign commerce would follow, intheir order, the high cultivation of the soil. In Europe, this naturalorder of things has been inverted, and the soil has been cultivatedfrom the redundancy of manufacturing capital, instead of manufacturesrising from the redundancy of capital employed upon land. The superiorencouragement that has been given to the industry of the towns, and theconsequent higher price that is paid for the labour of artificers thanfor the labour of those employed in husbandry, are probably the reasonswhy so much soil in Europe remains uncultivated. Had a different policybeen pursued throughout Europe, it might undoubtedly have been muchmore populous than at present, and yet not be more incumbered by itspopulation. 

I cannot quit this curious subject of the difficulty arising frompopulation, a subject that appears to me to deserve a minuteinvestigation and able discussion much beyond my power to give it, without taking notice of an extraordinary passage in Dr Price's twovolumes of Observations. Having given some tables on the probabilitiesof life, in towns and in the country, he says (Vol. II, p. 243):

From this comparison, it appears with how much truth great cities havebeen called the graves of mankind. It must also convince all whoconsider it, that according to the observation, at the end of thefourth essay, in the former volume, it is by no means strictly properto consider our diseases as the original intention of nature. They are, without doubt, in general our own creation. Were there a country wherethe inhabitants led lives entirely natural and virtuous, few of themwould die without measuring out the whole period of present existenceallotted to them; pain and distemper would be unknown among them, anddeath would come upon them like a sleep, in consequence of no othercause than gradual and unavoidable decay. 

I own that I felt myself obliged to draw a very opposite conclusionfrom the facts advanced in Dr Price's two volumes. I had for some timebeen aware that population and food increased in different ratios, anda vague opinion had been floating in my mind that they could only bekept equal by some species of misery or vice, but the perusal of DrPrice's two volumes of Observations, after that opinion had beenconceived, raised it at once to conviction. With so many facts in hisview to prove the extraordinary rapidity with which populationincreases when unchecked, and with such a body of evidence before himto elucidate even the manner by which the general laws of naturerepress a redundant population, it is perfectly inconceivable to me howhe could write the passage that I have quoted. He was a strenuousadvocate for early marriages, as the best preservative against viciousmanners. He had no fanciful conceptions about the extinction of thepassion between the sexes, like Mr Godwin, nor did he ever think ofeluding the difficulty in the ways hinted at by Mr Condorcet. Hefrequently talks of giving the prolifick powers of nature room to exertthemselves. Yet with these ideas, that his understanding could escapefrom the obvious and necessary inference that an unchecked populationwould increase, beyond comparison, faster than the earth, by the bestdirected exertions of man, could produce food for its support, appearsto me as astonishing as if he had resisted the conclusion of one of theplainest propositions of Euclid. 

Dr Price, speaking of the different stages of the civilized state, says, 'The first, or simple stages of civilization, are those whichfavour most the increase and the happiness of mankind. ' He theninstances the American colonies, as being at that time in the first andhappiest of the states that he had described, and as affording a verystriking proof of the effects of the different stages of civilizationon population. But he does not seem to be aware that the happiness ofthe Americans depended much less upon their peculiar degree ofcivilization than upon the peculiarity of their situation, as newcolonies, upon their having a great plenty of fertile uncultivatedland. In parts of Norway, Denmark, or Sweden, or in this country, twoor three hundred years ago, he might have found perhaps nearly the samedegree of civilization, but by no means the same happiness or the sameincrease of population. He quotes himself a statute of Henry theEighth, complaining of the decay of tillage, and the enhanced price ofprovisions, 'whereby a marvellous number of people were renderedincapable of maintaining themselves and families. ' The superior degreeof civil liberty which prevailed in America contributed, without doubt, its share to promote the industry, happiness, and population of thesestates, but even civil liberty, all powerful as it is, will not createfresh land. The Americans may be said, perhaps, to enjoy a greaterdegree of civil liberty, now they are an independent people, than whilethey were in subjection in England, but we may be perfectly sure thatpopulation will not long continue to increase with the same rapidity asit did then. 

A person who contemplated the happy state of the lower classes ofpeople in America twenty years ago would naturally wish to retain themfor ever in that state, and might think, perhaps, that by preventingthe introduction of manufactures and luxury he might effect hispurpose, but he might as reasonably expect to prevent a wife ormistress from growing old by never exposing her to the sun or air. Thesituation of new colonies, well governed, is a bloom of youth that noefforts can arrest. There are, indeed, many modes of treatment in thepolitical, as well as animal, body, that contribute to accelerate orretard the approaches of age, but there can be no chance of success, inany mode that could be devised, for keeping either of them in perpetualyouth. By encouraging the industry of the towns more than the industryof the country, Europe may be said, perhaps, to have brought on apremature old age. A different policy in this respect would infusefresh life and vigour into every state. While from the law ofprimogeniture, and other European customs, land bears a monopoly price, a capital can never be employed in it with much advantage to theindividual; and, therefore, it is not probable that the soil should beproperly cultivated. And, though in every civilized state a class ofproprietors and a class of labourers must exist, yet one permanentadvantage would always result from a nearer equalization of property. The greater the number of proprietors, the smaller must be the numberof labourers: a greater part of society would be in the happy state ofpossessing property: and a smaller part in the unhappy state ofpossessing no other property than their labour. But the best directedexertions, though they may alleviate, can never remove the pressure ofwant, and it will be difficult for any person who contemplates thegenuine situation of man on earth, and the general laws of nature, tosuppose it possible that any, the most enlightened, efforts could placemankind in a state where 'few would die without measuring out the wholeperiod of present existence allotted to them; where pain and distemperwould be unknown among them; and death would come upon them like asleep, in consequence of no other cause than gradual and unavoidabledecay. '

It is, undoubtedly, a most disheartening reflection that the greatobstacle in the way to any extraordinary improvement in society is of anature that we can never hope to overcome. The perpetual tendency inthe race of man to increase beyond the means of subsistence is one ofthe general laws of animated nature which we can have no reason toexpect will change. Yet, discouraging as the contemplation of thisdifficulty must be to those whose exertions are laudably directed tothe improvement of the human species, it is evident that no possiblegood can arise from any endeavours to slur it over or keep it in thebackground. On the contrary, the most baleful mischiefs may be expectedfrom the unmanly conduct of not daring to face truth because it isunpleasing. Independently of what relates to this great obstacle, sufficient yet remains to be done for mankind to animate us to the mostunremitted exertion. But if we proceed without a thorough knowledge andaccurate comprehension of the nature, extent, and magnitude of thedifficulties we have to encounter, or if we unwisely direct our effortstowards an object in which we cannot hope for success, we shall notonly exhaust our strength in fruitless exertions and remain at as greata distance as ever from the summit of our wishes, but we shall beperpetually crushed by the recoil of this rock of Sisyphus. 

CHAPTER 18

The constant pressure of distress on man, from the principle ofpopulation, seems to direct our hopes to the future--State of trialinconsistent with our ideas of the foreknowledge of God--The world, probably, a mighty process for awakening matter into mind--Theory ofthe formation of mind--Excitements from the wants of thebody--Excitements from the operation of general laws--Excitements fromthe difficulties of life arising from the principle of population. 

The view of human life which results from the contemplation of theconstant pressure of distress on man from the difficulty ofsubsistence, by shewing the little expectation that he can reasonablyentertain of perfectibility on earth, seems strongly to point his hopesto the future. And the temptations to which he must necessarily beexposed, from the operation of those laws of nature which we have beenexamining, would seem to represent the world in the light in which ithas been frequently considered, as a state of trial and school ofvirtue preparatory to a superior state of happiness. But I hope I shallbe pardoned if I attempt to give a view in some degree different of thesituation of man on earth, which appears to me to be more consistentwith the various phenomena of nature which we observe around us andmore consonant to our ideas of the power, goodness, and foreknowledgeof the Deity. 

It cannot be considered as an unimproving exercise of the human mind toendeavour to 'vindicate the ways of God to man' if we proceed with aproper distrust of our own understandings and a just sense of ourinsufficiency to comprehend the reason of all we see, if we hail everyray of light with gratitude, and, when no light appears, think that thedarkness is from within and not from without, and bow with humbledeference to the supreme wisdom of him whose 'thoughts are above ourthoughts' 'as the heavens are high above the earth. '

In all our feeble attempts, however, to 'find out the Almighty toperfection', it seems absolutely necessary that we should reason fromnature up to nature's God and not presume to reason from God to nature. The moment we allow ourselves to ask why some things are not otherwise, instead of endeavouring to account for them as they are, we shall neverknow where to stop, we shall be led into the grossest and most childishabsurdities, all progress in the knowledge of the ways of Providencemust necessarily be at an end, and the study will even cease to be animproving exercise of the human mind. Infinite power is so vast andincomprehensible an idea that the mind of man must necessarily bebewildered in the contemplation of it. With the crude and puerileconceptions which we sometimes form of this attribute of the Deity, wemight imagine that God could call into being myriads and myriads ofexistences, all free from pain and imperfection, all eminent ingoodness and wisdom, all capable of the highest enjoyments, andunnumbered as the points throughout infinite space. But when from thesevain and extravagant dreams of fancy, we turn our eyes to the book ofnature, where alone we can read God as he is, we see a constantsuccession of sentient beings, rising apparently from so many specks ofmatter, going through a long and sometimes painful process in thisworld, but many of them attaining, ere the termination of it, such highqualities and powers as seem to indicate their fitness for somesuperior state. Ought we not then to correct our crude and puerileideas of infinite Power from the contemplation of what we actually seeexisting? Can we judge of the Creator but from his creation? And, unless we wish to exalt the power of God at the expense of hisgoodness, ought we not to conclude that even to the great Creator, almighty as he is, a certain process may be necessary, a certain time(or at least what appears to us as time) may be requisite, in order toform beings with those exalted qualities of mind which will fit themfor his high purposes?

A state of trial seems to imply a previously formed existence that doesnot agree with the appearance of man in infancy and indicates somethinglike suspicion and want of foreknowledge, inconsistent with those ideaswhich we wish to cherish of the Supreme Being. I should be inclined, therefore, as I have hinted before, to consider the world and this lifeas the mighty process of God, not for the trial, but for the creationand formation of mind, a process necessary to awaken inert, chaoticmatter into spirit, to sublimate the dust of the earth into soul, toelicit an ethereal spark from the clod of clay. And in this view of thesubject, the various impressions and excitements which man receivesthrough life may be considered as the forming hand of his Creator, acting by general laws, and awakening his sluggish existence, by theanimating touches of the Divinity, into a capacity of superiorenjoyment. The original sin of man is the torpor and corruption of thechaotic matter in which he may be said to be born. 

It could answer no good purpose to enter into the question whether mindbe a distinct substance from matter, or only a finer form of it. Thequestion is, perhaps, after all, a question merely of words. Mind is asessentially mind, whether formed from matter or any other substance. Weknow from experience that soul and body are most intimately united, andevery appearance seems to indicate that they grow from infancytogether. It would be a supposition attended with very littleprobability to believe that a complete and full formed spirit existedin every infant, but that it was clogged and impeded in its operationsduring the first twenty years of life by the weakness, or hebetude, ofthe organs in which it was enclosed. As we shall all be disposed toagree that God is the creator of mind as well as of body, and as theyboth seem to be forming and unfolding themselves at the same time, itcannot appear inconsistent either with reason or revelation, if itappear to be consistent with phenomena of nature, to suppose that Godis constantly occupied in forming mind out of matter and that thevarious impressions that man receives through life is the process forthat purpose. The employment is surely worthy of the highest attributesof the Deity. 

This view of the state of man on earth will not seem to be unattendedwith probability, if, judging from the little experience we have of thenature of mind, it shall appear upon investigation that the phenomenaaround us, and the various events of human life, seem peculiarlycalculated to promote this great end, and especially if, upon thissupposition, we can account, even to our own narrow understandings, formany of those roughnesses and inequalities in life which querulous mantoo frequently makes the subject of his complaint against the God ofnature. 

The first great awakeners of the mind seem to be the wants of the body. (It was my intention to have entered at some length into this subjectas a kind of second part to the Essay. A long interruption, fromparticular business, has obliged me to lay aside this intention, atleast for the present. I shall now, therefore, only give a sketch of afew of the leading circumstances that appear to me to favour thegeneral supposition that I have advanced. ) They are the firststimulants that rouse the brain of infant man into sentient activity, and such seems to be the sluggishness of original matter that unless bya peculiar course of excitements other wants, equally powerful, aregenerated, these stimulants seem, even afterwards, to be necessary tocontinue that activity which they first awakened. The savage wouldslumber for ever under his tree unless he were roused from his torporby the cravings of hunger or the pinchings of cold, and the exertionsthat he makes to avoid these evils, by procuring food, and buildinghimself a covering, are the exercises which form and keep in motion hisfaculties, which otherwise would sink into listless inactivity. Fromall that experience has taught us concerning the structure of the humanmind, if those stimulants to exertion which arise from the wants of thebody were removed from the mass of mankind, we have much more reason tothink that they would be sunk to the level of brutes, from a deficiencyof excitements, than that they would be raised to the rank ofphilosophers by the possession of leisure. In those countries wherenature is the most redundant in spontaneous produce the inhabitantswill not be found the most remarkable for acuteness of intellect. Necessity has been with great truth called the mother of invention. Some of the noblest exertions of the human mind have been set in motionby the necessity of satisfying the wants of the body. Want has notunfrequently given wings to the imagination of the poet, pointed theflowing periods of the historian, and added acuteness to the researchesof the philosopher, and though there are undoubtedly many minds atpresent so far improved by the various excitements of knowledge, or ofsocial sympathy, that they would not relapse into listlessness if theirbodily stimulants were removed, yet it can scarcely be doubted thatthese stimulants could not be withdrawn from the mass of mankindwithout producing a general and fatal torpor, destructive of all thegerms of future improvement. 

Locke, if I recollect, says that the endeavour to avoid pain ratherthan the pursuit of pleasure is the great stimulus to action in life:and that in looking to any particular pleasure, we shall not be rousedinto action in order to obtain it, till the contemplation of it hascontinued so long as to amount to a sensation of pain or uneasinessunder the absence of it. To avoid evil and to pursue good seem to bethe great duty and business of man, and this world appears to bepeculiarly calculated to afford opportunity of the most unremittedexertion of this kind, and it is by this exertion, by these stimulants, that mind is formed. If Locke's idea be just, and there is great reasonto think that it is, evil seems to be necessary to create exertion, andexertion seems evidently necessary to create mind. 

The necessity of food for the support of life gives rise, probably, toa greater quantity of exertion than any other want, bodily or mental. The Supreme Being has ordained that the earth shall not produce good ingreat quantities till much preparatory labour and ingenuity has beenexercised upon its surface. There is no conceivable connection to ourcomprehensions, between the seed and the plant or tree that rises fromit. The Supreme Creator might, undoubtedly, raise up plants of allkinds, for the use of his creatures, without the assistance of thoselittle bits of matter, which we call seed, or even without theassisting labour and attention of man. The processes of ploughing andclearing the ground, of collecting and sowing seeds, are not surely forthe assistance of God in his creation, but are made previouslynecessary to the enjoyment of the blessings of life, in order to rouseman into action, and form his mind to reason. 

To furnish the most unremitted excitements of this kind, and to urgeman to further the gracious designs of Providence by the fullcultivation of the earth, it has been ordained that population shouldincrease much faster than food. This general law (as it has appeared inthe former parts of this Essay) undoubtedly produces much partial evil, but a little reflection may, perhaps, satisfy us, that it produces agreat overbalance of good. Strong excitements seem necessary to createexertion, and to direct this exertion, and form the reasoning faculty, it seems absolutely necessary, that the Supreme Being should act alwaysaccording to general laws. The constancy of the laws of nature, or thecertainty with which we may expect the same effects from the samecauses, is the foundation of the faculty of reason. If in the ordinarycourse of things, the finger of God were frequently visible, or tospeak more correctly, if God were frequently to change his purpose (forthe finger of God is, indeed, visible in every blade of grass that wesee), a general and fatal torpor of the human faculties would probablyensue; even the bodily wants of mankind would cease to stimulate themto exertion, could they not reasonably expect that if their effortswere well directed they would be crowned with success. The constancy ofthe laws of nature is the foundation of the industry and foresight ofthe husbandman, the indefatigable ingenuity of the artificer, theskilful researches of the physician and anatomist, and the watchfulobservation and patient investigation of the natural philosopher. Tothis constancy we owe all the greatest and noblest efforts ofintellect. To this constancy we owe the immortal mind of a Newton. 

As the reasons, therefore, for the constancy of the laws of natureseem, even to our understandings, obvious and striking; if we return tothe principle of population and consider man as he really is, inert, sluggish, and averse from labour, unless compelled by necessity (and itis surely the height of folly to talk of man, according to our crudefancies of what he might be), we may pronounce with certainty that theworld would not have been peopled, but for the superiority of the powerof population to the means of subsistence. Strong and constantlyoperative as this stimulus is on man to urge him to the cultivation ofthe earth, if we still see that cultivation proceeds very slowly, wemay fairly conclude that a less stimulus would have been insufficient. Even under the operation of this constant excitement, savages willinhabit countries of the greatest natural fertility for a long periodbefore they betake themselves to pasturage or agriculture. Hadpopulation and food increased in the same ratio, it is probable thatman might never have emerged from the savage state. But supposing theearth once well peopled, an Alexander, a Julius Caesar, a Tamberlane, or a bloody revolution might irrecoverably thin the human race, anddefeat the great designs of the Creator. The ravages of a contagiousdisorder would be felt for ages; and an earthquake might unpeople aregion for ever. The principle, according to which populationincreases, prevents the vices of mankind, or the accidents of nature, the partial evils arising from general laws, from obstructing the highpurpose of the creation. It keeps the inhabitants of the earth alwaysfully up to the level of the means of subsistence; and is constantlyacting upon man as a powerful stimulus, urging him to the furthercultivation of the earth, and to enable it, consequently, to support amore extended population. But it is impossible that this law canoperate, and produce the effects apparently intended by the SupremeBeing, without occasioning partial evil. Unless the principle ofpopulation were to be altered according to the circumstances of eachseparate country (which would not only be contrary to our universalexperience, with regard to the laws of nature, but would contradicteven our own reason, which sees the absolute necessity of general lawsfor the formation of intellect), it is evident that the same principlewhich, seconded by industry, will people a fertile region in a fewyears must produce distress in countries that have been long inhabited. 

It seems, however, every way probable that even the acknowledgeddifficulties occasioned by the law of population tend rather to promotethan impede the general purpose of Providence. They excite universalexertion and contribute to that infinite variety of situations, andconsequently of impressions, which seems upon the whole favourable tothe growth of mind. It is probable, that too great or too littleexcitement, extreme poverty, or too great riches may be alikeunfavourable in this respect. The middle regions of society seem to bebest suited to intellectual improvement, but it is contrary to theanalogy of all nature to expect that the whole of society can be amiddle region. The temperate zones of the earth seem to be the mostfavourable to the mental and corporal energies of man, but all cannotbe temperate zones. A world, warmed and enlightened but by one sun, must from the laws of matter have some parts chilled by perpetualfrosts and others scorched by perpetual heats. Every piece of matterlying on a surface must have an upper and an under side, all theparticles cannot be in the middle. The most valuable parts of an oak, to a timber merchant, are not either the roots or the branches, butthese are absolutely necessary to the existence of the middle part, orstem, which is the object in request. The timber merchant could notpossibly expect to make an oak grow without roots or branches, but ifhe could find out a mode of cultivation which would cause more of thesubstance to go to stem, and less to root and branch, he would be rightto exert himself in bringing such a system into general use. 

In the same manner, though we cannot possibly expect to exclude richesand poverty from society, yet if we could find out a mode of governmentby which the numbers in the extreme regions would be lessened and thenumbers in the middle regions increased, it would be undoubtedly ourduty to adopt it. It is not, however, improbable that as in the oak, the roots and branches could not be diminished very greatly withoutweakening the vigorous circulation of the sap in the stem, so insociety the extreme parts could not be diminished beyond a certaindegree without lessening that animated exertion throughout the middleparts, which is the very cause that they are the most favourable to thegrowth of intellect. If no man could hope to rise or fear to fall, insociety, if industry did not bring with it its reward and idleness itspunishment, the middle parts would not certainly be what they now are. In reasoning upon this subject, it is evident that we ought to considerchiefly the mass of mankind and not individual instances. There areundoubtedly many minds, and there ought to be many, according to thechances out of so great a mass, that, having been vivified early by apeculiar course of excitements, would not need the constant action ofnarrow motives to continue them in activity. But if we were to reviewthe various useful discoveries, the valuable writings, and otherlaudable exertions of mankind, I believe we should find that more wereto be attributed to the narrow motives that operate upon the many thanto the apparently more enlarged motives that operate upon the few. 

Leisure is, without doubt, highly valuable to man, but taking man as heis, the probability seems to be that in the greater number of instancesit will produce evil rather than good. It has been not infrequentlyremarked that talents are more common among younger brothers than amongelder brothers, but it can scarcely be imagined that younger brothersare, upon an average, born with a greater original susceptibility ofparts. The difference, if there really is any observable difference, can only arise from their different situations. Exertion and activityare in general absolutely necessary in one case and are only optionalin the other. 

That the difficulties of life contribute to generate talents, everyday's experience must convince us. The exertions that men find itnecessary to make, in order to support themselves or families, frequently awaken faculties that might otherwise have lain for everdormant, and it has been commonly remarked that new and extraordinarysituations generally create minds adequate to grapple with thedifficulties in which they are involved. 

CHAPTER 19

The sorrows of life necessary to soften and humanize the heart--Theexcitement of social sympathy often produce characters of a higherorder than the mere possessors of talents--Moral evil probablynecessary to the production of moral excellence--Excitements fromintellectual wants continually kept up by the infinite variety ofnature, and the obscurity that involves metaphysical subjects--Thedifficulties in revelation to be accounted for upon this principle--Thedegree of evidence which the scriptures contain, probably, best suitedto the improvements of the human faculties, and the moral ameliorationof mankind--The idea that mind is created by excitements seems toaccount for the existence of natural and moral evil. 

The sorrows and distresses of life form another class of excitements, which seem to be necessary, by a peculiar train of impressions, tosoften and humanize the heart, to awaken social sympathy, to generateall the Christian virtues, and to afford scope for the ample exertionof benevolence. The general tendency of an uniform course of prosperityis rather to degrade than exalt the character. The heart that has neverknown sorrow itself will seldom be feelingly alive to the pains andpleasures, the wants and wishes, of its fellow beings. It will seldombe overflowing with that warmth of brotherly love, those kind andamiable affections, which dignify the human character even more thanthe possession of the highest talents. Talents, indeed, thoughundoubtedly a very prominent and fine feature of mind, can by no meansbe considered as constituting the whole of it. There are many mindswhich have not been exposed to those excitements that usually formtalents, that have yet been vivified to a high degree by theexcitements of social sympathy. In every rank of life, in the lowest asfrequently as in the highest, characters are to be found overflowingwith the milk of human kindness, breathing love towards God and man, and, though without those peculiar powers of mind called talents, evidently holding a higher rank in the scale of beings than many whopossess them. Evangelical charity, meekness, piety, and all that classof virtues distinguished particularly by the name of Christian virtuesdo not seem necessarily to include abilities; yet a soul possessed ofthese amiable qualities, a soul awakened and vivified by thesedelightful sympathies, seems to hold a nearer commerce with the skiesthan mere acuteness of intellect. 

The greatest talents have been frequently misapplied and have producedevil proportionate to the extent of their powers. Both reason andrevelation seem to assure us that such minds will be condemned toeternal death, but while on earth, these vicious instruments performedtheir part in the great mass of impressions, by the disgust andabhorrence which they excited. It seems highly probable that moral evilis absolutely necessary to the production of moral excellence. A beingwith only good placed in view may be justly said to be impelled by ablind necessity. The pursuit of good in this case can be no indicationof virtuous propensities. It might be said, perhaps, that infiniteWisdom cannot want such an indication as outward action, but wouldforeknow with certainly whether the being would choose good or evil. This might be a plausible argument against a state of trial, but willnot hold against the supposition that mind in this world is in a stateof formation. Upon this idea, the being that has seen moral evil andhas felt disapprobation and disgust at it is essentially different fromthe being that has seen only good. They are pieces of clay that havereceived distinct impressions: they must, therefore, necessarily be indifferent shapes; or, even if we allow them both to have the samelovely form of virtue, it must be acknowledged that one has undergonethe further process, necessary to give firmness and durability to itssubstance, while the other is still exposed to injury, and liable to bebroken by every accidental impulse. An ardent love and admiration ofvirtue seems to imply the existence of something opposite to it, and itseems highly probable that the same beauty of form and substance, thesame perfection of character, could not be generated without theimpressions of disapprobation which arise from the spectacle of moralevil. 

When the mind has been awakened into activity by the passions, and thewants of the body, intellectual wants arise; and the desire ofknowledge, and the impatience under ignorance, form a new and importantclass of excitements. Every part of nature seems peculiarly calculatedto furnish stimulants to mental exertion of this kind, and to offerinexhaustible food for the most unremitted inquiry. Our mortal Bardsays of Cleopatra:

 Custom cannot stale Her infinite variety. 

The expression, when applied to any one object, may be considered as apoetical amplification, but it is accurately true when applied tonature. Infinite variety seems, indeed, eminently her characteristicfeature. The shades that are here and there blended in the picture givespirit, life, and prominence to her exuberant beauties, and thoseroughnesses and inequalities, those inferior parts that support thesuperior, though they sometimes offend the fastidious microscopic eyeof short-sighted man, contribute to the symmetry, grace, and fairproportion of the whole. 

The infinite variety of the forms and operations of nature, besidestending immediately to awaken and improve the mind by the variety ofimpressions that it creates, opens other fertile sources of improvementby offering so wide and extensive a field for investigation andresearch. Uniform, undiversified perfection could not possess the sameawakening powers. When we endeavour then to contemplate the system ofthe universe, when we think of the stars as the suns of other systemsscattered throughout infinite space, when we reflect that we do notprobably see a millionth part of those bright orbs that are beaminglight and life to unnumbered worlds, when our minds, unable to graspthe immeasurable conception, sink, lost and confounded, in admirationat the mighty incomprehensible power of the Creator, let us notquerulously complain that all climates are not equally genial, thatperpetual spring does not reign throughout the year, that God'screatures do not possess the same advantages, that clouds and tempestssometimes darken the natural world and vice and misery the moral world, and that all the works of the creation are not formed with equalperfection. Both reason and experience seem to indicate to us that theinfinite variety of nature (and variety cannot exist without inferiorparts, or apparent blemishes) is admirably adapted to further the highpurpose of the creation and to produce the greatest possible quantityof good. 

The obscurity that involves all metaphysical subjects appears to me, inthe same manner, peculiarly calculated to add to that class ofexcitements which arise from the thirst of knowledge. It is probablethat man, while on earth, will never be able to attain completesatisfaction on these subjects; but this is by no means a reason thathe should not engage in them. The darkness that surrounds theseinteresting topics of human curiosity may be intended to furnishendless motives to intellectual activity and exertion. The constanteffort to dispel this darkness, even if it fail of success, invigoratesand improves the thinking faculty. If the subjects of human inquirywere once exhausted, mind would probably stagnate; but the infinitelydiversified forms and operations of nature, together with the endlessfood for speculation which metaphysical subjects offer, prevent thepossibility that such a period should ever arrive. 

It is by no means one of the wisest sayings of Solomon that 'there isno new thing under the sun. ' On the contrary, it is probable that werethe present system to continue for millions of years, continualadditions would be making to the mass of human knowledge, and yet, perhaps, it may be a matter of doubt whether what may be called thecapacity of mind be in any marked and decided manner increasing. ASocrates, a Plato, or an Aristotle, however confessedly inferior inknowledge to the philosophers of the present day, do not appear to havebeen much below them in intellectual capacity. Intellect rises from aspeck, continues in vigour only for a certain period, and will notperhaps admit while on earth of above a certain number of impressions. These impressions may, indeed, be infinitely modified, and from thesevarious modifications, added probably to a difference in thesusceptibility of the original germs, arise the endless diversity ofcharacter that we see in the world; but reason and experience seem bothto assure us that the capacity of individual minds does not increase inproportion to the mass of existing knowledge. (It is probable that notwo grains of wheat are exactly alike. Soil undoubtedly makes theprincipal difference in the blades that spring up, but probably notall. It seems natural to suppose some sort of difference in theoriginal germs that are afterwards awakened into thought, and theextraordinary difference of susceptibility in very young children seemsto confirm the supposition. )

The finest minds seem to be formed rather by efforts at originalthinking, by endeavours to form new combinations, and to discover newtruths, than by passively receiving the impressions of other men'sideas. Could we suppose the period arrived, when there was not furtherhope of future discoveries, and the only employment of mind was toacquire pre-existing knowledge, without any efforts to form new andoriginal combinations, though the mass of human knowledge were athousand times greater than it is at present, yet it is evident thatone of the noblest stimulants to mental exertion would have ceased; thefinest feature of intellect would be lost; everything allied to geniuswould be at an end; and it appears to be impossible, that, under suchcircumstances, any individuals could possess the same intellectualenergies as were possessed by a Locke, a Newton, or a Shakespeare, oreven by a Socrates, a Plato, an Aristotle or a Homer. 

If a revelation from heaven of which no person could feel the smallestdoubt were to dispel the mists that now hang over metaphysicalsubjects, were to explain the nature and structure of mind, theaffections and essences of all substances, the mode in which theSupreme Being operates in the works of the creation, and the whole planand scheme of the Universe, such an accession of knowledge so obtained, instead of giving additional vigour and activity to the human mind, would in all probability tend to repress future exertion and to dampthe soaring wings of intellect. 

For this reason I have never considered the doubts and difficultiesthat involve some parts of the sacred writings as any ardent againsttheir divine original. The Supreme Being might, undoubtedly, haveaccompanied his revelations to man by such a succession of miracles, and of such a nature, as would have produced universal overpoweringconviction and have put an end at once to all hesitation anddiscussion. But weak as our reason is to comprehend the plans of thegreat Creator, it is yet sufficiently strong to see the most strikingobjections to such a revelation. From the little we know of thestructure of the human understanding, we must be convinced that anoverpowering conviction of this kind, instead of tending to theimprovement and moral amelioration of man, would act like the touch ofa torpedo on all intellectual exertion and would almost put an end tothe existence of virtue. If the scriptural denunciations of eternalpunishment were brought home with the same certainty to every man'smind as that the night will follow the day, this one vast and gloomyidea would take such full possession of the human faculties as to leaveno room for any other conceptions, the external actions of men would beall nearly alike, virtuous conduct would be no indication of virtuousdisposition, vice and virtue would be blended together in one commonmass, and though the all-seeing eye of God might distinguish them theymust necessarily make the same impressions on man, who can judge onlyfrom external appearances. Under such a dispensation, it is difficultto conceive how human beings could be formed to a detestation of moralevil, and a love and admiration of God, and of moral excellence. 

Our ideas of virtue and vice are not, perhaps, very accurate andwell-defined; but few, I think, would call an action really virtuouswhich was performed simply and solely from the dread of a very greatpunishment or the expectation of a very great reward. The fear of theLord is very justly said to be the beginning of wisdom, but the end ofwisdom is the love of the Lord and the admiration of moral good. Thedenunciations of future punishment contained in the scriptures seem tobe well calculated to arrest the progress of the vicious and awaken theattention of the careless, but we see from repeated experience thatthey are not accompanied with evidence of such a nature as to overpowerthe human will and to make men lead virtuous lives with viciousdispositions, merely from a dread of hereafter. A genuine faith, bywhich I mean a faith that shews itself in it the virtues of a trulyChristian life, may generally be considered as an indication of anamiable and virtuous disposition, operated upon more by love than bypure unmixed fear. 

When we reflect on the temptations to which man must necessarily beexposed in this world, from the structure of his frame, and theoperation of the laws of nature, and the consequent moral certaintythat many vessels will come out of this mighty creative furnace inwrong shapes, it is perfectly impossible to conceive that any of thesecreatures of God's hand can be condemned to eternal suffering. Could weonce admit such an idea, it our natural conceptions of goodness andjustice would be completely overthrown, and we could no longer look upto God as a merciful and righteous Being. But the doctrine of life andMortality which was brought to light by the gospel, the doctrine thatthe end of righteousness is everlasting life, but that the wages of sinare death, is in every respect just and merciful, and worthy of thegreat Creator. Nothing can appear more consonant to our reason thanthat those beings which come out of the creative process of the worldin lovely and beautiful forms should be crowned with immortality, whilethose which come out misshapen, those whose minds are not suited to apurer and happier state of existence, should perish and be condemned tomix again with their original clay. Eternal condemnation of this kindmay be considered as a species of eternal punishment, and it is notwonderful that it should be represented, sometimes, under images ofsuffering. But life and death, salvation and destruction, are morefrequently opposed to each other in the New Testament than happinessand misery. The Supreme Being would appear to us in a very differentview if we were to consider him as pursuing the creatures that hadoffended him with eternal hate and torture, instead of merelycondemning to their original insensibility those beings that, by theoperation of general laws, had not been formed with qualities suited toa purer state of happiness. 

Life is, generally speaking, a blessing independent of a future state. It is a gift which the vicious would not always be ready to throw away, even if they had no fear of death. The partial pain, therefore, that isinflicted by the supreme Creator, while he is forming numberless beingsto a capacity of the highest enjoyments, is but as the dust of thebalance in comparison of the happiness that is communicated, and wehave every reason to think that there is no more evil in the world thanwhat is absolutely necessary as one of the ingredients in the mightyprocess. 

The striking necessity of general laws for the formation of intellectwill not in any respect be contradicted by one or two exceptions, andthese evidently not intended for partial purposes, but calculated tooperate upon a great part of mankind, and through many ages. Upon theidea that I have given of the formation of mind, the infringement ofthe general law of nature, by a divine revelation, will appear in thelight of the immediate hand of God mixing new ingredients in the mightymass, suited to the particular state of the process, and calculated togive rise to a new and powerful train of impressions, tending topurify, exalt, and improve the human mind. The miracles thataccompanied these revelations when they had once excited the attentionof mankind, and rendered it a matter of most interesting discussion, whether the doctrine was from God or man, had performed their part, hadanswered the purpose of the Creator, and these communications of thedivine will were afterwards left to make their way by their ownintrinsic excellence; and, by operating as moral motives, gradually toinfluence and improve, and not to overpower and stagnate the facultiesof man. 

It would be, undoubtedly, presumptuous to say that the Supreme Beingcould not possibly have effected his purpose in any other way than thatwhich he has chosen, but as the revelation of the divine will which wepossess is attended with some doubts and difficulties, and as ourreason points out to us the strongest objections to a revelation whichwould force immediate, implicit, universal belief, we have surely justcause to think that these doubts and difficulties are no argumentagainst the divine origin of the scriptures, and that the species ofevidence which they possess is best suited to the improvement of thehuman faculties and the moral amelioration of mankind. 

The idea that the impressions and excitements of this world are theinstruments with which the Supreme Being forms matter into mind, andthat the necessity of constant exertion to avoid evil and to pursuegood is the principal spring of these impressions and excitements, seems to smooth many of the difficulties that occur in a contemplationof human life, and appears to me to give a satisfactory reason for theexistence of natural and moral evil, and, consequently, for that partof both, and it certainly is not a very small part, which arises fromthe principle of population. But, though, upon this supposition, itseems highly improbable that evil should ever be removed from theworld; yet it is evident that this impression would not answer theapparent purpose of the Creator; it would not act so powerfully as anexcitement to exertion, if the quantity of it did not diminish orincrease with the activity or the indolence of man. The continualvariations in the weight and in the distribution of this pressure keepalive a constant expectation of throwing it off. 

 "Hope springs eternal in the Human breast, Man never is, but always to be blest. "

Evil exists in the world not to create despair but activity. We are notpatiently to submit to it, but to exert ourselves to avoid it. It isnot only the interest but the duty of every individual to use hisutmost efforts to remove evil from himself and from as large a circleas he can influence, and the more he exercises himself in this duty, the more wisely he directs his efforts, and the more successful theseefforts are; the more he will probably improve and exalt his own mind, and the more completely does he appear to fulfil the will of hisCreator.