occurs on the subject in many countries of Europe.' p. 425. But, Mr. Malthus freely, and without hesitation, admits, that, on this side of the globe, population is, and has long been, at a stand,' p. 24, therefore, throughout the Union the population, so far as depends on procreation, is at a stand.' p. 441.

The first observation to be made on this point is, that the number of births is not the sole criterion of the progress of population: for, in two nations, where this proportion is the same, the progress of population will differ according to the difference in the ratio, which the number of marriages bears to the total population in the respective nations; and, also, according to the ratio, which the births bear to the deaths in each. Omitting, however, these considerations for the present, let us examine the question of the proportion of births to a marriage. The mode taken to ascertain this proportion has been to divide the aggregate of the births of a given number of years by the aggregate of marriages in the same period; and the quotient has been assumed as indicating, in all circumstances of a people, the average number of births yielded by a marriage. And this procedure is argued upon with an unhesitating confidence, as if its legitimacy were universally acknowledged; and no bint is ever given that its failure had been ever suggested. The fallacy, however, has been pointed out, not by some obscure writer, of whose existence Mr. Godwin might be supposed to be ignorant; but by one, whose celebrity seems to have given him no small annoyance; and in the very work, which he is professing to examine, in form too so demonstrative, that he ought in candour to have stated the argument, if he did not condescend to refute it.

If the average proportion of annual marriages to annual births, in any country, be as one to four, this will imply, that, out of four children born, two of them live to marry, and the other two die in infancy, and celibacy. This is a most important, and interesting piece of information, from which the most useful inferences are to be drawn; but it is totally different from the number of births, which each individual marriage yields, in the course of its duration; so much so, that, on the supposition, which has just been made, that half of the born lived to be married, which is a very usual proportion, the annual marriages would be to the annual births, as one to four, whether each individual marriage yielded four births, two births, or one hundred births. If the latter number be taken, then, according to the present supposition, fifty would live to be married, and out of every one hundred births there would be twenty-five marriages; and the marriages would still be to the births as one to four.'

The only case, in which the proportion of annual births to annual marriages is the same, as the proportion of births, which each individual marriage yields, is when the births and deaths are exactly equal; and

the

the reason of their being the same, in this case, is, that, in order to make the births and deaths exactly equal, we must assume that each marriage yields exactly another marriage; and that whatever be the number of children born from each union, they all die in infancy, and celibacy, except one pair. Thus, if each marriage yielded five children, two of which, only, live to form a fresh union, the proportion of annual marriages to annual births will be as one to five; which is the same as the number of births yielded by each individual marriage, by hypothesis. But whenever each marriage yields either more, or less, than one marrying pair; that is, whenever the population is either increasing, or decreasing, then, the proportion of annual births to annual marriages can never be the same, as the proportion of births yielded by each individual marriage in the course of its duration. Hence, it follows, that, whenever we assume them to be the same, any increase of population is impossible.'-Malthus, book ii. ch. 4.

The principle, here briefly abstracted, is pursued in considerable detail, for which we can only refer to the able chapter just cited. But we shall add an illustration of the manner in which we conceive Mr. Godwin's mode of arguing may lead to fallacious results; and which may more familiarly elucidate the abstract principle maintained by his opponent.

The mode (as has been stated,) is to estimate the number of births yielded during each marriage, by comparing the aggregate of marriages, in any period, with the aggregate of births. But, towards the end of the period, many marriages must have been contracted, which would continue to produce children beyond the period; and yet the children, so to be produced, cannot be included in the number of children by which the fruitfulness of the marriages is to be computed. To this it will be replied, that there must, also, be a number of children towards the beginning of the period, from marriages contracted before the period; and yet these children are included in the number, by which the fruitfulness of the marriages of the period is to be estimated. It is clear, therefore, that the estimate can be true, only when the number of marriages, in any given number of years preceding the termination of the period, is exactly equal to the number of marriages in the same number of years preceding the commencement of the period. But if the number of marriages in the latter end of the period be greater, that is, if the population be increasing, the proportion of children (as relating to the number yielded during the whole of each marriage) will be reduced; and the actual progressive population will appear, according to Mr. Godwin's rule, to be retrograde.

Thus, then, it is proved there is no ground for confining the fruitfulness of American marriages within the limits of those of Europe; and therefore no physical impossibility in the North American women bringing more, on an average, than four births

to a marriage. On the contrary, it is shown, that the average number may be eight births to a marriage; and if, as in Europe, half the born live to be married, the annual births may still be to the annual marriages only as four to one. Having ascertained the possibility, we are next to inquire what is the probability of more prolific marriages in North American, than in Europe.

Mr. Godwin sneeringly observes, p. SO, 'The difference between the United States and the Old World does not, I presume, lie in the superior fecundity of their women.' But the sneer has its force from an equivocal phrase. The natural capability of each individual may be the same; but difference of circumstances may call these capabilities into action in very different proportions; and the fruitfulness of women, as a class, be, therefore, very different, whilst the capabilities of each individual of the class may be the same. In a given number of married women, America may not have fewer barren; but in a given number of women America may have fewer unmarried: and, in a given number of productive married women, those of America may not produce more in a given small number of years; but they may (from marrying earlier) produce for a greater number of years. We have already stated the superior incentives to early and frequent marriage, where food is cheap, and the wages of labour high; and we have shown, that the effect of such early and frequent marriages is proved by the number of children, or persons below fifteen, being equal to those above that age; while, in Sweden, they do not constitute a half. But we are often reminded, that the increase of population must depend on the increase of child-bearing women: and where, it may be asked, is that class so likely to be increased, as where there is the largest proportion of children to grow into women? But Mr. Godwin is determined to keep down the American population to the rate of that of Europe; and, therefore, limits the childbearing age to the period between twenty and forty-five. And, in Europe, perhaps this might be a fair average; but to limit America to the same, is contradicting the unanimous testimony of all writers on the subject. The author seems conscious of this, and talks of the unproductiveness of early marriages of the Persian women, (p. 191.) as if there were any analogy between the climate of Persia and of North America; or between the habits of the women in the two countries. And, again, admitting that where a country is in great distress, and the means of subsistence are difficult to be procured, marriage will often not take place at so early a period, as it might do in countries, which are placed in more favourable circumstances,' p. 428; yet he endeavours to obviate the force of his admission, by a most amusing consideration. The period of marriage,' says he, usually depends on

6

the

the male,' and, whatever be the age of the bridegroom, he is almost sure to look out for a young bride; and, then, unless he be indeed stricken in years, the chance of offspring is nearly the same, as if he had been himself as young as the woman he leads to the altar,' p. 429. That is, in Mr. Godwin's calculation of the probabilities of life, the bridegroom of fifty has nearly the same chance of living to give fruitfulness to his wife of twenty, during the whole of her child-bearing period, as a bridegroom of her own age would have. But this is not all: for, supposing the sexes to be equal in numbers, is it not evident, that, for every man, who waits till he is old to be married, there must a woman have remained unmarried to the same age? If all the present and rising generation of bridegrooms were to abstain from marriage till they were fifty, where would Mr. Godwin direct them to look out for a young bride?'

When Mr. Godwin admits, by way of argument, the superior productiveness of American marriages, he deduces from it consequences the most alarming to the feelings of humanity. The abstract of his argument (b. 1. ch. 6,) is this; If population, when unchecked, doubles itself in twenty-five years, then, in a country where population is stationary, a number equal to the whole of that population must perish in twenty-five years, more than in a country, which doubles its inhabitants in that time. This argument appears in a variety of shapes throughout the volume; but in no shape can it conceal the fallacious assumption, that as many, as early, and as prolific marriages will take place in a country, where labour is cheap, and provisions are dear, as in one, where labour is dear, and provisions are cheap. On the contrary, we know, that, where men feel the pressure of present difficulties, and foresee greater, they will not, universally, expose themselves to the extreme of evil; but feel checked by the degrees of it, which the tendency to overpopulation produces. At the same time, it must be admitted, that great numbers do involve themselves in these extremes; and that the consequent mortality, especially among the children of such improvident parents, is very great. And the prevention of this mortality, and of the vice and misery, which are the concomitants of it, is the object of Mr. Malthus's book; which by no means considers an increasing population as, in itself, an evil; but only so, where that increase is antecedent to a proportionate increase in the means of subsistence.

But Mr. Godwin has employed a whole book (Vth,) to show, that the means of subsistence are inexhaustible, and amply sufficient to maintain all the doubling of population, of which we have any evidence, for it is (as he facetiously observes) with a real, and not a possible, doubling, that we are concerned; possible men

do not eat, though real men do.' p. 480. All this, and indeed much of the volume, is founded on the false ascription to Mr. Malthus of a wish to keep down population to its present level, even if all the possible means of subsistence were actually existing. Now all that Mr. Malthus says is-Do you produce the increase of subsistence, and population will increase itself; but do not encourage population on account of your ultimate possible means; for, remember, possible food cannot be eaten, though real food can. Yet Mr. Godwin, who cannot but know this to be his opponent's doctrine, can condescend to flatter popular prejudices, by joining in the vulgar clamour, and telling us, that Mr. Malthus would starve the present generation, that he may kill the next,' p. 505. and fain persuade us to hail war, famine, and pestilence as the true friends of the general weal; to look with a certain complacent approbation upon the gallows, and massacre; and almost to long for the decimation of our species, that the survivors might be more conveniently accomodated.' p. 586. In much the same style is nearly the whole of the author's 6th book; in which he discusses the moral and political maxims inculcated in the Essay on Population.' We shall not track him in all his misrepresentations, where the credit of Mr. Malthus only is concerned; but cursorily notice, merely as connected with his system, two subjects of the highest importance in the disquisitions of the politician, and the moralist, the support of the poor,—and the exercise of charity.

In pressing the necessity of a gradual abolition of the poor laws, Mr. Malthus has distinctly stated, that it is a duty, as a preliminary measure, formally to disclaim the right of the poor to support.' The word right is susceptible of a variety of interpretations; and of this ambiguity Mr. Godwin has availed himself, p. 542, &c. The moral right is plainly the only one here meant: but again we must distinguish between moral rights in a state of nature, and in a civilized state. In a state of nature, every man has a moral right to his proportionate share of the spontaneous productions of the earth; and it would, then, be the duty of every man becoming possessed of any surplus, to give it to him who had less than his share. But so weak, in a state of nature, is the power of morality, that brute force is the sole arbiter of possession. When civil institutions are devised to control brute force, moral rights must be rendered compatible with those institutions. In this state of things, the rights of the poor become a political question; and subordinate, as those of every other class are, to the existence and general welfare of the whole. Mr. Godwin's aspirations, indeed, are after a state of society in which all property is to be equalized; and where the improvement of every individual in knowledge and virtue shall be

such,