on the contrary, smaller where the mortality is less; and assuming the design of the law of population to have been rightly stated, this regulation also is obviously necessary for its accomplishment.

(8) The mode by which this law operates is likewise apparent; and, while it confirms the general principle, is itself susceptible of a very satisfactory numerical demonstration. This mode is still in direct opposition to that of the contrary theory, which pronounces vice, misery, and what it calls moral restraint, the regulators of population; whereas, according to the system now before the reader, ease and affluence, which increase with increasing numbers, diminish, as they prevail, the prolificness, and consequently limit the multiplication of mankind. A smaller or larger number of inhabitants, therefore, on the same space, placed under circumstances otherwise equal, will imply a less or greater degree of that ease and affluence, and consequently operate on their prolificness agreeably to the positions primarily advanced. The exceptions to this rule of nature, such as new colonies, &c., are evidently deducible from it; and, considered either in themselves or their relations, it will be shewn, as plainly confirm it. Meantime the facts which the history of human beings present, substantiate the general position beyond the possibility of denial, and the principles of physiology, as well as the analogies of nature, illustrate and confirm it.

(9) Other regulations flowing from the same general principle, of a most minute and curious nature, have been detected during the course of the present long inquiry. These, however, will not be now brought forward; what has been already advanced is sufficient fully to exhibit, both as to its principle and operation, the law of population for which I contend, as that of

nature and of truth, and which it is the purpose of this Book to establish. In presenting it, therefore, in a few words to the reader, I will contrast it with the theory it opposes. The latter assumes that Nature, or rather as it unequivocally intimates, GoD himself, has, in order to people his universe, invested man with a fixed and unvarying measure of prolificness, constantly tending to excess and misery; and that, therefore, this blind and blundering calculation has to be perpetually regulated by human interference, which we may be assured will constantly manifest itself in partiality and cruelty. Hence, however it may be theoretically regarded, yet practically considered, it is not attempted to be denied, but that disgusting vice, as well as abject misery amongst the many, is the price at which the privileged few must monopolize a sufficiency of the bounties of Nature. But its principles and details are before the reader, and let them be distinctly remembered while I ask him if such a notion is not contradicted by the experience of man in the best and happiest periods of his history, and whether it be not almost impossible to reconcile it with any received notions of religion, natural or revealed,-with any worthy conceptions of the care of an eternal Providence,—with any adequate belief in the very being of a GOD and his essential attributes? On the contrary, the law of population now developed, has an equal tendency with the former to people the world, or to recruit its inhabitants in any particular country, where they may have been wasted, and consequently to replenish the earth with happiness, in as far as enjoyment is connected with life; but it is so regulated as not to defeat its plain and only purpose, by producing an excess which would convert that happiness into suffering. Moreover its operation is not necessarily attended with misery present or pro

spective; on the contrary, by connecting increasing numbers with increasing prosperity, and rendering the latter the regulator of the former, it is, as by a constant effort, perpetually elevating human enjoyment to the utmost possible height, and extending it to the greatest possible number; guarding nevertheless against an excess which would be fatal to both. Its moral design likewise, if this can be gathered from its undeniable effects, is equally benevolent. The augmentation of the whole involves the improvement of each, and thus, in multiplying, it regenerates the species. When When properly viewed, therefore, it teaches the patriot his most important duties, and inspires the philanthropist with his most glowing anticipations: it liberates society from that principle of selfishness which is at once its bane and its disgrace. In a word, it combines the duties, the feelings, and the interests of human beings, and lays the whole in one united and perpetual act of gratitude at the footstool of the Eternal Benefactor. Such are the necessary consequences of the more benevolent system; and I challenge any one to say that they are overcharged if they are true; or to deny their truth if he can believe that the Creator has, in virtue of that prescience, and conformably to that benevolence he has manifested in all other of his visible works, himself regulated the prolificness of his creatures in reference to the circumstances in which his providence shall place them, instead of leaving that regulation, minute as it will be seen it is in itself, to the busy, selfish, and ignorant interference of men who, on every possible view of the subject, are as incompetent to the task they are eager to assume, as they are to that of

creation!

358

CHAPTER V.

OF THE LAW OF POPULATION: ITS PROOFS ENUMERATED.

(1) IT has been stated that the prolificness of human beings, under similar circumstances, varies inversely as their numbers. I proceed to prove this important principle,

FIRST; By generally acknowledged facts.

SECOND; By the comparative prolificness of marriages in different countries, equally circumstanced, except in regard to population.

THIRD; By the comparative prolificness of marriages in different districts of the same countries.

FOURTH; By the comparative prolificness of marriages in towns, in relation to the number of their inhabitants.

FIFTH; By the comparative prolificness of marriages in the same countries and districts at different periods, as the population has increased.

SIXTH; By the comparative prolificness of marriages in the same places and districts, at different periods, where the population has diminished.

SEVENTH; By the comparative prolificness of marriages as determined upon physiological principles.

EIGHTH; By the analogies of the animal and vegetable kingdoms, in regard to the principle of reproduction.

NINTH; By the demonstration afforded by distinct classes of the human species; and especially the British peerage.

I am not aware that there are any tests to which the

principle in question can be submitted, whether with a view to demonstrate or overthrow it, that are not clearly reducible to some of the foregoing heads: I proceed, therefore, to give them, severally, all the consideration, and advance all the facts in relation to each, which it is in my power to do.

(2) First, then, that the prolificness of marriages varies inversely as their numbers, I hold to be a truth established by general observation. And on this branch of the argument I think myself peculiarly fortunate, because, none will be found hardy enough to deny the facts on which it rests; nor yet the circumstances attending those facts: and though the latter, when superficially viewed, may have obscured the true principle of increase, and even led to the substition of an opposite theory, still, on due examination, they will be found to confirm the true deduction, and to render it the more indisputable.

(3) I assert, then, that the prolificness of marriages is everywhere regulated by the state of the population, and is, cæteris paribus, the greatest where the inhabitants are the fewest on a given space, and on the contrary in other words, that in country places they are the most prolific; in moderate sized towns, less; and in large towns and cities, the least so. How often has this fact been mentioned as incontrovertible, and when has it been once denied? Philosophers and physicians concur with common observers in establishing a truth, which seems too obvious and certain to need any particular proof; a few authorities, however, shall be advanced, premising, that the extent of the variation in question was the only subject of inquiry and observation; its existence was never supposed disputable.

4) Gregory King, one of the earliest and most accurate of our statistical authorities, states, that at