that, as far as nature is concerned, four | United States a class of persons whose sheep will double as fast as two, and numbers are not increased by emigraeight as fast as four, how can he deny tion,-the negro slaves. During the that the geometrical ratio of increase interval which elapsed between the does exist in the works of nature? Or census of 1810 and the census of 1820, has he a definition of his own for geo- the change in their numbers must have metrical progression, as well as for in- been produced by procreation, and by verse proportion? procreation alone. Their situation, though much happier than that of the wretched beings who cultivate the sugar plantations of Trinidad and Demerara, cannot be supposed to be more favourable to health and fecundity than that of free labourers. In 1810, the slave-trade had been but recently abolished; and there were in consequence many more male than female slaves,-a circumstance, of course, very unfavourable to procreation. Slaves are perpetually passing into the class of freemen; but no freeman ever descends into servitude; so that the census will not exhibit the whole effect of the procreation which really takes place. Mr. Malthus, and those who agree with him, have generally referred to the United States, as a country in which the human race increases in a geometrical ratio, and have fixed on thirty-five years as the term in which the population of that country doubles itself. Mr. Sadler contends that it is physically impossible for a people to double in twenty-five years; nay, that thirty-five years is far too short a period, that the Americans do not double by procreation in less than forty-seven years,—and that the rapid increase of their numbers is produced by emigration from Europe. Emigration has certainly had some effect in increasing the population of the United States. But so great has the rate of that increase been that, after making full allowance for the effect of emigration, there will be a residue, attributable to procreation alone, amply sufficient to double the population in twenty-five years. Mr. Sadler states the results of the four censuses as follows: "There were, of white inhabitants, in the whole of the United States in 1790, 3,093,111; in 1800, 4,309,656; in 1810, 5,862,093; and in 1820, 7,861,710. The increase, in the first term, being 39 per cent.; that in the second, 36 per cent.; and that in the third and last, 33 per cent. It is superfluous to say, that it is utterly impossible to deduce the geometric theory of human increase, whatever be the period of duplication, from such terms as these." Mr. Sadler is a bad arithmetician. The increase in the last term is not, as he states it, 33 per cent., but more than 34 per cent. Now, an increase of 32 per cent. in ten years, is more than sufficient to double the population in twenty-five years. And there is, we think, very strong reason to believe that the white population of the United States does increase by 32 per cent. every ten years. Our reason is this. There is in the We find, by the census of 1810, that the number of slaves in the Union was then 1,191,000. In 1820, they had increased to 1,538,000. That is to say, in ten years, they had increased 29 per cent.-within three per cent. of that rate of increase which would double their numbers in twenty-five years. We may, we think, fairly calculate that, if the female slaves had been as numerous as the males, and if no manumissions had taken place, the census of the slave population would have exhibited an increase of 32 per cent. in ten years. If we are right in fixing on 32 per cent. as the rate at which the white population of America increases by procreation in ten years, it will follow that, during the last ten years of the eighteenth century, nearly one-sixth of the increase was the effect of emigration; from 1800 to 1810, about oneninth; and from 1810 to 1820, about one-seventeenth. This is what we should have expected; for it is clear that, unless the number of emigrants be constantly increasing, it must, as compared with the resident population, be relatively decreasing. The number of persons added to the population of the United States by emigration, between 1810 and 1820, would be nearly 120,000. From the data furnished by Mr. Sadler himself, we should be inclined to think that this would be a fair estimate. "Dr. Seybert says, that the passengers to ten of the principal ports of the United States, in the year 1817, amounted to 22,235; of whom 11,977 were from Great Britain and Ireland; 4164 from Germany and Holland; 1245 from France; 58 from Italy; 2901 from the British possessions in North America; 1569 from the West Indies; and from all other countries, 321. These, however, we may conclude, with the editor of Styles's Register, were far short of the number that arrived." 1819, the number was certainly much beyond that average; in 1815 and 1816, probably much below it. But, even if we were to suppose that, in every year from the peace to 1820, the number of emigrants had been as high as we have supposed it to be in 1817, the increase by procreation among the white inhabitants of the United States would still appear to be about 30 per cent. in ten years. country from procreation only." An increase of 20 per cent. in ten years, by procreation, would therefore be the very utmost that he would allow to be possible. We have already shown, by reference to the census of the slave Mr. Sadler acknowledges that Cobbett exaggerates the number of emigrants when he states it at 150,000 We have not the honour of knowing a year. Yet even this estimate, abeither Dr. Seybert or the editor of surdly great as it is, would not be Styles's Register. We cannot, there- sufficient to explain the increase of fore, decide on their respective claims the population of the United States on to our confidence so peremptorily as Mr. Sadler's principles. He is, he Mr. Sadler thinks fit to do. Nor can tells us, "convinced that doubling in we agree to what Mr. Sadler very 35 years is a far more rapid duplication gravely assigns as a reason for dis-than ever has taken place in that believing Dr. Seybert's testimony. "Such accounts," he says, "if not wilfully exaggerated, must always fall short of the truth." It would be a curious question of casuistry to determine what a man ought to do in a case in which he cannot tell the truth ex-population, that this doctrine is quite cept by being guilty of wilful exaggeration. We will, however, suppose, with Mr. Sadler, that Dr. Seybert, finding himself compelled to choose between two sins, preferred telling a falsehood to exaggerating; and that he has consequently underrated the number of emigrants. We will take it at double of the Doctor's estimate, and suppose that, in 1817, 45,000 Europeans crossed to the United States. Now, it must be remembered that the year 1817 was a year of the severest and most general distress over all Europe,- a year of scarcity everywhere, and of cruel famine in some places. There can, therefore, be no doubt that the emigration of 1817 was very far above the average, probably more than three times that of an ordinary year. Till the year 1815, the war rendered it almost impossible to emigrate to the United States either from England or from the Continent. If we suppose the average emigration of the remaining years to have been 16,000, we shall probably not be much mistaken. In 1818 and absurd. And, if we suppose it to be sound, we shall be driven to the conclusion that above eight hundred thousand people emigrated from Europe to the United States in a space of little more than five years. The whole increase of the white population from 1810 to 1820 was within a few hundreds of 2,000,000. If we are to attribute to procreation only 20 per cent. on the number returned by the census of 1810, we shall have about 830,000 persons to account for in some other way;-and to suppose that the emigrants who went to America between the peace of 1815 and the census of 1820, with the children who were born to them there, would make up that number, would be the height of absurdity. We could say much more; but we think it quite unnecessary at present. We have shown that Mr. Sadler is careless in the collection of facts,— that he is incapable of reasoning on facts when he has collected them,that he does not understand the sim plest terms of science,-that he has enounced a proposition of which he does not know the meaning,- that the proposition which he means to enounce, and which he tries to prove, leads directly to all those consequences which he represents as impious and immoral, --and that, from the very documents to which he has himself appealed, it may be demonstrated that his theory is false. We may, perhaps, resume the subject when his next volume appears. Meanwhile, we hope that he will delay its publication until he has learned a little arithmetic, and unlearned a great deal of eloquence. SADLER'S REFUTATION REFUTED. (JANUARY 1831.) A Refutation of an Article in the Edinburgh "Before anything came out against my run down."-JOHN LOCKE lished it, in order to put his critics to WE have, in violation of our usual practice, transcribed Mr. Sadler's titlepage from top to bottom, motto and all. The parallel implied between the Essay on the Human Understanding and the Essay on Superfecundity is exquisitely laughable. We can match it, however, with mottoes as ludicrous. We remember to have heard of a dramatic piece, entitled "News from Cam- The body of this pamphlet by no perdown," written soon after Lord means justifies the parallel so modestly Duncan's victory, by a man once as insinuated on the title-page. Yet we much in his own good graces as Mr. must own that, though Mr. Sadler has Sadler is, and now as much forgotten not risen to the level of Locke, he has as Mr. Sadler will soon be, Robert done what was almost as difficult, if Heron. His piece was brought upon not as honourable-he has fallen below the stage, and damned, "as it is his own. He is at best a bad writer. phrased," in the second act; but the His arrangement is an elaborate conauthor, thinking that it had been un- fusion. His style has been constructed, fairly and unjustly run down," pub-with great care, in such a manner as to 66 age-who makes it his boast that he expresses himself throughout with the greatest plainness and freedom-and whose constant practice proves that by plainness and freedom he means coarseness and rancour has no right to expect that others shall remember courtesies which he has forgotten, or shall respect one who has ceased to respect himself. produce the least possible effect by | much stronger expressions, without the means of the greatest possible number least offence either to truth or to deof words. Aspiring to the exalted corum. There is a limit prescribed to character of a Christian philosopher, us by our sense of what is due to ourhe can never preserve through a single selves. But we think that no indulparagraph either the calmness of a gence is due to Mr. Sadler. A writer philosopher or the meekness of a who distinctly announces that he has Christian. His ill-nature would make not conformed to the candour of the a very little wit formidable. But, happily, his efforts to wound resemble those of a juggler's snake. The bags of poison are full, but the fang is wanting. In this foolish pamphlet, all the unpleasant peculiarities of his style and temper are brought out in the strongest manner. He is from the beginning to the end in a paroxysm of rage, and would certainly do us some mischief if he knew how. We will give a single instance for the present. Others will present themselves as we proceed. We laughed at some doggerel verses which he cited, and which we, never having seen them before, suspected to be his own. We are now sure that, if the principle on which Solomon decided a famous case of filiation were correct, there can be no doubt as to the justice of our suspicion. Mr. Sadler, who, whatever elements of the poetical character he may lack, possesses the poetical irritability in an abundance which might have sufficed for Homer himself, resolved to retaliate on the person, who, as he supposed, had reviewed him. He has, accordingly, ransacked some collection of college verses, in the hope of finding, among the performances of his supposed antagonist, something as bad as his own. And we must in fairness admit that he has succeeded pretty well. We must admit that the gentleman in question sometimes put into his exercises, at seventeen, almost as great nonsense as Mr. Sadler is in the habit of putting into his books at sixty. Mr. Sadler complains that we have devoted whole pages to mere abuse of him. We deny the charge. We have, indeed, characterised, in terms of just reprehension, that spirit which shows itself in every part of his prolix work. Those terms of reprehension we are by no means inclined to retract; and we conceive that we might have used Mr. Sadler declares that he has never vilified Mr. Malthus personally, and has confined himself to attacking the doctrines which that gentleman maintains. We should wish to leave that point to the decision of all who have read Mr. Sadler's book, or any twenty pages of it. To quote particular instances of a temper which penetrates and inspires the whole work, is to weaken our charge. Yet, that we may not be suspected of flinching, we will give two specimens, the two first which occur to our recollection. "Whose minister is it that speaks thus ?" says Mr. Sadler, after misrepresenting in a most extraordinary manner, though, we are willing to believe, unintentionally, one of the positions of Mr. Malthus. "Whose minister is it that speaks thus? That of the lover and avenger of little children?" Again, Mr. Malthus recommends, erroneously perhaps, but assuredly from humane motives, that alms, when given, should be given very sparingly. Mr. Sadler quotes the recommendation, and adds the following courteous comment:-"The tender mercies of the wicked are cruel." We cannot think that a writer who indulges in these indecent and unjust attacks on professional and personal character has any right to complain of our sarcasms on his metaphors and rhymes. We will now proceed to examine the reply which Mr. Sadler has thought fit to make to our arguments. He begins by attacking our remarks on the origin | authorities, directly at issue on this point, I our own. think there will be little trouble in determin 6 ing which we shall make to give place;' of evil. They are, says he, too profound for common apprehension; and he hopes that they are too profound for That they seem profound to him we can well believe. Profundity, in its secondary as in its primary sense, is a relative term. When Grildrig was nearly drowned in the Brobdignagian Now, does not Mr. Sadler see that cream-jug he doubtless thought very the very words which he quotes from deep. But to common apprehension Paley contain in themselves a refutaour reasoning would, we are persuaded, appear perfectly simple. The theory of Mr. Malthus, says Mr. Sadler, cannot be true, because it asserts the existence of a great and terrible evil, and is therefore inconsistent with the goodness of God. We answer thus. We know that there are in the world great and terrible evils. In spite of these evils, we believe in the goodness of God. Why may we not then continue to believe in his goodness, though another evil should be added to the list? tion of his whole argument? Paley says, indeed, as every man in his senses would say, that in a certain case, which he has specified, the more and the less come into question. But in what case? "When we cannot resolve all appearances into the benevolence of design." It is better that there should be a little evil than a great deal of evil. This is self-evident. But it is also self-evident that no evil is better than a little evil. Why, then, is there any evil? It is a mystery which we cannot solve. It is a mystery which Paley, by the very words which Mr. Sadler has quoted, acknowledges himself unable to solve; and it is because he cannot solve that mystery that he proceeds to take into consideration the more and the less. Believing in the divine goodness, we must necessarily believe that the evils which exist are necessary to avert greater evils. But what those greater evils are we do not know. How the happiness of any part of the sentient creation would be in any respect diminished if, for example, children cut their teeth without pain, we cannot understand. The case is exactly the same with the principle of Mr. Mal"The reviewer sends me to Paley, who is, I thus. If superfecundity exists, it exconfess, rather more intelligible on the sub-ists, no doubt, because it is a less evil ject, and who, fortunately, has decided the than some other evil which otherwise very point in dispute. I will first give the would exist. Can Mr. Sadler prove words of the reviewer, who, when speaking of that this is an impossibility? How does Mr. Sadler answer this? Merely by telling us that we are too wicked to be reasoned with. He completely shrinks from the question; a question, be it remembered, not raised by us a question which we should have felt strong objections to raising unnecessarily a question put forward by himself, as intimately connected with the subject of his two ponderous volumes. He attempts to carp at detached parts of our reasoning on the subject. With what success he carries on this guerilla war after declining a general action with the main body of our argument our readers shall see. my general argument regarding the magni tude of the evils, moral and physical, implied in the theory I oppose, sums up his ideas thus:- Mr. Sadler says, that it is not a light One single expression which Mr Sadler employs on this subject is sufficient to show how utterly incompetent or transient evil, but a great and permanent evil. What then? The question of the origin he is to discuss it. "On the Christian of evil is a question of ay or no,-not a question hypothesis," says he, " no doubt exists of MORE or LESS.' But what says Paley? His as to the origin of evil." He does not, express rule is this, that when we cannot resolve all appearances into benevolence of we think, understand what is meant by design, we make the FEW give place to the the origin of evil. The Christian MANY, the LITTLE to the GREAT; that we take Scriptures profess to give no solution our judgment from a large and decided preponderancy.' Now in weighing these two of that mystery. They relate facts; |