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 | 1819, the number was certainly much

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 Review (No. CII.) entitled, "Sadler's Law of Population, and Disproof of Human Superfecundity;" containing also Additional Proofs of the Principle enunciated in that Treatise, founded on the Censuses of different Countries recently published. By MICHAEL THOMAS SADLER, M.P. 8vo. London: 1830.

lished it, in order to put his critics to shame, with this motto from Swift: "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this mark-that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." We remember another anecdote, which may perhaps be acceptable to so zealous a churchman as Mr. Sadler. A certain Antinomian preacher, the oracle of a barn, in a county of which we do not think it proper to mention the name, finding that divinity was not by itself a sufficiently lucrative profession, resolved to combine with it that of dog-stealing. He was, by ill-fortune, detected in several offences of this description, and was in consequence brought before two justices, who, in virtue of the powers given them by an act of parliament, sentenced him to a whipping for each theft. The degrading punishment inflicted on the pastor naturally thinned the flock; and the poor man was in danger of wanting bread. He accordingly put forth a handbill, solemnly protesting his innocence, describing his sufferings, and appealing to the Christian charity of the public; and to his pathetic address he prefixed this most appropriate text: "Thrice was I beaten with rods.-St. Paul's Epistle He did not perto the Corinthians." ceive that, though St. Paul had been scourged, no number of whippings, however severe, will of themselves enWE have, in violation of our usual title a man to be considered as an practice, transcribed Mr. Sadler's title- apostle. Mr. Sadler seems to us to page from top to bottom, motto and have fallen into a somewhat similar all. The parallel implied between the error. He should remember that, Essay on the Human Understanding though Locke may have been laughed and the Essay on Superfecundity is at, so has Sir Claudius Hunter; and exquisitely laughable. We can match that it takes something more than the it, however, with mottoes as ludicrous. laughter of all the world to make a We remember to have heard of a dra-Locke. matic piece, entitled "News from Camperdown," written soon after Lord Duncan's victory, by a man once as much in his own good graces as Mr. Sadler is, and now as much forgotten as Mr. Sadler will soon be, Robert Heron. His piece was brought upon the stage, and damned, "as it is phrased," in the second act; but the author, thinking that it had been unfairly and unjustly "run down," pub

"Before anything came out against my
Essay, I was told I must prepare
myself for a storm coming against
it, it being resolved by some men
that it was necessary that book of
mine should, as it is phrased, be

run down."-JOHN LOCKE.

The body of this pamphlet by no means justifies the parallel so modestly insinuated on the title-page. Yet we must own that, though Mr. Sadler has not risen to the level of Locke, he has done what was almost as difficult, if not as honourable-he has fallen below his own. He is at best a bad writer. His arrangement is an elaborate confusion. His style has been constructed, with great care, in such a manner as to

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, age-who makes it his boast that he happily, his efforts to wound resemble expresses himself throughout with the those of a juggler's snake. The bags greatest plainness and freedom-and of poison are full, but the fang is want, whose constant practice proves that by ing. In this foolish pamphlet, all the plainness and freedom he means coarseunpleasant peculiarities of his style ness and rancour has no right to exand temper are brought out in the pect that others shall remember courtestrongest manner. He is from the sies which he has forgotten, or shall beginning to the end in a paroxysm of respect one who has ceased to respect rage, and would certainly do us some himself. mischief if he knew how. We will Mr. Sadler declares that he has never give a single instance for the present. vilified Mr. Malthus personally, and Others will present themselves as we has confined himself to attacking the proceed. We laughed at some dog- doctrines which that gentleman maingerel verses which he cited, and which tains. We should wish to leave that we, never having seen them before, point to the decision of all who have suspected to be his own. We are now read Mr. Sadler's book, or any twenty sure that, if the principle on which pages of it. To quote particular inSolomon decided a famous case of filia- stances of a temper which penetrates tion were correct, there can be no doubt and inspires the whole work, is to as to the justice of our suspicion. Mr. weaken our charge. Yet, that we may Sadler, who, whatever elements of the not be suspected of flinching, we will poetical character he may lack, pos- give two specimens, the two first sesses the poetical irritability in an which occur to our recollection. "Whose abundance which might have sufficed minister is it that speaks thus?" says for Homer himself, resolved to re- Mr. Sadler, after misrepresenting in a taliate on the person, who, as he sup- most extraordinary manner, though, we posed, had reviewed him. He has, are willing to believe, unintentionally, accordingly, ransacked some collection one of the positions of Mr. Malthus. of college verses, in the hope of find- "Whose minister is it that speaks thus? ing, among the performances of his That of the lover and avenger of little supposed antagonist, something as bad children?" Again, Mr. Malthus reas his own. And we must in fairness commends, erroneously perhaps, but admit that he has succeeded pretty assuredly from humane motives, that well. We must admit that the gentle-alms, when given, should be given very man 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

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

of evil. They are, says he, too profound for common apprehension; and he hopes that they are too profound for our own. 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 cream-jug he doubtless thought it very deep. But to common apprehension our reasoning would, we are persuaded, appear perfectly simple.

think there will be little trouble in determin

ing which we shall make to give place ;’ or, if we look to a large and decided preponderancy' of either talent, learning, or benevolence, from whom we

shall take our judgment.' The effrontery, or, to speak more

charitably, the ign rance of a reference to Paley on this subject, and in this instance, is really marvellous.”

Now, does not Mr. Sadler see that the very words which he quotes from Paley contain in themselves a refutation of his whole argument? Paley says, indeed, as every man in his senses The theory of Mr. Malthus, says would say, that in a certain case, which Mr. Sadler, cannot be true, because it he has specified, the more and the less asserts the existence of a great and come into question. But in what case? terrible evil, and is therefore inconsis-"When we cannot resolve all appeartent with the goodness of God. We ances into the benevolence of design." answer thus. We know that there are It is better that there should be a little in the world great and terrible evils. evil than a great deal of evil. This is In spite of these evils, we believe in self-evident. But it is also self-evident the goodness of God. Why may we that no evil is better than a little evil. not then continue to believe in his Why, then, is there any evil? It is a goodness, though another evil should mystery which we cannot solve. It is be added to the list? 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 magnitude of the evils, moral and physical, implied One single expression which Mr in the theory I oppose, sums up his ideas Sadler employs on this subject is suffithus:- Mr. Sadler says, that it is not a light cient 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 express rule is this, that when we cannot as to the origin of evil." He does not, 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 ponderancy.' Now in weighing these two of that mystery. They relate facts;

our judgment from a large and decided pre