bourers and depress wages still farther some eighteen or twenty years hence; it is our duty therefore to abstain from marriage, notwithstanding the accidental circumstance of our own good fortune, and the prospect we have of being happy with the object of our choice and of our dearest regard on earth-could such sacrifices be expected or desired; or if made, is it certain that they would be really useful? But, perhaps, it may be answered, that such sacrifices are neither desired nor expected: let but those who are in bad circumstances abstain, and the desired object will be attained. And does not this then bring us back to the only rational view of the question, that men are to have regard to their own particular situation alone in forming their resolutions on this subject? It is in vain then that Mr Malthus would pretend to improve the condition of the lower classes of people, by simply calling upon them to withhold the supplies of labour, or by lecturing them on "the true nature of their situation," and dissuading them from marriage. It is in vain that he would "be disposed to lay considerable stress on the frequent explanation of the real state of the lower classes, as affected by the principle of population, and their consequent dependence upon themselves for the chief part of their happiness and misery."* Even if Mr Malthus could succeed in bringing it distinctly to the view of the labouring classes, that the heightening of wages depends immediately upon the limitation of their numbers, (and few are, I believe, so ignorant as not to know this,) still their conduct in regard to marriage could never be regulated by any regard whatever to this consideration, but altogether by the consideration of their individual circumstances, combined with "the custom of n the country," or the habits and modes of life prevailing among them at the particular time. The object of limiting the supplies of labour, in short, is never to be attained by mere didactic explanations of general principles, but by the influence of laws formed upon them and upon the principles of human nature. If any thing could give surprise in Mr Malthus's writings, after the contradictions and absurdities already brought under review, the following passage undoubtedly should: "It is a truth," says Mr Malthus, " which I trust has been sufficiently proved in the course of this work, that, under a government constructed upon the best and purest principles, and executed by men of the highest talents and integrity, the most squalid poverty and wretchedness might universally prevail from an inattention to the prudential check to population."* If people will fly into the regions of chimera, and make impossible suppositions, it may be easy to draw conclusions logically from them, and to confound the ignorant and the unwary. Mr Malthus here speaks as if the prevention of the increase of population required the positive interference and direct attention both of the people and of government, and generally all his isolated and unsupported assertions either insinuate or broadly maintain this doctrine; whilst all his facts and reasonings go to prove, that such attention and interference can be of little or no use, and that it is from the indirect operation of good government and education that we have alone to hope for any considerable or real `effect in beneficially limiting such increase. If the prevention or retardation of the increase of population requires any attention at all on the part of government, it is merely of that negative kind which should hinder them from giving to it any direct encouragement: it is merely necessary they should be aware that such encouragement is not only unnecessary, but generally pernicious. But surely the want of knowledge and attention to the extent just mentioned could not be reasonably supposed of "men of the highest talents and integrity;" and if we have been at all successful in exhibiting a just view of the subject, it must have been made evident, that "under a government constructed upon the best and purest principles," and executed by such men, "the preventive check," as Mr Malthus calls it, must necessarily have been brought to operate with the greatest force. The above passage, therefore, supposes what is morally impossible, and consists indeed of a contradiction in terms. It proceeds upon the assumption, that "a government constructed upon the best and purest principles" might operate so mischievously as to produce the worst effects that can exist under any government, and that "men of the highest talents and integrity" might be ignorant and inattentive to their duties. 'Now what is this, in plain language, but to assume, that a good government may be a bad one, and that good and wise men may be unwise and bad?what is it but a distinct and positive contradiction? Similar in extravagance to that just noticed is the following assertion:-" If the supply of labour were greater than the demand, and the demand for food greater than the supply, the people might suffer the utmost extremity of want under the most perfect and best-executed government that the human imagination can conceive."* This must, at all events, be allowed to be a truism, as must likewise the following, which is its parallel; but what do they avail in any fair argument? "If, in the best season for vegetation that mankind have ever seen, or imagination can conceive, the corn would not grow, the people must be starved." If suppositions may be indulged in which are inconsistent with the nature of things and the established laws of the universe, and used in serious argument without being scouted, no doctrine can be too absurd to be maintained, and no cause too bad to be defended. Mr Malthus, it has been seen, has himself advanced arguments and facts which conclusively prove that one of the most necessary and inseparable effects of good government is to prevent the supply of food from falling short, and that of labour from exceeding the demand; and without producing this effect it could not of course be called good government, and, a fortiori, could far less deserve the name of the most perfect. It is very remarkable, that in all Mr Malthus has said in his voluminous writings to excuse governments from any blame in reference to the misery and "squalid poverty" of the lower classes, he has always been most scrupulously careful to avoid denying their indirect power to mitigate or remove such poverty. Besides the instance already noticed in which this cautiousness plainly appears, the following may be adduced in proof of the same remarkable wariness of Mr Malthus upon all occasions in regard to this particular: : "Mr Paine very justly observes," says Mr Malthus, “that whatever the apparent cause of any riots may be, the real one is always want of happiness; but when he goes on to say, it shows that something is wrong in the system of government, that injures the felicity by which society is to be preserved, he falls into the common error of attributing all want of happiness to government. It is evident that this want of happiness might have existed, and from ignorance might have been the principal cause of the riots, and yet be almost wholly unconnected with any of the proceedings of government." A little afterwards he says, "the principal cause of want and unhappiness is only indirectly connected with government, and totally beyond its power directly to remove."+ And in another place he repeats the assertion (for, I should calculate, at least the twentieth time,) in the following words and letters (i. e. italics) :-"The principal and most permanent cause of poverty has little or no direct relation to forms of government."‡ From these statements, and others to the same effect which might be multiplied without end, it is apparent that Mr Malthus tacitly acknowledges the indirect effects of good government in improving the condition of the people, though all his efforts are glaringly exerted to turn the attention of his readers away from that view of the subject. In reference to such statements, I shall only repeat what I have already observed with regard to them; namely, that it is of no earthly consequence whether the power of governments in improving the condition of the people be direct or indirect, the only important question being whether the effect itself be certain and infallible; and provided that this be the case, we need give ourselves very little concern about its being indirect. I shall add here an instance or two of assertions of similar import with those just noticed, though somewhat different in the form in which they are put. "The cause," observes Mr Malthus, "which has the most lasting effect in improving the situation of the lower classes depends chiefly on the conduct and prudence of the individuals themselves;"§ and again repeats," The means • Essay on Population, book iv. chap. 6. + Idem. |