rapidly the means of subsistence have occasionally been increasing, population has seldom failed to keep pace with them. Those who inquire into the past and present state of the world, will find that the population of all countries is generally accommodated to their means of subsistence. Whenever these have been increased, population has also been increased, or been better provided for; and when they have been diminished, the population has either been worse provided for, or has sustained a diminution of numbers, or both effects have followed.

We have seen that the population of the United States of America doubles itself in so short a period as twenty or fiveand-twenty years. And if the supplies of food and other articles required for the support of the people were to continue to increase as fast as they have done, population would most likely continue to advance in the same proportion for a lengthened period; or, it might be, until the space required to carry on the operations of industry had become deficient. But the principle of increase is quite as strong in Yorkshire or Normandy as it is in Kentucky or Illinois, and yet it is plainly impossible that the population of England or France can be doubled in so short a period. Owing to the greater outlay upon the soils we are now cultivating, and the greater weight of our tithes, poor-rates, and other taxes, the quantity of produce to be divided between the undertakers of work in Great Britain and their labourers is less, compared with their numbers, than in America, and both parties have in consequence a less power of providing for the wants of a family. A number of children is not here, as in the United States or Australia, a source of wealth. On the contrary, their maintenance occasions an expense, which the poor man, unless he be at once frugal and industrious, can with difficulty meet. The habits of the people have been moulded accordingly. There is a general feeling that it would be imprudent to enter into matrimonial connections without having something like a reasonable prospect of being able to maintain the children that may be expected to spring from them. And marriages are,

in consequence, very generally deferred to a later period than in America, and a greater proportion of the population find it expedient to pass their lives in a state of celibacy. And it is fortunate that this is the case; that the good sense of the people, and their laudable desire to preserve their place in society, make them control their passions, and subject them to prudential considerations. Man cannot possibly increase beyond the means provided for his support. And were the tendency of population to increase in countries advanced in the career of civilization, and where there is, consequently, a considerably increased difficulty of providing supplies of food, not checked by the prevalence of moral restraint, or the forethought of the people, it would be checked by the prevalence of want, misery, and famine. There is no alternative. The population of every country has the power, supposing food to be adequately supplied, to go on doubling every five-andtwenty years. But as the limited extent, and limited fertility of the soil, render it impossible to go on producing food in this ratio, it necessarily follows, unless the passions are moderated, and a proportional check given to the increase of population, that the standard of human subsistence will be reduced to the lowest assignable limit, and that famine and pestilence will be perpetually at work to relieve the population of wretches born only to be starved.

Mr Malthus was probably the first who conclusively showed that, speaking generally, the tendency of population is not merely to keep abreast with the increase of the means of subsistence, but to exceed it; and the grand object of his "Essay on the Principle of Population," is to point out the bad effects of a redundant population, the importance of moral restraint, and the pernicious consequences resulting from the bringing of human beings into the world without being able to provide for their subsistence and education. Now, instead of this doctrine being, as has been often stated, unfavourable to human happiness, it would appear that a material change for the better

would be effected in the condition of society, were its justice generally felt and acknowledged, and a vigorous effort made to give it a practical bearing and real influence. It is evident, on the least reflection, that poverty is the source of the greater portion of the ills which afflict humanity; and there can be no reasonable doubt, that a too rapid increase of population, by occasioning a redundant supply of labour, an excessive competition for employment, and low wages, is the most efficient cause of poverty. It is now too late to contend that a crowded population is a sure symptom of national prosperity. The population of the United States is much less dense than that of Ireland; but will any one say that they are less flourishing and happy? The truth is, that the prosperity of a nation depends much less on the number of its inhabitants than on their industry and intelligence, and their command over necessaries and conveniences. The earth affords room only, with the existing means of production, for a certain number of human beings to be trained to any degree of perfection. And it has been truly said, that "every real philanthropist would rather witness the existence of a thousand such beings, than that of a million of millions of creatures, pressing against the limits of subsistence, burdensome to themselves, and contemptible to each other." Wherever the number of labourers continues to increase more rapidly than the fund which has to support and employ them, their wages are gradually reduced till they reach the lowest possible limit. When placed under such unfortunate circumstances, they are entirely cut off from all expectation of rising in the world, or of improving their condition. Their exertions are neither inspired by hope nor by ambition. Unable to save, or to acquire a stake in society, they have no inducement to make any unusual exertions. In consequence, they become indolent and dispirited; and, if not pressed by hunger, would be always idle.

It is thus apparent that the ratio which the progress of capital bears to the progress of population, is the pivot on which the comfort and well-being of the great bulk of society

must always turn. If the proportion of capital to population be increased, the population will be better provided for; if it continue the same, the condition of the population will undergo no change; and if it be diminished, that condition will be changed for the worse.

The principles we have thus briefly endeavoured to elucidate render it apparent, on a little reflection, that the condition of the bulk of every people must usually depend more on their own conduct than on that of their rulers. Not that we mean by this to insinuate, that the influence of governments over their subjects is not great and powerful, or that the latter should not be governed in the best possible manner. A people who have the misfortune to be subjected to arbitrary and intolerant rulers, though otherwise possessed of all the powers and capacities necessary for the production of wealth, will, from the want of security and freedom, be most probably sunk in poverty and wretchedness. But in countries where property is secure, industry free, and the public burdens moderate, the happiness or misery of the labouring classes depends almost wholly on themselves. Government has there done for them all that it should, and all in truth that it can, do. It has given them security and freedom. But the use or abuse of these inestimable advantages is their own affair. They may be either provident or improvident, industrious or idle; and being free to choose, they are alone responsible for the consequences of their choice.

It is, we admit, visionary to expect, as some theorists have done, that the progress of population should ever be exactly adjusted to the increase or diminution of the national capital, or that the conduct of the mass of the people should be perceptibly influenced by public considerations, or by a regard to its effects on society at large. The theories of philosophers, and the measures of statesmen and legislators, have reference to the interests and well-being of nations; but those of ordinary men embrace a comparatively narrow range. Their views seldom, indeed, extend even to the class to which they

B

belong. They include only themselves, their families, and near connections; and they are satisfied if they succeed in promoting their interests, without thinking or caring about those of the public. Luckily, however, the two coincide. The industry, the frugality, and the forethought, without which no individual can either hope to improve his condition, if he have little or nothing, or to keep his own, and avoid falling a sacrifice to poverty, if he have anything, are virtues indispensable to the well-being of individuals, and consequently of the community. And it is so ordered, that no sort of combination or co-operation is required to secure these advantages. They are realised to the fullest extent by every one by whom they are practised; and they can be realised by none else.

It is fortunate that those principles, a knowledge of which is of most importance to the interests of mankind, lie on the surface, and are easily understood, and may be practised by all. Every man, if he have any reflection, who proposes entering into a matrimonial engagement, must feel that he is about to undertake a serious responsibility. The wages or resources which may be able to support himself comfortably, may be insufficient for the support of two, or three, or four individuals. And if he have no provision made beforehand, and cannot increase his means by greater economy or greater exertion, what can he expect from his marriage but that he should be reduced to comparative poverty, and be forced, perhaps, to take refuge in a workhouse? There is no denying this conclusion; and a conviction of its truth will not tend to obstruct any really desirable union. It will only tend to lessen the number of those that are improvidently made, and which seldom fail to be ruinous alike to the parties and to the public.

It is not unusual, indeed, for those who have brought themselves into difficulties by their improvidence or misconduct, to throw the blame on the government or the institutions of the country in which they live. But a pretence of this sort cannot impose on any person possessed of the smallest discernment. It is the merest delusion to imagine that it is in the power of any administration to protect