CHAPTER II.

"OF SYSTEMS OF EQUALITY, &c., GODWIN."

MR. GODWIN is able to speak for himself, which, indeeed, he has very ably done; but we believe that he has mistakenly thought it incumbent on him to disprove Mr. M.'s assertions respecting the greatness of the power of procreation, whereby he has been led as far wide of the mark on the right side, as Mr. Malthus has on the left; we, however, shall merely notice a few of Mr. M.'s assertions in this chapter, leaving to Mr. G. its complete examination and exposure.

Mr. G., it seems, has said, "There is a principle in human society by which population is kept down to the level of the means of subsistence." "This principle," rejoins Mr. Malthus, "has appeared to be the law of necessity, misery, and the fear of misery." True, Mr. M., but you have forgot, that "misery, and the fear of misery," are but effects of some cause;

and you have not proved that the principle of population is that cause. On the contrary, you have proved, that Mr. G. was right in assigning ignorance, and defective human institutions, as the true cause of those evils.

Mr. G. has attributed to human institutions the production of a great share of, if not all, the vice and misery in the world. To confute which charge, the writer, or rather extractor, of the descriptions of the state of Turkey, Egypt, Syria, Africa, &c., asserts, that "the evils arising from human institutions are, in reality, light and superficial, in comparison with those deeper-seated causes of evil, resulting from the laws of God, and the manner in which he has constituted mankind." Whether the assertion be, or be not, well founded, the reader will determine for himself, after reading the descriptions abovementioned.

The author goes on to say, that, supposing Mr. Godwin's assertions to be correct, "it would not seem an absolutely hopeless task to remove evil completely from the world;" but Mr. M. is not required to retreat quite so far ; if he can allow, that it is naturally possible to remove any considerable part of it, so as to be sufficiently encouraging to make any attempts for its accomplishment, we shall be satisfied with "reason, as the proper and adequate instrument for effecting so great a purpose," and heartily de

sire, that none other may be employed or required.

Mr. M. remarks, that " it may be curious to observe, in the case we have been supposing, (a community of goods, women, &c.) how some of the principal laws, which at present govern society, would be imperiously dictated by the most imperious necessity." He then proceeds to trace what he thus conceives to be the real origin of these laws; but he is not kind enough to trace, or give us any clue to trace, the imperious necessity of the laws, for giving to a bishop a share of the national wealth produced by the national labour, equal to the income of from 200 to 500 labourers, nor for augmenting the income of a prince, duke, lord, &c. &c., (which previously was, perhaps, equal to that of 10,000 common labourers,) by pensions, sinecures, undeserved salaries, &c. &c., equivalent to that of, from 100 to 10,000 more labourers! Nor do we find the reason assigned why these labourers may not be allowed a small share of their own time to "expatiate in the fields of thought," and to perform only a proportional share of labour for their share of the means of subsistence, instead of being compelled to toil more than beasts of burden, in not only producing the means of subsistence, comfort, and conveniences, for the idle classes, but also in the preparation and manufacture of

D

toys and luxuries, or articles with which to purchase toys and luxuries, for the grown-up babies in those unemployed ranks; nor why these labourers should be compelled to engage in carrying on wholesale murder, robbery, and rapine of every, the most atrocious, description, merely to gratify the whims and malicious caprices of the said babies, and their knavish friends, ere those labourers are allowed to receive any share of the means of subsistence produced by their own labour. Neither can we find out why the same day labourers, while themselves and families are half starved, should be forced to support, in idleness, pomp, and luxury, other men, and their families, whose existence is either useless or hurtful to the interests of the said labourers; and, though last not least, why the rent of the country should be given to private individuals instead of being applied to the use of the State. The remainder of the author's humane, just, well-founded, Christian-pastor-like reasoning, about "the unhappy persons who, in the great lottery of life, have drawn a blank," &c. &c., we may pass over for the present; it, doubtless, forms a part of the proofs of his "greatness and goodness;" and will, as we suppose, be amplified in his discussion on the English poor laws. We would, however, just ask the author, whether there is no possible difference between a

"claim to an equal share of the produce of the earth," and a claim to a just share of such produce? and who, and what, those persons are, who can maintain a claim to the produce of labour, more just or more valid than that of the labourer producing? We would, also, ask him, whether he really believes, that certain "owners of surplus produce" of food and necessaries,* tax-eaters, land-rent, tithe, and dividend receivers, for example, do generally " employ labourers in exerting their strength in procuring a further surplus produce, which may, at once, benefit the community, and enable the proprietors to afford assistance to greater numbers?" Before we conclude our examination of this chapter, we must take the liberty of putting one more question to the reverend author. ever read in a certain book, as follows: there be among you a poor man, one of thy brethren, thou shalt surely give him, and thine heart shall not be grieved when thou givest unto him; because that, for this thing, the Lord thy God shall bless thee in all thy works, and in all that thou puttest thine hand unto.

Has he

"If

* Query, What is meant by the sentence, "surplus produce" of food and necessaries, in a country, whose population is said to be in excess, and which, according to Mr. M., has not enough of food in it for every one to have a moderate share?