No More Learning

This check is not so obvious to common view as the other I have
mentioned, and, to prove distinctly the force and extent of its
operation would require, perhaps, more data than we are in possession
of. But I believe it has been very generally remarked by those who have
attended to bills of mortality that of the number of children who die
annually, much too great a proportion belongs to those who may be
supposed unable to give their offspring proper food and attention,
exposed as they are occasionally to severe distress and confined,
perhaps, to unwholesome habitations and hard labour. This mortality
among the children of the poor has been constantly taken notice of in
all towns. It certainly does not prevail in an equal degree in the
country, but the subject has not hitherto received sufficient attention
to enable anyone to say that there are not more deaths in proportion
among the children of the poor, even in the country, than among those
of the middling and higher classes. Indeed, it seems difficult to
suppose that a labourer's wife who has six children, and who is
sometimes in absolute want of bread, should be able always to give them
the food and attention necessary to support life. The sons and
daughters of peasants will not be found such rosy cherubs in real life
as they are described to be in romances. It cannot fail to be remarked
by those who live much in the country that the sons of labourers are
very apt to be stunted in their growth, and are a long while arriving
at maturity. Boys that you would guess to be fourteen or fifteen are,
upon inquiry, frequently found to be eighteen or nineteen. And the lads
who drive plough, which must certainly be a healthy exercise, are very
rarely seen with any appearance of calves to their legs: a circumstance
which can only be attributed to a want either of proper or of
sufficient nourishment.

To remedy the frequent distresses of the common people, the poor laws
of England have been instituted; but it is to be feared, that though
they may have alleviated a little the intensity of individual
misfortune, they have spread the general evil over a much larger
surface. It is a subject often started in conversation and mentioned
always as a matter of great surprise that, notwithstanding the immense
sum that is annually collected for the poor in England, there is still
so much distress among them. Some think that the money must be
embezzled, others that the church-wardens and overseers consume the
greater part of it in dinners. All agree that somehow or other it must
be very ill-managed. In short the fact that nearly three millions are
collected annually for the poor and yet that their distresses are not
removed is the subject of continual astonishment. But a man who sees a
little below the surface of things would be very much more astonished
if the fact were otherwise than it is observed to be, or even if a
collection universally of eighteen shillings in the pound, instead of
four, were materially to alter it. I will state a case which I hope
will elucidate my meaning.

Suppose that by a subscription of the rich the eighteen pence a day
which men earn now was made up five shillings, it might be imagined,
perhaps, that they would then be able to live comfortably and have a
piece of meat every day for their dinners. But this would be a very
false conclusion. The transfer of three shillings and sixpence a day to
every labourer would not increase the quantity of meat in the country.
There is not at present enough for all to have a decent share. What
would then be the consequence? The competition among the buyers in the
market of meat would rapidly raise the price from sixpence or
sevenpence, to two or three shillings in the pound, and the commodity
would not be divided among many more than it is at present. When an
article is scarce, and cannot be distributed to all, he that can shew
the most valid patent, that is, he that offers most money, becomes the
possessor. If we can suppose the competition among the buyers of meat
to continue long enough for a greater number of cattle to be reared
annually, this could only be done at the expense of the corn, which
would be a very disadvantagous exchange, for it is well known that the
country could not then support the same population, and when
subsistence is scarce in proportion to the number of people, it is of
little consequence whether the lowest members of the society possess
eighteen pence or five shillings. They must at all events be reduced to
live upon the hardest fare and in the smallest quantity.

It will be said, perhaps, that the increased number of purchasers in
every article would give a spur to productive industry and that the
whole produce of the island would be increased. This might in some
degree be the case. But the spur that these fancied riches would give
to population would more than counterbalance it, and the increased
produce would be to be divided among a more than proportionably
increased number of people. All this time I am supposing that the same
quantity of work would be done as before. But this would not really
take place. The receipt of five shillings a day, instead of eighteen
pence, would make every man fancy himself comparatively rich and able
to indulge himself in many hours or days of leisure. This would give a
strong and immediate check to productive industry, and, in a short
time, not only the nation would be poorer, but the lower classes
themselves would be much more distressed than when they received only
eighteen pence a day.

A collection from the rich of eighteen shillings in the pound, even if
distributed in the most judicious manner, would have a little the same
effect as that resulting from the supposition I have just made, and no
possible contributions or sacrifices of the rich, particularly in
money, could for any time prevent the recurrence of distress among the
lower members of society, whoever they were. Great changes might,
indeed, be made. The rich might become poor, and some of the poor rich,
but a part of the society must necessarily feel a difficulty of living,
and this difficulty will naturally fall on the least fortunate members.

It may at first appear strange, but I believe it is true, that I cannot
by means of money raise a poor man and enable him to live much better
than he did before, without proportionably depressing others in the
same class. If I retrench the quantity of food consumed in my house,
and give him what I have cut off, I then benefit him, without
depressing any but myself and family, who, perhaps, may be well able to
bear it. If I turn up a piece of uncultivated land, and give him the
produce, I then benefit both him and all the members of the society,
because what he before consumed is thrown into the common stock, and
probably some of the new produce with it. But if I only give him money,
supposing the produce of the country to remain the same, I give him a
title to a larger share of that produce than formerly, which share he
cannot receive without diminishing the shares of others. It is evident
that this effect, in individual instances, must be so small as to be
totally imperceptible; but still it must exist, as many other effects
do, which, like some of the insects that people the air, elude our
grosser perceptions.

Supposing the quantity of food in any country to remain the same for
many years together, it is evident that this food must be divided
according to the value of each man's patent, or the sum of money that
he can afford to spend on this commodity so universally in request. (Mr
Godwin calls the wealth that a man receives from his ancestors a mouldy
patent. It may, I think, very properly be termed a patent, but I hardly
see the propriety of calling it a mouldy one, as it is an article in
such constant use. ) It is a demonstrative truth, therefore, that the
patents of one set of men could not be increased in value without
diminishing the value of the patents of some other set of men. If the
rich were to subscribe and give five shillings a day to five hundred
thousand men without retrenching their own tables, no doubt can exist,
that as these men would naturally live more at their ease and consume a
greater quantity of provisions, there would be less food remaining to
divide among the rest, and consequently each man's patent would be
diminished in value or the same number of pieces of silver would
purchase a smaller quantity of subsistence.

An increase of population without a proportional increase of food will
evidently have the same effect in lowering the value of each man's
patent. The food must necessarily be distributed in smaller quantities,
and consequently a day's labour will purchase a smaller quantity of
provisions. An increase in the price of provisions would arise either
from an increase of population faster than the means of subsistence, or
from a different distribution of the money of the society. The food of
a country that has been long occupied, if it be increasing, increases
slowly and regularly and cannot be made to answer any sudden demands,
but variations in the distribution of the money of a society are not
infrequently occurring, and are undoubtedly among the causes that
occasion the continual variations which we observe in the price of
provisions.

The poor laws of England tend to depress the general condition of the
poor in these two ways. Their first obvious tendency is to increase
population without increasing the food for its support. A poor man may
marry with little or no prospect of being able to support a family in
independence. They may be said therefore in some measure to create the
poor which they maintain, and as the provisions of the country must, in
consequence of the increased population, be distributed to every man in
smaller proportions, it is evident that the labour of those who are not
supported by parish assistance will purchase a smaller quantity of
provisions than before and consequently more of them must be driven to
ask for support.

Secondly, the quantity of provisions consumed in workhouses upon a part
of the society that cannot in general be considered as the most
valuable part diminishes the shares that would otherwise belong to more
industrious and more worthy members, and thus in the same manner forces
more to become dependent. If the poor in the workhouses were to live
better than they now do, this new distribution of the money of the
society would tend more conspicuously to depress the condition of those
out of the workhouses by occasioning a rise in the price of provisions.

Fortunately for England, a spirit of independence still remains among
the peasantry. The poor laws are strongly calculated to eradicate this
spirit. They have succeeded in part, but had they succeeded as
completely as might have been expected their pernicious tendency would
not have been so long concealed.

Hard as it may appear in individual instances, dependent poverty ought
to be held disgraceful. Such a stimulus seems to be absolutely
necessary to promote the happiness of the great mass of mankind, and
every general attempt to weaken this stimulus, however benevolent its
apparent intention, will always defeat its own purpose. If men are
induced to marry from a prospect of parish provision, with little or no
chance of maintaining their families in independence, they are not only
unjustly tempted to bring unhappiness and dependence upon themselves
and children, but they are tempted, without knowing it, to injure all
in the same class with themselves. A labourer who marries without being
able to support a family may in some respects be considered as an enemy
to all his fellow-labourers.

I feel no doubt whatever that the parish laws of England have
contributed to raise the price of provisions and to lower the real
price of labour. They have therefore contributed to impoverish that
class of people whose only possession is their labour. It is also
difficult to suppose that they have not powerfully contributed to
generate that carelessness and want of frugality observable among the
poor, so contrary to the disposition frequently to be remarked among
petty tradesmen and small farmers. The labouring poor, to use a vulgar
expression, seem always to live from hand to mouth. Their present wants
employ their whole attention, and they seldom think of the future. Even
when they have an opportunity of saving they seldom exercise it, but
all that is beyond their present necessities goes, generally speaking,
to the ale-house. The poor laws of England may therefore be said to
diminish both the power and the will to save among the common people,
and thus to weaken one of the strongest incentives to sobriety and
industry, and consequently to happiness.

It is a general complaint among master manufacturers that high wages
ruin all their workmen, but it is difficult to conceive that these men
would not save a part of their high wages for the future support of
their families, instead of spending it in drunkenness and dissipation,
if they did not rely on parish assistance for support in case of
accidents. And that the poor employed in manufactures consider this
assistance as a reason why they may spend all the wages they earn and
enjoy themselves while they can appears to be evident from the number
of families that, upon the failure of any great manufactory,
immediately fall upon the parish, when perhaps the wages earned in this
manufactory while it flourished were sufficiently above the price of
common country labour to have allowed them to save enough for their
support till they could find some other channel for their industry.

A man who might not be deterred from going to the ale-house from the
consideration that on his death, or sickness, he should leave his wife
and family upon the parish might yet hesitate in thus dissipating his
earnings if he were assured that, in either of these cases, his family
must starve or be left to the support of casual bounty. In China, where
the real as well as nominal price of labour is very low, sons are yet
obliged by law to support their aged and helpless parents. Whether such
a law would be advisable in this country I will not pretend to
determine. But it seems at any rate highly improper, by positive
institutions, which render dependent poverty so general, to weaken that
disgrace, which for the best and most humane reasons ought to attach to
it.

The mass of happiness among the common people cannot but be diminished
when one of the strongest checks to idleness and dissipation is thus
removed, and when men are thus allured to marry with little or no
prospect of being able to maintain a family in independence. Every
obstacle in the way of marriage must undoubtedly be considered as a
species of unhappiness. But as from the laws of our nature some check
to population must exist, it is better that it should be checked from a
foresight of the difficulties attending a family and the fear of
dependent poverty than that it should be encouraged, only to be
repressed afterwards by want and sickness.

It should be remembered always that there is an essential difference
between food and those wrought commodities, the raw materials of which
are in great plenty. A demand for these last will not fail to create
them in as great a quantity as they are wanted. The demand for food has
by no means the same creative power. In a country where all the fertile
spots have been seized, high offers are necessary to encourage the
farmer to lay his dressing on land from which he cannot expect a
profitable return for some years. And before the prospect of advantage
is sufficiently great to encourage this sort of agricultural
enterprise, and while the new produce is rising, great distresses may
be suffered from the want of it. The demand for an increased quantity
of subsistence is, with few exceptions, constant everywhere, yet we see
how slowly it is answered in all those countries that have been long
occupied.

The poor laws of England were undoubtedly instituted for the most
benevolent purpose, but there is great reason to think that they have
not succeeded in their intention. They certainly mitigate some cases of
very severe distress which might otherwise occur, yet the state of the
poor who are supported by parishes, considered in all its
circumstances, is very far from being free from misery. But one of the
principal objections to them is that for this assistance which some of
the poor receive, in itself almost a doubtful blessing, the whole class
of the common people of England is subjected to a set of grating,
inconvenient, and tyrannical laws, totally inconsistent with the
genuine spirit of the constitution. The whole business of settlements,
even in its present amended state, is utterly contradictory to all
ideas of freedom. The parish persecution of men whose families are
likely to become chargeable, and of poor women who are near lying-in,
is a most disgraceful and disgusting tyranny. And the obstructions
continuity occasioned in the market of labour by these laws have a
constant tendency to add to the difficulties of those who are
struggling to support themselves without assistance.

These evils attendant on the poor laws are in some degree irremediable.
If assistance be to be distributed to a certain class of people, a
power must be given somewhere of discriminating the proper objects and
of managing the concerns of the institutions that are necessary, but
any great interference with the affairs of other people is a species of
tyranny, and in the common course of things the exercise of this power
may be expected to become grating to those who are driven to ask for
support. The tyranny of Justices, Church-wardens, and Overseers, is a
common complaint among the poor, but the fault does not lie so much in
these persons, who probably, before they were in power, were not worse
than other people, but in the nature of all such institutions.

The evil is perhaps gone too far to be remedied, but I feel little
doubt in my own mind that if the poor laws had never existed, though
there might have been a few more instances of very severe distress, yet
that the aggregate mass of happiness among the common people would have
been much greater than it is at present.

Mr Pitt's Poor Bill has the appearance of being framed with benevolent
intentions, and the clamour raised against it was in many respects ill
directed, and unreasonable. But it must be confessed that it possesses
in a high degree the great and radical defect of all systems of the
kind, that of tending to increase population without increasing the
means for its support, and thus to depress the condition of those that
are not supported by parishes, and, consequently, to create more poor.

To remove the wants of the lower classes of society is indeed an
arduous task. The truth is that the pressure of distress on this part
of a community is an evil so deeply seated that no human ingenuity can
reach it. Were I to propose a palliative, and palliatives are all that
the nature of the case will admit, it should be, in the first place,
the total abolition of all the present parish-laws. This would at any
rate give liberty and freedom of action to the peasantry of England,
which they can hardly be said to possess at present. They would then be
able to settle without interruption, wherever there was a prospect of a
greater plenty of work and a higher price for labour. The market of
labour would then be free, and those obstacles removed which, as things
are now, often for a considerable time prevent the price from rising
according to the demand.

Secondly, premiums might be given for turning up fresh land, and it
possible encouragements held out to agriculture above manufactures, and
to tillage above grazing. Every endeavour should be used to weaken and
destroy all those institutions relating to corporations,
apprenticeships, etc. , which cause the labours of agriculture to be
worse paid than the labours of trade and manufactures. For a country
can never produce its proper quantity of food while these distinctions
remain in favour of artisans. Such encouragements to agriculture would
tend to furnish the market with an increasing quantity of healthy work,
and at the same time, by augmenting the produce of the country, would
raise the comparative price of labour and ameliorate the condition of
the labourer. Being now in better circumstances, and seeing no prospect
of parish assistance, he would be more able, as well as more inclined,
to enter into associations for providing against the sickness of
himself or family.

Lastly, for cases of extreme distress, county workhouses might be
established, supported by rates upon the whole kingdom, and free for
persons of all counties, and indeed of all nations. The fare should be
hard, and those that were able obliged to work. It would be desirable
that they should not be considered as comfortable asylums in all
difficulties, but merely as places where severe distress might find
some alleviation. A part of these houses might be separated, or others
built for a most beneficial purpose, which has not been infrequently
taken notice of, that of providing a place where any person, whether
native or foreigner, might do a day's work at all times and receive the
market price for it. Many cases would undoubtedly be left for the
exertion of individual benevolence.

A plan of this kind, the preliminary of which should be an abolition of
all the present parish laws, seems to be the best calculated to
increase the mass of happiness among the common people of England. To
prevent the recurrence of misery, is, alas! beyond the power of man. In
the vain endeavour to attain what in the nature of things is
impossible, we now sacrifice not only possible but certain benefits. We
tell the common people that if they will submit to a code of tyrannical
regulations, they shall never be in want. They do submit to these
regulations. They perform their part of the contract, but we do not,
nay cannot, perform ours, and thus the poor sacrifice the valuable
blessing of liberty and receive nothing that can be called an
equivalent in return.

Notwithstanding, then, the institution of the poor laws in England, I
think it will be allowed that considering the state of the lower
classes altogether, both in the towns and in the country, the
distresses which they suffer from the want of proper and sufficient
food, from hard labour and unwholesome habitations, must operate as a
constant check to incipient population.

To these two great checks to population, in all long occupied
countries, which I have called the preventive and the positive checks,
may be added vicious customs with respect to women, great cities,
unwholesome manufactures, luxury, pestilence, and war.

All these checks may be fairly resolved into misery and vice. And that
these are the true causes of the slow increase of population in all the
states of modern Europe, will appear sufficiently evident from the
comparatively rapid increase that has invariably taken place whenever
these causes have been in any considerable degree removed.




CHAPTER 6

New colonies--Reasons for their rapid increase--North American
Colonies--Extraordinary instance of increase in the back
settlements--Rapidity with which even old states recover the ravages of
war, pestilence, famine, or the convulsions of nature.


It has been universally remarked that all new colonies settled in
healthy countries, where there was plenty of room and food, have
constantly increased with astonishing rapidity in their population.
Some of the colonies from ancient Greece, in no very long period, more
than equalled their parent states in numbers and strength. And not to
dwell on remote instances, the European settlements in the new world
bear ample testimony to the truth of a remark, which, indeed, has
never, that I know of, been doubted. A plenty of rich land, to be had
for little or nothing, is so powerful a cause of population as to
overcome all other obstacles. No settlements could well have been worse
managed than those of Spain in Mexico, Peru, and Quito. The tyranny,
superstition, and vices of the mother-country were introduced in ample
quantities among her children. Exorbitant taxes were exacted by the
Crown. The most arbitrary restrictions were imposed on their trade. And
the governors were not behind hand in rapacity and extortion for
themselves as well as their master. Yet, under all these difficulties,
the colonies made a quick progress in population. The city of Lima,
founded since the conquest, is represented by Ulloa as containing fifty
thousand inhabitants near fifty years ago. Quito, which had been but a
hamlet of indians, is represented by the same author as in his time
equally populous. Mexico is said to contain a hundred thousand
inhabitants, which, notwithstanding the exaggerations of the Spanish
writers, is supposed to be five times greater than what it contained in
the time of Montezuma.

In the Portuguese colony of Brazil, governed with almost equal tyranny,
there were supposed to be, thirty years since, six hundred thousand
inhabitants of European extraction.

The Dutch and French colonies, though under the government of exclusive
companies of merchants, which, as Dr Adam Smith says very justly, is
the worst of all possible governments, still persisted in thriving
under every disadvantage.

But the English North American colonies, now the powerful people of the
United States of America, made by far the most rapid progress. To the
plenty of good land which they possessed in common with the Spanish and
Portuguese settlements, they added a greater degree of liberty and
equality. Though not without some restrictions on their foreign
commerce, they were allowed a perfect liberty of managing their own
internal affairs. The political institutions that prevailed were
favourable to the alienation and division of property. Lands that were
not cultivated by the proprietor within a limited time were declared
grantable to any other person. In Pennsylvania there was no right of
primogeniture, and in the provinces of New England the eldest had only
a double share. There were no tithes in any of the States, and scarcely
any taxes. And on account of the extreme cheapness of good land a
capital could not be more advantageously employed than in agriculture,
which at the same time that it supplies the greatest quantity of
healthy work affords much the most valuable produce to the society.

The consequence of these favourable circumstances united was a rapidity
of increase probably without parallel in history. Throughout all the
northern colonies, the population was found to double itself in
twenty-five years. The original number of persons who had settled in
the four provinces of new England in 1643 was 21,200. (I take these
figures from Dr Price's two volumes of Observations; not having Dr
Styles' pamphlet, from which he quotes, by me. ) Afterwards, it is
supposed that more left them than went to them. In the year 1760, they
were increased to half a million. They had therefore all along doubled
their own number in twenty-five years. In New Jersey the period of
doubling appeared to be twenty-two years; and in Rhode island still
less. In the back settlements, where the inhabitants applied themselves
solely to agriculture, and luxury was not known, they were found to
double their own number in fifteen years, a most extraordinary instance
of increase. Along the sea coast, which would naturally be first
inhabited, the period of doubling was about thirty-five years; and in
some of the maritime towns, the population was absolutely at a stand.

(In instances of this kind the powers of the earth appear to be fully
equal to answer it the demands for food that can be made upon it by
man. But we should be led into an error if we were thence to suppose
that population and food ever really increase in the same ratio. The
one is still a geometrical and the other an arithmetical ratio, that
is, one increases by multiplication, and the other by addition. Where
there are few people, and a great quantity of fertile land, the power
of the earth to afford a yearly increase of food may be compared to a
great reservoir of water, supplied by a moderate stream. The faster
population increases, the more help will be got to draw off the water,
and consequently an increasing quantity will be taken every year. But
the sooner, undoubtedly, will the reservoir be exhausted, and the
streams only remain. When acre has been added to acre, till all the
fertile land is occupied, the yearly increase of food will depend upon
the amelioration of the land already in possession; and even this
moderate stream will be gradually diminishing. But population, could it
be supplied with food, would go on with unexhausted vigour, and the
increase of one period would furnish the power of a greater increase
the next, and this without any limit. )

These facts seem to shew that population increases exactly in the
proportion that the two great checks to it, misery and vice, are
removed, and that there is not a truer criterion of the happiness and
innocence of a people than the rapidity of their increase. The
unwholesomeness of towns, to which some persons are necessarily driven
from the nature of their trades, must be considered as a species of
misery, and every the slightest check to marriage, from a prospect of
the difficulty of maintaining a family, may be fairly classed under the
same head. In short it is difficult to conceive any check to population
which does not come under the description of some species of misery or
vice.

The population of the thirteen American States before the war was
reckoned at about three millions. Nobody imagines that Great Britain is
less populous at present for the emigration of the small parent stock
that produced these numbers. On the contrary, a certain degree of
emigration is known to be favourable to the population of the mother
country. It has been particularly remarked that the two Spanish
provinces from which the greatest number of people emigrated to
America, became in consequence more populous. Whatever was the original
number of British emigrants that increased so fast in the North
American Colonies, let us ask, why does not an equal number produce an
equal increase in the same time in Great Britain? The great and obvious
cause to be assigned is the want of room and food, or, in other words,
misery, and that this is a much more powerful cause even than vice
appears sufficiently evident from the rapidity with which even old
states recover the desolations of war, pestilence, or the accidents of
nature. They are then for a short time placed a little in the situation
of new states, and the effect is always answerable to what might be
expected. If the industry of the inhabitants be not destroyed by fear
or tyranny, subsistence will soon increase beyond the wants of the
reduced numbers, and the invariable consequence will be that population
which before, perhaps, was nearly stationary, will begin immediately to
increase.

The fertile province of Flanders, which has been so often the seat of
the most destructive wars, after a respite of a few years, has appeared
always as fruitful and as populous as ever. Even the Palatinate lifted
up its head again after the execrable ravages of Louis the Fourteenth.
The effects of the dreadful plague in London in 1666 were not
perceptible fifteen or twenty years afterwards. The traces of the most
destructive famines in China and Indostan are by all accounts very soon
obliterated. It may even be doubted whether Turkey and Egypt are upon
an average much less populous for the plagues that periodically lay
them waste. If the number of people which they contain be less now than
formerly, it is, probably, rather to be attributed to the tyranny and
oppression of the government under which they groan, and the consequent
discouragements to agriculture, than to the loss which they sustain by
the plague. The most tremendous convulsions of nature, such as volcanic
eruptions and earthquakes, if they do not happen so frequently as to
drive away the inhabitants, or to destroy their spirit of industry,
have but a trifling effect on the average population of any state.
Naples, and the country under Vesuvius, are still very populous,
notwithstanding the repeated eruptions of that mountain. And Lisbon and
Lima are now, probably, nearly in the same state with regard to
population as they were before the last earthquakes.




CHAPTER 7

A probable cause of epidemics--Extracts from Mr Suessmilch's
tables--Periodical returns of sickly seasons to be expected in certain
cases--Proportion of births to burials for short periods in any country
an inadequate criterion of the real average increase of
population--Best criterion of a permanent increase of population--Great
frugality of living one of the causes of the famines of China and
Indostan--Evil tendency of one of the clauses in Mr Pitt's Poor
Bill--Only one proper way of encouraging population--Causes of the
Happiness of nations--Famine, the last and most dreadful mode by which
nature represses a redundant population--The three propositions
considered as established.


By great attention to cleanliness, the plague seems at length to be
completely expelled from London. But it is not improbable that among
the secondary causes that produce even sickly seasons and epidemics
ought to be ranked a crowded population and unwholesome and
insufficient food. I have been led to this remark, by looking over some
of the tables of Mr Suessmilch, which Dr Price has extracted in one of
his notes to the postscript on the controversy respecting the
population of England and Wales. They are considered as very correct,
and if such tables were general, they would throw great light on the
different ways by which population is repressed and prevented from
increasing beyond the means of subsistence in any country. I will
extract a part of the tables, with Dr Price's remarks.


IN THE KINGDOM OF PRUSSIA, AND DUKEDOM OF LITHUANIA

Proportion Proportion
Births Burials Marriages of Births to of Births to
Marriages Burials
10 Yrs to 1702 21,963 14,718 5,928 37 to 10 150 to 100
5 Yrs to 1716 21,602 11,984 4,968 37 to 10 180 to 100
5 Yrs to 1756 28,392 19,154 5,599 50 to 10 148 to 100

"N. B. In 1709 and 1710, a pestilence carried off 247,733 of the
inhabitants of this country, and in 1736 and 1737, epidemics prevailed,
which again checked its increase. "


It may be remarked, that the greatest proportion of births to burials,
was in the five years after the great pestilence.


DUCHY OF POMERANIA

Proportion Proportion
Annual Average Births Burials Marriages of Births to of Births to
Marriages Burials
6 yrs to 1702 6,540 4,647 1,810 36 to 10 140 to 100
6 yrs to 1708 7,455 4,208 1,875 39 to 10 177 to 100
6 yrs to 1726 8,432 5,627 2,131 39 to 10 150 to 100
6 yrs to 1756 12,767 9,281 2,957 43 to 10 137 to 100

"In this instance the inhabitants appear to have been almost doubled in
fifty-six years, no very bad epidemics having once interrupted the
increase, but the three years immediately follow ing the last period
(to 1759) were so sickly that the births were sunk to 10,229 and the
burials raised to 15,068. "


Is it not probable that in this case the number of inhabitants had
increased faster than the food and the accommodations necessary to
preserve them in health? The mass of the people would, upon this
supposition, be obliged to live harder, and a greater number would be
crowded together in one house, and it is not surely improbable that
these were among the natural causes that produced the three sickly
years. These causes may produce such an effect, though the country,
absolutely considered, may not be extremely crowded and populous.
In a
country even thinly inhabited, if an increase of population take place,
before more food is raised, and more houses are built, the inhabitants
must be distressed in some degree for room and subsistence. Were the
marriages in England, for the next eight or ten years, to be more
prolifick than usual, or even were a greater number of marriages than
usual to take place, supposing the number of houses to remain the same,
instead of five or six to a cottage, there must be seven or eight, and
this, added to the necessity of harder living, would probably have a
very unfavourable effect on the health of the common people.


NEUMARK OF BRANDENBURGH

Proportion Proportion
Annual Average Births Burials Marriages of Births to of Births to
Marriages Burials
5 yrs to 1701 5,433 3,483 1,436 37 to 10 155 to 100
5 yrs to 1726 7,012 4,254 1,713 40 to 10 164 to 100
5 yrs to 1756 7,978 5,567 1,891 42 to 10 143 to 100

"Epidemics prevailed for six years, from 1736, to 1741, which checked
the increase. "


DUKEDOM OF MAGDEBURGH

Proportion Proportion
Annual Average Births Burials Marriages of Births to of Births to
Marriages Burials
5 yrs to 1702 6,431 4,103 1,681 38 to 10 156 to 100
5 yrs to 1717 7,590 5,335 2,076 36 to 10 142 to 100
5 yrs to 1756 8,850 8,069 2,193 40 to 10 109 to 100

"The years 1738, 1740, 1750, and 1751, were particularly sickly. "


For further information on this subject, I refer the reader to Mr
Suessmilch's tables. The extracts that I have made are sufficient to
shew the periodical, though irregular, returns of sickly seasons, and
it seems highly probable that a scantiness of room and food was one of
the principal causes that occasioned them.

It appears from the tables that these countries were increasing rather
fast for old states, notwithstanding the occasional seasons that
prevailed. Cultivation must have been improving, and marriages,
consequently, encouraged. For the checks to population appear to have
been rather of the positive, than of the preventive kind. When from a
prospect of increasing plenty in any country, the weight that represses
population is in some degree removed, it is highly probable that the
motion will be continued beyond the operation of the cause that first
impelled it. Or, to be more particular, when the increasing produce of
a country, and the increasing demand for labour, so far ameliorate the
condition of the labourer as greatly to encourage marriage, it is
probable that the custom of early marriages will continue till the
population of the country has gone beyond the increased produce, and
sickly seasons appear to be the natural and necessary consequence. I
should expect, therefore, that those countries where subsistence was
increasing sufficiency at times to encourage population but not to
answer all its demands, would be more subject to periodical epidemics
than those where the population could more completely accommodate
itself to the average produce.

An observation the converse of this will probably also be found true.
In those countries that are subject to periodical sicknesses, the
increase of population, or the excess of births above the burials, will
be greater in the intervals of these periods than is usual, caeteris
paribus, in the countries not so much subject to such disorders. If
Turkey and Egypt have been nearly stationary in their average
population for the last century, in the intervals of their periodical
plagues, the births must have exceeded the burials in a greater
proportion than in such countries as France and England.

The average proportion of births to burials in any country for a period
of five to ten years, will hence appear to be a very inadequate
criterion by which to judge of its real progress in population. This
proportion certainly shews the rate of increase during those five or
ten years; but we can by no means thence infer what had been the
increase for the twenty years before, or what would be the increase for
the twenty years after. Dr Price observes that Sweden, Norway, Russia,
and the kingdom of Naples, are increasing fast; but the extracts from
registers that he has given are not for periods of sufficient extent to
establish the fact. It is highly probable, however, that Sweden,
Norway, and Russia, are really increasing their population, though not
at the rate that the proportion of births to burials for the short
periods that Dr Price takes would seem to shew. (See Dr Price's
Observations, Vol. ii, postscript to the controversy on the population
of England and Wales. ) For five years, ending in 1777, the proportion
of births to burials in the kingdom of Naples was 144 to 100, but there
is reason to suppose that this proportion would indicate an increase
much greater than would be really found to have taken place in that
kingdom during a period of a hundred years.

Dr Short compared the registers of many villages and market towns in
England for two periods; the first, from Queen Elizabeth to the middle
of the last century, and the second, from different years at the end of
the last century to the middle of the present. And from a comparison of
these extracts, it appears that in the former period the births
exceeded the burials in the proportion of 124 to 100, but in the
latter, only in the proportion of 111 to 100. Dr Price thinks that the
registers in the former period are not to be depended upon, but,
probably, in this instance they do not give incorrect proportions. At
least there are many reasons for expecting to find a greater excess of
births above the burials in the former period than in the latter. In
the natural progress of the population of any country, more good land
will, caeteris paribus, be taken into cultivation in the earlier stages
of it than in the later. (I say 'caeteris paribus', because the
increase of the produce of any country will always very greatly depend
on the spirit of industry that prevails, and the way in which it is
directed. The knowledge and habits of the people, and other temporary
causes, particularly the degree of civil liberty and equality existing
at the time, must always have great influence in exciting and directing
this spirit. ) And a greater proportional yearly increase of produce
will almost invariably be followed by a greater proportional increase
of population. But, besides this great cause, which would naturally
give the excess of births above burials greater at the end of Queen
Elizabeth's reign than in the middle of the present century, I cannot
help thinking that the occasional ravages of the plague in the former
period must have had some tendency to increase this proportion. If an
average of ten years had been taken in the intervals of the returns of
this dreadful disorder, or if the years of plague had been rejected as
accidental, the registers would certainly give the proportion of births
to burials too high for the real average increase of the population.
For some few years after the great plague in 1666, it is probable that
there was a more than usual excess of births above burials,
particularly if Dr Price's opinion be founded, that England was more
populous at the revolution (which happened only twenty-two years
afterwards) than it is at present.

Mr King, in 1693, stated the proportion of the births to the burials
throughout the Kingdom, exclusive of London, as 115 to 100. Dr Short
makes it, in the middle of the present century, 111 to 100, including
London. The proportion in France for five years, ending in 1774, was
117 to 100. If these statements are near the truth; and if there are no
very great variations at particular periods in the proportions, it
would appear that the population of France and England has accommodated
itself very nearly to the average produce of each country. The
discouragements to marriage, the consequent vicious habits, war,
luxury, the silent though certain depopulation of large towns, and the
close habitations, and insufficient food of many of the poor, prevent
population from increasing beyond the means of subsistence; and, if I
may use an expression which certainly at first appears strange,
supercede the necessity of great and ravaging epidemics to repress what
is redundant. Were a wasting plague to sweep off two millions in
England, and six millions in France, there can be no doubt whatever
that, after the inhabitants had recovered from the dreadful shock, the
proportion of births to burials would be much above what it is in
either country at present.

In New Jersey, the proportion of births to deaths on an average of
seven years, ending in 1743, was as 300 to 100. In France and England,
taking the highest proportion, it is as 117 to 100. Great and
astonishing as this difference is, we ought not to be so wonder-struck
at it as to attribute it to the miraculous interposition of heaven. The
causes of it are not remote, latent and mysterious; but near us, round
about us, and open to the investigation of every inquiring mind. It
accords with the most liberal spirit of philosophy to suppose that not
a stone can fall, or a plant rise, without the immediate agency of
divine power. But we know from experience that these operations of what
we call nature have been conducted almost invariably according to fixed
laws. And since the world began, the causes of population and
depopulation have probably been as constant as any of the laws of
nature with which we are acquainted.

The passion between the sexes has appeared in every age to be so nearly
the same that it may always be considered, in algebraic language, as a
given quantity. The great law of necessity which prevents population
from increasing in any country beyond the food which it can either
produce or acquire, is a law so open to our view, so obvious and
evident to our understandings, and so completely confirmed by the
experience of every age, that we cannot for a moment doubt it. The
different modes which nature takes to prevent or repress a redundant
population do not appear, indeed, to us so certain and regular, but
though we cannot always predict the mode we may with certainty predict
the fact. If the proportion of births to deaths for a few years
indicate an increase of numbers much beyond the proportional increased
or acquired produce of the country, we may be perfectly certain that
unless an emigration takes place, the deaths will shortly exceed the
births; and that the increase that had taken place for a few years
cannot be the real average increase of the population of the country.
Were there no other depopulating causes, every country would, without
doubt, be subject to periodical pestilences or famine.

The only true criterion of a real and permanent increase in the
population of any country is the increase of the means of subsistence.
But even, this criterion is subject to some slight variations which
are, however, completely open to our view and observations. In some
countries population appears to have been forced, that is, the people
have been habituated by degrees to live almost upon the smallest
possible quantity of food. There must have been periods in such
counties when population increased permanently, without an increase in
the means of subsistence. China seems to answer to this description. If
the accounts we have of it are to be trusted, the lower classes of
people are in the habit of living almost upon the smallest possible
quantity of food and are glad to get any putrid offals that European
labourers would rather starve than eat. The law in China which permits
parents to expose their children has tended principally thus to force
the population. A nation in this state must necessarily be subject to
famines. Where a country is so populous in proportion to the means of
subsistence that the average produce of it is but barely sufficient to
support the lives of the inhabitants, any deficiency from the badness
of seasons must be fatal. It is probable that the very frugal manner in
which the Gentoos are in the habit of living contributes in some degree
to the famines of Indostan.

In America, where the reward of labour is at present so liberal, the
lower classes might retrench very considerably in a year of scarcity
without materially distressing themselves. A famine therefore seems to
be almost impossible. It may be expected that in the progress of the
population of America, the labourers will in time be much less
liberally rewarded. The numbers will in this case permanently increase
without a proportional increase in the means of subsistence.

In the different states of Europe there must be some variations in the
proportion between the number of inhabitants and the quantity of food
consumed, arising from the different habits of living that prevail in
each state. The labourers of the South of England are so accustomed to
eat fine wheaten bread that they will suffer themselves to be half
starved before they will submit to live like the Scotch peasants. They
might perhaps in time, by the constant operation of the hard law of
necessity, be reduced to live even like the Lower Chinese, and the
country would then, with the same quantity of food, support a greater
population. But to effect this must always be a most difficult, and,
every friend to humanity will hope, an abortive attempt. Nothing is so
common as to hear of encouragements that ought to be given to
population. If the tendency of mankind to increase be so great as I
have represented it to be, it may appear strange that this increase
does not come when it is thus repeatedly called for. The true reason is
that the demand for a greater population is made without preparing the
funds necessary to support it. Increase the demand for agricultural
labour by promoting cultivation, and with it consequently increase the
produce of the country, and ameliorate the condition of the labourer,
and no apprehensions whatever need be entertained of the proportional
increase of population. An attempt to effect this purpose in any other
way is vicious, cruel, and tyrannical, and in any state of tolerable
freedom cannot therefore succeed. It may appear to be the interest of
the rulers, and the rich of a state, to force population, and thereby
lower the price of labour, and consequently the expense of fleets and
armies, and the cost of manufactures for foreign sale; but every
attempt of the kind should be carefully watched and strenuously
resisted by the friends of the poor, particularly when it comes under
the deceitful garb of benevolence, and is likely, on that account, to
be cheerfully and cordially received by the common people.

I entirely acquit Mr Pitt of any sinister intention in that clause of
his Poor Bill which allows a shilling a week to every labourer for each
child he has above three. I confess, that before the bill was brought
into Parliament, and for some time after, I thought that such a
regulation would be highly beneficial, but further reflection on the
subject has convinced me that if its object be to better the condition
of the poor, it is calculated to defeat the very purpose which it has
in view. It has no tendency that I can discover to increase the produce
of the country, and if it tend to increase the population, without
increasing the produce, the necessary and inevitable consequence
appears to be that the same produce must be divided among a greater
number, and consequently that a day's labour will purchase a smaller
quantity of provisions, and the poor therefore in general must be more
distressed.

I have mentioned some cases where population may permanently increase
without a proportional increase in the means of subsistence. But it is
evident that the variation in different states, between the food and
the numbers supported by it, is restricted to a limit beyond which it
cannot pass. In every country, the population of which is not
absolutely decreasing, the food must be necessarily sufficient to
support, and to continue, the race of labourers.

Other circumstances being the same, it may be affirmed that countries
are populous according to the quantity of human food which they
produce, and happy according to the liberality with which that food is
divided, or the quantity which a day's labour will purchase. Corn
countries are more populous than pasture countries, and rice countries
more populous than corn countries. The lands in England are not suited
to rice, but they would all bear potatoes; and Dr Adam Smith observes
that if potatoes were to become the favourite vegetable food of the
common people, and if the same quantity of land was employed in their
culture as is now employed in the culture of corn, the country would be
able to support a much greater population, and would consequently in a
very short time have it.

The happiness of a country does not depend, absolutely, upon its
poverty or its riches, upon its youth or its age, upon its being thinly
or fully inhabited, but upon the rapidity with which it is increasing,
upon the degree in which the yearly increase of food approaches to the
yearly increase of an unrestricted population. This approximation is
always the nearest in new colonies, where the knowledge and industry of
an old state operate on the fertile unappropriated land of a new one.
In other cases, the youth or the age of a state is not in this respect
of very great importance. It is probable that the food of Great Britain
is divided in as great plenty to the inhabitants, at the present
period, as it was two thousand, three thousand, or four thousand years
ago. And there is reason to believe that the poor and thinly inhabited
tracts of the Scotch Highlands are as much distressed by an overcharged
population as the rich and populous province of Flanders.

Were a country never to be overrun by a people more advanced in arts,
but left to its own natural progress in civilization; from the time
that its produce might be considered as an unit, to the time that it
might be considered as a million, during the lapse of many hundred
years, there would not be a single period when the mass of the people
could be said to be free from distress, either directly or indirectly,
for want of food. In every state in Europe, since we have first had
accounts of it, millions and millions of human existences have been
repressed from this simple cause; though perhaps in some of these
states an absolute famine has never been known.

Famine seems to be the last, the most dreadful resource of nature. The
power of population is so superior to the power in the earth to produce
subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other
visit the human race. The vices of mankind are active and able
ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of
destruction; and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should
they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics,
pestilence, and plague, advance in terrific array, and sweep off their
thousands and ten thousands. Should success be still incomplete,
gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow
levels the population with the food of the world.

Must it not then be acknowledged by an attentive examiner of the
histories of mankind, that in every age and in every state in which man
has existed, or does now exist.

That the increase of population is necessarily limited by the means of
subsistence.

That population does invariably increase when the means of subsistence
increase. And that the superior power of population it repressed, and
the actual population kept equal to the means of subsistence, by misery
and vice?




CHAPTER 8

Mr Wallace--Error of supposing that the difficulty arising from
population is at a great distance--Mr Condorcet's sketch of the
progress of the human mind--Period when the oscillation, mentioned by
Mr Condorcet, ought to be applied to the human race.


To a person who draws the preceding obvious inferences, from a view of
the past and present state of mankind, it cannot but be a matter of
astonishment that all the writers on the perfectibility of man and of
society who have noticed the argument of an overcharged population,
treat it always very slightly and invariably represent the difficulties
arising from it as at a great and almost immeasurable distance. Even Mr
Wallace, who thought the argument itself of so much weight as to
destroy his whole system of equality, did not seem to be aware that any
difficulty would occur from this cause till the whole earth had been
cultivated like a garden and was incapable of any further increase of
produce. Were this really the case, and were a beautiful system of
equality in other respects practicable, I cannot think that our ardour
in the pursuit of such a scheme ought to be damped by the contemplation
of so remote a difficulty. An event at such a distance might fairly be
left to providence, but the truth is that if the view of the argument
given in this Essay be just the difficulty, so far from being remote,
would be imminent and immediate. At every period during the progress of
cultivation, from the present moment to the time when the whole earth
was become like a garden, the distress for want of food would be
constantly pressing on all mankind, if they were equal. Though the
produce of the earth might be increasing every year, population would
be increasing much faster, and the redundancy must necessarily be
repressed by the periodical or constant action of misery or vice.

Mr Condorcet's Esquisse d'un Tableau Historique des Progres de l'Esprit
Humain, was written, it is said, under the pressure of that cruel
proscription which terminated in his death. If he had no hopes of its
being seen during his life and of its interesting France in his favour,
it is a singular instance of the attachment of a man to principles,
which every day's experience was so fatally for himself contradicting.
To see the human mind in one of the most enlightened nations of the
world, and after a lapse of some thousand years, debased by such a
fermentation of disgusting passions, of fear, cruelty, malice, revenge,
ambition, madness, and folly as would have disgraced the most savage
nation in the most barbarous age must have been such a tremendous shock
to his ideas of the necessary and inevitable progress of the human mind
that nothing but the firmest conviction of the truth of his principles,
in spite of all appearances, could have withstood.

This posthumous publication is only a sketch of a much larger work,
which he proposed should be executed. It necessarily, therefore, wants
that detail and application which can alone prove the truth of any
theory. A few observations will be sufficient to shew how completely
the theory is contradicted when it is applied to the real, and not to
an imaginary, state of things.

In the last division of the work, which treats of the future progress
of man towards perfection, he says, that comparing, in the different
civilized nations of Europe, the actual population with the extent of
territory, and observing their cultivation, their industry, their
divisions of labour, and their means of subsistence, we shall see that
it would be impossible to preserve the same means of subsistence, and,
consequently, the same population, without a number of individuals who
have no other means of supplying their wants than their industry.
Having allowed the necessity of such a class of men, and adverting
afterwards to the precarious revenue of those families that would
depend so entirely on the life and health of their chief, he says, very
justly: 'There exists then, a necessary cause of inequality, of
dependence, and even of misery, which menaces, without ceasing, the
most numerous and active class of our societies. ' (To save time and
long quotations, I shall here give the substance of some of Mr
Condorcet's sentiments, and hope I shall not misrepresent them. But I
refer the reader to the work itself, which will amuse, if it does not
convince him. ) The difficulty is just and well stated, and I am afraid
that the mode by which he proposes it should be removed will be found
inefficacious. By the application of calculations to the probabilities
of life and the interest of money, he proposes that a fund should be
established which should assure to the old an assistance, produced, in
part, by their own former savings, and, in part, by the savings of
individuals who in making the same sacrifice die before they reap the
benefit of it. The same, or a similar fund, should give assistance to
women and children who lose their husbands, or fathers, and afford a
capital to those who were of an age to found a new family, sufficient
for the proper development of their industry. These establishments, he
observes, might be made in the name and under the protection of the
society. Going still further, he says that, by the just application of
calculations, means might be found of more completely preserving a
state of equality, by preventing credit from being the exclusive
privilege of great fortunes, and yet giving it a basis equally solid,
and by rendering the progress of industry, and the activity of
commerce, less dependent on great capitalists.

Such establishments and calculations may appear very promising upon
paper, but when applied to real life they will be found to be
absolutely nugatory. Mr Condorcet allows that a class of people which
maintains itself entirely by industry is necessary to every state. Why
does he allow this? No other reason can well be assigned than that he
conceives that the labour necessary to procure subsistence for an
extended population will not be performed without the goad of
necessity. If by establishments of this kind of spur to industry be
removed, if the idle and the negligent are placed upon the same footing
with regard to their credit, and the future support of their wives and
families, as the active and industrious, can we expect to see men exert
that animated activity in bettering their condition which now forms the
master spring of public prosperity? If an inquisition were to be
established to examine the claims of each individual and to determine
whether he had or had not exerted himself to the utmost, and to grant
or refuse assistance accordingly, this would be little else than a
repetition upon a larger scale of the English poor laws and would be
completely destructive of the true principles of liberty and equality.

But independent of this great objection to these establishments, and
supposing for a moment that they would give no check to productive
industry, by far the greatest difficulty remains yet behind.

Were every man sure of a comfortable provision for his family, almost
every man would have one, and were the rising generation free from the
'killing frost' of misery, population must rapidly increase. Of this Mr
Condorcet seems to be fully aware himself, and after having described
further improvements, he says:

But in this process of industry and happiness, each generation will be
called to more extended enjoyments, and in consequence, by the physical
constitution of the human frame, to an increase in the number of
individuals. Must not there arrive a period then, when these laws,
equally necessary, shall counteract each other? When the increase of
the number of men surpassing their means of subsistence, the necessary
result must be either a continual diminution of happiness and
population, a movement truly retrograde, or, at least, a kind of
oscillation between good and evil? In societies arrived at this term,
will not this oscillation be a constantly subsisting cause of
periodical misery? Will it not mark the limit when all further
amelioration will become impossible, and point out that term to the
perfectibility of the human race which it may reach in the course of
ages, but can never pass?

He then adds,

There is no person who does not see how very distant such a period is
from us, but shall we ever arrive at it? It is equally impossible to
pronounce for or against the future realization of an event which
cannot take place but at an era when the human race will have attained
improvements, of which we can at present scarcely form a conception.

Mr Condorcet's picture of what may be expected to happen when the
number of men shall surpass the means of their subsistence is justly
drawn. The oscillation which he describes will certainly take place and
will without doubt be a constantly subsisting cause of periodical
misery. The only point in which I differ from Mr Condorcet with regard
to this picture is the period when it may be applied to the human race.
Mr Condorcet thinks that it cannot possibly be applicable but at an era
extremely distant. If the proportion between the natural increase of
population and food which I have given be in any degree near the truth,
it will appear, on the contrary, that the period when the number of men
surpass their means of subsistence has long since arrived, and that
this necessity oscillation, this constantly subsisting cause of
periodical misery, has existed ever since we have had any histories of
mankind, does exist at present, and will for ever continue to exist,
unless some decided change take place in the physical constitution of
our nature.

Mr Condorcet, however, goes on to say that should the period, which he
conceives to be so distant, ever arrive, the human race, and the
advocates for the perfectibility of man, need not be alarmed at it. He
then proceeds to remove the difficulty in a manner which I profess not
to understand. Having observed, that the ridiculous prejudices of
superstition would by that time have ceased to throw over morals a
corrupt and degrading austerity, he alludes, either to a promiscuous
concubinage, which would prevent breeding, or to something else as
unnatural. To remove the difficulty in this way will, surely, in the
opinion of most men, be to destroy that virtue and purity of manners,
which the advocates of equality, and of the perfectibility of man,
profess to be the end and object of their views.




CHAPTER 9

Mr Condorcet's conjecture concerning the organic perfectibility of man,
and the indefinite prolongation of human life--Fallacy of the argument,
which infers an unlimited progress from a partial improvement, the
limit of which cannot be ascertained, illustrated in the breeding of
animals, and the cultivation of plants.


The last question which Mr Condorcet proposes for examination is the
organic perfectibility of man. He observes that if the proofs which
have been already given and which, in their development will receive
greater force in the work itself, are sufficient to establish the
indefinite perfectibility of man upon the supposition of the same
natural faculties and the same organization which he has at present,
what will be the certainty, what the extent of our hope, if this
organization, these natural faculties themselves, are susceptible of
amelioration?

From the improvement of medicine, from the use of more wholesome food
and habitations, from a manner of living which will improve the
strength of the body by exercise without impairing it by excess, from
the destruction of the two great causes of the degradation of man,
misery, and too great riches, from the gradual removal of transmissible
and contagious disorders by the improvement of physical knowledge,
rendered more efficacious by the progress of reason and of social
order, he infers that though man will not absolutely become immortal,
yet that the duration between his birth and natural death will increase
without ceasing, will have no assignable term, and may properly be
expressed by the word 'indefinite'. He then defines this word to mean
either a constant approach to an unlimited extent, without ever
reaching it, or an increase. In the immensity of ages to an extent
greater than any assignable quantity.

But surely the application of this term in either of these senses to
the duration of human life is in the highest degree unphilosophical and
totally unwarranted by any appearances in the laws of nature.
Variations from different causes are essentially distinct from a
regular and unretrograde increase. The average duration of human life
will to a certain degree vary from healthy or unhealthy climates, from
wholesome or unwholesome food, from virtuous or vicious manners, and
other causes, but it may be fairly doubted whether there is really the
smallest perceptible advance in the natural duration of human life
since first we have had any authentic history of man. The prejudices of
all ages have indeed been directly contrary to this supposition, and
though I would not lay much stress upon these prejudices, they will in
some measure tend to prove that there has been no marked advance in an
opposite direction.

It may perhaps be said that the world is yet so young, so completely in
its infancy, that it ought not to be expected that any difference
should appear so soon.

If this be the case, there is at once an end of all human science. The
whole train of reasonings from effects to causes will be destroyed. We
may shut our eyes to the book of nature, as it will no longer be of any
use to read it. The wildest and most improbable conjectures may be
advanced with as much certainty as the most just and sublime theories,
founded on careful and reiterated experiments. We may return again to
the old mode of philosophising and make facts bend to systems, instead
of establishing systems upon facts. The grand and consistent theory of
Newton will be placed upon the same footing as the wild and eccentric
hypotheses of Descartes. In short, if the laws of nature are thus
fickle and inconstant, if it can be affirmed and be believed that they
will change, when for ages and ages they have appeared immutable, the
human mind will no longer have any incitements to inquiry, but must
remain fixed in inactive torpor, or amuse itself only in bewildering
dreams and extravagant fancies.

The constancy of the laws of nature and of effects and causes is the
foundation of all human knowledge, though far be it from me to say that
the same power which framed and executes the laws of nature may not
change them all 'in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye. ' Such a
change may undoubtedly happen. All that I mean to say is that it is
impossible to infer it from reasoning. If without any previous
observable symptoms or indications of a change, we can infer that a
change will take place, we may as well make any assertion whatever and
think it as unreasonable to be contradicted in affirming that the moon
will come in contact with the earth tomorrow, as in saying that the sun
will rise at its usual time.

With regard to the duration of human life, there does not appear to
have existed from the earliest ages of the world to the present moment
the smallest permanent symptom or indication of increasing
prolongation. The observable effects of climate, habit, diet, and other
causes, on length of life have furnished the pretext for asserting its
indefinite extension; and the sandy foundation on which the argument
rests is that because the limit of human life is undefined; because you
cannot mark its precise term, and say so far exactly shall it go and no
further; that therefore its extent may increase for ever, and be
properly termed indefinite or unlimited. But the fallacy and absurdity
of this argument will sufficiently appear from a slight examination of
what Mr Condorcet calls the organic perfectibility, or degeneration, of
the race of plants and animals, which he says may be regarded as one of
the general laws of nature.

I am told that it is a maxim among the improvers of cattle that you may
breed to any degree of nicety you please, and they found this maxim
upon another, which is that some of the offspring will possess the
desirable qualities of the parents in a greater degree. In the famous
Leicestershire breed of sheep, the object is to procure them with small
heads and small legs. Proceeding upon these breeding maxims, it is
evident that we might go on till the heads and legs were evanescent
quantities, but this is so palpable an absurdity that we may be quite
sure that the premises are not just and that there really is a limit,
though we cannot see it or say exactly where it is. In this case, the
point of the greatest degree of improvement, or the smallest size of
the head and legs, may be said to be undefined, but this is very
different from unlimited, or from indefinite, in Mr Condorcet's
acceptation of the term. Though I may not be able in the present
instance to mark the limit at which further improvement will stop, I
can very easily mention a point at which it will not arrive. I should
not scruple to assert that were the breeding to continue for ever, the
head and legs of these sheep would never be so small as the head and
legs of a rat.

It cannot be true, therefore, that among animals, some of the offspring
will possess the desirable qualities of the parents in a greater
degree, or that animals are indefinitely perfectible.

The progress of a wild plant to a beautiful garden flower is perhaps
more marked and striking than anything that takes place among animals,
yet even here it would be the height of absurdity to assert that the
progress was unlimited or indefinite.

One of the most obvious features of the improvement is the increase of
size. The flower has grown gradually larger by cultivation. If the
progress were really unlimited it might be increased ad infinitum, but
this is so gross an absurdity that we may be quite sure that among
plants as well as among animals there is a limit to improvement, though
we do not exactly know where it is. It is probable that the gardeners
who contend for flower prizes have often applied stronger dressing
without success. At the same time it would be highly presumptuous in
any man to say that he had seen the finest carnation or anemone that
could ever be made to grow. He might however assert without the
smallest chance of being contradicted by a future fact, that no
carnation or anemone could ever by cultivation be increased to the size
of a large cabbage; and yet there are assignable quantities much
greater than a cabbage. No man can say that he has seen the largest ear
of wheat, or the largest oak that could ever grow; but he might easily,
and with perfect certainty, name a point of magnitude at which they
would not arrive. In all these cases therefore, a careful distinction
should be made, between an unlimited progress, and a progress where the
limit is merely undefined.

It will be said, perhaps, that the reason why plants and animals cannot
increase indefinitely in size is, that they would fall by their own
weight. I answer, how do we know this but from experience? --from
experience of the degree of strength with which these bodies are
formed. I know that a carnation, long before it reached the size of a
cabbage, would not be supported by its stalk, but I only know this from
my experience of the weakness and want of tenacity in the materials of
a carnation stalk. There are many substances in nature of the same size
that would support as large a head as a cabbage.

The reasons of the mortality of plants are at present perfectly unknown
to us. No man can say why such a plant is annual, another biennial, and
another endures for ages. The whole affair in all these cases, in
plants, animals, and in the human race, is an affair of experience, and
I only conclude that man is mortal because the invariable experience of
all ages has proved the mortality of those materials of which his
visible body is made:

What can we reason, but from what we know?

Sound philosophy will not authorize me to alter this opinion of the
mortality of man on earth, till it can be clearly proved that the human
race has made, and is making, a decided progress towards an illimitable
extent of life. And the chief reason why I adduced the two particular
instances from animals and plants was to expose and illustrate, if I
could, the fallacy of that argument which infers an unlimited progress,
merely because some partial improvement has taken place, and that the
limit of this improvement cannot be precisely ascertained.

The capacity of improvement in plants and animals, to a certain degree,
no person can possibly doubt. A clear and decided progress has already
been made, and yet, I think, it appears that it would be highly absurd
to say that this progress has no limits. In human life, though there
are great variations from different causes, it may be doubted whether,
since the world began, any organic improvement whatever in the human
frame can be clearly ascertained.