No More Learning

These facts prove the superior
power of population to the means of subsistence in nations of hunters,
and that this power always shews itself the moment it is left to act
with freedom.

It remains to inquire whether this power can be checked, and its
effects kept equal to the means of subsistence, without vice or misery.

The North American Indians, considered as a people, cannot justly be
called free and equal. In all the accounts we have of them, and,
indeed, of most other savage nations, the women are represented as much
more completely in a state of slavery to the men than the poor are to
the rich in civilized countries. One half the nation appears to act as
Helots to the other half, and the misery that checks population falls
chiefly, as it always must do, upon that part whose condition is lowest
in the scale of society. The infancy of man in the simplest state
requires considerable attention, but this necessary attention the women
cannot give, condemned as they are to the inconveniences and hardships
of frequent change of place and to the constant and unremitting
drudgery of preparing every thing for the reception of their tyrannic
lords. These exertions, sometimes during pregnancy or with children at
their backs, must occasion frequent miscarriages, and prevent any but
the most robust infants from growing to maturity. Add to these
hardships of the women the constant war that prevails among savages,
and the necessity which they frequently labour under of exposing their
aged and helpless parents, and of thus violating the first feelings of
nature, and the picture will not appear very free from the blot of
misery. In estimating the happiness of a savage nation, we must not fix
our eyes only on the warrior in the prime of life: he is one of a
hundred: he is the gentleman, the man of fortune, the chances have been
in his favour and many efforts have failed ere this fortunate being was
produced, whose guardian genius should preserve him through the
numberless dangers with which he would be surrounded from infancy to
manhood. The true points of comparison between two nations seem to be
the ranks in each which appear nearest to answer to each other. And in
this view, I should compare the warriors in the prime of life with the
gentlemen, and the women, children, and aged, with the lower classes of
the community in civilized states.

May we not then fairly infer from this short review, or rather, from
the accounts that may be referred to of nations of hunters, that their
population is thin from the scarcity of food, that it would immediately
increase if food was in greater plenty, and that, putting vice out of
the question among savages, misery is the check that represses the
superior power of population and keeps its effects equal to the means
of subsistence. Actual observation and experience tell us that this
check, with a few local and temporary exceptions, is constantly acting
now upon all savage nations, and the theory indicates that it probably
acted with nearly equal strength a thousand years ago, and it may not
be much greater a thousand years hence.

Of the manners and habits that prevail among nations of shepherds, the
next state of mankind, we are even more ignorant than of the savage
state. But that these nations could not escape the general lot of
misery arising from the want of subsistence, Europe, and all the
fairest countries in the world, bear ample testimony. Want was the goad
that drove the Scythian shepherds from their native haunts, like so
many famished wolves in search of prey. Set in motion by this all
powerful cause, clouds of Barbarians seemed to collect from all points
of the northern hemisphere. Gathering fresh darkness and terror as they
rolled on, the congregated bodies at length obscured the sun of Italy
and sunk the whole world in universal night. These tremendous effects,
so long and so deeply felt throughout the fairest portions of the
earth, may be traced to the simple cause of the superior power of
population to the means of subsistence.

It is well known that a country in pasture cannot support so many
inhabitants as a country in tillage, but what renders nations of
shepherds so formidable is the power which they possess of moving all
together and the necessity they frequently feel of exerting this power
in search of fresh pasture for their herds. A tribe that was rich in
cattle had an immediate plenty of food. Even the parent stock might be
devoured in a case of absolute necessity. The women lived in greater
ease than among nations of hunters. The men bold in their united
strength and confiding in their power of procuring pasture for their
cattle by change of place, felt, probably, but few fears about
providing for a family. These combined causes soon produced their
natural and invariable effect, an extended population. A more frequent
and rapid change of place became then necessary. A wider and more
extensive territory was successively occupied. A broader desolation
extended all around them. Want pinched the less fortunate members of
the society, and, at length, the impossibility of supporting such a
number together became too evident to be resisted. Young scions were
then pushed out from the parent-stock and instructed to explore fresh
regions and to gain happier seats for themselves by their swords. 'The
world was all before them where to choose. ' Restless from present
distress, flushed with the hope of fairer prospects, and animated with
the spirit of hardy enterprise, these daring adventurers were likely to
become formidable adversaries to all who opposed them. The peaceful
inhabitants of the countries on which they rushed could not long
withstand the energy of men acting under such powerful motives of
exertion. And when they fell in with any tribes like their own, the
contest was a struggle for existence, and they fought with a desperate
courage, inspired by the rejection that death was the punishment of
defeat and life the prize of victory.

In these savage contests many tribes must have been utterly
exterminated. Some, probably, perished by hardship and famine. Others,
whose leading star had given them a happier direction, became great and
powerful tribes, and, in their turns, sent off fresh adventurers in
search of still more fertile seats. The prodigious waste of human life
occasioned by this perpetual struggle for room and food was more than
supplied by the mighty power of population, acting, in some degree,
unshackled from the consent habit of emigration. The tribes that
migrated towards the South, though they won these more fruitful regions
by continual battles, rapidly increased in number and power, from the
increased means of subsistence. Till at length the whole territory,
from the confines of China to the shores of the Baltic, was peopled by
a various race of Barbarians, brave, robust, and enterprising, inured
to hardship, and delighting in war. Some tribes maintained their
independence. Others ranged themselves under the standard of some
barbaric chieftain who led them to victory after victory, and what was
of more importance, to regions abounding in corn, wine, and oil, the
long wished for consummation, and great reward of their labours. An
Alaric, an Attila, or a Zingis Khan, and the chiefs around them, might
fight for glory, for the fame of extensive conquests, but the true
cause that set in motion the great tide of northern emigration, and
that continued to propel it till it rolled at different periods against
China, Persia, Italy, and even Egypt, was a scarcity of food, a
population extended beyond the means of supporting it.

The absolute population at any one period, in proportion to the extent
of territory, could never be great, on account of the unproductive
nature of some of the regions occupied; but there appears to have been
a most rapid succession of human beings, and as fast as some were mowed
down by the scythe of war or of famine, others rose in increased
numbers to supply their place. Among these bold and improvident
Barbarians, population was probably but little checked, as in modern
states, from a fear of future difficulties. A prevailing hope of
bettering their condition by change of place, a constant expectation of
plunder, a power even, if distressed, of selling their children as
slaves, added to the natural carelessness of the barbaric character,
all conspired to raise a population which remained to be repressed
afterwards by famine or war.

Where there is any inequality of conditions, and among nations of
shepherds this soon takes place, the distress arising from a scarcity
of provisions must fall hardest upon the least fortunate members of the
society. This distress also must frequently have been felt by the
women, exposed to casual plunder in the absence of their husbands, and
subject to continual disappointments in their expected return.

But without knowing enough of the minute and intimate history of these
people, to point out precisely on what part the distress for want of
food chiefly fell, and to what extent it was generally felt, I think we
may fairly say, from all the accounts that we have of nations of
shepherds, that population invariably increased among them whenever, by
emigration or any other cause, the means of subsistence were increased,
and that a further population was checked, and the actual population
kept equal to the means of subsistence, by misery and vice.

For, independently of any vicious customs that might have prevailed
amongst them with regard to women, which always operate as checks to
population, it must be acknowledged, I think, that the commission of
war is vice, and the effect of it misery, and none can doubt the misery
of want of food.




CHAPTER 4

State of civilized nations--Probability that Europe is much more
populous now than in the time of Julius Caesar--Best criterion of
population--Probable error of Hume in one the criterions that he
proposes as assisting in an estimate of population--Slow increase of
population at present in most of the states of Europe--The two
principal checks to population--The first, or preventive check examined
with regard to England.


In examining the next state of mankind with relation to the question
before us, the state of mixed pasture and tillage, in which with some
variation in the proportions the most civilized nations must always
remain, we shall be assisted in our review by what we daily see around
us, by actual experience, by facts that come within the scope of every
man's observation.

Notwithstanding the exaggerations of some old historians, there can
remain no doubt in the mind of any thinking man that the population of
the principal countries of Europe, France, England, Germany, Russia,
Poland, Sweden, and Denmark is much greater than ever it was in former
times. The obvious reason of these exaggerations is the formidable
aspect that even a thinly peopled nation must have, when collected
together and moving all at once in search of fresh seats. If to this
tremendous appearance be added a succession at certain intervals of
similar emigrations, we shall not be much surprised that the fears of
the timid nations of the South represented the North as a region
absolutely swarming with human beings. A nearer and juster view of the
subject at present enables us to see that the inference was as absurd
as if a man in this country, who was continually meeting on the road
droves of cattle from Wales and the North, was immediately to conclude
that these countries were the most productive of all the parts of the
kingdom.

The reason that the greater part of Europe is more populous now than it
was in former times, is that the industry of the inhabitants has made
these countries produce a greater quantity of human subsistence. For I
conceive that it may be laid down as a position not to be controverted,
that, taking a sufficient extent of territory to include within it
exportation and importation, and allowing some variation for the
prevalence of luxury, or of frugal habits, that population constantly
bears a regular proportion to the food that the earth is made to
produce. In the controversy concerning the populousness of ancient and
modern nations, could it be clearly ascertained that the average
produce of the countries in question, taken altogether, is greater now
than it was in the times of Julius Caesar, the dispute would be at once
determined.

When we are assured that China is the most fertile country in the
world, that almost all the land is in tillage, and that a great part of
it bears two crops every year, and further, that the people live very
frugally, we may infer with certainty that the population must be
immense, without busying ourselves in inquiries into the manners and
habits of the lower classes and the encouragements to early marriages.
But these inquiries are of the utmost importance, and a minute history
of the customs of the lower Chinese would be of the greatest use in
ascertaining in what manner the checks to a further population operate;
what are the vices, and what are the distresses that prevent an
increase of numbers beyond the ability of the country to support.

Hume, in his essay on the populousness of ancient and modern nations,
when he intermingles, as he says, an inquiry concerning causes with
that concerning facts, does not seem to see with his usual penetration
how very little some of the causes he alludes to could enable him to
form any judgement of the actual population of ancient nations. If any
inference can be drawn from them, perhaps it should be directly the
reverse of what Hume draws, though I certainly ought to speak with
great diffidence in dissenting from a man who of all others on such
subjects was the least likely to be deceived by first appearances. If I
find that at a certain period in ancient history, the encouragements to
have a family were great, that early marriages were consequently very
prevalent, and that few persons remained single, I should infer with
certainty that population was rapidly increasing, but by no means that
it was then actually very great, rather; indeed, the contrary, that it
was then thin and that there was room and food for a much greater
number. On the other hand, if I find that at this period the
difficulties attending a family were very great, that, consequently,
few early marriages took place, and that a great number of both sexes
remained single, I infer with certainty that population was at a stand,
and, probably, because the actual population was very great in
proportion to the fertility of the land and that there was scarcely
room and food for more. The number of footmen, housemaids, and other
persons remaining unmarried in modern states, Hume allows to be rather
an argument against their population. I should rather draw a contrary
inference and consider it an argument of their fullness, though this
inference is not certain, because there are many thinly inhabited
states that are yet stationary in their population. To speak,
therefore, correctly, perhaps it may be said that the number of
unmarried persons in proportion to the whole number, existing at
different periods, in the same or different states will enable us to
judge whether population at these periods was increasing, stationary,
or decreasing, but will form no criterion by which we can determine the
actual population.

There is, however, a circumstance taken notice of in most of the
accounts we have of China that it seems difficult to reconcile with
this reasoning. It is said that early marriages very generally prevail
through all the ranks of the Chinese. Yet Dr Adam Smith supposes that
population in China is stationary. These two circumstances appear to be
irreconcilable. It certainly seems very little probable that the
population of China is fast increasing. Every acre of land has been so
long in cultivation that we can hardly conceive there is any great
yearly addition to the average produce. The fact, perhaps, of the
universality of early marriages may not be sufficiently ascertained. If
it be supposed true, the only way of accounting for the difficulty,
with our present knowledge of the subject, appears to be that the
redundant population, necessarily occasioned by the prevalence of early
marriages, must be repressed by occasional famines, and by the custom
of exposing children, which, in times of distress, is probably more
frequent than is ever acknowledged to Europeans. Relative to this
barbarous practice, it is difficult to avoid remarking, that there
cannot be a stronger proof of the distresses that have been felt by
mankind for want of food, than the existence of a custom that thus
violates the most natural principle of the human heart. It appears to
have been very general among ancient nations, and certainly tended
rather to increase population.

In examining the principal states of modern Europe, we shall find that
though they have increased very considerably in population since they
were nations of shepherds, yet that at present their progress is but
slow, and instead of doubling their numbers every twenty-five years
they require three or four hundred years, or more, for that purpose.
Some, indeed, may be absolutely stationary, and others even retrograde.
The cause of this slow progress in population cannot be traced to a
decay of the passion between the sexes. We have sufficient reason to
think that this natural propensity exists still in undiminished vigour.
Why then do not its effects appear in a rapid increase of the human
species? An intimate view of the state of society in any one country in
Europe, which may serve equally for all, will enable us to answer this
question, and to say that a foresight of the difficulties attending the
rearing of a family acts as a preventive check, and the actual
distresses of some of the lower classes, by which they are disabled
from giving the proper food and attention to their children, act as a
positive check to the natural increase of population.

England, as one of the most flourishing states of Europe, may be fairly
taken for an example, and the observations made will apply with but
little variation to any other country where the population increases
slowly.

The preventive check appears to operate in some degree through all the
ranks of society in England. There are some men, even in the highest
rank, who are prevented from marrying by the idea of the expenses that
they must retrench, and the fancied pleasures that they must deprive
themselves of, on the supposition of having a family. These
considerations are certainly trivial, but a preventive foresight of
this kind has objects of much greater weight for its contemplation as
we go lower.

A man of liberal education, but with an income only just sufficient to
enable him to associate in the rank of gentlemen, must feel absolutely
certain that if he marries and has a family he shall be obliged, if he
mixes at all in society, to rank himself with moderate farmers and the
lower class of tradesmen. The woman that a man of education would
naturally make the object of his choice would be one brought up in the
same tastes and sentiments with himself and used to the familiar
intercourse of a society totally different from that to which she must
be reduced by marriage. Can a man consent to place the object of his
affection in a situation so discordant, probably, to her tastes and
inclinations? Two or three steps of descent in society, particularly at
this round of the ladder, where education ends and ignorance begins,
will not be considered by the generality of people as a fancied and
chimerical, but a real and essential evil. If society be held
desirable, it surely must be free, equal, and reciprocal society, where
benefits are conferred as well as received, and not such as the
dependent finds with his patron or the poor with the rich.

These considerations undoubtedly prevent a great number in this rank of
life from following the bent of their inclinations in an early
attachment. Others, guided either by a stronger passion, or a weaker
judgement, break through these restraints, and it would be hard indeed,
if the gratification of so delightful a passion as virtuous love, did
not, sometimes, more than counterbalance all its attendant evils. But I
fear it must be owned that the more general consequences of such
marriages are rather calculated to justify than to repress the
forebodings of the prudent.

The sons of tradesmen and farmers are exhorted not to marry, and
generally find it necessary to pursue this advice till they are settled
in some business or farm that may enable them to support a family.
These events may not, perhaps, occur till they are far advanced in
life. The scarcity of farms is a very general complaint in England. And
the competition in every kind of business is so great that it is not
possible that all should be successful.

The labourer who earns eighteen pence a day and lives with some degree
of comfort as a single man, will hesitate a little before he divides
that pittance among four or five, which seems to be but just sufficient
for one. Harder fare and harder labour he would submit to for the sake
of living with the woman that he loves, but he must feel conscious, if
he thinks at all, that should he have a large family, and any ill luck
whatever, no degree of frugality, no possible exertion of his manual
strength could preserve him from the heart-rending sensation of seeing
his children starve, or of forfeiting his independence, and being
obliged to the parish for their support. The love of independence is a
sentiment that surely none would wish to be erased from the breast of
man, though the parish law of England, it must be confessed, is a
system of all others the most calculated gradually to weaken this
sentiment, and in the end may eradicate it completely.

The servants who live in gentlemen's families have restraints that are
yet stronger to break through in venturing upon marriage. They possess
the necessaries, and even the comforts of life, almost in as great
plenty as their masters. Their work is easy and their food luxurious
compared with the class of labourers. And their sense of dependence is
weakened by the conscious power of changing their masters, if they feel
themselves offended. Thus comfortably situated at present, what are
their prospects in marrying? Without knowledge or capital, either for
business, or farming, and unused and therefore unable, to earn a
subsistence by daily labour, their only refuge seems to be a miserable
ale-house, which certainly offers no very enchanting prospect of a
happy evening to their lives. By much the greater part, therefore,
deterred by this uninviting view of their future situation, content
themselves with remaining single where they are.

If this sketch of the state of society in England be near the truth,
and I do not conceive that it is exaggerated, it will be allowed that
the preventive check to population in this country operates, though
with varied force, through all the classes of the community. The same
observation will hold true with regard to all old states. The effects,
indeed, of these restraints upon marriage are but too conspicuous in
the consequent vices that are produced in almost every part of the
world, vices that are continually involving both sexes in inextricable
unhappiness.




CHAPTER 5

The second, or positive check to population examined, in England--The
true cause why the immense sum collected in England for the poor does
not better their condition--The powerful tendency of the poor laws to
defeat their own purpose--Palliative of the distresses of the poor
proposed--The absolute impossibility, from the fixed laws of our
nature, that the pressure of want can ever be completely removed from
the lower classes of society--All the checks to population may be
resolved into misery or vice.


The positive check to population, by which I mean the check that
represses an increase which is already begun, is confined chiefly,
though not perhaps solely, to the lowest orders of society.

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.