I shall not defend the random supposition of F. P. concerning the number of people two thousand years since; but is the supposition of J. F. more reasonable? He thinks it probable that there were 30 millions of people in this country at the time alluded to by F. P.. Whence could they derive subsistence? Could the proceeds of their partial agriculture, the river and the chase, support such a number? Common sense and the history of the world, prove the supposition an absurdity. Speaking of the increase of population in America, J. F. says, "every one knows that that extensive, fertile, and comparatively well-governed country, has been continually receiving a great influx of new inhabitants." And he then asks, "Has this circumstance escaped F. P.'s observation? or did it appear to militate too strongly against a long-cherished and darling theory?" Now J. F. ought to have known that this " great influx" has not escaped the notice of political economists, but that it has been ascertained from the American statistics, and granted in its utmost extent. If he have not read generally on the subject, he ought not to have charged a supporter of political economy with wilfully neglecting a fact in opposition to his "darling theory." If his reading have been general, he knows that political economists have not done so; and in this case his insinuation is still more upworthy of an apparent inquirer after truth. Do I go too far in supposing that there is a little too much of presumption in the composition of one who first states that he has obtained but little information on a particular subject, and then charges those who have studied it deeply with being merely supporters of "a chimera conjured up for political purposes?" I now come to the main point in J. F.'s last letter-his objections to the geometrical ratio of political economists. If there be, and I have shewn there is, a power in mankind to increase their numbers, and if that power be not checked, the progress of population must be in this ratio. The time it would take to complete each term of the ratio, is another question. It is now reasonably stated at twenty-five years, and on this is founded the progressive table of F. P.; and it is on his conception of this table that J. F. has shown his want of information on the subject. This progressive table is intended to show what would be the progress of population, if in no way obstructed, and not what it is under the natural course of things, not what it is when wars, want of food, and bad management of children, send so many beings to the grave without reproducing their like. If the present number of mankind had increased like a sum of money at a given interest, we could, by a retrospective calculation, like that of J. F., ascertain when the human race began; but its increase has not been uniform, although the power to increase uniformly exists, because obstructions have been continually operating to prevent it: want, misery, disease, and premature death, have, as I before said, sent many to the grave who could have contributed to this increase; and the dread of these evils has likewise operated to check the natural propensities of many of the living. I should be sorry to impute a dishonest motive to J, F.; but this retrospective argument leaves me but one conclusion-that he did not see its weakness, did not adopt it merely to obtain an apparent victory over F. P. in the opinion of the prejudiced, but that he is sadly deficient of information on the subject. For the satisfaction of J. F., I can assure him that he is not the first who has taken this erroneous view of the doubling ratio. When, conversing with persons who had not previously studied the subject, I have mentioned the natural power of mankind to increase, I have often been asked how it is that their numbers have not so increased hitherto. But this objection I never failed to remove by a few observations on the many checks that have combined to prevent it; and I flatter myself that J. F. will yet see its futility: for I still consider him an honest inquirer, only a little deficient of information, a little too presuming, and a little too free to insinuate that persons to whom he is opposed in opinion are actuated by unworthy motives. J. F. asserts that a redundant population was never even dreamed of till within these few years, I refer him to the extract from Swift, printed in No. 7. of the present volume of "The Republican;" and 1 would ask what could have been the prevailing idea, at any period of past times, when employment could not be obtained, but that there were too many people? If there were any reasoning on the subject such must have been the conclusion. Will J. F. trust to the authority of a poet, and such a poet as Goldsmith? This dreamer" on the state of his country not only says "A time there was, ere England's griefs began, which is as glaring a falsehood as ever was put upon paper; but "that states, of native strength possest, Though very poor, may still be very blest ;" and also in the dedication of this poem that he sincerely believed all he had written. That is, he declared that this kingdom had at some time contained, according to J. F., nearly 300 millions of inhabitants, and that poverty was beneficial to the happiness of the people! The principal drift of the poem is to prove that the accumulation of wealth is injurious to the increase af mankind. One, so ignorant of the causes that contribute to the prosperity of a nation, does not deserve notice. But to the fact. Was the population decreasing in the time of Goldsmith? The population evidently increased during the last century, and what circumstances are there to favour the supposition that it decreased during any period of it? I have read the history of the century, and I know of none that operated peculiarly at the middle, or during the early part of the reign of George the Third. Yet on this supposition J. F. founds an argument against the "principle of population ;" and would have us believe that he has drawn its supporters into a dilemma from which they cannot easily escape. "If any of my readers, says J. F., are not convinced of the absurdity of this ratio of increase, namely, that population doubles itself or has a tendency so to do, every twenty-five years, let him attend for a moment to the following statement." He proceeds to show what would be the number of inhabitants, taking the number at the invasion of Julius Cæsar at one million, at different periods; and because such numbers have not existed, concludes that the power of producing them never existed. This is a mere repetition of an argument of which I have before shown the fallacy; but as he concludes his last letter so confidently on the strength of it, I give it a short notice. 199 Suppose, then, that fifty years before the Christian era, the number of inhabitants was one million. Now, on the principles of political economists, in order that this number should double in twenty-five years, there must be no war, there must be an ample supply of all the necessaries and comforts of life, the people must be well acquainted with all the arts necessary for their protection from external injury, that is, be comfortably housed and clothed, and acquainted also with the best arts for the preservation of health and the rearing of children, finally, that the capital of the country must have doubled in the period alluded to. Did these circumstances attend the Britons of the time of Julius Cæsar? If they did not, the argument of J. F. is destitute of foundation. Is it necessary to repeat again that the calculation of an increase of double in twenty-five years, is founded on the supposition that mankind enjoyed all these and all other favourable circumstances? Philanthropy desires for man all that could make him happy. Philosophy teaches that all this cannot be acquired for all the human beings that may be produced. Hence when philanthropy and philosophy meet in the same individual, they naturally prompt him to enforce this important truth: that all who may be born cannot be happy, and, therefore, in order that all that are born should be happy, the number of births must be restricted. Surely there can be none who would not prefer the happiness of a few, to the misery of many. But if the restrictive system were adopted, more could be brought into existence to live happy than could otherwise be supported in any shape. With a demonstration of this fact, I shall close my remarks. The possible increase of population depends upon the increase of capital. There are many ways in which the restrictive system would contribute to this increase, but I shall confine myself to one. Under the present system, half, that are born, die before arriving at the age of maturity. Under a restrictive system, very few would die before this age; but, to make an ample allowance, say that one fourth would reach maturity. Hence, under a restrictive system, a saving may be made of all the expense attending the births, support, and deaths of one-fourth born under the present systém, and as this saving would be so much increase of capital, or of subsistence for those who may be born, it is evident that the nation could support a great many more under a restrictive system, than it can under the present system. All that is expended on children that die before the age of maturity, or, in other words, on the production of labour beyond what is necessary to supply the demand, is so much capital lost, so much destroyed of the means of happiness to human beings. R. H. Subscriptions for MESSRS. PERRY, CAMPION, and CLARKE :— J. G.'s half-year's interest of fifty pound subscription to the Mr. Greatrex's ditto of five pound subscription £ s. d. 1 5 0 2 6 T. R. Perry thankfully acknowledges the following subscription from Sleaford by the hands of Mr. J.— A Friend Mr. R. Storey s. d. 5 0 Mr. J. 2 6 s. d. 2 6 Printed and Published by R. CARLILE, 62, Fleet Street.-All Correspon dences for "The Republican," to be left at the place of publication. The Republican. No. 13. VOL. 14.] LONDON, Friday, Oct. 6, 1826. [Price 6d. TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE WILLIAM VENABLES, LORD MAYOR OF THE CITY OF LONDON. LETTER II. MY LORD MAYOR, 62, Fleet-street, Oct. 5, 1826. I ADDRESSED You last week, on the subject of some little magisterial insolences that fell from you, on the occasion of hearing the case of riot produced by a few Christians and your officers at Founders' Hall Chapel on the Wednesday evening of September, 26th. If that address have not pleased your Lordship, it has, pleased many who see the propriety of checking partial and improper conduct in a magistrate, sitting in a magisterial chair, with the profession of administering law and justice. It was stated, that the complaint against you was not general, but confined to the particular case of the Christian Evidence Society. Had it been general, I should have left it to the newspapers; but as they will not object to outrages upon those who are of no sect of religion, their notions of justice being regulated by their notions of religion and not by any moral rule, I am called upon to interfere to obtain fair play for the aspiring and rising irreligionists. A paper called the "Sunday Times" says, that we make no progress, that we are the same as infidels to Christianity have ever been; but the writer in that paper mistakes the view of the state of things among us. We have made very great progress within the last eight years, greater progress than Christianity. ever made in a century of its existence. We have pervaded almost every village of this country, and we have torn Christianity to tatters in the metropolis: and in some of the large towns-a proof of which is found in the circumstance, that, with a desire not to notice our proceedings, the Christian or hypocritical newspaper editors feel compelled to notice them. Of that which is contemptible, we take no notice; but where a novelty attracts a predominating notice, there is a proof of great progress. Printed and Published by R. Carlile, 62, Fleet-street. |