Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

apt to press actually upon the means of subsistence, so as to compel the hunter either to condescend to cultivate the soil, or else to divide his hordes, and seek for new pasture or hunting grounds, or to have recourse to a predatory life. Now here the tendency of mankind to multiply, is seen to be the cause at once of good and of evil; leading some peacefully to cultivate the soil, and thus becoming the spring of industry and the parent of useful arts, while it drives others to prey upon their neighbours. The latter effect can scarcely be considered, however, as a natural or necessary consequence. The natural resources are cultivation and migration; and without the strong stimulus supplied by the tendency to increase, we may reasonably question whether the primitive command to replenish the earth and subdue it,'--to occupy and cultivate it, would ever have been obeyed. Had the population not tended to increase, the means of subsistence for a larger population would not have been called into existence, and there would have been neither industry nor improvement. To speak, however, of a limit of the means of subsistence, in such a state of society, would be absurd, since the only limit of productive power would be the number of productive agents, and population would limit, and not be limited by, the means of maintaining its own increase.

[ocr errors]

ment.

6

6

Agreeably to this representation of the matter, Professor M'Culloch has ably and satisfactorily proved, that the law of population, of which Mr. Malthus has taken so 'one-sided' and perverse a view, is, in fact, the main-spring of social improveA deficiency of subsistence at home, leads to migrations to distant countries, and thus not only provides for the gradual occupation of the earth, but carries the languages, arts, and 6 sciences of those who have made the furthest advances in ci'vilization to those who are comparatively barbarous. It some6 times, no doubt, happens, that notwithstanding this resource, ' and the most strenuous efforts on the part of the industrious ' classes, population so far outruns production, that the condition ' of society is changed for the worse. But the evils thence arising bring with them their own cure.' Instead, therefore, of being subversive of human happiness, the law of population has increased it in no ordinary degree, by constantly urging to new efforts of skill and economy, prudence and foresight.

6

6

The law of increase renders necessary an augmentation of the quantity of food; and the necessity for more food, acting as a spur to industry, creates the supply. But, as it is found that food can be raised in sufficient quantities for a whole community by a certain proportion of labourers, the labour of the rest is set at liberty for other necessary work. And now 'the means of subsistence' no longer implies, in this stage of society, the food that is or can be produced, but the command which the labour of each indi

vidual gives him over the food and other necessaries of life. Hence the necessity of defining what is intended by this equivocal phrase, 'means of subsistence.' Mr. Malthus's famous discovery is, that man has a tendency to increase in a geometrical progression, whereas his subsistence can be increased only in a concurrent arithmetical progression. This implies, if it means any thing, that food cannot be produced so fast as people, which is contrary to fact. The capacity of the earth to produce suste-nance for mankind, is always in advance of the actual population, and waits only the labour and skill of producers; nor can any imaginable limits be assigned to this capacity. It is quite as easy and as rational to suppose a termination or retardation of the geometrical progression as of the arithmetical progression; and if, hitherto, they have kept pace with each other upon the whole, there seems no reasonableness in the apprehension that the latter will fall behind the former. The most rapid increase of population has always been attended by a proportionate increase in the supply of the means of subsistence, because an increase of population is an increase of productive labour, and, by leading to a division of labour, increases its productiveness. In fact, as it has been well remarked by an American writer, the increase of population, instead of being, as Mr. Malthus supposes, a cause of scarcity, is a cause-indeed almost the only real and perma6 nent onee-of abundance. In other words, it is followed by an increased abundance and cheapness of all the necessaries and comforts of life. We find, accordingly, that the real price of provisions is everywhere uniformly lower and steadier in pro'portion to the density of the population, and not to the fertility 6 of the soil.'

6

6

6

6

A constant pressure of population against the means of subsistence, would imply, a constant disproportion between the demand for food and the supply; and this as the result of the rapid increase of population and the slow increase of food. And according to Mr. Malthus's doctrine, there is a constant and universal tendency to this state of things. But what is the fact? A scanty population is generally found with scantier means of subsistence; while, in well-peopled countries, the means of subsistence are always abundant. The disproportion between the demand and the supply is found to exist only in the savage state, or in new and imperfectly formed colonies, or in seasons of extraordinary calamity. The fact is, that food naturally increases faster than population; and its abundance is an accelerating cause of the geometrical progression.' Mr. Malthus maintains that, at every period during the progress of cultivation, from the present moment to the time when the whole earth shall become ' like a garden, the distress for the want of food will be more or 'less constantly pressing upon mankind.' It is certainly true,

6

that every individual has an appetite, and the great question is daily returning upon him, "What shall I have for dinner?" But that a scarcity of food is constantly pressing upon mankind, is as extravagant and untrue an assertion as theorist ever ventured to make in the teeth of facts. Mr. Malthus chooses to contend, that the means of subsistence at the disposal of any community, are limited to the produce of the territory it occupies; and this, he thinks, must be self-evident. It is so far from being either evident or true, that there have been flourishing communities who possessed no productive territory, and fertile territories the produce of which was not at the disposal of the community. Mr. Malthus's principles are unsound throughout, and it is high time that they were exploded. We are assured that they were never very generally adopted by the shrewd folk on the other side of the Atlantic; and even in the Edinburgh Review, the journal which has been chiefly instrumental in recommending them to the public, there is now a manifest disposition to give them up, in favour of Professor M'Culloch's fair and novel,' and certainly more rational views. We may assert,' it is remarked, in a recent article, that, at some time or other, the arithmetical formula 'will outstrip in imagination the contingent growth of the reality; but we should only delude ourselves by attempting to draw any accurate conclusions from this necessary admission."* Mr. Malthus's valuable work' is admitted to be incomplete:' but an incomplete statement is a fallacy.

6

[ocr errors]

6

6

6

We may then safely affirm, that Miss Martineau's first principle is altogether fallacious. As there is no assignable limit to the increase of the means of subsistence,-as that increase is always in advance of the increase of population,—the latter cannot be limited by any real deficiency in the produce of the earth, which is what must be here intended by 'the means of subsist6 ence.'

Miss Martineau's second principle is as follows:

Since successive portions of capital yield a less and less return, and the human species' (exquisitely philosophical phrase !) produce at a constantly accelerated rate, there is a perpetual tendency in population to press upon the means of subsistence."

In a chain of principles, it may be expected that each successive proposition should depend in some measure upon that which precedes it; but no such connexion really subsists between the proposition before us, and its predecessor. So far from it, the phrase, means of subsistence,' would here seem to imply something very different from the proper sense of the words in the former sentence. If quantity of food be intended, then, indeed,

[ocr errors]

* Edinb. Rev. CIV. p. 342.

Miss Martineau is consistently wrong; and her second proposition is only a round-about repetition of the first, with an awkward and inaccurate attempt at explanation. But when distress actually ensues from the diminished productiveness of capital, (which is here supposed,) it arises from no deficiency of food, but from a deficiency of the means of earning it. But, in the Tale itself, we have the same principle somewhat more fully developed; and, in fairness to our Author, we shall transcribe the conversation which refers to the subject.

"It is absurd," said Angus, "to doubt the rate at which the human race increases, on account of the decrease of numbers among savages. The whole question is concerning the proportion which capital and population bear to each other; and it cannot therefore be tried where no capital exists."

"I suppose," observed Ella, "that flocks and herds are the first capital which a tribe possesses in any large quantity. How do numbers increase among people who seek pasture but do not till the ground?"

"Such tribes are most numerous where pastures are fine, and weak where the natural produce of the earth is scanty. But each continues a tribe, and cannot become a nation while following a pastoral life. Their flocks cannot multiply beyond a certain point unless the food of the flocks is increased; and they who subsist upon the flocks cannot, in like manner, multiply beyond a certain point, unless the flocks on which they feed are multiplied."

"But they not only do not increase," observed Mr. Mackenzie, "they are lessened perpetually by one or another of the unfortunate accidents to which their condition subjects them. Pastoral tribes are particularly prone to war. Instead of keeping possession of a certain territory on which they always dwell, they rove about from one tract of country to another, leaving undefended some which they call their own ;-another tribe takes possession; and then comes a struggle and a destructive war, which reduces their numbers. Many of these tribes live in a state of constant hostility, and therefore dwindle away."

"But when they begin to settle and till the ground," said Ella, "I suppose their numbers increase again."

"Yes; the Jews, after they were established in Canaan, became an agricultural nation, and multiplied very rapidly. It was made, both by their laws and customs, a point of duty to marry, and to marry young; and when the check of war was removed, their small territory became very thickly peopled."' pp. 45, 46.

[blocks in formation]

"Where then," inquired Ella, "does capital act the most freely? Where in the world may we see an example of the natural proportions in which men and subsistence increase?"

"There has never been an age or country known," replied Mr. Mackenzie," where at once the people have been so intelligent, their manners so pure, and their resources so abundant, as to give the principle of increase an unobstructed trial. Savage life will not do, be

cause the people are not intelligent. Colonies will not do, because they are not free from vicious customs. An old empire will not do, because the means of subsistence are restricted."

"İn

"A new colony of free and intelligent people in a fertile country, affords the nearest approach to a fair trial," observed Angus. some of the best settlements I saw in America, the increase of capital and of people went on at a rate that would scarcely be believed in an old country."

"And that of the people the fastest, I suppose?"

"Of course: but still capital was far a-head, though the population is gaining upon it every year. When the people first went, they found nothing but capital-all means of production and no consumers but themselves. They raised corn in the same quantity from certain fields every year. There was too much corn at first in one field for a hundred mouths; but this hundred became two, four, eight, sixteen hundred, and so on, till more and more land was tilled, the people still spreading over it, and multiplying perpetually."

[ocr errors]

“And when all is tilled, and they still multiply," said Ella, 'they must improve their land more and more."

"And still," said Angus, "the produce will fall behind more and more, as every improvement, every outlay of capital yields a less return. Then they will be in the condition of an old country, like England, where many are but half fed, where many prudent determine not to marry, and where the imprudent must see their children pine in hunger, or waste under disease till they are ready to be carried off by the first attack of illness."' pp. 48-50.

We hope that our readers understand Angus: we are not sure that we do. To our somewhat dim apprehensions, he seems to assert that, in England, all the cultivable land is tilled, and that the produce of the land is lessening every year, or is requiring more and more capital to be employed upon it; and further, that the distress of the half-fed English', is owing to this exhaustion of the physical resources of the British territory, or of the capacity of the soil to produce sustenance for the population. The extreme absurdity of this representation makes us hesitate in supposing that we rightly understand our Author; but we are unable to put any other sense upon the words. Yet, what is the fact? We have, in England, millions of acres of fertile land yet uncultivated;-and one cause of distress is, that too much has been already taken into cultivation at the expense of the poorer classes, to whom our commons belonged as their birthright. The soil of England is capable of maintaining a population many times as dense; and the only question is, whether we could not import corn cheaper than we can raise it. Is there any deficiency of supply in our markets? Is there any deficiency of capital in this country? Can either cause be alleged in explanation of the circumstance, that many are but half fed? The questions answer themselves. The real state of the case is fairly explained by the

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »