[869]. He probably meant 353rd, but his numbers are careless.
[870]. On margin of p. 364, 2nd paragr.: “Quote and apply to himself.”
[871]. E. g. on p. 65 opposite to lines 5, 6, “Ass!” a monosyllabic refinement omitted in Southey’s review.
[872]. First in 1817, 7th ed., pp. 509 seq.
[873]. One of the charges (p. 18: that Malthus recommends the same remedies as Condorcet) is sufficient to stamp the character of the book—An Inquiry into the Principle of Population, &c., by James Grahame. Its Introduction gives a useful list of writers on both sides; see p. 71. (Edin., 1816.) Simonin repeats Grahame’s charges, with more mistakes of his own. See his Hist. de la Psychologie (1879), pp. 397–9.
[874]. 7th ed., p. 511. Cf. above, p. 52, and the reply to Godwin’s Reply, Essay, 2nd ed., III. iii. 384.
[875]. Edinburgh Review, Jan. 1837.
[876]. Life and Correspondence of Southey, vol. iii. pp. 21–2, and p. 188.
[877]. Bishop of Gloucester and later of Hereford. Theolog. Works (1832).
[878]. “The prolificness of human things, otherwise similarly circumstanced, varies inversely as their numbers.”—Sadler, Popn., vol. iii. p. 352 (1830). Reviewed somewhat caustically by Macaulay in Edin. Rev., July 1830. See Trevelyan’s Life of Macaulay, vol. i. p. 126. Cf. Sadler’s ‘Reply’ to Edin. Rev. His weakest point was his use of “inversely.”