[929]. Godwin, Sadler, &c.
[930]. Sadler, pp. 354–5, &c. Cf. Adam Smith, W. of N., I. viii. 36. See above, pp. 82, 83.
[931]. Godwin, see above, p. 361. Southey, Life and Corresp., III. 188. Bagehot, Econ. Studies, pp. 133 seq. Cf. George, II. ii. 94. Above, pp. 362, 381.
[932]. Besant, Law of Population, ch. iii. Cf. Malthus, pp. 407 seq. (IV. iv.); Cobbett, Taking Leave of his Countrymen (1817), p. 6; Political Register, 4th Jan. 1817, p. 26, &c., &c. Above, p. 329.
[933]. Godwin, Population, passim. George, II. ii. 102, 109. Above, pp. 111, 112.
[934]. Godwin, ibid.; George, pp. 138, 259, &c., &c.; Coleridge, MS. note to p. 358 (of Essay, 2nd ed.), where for “physical constitution of our nature” he would read, “in the existing system of society.” So verbatim Southey in Aikin’s Ann. Rev. l. c.
[935]. Doubleday, True Law of Population (1841). Above, p. 65. See Herbert Spencer, Biology, Vol. II. pt. vi. ch. xii. pp. 455, 480, &c. The physiologists have amply refuted Doubleday.
[936]. Herbert Spencer. See above, p. 393. W. R. Greg, Enigmas. Above, p. 394.
[937]. New Malthusians. See above, p. 24.
[938]. See above, pp. 365 seq. The orthodoxy of Malthus is proved not by a few orthodox sentences which can be gleaned from him (as from Bacon), or even by the discovery of flaws in the received doctrine, but by the whole logic of the essay.