OPPONENTS OF MALTHUS.
Of Malthus' opponents, John Stuart Mill has said, that a confused notion of the causes which, at most times and places, keep the actual increase of mankind so far behind their capacity for increase, has every now and then given birth to some ephemeral theory, speedily forgotten; as if the law of the increase of population were a different one under different circumstances, and as if the fecundity of the human species, by direct divine decree, was in keeping with the wants of society for the time being.[243-1]
The majority of such theories are based, on the proof that Malthus' description of one stage of civilization is not true of another, although the great discoverer, who, with his admirable many-sidedness, had investigated the law of population in and throughout all the stages of civilization, had, as a rule, himself given due weight to all of this. The objection of unwarranted generalization applies to Malthus much less than to the majority of his opponents. Since, for instance, in young colonies, even the natural forces, which are in themselves limited or exhaustible, afford a wide field of operation for a long time; many American writers have supposed that labor alone was the source of wealth, and that, to say the least, wealth should increase in the same ratio as mankind; and even in a still greater ratio, since the division of labor grows easier as population increases in density.[243-2] But here it is forgotten that in every instance of economic production, there are many factors engaged, each one of which can take the place of another only up to a certain point. There are others, especially Grahame and Carey,[243-3] who allude to the possibility of emigration, which is still so far from being exhausted. But Malthus had nothing to say of the impossibility of emigration. He spoke only of the great difficulties in its way. (III. ch. 4.) There are many writers who would wish simply to ship emigrants off, like a great many doctors who send their patients away to die! (§ 259 ff.) When Sadler says that human prolificacy, circumstances remaining the same, is inversely as the density of population, he uses, to say the least, a very inaccurate mode of expression.[243-4] The grain of truth hidden in this assertion does certainly not come from Gray's theory, that in the higher stages of civilization, the better living usual is a hinderance to the increase of population, and that the prevailing influence of large cities increases mortality;[243-5] but from influences, or, to speak more correctly, from free human considerations, on which no one has thrown so much light as Malthus. And indeed, where is the man who has better understood or more warmly recommended the "aristocratic" impulse which should, in well ordered civil society, hold the sexual instinct in equilibrium?[243-6] Malthus himself pleasantly derides his opponents, who, to explain how the same rifle, charged with the same powder and provided with the same ball, produces an effect varying with the nature of the object at which it is fired, prefer, instead of calculating the force of resistance of the latter, to take refuge in a mysterious faculty by virtue of which the powder has a different explosive force, according to the greater or less resistance the ball meets when it strikes.[243-7] The peculiarity of Godwin's polemics may be inferred from the fact that he considered it very doubtful whether the population of England had increased during the four preceding generations; and that he traces the increase of the population of the United States to the influence of emigration almost exclusively, and allows the desertion of whole English regiments in 1812 ff. to play a part in accounting for that increase.[243-8]
Malthus has been accused of rejoicing over the evils which are wont to decimate surplus population; but the same charge might be brought against those physicians who trace the diseases back to the causes that produce them. He has also been branded as the enemy of the lower classes, spite of the fact that he is the very first who took a scientific interest in their prosperity.[243-9] As John Stuart Mill has said, the idea that all human progress must at last end in misery was so far from Malthus' mind, that it can be thoroughly combated only by carrying Malthus' principles into practice.[243-10]
[243-1] J. S. Mill, Principles I, ch. 10.
[243-2] Everett, New ideas on population, with remarks on the theories of Malthus and Goodwin, 1823. Similarly Carey, Principles of Social Science, I, 88 ff., who, with a "natural philosophical" generalization, shows that the more the matter existing on the earth takes the form of men, the greater becomes the power of the latter to give direction to natural forces with an ever accelerated movement. So also Fontenay, in the Journal des Economistes, Oct., 1850, says: un nombre de travailleurs doublé produit plus du double et ne consomme pas le double de ce que produisaient et consommaient les travailleurs de l'époque précédente. Even Bastiat inclines to the same over-estimation of one factor of production. He promises in the introduction to his Harmonies économiques to prove the proposition: toutes choses égales d'ailleurs, la densité croissante de population équivaut à une facilité croissante de production. (Absolutely it is true, but whether relatively, quære.)
[243-3] Grahame, Inquiry into the Principle of Population, 1816; Carey, Rate of Wages, 236 ff.
[243-4] Varies inversely as their numbers: M. Th. Sadler, The Law of Population, a treatise in Disproof of the Superfecundity of human Beings, and developing the real Principles of their Increase, III, 1830. There were, for instance—
| Inhabitants per English sq. mile | Number of children to a marriage | |
| The Cape | 001 | 5.48 |
| The United States | 004 | 5.22 |
| Russia in Europe | 023 | 4.94 |
| Denmark | 073 | 4.98 |
| Prussia | 100 | 4.70 |
| France | 150 | 4.22 |
| England | 160 | 3.66 |
Most of these figures are very uncertain; and even if they were true, they would afford a very bad proof of his assertion. Besides, Sadler was one of those extreme tories who resorted almost to Jacobin measures in opposition to the reforms advocated by Huskisson, Peel and Wellington. Like Sadler, A. Guillard, Eléments de Statistique humaine ou Démographie comparée, 1855. But, for instance, in Saxony, population has for a long time increased most rapidly, in those places where it is already densest. Compare Engel, loc. cit. The five German kingdoms and Mecklenburg-Strelitz hold the same relative rank, on a ten-year average, in relation to the number of births that they do to density of population, (v. Viehbahn, Statistik des Z. V., II, 321 seq.)