Chapter XXI: Appendix: II 488 (1)

LIST OF AUTHORITIES QUOTED 489

INDEX 509

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

_A. R. B. E._ = Annual Report. Bureau of Ethnology, Smithsonian
Institution.

_A. R. S. I._ = Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution.

_Am. Anth._ = American Anthropologist.

_Am. Jour. Obstet._ = American Journal of Obstetrics.

_Am. Stat. Ass._ = Publications of the American Statistical
Association.

_Ann. de Pal._ = Annales de Paléontologie.

_Ann. Mus. Congo Belge_ = Annales du Musée du Congo Belge.

_Arch. für Anth._ = Archiv für Anthropologie.

_Aust. Med. Jour._ = Australian Medical Journal.

_Biol. Bull._ = Biological Bulletin.

_Bull. Soc. Anth._ = Bulletin de la Société d’Anthropologie.

_C. I. A._ = Congrès International d’Anthropologie.

_Cent. für Min., Geol. und Pal._ = Centralblatt für Mineralogie,
Geologie und Paläontologie.

_Coll. Mon. Eth._ = Collection de Monographies Ethnographiques.

_Eug. Lab. Mem._ = Eugenic Laboratory Memoirs.

_Eug. Rev._ = Eugenics Review.

_Geog. Jour._ = Geographical Journal.

_Int. Arch. Eth._ = Internationales Archiv für Ethnographie.

_J. A. I._ = Journal of the Anthropological Institute.

_Jour. Eth. Soc._ = Journal of the Ethnological Society.

_Jour. Pol. Soc._ = Journal of the Polynesian Society.

_Jour. Roy. Agric. Soc._ = Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society.

_J. R. S. S._ = Journal of the Royal Statistical Society.

_Mem. Am. Anth. Soc._ = Memoirs of the American Anthropological and
Ethnological Societies.

_Mem. Anth. Soc._ = Memoirs of the Anthropological Society.

_Mem. & Proc. Man. Lit. & Phil. Soc._ = Memoirs and Proceedings of the
Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society.

_Mém. Soc. Anth._ = Mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie.

_Phil. Trans._ = Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society.

_Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc._ = Quarterly Journal of the Geological
Society.

_Q. J. M. S._ = Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science.

_Rev. Col. Inter._ = Revue Coloniale Internationale.

_Rev. d’Anth._ = Revue d’Anthropologie.

_Rev. d’Eth._ = Revue d’Ethnographie.

_S. I. B. E._ = Smithsonian Institute, Bureau of Ethnology.

_Soc. Rev._ = Sociological Review.

_Trans. Amer. Gyn. Soc._ = Transactions of the American Gynecological
Society.

_Trans. & Proc. N. Z. Inst._ = Transactions and Proceedings of the New
Zealand Institute.

_Trans. Edin. Obstet. Soc._ = Transactions of the Edinburgh
Obstetrical Society.

_Trans. Eth. Soc._ = Transactions of the Ethnological Society.

_U. S. Geog. & Geol. Survey_ = United States Geographical and
Geological Survey of the Rocky Mountain Region.

_Z. G. E._ = Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für Erdkunde.

_Zeit. für all. Erd._ = Zeitschrift für allgemeine Erdkunde.

_Zeit. für Eth._ = Zeitschrift für Ethnologie.

_Zeit. für Morph. und Anth._ = Zeitschrift für Morphologie und
Anthropologie.

_Zeit. für Soc._ = Zeitschrift für Socialwissenschaft.

I
HISTORICAL

1. Problems of population fall into two main groups—those connected with the quantity and those connected with the quality of the population. Considerations of the population problem are commonly devoted to one of these chief aspects to the exclusion of the other with the result that the relation between them is seldom appreciated. It is one of the objects of this book to show that all problems of population have the same origin. The development of biological knowledge in the last century, and in particular the discussion of evolution, have made it clear that the whole population question and all the problems arising therefrom have their origin in the fact that mankind has a definite position in the animal kingdom. In the next two chapters an attempt is made to set out the basis of the whole question in the light of modern research, and in the fourth chapter are discussed the nature of the various problems and their relation to one another; first those which are connected with the quantity and then those that are connected with the quality of the population.

This was not, however, the manner in which the question was first approached. There was not, to begin with, an understanding of the zoological position of man leading to a growing comprehension of the problems to which it gave rise. From early days attention was particularly directed to the question of numbers. Between the fifth century b. c. and the eighteenth century a. d.—between, that is to say, the time of Plato and that of Malthus—opinions were often expressed regarding the desirability or otherwise of a dense population. The work of Malthus focussed opinion upon this point. In a restricted sense this problem can be solved without an understanding of the biological origin of the whole question, and the discussion which followed the publication of the _Essay on Population_ has resulted in the general acceptance of a solution by students of political economy. In a wider sense the solution of this problem depends upon a comprehension of its biological origin, and it was not therefore until after the middle of the last century that all the problems connected with quantity fell into their proper setting owing to the work of Darwin and Wallace, both of whom acknowledged their debt to Malthus. The latter, though he did not in any way realize the fact, was discussing a point which is most intimately connected with evolution, and both Darwin and Wallace were influenced by their acquaintance with the work of Malthus in arriving at their explanation of the process of evolution. Thus from the time of Darwin and Wallace it has been possible to view the population problem as a whole, though the discussions of the problems connected with quantity have been pursued independently not only before but also after the publication of the _Origin of Species_.

Problems of quality did not arouse the same early interest. It is, of course, well known that Plato was occupied with this aspect of the whole problem;[1] Roman authors also commented upon the eugenic bearing of certain practices.[2] In later days in a remarkable book Campanella dwelt upon the importance of good breeding.[3] But the interest in quality was not, as was the interest in quantity, widespread or long maintained; it was not until the origin of living species by evolution had been generally accepted and some knowledge of inheritance had been gained, that problems of quality came to occupy anything more than the passing attention of mankind.[4] J. S. Mill and Buckle, for instance, both of whose opinions were formed just before the time when the importance of heredity came to be appreciated, deny that it is in any way relevant to the study of social problems.[5]

2. In the preface to the greatly enlarged second edition of his famous book Malthus stated that he had found many references to the subject of which he had not been aware when he published the first volume.[6] He acknowledged that several authors had shown themselves to have possessed a grasp of the ‘principle’ which it was the object of his book to demonstrate. Among these he mentions Plato and Aristotle. In these cases Malthus was too anxious to attribute the first enunciation of the ‘principle’ to others. It was only owing to the very peculiar circumstances of Greek life that the problem ever arose at all. A consideration of the ideal city state involved the question as to what was the most desirable number of citizens. This point occupied Plato’s attention, and in one place he deals with it in detail. There should be, he says, 5,040 citizens in the state.[7] In the _Republic_ he explained that the number of citizens was to be kept about the same by a strict regulation of unions.[8] In the _Laws_, however, no such system is advocated, and he discusses the possibility of a failure to maintain the number.[9] He appears to think that various checks such as infanticide and ‘inundations’ will keep numbers close to the desirable level; if too great an increase takes place, then recourse must be had to emigration. It does not seem that the problem was ever approached more closely in Greek literature.

References to this subject by Roman authors are confined for the most part to laments over the infertility of the old Roman stock. That which drew the attention of the Romans to the subject was thus a peculiar phase of the problem, and the views expressed by them were in consequence usually limited to the search for a remedy for a particular weakness in national life. As we shall point out later, it is doubtful how far infertility was characteristic of all classes; that it was not widespread seems incidentally to be indicated in the following curious passage from Tertullian in which he is led to express views reminiscent of many modern contributions to the subject. Tertullian is confuting the Pythagorean theory of the transmigration of souls, and argues that, if it were true, the number of men must remain unchanged. But, he says, this is obviously not so; population continually increases. This leads him to refer to the state of contemporary civilization. ‘We find’, he says, ‘in the records of the Antiquities of Man[10] that the human race has progressed with a gradual growth of population.... Surely it is obvious enough, if one looks at the whole world, that it is becoming better cultivated and more fully peopled than anciently. All places are now accessible, all are well known, all open to commerce; most pleasant farms have obliterated all traces of what were once dreary and dangerous wastes; cultivated fields have subdued forests; flocks and herds have expelled wild beasts; sandy deserts are sown; rocks are planted; marshes are drained; and where once were hardly solitary cottages are now large cities. No longer are savage islands dreaded, nor their rocky shores feared; everywhere are houses, and inhabitants, and settled government, and civilized life. What most frequently meets our view is our teeming population; our numbers are burdensome to the world, which can hardly supply us from its natural elements; our wants grow more and more keen, and our complaints more bitter in all mouths, whilst nature fails in affording us her usual sustenance. In very deed, pestilence, and famine, and wars, and earthquakes have to be regarded as a remedy for nations, as a means of pruning the luxuriance of the human race.’[11]

3. It is not until we arrive at the sixteenth century that we discover any considerable interest in the matter. From thence onwards references are very frequent. In a general way it is not difficult to understand how this comes about. The movement of thought at that time turned to problems of practical importance. The interest in questions connected with population was above all things due to the problems created by the rise and consolidation of the great European states. In some measure also the voyages of discovery and the foundation of colonies drew men’s thoughts to these questions. It is, as we shall see, in the works of the new class of political writers and theorists, and in the descriptions of travel, that we find most references.[12]

These references take for the most part the form of discussions as to the desirability or otherwise of a large population. There is, indeed, often but little discussion; the benefits of a large population seemed so obvious. Men were mostly of the same opinion as the author of the book of Proverbs, ‘in the multitude of the people is the king’s glory; but in the want of people is the destruction of the prince.’[13] The reasons are not far to seek. A large population appeared to mean both power and riches. The advantage of a large population in supplying a large army proved most attractive and greatly influenced the authors of the eighteenth century.[14] It has not altogether lost its attraction for some people at the present day, as we shall have reason to notice in a later chapter. This simple view of the benefits of a large population coincided with the development of the mercantile theory of trade. Authors of this school of thought also concluded that upon the whole the larger the population the better. Protests against this point of view are, however, met with from time to time. Those responsible for this opposition to the prevailing opinion were influenced in some cases more by observation than by theory and in other cases more by theory than by observation. As instances of the former several English writers of the end of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth centuries may be cited; as instances of the latter several authors chiefly belonging to the later part of the eighteenth century. The views of the last-mentioned authors are often influenced by a conception of the relation between population and subsistence closely similar to that of Malthus. But they are not alone in their anticipation of his position. From the sixteenth century onwards we find in passages dealing with population more or less clear statements of the Malthusian position. These authors, however, are not always led to an unfavourable view of an increase in population. Many of them, indeed, support the current view as to the advantages of large numbers. Nevertheless on the whole a consideration of the connexion between population and the food-supply is usually associated with a fear of increase. We may now review in more detail the trend of opinion sketched above. This will bring us to the publication of the _Essay on Population_.[15]

4. Long before the sixteenth century men gave expression to the view that large numbers are beneficial. ‘Quae familia plus multiplicatur in prolem, amplius cedit ad firmamentum politiae,’ said Saint Thomas Aquinas.[16] But it is only later that we meet with a marked insistence on this view. ‘In my opinion’, says Bodin, ‘they erre much who doubt of a scarcitie by the multitude of citizens and children, when as no cities are more rich nor more famous in arts and discipline than those which abound most with citizens.’[17] According to Botero ‘the greatness of a citty is sayd not to be the largeness of the citty or the circuit of the walls, but in the multitude and the number of the inhabitants and their power’.[18] Machiavelli held very similar views, and Henry IV of France is reported as saying that ‘the strength and riches of kings consist in the number and opulence of their subjects’.[19] In accordance with the views thus widely and strongly held, examples of which might be multiplied almost to any extent, practical measures were taken to encourage the increase of population. Of these the best known is the law of Colbert passed in 1664. Like most of such laws it was modelled on the laws of the later Roman Empire. Similar laws were at one time or another in force in most European countries.

Towards the end of the seventeenth century there arose a school of writers who might be classed as political economists, though the term was not in use. In accordance with the mercantile theory of commerce then predominant a large population was held to be advantageous. The older and vaguer theory that a dense population was necessary if the state was to be powerful was found to coincide with the newer theories as to conditions of prosperous trade. Of these authors Petty and Graunt are celebrated as among the pioneers of statistics. According to the former: ‘fewness of people is real poverty; and a nation in which are eight millions of people are more than twice as rich as the same scope of land in which are but four.’[20] ‘Forasmuch as princes’, says Graunt, ‘are not only powerful but rich according to the number of their people (hands being the father as lands are the mother and womb of wealth) it is no wonder that states by encouraging marriage and hindering licentiousness, advance their own interest, as well as preserve the laws of God from contempt and violation.’[21] Sir Charles Davenant and Sir Josiah Child are two of the foremost authors of this school. The former writes as follows: ‘people are the real strength and riches of a country; we see how impotent Spain is for want of inhabitants with their mines of gold and silver and the best ports and soil in the world; and we see how powerful their numbers make the United Provinces with bad harbours and the worst climate upon earth. It is perhaps better that a people should want country than that a country should want people. When there are but few inhabitants and a large territory, there is nothing but sloth and poverty; but when great numbers are confined to a narrow compass of ground, necessity puts upon them invention, frugality, and industry; which in a nation are always recompensed with power and riches.’[22] The latter refers more than once to the subject. ‘Whatever tends to the population of a country tends to the improvement of it.’[23] ‘Most nations in the civilized parts of the world are more or less rich or poor proportionable to the poverty or plenty of their people and not to the sterility of their lands.’[24] To these quotations we may add one from Sir William Temple: ‘I believe the true and original ground of trade to be a great multitude of people crowded into a small compass of land.’[25]

It would be possible to quote many similar remarks from authors who wrote in the following century. Frederick the Great had very decided opinions. In a letter to Voltaire he says: ‘Je regarde les hommes comme une horde de cerfs dans le pare d’un grand seigneur et qui n’out pas d’autre fonction que de peupler et remplir l’enclos.’[26] Hume speaks of ‘the general rule that the happiness of any society and its populousness are necessary attendants’.[27] Adam Smith says ‘that the most decisive mark of the prosperity of any country is the increase of the number of its inhabitants’. Nevertheless that which interests us most in the authors of this period is the growing interest in other aspects of the subject.

5. Before referring to the more or less close anticipations of the views of Malthus we may note that these optimistic views were not everywhere accepted. In England particularly, towards the end of the sixteenth century, several writers expressed a dread of over-population. According to Holinshed there were some men ‘affirming that we had already too great a store of people in England; and that youth, by marrying too soon, do nothing profit the countrie, but fill it full of beggars, to the hurt and utter undoing (they saie) of the commonwealth’.[28] Later we find Brückner speaking as follows: ‘there are some who believe that a people can never be too numerous and who speak of increase as if it always contributed to happiness, and who consequently continually urge the sovereign to encourage multiplication. The truth of the matter is, however, often far different, depending on the country and circumstances. In a free and enlightened nation, which has great natural advantages, and which is protected from the invasions of less fortunate neighbours, increasing numbers are a good.... In countries not so circumstanced increase is worse than useless; it is, as a matter of fact, impossible, and attempts in this direction can but result in added suffering and an increased number of deaths.’[29] Arthur Young said the same in more emphatic terms. ‘Of all the subjects of political economy I know not one that has given rise to such a crowd of errors as that of population. It seems for centuries to have been considered as the only test of national prosperity. The politicians of those times, and the majority of them in the present, have been of the opinion that to enumerate the people was the only step to be taken in order to ascertain the degree in which a country was flourishing. In my tour through the North of England, 1769, I entered my caveat against such a doctrine, and presumed to assert “that no nation is rich or powerful by mere numbers of people; it is the industrious class that constitutes a nation’s strength”; that assertion I repeated in my _Political Arithmetic_ in 1774.’[30] About the same time Rousseau remarked that ‘il y a pire disette pour un état que celle d’hommes’.[31]

6. In the eighteenth century the problem was often discussed with reference to the connexion between the population and the food-supply. The contrast between the vast possibilities of increase and the smallness of the actual growth in population also often attracted attention. ‘Through various causes’, says Wallace, ‘there has never been such a number of inhabitants on the earth at any one point of time as might have been raised by the prolific virtue of mankind. The causes of this paucity of inhabitants and the irregularity of increase are manifold. Some may be called physical, as they depend entirely on course of nature, and are independent of mankind. Others are moral and depend on the affections, passions, and institutions of men.... To this last we may refer so many destructive wars which men have waged against one another; great poverty, corrupt institutions, either of a civil or religious kind, intemperance, debauchery, irregular amours, idleness, luxury, and whatever prevents marriage, weakens the generating faculties of men, or renders them negligent or incapable of educating their children, and cultivating the earth to advantage. ’Tis to such destructive causes that we must ascribe the small number of men.’[32] Sir James Steuart devotes a considerable amount of space to this subject. ‘The generative faculty’, he says, ‘resembles a spring loaded with a weight, which always exerts itself in proportion to the diminution of resistance; when food has remained for some time without augmentation or diminution, generation will carry numbers as high as possible; if then food come to be diminished, the spring is overpowered; the force of it becomes less than nothing. Inhabitants will diminish, at least in proportion to the overcharge. If, upon the other hand, food be increased, the spring, which stood at 0, will begin to exert itself in proportion as the resistance diminishes; people will begin to be better fed; they will multiply, and in proportion as they increase in numbers, the food will become scarce again.’[33]

Malthus tells us that when he wrote his first edition the only authors ‘from whose writings he had deduced the principle which formed the main argument of the essay’ were Hume, Wallace, Adam Smith, and Price.[34] In the interval between the publication of the first and second editions of the Essay he found that he had been anticipated more or less by many others. Subsequently many other similar passages have been brought to light. It is not worth while to discuss how far Malthus had been anticipated. It is enough to note some of the opinions that had been expressed. In the eighteenth century the fact that there is a connexion between the population and the food-supply had become a commonplace. ‘La mesure de la subsistance est celle de la population,’[35] said Mirabeau, and the remark could be paralleled many times over.[36] Frequent references to the vast power of human increase may be found much earlier. In his _History of the World_ Raleigh had remarked that were it not for wars, famines, pestilences, and so on, a teeming population all the world over would have resulted long ago.[37] Machiavelli refers more than once to the existence of checks. He attributed the barbarian invasions in the later days of Rome to an unusually rapid increase of the tribes beyond the Rhine and the Danube.[38] One of the most interesting references to the subject is to be found in the work of Botero from which we have already quoted. ‘I say, then, that the augmentation of Cities proceedeth partly out of the virtue generative of men, and partly out of the virtue nutritive of Citties. The virtue generative is without doubt to this day the very same, or at least such as it was three thousand years past. So that if there were no other impediment or let therein, the propagation of mankind would increase without end and the augmentation of Citties would be without terme. And if it do not increase in infinite, I must needs say, it proceedeth out of the defect of nutriment and sustenance sufficient for it.’[39] Later on he continues: ‘although men were as apt to generation in the height and pride of the Roman Empire, as in the first beginning thereof; yet, for all that, the people increased not proportionately. For the virtue nutritive of Citties had no power to go further.... By the selfe same reason, mankinde growne to a certain complete number, hath growne no further. And it is three thousand years agone and more, that the world was replenished as full with people as it is at present.’[40]

What are perhaps more remarkable than these references to the relation of numbers to the food-supply, so far as anticipations of Malthus are concerned, are discussions mentioning the ratios which are found from time to time. In the _Primitive Origination of Mankind_, Sir Matthew Hale endeavours to show that mankind must have had a beginning and must have an end, and finds support for this thesis in the facts regarding human fecundity. He calculated that the numbers of mankind must increase in a geometrical ratio unless hindered by checks. Obviously it has not done so chiefly because, owing to absence of sufficient food, large numbers are always being removed by various agencies which he enumerates as plagues, famines, wars, floods, and inundations.[41] Sir William Petty deals with the geometrical ratio at some length. He drew up an elaborate table which, assuming four thousand years to have passed since the flood, shows how an estimated world population of 320,000,000 could have been arrived at.[42] The ratios, however, never played a very prominent part in the discussion until after the publication of Malthus’s book. They reappear now and again, as for instance in a book by Saxe.[43]

7. Malthus published his first edition in 1798. He was born in 1766 at the ‘Rookery’, a country house of some size near Dorking. In 1784 he went up to Cambridge. In early days he had shown signs of ability and at the university fulfilled this promise; he gained some prizes and was placed as ninth wrangler in the mathematical tripos of 1788. In 1793 he was elected fellow of his college, but only resided occasionally. In 1798 he was curate at Albury, close to his birthplace; in 1799 he travelled through Sweden, Norway, and Russia, to collect information for his second edition; in 1802, owing to the Peace of Amiens, he was enabled to travel through Switzerland and France. The second edition appeared in 1803. It was virtually a new book. The four succeeding editions that were published in his lifetime were mainly reprints of this edition with some new matter added. In 1804 he married, and in 1805 became Professor of History and Political Economy at Haileybury College, which post he held until his death in 1834.[44]

It would seem that Malthus and his father used often to discuss new books and questions of the day. His father, Daniel Malthus, was inclined to favour the revolutionary school; Robert Malthus thought that he saw serious objections to Godwin’s views on the subject of ‘perfectibility’, and was so much impressed by them that he decided to put his ideas in writing. Whereas in the first edition Malthus was chiefly concerned with controverting Godwin and his school, by the time of the second edition he had lost interest in this side of the matter and his attention was almost entirely devoted to the problem of population.

Such was the origin of the book which focused the attention of men on the population question. In the sixth chapter we shall have to review the position which it sets out and to trace the subsequent development of the theory. It is sufficient to say here that according to Malthus, whereas population tends to increase in a geometrical ratio, food tends to increase in an arithmetical ratio. As a result population is checked by the operation of vice and misery, to which factors he added, in the second edition, moral restraint. Statistics showed, even in the lifetime of Malthus, that the increase of food was not limited to an increase in an arithmetical ratio, and thus in reality the theory fell to the ground. It was, however, only gradually realized that this was so and that the relation between population and the food-supply is connected with the question of the return to industry, which may at any one time be increasing or decreasing according to the operation of many factors, of which the increase in skill is the chief. The points which are of interest in this historical sketch are the strong feelings which the book aroused among the adherents of the various schools of thought, the practical movement to which it gave shape, and finally the influence which it had upon Darwin and Wallace.

8. From what has been said, it is clear that the ground had been well prepared for a favourable reception. Further the ‘populousness of ancient nations’ was a famous theme for controversy in the eighteenth century. There had also been much discussion as to whether the population of England was increasing or decreasing.[45] Again, in part owing to the industrial revolution, and in part owing to the war, questions as to poverty had attracted much attention, and to them Malthus’s book had direct reference. Thus it is not surprising that the success of the first edition was great and immediate.[46] Godwin admitted that it had ‘converted friends of progress by the hundred’.[47] Pitt dropped his Poor Law Bill in 1800 partly because of the opposition of those who had been influenced by the Essay. The earlier supporters of Malthus belonged, for the most part, to the Whig and Utilitarian schools. Pitt, Paley, Copleston, James Mill, Senior, Ricardo, Macintosh, and Whitbread all adhered to Malthus. In 1819 Brougham referred to the ‘principle of population as one of the soundest principles of political economy’.[48] Support for Malthus was especially strong among the Utilitarians. Referring to about the year 1825 J. S. Mill says: ‘Malthus’s principle was quite as much a banner and a point of union among us as any opinion especially belonging to Bentham.’[49]

Opposition was chiefly to be found among the Tories, Revolutionaries, and Radicals. Godwin published a reply to Malthus in 1801, and several years later, finding that the ‘principle’ still gained ground, made another attempt to refute it, which met with as little success as the earlier attempt. As an example of the attitude of the followers of Godwin towards Malthus, the following remarks by Shelley may be quoted. ‘Metaphysics and inquiries into moral and political science have become little else than vain attempts to revive exploded superstitions, or sophisms like those of Mr. Malthus, calculated to lull the oppressors of mankind into a security of everlasting triumph.’[50] The Tory element of the opposition was influenced by the feeling that the ordering of human affairs could not be so innately bad as the Essay seemed to suggest.[51] Southey and Coleridge represent this view; the former attacked the Essay more than once with considerable violence.[52] Cobbett made himself prominent among the critics by inventing the sobriquet ‘Parson’ Malthus. It occurs in the following passage.

‘Why,’ said I, ‘how many children do you reckon to have had at last?’

‘I do not care how many,’ said the man, ‘God never sends mouths without sending meat.’

‘Did you never hear,’ said I, ‘of one Parson Malthus?’

‘No, sir.’

‘If he were to hear of your works, he would be outrageous, for he wants an Act of Parliament to prevent poor people from marrying young, and from having such lots of children.’

‘Oh, the brute,’ exclaimed the wife, while the husband laughed, thinking I was joking.[53]

Hazlitt, who may be classed as a radical, was one of the most violent of the opponents. Indeed, as Mr. Bonar says, ‘Malthus was the best abused man of his age.’[54]

The Essay early became known on the Continent. As far as Germany was concerned, this was attributable, according to von Mohl, to a work by Luden.[55] During the lifetime of Malthus the violence of the opposition gradually weakened and the principle was very generally accepted. For many years such opposition as there was was based rather on religious grounds than upon an understanding of true weaknesses of the theory. Nevertheless Sumner, who was afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, and Thomas Chalmers in early days both proclaimed their adherence to the principle.[56] In 1840 three books were published which each attacked the principle on religious grounds. Of the authors, Sadler was a Churchman without apparently any strong political feelings, Alison a Tory, and Doubleday a Radical.[57] That the religious motive continued to inspire opposition may be gathered from an essay by W. P. Greg which appeared at a much later date.[58]

It may be noticed that strong opposition was nearly always exhibited to the views of Malthus by socialistic authors.[59] According to Proudhon, ‘la théorie de Malthus, c’est la théorie de l’assassinat politique, de l’assassinat par philanthropie, pour l’amour de Dieu.’[60] Karl Marx in a well-known passage attacked Malthus in most violent and offensive language.[61]

9. As a result of the Essay, there began within the lifetime of Malthus the advocacy of Neomalthusianism. Malthus himself definitely disapproved of this practical application of his ‘principle’.[62] The practical application of which he approved was made by Miss Martineau in one of her _Illustrations to Political Economy_, which reads so strangely at the present day.[63] As regards Neomalthusianism it is very generally supposed that active propaganda only began about the time of the famous Bradlaugh-Besant trial in 1876. This, however, is a complete mistake.[64] The first publication of importance in which these ideas were put forward was an article by James Mill in the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_. His language was very guarded but the drift of his remarks unmistakable. Four years later, in 1822, Francis Place wrote a reply to Godwin. He covered much other ground but openly and deliberately advocated these practices. For the next ten years there followed an active propaganda. The events which first brought the whole question into public notice are somewhat curious. In 1823 a number of handbills were sent to Mrs. Fildes, well known in the North for her work among the poor; these bills contained descriptions of the methods which the new school of writers wished to see adopted by the working classes; an anonymous letter accompanied them asking her to help in distributing them. Mrs. Fildes was very indignant, and the whole story was published in the journal called the _Black Dwarf_. The bills attained a great notoriety and became known as the ‘diabolical handbills’. Suspicion seems to have rested upon Robert Owen; it was stated in the _Black Dwarf_, and has often been repeated since, that Neomalthusian methods were in use at New Lanark. It is far more probable that Francis Place was the author both of the handbill and of the letter. Whether this is so or not, Place was occupied for the next few years in doing all he could to spread the new opinions, for the sake of which he was prepared to sacrifice much popularity.[65] In 1834 the Society for Promoting Useful Knowledge refused his help because of his opinions on the subject. He was violently attacked by Cobbett and Richard Carlile; the latter was afterwards converted and published in 1825 articles advocating these practices. The articles were reprinted in 1826 as _Every Woman’s Book_, which went through several editions. At this early date it is clear that on the one hand these books and pamphlets were widely read among the working classes; Carlile in the _Republican_, for instance, asserted that they were ‘circulating by thousands in the populous districts of the north’. On the other hand Neomalthusian ideas were held by many eminent men of the day. The Utilitarian leaders, if not actually concerned in the propagation of these views, made their approval known. J. S. Mill in his youthful days got into trouble with the police through distributing some of these pamphlets. Grote somewhat later presented to London University a copy of the famous _Fruits of Philosophy_, of which there will be more to be said below.

After a while the propaganda died down, and for some fifty years there was little heard of it.[66] Some books were, however, published in the interval which subsequent events made famous. R. D. Owen’s _Moral Physiology_ appeared in 1830. Knowlton’s _Fruits of Philosophy_ and Drysdale’s _Elements of Social Science_ appeared in 1833 and in 1854 respectively. It was many years, however, before they became well known. For many years no objection was taken to the _Fruits of Philosophy_, or any similar work; such books were allowed to circulate freely. In 1876 a Bristol bookseller, Cook by name, was condemned to two years’ imprisonment for selling an illustrated edition of Knowlton’s work. Soon after another bookseller was also fined. Thereupon Mr. Bradlaugh and Mrs. Besant determined to take up the subject and fight for what they considered to be the right of freedom of discussion in these matters. They had an edition of the _Fruits of Philosophy_ printed, and took a small shop where it was openly exposed for sale. A prosecution followed. In 1877 they were tried before Sir Alexander Cockburn, the Lord Chief Justice; the Attorney-General prosecuted. The summing-up was distinctly in favour of the accused; the jury, however, returned a verdict of guilty, adding a rider to the effect that they considered the defendants to be innocent of any immoral intention. Judgement was reserved. But in the interval Mr. Bradlaugh and Mrs. Besant continued to sell the book, and the result was that, instead of merely being bound over, as had been the intention of the judge, they were condemned to six months’ imprisonment and to a fine of six hundred pounds. The judgement was subsequently quashed in a higher court.

The trial was a huge advertisement for Neomalthusianism. For some years spasmodic efforts to punish the sale of Neomalthusian books only served to encourage the propagandists. In 1877 the ‘Neomalthusian League’ was founded and a vigorous propaganda was carried on. The activity of the league in England gradually declined, but not before the movement had spread to foreign countries. Propaganda in other countries followed a very similar course; in 1888 there was a trial in Australia which is as famous in that country as the Bradlaugh-Besant trial in England. Prosecutions occurred in India and in America. In 1891 a remarkable dispute took place in Norway, and a law was finally passed to prohibit the sale of Neomalthusian books. As lately as 1908 a Belgian doctor was condemned to imprisonment for spreading the knowledge of Neomalthusian methods.[67]

10. With this notice of the history of the development of Neomalthusianism we may leave this side of the subject. The history of speculation regarding evolution has been so often described that there is no need to go into the facts here.

It is well known that before Darwin and Wallace turned their attention to the subject, the origin of organisms by evolution as opposed to origin by separate acts of creation had often been suggested. There was already at the beginning of the nineteenth century a considerable accumulation of facts regarding the structure and relation of organisms to one another and regarding the fossil remains of organisms. This evidence was seen to point to evolution as against creation, but until Darwin and Wallace produced their theories no one had been able to formulate a satisfactory hypothesis as to how evolution could have come about. It is of great interest to observe that it was after reading Malthus that both Darwin and Wallace independently formulated their theories. Malthus had, in fact, when taking up for consideration the quantitative aspect of the problem, so far as man was concerned, been dealing with that class of facts upon which, not only the quantitative, but also the qualitative aspect of the problem is based. When Darwin and Wallace, with the problem of evolution before them, which is essentially the problem of quality—the problem of the manner in which one type of organic form can be derived from another type—chanced to read Malthus, their attention was called to the class of facts connected with the birth-rate, the death-rate, and allied phenomena. They realized that among species in a state of nature a somewhat similar state of things existed to that which Malthus, with another aspect of the problem in view, was investigating in the case of man, and from a consideration of these facts they founded independently the hypothesis of natural selection.

It is of interest to note what Darwin and Wallace themselves say as to their indebtedness to Malthus. In a passage in the well-known autobiographical sketch Darwin writes as follows: ‘in October 1838, that is fifteen months after I had begun my systematic inquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus’ ‘Population’, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of animals and plants it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of a new species. Here then I had at last got hold of a theory by which to work.’[68] In two letters that have been published—one to Haeckel[69] and one to Wallace[70]—Darwin also recorded in very similar words his debt to Malthus, and in the _Origin of Species_, after describing what is meant by the struggle for existence and how it comes about, says, ‘it is the doctrine of Malthus applied with manifold force to the animal and vegetable kingdoms.’[71] So too Wallace, in his reply, after having been presented with the first Darwin-Wallace medal by the Linnean Society in 1908, acknowledged his debt to Malthus in the following words: ‘both Darwin and myself, at the critical period when our minds were fully stored with a considerable body of preserved information and reflection bearing upon the problem to be solved, had our attention directed to the system of positive checks as expounded by Malthus in his _Principle of Population_. It is an unimportant detail that Darwin read this book two years after his return from his voyage, while I read it before I went abroad and it was a sudden recollection of its teachings that caused the solution to flash upon me.’[72]

Since the publication of the _Origin of Species_ much attention has been paid to the problem of quality as regards the human race. It was obvious that if the human race had evolved from some lower type, it was probably still in process of evolution, and that the direction of evolution was by no means necessarily upwards. It was also obvious that the further evolution of the race was to some extent at least within human control, if and when men chose to use the means of control that lay within their power. Great impetus was given to this side of the problem by the work of Sir Francis Galton, who coined the word ‘eugenics’.[73] Societies for the study of eugenics and for the advocacy of eugenic ideals have been started in England, in many European countries, in America and elsewhere, and at the present day the educated classes in every country are at least aware of the existence of the problem of the quality, as they have long been aware of the existence of the problem of the quantity, of population.

The development of opinion on this subject has thus run a peculiar course. Attention was drawn in early days to the existence of the problem of numbers, but men were long satisfied with asserting on comparatively simple grounds that a dense population was desirable or undesirable, and they usually came to the conclusion that the more inhabitants in a country, the better for the country. Long before the time of Malthus, and by many different writers, attention was paid to the connexion between numbers and the food-supply. It was Malthus, however, who first aroused public interest in the subject. His book, indeed, made an impression that few books have ever made. Since his time every educated man has had the problem of numbers in mind, and current opinion still often enough reflects the view put forward by Malthus if not in detail—for it is difficult to say what exactly the views of Malthus were—at least in the general and on the whole gloomy and fatalistic manner of regarding the problem. It is owing to the fact that those contributions which, after the time of Malthus, attracted most attention, added little to the development of thought, and owing to the influence of the writings of J. S. Mill, who himself never shook off the profound impression made upon him early in life by the Essay, that the views, or perhaps we should rather say the outlook, of Malthus so long maintained their sway. The development of the modern view as expounded by political economists was not set out in a form that attracted public attention, and it was thus possible for the late Governor of South Africa, when answering a question in the House of Commons a few years ago, to refer to the problem as though no important contribution had been made to the subject since the time of Malthus.

Of the development of opinion regarding the qualitative aspect of the problem there is little to be said. Popular interest in this subject is of comparatively recent birth. That which is interesting to observe is that, as a result of the course which thought has taken, the population problem is seldom seen as a whole, and that the relations one to another of the very numerous questions arising therefrom are scarcely ever appreciated.

II
THE BASIS OF THE POPULATION PROBLEM: (1) THE QUANTITATIVE ASPECT

1. In what follows the evolutionary position is taken for granted. It is assumed, that is to say, that the higher forms of life have evolved from lower forms. If we make this assumption, we must suppose that at one time the ancestors of man were living under those conditions to which species in a state of nature are now subject. By species in a state of nature are meant all species of animals and plants with the exception of man and those species which have been domesticated by him. It is the object of this and the following chapter to show that among species in a state of nature the population problem exists both in its quantitative and qualitative aspects, and further that in certain particulars of fundamental importance the position is the same for all such species. Certain propositions may be laid down which hold good for any one of them, and in these chapters it is proposed to show what it is that may be affirmed with regard to all of them. It follows that, since among the ancestors of man the population problem must at one time have taken this form, we shall, as the result of the discussion, arrive at a basis from which we can proceed to study the shape which the problem in its double aspect has assumed in the case of man.

It is necessary to emphasize the fact that this argument does not take the form of developing an analogy between the position of man and that of species in a state of nature. What we are doing is merely to attempt to ascertain the conditions under which the ancestors of man lived, in order that we may follow the changes which have taken place. Further, it may be well to point out that the argument in these chapters will follow rather an unusual course. It may seem that certain facts of considerable general importance are passed over and others of little obvious importance emphasized. The justification for this course will be apparent later when we come to deal with the position with regard to man; for this sketch is not introduced primarily with the object of throwing light upon the position of species in a state of nature, but in order to prepare the way for a discussion of the shape which the problem has assumed in the case of man.

2. At the basis of both aspects of the problem lies the fact of reproduction. All organisms reproduce their kind. Reproduction is clearly a necessity, because all living things are liable to meet death by accident and, unless there was reproduction, every species would soon be extinguished. It is worth while observing that among all higher forms of life a more or less clearly defined limit to the duration of life has been evolved. In other words, natural death after a certain period ensues. It would seem that natural death has been evolved in the following manner. All organisms are subject to the wear and tear of daily life, to meet which there is a faculty of recuperation. Among the lower forms this faculty is very pronounced. The whole animal can be regenerated from a small fragment and, as a result, very serious accidents are not fatal. Among the higher forms there goes, generally speaking, with the advance in structure a loss of the power of regeneration, until among the highest there is little or no power of regeneration; for a certain average length of time the highest organisms withstand the batterings of daily life, gradually fail to recuperate, and finally die. Given the necessity of reproduction to provide for the continuance of the species against accident to its members, this further evolution is not difficult to understand. A power of recovery from all but the most extreme forms of accident is present among the simpler types; the retention of such a power of recovery tends to be incompatible with increasing complexity of structure, and it has, so to speak, been more economical to evolve organisms provided with a power of recuperation only against normal wear and tear over the period during which they remain capable of reproduction. The higher types therefore, after reproducing their kind, die and thus the battle of life is always being resumed by fresh generations.

3. That in some such fashion reproduction has to be explained seems clear; but we are concerned here with the facts of reproduction. It will be necessary later to go into the nature of reproduction in greater detail; all that needs to be said here can be stated quite shortly. There are two forms of reproduction, known respectively as the sexual and asexual; the latter type of reproduction occurs only among plants and the lower animals. As sexual reproduction occurs among all groups of animals and plants, whether asexual reproduction occurs or not (except among the bacteria where the latter type alone is known) and as it is the only type which occurs among the higher groups, asexual reproduction may be disregarded here. The asexual type of reproduction, it may be remarked, introduces no new principle, and those groups among whom it is found are not on that account to be set apart from other groups as though the general conclusions at which we shall arrive were not applicable to them.

To make the process of sexual reproduction clear it is necessary to say something regarding the structure of organisms. Excluding the Protista for the moment, all organisms exhibit a cellular structure. Upon examination under a microscope the living tissues are found to consist of a number of compartments or cells. Among plants the typical cell is in the nature of a small box with thick sides; among animals the sides or cell-walls are very thin. Within the cell-walls there are to be distinguished two chief elements, a central body, the nucleus, and the surrounding cytoplasm. This cytoplasm consists of ordinary granular protoplasm and the nucleus of a special kind of protoplasm. Only protoplasm can properly be spoken of as alive. Those elements in the body which are not protoplasm are either in the course of being turned into protoplasm or are the products of protoplasmic activity. Examples of the latter in man are the hair and the nails, and in the case of other animals, feathers, shells, and so on. As a general rule, each cell contains a single nucleus, but there are cells without a nucleus and cells with more than one nucleus. The name Protista, mentioned above, is given to the lowest animals and plants which are commonly said to consist of a single cell. They may be thus thought of; but the group includes forms with many nuclei of which it can only be said that cell structure has not yet been differentiated. It is therefore possible that the term cell should not be used at all in respect of this group.

Among the Protista sexual reproduction takes very different forms. Essentially, however, it consists in the fusion of two individuals, and if we regard each individual as a cell, it may be said to consist in the fusion of two cells. Among the higher forms the essential feature of sexual reproduction is the same; it consists, that is to say, in the fusion of two cells. It no longer consists in the fusion of two individuals, but in the fusion of two cells, one given off by one individual, and one by the other.