more than one Economist to sleep

on the same straw.

But it may be said, that here there has been no relinquishment of principle, and perhaps, in one sense, which we shall leave to the reader's sagacity, neither there has; but "plusquam civilia bella" are now raging in the camp of the enemy, aye, even in the Political Economists' Club. The same persons who once thought themselves divinely inspired, -that is, by the God of their own Idolatry, whose image on earth has feet of clay and face of brass, the Composition of the body being nondescript, though, in the coinage of their own brain, they believe it to be of gold,-have, for a considerable time, been at sixes and sevens, nay, after calling each other no very decorous names, they have gone to loggerheads, and that, too, about the very axioms, and definitions, and first principles of their science. Mr Malthus, in a small volume, in which he twits several of his brethren, tells Mr M'Culloch, among other pieces of useful information, that he does not know what is capital, and what is not; and Mr M'Culloch,

"Fierce as ten furies, terrible as hell,"

tells Mr Malthus, in the Scotsman, that he does not know what is productive and what is unproductive labour, and scoffs at him as little better than a quack, a mere empiric. But it was reserved for Mr Senior to exhibit the most astounding contradictions between his own opinions, recorded in one and the same lecture, and so to explain his understanding of the law of population laid down in the celebrated Essay, as to shew us that he believes in a law of population diametrically opposite to that with which Mr Malthus has so long been deluding, not only the Political Economists' Club, but a somewhat wider sphere-the whole world.

Mr Senior's Two Lectures on Population, and the correspondence between him and Mr Malthus, in which these most marvellous inconsistencies, contradictions, misconceptions, and every imaginable blundering and blindness appear, are well worthy the attention of the curious: and we beg to be allowed to point out a gem or two in the coronets which

these two most self-complacent philosophers have mutually wreathed round each other's foreheads, on which, if the organ of causality(should it be well developed-then that of conscientiousness)-be bigger than a pea, we relinquish our faith in Phrenology.

Mr Senior had, in his Introductory Lecture-not now before ussaid, "That the population of a given district is limited only by moral or physical evil-or by deficiency in the means of obtaining those articles of wealth, or, in other words, those necessaries, decencies, and luxuries, which the habits of the individuals of each class of the inhabitants of that district lead them to require." After meditating on this wise saw, he says, "That the only modification subsequent reflection induces me to apply to this proposition, is to substitute for the word deficiency,' the words, the apprehension of deficiency.' My reasons for this substitution are: first, that the actual deficiency of necessaries is a part of physical evil; and, secondly, that it is not the existence of a deficiency, but the fear of its existence, which is the principal check to population, so far as necessaries are concerned, and the sole check as respects decencies and luxuries."

Now, we request the reader to pay particular attention to this amended statement of the learned ex-Professor's creed-and then to pay particular attention to the illustrations he gives of it, drawn from the condition of our own country, as well as others-and then to judge, first, whether the exProfessor understands himself; and, secondly, whether his doctrine and that of Mr Malthus differ but in words—by a mere verbal distinction —that is, a distinction without a difference as the two clear-headed and self-complacent members of the Club, at the close of their correspondence, smirkingly declare, bowing and kissing their hands to each other with much suavity, cordiality, and respect; while the truth is, that they stand before the publiclet us speak plainly-a brace of not only confounded, but self-convicted blunderers.

Let us see, then, what Mr Senior says of these checks. In page

22 of his First Lecture-the concluding page he says, "There is not an evil, moral or physical, which has not a tendency directly or indirectly to shorten life, but there are many which have a direct tendency to increase fecundity." Perhaps there may be but he has not had the kindness to tell us what are the evils, moral or physical, which possess this direct tendency to increase fecundity. Let this, however, pass for the present and we request Mr Senior to reconcile with the assertion, that there is "not an evil, MORAL or physical, which has not a tendency to shorten life," with the following as sertion in Lecture II., page 25— "We shall scarcely, therefore, be led into error, if, in considering the preventive checks, we confine our attention to prudence, and assume that as nothing but physical evil diminishes the longevity of mankind," &c. !!!

What rapid and long strides must the science of Political Economy lately have made in Oxford under such a teacher!

But this is but a joke to what follows. The object of the Second Lecture is, to consider the " preventive checks." The first is "promiscuous intercourse;" and Mr Senior says, that, with such exceptions as the higher classes of society in Otaheite and other of the South-sea Islands, and the West Indian negroes-on which he lays little stress-there are scarcely any females whose fecundity is prevented or diminished by promiscuous intercourse. He of course excludes those unhappy wretches whose trade is prostitution-and they constitute so small a proportion of the population of the whole world, that the check on population occasioned by their unfruitfulness may, he says, safely be disregarded.

The other preventive check is" abstinence from marriage." "You are, of course, aware," says Mr Senior to his pupils, "that by the word' marriage, I mean to express not the peculiar and permanent union which alone, in a Christian country, is entitled to that name; but any agreement between a man and a woman to cohabit exclusively for a period, and under circumstances likely to occasion the birth of progeny." How the Professor's young pupils should be aware of this extension of the meaning

of the word marriage, we do not exactly see-surely their mothers had not taught it to them. Would not the Professor be more easily understood if he had said,-abstinence from "sexual intercourse?" But let that, too, pass. The Professor says, that the number of persons situated so as to be deterred from "marriage," by the only causes likely to deter them, an apprehension of a deficiency of necessaries, decencies, or luxuries, is "so small, that they make an exception which would scarcely deserve attention, even if this conduct were as common among them as it is in fact rare."

The check from an apprehended deficiency of the "luxuries is but slight," says Mr Senior; and the reason he gives is oddly expressed: For "the motives, perhaps I might say, the instincts, that prompt the human race to marriage, are too powerful to be much restrained by the fear of losing conveniences," &c. Passing that too, however, his belief, we see, is that the higher classes are almost without check. He goes on to say, that "the fear of losing decencies, or perhaps, more frequently, the hope to acquire, by a larger accumulation, during celibacy, the means of purchasing the decencies of a higher social rank, is of more importance." The middling classes, therefore, may be subject to some check-not a very powerful one, it would seem, from the Professor's language, as it is said by him, but to be of far more importance" than another which is so slight as to be no check at all.

With regard to the poor, again, he says, that" want of actual necessaries is seldom apprehended by any except the poorest classes in any country; and in England, though it sometimes is felt, it probably is anticipated by none." According,then, to Mr Senior, the poorest, which is by much the most numerous class, is freed from the prudential check. So stands the Professor's account; yet has he told us, that the preventive check (confined by himself to prudence) is twice as strong here as in America, though only half as strong as in Switzerland. How that can be, he will pardon our blindness for not being able to see, since here "it is antici pated by none;" and how nothing can be the half of one something, and

double of another, seems to be an enigma, set not by a Senior, but a Sphinx.

Has Mr Senior explained more clearly and consistently what are called the Positive Checks? We fear not. Having said (Lecture I.) that they include all the causes which lead, in any way, premature ly to shorten the duration of life, and enumerated among them "plague, famine, and large towns," he tells us, with oracular brevity, that these "are the result of moral evil." Are all physical evils the result of moral evil? A colic, caused by a too greedy and gluttonous revel in a gooseberrybush of the small red hairy sort, might, no doubt, by a severe moralist, be given as a melancholy exam. ple of physical evil, the result of moral evil. But would he not be going a step too far, were he to affirm, that, to his certain knowledge, the Cholera Morbus, which has lately come across the Caucasus from Persia to St Petersburg, was the result of moral evil in the subjects of the Khan or the Czar? At all events, putting plague and famine aside, it does sound odd to our ears, to say that "large towns" are the " result of moral evil," though unfortunately they are too often its cause.

Mr Senior then tells us, that the want of the necessaries of life is the principal and obvious check in the lowest savage state-but that, in "a high state of civilisation, it is almost imperceptible. But it is unperceived only in consequence of its substitutes!" What does he mean? Is the check there or is it not? If he means to say it is, then he contradicts himself; for we have seen that he believes, and prides himself on the discovery, that, in civilized countries, the rate of the increase of food is generally greater than that of population. But was there ever such vague expression employed before by a lecturer on one of what he has called the Moral Sciences? It is not easy to conjecture how a thing, if it exists, should be unperceived" in consequence of its substitutes." They might prevent its existence, but never could prevent its being perceived. Were a man, who had been drawn for the militia, to procure à substitute, why, no doubt, in consequence of that substitute, he would

be "unperceived" in the ranks of the Saucy Suffolk, or the Devon Dons; but the prime reason why he was "unperceived," it seems to our simple minds would be, that the worthy, though not heroic individual was not within the range of vision, but snugly seated at home among his wife and children, at beans and bacon.

Mr Senior thus continues:-" If all other moral and physical checks could be got rid of,-if we had neither wars nor libertinism, if our institutions, and employments, and habits were all wholesome, and no fear of indigence, or loss of station, prevented or retarded our marriages, famine would soon exercise her prerogative of controlling in the last resort, the multiplication of mankind. But though it be certain that the absence of all other checks could only give room for the irresistible influence of famine, it is equally certain that such a state of things never has existed, and never will exist. In the first place, the absence of all the other moral and physical evils which retard population, implies a degree of civilisation not only high, but higher than mankind have as yet enjoyed. Such a society cannot be supposed to want sagacity sufficient to foresee the evils of a too rapidly increasing population," &c. "And, secondly, it is impossible that a positive check so goading and remorseless as Famine should prevail without bringing in her train all the others. Pestilence is her uniform companion, and Murder and War are her followers."

Nothing can exceed the confusion of ideas huddled together in the two or three pages of the Lecture over which these saws are sown or sprinkled among stony places. First, we are instructed that the absence of all the preventive checks, according to the new jargon, will produce the positive check-famine. But then we are consoled by the assurance, that this state of things never has existed, and never will exist. Now mark the reason why such a state of things never has or will exist. First, because civilisation will have the effect of preventing wars, and will teach men the wisdom not to involve themselves in the endearing, but, according to the Economists, pernicious

connexions of husbands and fathers. Civilisation has never hitherto been found to prevent wars; and as to unwholesome employments, it almost of necessity promotes them; neither is libertinism peculiarly disconnected with civilisation. So much for the first cause which is to prevent the operation of the positive check famine. But, secondly, quoth Mr Senior, famine is to prevent itself, by producing the evils which follow "in its train!" And he adds profoundly, "where there is a diversity of fortunes, famine generally produces that worst form of civil war, the insurrection of the poor against the rich!" Will this philosopher please to inform us what country has ever existed without a

diversity of fortunes" among the inhabitants? Are all countries then ravaged by that worst of civil war, the insurrection of the poor against the rich ?

Mr Senior thus continues-" Among nations imperfectly civilized, the widest and most wasting of the positive checks is predatory war. A district exposed to it must suffer in their full force all the others. There, fear of invasion must keep them pent up in crowded, and consequently unwholesome towns." "This is the check which has kept the whole of Africa, the western part of Asia, and the southern districts of America, in their comparativelyunpeopled state." "Unwholesome towns!!!" As is forcibly exemplified, we presume, by the Germans and Scandinavians of old; and more recently by the Arabs, the predatory tribes of North America, and Pindarees of India, who are all so well known to have lived, and still to live, in " crowded towns!" We should like to see a Census of the Population of the "crowded towns" of Africa, Arabia, and the Pampas.

Mr Senior, in proof of his saws and his see-saws, quotes Bruce. Bruce, it seems, passed a night at Garigara, a village, of which the crops had been destroyed, and the inhabitants starved; he calls it "the miserable village of Garigara." And Mr Senior quotes that in proof of a population being, by the fear of invasion, pent up" in crowded, and consequently unwholesome towns!" Finally, Mr Senior says, "the re

mainder of the positive checks, such as infanticide, and unwholesomeness of climate, habit, or situation, appear rather to act as substitutes for the PREVENTIVE CHECKS, than to produce any actual diminution, or PREVENT any actual increase." Infanticide, &c. act as substitutes for preventive checks; and yet they produce no actual diminution, nor prevent actual increase! Now, we always thought, that, according to the philosophers, the merit of the preventive checks was, that they did prevent actual increase. How then does it happen that their substitutes produce no such effect? Such substitutes must be discharged for they are unfit for the service.

It appears, then, that Mr Senior is rather muddy-minded; yet so far from disagreeing with what he has said-except the expression, which is lax and confused—and except the contradictions, which shew sad oversight-we agree with him perfectly respecting the non-existence or powerlessness of many of the said checks; while neither we, nor any one else, and certainly not Mr Senior, can agree with the unintelligible remarks he has drivelled about them. We are quite prepared to go along with him, in spite of his stupidity, when he says, with an air of conscious originality, that which thousands of rational people have said before he was born-" that not only a taste for additional comfort and convenience, but a feeling of degradation in their absence, becomes more and more widely diffused. The increase, in many respects, of the productive powers of labour, must enable increased comforts to be enjoyed by increased numbers; and as it is the more beneficial, so it appears to me to be the more natural course of events, that increased comforts should not only accompany, but rather precede, increase of numbers." Ah, true-but not truths observed by William Nassau Senior, any more than by Christopher North. He denies, therefore, and rightly, "that under wise institutions, there is any tendency" in population to press fatally on the means of subsistence-but believes, rightly," the tendency to be just the reverse."

Well then, here comes the rubwhat is Mr Malthus's doctrine? It is given very explicitly in the following words: "According to the prin

ciple of population, the human race has a tendency to increase faster than food. It has, therefore, a constant tendency to people a country fully up to the limits of subsistence; meaning by those limits, the lowest quantity of food which will maintain a stationary population."

Now place by the side of this passage our quotations from Mr Senior, and then read the correspondence of the two Professors, in which he of Oxford, with a gravity and suavity admirable but inimitable, assures his brother of Halesbury, that their doctrines perfectly coincide! "The means of subsistence have a greater tendency to increase than the population." "This is the case in every civilized country-even in Ireland!!!" So saith Mr Senior; and again," If it be conceded that there exists in the human race a natural tendency to rise from barbarism to civilisation, and that the means of subsistence are proportionably more abundant in a civilized than in a savage state, and neither of these propositions can be denied, it must follow, that there is a natural tendency in subsistence to increase in a greater ratio than population."

Compare all this, we say, with the passage quoted above from Mr Malthus-and how beautifully perfect the coincidence of the doctrines of the two learned Professors, who both assure us that they have discovered that theirs is but a "verbal dispute!!!"

But can you, any more than we, believe your eyes when you see, "oculis subjecta fidelibus," the following words in a letter from Mr Malthus to Mr Senior, kindly compromising the matter in question between them, and affably saying that it is but a "verbal dispute?" "The main part of the question with me, relates to the cause of the continued poverty and misery of the labouring classes of society in all old states. This surely cannot be attributed to the tendency of food to increase faster than population!!" Certainly not, Mr Malthus. People do not starve in the midst of plenty, and become more miserable as they are better fed. But how can you have the face to tell Mr Senior after this, that your doctrine and his is

VOL. XXIX. NO, CLXXVII.

the same? The pensive Public frowns at such a barefaced attempt to impose upon her intuitive perception that black is not white, that yes is not no-that a tendency in food to increase faster than the mouths to eat it, is not a tendency in mouths that eat it to increase faster than food.

Mr Senior's doctrine, we verily believe, is the right one-and Mr Malthus's is the wrong one-yet Mr Senior has not the sense to hold fast his own doctrine, but allows himself to be cajoled out of it by the soft insinuations of the agreeable Anti-populationist. "I must have expressed myself ill, if I have led you to suppose that I assert any thing like an universal increase of the proportion of subsistence to population." And then he goes on to explain-though his explanation, very excellent truth in itself, is no explanation at all—that is, it is not, as Mr Senior in his melting mood supposes it, any modification or retractation of his former doctrine. How could it be-without making the entire Two Lectures worthless as waste paper-as unprinted whitey-brown? O Lord Byron's Heaven and Earth! had he not said, page 48 and 49— "That the means of subsistence have a greater tendency to increase than the population, is the case in every civilized country-even in Ireland"the country which he and his school always speak of as swarming with life, though the truth is, by the way, that it is less populous than the greater part of Europe? If Mr Senior chooses to eat in these words

the most compendious method is to open his mouth, and swallow the whole Pamphlet.

Yes, he must indeed swallow the whole Pamphlet! For-O Lord Byron's Cain! only look at this. "There never has been a period of any considerable length, when premature mortality and vice, specifically arising from the pressure of population against food, has not prevailed to a considerable extent; nor, admitting the possibility, or even the probability, of these evils being diminished, is there any rational prospect of a near approach to their entire removal." So sayeth Mr Malthus in one of his letters-and Mr Senior, delighted to see this "near approach" to his own 2 c