with one finger in his mouth, and another in his eye-and what think you of the wit and arithmetician now? You think just as Mr Sadler thinks-who says, "I would not needlessly dwell upon a mere verbal dispute; but as the Reviewer, who passes over great part of my argument in a convenient silence, is so ostentatiously learned for several pages together upon this ridiculous quibble, it seemed proper in me to retort upon him his own imputation of 'ignorance;' and I will, without pronouncing as confidently regarding him as he has of me, just hint a suspicion, which his parade of learning has forced upon me, that he is in reality about as deep in mathematics as Goldsmith's Ephraim Jenkinson was in Greek. After all, whether my principle is happily expressed, is not the dispute; definitions rarely are, there being nothing, as Sir Humphrey Davy says, 'more difficult than a good definition;' but that I was ignorant of the mathematical meaning of the term which I used in a popular, and, as I still contend, in a proper sense, is-to retort the language of the Reviewer'FALSE." We " announce" this great discovery"-though Mr Sadler has not done so-" with all the pomp of Capital letters."

Let us now exhibit our fool's-capcrowned Reviewer in another light. Hitherto Mr Sadler has been exposing him as a hypercritic-a wouldbe wit-an ignoramus-and the booby of the lowest form of arithmeticians in a little day-school of a pleasantly-situated village, in the midst of meadows, and embosomed in trees. See him now misrepresenting and mutilating the meaning of a statement simple as truth can be, and clear as the day.

Mr Sadler, in speaking of Mr Malthus's geometrical and arithmetical ratios, said, that "as far as nature has to do with the question, men might plant twice the number of peas, and breed from a double number of the same animals, with equal prospect of their multiplication." And so he might. But what says the Reviewer to this? He says, "Why, if Mr Sadler thinks, as far as nature is concerned, that four sheep will double as fast as two, and eight as fast as four, how can he deny that the geometrical ratio does exist in the

works of nature? Or has he a definition of his own for geometrical progression, as well as for inverse proportion?"

A word in your ear. Never has Mr Sadler admitted that the geometrical principle of increase, either of plants or animals, any more than of human beings, is, on the same space, possible-on the contrary, it is the grand aim of his work to prove it impossible; but the truth is, that the Reviewer first garbles a sentence to suit his purpose, and then shews that he is ignorant of the meaning of the terms it contains! What are Mr Sadler's words?" With equal prospect of their multiplication." And what is the meaning the Reviewer attributes to these words?" With prospect of their equal multiplication!!" This is either foolish or knavish-foolish if he cannot see the distinction-knavish if he does-and yet boldly denies that there is anyfor the distinction expresses a difference which involves the entire dispute.

Thus it is that Mr Sadler cuffs the Reviewer's ears, which find the paper fool's cap no protection. "Let me ask the learned divines who contribute to the pages of the same Review, whether, in the beautiful parable of the Sower, our Saviour does not hold forth to all who receive his word into honest and good hearts, an equal prospect of increase-and whether that is the prospect of an equal increase? Or, to avoid again falling under the lash of such critics, in taking illustrations from the Sacred Volume, and to appeal to the Reviewer himself as a profound mathematician, which, from his familiarity with the Rule of Three inverse, it is evident he must be,I would ask him-whether, if I say that on the Newtonian system there is equal prospect of the motions of Jupiter and Saturn, I am saying that, on the Newtonian system, there is a prospect of the equal motions of Jupiter and Saturn? Ör, as doubtless he is as great a politician as he is a mathematician, will he say whether, when Horne Tooke (probably as good a philologist as himself) says, that there is a very great difference between having an equal right to a share, and a right to an equal share in the representation,' he is uttering nonsense?' The Reviewer is abso

lutely ignorant of the plainest principles of construction."

Is it not pleasant to see a clearheaded, well-informed man flogging the bottom of a muddy-noddled and ignorant boy? It is.

But the flogging the Reviewer has got as yet is far from being equal to his deserts. So he must get some more-one other stripe-buta tingler. For to ignorance he has added, in the attempt at argument noticed above, wilful misrepresentation. Not only does he totally suppress the nature of the argument in which the passage he criticises occurs, but he has actually omitted the first part of the sentence itself, so as to make the remainder express, as he sillily thinks, what he knew was not the meaning of Mr Sadler. Mr Sadler was shewing that human food could be made to multiply as fast as human beings-in a world, generally speaking, "all but unoccupied ;" where he said, for instance, that men might plant twice the number of peas, and breed from a double number of the same animals, with equal prospect of the multiplication. Expound that sentence in his own way, and the Reviewer, being, though a boy, not exactly Wordsworth's Idiot Boy, son of Betty Foy, must see that there is no inconsistency between it and Mr Sadler's entire theory. Nay, he knows that the equal multiplication of the same number of human beings, under otherwise similar circumstances, on an equal space, is a part of Mr Sadler's theory. Aye, so well does he know it, that elsewhere he interprets the principle so rigidly, as to demand in proof of it, the very same degree of multiplication, though the circumstances Mr Sadler has specially enumerated as constantly affecting the principle, are dissimilar! And yet, here, the poor creature dreams that he has detected ignorance and inconsistency in Mr Sadler, when, in treating of the subject as referable to a world "all but unoccupied," that gentleman assumes that a pea might be planted, or a sheep introduced, in the unoccupied parts, with at least equal prospect of multiplication, compared with the increase in parts possessed and cultivated! The brazen effrontery of misrepresentation can go no farther

than this. So the other stripe-the tingler.

Here is an example of the ludicrous and loathsome love of malicious misrepresentation, which, in the mind of this Reviewer, is absolutely a disease. Mr Sadler gives a list of the number of emigrants who had arrived in ten of the ports of the United States in the year 1817-for which he is indebted to Dr Seybert, an author of whom he speaks in terms of the highest respect. He thinks that the number in that list is probably too small-the accounts from which it was framed having been, in all likelihood, casually obtained. Indeed, he proves that the numbers received by Dr Seybert fell far short of the real ones-and he proves it by direct evidence-no less than twenty ports having been omitted, which, even as early as 1796, had been placed under custom-house regulations. And having proved it, he very properly says, "that accounts thus obtained, if not wilfully exag gerated, must always fall short of the truth." The infatuated Reviewer, after some other unprincipled impertinence, says, "We will, however, suppose with Mr Sadler, that Dr Seybert, finding himself compelled to choose between two sins, preferred telling a falsehood, to exaggerating, and consequently underrated the number of emigrants!!!!" If the Reviewer be not Wordsworth's Idiot Boy, and the son of Betty Foy what is he?

But Mr Sadler, having thus "flogged the offending Adam out of him," finds that the offending Adam, after a short flight, will return to his former habitation. No alternative is left-but to resume the knout, which he wields" with a skill and dexterity" which may well excite the envy even of Christopher North.

Intoxicated with the fumes of his own vanity served up to his nostrils by his own flattering self on a flaming censer, of which the smell is far from being agreeable to the bystanders, who rather turn their faces a little to the one side, the Reviewer exclaims, "Does this principle" (the law of population illustrated by Mr Sadler)"vindicate the honour of God? Does it hold out any new hope or comfort to man? Not at all. We

pledge ourselves to shew, with the utmost strictness of reasoning, from Mr Sadler's own principles, and from facts of the most notorious description, that every consequence which follows from the law of geometrical progression, laid down by Mr Malthus, will follow from the law, miscalled a law of inverse variation by Mr Sadler."

Mr Sadler and Christopher North will force you to redeem that pledge -or behold the knout. Step forth then, sir, to the middle of the floor and now for your " utmost strictness of reasoning," and your "facts of the most notorious description." Here they are. London is the most thickly peopled spot of its size in the known world. Therefore the fecundity of the population of London must, according to Mr Sadler, be less than the fecundity of human beings living on any other spot of equal size. But though, according to Mr Sadler, the fecundity is less in London than elsewhere, and though the mortality is greater there than else where, we find that even in London, the number of births greatly exceeds the number of deaths. During the ten years which ended with 1820, there were 50,000 more baptisms than burials within the bills of mortality. It follows, therefore, that even within London itself, an increase of the population is taking place by internal propagation alone." Mr Sadler begins with contradicting the whole statement. Perhaps the Reviewer is the only man in London who does not know that an immense number of the propagators there, are, and have always been, derived from a constant and immense influx of inhabitants from the country. Dr Price states, that of 3226 married persons examined at the Westminster Infirmary, only 824 were born in London. In the higher ranks the proportion would be smaller. The Reviewer might have seen this fact quoted by Mr Malthus.

But the Reviewer, in his all-comprehensive ignorance of "facts of the most notorious description," of course does not know one fact which has never been lost sight of by any one writer who has hitherto addressed himself to the subject,-that the registers of the burials in London

are notoriously and immensely deficient. Neither has it been once denied, that, relatively to the registered births, the registered burials have constituted a great and growing deficiency.

The population of London, Mr. Sadler observes, from 1700 to 1750, appears to have been nearly stationary. In the former year it is calculated to have been 674,350; in the latter, 676,250-but from that time to the date of the last census in 1821, it had nearly doubled, having become 1,274,800. Now, the births nearly conformed to this increase, the ratio having somewhat diminished, so far, therefore, confirming Mr Sadler's principle. From 1700 to 1750, the annual registered births averaged, according to the published registers, 17,099; from 1810 to 1820, that average was 28,489; thus the population had increased 72 per cent, the births 67 per cent. Now, presuming that the entered burials were equally complete, it is obvious that the deaths also would have increased in something like the same proportion. But how stands the fact? Why, the deaths from 1700 to 1750 averaged, in the same tables, 24,368; from 1810 to 1820, (the population having then nearly doubled,) they averaged 22,331 only!! Most absurd would it indeed be to attempt to account for so immense a relative diminution by any minute calculation about the improvement of human life-and well, therefore, is Mr Sadler, after such a statement, entitled to say, "Can another word be necessary to expose to ridicule the equally confident and ignorant assumptions of our Reviewer, founded upon such data as these ?"

But Mr Sadler does not quit the Reviewer on this exposure of his ignorance-but, following up his blow, prostrates him on the bosom of his old mother earth. According to the foregoing number of annual burials, the mortality in the metropolis is only one in between forty-nine and fifty of the entire population. In the bills of mortality the ages of the deaths are classified; and it appears that more than a third of the number of the born die under the age of five years. Suppose then, for a moment, that the documents on which the Reviewer builds

his refutation of Mr Sadler's theory were true-what follows? Why, that even were the population stationary, all Londoners who survive the age of five, live, on the average, above threescore and ten years! What a shew of grey-headed Cockneys!

But Mr Sadler cannot help giving a slight kick to the Reviewer, now that he is down-not to hurt him— but simply to shew his contempt. It is stated in the abstract of the registers of 1811, and also in that of 1821, that in the last six months of 1794, it was ascertained by the collector on the then tax on burials, that 3148 persons were interred without being registered, and that it is not likely that the whole number of interments, or even of burial grounds, were discoverable for the purpose of taxation. This rectification was imperfect, even in 1794-what then ought to be the additions at the present day? But let the Reviewer take the fact, as stated in the abstract of the registers in 1794-and apply it to his calculation of an increase of above 50,000, decennially, to the population of London, by internal propagation only, and pray, what has become of his " utmost strictness of reasoning," and his "facts of the most notorious description," and his pledge to prove Mr Sadler a Malthusian?

But the Reviewer stirring on the ground, as if he were striving to get up, Mr Sadler, to keep him down as long as it may be his will and pleasure, sets his foot upon his neckthus. The accounts which prostrate Pomposo has assumed as relatively correct, regarding the prolificness of London, inform us, that there were 284,897 registered births, and 120,605 marriages, during the ten years from 1810 to 1820. These numbers give 2.36 as the prolificness of each marriage. Now, we learn from other documents, that about half the deaths in London consist of persons under twenty years of age. It follows, therefore, that if even all the survivors were to marry at twenty, still that a married couple can only yield on the average 1.18 child each, that will survive to marry. Therefore, in a single generation, according to those statements, as far "as internal propagation is concerned," 2 diminish to 11, or 200 persons to 118;

18

and yet the gentleman on the groundflat maintains that there is nothing in Mr Sadler's " boasted principle" to prevent the whole earth from becoming "as thick with human beings as St Giles's!" But assuming the correctness of the documents to which he appeals, and on which he builds his pretended refutation of Mr Sadler, then, asks that inexorable statist, what is there, on the principle of the person prostrate beneath his feet, to prevent St Giles's parish from becoming a Salisbury Plain?

"It is thus," quoth Mr Sadler, "that the Reviewer has redeemed his pledge, evinced the utmost strictness of reasoning,' and shewn,' from facts of the most notorious description,' that my principle is one of superfecundity. He has done this by assuming that there are fewer deaths in London now than there were a century ago, (now when there are more than double the number of people to die,) and consequently that half the population bid fair to be what are called, in Gulliver's Travels, Struldbrugs, or immortal; or, at all events, that those who survive the age of five years, live, at present, to between three and fourscore each, not here and there one, but the whole of them on an average. An old Parr, therefore, according to him, would be no curiosity in London." The imagination again beholds in astonishment street and square all crowded with Cockneys,

"Who look so old and grey,

In truth you find it hard to say
They e'er could have been young."

The Reviewer having, he says, shewn (shewn!!) that Mr Sadler's Theory, if it be true, is as much a theory of superfecundity as that of Mr Malthus, then says, "but it is not true-and from Mr Sadler's own tables we will prove that that is not true." Mr Sadler answers, "if he does not make use of my tables for the purpose, his chance of refutation is very slight."—And indeed it is— for no table, poor fellow, does he keep of his own-he cannot afford it -and most ungratefully, but impotently, tries to upset the table spread for him in the wilderness of his own intellectual powers, by a man who is entitled, by the endowment of nature, to be liberal of gifts to paupers