ma that they are really seeking the good of their children by treating them as such. But the poor are not children, but men; they need, as the rich do, a government that is just, wise, firm, protective, and merciful; but a government can do little directly for them, and they ought to be disabused of the notion that it can; for on what are Radicalism, Chartism, and other popular discontents built, but upon the fancy that legislatures might always prevent distress and ensure prosperity if they would? Why is a man, because he has nothing-under Divine Providence-to rely upon but his labour, to be " naged," as it is called? He has a right to manage himself; and God has laid on him the responsibility of doing so. And as, on the one hand, a legisla ture has no right to prevent his going hither or thither, and doing what he pleases, as long as he injures no person; so, on the other, it is not answerable (provided it has not injured him by bad legislation) if his plans are not successful. Dr. Chalmers would not even allow it to aid him in his distress by a Poor-law, even as a matter of charity, much less of right, but leave this to private benevolence;-but without going to this extreme conclusion, he ought not to be led to expect-because no government, however paternal, can effect it-that a legislature can artificially make productive labour for millions of human beings. The opposers of the corn-law say that it might at this moment, by opening new markets in which the workman may exchange the produce of his labour for bread. We admit that if the market for labour has been wrongly restricted by the legislature, the legislature should retrace its steps; but this is not directly making labour, but only ceasing to interfere with it; and this alleged plan of relief Mr. Sadler and his advocates reprobate. We cannot argue the question of the corn-laws in a paragraph; but two things are obvious; the first, that in the present complicated relations of British society, a full and immediate repeal of the restrictions upon the importation of corn, while it benefited some, would so seriously injure others, that probably Sir R. Peel has gone as far in the way of relaxation as is now advisable; and secondly, that even supposing all that Mr. Baptist Noel himself so sanguinely describes, would result at the present moment, the predicted prosperity would only land the next generation in the same distress as at present, unless the pressure against subsistence, resulting from a largelyincreased population, were counteracted by improved habits among the people. Again, "the advance of free trade," which Mr. Sadler so vehemently reprobates, helps to support vast bodies of persons; and ought only to be checked by the legislature where it may injure others; as sometimes happens in the complicated state of our relations, and with the false legislation of ages fostering partial interests, which ought not, however, in policy or justice, to be rashly consigned to uncompensated ruin. Mr. Sadler wished to see restrictions on trade, because free-trade is injurious; the Political Economists, with Sir R. Peel at their head, justly regard restrictions as evils, and only to be tolerated upon extrinsic considerations; such as the severe injury which would accrue to large bodies of society by their hasty abandonment. To touch but upon one particular more in our author's enumeration, -the poor-laws. He just begs the question, as do all the Sadlerians, that their system would in reality be kind and beneficent, whereas other men as wise, benevolent, and Christian, think that it would prove the reverse. It is easy to talk of a "legislature drawing the poor by the inducements of hope and the prospects of advancement;" and to denounce as cruel or diabolical the notion that a large portion of mankind will only learn "forethought and provident habits by the fear of want;"-and when speaking of the individual intercourse of man with man, of the pastoral relation, of ecclesiastical establishments, or of the duties of private charity, we agree with Mr. Sadler ;-but how can a State, as such, undertake to hold out inducements of hope and prospects of advancement to many millions of human beings? it cannot directly make work, or bread, or money; it can do little more than see that justice is done to all, leaving each to be the architect of his own affairs; what it can bestow can be only by taking out of the pocket of one to give to another; and where humanity demands this, the laws of England do thus make the more successful help those who are in want; but it has no power to provide that every man shall have plenty, however large may be the population, or scanty the margin of produc tive industry. If it allotted a million of acres to-morrow for cows and cottages to supply as many families, those families would multiply, but the acres would not; and the evil would soon recur, and be greatly aggravated; unless the tastes, habits, and principles of the people were improved; so as to raise them above the degradation of voluntary pauperism. And here is the point to which Christian political economists specially direct their attention; and this, not upon merely natural principles, but as based upon the religion of Jesus Christ-making the Gospel, not poor-laws or cottage allotments, (even taking them at their full worth) the instrument, in God's hand, of national regeneration. Our view may be more melancholy than that of Mr. Sadler; but remembering that we are in a fallen world, its being painful is no proof that it is incorrect. The Quarterly Reviewers long ago (Article, "Malthus," 1817, p. 398) made the following just, pertinent, and Christian-or must we say "diabolical?"-remarks on this subject: "Above all, can we fail to observe, that this principle (of population) imposed as it is by a Creator whom we see and feel to be benevolent, is a strong corroboration of the truth of that revelation which declares mankind to be placed here in a preparatory state? Have we not every reason, from analogy, to believe, that if He had intended this for their final destination, He would have rendered perfection attainable; and that as He has not placed perfection within their reach, he designs this world as a state of discipline ?" We will not say that our corrector's mention of Miss Martineau is "invidious;" but it is quite irrelevant. We never read that lady's works; for even if her opinions upon political economy had not been, as we have always understood them to be, harsh and exaggerated, the reports which we have heard of her flippancy and her Socinianism, would have deterred us, except duty required it, from afflicting ourselves with her writings. Neither have we read Mr. Macculloch; nor did we even mention Malthus. Our objections to Mr. Sadler's theory were such as any person who looks at facts, and considers the principles which regulate human actions, especially as guided by the light of God's word, could scarcely fail to arrive at, if he were not led away from obvious inferences by being cramped by a system.* It is "invidious" to say, "Oh then you are Malthusians;" knowing that this word carries with it, in popular estimation, something" diabolical" and "Satanic." How often have we heard plain, benevolent, practical men, who never read a page either of *We might equally have said that not only have many persons practically arrived at some of the leading principles of Mr. Malthus, without knowing anything of his writings, or having read any book whatever on political economy, but that others may hold those of Mr. Sadler without being indebted to him for them. His biographer speaks of his alleged discovery respecting population in the following terms, as quoted in our last Number : "The truth flashed upon him one morning as it were instantaneously. Malthus or Sadler, check some rash and ill-advised, though kindly-meant suggestion, by saying "It would only generate pauperism, and cause far more misery than it would cure." But did any Christian man's political economy ever prevent his being zealous for works of faith and labours of love; or make him less anxious than he otherwise would have been for circulating the Scriptures, building churches, promoting Christian education, augmenting pastoral-aid and district visiting ;-or for hospitals, savings'-banks, friendly institutions, and other designs of utility and charity? Mr. Malthus himself, though popularly accounted the very apostle of hard-heartedness, offers many exhortations which, if they had flowed from the pen of Mr. Sadler, would have been panegyrised as the dictates of warm benevolence; as to wit the following: "One of the most valuable parts of charity is its effect upon the giver. It is more blessed to give than to receive. ... But it is particularly satisfactory and pleasing to find that the mode of exercising our charity, which, when brought to the test of utility, will appear to be most beneficial to the poor, is precisely that which will have the best and most improving effect on the mind of the donor. The quality of charity, like that of mercy, is not strained: It droppeth as the gentle rain, from heaven "The immense sums distributed to the poor in this country, by the parochial laws, are improperly called charity. They want its most distinguishing attribute. On the side of the receivers of this miscalled charity, instead of real relief, we find accumulated distress and more extended poverty; on the side of the giver, instead of pleasurable sensations, unceasing discontent and irritation. In the great charitable institutions supported by voluntary contributions, some of which are certainly of a prejudicial tendency, the subscriptions (I am inclined to fear) are sometimes given grudgingly, and rather because they are expected by the world from certain stations and certain fortunes, than because they are prompted by motives of genuine benevolence; .... Even in the relief of common beggars we shall find that we are often as much influenced by the desire of getting rid of the importunities of a disgusting object, as by the pleasure of relieving it: we wish that it had not fallen in our way, rather than rejoice in the opportunity given us of assisting a fellow creature. We feel a painful emotion at the sight of so much apparent misery, but the pittance we give does not relieve it. We know that it is totally inadequate to produce any essential effect. .. But it is far otherwise with that voluntary and active charity which makes itself acquainted wtth the objects which it relieves; which seems to feel and to be proud of the bond that unites the rich with the poor; which enters into their houses, informs itself not only of their wants, but of their habits and dispositions; checks the hopes of clamorous and obtrusive poverty with no other recommendation but rags, and encourages with While examining the census of England, the simple fact presented itself to his notice, that the proportion of births and marriages varied greatly (in different places), the births being more or less numerous in proportion as the population of the district was more or less scanty. Exclaiming with Archimedes, I have found it, I have found it,' he instantly set to work to form a table of the counties of England....... These results, fairly deduced-not arbitrarily or by selection, but by a just and natural arrangement of all the known facts of the case seemed at once to bring to light the thing of which Mr. Sadler had long been in search, namely, the true law of human increase." But this was no new discovery; for many political economists had argued more or less upon it; and, to go no further, we find Mr. Weyland writing in 1817: "As society advances, through all its gradations, from the early stage observed in the American colonies, [that is, as population becomes condensed] man does certainly become physically and morally less capable of increasing his numbers, until at length, at a high point of civilization, the natural force of the principle of population may probably become incapable of further increasing the existing number of people. Therefore, I believe that Mr. Malthus's assumption is untrue, that man continues 'to the end of time' equally capable of doubling his numbers, so far as the natural force of the principle of population is concerned." adequate relief the silent and retiring sufferer, labouring under unmerited difficulties."-Malthus, Book iv. ch. 9. We will add a quotation from another author, requesting the reader not to look at the name till he has perused the passage; for it contains what Mr. Sadler would have reprobated as sheer diabolism. "As things are now, the common practice is, for the young labourer or mechanic to marry as soon as he begins to work for himself, without a farthing beforehand, with weekly employment perhaps for the summer, but no certainty of the same in winter ; with wages only sufficient for a very small family, and consequently without resource in case of illness or occasional difficulty, except in casual charity or parish pay. The immediate feeling on his mind is, that his wages will support a wife as well as himself; and if he had not that demand upon them, they would all disappear before the end of the week; he has neither the idea nor the means of saving any portion of them. But since he claims the advantage peculiar to an infant society, early marriage, while he is living in fact in an old and fully peopled community, the consequence is, severe poverty for the rest of his life. "It cannot be said, however, that this improvidence is a necessary evil: therefore its consequences are not necessary. Supposing the prudential system only so far established, that the average period of marriage should be twenty-five, it might be easily within the power of the lowest classes to secure a provisional support for their family more independent than the parish allowance, and more regular than the operation of private charity." "Were these habits general, how little comparative distress would the appearance of society exhibit! Marriage, by being a short time delayed, would be more prudent and happier; population would more equally adapt itself to the demand for labour; labour, therefore, would be paid in more exact proportion to the real value of money; fewer would be necessarily idle; and that great embitterer of domestic life, irremediable poverty or indigence, would be seidom known. Only those distresses would meet our view, which are the common lot of all ranks and conditions; and there are many, no doubt, which neither prudence can prevent, nor wealth cure." The writer of the above is the present Bishop of Chester, than whom a more humane, pious, and zealously benevolent man cannot be found. (See his "Records of the Creation," published in 1816, p. 313, &c.) Upon the principles specified he laboriously devoted his services for the benefit of the poor and the good of his country in that Commission on the Poor Laws, the proceedings of which Mr. Sadler and his coadjutors so intemperately denounced. Mr. Sadler's views on the same subject are described by his biographer as follows: “Learning that in place of any possibility of its (the increase of population) proceeding too far, and outrunning the growth of food, it is in all cases the forerunner and efficient cause of abundance and comfort, and even luxury; the disciple of the paternal system dismisses all the selfish apprehensions of ultimate scarcity and want, and tunes his heart to the sweetest sympathies of our nature, and to a perfect harmony with those Divine lessons which, if only adopted by all mankind, would restore to each something resembling the bliss of paradise itself. To every impulse of benevolence, to every appeal of humanity, his heart is open and his soul awake." Let the reader, considering either the likelihoods of the case, or the results of experience, decide whether Bishop J. B. Sumner or Mr. Sadler was right. Our correspondent says that we have only puzzled the matter by alluding to Paisley or Spitalfields. But why is the reference irrelevant? He asserts for Mr. Sadler and himself that "there is no possibility of population" "outrunning the growth of food;" nay, that so far from it, "it is in all cases the forerunner and efficient cause of abundance and comfort, and even luxury." All cases; if so, at Paisley and Spitalfields; at Manchester, and in St. Giles's, London. The words are decisive, there is "No possibility of population outrunning the growth of food;" the greater the population, the greater the plenty. But is it so in our manufacturing districts, where population has increased with extraordinary rapidity? So far from such cases being out of point, they are most germane and pregnant, and by them Sadlerianism must stand or fall. 1842.] REVIEW OF NEW PUBLICATIONS. 425 MISSIONARY LABOURS IN SOUTHERN AFRICA. 1. Missionary Labours and Scenes in Southern Africa. By ROBERT MOFFAT, twenty years an Agent of the London Missionary Society in that Country. 1 vol. 8vo. 1842. 1 vol. 2. Memorials of Southern Africa. By BARNABAS SHAW, Wesleyan Missionary, Resident in that Country nearly twenty years. 2nd thousand, 1841. South Africa. It was no light THOSE of our readers who had the Redeemer in the deserts of the gratification of listening to Mr. Moffat's remarks at Exeter Hall, at the anniversary of the Bible Society in 1840, will not wonder that we promptly avail ourselves of the volume now in our hands, to select for their perusal some of the interesting sketches which, from the sample in that affecting address, we had reason to anticipate. The speech will be found in the Bible Society's paper under our cover for June of that year; but the printed page cannot convey that pathos of the living voice which carried those affecting details to the hearts of the hearers. We have added Mr. Shaw's volume, for the sake of mentioning that this also is replete with interesting missionary incidents; and contains some notices of Southern Africa of a more general kind than those in that of Mr. Moffat; but as the subject of South African missions furnishes too much matter to be embraced in a few pages, we purpose confining our attention chiefly to the case of the Bechuana tribes, among whom Mr. Moffat must be our chief guide. Mr. Shaw's volume, having been already some time before the public, and widely circulated, less requires special mention. On perusing both these volumes we cannot but admire the grace of God given to the faithful men who have been his instruments in planting the cross of CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 55. The first missionaries not only encountered much fatigue, privation, and heavy affliction, but risked their lives; and even now the interior stations are very trying to men accustomed to the usages of civilised life; and yet the labourers in these missions have been very generally attached to the scenes of their arduous duty, by strong affection, and a willingness to spend and be spent in the service of their Lord, and for the souls of some of the most 3 I |