| |
|
- A n E s s a y o n t h e
P r i n c i p l e o f P o p u l a t i o n
C h a p t e r 7
- _____________________________________________
- Mr. Godwin's system of equality - Error of attributing all the vices of mankind to human institutions - Mr. Godwin's first answer to the difficulty arising from population totally insufficient - Mr. Godwin's beautiful system of equality supposed to be realized - In utter destruction simply from the principle of population in so short a time as thirty years.
BY great attention to cleanliness, the plague seems at length to be
completely expelled from London. But it is not improbable that among the
secondary causes that produce even sickly seasons and epidemics ought to be
ranked a crowded population and unwholesome and insufficient food. I have been
led to this remark, by looking over some of the tables of Mr Suessmilch [Johann Peter Süßmilch (1707-1767), Die göttliche Ordnung in den Veränderungen des menschlichen Geschlechts aus der Geburt, dem Tode und der Fortpflanzung desselben erwiesen, 1741], which
Dr Price has extracted in one of his notes to the postscript on the controversy
respecting the population of England and Wales. They are considered as very
correct, and if such tables were general, they would throw great light on the
different ways by which population is repressed and prevented from increasing
beyond the means of subsistence in any country. I will extract a part of the
tables, with Dr Price's remarks.
- IN THE KINGDOM OF PRUSSIA, AND DUKEDOM OF LITHUANIA
| Annual Average |
Births |
Burials |
Marriages |
Births/Marriages |
Births/Burials |
| 10 Yrs. To 1702 |
21963 |
14718 |
5928 |
37 to 10 |
150 to 100 |
| 5 Yrs. To 1716 |
21602 |
11984 |
4968 |
37 to 10 |
180 to 100 |
| 5 Yrs. To 1756 |
28392 |
19154 |
5599 |
50 to 10 |
148 to 100 |
- N.B. In 1709 and 1710, a pestilence carried off 247,733 of the
inhabitants of this country, and in 1736 and 1737, epidemics prevailed, which
again checked its increase. It may be remarked, that the greatest
proportion of births to burials, was in the five years after the great
pestilence.
- DUCHY OF POMERANIA
| Annual Average |
Births |
Burials |
Marriages |
Births/Marriages |
Births/Burials |
| 6 Yrs. to 1702 |
6540 |
4647 |
1810 |
36 to 10 |
140 to 100 |
| 6 Yrs. to 1716 |
7455 |
4208 |
1875 |
39 to 10 |
177 to 100 |
| 6 Yrs. to 1756 |
8432 |
5627 |
2131 |
39 to 10 |
150 to 100 |
| 4 Yrs. to 1756 |
12767 |
9281 |
2957 |
43 to 10 |
137 to 100 |
- In this instance the inhabitants appear to have been almost doubled in
fifty-six years, no very bad epidemics having once interrupted the increase,
but the three years immediately follow ing the last period (to 1759) were so
sickly that the births were sunk to 10,229 and the burials raised to
15,068.
Is it not probable that in this case the number of inhabitants had increased
faster than the food and the accommodations necessary to preserve them in
health? The mass of the people would, upon this supposition, be obliged to live
harder, and a greater number would be crowded together in one house, and it is
not surely improbable that these were among the natural causes that produced
the three sickly years. These causes may produce such an effect, though the
country, absolutely considered, may not be extremely crowded and populous. In a
country even thinly inhabited, if an increase of population take place, before
more food is raised, and more houses are built, the inhabitants must be
distressed in some degree for room and subsistence. Were the marriages in
England, for the next eight or ten years, to be more prolifick than usual, or
even were a greater number of marriages than usual to take place, supposing the
number of houses to remain the same, instead of five or six to a cottage, there
must be seven or eight, and this, added to the necessity of harder living,
would probably have a very unfavourable effect on the health of the common
people.
NEUMARK OF BRANDENBURGH
| Annual Average |
Births |
Burials |
Marriages |
Births/Marriages |
Births/Burials |
| 5 Yrs. to 1701 |
5433 |
3483 |
1436 |
37 to 10 |
155 to 100 |
| 5 Yrs. to 1726 |
7012 |
4254 |
1713 |
40 to 10 |
164 to 100 |
| 5 Yrs. to 1756 |
7978 |
5567 |
1891 |
42 to 10 |
143 to 100 |
- Epidemics prevailed for six years, from 1736, to 1741, which checked
the increase.
DUKEDOM OF MAGDEBURGH
| Annual Average |
Births |
Burials |
Marriages |
Births/Marriages |
Births/Burials |
| 5 Yrs. to 1702 |
6431 |
4103 |
1681 |
38 to 10 |
156 to 100 |
| 5 Yrs. to 1717 |
7590 |
5335 |
2076 |
36 to 10 |
142 to 100 |
| 5 Yrs. to 1756 |
8850 |
8069 |
2193 |
40 to 10 |
109 to 100 |
- The years 1738, 1740, 1750, and 1751, were particularly sickly.
For further information on this subject, I refer the reader to Mr Suessmilch's
tables. The extracts that I have made are sufficient to shew the periodical,
though irregular, returns of sickly seasons, and it seems highly probable that
a scantiness of room and food was one of the principal causes that occasioned
them.
It appears from the tables that these countries were increasing rather fast
for old states, notwithstanding the occasional seasons that prevailed.
Cultivation must have been improving, and marriages, consequently, encouraged.
For the checks to population appear to have been rather of the positive, than
of the preventive kind. When from a prospect of increasing plenty in any
country, the weight that represses population is in some degree removed, it is
highly probable that the motion will be continued beyond the operation of the
cause that first impelled it. Or, to be more particular, when the increasing
produce of a country, and the increasing demand for labour, so far ameliorate
the condition of the labourer as greatly to encourage marriage, it is probable
that the custom of early marriages will continue till the population of the
country has gone beyond the increased produce, and sickly seasons appear to be
the natural and necessary consequence. I should expect, therefore, that those
countries where subsistence was increasing sufficiently at times to encourage
population but not to answer all its demands, would be more subject to
periodical epidemics than those where the population could more completely
accommodate itself to the average produce.
An observation the converse of this will probably also be found true. In
those countries that are subject to periodical sicknesses, the increase of
population, or the excess of births above the burials, will be greater in the
intervals of these periods than is usual, caeteris paribus, in the countries
not so much subject to such disorders. If Turkey and Egypt have been nearly
stationary in their average population for the last century, in the intervals
of their periodical plagues, the births must have exceeded the burials in a
greater proportion than in such countries as France and England.
The average proportion of births to burials in any country for a period of
five to ten years, will hence appear to be a very inadequate criterion by which
to judge of its real progress in population. This proportion certainly shews
the rate of increase during those five or ten years; but we can by no means
thence infer what had been the increase for the twenty years before, or what
would be the increase for the twenty years after. Dr Price observes that
Sweden, Norway, Russia, and the kingdom of Naples, are increasing fast; but the
extracts from registers that he has given are not for periods of sufficient
extent to establish the fact. It is highly probable, however, that Sweden,
Norway, and Russia, are really increasing their population, though not at the
rate that the proportion of births to burials for the short periods that Dr
Price takes would seem to shew. *) For five
years, ending in 1777, the proportion of births to burials in the kingdom of
Naples was 144 to 100, but there is reason to suppose that this proportion
would indicate an increase much greater than would be really found to have
taken place in that kingdom during a period of a hundred years.
Dr Short [Thomas Short (ca. 1690-1772), New Observations on the Bills of Mortality, 1750; A Comparative History of the Increase and Decrease of Mankind, 1767] compared the registers of many villages and market towns in England
for two periods; the first, from Queen Elizabeth to the middle of the last
century, and the second, from different years at the end of the last century to
the middle of the present. And from a comparison of these extracts, it appears
that in the former period the births exceeded the burials in the proportion of
124 to 100, but in the latter, only in the proportion of 111 to 100. Dr Price
thinks that the registers in the former period are not to be depended upon,
but, probably, in this instance they do not give incorrect proportions. At
least there are many reasons for expecting to find a greater excess of births
above the burials in the former period than in the latter. In the natural
progress of the population of any country, more good land will, caeteris
paribus, be taken into cultivation in the earlier stages of it than in the
later. **) And a greater proportional yearly increase of
produce will almost invariably be followed by a greater proportional increase
of population. But, besides this great cause, which would naturally give the
excess of births above burials greater at the end of Queen Elizabeth's reign
than in the middle of the present century, I cannot help thinking that the
occasional ravages of the plague in the former period must have had some
tendency to increase this proportion. If an average of ten years had been taken
in the intervals of the returns of this dreadful disorder, or if the years of
plague had been rejected as accidental, the registers would certainly give the
proportion of births to burials too high for the real average increase of the
population. For some few years after the great plague in 1666, it is probable
that there was a more than usual excess of births above burials, particularly
if Dr Price's opinion be founded, that England was more populous at the
revolution (which happened only twenty-two years afterwards) than it is at
present.
Mr King [Gregory King (1648-1712), A Scheme of the Rates and Duties Granted to his Majesty upon Marriages, Births, and Burials, and upon Bachelors and Widowers for the Term of Five Years from May 1st 1695, 1695; Natural and Political Observations and Conclusions upon the State and Condition of England, 1696], in 1693, stated the proportion of the births to the burials
throughout the Kingdom, exclusive of London, as 115 to 100. Dr Short makes it,
in the middle of the present century, 111 to 100, including London. The
proportion in France for five years, ending in 1774, was 117 to 100. If these
statements are near the truth; and if there are no very great variations at
particular periods in the proportions, it would appear that the population of
France and England has accommodated itself very nearly to the average produce
of each country. The discouragements to marriage, the consequent vicious
habits, war, luxury, the silent though certain depopulation of large towns, and
the close habitations, and insufficient food of many of the poor, prevent
population from increasing beyond the means of subsistence; and, if I may use
an expression which certainly at first appears strange, supercede the necessity
of great and ravaging epidemics to repress what is redundant. Were a wasting
plague to sweep off two millions in England, and six millions in France, there
can be no doubt whatever that, after the inhabitants had recovered from the
dreadful shock, the proportion of births to burials would be much above what it
is in either country at present.
In New Jersey, the proportion of births to deaths on an average of seven
years, ending in 1743, was as 300 to 100. In France and England, taking the
highest proportion, it is as 117 to 100. Great and astonishing as this
difference is, we ought not to be so wonder-struck at it as to attribute it to
the miraculous interposition of heaven. The causes of it are not remote, latent
and mysterious; but near us, round about us, and open to the investigation of
every inquiring mind. It accords with the most liberal spirit of philosophy to
suppose that not a stone can fall, or a plant rise, without the immediate
agency of divine power. But we know from experience that these operations of
what we call nature have been conducted almost invariably according to fixed
laws. And since the world began, the causes of population and depopulation have
probably been as constant as any of the laws of nature with which we are
acquainted.
The passion between the sexes has appeared in every age to be so nearly the
same that it may always be considered, in algebraic language, as a given
quantity. The great law of necessity which prevents population from increasing
in any country beyond the food which it can either produce or acquire, is a law
so open to our view, so obvious and evident to our understandings, and so
completely confirmed by the experience of every age, that we cannot for a
moment doubt it. The different modes which nature takes to prevent or repress a
redundant population do not appear, indeed, to us so certain and regular, but
though we cannot always predict the mode we may with certainty predict the
fact. If the proportion of births to deaths for a few years indicate an
increase of numbers much beyond the proportional increased or acquired produce
of the country, we may be perfectly certain that unless an emigration takes
place, the deaths will shortly exceed the births; and that the increase that
had taken place for a few years cannot be the real average increase of the
population of the country. Were there no other depopulating causes, every
country would, without doubt, be subject to periodical pestilences or famine.
The only true criterion of a real and permanent increase in the population
of any country is the increase of the means of subsistence. But even, this
criterion is subject to some slight variations which are, however, completely
open to our view and observations. In some countries population appears to have
been forced, that is, the people have been habituated by degrees to live almost
upon the smallest possible quantity of food. There must have been periods in
such counties when population increased permanently, without an increase in the
means of subsistence. China seems to answer to this description. If the
accounts we have of it are to be trusted, the lower classes of people are in
the habit of living almost upon the smallest possible quantity of food and are
glad to get any putrid offals that European labourers would rather starve than
eat. The law in China which permits parents to expose their children has tended
principally thus to force the population. A nation in this state must
necessarily be subject to famines. Where a country is so populous in proportion
to the means of subsistence that the average produce of it is but barely
sufficient to support the lives of the inhabitants, any deficiency from the
badness of seasons must be fatal. It is probable that the very frugal manner in
which the Gentoos are in the habit of living contributes in some degree to the
famines of indostan.
In America, where the reward of labour is at present so liberal, the lower
classes might retrench very considerably in a year of scarcity without
materially distressing themselves. A famine therefore seems to be almost
impossible. It may be expected that in the progress of the population of
America, the labourers will in time be much less liberally rewarded. The
numbers will in this case permanently increase without a proportional increase
in the means of subsistence.
In the different states of Europe there must be some variations in the
proportion between the number of inhabitants and the quantity of food consumed,
arising from the different habits of living that prevail in each state. The
labourers of the South of England are so accustomed to eat fine wheaten bread
that they will suffer themselves to be half starved before they will submit to
live like the Scotch peasants. They might perhaps in time, by the constant
operation of the hard law of necessity, be reduced to live even like the Lower
Chinese, and the country would then, with the same quantity of food, support a
greater population. But to effect this must always be a most difficult, and,
every friend to humanity will hope, an abortive attempt. Nothing is so common
as to hear of encouragements that ought to be given to population. If the
tendency of mankind to increase be so great as I have represented it to be, it
may appear strange that this increase does not come when it is thus repeatedly
called for. The true reason is that the demand for a greater population is made
without preparing the funds necessary to support it. Increase the demand for
agricultural labour by promoting cultivation, and with it consequently increase
the produce of the country, and ameliorate the condition of the labourer, and
no apprehensions whatever need be entertained of the proportional increase of
population. An attempt to effect this purpose in any other way is vicious,
cruel, and tyrannical, and in any state of tolerable freedom cannot therefore
succeed. It may appear to be the interest of the rulers, and the rich of a
state, to force population, and thereby lower the price of labour, and
consequently the expense of fleets and armies, and the cost of manufactures for
foreign sale; but every attempt of the kind should be carefully watched and
strenuously resisted by the friends of the poor, particularly when it comes
under the deceitful garb of benevolence, and is likely, on that account, to be
cheerfully and cordially received by the common people.
I entirely acquit Mr Pitt of any sinister intention in that clause of his
Poor Bill which allows a shilling a week to every labourer for each child he
has above three. I confess, that before the bill was brought into Parliament,
and for some time after, I thought that such a regulation would be highly
beneficial, but further reflection on the subject has convinced me that if its
object be to better the condition of the poor, it is calculated to defeat the
very purpose which it has in view. It has no tendency that I can discover to
increase the produce of the country, and if it tend to increase the population,
without increasing the produce, the necessary and inevitable consequence
appears to be that the same produce must be divided among a greater number, and
consequently that a day's labour will purchase a smaller quantity of
provisions, and the poor therefore in general must be more distressed.
I have mentioned some cases where population may permanently increase
without a proportional increase in the means of subsistence. But it is evident
that the variation in different states, between the food and the numbers
supported by it, is restricted to a limit beyond which it cannot pass. In every
country, the population of which is not absolutely decreasing, the food must be
necessarily sufficient to support, and to continue, the race of labourers.
Other circumstances being the same, it may be affirmed that countries are
populous according to the quantity of human food which they produce, and happy
according to the liberality with which that food is divided, or the quantity
which a day's labour will purchase. Corn countries are more populous than
pasture countries, and rice countries more populous than corn countries. The
lands in England are not suited to rice, but they would all bear potatoes; and
Dr Adam Smith observes that if potatoes were to become the favourite vegetable
food of the common people, and if the same quantity of land was employed in
their culture as is now employed in the culture of corn, the country would be
able to support a much greater population, and would consequently in a very
short time have it.
The happiness of a country does not depend, absolutely, upon its poverty or
its riches, upon its youth or its age, upon its being thinly or fully
inhabited, but upon the rapidity with which it is increasing, upon the degree
in which the yearly increase of food approaches to the yearly increase of an
unrestricted population. This approximation is always the nearest in new
colonies, where the knowledge and industry of an old state operate on the
fertile unappropriated land of a new one. In other cases, the youth or the age
of a state is not in this respect of very great importance. It is probable that
the food of Great Britain is divided in as great plenty to the inhabitants, at
the present period, as it was two thousand, three thousand, or four thousand
years ago. And there is reason to believe that the poor and thinly inhabited
tracts of the Scotch Highlands are as much distressed by an overcharged
population as the rich and populous province of Flanders.
Were a country never to be overrun by a people more advanced in arts, but
left to its own natural progress in civilization; from the time that its
produce might be considered as an unit, to the time that it might be considered
as a million, during the lapse of many hundred years, there would not be a
single period when the mass of the people could be said to be free from
distress, either directly or indirectly, for want of food. In every state in
Europe, since we have first had accounts of it, millions and millions of human
existences have been repressed from this simple cause; though perhaps in some
of these states an absolute famine has never been known.
Famine seems to be the last, the most dreadful resource of nature. The power
of population is so superior to the power in the earth to produce subsistence
for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race.
The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are
the precursors in the great army of destruction; and often finish the dreadful
work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly
seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague, advance in terrific array, and
sweep off their thousands and ten thousands. Should success be still
incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty
blow levels the population with the food of the world.
Must it not then be acknowledged by an attentive examiner of the histories
of mankind, that in every age and in every state in which man has existed, or
does now exist.
That the increase of population is necessarily limited by the means of
subsistence.
That population does invariably increase when the means of subsistence
increase. And that the superior power of population.it repressed, and the
actual population kept equal to the means of subsistence, by misery and vice?
____________
*)
See Dr Price's Observations, Vol. II, postscript to the controversy on the population of England and Wales.
**)
I say 'caeteris paribus', because the increase of the produce of any
country will always very greatly depend on the spirit of industry that
prevails, and the way in which it is directed. The knowledge and habits of the
people, and other temporary causes, particularly the degree of civil liberty
and equality existing at the time, must always have great influence in exciting
and directing this spirit.
|
|