DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.22140#0074
INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL HISTORY.
who had brought about the situation, for it seemed to show that
nature not man was the cause of it, that it was the result of an
inexorable natural law, and in no sense the result of positive and
partial legislation. It gave, I grant, great annoyance to some
ardent philanthropists, who coupled the name of Malthus with
those of some other unpleasant entities. But none of the good
man's critics took the pains to study the statute book, and discuss the
origin of what have been called rights, and I am constrained to de-
scribe as wrongs. The doctrine that in countries which are fully
settled, a phrase which by the way has no meaning, population is
always pressing on the means of subsistence, was accepted as indis-
putable, and that consequently the misery of labour is of its own
creation. So satisfied was Malthus of his teaching, and so satisfied
were his disciples, I am bound to say, with it, that the economist
went so far as to recommend, in order to assist his positive checks,,
as he called the first two, distinguishing them from the preventive
check as he called the last, that all legal relief to destitution should
be at once and peremptorily put an end to. I do not think that
he came to the conclusion that the processes which he described
resulted in the survival of the fittest. That would have been too
ironical. He only took into account simple numbers, and a
hypothetical limit to the means of existence.
Now it must I think be admitted that there are such marked
differences between the human race and the inferior animals as we
call them, that it is unphilosophical and unnatural to consider
them parallel or even analogous, when we consider social facts.
In the first place, the nonage of the human offspring is remark-
ably extended. Other animals equal in bulk to him come to
maturity and independence at an early age. Man often needs a
period of from fifteen to twenty times as long. The increase
cannot then be as rapid, is foreseen and felt. Whether it precedes
or follows on the increased means of subsistence, is a matter we
shall see further on. Again the very nature of his lite and its-
conditions enforces a prescience of the circumstances which
surround it. Such a forethought is manifest in the customs of
the lowest savages. It is greatly intensified among races, for we
can only speak generally, in which the standard of subsistence is a
high one. So far is it from being the case, as Malthus thought;,
who had brought about the situation, for it seemed to show that
nature not man was the cause of it, that it was the result of an
inexorable natural law, and in no sense the result of positive and
partial legislation. It gave, I grant, great annoyance to some
ardent philanthropists, who coupled the name of Malthus with
those of some other unpleasant entities. But none of the good
man's critics took the pains to study the statute book, and discuss the
origin of what have been called rights, and I am constrained to de-
scribe as wrongs. The doctrine that in countries which are fully
settled, a phrase which by the way has no meaning, population is
always pressing on the means of subsistence, was accepted as indis-
putable, and that consequently the misery of labour is of its own
creation. So satisfied was Malthus of his teaching, and so satisfied
were his disciples, I am bound to say, with it, that the economist
went so far as to recommend, in order to assist his positive checks,,
as he called the first two, distinguishing them from the preventive
check as he called the last, that all legal relief to destitution should
be at once and peremptorily put an end to. I do not think that
he came to the conclusion that the processes which he described
resulted in the survival of the fittest. That would have been too
ironical. He only took into account simple numbers, and a
hypothetical limit to the means of existence.
Now it must I think be admitted that there are such marked
differences between the human race and the inferior animals as we
call them, that it is unphilosophical and unnatural to consider
them parallel or even analogous, when we consider social facts.
In the first place, the nonage of the human offspring is remark-
ably extended. Other animals equal in bulk to him come to
maturity and independence at an early age. Man often needs a
period of from fifteen to twenty times as long. The increase
cannot then be as rapid, is foreseen and felt. Whether it precedes
or follows on the increased means of subsistence, is a matter we
shall see further on. Again the very nature of his lite and its-
conditions enforces a prescience of the circumstances which
surround it. Such a forethought is manifest in the customs of
the lowest savages. It is greatly intensified among races, for we
can only speak generally, in which the standard of subsistence is a
high one. So far is it from being the case, as Malthus thought;,