DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.22140#0079
THE PROGRESS OF ENGLISH POPULATION. 63
like all the rest of us, to run after the red herrings of logomachy.
I wish that people would not, following an evil example, talk so
much about the rights of men. They would find ample room for
their energies, if they grappled with the wrongs. Law, I repeat,
can do little positive good. Its highest and best efforts are those*
in which it puts a stop to evil.
I cannot agree, then, with the reasoning by which Mr. George
attacks the Malthusian theory. He alleges that it contravenes the
facts, but he does not analyze the facts, any more than Malthus
does, when he commented upon what people sometimes call good
old England. That it was old I have no inclination to deny.
But to call it good is an abuse of language. It is surprising,
however, to note how soon practices, exceedingly bad and inju-
rious, become poetical, and the property of the romancer. The
epoch of Malthus's theory is the very worst, the most cruel,
heartless, and discreditable in the annals of England. It is
wonderful enough that the British race ever recovered from it.
But every day which makes us more remote in spirit and character
from it, and much remains to be done, removes further back the
risks of over-population.
But though I do not think that we need be much alarmed at
Mr. Malthus and his theory, yet it must be conceded that partial
or local or special over-population is a recurrent risk, and some-
times a very serious one. Human societies cannot without danger
maintain more than a certain quantity of idlers, or in the language
of economists, unproductive consumers. Nor should it, I think,
allow these people to consider and vaunt themselves, to use Mr.
Disraeli's phrase, as superior persons. They always will if they
can, for this is the best defence which they can allege for their
existence. I seem to remember having read that the Jewish rabbis
invariably insisted that every member of the race, from prince to
peasant, should have a calling, and that to leave a man without a
calling is to make him a thief, that is to incur the risk of his
becoming a Bedaween or a brigand. I have heard the same thing
said of the Turks. I may be wrong, but it appears that the
wholesome rule has become obsolete, regrettably so.
The redundant population of the fifteenth century, otherwise
so prosperous, was that of the younger sons. They joined the
like all the rest of us, to run after the red herrings of logomachy.
I wish that people would not, following an evil example, talk so
much about the rights of men. They would find ample room for
their energies, if they grappled with the wrongs. Law, I repeat,
can do little positive good. Its highest and best efforts are those*
in which it puts a stop to evil.
I cannot agree, then, with the reasoning by which Mr. George
attacks the Malthusian theory. He alleges that it contravenes the
facts, but he does not analyze the facts, any more than Malthus
does, when he commented upon what people sometimes call good
old England. That it was old I have no inclination to deny.
But to call it good is an abuse of language. It is surprising,
however, to note how soon practices, exceedingly bad and inju-
rious, become poetical, and the property of the romancer. The
epoch of Malthus's theory is the very worst, the most cruel,
heartless, and discreditable in the annals of England. It is
wonderful enough that the British race ever recovered from it.
But every day which makes us more remote in spirit and character
from it, and much remains to be done, removes further back the
risks of over-population.
But though I do not think that we need be much alarmed at
Mr. Malthus and his theory, yet it must be conceded that partial
or local or special over-population is a recurrent risk, and some-
times a very serious one. Human societies cannot without danger
maintain more than a certain quantity of idlers, or in the language
of economists, unproductive consumers. Nor should it, I think,
allow these people to consider and vaunt themselves, to use Mr.
Disraeli's phrase, as superior persons. They always will if they
can, for this is the best defence which they can allege for their
existence. I seem to remember having read that the Jewish rabbis
invariably insisted that every member of the race, from prince to
peasant, should have a calling, and that to leave a man without a
calling is to make him a thief, that is to incur the risk of his
becoming a Bedaween or a brigand. I have heard the same thing
said of the Turks. I may be wrong, but it appears that the
wholesome rule has become obsolete, regrettably so.
The redundant population of the fifteenth century, otherwise
so prosperous, was that of the younger sons. They joined the