542 The Population Question. [MAY, 



goodness of God, in spite of evils that we know> does not justify the ex- 

 tension of that belief to evils that we do not know. In that consists the 

 whole difference, but that difference involves the whole theory. We 

 know, for instance, that we are subjected to physical pain, yet still we 

 confide in the goodness of God ; but we are not, therefore, out of the 

 fulness of our confidence in that goodness, to believe in the existence of 

 other assumed evils, such as that of super-fecundity, of which we do not 

 know. Our Reviewer does more foolish things than that of putting the 

 car before the horse; he sometimes puts the horse into the car; and 

 sometimes turns the car upside down. It is natural that he should now 

 and then find himself in the mire. 



It will be observed that Mr. Sadler always arranges his tables in 

 their natural order ; that is, he places them according to their relative 

 importance, just as we run figures, 1, 2, 3, 4, c., in their proper 

 progression. If Mr. Sadler begin with the lowest, he goes on regularly 

 to the highest. If he begin with the highest, he comes down regularly 

 .to the lowest. Now, it is quite clear that this is not only the correct 

 method of estimating the truth or falsehood of his principle, but that it 

 is also the most rigid that could be devised. But our Reviewer calls 

 this method " packing." We should like to know what the natural 

 method is, if this be artificial? What the proper adjustment of quan- 

 tities, if their regular ascent and descent be "packing?" Now here is 

 a specimen taken from one of Mr. Sadler's tables which the Reviewer 

 considers to be " packing." It gives the legitimate births in the follow- 

 ing proportions of the population in France, where there are to each 

 inhabitant 



Births. 

 From 4 to 5 hectares* there are to every 1000 marriages . . 5,130 



3 to 4 ditto 4,372 



2 to 3 ditto 4,250 



1 to 2 ditto V 4,234 



06to 1 ditto 4,146 



and -06 ditto 2,657. 



Here we perceive, as usual, that as the population thickens the prin- 

 ciple of fecunditv declines. It is difficult to foresee how our candid 

 Reviewer meets this statement, and still more difficult to anticipate the 

 argument by which he sets about proving that the method by which 

 these convincing results are obtained should be designated as " pack- 

 ing." He says, that if we look at the departments singly, we shall 

 discover that there is not a single one of them in the place it ought to 

 occupy. That is, that there is not a single one of the departments that 

 will in itself prove the universal law of Nature. To be sure there is 

 not, and who, except our sapient Old Blue-and- Yellow, ever expected 

 there would. He next advises his reader, that such a department is 

 tenth in one table, fourteenth in another table, and only thirty-first in a 

 third table ; that another department, which ought to be third, is 

 twenty-second by the table which places it highest ; that the one which 

 ought to be eighth, is fiftieth or sixtieth ; that that which ought to be 

 tenth from the top, is at about the same distance from the bottom, &c. 

 Now, not to say any thing about the littleness of mind which all this 

 hubbub and much ado about nothing betrays, does not the intelligent 

 inquirer at once perceive the character of the criticism to which Mr. 

 Sadler is subjected by this honest Reviewer ? Is it not self-evident 

 * A French hectare consists of between two and three English acres. 



