BY R. M. JOHNSTON, F.L.S. 59 



restraint (M) as their rational and proper remedy ; and 

 whether the remedy be good or bad, adequate or inadequate, 

 the proposal itself and the stress which I have laid upon it 

 is an incontrovertible proof that I never can have considered 

 vice and misery as themselves remedies." In connectioa 

 with these unfair charges urged by a Mr. Graham, he, in a 

 dignified rejoinder, maintains "It is therefore quite inconceiv- 

 able that any writer with the slightest pretension to 

 respectability should venture to bring forward such 

 imputations, and it must be allowed to show either 

 such a degree of ignorance, or such a total want of candour, 

 as utterly to disqualify him for the discussion of such 

 subjects." And with respect to charges identifying his view 

 with the restraints prescribed by Coudorcet, he distinctly 

 affirms, " I have never adverted to the check suggested by 

 Condorcet without the most marked disapprobation. Indeed, 

 I should always particularly reprobate any artificial and 

 unnatural modes of checking j>opulation on account of their 

 immorality and their tendency to remove a necessary stimulus 

 to industry . . . the restraints which I have recommended 

 are quite of a different character. They are not only pointed 

 out by reason and sanctioned by religion, but tend in the most 

 marked manner to stimulate industry. It is not easy to 

 conceive a more powerful encouragement to exertion and good 

 conduct than the looking forward to marriage as a state 

 peculiarly desirable, but only to be enjoyed in comfort by the 

 acquisition of habits of industry, economy, and prudence, 

 and it is in this light I have always wished to placed it." 

 How clearly and nobly Malthus explains his check of moral 

 restraint is a matter which ought to leave no doubt of the 

 purity and nobleness of his views, whatever doubts may 

 remain as regards the efiicacy of the moral check in itself. 

 The possibility of the check, too, pre-supposes the general 

 possession of moral strength sufficiently adequate, not 

 merely during large intervals of time, but at all times ; for 

 the effects of opposing passion might wreck its efficacy at any 

 moment if we do not contemplate the superior strength and 

 continuous exertion of the higher moral virtue. 



I think I have in these observations fairly vindicated the 

 nobility of Malthus' ideal, however we may demur to it as 

 regards adequacy. It has also been clearly shown that the 

 problem is a serious one ; and individuals, and the poorer 

 classes often reach the limit of the means of subsistence 

 long before society as a whole feels its pressure. How are we 

 to eliminate the elements of disease, vice, and misery which 

 at present form the only check (C) against over-populatiou 

 in crowded centres witliout substituting some adequate 

 check of a superior kind. This is the problem of Malthus, 

 Can vou answer it ? 



