590 PROCEEDINGS OF SECTION F. 



be induced to abandon party strife and to use that eloquence 

 in the cause of enlightenment, the most short-sighted of the 

 masses might be brought to recognise self-interest for next 

 year as not unworthy of some measure of regard. 



]2.— A LAYMAN'S CRITICISM OF CURRENT 

 THEORIES OF POPULATION. 



By S. CLEMES. 

 ]^Abstract.~\ 

 The Population question is the root matter in all economic 

 reasoning. But unfortunately we have not yet any universally 

 accepted first principles in this science as we have in Physics. 

 Malthus deserves all honor as being the first to attempt a 

 scientific statement of the question, but we must not ignore 

 the many sides of it which Malthus overlooked. Later 

 investigators, such as Darwin and Spencer, must be hstened 

 to also. It has been treated too much as a mere question of 

 figures, whereas Physiology and other sciences have also to 

 be dealt with. Stated broadly, Malthus contends that means 

 of subsistence only advance in arithmetical, while population 

 tends to increase in geometrical progression. Most people 

 accept this as proven, and even Darwin only adds, "there 

 must of course be some natural check." Some direful 

 prophecies quoted as to the inevitable deadlock if the present 

 rate of increase in Australia were maintained. These 

 calculations are only true on the assumption that we may 

 reckon as in compound interest on money. If we really 

 have a natural law here we ought to be able to work back- 

 wards. This would only give us, at the most, two or three 

 thousand years for the existence of man on the earth. 

 Geologists and evolutionists would want 50,000 or 60,000 

 years at least. Reliable history, of course, also shows that 

 the obvious facts of the case are not met on this accepted 

 theory. This mode of reckoning only admissible if each 

 individual lived thousands of years, and each baby at once 

 commenced to produce its kind. Census returns are 

 generally lower than estimated population, showing that our 

 estimates are at fault ; the error less noticeable in short periods. 

 This mode of reasoning would demand a sevenfold increase per 

 century ; no such thing demonstrable for such a length of 

 time. Quite impossible to name a geometrical rate that could 



