226 REV. JAMES WHITE, M.A., ON 
A prejudice has been long felt against Malthus which may 
partly account for the manner in which he has been ignored, 
namely, the impression that he is in some way responsible for 
those practices which may be referred to as connected with race 
suicide ; or that at least some sanction for them can be derived 
from his writings and principles. This is a very great mistake, 
and a very unjust slander on a man whose moral character was 
as pure and high as his intellect was penetrating and exalted. 
Malthus but slightly refers to these subjects, and then only for 
his strongest reprobation. For the evils of over-population 
Malthus knows only one remedy, viz., virtuous abstinence ; and 
while quite aware of the evils of over-population, he is also 
aware that there are other evils which are greater still. The 
following is the principal reference to the subject; it is taken 
from vol. ili, p. 391 of the fifth edition of his Essay on the 
Principles of Population, published in 1817. 
“J have never adverted to the check suggested by Condorcet 
without the most marked disapprobation. Indeed I would always 
particularly reprobate any artificial and unnatural modes of check- 
ing population, both 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.” 
The restraint on which Malthus relies is the sense of parental 
responsibility. It is the only one which he advocates, and he 
thinks it should be taught, fostered, encouraged and strengthened 
in every way. It is the duty of parents to put those children 
they have brought into the world in such a position by training, 
care of health, education, ete., that they may have a reasonable 
prospect of being able to maintain themselves in it. In fact, 
the law of nature which Malthus seems to have discovered is 
more serious than at first appears. It is this, that the right 
to live is not inherent. It has to be acquired or imparted. 
This is startling, we naturally shrink from its statement. but 
if it is a law of nature it is no use attempting to resist it. 
When applied to biology it has been the most fruitful: truth 
that has ever entered into that science ; and this is a strong 
presunption that it isa law of nature. Our duty to the Laws of 
Nature is to obey them, however stern and severe they may be. 
It is our higher duty to apply them. in accordance ‘with the 
spiritual laws of justice and mercy, to administer them with 
