194 ROOT MATTERS IN SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC PROBLEMS. 



G. — The final stage, the world peopled to its full limit, 

 and the struggle for existence only permitting a 

 perpetuation of the maximum population at F 

 by the effects of T ; and the failure of either in 

 any degree, again re-introducing of necessity 

 checks 0, a, b, c, d, e, and so producing a decline 

 in population, although the natural tendency I to 

 multiply may still be conceived to be as vigorous 

 and jirolific as at the first. 

 When Malthus ajfirmed that the ratio of increase of popu- 

 lation advanced faster than the ratio of increase of means of 

 subsistence, he never stated or conceived that population 

 could actually outstrip the means of subsistence as interpreted 

 and discussed by Mr. Henry George (p. 17, book ii.), and 

 hence the whole of Mr. George's citations and reasonings are 

 either fallacious, or they never touch upon the real causes at 

 the root of Malthus' problem. That there is a thorough 

 misconception on the part of Mr. Henry George is clearly 

 proved by the following quotation from Malthus (p. 243, vol. 

 ii. "Malthus on Population ") : — " According to the principles 

 of population the human race has a tendency to increase faster 

 than food. It has, therefore, a constant tendency to people a 

 country fully up to the limits of subsistence (F or G), but by 

 the laws of Nature it can never go beyond them, meaning, of 

 course, by these limits the lowest quantity of food which will 

 maintain a stationary population. Population, therefore, can 

 never, strictly speaking, precede food." This clear expression 

 on the part of Malthus casts aside the whole of Mr. George's 

 ratiocinations as worthless. His inability to grasp the most 

 important elements of the problem is still further made 

 manifest by his query, p. 17, " How is it, then, that this 

 globe of ours, after all the thousands, and it is thought 

 millions, of years, that man has been upon the earth, is yet 

 so thinly populated. 



I can hardly conceive that a man of Mr. George's intelli- 

 gence could put forward such a plea in proof of his con- 

 tention that the natural tendency of population (I) is not 

 towards an increase in the direction of the limits of sub- 

 sistence. 



His query indicates unmistakably that he confounds the 

 product with the ever-varying factors plus and minus I, T, 

 and C, which make the product (P). There is no argument 

 necessary to show the absurdity of ignoring the value and 

 tendency of I, because the product P does not disclose a 

 similar value and tendency. 



For example, the query entirely ignores the whole burden 

 of Malthus' problem by the effects of the checks T and C. 

 The mere fact, notwithstanding the powerful influence checks 



