G14  Retrofpec? of Domefiice Literature.—~Political Econemy. 
are avowedly neceflary to confine the 
principle of population within ‘due 
‘bounds: but Mr. Malthus objects to 
Mr. Godwin’s fyftem, from a full con- 
vidtion that that fyfiem, which allows 
the principle of population its unop- 
pofed career,would very greatly increafe 
ihe fum of vice and mifery in fociety. 
Tf Mr. Godwin (fays he) will un- 
do this conviction and prove to me, 
though it be only in theory, provided 
that theory be confiftent, and founded 
ona knowledge of human nature, that 
his fyftem will really tend to Grive vice 
and mifery from the earth, he may de- 
end upon having me one of its ftea- 
diet and warmelt advocates.” ‘ 
Mr. Godwin’s fyftem would have 
been lefs expofed to objection, if in his 
victory of mind over matter, he ‘had 
alfo contrived to extinguifh the paf- 
fion between the fexes—if he had made 
the intercourfe a mere matter of duty. 
‘The confequence to which his fyftem _ 
now leads, would have been. avoided.— 
Moral reftraint would alone have regu- 
lated the proportion of population. to 
the means of fultenance, and neither 
vice nor mifery would have been called 
in to prevent a difproportioned popu- 
jation, or to thin it. Morai reftraint, 
jn this cafe, would have been as no- 
thing ; for the paffion being extin- 
guifhed, per bypothefin, there would 
‘have been no deprivaticn of indul- 
gence, no fenfual defiderata. 
Mr. Malthus proceeds to notice the 
operation of the poor-laws, of emigra- 
tion, of the agricultural and commer- 
cial iyftems, and of the exportation of 
corn, on the condition of the poor;. 
and he throws confiderable light on 
thefe intricate queftions. 
The fourth and ijaft book treats of 
our future profpects refpecting the re- 
moval or mitigation of the evils arif- 
ing from the principle of population. 
As itappears thatin the actual flate of 
every iociety, the natural progrefs of 
population has been conflantly and 
powerfully checked ; and as it, ap- 
pears, afier-a eanetol and candid exa- 
znination of the different fyfiems which 
have been fuggefted or adopted for mi- 
tig gating the evilarifing from this prin- 
_eiple of population, ¢t 
oe 
each other, are’ prohibited from marrying 
from the fear of being unable to fupport a 
family, this ‘moral reftraint to thetr'virtuous 
inclinations is a palpable inrelicity, and is 
-ertainly a thade of mifery. 
that no form of 
government, | however excellent, te) 
plansof emigration, no benevolent in- 
ftitutions,.no degree or dire&tion of 
national induftry, can prevent the ac- 
tion of a great check to increafe in 
fome form or, other; as we mutt fub- 
mit to it as an inevitable law of nature, 
the only inquiry that remains is, how 
t may take place with the leaft poffible 
“prejudice to the virtue and happinefs 
of human fociety. The checks to po- 
re are all refolvable into moral 
reftraint, vice, and mifery, the two 
latter’ being pofitive, the former a pre- 
ventive, check. Now, as it is clearly 
better that the check to population 
fhouldarife from a forefight of the dif- 
ficulty of rearing a family and the fear 
of dependent, poverty, than from ‘the 
aciual prefence. of pain. and ficknefs, 
moral reftraint is that virtue the prac- 
tice of whichis moft earneftly to be en- 
couraged. If no man were’ to marry 
who had not a fair profpect of provid- 
ing for the prefumptive iffue of his 
‘marriage, population would be kept 
within bounds by the preventive 
check : men and women would marry 
later in life; but, on the full hope: of 
their reward, they would acquire ha~ 
bits of induftry and frugality, and in- 
culcate leflons of them in the minds 
of their children.* But it will be ob- 
jected, is the iron hand of law to op- 
* The only forcible objeétion againft ur- 
ging this duty'of moral reftraint upon the poor 
is, thatthe promifcuous intercourfe between 
the fexes would be inereafed.. Powerful as 
ray be the temptations to a breach of chaf- 
tity, (fays Mr. Malthus,).I am inclined. to 
think they are impotent in comparifon of the 
temptations arifing from continued diftrefs. — 
Mr. Malthus’s reafoning .on this head is not 
quite fatisfaftory. There is an objeétion 
againft marriages late in life, which does not 
appear to have occurred to Mr. Malthus: if 
a woman of twenty marries a man two or 
three years older than herfelf, the couple 
may fairly expe to live and enjoy the de- 
light of feeing their family all fettied in life, 
‘married perhaps, and rearing a fecond family. 
He may addrefs his Winifreda in the words 
of that beautiful addrefs to conjugal love : . 
And when with envy Time tranfported, °’ 
Shall think to rob us of our joys, 
You'll in your girls again be courted, . 
And Pll go wooing in my boys. 
A man who delays the matrimonial con- 
nection till forty, has certainly a lefs diftin® 
view of this fecond fpring-time of life, and 
is more likely to leave a young, mater, 
unprovided, family behiad him, 
pof- 
