, 1805.) 
of prolificnefs in the marriages of that 
country.’ ‘This remark M. N. confiders 
as not juftified by any thing that Dr. 
Price has faid. But on turnirg to page 
275*, vol I. of Dr. Price’s Obfervations,- 
to which Mr. Malthus refers, I find this 
paflage': ‘* Healthfulnefs and _prolificnefs 
' are prabably caules of increafe feldom fe- 
parated. In conformity to this obferva- 
tion it appears, from comparing the births 
and weddings in countries and towns 
where regifters of them have been kept, 
that in the former, marriages, one with 
another, feldom produce leis than four 
children each, generally between four and 
five. In ali Sweden, the births and 
weddings are to one another 2s four and 
a quarter to one. In all France, as four 
and four-fifths to one. But in towns this 
proportion 1s generally between three and 
- four to one.’ In addition to this, two 
or three more inftances are adduced in the 
notes for the purpofe of drawing the fame 
inferences. We need not furely go fur- 
ther than this paflage to be convinced 
that Mr. Malthus was completely jufti- 
fied in his remark; and why M.N. in- 
flead of the abové paflage, which is ex- 
prefsly referred to, fhouid produce ano- 
ther paflage wholly irrelevant to the fub- 
ject, and taken from a different page, it is 
a little difficult to conceive. 
Mr. Malthus clearly and truly fiates 
the {ubftance of Dr. Price’s opinions, re- 
{petting the inferences to be drawn from 
the proportion of yearly births to mar- 
riages, when he fays (page 228) “ Dr. 
Price had confidered this fubjeét fuff- 
ciently to fee, that in the countries where 
an increafe or decreafe of population was 
taking place, thefe lifts did not accurately 
exprefs the number of births yielded by 
each marriage ;°’ but inftead of this paf- 
fage, M.N. has chofen to quote another 
in the fame page, which, it muft be al- 
lowed, is exprefled more loofely ; but 
even this is juftified by what Dr. Price 
fays in page 275. For though, in a note 
referring to the regifters produced by Drs. 
Short and Graunt, he puts the reatier in 
mind of his obfervation at the end of the 
note in page 274, yet he would hardly 
have mentioned the proportion of births 
and marriages in the way he does, if he 
had thought that a correction according 
to this obfervation would materially affect 
the refults. 
But the moft curious part of M. N’s 
letter, is his fuppofition that Dr. Price had 
advanced the {ame theory as Mr. Malthus, 
* Edit, 4th. 
Monrury Mac, No. 126. 
Defence of Mr. Malthus. 
17 
re{pesting the inferences to be drawn from 
the lifts of births and marriages, but that 
Mr. Malthus had ungratefully aflumed to 
himfelf the credit of Dr. Price’s difcovery. 
In faying this, it is perfectly clear, that 
M. N. could never have read, or at leaft, 
not have underfiood, Dr. Price’s note in 
page 270. Inthat note it is diftin&ly 
ftated, that, an increafed prolificnefs of 
marriages raifes the proportion of births 
to marriages, in the regifters ; whereas, 
Mr. Malthus has difinétly ftated that, 
provided the proportion of the born, liv- 
ing to be married, continue the fame, 
the regifter of births and marriages will 
continue the fame, let the prolificnefs of 
marriages vary in any conceivable degree. 
No two opinions can well be more diltinét 
or moreunequivocally exprefled,and in {uch 
a difference it is impoffible that one party 
fhould not think that the other did not 
underftand the fubjeét. It turns out, 
however, now, that the new theory which 
Mr. Malthus attempted to eftablifh, re. 
fpecting the inferences to be drawn from 
the lifts of births and marriages, is not 
correct, and that Dr. Price’s theory, as 
lad down in the note to page 270, is the 
true one, though he has not fufficiently 
followed itup in the other parts of his work. 
But it doesnot make much in favour of 
the ingenuity or mathematical knowledge 
of M. N. that, with his finger on the very 
{pot, and with every defire to find fauis, 
he fhould not be able to fee a grave error 
in calculation that had been committed. 
I have been informed, from authority that 
I can hardly doubt, that Mr. Malthus 
fome time ago became acquainted with 
this error; and, with a candour that dees 
him honour, immediately gave informa. 
tion of it tothe only Review that had not 
then noticed bis work (the Edinburgh), 
that it might be made public. 
In fpeaking of two tables calculated by 
Euler, which Mr. Maithus has introduced, 
M.N. has acculed him of not in the leat 
underftanding the principles upon which 
they were formed. I have been giving 
fome attention to this fubjeét; and if f 
am not greatly miftaken, the acculation 
attaches entirely to M.N. and not to 
Mr. Malthus. It is certainly true that 
the refults in the firft table are contained 
in the fecond, But there need no ghott 
to tell one this. When Mr. Malthus 
favs, that the fecond table is general, 
it is naturally implied that it contains 
all the cafes of the former table, which is 
particular. It is alfo true that the period 
of doubling depends folely on the propor- 
tion which the excefs of the birth? above 
the 
—— = oe 
——— 
