1804.] Remarks on Mr. Malthus’s Principles of Population. 
plain an error into which all writers on 
political arithmetic are faid to have fal- 
len, and, in contequence, affumes to him- 
felf the merit of a very important difco- 
very on that fubje&t. Having fated fe- 
veral feit-evident propofitions in the moft 
prolix and obfcure manner, he at length 
concludes his argument with obferving, 
‘that the propo:tion of annual births 
to annual marriages does not give the 
proportion of births yielded by each in- 
dividual marriage in the courfe of its du- 
ration.”’” I do not know that much im- 
portance ought to be attached either to 
the fact or the difcovery of it; nor fhould 
I have difturbed Mr. Malthus’s vanity 
on the occafion, had he been contented 
mereiy with afluming to himfelt the me- 
rit of fuch dilcovery, and leaving his 
readers to find out the juftice of his claim 
to it. But he has proceeded much further. 
He has not. only acculed Dr. Price of 
maintaining a contrary opinion, but has 
reprefented him as being totally ignorant 
of the fubjeét. His words are—** Asa 
further proof that Dr, Price did not un- 
deritand this fubject, though he has a 
long and elaborate note on it, he often 
mentions the lifts of the yearly births - 
and marriages as expreffing the number 
of children born to each marriage, and 
particularly notices the proportion in 
SWEDEN, as fhewing the degree of pro- 
lificnefs in the marriages of that country. 
He merely thought that the lifts of births 
and marriages did not, zz all cafes, exprefs 
accurately the prolificnefs of marriages,’ 
&c. That the reader may judge of Mr. 
Malthus’s fidelity in reporting Dr. Price’s 
opinions, I (hall ju quote the paflages from 
the two notes to which he refers. ‘In 
drawing conclulions tiom the proportion 
of annual births and burials in different 
fituatiors, fome writers on the increafe 
of mankind have not given due attention 
to the difference in thefe proportions, 
arifing from the different circumftances of 
increafe aod decreafe among a_ people. 
One inftance of this I have now mention- 
ed, and one further intiance of it is ne- 
cellary to be mentioned. The proportion 
of annual births to weddings has been 
-coufidered as giving the true number of 
children derived trom each marriage, 
taking all marriages one with another, 
But this is true only when, for many years, 
the births and burials have kept nearly 
equal*.”* ** In all SWEDEN, confifting, 
* This very cafe is alfo allowed by Mr. 
Malthus, who obferves, that ‘* the only 
cafe in which the proportion of annual births 
to annual marriages is the fame as the pro- 
portion of births which each individual mar- 
tiage yields, is when the births and deaths 
are exactly equal.” 
95 
in 1763, Of 2,446,394 inhabitants, the 
annual medium of deaths for nine years, 
ending in 1763, was 69,1255 and, there- 
fore, one in 352 died annually. The me- 
dium of births was 90,245 ; of marriages, 
21,220." It can hardly be neceflary to 
comment on thefe two paflages. In the 
firit, the faét is particularly infifted upon, 
of which Dr. Price is ttated to be igno- 
vant; and inftead of tts not exprefling ac- 
curately zz all cafes, it is Rated to exprefs 
it in 20 cafe, except the very ene which 
is allowed by Mr. Malthus himfeif. In 
the fecond paflage, though the contrary 
is afferted by Mr. Mal:hus, not a fyllable 
is mentioned about the ‘* proportion of 
children born in SweDEN, as fhewing the 
degree of prolificnefs in the marnages 
there.” What the author’s motives could 
be for thefe grofs mifrepreientations, I am 
not defirous to learn. His views of nature 
and of {eciety are very different from thofe 
of Dr. Price, and he appears to write fora 
very different clafs of reade:s. Not con- 
tented, however, with having mifrepre- 
fented him, he feems to have been fo far 
improved by the writings of Mr. Arthur 
Young, and of other authors of the fame 
ftamp, which he profeffes to have read 
fince the pubdiication of his firft edition, 
as to advance to a much more ferious at. 
tack on the character of this excellent man. 
‘¢ The tendency of Dr. Price (he obferves) 
to exaggerate tie unhealthin«e{s of towns 
may be jufily obje&ed to his fiatements ; 
but the objection feems to be only of 
weight with regard to LONDon. The 
accounts from the other towns which are 
given, are from documents which his par- 
ticular opinions could not influence.” If 
this paflage have any meaning (for it is 
diffcalt to underftand what is meant by 
influencing a document), Mr. Malthus 
wifhes to infinuate that Dr. Price, on 
fome occafions, is entitled to no credit 
either with regard to his documents or his 
conclufions. To fuch an infinuation I 
fhall not condefcend to reply. I have 
noticed it only to thew, that the candour 
of Mr. Malthus is in (ri& unifon with 
the benevolent principles which are incul- 
cated in the greater part of his _prefent 
publication. After having afferied thae’ 
the population of every country, whether 
barbarous or civilized, mu{t be continu- 
ally ofcillating, and that in ** SWEDEN, 
particularly, ic makes a fart forwards at 
every temporary increafe-of food,”? Mr. 
Malthus obferves in a fubfquent note, 
(perhaps not very confiftentiy,) ¢¢ that it 
feldom happens, practically, that the wo-, 
men of a country become: all at ence 
more prolific than ufual;’’ or, in other 
words, * that, practically, population tel. 
dom increales by farts.” But what he 
O 2 aildsa 
