06 
adds in this note is ftill more curious :— 
«© In the general tables of mortality, 
from which deduétions are made, if they 
be not fuch as tor the births to affeét the 
marriages, they cannot exprefs a juft 
average of any kind, end are, in every 
point of view, almoft entirely ufelefs.” 
How the births are to affedi the marriages 
in atab'e of mortality; or what 1s meant 
by a juit average in fuch tables; or, in 
fhort, what is meant by a general table of 
mortality; is no where explained: and 
this is the more inexcufable, as the pof- 
tions and the language are entirely new 
in the doctrine of political arithmetic. 
A great degree of obfcuiity and in. 
correéinefs pervades the whole of Mr. 
Malthus’s book. Thus he cbferves, that 
when the proportion between the births 
and burials is given, the periods of 
doubling (the inhabitants) will be thorter, 
the greater the mortaiity.”’ As far as this 
fentence is intelligible, it certainly con- 
tains a difcovery, and Mr. Malthus is en- 
titled to all the credit of it. If the births, 
thereiore, are to the deaths in the ratio of 
eight to ten, the inhabitants will be 
doubled fafter than when they are in the 
ratio of eight to nine! It will, however, 
require fome {kill to prove how it is pol- 
fible, while the deaths exceed the births 
in any proportion, that the inhabitants of 
acountry, by mere procreation, fhould ever 
be doubled, or, indeed, increafed at all. 
At the conclufion of the chapter con- 
taining the preceding obfervations, two 
tables are added from Mr. Sufmilch, de- 
termining the pericds in which mankind 
are doubled, when the excefs of the births 
above the deaths is in any given ratio to 
the whole population. The firlt of thefe 
is faid to be confined to a particular cafe, 
where the mortality is one in thirty-fix, 
** and, therefore, can only be applied to 
coyatries in which fuch a mortality is 
known to take place.” The fecond is 
general, ‘¢ and, theretore, may be univer- 
dally applied to all countri:s, whatever 
may be the degree of their mortality.” 
Had Mr. Mal:hus in the leaft underftood 
thefe tables, or the rule by which they 
have been computed, (and which he might 
have feen in cne of tho'e e/aberate notes 
in Dr. Price’s treatife, of which he {peaks 
with fo little refpeat,) he would have 
known thet the numbers in the firft are 
contained in this very fecond table, which, 
he fays, ‘* may be univerfaily applied to 
all countries, whatever may be the degree 
of their mortality.” The truth is, that 
the ratio of the deaths to the number of 
inhabitants has nothing at all to do with 
the theorem from which ihe‘e iables have 
been computed, and that the period of 
Sceptici{m and Degmatifn in Science compared. 
[ Sept. 1, 
doubling will always be the fame, if the 
ratio of the excels of the births above the 
burials be the fame, whether one in 36 or 
one in 360 dies annually. But I muft*’ 
defift from entering further into this fub- 
ject, as well as trom extending my ob- 
fervations to the other parts of Mr. 
Malthus’s book. They affora abundant 
matter for animadverfion; but IT with to 
wage no war either with ignorance or 
conceit ; nor fhould I have been induced 
to make the prefent remarks, had not a 
regard fur the memory of a fmend impel- 
led me to defend him from the very illi- 
beral infinustions contained in the Effay 
on Population; and to fhew, that the au- 
thor of them is as ill qualified to appreciate 
the knowledge and abilities, as he has 
been unjuit in reprefenting the opinions, 
of Dr. Price. 
London, duguf? 14, 1804. M.N., 
To the Editor of ihe Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
C)F the monthly obfervations of your 
medical correfpondent, Dr. Reid, 
many have appeared to me acute and ins 
genious, and if net perfeétly convincing, 
at leaft probable. There is one, however, 
in his communication of July, which, F 
think, affords {cope for animadverfion ; 
and I prefume you will not refufe admif- 
fion to fome remarks upon it, provided 
they do not deviate from that decorum 
and fooriety which fhould always attend 
literary and philofophical difcufiions. 
The doétor, anticipating a charge of ' 
too great pofitivenefs in his opinions, fays, 
“* Decificn is ofren called dogmatifin ; 
but no one can confcientioufly, or, if he 
be confcicnticus, comfortably praétife me- 
dicine, who has any doubts with regard 
to the theory and application of the fci- 
ence,—Scepticiim in phyfic, as in other 
branches of ftudy, indicates no fuperi- 
ority; but, on the contrary, betrays el- 
ther a defcét of knowledge, ora. ob/curity 
and inaccuracy of intellectual conception.” 
As I imagine you do not with to make 
your intercitmg Mifcellany a vehicle for 
controverfies properly protefiional, I fhall 
chiefly confine my remarks to the com- 
parifon between f{cepticifm and dogma. 
tilm in general, only cecafionally advert- 
ing to a particular tcience, by way of il- 
lutiration. 
If Dr. Reid means only to aflert, that 
certainty is preferable to doubt, and that 
it is better to be firmly convinced of a 
truth, than to entertain it with difidence, 
he will furely meet with no contradiétion. 
Every one who has felt the difacreeable 
ftate of a mind hefitating between different 
opiniens whea cailed upon to aét, mut 
acknowledge 
