1804.] Reply io Remarks on Malthus’s Principles of Pipulation. 
port of this unqualified condemnation. 
Mr. Malthus is firft accufed of neither 
having fead nor thought upon the fubj-é 
of his Ejay, and then condemned for his 
many nd multijarious quotations. 
It has, perhaps, efcaped the reading of 
M. N.‘that the principles fo ably illu(trac- 
ed by Mr. Malthus, have been before 
fated by Sir James Stewart, who moft 
certainly was the greateft and foundett 
political economitt of any age or country; 
and that the chief merit of Mr. Malthus 
confilis in having anew called the public 
attention towards them, and in having ex- 
plained and applied them in a popular 
ftyle. 
If inflead of difgracing himfelf by the 
ufe of petulant and unpolite language, 
M.N,. had candidly ftated the opinions 
of Mr. Malthus, and difcufled or combat- 
ted them with temper ard decorum, I do 
not know that I fhould have troubled you 
with this addrefs 5; but when tie produc- 
tion of a {cholar and a gentleman is term- 
ed  abfurd” and « difeufting,”’ and him- 
felf charaGterifed as ignorant, conceit- 
ed,’ and ¢illiberal,”’ it is natural forthe 
ftander-bye to afk the caufe of all this 
want of temper, and to enquire into the 
merits of M. N. himfelf. 
‘The caufe feems to be, that Mr. Mal- 
thus has dared to differ in opinion from a 
friend of M. N.’s, of whom the world 
only knows that, with fome pulpit elo- 
quence and a blamele!s private character, 
he wrote with abjlity upon the doétrine 
of annuities, and embarked with. unre- 
flramable zeal in that political party 
which delights to undervalue the refources 
and to exaggerate the difficultics of their 
country. 
It is very far from my intention to de- 
pPreciate the fum of reputation to which 
‘Doéior Price is juftiy entitled; but M. N. 
may be aflured the number of his admi- 
rer, as a political arithmetician, is very 
{mail ; and that he never had any preten- 
fionso the cliaraéter of a political econo- 
mift. 
Has M. N. forgetten that Dr. Price laid 
claim to public favour from his writings 
upon the population of this country, and 
upen the national debt ; and is he not 
aware, that almoft every conclufion of 
Dr. Price on the fubjeéct of popuiation, 
has at length been difcoveied to be erro- 
neous? The infatuation lafied tili of late 
years. And almoft the only inftance in 
which his nephew, Mr. Morgan, the ac- 
tuary of the office in Bridge-ftreet, adopts 
the opinions and conclufions of his uncle 
is, when he talked, in 1796, of ** our 
Jiail and dicreafing population.” 
187 
Is M. N. folittle learned in the fcience 
of political arithmetic as not to know 
that Dr. Price was indebted to Sir James 
Stewart for his much-vaunted fchemes for 
condudling new Joans, and fcr converting 
Jow into high intereft funds, though he 
forgot to acknowledge his debt? 
When M.N. fo readily points out the 
“vanity”? of Mr. Malthus, and confiders 
the reputation of the difcovery to be of 
fuch little importance, does he not tacitly 
condemn his own ‘** Remarks,’’ which 
were evidently excited by the wifhto claim 
this difcovery for his friend? I am very 
far from thinking that “* Mr. Malthus 
wifhed to infinuate that Dr. Price, on 
fome occafions, is entitled to no credir, 
either with regard to his documents or his 
conciufions 3°’ but I fhould myfelf not ac 
all hefitate to do more than infinuate—[ 
fhould not hefitate to charge Dr. Price 
witn being wholly undeferving of credit 
in regard to the greater part of his docu-~ 
ments, and to ail his conciufions, upon the 
great queftion of population; and the 
nuinor one of the depopulation arifing from 
the increafe of towns. 
It is very dificult to fay what are 
M.N.’s ideas of illiberality, fince he fo 
freely has recourfe to abufe himfelf, and 
fo feverely condemns the milde&{ and moft 
refpeCtful difference of opinion from his 
frieud. As an obferver, perfonally un- 
known to Mr. Malthus, and entirely un- 
interefted in the remarks of M.N. far. 
ther than as every reader is interefted that 
authors obferve good manners toward each 
other, I acknowledge I cannot, difcover 
much illiberality in obferving, that Dr. 
Price did not underftand a fubjeét upon 
which a difference of opinion prevailed, 
even fhould I join M. N. in concluding 
that Dr. Price was in the right, and Mr, 
Maithus was in the wrong; though I do 
difecver much illjberality in calling a 
gentleman, who has read ‘¢ fo many tra- 
vels, hiftories, and political writings,” 
and whofe works abound with ‘ multi- 
farious quotations,’ ignorant and con. 
ceited. 
When a paflage in a large work can 
be changed from obfcure to clear, from 
contradittiun to logic, by the alteration 
of ong word, I think liberali:y would be 
betier marked in fuggefting the correction, 
than in accufing a quarto of fx hundred 
pages of being pervaded by obfeurity and 
incorreétne{s, even though it was not {tated 
at the bottom cf the errata, that * obvi- 
ous typographical errors and omiffions 
were not noticed, ’ 
Before clofing this addrefs I cannot 
avoid remarking, that theugh M,N. is fo 
Nie profule 
