CHAPTER II

THE THEORY OF POPULATION AND THE

NEO-MALTHUSIANS

Origin of Malthus's Theory-Its Purely Temporary Nature -Criticism and Rejection of the Theory Insidious

Results of the Theory in the Hands of the Economists and the Neo-Malthusians

THE subject of population had been considered from separate points of view by the statesman, the biologist, and the economist.

In the case of statesmen they have been found almost invariably to favour growth of population. It has been a maxim of first-rate importance with them that the numbers of a people constitute one factor in that people's strength. Such a view has, in all probability, descended to us from the policy of imperial Rome. As the ancient states grew in extent, and the subject, or servile, classes increased owing to conquests, the state began to look with alarm on any decrease of its military force, which was drawn from the citizen class, and it offered premiums on the increase of population -meaning by that, its own citizen population. From the Roman empire this view has filtered

63

through the middle ages to modern times. Differently circumstanced as modern states are, the maxim has permanently survived as a high maxim of state policy. Modern statesmen-e.g. in France to-day-are pre-eminently disturbed at any prospect of decrease of population, but they view its increase with equanimity.

The attitude of the scientist-the biologisttowards this same question is purely an outcome of the modern doctrine of evolution. The law of the struggle for existence, and of the survival of the fittest, bears within its own bosom a principle which produces or tends towards equilibrium. The lower the organism is the less is its power of defence against external foes, and, therefore, the greater must be its fertility in order to secure the perpetuation of the race. On the other hand, the higher the organism is the better equipped it is for selfdefence against external danger, and, as a consequence, the less becomes its fecundity. In other words, according to biological science, there is a natural tendency to equilibrium.

The attitude of the economist differs entirely from that of either the statesman or the biologist. He is forbidden by his standpoint to

assume the views of either the one or the other. He views the question of population solely from the point of view of its relation to sustenance. Men and food are the only two factors in the problem for him, and he has to find out from

the action and reaction of these two factors that state of equilibrium between them which shall produce the best results, or, to use a wellworn phrase, the greatest amount of human happiness.

From this point of view the study of the subject of population is entirely a creation of the modern science of Political Economy. And stated very succinctly, the outcome of that study has been the formulation of the following principle-viz. that in old settled countries the inhabitants are under the necessity of controlling the productiveness of population in order to prevent the birth of a greater number of human beings than can be happily provided with food.

I need not say, of course, that we owe the statement of this principle to T. R. Malthus.

The more general statement that population tends to outrun the means of subsistence was much older than Malthus's days. It occurs for instance in the writings of the Italian Economists of the sixteenth century, and had been several times enunciated in the eighteenth century by precursors of Malthus-e.g. by Benjamin Franklin, Sir James Stewart, and others. But Malthus is generally accorded the credit of being the first who coupled the statement of the tendency of population to outrun subsistence with the larger question of the policy which

E

ought to be adopted by mankind in order to checkmate such a principle. As is well known, the outcome of his investigation was the advocation of the preventive check of moral restraint.

As to the ultimate deductions which have been illogically drawn from Malthus's main principle, I will speak a little later. For the moment I wish to concern myself only with the main principle.

How did it originate? What was it that led to the formulation or enunciation of this principle or theory-viz. that population has to be deliberately kept down to the level of the food supply? It would be a very mistaken view indeed which should attribute the accident of its birth to a mere paper controversy between Malthus and William Godwin. The causes which called forth the theory at the particular moment lay much deeper. In the case of this theory, as in the cases of all the other economic theories which we have examined in this book, there is traceable an intimate connection between the theory itself and the times in which it originated. The circumstances of the moment not only condition but actually call forth the theory. This is superlatively true of Malthus's so-called population principle.

The condition of the labouring population of England has never been so abject as it was

during the last quarter of the eighteenth and the first quarter of the nineteenth century-the years, that is, which saw the birth of Malthus's theory. In the first fifty years of the eighteenth century, 1700-50, the increase of population had been under a million-viz. from 5,134,516 to 6,039,684. In the succeeding fifty years, 17511800, the increase exceeded three millions-viz. from 6,039,684 to 9,187,176.

This accelerated rate of increase of population which set in after 1760 was due to two causes : firstly, the agricultural prosperity which followed in the train of the agricultural development of the preceding half century; and secondly, the commercial development which followed the Peace of Paris in 1763. That peace had consummated Chatham's sole market policy. The colonial dominions which Chatham secured for England acted like a magical inspiration on English industry. The immediate expansion of industry gave birth to the great era of mechanical inventions, and that again laid the basis for a still wider expansion of industry.

Now, in itself such a rate of increase as marks the years 1751-1800 (amounting to fifty per cent. in fifty years) needed not to have been a cause of unhappiness or uneasiness, if only the country could have permanently absorbed or digested the increase. In the following fifty years, for instance, 1800-50 the population of England increased practically one hundred per