III. MORAL RESTRAINT
The change in the theory of "checks" raises another important question. Malthus now introduced a modification upon which his supporters laid great stress. In the new version the "checks" which proportion population to means of subsistence are not simply "vice and misery," but "moral restraint, vice, and misery."[228] How, precisely, does this modify the theory? How are the different "checks" related?
What especially is meant by "moral" in this connection? Malthus takes his ethical philosophy pretty much for granted, but is clearly a Utilitarian according to the version of Paley.[229] He agrees with Paley that "virtue evidently consists in educing from the materials which the Creator has placed under our guidance the greatest sum of human happiness."[230] He adds to this that our "natural impulses are, abstractedly considered, good, and only to be distinguished by their consequences." Hunger, he says, as Bentham had said, is the same in itself, whether it leads to stealing a loaf or to eating your own loaf. He agrees with G.o.dwin that morality means the "calculation of consequences,"[231] or, as he says with Paley, implies the discovery of the will of G.o.d by observing the effect of actions upon happiness.
Reason then regulates certain innate and practically unalterable instincts by enabling us to foretell their consequences. The reasonable man is influenced not simply by the immediate gratification, but by a forecast of all the results which it will entail. In these matters Malthus was entirely at one with the Utilitarians proper, and seems to regard their doctrine as self-evident.
He notices briefly one logical difficulty thus introduced. The "checks" are vice, misery, and moral restraint. But why distinguish vice from misery? Is not conduct vicious which causes misery,[232] and precisely because it causes misery? He replies that to omit "vice"
would confuse our language. Vicious conduct may cause happiness in particular cases; though its general tendency would be pernicious. The answer is not very clear; and Malthus, I think, would have been more logical if he had stuck to his first theory, and regarded vice as simply one form of imprudence. Misery, that is, or the fear of misery, and the indulgence in conduct which produces misery are the "checks"
which limit population; and the whole problem is to make the ultimate sanction more operative upon the immediate conduct. Man becomes more virtuous simply as he becomes more prudent, and is therefore governed in his conduct by recognising the wider and more remote series of consequences. There is, indeed, the essential difference that the virtuous man acts (on whatever motives) from a regard to the "greatest happiness of the greatest number," and not simply from self-regard.
Still the ultimate and decisive criterion is the tendency of conduct to produce misery; and if Malthus had carried this through as rigorously as Bentham, he would have been more consistent. The "moral check" would then have been simply a department of the prudential; including prudence for others as well as for ourselves. One reason for the change is obvious. His a.s.sumption enables him to avoid coming into conflict with the accepted morality of the time. On his exposition "vice" occasionally seems not to be productive of misery but an alternative to misery; and yet something bad in itself. Is this consistent with his Utilitarianism? The vices of the South Sea Islanders, according to him, made famine less necessary; and, if they gave pleasure at the moment, were they not on the whole beneficial?
Malthus again reckons among vices practices which limit the population without causing "misery" directly.[233] Could he logically call them vicious? He wishes to avoid the imputation of sanctioning such practices, and therefore condemns them by his moral check; but it would be hard to prove that he was consistent in condemning them. Or, again, there is another familiar difficulty. The Catholic church encourages marriage as a remedy for vice; and thereby stimulates both population and poverty. How would Malthus solve the problem: is it better to encourage chast.i.ty and a superabundance of people, or to restrict marriage at the cost of increasing temptation to vice? He seems to evade the point by saying that he recommends both chast.i.ty and abstinence from marriage. By "moral restraint," as he explains, he means "restraint from marriage from prudential motives, with a conduct strictly moral during the period of this restraint." "I have never,"
he adds, "intentionally deviated from this sense."[234] A man, that is, should postpone taking a wife, and should not console himself by taking a mistress. He is to refrain from increasing the illegitimate as well as from increasing the legitimate population. It is not surprising that Malthus admits that this check has "in past ages operated with inconsiderable force."[235] In fact Malthus, as a thoroughly respectable and decent clergyman, manages by talking about the "moral restraint" rather to evade than to answer some awkward problems of conduct; but at the cost of some inconsequence.
But another result of this mode of patching up his argument is more important. The "vices of mankind," he says in an unusually rhetorical summary of his historical inquiry,[236] "are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in the war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and ten thousands. Should success still be incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and at one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world." The life of the race, then, is a struggle with misery; its expansion is constantly forcing it upon this array of evils; and in proportion to the elasticity is the severity of the evils which follow. This is not only a "gloomy view," but again seems to suggest that "vice" is an alternative to "misery." Vices are bad, it would seem, but at least they obviate the necessity for disease and famine. Malthus probably suppressed the pa.s.sage because he thought it liable to this interpretation. It indicates, however, a real awkwardness, if not something more, in his exposition. He here speaks as if there was room for a fixed number of guests at his banquet. Whatever, therefore, keeps the population to that limit must be so far good. If he had considered his "moral check" more thoroughly, he might have seen that this does not correspond to his real meaning. The "moral" and the prudential checks are not really to be contrasted as alternative, but co-operative. Every population, vicious or virtuous, must of course proportion its numbers to its means of support. That gives the prudential check. But the moral check operates by altering the character of the population itself. From the purely economic point of view, vice is bad because it lowers efficiency. A lazy, drunken, and profligate people would starve where an industrious, sober, and honest people would thrive. The check of vice thus brings the check of misery into play at an earlier stage. It limits by lowering the vitality and subst.i.tuting degeneration for progress. The check, therefore, is essentially mischievous. Though it does not make the fields barren, it lowers the power of cultivation. Malthus had recognised this when he pointed out, as we have seen, that emergence from the savage state meant the inst.i.tution of marriage and property and, we may infer, the correlative virtues of chast.i.ty, industry, and honesty. If men can form large societies, and millions can be supported where once a few thousands were at starvation point, it is due to the civilisation which at every stage implies "moral restraint" in a wider sense than Malthus used the phrase. An increase of population by such means was, of course, to be desired. If Malthus emphasises this inadequately, it is partly, no doubt, because the Utilitarian view of morality tended to emphasise the external consequences rather than the alteration of the man himself. Yet the wider and sounder view is logically implied in his reasoning--so much so that he might have expressed his real aim more clearly if he had altered the order of his argument. He might have consistently taken the same line as earlier writers and declared that he desired, above all things, the increase of population. He would have had indeed to explain that he desired the increase of a sound and virtuous population; and that hasty and imprudent increase led to misery and to a demoralisation which would ultimately limit numbers in the worst way. We shall see directly how nearly he accepts this view. Meanwhile, by insisting upon the need of limitation, he was led to speak often as if limitation by any means was good and the one thing needful, and the polemic against G.o.dwin in the first edition had given prominence to this side of the question. Had he put his views in a different shape, he would perhaps have been so edifying that he would have been disregarded. He certainly avoided that risk, and had whatever advantage is gained by stating sound doctrine paradoxically.
We shall, I think, appreciate his real position better by considering his approximation to the theory which, as we know, was suggested to Darwin by a perusal of Malthus.[237] There is a closer resemblance than appears at first. The first edition concludes by two chapters afterwards omitted, giving the philosophical application of his theory. He there says that the "world is a mighty process of G.o.d not for the trial but for the creation and formation of the mind."[238] It is not, as Butler thought, a place of "probation," but a scene in which the higher qualities are gradually developed. G.o.dwin had quoted Franklin"s view that "mind" would become "omnipotent over matter."
Malthus holds that, as he puts it, "G.o.d is making matter into mind."
The difference is that Malthus regards evil in general not as a sort of accident of which we can get rid by reason; but as the essential stimulus which becomes the efficient cause of intellectual activity.
The evils from which men suffer raise savage tribes from their indolence, and by degrees give rise to the growth of civilisation. The argument, though these chapters were dropped by Malthus, was taken up by J. B. Sumner, to whom he refers in later editions.[239] It is, in fact, an imperfect way of stating a theory of evolution. This appears in his opening chapters upon the "moral restraint."[240] He explains that moral and physical evils are "instruments employed by the Deity"
to admonish us against such conduct as is destructive of happiness.
Diseases are indications that we have broken a law of nature. The plague of London was properly interpreted by our ancestors as a hint to improve the sanitary conditions of the town. Similarly, we have to consider the consequences of obeying our instincts. The desire of food and necessaries is the most powerful of these instincts, and next to it the pa.s.sion between the s.e.xes. They are both good, for they are both natural; but they have to be properly correlated. To "virtuous love" in particular we owe the "sunny spots" in our lives, where the imagination loves to bask. Desire of necessaries gives us the stimulus of the comfortable fireside; and love adds the wife and children, without whom the fireside would lose half its charm. Now, as a rule, the s.e.xual pa.s.sion is apt to be in excess. The final cause of this excess is itself obvious. We cannot but conceive that it is an object of "the Creator that the earth should be replenished."[241] To secure that object, it is necessary that "there should be a tendency in the population to increase faster than food." If the two instincts were differently balanced, men would be content though the population of a fertile region were limited to the most trifling numbers. Hence the instinct has mercifully been made so powerful as to stimulate population, and thus indirectly and eventually to produce a population at once larger and more comfortable. On the one hand, it is of the very utmost importance to the happiness of mankind that they should not increase too fast,[242] but, on the other hand, if the pa.s.sion were weakened, the motives which make a man industrious and capable of progress would be diminished also. It would, of course, be simpler to omit the "teleology"; to say that sanitary regulations are made necessary by the plague, not that the plague is divinely appointed to encourage sanitary regulations. Malthus is at the point of view of Paley which becomes Darwinism when inverted; but the conclusion is much the same. He reaches elsewhere, in fact, a more precise view of the value of the "moral restraint." In a chapter devoted for once to an ideal state of things,[243] he shows how a race thoroughly imbued with that doctrine would reconcile the demands of the two instincts.
Population would in that case increase, but, instead of beginning by an increase, it would begin by providing the means of supporting. No man would become a father until he had seen his way to provide for a family. The instinct which leads to increasing the population would thus be intrinsically as powerful as it now is; but when regulated by prudence it would impel mankind to begin at the right end. Food would be ready before mouths to eat it.
IV. SOCIAL REMEDIES
This final solution appears in Malthus"s proposed remedies for the evils of the time. Malthus[244] declares that "an increase of population when it follows in its natural order is both a great positive good in itself, and absolutely necessary" to an increase of wealth. This natural order falls in, as he observes, with the view to which Mirabeau had been converted, that "revenue was the source of population," and not population of revenue.[245] Malthus holds specifically that, "in the course of some centuries," the population of England might be doubled or trebled, and yet every man be "much better fed and clothed than he is at present."[246] He parts company with Paley, who had considered the ideal state to be "that of a laborious frugal people ministering to the demands of an opulent luxurious nation."[247] That, says Malthus, is "not an inviting prospect." Nothing but a conviction of absolute necessity could reconcile us to the "thought of ten millions of people condemned to incessant toil, and to the privation of everything but absolute necessaries, in order to minister to the excessive luxuries of the other million." But he denies that any such necessity exists. He wishes precisely to see luxury spread among the poorer cla.s.ses. A desire for such luxury is the best of all checks to population, and one of the best means of raising the standard. It would, in fact, contribute to his "moral restraint." So, too, he heartily condemns the hypocrisy of the rich, who professed a benevolent desire to better the poor, and yet complained of high wages.[248] If, he says elsewhere,[249] a country can "only be rich by running a successful race for low wages, I should be disposed to say, Perish such riches!"
No one, in fact, could see more distinctly than Malthus the demoralising influence of poverty, and the surpa.s.sing importance of raising the people from the terrible gulf of pauperism. He refers to Colquhoun"s account of the twenty thousand people who rose every morning in London without knowing how they were to be supported; and observes that "when indigence does not produce overt acts of vice, it palsies every virtue."[250] The temptations to which the poor man is exposed, and the sense of injustice due to an ignorance of the true cause of misery, tend to "sour the disposition, to harden the heart, and deaden the moral sense." Unfortunately, the means which have been adopted to lessen the evil have tended to increase it. In the first place, there was the master-evil of the poor-laws. Malthus points out the demoralising effects of these laws in chapters full of admirable common sense, which he was unfortunately able to enforce by fresh ill.u.s.trations in successive editions. He attends simply to the stimulus to population. He thinks that if the laws had never existed, the poor would now have been much better off.[251] If the laws had been fully carried out, every labourer might have been certain that all his children would be supported, or, in other words, every check to population would have been removed.[252] Happily, the becoming pride of the English peasantry was not quite extinct; and the poor-law had to some extent counteracted itself, or taken away with one hand what it gave with the other, by placing the burthen upon the parishes.[253] Thus landlords have been more disposed to pull down than to build cottages, and marriage has been checked. On the whole, however, Malthus could see in the poor-laws nothing but a vast agency for demoralising the poor, tempered by a system of petty tyrannical interference. He proposes, therefore, that the poor-law should be abolished. Notice should be given that no children born after a certain day should be ent.i.tled to parish help; and, as he quaintly suggests, the clergyman might explain to every couple, after publishing the banns, the immorality of reckless marriage, and the reasons for abolishing a system which had been proved to frustrate the intentions of the founders.[254] Private charity, he thinks, would meet the distress which might afterwards arise, though humanity imperiously requires that it should be "sparingly administered." Upon this duty he writes a sensible chapter.[255] To his negative proposals Malthus adds a few of the positive kind. He is strongly in favour of a national system of education, and speaks with contempt of the "illiberal and feeble" arguments opposed to it. The schools, he observes, might confer "an almost incalculable benefit" upon society, if they taught "a few of the simplest principles of political economy."[256] He had been disheartened by the prejudices of the ignorant labourer, and felt the incompatibility of a free government with such ignorance. A real education, such as was given in Scotland, would make the poor not, as alarmists had suggested, more inflammable, but better able to detect the sophistry of demagogues.[257] He is, of course, in favour of savings banks,[258] and approves friendly societies, though he is strongly opposed to making them compulsory, as they would then be the poor-law in a new form.[259] The value of every improvement turns upon its effect in encouraging the "moral restraint." Malthus"s ultimate criterion is always, Will the measure make people averse to premature marriage? He reaches the apparently inconsistent result that it might be desirable to make an allowance for every child beyond six.[260] But this is on the hypothesis that the "moral restraint" has come to be so habitual that no man marries until he has a fair prospect of maintaining a family of six. If this were the practical code, the allowance in cases where the expectation was disappointed would not act as an encouragement to marriage, but as a relief under a burthen which could not have been antic.i.p.ated. Thus all Malthus"s teaching may be said to converge upon this practical point. Add to the Ten Commandments the new law, "Thou shalt not marry until there is a fair prospect of supporting six children." Then population will increase, but sufficient means for subsistence will always be provided beforehand. We shall make sure that there is a provision for additional numbers before, not after, we add to our numbers. Food first and population afterwards gives the rule; thus we achieve the good end without the incidental evils.
Malthus"s views of the appropriate remedy for social evils undoubtedly show an imperfect appreciation of the great problems involved. Reckless propagation is an evil; but Malthus regards it as an evil which can be isolated and suppressed by simply adding a new article to the moral code. He is dealing with a central problem of human nature and social order. Any modification of the s.e.xual instincts or of the const.i.tution of the family involves a profound modification of the whole social order and of the dominant religious and moral creeds. Malthus tacitly a.s.sumes that conduct is determined by the play of two instincts, unalterable in themselves, but capable of modification in their results by a more extensive view of consequences. To change men"s ruling motives in regard to the most important part of their lives is to alter their whole aims and conceptions of the world, and of happiness in every other relation. It supposes, therefore, not a mere addition of knowledge, but a transformation of character and an altered view of all the theories which have been embodied in religious and ethical philosophy. He overlooks, too, considerations which would be essential to a complete statement. A population which is too prudent may suffer itself to be crowded out by more prolific races in the general struggle for existence; and cases may be suggested such as that of the American colonies, in which an increase of numbers might be actually an advantage by facilitating a more efficient organisation of labour.
The absence of a distinct appreciation of such difficulties gives to his speculation that one-sided character which alienated his more sentimental contemporaries. It was natural enough in a man who was constantly confronted by the terrible development of pauperism in England, and was too much tempted to a.s.sume that the tendency to reckless propagation was not only a very grave evil, but the ultimate source of every evil. The doctrine taken up in this unqualified fashion by some of his disciples, and preached by them with the utmost fervour as the one secret of prosperity, shocked both the conservative and orthodox whose prejudices were trampled upon, and such Radicals as inherited G.o.dwin"s or Condorcet"s theory of perfectibility. Harsh and one-sided as it might be, however, we may still hold that it was of value, not only in regard to the most pressing difficulty of the day, but also as calling attention to a vitally important condition of social welfare. The question, however, recurs whether, when the doctrine is so qualified as to be admissible, it does not also become a mere truism.
An answer to this question should begin by recognising one specific resemblance between his speculations and Darwin"s. Facts, which appear from an older point of view to be proofs of a miraculous interposition, become with Malthus, as with Darwin, the normal results of admitted conditions. G.o.dwin had admitted that there was some "principle which kept population on a level with subsistence." "The sole question is," says Malthus,[261] "what is this principle? Is it some obscure and occult cause? a mysterious interference of heaven,"
inflicting barrenness at certain periods? or "a cause open to our researches and within our view?" Other writers had had recourse to the miraculous. One of Malthus"s early authorities was Sussmilch, who had published his _Gottliche Ordnung_ in 1761, to show how Providence had taken care that the trees should not grow into the sky. The antediluvians had been made long-lived in order that they might have large families and people an empty earth, while life was divinely shortened as the world filled up. Sussmilch, however, regarded population as still in need of stimulus. Kings might help Providence.
A new Trajan would deserve to be called the father of his people, if he increased the marriage-rate. Malthus replies that the statistics which the worthy man himself produced showed conclusively that the marriages depended upon the deaths. The births fill up the vacancies, and the prince who increased the population before vacancies arose would simply increase the rate of mortality.[262] If you want to increase your birth-rate without absolutely producing famine, as he remarks afterwards,[263] make your towns unhealthy, and encourage settlement by marshes. You might thus double the mortality, and we might all marry prematurely without being absolutely starved. His own aim is not to secure the greatest number of births, but to be sure that the greatest number of those born may be supported.[264] The ingenious M. Muret, again, had found a Swiss parish in which the mean life was the highest and the fecundity smallest known. He piously conjectures that it may be a law of G.o.d that "the force of life in each country should be in the inverse ratio of its fecundity." He needs not betake himself to a miracle, says Malthus.[265] The case is simply that in a small and healthy village, where people had become aware of the importance of the "preventive check," the young people put off marriage till there was room for them, and consequently both lowered the birth-rate and raised the average duration of life.
Nothing, says Malthus very forcibly, has caused more errors than the confusion between "relative and positive, and between cause and effect."[266] He is here answering the argument that because the poor who had cows were the most industrious, the way to make them industrious was to give them cows. Malthus thinks it more probable that industry got the cow than that the cow produced industry. This is a trifling instance of a very general truth. People had been content to notice the deaths caused by war and disease, and to infer at once that what caused death must diminish population. Malthus shows the necessity of observing other collateral results. The gap may be made so great as to diminish population; but it may be compensated by a more rapid reproduction; or, the rapidity of reproduction may itself be the cause of the disease; so that to remove one kind of mortality may be on some occasion to introduce others. The stream is dammed on one breach to flow more strongly through other outlets.[267]
This is, I conceive, to say simply that Malthus was introducing a really scientific method. The facts taken in the true order became at once intelligible instead of suggesting mysterious and irregular interferences. Earlier writers had been content to single out one particular set of phenomena without attending to its place in the more general and complex processes, of which they formed an integral part.
Infanticide, as Hume had pointed out, might tend to increase population.[268] In prospect, it might encourage people to have babies; and when babies came, natural affection might prevent the actual carrying out of the intention. To judge of the actual effect, we have to consider the whole of the concrete case. It may be carried out, as apparently in the South Sea Islands, so generally as to limit population; or it may be, as in China, an indication that the pressure is so great that a number of infants become superfluous. Its suppression might, in the one case, lead to an increase of the population; in the other, to the increase of other forms of mortality.
Malthus"s investigations ill.u.s.trate the necessity of referring every particular process to its place in the whole system, of noting how any given change might set up a set of actions and reactions in virtue of the general elasticity of population, and thus of constantly referring at every step to the general conditions of human life. He succeeded in making many points clear, and of showing how hastily many inferences had been drawn. He explained, for example, why the revolutionary wars had not diminished the population of France, in spite of the great number of deaths,[269] and thus gave an example of a sound method of inquiry which has exercised a great influence upon later observers.
Malthus was constantly misunderstood and misrepresented, and his opponents often allege as fatal objections to his doctrine the very facts by which it was really supported. But we may, I think, say, that since his writing no serious economical writer has adopted the old hasty guesses, or has ventured to propose a theory without regard to the principles of which he first brought out the full significance.
V. POLITICAL APPLICATION
This I take to indicate one real and permanent value of Malthus"s writings. He introduced a new method of approaching the great social problems. The value of the method may remain, however inaccurate may be the a.s.sumptions of facts. The "tendency," if interpreted to mean that people are always multiplying too rapidly, may be a figment. If it is taken as calling attention to one essential factor in the case, it is a most important guide to investigation. This brings out another vital point. The bearing of the doctrine upon the political as well as upon the economical views of the Utilitarians is of conspicuous importance. Malthus"s starting-point, as we have seen, was the opposition to the doctrine of "perfectibility." Hard facts, which G.o.dwin and Condorcet had neglected, were fatal to their dreams. You have, urged Malthus, neglected certain undeniable truths as to the unalterable qualities of human nature, and, therefore, your theories will not work. The revolutionists had opposed an ideal "state of nature" to the actual arrangements of society. They imagined that the "state of nature" represented the desirable consummation, and that the const.i.tution of the "natural" order could be determined from certain abstract principles. The equality of man, and the absolute rights which could be inferred by a kind of mathematical process, supplied the necessary dogmatic basis. The ant.i.thesis to the state of nature was the artificial state, marked by inequality, and manifesting its spirit by luxury. Kings, priests, and n.o.bles had somehow established this unnatural order; and to sweep them away summarily was the way of bringing the natural order into full activity. The ideal system was already potentially in existence, and would become actual when men"s minds were once cleared from superst.i.tion, and the political made to correspond to the natural rights of man. To this Malthus had replied, as we have seen, that social inequality was not a mere arbitrary product of fraud and force, but an expedient necessary to restrain the primitive instincts of mankind. He thus coincides with Bentham"s preference of "security" to "equality," and ill.u.s.trates the real significance of that doctrine. Property and marriage, though they involve inequality, were inst.i.tutions of essential importance. G.o.dwin had pushed his theories to absolute anarchy; to the destruction of all law, for law in general represented coercion or an interference with the state of nature. Malthus virtually a.s.serted that the metaphysical doctrine was inapplicable because, men being what they are, these conclusions were incompatible with even the first stages of social progress. This means, again, that for the metaphysical method Malthus is subst.i.tuting a scientific method. Instead of regarding all government as a kind of mysterious intervention from without, which has somehow introduced a fatal discord into the natural order, he inquires what are the facts; how law has been evolved; and for what reason. His answer is, in brief, that law, order, and inequality have been absolutely necessary in order to limit tendencies which would otherwise keep men in a state of hopeless poverty and depression.
This gives the "differentia" of the Utilitarian considered as one species of the genus "Radical." Malthus"s criticism of Paine is significant.[270] He agrees with Paine that the cause of popular risings is "want of happiness." But Paine, he remarks, was "in many important points totally ignorant of the structure of society"; and has fallen into the error of attributing all want of happiness to government. Consequently, Paine advocates a plan for distributing taxes among the poorest cla.s.ses, which would aggravate the evils a hundredfold. He fully admits with Paine that man has rights. The true line of answer would be to show what those rights are. To give this answer is not Malthus"s present business; but there is one right, at any rate, which a man does not and cannot possess: namely, the "right to subsistence when his labour will not fairly purchase it." He does not possess it because he cannot possess it; to try to secure it is to try to "reverse the laws of nature," and therefore to produce cruel suffering by practising an "inhuman deceit." The Abbe Raynal had said that a man had a right to subsist "before all social laws." Man had the same right, replied Malthus, as he had to live a hundred or a thousand years. He may live, _if he can_ without interfering with others. Social laws have, in fact, enlarged the power of subsistence; but neither before nor after their inst.i.tution could an unlimited number subsist. Briefly, the question of fact comes before the question of right, and the fault of the revolutionary theorists was to settle the right without reference to the possibility of making the right correspond to the fact.
Hence Malthus draws his most emphatic political moral. The admission that all evil is due to government is the way to tyranny. Make men believe that government is the one cause of misery, and they will inevitably throw the whole responsibility upon their rulers; seek for redress by cures which aggravate the disease; and strengthen the hands of those who prefer even despotism to anarchy. This, he intimates, is the explanation of the repressive measures in which the country-gentlemen had supported Pitt. The people had fancied that by destroying government they would make bread cheap; government was forced to be tyrannical in order to resist revolution; while its supporters were led to "give up some of the most valuable privileges of Englishmen."[271] It is then of vital importance to settle what is and what is not to be set down to government. Malthus, in fact, holds that the real evils are due to underlying causes which cannot be directly removed, though they may be diminished or increased, by legislators. Government can do something by giving security to property, and by making laws which will raise the self-respect of the lower cla.s.ses. But the effect of such laws must be slow and gradual; and the error which has most contributed to that delay in the progress of freedom, which is "so disheartening to every liberal mind,"[272] is the confusion as to the true causes of misery. Thus, as he has already urged, professed economists could still believe, so long after the publication of Adam Smith"s work, that it was "in the power of the justices of the peace or even of the omnipotence of parliament to alter by a _fiat_ the whole circ.u.mstances of the country."[273] Yet men who saw the absurdity of trying to fix the price of provisions were ready to propose to fix the rate of wages. They did not see that one term of the proportion implied the other. Malthus"s whole criticism of the poor-law, already noticed, is a commentary upon this text. It is connected with a general theory of human nature. The author of nature, he says, has wisely made "the pa.s.sion of self-love beyond expression stronger than the pa.s.sion of benevolence."[274] He means, as he explains, that every man has to pursue his own welfare and that of his family as his primary object. Benevolence, of course, is the "source of our purest and most refined pleasures," and so forth; but it should come in as a supplement to self-love. Therefore we must never admit that men have a strict right to relief. That is to injure the very essential social force. "Hard as it may seem in individual instances, dependent poverty ought to be held disgraceful."[275] The spirit of independence or self-help is the one thing necessary. "The desire of bettering our condition and the fear of making it worse, like the _vis medicatrix_ in physics, is the _vis medicatrix naturae_ in politics, and is continually counteracting the disorders arising from narrow human inst.i.tutions."[276] It is only because the poor-laws have not quite destroyed it, that they have not quite ruined the country. The pith of Malthus"s teaching is fairly expressed in his last letter to Senior.[277] He holds that the improvement in the condition of the great ma.s.s of the labouring cla.s.ses should be considered as the main interest of society. To improve their condition, it is essential to impress them with the conviction that they can do much more for themselves than others can do for them, and that the _only_ source of permanent improvement is the improvement of their moral and religious habits. What government can do, therefore, is to maintain such inst.i.tutions as may strengthen the _vis medicatrix_, or "desire to better our condition," which poor-laws had directly tended to weaken. He maintains in his letter to Senior, that this desire is "perfectly feeble" compared with the tendency of the population to increase, and operates in a very slight degree upon the great ma.s.s of the labouring cla.s.s.[278] Still, he holds that on the whole the "preventive checks" have become stronger relatively to the positive,[279] and, at any rate, all proposals must be judged by their tendency to strengthen the preventive.
Malthus was not a thoroughgoing supporter of the "do-nothing"
doctrine. He approved of a national system of education, and of the early factory acts, though only as applied to infant labour. So, as we shall see, did all the Utilitarians. The "individualism," however, is not less decided; and leads him to speak as though the elasticity of population were not merely an essential factor in the social problem, but the sole principle from which all solutions must be deduced. He is thus led, as I have tried to show, to a narrow interpretation of his "moral check." He is apt to take "vice" simply as a product of excessive pressure, and, in his general phrases at least, to overlook its reciprocal tendency to cause pressure. The "moral check" is only preventive or negative, not a positive cause of superior vigour. A similar defect appears in his theory of the _vis medicatrix_. He was, I hold, perfectly right in emphasising the importance of individual responsibility. No reform can be permanent which does not raise the morality of the individual. His insistence upon this truth was of the highest importance, and it is to be wished that its importance might be more fully recognised to-day. The one-sidedness appears in his proposal to abolish the poor-law simply. That became the most conspicuous and widely accepted doctrine. All men of "sense," said Sydney Smith--certainly a qualified representative of the cla.s.s--in 1820, agree, first, that the poor-law must be abolished; and secondly, that it must be abolished very gradually.[280] That is really to a.s.sume that by refusing to help people at all, you will force them to help themselves. There is another alternative, namely, that they may, as Malthus himself often recognises, become demoralised by excessive poverty. To do simply nothing may lead to degeneration instead of increased energy. The possibility of an improved law, which might act as a moral discipline instead of a simply corrupting agency, is simply left out of account; and the tendency to stimulate reckless population is regarded not only as one probable consequence, but as the very essence of all poor-laws. Upon Malthus"s a.s.sumptions, the statement that sound political and social theories must be based upon systematic inquiry into facts, meant that the individual was the ultimate unalterable unit, whose interest in his own welfare gave the one fulcrum for all possible changes. The ideal "state of nature" was a fiction. The true basis of our inquiries is the actual man known to us by observation. The main fault of this being was the excess of the instinct of multiplication, and the way to improve him was to show how it might conflict with the instinct of self-preservation. In this shape the doctrine expressed the most characteristic tendency of the Utilitarians, and divided them from the Socialists or believers in abstract rights of man.
VI. RENT
Here, then, we are at a central point of the Utilitarian creed. The expansive force of population is, in a sense, the great motive power which moulds the whole social structure; or, rather, it forces together the independent units, and welds them into an aggregate. The influence of this doctrine upon other economical speculations is of the highest importance. One critical stage in the process is marked by the enunciation of the theory of rent, which was to become another essential article of the true faith. The introduction of this doctrine is characteristic, and marks the point at which Ricardo superseded Malthus as chief expositor of the doctrine.
Malthus"s views were first fully given in his _Inquiry into Rent_, the second of three pamphlets which he published during the corn-law controversy of 1814-15.[281] The opinions now stated had, he says, been formed in the course of his lecturing at Haileybury; and he made them public on account of their bearing upon the most absorbing questions of the time. The connection of the theory with Malthus"s speculations and with the contemporary difficulties is indeed obvious.
The landlord had clearly one of the reserved seats at the banquet of nature. He was the most obvious embodiment of "security" as opposed to equality. Malthus, again, had been influenced by the French economists and their theory of the "surplus fund," provided by agriculture.
According to them, as he says,[282] this fund or rent const.i.tutes the whole national wealth. In his first edition he had defended the economists against some of Adam Smith"s criticisms; and though he altered his views and thought that they had been led into preposterous errors, he retained a certain sympathy for them. Agriculture has still a certain "pre-eminence." G.o.d has bestowed upon the soil the "inestimable quality of being able to maintain more persons than are necessary to work it."[283] It has the special virtue that the supply of necessaries generates the demand. Make more luxuries and the price may fall; but grow more food and there will be more people to eat it.
This, however, seems to be only another way of stating an unpleasant fact. The blessing of "fertility" counteracts itself. As he argues in the essay,[284] an equal division of land might produce such an increase of population as would exhaust any conceivable increase of food. These views--not, I think, very clear or consistently worked out--lead apparently to the conclusion that the fertility is indeed a blessing, but on condition of being confined to a few. The result, in any case, is the orthodox theory of rent. The labourer gets less than he would if the products of the soil were equally distributed. Both wages and profits must fall as more is left to rent, and that this actually happens, he says, with unusual positiveness, is an "incontrovertible truth."[285] The fall enables the less fertile land to be cultivated, and gives an excess of produce on the more fertile.
"This excess is rent."[286] He proceeds to expound his doctrine by comparing land to a set of machines for making corn.[287] If, in manufacture, a new machine is introduced every one adopts it. In agriculture the worst machines have still to be used; and those who have the best and sell at the same price, can appropriate the surplus advantage. This, he declares, is a law "as invariable as the action of the principle of gravity."[288] Yet Smith and others have overlooked a "principle of the highest importance"[289] and have failed to see that the price of corn, as of other things, must conform to the cost of production. The same doctrine was expounded in the same year by Sir Edward West;[290] and, as it seems to me, more clearly and simply.
West, like Malthus, says that he has to announce a principle overlooked by Adam Smith. This is briefly that "each equal additional quant.i.ty of work bestowed on agriculture yields an actually diminished return." He holds that profits fall as wealth increases, but he denies Adam Smith"s view that this is a simple result of increased compet.i.tion.[291] Compet.i.tion would equalise, but would not lower profits, for "the productive powers of manufactures are constantly increasing." In agriculture the law is the opposite one of diminishing returns. Hence the admitted fall of profits shows that the necessity of taking inferior soils into cultivation is the true cause of the fall.
Such coincidences as that between Malthus and West are common enough, for very obvious reasons. In this case, I think, there is less room for surprise than usual. The writer generally credited with the discovery of the rent doctrine is James Anderson, who had stated it as early as 1777.[292] The statement, however, did not attract attention until at the time of West and Malthus it was forced upon observers by the most conspicuous facts of the day. Adam Smith and other economists had, as Malthus notices, observed what is obvious enough, that rent in some way represented a "net produce"--a something which remained after paying the costs of production. So much was obvious to any common-sense observer. In a curious paper of December 1804,[293] Cobbett points out that the landlords will always keep the profits of farmers down to the average rate of equally agreeable businesses. This granted, it is a short though important step to the theory of rent. The English system had, in fact, spontaneously a.n.a.lysed the problem. The landlord, farmer, and labourer represented the three interests which might elsewhere be combined. Prices raised by war and famine had led to the enclosure of wastes and the breaking up of pastures. The "margin of cultivation" was thus ill.u.s.trated by facts. Farmers were complaining that they could not make a profit if prices were lowered. The landed cla.s.ses were profiting by a rise of price raised, according to a familiar law, in greater proportion than the deficiency of the harvest. Facts of this kind were, one must suppose, familiar to every land-agent; and to discover the law of rent, it was only necessary for Malthus and West to put them in their natural order. The egg had only to be put on its end, though that, as we know, is often a difficult task. When the feat was accomplished consequences followed which were fully developed by Ricardo.
FOOTNOTES:
[203] Mr. James Bonar"s _Malthus and his Work_ (1885) gives an admirable account of Malthus. The chief original authorities are a life by Bishop Otter, prefixed to a second edition of the _Political Economy_ (1831), and an article by Empson, Malthus"s colleague, in the _Edinburgh Review_ for January 1837.
[204] _Political Justice_ (3rd edition, 1798), ii. bk. viii. chap.
ix., p. 514.
[205] Wallace wrote in answer to Hume, _A Dissertation on the Numbers of Mankind in Ancient and Modern Times_ (1753), and _Various Prospects of Mankind_, and _Nature and Providence_ (1761). G.o.dwin refers to the last.
[206] _Political Justice_, ii. 520.
[207] _Ibid._ ii. 528.
[208] First published in 1795, after the first edition, as G.o.dwin remarks, of the _Political Justice_.
[209] _Ami des hommes_ (reprint of 1883), p. 15.
[210] _Ami des hommes_, p. 26.
[211] See the curious debate in _Parl. Hist._ xiv. 1318-1365.
[212] The seventh edition of Price"s _Observations on Reversionary Payments_, etc. (1812), contains a correspondence with Pitt (i. 216, etc.). The editor, W. Morgan, accuses Pitt of adopting Price"s plans without due acknowledgment and afterwards spoiling them.
[213] _Essay on Population_, p. 18. In _Observations_, ii. 141, he estimates the diminution at a million and a half. Other books referring to the same controversy are Howlett"s _Examination of Dr.
Price"s Essay_ (1781); _Letter to Lord Carlisle_, by William Eden (1744-1814), first Lord Auckland; William Wales"s _Enquiry into Present State of Population_, etc. (1781); and Geo. Chalmers"s _Estimate of the Comparative Strength of Great Britain_ (1782 and several later editions).
[214] _Essay_ (first edition), p. 339.
[215] _Memoirs_, etc. (1819), ii. 10.