Another American writer,Mr Henry George,has recently argued that Malthus was wrong and Godwin right,that poverty is due to human injustice,to an unequal distribution of wealth,the result of private property in land,and not to Malthus's law of the increase of population or to the law of diminishing returns,both of which he altogether rejects.With regard to the latter he urges with truth that in certain communities,for instance California,where the law of diminishing returns evidently does not come into operation,the same phenomenon of pauperism appears.Now against Mr George it can be proved by facts that there are cases where his contention is not true.It is noticeable that he makes no reference to France,Norway,and Switzerland-all countries of peasant proprietors,and where consequently the land is not monopolised by a few.But it is certain that in all these countries,at any rate in the present state of agricultural knowledge and skill,the law of diminishing returns does obtain;and it is useless to argue that in these cases it is the injustice of man,and not the niggardliness of nature,that is the cause of poverty,and necessitates baneful checks on population.Still I admit that Mr George's argument is partially true-a large portion of pauperism and misery is really attributable to bad government and injustice;but this does not touch the main issue,or disprove the law of diminishing returns.
To return to Malthus's first proposition.The phrase that 'population tends to outstrip the means of subsistence'is vague and ambiguous.It may mean that population,if unchecked,would outstrip the means of subsistence;or it may mean that population does increase faster than the means of subsistence.It is quite clear that,in its second sense,it is not true of England at the present day.The average quantity of food consumed per head is yearly greater;and capital increases more than twice as fast as population.But the earlier writers on population invariably use the phrase in the latter sense,and apply it to the England of their time.At the present day it can only be true in this latter sense of a very few countries.It has been said to be true in the case of India,but even there the assertion can only apply to certain districts.Mr George,however,is not content to refute Malthus's proposition in this sense;he denies it altogether,denies the statement in the sense that population,if unchecked,would outstrip the means of subsistence,and lays down as a general law that there need be no fear of over-population if wealth were justly distributed.The experience of countries like Norway and Switzerland,however,where over-population does exist,although the distribution of wealth is tolerably even,shows that this doctrine is not universally true.Another criticism of Mr George's,however,is certainly good,as far as it goes.Malthus's proposition was supposed to be strengthened by Darwin's theory,and Darwin himself says that it was the study of Malthus's book which suggested it to him;but Mr George rightly objects to the analogy between man and animals and plants.It is true that animals,in their struggle for existence,have a strictly limited amount of subsistence,but man can,by his ingenuity and energy,enormously increase his supply.The objection is valid,though it can hardly be said to touch the main issue.
I have spoken of the rapid growth of population in the period we are studying.We have to consider how Malthus accounted for it,and how far his explanation is satisfactory,as well as what practical conclusions he came to.In the rural districts he thought the excessive increase was the consequence of the bad administration of the Poor Laws,and of the premium which they put on early marriages.This was true,but not the whole truth;there are other points to be taken into account.In the old days the younger labourers boarded in the farmhouses,and were of course single men;no man could marry till there was a cottage vacant,and it was the policy of the landlords in the 'close villages'to destroy cottages,in order to lessen the rates.But now the farmers had risen in social position and refused to board the labourers in their houses.The ejected labourers,encouraged by the allowance system,married recklessly,and though some emigrated into the towns,a great evil arose.The rural population kept increasing while the cottage accommodation as steadily diminished,and terrible overcrowding was the result.
Owing to the recklessness and demoralisation of the labourer the lack of cottages no longer operated as any check on population.
The change in the social habits of the farmers had thus a considerable effect on the increase of rural population and tended to aggravate the effects of the allowance system.
In the towns the greatest stimulus came from the extension of trade due to the introduction of machinery.The artisan's horizon became indistinct;there was no visible limit to subsistence.In a country like Norway,with a stationary society built up of small local units,the labourer knows exactly what openings for employment there are in his community;and it is well known that the Norwegian peasant hesitates about marriage till he is sure of a position which will enable him to support a family.But in a great town,among 'the unavoidable variations of manufacturing labour,'all these definite limits were removed.The artisan could always hope that the growth of industry would afford employment for any number of children-an expectation which the enormously rapid growth of the woollen and cotton manufactures justified to a large extent.And the great demand for children's labour in towns increased a man's income in proportion to the number of his family,just as the allowance system did in the country.
