maxims into their own governments, as "far as they are adapted to their particular "circumstances, and will give no occasion "to dangerous convulsions. But this is all "that can be expected. Though such in"genious romances should chance to be "read and admired, jealous and selfish poli"ticians need not be alarmed. Such states66 men need not fear that ever such airy systems shall be able to destroy their craft, or disappoint them of their intention to "sacrifice the interest of mankind to their "own avarice or ambition. There is too powerful a charm which works secretly in "favour of such politicians, which will for "1 ever defeat all attempts to establish a per"fect government. There is no need of "miracles for this purpose. The vices of mankind are sufficient; and we need not << doubt but Providence will make use of "them, for preventing the establishment of governments which are by no means suit"able to the present circumstances of the "earth *.". Various Prospects of Mankind, Nature, and Providence, chap. 4, 113.

--Here then, Sir, is the very same argument brought to bear in the most direct and

* A different spirit breathes through this chapter from that of the Essay; the spirit of a gentleman, a philosopher, and a philanthropist. Mr. Malthus, indeed sometimes limps after his model, and cunts liberality in the true whine of hypocrisy.

pointed manner on the very same subject ; the same principle stated, and the same consequences deduced from it. It often happens that one man states a particular principle, and that another draws an important in ference from it, which the first was not at al aware of. But it cannot be pretended that this is the case by the present instance. The fact and the inference are both given as fully, as precisely, and explicitly in Wallace as they can be given in any one, as far as general reasoning will go. "So does this anticipation prevent Mr. Malthus's discovery," for, it happens that Wallace's book was published in 1761. As to the details contained in the Essay, I leave them to the connoisseurs. As to the ground-work, it appears to have been completely pre-occupied. Mr. M. has just about the same pretensions to origi nality in the business, as any one would have who repeated Mr. M.'s arguments after him, and did it in words a little different from his own. "Oh! but," I hear some one cry out, "the geometrical and arithmetical ratios! Has Wallace said any thing about them? Did he find them out?" Why really I do not know whether after having brought his principle to light, he christened it himself, I cannot ce ermite. It seems to me sufficient for him to have said, that let the one ratio increase as fast as it would, the other, would increase much faster, as this is all that is practically meant by a geometrical and arithmetical ratio. But, I should have no objection to let Mr. M. have the honour of standing godfather to another's bantling (and Mr. Shandy was of opinion that it was a matter of as great importance to hit upon a lucky name for a child as to beget 'ir) but that the technical phrase he has employed as a convenient short-hand method of explaining the subject in reality applies only to one half of it. The gradual increase applies only to the degree of coltivation of the earth, not to the quantity. These two things are palpably distinct. It does not begin to take place till the whole surface of the earth has been cultivated to a certain degree, or only with respect to those parts of it which have been

:

† As far as I understand the nature of an arithmetical and geometrical series, I do not apprehend that Mr. M. could make good their strict application to the subject. An arithmetical series is where any number or quantity is increased by the perpetual addition of the same given sum or quantity. But how does Mr, M. know that this is true of the cultivation of the land, or that much more rapid strides may not be made at one time than at another.

cultivated. It is evident that while most of the soil remained wholly unoccupied and uncultivated, (which must have been the case for many ages after these two principles began to operate, and is still the case in many countries) the power of increase in the productions of the earth, and consequently, in the support of population would be exactly in proportion to the population itself, for there would be nothing more necessary in order to the earth's maintaining its inhabitauts, than that there should be inhabitants enough to till the earth. In this case, the cultivation of the earth would be limited by the population, not the population by the state of the cultivation. Where there was no want of room, and a power of transporting themselves from place to place, which there would naturally be in great continents, and in gradually increasing colonies, there could be no want of subsistence. All that would be wanted would be power to raise or gather the fruits which the earth had in store, which as long as men were born with hands they would be always able to do. If a certain extent of ground easily maintained a certain number of inhabitants, they would only have to spread themselves over double the surface to maintain double the number. The difficulty is not in making more land maintain more men, but in making the same spot of ground maintain a greater number than it did before. Thus Noah might have taken possession of the three contiguous quarters of the globe for himself and his three sons; and, if they instead of having three sons had had each of them three hundred, there would, I believe, have been no danger of their starving, but the contrary, from the rapid increase of population. What I mean to shew is, that it is not true as a general principle that the increase of population and the increase in the means of subsistence are necessarily disproportionate to each other, that the one is in a geometrical, the other is in an arithmetical ratio; but, that in a particular and very important view of the subject, the extent of population is only limited by the extent of the earth, and that the increase of the means of subsistence will be in proportion to the greater extent of surface occupied, which may be enlarged as fast as there are numbers to occupy it. I have been thus particular, because mathematical terms carry with them an imposing air of accuracy and profundity, and ought, therefore, to be applied strictly, and with the greatest caution, or not at all. I should say, therefore, that looking at the subject in a general and philosophical point of view, I o not think that the expression of an arith

metical and geometrical series applie : for, with respect to the extent of ground occupied, which is one thing on which population depends, and in the first instance always, this might evidently be increased in any ratio whatever, that the increase of population would admit, until the earth was entirely occupied; and after that there would be no room either for a geometrical or arithmetical progression; it would be at an absolute stand. The distinction is therefore confined to the degree of art and diligence used in the cultivation of those parts which have been already occupied. This has no doubt gone on at a very slow kind of snail's pace from the very first, and will I dare say continue to do so; or to adopt Wallace's distinction, the increase of popula tion is either not restricted at all by the "limited nature of the earth," or it is limited absolutely by it: it is only kept back indefinitely by the "limited fertility" of the earth; and it cannot be said to be kept back necessarily by this, while there are vast tracts of habitable land left untouched. Till there is no more room, and no more food to be procured without extreme exertion and contrivance, the arithmetical and geometrical ratios do not naturally begin to operate; and the gradual increase that might take place after that period, is not in my opinion (who am no great speculator) of sufficient importance to deserve a pompous appellation. I would, therefore, rather stop there, because it will simplify the question. Till the world is full, or at least till every country is full, that is, maintains as many inhabitants as the soil will admit, namely, till it can be proved satisfactorily that it might not by taking proper methods be made to maintain double the number that it does, the increase of mankind is not necessarily checked by the "limited extent of the earth," nor by its limited fertility," but by other causes. Till then population must be said to be kept down, not by the physical constitution of nature, but by the will of man. Till then, Mr. Malthus has no right to set up his arithmetical and geometrical ratios upon the face of the earth, and say they are the work of nature. You, Sir, will not be at a loss to per ceive the fallacy which lurks under the gloss which Mr. M. has here added to Wallace's text. His readers looking at his mathematical scale will be apt to suppose, that population is a naturally growing and necessary evil; that it is always encroaching on and straitening the means of existence, and doing more harm than good: that its pernicious effects are at all times and in all places equally necessary and unavoidable; that it is at

If

not the twentieth part of our population. the church is at all in danger, it is as the Bishop of Norwich very sensibly observed in his late charge to his clergy, from the rapid increase of methodism, which if it goes on, inust, as he says, soon render a church establishment useless.-But in Ireland the case is far different. There, without arguing whether the proportion of Catholics to Protestants is as four or as three to one, it is sufficient for rational argument, to take what is universally admitted to be true, that the excess of population is on the Catholic side, while the weight of landed property is with the Protestants. But, here again, we must consider what the Protestants are. Not members of the established church. The great majority are presbyterians, descendants of the first Scotch settlers in Ireland, and of Cromwell's officers and soldiers. I think, therefore, I am accurate, when I say, that not more than one tenth part of the whole population in Ireland are members of the established church. Admitting these facts to be true, does it not appear a monstrous absurdity, that at this day nine-tenths of the population of a kingdom should be precluded by law from serving his Majesty in any effices civil and military, to which he may be pleased to appoint them, for without his permission they cannot serve him at all. But, if it be true that a Catholic cannot be a loyal subject to a Protestant king, which every man of common sense must deny, how comes it, that in the present reign almost every restriction under which the Catholics laboured, has been done away? It is a case where there can, in my humble opinion, be no medium. Either the Catholics were unfit to be trusted, and no restrictive law ought to have been repealed, which is an argument I have heard from some old Irish members, as they are fit to be trusted, and should be eligible to all offices. Such was the opinion of Mr. Pitt, Mr. Fox, and Lord Cornwallis while they were living, and such is the opi nion of Lords Grenville and Howick, and of some of the members of the present cabinet.--This is a question however, on which his Majesty has an undoubted right to have an opinion; and if he is not inclined to remove the very few restrictions that are unrepealed, the business must remain in its present state. This it may do, but the abuse bestowed on the Catholics may be spared. It is as impolitic as it is unjust.-I am one of those who think with you, that nothing can be more absurd, than an attachment to a Pope, an old man living beyond the Alps, and a creature of Buonaparte's. Put, what mischief can such an attachment do in these days? What

mischief did it ever do, since the period of the reformation. In the reign of Elizabeth, Philip the Second compelled the Pope much against his inclination to promulgate a bull of excommunication against her, and enjoining her subjects to withdraw their allegiance from her. What was the consequence of this act of imbecile folly? It united the whole body of the Catholics in her favour, and when Philip sent forth his Armada, both her fleets and her armies were served by Catholic officers, soldiers, and sailors, who flocked to her standard, were graciously received, and their services publicly acknowledged. Can any man believe that Buonaparté would not long ago have ordered the Pope to issue a bull against his Majesty, if he did not know that so mad a measure would destroy any hopes he may entertain of future success in Ireland.-You very truly say, that the Test Laws are already virtually repealed, by the bill which passes annually, freeing those from 1enalties, who infringe them; and, therefore, as applied to the army and navy, Lord Howick's bill was useless. Indeed, the agitation of any question in favour of the Catholics short of complete emancipation could do no service.-But, Mr. Cobbett, though I see a complete change in Catholics, though I am convinced that if left to enjoy their own religion in peace, they have no longer a wish to make converts, and the solitary instances alluded to by your cor respondent Anti-Catholicus, is of no conse quence, yet the rage for making converts is taken up with more zeal by another sect or religionists, than it ever was by Roman Ca tholics. I mean by the followers of Whitfield and Wesley, who claim to themselves the merit of being the orthodox members of the church of England, and who declare that they are governed by her articles and homilies, These are the men from whom the church and the state have great danger to apprehend: what is the influence which the priests in Ireland have over the common people, compared to the influence of the field preachers of the Whitfield and Wesley schools. How many of this description, under the name of Gospel Ministers, to distinguish them from other clergymen, have got considerable church preferment. Nor are their efforts confined to this country. They have bible societies, and their missionaries are spread over the face of the globe. Our empire in India was convulsed to its centre last July, and we do not yet know that the danger is over. I allude to the alarmin mutiny at Vellore, which, though it broks out owing to a very impolitic order, 12ften. verting a turban into something li

kat,