As this, taken in conjunction with the proposition last quoted, forms the very basis of Mr. Everett's theory, and the exact point of difference between him and Malthus, we regret extremely that he has not thought proper to explain himself a little more at large. We have already hinted at the most prominent difficulties of the first proposition, and we now proceed to a free discussion of the second.

In a pin manufactory, each workman is able to produce about two hundred and forty times the number of pins which he could do, if alone; a prodigious increase of productiveness, but still far short of a thousand fold. As far as we know, there is no article in which a division of labour, or the productiveness of labour has been pushed to equal extent; in many departments of industry the productiveness of labour has not been increased at all, or at farthest, not doubled. In agriculture, it does not appear that a farther division of labour would be attended with any advantage. One man cannot devote all his time to ploughing, or sowing, or any other single department. The same may be said of maritime commerce. But why multiply instances? Test the above proposition by facts, and we cannot see how it is to be supported. The products of labour are divided in certain proportions between the labourer himself, the capitalist, the land owner, and the government. As it would be difficulty to assign their real proportions to each, we will suppose the three first united in one individual, for example, a farmer. The government of England certainly does not now exact, in taxes, a sum equal to the gross revenue of that country in 1700. But admit that it does, then if Mr. Everett's lowest estimate be correct, the revenue arising from the farm, which, in 1700, yielded one thousand pounds sterling, must in 1800, yield nine thousand pounds, exclusive of the taxes; and to pursue the subject a step farther, will yield, in 1900, ninety thousand pounds sterling, yearly income. This estimate is certainly far too high. An inquiry into the real state of Great Britain will show that the whole population are somewhat better clothed and fed than they were a century ago; and being doubled in numbers, the true conclusion appears to be, that production is rather more than doubled, owing to the causes assigned by Mr. Everett. But, after admitting this, we do not feel parpared to go farther, and say the same causes will continue to operate forever. On the contrary, it really appears to us that there is but little prospect of the productiveness of labour being again doubled, in a long course of time; division of labour seems nearly arrived at its ultimatum; and any material in

crease of production of natural agents, is a subject rather of hope than of expectation. Regarding Mr. Everett's theory in the only point of view which we can do, namely, that an increase of population, though followed by a certain increased demand, does not of itself furnish a proportionately increased supply; and as the increasing productiveness of labour does not appear sufficient to supply the deficiency, we are reluctantly driven back to the belief that the increase of population is limited by the causes assigned by Mr. Malthus.

In page 46, Mr. Everett says, that Mr. Malthus maintains that the inhabitants of a given tract of territory' must necessarily subsist upon the direct products of the soil they occupy. We do not recollect in what part of his essay Mr. Malthus makes the above remark, but as his work extends over eleven hundred octavo pages, it may possibly have escaped us. We think Mr. Everett's ridicule is misplaced on this occasion; the most that can be said is that Mr. Malthus has been guilty of an inaccuracy in the use of terms, as every one must know that he never could maintain that blacksmiths actually eat horse shoes, or cutlers' knife blades. His meaning is evidently that the amount of consumption, on a given territory, must be limited to the sum of its products. A blacksmith lives upon the products of his industry, as much as a farmer; aye, and as directly too.

We regret that our limits absolutely compel us to omit many things which we wished to notice. For example, the charge against Malthus that his system justifies infanticide and other crimes, ought to be repelled. We cannot help thinking, that a cool and candid reflection could never have drawn such conclusions; and we are confident, that Mr. Everett, on a reperusal of Malthus' Essay, will acknowledge his error. We must, however, extend this article so far as to notice what appears to us some further objectionable views of Mr. Everett's, as connected with the subject under discussion. This gentleman appears to maintain, that those principles, which go to forbid the general indulgence of natural appetites must, of necessity, be founded in error. "The instinct of love," he remarks, "is the natural motive to marriage. As it is given to every individual, it is evidently the intention of nature that all should marry: and as it is stronger at an early period of life, than at any other, it is equally evident that youth was the time intended by nature for the gratification of this instinct in marriage. As a general rule, therefore, the order of nature has provided that all should marry young; and the accomplishment of this, as of

every other law of nature, must tend to promote the general good, at the same time it advances the happiness of individu als." P. 100.

Now, it does appear to us that the general indications of reason, are as much to be regarded in this question as the general indications of instinct; nor can we agree with Mr. Everett that there are only two forms in which the same common law of nature declares itself." The considerations which deter us from marriage, as soon as we are capable of executing its offices, are either the dictates of reason or the suggestions of instinct. Suppose that they are dictates of reason. Then according to our author's opinion, they are equally in fact the suggestions of instinct. Here, it is plain, we have instincts which oppose, as well as instincts that urge early marriages; so that while nature, on the one hand, by the early formation of procreative powers and desires, indicates the propriety of mar riages in youth, the same nature, on the other hand, by subjecting early marriages to the consequences of moral and corporeal suffering, forbids by one instinct, or faculty, what she urges by another. Now we ask Mr. Everett, why we are not to obey the reasons which every man perceives as deterring him from indiscreet matrimony, viz. the apprehension of some fu ture inability to support an ordinary family, and the suffering which such inability threatens to create. These apprehensions, we maintain, thus dictated by reason, are a part of nature's general plan. They are motives, though not, in our opinion, instinctive, yet immediately, easily and uniformly presenting themselves to the mind of every individual not absolutely reckless of the future contingencies of life. This result will be equally brought about, whether we adopt the coincidence of rational and instinctive suggestions or not; and the fact is, that the real intention of nature seems to be, that man shall do that which harmonises most with the compounded indication, which results from the assemblage of all of her impulses. This, Mr. Malthus maintains to be, marriage, as soon as the means of supporting the anticipated family are secured, and not until then. It is true, that at first sight, in this point of view, nature appears to have created, to no purpose, early physical capaci ties. But reflection shows that these powers and desires are by no means inoperative because marriage is not the immediate result. The desire produces, by interposing a powerful incentive to industry, a very salutary influence, long before the power, though existing, has an oppor tunity to be called into exercise, and this appears to us,

to be precisely the fulfilment of the design, for the accomplishment of which, the apparently inconsistent suggestions of propensities, seem to be contrived. In page 99, Mr. E. himself says, "it is an immoral act for a man to marry without a reasonable prospect of being able to support a family." Now, this is precisely what Mr. Malthus insists on. He certainly never said that it was an immoral act for a man to marry who could maintain his family; and if we look no farther, we should say that the parties are agreed. But Mr. Everett likewise says, "On the system of Mr. Malthus, the poor* in addition to their other inconveniences, are required to sacrifice the comforts of domestic life to the general good; and the rich are invested, beside all their other advantages, with a monopoly of love and marriage. Such a plan is neither just nor safe; and the privations and sufferings imposed upon communities by common necessities, should be shared by all alike." Laying Malthus aside, for the present, we would inquire, with deference, what Mr. Everett's opinion on the subject really is. We confess we are at a loss to discover; for by the above extract, it would seem that he thinks the poor are equally at liberty to marry with the rich. It is admitted on all hands that the rich may marry whenever they choose; therefore, says Mr. E., the poor also may marry, whenever they choose; being as much entitled to do so as the rich. But this conclusion is totally at variance with the assertion, "that it is an immoral act for a man to marry without a reasonable prospect of being able to support a family." And this again is brouillé with the extract from page 100; so that, however much we might be inclined to adopt Mr. Everett's ideas, it is totally out of our power, as long as we cannot discover what they are. In page 101, it is stated, that Mr. Malthus recommends legislative interference on this subject. It is presumed that this is an error. In no part of his essay can we find any thing which, by the most remote inference, can be construed into a recommendation to so gross a violation of all natural right; on the contrary, speaking of the sufferings of the poor from want, he says, "The means of redress are in their own hands, and in the hands of no other persons whatever; the society in which they live, and the government which presides over it, are without any direct power in this respect; and however ardently they may desire to relieve them, and whatever attempts they may make to do so, are really and truly unable to execute what

*The terms, rich and poor, are relative; the first signifies the ability to support a family, and the second the inability to do so.

Vol. II. No. I.

5

they benevolently wish, but unjustly promise." Can it be, that after saying, government cannot possibly relieve the poor, he would turn round, and advise the same government to pass laws for their relief?

That department of the work devoted to a discussion of the policy and justice of a public provision for the poor must pass, for the present, unnoticed. We shall discuss the question more at large at a future period, when Mr. Everett's views will be taken into consideration.

One extract more, and we shall close our remarks.

"The wages of labour are its products. Hence if labour becomes more productive, as population increases on a given territory, the natural consequence would be, that the wages of labour must rise in proportion." p. 111.

We have two motives for noticing this paragraph, the first is, to revenge ourselves on Mr. Everett, for his verbal criticism on Malthus's "direct products ;" and the second is to point out what to us appears the errors of the proposition generally.

Wages may be defined to be the recompense paid by the employer to the workman for his labour; and as no man would employ workmen if he did not expect to make a profit by them, it follows that the workmen can never get all the products of their labour, because it is shared by their employer: therefore, it is inaccurate to say, "The wages of labor are its products." This proposition, when stated properly, resolves itself into the following truism: If the labourer received the whole produce of his labour, then, as labour becomes more productive, he would receive more, &c.

We have always thought that the rate of wages is determined by the supply of labour, compared with the demand; and we still think, notwithstanding Mr. Everett's very ingenious and elegant chapter on the subject, that our rule applies exactly to all the cases mentioned. Agreeably to our theory, the degree of productiveness of labour does not affect wages at all; they being regulated by the principle just stated. It is true enough, that if the labourer enjoyed the whole fruits of his labour, every increase of productiveness would directly benefit him either by enabling him to procure the same comforts with less labour, or more comforts with the same labour. But such is not the order of things, for the employer and the landholder must be paid out of this fund. The competition between the labourers tends to` reduce the price of wages, and similar competition between the employers, on the other hand, tends to raise it. This rival competition is the only circumstance which determines