Malthus had undoubtedly the great merit of having called public attention in a striking and impressive way to a subject whichhad neither theoretically nor practically been sufficiently considered.But he and his followers appear to have greatlyexaggerated both the magnitude and the urgency of the dangers to which they pointed.(39)In their conceptions a single socialimperfection assumed such portentous dimensions than it seemed to overcloud the whole heaven and threaten the worldwith ruin.This doubtless arose from his having at first omitted altogether from his view of the question the greatcounteracting agency of moral restraint.Because a force exists,capable,if unchecked,of producing certain results,it doesnot follow that those results are imminent or even possible in the sphere of experience.A body thrown from the hand would,under the single impulse of projection,move for ever in a straight line;but it would not be reasonable to take special actionfor the prevention of this result,ignoring the fact that it will be sufficiently counteracted by the other forces which will comeinto play.And such other forces exist in the case we are considering.If the inherent energy of the principle of population(supposed everywhere the same)is measured by the rate at which numbers increase under the most favourablecircumstances,surely the force of less favourable circumstances,acting through prudential or altruistic motives,is measuredby the great difference between this maximum rate and those which are observed to prevail in most European countries.
Under a rational system of institutions,the adaptation of numbers to the means available for their support is effected by thefelt or anticipated pressure of circumstances and the fear of social degradation,within a tolerable degree of approximation towhat is desirable.To bring the result nearer to the just standard,a higher measure of popular enlightenment and moreserious habits of moral reflection ought indeed to be encouraged.But it is the duty of the individual to his actual or possibleoffspring,and not any vague notions as to the pressure of the national population on subsistence,that will be adequate toinfluence conduct.
The only obligation on which Malthus insists is that of abstinence from marriage so long as the necessary provision for afamily has not been acquired or cannot be reasonably anticipated.The idea of post-nuptial continence,which has since beenput forward by J.S.Mill and others,is foreign to his view.He even suggests that an allowance might be made from thepubic funds for every child in a family beyond the number of six,on the ground that,when a man marries,he cannot tell howmany children he shall have,and that the reief from an unlooked-for distress afforded by such a grant would not operate asan encouragement to marriage.The duty of economic prudence in entering on the married state is plain;but in the case ofworking men the idea of a secured provision must not be unduly pressed,and it must also be remembered that the properage for marriage in any class depends on the duration of life in that class.Still,too early marriages are certainly notunfrequent,and they are attended with other than economic evils,so that possibly even legal measures might with advantagebe resorted to for preventing them in all ranks by somewhat postponing the age of full civil competence --a change,however,which would not be without its dangers.On the other hand,the Malthusians often speak too lightly of involuntarycelibacy,not recognising sufficiently that it is a deplorable necessity.They do not adequately estimate the value of domesticlife as a school of the civic virtues,and the social importance (even apart from personal happiness)of the mutual affectiveeducation arising from the relations of the sexes in a well-constituted union.
Malthus further infers from his principles that states should not artificially stimulate population,and in particular thatpoor-laws should not be established,and,where they exist,should be abolished.The first part of this proposition cannot beaccepted as applying to every social phase,for it is evident that in a case like that of ancient Rome,where continuousconquest was the chief occupation of the national activity,or in other periods when protracted wars threatened theindependence or security of nations,statesmen might wisely take special action of the kind deprecated by Malthus.Inrelation to modern industrial communities he is doubtless in general right,though the promotion of immigration in newstates is similar in principle to the encouragement of population The question of poor-laws involves other considerations.
