CHAPTER VIII.

Population proportioned to the Means of Subsistence—Moral Restraint—Capacity of the Principle of Population to repair the ravages of Plagues and Famines—Comparative Increase of Population in New and Old-settled Countries—Law of Increase a powerful Incentive to Industry—Promotes the Civilization and Happiness of Mankind—Practice of Infanticide—Foundling Hospitals.

The circumstances most favourable for the production of wealth being thus traced and exhibited, we shall now shortly investigate those that appear to determine the increase and diminution of man himself.

From the remotest period down to our own times, it was the policy of legislators to give an artificial stimulus to population, by encouraging early marriages, and bestowing rewards on those who brought up the greatest number of children.1 But the mischievous nature of such interferences was shown by Mr. Malthus. Though without any claim to the discovery of the tendency of population to keep up with, or outrun, the means of subsistence, he was the first to establish it by an extensive induction of facts, and to point out some of its more important effects. His researches made it manifest, that every Edition: current; Page: [166] increase in the numbers of a people, occasioned by artificial expedients, and which is not either preceded or accompanied by a corresponding increase of the means of subsistence, can be productive only of misery, or increased mortality; that the difficulty never is to bring human beings into the world, but to feed, clothe, and educate them when there; that mankind do everywhere increase their numbers, till their multiplication is restrained by the difficulty of providing subsistence, and the poverty of some part of the society; and that, instead of attempting to strengthen the principle of increase, we should rather endeavour to strengthen the principles by which it is controlled and regulated.

If the efforts most governments have made to increase population have not been positively pernicious, it is pretty evident that they have been, at least, uncalled-for and unnecessary. Man does not require any adventitious inducement to enter into matrimonial connexions. He is impelled to engage in them by one of the most powerful instincts implanted in his nature. Still, however, this instinct or passion is, in civilised communities, controlled in a greater or less degree by prudential considerations. To occasion a marriage, it is not always enough that the parties should be attached to each other. The obligation to provide for the children that may be expected to spring from it is one that cannot fail to awaken the forethought, and to influence the conduct, of all but the most improvident and thoughtless. If the situation of those who might be disposed to enter into a matrimonial alliance be such as to preclude all reasonable expectation of their being able to bring up and educate their children without exposing themselves to privations, or to the risk of being cast down to a lower place in society, they may, not improbably, either relinquish all thoughts of forming a union, or postpone it till a more convenient opportunity. No doubt, there are very many individuals in every country unaffected by such considerations, and who, seeing the future through the deceitful medium of the passions, are not deterred from gratifying their Edition: current; Page: [167] inclinations by any fear of the consequences. Others, however, are more prudent; and it is abundantly certain, that the greater number of persons in the higher stations of life, as well as of those who are peculiarly ambitious of rising in the world, and those of all ranks who have learned to look at the consequences of their actions, are invariably influenced, to some extent or other, by the circumstances alluded to. Hence, in civilised countries, the proportion of marriages to the population may be expected, on general grounds, to depend, in a considerable degree, on the facility of acquiring subsistence, or of bringing up a family: and experience shows that such is the case; for it is found, that where food and other accommodations are abundant, marriages are at once early and numerous, and conversely. “Partout,” says Montesquieu, “où il se trouve une place où deux personnes peuvent vivre commodément, il se fait un mariage. La nature y porte assez lorsqu’elle n’est point arrêtée par la difficulté de la subsistance.”1 The same principle has been laid down by Adam Smith:—“The demand for men,” says he, “like that for any other commodity, necessarily regulates the production of men, quickens it when it goes on too slowly, and stops it when it advances too fast. It is this demand which regulates and determines the state of population in all the different countries of the world—in North America, in Europe, and in China; which renders it rapidly progressive in the first, slow and gradual in the second, and altogether stationary in the last.”2 The most comprehensive observation confirms the truth of this statement. Those who inquire into the past and present state of the world will find that population is everywhere principally determined by the means of subsistence. When these have been increased, population has also been increased, or been better provided for; and when they have been diminished, the population has been worse provided for, or has sustained Edition: current; Page: [168] an actual diminution of numbers, or both results have followed.

But notwithstanding the influence of prudential considerations, or of the check to marriage from the fear of not being able to provide for a family, the principle of increase is so very strong, as not only to keep the population of the countries in which industry is most productive on a level with the means of subsistence, but to give it a tendency to exceed them. This arises partly and principally from the little attention paid by most individuals to whatever does not begin to be felt till some future and undefined period—a circumstance which, while it leads them to engage in improvident unions, hinders them from making adequate provision, even when they have the means, against sickness and old age; partly from the violence of the passions, occasionally subverting the resolutions of those who are most considerate; and partly from accident or misfortune disappointing the expectations of those who married with a reasonable prospect of being able to support themselves and their families. The number of the poor may be diminished, but it were vain to expect that they should ever entirely “cease out of the land.” Even in the countries that are making the most rapid advances, not a few of the inhabitants have to maintain a constant struggle with poverty, and are but insufficiently supplied with the articles indispensable for the support of a family. But when the natural tendency to increase is so very powerful, it is not easy to believe that the attempts to promote it by artificial stimuli can be otherwise than pernicious. Subsistence is the grand desideratum. If it be supplied in sufficient abundance, population may safely be left to take care of itself. Instead of there being the least risk of its falling below the means of subsistence, the danger is all on the other side. There are no limits to the prolific power of plants and animals. They are endued with a principle which impels them to increase their numbers beyond the nourishment prepared for them. The whole surface of the earth might be gradually covered with Edition: current; Page: [169] shoots derived from a single plant; and though it were destitute of all other inhabitants, it might, in a few ages, be replenished from a single nation, or even from a single pair.

“Throughout the animal and vegetable kingdoms,” says Malthus, “nature has scattered the seeds of life with a most profuse and liberal hand: but has been comparatively sparing in the room and nourishment necessary to rear them. The germs of existence contained in this earth, if they could freely develope themselves, would fill millions of worlds in the course of a few thousand years. Necessity, that imperious, all-pervading law of nature, restrains them within the prescribed bounds. The race of plants and the race of animals shrink under this great restrictive law, and man cannot by any efforts of reason escape from it.”1

Wars, plagues, and epidemics, those “terrible correctives,” as Dr. Short justly terms them, of the redundance of mankind, set the operation of the principle of population in a striking point of view. They lessen the number of the inhabitants, without, in most cases, proportionally lessening the capital that feeds and maintains them. And the increased command over subsistence that is acquired by the survivors, accelerates the period of marriage and the rate of increase. The Netherlands, which has been so often the seat of the most destructive wars, has, after a respite of a few years, always appeared as rich and populous as ever. Notwithstanding the massacres of the Revolution, and the sanguinary wars in which France was incessantly engaged for more than twenty years, her population was considerably augmented in the interval between the expulsion and the restoration of the Bourbons in 1815. The abolition of the restraints previously laid on internal commerce, of the feudal privileges of the nobles, and of many oppressive and unequal burdens, improved the condition and stimulated the industry of the people. The means of subsistence were thus considerably increased; at the same time that the continued drafts for the military service, by lessening Edition: current; Page: [170] the supply of labour in the market, and raising the rate of wages, gave such a spur to the principle of increase, that at the close of the war the population was supposed to be nearly three millions greater than in 1789; but, owing to the drafts referred to, this excess principally consisted of women, boys, and old men. The establishment of a tyrannical or vicious system of government, by paralysing industry and diminishing the supplies of food and other accommodations, necessarily occasions a corresponding diminution in the number of inhabitants. But an accidental calamity, such as a war or a pestilence, how afflicting soever to humanity, does not appear to exercise any lasting influence over population, though the void, occasioned by its occurrence, be not so rapidly filled up as some have imagined. It is not the plague, but the bigotry and oppressiveness of the government, and the want of security and freedom, that are the real causes of the depopulation of Turkey, Persia, and other Mohammedan countries.

The progress of population in countries with different capacities for providing food and other accommodations illustrates at once the operation of the law of increase, and the degree in which it is modified by changes of circumstances. In newly-settled countries, and especially in those which have a large extent of fertile and unoccupied land, population invariably increases with extraordinary rapidity. The settlers in such countries bring with them the arts practised in others comparatively advanced; and as they apply them to the culture of the best soils, they necessarily obtain a very large return. Each cultivator in such societies has a great deal more corn and other raw produce than he can consume, and as this produce is raised at a much less cost than in old settled countries, where inferior soils are cultivated, he is able to exchange part of it, with the greatest advantage, for the manufactured goods of the latter; so that the settlers rapidly increase in wealth, and have a proportionally great demand for labour. There is, consequently, in these countries every motive to form early marriages; while the comfortable situation of the parents enables them to bestow due attention on the rearing of Edition: current; Page: [171] their children, and lessens the mortality so destructive in the early period of life.

The truth of what has now been stated is proved by the rapid progress made by the Greek colonies in antiquity, which, in no long time, equalled, and in some cases far surpassed, their mother cities in population, power, and importance; and it is still more convincingly proved by the extraordinary progress of the colonies founded in modern times in America and Australia. The population of some of the states of North America has, after making every reasonable allowance for immigrants, continued for upwards of a century to double in every five-and-twenty or thirty years. And there seems little reason to doubt, had the food and other articles necessary for the accommodation of man been increased in a more rapid proportion, that population would have kept pace with their increase. But without entering upon any hypothetical reasonings as to what might have been the progress of population in the United States under other circumstances, it is seen that when the means of subsistence are supplied in sufficient abundance, the principle of increase is powerful enough to make population increase in a geometrical proportion, or in the ratio of the numbers 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, &c., the term of doubling being five-and-twenty or at most-thirty years.

But the principle, whose operation under favourable circumstances has thus developed itself, is, in the language of geometers, a constant quantity. The same power that has doubled the population of Kentucky, Illinois, and New South Wales in five-and-twenty or thirty years, exists everywhere, and is equally energetic in England, France, and Holland. Man, however, is not the mere unreasoning slave of instinct. The facility with which he can obtain supplies of food and other accommodations in the countries now referred to is widely different; and this difference has had a corresponding influence over the conduct of the bulk of their inhabitants. In densely-peopled countries, such as Britain, France, and Edition: current; Page: [172] Holland, the more fertile lands having been, long since, brought under tillage, recourse must now be had to those of inferior quality, requiring greater outlays to make them yield the same quantities of produce. The decrease in the fertility of the land may, no doubt, be, and indeed very frequently is, countervailed to a greater or less extent by the influence of improvements. And it is farther countervailed by importations from foreign countries. But despite the circumstances now referred to, the bulk of the people in old, settled, and densely-peopled countries labour under various disadvantages, compared with those in countries that are newly settled. The former have generally far more expensive establishments to support than are required in the latter, and are consequently subjected to a much heavier system of taxation; and though the prices of corn in fully occupied countries may not be much greater than in those that are newly settled, land itself, with its innumerable natural products, including the useful animals, and an endless variety of valuable and desirable articles, are all imcomparably cheaper in the latter than in the former. It is in truth impossible, do what you will, to increase the means of subsistence as fast in an old, as they may be increased in a new country or colony of nearly equal fertility. And this difference in the circumstances under which the people in each are placed, never fails to establish a corresponding difference in their habits; their numbers being found to increase proportionally to the facility with which they obtain supplies of food and other necessary accommodations. And the slower rate of increase which prevails where subsistence is most difficult to obtain, is not the result of an increase of mortality, but of a diminution of births. The prudential considerations, previously alluded to, gain new strength, and exhibit their powerful influence in a still more striking manner, according as the conditions under which a people is placed become less favourable for their multiplication. In Australia every industrious individual who has attained a marriageable age Edition: current; Page: [173] may enter into the matrimonial contract without fear of the consequences; the largest family being there an advantage rather than otherwise. But such is not the case here; nor will it be the case in Australia after she has become comparatively populous. And hence the different habits of our people; and the fact that marriages throughout Europe are mostly deferred to a later period than in newly-settled countries, and that a much larger proportion of the population find it expedient to pass their lives in a state of celibacy. And it is fortunate that such is the case, and that the good sense of the people, and their laudable desire to preserve their place in society, have made them control the violence of their passions. Man cannot increase beyond the means of subsistence provided for his support; and it is obvious, that if the tendency to multiplication in countries advanced in the career of civilisation, and where increased supplies of food are more difficult to obtain, were not checked by the prevalence of moral restraint, or of prudence and forethought, it would be checked by the prevalence of vice, misery, and famine. There is no alternative. The population of every country has the power, supposing food to be adequately supplied, to go on doubling every five-and-twenty or thirty years. But as the limited extent and limited fertility of the soil render it next to impossible to go on producing food in this ratio, it is obvious, unless the passions were moderated, and a check given to the number of marriages, that the standard of human subsistence would be reduced to the lowest assignable limit; and that famine and disease would be perpetually at work to relieve the population of wretches born only to be starved.

It may be proper to observe that the extraordinary increase of manufactures in Great Britain, the number of our Colonies, and the extent to which emigration is carried on to them and the United States, make us in some degree resemble a new colony. In this respect our condition contrasts strikingly with that of France, for there manufactures are not extending Edition: current; Page: [174] themselves with nearly the same rapidity as on this side the Channel; the French have few colonies, and little or no taste for emigration; and notwithstanding that splitting of the land into minute portions that goes on amongst them, population increases very slowly. And hence it is that marriages here, though late as compared with those in the United States and Australia, are both earlier and more fruitful than in France, Italy, and other countries where there are fewer opportunities of finding employment. And there can, we apprehend, be little doubt that the resource afforded by emigration to our people, is more favourable to their well-being than the greater prevalence of prudential considerations would have been had it not existed.

But, however it may advance, the only criterion, of a beneficial increase in the population of a country, is a corresponding increase in the means of its subsistence. If these means be not increased, an increase in the number of births is almost sure to lead to increased misery and mortality. “Other circumstances being the same,” says Malthus, “it may be affirmed, that countries are populous according to the quantity of food they can produce or acquire; and happy, according to the liberality with which this food is divided, or the quantity which a day’s labour will purchase. Corn countries are more populous than pasture countries, and rice countries more populous than corn countries. But their happiness does not depend either upon their being more or less densely peopled, upon their poverty, or their riches, their youth, or their age, but on the proportion which the population and the food bear to each other.”1

Malthus, however, did not lay sufficient stress on the influence of the circumstances under which population is placed, and of the prudential considerations which they invariably bring along with them, in determining the rate of increase; and they have been all but overlooked by several Edition: current; Page: [175] of his followers. Hence the theory of population gave rise for a while to the most unreasonable fears and unfounded conclusions. It was said to be at variance with the best-established doctrines as to the goodness of the Deity, and to oppose an insuperable barrier to any lasting improvement in the condition of the bulk of society. Population, it was affirmed, invariably rises to the highest level of subsistence, so that in the end the greatest improvements merely leave a greater instead of a smaller number of wretched families. But the principle of increase is not the bugbear, the invincible obstacle to all real improvement, supposed by those who put forth such statements.

It is always a difficult matter suddenly to change the habits of a people with respect to marriage; and though they are, no doubt, influenced by every change in their condition, a vis inertiæ has to be overcome, that usually prevents them from speedily changing to the extent that circumstances change. Suppose that, in consequence of the introduction of some new species of vegetable, some new or more powerful manure, or some other cause, the average annual produce of our agriculture were doubled, this would certainly increase the number of marriages; but there is no reason to think they would be doubled; and though they were for a year or two immediately following the increase, they could hardly be so for more. But whatever might be the influence of the change on marriages, the population could not be doubled for very many years; and a period of at least eighteen or twenty years would have to elapse before the stimulus given by the improved condition of the population could bring a single fresh labourer into the field. It is clear, therefore, that during all this lengthened period, the labouring class would enjoy an increased command over necessaries and conveniences; their notions of what is required for their comfortable and decent subsistence would be raised; and they would acquire those improved tastes and habits that Edition: current; Page: [176] are not the hasty product of a day, a month, or a year, but the late result of a long series of continuous impressions. There would, in consequence, be a greater prevalence of moral restraint; and the increase of population would be adjusted, so as permanently to maintain the bulk of the people in possession of their augmented comforts.

A fact mentioned by Sussmilch has been much relied on by those who contend that population is always sure to increase exactly in the same proportion that the means of subsistence are augmented. He states, that the marriages in a district of Prussia amounted, during the six years ending with 1708, to 6,082 a year. In 1709 and 1710 this district was visited by a severe plague, which is said to have swept off about a third part of the population; and yet, notwithstanding this excessive mortality, in 1711, the first year after it had subsided, the marriages amounted to 12,028, or to nearly double their amount previously to the pestilence! This is a greater immediate increase than we should have anticipated; and, perhaps, were we acquainted with all the facts, there might be circumstances to explain it. But the number of marriages immediately fell off; and they did not again rise to their amount previously to the plague, till about 1750, or forty years after it had laid waste the district.1 It is really, therefore, the greatest imaginable error to suppose that any sudden and considerable diminution of the population can be rapidly filled up. This can only be effected in a long course of years; and during that period, the comforts of the inhabitants being increased, they acquire improved tastes and habits, so that the population does not again approach so near the level of subsistence.

That the tendency to increase is not inconsistent with the improvement of society, is a fact as to which there can be no dispute. Without going back to antiquity, let any one compare the state of this or of any other European country 500 Edition: current; Page: [177] or even 100 years ago, with its present state, and he will be satisfied that great advances have been made; that the means of subsistence have increased more rapidly than the population; and that the labouring classes are now generally in the possession of many conveniences and luxuries that were formerly not enjoyed even by the richest lords: and it would be unphilosophical to suppose that the case should be different in time to come; that those circumstances which have hitherto confined the increase of population within proper limits, and occasioned the improvement of society, should lose their influence, or that society should cease to advance.

In point of fact, however, the principle of increase is not merely consistent with the continued improvement of the bulk of society, but is itself the great cause of this improvement, and of the wonderful progress made in the arts. Not only are industry and forethought natural to man, but his advancement depends on their culture and improvement. We should infallibly die of hunger and cold, did we not exert ourselves to provide food and clothes. But could anything be more absurd than to object to those who simply state a fact of this sort, that they are impeaching the order of Providence? The powers and capacities implanted in man seem capable of an almost indefinite improvement; but instinct did not direct him in their use. Want and ambition are the powerful springs that gave the first impulse to industry and invention, and which continually prompt to new undertakings. Men will not be industrious without a motive; and the desire of bettering our condition, though powerful, is less so than the pressure of want, or the fear of falling to an inferior station. Were it otherwise, invention and industry would be exhibited in the same degree by the heirs of ample fortunes, as by those educated in humbler circumstances, and compelled to exert themselves. It is, however, known to every one that such is not the case. The peerage cannot boast of having given birth Edition: current; Page: [178] to an Arkwright, a Watt, a Wedgwood, or a Stephenson. Extraordinary exertions, whether of mind or body, are rarely made by those who are able to live comfortably without their assistance. But, in addition to its other effects, the principle of increase prevents this from ever being the condition of a large portion of mankind, and unceasingly applies the most powerful stimulus—the duris urgens in rebus egestas—to industry and invention. Much, indeed, of the effect usually ascribed to the desire of rising in the world, may be traced to the operation of this principle. It is not solely on the lower classes, nor by the actual pressure of necessity, that it exerts its beneficial influence. At that period of life when habits are formed, and man is best fitted for active pursuits, a prospect is presented to every one, whatever his rank or station, who is either married, or intends to marry, of an indefinite increase of his necessary expenses; and unless his fortune be very large indeed, he finds that economy and industry are virtues which he must not admire merely, but practise. With the lower classes the existence of present, and with the middle and upper classes the fear of future want, are the principal motives that stimulate intelligence and activity. The desire to maintain a family in respectability and comfort, or to advance their interests, makes the spring and summer of life be spent, even by the moderately wealthy, in laborious enterprises. And thus it is that, either for ourselves, or for those with whose welfare our own is inseparably connected, the principle of increase is perpetually urging individuals to new efforts. Had this principle not existed, or been comparatively feeble, activity would have been superseded by indolence, and men, from being enterprising and ambitious, would have sunk into a state of torpor; for in that case, every additional acquisition, whether of skill or wealth, would, by lessening the necessity for fresh acquisitions, have occasioned a decline in the spirit of improvement; so that, instead of proceeding, as it became older, with accelerated steps in the career of discovery, the fair nference is, that society would either have been entirely Edition: current; Page: [179] arrested in its progress, or its advance rendered next to imperceptible. But it is so ordered that, whatever may at any time occasion a decline of the inventive powers, must be of an accidental and ephemeral character, and cannot originate in a diminution of the advantages resulting from their exercise. Even in the most improved societies, the principle of increase inspires by far the largest class—those who depend on their labour for the means of support—with all those powerful motives to contrive, produce, and accumulate, that actuated the whole community in more early ages. No people can rest satisfied with acquisitions already made. The increase of population, though generally subordinate to the increase of food, is always sufficiently powerful to keep invention on the stretch, rendering the demand for fresh inventions and discoveries as great at one time as at another, and securing the forward progress of the species. A deficiency of subsistence at home leads to migrations to distant countries; and thus not only provides for the gradual occupation of the earth, but carries the languages, arts, and sciences of those who have made the farthest advances in civilisation to those that are comparatively barbarous. It has, no doubt, sometimes happened, from the operation of peculiar and accidental circumstances, that population has continued for awhile, so far to outrun production, that the condition of society has been changed for the worse. But such instances are extremely rare; and, when they do occur, the evils they occasion bring with them a provision for their cure. They make all classes better acquainted with the circumstances which determine their situation; and while they call forth fresh displays of invention and economy, they dignify and exalt the character, by teaching us to exercise the prudential virtues, and to subject the passions to the control of reason.

It may, therefore, be reasonably concluded, that the law of increase is in every respect consistent with the beneficent arrangements of providence; and that, instead of being subversive of human happiness, it has increased it in no ordinary Edition: current; Page: [180] degree. Happiness is not to be found in apathy and idleness, but in zeal and activity. It depends far more on the intensity of the pursuit than on the attainment of the end. The “progressive state” is justly characterised by Smith “as being in reality the cheerful and hearty state to all the different orders of society; the stationary is dull, the declining melancholy.” But had the principle of increase been less strong, the progress of society would have been less rapid. While, however, its energy is, on the one hand, sufficient to bring every faculty of the mind and body into action, it is, on the other, so far subject to control, that, speaking generally, its beneficial far outweigh its pernicious consequences.

To suppose, as some have done, that the astonishing improvements in the arts, and the all but immeasureable additions that have been made to the comforts and enjoyments of man, would have been equal or greater had the principle of increase been less powerful, is, in truth, equivalent to supposing, that industry and invention would not be affected by weakening the motives to their exercise, and lessening the advantages of which they are productive! There might, perhaps, though that be very doubtful, have been less squalid poverty amongst the dregs of the population, had there been no principle of increase; but it is a contradiction to pretend, had such really been the case, that the powers and resources of industry would have been so astonishingly developed, that scientific investigations would have been prosecuted with equal perseverance and zeal, that so much wealth would have been accumulated by the upper and middle classes, or that the same circumstances which impelled society forward in its infancy, should have continued, in every subsequent age, to preserve their energy unimpaired; and it may well be doubted whether an exemption from the evils incident to poverty would not be dearly purchased, even by the lowest classes, by the sacrifice of the hopes and fears attached to their present condition, and the gratification they now reap from successful industry, economy, and forbearance.

Edition: current; Page: [181]

If these conclusions be well founded, it follows that the schemes proposed in the ancient and modern world for directly repressing population, besides being, for the most part, atrocious and disgusting, have really been opposed to the ultimate objects their projectors had in view. Could we subject the rate of increase to any easily-applied physical control, it is to be feared that few, comparatively, among the poorer classes, would be inclined to burden themselves with the task of providing for a family;1 and the most effective stimulus to exertion being destroyed, society would sink into a state of apathy. We should trust to nothing save the prudential virtues to check the too rapid increase of population. In an instructed society, where there are no institutions favourable to improvidence, this check is sufficiently powerful to confine its progress within due limits, at the same time that it is not so powerful as to hinder it from uniformly operating as the strongest incentive to exertion and economy.

Those who wish to enter more at large into the discussion of the interesting topics now briefly touched upon, would do well to consult the second volume of the able work, entitled “Records of the Creation,” by Dr. Sumner, late Archbishop of Canterbury. That learned prelate did not endeavour “to show that the human race is in the best conceivable condition, or that no evils accompany the law which regulates their increase; but that this law makes, upon the whole, an effectual provision for their general welfare, and that the prospective wisdom of the Creator is distinguishable in the establishment of an ordinance which is no less beneficial in its collateral effects, than it is efficacious in accomplishing the first and principal design of its enactment.”2

“If, then,” says the Archbishop in another place, “the wisdom is to be estimated by the fitness of the design to its Edition: current; Page: [182] purpose, and the habitual exercise of the energies of mankind is allowed to be that purpose, enough has been said to confirm the original proposition. The Deity has provided, that by the operation of an instinctive principle in our nature, the human race should be uniformly brought into a state in which they are forced to exert and improve their powers: the lowest rank to obtain support; the one next in order to escape from the difficulties immediately beneath it; and all the classes upwards, either to keep their level, while they are pressed on each side by rival industry, or to raise themselves above the standard of their birth by useful exertions of their activity, or by successful cultivation of their natural powers. If, indeed, it were possible that the stimulus arising from this principle should be suddenly removed, it is not easy to determine what life would be except a dreary blank, or the world except an uncultivated waste. Every exertion to which civilisation can be traced, proceeds, directly or indirectly, from its effects; either from the actual desire of having a family, or the pressing obligation of providing for one, or from the necessity of rivalling the efforts produced by the operation of these motives in others.”1

However inexplicable it may seem, it is a melancholy fact, that the practice of infanticide has prevailed to a very great extent, even in some highly civilised countries. It may, indeed, be said to have been general throughout the ancient world. The laws of Sparta ordered that every child that was either weakly or deformed should be put to death.2 And this practice was not merely legalised by the savage enactments of a barbarous code, but was vindicated by the ablest Greek philosophers. Aristotle, in his work on government, does not so much as insinuate a doubt of the propriety of destroying such children as are maimed or deformed, and carries still Edition: current; Page: [183] farther his “stern decisions,” as they are gently termed by Dr. Gillies.1 Even the “divine” Plato did not scruple to recommend the same monstrous practices. Thebes alone, of all the Grecian cities, seems to have been free from this infamy.2 The existence of infanticide in Athens is established beyond a doubt, by the allusions of the poets, and their descriptions of the prevailing manners.3

Every one is aware that a Roman citizen had the unrestrained power of life and death over his children, whatever might be their age. And there are abundant examples to prove that this right was not suffered to fall into disuse, but was frequently exercised with the most unrelenting severity.4

At the birth of a child the father decided whether he should bring it up or expose it. But it did not always happen that exposed children lost their lives. It was common to expose them in public places, where there was a chance of their attracting the notice of the benevolent, who might be incited to undertake the task of bringing them up. The greater number of these unhappy creatures were not, however, so fortunate as to fall into the hands of persons of this sort. They were declared by law to be the slaves, or absolute property, of those by whom they were reared. And several were saved from death, not from humane motives, but that their foster-fathers might, by mutilating their persons, and exhibiting them in the streets, derive an infamous livelihood from the alms given them by the passengers. This detestable practice seems to have been Edition: current; Page: [184] carried on pretty extensively; and if any thing could, more strikingly than the practice itself, display the sanguinary manners of the Romans, it would be the fact, that there is in Seneca a lengthened discussion of the question, Whether the mutilation of exposed children can be deemed an offence against the state? which is conducted with the greatest imaginable coolness, and decided in the negative, upon the ground of their being slaves! “Gallio fecit illam questionem. An in expositis lædi possit respublica? Non potest, inquit. An lædi possit in aliquâ suâ parte? Hæc nulla reipublicæ pars est; non in censu illos invenies, non in testamentis.”1

The period when the practice of infanticide was prohibited at Rome is not well ascertained; but the more probable opinion seems to be, that it continued till about the 374th year of the Christian æra. The exposure of children was, however, practised long afterwards. Constantine made some ineffectual efforts to provide for these unfortunates; but their slavery continued till the year 530, when it was abolished by an edict of Justinian.

Infanticide has, most properly, been made a capital crime in all modern states; and to take away the motives to its perpetration, by providing asylums for such poor children as might otherwise have been sacrificed, or exposed, through the inhumanity or poverty of their parents, foundling hospitals have been very generally established. But great doubts have been entertained whether the influence of these establishments has been pernicious or beneficial. That they have prevented a few cases of infanticide is no doubt true; but it is alleged that the facility for the disposal of children which they afford, weakens the principle of moral restraint, and increases the number of illegitimate unions and births, at the same time that it occasions a prodigious sacrifice of infant life. The mortality in foundling hospitals was formerly, indeed, quite excessive. In the Foundling Hospital at Dublin, of 12,786 Edition: current; Page: [185] children admitted during the six years ending with 1797, there were no fewer than 12,561 deaths! The mortality amongst foundlings at Madrid, in 1817, was at the rate of 67 per cent.; at Vienna, in 1811, it amounted to 92 per cent.; and at Brussels, at an average of the period from 1802 to 1817, it amounted to 79 per cent. M. de Chateauneuf, from whom we have borrowed these statements, adds, that in France, in 1824, about three-fifths, or 60 per cent., of the foundlings perished in the first year of their life!1 In Moscow, of 37,607 children admitted in the course of twenty years, only 1,020 were sent out!2

But the public attention having been drawn to these appalling results, vigorous efforts have been every where made to lessen the mortality among foundlings. In France and most other countries, the former facilities for the reception of abandoned children have been greatly diminished. And while this has been done on the one hand, the access to lying-in-hospitals has been facilitated on the other, and assistance is frequently given to indigent mothers, to enable them to bring up their children at their own homes. The children, too, that continue to be abandoned, are better cared for than formerly; a much larger proportion of them are sent to the country; the treatment of those retained in towns has also been greatly improved; and in consequence the rate of mortality, though still very heavy, has been greatly diminished. In 1859 there were 76,526 foundlings in France, of whom those under 12 years of age were almost all located in the country.

Still it is doubtful whether these establishments, even when best conducted, are beneficial. They can hardly fail, by concealing or mitigating its results, to encourage incontinence, and it has been alleged that they do not prevent infanticide. But the practical question is, have they diminished its Edition: current; Page: [186] frequency? And though it be not free from difficulty, it would appear that they have done this. It is probable, however, that foundling hospitals might be every where suppressed without giving any greater incentive to crime, were the number of lying-in-hospitals increased, and pensions granted to destitute mothers. This much, however, would seem to be necessary in most countries, if we would not make them theatres of the most atrocious crimes.

The establishment of a foundling hospital in London was recommended, no doubt from the most benevolent motives, by Addison, in the reign of Queen Anne.1 It was not, however, established till 1739. Experience was not long in developing its pernicious effects; and in 1760 a total change was effected in its constitution. It then ceased to be a receptacle for foundlings. No child whose mother does not personally appear, and who cannot satisfactorily answer the questions put to her, is received; if, however, the mother can show that she had previously borne a good character, and that, owing to the desertion of the father, she is unable to maintain the child, it is admitted, but not otherwise. As now conducted, there does not seem to be much reason for thinking that this establishment is productive of any but beneficial effects.

Edition: current; Page: [187]