The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1901-08-18

bodlment OF q required formula. the theory
must needs become imperfect, 80 far as 40
ciety n made up Of living beings varying,
though gradually. In their whole charac-
ter and attributes. and forming part Of n
social organiDm incomparably too com
pley In it's structure to he adequately repre-
sented by the three distinct classes. each
Of which Is merely a formula per~onihed
In an Individual man. The general rules
~propounded by Ricardo may he very nearly
true In a great many cases. especially on
the stock exchange. hut. before they ara
applied for the purpose Of giving a true
account Of the real workings Of concrete
institutions. a much closer approximation
must b. made 10 IN. actual data.
II IL often said hat the propounder ~
the iron law OF wages . must have bc"n
without the bowels Of compassion. Ricardo.
we are told, was n Jew and n menh.r OF
the Stock Exchange, which Is true enough,
ard II " further assert ed that Jews. ana
especially jewish stock br okerr, are without
human fe-line. Asa mnttcr Of fact. Ricardo
was n kindly. liberal man, DESTROYS Of being,
as he no doubt believed himself to be, In
sympathy with the leaders Of political
and scientific thought. ard fully sharing
their aspirations. The Utilitarians nniu-
rally translated all aspirations into logical
dogmss. hut rome people. who despi-nd
them as hardhearted. really took much
less pains To give effect Co their own II"
nevolent impulses. Ricardo In this matter
wa nj one with James Mill and B"nthain
In one Of his letter. he remarks upon the
possibility of improving the condition "f
the poor by . good education and the in
culcation 81 foresight In the vital matter
OF marriage He repudiat"s emphaticnlly
n suggestion Of Say that one Of his argu-
meniS Implies : Indifference Ia the hap
pine-s " Of the masses. and holds that
= tho friends Of humanity should en-
courage the poor To raise their standard
Of comfort and enjoyment. The lhborer@.
he elsewhere Observes. are = by far the
most important class In society How
should they not be. II the greatest hap
pineSs Of the greatest number he the le-
gitimate aim 81 all legislation
Mr. stephen discerns a certain analogy
bet vs-n Rica and Bishop Batter. Zach
Of them produced a great eject by a slor'
~treaii-r. and In each case the book owed
very little TO the ordinary literary grace-
Rica want of literary training. or his
natural difficulty Of utterance. made his
stvl. still worse than Butlsr'H. but, like
Butler. he commands respect by his obvious
sincerity and earnestnes- HIS II content
when he has ~ Expressed an argumcn
tina IL can be seized by an attentive ead"r
lie j. incapable OF a clear and orderly eS-
position ~ principles. or. at all events, he l.
Indifferent To such a thing The logic l.
there, he seems To say. II you will a the
trouble To look for Il. In another respect
our author ind Ricardo and Butler alik"
Buffers argument has impressed many
readers a. a damolition Of his own case,
II provokes revolt instead Of adhesion.
Ricardo. an orthodox economist laid down
principles which have b%~en adopted by
Socislists Ia upset his own assumptions
such a God as you Worship. said Buffers
opponents, Il an unjust being, and, there
fore. worsa I han no God such a system
as YOU describe. said Ricardo's opponents.
l. an embodiment of injustice. and. there
fore. Ia bc radically destroyed. In both
cases the argument has been treated a. "a
rednctio dd dbsurdun.
Strictly speaking. we canno. call Thomas
Robert Nautilus one Of the Unitarian
band. because. a. a clergyman. he could not
share their opinion 81 the T~hirty-nine
Articles Moreover. he va a Wing, not "A
Radical still. he becans on" Of the
prophets, IL not the leading prophet, OF
the utilitarians Belief In thu Malthusian
theory Of population was the most essential
article of their faith. and marked the line of
cleavage between the two wings of the
Radical party Nautilus was born In 1850.
and was. therefore. eighteen years Younger
than Brnthsn. lie was the son Of a
country gentleman Ia Surrey. The father
was an enthusiastic admir.r of Rousseau.
and his study of Emile probably led 20 the
rather d~-suliory education OF his son
The boy. after being taught AT nome, at
tended Gilbert Wakeheld's lectures at the
Warrington Academy. the Unitarian place
Of education. and in l7st, went Go Jesus
College. Cambridge, where he was under
frond. who was To ION the lnitarian-
Nautilus was thus brought up under the
influences of u modified rationalism. though
he himself remained within the borders ut
the Church He b-csme ninth wrsnglor
IN i7sS. was made a fellow OF his college
IA 1893. took orders. and In i7as was curste 81
Alhury. near his fathers house In Surrey
In the year last named the first edition Of his
t.ssv on Population appeared. u laid
down the proposition that population,
when unchecked. increases In a geomettical
ratio. whereas the means Of subsistence
only In an hms Tatio.
The outcome Of the proposition could
easily IN. shown by the multiplication table
II. a. Nautilus said. population doubles IN
Twenty-Five year,, the number IN Two cen
turtles would be to the present number a.
256 to | and In three centuries as t.O8d To l.
II. mcan~ lille. the quantity 81 subsistence
la arithmetical progression. the
multipliers for two and three centuries
respectively would he only 0 and II IL
follows that In the wear 2ooa, 80 persons
would have TO live upon what supported nine
persons Ia ls0a 80 far the case seemed
clear. But was the fundamental propo-
sit ION verified by facts
The population OF British North America
wa actually. when Nautilus wrote. multi
plying AT ia. assigned rate, In England.
the other hand. mo such Increase was Oh
s.rvahle But. II the dc-crndsn MI Of Eng
li-hm.n increased at a certain rate Ia
America. why did they not increase equally
la England? Nautilus answered that there
were checks operative Ia England Tn.
ultimate check would clearly he starvation.
4 population might multiply till II had no
sufficient TODD Before this limit
should h. actually reached. IL would suffer
In various ways from scarcity. Briefly.
the ch.rkS may be distinguished -. frat.
the positive. that h. actual dist re-s and
secondly, the preventive. or foresight
summed up hts argument in the
ar, edition q; h.s essay Ia three prnpo-
Sitions Population II limited by the means
of subsistence. population invariably in
creases when tl,e means of subsistence are
finally, tho proportion between
population and the means Of subsistence
l. maintained bv misery and vic-." In
the SECOND edition IL the essay, which
Opened with n survey ~ the observed
Of ia" checks on the too rapid in
81 population. the author concluded
With "A discussion 81 tho moral restraint
" hich Wa to h. added To- vice aud misery
The moral restraint should H. ~ o-fold
In the first place. marriage should 10 en-
couraged. 20 make men Responsible for the
taar.a.a - IA. t..V.sNI.Nt.n lHs .ulr vh.,