I.The Malthusian Controversy
The Economic theory became triumphant.Expounded from new university chairs,summarised in textbooks for schools,advocated in the press,and applied by an energetic party to some of the most important political discussions of the day,it claimed the adhesion of all enlightened persons.It enjoyed the prestige of a scientific doctrine,and the most popular retort seemed to be an involuntary concession of its claims.When opponents appealed from 'theorists'to practical men,the Utilitarians scornfully set them down as virtually appealing from reason to prejudice.No rival theory held the field.If Malthus and Ricardo differed,it was a difference between men who accepted the same first principles.
They both professed to interpret Adam Smith as the true prophet,and represented different shades of opinion rather than diverging sects.There were,however,symptoms of opposition,which,at the time,might be set down as simple reluctance to listen to disagreeable truths.In reality,they were indications of a dissatisfaction which was to become of more importance and to lead in time to a more decided revolt.I must indicate some of them,though the expressions of dissent were so various and confused that it is not very easy to reduce them to order.
Malthus's doctrine was really at the base of the whole theory,though it must be admitted that neither Malthus himself nor his opponents were clear as to what his doctrine really was.His assailants often attacked theories which he disavowed,or asserted principles which he claimed as his own.1I mention only to set aside some respectable and wearisome gentlemen such as Ingram,Jarrold,Weyland,and Grahame,who considered Malthus chiefly as impugning the wisdom of Providence.They quote the divine law,'increase and multiply';think that Malthus regards vice and misery as blessings,and prove that population does not 'tend'to increase too rapidly.Jarrold apparently accepts the doctrine which Malthus attributes to Süssmilch,that lives have been shortened since the days of the patriarchs,and the reproductive forces diminished as the world has grown fuller.Grahame believes in a providential 'ordeal,'constituted by infant mortality,which is not,like war and vice,due to human corruption,but a beneficent regulating force which correlates fertility with the state of society.This might be taken by Malthus as merely amounting to another version of his checks.Such books,in fact,simply show,what does not require to be further emphasised,that Malthus had put his version of the struggle for existence into a form which seemed scandalous to the average orthodox person.The vagueness of Malthus himself and the confused argument of such opponents makes it doubtful whether they are really answering his theories or reducing them to a less repulsive form of statement.
In other directions,the Malthusian doctrine roused keen feeling on both sides,and the line taken by different parties is significant.Malthus had appeared as an antagonist of the revolutionary party.He had laid down what he took to be an insuperable obstacle to the realisation of their dreams.Yet his views were adopted and extended by those who called themselves thorough Radicals.As,in our days,Darwinism has been claimed as supporting both individualist and socialistic conclusions,the theory of his predecessor,Malthus,might be applied in a Radical or a Conservative sense.In point of fact,Malthus was at once adopted by the Whigs,as represented by the Edinburgh Review .
They were followers of Adam Smith and Dugald Stewart;they piqued themselves,and,as even James Mill admitted,with justice,upon economic orthodoxy.
They were at the same time predisposed to a theory which condemned the revolutionary Utopias.It provided them with an effective weapon against the agitators whom they especially dreaded.The Tories might be a little restrained by orthodox qualms.In 1812Southey was permitted to make an onslaught upon Malthus in the Quarterly;2but more complimentary allusions followed,and five years later the essay was elaborately defended in an able article.3An apology was even insinuated for the previous assault,though the blame was thrown upon Malthus for putting his doctrines in an offensive shape.A reference to Owen suggests that the alarm excited by Socialism had suggested the need of some sound political economy .
