[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR,—Everything that Dean Inge
writes is worth reading. But, on the other hand, nothing that Malthus has written is worth reading. John Stuart Mill upon " Malthus " may be worth reading. The general statement that population presses upon the means of subsistence is not true. The general
statement that population tends to increase faster than the means of subsistence is' not true.
The particular statements that in some countries population presses upon the means of existence and population tends to increase faster than the means of subsistence is true ; and also the particular -statement that in some countries the Means of subsistence tend to increase faster than the popu- lation is true. In the case of British India it is true that the population tends to increase faster than the means of sub- sistence, and it is also true that this tendency of the population to a rapid increase causes poverty and misery to a very large proportion of the population. But, on the other hand, in England the population is now four times as great as when Malthus wrote, and the wealth is about sixteen times as great, so that the average wealth per head is about four times as great as in the times of Malthus. The people have on the average a much easier life, are better fed, better clothed, better housed, better amused, better instructed, and in every way their condition is better, and this improvement in their condition is to a great extent due to the increase in population, though there are other causes. A large population has many facilities which are denied to a small population. Malthus said 125 years ago that in Australia the population was pressing on the means of subsistence. That was certainly the reductio ad absurdum. Was he writing an elaborate joke ?—I am, Sir, &c.,
ARNOLD LUPTON.
7 Victoria Street, Westminster, S.W.1.
Previous page
