MR. SADLER'S " LAW OF POPULATION."

Tim Standard of Thursday has been pleased to declare, of our notice of Mr. SADLER'S Law of Population, that " more falsehood, misrepresentation, and sophistry, were scarcely ever compressed within the same number of lines."

Of the sophistry, the writer in the Standard adduces no speci- men. Of the falsehood, the proof is, that we differ from himself.

On the subject of our misrepresentations, however, he has been more explicit. Of these, the first is our statement that Mr. SAD- LER had rejected Mr. MALTnus's theory, resting as that does on

the possible increase of population in a geometrical ratio in a period of twenty-five years—had rejected this proposition, while Ile had admitted in another part of his work, nay assumed in proof of his own theory, an actual duplication in less than twenty years. On that statement the Standard says- " Mr. Sadler has explained, what indeed it was scarce necessary for any one to explain, that the increase of population in New Holland was

produced, not from births, but from emigration and the ' deportation of

convicts ; a means of increase not regularly within the order of nature In ihs the Standard " misrepresents" both Mr. SADLER t,.:(1 ourse:vJs, as we shall prove by the testimony of the Member for Newark ; of whose law of population, the writer in the Standard would appear, after all, to be ignorant. After quoting a table of the increase of numbers in New South Wales, Mr. SADLER ob- serves,

" From these numbers there must of course be deducted the convicts and emigrants which were added to the population, over and above those which had returned to Europe within that period ; but still, after these

rectifications, the increase which took place from procreation only must have been without parallel in the European or American world."—Vol.H. p.368. This unparalleled increase, besides, is not, as the Standard would insinuate, " within the regular order of nature ; " on the

contrary, it is, according to Mr. SADLER, to be referred to a newly- discovered arrangement of Providence, by which the prolificness of a country varies inversely with its actual population. Another of our misrepresentations follows. We had observed that " Mr. SADLER advises his fellows to fear nothing, and throw

prudence to the dogs—to multiply as fast as possible, and leave the rest to Heaven." Mr. SADLER, according to the Standard, " says no such thing." Yet, in a previous part of his article, the writer in the Standard had declared, that " upon Mr. SADLER'S theory, there is no inconsistency in supposing that the Creator ad- justs the supply of his gifts to his creatures, to their wants. That theory trusts to God to provide for those whom his command calls into existence." Our exposition of the import of Mr. SADLER'S system, it will be observed, is precisely the same in spirit, nay al- most in words, as that of the Standard; yet the Standard terms ours a " misrepresentation."

But Mr. SADLER, according to our contemporary, has not been " inconsistent." Now, not merely does Mr SADLER admit and deny, in the same work, the power of geometrical increase in the human race, but he declares that food increases faster than popu- lation—nay, further, that the excess of food is always in propor- tion to the increase of population ; while he at the same time lays it down, that as population becomes dense, the prolificness of the species, by a kind law of Providence, lessens. This necessity for checking the rate of human increase, involved an admission, we remarked, that human beings, unchecked in their power of in- crease, would outgrow their means of subsistence.

This argument the Standard meets by a declaration, that " Mr. SADLER Is a Christian and philosopher ; and therefore, he recog- nizes one, and but one, Providence, and that one omnipotent." This maybe a very faithful copy of Mr. SADLER'S creed ; but what will his conviction of its truth avail him, unless he trusts for his sup- plies of logic to the same particular Providence to which he recom- mends his fellow-beings to trust for their supplies of food ? Of the Standard's defence of this doctrine, we may remark, that it assumes that Providence has given us too much—yet not enough—since it assumes that reason was not given • us for our guidance. The power of judging between good and evil must be superfluous, if it be well for us to be guided by an instinctive trust that Providence will avert the consequences of our own imprudence ; and yet this supposed instinct does not, after we have had the trouble of sup- posing it, suffice to banish misery from the world. We further exposed Mr. SADLER'S inconsistency, or at least the

want of aim that characterizes his doctrines, by supposing his primary proposition conceded to him. That proposition is, that the scheme of Providence is one of pure beneficence. His orpi-

ment is, that food—that happiness—depend on population. We asked how it consisted with this doctrine of the pure beneficence of Providence, that prolificness, the great instrument of happiness, should in certain stages of society gradually lose its power. The Standard replies, by repeating Mr. SADLER'S proposition. " If population be, as Mr. Sadler has abundantly proved that it is, the instrument of abundance, there is no inconsistency, but, on the other hand, a wonderful propriety in assuming, even is priori, what all expe- rience proves, that Providence employs this instrument as the means of raising poor countries to riches and the enjoyment of plenty." Now, the Standard has made no progress towards deciding the question at issue. Mr. SADLER, we repeat, in the first instance, denounced all " checks " upon population, because Providence is beneficent, and because an increase of population is the means by which its beneficence is manifested. Yet Mr. SADLER afterwards introduces a " check on human happiness, by his theory of a varying rate of prolificness.

As to the doctrine that population is the instrument of abund- ance, it is, under certain conditions, and up to a certain point, true. But when these conditions vary—when the point is passed —when population is permitted to outgrow food, the principle of its increase becomes subject to other laws, and acquires oppo-

site tendencies ; just as, in the material world, attraction is found to be the principle which, up to a certain point of proximity, all bodies obey, but that point attained, attraction invariably yields to the antagonist principle of repulsion.

But we have, it seems, left "Mr. SADLER'S propositions unan- swered ;" we have " said nothing of his proofs, but that they consist of a formidable array of censuses and registers." Mr. SADLER, it should be borne in mind, has objected to Mr. MALTHUS'S leading propositions, and proposed as an amendment certain propositions of his own—resting, he assures us, on arithmetical calculations. But if Mr. SADLER 's leading propositions be irreconcileable with each other, and if they actually involve the propositions which they profess to disprove, can they borrow from arithmetic a coherency and truth which they have not in themselves ? Now we showed, that My. SADLER'S theory involves, while it denies, the geometrical

theory of human increase—involves, while it denies, the theory of the increase of food in an arithmetical ratio—and finally, involves, while it denies, the existence of a " check " upon population and happiness.

We are further accused of having answered Mr. SADLER only " by sneers at the repugnance of his doctrines to those of Mr. MALTHUS," which we " forgot to distinguish from axiomatical truths." We certainly are not aware of having indulged in any thing like a sneer from the beginning to the end of our notice ; and as to having classed Mr. MAnnius's doctrines with axiomatic truths, we can safely say that we stated the leading principles of both systems as fairly as they could be stated—nay, more, that we made

Mr. SADLER'S propositions the test of the truth of his antago- nist's; we, in point of fact, assumed one half of Mr. SADLER'S propositions as axiomatic. Our ingenious contemporary has taxed us with misrepresenta- tion. We have refuted one charge of this sort, by the evidence of Mr. SADLER ; and another; by the evidence of the Standard itself. Our contemporary has taxed us with sophistry and false- hood. We call upon him to retract his first charge, and to sub- stantiate the others.