' 44. 
LAISSEZ FAIRE 
that the impulse was one that was susceptible of moral 
control. He has managed, however, to leave a somewhat 
different impression of his doctrine, that population tends 
to increase faster than the means of subsistence increase, by 
formulating it as if it were a law of physical nature. The 
preventive checks, which are brought to bear by rational self- 
control, do not occupy so prominent a place in his essay as to 
have sufficiently attracted the attention of his readers. At 
a time of rapid transition and extreme fluidity, rational 
foresight has little to go upon, and it could not prove an 
affective force during the Industrial Revolution. Hence it 
of the facts follows that Malthus, looking at the circumstances of his own 
his time. era, formulated the principles of population in terms which 
give an exaggerated impression of the remorselessness of the 
tendency for a redundant population to arise. What he said 
was fully justified in his day; but circumstances have so far 
changed since, that the mode of statement he adopted needs 
to be modified if we would put, in simplest form, the truth 
about the increase of population as it generally occurs? We 
may see that there were in his time unwonted obstacles to 
procuring food by human exertion, whether directed to 
industry or to tillage ; while there were, both in the develop- 
ment of the factories and in the nature of the poor-relief, 
anusual hindrances to the operation of the preventive checks. 
more interests and responsibilities in life, and allowing him to have, under proper 
nfeguards, the use of suitable land together with a cow. To Arthur Young, 
Malthus’ scheme seemed drastic (dnnals, xr1. 221) and impracticable; while 
Malthus contended that Arthur Young's suggestions gave no immunity (Essay, m1. 
353) from the recurrence of the danger. It was obvious that in so far as the spirit 
of independence was not cultivated by giving the labourer land, his enlarged 
resources would only tend towards the increase of population in the same way as 
the parish allowances had done. From the premises he laid down Malthus’ argu- 
ment was sound : the mere fact that Arthur Young insisted on so many safeguards 
in connection with his proposal, shows that he did not regard it as a complete 
panacea. On the other hand Malthus had no practical suggestion to make with 
he view of cultivating the spirit on which he laid such stress. He had more 
sympathy with Arthur Young's proposals than might appear (tb. 365), but he 
wrgued that they were no complete remedy. His followers interpreted him how- 
over as if he had condemned benevolent action as such ; they feared that improve- 
ments in the labourers’ condition would be inevitably followed by an increase of 
population, and they desisted from the schemes on which Arthur Young had relied 
for improving, not merely the condition, but the character of the labourer (Annals, 
x1. 230). The admirable report of the committee on allotments in 1848 seems to 
have had no practical effect. See above p. 718. 
3 See Cunningham, Path towards Knowledge, p. 25.