[86] Sir James Steuart of Coltness, whose ‹Inquiry into the
Principles of Political Economy› was published in 1767, nine years
before the appearance of Adam Smith’s great work, takes the very
same view of the principle of population which Malthus, thirty years
afterwards, more formally enunciated. “The generative faculty,” says
Sir James Steuart, “resembles a spring loaded with a weight, which
always exerts itself in proportion to the diminution of resistance.
When food has remained some time without augmentation or diminution,
generation will carry numbers as high as possible; if, then, food
come to be diminished, the spring is overpowered, the force of it
becomes less than nothing, inhabitants will diminish, at least
in proportion to the overcharge. If, on the other hand, food be
increased, the spring will begin to exert itself in proportion as
the resistance diminishes, people will begin to be better fed, they
will multiply, and, in proportion as they increase in numbers, the
food will become scarce again.”—«Translator.»
[87] “Threescore and ten ‹souls›.”—‹Gen.› xlvi. 27. “Seventy
‹souls›.”—‹Exodus› i. 5. “Threescore and ten ‹persons›.”—‹Deut.› x.
22.—«Translator.»
[88] 601,730 “from twenty years old and upwards.”—‹Numbers› xxvi. 2
and 51.—«Translator.»
[89] What follows was written in 1846.—«Editor.»
[90] It is fair to mention that J. B. Say represents the ‹means of
existence› as a variable quantity.
[91] “There are few states in which there is not a constant effort
in the population to increase beyond the means of subsistence.
This constant effort as ‹constantly tends› to subject the lower
classes of society to distress, ‹and to prevent any great permanent
melioration of their condition›. . . . The constant effort towards
population . . . increases the number of people ‹before› the means
of subsistence are increased,” etc.—«Malthus» ‹on Population›, vol.
i. pp. 17, 18, 6th edition.
[92] See chap. xi. ‹ante›.
[93] “Although we might describe ‹fermage›, in a general way, as
the letting or leasing of land, in whatever form it is done, we must
distinguish two forms of letting, equally common in various parts
of Europe, and very different in their effects. In the one form,
the land is let for a fixed rent, payable in money annually. In the
other, it is let under the condition of the produce being divided
between the proprietor and the cultivator. It is to the first of
these two modes of leasing land that we give more particularly the
name of ‹fermage›. The other is generally designated in France as
‹métayage›.” (‹Dictionnaire de l’Économie Politique›, tome i. p.
759.)—«Translator.»