lectures on the industrial revolution in england-第17部分

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


id；　all　inducements　to　moral　restraint　would　be　taken　away。　His　prophecy　has；　however；　since　his　time；　been　refuted　by　the　experience　of　the　communistic　societies　in　America；　which　proves　that　the　absence　of　private　property　is　not　incompatible　with　moral　restraint。　　　　　Is　Malthus's　law　really　true？　We　see　that　it　rests　on　two　premisses。　The　first　is；　that　the　potential　rate　of　increase　of　the　human　race　is　such　that　population；　if　unchecked；　would　double　itself　in　twenty…five　years；　and　Malthus　assumes　that　this　rate　is　constant　in　every　race　and　at　all　times。　His　second　premiss　is　the　law　of　diminishing　returns；　i。e。　that　after　a　certain　stage　of　cultivation　a　given　piece　of　land　will；　despite　any　agricultural　improvements；　yield　a　less　proportionate　return　to　human　labour；　and　this　law　is　true。　Malthus　did　not　deny　that　food　might；　for　a　time；　increase　faster　than　population；　but　land　could　not　be　increased；　and　if　the　area　which　supplied　a　people　were　restricted；　the　total　quantity　of　food　which　it　produced　per　head　must　be　at　length　diminished；　though　this　result　might　be　long　deferred。　Malthus　himself　regarded　both　his　conclusions　as　equally　self…evident。　'The　first　of　these　propositions；'　he　says；　'i　considered　as　proved　the　moment　the　American　increase　was　related；　and　the　second　proposition　as　soon　as　it　was　enunciated。'　Why　then　did　he　write　so　long　a　book？　'The　chief　object　of　my　work；'　he　goes　on　to　say；　'was　to　inquire　what　effects　these　laws；　which　I　considered　as　established　in　the　first　six　pages；　had　produced；　and　were　likely　to　produce；　on　society；　…　a　subject　not　very　readily　exhausted。'　The　greater　part　of　his　essay　is　an　historical　examination　of　the　growth　of　population　and　the　checks　on　it　which　have　obtained　in　different　ages　and　countries；　and　he　applies　his　conclusion　to　the　administration　of　the　Poor　Laws　in　England。　　　　　Now　there　are　grave　doubts　as　to　the　universal　truth　of　his　first　premiss。　Some　of　his　earlier　opponents；　as　Doubleday；　laid　down　the　proposition　that　fecundity　varies　inversely　to　nutriment。　Thus　baldly　stated　their　assertion　is　not　true；　but　it　is　au　observed　fact；　as　Adam　Smith　noticed　long　ago；　that　the　luxurious　classes　have　few　children；　while　a　'half…starved　Highland　woman'　may　have　a　family　of　twenty。　Mr　Herbert　Spencer　again　has　asserted　that　fecundity　varies　inversely　to　nervous　organisation；　and　this　statement　has　been　accepted　by　Carey　and　Bagehot。　But　it　is　not　so　much　the　increase　of　brain　power　as　the　worry　and　exhaustion　of　modern　life　which　tends　to　bring　about　this　result。　Some　statistics　quoted　by　Mr　Amasa　Walker　tend　to　prove　this。　He　has　shown　that　in　Massachusetts；　while　there　are　about　980；000　persons　of　native　birth　as　against　only　260；000　immigrants；　the　number　of　births　in　the　two　classes　is　almost　exactly　the　same；　the　number　of　marriages　double　as　many　in　the　latter；　as　in　the　former；　and　longevity　less　and　mortality　greater　among　the　Americans。　Mr　Cliffe…Leslie　attributes　this　fact　to　a　decline　in　fecundity　on　the　part　of　American　citizens。　The　whole　question；　however；　is　veiled　in　great　obscurity；　and　is　rather　for　physiologists　and　biologists　to　decide；　but　there　do　seem　to　be　causes　at　work　which　preclude　us　from　assuming　with　Malthus　that　the　rate　of　increase　is　invariable。　　　　　Another　American　writer；　Mr　Henry　George；　has　recently　argued　that　Malthus　was　wrong　and　Godwin　right；　that　poverty　is　due　to　human　injustice；　to　an　unequal　distribution　of　wealth；　the　result　of　private　property　in　land；　and　not　to　Malthus's　law　of　the　increase　of　population　or　to　the　law　of　diminishing　returns；　both　of　which　he　altogether　rejects。　With　regard　to　the　latter　he　urges　with　truth　that　in　certain　communities；　for　instance　California；　where　the　law　of　diminishing　returns　evidently　does　not　come　into　operation；　the　same　phenomenon　of　pauperism　appears。　Now　against　Mr　George　it　can　be　proved　by　facts　that　there　are　cases　where　his　contention　is　not　true。　It　is　noticeable　that　he　makes　no　reference　to　France；　Norway；　and　Switzerland…all　countries　of　peasant　proprietors；　and　where　consequently　the　land　is　not　monopolised　by　a　few。　But　it　is　certain　that　in　all　these　countries；　at　any　rate　in　the　present　state　of　agricultural　knowledge　and　skill；　the　law　of　diminishing　returns　does　obtain；　and　it　is　useless　to　argue　that　in　these　cases　it　is　the　injustice　of　man；　and　not　the　niggardliness　of　nature；　that　is　the　cause　of　poverty；　and　necessitates　baneful　checks　on　population。　Still　I　admit　that　Mr　George's　argument　is　partially　true…a　large　portion　of　pauperism　and　misery　is　really　attributable　to　bad　government　and　injustice；　but　this　does　not　touch　the　main　issue；　or　disprove　the　law　of　diminishing　returns。　　　　　To　return　to　Malthus's　first　proposition。　The　phrase　that　'population　tends　to　outstrip　the　means　of　subsistence'　is　vague　and　ambiguous。　It　may　mean　that　population；　if　unchecked；　would　outstrip　the　means　of　subsistence；　or　it　may　mean　that　population　does　increase　faster　than　the　means　of　subsistence。　It　is　quite　clear　that；　in　its　second　sense；　it　is　not　true　of　England　at　the　present　day。　The　average　quantity　of　food　consumed　per　head　is　yearly　greater；　and　capital　increases　more　than　twice　as　fast　as　population。　But　the　earlier　writers　on　population　invariably　use　the　phrase　in　the　latter　sense；　and　apply　it　to　the　England　of　their　time。　At　the　present　day　it　can　only　be　true　in　this　latter　sense　of　a　very　few　countries。　It　has　been　said　to　be　true　in　the　case　of　India；　but　even　there　the　assertion　can　only　apply　to　certain　districts。　Mr　George；　however；　is　not　content　to　refute　Malthus's　proposition　in　this　sense；　he　denies　it　altogether；　denies　the　statement　in　the　sense　that　population；　if　unchecked；　would　outstrip　the　means　of　subsistence；　and　lays　down　as　a　general　law　that　there　need　be　no　fear　of　over…population　if　wealth　were　justly　distributed。　The　experience　of　countries　like　Norway　and　Switzerland；　however；　where　over…population　does　exist；　although　the　distribution　of　wealth　is　tolerably　even；　shows　that　this　doctrine　is　not　universally　true。　Another　criticism　of　Mr　George's；　however；　is　certainly　good；　as　far　as　it　goes。　Malthus's　proposition　was　supposed　to　be　strengthened　by　Darwin's　theory；　and　Darwin　himself　says　that　it　was　the　study　of　Malthus's　book　which　suggested　it　to　him；　but　Mr　George　rightly　objects　to　the　analogy　between　man　and　animals　and　plants。　It　is　true　that　animals；　in　their　struggle　for　existence；　have　a　strictly　limited　amount　of　subsistence；　but　man　can；　by　his　ingenuity　and　energy；　enormously　increase　his　supply。　The　objection　is　valid；　though　it　can　hardly　be　said　to　touch　the　main　issue。　　　　　I　have　spoken　of　the　rapid　growth　of　population　in　the　period　we　are　studying。　We　have　to　consider　how　Malthus　accounted　for　it；　and　how　far　his　explanation　is　satisfactory；　as　well　as　what　practical　conclusions　he　came　to。　In　the　rural　districts　he　thought　the　excessive　increase　was　the　consequence　of　the　bad　administration　of　the　Poor　Laws；　and　of　the　premium　which　they　put　on　early　marriages。　This　was　true；　but　not　the　whole　truth；　there　are　other　points　to　be　taken　into　account。　In　the　old　days　the　younger　labourers　boarded　in　the　farmhouses；　and　were　of　course　single　men；　no　man　could　marry　till　there　was　a　cottage　vacant；　and　it　was　the　policy　of　the　landlords　in　the　'close　villages'　to　destroy　cottages；　in　order　to　lessen　the　rates。　But　now　the　farmers　had　risen　in　social　position　and　refused　to　board　the　labourers　in　their　houses。　The　ejected　labourers；　encouraged　by　the　allowance　system；　married　recklessly；　and　though　some　emigrated　into　the　towns；　a　great　evil　arose。　The　rural　population　kept　increasing　while　the　cottage　accommodation　as　steadily　diminished；　and　terrible　overcrowding　was　the　result。　Owing　to　the　recklessness　and　demoralisation　of　the　labourer　the　lack　of　cottages　no　longer　operated　as　any　check　on　population。　The　change　in　the　social　habits　of　the　farmers　had　thus　a　considerable　effect　on　the　increase　of　rural　population　and　tended　to　aggravate　the　effects　of　the　allowance　system。　　　　　In　the　towns　the　greatest　stimulus　came　from　the　extension　of　trade　due　to　the　introduction　of　machinery。　The　artisan's　horizon　became　indistinct；　there　was　no　visible　limit　to　subsistence。　In　a　country　like　Norway；　with　a　stationary　society　built　up　of　small　local　units；　the　labourer　knows　exactly　what　openings　for　employment　there　are　in　his　community；　and　it　is　well　known　that　the　Norwegian　peasant　hesitates　about　marriage　till　he　is　sure　of　a　position　which　will　enable　him　to　support　a　family。　But　in　a　great　town；　among　'the　unavoidable　variations　of　manufacturing　labour；'　all　these　definite　limits　were　removed。　The　artisan　could　always　hope　that　the　growth　of　industry　would　afford　employment　for　any　number　of　children…an　expectation　which　the　enormously　rapid　growth　of　the　woollen　and　cotton　manufactures　justified　to　a　large　extent。　And　the　great　demand　for　children's　labour　in　towns　increased　a　man's　income　in　proportion　to　the　number　of　his　family；　just　as　the　allowance　system　did　in　the　country。　　　　　What　remedies　did　Malthus　propose？　The　first　was　the　abolition　of　the　Poor　Law。　and　he　was　not　singular　in　this　opinion。　Many　eminent　writers　of　the　time　believed　it　to　be　intrinsically　bad。　He　suggested　that　at　a　given　date　it　should　be　announced　that　no　child　born　after　the　lapse　of　a　year　should　be　entitled　to　relief；　the　improvident　were　to　be　left　to　'the　punishment　of　nature'　and　'the　uncertain　support　of　private　charity。'　Others　saw　that　such　treatment　would　be　too　hard；　that　a　Poor　Law　of　some　sort　was　necessary；　and　that　the　problem　was　how　to　secure　to　the　respectable　poor　the　means　of　support　without　demoralising　them。　His　second　remedy　was　moral　restraint…abstention　from　marriage　till　a　man　had　means　to　support　a　family；　accompanied　by　perfectly　moral　conduct　during　the　period　of　celibacy。　　　　　Let　us　now　see　what　have　been　the　actual　remedies。　The　chief　is　the　reform　of　the　Poor　Laws　in　1834；　perhaps　the　most　beneficent　Act　of　Parliament　which　has　been　passed　since　the　Reform　Bill。　Its　principles　were　（a）　the　application　of　the　workhouse　test　and　the　gradual　abolition　of　outdoor　relief　to　able…bodied　labourers；　（b）　the　format