In the first edition of the Essay, Malthus began with two postulates: “First, that food is necessary to the existence of man. Secondly, the passion between the sexes is necessary and will remain nearly in its present state.”

Once, having accepted these two laws as fixed by nature he goes on the argue, “Assuming then my postulate as granted, say that the power of population is definitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man.

Population, when unchecked increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio. A slight acquaintance with numbers will show the immensity of the first power in comparison with the second.”

In Chapter Two of the sixth edition of the Essay, Malthus puts forth the following propositions, “(1) Population is necessarily limited by the means of subsistence; (2) Population invariably increases where the means of subsistence increase unless prevented by some very powerful and obvious checks; (3) These checks, and the checks which repress the superior power of population and its effects on a level with the means of subsistence, are all resolvable into moral restraint, vice and misery.”

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Accepting the fact that the factors obstructing the growth of population were constantly in operation, Malthus further attempted to investigate what the natural increase in population would be, if left unchecked and the rate at which the means of subsistence could be increased.

On the basis of these two questions, he framed two of his basic propositions that population tends to double itself every twenty-five years, thus increasing in a geometrical ratio, while even under the most favourable conditions, agricultural produce increases each twenty-five years only by an equal quantity, thus increasing only in an arithmetical ratio.

He concludes: “Taking the whole earth the human species would increase as the numbers 1,2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256 and the subsistence as numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. In two centuries, the population would be to the means of subsistence as 256 to 9.”

Malthus recognised that powerful checks were constantly in operation to obstruct population growth, and classified them under two headings.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

“The first of these checks may, with propriety, be called preventive checks to population; and the absolute necessity of their operation in the case supposed is as certain and obvious as that man cannot live without food.”

Malthus included moral restraint and vice as voluntary checks based on man’s reasoning faculties. While further elaborating on these two preventive checks, Malthus described moral restraint as “abstinence from marriage, either for a time or permanently, from prudential consideration, with a strictly moral conduct towards the sex in the interval.

And this is the only mode of keeping population on a level with the means of subsistence which is perfectly consistent with virtue and happiness.”

Vice was described by Malthus as prevention of the birth of children “a sort of intercourse which renders some of the women of large towns unprolific,” extra marital sexual relations and Prostitution.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

The positive checks referred in general to all the factors which tended to shorten human life: “Such as unwholesome occupations severe labour and exposure to the seasons bad and insufficient good and clothing arising from poverty bad nursing of children excesses of all kinds great towns and manufactories the whole train of common diseases and epidemics wars, infanticide, plague, famine.”

Here, again, Malthus classified these positive checks into two categories, the first which were brought about by natural causes and which he labelled as “exclusively misery,” the other being those which mankind brought upon itself, such as wars, excesses of all kinds, which were avoidable but which were brought about by vice and were the consequences of misery.

Malthus made it quite clear that he did not favour the Poor Laws, which provided relief to the poor, for he was of the opinion that poverty was an evil which could be remedied by the poor themselves by prudently delaying marriage.

He even went so far as to advocate the abolition of the Poor Laws, which he considered to be ill-conceived.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

It is not surprising that the Essay provoked a great deal of controversy, which to some extent has continued up to recent times.

Some of his followers regarded the Essay as one of the most important single contribution to population studies, while others have even doubted Malthus’s originality and his understanding of the problem of population, and have gone so far as to consider him a plagiarist.

Kautsky, one of the bitterest critics of Malthus, commented, “It was correct to name the new population theory after Malthus as to name America after Amerigo Vespucci. Both did no more than to spread the news of what others had discovered.”

The charge that the contribution of Malthus was not original can be substantiated by pointing out that Macchiavelli and Botero had earlier stated that population increases faster than the means of subsistence.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Besides, many of his arguments had already been put forward by such thinkers as Sir Walter Raleigh, Francis Bacon, John Graunt, William Petty, Sir Matthew Hale, Benjamin Franklin, Saxe, Joseph Townsend, Sussmilch, Sir James Steuart, Hume, Robert Wallace, Arthur Young Archdeacon, Paley and others.

Though it is true that the ideas on which the Malthusian theory is based had been prevalent for several years, it must be pointed out in defense of Malthus that he put these ideas in a larger framework and examined the interrelationship between population growth on the one hand and economic and political developments on the other something which none of his predecessors had attempted.

It must also be acknowledged that Malthus’s style of writing was polished and he wrote authoritatively, putting forth his propositions, not only eloquently but also adding occasionally a philosophical touch. He was, therefore, successful in attracting the attention of the people to a much greater extent than any of his predecessors did.

Moreover, it is to the credit of” Malthus that he modestly recognised that his was not an original doctrine, at the same time nothing out that his presentation of the same ideas was better and some systematic, specially in the proposition that population tends to increase at a geometrical ratio and the means of subsistence at arithmetical ratio.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Kenneth Smith is of the opinion that the success of Malthus may be attributed to the “opportune circumstances” prevailing at that time and to the political climate which was favourable to the acceptance of his theory.

The French Revolution had disillusioned intellectuals, who found the Malthusian theory as one of the reasons for withdrawing their support to it. The political atmosphere prevailing at the time was troubled and uncertain; the fear of the Napoleonic wars had already cast its shadow on England.

Though the minds of the people were much influenced by the optimism and the theory of the “perfectibility of man,” enunciated by William Godwin and Condorcet, it was obvious that there was a need for some realistic doctrines as against the lofty dreams for the improvement of society.

“Malthus offered a scientific pessimism which, gloomy and fatalistic though it was towards the hopes of the working classes, absolved the ruling classes from the need to make ‘futile’ efforts on their behalf.”

The economic message of Malthus was also welcomed. Though the poverty of the workers was increasing with alarming rapidity, the prevailing Poor Laws were considered by many as providing incentives to the poor to contribute to a rapid population growth.

The plea of Malthus, therefore, for the abolition of these Poor Laws naturally appealed to the group that also held similar views. (Here it may be pointed out, that there was another group which, in fact, argued for improvements in the Poor Laws.)

That the fear of over-population was very real is understandable enough when we consider that England is only a small island. The argument concerning limited land and unlimited fertility was, therefore, very appealing.

The doctrines of Malthus were also convenient for the rulers, who were constantly afraid of a growing poverty, a growing poor rate and a growing unrest.”