*

The period embraced in the above table has been attended with a very decided improvement of condition, producing increased ability to emigrate.

The people of Scotland emigrate freely, whereas when the peace of the country was disturbed and men found it impossi ble to do more than obtain the commonest food, there was no emigration. The land was split up into the smallest holdings,† because none possessed the power of removing themselves.

The emigration of Ireland is large, and tends to increase with the increased means of the people. Many more now resort to England than did so in former times, and great numbers transfer themselves to Canada and other British provinces, as well as to the United States. The ability to emigrate is an evidence that their condition is better than that of a large portion of the people of the continent, who are chained to the soil by want of means to remove themselves.

From France there is almost literally no emigration to foreign countries. One reason for this is to be found in the fact, that there is no part of the world in which French is the language of the people, whereas English is the language of a large portion of the world. That cause would not, however, prevent them from transferring themselves from one part of France to another, and yet we see vast bodies of land remaining uncultivated in one quarter, while in other parts it is divided into portions so small that the plough is no longer used for cultivation. The people of Switzerland enjoy fewer natural advantages, but they remain at peace, employing themselves in production, and are consequently enabled to traverse France on their way to America, while those of France remain at home, unable to change their residence, because so large a portion of their time and labour is employed in impairing the condition of others, instead of improving their own.

+ See vol. i., p. 65, ante.

See vol. i., p. 255, ante.

See vol. ii., p. 174, ante.

§ See vol. ii., p. 133, ante.

CHAPTER VII.

EFFICIENCY OF LABOUR.-FRANCE. THE NETHERLANDS.ENGLAND.-THE UNITED STATES.

We now proceed to compare the several populations as regards efficiency of labour. This would seem to be hardly necessary, when we could point to the United States, England, the Netherlands, and France, and show that the reward of labour in the first, in which population increased most rapidly, was greater than in the second, which increased less rapidly, that it was greater in the second than in the third, and greater in the third than in the fourth, in which the growth of population was slowest ;* yet as several recent writers have asserted that labour was most productive where population was stationary, or but slowly increasing, we deem it proper to compare the muscular power of the several nations. The efficient population is to be found between the ages of 15 and 45, and of that there are in every 10,000,000 in the several countries,

4,372,000 4,355,000 4,409,000 4,478,000

Here there is no material difference. The remainder of the

population is thus divided:

Below 15,
Above 45,

4,610,000 3,900,000 3,378,000 3,182,000 1,018,000 1,745,000 2,213,000 2,340,000

10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000

We find in the United States, below the age of 15, 1,400,000 more than are to be found in France, in which country their place is occupied by those below 45 and 100. If it were possible that two countries could exist, in which the physical and moral condition of the people should be exactly equal, and the population be divided as the United States and France are

* See vol. ii., chapters xi. and xv.

above shown to be, we should admit that the labour-power of the latter was greatest. Such, however, is not the case. The population of France increases slowly because of the difficulty of obtaining subsistence, and it will increase more rapidly with every increase in the facility with which it can be obtained. A slow increase of numbers is invariably attendant upon and is an evidence of unproductiveness of labour.

We have already shown what is the physical condition of the labouring population of France. In the Departement du Nord, there are annually rejected of the conscripts more than one-fourth of the number, for infirmities and deformities. In the Departement des Bouches du Rhone, 1 in 12 is rejected. If such be the capacity for labour of the young, what must it be among the aged? By reference to a former chapter, the reader will see that with hard labour and low wages, inferior nourishment, clothing, and lodging, the physical condition of the population is low, and that a large portion of those above 45 are incapable of acquiring the means of support, and are a burthen upon the productive portion of the nation, instead of an aid to it. We hazard little in saying that there is a higher degree of muscular power in the 1,018,000 of the people of the United States above 45, than in the 2,340,000 of the people of France.

If such be the case with regard to muscular power, how much more so is it with the intellectual! In the exact ratio of the growth of population, do we find the desire for education and the ability to obtain it. In France, the mass of the population is ignorant to a degree that is scarcely conceivable. In the Netherlands we find the proportion of the educated increase. In England it is still greater, but in the United States we find scarcely any who cannot both write and read. With the increase of intellectual capital, we find a constant diminution in the necessity for severe bodily labour, and thus the aged and the youthful are enabled to contribute in aid of production. We think the reader will now be prepared to agree with us that the productive power of a nation tends to increase with the increase in the ratio which the youthful bear to the aged, a rapid increase of population being a necessary consequence of high moral, physical, and intellectual condition.

* See vol. ii., P. 214.

+ See vol. ii., p. 188, ante.

CHAPTER VIII.

SUMMARY.

We now submit the following view of the order in which several countries stand, as regards the several matters treated of in the preceding chapters, as well as in that essential requisite for prosperity, security of person and property.*

Security. 1. U. States.

2. England.

Duration of Life.

1. U. States.

2. England.

Growth of Population.
1. U. States.

2. England.

Marriages. 1. U. States.

2. England.

3. Netherlands. 3. Netherlands. 3. Netherlands. 3. Netherlands.

3. England.

2. Netherlands. 2. England.

4. France.

3. Netherlands. 3. Netherlands. 3. Netherlands. 4. France.

4. France.

4. France.

Where person and property are most secure, production will be greatest, and the physical and moral condition of man will be highest; there will he be most disposed to contract matrimony, and there will the fecundity of marriages be greatest; there the unmarried adults will be in smallest ratio to the married, and the proportion of illegitimate children will be smallest; and there will the duration of life be longest. Such is the law which common sense would teach, and such is the law that is to be deduced from an examination of the operations of the world.

We have, it is true, confined ourselves to four nations, but a law that is true in regard to that number, will be found equally so in regard to the rest of the world. If we look to India, we find in Bengal, where security is established and taxation is comparatively light, a rapid increase of population, whereas

* See vol. ii., chapters ii., iii., and xv.

in Southern India, where security is of much more recent date, and taxation is heavy, the increase is very slow. As regards most of the countries in Europe, we do not possess information sufficient for such an examination as would be necessary for the proof or disproof of the proposition we have offered. One writer informs us that Prussia doubles her population in 26 years. Another makes it 39, whereas the last census shows an increase of 34 per cent. in 21 years, according to which it would double in about 48 years. According to one,§ Austria doubles in 44 years, whereas a second makes it 53.6, while M. Dupin makes it 69 years. According to the Revue Britannique, France doubles in 125 years, whereas, agreeably to M. Dupin, the term is only 105 years. The first allows 84 years for the Netherlands, and the last only 56, while M. Rau allows 74 years. Russia in Europe is said to double in 48 years, but the following facts will show how little is the dependence to be placed upon any such statements. In the most recent statistics of Russia,¶ we find the following information in regard to the government of Moscow. M. Storch gave it, in 1795, a population of 1,139,000. Wickman, in 1818, 1,246,000. Ziabloffski, in 1814, 935,800. Hassel, in 1829, 1,337,900, and M. Arsenieff, in 1831, 1,200,000. M. Schnitzler, with a view to obtain a correct idea of its actual amount, takes the population of 1796, adds thereto the births since that time, and deducts the deaths, by which process he obtains 1,462,884. He feels himself fully authorized to fix it at 1,300,000 souls.** The government of Vladimir, formerly part of that of Moscow, is stated by Wickman, in 1813, at 960,600; by Ziabloffski, in 1814, at 1,105,132; by Balbi, in 1826, at 1,335,000; by Hassel, in 1829, at 1,334,500; and by Arsenieff, in 1831, at 991,000. Pursuing the same course as in relation to the government of Moscow, M. Schnitzler deems himself authorized to fix it, provisoirement, at 1,100,000. If such be the state of information in regard to the heart of the empire, what must it

* Westminster Review, No. xlv., p. 118.

§ Ibid.

+ Dupin. Professor Rau.

Revue Britannique, quoted by M. Villeneuve. ¶ La Russie, la Pologne, et la Finlande. Tableau Statistique, Geographique et

Historique. Par M. J. H. Schnitzler, Paris, 1835.

** Page 39.

++ Page 103.