as a matter of course, productive of more happiness, and consequently of more food and comfort, to mankind; and accordingly it always has, and will. It increases the consumers of human produce; but it multiplies the produce again more. Mr. Malthus's disciples indeed say, that it is the increase in the quantity of food, that produces the increase in population, and not vice versa; but how is this increase of food to be produced? We say it is produced by every thing, which gives an additional impulse to human ingenuity and exertion of course then, inter alia, by an increase of population: for that increase augments our particular demands, and imposes on us the necessity of pro+ viding for the demands of those, whose cravings are by nature as importunate and as painful as our own. This is what Mr. Malthus seems to have overlooked. He has uniformly spoken of the "principle of population" as a cause of an increase to the numbers of the people, without taking notice that it caused an increase of in dustry as well as of people. It is notorious that, in general, when a man marries, he becomes more moral, laborious, and selfdenying; if, by marrying, he add to the numbers, who are to be fed out of the gross stock of the community, he also brings an addition to the stock itself, by giving an additional impulse to the qualities, by which it is created and enlarged.

We, therefore, do not hesitate to say, that, in every condition of society, an increase of population always has, and always will produce a greater increase of food. If the population is already so very dense that an augmentation to it could scarcely find support, then, consistently with experience and good sense, we may conclude, that the augmentation will be slow and tardy; but, small as the augmentation may or can be, it will, when it occurs, produce or be accompanied by a greater augmentation of subsistence.

Our reason for saying, that, in a very dense condition of popu lation, the augmentation to it will be small and tardy is, not only that we have always observed the fact to be so, but that we have remarked that, as society advances in civilization, (which it always must as the population becomes greater) a multitude of passions, habits, peculiarities, and prejudices, grow up and dispute, in the human character, the dominion, which is almost exclusively possessed by the simpler and more original (but not therefore the more natural) propensities, when man is in a ruder state. In a state of high civilization, many, who are in circumstances to marry at an early period, either refrain from it entirely, or postpone it very late, from the preference they give to the single over the married life. The pursuits of public and of private life, of ambition, of literature, of commerce, and of pleasure, extinguish in multitudes the desire of being the fathers of a family. A great many more are not in circumstances to

become so without a diminution of those comforts, which habit has rendered necessaries of life, and a descent from the station in society, which they have been taught from infancy never to relinquish. The consequence is, that, in these stages of society, the addition to the population is kept within the limits of subsistence, not by premature mortality (as before observed), but by a diminution of the force of the "principle of population;" by which we are to understand, not the passion between the sexes in its coarser and more general import, but that modification of it, which induces men to marry; for we know it is then alone it increases population.

"

In what respect, then, can it be said by Mr. Malthus, that population has a tendency" to increase beyond subsistence? Can he mean, that because there is an abstract capacity in man (if such a thing can be conceived) to increase faster than subsistence, that, therefore, there is a tendency in men so to increase? If Thomas is capable of running faster than James, does it follow that he has a tendency to leave James behind? Or does Mr. Malthus only mean, when he speaks of man's tendency to increase beyond subsistence, that such would be the rate of his increase, if he were governed exclusively by the " principle of population?" This might, perhaps, be true; but it would be a gross abuse of language, and must produce an utter confusion in all our ideas, to call it a tendency on that account. We should be equally justified in saying, that man had a tendency not to increase at all, because he would not increase at all, IF governed exclusively by other principles, which are as inherent in his nature, as the principle of population. It would justify us in saying, that a man had a tendency to be whatever he would become, if directed in his conduct by any one propensity in his nature, to the exclusion of the rest; but is that a tendency? Has the earth a tendency to fly from or into the sun, because it would do either, if released from its centrifugal or centripetal direction? In truth and in good logic, the earth has neither of these tendencies: its tendency is to move in the orbit it actually pursues, in obedience to the combined forces, that actually impel it. And so it is with man: his tendency is not to deviate into every eccentricity, to which he would be driven by each appetite or principle of his nature, taken singly and unconnected by the others, but to move in the line, in which he is impelled by the combined influence of all the various principles and feelings that form his character. The principle of population, as estimated by Mr. Malthus, is one of these principles, and accordingly it exercises its proper influence upon his conduct; but this is only that degree of his influence which is compatible with the influence, which is as surely exercised upon him by the other properties of his nature.

One observation more, and we shall conclude. Mr. Malthus complains of the " pressure of population on subsistence," and attributes to that cause the vice and misery of the world. This is an instance of how closely extremes approach. We should not have expected that he would fall into the error, he rebukes in the supporters of the system of equality. They say, that misery would be removed, if the produce of the earth were equally divided. The answer to them is, that there would shortly be little, very little, to divide the stimulus to create and reproduce it would be no more. The same answer applies to Mr. Malthus. If produce continued as it is, the diminution of the population would increase the portion of each person; but produce would not continue as it is, if population were diminished. The stimulus to create produce, consequently produce itself, would be diminished. If we take produce to be a fixed quality, human happiness may be said to vary inversely as the population; but experience tells us, that produce is not a fixed quality, but that it uniformly varies with, but in a greater ratio than, population. It is population, that advances arithmetically, while produce, in quality and quantity, advances geometrically..

This explains why we object to the Poor-laws, though we are not adverse to legislative encouragement to marry. We consider the married state, and the incumbrances it imposes, to be,' upon the whole, stimulants to exertion, and to furnish motives for frugality. The Poor-laws, on the contrary, weaken the stimulants to exertion, and render frugality unnecessary, and: therefore (and not for the reason assigned by Mr. Malthus) we object to them.

The Editor is in hopes, that this Journal will contain some farther discussion of this question, and that some opinions, considerably different from those of the present contributor, will be given, in order to enable the public to form an impartial judgement.

!

SONNET!

Methought, that in a calm and leafy bower.

I rested, where the purple flowers were springing,
And from their buds of bloom and beauty flinging,
On loaded gales, their odours' richest power:
Watching the evening's, warm and sunny shower,
I heard the woods, and plains, and valleys, ringing
With every feather'd denizen's glad singing,
For such a scene, and such a gentle hour.----
O faithless vision! faithless and untrue!
Nor bower, nor bud, nor odour sweet is here,
Nor song of bird---instead of these I view
The CITY's walls of aspect dark and drear,
And, for the skies of deep ethereal blue,
Long-volumed clouds of murky smoke appear.

GERMAN AUTHORS.

NO. II.

SCHILLER,

FREDERIC SCHILLER was born at Marbach, in the duchy of Wirtemberg, on the 10th of November 1759. His father, then a lieutenant in the ducal service, was afterwards promoted to a majority, and appointed governor of the palace of La Solitude, and inspector of the forests of the country. The cultivation of trees was his favourite pursuit; in the management of its forests, he rendered important services to his native land, and published a work on the subject, which attests his knowledge and intelligence. His mother possessed that softness and tenderness, which is so fascinating in the sex. She had a strong relish for the beauties of nature, and was passionately fond of music and poetry. Frederic's countenance bore a particular resemblance to that of his mother, whose darling he was; and it was she, who communicated to his infant mind that bias, which grew up with him, and rendered him what he was in after-life. He was always with her: she taught him to read, and told him stories; and he read to her, and was the constant companion of her frequent walks. An old friend of the family gave him the first instruction in writing, natural history, and geography; while another, a physician, sought to initiate him, in an amusing manner, into natural philosophy, particularly the structure of the universe and of the human body. When only three years old,' he manifested an extraordinary eagerness after knowledge, great quickness of apprehension, and an incessantly active imagination. He disliked the usual sports of children; and one of his favourite amusements consisted in the contemplation of his father's little collection of pictures and profiles, consisting chiefly of oil paintings of heroes, princes, and relatives of the family. Here he would pass whole hours, stedfastly gazing on one picture after another, and attempting to copy them. Among these paintings was one representing the storming of Magdeburg by Tilly, and the scenes of horror which ensued. It was the best and largest piece in the collection. Tilly, with his right hand against his side, and the look of a bloodthirsty tyrant, was seen riding through the streets. Groups of weeping females, persons of all ages running away from the infuriated soldiers, burning and falling houses, and all the scenes of woe that attended the steps of Tilly, were the subjects of this picture. Young Schiller, then about six years old, was highly interested by the many expressive faces in this delineation of the rude manners of a former age; and one day, laying sacrilegious hands on this heir-loom, which had already descended from father to son for several gene

rations, he cut it up into as many pieces as there were figures. These he pasted upon paper, where horse and foot in mingled ranks followed their sanguinary leader, whose whole face the boy had blackened to make him look more frightful. Then came, upon another piece of paper, a long row of men, women and children: each man being accompanied by a woman and a child. The aged of both sexes concluded the procession. In short, he had recomposed the whole in his own way; and, upon a third paper, he had placed the heads of children on the bodies of old men, and affixed those of young persons to the bodies of old women, while a Croat with uplifted sword appeared, perhaps, with the face of a modest damsel, and a plundering officer with the head of a spirited horse. In this manner, he transformed a single piece into a whole gallery, the third division of which, in particular, was not unlike some of Hogarth's caricatures. It may easily be supposed that his father, who prized this piece very, highly, bestowed on him no very agreeable reward for his pains.

Not long after this, black clouds one day announced an approaching thunder-storm. Flashes of lightning began to dart through the atmosphere. Inquiry was made for the boy, but he was nowhere to be found. The tempest meanwhile came nearer and nearer; the thunder rolled awfully, and lightnings burst from the bosom of the murky clouds. The anxiety of the parents, on account of the child, increased with every clap. The whole family was employed in seeking him. He was at length found, just at the moment of descending from the top of a very tall lime-tree near the house. "For God's sake," cried his father in the greatest alarm, where have you been?" "I only wanted to see," replied the fearless and inquisitive boy," where all that fire came from."

We are assured that, at an early age, he took great pleasure in the perusal of the prophetic books of the Old Testament, but, that none of them gave him such delight as the prophet Ezekiel. Whoever recollects the sublime vision of the dry bones (chap. xxxvii.) and turns to Franz Moor's dream in " The Robbers," cannot help being struck by the resemblance.

Schiller's father, being, as a soldier, a friend to military institutions, conceived that he could not provide better for his temporal welfare, than by placing him in the Military or Caroline Academy at Stuttgard. His mother was in favour of a private school at Tübingen; but the more likely prospect of future promotion decided for the academy. This institution was, at that time, subject to the strict rules of military discipline and subordination. The cane, the sword, and the drum, summoned the pupils to their studies; and as soldiers are marched to church on a Sunday, for the honour of God, so the youths of this academy were paraded to school, for the honour of the Muses. March!