object to this distinction, and contend that both errors are logical.
For a little consideration will convince the reader that he, who
thinks the first error mathematical, will inevitably miss the true
point where the error of Mr. Malthus arises; and the consequence of
that will be--that he will never understand the Malthusians, nor ever
make himself understood by them. Mr. Hazlitt says, 'a bushel of wheat
will sow a whole field: the produce of that will sow twenty fields.'
Yes: but this is not the point which Mr. Malthus denies: this he will
willingly grant: neither will he deny that such a progression goes on
by geometrical ratios. If he did, then it is true that his error would
be a mathematical one. But all this he will concede. Where then lies
his error? Simply in this--that he assumes (I do not mean in words,
but it is manifestly latent in all that he says) that the wheat shall
be continually resown on the same area of land: he will not allow of
Mr. Hazlitt's 'twenty fields:' keep to your original field, he will
say. In this lies his error: and the nature of that error is--that he
insists upon shaping the case for the wheat in a way which makes it no
fair analogy to the case which he has shaped for man. That it is
unfair is evident: for Mr. Malthus does not mean to contend that his
men will go on by geometrical progression; or even by arithmetical,
upon the _same_ quantity of food: no! he will himself say the positive
principle of increase must concur with the same sort of increase in
the external (negative) condition, which is food. Upon what sort of
logic therefore does he demand that his wheat shall be thrown upon the
naked power of its positive principle, _not_ concurring with the same
sort of increase in the negative condition, which in this case is
land? It is true that at length we shall come to the end of the land,
because that is limited: but this has nothing to do with the race
between man and his food, so long as the race is possible. The race is
imagined for the sake of trying their several powers: and the terms of
the match must be made equal. But there is no equality in the terms as
they are supposed by Mr. Malthus. The amount therefore is--that the
case which Mr. Malthus everywhere supposes and reasons upon, is a case
of false analogy: that is, it is a logical error. But, setting aside
the unfairness of the case, Mr. Malthus is perfectly right in his
mathematics. If it were fair to demand that the whe