dissenting from a man who of all others on such subjects was the
least likely to be deceived by first appearances. If I find that
at a certain period in ancient history, the encouragements to
have a family were great, that early marriages were consequently
very prevalent, and that few persons remained single, I should
infer with certainty that population was rapidly increasing, but
by no means that it was then actually very great, rather; indeed,
the contrary, that it was then thin and that there was room and
food for a much greater number. On the other hand, if I find that
at this period the difficulties attending a family were very
great, that, consequently, few early marriages took place, and
that a great number of both sexes remained single, I infer with
certainty that population was at a stand, and, probably, because
the actual population was very great in proportion to the
fertility of the land and that there was scarcely room and food
for more. The number of footmen, housemaids, and other persons
remaining unmarried in modern states, Hume allows to be rather an
argument against their population. I should rather draw a
contrary inference and consider it an argument of their fullness,
though this inference is not certain, because there are many
thinly inhabited states that are yet stationary in their
population. To speak, therefore, correctly, perhaps it may be
said that the number of unmarried persons in proportion to the
whole number, existing at different periods, in the same or
different states will enable us to judge whether population at
these periods was increasing, stationary, or decreasing, but will
form no criterion by which we can determine the actual
population.

There is, however, a circumstance taken notice of in most of