labourer for each child he has above three. I confess, that
before the bill was brought into Parliament, and for some time
after, I thought that such a regulation would be highly
beneficial, but further reflection on the subject has convinced
me that if its object be to better the condition of the poor, it
is calculated to defeat the very purpose which it has in view. It
has no tendency that I can discover to increase the produce of
the country, and if. It tend to increase the population, without
increasing the produce, the necessary and inevitable consequence
appears to be that the same produce must be divided among a
greater number, and consequently that a day's labour will
purchase a smaller quantity of provisions, and the poor therefore
in general must be more distressed.

I have mentioned some cases where population may permanently
increase without a proportional increase in the means of
subsistence. But it is evident that the variation in different
states, between the food and the numbers supported by it, is
restricted to a limit beyond which it cannot pass. In every
country, the population of which is not absolutely decreasing,
the food must be necessarily sufficient to support, and to
continue, the race of labourers.

Other circumstances being the same, it may be affirmed that
countries are populous according to the quantity of human food
which they produce, and happy according to the liberality with
which that food is divided, or the quantity which a day's labour
will purchase. Corn countries are more populous than pasture
countries, and rice countries more populous than corn countries.
The lands in England are not suited to rice, but they would all