'since that time a woman has had one rib more than a man.'— Surely, father, you must be mistaken there,' said the king. "Mistaken!' said the missionary. It is an indisputable fact. My 'faith upon it! My life upon it!' The good man had heard the fact asserted by his nurse when he was a child,had always considered it as a strong confirmation of the Scriptures, and fully believed it, without having ever thought of verifying it. The king ordered a man and woman, the leanest that could be found, to be brought before him, and desired his spiritual instructor to count their ribs. The father counted over and over, upward and downward, and still found the same number in both. He then cleared his throat, stammered, stuttered, and began to assure the king that, though he had committed a little error in saying that a woman had more ribs than a man, he was quite right in saying that the first woman was made out of the rib of the first man. 'How can I tell that?' said the king. You come to me with a 'strange story, which you say is revealed to you from heaven. I 'have already made you confess that one half of it is a lie; and how can you have the face to expect that I shall believe the ' other half?'

We have shown that Mr Sadler's theory, if it be true, is as much a theory of superfecundity as that of Mr Malthus. But it is not truc. And from Mr Sadler's own tables we will prove that it is not true.

The fecundity of the human race in England Mr Sadler rates as follows:

Where the inhabitants are found to be on the square mile

From

50 to 100 (2 counties) the births to 100 marriages are 420

150 to 200 (16 counties)

100 to 150 (9 counties)

200 to 250 (4 counties)

250 to 300 (5 counties)

396

390

388

378

353

331

246

4000 and upwards (1 county)

Having given this table, he begins, as usual, to boast and triumph. Were there not another document on the subject in 'existence,' says he, the facts thus deduced from the census of Eugland are sufficient to demonstrate the position, that the fecundity of human beings varies inversely as their numbers.' In no case would these facts demonstrate that the fecundity of human beings varies inversely as their numbers, in the right sense of the words inverse variation. But certainly they would, if there were no other document in existence,' appear to indicate something like what Mr Sadler means by inverse variation.

Unhappily for him, however, there are other documents in existence, and he has himself furnished us with them. We will extract another of his tables:

:

TABLE LXIV.

Showing the Operation of the Law of Population in the different Iundreds of the County of Lancaster.

Mr Sadler rejoices much over this table. The results, he says, have surprised himself; and, indeed, as we shall show, they might well have done so.

The result of his enquiries with respect to France he presents in the following table:

The legitimate births are, in those departments where there are to each inhabitant

From 4 to 5 hects. (2 departs.) to every 1000 marriages,

(3 do.)
(30 do.)
. (44 do.)

.06 to 1 . (5 do.)
and .06. . (1 do.)

5130

4372

4250

4234

4146

2557

Then comes the shout of exultation as regularly as the Gloria Patri at the end of a Psalm. Is there any possibility of gain'saying the conclusions these facts force upon us; namely, that 'the fecundity of marriages is regulated by the density of the population, and inversely to it?'

Certainly these tables, taken separately, look well for My Sadler's theory. He must be a bungling gamester who cannot win when he is suffered to pack the cards his own way. We must beg leave to shuffle them a little, and we will venture to pro

mise our readers that some curious results will follow from the operation. In nine counties of England, says Mr Sadler, in which the population is from 100 to 150 on the square mile, the births to 100 marriages are 396. He afterwards expresses some doubt as to the accuracy of the documents from which this estimate has been formed, and rates the number of births as high as 414. Let him take his choice. We will allow him every advantage.

In the table which we have quoted, numbered lxiv. he tells us that in Almondness, where the population is 267 to the square mile, there are 415 births to 100 marriages. The population of Almondness is twice as thick as the population of the nine counties referred to in the other table. Yet the number of births to a marriage is greater in Almondness than in those counties.

Once more, he tells us, that in three counties, in which the population was from 300 to 350 on the square mile, the births to 100 marriages were 353. He afterwards rates them at 375. Again we say, let him take his choice. But from his table of the population of Lancashire it appears that, in the hundred of Leyland, where the population is 354 to the square mile, the number of births to 100 marriages is 391. Here again we have the marriages becoming more fruitful as the population becomes denser.

Let us now shuffle the censuses of England and France together. In two English counties which contain from fifty to 100 inhabitants on the square mile, the births to 100 marriages are, according to Mr Sadler, 420. But in forty-four departments of France, in which there are from one to two hecatares to each inhabitant, that is to say, in which the population is from 125 to 250, or rather more, to the square mile, the number of births to 100 marriages is 423 and a fraction.

Again, in five departments of France in which there is less than one hecatare to each inhabitant, that is to say, in which the population is more than 250 to the square mile, the number of births to 100 marriages is 414 and a fraction. But in the four counties of England in which the population is from 200 to 250 on the square mile, the number of births to 100 marriages is, according to one of Mr Sadler's tables, only 388, and by his very highest estimate no more than 402.

Mr Sadler gives us a long table of all the towns of England and Ireland, which, he tells us, irrefragably demonstrates his principle. We assert, and will prove, that these tables are alone sufficient to upset his whole theory.

It is very true, that in the great towns the number of births

to a marriage appears to be smaller than in the less populous towns. But we learn some other facts from these tables which we should be glad to know how Mr Sadler will explain. We find that the fecundity in towns of fewer than 3000 inhabitants, is actually much greater than the average fecundity of the kingdom, and that the fecundity in towns of between 3000 and 4000 inhabitants is at least as great as the average fecundity of the kingdom. The average fecundity of a marriage in towns of fewer than 3000 inhabitants is about four; in towns of between 3000 and 4000 inhabitants it is 3.60. Now the average fecundity of England, when it contained only 160 inhabitants to a square mile, and when, therefore, according to the new law of population, the fecundity must have been greater than it now is, was only, according to Mr Sadler 3.66 to a marriage. To proceed, -the fecundity of a marriage in the English towns of between 4000 and 5000 inhabitants, is stated at 3.56. But when we turn to Mr Sadler's table of the counties, we find the fecundity of a marriage in Warwickshire and Staffordshire rated at only 3.48, and in Lancashire and Surrey at only 3.41.

These facts disprove Mr Sadler's principle; and the fact on which he lays so much stress,-that the fecundity is less in the great towns than in the small towns,-does not tend in any degree to prove his principle. There is not the least reason to believe that the population is more dense, on a given space, in London or Manchester, than in a town of 4000 inhabitants. But it is quite certain that the population is more dense in a town of 4000 inhabitants than in Warwickshire or Lancashire. That the fecundity of Manchester is less than the fecundity of Sandwich or Guildford, is a circumstance which has nothing whatever to do with Mr Sadler's theory. But that the fecundity of Sandwich is greater than the average fecundity of Kent, that the fecundity of Guildford is greater than the average fecundity of Surrey, as from his own tables appears to be the case, these are facts utterly inconsistent with his theory.

We need not here examine why it is that the human race is less fruitful in great cities than in small towns or in the open country. The fact has long been notorious. We are inclined to attribute it to the same causes which tend to abridge human life in great cities,-to general sickliness and want of tone, produced by close air and sedentary employments. Thus far, and thus far only, we agree with Mr Sadler, that when population is crowded together in such masses, that the general health and energy of the frame are impaired by the condensation, and by the habits attending on the condensation, then the fecundity of

the race diminishes. But this is evidently a check of the same class with war, pestilence, and famine. It is a check for the operation of which Mr Malthus has allowed.

That any condensation which does not affect the general health will affect fecundity, is not only not proved-it is disprovedby Mr Sadler's own tables.

Mr Sadler passes on to Prussia, and sums up his information respecting that country as follows:

After the table comes the boast as usual:

Thus is the law of population deduced from the registers of Prussia also; and were the argument to pause here, it is conclusive. The results obtained from the registers of this and the preceding countries, exhibiting, as they do most clearly, the principle of human increase, it is utterly impossible should have been the work of chance; on the contrary, the regularity with which the facts class themselves in conformity with that principle, and the striking analogy which the whole of them bear to each other, demonstrate equally the design of Nature, and the certainty of its accomplishment.'

We are sorry to disturb Mr Sadler's complacency. But, in our opinion, this table completely disproves his whole principle. If we read the columns perpendicularly indeed, they seem to be in his favour. But how stands the case if we read horizontally? Does Mr Sadler believe, that during the thirty years which elapsed between 1754 and 1784, the population of Prussia had been diminishing? No fact in history is better ascertained than that, during the long peace which followed the seven years' war, it increased with great rapidity. Indeed, if the fecundity were what Mr Sadler states it to have been, it must have increased with great rapidity. Yet, the ratio of births to marriages is greater in 1784 than in 1754, and that in every province. It is, therefore, perfectly clear that the fecundity does not diminish whenever the density of the population increases.