apply. And we may add, that Portsmouth is too large a town to furnish a fair average of the whole country; to say nothing of the difficulty of any individual's keeping a very accurate account of the births in so considerable a population. Mr Godwin finds that in these two accounts there are about four and a half births to a marriage. His mode of ascertaining this is by merely dividing, in each instance, the whole number of births by the whole number of marriages. But this is not a correct mode of ascertaining the prolificness of marriages, for it is evident that many of these births, must have resulted from marriages which took place prior to the period embraced by the registers; and on the other hand subsequently to the period in the registers, many of the marriages contained therein will have yielded other births, which of course are not counted. And on this account, where the population is either increasing or diminishing, the proportion of births to marriages in the registers will never truly represent the prolificness of marriages. We had supposed that Mr Malthus had made this subject clear enough, in his chapter on the fruitfulness of marriages; and to that we refer our readers for the correct rule on the subject. By this rule, and with the premises furnished him by Mr Barton, Mr Malthus finds 5.58 to be the prolificness of marriages in this country. Of the uncertainty of these premises we have already intimated our opinion. We are very much at a loss to determine whether Mr Godwin ever read the chapter just referred to, or not. He occasionally extracts from it a detached passage; but at the same time he goes on reasoning from principles, which are there demonstrated to be erroneous, as if he were utterly unconscious that the correctness of those principles had ever been questioned. It is possible that he may have resolved that he will be instructed by nothing which comes from Mr Malthus; but it is hardly possible that he can be so childish as to believe that his readers have formed a similar resolution.

To those who are acquainted with Mr Malthus' book, it is superfluous to observe, that there is nothing in the Hingham account at all inconsistent with the supposition of a rapid increase of population. The proportion of births to marriages, indeed, forms no criterion whatever by which to judge of the rate of increase. The population of a country may be stationary or declining, with a proportion as 5 to 1, and may be increasing with some rapidity with a proportion as 4 to 1.' ** The

* Malthus' Essay on Pop. vol. ii. p. 23.

prolificness of marriages is a thing different from the proportion of births to marriages, as presented in the registers. It is only the latter to which Mr Godwin pays any attention. But it is not even on the prolificness of marriages alone, that the rate of increase depends. Population increases when the births exceed the deaths. And the excess of births over the deaths is affected not merely by the prolificness of marriages, but likewise by the proportion of the born which lives to marry; and by the earliness of these marriages compared with the average duration of life. That with the same prolificness of marriages, the rate of increase will be the more rapid, in proportion as a greater proportion of the born shall live to marry, must be evident to every one; and a slight reflection will render it apparent, that where any increase is going on, it will be more rapid, as the interval between the average age of marriage and the average age of death shall be longer. It is evident that if there be any principle of increase, that is, if one marriage in the present generation yields more than one in the next, including second and third marriages, the quicker these generations are repeated, compared with the passing away of a generation by death, the more rapid will be the increase.** Mr Malthus has explained and demonstrated these principles in his chapter on the fruitfulness of marriages; and yet Mr Godwin, with a perverseness which was never equalled, asserts, and builds all his arguments on the assertion, that there must be eight births to a marriage, or the population cannot double itself. And in his attempt, or rather his pretence of ascertaining whether this has been the case, instead of calculating the prolificness of marriages, he looks merely at the proportion of births to marriages in the registers, and if he finds this proportion to be but as 4 to 1, he assures us that the population must be at a stand. If the Hingham register could be considered as presenting the true proportion of births to marriages for the whole country, the only consequence would be, that every thing which Mr Godwin has written respecting the unhealthiness of the United States must be considered incorrect, even if from other sources we did not know it to be so. For in that case we should have to account for the known rate of our increase, by the supposition that the proportion of the born which lives to marry is extraordinarily large; and the larger this proportion is, the more healthy must be the country. But as Mr Malthus ob

* Essay on Pop. vol. ii, p. 21.

Of these there are 1,959 females-5,042 males.

Now is it to be observed that this list embraces not only the foreigners coming here with the intention of remaining, but those who came here only on a visit, and our own citizens, who returned from visits to foreign countries. For these reasons we should deduct nearly all of the following classes, viz : ambassadors, clergymen, consuls, judge, lawyers, merchants, mariners, physicians, supercargoes, gentlemen, and ladies, and probably the planters; amounting in the whole to 1,579; which leaves but 5,422. But as our deductions are merely conjectural, we will estimate the number of emigrants for that year at 6,000. A second report under the above act, for the year ending 30th September 1821, was presented to congress at their last session; but owing to some strange oversight, no order was passed for its being printed. The particulars, there

fore, we are not acquainted with; but we have ascertained that the whole number of passengers was 10,722, of which 2,415 were from the United States,' leaving 8,307 foreigners. Besides this, we have a newspaper before us, which professes to give an abstract of 'official returns ordered to be printed by the house of commons' of Great Britain. From these it appears, that from the year 1812 to the year 1821, both years included, there emigrated to the United States-from Ireland, 30,653-from England, 33,608—from Scotland, 4,727. The whole amount of emigrations to the United States, 68,988. During the same period, there embarked for the British dominions in North America, from Ireland, 47,223-from England, 23,783-from Scotland, 19,971. Total of emigrations to the British dominions 90,977. Total of emigrations from the United Kingdom, 159,965. This gives us an annual average of 6,898 emigrants to the United States; and this we take to be not far from the true average. For if the above period embraces the years of the war, when there were no emigrations to this country, it likewise embraces the extraordinary years 1817 and 1818, when the emigrations were double or treble what they ever were before, or have been since. We should add about one ninth to the above amount, for emigrants from other countries than Great Britain; for we take it, that about nine tenths of all the foreigners who come to this country, come from the United Kingdom, and we shall have an average of little more than 7,500 emigrants per annum. And whilst we thus find the documents of the British government, and of our own, coinciding so nearly, it is impossible to think that both are very far from the truth. With regard to the years 1817 and 1818, the only satisfactory information we possess, is from Dr Seybert's valuable work. We are there furnished with the number of passengers arriving at the principal ports of the United States, during the year 1817, as obtained from the records of the several custom houses. The number was 22,240. If we make a proper deduction for the number of Americans who must have been among these passengers, we shall conclude that the number of emigrants for that year was about 18,000. Dr Seybert supposes the number in common years to be 6,000; and allowing them the extraordinary rate of increase of 5 per cent. per annum, he calculates, that deprived of this foreign aid, our population would require, in order to effect

* Statistical Annals, p. 29.

a duplication, four fifths of a year longer than it now does. The amount of emigration in common years, we are of opinion, varies from six to eight thousand. To make out Mr Godwin's proposition, it ought to be about two hundred and forty thou

sand.

If any thing be wanting to confirm the above statement, we may find it in the last census. The number of 'foreigners not naturalized,' is there given under a distinct head, and amounts only to 53,655. No foreigner can be naturalized until he has resided within the United States at least five years; and consequently we have the whole number which could have arrived during the five years preceding the census, even if we suppose that all who arrived before that period were naturalized as soon as the law would permit. But we know that a great many delay obtaining naturalization for several years after they are entitled to it; and not a few are never naturalized at all. From all the above sources of information, and the agreement of them all, we have as much certainty respecting the amount of emigration as the nature of the subject will admit of.

We have said that Mr. G's proposition, that the present population of the American continent must have arisen from a direct transportation of the inhabitants of the Old World to the New,' is stated with one exception.' The limitation alluded to is this:

The majority of the emigrants that pass over from Europe to North America may be supposed to be in the flower of their life. Now every such emigrant is equal to two human beings, taken indiscriminately among the population, or rather among the rising generation of an old established country. For example, we have found that, in four children born into the world, we have no right to count upon more than one female, who by child bearing, can contribute to keep up or increase the numbers of mankind in the next generation. But of emigrants withdrawing themselves to America, as we have been informed they usually withdraw themselves in families, we have a right, if they go in the flower of their lives, out of every four, to count upon two females who, by child bearing, may contribute to the future population of the country.' pp. 404, 405.

Mr Godwin had supposed, independently of this limitation, the annual number of emigrants necessary to account for the increase between 1790 and 1810, to be one hundred and New Series, No. 12. 39