The lady will have 1,762,500 children: a large “efflux of the fountain of life,” to borrow Mr. Sadler’s sonorous rhetoric, as the most philoprogenitive parent could possibly desire. {224}But let us, instead of putting cases of our own, look at some of those which Mr. Sadler has brought forward in support of his theory. The following table, he tells us, exhibits a striking proof of the truth of his main position. It seems to us to prove only that Mr. Sadler does not know what inverse proportion means. [Illustration: 0230] Is 1 to 160 as 3.66 to 5.48? If Mr. Sadler’s principle were just, the number of children produced by a marriage at the Cape would be, not 5.48, but very near 600. Or take America and France. Is 4 to 140 as 4.22 to 5.22? The number of births to a marriage in North America ought, according to this proportion, to be about 150. Mr. Sadler states the law of population in England thus:-- “Where the inhabitants are found to be on the square mile, From 50 to 100 (2 counties) the births to 100 marriages are 420 --100 to 150 (9 counties).... 396 --150 to 200 (16 counties)... 390 --200 to 250 (4 counties).... 388 --250 to 300 (5 counties).... 378 --300 to 350 (3 counties).... 353 --500 to 600 (2 counties).... 331 --4000 and upwards (1 county) 246 “Now, I think it quite reasonable to conclude, that, were there {225}not another document in existence relative to this subject, the facts thus deduced from the census of England are fully sufficient to demonstrate the position, that the fecundity of human beings varies inversely as their numbers. How, I ask, can it be evaded?”