1st ed., pp. 394–6; cf. pp. 241–6. Compare Mr. Henry George’s epilogue to _Progress and Poverty_. It is right to remember that this passage of Malthus was written two years before Paley’s _Natural Theology_, though four years after his _Evidences of Christianity_, and many more after the _Moral and Political Philosophy_. Footnote 69: _R. of Cr._, vol. ii. 103. Footnote 70: _Essay_, 1st ed., p. 387. Footnote 71: See below, Book I. ch. v. Footnote 72: _Ibid._ p. 356 note. Footnote 73: _l. c._ He is ready with a similar excuse in the tract on the _Measure of Value_, p. 61. Where there is no will there is no way. Footnote 74: Part II. sect. ii. pp. 204–6. Footnote 75: MacCulloch (J. R.), editor of the _Commercial Dictionary_, and probably the original of Carlyle’s Macrowdy. No one could have a proper reverence for the Fathers of Political Economy who perpetually referred to the greatest of them without his distinctive prænomen. Footnote 76: Introduction to _W. of N._, p. lii. So the writer of _Progress and Poverty_ tells us “the doctrine of Malthus did not originally and does not necessarily involve the idea of progression” (Bk. II. ch. i. p. 89, ed. 1881). Footnote 77: Bagehot (_Econ. Studies_, p. 136 _seq._), W. R. Greg (_Enigmas of Life_), and Held (_Sociale Geschichte Englands_) may be acquitted, but they are not writers of text-books. Footnote 78: _Wealth of Nations_, Introduction, p. lii. Footnote 79: See _e. g._ the tract on the _Measure of Value_, p. 23, and cf. _Pol. Ec._ (2nd ed.), p. 234. Footnote 80: Godwin’s _Thoughts on Parr’s Sermon_, 1801, p. 54; cf. Godwin’s _Population_ (1820), Bk. i. 27. Footnote 81: Godwin’s _Life_, by Kegan Paul, vol. i. 321. Footnote 82: Hansard, _sub dato_, p. 1429. Footnote 83: Empson in _Edinburgh Review_, Jan. 1837, p. 483; cf. _Essay on Population_, 7th ed. p. 473 n. Empson’s authorship of that article appears from Macvey Napier’s _Correspondence_, p. 187. See below, Book V. Footnote 84: _Works_, vol. viii. p. 440. Footnote 85: _Thoughts on Parr’s Sermon_, p. 56. Footnote 86: _Essay_, 1st ed., pp. 17, 47, 48; _Origin of Species_, ch. iii. p. 50. Hence Sir Chas. Lyell even denies the originality of Darwin and Wallace (_Antiquity of Man_, ch. xxi p. 456). Footnote 87: Cf. A. R. Wallace, _Contributions to Theory of Natural Selection_, and the discussions raised thereupon, 1868. See also _Essays in Philosophical Criticism_ (1883), Essay VIII., _The Struggle for Existence_, in which some of the mixed motives are further described. Footnote 88: Appendix to 5th ed., 1817; 7th ed., p. 526. Cf. Bacon (Essay XXXVIII.), “to bend nature like a wand to a contrary extreme whereby to set it aright.” Adam Smith had used the simile of a bent stick to describe the reaction of the French Economists against the Mercantile theorists (_Wealth of Nations_, IV. ix. 300). Footnote 89: