Malthus, T. R. (Thomas Robert), 1766-1834; Malthusianism
that the unmarried men for the period before the Revolution were one and
a half millions out of five millions that were marriageable, it would
appear that every year there were 600,000 persons arriving at the
marriageable age, of whom (since about 220,000 is the annual number of
marriages) 440,000 marry. The surplus of unmarried is therefore 160,000
persons, or about 80,000 men. It follows that for war purposes (if mere
numbers be considered) the reserve fund of men would be nearly one and a
half millions, and every new annual surplus of 80,000 youths above
eighteen might be taken for military service without any diminution in
the number of marriages.[323] As a matter of fact, it is putting the
case somewhat strongly to suppose as many as 600,000 to be taken for
service in the first instance, and 150,000 additional troops to keep up
the supply every year. But this would still leave in the first instance
nearly 900,000 for the reserve fund, which with the annual 80,000 could
bear a drain on it of 150,000 for ten years, and leave a balance of
200,000 altogether, or 20,000 a year. In other words, there would be
room for an increase in the number of marriages of nearly 20,000. It
would not be miraculous then if the French population should continue to
increase in the face of great losses in war, for the increase before the
war had been very much less than the greatest possible.
In the second place, the circumstances of the civilian population made
an increase very likely. Many out of the reserve fund of unmarried men
will in the course of ten years be past the military age, but not past
the age of marriage. The 150,000 recruits would probably be taken from
the 300,000 who every year rose to marriageable age, and the marriages
would be kept up from the older unmarried men, in the scarcity of
younger husbands. It may be remembered, too, that in the early years of
the war so many youths married prematurely to avoid service,[324] that
the Directory were obliged (in 1798) to extend the conscription to the
married men. But even when the husbands were removed to the war the
marriages were not necessarily childless, and would thus, at the least,
be a means of adding to the people’s numbers that did not exist before
the Revolution. The facility of divorce, too, though bad both in morals
and in politics, would at least, in the existing scarcity of men, act
somewhat like polygamy, and make the number of children greater in
proportion to the number of husbands. It is said, too, that there were
more natural children born in France after the Revolution than before
it; and, since the peasants were better off after it than before it,
there was a better chance that more of the children than formerly should
survive.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account