Thornton,like Mill,follows Malthus in thinking that over-population must be checked by preventing imprudent marriages;(54)but he makes a special point of the doctrine that misery is not only the effect but the 'principal promoter'of over-population.(55)Hence he is not content with Malthus's negative position.The evil will not die out of itself.His favourite remedy at this time was the 'allotment system.'From this Mill dissents.(56)They agree,however,upon the merits of peasant-proprietorship,upon which Thornton published a book in 1848,shortly before the appearance of Mill's treatise.(57)Mill says that this ought to be the standard treatise on that side 'of the question.'(58)Neither Mill nor Thornton had any firsthand knowledge of agriculture;but they forcibly attacked the assumptions then prevalent among English agriculturists.Thornton had been especially impressed by the prosperity of the Channel Islands --a rather limited base for a wide induction;but both he and Mill could refer to experience on a much larger scale throughout wide districts on the Continent.The pith of Mill's position is condensed in Michelet's picturesque passage,where the peasant is described as unable to tear himself away even on Sunday from the contemplation of his beloved plot of land.The three periods when the peasant had been able to buy land were called the 'good King Louis XII,'the 'good King Henry IV'and the revolution.Arthur Young's famous phrase of the 'magic of property'which 'turns sand to gold'was a still more effective testimony,because Young was the Coryphaeus of the modern ,English school of agriculturists.'(59)France,then,represented the good effects of Malthusianism in action.The French peasantry,as Thornton says after Lavergne,(60)had not read Malthus,but they instinctively put his advice in practice.Mill triumphantly quotes the figures which showed the slow rate of increase of the French population.(61)The case of Belgium,as he remarks,showed that peasant-proprietorship might be consistent with a rapid increase,but the French case proved conclusively that this was not a necessary result of the system.The 'pauper-warren'theory at least is conclusively disproved.M'Culloch's unfortunate prediction might be explained by his a priori tendencies;but it is curious to find Mill confuting Jones,the advocate for a historical method,by an appeal to experience and statistics.The possession of the soundest method does not make a man infallible.
Jones and M'Culloch,as Mill said,had confounded two essentially different things.They had argued simply as to the economic advantages of production on a large and small scale without reference to the moral effect upon the cultivator.Their criterion is simply the greatness of the return to a given amount of capital on different systems.They had therefore treated the cases of France and Ireland as identical,whereas in one vital circumstance they are antithetical.France represented the observance of Malthus's true principle,because the peasant was moved by the 'magic of property';he had absolute security in his little plot;and the vis medicatrix or desire to save was raised to its highest point.Ireland represents the defiance of Malthus,because the Irish cottiers,with no security,and therefore no motive for saving,multiplied recklessly and produced a true 'pauper-warren.'Mill accordingly reaches the conclusion that while peasant-proprietorship does not of necessity involve rude methods of cultivation,it is more favourable than any other existing system to intelligence and prudence,less favourable to 'improvident increase of numbers,'and therefore more favourable to moral and physical welfare.(62)Jones would admit small culture as a natural stage towards the development of the English system.Mill considers it to be in advance of that system,but neither does he consider it to represent the absolutely best system.In a later passage he repudiates an opinion which,he says,might naturally be attributed to him by readers of the earlier chapters.(63)Though the French peasant is better off than the English labourer,he does not hold that we should adopt the French system,nor does he consider that system to be the ideal one.To cover the land with isolated families may secure their independence and promote their industry,but it is not conducive to public spirit or generous sentiment.To promote those qualities we must aim at 'association,not isolation,of interests.'This view is significant.Peasant-proprietorship,we are constantly told,is the great barrier against Socialism.It represents,in fact,'individualism'in its highest degree.It stimulates the Malthusian virtues,prudence,industry,and self-help,and makes each man feel the necessity of trusting to his own energy.Yet Mill,with all his Malthusianism,thinks that such virtues might be stimulated too much;and,after preaching the merits of individualism,shows a leaning towards the antagonistic ideal of Socialism.He says little --perhaps it would hardly have been relevant to say much --of the historical aspect of the question.
