------------ EH.NET BOOK REVIEW --------------
Published by EH.NET (March 2007)
James P. Huzel, _The Popularization of Malthus in Early
Nineteenth-Century England: Martineau, Cobbett and the Pauper Press_.
Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2006. xv + 266 pp. $100 (hardcover), ISBN:
0-7546-5427-3.
Reviewed for EH.NET by David M. Levy, Department of Economics, George
Mason University and Sandra J. Peart, Department of Economics,
Baldwin-Wallace College.
Introduction
James Huzel characterizes his research reported in this marvelous
book as a continuation of that found in two reevaluations of T. R.
Malthus's ideas, Donald Winch's _Poverty and Riches_ (1996) and
Samuel Hollander's _The Economics of Thomas Robert Malthus_ (1997).
While Winch locates Malthus's arguments in the larger intellectual
discussion and Hollander tackles of question of Malthus's coherence
as an economic theorist, Huzel explores the popular controversy over
Malthus and that most malthusian act of legislation, the 1834 New
Poor Law which conditioned poor relief with sumptuary controls.
Huzel argues that Malthus is the moving spirit in replacing the
"moral economy" with the market economy. If the Old Poor Law, which
conferred a right to public assistance in cases of distress, is the
paradigm of the moral economy, then the New Poor Law is one of policy
visualized as exchange (Levy and Peart, 2005). Huzel, conscious of
the need to guard against interested misrepresentations, as well as
some of Malthus's self-inflicted infelicities -- is moral restraint
possible? -- begins by providing an overview of Malthus's thought and
influence. He pays a good deal of attention to Malthus's development
over the editions of _Population and Political Economy_. The chapter
titles suggest what each of them contains: Harriet Martineau: The
Female Malthusian?; Cobbett against the Parson; The Radical Working
Class Press against the Malthusian Crew. Pages 197-218 of the
"Radical Working Class" chapter focus on the pro-contraceptive
movement, in particular, Francis Place and John Stuart Mill.
Huzel's book will help the reader shake off the bane of all careful
Malthusian scholarship -- the interpretation that reads "natural
selection" back into Malthus by taking choice out of the marriage
decision (Peart and Levy 2005a; Levy and Peart, 2006). Huzel calls
attention (pp. 212-13) to a revealing paragraph that Malthus added to
the 1817 edition in which he considers how the system of equality
proposed by Robert Owen would affect the age of marriage. In a system
of equality, everyone's children are supported by everyone else. When
people realize, as they will, that this creates an unsupportable
increase in population they will come to realize that the assignment
of individual responsibility is preferable. We quote the entire
paragraph:
Let us suppose that in a system of equality, in spite of the
best exertions to procure more food, the population is
pressing hard against the limits of subsistence, and all are
becoming very poor. It is evidently necessary under these
circumstances, in order to prevent the society from starving, that
the rate at which the population increases should be retarded.
But who are the persons that are to exercise the restraint thus
called for, and either to marry late or not at all? It does not
seem to be a necessary consequence of a system of equality that
all the human passions should be at once extinguished by it; but if
not, those who might wish to marry would feel it hard that they
should be among the number forced to restrain their
inclinations. As all would be equal, and in similar circumstances,
there would be no reason whatever why one individual should
think himself obliged to practise the duty of restraint more than
another. The thing however must be done, with any hope of
avoiding universal misery; and in a state of equality, the
necessary restraint could only be effected by some general law.
But how is this law to be supported, and how are the violations
of it to be punished? Is the man who marries early to be pointed
at with the finger of scorn? is he to be whipped at the cart's
tail? is he to be confined for years in a prison? is he to have
his children exposed? Are not all direct punishments for an
offence of this kind shocking and unnatural to the last
degree? And yet, if it be absolutely necessary, in order to prevent
the most overwhelming wretchedness, that there should be some
restraint on the tendency to early marriages, when the
resources of the country are only sufficient to support a slow
rate of increase, can the most fertile imagination conceive one
at once so natural, so just, so consonant to the laws of God and
to the best laws framed by the most enlightened men, as that each
individual should be responsible for the maintenance of his
own children; that is, that he should be subjected to the natural
inconveniences and difficulties arising from the indulgence
of his inclinations, and to no other whatever? (1826, III III ???
16)
One of the nicest features of Huzel's book is that he emphasizes the
extraordinarily personal nature of the attacks on those who followed
Malthus. For instance, Harriet Martineau's contemporary critics made
her out to be masculine (pp. 78-89). Huzel asks: why her and not Jane
Marcet, a Malthusian of a decade earlier? His answer is that
Martineau's deep radicalism, her support of the New Poor Law, her
anti-slavery, her anti-monopoly positions all threatened many
dimensions of hierarchy. Three decades later, another opponent of
hierarchy, John Stuart Mill (who plays a minor role in Huzel's
account) was shown in feminine attire by his opponents (Peart and
Levy, 2007).
Market Economics v. Moral Economy
Huzel's prefatory comments about the replacement of the moral economy
by the market economy deserve further exploration. As economists we
know a good deal about the market economy. Consider marriage. In the
_Wealth of Nations_ Adam Smith explains how higher wages in America
encourage earlier marriage in American than in Europe (1776, I 8 ???
23). In the next sentence he remarks that: "A young widow with four
or five young children, who, among the middling or inferior ranks of
people in Europe, would have so little chance for a second husband,
is there frequently courted as a sort of fortune." Early marriages
leads to large families and to a population growing at a rate which
doubles every twenty-years (1776, I 8 ??? 23). What makes Smith's
economics of population so remarkable is that it is purely a matter
of contracting agents who accept the responsibility for supporting
their children.
A moral economy seems to be linked instead by non-contractual
obligations. This is certainly how the moral economy is defended by
William Cobbett (Huzel, pp. 126-49). The imperative that Smith evades
but Malthus confronts is that marriage supports chastity, i.e.,
sexual relationship inside and only inside marriage (Levy, 1978 and
1999). Individuals who follow moral imperatives in spite of material
interest, e.g., marrying early to preserve chastity, create an
obligation on the part of society for support in case of distress.
We propose to focus on the attacks on two of Huzel's subjects,
Martineau and Place, published in the 1830s in _Fraser's Magazine for
Town and Country_. _Fraser's_ is remembered both as the first
important Victorian periodical to publish portraits of literary
celebrities (Bates 1874, 1883; Houghton 1972, p. 305; Fisher, 2006)
and as the periodical most associated with the literary, "progressive
conservative," opposition to political economy (Thrall, 1934, pp.
147-58). "Progressive conservatism" catches the fact that the debate
between market economy and moral economy is not carried out along a
single dimension. The greatest of "progressive conservative"
thinkers, Thomas Carlyle, who had been associated with _Fraser's_
from its first issue in February 1830, chose to publish his defense
of slavery, "Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question," in the
December 1849 issue. Carlyle exemplified the tendency to slide
between justifying following moral imperatives and justifying
following the commands of superiors (Peart and Levy, 2005).
_Fraser's_ does not get much attention in Huzel's book. He discusses
the _Fraser's_ review of Martineau's Malthusian novel briefly (p.
76), but passes over the Daniel Maclise portrait of Martineau
accompanied by William Maginn's abuse at Martineau (Maginn and
Maclise, 1833; Bates, 1874, pp. 114-16; Bates, 1883, pp. 206-12).
Consider a controversy between market economists and moral
economists, those who hold exchange as central against those who take
obligation to as central. How will the dispute be conducted? From the
point of view of the market economists, the moralist economists are
not doing their calculations incorrectly. Controversy is largely a
matter of reworking arguments in different words. From the point of
view of the moral economists, because the market economists are
denying all but contractual obligations, there is something wrong
with _them_. Bad calculations on one side; bad people on the other
side. Considerations of scarcity are critical in the Malthusian
debates (Waterman, 1991). Scarcity is a fact for market economists,
it is a failing for the moral economists because it is seen as
evidence that someone wants what they should not want.
How do you show that people are bad? Gossip, caricature. That brings
us back to _Fraser's_. Malthus's recommendation to deal with scarcity
by delaying marriage until one could reasonably expect to support the
consequent children, the "preventive check," was the center of
things. The 1832 review of Harriet Martineau's novels, attributed to
_Fraser's_ editor William Maginn, reflected the radicalism of the
proposal to delay marriage:
Morality and marriage must ever subsist in a state in
correlative proportions. To decrease the prevalence of
marriage is to increase the prevalence of immorality. This the
whole experience of mankind informs us. ....
But we will allow the existence, to a limited extent, of this
falsely-called "moral restraint," in London; -- and there we
immediately find its necessary concomitant; to wit, about
30,000 prostitutes (1832, p. 413).
The review closed scandalized by the fact that a young woman wrote
against marriage.
A Maclise portrait of Martineau appeared the next year. Words
attributed to Maginn which accompany Maclise's portrait claim that by
looking at her picture, one can see why she is a Malthusian.
doubtless, one of the first works the literary antiquary of
future centuries will consult must be _Fraser's Magazine_, by
the delineation of her countenance, figure, posture, and
occupation, which will be found on the opposite plate. He
will readily agree with us, after proper inspection, that it no
great wonder that the lady should be pro-Malthusian; and that not
even the Irish beau, suggested to her by a Tory songster, is
likely to attempt the seduction of the fair philosopher from the
doctrines of no-population (Maginn and Maclise, 1833, p.576;
Bates, 1874, p. 114)).
Scholars who have studied the Maclise image suggest that Martineau is
rendered masculine in the picture (Fisher, 2006, pp. 120-23). Other
evidence of a masculinization of Martineau is given by Huzel (pp.
74-78).
See: http://eh.net/graphics/bookreviews/harriet.martineau.png
The attack on Martineau is so ugly that it puzzles latter-day friends
of _Fraser's_. Thrall (1934, p. 311) calls this "one of the most
contemptible attacks in the magazine." Earlier, Bates (1883, p. 211)
uses "ungallant" defending _Fraser's_ only relative to the
_Quarterly's_ "coarse and ungenerous" allegation that Martineau
proposed contraception. That is a lie (Huzel, p. 75).
Ugly needs to seen in context. Malthus and Martineau accepted the
religious universe which carried the imperatives that underlay the
moral economy. Francis Place did not. This is how Maginn's commentary
in _Fraser's_ on the Maclise portrait of Place begins:
The hero was found, we believe, in a dust-pan, upon the steps
of a house in St. James's Place, about sixty years back, by an
honest Charlie. Who forthwith conveyed him to the next
workhouse, where (for those were unenlightened times) the
little stranger was kindly take care of. He was christened Francis,
that being the surname of his wet-nurse; while, in lieu of
patronymie, they gave him Place, as a memorial of the
locality where he had been discovered. Such were the bulrushes
out of which Westminster drew the future Moses of the Preventive
Check, -- a philosophical decalogue well worthy to supersede the
first, which it so boldly contracts in the absurd article about
murder.
The Mount Sinai of the new lawgiver .... Place has erected
his grand Mill-dam, for the salutary purpose of asserting this
same tide ... (Maginn 1836, p. 427).
See: http://eh.net/graphics/bookreviews/francis.place.png
Houghton's judgment in the _Wellesley Index_ is that save for the
clever contraceptive reference to a certain J (J.S.?) Mill, this is a
tissue of lies (Houghton, 1972, p. 306). He is puzzled -- "an
anti-Semitic slur?" -- since the references to the Hebrew Scriptures
are rather unsubtle but Place was not Jewish.
Huzel (p. 87) asks why the gender attacks on Martineau and not on
Jane Marcet? One answer is that the New Poor Law was a viable threat
to the moral economy. If Malthus is the arch-enemy of the moral
economy, then it is important that the idea behind the New Poor Law
can be found in the first edition of Malthus's _Population_:
Lastly, for cases of extreme distress, county workhouses
might be established, supported by rates upon the whole kingdom,
and free for persons of all counties, and indeed of all nations.
The fare should be hard, and those that were able obliged to
work. It would be desirable that they should not be considered as
comfortable asylums in all difficulties; but merely as places
where severe distress might find some alleviation. A part of
these houses might be separated, or others built for a most
beneficial purpose, which has not been infrequently taken
notice of, that of providing a place, where any person, whether
native or foreigner, might do a day's work at all times and receive
the market price for it. Many cases would undoubtedly be left for
the exertion of individual benevolence (1798, 5 ??? 25).
Nassau Senior's study of international experience verified this early
intuition.
But in all the countries which we have been considering,
except the Canton de Berne and perhaps Denmark, the great object of
pauper legislation, that of rendering the situation of the
pauper less agreeable than that of the independent labourer,
has been effectually attained (Senior, 1835, 88).
Conclusion
Huzel's valuable study brings to light with enormous care the early
nineteenth century disputes between adherents of the moral economy
and the market economy. When we reflect upon the present debates
about the global economy, markets and culture, we may ask whether we
have ever settled the issues. We suspect not.
References:
Bates, William. [1874]. _A Gallery of Illustrious Literary Characters
(1830-1838) Drawn by the Late Daniel Maclise, R.A. and Accompanied by
Notices Chiefly by the Late William Maginn, LL.D._ London: Chatto and
Windus.
Bates, William. 1883. _The Maclise Portrait-Gallery of "Illustrious
Literary Characters" with Memoirs Biographical, Critical,
Bibliographical & Anecdotal Illustrative of the Literature of the
Former Half of the Present Century_. London: Chatto and Windus.
Fisher, Judith L. 2006. "'In the Present Famine of Anything
Substantial': Fraser's 'Portraits' and the Construction of Literary
Celebrity; or, 'Personality, Personality Is the Appetite of the
Age.'" _Victorian Periodicals Review_ 39: 97-135.
Houghton, Walter E. 1972. "_Fraser's Magazine for Town and Country_:
1830-1882." _The Wellesley Index to Victorian Periodicals_. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, pp. 303-521.
Levy, David M. 1978. "Some Normative Aspects of the Malthusian
Controversy." _History of Political Economy_ 10: 271-85.
Levy, David M. 1999. "Christianity or Malthusianism: The Invisibility
of a Successful Radicalism." _Historical Reflections/R???flexions
Historiques_ 25: 61-93.
Levy, David M. and Sandra J. Peart. 2005 "The Theory of Economic
Policy in British Classical Political Economy: A Sympathetic
Reading." _History of Political Economy_ 37 _Supplement: The Role of
Government in the History of Economic Thought_ (2005): 120-42.
Levy, David M. and Sandra J. Peart. 2006. "Charles Kingsley and the
Theological Interpretation of Natural Selection." _Journal of
Bioeconomics_. 8: 197-218.
Malthus, T. R. 1798. _An Essay on the Principle of Population as It
Affects the Future Improvement of Society, with Remarks on the
Speculations of Mr. Godwin, M. Condorcet, and Other Writers_. London:
J. Johnson. http://www.econlib.org/library/Malthus/malPop.html
Malthus, T. R. 1826. _An Essay on the Principle of Population: A View
of its Past and Present Effects on Human Happiness; with an Inquiry
into Our Prospects Respecting the Future Removal or Mitigation of the
Evils which It Occasions_. London: John Murray. Sixth edition.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Malthus/malPlong.html
[Maginn, William.] 1832. "National Economy. No. III. Miss Martineau's
Cousin Marshall -- The Preventive Check." _Fraser's Magazine for Town
and Country_ 6: 403-13.
[Maginn, William and Daniel Maclise] 1833. "Gallery of Literary
Character. No. 42. Miss Harriet Martineau." _Fraser's Magazine for
Town and Country_ 8: 576.
[Maginn, William and Daniel Maclise.] 1836. "Gallery of Literary
Character. No. 71. Mr. Francis Place, Esq." _Fraser's Magazine for
Town and Country_ 13:427.
Peart, Sandra J. and David M. Levy. 2005a. "Happiness, Progress and
'the Vanity of the Philosopher."
http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2005/PeartLevymalthus.html
Peart, Sandra J. and David M. Levy. 2005b. _The "Vanity of the
Philosopher": From Equality to Hierarchy in Post-Classical
Economics_. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Peart, Sandra J. and David M. Levy. 2007. "Economics in Cartoons."
Presented at the History of Economics Society / Allied Social
Sciences Association. Chicago.
Senior, Nassau W. 1835. _Statement of the Provision of the Poor_.
London: B. Fellows.
Smith, Adam. 1776. _An Inquiry into the Nature and Cause of the
Wealth of Nations_. London: Methuen and Co., Ltd., ed. Edwin Cannan,
1904. Fifth edition. http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN.html
Thrall, Miriam M. H. 1934. _Rebellious Fraser's, Nol Yorkes Magazine
in the Days of Maginn, Thackeray and Carlyle_. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Waterman, A. M. C. 1991. _Revolution, Economics and Religion:
Christian Political Economy 1798-1833_. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Sandra Peart and David M. Levy are the authors of _The "Vanity of the
Philosopher": From Equality to Hierarchy in Post-Classical
Economics_. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press (2005). Beginning
in August, Peart will become Dean of the Jepson School of Leadership
Studies at the University of Richmond. Levy is the Director of the
Center for Study of Public Choice at George Mason University.
Copyright (c) 2007 by EH.Net. All rights reserved. This work may be
copied for non-profit educational uses if proper credit is given to
the author and the list. For other permission, please contact the
EH.Net Administrator ([log in to unmask]; Telephone: 513-529-2229).
Published by EH.Net (March 2007). All EH.Net reviews are archived at
http://www.eh.net/BookReview.
-------------- FOOTER TO EH.NET BOOK REVIEW --------------
EH.Net-Review mailing list
[log in to unmask]
http://eh.net/mailman/listinfo/eh.net-review
|
