certain age, their longevity may be more presumed on than that of men, more especially in the case of women who are married."1 Moheau, who is commonly considered as very accurate in his details, declines any particular statement of the proportions of the two sexes born in France; and contents himself with observing, that the actual population of women exceeds that of men in the proportion of seventeen to sixteen.2 Of late years this subject has been examined with far greater accuracy than had been attempted before: by Mr. Suessmilch in Germany; by Mr. Wargentin in Sweden; and by Dr. Price in England. From their combined observations, it seems to be established beyond a doubt, First, that the number of males and females born, invariably approach to equality. Secondly, that the excess is in favour of the males. Thirdly, that this excess is partly counterbalanced by their greater mortality. It is extremely remarkable too, that this greater mortality does not appear to be owing merely to the accidents to which men are liable in consequence of their own excesses, and the professional hazards to which they are exposed, but to some peculiar delicacy or fragility in the male constitution. It is observed sensibly even in infancy and childhood: nay, the number of still-born males exceeds proportionally that of still-born females. The numbers born at Berlin during the four years beginning with 1752, were, males, 9219; females, 8743; or 21 to 20. The numbers that died under two years of age, were, males, 3118; females, 2623; or 7 to 6. The numbers that died upwards of eighty years of age, were, males, 135; females, 215; or 5 to 8. The numbers that died between ninety-one and one hundred and five, were, males, 21, females, 55.3 From the account given by Mr. Muret of his observations made at Vevey in the Pays de Vaud, it appears, that for twenty years ending in 1764, there died in that town, during 1 Ibid. p. 485. 2 Recherches, &c., p. 71. 3 Price [On Annuities, &c.] Vol. II. p. 263. the first month after birth, of males 135, to 89 females; and in the first year, 225 to 162. In Berlin, according to Suessmilch, 203 males die in the first month, and but 168 females; and in the first year, 489 to 395. The tables of these two writers shew, that, both at Vevey and Berlin, the still-born males are to the still-born females as 30 to 21. From a variety of different accounts, both in England and on the Continent, mentioned by Dr. Price,1 it appears, that in a long list of towns, although the proportion of males and females born is no higher than 19 to 18, yet the proportion of boys and girls (under ten years of age) that die is 8 to 7; and, in particular, the still-born males are to the still-born females as 3 to 2; a proportion which agrees remarkably with that of 30 to 21, as deduced from the observations at Berlin and Vevey. I shall only add farther on this very interesting article, that Dr. Price has suggested a doubt whether this difference in point of mortality between the two sexes be natural. The following facts prove that his suspicions are not altogether unsupported by evidence. "It appears, from several registers in Suessmilch's works, that this difference is much less in the country parishes and villages of Brandenburg, than in the towns. And agreeably to this, it appears likewise, from the accounts of the same writer, that the number of males in the country comes much nearer to the number of females. "In 1056 small villages in Brandenburg, the males and females in 1748 were 106,234, and 107,540; that is, were to one another as 100 to 1013. In 20 small towns, they were 9544, and 10,333; or as 100 to 108. In Berlin, they were (exclusive of the garrison) 39,116 and 45,938; or as 100 to 1173. "In the years 1738 and 1745, the number of inhabitants in New Jersey was taken by order of the Government, and they were distinguished particularly into males and females under and above sixteen. "In 1738 the number of Males under sixteen was, 10,639; Females, 9,700. "In 1745, the numbers were, Males under sixteen, 14,523; Females, 13,754. "The inference from these facts," says Price, "is very obvious. They seem to shew sufficiently, that human life in males is more brittle than in females, only in consequence of adventitious causes, or of some particular debility that takes place in polished and luxurious societies, and especially in great towns."* We may add, that in so far as their accuracy is to be relied on, they shew, that in proportion as simple and natural manners prevail, the balance between the births of the two sexes is the more accurately preserved. The facts which have been already stated relate almost entirely to this quarter of the globe, and lead to a conclusion in favour of Monogamy which is undisputed among political writers. I may be thought perhaps to have entered more into details than was absolutely necessary; but (independently of their connexion with our present argument) I could not avoid the opportunity which the subject afforded me of turning your attention to one of the most striking provisions which the economy of nature has made, for those moral and political arrangements which are subservient to the happiness of the individual, and the multiplication of the race. With respect to other parts of the globe, our information is much less correct; and here accordingly speculative men have found themselves more at liberty to indulge their ingenuity and fancy. "In Japan," says Montesquieu, upon the authority of Kaempfer, "there are born rather more girls than boys; and at Bantam, the former exceed the latter in the proportion of ten to one." Hence, he seems disposed to infer, that the law which permits polygamy is physically conformable to the inhabitants of such countries; a conclusion which some other [Esprit, &c., XVI. iv.] * [Ibid.] authors have apprehended to be farther confirmed by the prematurity and rapid decay of female beauty in some regions of the East. But there is good reason to suspect the accuracy of the documents on which Montesquieu proceeds. The Japan account, which makes the proportion of females to males to be as 22 to 18, is inconclusive, as the numbering the inhabitants of a great city can furnish no inference applicable to the present question. And the account of the births at Bantam is not only so contrary to the analogy of all the other facts with which we are acquainted, as to surpass belief, but (as we are assured by Mr. Marsden) is positively false. "I can take upon me to assert," says he, "that the proportion of the sexes throughout Sumatra, does not differ sensibly from that ascertained in Europe; nor could I ever learn, from the inhabitants of the many eastern islands whom I have conversed with, that they were conscious of any disproportion in this respect."* From the remarks which have been now made, it may be safely concluded, that it is the duty of the legislator to prohibit polygamy, and to employ all the authority he possesses in enforcing a law so strongly recommended, both by the physical and moral condition of our species. It might besides be easily shewn, that while he thus employs the most essential of all expedients for the multiplication of the race, he takes the most effectual measures for securing the happiness and morals of a people; but this last consideration is foreign to our present subject; and it has been so well illustrated by Mr. Hume, that nothing of importance remains to be added to his observations. I have alluded to it chiefly, in order to recommend his Essay [On Polygamy and Divorce] to your attention, at a period when those moral principles which the most sceptical writers of former times treated with respect, have been rejected with contempt by some theorists, whose paradoxes, from the particular circumstances of the times, have had, in various parts of Europe but too extensive an influence on the opinions of the multitude. Among the numberless wild ideas which have been started within these few years by political projectors, there are few * [History of Sumatra.] more alarming than one which appears from the Moniteur of the 16th April 1798, to have been proposed in the Senate of the Cisalpine Republic by Campagnoni.1 [SECT. II. OF POPULATION AS AFFECTED BY THE STATE OF MANNERS RELATIVE TO THE CONNEXION BETWEEN THE SEXES.] When the legislator, however, has prohibited polygamy, he has only removed one of the obstacles to population, by preventing particular individuals from engrossing a number of females. The rate at which it proceeds will depend on the number of marriages which are actually contracted; and this seems to be a circumstance which depends more on the state of manners in a society, than on the regulations of the politician. The ancient lawgivers, indeed, considered it as one grand object of legislation to promote population by direct rewards to marriage, and by punishing celibacy. This was the case among the Hebrews, the Persians, and the Greeks; and still more remarkably among the Romans,-to whose institutions I shall confine my attention at present. In the history of this celebrated people we meet with regulations in favour of marriage, from the time of Romulus. downwards. When the censorship was established, one great object of it was to discourage celibacy, which the censors endeavoured to do, by condemning those who were unmarried, to pay a certain fine called Mulcta uxoria. It even appears from a fragment of a speech of P. Scipio Africanus, when censor, (preserved by Aulus Gellius,) that it was the practice for the censor not only to punish the unmarried, but to reward those who had families.2 These laws, however, in favour of matrimony, which were certainly superfluous at a period when the 1 The speech to which I refer, and which was plainly calculated to insinuate an apology for Polygamy in particular cases, is quoted by D'Ivernois in his Tableau Historique et Politique, p. 25. 2 Animadvertimus, in oratione P. Scipionis, quam censor habuit ad populum de moribus, inter ea quæ reprehendebat, quod contra majorum instituta fierent, id etiam eum culpasse, quod filius adoptivus Patri adoptatori inter Præmia Patrem prodesset.-Noctes Attica, Lib. V. cap. xix. |