5: The second check to population
The first check to population, discussed in the last chapter, prevents an increase in the population by utterly discouraging reproduction. There is also a second check to population that "represses an increase which is already begun" and is confined chiefly to the lowest orders of society: child and infant mortality.
When one examines the mortality rates in a society, it is found hat the number of children who die annually is much greater in the lower classes, who are unable to provide proper food and attention to their children. Even for those who live, the children of the laboring classes, both urban and rural, are not the "rosy cherubs" they are romantically portrayed to be, but are malnourished and underdeveloped, stunted in their growth by a lifetime of deprivation.
Given the gross amount of charity and public funds invested in the poor, it is "the subject of continual astonishment" that their condition is not improved. There are suspicions and accusations of embezzlement or mismanagement, but the problem is largely economical: it does not matter that money is given to the poor, if no additional goods are created.
Malthus gives the example of granting the laboring class, though alms of mandated wages, sufficient money to have a bit of meat every day for their dinners. The problem is that such an action does not result in there being one pound more of meat in the marketplace - so what occurs is that buyers in the marketplace have more money to purchase the same amount of goods, prices are bid up accordingly, and in the end no-one is materially improved.
A counterargument is that an increase in demand for a given article would spur suppliers to enter the industry and the whole of production would thereby be increased - but this does not mean that more goods would be created overall. While in the market, suppliers are eager to furnish more of a good that is in greater demand, the impact to production is to shift resources away from other production. Unless there is idle labor, a surplus of feed, and unused land, the increase in one good is a diminution of other goods.
Another counterargument is that an aggregated increase in wages causes a decrease in labor: if wages are doubled and a man can earn as much in three days as in, there is a significant proportion of day laborers who would gladly work but three days and, having earned all that is needed, work no more. The reduction of the labor results in reduction in production, results in greater scarcity of goods and higher prices paid for goods.
It might appear strange, as it seems reasonable that a poor man can live much better than he had before if he is given the means (money) to purchase more of the conveniences and necessities of life - but this is on the individual level, and it gives one man a greater share of the total money available in a given market. As one among many, he cannot have a significant impact on the market and the increase in total demand by the sudden fortune of one person is negligible.
But when one proposes to do the same for all poor men, the impact to the market that there is much more money, but no more goods, and where all shares are increased, no single man has a greater proportion of the total money available in the market. The amount of goods remains the same, and the level of demand remains the same - under which conditions prices increase, but the quantity supplied (in the aggregate) does not.
It is also possible to find a middle ground, in which the income of some proportion of men is increased, such that they may enjoy a higher standard of living without upsetting the total market. That is to say that the favored group would have means to purchase a greater share of all goods than those who are not so favored. However, the lot of the latter group would be diminished, as the increased share of the favored group would result in a decreased share for those not favored.
In the same way, an increase of population without a proportional increase of food will likewise lower the share of goods that each man can obtain for his labor. That is, the food must be distributed in smaller quantities to a greater number of people, regardless of the nominal sums of money involved: prices would merely increase.
The poor laws of England depress the general welfare of the poor in two ways. The first tendency is to increase the population without increasing the food for its support. A poor man is given the means to support a family by charity (alms or increased wages) and not by producing the goods to support them. Second, the charity given to the poor is spent on provisions that would otherwise belong to those who were able to earn them - that is to say that the volume of goods given to some increases the prices to all: the idle poor are fed without working, the working poor must work all the harder to compete for goods that are depleted by charity.
It is fortunate for England that a spirit of independence remains among the peasant class, and that some refuse charity out of pride. Were it not so, the logical choice for all poor would be to give up working and depend entirely on charity for their sustenance. While it may seem callus to despise the dependent poor, it is only this social disgrace that prevents there from being a significantly greater number of them.
It's also observed that hatred of the poor is more common among the lowest levels of the laboring class than among the higher classes. That a man should marry without having the means to support a family is not an inconvenience to the wealthy, who can well afford their share of goods and bear the cost of being charitable. But on the lower rungs of the social ladder, the effect of charity to the poor diminishes the purchasing power of their neighbors. A laborer who supports a family by charity is in many respects justly considered to be the enemy of his fellow laborers.
In essence, alms to the poor, on a large scale, increases the real price of goods and lowers the real wages of labor. The ultimate result is to impoverish the class of people whose only possession is their labor. As a consequence, the laboring poor live from hand to mouth, their present needs consuming the entirety of their income, and negating their ability to save for the future. Moreover, they have become habituated to this situation, even when they experience a stroke of good fortune and find themselves with more money than is necessary to their immediate needs, they find a way to squander it - and generally, any windfall is spent in the ale-house, finding a bit of merriment in drunkenness while they have the means, as they expect this to be short-lived.
The situation is further complicated by the availability of charity "in case of accidents." The laboring poor know well that the parish can be counted on to assist them in times of misfortune, so there is no need to set aside any money as a means to weather hardship. If there were not the expectation of charity, there would be a greater inclination to save and build capital.
The charity given to those incapable of labor, namely children and the aged, is also detrimental to the habits of the laboring class. In societies in which a person is obliged by law to care for their own children as well as their aged and helpless parents, there is greater incentive for the laboring class to be highly productive. Though Malthus declines to predict what the effect of such a law might be in England, he believes that charity frees the working class from certain responsibilities, and thereby gives them the ability to act in an irresponsible manner.
In the long term, the happiness of the common people is invariably diminished when one of the strongest checks to idleness and dissipation is removed, when men are encouraged to marry with little or no prospect of being able to support a family by their own effort. Those who receive charity are improved by a short while, as the increasing burden upon the rest of society will in time exceed its own productive capacity, and want and sickness will inevitable ensue until the balance of production and consumption is restored.
A distinction should be made between the production of food (necessities) and the production of other commodities (luxuries). For food, demand is inelastic: the demand for food is fixed on consumption, and people cannot abide significantly less nor make use of significantly more than their need demands. For luxuries, consumers can survive without them or consume as much as they have the means to afford. The key difference is that the motive to produce a luxury good is for the sake of its trade value - specifically, that it can be traded for necessities. In an established country where all the fertile spots have been seized, the decision is made by each farmer to choose to plant a food crop, to plant a crop that provides material for the manufacture of luxuries, or not to plow his field at all. The price he expects to be paid, derived from demand of goods, advises his decision.
Back to the poor laws: Malthus has no doubt that they were instituted for benevolent purposes, to alleviate the misery of the poor. Their immediate effect may have been a temporary alleviation, but the more permanent and long-range effect has been greater misery for a greater number.
One of the principle objections to poor laws is that any assistance given to the idle poor is taken from the productive classes. It is a "most disgraceful and disgusting tyranny" that such hardship should be inflicted on the laboring class, who can barely manage their own support, for the sake of those who are incapable of ever becoming self-sufficient. (EN: I recall a less flattering analogy from another source: that charity is akin to taking food from the table of the working class to feed a growing swarm of rats. It's a metaphor best avoided in societies where the idle poor are kindly regarded.)
Neither is the situation of the idle poor who receive charity much improved by its institution - a common complaint among them is the cruelty of Justices, Churchwardens, Overseers, and others tasked with the dispensation of goods to the benefactors of charity. Malthus doubts that these persons were likely "not worse than other people" before they were in power, but in the nature of all such institutions: any interference in the affairs of other people, even it if is well-intentioned, is inherently a species of tyranny over them.
Malthus asserts that he feels "little doubt" that if the poor-laws had never existed, there may have been a more instances of short-term distress, but that over the longer span of time there would be much less perpetual misery.
To remove the wants of society is a an arduous task, and one that cannot be accomplished my act of legislation alone, though adjustments to the current legislation would be instrumental in achieving, or at least not discouraging, what is the only effective solution: to enable the poor to put themselves to productive use in pursuits that would increase the total amount of goods.
Specifically, Malthus would first abolish parish laws, which would not create work, but would at least give the peasantry the freedom to leave the parish to seek a location where there is a greater demand for labor. He would also offer premiums for the cultivation of fresh land to encourage the production of necessities and repeal legislation that promotes the manufacture of luxury items. Lastly, in locations of extreme distress, county workhouses could be established - not as "comfortable asylums" for the idle poor, but as places that would provide for the necessities of those who are able to work, and to provide meager fare so that they might seek more profitable employment when the opportunity arose.
Such a plan could not guarantee prosperity, merely remove the factors that prevent it. Malthus describes the present a situation as a neglected compact: "We tell the common people that if they will submit to a code of tyrannical regulations, they shall never be in want. ... They perform their part of the contract: but we do not, nay cannot, perform ours: and thus the poor sacrifice the valuable blessing of liberty, and receive nothing that can be called an equivalent in return."
And returning to the main topic, it is clear that acts of legislation that mean to preserve the population without creating the means of sustenance are ultimately unable to alter the relationship of necessity between the two factors.