One can consider the population of the whole universe on a grand scale, or fix one’s attention on the population of some state in particular. The first kind of consideration is by no means useless, provided that one does not pause over it too long; the second kind, however, is essential, because what is most important is to perceive one’s own surroundings, and there it is easier to see clearly. You have done precisely this, Monsieur, and I commend you for it, but it would be desirable to see you push your meditations further. May I prod you in that direction!

I. The manifest intention of the Creator is for man to increase and multiply, and to fill the earth, for He has endowed man with a fecundity more than sufficient to make up for his mortality.

II. As long as the population of the earth has not reached its maximum, it is in keeping with the designs of Providence to promote its growth.

III. But since men need food and clothing, the earth supports only as many inhabitants as it can feed and clothe. Such are the natural limits of the earth’s population.

IV. The important point, then, in the promotion of population growth, is to see to the livelihood of the greatest possible number of men.

V. Since marriage is the universe’s sole means of population, it should doubtless be encouraged; but nothing goes further toward encouraging it than the prospect of an assured livelihood.

VI. The powerful voice that calls all men to marriage makes itself heard above all when they are at the age that Nature has made especially suitable for this great sacrament. Since premature marriages, late marriages, and ill-matched marriages conform less to the eternal order, they are less blessed by God, and contribute less to the growth of the population. Yet I repeat, nothing persuades people to marry at an opportune time so much as the assurance of a comfortable livelihood, which seems to attract consumers.

VII. How are we to see to the livelihood of the greatest possible number of men? First, we must extract from the earth everything it is capable of producing for their use. Second, we must employ what the earth produces in the best way possible.

VIII. To attain the first object, it is necessary not only to gather all the earth’s natural products, without letting anything inappropriately go to waste, but also to work to fertilize the earth more and more, by making art serve to complement nature. The search for wild fruits, herbs and edible roots provided the first basis for men’s subsistence; hunting and fishing soon contributed to it further; and at last came agriculture, which multiplied this basic supply, and continues to multiply it annually, in proportion to the effort we make.

IX. Instinct and experience have shown us how to make use of the earth’s products; arts successfully imitating agriculture have extended and multiplied these uses.

These arts, precious to humanity, have rendered edible some substances which originally did not seem fit to nourish men; or they have adapted for men’s clothing that which could never have served such a purpose in the state offered up by nature; or they have put it to better use, or made it last longer, or used it to benefit a greater number of men at once.

X. The best cultivation is that which can extract, from identical resources of land, the greatest abundance of products. The best economy is that which, with an identical quantity of materials, can enable the greatest number of men to live comfortably. The wisest government is that which knows how to unite the best cultivation with the best economy.

These principles posed, let us try to apply them to certain articles of your Memoir.

When you say (in paragraph two) that the people increase in proportion to the number of marriages, it is evident that this is particularly true of marriages that are timely and well-matched.

What you say (also in paragraph two), namely, that this number increases in proportion to affluence, and the available means of supporting a family, requires a short explanation; for since affluence is the result of abundance and economy, one person accustomed to luxury considers himself badly off, in the same situation where several people would consider themselves quite well off, because they are accustomed to frugality.

What you say (in paragraph five), namely, that the craftsman is the person in the world who needs the least land in order to subsist, should not be taken literally: for since the craftsman’s labor is only accessory to productive labor, he obtains the materials necessary for his subsistence from the people for whom he works. Therefore one could easily say how much land he needs for his house and his workshop, but not how much he needs for his livelihood; for that he relies upon others.

Look across America: a people of hunters would be able to support almost no craftsmen in an immense territory, while a people of farmers is able to maintain a great number of them in a territory that is very circumscribed indeed.

You say (in paragraph eleven) that every slave is a thief, by a natural enough consequence of his state of slavery. That is very true in the main, but does not the term thief appear too strong to you? I would have said simply that every slave is a pillager, for the word theft implies an offense committed against the laws of just ownership: but there are no relations of equity between tyrant and slave.

What you say about commerce (in paragraphs twelve and thirteen) would deserve to be developed and carefully discussed, but this is not the place for it. Nonetheless let us take care not to forget that there is the same disparity because agriculture and commerce as there is between a source of water and a channel.

All of those whom you call (in paragraph thirteen) the Fathers of their country should not be placed in the same category. In fact, those who encourage and perfect arts which are particularly useful to their native land are the fathers of their respective countries; but those who encourage and perfect agriculture, that art of arts, whose utility is universal, are in a sense the fathers of humanity.

You speak (in paragraph fifteen) of doubly strengthening a country, by increasing its population, and by diminishing that of its neighbors. Permit me to point out to you that the advantages that can be derived from the hardship of one’s neighbors are often greater in appearance than in reality. The principles of justice and the origins of happiness are the same, as much for countries as for individuals. Let us begin by seeking out and doing what is honest and equitable; and when we have done it, we will not perhaps be slow to recognize that the most accomplished prudence could not have directed us to any more useful course of action. This will seem a paradox to many people, because few people have given enough thought to this matter, all-important as it is. I have applied myself to developing this topic in a little work which I may be able to publish one day, and of which, in the meantime, I take the liberty of sending you a copy, in order to have your opinion on it.

All of our economic philosophers will be grateful to you for the care you have taken (in paragraph sixteen) to distinguish the interest of merchants from that of their country; these two things are very different, and sometimes even entirely opposed to each other, although most modern statesmen have nearly always confused the one with the other.

You calculate (in paragraph twenty-one) that there were more than a million English persons in the colonies of the continent of North America in 1751. Mr. Dickinson has calculated that there were approximately three million persons in these same colonies toward the end of 1767; that is to say, sixteen years later. I am trying to reconcile your statements. The difference apparently arises first from the fact that you are speaking only of native English people, and he is adding all of the Irish, French, Vaudois, Salzburgians, Palatines, Moravians, Jews, etc., who have settled among the English. The difference seems to arise secondly from the progress made by the population in those happy regions, over a period of sixteen to seventeen years.

In the same paragraph (twenty-one), I admire the modest tone in which you are pleased to conjecture that the population of your country doubles only once in twenty-five years. We would certainly use another tone, if we were able to say as much of the population here.

You foresee that there will be more English people in America than in Europe within less than a century. Not only would it be no surprise if England were one day, in relation to its colonies, what Tyre was in relation to Carthage; but it would be no miracle if posterity were one day able to see all of Great Britain, that master nation, that mother-country, scarcely equivalent to one of its provinces overseas, and London, that superb metropolis, eclipsed by your humble Philadelphia.

When Mademoiselle Biheron has rested a little, I beg you to tell her that she would give me great pleasure, and even more pleasure to one of our friends, if she would be so kind as to procure some bonne eau de menthe poivrée (peppermint water) for us in London, at least a dozen bottles of Paris pints, in large or small bottles, but preferably in small ones, and preferably also twenty-four pints rather than twelve; and if she would have them made into two or four well-wrapped bundles, and send them to me by the public coaches, a single bundle at a time, but send all of them in succession from week to week.

If there were a way to wrap each of these bottles in a sheet of your notes and miscellaneous papers, or in a sheet of my Little Code, that would suit my purposes very well, but in that case it would be necessary first for the bundle to be so well bound up that these sheets were not excessively spoiled, and second for her to take care to use only copies of the same sheet of the Code for all the bottles in each bundle, or at the very most, copies of two sheets only. For example, the first time copies of the first and third pages could be used, and in the following post, copies of the second and the fourth, so that if anyone were to inspect them with the greatest care, as we must anticipate, they would only look like wastepaper, and no one would be able to suspect that they could be reassembled in succession here, and remade into two complete copies. What do you think of this idea?

Nonetheless, if this water, peppermint water, is somewhat expensive in London, even if it cost six French livres per French pint, that should not make Mademoiselle Biheron hesitate; the full account will be faithfully settled for her.

But it is time to finish this longest of letters. My wife embraces you with all her heart, and I am not in the least jealous. I have the honor to be, with a perfect and constant attachment, Monsieur and dear friend, your very humble and very obedient servant