increased facility in obtaining the necessaries of life from a diminished surface; he is, therefore, enabled to draw nearer to his fellow men, and daily more and more to co-operate with them, by which co-operation his labor is rendered daily more productive. This increased facility of obtaining the means of subsistence, causes a constant diminution in the proportion of the population required for the production of food, and enables a constantly increasing proportion to apply themselves to the production of clothing, shelter, and the other comforts of life.

In these propositions it is asserted, that in the early ages of society population is widely scattered, because the want of capital compels man to limit himself to the cultivation of the superior soil, which, for want of proper machinery, yields but a small return to a large amount of labor bestowed upon a large surface; whereas, at subsequent periods, population becomes more dense, because the accumulation of capital enables him to bring into action various soils, and thus to diminish the surface over which he is compelled to labor. While obliged to limit himself to the superior soil, he is poor and miserable; but when enabled to bring into action all the soils, superior and inferior those yielding corn and cotton, iron and coal he becomes rich and prosperous.

Such are the views I have offered to the consideration of my readers,* yet the reviewer is of opinion that the meaning forced upon them is, "that in the early stages of society men get less food BECAUSE they confine their labor to the superior soils; and that they get greater returns from the land in its advanced periods BECAUSE the soils they then bring in are inferior." He very correctly supposes that this cannot be made out, because it "were evidently absurd." It is a fact of constant occurrence, that the largest fortunes are realized out of the smallest commissions. The bill-broker in London takes an eighth per cent. The merchant in Liverpool takes two and a half per cent. The shop-keeper of Philadelphia has ten per cent.: while the store-keeper of the little towns of Missouri has fifty or one hundred per cent. Yet the first makes thousands of pounds where the last makes hundreds of dollars. Were the reviewer to state this fact, and were a brother reviewer to charge him with the "absurdity" of asserting that the bill-broker

been rendered productive; and these of Wales, still more difficult of access, are gradually becoming so; and with every step in this process, the return to labor is increasing. The plains of New York are the superior soils, first rendered productive. The barren mountains of Pennsylvania are the inferior soils, whose cultivation, the fruits of which are iron and coal, will eventually yield the largest return to labor and capital. The first are now deemed the richer of the two; yet the time will probably arrive when they will change places, and an acre of the second will purchase a dozen acres of the first. The iron-yielding soil is among the last to become productive, but it is far more so than that which yields corn or potatoes.

The reviewer refers his readers to pages 97, 103, and 251 of the volume under review, to which also I refer mine.

became rich because he took small commissions, while the storekeeper remained in poverty because his neighbors were willing to allow him to take large ones, he would be much disposed to say that the "absurdity" did not rest with him. He would suggest, as I do, that the reviewer should read over again what he had reviewed.

Notwithstanding this assertion of " absurdity" in my propositions, he afterwards distinctly admits all that I assert, and in the following words: "We hold, with him, that the advance of society is the advance of comforts that the inferior soils which society brings into cultivation are more productive under advancing skill than the superior soils once were; and that, as we say, settles the question so far as the comforts of population are concerned." The only difference between us is, that he adduces a fact to prove that the Malthusian system cannot be right, and that I have desired to prove that it is a constant fact, proving the existence of a law of nature diametrically opposed to that system, which must, therefore, of necessity, be wrong. The reviewer would, without doubt, be glad of aid in the attempt to dispose, for ever, of this obnoxious theory, were it not that if that aid be admitted it may tend to the downfall of his favorite one of rent. He denies, however, any necessary connection between them, saying that "the theory of population depends on the amount of yield from land, a question which the theory of rent, depending upon the proportion of yield, does not touch."

It is "the established doctrine" of a certain school of political economists, that rent owes its origin to the necessity which arises, in the progress of society, for applying labor to inferior soils yielding a constantly diminishing return, and that it increases as the productiveness of labor decreases. Thus the various qualities of land, from No. 1 to 8, being supposed to yield different returns, from forty bushels down to five, it is held that when No. 1 alone is cultivated the laborer takes the whole product, the land-owner being unable to claim any rent; but that when No. 2, yielding thirty-five bushels, requires to be taken into cultivation, the owner of No. 1 is enabled to demand as rent the difference between the yield of labor upon his land and No. 2, to wit, five bushels, leaving to his tenant only thirty-five bushels and so on in succession as the various qualities of land are brought into use. The variations of production and distribution in the progress from No. 1 to 8 are as follows:

The laborer's proportion falls to twenty-two per cent., and the cultivators of eight acres divide among themselves a quantity no larger than fell to the original cultivator of a single acre. No increase of skill or capital can counteract this tendency, if it exists. The making of a road or canal, the introduction of ploughs and harrows, the application of manures, or the rotation of crops, benefit alike No. 8 and No. 1. If the return to labor be doubled on the first, it is equally increased upon the last; and the landlord can claim the difference, whatever it may be, as will be seen by the following table:

The

The proportions are here precisely the same as before, and nothing can change them if Mr. Ricardo's doctrine be correct. landlord must take the difference between the product of his land and that of the worst in cultivation. His share must increase with every extension of cultivation, and society must show a constantly increasing inequality of condition. A constantly increasing proportion of the soil must therefore be required for the gratification of the tastes of the few, leaving a constantly diminishing proportion for the satisfaction of the wants of the many, who become poor, miserable, and vicious, and finally sink into the condition of slaves, while their masters become daily more tyrannical and oppressive. The Malthusian theory of population is therefore an absolutely necessary deduction from the reviewer's "demonstrated" theory of rent.

In all other pursuits the capitalist's proportion diminishes with the increase of capital and consequent improvement of the machinery of production. It has already been shown to be the case among traders, and slight observation will suffice to convince the reader that the owner of hundreds, or thousands, of power looms, retains, as his share, a much smaller proportion of their product than did the owner of a dozen hand looms a century since. Five per cent. of the cargoes of the magnificent ships which now cross the Atlantic, making six or eight passages per annum, would compensate the owner far better than twenty-five per cent. would have done in the times when the voyage to and fro required half a year, or fifty per cent. in the time of Columbus, or Vasco de Gama. The railroad, with its locomotive and its train of cars, performs the business of

transportation far more expeditiously than did the turnpike with its wagons, yet the owners of the one are better paid with two per cent. than would those of the other have been with ten. In agriculture alone the reverse is held to be the case. There, the new machinery is held to be always inferior to the old, and with each step in the downward progress the owner of land is supposed to be enabled to demand an increased proportion.

Does the landlord's proportion increase or diminish with the extension of cultivation ? Upon the answer to this question depends the Ricardo theory of rent. If the former be the case, then is it true. If the reverse, then is it utterly untrue.

It is well known that the proportion of the landlords in England has been constantly diminishing, and that whereas formerly he could claim sixty or seventy per cent., he now has but twenty per cent. Mr. Malthus himself says, that "according to the returns lately made to the Board of Agriculture, the average proportion which rent bears to the whole produce seems not to exceed onefifth; whereas formerly, when there was less capital employed and less value produced, the proportion amounted to one-fourth, onethird, or even two-fifths."-(Principles of Political Economy, p. 117.) Such is the fact throughout the world. The land-owners of France and Germany have a much smaller share than in former times. In Russia, where capital is small and population is scattered, the landlord takes a much larger proportion than in Austria or Prussia, where capital and population are more abundant, and in these latter the proportion is much greater than in England, where both abound. With every increase in the ratio of capital to population, the owner of capital, whether manufacturer or landlord, has a smaller proportion. Rent is, therefore, subject to the same laws as profits. Both are merely interest of capital.f

The reviewer seems to think that the theory is demonstrated by the difference of rent paid at the same period of time; but a moment's consideration will, I think, satisfy him that this is erroneous. We have seen that the owner of the fine ships of our day takes a much smaller proportion of the goods transported than did the owners of the inferior vessels of former times. He does this in accordance with the law of distribution, under which the capitalist's share necessarily diminishes with increase in the ratio of capital to population. It is no argument to the contrary to assert that good ships, at the same period of ime, obtain higher freights than bad ones. A tenant will allow to the owner of a farm No. 1 a larger proportion of the product than he would be willing to give to the owner of No. 2, but that is no evidence that the owner of the first is enabled to retain a larger proportion than he did before No. 2 was brought into cultivation. It is not at all surprising that the reviewer should have fallen into this error. With apparent simplicity, the theory of Mr. Ricardo is so complex that it is rare to find any two of his followers agreeing as to the evidence by which it is to be supported.

To those who have not studied the subject, this may appear a very unimportant question; but they will think differently when they come to see its influence upon the relations of the various portions of society with each other. According to Ricardo, with every diminution in the productiveness of labor, the landlord takes an increased proportion and increased quantity, leaving to the

On a former occasion I stated, that "with every improvement in the quality of labor, [from improved skill, or increased capital,] the quantity of commodities to be divided was increased, and that this increased production was attended by a power on the part of the laborer to retain a constantly increasing proportion of the commodities produced." Here is a distinct assertion that the question of the distribution of the proceeds of labor, whether applied to manufactures or agriculture, is one of proportion, as now stated by the reviewer. Yet, singularly enough, it was then commented upon by him in the following terms:

"While assenting to the general principle here laid down, we have two objections to the law as thus stated. In the first place, the emphatic assertion of proportion' is both illogical, we think, and unnecessary. It neither follows from the premises of his argument, nor is it necessary to its conclusion. 'Amount,' and not proportion,' is the hinging point of the question.'"-New York Review, vol. iii., p. 2. Thus, in 1838, the question of distribution was one of "amounts," and it was "illogical" to treat it as one of "proportions," while, in 1840, it is distinctly recognized as one of proportions, and not of amounts.

In no science is there so little that can be deemed settled, as in political economy; a natural consequence of which is, that in none is there so little tolerance for any difference of opinion. Such difference is held to be evidence of "incapability of comprehending" the favorite theory; and the reviewer glances over your book, finding it abounding in "false logic" and "absurdity" of all kinds, because he does not deem it worthy of such an examination as he would ask for his own under similar circumstances. His own theory is susceptible of "demonstration," and that which does not agree therewith, cannot be worthy of his consideration. The consequence is, that whoever is hardy enough to suggest a new one, must make up his mind to have his book condemned unread. So was it with the advocates of the Ptolemaic theory. The revolution of the sun around the earth was perfectly "demonstrable." The arguments of Copernicus, in opposition thereto, were deemed false" and "absurd" and he himself was held to want that "thoroughly-disciplined mind" which “could alone give conclusiveness to his reasonings." That theory had something of vraisemblance, as is the case with that of Ricardo; but, like the latter, had nothing of the trai. The advocates of the first were then as intolerant as are now those of the last. Time has decided against the one, and it will do as much for the other.

64

laborer a smaller proportion and smaller quantity. The interests of the two are, therefore, directly opposed to each other. Wages fall as rent rises. According to mine, with every increase in the productiveness of labor the landlord takes a diminished proportion, while receiving an increased quantity, leaving to the laborer a larger proportion and much larger quantity. The interests of both are in perfect harmony, and rent and wages grow together.