by forcing the more fertile lands, or by resorting to such as are of very inferior productive power. The consequence is, that agricultural industry is here comparatively ill rewarded. A given quantity of labour applied to the worst lands under tillage in England, does not certainly yield above half the quantity of food, and other raw produce, that it would yield were it applied to the cultivation of lands of the same degree of fertility as the worst that are under tillage in the western States of America; and hence, it follows, that the undertaker of any work in England, who should give the same amount of produce to his men, as wages, that is given to labourers in these States, would have a far less quantity remaining to himself, and would have a proportionally small power of accumulating capital. It is true, that, in the event of wages being reduced when tillage is extended over inferior soils, the share of the produce falling to the employers of workmen, is not diminished to the same extent that production is diminished. But as the labourers must always obtain such a supply of necessaries and conveniences as is sufficient to enable them to exist, and continue their race, no very considerable reduction can, in most cases, be made from wages and in point of fact, it is invariably found, that wherever tillage is widely extended over inferior soils, both the amount of produce, and the share falling to the capitalists are greatly diminished; and there is, in consequence, a comparatively slow increase of capital and population.

The powerful influence exercised by the quality of the soils under cultivation on the productiveness of industry, and, consequently, on the accumulation of capital, may be learned as well by tracing the progress of cultivation in the same country, as by comparing its state in different countries. It is stated, for example, by Messrs. Iveson, Harvey, Wakefield, and other intelligent witnesses examined by the Committee of the House of Commons, appointed, in 1822, to inquire into the state of agriculture, that the best lands under tillage in England yield from thirty-six to forty bushels of wheat per acre, whilst the worst lands under tillage only yield from eight to ten bushels. Now, it is apparent that, with an equal degree of agricultural skill, there would have been four times the quantity of produce obtained by the agency of a given quantity of labour, when the best lands in England only were cultivated, that will now be obtained by applying the same quantity of labour to the culture of the worst lands under tillage and supposing other things to have been about equal at the two periods, there would have been in the first four times the power to accumulate capital, and, consequently, to provide for the wants of a population increasing four times as fast as in the latter period.

It is true, that the difference that has actually obtained in the progress of society in England, between the rates at which capital and population have increased at different periods, has not been proportioned to this difference in the quality of the soils successively brought

under cultivation; and this because the science of agriculture has not been stationary, but has been, all the while, making constant advances.

It is obvious, however, that if agricultural science had remained in the same state, the power of the country to increase its supplies of food, and, consequently, to provide for the principal wants of an increasing population, would have varied precisely according to the variations in the qualities of the soils successively brought under cultivation.

But in countries in the situation of England and the United States, whose inhabitants speak the same language, and have a very extensive intercourse with each other, all those arts and sciences that are generally cultivated in them both, must approach very near to an equality. No considerable discovery could be made in agricultural science in England without its being immediately communicated to America, nor in America without its communication to England; and, therefore, if the lands last taken into cultivation in America be possessed of twice or thrice the productive power of those last taken into cultivation in England there can be no doubt that agricultural industry in the former will be about twice or three times as productive as in the latter: and the power which each country will possess of increasing that portion of its capital which consists of food and other farm produce will be in the same proportion.

It appears, therefore, that the power or capacity which countries possess of producing sufficient supplies of food to feed their inhabitants, is very different at different stages of their progress. In the earlier periods, when population is comparatively limited, it being only necessary to cultivate the best lands, industry is comparatively productive, and there is a rapid increase both of capital and population : But the best lands in every advancing country of moderate extent are speedily exhausted; and, whenever this is the case, recourse must unavoidably be had to those of inferior fertility, to obtain the means of providing for an increasing population: And with every inferior quality of land brought under cultivation, a proportional diminution will be made in the productiveness of industry, and in the rate at which capital and population are advancing. Were cultivation so far extended in Kentucky and Louisiana, as to render the lands last subjected to tillage in them of no greater fertility than those last cultivated in Great Britain, the progress of capital and population would be reduced to precisely the same level there and here.

But while the power of all countries to feed additional inhabitants is thus progressively diminished, according to the diminished fertility of the soils which they must successively bring under cultivation, the power possessed by their inhabitants of adding to their numbers, undergoes no sensible change. That principle, or instinct, which impels man to propagate his species, has appeared in all ages and countries

so nearly the same, that it may, in the language of mathematicians, be considered as a constant quantity. The same power that has doubled the population of America in twenty or twenty-five years, is always in operation; and if the supplies of food and other articles necessary for the support of the people continue to increase as fast as they have done, population will most certainly continue to advance in the same proportion in all time to come; or, at all events, until the space required to carry on the operations of industry has become deficient. But the principle of increase is quite as strong in Yorkshire or Normandy as it is in Kentucky or Illinois, and yet it is plainly impossible that the population of England or France can be doubled in so short a period. Owing to the greater sterility of the soils we are now cultivating, the quantity of produce to be divided between the undertakers of work in Great Britain and their labourers is much less than in America, and both parties have in consequence a less power of providing for the wants of a family. These circumstances have had a corresponding influence on the habits of our people. They have felt that it would be equally ruinous to themselves and their offspring to enter into matrimonial connections until they had some reasonable prospect of being able to provide for the children that might be expected to spring from them. In consequence, marriages are very generally deferred to a later period than in America, and a much larger proportion of the population find it expedient to pass their lives in a state of celibacy. And it is fortunate that this is the case; it is fortunate, that the good sense of the people, and their laudable desire to preserve their place in society, has made them control the violence of their passions, and disregard the dicta of so many spurious advisers. Man cannot possibly increase beyond the means of subsistence provided for his support: And, therefore, it is quite obvious and certain, that if the natural tendency of population to increase, in countries advanced in the career of civilization, and where there is, in consequence, a considerably increased difficulty of providing supplies of food, be not checked by the prevalence of moral restraint, or by the prudence and forethought of the people, it must be checked by the prevalence of vice, misery and famine. There is no alternative. The population of every country has a power, supposing food to be adequately supplied, to go on doubling every five-and-twenty years: But as the limited extent and limited fertility of the soil render it impossible to go on producing food in this ratio, it necessarily follows, that unless the passions are moderated, and a proportional check given to the increase of population, the standard of human subsistence will not only be reduced to the lowest assignable limit, but famine and pestilence will be perpetually at work to relieve the population of wretches born only to be starved.

The only criterion, then, of a real, and beneficial increase in the

population of a country, is the increase in the means of its subsistence. If these means are not increased, an increase in the number of births can be productive only of increased misery and mortality, 'Other circumstances being the same,' says Mr. Malthus, it may be affirmed that countries are populous according to the quantity of food they can produce or acquire; and happy, according to the liberality with which this food is divided, or the quantity which a day's labour will purchase. Corn countries are more populous than pasture countries, and rice countries more populous than corn countries. But, their happiness does not depend either upon their being more or less densely peopled, upon their poverty or their riches, their youth or their age, but on the proportion which the population and the food bear to each other? (Essay on Population, vol. ii. p. 214.)

PART III.

DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH.

THE various methods by which that labour which is the only source of wealth may be rendered most productive, and the mutual relation and dependence of the different kinds of industry being previously traced and exhibited, we now proceed to the third division of our subject, or to an investigation of the laws regulating the proportions in which the different products of art and industry are distributed among the various classes of the people.

In treating of the production of wealth it was not necessary to inquire, whether the labour required to appropriate and produce commodities, and without the expenditure of which they would be wholly destitute of exchangeable value, was the sole limiting principle and measure of that value, or whether it was not partly derived from other causes, and partly only from labour. But an acquaintance with the circumstances which determine the value of commodities, in all the different stages of society, is absolutely necessary to enable us to ascertain the principles which regulate their distribution.

SECTION I-Value of two sorts-I. Exchangeable Value-How it is determined-Conditions required to render a Commodity invariable in its Exchangeable Value.—II. Real Value-How it is determined— Conditions required to render a Commodity invariable in its Real Value-Quantity of Labour required to produce a Commodity different from the quantity of Labour for which it will exchange. THE value of a commodity may be considered in a double point of view; either, Ist, in relation to the power or capacity which it possesses of exchanging for, or purchasing, certain quantities of labour, or of other commodities obtainable only by means of labour; or, 2nd, in relation to the quantity of labour that has been expended in sit

appropriation or production, or that would be required for that purpose at the period when the investigation is made.

Value, considered in the first point of view, is usually denominated exchangeable or relative value.

Value, considered in the second point of view, may be denominated real value.

It is abundantly obvious, that all commodities, possessed of exchangeable, must also be possessed of real value, and vice versa.

I. EXCHANGEABLE VALUE.-All commodities which are in demand, and which require any portion of voluntary labour to obtain them, are possessed of value,—that is, of the power or capacity of exchanging for labour or for other commodities: For, to employ labour in the production or appropriation of a commodity, is really to exchange labour for it; and any one commodity which it has required labour to obtain, will naturally be of the same value as, or will have the power or capacity of exchanging for, any other commodity obtainable only by the same quantity of labour.

But though exchangeable value, or the capacity of exchanging for other things, is a quality inherent in all commodities which are not the spontaneous productions of nature, it is one that can neither be manifested nor appreciated, except when they are compared with each other, or with labour. It is indeed quite impossible to speak of the value of a commodity without either referring to some other commodity or to labour as a standard. No one article, or product, can have any exchangeable value except in relation to some other article or product that either is or may be exchanged for it. It would be just as correct to talk about absolute height or absolute depth, as about absolute value in exchange. A is said to be valuable, or possessed of value, because it has the power of exchanging for a given quantity of B or C; and it is evident, that the quantity of B or C, for which A exchanges, forms the only attainable measure of, or expression for, the value of A; just as the quantity of A forms the only attainable measure of or expression for the value of B or C

It follows, from the circumstance of exchangeable value being the power which a commodity has of exchanging for other commodities or for labour, that the exchangeable value of no one commodity can vary without occasioning a simultaneous variation in the exchangeable value of all those with which it is compared. Suppose that a bushel of corn exchanged, in 1820, for five shillings, and that it now exchanges for ten shillings: In this case, it is evident that corn has doubled in value as compared with silver; or, which is the same thing, that silver has lost a half of its value as compared with corn. This case is mutatis mutandis, the identical case of all commodities or products exchanged against one another. If A rises, it must be in relation to something else, as B; and if B falls, it must be in relation to something else, as