population. Nothing in political economy," says Mr. Mill, "can be of more importance than to ascertain the law of this increase of production; the conditions to which it is subject; whether it has practically any limits, and what these are. There is also no subject in political economy, which is popularly less understood, or on which the errors committed are of a character to produce, and do produce, greater mischief."

The requisites of production, as already mentioned, are labor, capital, and material objects. With regard to the last of these, as we are now about to consider the impediments to production, we need only attend to those material objects, which are liable to be deficient in quantity and in productive power. These may all be represented by the term land, understanding by this term not only the soil itself, but also mines and fisheries.

We may say, therefore, that the requisites of production are labor, capital, and land. The increase of production must depend upon the properties of these three agents. It must depend upon the powers of increase either of the agents themselves, or of their productiveness; and the limit to production will be the limit set by the properties of one or more of them. The law of the increase of production must be a result of the law of the increase of labor, the law of the increase of capital, and the law of the increase of production from land. It is necessary therefore to examine these three laws in succession.

The Law of the Increase of Labor, is that the capacity of increase in the human species, as in all other organised beings, may be regarded as infinite. This law, together with the checks by which it is restrained in old countries, has been already so fully examined, that it need not be further dwelt upon in this place.

The Law of the Increase of Capital, is, that capital, like labor, has in itself the capacity of indefinite increase. In America, where plenty of fertile land is to be had, capital has increased so rapidly as to permit population to double itself every twenty-five years. In old countries, however, the actual increase of capital, like that of popula tion, falls very far short of the capacity.

Since all capital is the result of saving, its increase must depend on two things, namely, on the amount of the fund from which savings can be made, and the strength of the desire to save.

The fund from which savings can be made, is that part of the produce which remains after deducting what is requisite to maintain the productive powers of the country; that is, after deducting the necessaries of the producers, replacing the materials, and keeping the fixed capital in repair. This surplus is the real net produce of a country, and forms the fund available either for further saving, or for the unproductive consumption of the producers themselves and of the rest of society. The whole of this surplus might be, though it never is, saved; and more than this cannot be saved. Its amount is the index of the productiveness of labor, and the greater it is, the more inducements does it hold out for saving.

The desire to save, or, as it is often called, the effective desire of ac

i

cumulation, varies greatly in different countries and individuals. The circumstances which tend to promote it are, a high rate of profits, industrial security, healthy and peaceful occupations, and the power of postponing present to future enjoyments; together with a wish to obtain the social advantages which wealth confers, or to make a provision for children. A deficiency in the desire to save, on the other hand, is produced by causes of an opposite character; for instance, by improvidence, by the want of intellectual and moral culture, by a strong taste for immediate enjoyments, or by the insecurity of property and of industrial enterprises, occasioned by tyrannical systems of government. In rude and semi-civilized countries, these causes have a most powerful influence in weakening the desire to save, and therefore in preventing the growth of capital and population.

When the increase of capital has come to a stand in any country from one or other of these two reasons, namely, either from the lowness of profits, or from the want of the effective desire to save, the country is then said to have reached the stationary state. In this state, though some individuals grow richer, and others poorer, the wealth of the community on the whole does not increase; nor consequently do the numbers of the population, for the growth of population depends upon the growth of capital.

In such countries as England, Holland, and many other parts of Europe, the increase of capital is not retarded by any deficiency in the desire to save, which, in the middle classes at least, rather exceeds than falls short of the limits prescribed by moderation. It is retarded by the other cause, namely, the low rate of profits, and the constant tendency to a diminution in the productiveness of labor. This tendency depends on the properties of land, to which we next proceed.

The Law of the Increase of Production from Land, or, in other words, the law of agricultural industry, is that the proportional returns to agriculture tend to diminish; in other words, that the produce of the soil does not increase in proportion as the labor bestowed on it is increased. "This general law of agricultural industry," says Mr. Mill, "is the most important proposition in political economy. Were the law different, nearly all the phenomena of the production and distribution of wealth would be other than they are." "The question," he says again, "is more important and fundamental than any other; it involves the whole subject of the causes of poverty in a rich and industrious community; and unless this one matter he thoroughly understood, it is to no purpose proceeding any further in our inquiry."

The reason why the rate of wages and of profits is low in this country, is simply, because the law of diminishing productiveness has been brought into too powerful operation by the pressure of the people on the land; or, in other words, because agriculture has been forced by the advance of population and the demand for food, to desvend to unproductive soils, so that the returns yielded by the worst soils under cultivation are very small in proportion to the labor and capital expended on them. "It was stated by several of the witnesses exami..e

by a committee of the House of Commons on the state of agriculture, in 1821," says Mr. McCulloch, in a note to the Wealth of Nations, "that the produce obtained from the lands under cultivation in England and Wales, estimated in wheat, varied from thirty-six and forty, to eight and nine bushels an acre. The required supplies of food could not be obtained without cultivating these inferior lands; and it is this necessity of resorting to soils of a diminished degree of fertility that is the real cause of the comparatively high price of corn, and other raw products, in highly populous countries." The only possible means of permanently raising wages, and lowering the price of food, is to restrain the increase of population, so as not to be compelled to cultivate land of so poor a quality. As will be shown in speaking of the laws of value and price, food cannot be cheap, nor labor dear, unless the margin of cultivation consist of highly productive soils; for it is upon the fertility of the worst soils under cultivation, that the price of food, as well as the remuneration of agricultural labor and capital, really depend. The great practical doctrine of political economy therefore-the doctrine which is incomparably the most important precept derived from this, or indeed from any other science-is that population should be restrained, so as to remove the pressure on the productive powers of the soil. This is the most essential of all the conditions of human happiness, for it is the one and only cure of Poverty. If population were sufficiently restrained, poverty could be removed, with scientific certainty, in the space of a single generation; and indeed, if a vigorous effort were made by the government to relieve the labor market and remove the pressure on the soil, by a sudden and very extensive measure of Colonization, as Mr. Mill strongly advises; and if, at the same time, reproductive restraint were conscientiously practised by all classes, so as to prevent the over-crowded state from being re-induced, and the margin of cultivation again depressed; in a few years every member of society would be easily able to earn a comfortable subsistence.

This is the settled doctrine of political economy, the science of wealth, upon the cause and cure of poverty. I would ask, whether a government which, like our own, continues year after year to ignore this great doctrine; which refuses even to allude to the population principle, much less to adopt any adequate measure for the relief of the labor-market, as advised by the most eminent economists; whether such a government can be considered as doing its duty to the people? If statesmen and other public men are not yet satisfied of the truth of the economical doctrine, why do they not attempt to disprove it, or make known their objections? Why do they not, at the very least, speak of the subject in a straightforward and genuine manner, so that the people may clearly understand what science declares to be the true cause and cure of low wages? Is it just to political economy, nay, is it just to the poor, and to mankind at large, to ignore principles of such unparalleled importance; to pass them by, "not," as Mr. Mill says, "as if they could be refuted, but as if they did not exist?" Is not this a hollow trifling with the awful miseries of

66

poverty? Surely, of all modes of dealing with scientific doctrines, the most unjustifiable, the most unworthy of any earnest and truthseeking man, is to ignore them. To ignore the law of population is in reality to abandon the consideration of the chief social questions altogether.

We see therefore that the Increase of Production is limited in old countries by one or other of two causes; either by a deficiency of fertile land, or of capital. The former is the true limit to production in the more advanced countries of the old world; whilst a deficiency of capital, arising from the want of the effective desire to save, is another cause which acts as a powerful check to production, among barbarous and semi-civilized nations.

DISTRIBUTION.

Having now briefly considered the Production of wealth, let us next direct our attention to its Distribution. The laws of distribution present in one respect an important and well-marked difference from those of production. While the latter, consisting as they do of the properties of human nature and of material objects, are of a fixed and immovable character, and cannot be changed by man, the former are essentially dependent on human institutions, and both may, and do, vary greatly in different countries, and at different times. "The laws and conditions of the production of wealth," says Mr. Mill, "partake of the character of physical truths. There is nothing optional or arbitrary in them. Whatever mankind produce, must be produced in the modes, and under the conditions, imposed by the constitution of external things, and by the inherent properties of their own bodily and mental structure. It is not so with the distribution of wealth. That is a matter of human institution solely. The things once there, mankind, collectively or individually, can do with them as they like. The distribution of wealth therefore depends on the laws and customs of society. The rules by which it is determined are what the opinions and feelings of the ruling portion of the community make them, and are very different in different ages and countries; and might be still more different if mankind so chose." From these remarks we can see the error of those socialist writers who assert that the laws of political economy are applicable only to a society founded on private property and competition, and are consequently of a transitory nature. The laws of distribution are doubtless applicable only to such a state of society, but those of production, including the laws of fecundity and agricultural industry, are quite independent of the social institutions. Moreover, when once the laws which regulate distribution in a society constituted like our own are well understood, it is easy to see by what principles it will be regulated in any other form of society, actual or possible. "Whoever," says Mr. Mill, "is thoroughly master of the laws which, under free

competition, determine the rent, profits, and wages, received by landlords, capitalists, and laborers, in a state of society in which the three classes are completely separate, will have no difficulty in determining the very different laws which regulate the distribution of the produce among the classes interested in it," under other industrial systems.

Where the institution of private property prevails (as it does in all existing societies) the whole produce is divided, in the first instance, among those classes who own the requisites for producing wealth, and whose consent is therefore necessary to production. The requisites for the production of wealth, as we have already seen, are three, labor, capital, and material objects; the last of which may, for practical pur poses, be represented by the term land, understanding by this term both the soil and the minerals contained in it. It is among the classes who own these three requisites-namely, the productive laborers, the capitalists, and the landlords-that the whole produce is shared. "No other person or class obtains anything," says Mr. Mill, "except by concession from them. The remainder of the community is, in fact, supported at their expense, giving, if any equivalent, one consisting of unproductive services. These three classes, therefore, are considered in political economy as making up the whole community."

In Great Britain, the laborers, capitalists, and landlords, form, as a general rule, three separate classes, whose interests are in many respects opposed to one another. It must not be supposed, however, that this system, which is attended with so many disadvantages to the laboring class, is necessary, or even generally prevalent. "The fact is so much otherwise," says Mr. Mill, "that there are only one or two communities in which the complete separation of these classes is the general rule. England and Scotland, with parts of Belgium and Holland, are almost the only countries in the world, where the land, capital, and labor employed in agriculture, are generally the property of separate owners. The ordinary case is, that the same person owns either two of these requisites, or all three." Thus, in the case of the slave-owner or the peasant proprietor, all the three requisites of pro duction are in the hands of the same individual; while in that of the metayer, the Irish cottier, or the Hindoo ryot, they belong to two dif ferent persons. The peasant proprietor is himself the owner, and not merely the tenant, of the land, which he cultivates with his own labor and capital. The system of peasant proprietors prevails very widely in the northern states of the American union, and on the continent of Europe. It is the commonest kind of land tenure in the former states, and one of the commonest in France, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and in parts of Germany, Italy, and Belgium. In France, the number of landed proprietors is estimated at about five millions, while in England (from the extravagant increase in the size of estates, in consequence of the law of entail, the law and custom of primogeniture, and the expenses attendant on the transfer of land, owing to the difficulty of proving the title, &c.), it is only about thirty thousand. Under the metayer system, which prevails in some parts of Italy, Piedmont, &c,, the landlord owns the land and the