eight, or ten dollars, while in other places it is worth nothin The person who pays for it, does so on the same principle the one who pays for water. Sand is worth nothing in Ne Jersey, where it exists in abundance, but in some of the riche counties of Pennsylvania, it has more value than limestone, a a man desiring to build would gladly give half a dozen loa of the one for a single load of the other. In New Jersey, acr of sand would be given for as many loads of lime. The san the lime, and the coal possess the same properties in the plac in which they exist, and where they may be had for little mo than the labour of appropriation-they have the same pow to be useful-but they have no value. The persons who a propriate them and change their place, are paid for so doin but they can earn no more, in return for their labour, than th shoemaker or the tailor-perhaps not so much. There is n "limitation of supply" at the place at which they are foun and the only circumstance which can limit it at the place consumption, is the indisposition of those who have occasio for them to give to those who desire to produce them as man hats, or shoes, or wheat, as they could earn by producing hat shoes, or wheat for themselves.

In all these cases value is given to commodities that pre viously had none; but that value is limited to the wages of la bour, and to the usual profit on capital employed. If there b not a supply fully equal to the demand—if “limitation of sup ply" be permitted to raise the price in even a very small degre above that limit,—some of those who are consumers becom producers, and the price is reduced to the mere value of the labour required for its production. If the man who employs himself in raising wheat cannot obtain in exchange therefor a many hats, or coats, or shoes, as he could obtain by employing himself in making those articles, he will relinquish cultivation If the maker of hats cannot obtain as much wheat in return for his labour as if he employed himself directly in its production, he will apply his labour thereto. Different commodities require different quantities of labour for their production-thus gold is less easily obtained than silver, and iron less easily than sand or clay-but the value of gold and silver-of iron and clayis due exclusively to the labour applied to their production. So long as that which is employed in the production of water, ice,

fish, birds, or oil, which certainly exist in unlimited quantity, will yield to the labourer as much wheat, iron, coal, coats, or shoes, as if he had employed the same labour in the production of those commodities, it cannot be said that they are limited in quantity. Every man who has the value of a day's labour in iron can obtain its equivalent in coats or oil, and every man who possesses coats or oil, can obtain fish, hats, or coal. The quantity produced is only limited by the quantity of labour applied to their production, and may be increased to an unlimited extent, as the wants of man require it.

Mr. Senior agrees with the writers to whom we have already referred, in supposing that, owing to the limited supply of fertile land, there arises, as population increases, a necessity for applying labour to cultivation, with a constantly diminishing return to labour and capital-that those who have appropriated the superior soils are, in consequence of this necessity, enabled to demand rent for their use-and that hence arises the value that is attached thereto. They enjoy, as Mr. Senior supposes, a "great monopoly of land," and the amount received is deemed "all pure gain."+

In the last chapter we showed what was the effect of an improvement in the quality of the machinery used to aid production, supposing the settler to have commenced with an axe of flint, and to have gradually obtained those of iron and steel This case is precisely the reverse. It is here supposed, that with the extension of cultivation there is a constant deterioration in the instruments used. We will now proceed to inquire what would be the manner in which this necessity for having recourse for supplies of food to machines of constantly increasing inferiority, would show itself, but will first examine in what manner a similar necessity in regard to the tools by which labour is aided, would operate.

Let us suppose that instead of commencing with axes of stone, and rising to those of iron and steel, the first had been of steel, but that there was a daily increasing difficulty of obtaining such, and that the settler was gradually reduced to the necessity of having recourse to "inferior" axes, falling from those of iron to others of stone, and see what would be the effect.

I. With every increase in the necessity for axes, there would be an increased difficulty in obtaining one capable of doing the usual quantity of work.

II. Every new axe being worse than those previously used, there would be a constantly diminishing return to labour.

III. Each year would see an increase in the value, estimated in labour, of all previously existing axes.

IV. Each year the owner of those of steel, or of iron, would be enabled to demand a larger proportion of the product of labour in return for the loan of one.

V. Each year there would be a diminished proportion retained by the labourer, attended by a constant diminution in his wages. To these propositions, it is presumed, there can be no objection, and we will now apply them to land.

If value therein be the result of this necessity for having recourse to land of inferior productive power, it must follow,

I. That with every extension of cultivation, there must be an increase in the quantity of labour required for bringing into action a quantity of land necessary to yield any given amount of food.

II. That every new farm brought into cultivation being less productive than that which had preceded it, there must be a constant diminution in the return to labour.

III. That this increased difficulty of obtaining fertile land must give to all that was previously in cultivation a tendency to attain a value exceeding that of the labour that had been required for its production.

IV. That this increased difficulty on the part of the labourer must be accompanied by a power, on the part of the owner of land, to demand a constantly increasing proportion of its produce, as rent.

V. That each year there must be a diminution in the proportion retained by the labourer, attended by a constantly diminishing reward of labour, or wages.

It will be perceived that these laws would be precisely the reverse of those which we have shown to exist in relation to every other species of capital. We will now proceed to examine the circumstances which attend the creation of value in land, and the payment of rent for its use, with a view to ascertain how far the results observed correspond therewith.

* Ante, page 19.

CHAPTER IV.

OF VALUE IN LAND.

LET us suppose a few families placed in the midst of an extensive body of land, all of equal fertility, and that each family produces for itself all the articles necessary for its consumption, performing no exchanges with its neighbours. Unprovided with implements, it is with difficulty that a sufficient quantity of land is cultivated to yield them the food necessary for support. Let us suppose, however, that at the end of three years, each has prepared and brought into cultivation enough to yield two hundred bushels of grain. After a time, some of the younger branches are of age to establish themselves, and desire to extend the settlement. If equally unprovided with implements, the new farms will require an equal quantity of labour to bring them into cultivation, but if they have provided themselves with spades, it is probable that there may be a diminution of one fourth, and that the labour of 27 months will accomplish for them as much as their fathers were able to do in three years, and at the end of that time, they find themselves possessed of farms also yielding 200 bushels. If, now, another were desirous of establishing himself, and one of the farmers on No. 1 were desirous of changing his place, what would be the value of his farm? He could not ask the value of three years' labour, because that of 27 months would yield another of equal productive power. It had cost him the labour of three years, but the aid of the spade had been wanting, and 27 months' labour, aided by that implement, is now as valuable as that of three years had been. If he desired to rent it, the other party would not give him as large a proportion of the proceeds for the use of an article that could be obtained by 27 months' labour, as he would have done at the time when it could only be had in exchange for that of three years.

A further increase of capital takes place, and labour is now aided by a plough. A new emigration takes place, and the

parties find that by the labour of 20 months, they can prepare farms that will yield 200 bushels per annum. The value of the old farms will now fall to 20 months' labour, and the proportion to be given as rent will fall with it. Each addition to the capital of the community will be attended with a diminution of the cost of a farm of any given productive power, and by a diminution in the proportion that can be demanded as rent.

We have supposed that the owners of farms first brought into action had allowed them to remain stationary, producing only 200 bushels each, while the others were in preparation. Such, however, would not be the case. By the use of the spade the owners of farm No. 1. would be able, without increased labour, to produce 250 bushels, while those of No. 2 were preparing farms for the production of 200 bushels. What would now be the value of No. 1.? If the labour of 27 months sufficed to prepare as much land as would yield two hundred bushels, that of 334 months would be sufficient to prepare enough to yield 250 bushels, and the value of No. 1. could not exceed the quantity of labour necessary to produce a farm equal to itself in productive power. If the owner wished to rent it, what proportion of the proceeds would he now receive? Let us suppose, that, when three years were necessary for its production, he had been able to obtain one fourth of its product. If, then, a man would be willing to give one fourth for the use of a machine, value 36 months of labour, what proportion would be given for the use of one, whose value was only 33 months? It would be twenty-three per cent. The owner who received 50 bushels, when it yielded only 200, would receive now 57, when it yielded 250, and the occupant who had been accustomed to retain 150, would now have 193 as wages of labour, aided by a spade.

The use of the plough would enable No. 1 to increase his production to 300 bushels, during the time that the land of No. 3 was being brought into action. No. 3, being able to obtain a farm of 200 bushels with the labour of 20 months, he could, of course, prepare one for 300 bushels with the labour of 30 months, and such would now be the value of No. 1. If the owner of the latter desired to rent it, he could not now claim as large a proportion of the proceeds as he had before done, because