TransitionfromRyotRents。AnotherkindofpeasantrentprevailsinAsia，andespeciallyinIndia，called，asIhavesaid，Ryotrents；Ryotbeingthenameforthecultivator。Theserentsareaproducerent，paidtothesovereignasproprietorofthesoil。MrJonessays（p。138）：\"Thereisnothingmischievousindirecteffectofryotrents。Theyareusuallymoderate；andwhenrestrictedtoatenth，or
evenasixth，fifth，orfourthoftheproduce，ifcollectedpeacefullyandfairly，theybecomeaspeciesofland—tax，andleave
thetenantabeneficialhereditaryestate。Itisfromtheirindirecteffectstherefore，andfromtheformofgovernmentinwhich
theyoriginate，andwhichtheyservetoperpetuate，thattheyarefullofevil，andarefoundinpracticemorehopelesslydestructiveofthepropertyandprogressofthepeoplethananyformoftherelationoflandlordandtenantknowntous。\"Theproprietaryrightsofthesovereign，andhislargeandpracticallyindefiniteinterestintheproduce，preventtheformation
ofanyreallyindependentbodyontimeland。Bythedistributionoftherents，whichhisterritoryproduces，themonarch
maintainsthemostinfluentialportionoftheremainingpopulationinthecharacterofcivilormilitaryofficers。Thereremain
onlytheinhabitantsofthetownstointerposeachecktohispower；butthemajorityofthesearefedbytheexpenditureof
thesovereignorhisservants。Weshallhaveafitteropportunitytopointouthowcompletelytheprosperityorratherthe
existenceofthetownsofAsia，proceedsfromthelocalexpenditureofthegovernment。`Asthecitizensarethusdestitute
fromtheirpositionofrealstrength，sotheAsiaticsovereigns，havingnobodyofpowerfulprivilegedlandedproprietorsto
contendwith，havenothadthemotiveswhichtheEuropeanmonarchshad：tonurseandfoster。thetownsintoenginesof
political，influence，andthecitizensareproverbiallythemosthelplessandprostrateoftheslavesofAsia。Thereexists，
therefore，nothinginthesocietybeneathhimwhichcanmodifythepowerofasovereignwhoisthesupremeproprietorofa
territorycultivatedbyapopulationofryotpeasants。Allthatthereisofrealstrengthinsuchapopulation，lookstohimas
thesolesource，notmerelyofprotection，butofsubsistence；heisbyhispositionandnecessarilyadespot。Buttheresultsof
Asiaticdespotismhaveeverbeenthesame：whileitisstrongitisdelegated，anditspowerabusedbyitsagents；whenfeeble
anddeclining，thatpowerisviolentlysharedbyitsinferiors，anditsstolenauthorityyetmoreabused。Initsstrengthandin
itsweaknessitisalikedestructiveoftheindustryandwealthofitssubjects，andalltheartsofpeace；anditisthiswhichmakesthatpeculiarsystemofrentsparticularlyobjectionableandcalamitoustothecountriesinwhich，itprevails。\"Theland—taxinthissystemisinpracticearbitrary，andthenceoppressive。MrMillrelates（。379）howtheEnglishrulers
whentheysucceededtothepowersoftheprevioussovereignsattemptedtoremedythisoppression。Theywishedtofounda
classofgreatlandlords，thatIndiamightprosperasEnglandhasprosperedunderherlandlords。Forthispurposethey
pitcheduponasetoftax—gathererscalledZemindars。Butthisplanseemstohavefailed。Itseemsnow，saysMrJones（p。1
18），tobegenerallyadmittedthattheclaimsoftheZemindarswereoverrated，andthatifsomethinglesshadbeendonefor
themandsomethingmoreforthesecurityandindependenceoftheRyots，thesettlement，withoutbeinglessjustorgenerous，wouldhavebeenmoreexpedient。ButthesystemofcultivationinIndiaseemsonthepointofundergoingagreatchangefromcausesextraneoustotheryot
system。TheGovernor—Generalhasinstituted，itisrecentlystated，systemofgrantsoftheunoccupiedland，ontermswhich
makethegranteesindependentcultivators。Theunoccupiedlandiswideandfertile，andthusaraceofcultivatorsmayarise
whoseconditionwillbefreefromtheevilsoftheryottenure。ThishoweverbelongstothePoliticalEconomyoftheFuture。
TransitionfromCottierRents。
Inowtakeanothercase。IrelandiscultivatedinagreatmeasurebyCottiers。MrMillhasputtheseinthesamechapterastheryotsofIndia。AtthisI
marvelmuch；forhehashimselfpointedoutthebroaddifferenceswhichexistbetweenthetwosystems。Hetrulystatesthat
inIndiathepaymentshavebeenregulatedbycustom；inIrelandbycompetition；avastdifference，ofwhichhehimselfhas
forciblypointedouttheimportance。AddtothisthatinIndiatheownerofthelandisthesovereign；inIrelandaprivate
person。Andwemayaddfurtherwhatisalsoaveryimportantfeaturethattherentiscontractedtobepaidinmoney，notin
produce；andthereforedoesnotvarywiththeamountofthecrops。Andthislastcircumstanceespeciallyhasgreatimportanceintheprogressofthecountryinwhichthesesystemsarefound。Ryotrentshavenotendencytochange；theyhaveexistedinIndiafromthetimeoftheGreeks：probablymuchlonger。TheCottiers’rentsofIrelandofferremarkablefacilitiesforchange；MrJonessays（p。152）：\"Theprincipaladvantagethecottierderivesfromhisformoftenureisthegreatfacilitywithwhich，whencircumstancesare
favourabletohim，hechangesaltogetherhisconditioninsociety。Inserf，mé；tayer，orryotcountriesextensivechangesmust
takeplaceinthewholeframeworkofsocietybeforethepeasantsbecomecapitalistsandindependentfarmers。Theserfhas
manystagestogothroughbeforehearrivesatthispoint，andwehaveseenhowharditistoadvanceonestep。Themé；tayer
toomustbecometheownerofthestockonhisfarm，andbeabletoundertaketopayamoney—rent。Bothchangestakeplace
slowlyandwithdifficulty，especiallythelast，thesubstitutionofmoney—rents，whichsupposesaconsiderableprevious
improvementintheinternalcommerceofthenation，andisordinarilytheresult，notthecommencementofimprovementin
theconditionofthecultivators。Butthecottierisalreadytheownerofhisownstock；heexistsinasocietyinwhichthe
powerofpayingmoney—rentsisalreadyestablished。Ifhethrivesinhisoccupation，thereisnothingtopreventhisenlarging
hisholding，increasinghisstock，andbecomingacapitalist，andafarmerinthepropersenseoftheword。Itispleasingto
heartheresidentIrishlandlords，whohavetakensomepainsandmadesomesacrificestoimprovethecharacterand
conditionoftheirtenantry，bearingtheirtestimonytothisfact，andstatingtherapiditywithwhichsomeofthecottiershave，
undertheirauspices，acquiredstockandbecomesmallfarmers。MostofthecountriesoccupiedbyMé；tayers，Serfs，and
Ryots，willprobablycontainasimilarraceoftenantryforsomeages。Iftheeventsofthelasthalfcenturyarefavourableto
Ireland，herCottiersarelikelytodisappear，andtobemergedintoaverydifferentraceofcultivators。Thisfacilityforgliding
outoftheiractualconditiontoahigherandabetter，isanadvantage，andaverygreatadvantage，ofthecottierovertheothersystemsofpeasantrents，andatonesforsomeofitsgloomierfeatures。\"Thisauspiciousanticipation。hasbeenwonderfullyverifiedsinceMrJoneswrote。Circumstancesintherecenthistoryof
Ireland，mostdisastrousintheirfirstaspect，havedonemuchtobreakupthesystemofcottiertenureandtointroducea
betterkindofcultivation。TheFamineandtheExodus，thePoorLawandtheEncumberedEstateAct，haveproduceda
wonderfulchangeintheconditionofIreland。IwillreadfromavaluablearticleintheEdinburghReview，for1857，anaccountofthemannerinwhichthecottiersystemwasaffectedbytheseevents。ThePoorLawhadbeenintroducedintoIrelandin1840：buthadnotbeenbroughtfacetofacewiththeneedsofthepeopletillthefaminein1847。Inthatyearitwasmodifiedsoastoshakethecottiersystem。Ed。Rev。p。110：\"ThePoorLawof1847providedfortheproblemofemancipatingthesoilfromthecottiersystem。The
Actsof1838and1844hadprobablyhadthisobjectinview；fortheyhadchargedtheIrishlandlordswiththeentire
poor—rateinrespectofthesmallerclassofholdings；andthisnaturallytendedtotheconsolidationoffarms。ButtheActof
1847wentmuchfurther；itrefusedreliefaltogethertooccupiersofmorethanaquarterofastatuteacre；andthus，bybasing
therightofpubliccharityupongivingupthelargerportionoftheirland，itforcedofftheIrishcottiersinmassesfromthe
soil，andleftitfreeforanewraceofagriculturists。Thepoorestofthecottiersabandonedtheirbuildingsforthe
workhouses，fromwhich，however，thelargemajorityofthemhavesinceemerged，whilethoseamongthemwhohadstill
anyresidueofproperty，commencedthatstrangeandunparalleledemigration，whichhassentIrishenergiestoahopeful
field，andhasopenedthelandofIrelandforabettersystem。Thelawwhichdidthiswasstern，butitwasnotunjust，andno
onecandenythegoodithasaccomplished。
TheEncumberedEstatesActoperatedinthesamedirection。Ed。Rev。p。116：\"Alawwhich`freedthelandofIrelandfromallchecksonalienation，whichbrokedowntheequitymode
oftransfer，withitsjealousimpedimentstopuisnecreditors，itsfearfuldelays，itsruinousexpense，anditscumbrousand
unsatisfactoryprocedure，andwhich，besides，offeredeverysecuritytopurchasers，wouldnecessarily，underany
circumstanceswhatever，havebroughtagreatmanyestatestothemarket。Butpassingatatimewhentheequitycourtswere
crowdedwithembarrassedestates，whentheruinoccasionedbythefamine，andthepoor—rates，andthepanicresultingfrom
therepealofthecorn—laws，andthelownessofprices，hadmadeallcreditorsonrealpropertyinIrelandextremelyanxious
torealizetheirsecurities，itoperatedtoanextentwellnighinconceivable。Inaperiodoflessthaneightyears，theIrish
EncumberedEstatesCommissionhasdealtwithlandedpropertyrepresentinganetrentalofupwardsof？，450，000sterling，
andcoveringanareaofmorethanfourmilliononehundredthousandacres。ACourtofJustice，sittinginaremotecornerof
Dublin，haspeaceablychangedtheownershipofalargermassoflandthatprobablypassedunderCromwell’sconfiscations。
Ofthevastdistrictbroughtwithinitsgrasp，aboutsix—sevenths，containingthreemillionsfivehundredthousandacres，witha
rentalofonemilliontwohundredandthirtythousandpoundssterling，hasbeensoldandtransferred，leavingaresidueofsix
hundredthousandacresoftheyearlyvalueoftwohundredandtwentythousandpoundssterlingstillundisposedof。The
encumbrancesupontheestatesalreadysold，andwhichhithertohadbeenpentupinthecourtsofequityorleftinthehands
ofruinedinheritorsreachedtheextraordinarysumofthirtysixmillionssterling，orupwardsoftwentylouryears’purchase
uponthenetrental。ThissinglefactshewsthestateoflandedbankruptcythatexistedinIreland，andisanamplejustification
ofthelaw。\"
Andagain，p。119\"ThegooddonetoIrelandbythisimportantstatute，anditsvastresults，arebeyondallquestion。Largetractsofland，which
hithertohadnorealproprietors，whichwereeitherinthehandsofChanceryreceivers，orofinheritorssunkindebt，on
whichaleasecouldnotbemade，norasecuretenurebeobtained，andwhich，accordingly，wereinvariablythereceptaclesof
theworstspecimensofthecottiertenantry，havenowfallenintothehandsofownerswhocanusethemforallthepurposes
ofproperty。OnagreatportionofthesurfaceofIrelandthereisnolongeranimpenetrablebarriertonaturalfanningtenures，
andtothelegitimateconditionsofarealagriculture。Eventhebreakingupofthelargepropertiesintosmallestateshasbeen
ofadvantage；forithastendedtoextendtheareaofthefarmerbyreducingthesizeofprivatedemesnes；ithasstimulated
providentandindustrioushabits，byopeningtheland—markettosmallcapitalists；andprobablyithasconsiderably
encouragedtheinvestmentofmoneyintheimprovementofthesoil。Inaword，agreatbreadthofIrelandhasnowbeenset
free，andissubjectedtomorecivilizinginfluences。Theevidencesofthismostsalutarychangeareperfectlyclearinevery
partofthecountry。Moderatemansions，neatfarmhouses，andgoodfarmbuildings，risingfromamongtrimcornfieldsand
pastures，thetrueproofsofasubstantialagriculturalmiddleclass，arenowtobemetwith，andthatnotunfrequentlyon
estateswhichhadlongbeenmoulderinginChanceryruin。Asregardsthispoint，however，weprefertociteasingleexampletomakinganygeneralstatements。\"Intheyears1852，1853，MrAllanPollok，ofGlasgow，purchasedestatesinthecountyofGalway，undertheEncumbered
Estates。Act，forwhichhegave？30，000。Hehassinceexpended？50，000ontheminfittingthemwithproperappliances
foragriculture。Intheyear1852therewere100acresofgreencropsonhislands，andintheyear1856therewere2000
acresofgreencrops，and3000ofcorn。IftheimprovementseffectedbyotherpurchasersundertheEncumberedEstates
Act，evenremotelyapproachthechangesaccomplishedbyMrPollok，therecanbenodoubtthatthewealthofIrelandwill
beincreasedinanextraordinarydegree。\"
Thegeneralresultsarethusstated：\"TheselawshavewroughtacompleterevolutioninIrishagriculture；havetransferredthesoilfrompaupercottierstoreal
farmers；havecausedanevidentimprovementineveryspeciesofhusbandry；havebroughtcapitalinlargequantitiestoa
hopefulfieldforinvestment；haveplantedinthelandanumeroussmallproprietary，andhavesettledthetrueconditionsof
Irishprosperity。Afewfigureswilldemonstratetheseresults。Intheyear1841，thefarmsinIreland，exceedingthirtyacresin
area，wereintheproportionofseventothehundred；atthecloseof1855theyhadincreasedtomorethan26percent。，and
occupiedupwardsofthree—fourthsofthecountry。Intheyear1841，therewereaboutsixandaquartermillionsofacresout
ofcultivation；intheyear1855onlyfourmillioneighthundredandninetythousand。In1847，727，000acresofIrelandwere
underagreencrop；in1855，thenumberhadnearlydoubled。In1841，thelivestockofIrelandwasvaluedat？9，400，000。In
1855，atthesamerates，ithadreachedthirtythreemillionsandahalf。TheaveragecirculationofallthebanksofIrelandwas
in1850fourmillionsandahalf；atthecloseof1855，ithadalmostincreasedathird。Lastly，whiletheIrishexcisedutiesof
1850，amountedto？，400，000，thoseof1856，are？，600，000。itmay，wethink，bestated，thatsorapidandhappyand
economicalarevolution，soquickatransitionfromasinkingandperilous，toahopefulandflourishinglandedsystem，is
withoutaparallelinhistory。ThefoundationsofIrishprosperityhaveatlengthbeenlaidinreformedmodesofowningandoccupyingthesoil；andtherecanbenodoubtbutthattheywillsupportasuperstructureofgeneralwelfare。\"OneremarkIwillmakeinconcludingthisbriefview。Weliveinaneventfulage。Thatisareflexion。whicheveryoneis
readytomake；everyonereadytoassentto。ButthereisafurtherreflexionsuggestedbywhatIhavebeensaying。Besides
andbeyondtheeventswhichmaketheageappeareventfultocommonobserverswarandpeacerevolutionsofstatesand
dynastiestheriseandfallofkingdomsandempires，republicsandfederationseventswhichshakethegroundwiththeir
earthquake，andfilltheairwiththeirthunder；besideandbeyondthese，thereareeventstakingplace，noiselessandalmost
imperceptibleadvancinglikevegetationoveradesert，orsummeroverthewoodsandfieldseventsoffarmoreconsequence
thanallthatcomeswithconvulsionandtumulteventswhichwillbythepoliticaleconomistofthefutureberegardedasfar
moreimportantthananypoliticaleventshappierthananyrestoration，moregloriousthananyrevolution：theeventsofthe
decayandextinctiontobereplacedbysomethingbetterinshort，theEuthanasiaofMé；tayerRentsinFrance，SerfRentsin
Russia，RyotRentsinIndia，andCottierRentsinIreland。
LECTUREV。
TheDoctrineofRent。ThedoctrineofRentspokenofinthelastLecture，mustnowbemorefullyexplained，asIhavesaid；itmaybebrieflystated
thus：TheRentoflandisthepaymentfortheexcessofthevalueoftheproduceofthebetterlandoverthepoorestcultivatedland：thepoorestbeingthatkindoflandwhichjustpaysforbeingcultivated。LetAbethebestland（bestasbeingmostfertile，nearestthemarket，orforthelikereasons）。Andlettheproduceofitunder
theusualcultivationbe？2peracreperannumontheaverage。
LetBbenextbestland，andletitsproducebe？0peracre；andsupposethisproducejustpaystheexpenseofcultivation。
LetCbestillinferiorland，whichunderthelikecultivationyieldsonly？peracre。ThereforethelandCdoesnotpaytheexpenseofcultivation，andnoonewillwithaviewtoprofit，bestowuponitthe
expenseofcultivation。
ThelandBmaybecultivatedwithaviewtoprofit，byapersonwhocanhaveitrent—free：bytheproprietorforinstance。ThelandAmayl）ecultivatedwithaviewtoprofitbyanyone，payingforitarentof？anacre。Whenhehaspaidthatrent，hisprofitswillstillbetheusualprofitsofstock。ThisisnecessarilytheoriginandmeasureofRent：fortheproprietorofAwillnotallowanyonetocultivateitonlowerterms，sincehecanobtainthoseterms。Apersonwhothusrentslandandcultivatesitwithaviewtoobtainingtheprofitsofhisstock，isaFarmer。TheRentsnow
spokenofareFarmer’sRents。
A：Produce=12
Rent=2
B：Produce=10
Rent=0
C：Produce=8UncultivatedThisdiagrammayrepresentthekindsofland：A，B，Cthedifferentkindsyieldingdifferentvaluesofproduce，in
consequence，ashasbeensaid，ofbeingmorefertile，nearertothemarket，orothercauses。
RecentRiseofRentsinEngland，howproduced？ThemainimportanceoftheDoctrineofRent，isintheviewstowhichitleadsrespectingthecausesandtheeffectsofariseorfallofrents。Supposethatthepriceofcorn（orotherproduceoftheland，）increases，andthattheexpenseofcultivatingthelandremains
thesame。Supposethisincreaseofpricetobeonefourthoftheoriginalprice。
ThenthevalueoftheproduceofAwillbeincreasedby？insteadof12，itwillbe123or15。
ThevalueoftheproduceofBwillbeincreasedalsoby？insteadof10itwillbeio2？or12？Andastheexpenseofcultivationisstillonly10asbefore，therewillbeinthiscase，besidestheordinaryprofitofstock，an
extraprofitof2？whichthefarmerofBcanaffordtopaytotheproprietor；andwhichtheproprietorwilldemandastherentofB。InthiscasethevalueoftheproduceofCwillalsobeincreasedbyone—fourthinsteadof8itwillbe10。AndastheexpenseofcultivatingCwiththeusualprofitsis10，apersoncanaffordtocultivateC，payingnorent。InthiscaseC，whichwasnotcultivatedbefore，iscultivatednowinconsequenceoftheincreasedpriceofcorn。This
increasedpricemaybesupposedtoarisefromtheincreaseddemandoccasionedbyanincreasedpopulation。Theincreased
producearisingfromthecultivationofCwillprovidefortheincreasedpopulation。
Thisnewstateofthingsmayberepresentedbythisdiagram，A：Produce=15
Rent=5
B：Produce=12？
Rent=2？
C：Produce=10
Rent=0。
Inthiscase，Rentsincreaseinconsequenceofcornhavingbecomedearer。MrRicardoassumedthatthiswasthegeneralcase：thatariseofrentsisalwaysaccompaniedbyanincreasedpriceofcorn，
inconsequenceofthenecessityofobtainingcornfrominferiorsoils：asin。theabovecase，inconsequenceoftheincreaseofpopulationitwasnecessarytoobtaincornfromthelandC，aswellasfromthelandAandB。MrRicardoassertedthattheinterestofthelandlord（whichistheriseofrents），isopposedtotheinterestoftheconsumers
ofproduce（whichischeapprices）。
Itwillbemybusinesstoshowthatthispropositionisaltogethererroneous。ThatcausewhichMrRicardoassumesasthegeneralcauseoftheriseofrentsisnotthegeneralcause，ifiteveroperate：andisnotthecauseoftherisewhichhastakenplaceinEnglandinmoderntimes。Iwillfirstprovethatthisisnotthecausewhichhasoperated，andthenIwillendeavourtoshowwhatisthecausewhichhas
producedtheeffect。
This，then，isthepropositiontowhichIfirstinviteyourattention。TheriseofrentsinEnglandinrecenttimeshasnotresultedfromtheRicardiancause，theriseofpricesofproduceinconsequenceoftheincreaseddifficultyofproduction。Toprovethis，IshallprovethatwhenrentsrisefromtheRicardiancause，（theincreaseddifficultyofproduction），thewholerentmustnecessarilybecomealargerfractionoftheproduce。Thus，inthecasewhichwehavetaken，theproduceofanacreofthelandsA，B，C，isrespectively12，10，and8。And，ifwe
supposethequantityofeachqualityoflandtobeequal，（asuppositionmademerelyatfirsttosimplifythereasoning，）when
Cisnotcultivated，theproduceisas1210=22，andtherentas2。Therentis1/11theproduce。
WhenCiscultivated，theproduceisas112？10=37？andtherentisas52？=7？Therentis？theproduce。Thusinthiscasetherentincreasesfrom2to7？anditisatthelatterstage1/5oftheproduce，havingattheformerbeenIt
isalargerportionofthewholeatthelastthanatthefirst。
Thenumbersinthiscaseresultfromthesuppositionthatthequantitiesofeachofthekindsofland，A，B，C，areequal。Butthegeneralresult，thattherentisagreaterportionoftheproduceatthelatterstagethanattheformer，doesnotdependonanysuppositionastoquantities。Itwillbethesame，whateverbethequantitiesofdifferentkindsofland。Foreachkindoflandwillhavetherentagreaterfractionatthelatterstagethanattheformer；andthereforeallthefractionsatthelatterstage，multipliedbytheirquantities，andaddedtogether，mustbegreaterthanattheformerstage。ButintheprogressofagricultureinEnglandduringthepresentcentury，itisallowed，byallwhohaveattendedtothe
subject，thatthoughtheamountofrenthasincreased，therentisnowasmallerfractionofthegrossproducethanitwas
formerly。Therentwasinformertimesonethirdofthegrossproduce。Itisnowonefourth，oronefifth。
Howisthistobeexplained？ThesameresultfollowsifwecompareEnglandandFrance；forFrance，inmattersofagriculture，mayberegardedasrepresentingEnglandatanearlierstage。ThusM。Lavergne，whohasstudiedthecausesofthesuperiorityofEnglandtoFrance，andpublishedhisresults
（L’EconomieRuraledel’Angleterre，3rdEd。1858，p。98），statesthegrossproduceofahectareinFrancetobe100，andthe
rent30；inEnglandthegrossproduceforthesamequantityoflandis250，andtherentis75。Therentintheformercaseis3/10，inthelatteritisstill3/10，thoughtheactualamountoftherentismorethandoubled。AgainIask，howisthistobeexplained？ItappearstomctobeoneofthemostimportantproblemsinPoliticalEconomy；
bothastoitsbearingupontheDoctrineofRent，andastoitsbearinguponthenatureofagriculturalprogress。Howisittobesolved？Theonlysolutionmustbethis：thatthenatureofagriculturalprogressinthesecasesisnotthatwhichissupposedinthe
theoryasstatedbyRicardo；namely，theincreaseddifficultyandexpenseofraisingproducefromland；or，asitisalsoexpressed，theextensionofcultivationtoinferiorsoils。Butifitisnotthat，whatisit？1reply，itistheuseofAuxiliaryCapital；thatis，capitalemployedinmachines，（ploughs，carts，&；c。）manure，draining，workingcattle，andallothercontrivancesbywhichtheagriculturallabourofmanisassisted。SuchcapitalisemployedtoaverylargeextentinEngland。Itappears（Jones，OnRent，p。223），fromvariousreturnsmadeat
differenttimestotheBoardofAgriculture，thatthewholecapitalagriculturallyemployedistothatappliedtothesupportof
labourers，as5to1：thatis，thereisfourtimesasmuchauxiliarycapitalusedasthereisofcapitalappliedtothemaintenance
oflabouranddirectlyintillage。InFrance，theauxiliarycapitaluseddoesnotamount（asappearsfromCountChaptal’s
statement）t。omorethantwicethatappliedtomaintainrusticlabour。InotherEuropeancountriesthequantityofauxiliary
capitalisprobablymuchless。
Now，howwillthisauxiliarycapitalaffectthequestionofrent？Inthisway。Thecapitalthusemployedistoacurtainextent，fixedcapitalthatis，itlastsacertainnumberofyears，and
requirestobereplacedonlyafterthattime。Thusacapitalof？owhichwearsoutin10yearsmaybereplacedbyareturnof？ayear。Orrather，acapitalof？0whichwearsoutin10yearsmaybereplacedwithprofitsbyareturnof？ayear。Now，whatwillbetheeffectofsuchacapitalonRents？Thiscapital（？0anacre）willnotbeemployed，unlessitwillproduceareturnof？anacre。Itmustthereforeincreasethe
producetoatleastthatamount。
Suppose，asbefore，threequalitiesoflandABC
ofwhichtheproduceis201510，respectively。
Thegrossproduceishere20151045，andtherentis105=15，andas15isonethirdof45，therentisofthegrossproduce。
Letnowthecapital（say？0anacre）beapplied，andlettheproducenowbecomegreaterthanitwasforABC
by876，AandBthusstillretainingtheirsuperiorityoverC：theproducenowisABC
282216。Thegrossproduceisnow282216=66，andtherentis126=18，therentis18/66oftheproduce，whichisasmallerfractionthanbefore，thoughtherentitselfhasincreasedfrom15to18。Letusmakeasuppositionofa。stilllargerincreaseofproducebytheapplicationofcapital。Theproducewithoutthecapital
beingasbefore，forABC
201510。
Lettheadditionresultingfromtheapplicationofcapitalbe161514：
theproducewillnowbe363024。Thegrossproduceis90，therentis126=18，and18is1/5of90；sothatinthiscase，thoughtherentisincreasedfrom1to18，itis，asafractionoftheproduce，diminishedfromonethirdtoonefifth。WeheresupposethattheproduceofthelandC，whichwasxobeforetheapplicationofthecapital，is24withthecapital。Theamount10correspondstothewagesoflabour，and14isrequiredtoreplacethecapitalwithprofits。M。LavergnegivesthefollowingestimateofthedistributionoftheproduceforanEnglishandforaFrenchhectare，（Ec。
Rur。p。98）：
England：Rent75
Wages60
Farmer’sprofits10
Accessoryexpenses……50
Taxes25
250
France：Rent30
Wages50
Farmer’sprofits10
Accessoryexpenses8
Taxes5
100HeretheAccessoryExpensesarethereturnwhichisrequisitetoreplacetheAuxiliaryCapital。Aswesee，hemakesthemio
timesasgreatinEnglandasinFrance。
WeseethatwhilethefarmerinEnglandpays75inwages，herequires90forhisprofits，andforkeepinguphisstock。Sincehisprofitsareestimatedat40，wemayestimatehiscapitalat400，whichismorethan4。timeswhathepaysinwages；asIhavesaidthatthosewhojudgefromfactshaveestimatedit。Butallthesenumbersarehypothetical，andintroducedmerelyforthesakeofillustratingbyexamplemyproposition。The
propositionisthis：thatrentsmayincreasenotonlybytheextensionofcultivationtopoorersoils；butalsobythe
improvementofmethodsofculture；andthattheincreaseofproduceandofrentsinEnglandhasarisenfromsuchimprovement，muchmorethanfromtheextensionofculturetoworsesoils。Further，thisimprovementofthemethodsofculturehasinvolvedtheapplicationofagreatamountofcapital，asauxiliarytothelabourofmanincultivation。Weknowsuchanapplicationofcapitaltohavetakenplace；andtheproofthatthisistherealcaseisfoundinthefact，thattherenthasbecomeasmallerportionofthegrossproduce。IhopeIhavenowgivenasolutionoftheProblem：Howithascometopass，thatwhilerentshaveincreasedinEngland，the
renthasbecomeasmallerfractionoftheproduce。Itisdemonstrable，asyouhaveseen，thatthiscannotarisefromthecauseassertedbyMrRicardoandMrMcCullochtobethesoleanduniversalsourceofanincreaseofrents。Butitmaybeasked，howdidthepropositionwhichIamcombatingthattheincreaseofrentarisesuniversallyfromthe
extensionofcultivationtoinferiorsoils，ortothesamesoilwithinferiorreturnsobtainsuchaholdonthemindsofeminentPoliticalEconomists？TothisIreply，thatthishappensbecausethispropositionwasaningeniousdeductionfromthedoctrineofrent。onacertain
hypothesis；namelyonthehypothesisofaconstantlydecreasingreturntoagriculturallabour；andinconsequenceoftheingenuityofthededuction，thedoctrineandthehypothesiswereacceptedasprovingeachother。Thedoctrineofrent，thatrentistheexcessoftheproduceofgoodsoilsovertheworstsoils，orovertheworstremunerated
capital，wasreceived，aswehaveseen，withgreatadmiration。Thehypothesis，thatsuccessiveequaldosesoflabourorof
capitalproducediminishingresults，wasacceptedasmostsimple。Perhapsitwassuggestedbyavaguenotionoftheeffect
oflabouremployedindiggingthesoil。Iftheproduceofagivenfieldbeincreasedbyoneman’sdiggingoverthesoil，itmay
perhapsbefurtherincreasedbytwomenwhomaypulverizethesoilstillfurther：butitisnotlikelythatthesecondman’slabourwillproduceanadditionequaltothefirst。Butthereseemstobenoreasonwhatevertosupposethatthisistheruleofthegeneralease。Additionallabour，and
additionalcapital，maybeemployeduponland，andtheresultmaybenoadditionalproduce。Butalsoadditionallabourand
additionalcapital，inotherways，maybeemployedsoastogiveadditionalproducetoanextentofwhichwecannot
prescribethelimitsbeforehand。Thegreatpointinsuchcasesistodiscoverhowthismaybedone。Theresultdependsupon
agriculturalskillandinventiveness，andmaybegreatormaybesmall。Thoughthelawofdecreasingproductivenessto
additionallabourandcapitalhadbeenlaiddownwithgreatconfidence，thereseemstobenogroundforassertingitasalaw
oftheprogressofagriculture。Thegreatimprovementsinagriculture，improvedmachines，manures，drainage，donotappear
tohavefollowedthislaw。Theimprovementsinagriculturehavenotconsistedintryingmoreandmoretosqueezefroma
givenplotofgroundtheutmostcropthatitcanproduceofonekind，butinintroducingnewkindsoffoodforanimals，as
turnipsintothesandysoilsofNorfolk，andartificialgrassesofallkinds，andinmakingonepartofthefarmplayintothe
handsofanother，soastofeedanincreasednumberofcattle，andyettohaveanincreasedbreadthofcerealcrops。There
havebeenimprovementstooinallagriculturalmachinery：newmanures：newandimprovedmodesofdraining：andmany
otherimprovements。Inthesewaystheproduceofthelandhasbeenincreased，andadditionalcapitalhasbeenemployed
uponit：butthereisnogroundwhateverforsayingthateachadditionalequaldoseofcapitalsoappliedhasproducedsmallerresults。Tomakeimprovementsinagriculturemustdepend，asIhavesaid，uponinventiveskillanditistheskillwhichhasbeen
broughtoutinthispursuitinEnglandwhichhasbeenthecauseoftheagriculturalprogressofEngland；andthishasbeenthe
rewardofthecare，study，andenterprizebestoweduponthesubject。Thatthis，andnotthedecreasingfertilityofsoils，isthe
causeoftheincreaseofrentsinEngland，isshown，asIhavesaid，bythefactthattherentthoughgreaterabsolutely，isaless
fractionofthewholeproduce。
Proportionofagriculturalandnon—agriculturalPopulation。Besidestheproportionwhichrentbearstoproduce，thereisanotherlargefactintheconditionofEngland，whichproves，in
themostconclusivemanner，thatthecourseofeventsbywhichEnglandhascomeintoitspresentcondition，hasbeenan
increaseintheproductivepowersofitsagriculture，suchashasplaceditinadvanceofothercountries：inadvanceofFrance，andofothercountriesprobablystillmore。Thisfactis，theproportionofthenon—agriculturaltotheagriculturalpopulation。InEnglandthenon—agriculturistsare
doublethenumberoftheagriculturists。InEngland，cultivatorsofthesoilproducesustenancefor8besidesthemselves；thatis，for12personsaltogether。ButinFrancebeforetheRevolution，thecultivatorsweretothenon—cultivatorsas4to1：thatis，4cultivatorsproducedsustenancefor5persons。PerhapsnowinFrancethecultivatorsarctothewholepopulationas2to3。Hence4cultivatorsproducesustenancefor6persons。ThustheproductivepowersoftheagriculturalpopulationareinEnglanddoubleofwhattheyareinFrance。Whatisthemanneroftheincreaseofthenonagriculturalclasses？PlainlytheemploymentofAuxiliaryCapitalbringsmany
ofthemintobeing。TheAuxiliaryCapitalisemployedinsupportingthosewhoarenotdirectlyengagedinagriculture，butin
otherwaysauxiliarytoagriculture：forinstance，themachine—maker，whomakesploughsandcarts，andnow，thrashingand
winnowingmachinesworkedbysteam—engines：thebrick—makerwhomakesdrainingtiles：thesailorwhobringsguano
fromafar：andmanyothers。Itisreckoned，asIhavesaid，that（Jones，p。232）theagriculturists，inusingtheresultsofsuchauxiliaries，employ4timesasmuchcapitalastheyexpendinwages。Hence，ifwagesbeas10，thewholecapitalemployedmustbeas50；andifthefarmer’sprofitonhiscapitalbeiopercent。，
whichisareasonablerate，thefarmer’sincomewillbe5；thatis，halfthewholeamountofthewageswhichhepaystohis
labourers，MrJones，fromwhomImainlytakethesedetails，hastracedintootherresultstheeffectsoftheemploymentofauxiliarycapital。Onthispointofthegreatincomeofthecapitalistsemployedinagriculture，heobserves，（p。233）：\"Whiletherevenueofthecapitalistsequalsonlyonetenththatofthelabourers，theyformnoprominentpartofthe
community，andindeedmustusuallybepeasantsorlabourersthemselves。Butamassofprofitsequaltoorexceeding
one—halfthewagesof[agricultural]labour（whichmassexistsinEngland）naturallyconvertstheclassreceivingitintoa
numerousandvariedbody。Theirinfluenceinacommunityinwhichtheyarethedirectemployersofalmostallthelabourers，
becomesveryconsiderable；andwhatisinsomerespectsofmoreimportance，sucharichandnumerousbodyof
capitalists，as，descendingfromthehigherrankstheyapproachthebodyoflabourersbyvariousgradationstilltheyalmost
minglewiththemformaspeciesofmoralconductorsbywhichthehabitsandfeelingsoftheupperandmiddlingclassesarecommunicateddownwards，andactmoreorlesspowerfullyuponthoseoftheverylowestranksofthecommunity。\"TheaboveviewsoftheeffectofAuxiliaryCapitalonRentareborrowedfromaveryableandoriginalworkonRent，
publishedin1831，byMrRichardJones，whowassubsequentlyProfessorofPoliticalEconomy。atHaileyburyCollege。So
farasIknow，hewasthefirstpersonwhosolvedtheproblemwhichwehavebeenconsidering；howRentsbecome
absolutelylargerandyetasmallerpartoftheproduce。
DifferentkindsofRent。AllthathasbeensaidappliesonlytoFarmers’rents；thatis，rentspaidtoalandlordbyacapitalistwhoemployslabourers。
ThecapitalistemployshiscapitalforProfit；andtherateofprofitisdeterminedbycompetitionwithothercapitalists。Ifhecouldnotgetthisprofitbyfarming，hewouldremovehiscapitaltosomeotheremployment。Butthisfactthusassumedthatcapitalistscanremovetheircapitalfromfarming，andwilldoso，iffarmingdoesnotpayis
notgenerallytrue；is，infact，trueonlyinEnglandandafewdistrictselsewhere。Norisittruethatthelandiscultivatedby
capitalistsemployingotherstolabour，sellingtheirproduceandlivingupontheproceeds。Overthegreaterpartoftheearth’s
surface，cultivationiscarriedonbypersonswhoraisetheirsubsistencefromthesoil，andpayaportiontotheownerofthesoil，inthiscasethepaymentstotheownerofthesoilrents，thatisaredeterminednotbycompetition，butbycustom。Andthus，infact，landhasbeenheld，andrenthasbeenpaid，onverydifferentprinciplesfromthatwhichwehavedescribed。
AccordingtothemodeofholdingthecultivatorshavebeenclassedasMé；tayers，Serfs，Ryots，Cottiers。
ThesearethuscharacterizedbyMrJones，whointroducedthisclassificationintoPoliticalEconomy。TheMé；tayerisapeasanttenant，extractinghisownwagesandsubsistencefromthesoil。Hepaysaproducerenttotheowneroftheland。Thelandlordsupplieshimwithstock。`ThismodeoftenureprevailslargelyinFranceandItaly，andwasthecommontenureamongtheGreeksandRomans：（Mé；tayers=Medietarii）。Serfrentsarelabourrents：thatis，theownerofthelandsetsasideaportionofthelandforcultivationbythepeasantand
leaveshimtoextracthisownsubsistencefromit；andlieexactsasarentfortheland，thusgiventothecultivator，acertainquantityoflabourtobeemployedontheremainderoftheestate，forthebenefitofthelord。TheserentshaveprevailedonalargerscaleinEasternEuropeinRussia，Hungary，Poland，LivoniaandEsthonia，andinGermany。Thereare，orwerelately，remnantsofthemintheScottishhighlands，（Jones，p。45）。Ryotrentsareproducerentspaidbyalabourerraisinghisownwagesfromthesoil，tothesovereign，astheproprietorof
thesoil，（Jones，p。109）。
TheyarepeculiartoAsia，India，Persia，Turkey；probablyexistinChina。Cottierrentsarerentscontractedtobepaidinmoneybypeasanttenants，extractingtheirownsubsistencefromthesoil。TheyexistinIreland。MrMill，whohasborrowedMrJones’sclassificationinthemain，putsRyotrentsandCottierrentsinthesamechapter：butthedifferencesbetweenthetwoareimportant，asweshallsee。MrMillhasanexcellentchapterinwhichheshowshowthedifferencebetweenFarmers’rentsandotherrentsdependsonthedifferencebetweenCompetitionandCustom，asthegeneralruleofeconomicalproceedings（Polit。Econ。p。282）。\"Undertheruleofindividualproperty，thedivisionoftheproduceistheresultoftwodeterminingagencies：Competition，
andCustom。Itisimportanttoascertaintheamountofinfluencewhichbelongstoeachofthesecauses，andinwhatmannertheoperationofoneismodifiedbytheother。\"Politicaleconomistsgenerally，andEnglishpoliticaleconomistsaboveothers，areaccustomedtolayalmostexclusivestress
uponthefirstoftheseagencies；toexaggeratetheeffectofcompetition，andtakeintolittleaccounttheother，and
conflictingprinciple。Theyareapttoexpressthemselvesasiftheythoughtthatcompetitionactuallydoes，inallcases，
whateveritcanbeshewntobethetendencyofcompetitiontodo。Thisispartlyintelligible，ifweconsiderthatonlythrough
theprincipleofcompetitionhaspoliticaleconomyanypretensiontothecharacterofascience。Sofarasrents，profits，
wages，prices，aredeterminedbycompetition，lawsmaybeassignedforthem。\"
Andthisappliesespeciallytothetenureofland，（p。285）：\"Therelations，moreespecially，betweenthelandownerandthecultivator，andthepaymentsmadebythelattertothe
former，are，inallstatesofsocietybutthemostmodern，determinedbytheusageofthecountry。Neveruntillatetimeshave
theconditionsoftheoccupancyoflandbeen（asageneralrule）anaffairofcompetition。Theoccupierforthetimehasvery
commonlybeenconsideredtohavearighttoretainhisholding，whilehefulfilsthecustomaryrequirements；andhasthus
become，inacertainsense，aco—proprietorofthesoil。Evenwheretheholderhasnotacquiredthisfixityoftenure，thetermsofoccupationhaveoftenbeenfixedandinvariable。\"InIndia，forexample，andotherAsiaticcommunitiessimilarlyconstituted，theryots，orpeasant—farmers，arenotregarded
astenantsatwill，orevenastenantsbyvirtueofalease。Inmostvillagesthereareindeedsomeryotsonthisprecarious
footing，consistingofthose，orthedescendantsofthose，whohavesettledintheplaceataknownandcomparativelyrecent
period：butallwhoarelookeduponasdescendantsorrepresentativesoftheoriginalinhabitants，arethoughtentitledto
retaintheirland，aslongastheypaythecustomaryrents。Whatthesecustomaryrentsare，oroughttobe，hasindeed，in
mostcases，becomeamatterofobscurity；usurpation，tyranny，andforeignconquesthavingtoagreatdegreeobliteratedthe
evidencesofthem。ButwhenanoldandpurelyHindooprincipalityfallsunderthedominionoftheBritishGovernment，or
themanagementofitsofficers，andwhenthedetailsoftherevenuesystemcometobeinquiredinto，itisoftenfoundthat
althoughthedemandsofthegreatlandholder，theState，havebeenswelledbyfiscalrapacityuntilalllimitispracticallylost
sightof，ithasyetbeenthoughtnecessarytohaveadistinctnameandaseparatepretextforeachincreaseofexaction；so
thatthedemandhassometimescometoconsistofthirtyorfortydifferentitems，inadditiontothenominalrent。This
circuitousmodeofincreasingthepaymentsassuredlywouldnothavebeenresortedto，iftherehadbeenanacknowledged
rightinthelandlordtoincreasetherent。Itsadoptionisaproofthattherewasonceaneffectivelimitation，arealcustomary
rent；andthattheunderstoodrightoftheryottotheland，solongashepaidrentaccordingtocustom，wasatsometimeor
othermorethannominal。TheBritishGovernmentofIndiaalwayssimplifiesthetenurebyconsolidatingthevarious
assessmentsintoone，thusmakingtherentnominallyaswellasreallyanarbitrarything，oratleastamatterofspecific
agreement：butitscrupulouslyrespectstherightoftheryottotheland，thoughitseldomleaveshimmuchmorethanabaresubsistence。\"InmodernEuropethecultivatorshavegraduallyemergedfromastateofpersonalslavery。Thebarbarianconquerorsofthe
Westernempirefoundthattheeasiestmodeofmanagingtheirconquestswouldbetoleavethelandinthehandsinwhich
theyfoundit，andtosavethemselvesalaboursouncongenialasthesuperintendenceoftroopsofslaves，byallowingthe
slavestoretaininacertaindegreethecontroloftheirownactions，underanobligationtofurnishthelordwithprovisions
andlabour。Acommonexpedientwastoassigntotheserf，forhisexclusiveuse，asmuchlandaswasthoughtsufficientfor
hissupport，andtomakehimworkontheotherlandsofhislordwheneverrequired。Bydegreestheseindefiniteobligations
weretransformedintoadefiniteone，ofsupplyingafixedquantityofprovisionsorafixedquantityoflabour：andasthe
lords，intime，becameinclinedtoemploytheirincomeinthepurchaseofluxuriesratherthaninthemaintenanceofretainers，
thepaymentsinkindwerecommutedforpaymentsinmoney。Eachconcession，atfirstvoluntary，andrevocableatpleasure，
graduallyacquiredtheforceofcustom，andwasatlastrecognisedandenforcedbythetribunals。In。thismannertheserfs
progressivelyroseintoafreetenantry，whoheldtheirlandinperpetuityonfixedconditions。Theconditionsweresometimes
veryonerous，andthepeopleverymiserable。Buttheirobligationsweredeterminedbytheusageorlawofthecountry，andnotbycompetition。\"Wherethecultivatorshadneverbeen，strictlyspeaking，inpersonalbondage，oraftertheyhadceasedtobeso，the
exigenciesofapoorandlittleadvancedsocietygaverisetoanotherarrangement，whichinsomepartsofEurope，even
highlyimprovedparts，hasbeenfoundsufficientlyadvantageoustobecontinuedtothepresentday。Ispeakofthemé；tayer
system。Underthis，thelandisdivided，insmallfarms，amongsinglefamilies，thelandlordgenerallysupplyingthestock
whichtheagriculturalsystemofthecountryisconsideredtorequire，andreceiving，inlieuofrentandprofit，afixed
proportionoftheproduce。Thisproportion，whichisgenerallypaidinkind，isusually，（asisimpliedinthewordsmé；tayer，
mezzaiuolo，andmedietarius，）one—half。Thereareplaces，however，suchastherichvolcanicsoiloftheProvinceofNaples。
wherethelandlordtakestwo—thirds，andyetthecultivatorbymeansofanexcellentagriculturecontrivestolive。But
whethertheproportionistwo—thirdsorone—half，itisafixedproportion；notvariablefromfarmtofarm，orfromtenantto
tenant。Thecustomofthecountryistheuniversalrule；nobodythinksofraisingorloweringrents，oroflettinglandonother
thanthecustomaryconditions。Competition，asaregulatorofrent，hasnoexistence。\"