and the increase of wealth in the world at large, and on a smaller scale in every civilized community.

The one is known as the Malthusian theory, which teaches that after a certain stage, already reached in many countries, distributive wealth is a constantly decreasing quantity.

The other is advocated by Mr. Carey and others in this country, and holds that the distributive wealth is a constantly increasing quantity in all civilized countries.

Facts in great abundance can be cited-in fact, they have been cited-in proof of both theories. But, as I have said in the Introduction, facts never prove anything without an assumption, which may, of course, be false,—a mere petitio principii,—and thus vitiate the whole argument.

251. Reasons for Malthus's theory.

The Malthusian theory of population is usually held with the Ricardo theory of rent, and the two together teach

(1) That population tends to increase in a geometrical ratio, or by the constant multiplication of the number of people of each age by a certain rate of increase.

(2) That wealth increases, at best, only in an arithmetical proportion, and this for two reasons:

(a) People, as he holds, always begin to cultivate the best and most productive soils first; so that at each successive stage and with each succeeding generation in a nation's history, they will be taking into culture lands of inferior productive value, and hence the average productiveness of the soil actually under cultivation will be a decreasing one.

(b) That the cultivation of the soil tends to wear it out, so that the same soil becomes less and less productive, as time rolls on; and that, in consequence, in each succeeding age the land will produce less than in any preceding age.

Taking these two conditions together, we may represent the distributive wealth of successive ages by the quotient of the corresponding terms in two series, the one geometrical, and the other arithmetical, the terms in the geometrical series being always a divisor; thus,

Mr. Carey, on the other hand, holds,

(1) That cultivation always begins with the poorer if not the poorest lands, on hillsides and hilltops, where the forests are light and the soil thin; while the most productive soils are on the lowlands

-too heavily timbered and too wet for the cultivation of the first settlers-and hence, the average productiveness is an increasing one, in consequence of the fact that the portion taken into cultivation by each succeeding generation is better than that of the preceding.

(2) That culivation itself, so far from wearing out the soil, tends, if properly conducted, to deepen and enrich it; so that instead of bearing less, it becomes more productive with successive generations of cultivators.

Hence, in considering the production of wealth as affected or limited by land, we have three variables, which may vary independently of each other. (1) The amount of land actually under cultiva

tion.

This will, of course, be greater when the inhabitants of the earth number millions, than it can be when they are but a few hundred.

(2) The average entire productiveness of the soil actually under cultivation.

Ricardo holds, as we have seen, that it would be less when the earth, or any large portion of it, is pretty well occupied, than when there are but a few people, and that, therefore, the average native productiveness of the soil actually under culture decreases with the increase of population; so that a day's work, on the average, will produce less and

less. Carey holds the opposite view as already stated.

(3) The acquired productiveness.

Ricardo holds that the land becomes worn out, and so the native productiveness becomes less and less with each advancing generation. Carey holds, that with proper culture each acre may become more and more productive, and hence the acquired productiveness is an increasing one; so that a day's labor will produce more and more.

253. How far satisfactory.

There can be no doubt that Carey is right in the main, in the two last of these propositions. Both authors are agreed in regard to the first.

It is a fact that the first settlers in any country do not generally begin in the lowlands, which with proper cultivation will produce the largest crops. And it is undoubtedly true, and I presume both Malthus and Ricardo would admit it, if they were now living, that cultivation need not exhaust the soil, but on the contrary, if we will return to it in the form of manure all that we take from it, or its equivalent, it will grow more and more productive with cultivation.

But I cannot attribute to the premises of Mr. Carey the influence he claims for them in disproof of the Ricardo-Malthusian doctrine.

(1) The quantity of land that can possibly be brought under cultivation is limited by geographical and astronomical considerations that man cannot change. It is manifest that the soil on which any great city, or in fact any village of considerable size, stands, could not be made to produce food enough to sustain the people that now live upon it.

Suppose now under the law of increase of population already stated, population should become the world over as great to the' square mile as in our cities and villages, or even approaching it, there could be no increase of the means of living equal to the increase of population.

(2) The productiveness of any soil is limited. Nobody supposes that an acre of ground, for example, could be made to produce an unlimited quantity of wheat. Hundreds and thousands of bushels to the acre is beyond human expectations -beyond possibility.

254. The rate of increase of production.

Hence, the first series of terms given above, that which represents the increase of productiveness of the soil, and constitutes the successive numerators in the preceding paragraph, though of the nature of an arithmetical series, cannot be regarded as having any constant rate of increase or common differ