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。"