NO. 11.

Professor Tucker to Mr. Everett.

University of Virginia, May 14, 1844. MY DEAR SIR,-When your letter from Washington reached me I chanced to be engaged in preparing some sheets for the press, and I thought it better to delay my answer until I could give an undivided attention to the subject, which, I agree with you, is an important one, and which would seem from the opposite views entertained of it, to be also one of difficulty.

I do not wonder at your dissent from the theory of Malthus. When I first read his book, it appeared to me to afford so dangerous an apology for bad government, and to present so cheerless a view of human society, that I revolted at it, and felt assured that it was founded on fallacies, which it would not be difficult to detect, and I accordingly, some years afterwards, attempted an answer to it, which was one of a series of Essays published in Washington in 1822, though written eight or ten years before. I then endeavored to show that the tendency of mankind to increase was over-rated by Mr. Malthus; "that when the natural course of things is not disturbed by the mistakes of government, or the errors of national opinion, numbers will not reach a dangerous or mischievous excess;" that "the stock of human happiness is likely to increase with the increase of numbers;" with other propositions contravening his theory. I have since read much, and thought much, on the subject, and have persuaded myself that while Malthus's premises are in the main true, it is quite as reasonable to say that since man is exposed to so many evils, physical and moral, which are destructive of life, and which he cannot evade or subdue, his multiplying propensity is necessary to counteract them, as to say that vice and misery, (in default of moral restraint,) are necessary to check the undue force of that propensity. Such, accordingly, has been the ground that I have always taken in my lectures on Political Economy, in this institu

tion.

You see then, sir, that we do not differ in our general opinion of this celebrated theory as to the melancholy consequences, which it considers to be the inevitable result of man's tendency

ters.

2. That the quantity of food thus furnished has natural limits, which cannot be exceeded, whether it be equal to the support of 200 to the square mile, or of twice or thrice that number.

3. That man, in common with other animals, has the power and the propensity of multiplication, so that if this propensity has not strong counterac tions, such as want of food, disease, &c., population will double in a given time.

4. That when it is uninfluenced by these considerations, the faculty of doubling (comprehending both the capacity and inclination) is in every stage of its progressive increase, as great or nearly as great as it was at first.

5. That the quantity of human aliment which any portion of the earth can produce, until its utmost limit is reached, is in proportion to its fertility and the degree of human industry and skill exerted on it.

6. That the number of persons which can be supported on a given area is dependent partly on the quantity it can produce, and partly on the character of the aliment; the same area being capable of producing gene rally less animal than vegetable food, and less of some kinds of vegetable food than of others.

7. That the means of subsistence are unequally distributed among the members of the same community; so that while some have an ample supply, others may not have enough for comfort, or even to support life.

From these general facts and laws it follows that in an isolated community, if the population increase, it must be either because the soil is made to produce more food, of the same character and in the same proportion as it previously produced, or that the average food consumed by each individual is less in quantity or inferior in quality. When the sharers are more in number, either the sum to be shared must be augmented, or each one's dividend must be diminished. In the first case the laborer receives the same return for his labor; in the last, he receives less.

But it must be recollected that food cannot go on increasing; and whether the soil be capable of supporting 100 or 500 to the square mile, that limit will be reached after a few periods of - duplication. Thus, suppose the population to be only ten to the square mile, which is less than the average in the settled parts of the United States, then in the first period of duplication the numbers would be 20 to the square mile in the

640

6th which last is a degree of density which we may consider to be physically impossible, since the acre which would be here required to maintain an individual must furnish him not only with food, but with clothing, fuel, and all the other comforts of life derived from the natural world.

In this progress of population every increase of numbers makes a corresponding increase of food necessary. But after the whole land of a country is taken into cultivation, the increase of its product is more and more difficult. It may be easy enough to raise that product from five bushels per acre to ten, and even from ten to twenty. But to raise it from 20 to 40 would be a slower process, and one requiring a far greater expense of labor and capital; and then to double that product might be physically impossible; or if not, it

certainly would be to raise it from 80 bushels to 160 per acre. Yet in all these stages the tendency to multiply may be as strong as it was at first; and the increase of population is adjusted to the dimishing rate of increase of food by the smaller amount of raw produce allotted to the laborer-in other words, by lower wages.

Perhaps it will be said that prudence naturally checks this multiplying propensity; and that men marrying only when they are able to support a family, the increase of numbers will go on pari passu with the increase of food. If the amount consumed by each individual were a constant quantity, then I admit that the increase of population could not exceed that of the products of the soil. But this amount is a varying quantity, admitting of great contraction. The human stomach does indeed require to be filled, as Adam Smith remarks; but it makes a great difference as to the number which a given surface will support, whether it be filled with meat or bread, and yet more with bread or potatoes. Now experience shows that when population is up to the level of the means of liberal subsistence, the generative faculty still rules; and forcing a greater number into existence, the excess are compelled to put up with a cheaper mode of subsistence ;-to substitute, to a greater or less extent, vegetable food for animal, and potatoes or other roots for bread. And inasmuch as the rich consume as liberally as before, the whole of the necessary reduction falls upon the poor, that is, the laboring class, who have thus to take yet less raw produce for their labor or lower wages.

Does observation confirm these speculative views? It does. Thus, according to a comparative estimate made some years since on authentic facts, the quantity of food earned per week, in India, England and the United States was as follows:

In India, 20 2-5 cwt. parts of rice.
"England, 80 wheat.
"U. States, 192 wheat.

The rate of wages, too, varies in the different parts of this country, if estimated in raw produce, and decreases with density of numbers. Thus : In the New England States the average

rate is 2 pecks per day. Middle States, 31 pecks per day.

Western States, 3 9.00 We have evidence also, that real wages have fallen in England with the increase of population, though, for reasons to be hereafter noticed, the fall of the one has not been in proportion to the increase of the other. The ordinary wages of day labour has lately been a peck of wheat, or something less a day, and it is stated to have been some centuries since two pecks a day, though I cannot now recall the authority for the fact. But, by a table published by Arthur Young, and to be found in Lowe's Appendix, the price of labor from the early part of the 18th century to the beginning of the 19th, had risen from 10 to 20, while wheat had risen in the same period from 74 to 20,-thus showing that, estimating the laborer's wages in wheat, they had risen more than 25 per cent., or more accurately as 7 to 20. And Barton, in his work " on the state of the laboring classes," details the rate of wages in wheat, from about 1747 to 1807,and he estimates the decline in 60 years to be from 102 pints of wheat per week to 60 pints.

The inherent difficulty, not to say impossibility, of wages continuing to rise with the increasing density of population, may be farther shown by the following illustration. Let us suppose a country dependent on its own resources, (for to such my attention is now confined) with a population of forty persons to the square mile-about the present population of Ohio. This allows to each inhabitant, on an average, the product of 16 acres. When the population shall have doubled, or reached 80 to the square mile, that allows to each one the product of 8 acres. The next duplication would of course limit the average consumption to the product of 4 acres, and if we suppose it to attain 320 to the square mile, which is less than the present population of England, exclusive of Wales, that density would reduce the quota to 2 acres. Now it would be conceding a great deal to admit that, by any improvement in husbandry, first 8 acres, then 4, and finally but 2, could be made to yield as much as the 16 had done, especially when for some articles consumed by men, such as timber and fuel, (if the country contained no fossil coal or peat) the product can be but moderately increased by human in

dustry and skill. But if this liberal concession, warranted by no experience, be made, it would suppose the wages of labor to be merely undiminished but not increased. To infer such increase, we must suppose that the reduced number of acres has actually produced more than the larger number, so that not only half the land is made to yield more than the whole had done, but the fourth more than either, and the eighth the most of all. When we recollect how extremely difficult it is only to quadruple the product of poor land, and that it is impossible so to multiply that of the rich land, and not easy even to double it, the greatest average increase on all the lands, which has been here supposed, and which is the undisguisable condition of an increase of wages, seems to be utterly inadmissible, even on this simple á priori view of the subject. Such a result, too, is rendered yet more marvellous and incredible by the fact, that when the general average of the land to each individual is reduced from 16 acres to 2, a portion of the society still retains much more than their proportionate part,— some even the original 16 acres,-for their exclusive consumption in pleasure grounds, preserves of game, forests, &c. So that we must conclude that as population advances to density, and each individual must subsist on a smaller portion of the earth's surface-the increased subsistence required is met, partly by making the soil more productive, and partly by the great body of the community,-comprehending the laboring class, consuming cheaper and coarser food. And since that class obtain but the means of subsistence for their labor-at least in densely peopled countries-to say that their subsistence deteriorates with increasing numbers, is the same as saying that wages fall.

Both Malthus and Ricordo agree that raw produce rises with the progress of population, and this is virtually admitting that labor falls for raw produce rises only by its exchanging for greater quantities of labor. Ricordo, indeed, paradoxically as I think, maintains that labor rises as well as raw produce; but even he admits that the laborer will receive, in the progress of society, smaller amount of raw produce, and that not only his command of corn, but his general condition will be deteriorated. Though Adam Smith does not

formally notice the effect of an increase of population on wages, he virtually recognises the principles here insisted on by adverting to and explaining the facts that the real wages of labor (which he defines to be the amount of the necessaries and conveniences of life received by the laborer) are higher in this country than in England, and are at the lowest point of depression in the crowded population of China.

Thus, you see, sir, that I am able to adduce fact, reasoning, and authority in support of the opinion I advanced that wages naturally fall with the progress of population.

I have hitherto been considering a community isolated from the rest of the world, or rather supported directly from its soil; which, indeed, I think, is the best way of ascertaining the proper effect and influence of an increase of population on wages. But as you rely, in support of your views, upon the ability of a thriving, prosperous nation, to draw supplies of raw produce from abroad in exchange for products of its skill and industry, I readily admit that this is practicable under particular circumstances, and that, by this means, wages, not merely nominal but real, may increase with increasing numbers. Such a nation may derive a part of its supplies from countries newly settled, and consequently underpeopled, like the United States and New Holland ;-or from such countries as Poland, which, having no manufactures, are willing to give a part of their raw produce in exchange for them. This has, for half a century or more, been the condition of Great Britain, who has regularly, during that period, drawn part of her subsistence from other countries, especially Ireland. But besides that even here this counteraction to the general law I have insisted on has not been sufficient to arrest the decline of wages, but only to check it, such counteraction cannot be permanent. In the same degree that one country produces less than it consumes, the others from which she draws her supplies, must produce more; and as her demands increase with her increasing population, so must their excess. But that, we have seen, is physically impossible. So that when they have reached the limit of their utmost supply, the law, apportioning wages to population, which had been

suspended or checked, is immediately renewed in full force. Besides, the strong tendency which mankind have ever shown to increase to the level of subsistence, may be supposed to be constantly operating in the countries affording the supply, and, sooner or later, to consume all that they raise. That result may be confidently expected in the United States; and, at a reduced rate of increase, they are not likely, in a century more, to have any surplus provisions for export. Even in Poland, where the nobles are too proud to engage in manufactures, and the serfs too poor and too ignorant, a farther increase of numbers would have been likely to make them turn a part of their labor to manufactures, necessity and want having been the great parents of invention. Since they have exchanged their absurd government for another, they will probably increase with the rest of the Russian, Prussian, and Austrian dominions, and, in time, have no regular surplus of grain.

I do not think that any argument can be drawn from the supplies which great cities, like London, draw from the country. As a half or even a third of the population are sufficient to raise raw produce for the rest, and as the other operations of industry are better carried on in towns, the people of every country naturally distribute themselves into two portions, one in the country and the other in towns, but whether in many small ones or a few large ones, depends on the rivers, harbours, and other localities, and on their commerce and manufactures. The progress of population tends to enlarge these cities, but, as we have seen, to lessen the supplies that can be exported, and, consequently, that can be imported.

I have thus far considered the raw produce earned by the laborer as the measure of his wages, because it is the most indispensable, and constitutes the largest part of his expense. But your position, that labour becomes more productive as it increases in quantity, is entirely correct as to manufactures, and all the other comforts of life, except food. By means of the division of labor and the steady progress of inventive art and productive skill, our clothes, furniture, utensils of all sorts, are constantly becoming cheaper and better. Indeed, this result is partly produced