1831.] 
309 
Of the Evolution of Rent , <§~c. 
quence, the result must be a continually rising price of food with every in- 
crease of population ; and with the first rise in the price of food, the rents of 
the landlords having begun to be formed, they subsequently experience con- 
tinual increase with every succeeding rise. And hence a landed gentry is 
placed in the most odious of lights, as fattening on the increasing necessities of 
the poor. 
Now, although I most freely grant, that intensity of demand for food must exis , 
before it can command either more, or as much, labour as has been sunk in its pio- 
duction ; still I insist, that it is owing to this intensity of demand only, when 
coupled with the peculiar fecundity of food-with its being able, in fact, to support 
man for a longer time than he must be engaged in aiding in its growth— that lent 
has existence ; and that intensity of demand alone could never cieate rent . an 
I further insist, that increases of rent, in place of being obtainable from increa 
of intensity of demand for food alone, proceed from impioi ements in mans p 
ers of co-operating with the prolific principle in this business of reproduction, 
in such manner, as shall, in a still further degree, alter the difference between the 
labour necessarily expended on food, and the labour the food will support w 
tained; coupled of course with that intensity of desire for food which ever m 
be in existence, so long as man is subject, as we allow him to be, to the influence 
ofthe principle of population. 
I shall hereafter advert to circumstances under which appearances may seem 
to warrant the conclusions of these reasoners, that the pi ice of food, an wit 
itrent, grows only with the growth of population ; and shall here call the attention 
to what appears very generally' to be overlooked in disquisitions regarding re j 
namely, that the constitution of society must be peculiar, and that accumulations 3 
capital, and tracts of some considerable extent, must be in the possession ot in . 
duals ere such a subdivision of the general produce can be made, as will ca 
existence a separate class of landlords. It is laid down in lecent works, t lat 
that portion of the earth’s produce which is paid foi the oii D inal an in 
destructible powers of the soil. Now this proposition is ambiguous ; for although 
tbe same original and indestructible powers to which rent is attributed must 
he in force, still this payment, under that peculiar denomination, cannot be mat e 
unless there are in society persons in circumstances to make a sufficient adva 
capital, to insure the continuation of such extended cultivation as is competen 
yielding rent in a separate form; and unless theie be landlors in p 
session of tracts of land so extensive, that this peculiar sliaie o t e ne P™ 
«eds of cultivation shall suffice for their comfortable maintenance a ie 
T ery least; whereas the proposition would seem to imply, that ongma an 
indestructible powers existing, rent also must always exist : the powers o t e 
land to yield rent being original and indestructible, it follows, that the soil 
must, as I have already shewn, be always, while under skilful cultivation, 
yielding what may be called the elements of rent; although it by no means o ows 
that society should be so constituted, or that possessions of such extent s ou e 
» the hands of individuals, as shall determine, under a particular denomination, 
an y specific portions of the net produce into the hands of certain in i\i ua s 
hfing at their ease : and this consideration is important ; for althoug exis ing 
theories of rent may seem to account for the appearances exhibited in sue i a 
state of society as exists in Europe and America ; still they utterly fai to exp am 
even in appearance, the circumstances of the classes, depending toi t leir incomes 
0n the cultivation of the soil, in other parts of the world, w here land is ie 
Under different tenures from those with which Europeans are familiar. 
