When the cultivation of the earth was first resorted to for the purpose of meeting the wants of an increasing population, agriculture was naturally rude and imperfect, compared with what it afterwards became. The labor by which it was then carried on was probably that of the retainers about the large proprietors, as we have seen in the clans of Scotland. A part of this labor found employment in the culture of the soil, and a part in the practice of arts which were suited to their humble skill and the simple wants of their employers. They were smiths, tailors, wrights, and masons; and they being designated by their occupations, these became the most common surnames.

But this mode of culture, equally unfavorable to a large production and a frugal consumption, was not likely to last; and, from the pressure of increasing numbers, some of these retainers, whether enjoyed in husbandry or handicraft, would seek independent homes by renting small tracts from their former employer. At first, from the abundance of land compared with the population, the tenant would receive nearly all the produce that he made; but since, from the increase of numbers, the value of that produce would, as we have seen, be steadily rising, the remuneration of labor would as steadily diminish.

It is laid down by some theorists that, in consequence of the admitted rise of raw produce, in the progress of society, the wages of labor, which must be sufficient to support the laborer, must also rise. But this is a contradiction. The only sense in which raw produce can be said to rise, is that it will exchange for more labor, which is the same thing as saying that labor has fallen. It is then a fundamental law of society, that raw produce, in the progress of increase of numbers, tends to increase in value, and labor to diminish. They both are the consequences of the same change in the demand and supply of labor and its means of subsistence; for by the continual increase of population, and the limited quantity of land, labor becomes gradually cheaper by its increased supply, and raw produce dearer by the increased demand for it. Thus we find labor to be cheaper in China than in Europe, and cheaper in Europe than America, while raw produce has in those countries a correspondent dearness.

The source of this error is the supposition that the laborer's subsistence is a fixed quantity; but this subsistence is susceptible of great variation. It is true that the food consumed does not admit of much reduction in the quantity, consistent with the physical well-being of the individual, but it makes a great difference in its value, whether that food is animal or vegetable, and whether it is of one species of vegetable or another. A man may consume animal food liberally or sparingly; he may subsist chiefly on bread made of wheat, rye, or oats, or lastly, on potatoes. The same portion of soil will support a greater or less number of human beings as they subsist on one or the other of these aliments. The difference may be that a square mile would support 80 persons who consume animal food abundantly; 120 persons who consume it sparingly; 160 or 180, when they subsist chiefly on grain; and from 300 to 400, when they subsist on potatoes. As population advances, and the means of subsistence become comparatively more difficult of attainment, a portion of the community must pass from a dearer to a cheaper mode of subsistence, or the population must become stationary. Past experience seems to show that when this alternative is presented, the multiplying propensity will prevail, and the cheaper mode of subsistence be resorted to.

From the preceding views it follows that, in the earlier stages of society, both raw produce, and the fabrics of human labor and ingenuity, are obtained with difficulty. In the second stage they are both plentiful, especially raw produce. In the third stage the laborer can obtain manufactures with more ease, but raw produce with increased difficulty. The people of Europe, during the middle ages, were in the first stage. The people of the United States have always been in the second stage; and the European nations are now in the third.

The decline in the remuneration of labor, incidental to the third stage, though so probable, and in accordance with the past history of mankind, seems not to be inevitable. England, by means of her extensive commerce, the excellence of her manufactures, and her system of colonial monopoly, has given such additional value to the labor of her people, as greatly to retard its fall of price with the increase of population. But there is a more general and certain mode of preventing the reduction of the laborer's wages below the rate of comfortable subsistence. This is what Malthus calls the preventive or prudential check to redundant numbers, and which he considers is rather to be wished than expected.

There is some ground for the hope that the high standard of comfort which has ever existed in the United States may prove a timely and efficient check to a redundant population; and this gratifying view derives support from that high degree of self-respect which is a natural consequence of our form of government, and which is felt by the humblest of our citizens.

A fact disclosed by the census of 1840, and confirmed by that of 1850, is calculated to encourage those hopes. It shows a steady diminution of the number of children in the United States under ten years of age, compared with the women; and, although this result may possibly be owing to a greater mortality of the children, or to less prolific-ness of the women, yet neither of these facts is to be presumed without evidence; and the most rational explanation of the fact is to suppose a short postponement of the average age at which females marry. It is for time to show whether this diminution in the number of children has been produced by a change of manners, which has its limit, or by causes that will continue to act, so that our population will not pass, or much exceed, their present high standard of subsistence.