OCR Text |
Show .oF 'fH:E R:S:.N'f o :F LAND. [ C1l. III. S.0n1e of the views 'vhich the Economists have taken of the nature of rent appear to me also, to be quite just'; but they have mixed thetn with so 1nuch error, ancl ba;ye dra \Vil such un \Varranted inferences frotn them, that \vhat is true in their doctrines has produced little effect. Their great practical conclusion, nan1ely, the propriety of tax-:ing exclusively the neat rents of the landlords, evidently depends upon their considering these rents as cotnpletely disposeabl.e, like that excess of price abov.e the cost of pro.d uction, \vhich dis., tinguishes a common tnonopoly. M. Say, in his valuable 1.,reatise on Political Economy, i;n 1rvhi.ch he has .explained \Vith great clearness many points not sufficiently developed by Adam Smith, has not treated the subject of rent in a manner entirely satisfactory. In speak~ ing of the different natural agents which, as well as the land, .co-operate \Yith the labours of man, he observes ·: "Heureusement personne n'a pu dire, le vent et le soleil rn'appartienneut, et le service qu'ils r~ndent dojt m'~tre paye."* And, though he .acknowledg~s that, for obvious re.asons, property in land js n~c~.ssary, yet he ~vid~ntly considers ;rent ~s almost e4clu.sively owing to s-qch appro'!' priation, and to ~4ter;nal dem.and. In the ex.cellent work of M. de Sismondi, De Ia Richessq, Commercial(!, h~ says, in a note on the * Vol. II. p. 124. Of this work a new and much improved edition has lately been published, which is highly worthy the at:~~ ~el!~ion of all those who ta.~e an interest in these sl}bjects, SEC. I.] 0~' THE RENT OF L,A.ND. 1S7 subject of rent: " Cette partie de la rente fonciere est celle que les Economistes ont decoree du nom du produit net, comtne etant ]e seul fruit du travail qui ajoutat quelque chose a la richesse nationale. On pourroit, au contraire, soutenir contre eux, que e'est la seule partie du produit du travail, dont la valeur soit purement non1inale, et n'ait rien de reelle: c'est en effet le resultat de Paugmentation de prix qu'obtient un vendeur en vertu de son pri- , vilege, sans que la chose vendue en vaille reellemen t davan tag e. ";l(: The prevailing opinions among the more tnodern w.riters in our own country have appeared to me to incline towards a similar view of the subject; and, not to multiply citations, I shall only add, that in a very respectable edition of the Wealth of Nations, lately published by 1\!Ir. Buchanan, of Edinburgh, the idea 'of monopoly is pushed still farther. And, while former writers, though they considered Tent as governed by the Ia,vs of monopoly, were still of opinion that this monopoly in the case of land was necessary and useful, M·r. Buchanan sometin1es speaks of it even as prejudicial, and as .depriving the consumer of what it gives to the landlord. · · In treating of productive and unproductive labour in the last volume, he observes, that,t " The neat surplus by "\Vhich the Econon1ists estimate the ut~lity o~ agriculture, plainly arises fron1 the high price of Its produce, which, how·ever advantageous * Vol. I. p. 49. t Vol. IV. p. 1$4-, , |