An Inquiry into the Nature and Progress of Rent, and the Principles by which it is Regulated. | Page 5

le vent et le
soleil m'appartiennent, et le service qu'ils rendent doit m'etre paye.'(2)
And, though he acknowledges that, for obvious reasons, property in
land is necessary, yet he evidently considers rent as almost exclusively
owing to such appropriation, and to external demand.
In the excellent work of M. de Sismondi, De la richesse commerciale,
he says in a note on the subject of rent, 'Cette partie de la rente fonciere

est celle que les Economistes ont decoree du nom du produit net
comme etant le seul fruit du travail qui aj outat quelquechose a la
richesse nationale. On pourrait au contraire soutenir contre eux, que
c'est la seule partie du produit du travail, dont la valeur soit purement
nominale, et n'ait rien de reelle: c'est en effet le resultat de
l'augmentation de prix qu'obtient un vendeur en vertu de son privilege,
sans que la chose vendue en vaille reellement d'avantage.'(3) The
prevailing opinions among the more modern writers 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 Mr Buchanan, of
Edinburgh, the idea of monopoly is pushed still further. And while
former writers, though they considered rent as governed by the laws of
monopoly, were still of opinion that this monopoly in the case of land
was necessary and useful, Mr Buchanan sometimes 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,(4) that, 'The net surplus by which the Economists estimate
the utility of agriculture, plainly arises from the high price of its
produce, which, however advantageous to the landlord who receives it,
is surely no advantage to the consumer who pays it. Were the produce
of agriculture to be sold for a lower price, the same net surplus would
not remain, after defraying the expenses of cultivation; but agriculture
would be still equally productive to the general stock; and the only
difference would be, that as the landlord was formerly enriched by the
high price, at the expense of the community, the community would
now profit by the low price at the expense of the landlord. The high
price in which the rent or net surplus originates, while it enriches the
landlord who has the produce of agriculture to sell, diminishes in the
same proportion the wealth of those who are its purchasers; and on this
account it is quite inaccurate to consider the landlord's rent as a clear
addition to the national wealth.' In other parts of his work he uses the
same, or even stronger language, and in a note on the subject of taxes,
he speaks of the high price of the produce of land as advantageous to
those who receive it, it but proportionably injurious to those who pay it.

'In this view,' he adds, 'it can form no general addition to the stock of
the community, as the net surplus in question is nothing more than a
revenue transferred from one class to another, and from the mere
circumstance of its thus changing hands, it is clear that no fund can
arise out of which to pay taxes. The revenue which pays for the
produce of land exists already in the hands of those who purchase that
produce; and, if the price of subsistence were lower, it would still
remain in their hands, where it would be just as available for taxation,
as when by a higher price it is transferred to the landed proprietor.'(5)
That there are some circumstances connected with rent, which have an
affinity to a natural monopoly, will he readily allowed. The extent of
the earth itself is limited, and cannot be enlarged by human demand.
And the inequality of soils occasions, even at an early period of society
a comparative scarcity of the best lands; and so far is undoubtedly one
of the causes of rent properly so called. On this account, perhaps, the
term partial monopoly might be fairly applicable. But the scarcity of
land, thus implied, is by no means alone sufficient to produce the
effects observed. And a more accurate investigation of the subject will
show us how essentially different the high price of raw produce is, both
in its nature and origin, and the laws by which it is governed, from the
high price of a common monopoly.
The causes of the high price of raw produce may be stated to be three.
First, and mainly, that quality of the earth, by which it can be made to
yield a greater portion of the necessaries of life than is required for the
maintenance