the nature of rent- 第1部分

The　Nature　of　Rent



by　T。R。　Malthus



1815





An　Inquiry　into　the　Nature　and　Progress　of　Rent；　and　the

Principles　by　which　it　is　regulated。

by　Rev。　T。R。　Malthus；

Professor　of　History　and　Political　Economy　In　the　East　India

College；　Hertfordshire

London；　Printed　for　John　Murray；　Albemarle　Street

1815。



Advertisement



　　　　The　following　tract　contains　the　substance　of　some　notes　on

rent；　which；　with　others　on　different　subjects　relating　to

political　economy；　I　have　collected　in　the　course　of　my

professional　duties　at　the　East　India　College。　It　has　been　my

intention；　at　some　time　or　other；　to　put　them　in　a　form　for

publication；　and　the　very　near　connection　of　the　subject　of　the

present　inquiry；　with　the　topics　immediately　under　discussion；

has　induced　me　to　hasten　its　appearance　at　the　present　moment。　It

is　the　duty　of　those　who　have　any　means　of　contributing　to　the

public　stock　of　knowledge；　not　only　to　do　so；　but　to　do　it　at　the

time　when　it　is　most　likely　to　be　useful。　If　the　nature　of　the

disquisition　should　appear　to　the　reader　hardly　to　suit　the　form

of　a　pamphlet；　my　apology　must　be；　that　it　was　not　originally

intended　for　so　ephemeral　a　shape。





　　　　The　rent　of　land　is　a　portion　of　the　national　revenue；　which

has　always　been　considered　as　of　very　high　importance。

　　　　According　to　Adam　Smith；　it　is　one　of　the　three　original

sources　of　wealth；　on　which　the　three　great　divisions　of　society

are　supported。

　　　　By　the　Economists　it　is　so　pre…eminently　distinguished；　that

it　is　considered　as　exclusively　entitled　to　the　name　of　riches；

and　the　sole　fund　which　is　capable　of　supporting　the　taxes　of　the

state；　and　on　which　they　ultimately　fall。

　　　　And　it　has；　perhaps；　a　particular　claim　to　our　attention　at

the　present　moment；　on　account　of　the　discussions　which　are　going

on　respecting　the　corn　laws；　and　the　effects　of　rent　on　the　price

of　raw　produce；　and　the　progress　of　agricultural　improvement。

　　　　The　rent　of　land　may　be　defined　to　be　that　portion　of　the

value　of　the　whole　produce　which　remains　to　the　owner　of　the

land；　after　all　the　outgoings　belonging　to　its　cultivation；　of

whatever　kind；　have　been　paid；　including　the　profits　of　the

capital　employed；　estimated　according　to　the　usual　and　ordinary

rate　of　the　profits　of　agricultural　stock　at　the　time　being。

　　　　It　sometimes　happens；　that　from　accidental　and　temporary

circumstances；　the　farmer　pays　more；　or　less；　than　this；　but　this

is　the　point　towards　which　the　actual　rents　paid　are　constantly

gravitating；　and　which　is　therefore　always　referred　to　when　the

term　is　used　in　a　general　sense。

　　　　The　immediate　cause　of　rent　is　obviously　the　excess　of　price

above　the　cost　of　production　at　which　raw　produce　sells　in　the

market。

　　　　The　first　object　therefore　which　presents　itself　for　inquiry；

is　the　cause　or　causes　of　the　high　price　of　raw　produce。

　　　　After　very　careful　and　repeated　revisions　of　the　subject；　I

do　not　find　myself　able　to　agree　entirely　in　the　view　taken　of

it；　either　by　Adam　Smith；　or　the　Economists；　and　still　less；　by

some　more　modern　writers。

　　　　Almost　all　these　writers　appear　to　me　to　consider　rent　as　too

nearly　resembling　in　its　nature；　and　the　laws　by　which　it　is

governed；　the　excess　of　price　above　the　cost　of　production；　which

is　the　characteristic　of　a　monopoly。

　　　　Adam　Smith；　though　in　some　parts　of　the　eleventh　chapter　of

his　first　book　he　contemplates　rent　quite　in　its　true　light；（1*）

and　has　interspersed　through　his　work　more　just　observations　on

the　subject　than　any　other　writer；　has　not　explained　the　most

essential　cause　of　the　high　price　of　raw　produce　with　sufficient

distinctness；　though　he　often　touches　on　it；　and　by　applying

occasionally　the　term　monopoly　to　the　rent　of　land；　without

stopping　to　mark　its　more　radical　peculiarities；　he　leaves　the

reader　without　a　definite　impression　of　the　real　difference

between　the　cause　of　the　high　price　of　the　necessaries　of　life；

and　of　monopolized　commodities。

　　　　Some　of　the　views　which　the　Economists　have　taken　of　the

nature　of　rent　appear　to　me；　in　like　manner；　to　be　quite　just；

but　they　have　mixed　them　with　so　much　error；　and　have　drawn　such

preposterous　and　contradictory　conclusions　from　them；　that　what

is　true　in　their　doctrines；　has　been　obscured　and　lost　in　the

mass　of　superincumbent　error；　and　has　in　consequence　produced

little　effect。　Their　great　practical　conclusion；　namely；　the

propriety　of　taxing　exclusively　the　net　rents　of　the　landlords；

evidently　depends　upon　their　considering　these　rents　as

completely　disposable；　like　that　excess　of　price　above　the　cost

of　production　which　distinguishes　a　common　monopoly。

　　　　M。　Say；　in　his　valuable　treatise　on　political　economy；　in

which　he　has　explained　with　great　clearness　many　points　which

have　not　been　sufficiently　developed　by　Adam　Smith；　has　not

treated　the　subject　of　rent　in　a　manner　entirely　satisfactory。　In

speaking　of　the　different　natural　agents　which；　as　well　as　the

land；　co…operate　with　the　labours　of　man；　he　observes；

'Heureusement　personne　n'a　pu　dire　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　of　the　persons　employed　on

the　land。

　　　　Secondly；　that　quality　peculiar　to　the　necessaries　of　life　of

being　able　to　create　their　own　demand；　or　to　raise　up　a　number