the nature of rent- 第2部分

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

demanders　in　proportion　to　the　quantity　of　necessaries　produced。

　　　　And；　thirdly；　the　comparative　scarcity　of　the　most　fertile

land。

　　　　The　qualities　of　the　soil　and　of　its　products；　here　noticed

as　the　primary　causes　of　the　high　price　of　raw　produce；　are　the

gifts　of　nature　to　man。　They　are　quite　unconnected　with　monopoly；

and　yet　are　so　absolutely　essential　to　the　existence　of　rent；

that　without　them；　no　degree　of　scarcity　or　monopoly　could　have

occasioned　that　excess　of　the　price　of　raw　produce；　above　the

cost　of　production；　which　shows　itself　in　this　form。

　　　　If；　for　instance；　the　soil　of　the　earth　had　been　such；　that；

however　well　directed　might　have　been　the　industry　of　man；　he

could　not　have　produced　from　it　more　than　was　barely　sufficient

to　maintain　those；　whose　labour　and　attention　were　necessary　to

its　products；　though；　in　this　case；　food　and　raw　materials　would

have　been　evidently　scarcer　than　at　present；　and　the　land　might

have　been；　in　the　same　manner；　monopolized　by　particular　owners；

vet　it　is　quite　clear；　that　neither　rent；　nor　any　essential

surplus　produce　of　the　land　in　the　form　of　high　profits；　could

have　existed。

　　　　It　is　equally　clear；　that　if　the　necessaries　of　life　the　most

important　products　of　land　…　had　not　the　property　of　creating　an

increase　of　demand　proportioned　to　their　increased　quantity；　such

increased　quantity　would　occasion　a　fall　in　their　exchangeable

value。　However　abundant　might　be　the　produce　of　a　country；　its

population　might　remain　stationary　And　this　abundance；　without　a

proportionate　demand；　and　with　a　very　high　corn　price　of　labour；

which　would　naturally　take　place　under　these　circumstances；　might

reduce　the　price　of　raw　produce；　like　the　price　of　manufactures；

to　the　cost　of　production。

　　　　It　has　been　sometimes　argued；　that　it　is　mistaking　the

principle　of　population；　to　imagine；　that　the　increase　of　food；

or　of　raw　produce　alone；　can　occasion　a　proportionate　increase　of

population。　This　is　no　doubt　true；　but　it　must　be　allowed；　as　has

been　justly　observed　by　Adam　Smith；　that　'when　food　is　provided；

it　is　comparatively　easy　to　find　the　necessary　clothing　and

lodging。；　And　it　should　always　be　recollected；　that　land　does　not

produce　one　commodity　alone；　but　in　addition　to　that　most

indispensable　of　all　commodities　…　food　…　it　produces　also　the

materials　for　the　other　necessaries　of　life；　and　the　labour

required　to　work　up　these　materials　is　of　course　never　excluded

from　the　consideration。（6*）

　　　　It　is；　therefore；　strictly　true；　that　land　produces　the

necessaries　of　life；　produces　food；　materials；　and　labour；

produces　the　means　by　which；　and　by　which　alone；　an　increase　of

people　may　be　brought　into　being；　and　supported。　In　this　respect

it　is　fundamentally　different　from　every　other　kind　of　machine

known　to　man；　and　it　is　natural　to　suppose；　that　it　should　be

attended　with　some　peculiar　effects。

　　　　If　the　cotton　machinery；　in　this　country；　were　to　go　on

increasing　at　its　present　rate；　or　even　much　faster；　but　instead

of　producing　one　particular　sort　of　substance　which　may　be　used

for　some　parts　of　dress　and　furniture；　etc。　had　the　qualities　of

land；　and　could　yield　what；　with　the　assistance　of　a　little

labour；　economy；　and　skill；　could　furnish　food；　clothing；　and

lodging；　in　such　proportions　as　to　create　an　increase　of

population　equal　to　the　increased　supply　of　these　necessaries；

the　demand　for　the　products　of　such　improved　machinery　would

continue　in　excess　above　the　cost　of　production；　and　this　excess

would　no　longer　exclusively　belong　to　the　machinery　of　the

land。（7*）

　　　　There　is　a　radical　difference　in　the　cause　of　a　demand　for

those　objects　which　are　strictly　necessary　to　the　support　of

human　life；　and　a　demand　for　all　other　commodities。　In　all　other

commodities　the　demand　is　exterior　to；　and　independent　of；　the

production　itself；　and　in　the　case　of　a　monopoly；　whether　natural

or　artificial；　the　excess　of　price　is　in　proportion　to　the

smallness　of　the　supply　compared　with　the　demand；　while　this

demand　is　comparatively　unlimited。　In　the　case　of　strict

necessaries；　the　existence　and　increase　of　the　demand；　or　of　the

number　of　demanders；　must　depend　upon　the　existence　and　increase

of　these　necessaries　themselves；　and　the　excess　of　their　price

above　the　cost　of　their　production　must　depend　upon；　and　is

permanently　limited　by；　the　excess　of　their　quantity　above　the

quantity　necessary　to　maintain　the　labour　required　to　produce

them；　without　which　excess　of　quantity　no　demand　could　have

existed；　according　to　the　laws　of　nature；　for　more　than　was

necessary　to　support　the　producers。

　　　　It　has　been　stated；　in　the　new　edition　of　the　Wealth　of

nations；　that　the　cause　of　the　high　price　of　raw　produce　is；　that

such　price　is　required　to　proportion　the　consumption　to　the

supply。（8*）　This　is　also　true；　but　it　affords　no　solution　of　the

point　in　question。　We　still　want　to　know　why　the　consumption　and

supply　are　such　as　to　make　the　price　so　greatly　exceed　the　cost

of　production；　and　the　main　cause　is　evidently　the　fertility　of

the　earth　in　producing　the　necessaries　of　life。　Diminish　this

plenty；　diminish　the　fertility　of　the　soil；　and　the　excess　will

diminish；　diminish　it　still　further；　and　it　will　disappear。　The

cause　of　the　high　price　of　the　necessaries　of　life　above　the　cost

of　production；　is　to　be　found　in　their　abundance；　rather　than

their　scarcity；　and　is　not　only　essentially　different　from　the

high　price　occasioned　by　artificial　monopolies；　but　from　the　high

price　of　those　peculiar　products　of　the　earth；　not　connected　with

food；　which　may　be　called　natural　and　necessary　monopolies。

　　　　The　produce　of　certain　vineyards　in　France；　which；　from　the

peculiarity　of　their　soil　and　situation；　exclusively　yield　wine

of　a　certain　flavour；　is　sold　of　course　at　a　price　very　far

exceeding　the　cost　of　production。　And　this　is　owing　to　the

greatness　of　the　competition　for　such　wine；　compared　with　the

scantiness　of　its　supply；　which　confines　the　use　of　it　to　so

small　a　number　of　persons；　that　they　are　able；　and　rather　than　go

without　it；　willing；　to　give　an　excessively　high　price。　But　if

the　fertility　of　these　lands　were　increased；　so　as　very

considerably　to　increase　the　produce；　this　produce　might　so　fall

in　value　as　to　diminish　most　essentially　the　excess　of　its　price

above　the　cost　of　production。　While；　on　the　other　hand；　if　the

vineyards　were　to　become　less　productive；　this　excess　might

increase　to　almost　any　extent。

　　　　The　obvious　cause　of　these　effects　is；　that　in　all

monopolies；　properly　so　called；　whether　natural　or　artificial；

the　demand　is　exterior　to；　and　independent　of；　the　production

itself。　The　number　of　persons　who　might　have　a　taste　for　scarce

wines；　and　would　be　desirous　of　entering　into　a　competition　for

the　purchase　of　them；　might　increase　almost　indefinitely；　while

the　produce　itself　was　decreasing；　and　its　price；　therefore；

would　have　no　other　limit　than　the　numbers；　powers；　and　caprices；

of　the　competitors　for　it。

　　　　In　the　production　of　the　necessaries　of　life；　on　the

contrary；　the　demand　is　dependent　upon　the　produce　itself；　and

the　effects　are；　in　consequence；　widely　different。　In　this　case；

it　is　physically　impossible　that　the　number　of　demanders　should

increase；　while　the　quantity　of　produce　diminishes；　as　the

demanders　only　exist　by　means　of　this　produce。　The　fertility　of

soil；　and　consequent　abundance　of　produce　from　a　certain　quantity

of　land；　which；　in　the　former　case；　diminished　the　excess　of

price　above　the　cost　of　production；　is；　in　the　present　case；　the

specific　cause　of　such　excess；　and　the　diminished　fertility；

which　in　the　former　case　might　increase　the　price　to　almost　any

excess　above　the　cost　of　production；　may　be　safely　asserted　to　be

the　sole　cause　which　could　permanently　maintain　the　necessaries

of　life　at　a　price　not　exceeding　the　cost　of　production。

　　　　Is　it；　then；　possible　to　consider　the　price　of　the

necessaries　of　life　as　regulated　upon　the　principle　of　a　common

monopoly？　Is　it　possible；　with　M。　de　Sismondi；　to　regard　rent　as

the　sole　produce　of　labour；　which　has　a　value　purely　nominal；　and

the　mere　result　of　that　augmentation　of　price　which　a　seller

obtains　in　consequence　of　a　peculiar　privilege；　or；　with　Mr

Buchanan；　to　consider　it　as　no　addition　to　the　national　wealth；

but　merely　as　a　transfer　of　value；　advantageous　only　to　the

landlords；　and　proportionately　injurious　to　the　consumers？

　　　　Is　it　not；　on　the　contrary；　a　clear　indication　of　a　most

inestimable　quality　in　the　soil；　which　God　has　bestowed　on　man　…

the　quality　of　being　able　to　maintain　more　persons　than　are

necessary　to　work　it？　Is　it　not　a　part；　and　we　shall　see　further

on　that　it　is　an　absolutely　necessary　part；　of　that　surplus

produce　from　the　land；（9*）　which　has　been　justly　stated　to　be　the

source　of　all　power　and　enjoyment；　and　without　which；　in　fact；

there　would　be　no　cities；　no　military　or　naval　force；　no　arts；　no

learning；　none　of　the　finer　manufactures；　none　of　the

conveniences　and　luxuries　of　foreign　countries；　and　none　of　that

cultivated　and　polished　society；　which　not　only　elevates　and

dignifies　individuals；　but　which　extends　its　beneficial　influence

through　the　whole　mass　of　the　people？

　　　　In　the　early　periods　of　society；　or　more　remarkably　perhaps；

when　the　knowledge　and　capital　of　an　old　society　are　employed

upon　fresh　and　fertile　land；　this　surplus　produce；　this　bountiful

gift　of　providence；　shows　itself　chiefly　in　extraordinary　high

profits；　and　extraordinary　high　wages；　and　appears　but　little　in

the　shape　of　rent。　While　fertile　land　is　in　abundance；　and　may　be

had　by　whoever　asks　for　it；　nobody　of　course　will　pay　a　rent　to　a

landlord。　But　it　is　not　consistent　with　the　laws　of　nature；　and

the　limits　and　quality　of　the　earth；　that　this　state