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；