[340] “The dealings between the landlord and the public are not like dealings in trade, whereby both the seller and the buyer may equally be said to gain, but the loss is wholly on one side and the gain wholly on the other.” (Principles, ed. Gonner, p. 322.) And so when a proprietor sells corn to a consumer it is not of the nature of an ordinary bargain where both parties gain something. The consumer gets nothing in return for what he gives, i.e. for what he gives over and above what it has cost to produce the corn. To get nothing in return for something given is the kind of transaction that generally goes by the name of theft.
Ricardo soon finds a reply to the comfortable doctrine of Smith, that the interests of the landlords are nowhere opposed to those of the rest of the community. “The interest of the landlord is always opposed to that of the consumer and manufacturer. Corn can be permanently at an advanced price only because additional labour is necessary to produce it, because its cost of production is increased. It is therefore for the interest of the landlord that the cost attending the production of corn should be increased. This, however, is not the interest of the consumer.… Neither is it the interest of the manufacturer that corn should be at a high price, for the high price of corn will occasion high wages, but will not raise the price of his commodity.” (Ibid., p. 322.)
[341] “Wealth increases most rapidly in those countries where the disposable land is most fertile, where importation is least restricted, and where, through agricultural improvements, productions can be multiplied without any increase in the proportional quantity of labour, and where consequently the progress of rent is slow.” (Principles, ed. Gonner, p. 54.) The contrast between fertile lands, free exchange, and the development of agricultural science on the one hand, and the growth of rent on the other, is very strikingly brought out in this paragraph.
[342] “Rent does not and cannot enter in the least degree as a component part of its price.” (Ibid., p. 55.) And he adds: “The clearly understanding of this principle is, I am persuaded, of the utmost importance to the science of political economy.” It is true that Smith, writing long before this time, had declared that the “high rate of rent is the effect of price,” but he does not seem to have attached any great importance to the remark.
[343] Ricardo wisely admits the possibility of confiscating this rent by means of taxation, the reason for this being that “a tax on rent would affect rent only, it would fall wholly on landlords and could not be shifted to any class of consumers.” (Principles, ed. Gonner, p. 154.) And the argument which he advances in proof of this, namely, that the tax could not be shifted, seems to indicate that this particular kind of revenue is not quite as intangible as that of some other classes in society. But his advocacy is somewhat restrained, for, as he points out, it would be unjust to put all the burden of taxation upon the shoulders of one class of the community. Rent is often the property of people who, after years of toil, have invested their earnings in land. The original injustice, if any, would thus be got rid of in the process of selling the land. This might be a sufficient reason for indemnifying the expropriated, but it is not enough to condemn expropriation altogether.
[344] “Malthus and Ricardo have both proved false prophets and mistaken apostles. The much-vaunted Ricardian law is a pure myth.” (Article by M. de Foville on Les Variations de la Valeur du Sol en Angleterre au XIXe Siècle, in L’Économiste français, March 21, 1908.)
[345] Mr. Robert Thompson, in a paper read before the Royal Statistical Society on December 17, 1907, has shown how the average rent per acre, valued at 11s. 2d. in 1801-5, reached the figure of 20s. in 1841-45, and despite the abolition of protection continued to rise up to 1872-77, when it reached a maximum of 29s. 4d. It then continued to fall until it reached the present amount of 20s. The present figure is double what it was in Ricardo’s time, but considerable deductions are necessary in view of the improvements made in the character of the soil. Thompson, after making these deductions, puts the amount at 15s. 5d., leaving just 4s. 7d. for rent pure and simple. The 11s. for rent at the beginning of the century covered something besides economic rent. Considerable deductions are again necessary, but the amount of capital employed in agriculture was much less then.
One seems justified in saying that in England and even in France and other Protective countries the land has lost both in revenue and value during the last quarter of the nineteenth century almost all that it had gained from the time of Ricardo up till then. But is the recoil sufficient to justify Foville’s description of Ricardo’s vaunted law as a pure myth? We think not. It has the experience of seventy-five years behind it and of twenty-five years against it, that is all. Anyone who would predict a further fall in rent would certainly be running the risk of becoming a false prophet.
[346] “The condition of the labourer will generally decline, and that of the landlord will always be improved.” (Principles, ed. Gonner, p. 79.)
[347] “It generally happens, indeed, that when a stimulus has been given to population an effect is produced beyond what the case requires.… The increased wages are not always immediately expended on food, but are first made to contribute to the other enjoyments of the labourer. His improved condition, however, induces and enables him to marry.” (Principles, ed. Gonner, p. 95.)