5i6 History of the English Landed Interest. 



capitalist would prefer the responsibilities and uncertainties of 

 an income in rents to tliat obtained out of the funds or rail- 

 ways, were it not for the superior social powers enjoyed by the 

 former ? These are now more imaginary than real, being re- 

 tained merely by the force of tradition and destined to fade 

 awa}^ entirely as time obliterates the memories of the past. 



Many schemes are before the public for what is called the 

 "nationalisation of the land." They are based on Mill's principle, 

 that the land itself is national property, but that the profits of 

 its improved condition, up to a certain limit, belong to private 

 persons. Even Mr. George and Dr. Wallace recognise the 

 claims of the landlord to compensation before they can abolish 

 him, and as long as that recognition remains there is no 

 danger of an upset of the present proprietary system from 

 such a quarter. For when we come to let in, on the subject 

 of landlord's profits, the light of history, we shall at once see 

 that the rental of the entire soil does not represent one hun- 

 dredth part of the proper interest derivable from the capital 

 from time to time invested in it. 



People are inclined to forget that circumstances occur which 

 entirely alter the nature of rents. Thus, when they were 

 services or incidents of tenure issuing out of the land, they 

 required a very different legal definition from that of rents 

 reserved by a modern lease. ^ Doubly is this so when we come 

 to consider the economical meaning of the term. 



In the days of Smith it was supposed that rent was the 

 residuum owing to the landlord after the costs of production, 

 including the ordinary rates of profit, had been deducted by 

 the tenant. Owing to the possession of what was said to be a 

 monopoly, the owner of landed property could, by means of the 

 competition of applicants, not only always let his farms at a 

 rent, but command this residuum, however much it might be 

 magnified by inventions or State encouragement. This solu- 

 tion of the term, together with the supposition that rents 

 affected prices, consequently the interests of the consumer, left 

 the position of the landlord, in his relationship to society, 



' Yitlo CHianccllor v. Webster, t)-ied before Mr. Justice Webster at the 

 Guikniiil], July, 1893. 



