536 REPORT— 1887. 



Recent Illustrations of the Theory of Rent, and their Effect on the 

 Value of Land. By G. Auldjo Jamieson. 



[A Communication ordered by the General Committee to be printed in exteiiso 

 among the Keports.] 



It is a poor compensation for the agricultural depression under wliich we 

 labour, that it brings into r-trong relief some of the rudimentary princi- 

 ples of economic science. It is at neap tide that the secrets of ocean life 

 are revealed to the ordinary observer, and the ebb of our present mis- 

 fortune enables even casual students to study phenomena which were hid 

 by the flow of our prosperity. Nor will that study be vain if it throws 

 any light on those relations of landlord with tenant — once so close, so 

 cordial, and so sympathetic, which have recently been disturbed — a light 

 which may at least enable those interested to comprehend the reasons of 

 the more recent divergence, and may perhaps help to reconcile interests 

 which may be diverse, but ought never to be antagonistic. 



There has been of late a notable revolt on the part of young and 

 foreign economists against the principles which had been generally 

 accepted by the leading authorities as rudimentary in the science of 

 economics. The almost axiomatic dicta on value, wages, profits, and 

 capital which have hitherto been accepted as conclusive, have been chal- 

 lenged, and principles which Mill, Fawcett, and Cairnes held as funda- 

 mental have been rudely shaken by heresiarchs, who promise to be 

 hardly less distinguished than the apostles whose creed they assail. But 

 hardly one of the least authority has ventui'ed to controvert the theory 

 of rent propounded by Ricardo. That theory holds the field still in the 

 study and in the lecture-room, but I doubt very much whether it has 

 received that practical exposition which is essential to bring it home to 

 the intelligence of those whom it most immediately concerns. It will be 

 well, therefore, to lay the foundation of any observations on the present 

 condition of rental by stating as clearly as possible and in conventional 

 terms, what, according to recognised definition, rent really is. 



Let us assume a farmer in the Lothians, with full appliances and 

 ample skill, to produce a quarter of wheat at a cost for labour, manure, 

 and superintendence of 20s. If the same man with the same appliances 

 could raise a quarter of the same wheat on his Argyllshire farm at a 

 cost of not less than 30s., it is plain he would lose 10s. a quarter if he 

 sold his Argyll wheat at the cost of his Lothian wheat, while he would 

 gain 10s. a quarter if he sold his Lothian wheat at the cost of his Argyll 

 wheat. He would, of course, try to sell all his wheat at as much more 

 than 30s. as he could get for it ; his Lothian wheat and his Argyll wheat 

 would, of course, sell for the same price. 



But if the actual price obtainable were only 29s. for long enough to 

 establish a definite result, it is plain he would give up growing wheat in 

 Argyll, and would be content to make a profit of 9s. per quarter on his 

 Lothian wheat. But that 9s. would not be due to any labour, skill, or 

 capital of his ; for we assume the same man to be the farmer, and an 

 equality of appliances to be at his disposal, in both cases, and these to be 

 barren in Argyll and fruitful in the Lothians. The 9s. is the measure, 

 therefore, of something which the Lothians have which Argyll has not, 

 and it is that something which is expressed by rent. 



