BY R. M. JOHNSTON, F,L.S. 169 



attempt to investigate the casual relations of complicated 

 matters. Eent presents a fertile theme for mere emotional- 

 ists, yet no subject presents greater difficulties to the earnest 

 and more exact investigator than that of rent, whether 

 regarded as (1) a proper object to be included among 

 individual rights of property, or (2) in its effects, in the 

 opinion of some, in increasing by its amount the cost of 

 production. 



(1.) What is the peculiar claim upon land which, when 

 used or let to a tenant, is called rent, and when 

 occupied by the legitimate owner is in official 

 assessment rolls termed annual value ? 



(2.) How has the owner acquired such a right to land 



which empowers him to monopolise its uses in 



any way not otherwise restricted by law, or to let 



it to another for an equivalent in value termed 



rent? 



Perhaps the progress of property acquirement in a young 



■colony affords the best means for giving a correct answer to 



these questions. 



In Tasmania, for example, there is an area of 16,778,000 

 acres, of which, up to the present time, 4,572,649 have been 

 •converted by purchase or grant into private property, and 

 whose annual value equivalent to rent is estimated at 

 ^860,555, or 3s. 9"16d. per acre. The remainder, representing 

 nearly three-fourths of the whole, is still owned by the State. 

 -But this includes the land and its improvements. If we 

 eliminate the value of buildings alone — which we could not 

 put at a much lower figure than =£584,000, viz., 29,200 

 buildings, most habitable at d620 — this leaves only .£276,555, 

 or a value of Is. 2^d. per acre for lands and other improve- 

 ments, embracing fencing, grubbing, clearing, burning timber 

 and scrub, etc. 



It is true that of the 4,572,649 acres private property only 

 about 150,000 acres are under tillage, and about 410,000 laid 

 in permanent grasses, fenced, cleared, or otherwise improved ; 

 this represents only 12*22 per cent of all private property. 



Even if we suppose the 87"78 per cent, of uncultivated 

 land to possess no exchange value whatsoever, and that the 

 existing rent only bears relation to the 560,000 acres of 

 cultivated land, then this (If^fM) only provides 9s. 10|d. per 

 ■acre as the proprietor's recompense for capital (the fruit of 

 previous labour or service, paid for the proprietorship), and 

 for the labour value expended in bringing the wild bush land 

 of nature into a condition fit for the plough. Leaving out 

 the loss to the owner expended in obtaining the rights of 

 j^roprietorship, it follows that there is now only 9s. 10|d. per 

 acre per annum of exchange value left to cover former outlay 



