(2.i.11) Let us suppose, again, that instead of cultivating land of the second quality, it ismore advisable to apply a second dose of capital to land of the first quality; and that, while the firstdose produces ten quarters, the second, of equal amount, will produce only eight quarters; it isequally implied in this, as ill the former case, that it is impossible to employ any more capitalwith so great an effect as the ten supposed quarters, and that there are persons who are willing toapply it with so little a return as eight. But if there are persons who are willing to apply theircapital on the land with so little a return as eight quarters, the owners of the land may make abargain, by which they will obtain all that is produced above eight. The effect upon rent is thusthe same in both cases.
(2.i.12) It follows that rent increases in proportion as the productive power of the capital,successively bestowed upon the land, decreases. If population has arrived at another stage, when,all the land of second quality being cultivated, it is necessary to have recourse to land of thirdquality, yielding, instead of eight quarters, only six, it is evident, from the same process ofreasoning that the land of second quality will now yield rent, namely, two quarters; and that landof first quality will yield an augmented rent, namely, two quarters more. The case will be exactlythe same, if, instead of having recourse to land of less fertility, a second and a third dose ofcapital, with the same diminution of produce, are bestowed upon land of the first quality.
(2.i.13) We may thus obtain a general expression for rent. In applying capital, either to landsof various degrees of fertility, or, in successive doses, to the same land, some portions of the capitalso employed are attended with a greater produce, some with a less. That which yields the least,yields all that is necessary for reimbursing and rewarding the capitalist. The capitalist willreceive no more than this remuneration for any portion of the capital which he employs, becausethe competition of others will prevent him. All that is yielded above this remuneration, thelandlord will be able to appropriate. Rent, therefore, is the difference between the return madeto the more productive portions, and that which is made to the least productive portion, ofcapital, employed upon the land.
(2.i.14) Taking, for illustration, the three cases, Of ten quarters, eight quarters, and sixquarters, we perceive, that rent is the difference between six quarters and eight quarters for the portion ofcapital which yields only eight quarters; the difference between six quarters and ten quarters forthe portion of capital which yields ten quarters; and if three doses of capital, one yielding ten,another eight, and another six quarters, are applied to the same portion of land, its rent will befour quarters for dose No. 1, and two quarters for dose No. 2, making together six quarters forthe whole.
(2.i.15) If these conclusions are well supported, the doctrine of rent is simple, and theconsequences, as we shall see hereafter, are exceedingly important. There is but one objection,which it seems possible to make to them. It may be said, that, after land is appropriated, there isno portion of it which does not pay rent, no owner being disposed to give the use of it fornothing. This objection has, indeed, been raised; and it has been urged, that some rent is paideven for the most barren of the Scottish mountains.
(2.i.16) If an objection is taken, it affects the conclusion, either to a material, or to animmaterial extent.. Where the matter alleged in objection, even if admitted, would still leave the conclusionsubstantially, and to all practical purposes, true, the objection must be owing to one of twodefects in the mind of the objector; either a confusion of ideas, which prevents him from seeingto how small a degree the matter which he alleges affects the doctrine which he denies; or adisposition to evade the admission of the doctrine, even though nothing solid can be found withwhich to oppose it.
(2.i.17) That the matter alledged in this objection, even if allowed, would leave theconclusion, to all practical purposes, just where it was, can hardly fail to be acknowledged, as soon as thecircumstances are disclosed. It cannot be so much as pretended that the rent paid for the barrenmountains of Scotland is any thing but a trifle; an evanescent quantity, when we speak of anymoderate extent. If it were 5 l. for a thousand acres, that is, about one penny per acre, it wouldbear so small a proportion to the cost of cultivation, which could not be less than several poundsper acre, that it would little affect the truth of the conclusion we have endeavoured to establish.
(2.i.18) Let us suppose, for the sake of the argument, that the worst species of land undercultivation pays one penny per acre: rent, in that case, would be the difference between theproduce resulting from different portions of capital, as explained above, with the correctionrequired on account of the penny per acre paid as rent for the worst species of land undercultivation. Assuredly, if right in every other respect, we shall not be far wrong in ourconclusions, by leaving this penny out of the question. A very slight advantage, in simplifyingour language on the subject, would justify this omission.
