Chapter 12 On ground rent

Rent, the price for the use of land, is, of course, the highest price that the lessee can pay in accordance with the actual condition of the land.In determining the terms of the lease, the landlord seeks to make the lessee receive a share in the produce of the land which is only sufficient to compensate him for the agricultural capital which he has expended in furnishing seeds, paying wages, purchasing and maintaining draft animals and other implements, and providing local agricultural capital. ordinary profit.This amount is obviously the smallest share the tenant is willing to accept without losing money, and the landlord will never leave him more.If the part of the produce which goes to the tenant exceeds this amount, or, in other words, if the price of that part of the produce which goes to the tenant exceeds this amount, the landlord will naturally try to get the excess Keep it for yourself, as land rent.Rent, therefore, is obviously the highest amount that the lessee can pay according to the actual condition of the land.Sometimes, it is true, from magnanimity, and more often from ignorance, the landlord accepts a rent a little less than this; , that is, willing to bear a profit slightly lower than the ordinary profit of local agricultural capital.This amount, however, may still be regarded as the natural rent of the land, and what is called the natural rent is, of course, the rent due to the greater part of the land leased.

It may be thought, that the rent of land is nothing but the just profit, or interest, upon a stock employed by the landlord in improving it.Doubtless, there are times when this is true only to a certain extent, but not to a great extent.The landlord also demands a rent on unimproved land, and the interest or profit on the so-called cost of improvements is generally only an addition to this original rent.Moreover, the improvement of land is not necessarily always made by the landlord, but sometimes by the renter.On the renewal of the lease, however, the landlord usually demanded an increase in the rent, as if the improvements had been made at his own expense.

Landlords sometimes demand rent for things of nature which are utterly incapable of improvement by human power.For example, kelp is a type of seaweed.Once burned, this seaweed becomes the alkali salt needed to make glass and soap, among other uses.This seaweed is grown in several places in Britain, notably Scotland.It grows on the rocks reached by the high tide, and these rocks are covered by the tide twice a day, so that the seaweed growing on these rocks is by no means artificially increased.But the landlords demand a rent for all the land bounded by the coast which produces this sea-weed, just as they demand a rent for corn-fields.

The vicinity of the Shetland Islands is extremely rich in fish.Fish constitute the majority of the inhabitants' food.However, if residents want to profit from aquatic products, they have to live in coastal areas.The rent received by the landlord of the land, therefore, is not in proportion to the profit which the peasant can obtain from the land, but to what he can obtain both from the land and from the sea.This rent is partly paid in fish.It is rare for a commodity like fish to have an element of ground-rent in it, and we see an example of it here. In this light, rent, the price for the use of land, is of course a monopoly price.It is not at all proportioned to what the landlord can pay for his improvements, or to what he can collect, but to what the tenant can pay.

Only such produce of the land can be regularly brought to market for sale, that is, its ordinary price is sufficient to repay the capital required to bring the product to market, and to provide an ordinary profit.If the ordinary price exceeds this limit, the remainder of it naturally goes to the rent of land.If this limit is not exceeded, although the goods can be shipped to the market for sale, they cannot provide rent.Whether the price exceeds this limit depends on demand. Among the produce of the land there are some things which are so demanded that they always sell in the market for more than their original cost;The former always affords a rent to the landlord; the latter sometimes, and sometimes not, according to the circumstances.

It should therefore be observed that ground-rent becomes a constituent part of the price of commodities in a different manner from wages and profit.The level of wages and profits is the cause of the level of prices, but the level of ground rent is the result of the level of prices.The price of a commodity varies from high to low because of the high or low wages and profits that must be paid for this commodity to be marketed.But this commodity can afford high rent, can afford low rent, or cannot afford rent, because the price of this commodity varies from high to low, in other words, because the price of this commodity greatly exceeds or slightly exceeds the amount sufficient to pay labor costs and profits. Or just enough to cover wages and profits.

I have divided this chapter into the following three sections, which I shall deal with: first, the produce of the land which always yields rent; second, the produce which sometimes yields and sometimes does not; The changes in relative value which naturally arise at different stages of improvement, as compared with each other or with manufactured goods. Section 1. Of the produce of land which always affords rent Man, like all other animals, will naturally multiply in proportion to his means of subsistence.So, for food, there is always more or less need.Food always buys or commands a greater or lesser quantity of labour, and those who will labor for food can always be found.It is true that, as a result of paying high wages to labor, the amount of labor that food can buy may not necessarily be equal to the amount of labor that can be maintained when it is most economically disposed of, but food can always maintain a certain amount according to the ordinary standard of living of the laborers in the neighbourhood. labor.

But the land, in almost any position, produces a surplus of food, beyond the labor necessary to keep it in the market.And this surplus is not only enough to compensate the capital and its profits advanced by hired labor, but also leaves a surplus as the rent of the landlord. In the desolate wilderness of Norway and Scotland, there is a kind of pasture.From the milk and breeding of the cattle on this pasture, besides sufficient all the labor necessary for the maintenance of the cattle, and the ordinary profit which pays to the herdsman or owner of the herd, there is a small surplus which is the rent of the landlord.The ranch rent increases with the quality of the pasture.Good soil not only sustains more cattle than an equal area of ​​inferior land, but, because the cattle are concentrated in a smaller area, less labor is required for their rearing and harvesting.The landlord thus benefits both from an increase in the quantity of his produce, and from a reduction in the cost of his maintenance.

Regardless of the product of the land, its rent varies with the degree of fertility of the land; regardless of its degree of fertility, its rent varies with the location of the land.The land in the vicinity of a city will yield a greater rent than an equally fertile land in remote places.Though the cultivation of the latter requires the same amount of labor as that of the former, a greater labor is necessary in bringing the produce of remote places to market.A greater quantity of labour, therefore, must be maintained in this remote place, and the surplus from which the profit of the farmer and the rent of the landlord must be reduced.But, as has been said, the rate of profit is generally higher in remote places than in the vicinity of towns, so that of this reduced surplus, the part belonging to the landlords must be even smaller.

Good roads, canals, or navigable rivers, by reducing the cost of transport, bring remote places more nearly on the same level as those in the vicinity of cities.Therefore, among all improvements, traffic improvement is the most effective.Remote areas must be the most extensive areas in the countryside, and the convenient transportation will promote the development of this vast area.At the same time, it destroys the monopoly of the rural areas near the city, which is beneficial to the city.Even the countryside near the city can benefit from this.The improvement of transportation, on the one hand, will bring some competing commodities to the old markets, but on the other hand, it will open up many new markets for the agricultural products of the rural areas near the cities.Moreover, monopoly is the great enemy of good business.Good management is generally established only by free and general competition.Free and general competition will inevitably drive everyone to adopt good business practices for self-defense.Nearly fifty years ago, some counties near London petitioned Parliament against the extension of toll roads to remote counties.The reason they hold is, that the outlying counties, from the cheapness of labour, will sell their pasture and corn in the London market at a lower price than the neighboring counties, and that the rents of the neighboring counties will thereby fall, while their Farming will thus decline.Since then, however, their rents have risen, and their cultivation has improved.

A cornfield of moderate fertility produces much more food for man than the most equal pasture.The tillage of corn-fields, though much more labour-intensive, still leaves a much greater quantity of food after the recovery of the seed, and after deducting all the maintenance costs of labour.If, therefore, the value of a pound of meat was never supposed to be greater than that of a pound of bread, the above-mentioned greater surplus is everywhere of greater value, and is a greater fund out of the farmers' profits and the landlord's rent.This seems to have been the case generally in the infancy of agriculture. But the relative value of these two kinds of food, bread and butcher's meat, has been very different in different periods of agricultural development.In the early days of agriculture, most of the uncultivated land in the country was used for livestock collection.There is more meat than bread, and this food is the object of great competition, and therefore fetches a great price.According to Ulloa, in the Argentine capital, forty or fifty years ago, the common price of a cow was four reals, which was equivalent to twenty-one and a half pence in British dollars, and when it was purchased, it could be purchased at will among a herd of two or three hundred cattle. choose.Professor Ulloat speaks of the price of bread, probably because the price of bread has nothing to say about it.He added that the price of an ox over there is almost equal to the labor expended in catching it.But no matter where, the cultivation of corn required a great deal of labor, and in a country like Argentina, which was situated on the Rio de la Plata, which at that time became the direct route from Europe to the silver mines of Potosí, the other The money price of labor cannot be cheap.But when most of the country becomes arable land, the situation is completely different.There was now more bread than meat, and the reverse direction of the competition made meat more expensive than bread. In addition, the expansion of arable land, without opening up the wilderness, is not enough to supply the demand for livestock meat.Much arable land must be used for raising livestock.The price of cattle, therefore, must be sufficient not only to maintain the labor necessary to keep it, but also to pay the rent which the landlord would receive, and the profit which the farmer would receive, if the land were cultivated.But the cattle that have been raised on wild lands are sold in the same market as those that have been raised on improved land, and are sold at the same price according to their quality and weight.The owner of the wilderness takes advantage of this opportunity to increase the rent of his land according to the price of his cattle.In many parts of the Highlands of Scotland, less than a century ago, the price of butcher's meat was equal, or even less, than that of oat bread.Later, England and Scotland were unified, and the livestock of the Scottish Highlands got a market in England.The common price of livestock meat in the Highlands of Scotland is now about three times higher than it was at the beginning of the century, and the rent of many Highland lands has increased three or four times during this period.In all parts of Britain at the present day a pound of the best meat is worth more than two pounds of the best white bread, and in years of abundance it is sometimes worth three or even four pounds of the best white bread. Therefore, as the improvement progresses, the rent and profit of the unreformed pastures are also to a certain extent governed by those of the improved pastures, and by those of the reformed pastures. The domination of rent and profit.Grain is harvested once a year, but livestock meat takes four to five years to be harvested.Therefore, on the same acre of land, the output of livestock meat is much less than that of corn, and the lower yield of livestock meat must be compensated at a higher price.If the price superiority exceeds this limit, more cornfields will be converted to pastures; if the price superiority does not reach this limit, then part of the land that has been used for pastures will be converted to cornfields.It must be observed, however, that such an equality of rent and profit between pasture and corn, and between the land which directly produces the food of cattle, and that which directly produces the food of man, occurs only in countries where the greater part of the land has been improved. will happen.In some places the situation is quite different, and the rent and profit of pastures are much higher than those of cultivated land. In the vicinity of great cities, the demand for milk and food for horses, and the high price of cattle, raise the price of pasture beyond its natural proportion to that of corn.Obviously, such local interests will never extend to remote areas. The special conditions of certain countries sometimes make the population so dense that all land in these countries, like the area around the metropolis, does not produce enough pasture and grain to meet the living needs of the common residents.Therefore, its land is mainly used to produce pasture grass that is large in volume and cannot be easily imported from afar, while the grains eaten by the people are relied on from foreign countries.This is the situation in the Netherlands today.During the prosperity of ancient Rome, most of the land in ancient Italy was used to produce pasture.According to Cicero, Cato the Elder once said: the profits and benefits from the management of private land, the best breeding is the first, the second is the unsatisfactory breeding, and the third is the bad breeding. .He ranks the profits and benefits of farming as the fourth.Ancient Rome often distributed grain to its people at no cost or at a very low price. As a result, it greatly hindered the cultivation of the ancient Italian areas near ancient Rome.This grain, from conquered provinces.Some of these conquered provinces paid no taxes, but they were obliged to sell a tenth of their produce to the republic at the statutory price of sixpence a peck.The republic distributed this corn cheaply to the people, which must have depreciated the corn of the old Roman dominions in the Roman market, and thus must have hindered their corn cultivation. Moreover, in open places, where corn is the principal produce, the rent of enclosed meadows is often higher than that of the adjacent corn-fields.Enclosures facilitate the rearing of draft animals, and the high rent of enclosures is not due to the value of the produce of pastures, but from the value of the produce of corn-fields plowed with draft animals.If all the adjacent land is enclosed, the high land rent will drop.The present high rents of enclosed lands in Scotland seem to be due to so few enclosed lands, that their rents would probably fall as the enclosures increased.The enclosure of the land is more advantageous for the cattle than for the cultivation.It not only saves the labor of guarding the livestock, but also makes the livestock eat better because they are not disturbed by the guardian or guard dog. But where there is no such local interest, the rent and profit of requisitioned land are, of course, governed by those of land fit for the cultivation of corn, or other common food food. The same area of ​​land can raise fewer livestock by using only natural pastures, but more livestock can be raised by using artificial pastures such as turnips, carrots, cabbage, etc., or using other methods that have already been used. In this way the price of butcher's meat, which would have been higher than that of bread, would be somewhat lowered in advanced countries.And, indeed, it seems to be so; at least, it may be believed that the relative price of butcher's meat to bread in the London market is now much lower than it was at the beginning of the previous century. Dr. Birch, in the appendix of his book "The Life of Prince Henry", recorded in detail the price of livestock meat paid by the prince every day.A bull weighing six hundred pounds usually cost him only nine pounds ten shillings, or thirty-one shillings and eightpence per hundred pounds.Prince Henry died on November 6, 1612, at the age of nineteen. In March 1764, the Parliament investigated the reasons for the high food prices at that time. Among the many evidences collected this time, a Virginia businessman testified that he prepared food for the ship in March 1763 and paid for every Twenty-four shillings to twenty-five shillings for a hundred pounds of beef, which he considered the common price, while in the year of high prices, 1764, he paid twenty-four shillings for the same quantity and quality of beef. Seven shillings.But this high price in 1764 was four shillings and eightpence less than the daily price paid by Prince Henry; . The price paid by Prince Henry amounted to three and four-fifths of a pence a pound, and that was the average price including cuts of meat, either of the better or lower grade.It cannot be calculated, therefore, that the best meat was then retailed for less than four-and-a-halfpence or fivepence a pound. At the Parliamentary Inquiry in 1764, the witnesses all said that the retail price of the best cuts of the best beef was at that time from fourpence to four and a quarterpence a pound, while that of the lower cuts was, From seven coppers to two and a halfpence or two and three quarters a pound.Generally speaking, they said, such prices were about half a penny a pound above the ordinary market price during March.However, even this high price is much lower than the ordinary retail price in Prince Henry's time. During the first twelve years of the preceding century, the average price of the best wheat in the market at Windsor was £1.18s.3 and a sixth of a penny per hunt (nine Winchester bushels). During the twelve years preceding and including 1764, however, the average price of the best wheat in the same market was two pounds one shilling nine and a half pence per hunt. The price of wheat, therefore, was much lower during the first twelve years of the last century than it was during the twelve years preceding and including 1764, and the price of livestock much higher. In all great nations the greater part of the cultivated land is employed in the production of food for man, or for cattle.The rent and profit of these lands dominate those of all other cultivated land.If the land employed in the production of any particular produce yielded less rent and profit than above, that land would soon be converted into cornfields or pastures.If more rent and profit could be afforded, part of the corn-field might soon be turned over to that particular produce. To fit the land for the production of that particular produce, either requires at first a greater cost of improvement, or a greater annual cost of cultivation, than does the cornfield or harvesting field.A greater expense of improvement generally affords a greater rent, and a greater expense of cultivation generally yields a greater profit.Rent and profit thus increased, are often only a reasonable interest or remuneration upon a greater expense. As far as the land planted with hubu flowers, fruit trees, and vegetables is concerned, the rent of the landlord and the profit of the farmer are generally greater than that of the corn field or the grassland.But making the land suitable for such cultivation requires a greater expense, and therefore a greater rent should be paid to the landlord.Moreover, the more careful and skilful employment of this land should yield greater profits to the farmer.Moreover, the harvest of these crops, at least of hub and fruit, is so uncertain that their prices must afford something like an insurance profit to compensate for all accidental losses.The ordinary circumstances of the planters convince us that they are seldom overcompensated for their great skill.Many wealthy men engage in the pleasant occupations of the gardener for their own amusement.No great profit, therefore, is gained from planting gardens, for those who should be the best customers of their produce grow their own precious flowers and trees. The advantage which the landlord derives from this improvement seems to be only sufficient to compensate the expense of the improvement.As far as ancient cultivation is concerned, the part of the farm, after the vineyard, which yields the most valuable produce, seems to be the easily watered vegetable garden.But Democritus, known to the ancients as the father of agricultural technology, wrote about it two thousand years ago.He thought it unwise to surround the garden with a wall, since the profit of the garden could not compensate for the cost of its stone walls, and the bricks (I think the bricks meant the sun-dried kind) were destroyed by wind and rain. , it needs to be repaired.Colummeler quotes Democritus without rebuttal, but advocates the use of hedges made of thorns and thorns.He said that, in his experience, it was a long-lasting and impenetrable fence, but in the time of Democritus the common people do not seem to have known this method of enclosure.Colummeler's opinion was first recommended by Varro, and later adopted by Palladias.In the opinion of these ancient agricultural improvers, the value of the produce of the garden seems to exceed only a little the cost of special cultivation and watering.The nations near the sun thought then, and now, that they should take hold of the water and lead it into the garden.The vegetable gardens in most parts of Europe today still adopt the fencing method advocated by Colummeler.In Britain, and in other northern countries, the fruits of courtship cannot be obtained without the aid of walls.The price of their fine fruit, therefore, must pay for the building and maintenance of walls, which are indispensable to their production.Fruit trees are often used to enclose gardens, so that those gardens which cannot be recouped in their produce for the construction and maintenance of the walls, receive the benefits of enclosing them. It seems to be an indisputable axiom of agriculture, accepted by all wine-producing countries, ancient and modern, that a well-planted and well-cultivated vineyard is the most valuable part of a farm.But according to Colummeler, whether it was beneficial to plant new vineyards was a matter of debate among farmers in ancient Italy.Colummeller, like a man who really loves novelty figs, was in favor of the planting of new vineyards, and tried to prove, by comparing profits and expenses, that the planting of new vineyards was the most profitable agricultural improvement.The comparison of profit and expense in such new industrial schemes, however, is generally very uncertain, and more so in agriculture.If the benefits of such cultivation had been as great as Colummeler imagines, there would be no such controversy on this question.To this day, this is still a matter of debate among wine-producing countries.The agricultural writers of these countries, lovers and advocates of advanced cultivation, were as decisively in favor of the planting of new vineyards as Colummeler.The anxiety with which the owners of old vineyards in France have prevented the planting of new ones seems to support the opinion of those writers, and to show that those who have experience find it more profitable to cultivate grapes in that country than any other vegetable at present. .On the other hand, however, it also seems to indicate that the superior profits of the vineyard cannot be sustained if they are not sheltered by laws which restrict the free cultivation of the vine.In 1731, the owner of the old vineyard obtained the following decree: the planting of new vineyards without the king's permission, and the replanting of vineyards that have been idle for more than two years are prohibited.To obtain this dispensation from the king, it is necessary to ask the governor to inspect and prove that the land is not suitable for any other cultivation.It is said that the reason for issuing this decree at that time was the shortage of corn and pasture and the surplus of wine.But a surplus of wine, if it were a fact, would reduce the profit of this cultivation below the natural proportion of that of pasture and corn, and thus effectively prevent the planting of new vineyards without the above-mentioned decree.Concerning the so-called increase of the vineyards, which caused a shortage of corn, we know that in France, in the grape-producing states where the land is suitable for producing corn, the corn is more carefully cultivated than in other states, as in Burgundy and Guien, and in Shanglang. So did Gedok.The employment of a great number of laborers by one enterprise of cultivation necessarily encourages the other by furnishing a good market for the produce of the other.Reducing the number of people who can buy wine is undoubtedly the most fruitful way of rewarding the cultivation of corn.This policy is tantamount to a policy of promoting agriculture by discouraging manufactures. Those crops, therefore, require a greater expense of improving the land, to make it fit for cultivation, or a greater annual expense of cultivation, the rent and profit of which often greatly exceed those of corn or pasture, if the excess but only to cover the high expense, the rent and profit of which are actually governed by those of the common crops. It sometimes happens, it is true, that the area suitable for a particular crop is too small to supply its effective demand.The whole of the produce, in this case, may be sold to those who will pay a little more than usual, a little more than the natural rate of rent, wages, and profit, when the crop is produced and brought to market. Or all the rent, wages, and profits which would have to be paid at those of most other cultivated land.Of this price, what remains after deducting the whole cost of improvement and cultivation, may in this case, and in this case only, be out of normal proportion to the like remainder of corn or pasture, and may exceed in any degree.Most of this excess naturally goes to the landlord. It must be known that the ordinary and natural proportion of the rent-profit of wine to that of corn and pasture occurs only in vineyards which produce good common wine.The soil of this kind of vineyard is loose, or contains gravel, or contains sand.The wines produced have no commendable characteristics except concentration and hygiene.Ordinary land in China can only be compared with this kind of ordinary vineyard. As for the vineyard with special quality, it is obviously not in the same breath as ordinary land. Of all fruit trees, the vine is most susceptible to soil differences.It is said that the special delicacy from a special soil can never be achieved by artificial means on another soil.This real or imagined delicacy is sometimes unique to the products of a few vineyards, sometimes shared by most of the vineyards in a small area, and sometimes shared by most of the vineyards in a large state. .The full quantity of this wine which is sold in the market is not sufficient to supply the effective demand, that is to say, those who are willing to pay, for the production and transport of this wine, the ordinary rents, wages, and rates of profit, or the general vineyards. Rent, wages, and rate of profit, the demand of man for all rent, wages, and profit that must be paid.The whole quantity, therefore, can be sold to those who are willing to pay a higher price, which necessarily raises the price of this wine above that of common wines.The difference between the two prices depends on the degree of competition among buyers aroused by the popularity and rarity of the wine.But no matter how much the difference is, most of the difference goes to the landlord.Although this kind of vineyard is generally more careful in cultivating soil than other vineyards, its higher price is not so much the result of careful cultivation, but rather the original group of careful cultivation.In the production of such a costly product, the loss by neglect is so great that even the most careless will be compelled to take heed.A small part of this high price is therefore sufficient to pay the wages of extra labor in production, and the profit of extra capital. The sugar-cane fields which the nations of Europe possess in the West Indies may be compared with this expensive vineyard.The whole produce of the sugar-cane-fields, being insufficient to satisfy the effective wants of the Europeans, can be sold only to those who are willing to pay more than the rent, wages, and rate of profit which are usually paid for any other produce, in excess of the production and market of this produce. who buy at the price of rent, wages, and profit.According to Beaufort, who is familiar with the farming affairs of Cochin China, the price of the finest refined white sugar in Cochin China is usually three piastres per Kunter, equivalent to thirteen shillings and six pence in British currency.The so-called Quinter over there is equivalent to 150 to 200 pounds of Paris, which is equivalent to 175 pounds of Paris on average.About eight shillings per hundred pounds in British weight.This is not one-fourth the price we usually pay for brown or granulated sugar which we import from our colonies, and not one-sixth the price of the finest refined white sugar.Most of the farmland in Cochin China is used to produce the rice and wheat that most people eat.There, perhaps, the prices of rice, wheat, and sugar, are in natural proportions, that the various crops of the greater part of the farmland are naturally proportioned, so that each proprietor and each farmer may receive, as far as possible, the usual cost of original improvement and the annual cost of cultivation. remuneration.But the price of sugar in our sugar colonies has no such proportion to the price of the produce of the rice or wheat fields of Europe and America.It is said that the sugar-cultivators often wish to recover all the expenses of cultivation in two things, rum and molasses, and to make a pure profit from the whole sugar.As far as I am concerned, I dare not take the liberty to confirm this fact. If it is so, it is just as the corn cultivator hopes to compensate his cultivation expenses with two items of chaff and wormwood, and take the whole grain as pure profit.I have often seen societies of merchants in London and other towns buy up the uncultivated lands of our sugar colonies, and entrust agents or agents to improve and cultivate them for profit; They don't care about the certainty of income.And no one would want to improve and cultivate in the same way the most fertile lands of Scotland, Ireland, or the corn-countries of North America, where, though the administration of justice is perfect, they might expect a more regular income. In Virginia and Maryland in North America, tobacco is preferred to corn because it is more profitable to grow it.In most of Europe, planting tobacco also gains benefits, but almost all countries in Europe take tobacco as the main taxation object, and if domestic tobacco is planted, it is more difficult to tax each plantation than to tax imported tobacco, so In most places, the cultivation of tobacco has been prohibited by unreasonable orders.In consequence a kind of monopoly was obtained where tobacco was permitted to be cultivated, and Virginia and Maryland, producing the greatest quantities of tobacco, enjoyed the greater part of the benefits of this monopoly, though they had several competitors.However, the cultivation of tobacco does not seem to be so beneficial as the cultivation of sugar cane.I have never heard of merchants living in Britain investing in improving and cultivating tobacco plantations.It is not so common for those who make a fortune from growing tobacco to return home from the colonies, as those who make a fortune from sugar production in our sugar islands return home.Judging from the fact that the colonists were more willing to grow tobacco than corn, it seems that the effective demand for tobacco in Europe was not fully supplied, but the supply of tobacco may be closer to the effective demand than the supply of sugar.The price of tobacco may now exceed all the rent, wages, and profits which would have to be paid at the same rate of rent, wages, and profit as would be paid in corn-fields when tobacco was produced and brought to market, but the excess must be less than the excess of the present price of sugar.The tobacco growers in our colonies, therefore, are as afraid of overproduction as are the owners of old vineyards in France.Therefore, through the parliamentary law, a black slave between the ages of 16 and 60 is limited to only 6,000 tobacco plants. They believe that 6,000 plants can produce 1,000 pounds of tobacco.They calculated that each black slave, in addition to producing this amount of tobacco, can cultivate four acres of corn land.Douglas Boss tells us (I don't think he's reliable) that they sometimes burn some of the tobacco produced by each slave in good years to prevent the market from being oversupplied, just as the Dutch burn their spices. Some of the same.If such drastic measures are required to maintain the present price of tobacco, the advantage of tobacco over corn, if it still exists to some extent, will probably not long continue. From this it follows that the rent of cultivated land, which produces the food of mankind, controls the rent of the greater part of other cultivated land.No particular produce would afford a rent for long below that of the greater part of cultivated land, because that land would at once be converted to other uses; For the land fit for this produce is too scarce to supply its effective demand. In Europe, the land products that are directly used as food for human beings are grains.The rent of the corn-lands of Europe, therefore, dominates that of all other cultivated lands, except where they are peculiarly situated.England need not envy the vineyards of France, nor the olive groves of Italy.For grapes and olives, if they do not occupy a special place, must be determined by the value of corn, and in the production of corn the lands of England are not much less fertile than those of either country. If the vegetable food generally preferred by the people of any country is not corn, but another vegetable, and it is supposed that the common land of that country can be produced by the same or nearly the same cultivation as the corn-field cultivation, The rent of the landlord, in other words, the quantity of food which remains after paying the wages of labour, and deducting the capital of the farmer and its ordinary profits, must be much greater.Whatever may be the ordinary wages at which labor is maintained in the country, this greater surplus will always maintain a greater quantity of labour, and the landlord will therefore be able to purchase or command a greater quantity of labour.The real value of his rent, that is, his disposition over the necessaries and conveniences of life furnished by the labor of others, must be much greater. Rice fields produce a much larger quantity of food than wheat fields.It is said that rice fields are generally harvested twice a year per mu, with thirty to sixty bushels per harvest.Although more labor is generally required in cultivating rice-fields, their production has more surplus than maintenance labor.因此，在以米為普通愛好的食物，而耕作者主要也是靠米維持生活的產米國家，地主從這更大的剩餘所得的，比產麥國地主所得的多。在卡羅林納和英領其他殖民地，耕作者一般兼有農業家和地主身份，因此，地租與利潤混淆；當地稻田雖每年只收穫一次，而當地人民根據歐洲普通習慣，不以米為普通愛好的植物性食物，但都認為耕種稻田，比耕種麥田更為有利。 良好的稻田，一年四季都是沼澤地，而且有一季充滿著水。它不適宜於種麥，不適宜於作牧場，不適宜於作葡萄園，實則除種稻外，不適宜於栽種任何對人類有用的植物性食物。而適於那些用途的土地，也不適宜於種稻。所以，即在產米國中，稻田的地租，不能規定其他耕地的地租，因為其他耕地不能轉為稻田。 馬鈴薯地的產量，不亞於稻田的產量，而比麥田的產量大得多。一畝地生產馬鈴薯一萬二千磅，並不算怎麼優異的產量，一畝地生產小麥二千磅，卻算是優異產量。誠然，馬鈴薯所含水分很大，從這兩種植物所得的固體滋養料，不能與其重量成比例。但是，從馬鈴薯這塊根食物的重量中，即使扣除一半作為水分這是很大的扣除，一畝地的馬鈴薯，仍有六千磅固體滋養料，仍三倍於一畝麥地的產額。況且，耕作一畝馬鈴薯的費用，比耕作一畝麥地的費用少，而就麥地在播種前通常需要的犁鋤休種說，所費就超過栽種馬鈴薯的鋤草及其他特殊費用。所以，這塊根食物，如果在將來成為歐洲某地人民的普通愛好食物，正如米在一些產米國家成為人民的普通愛好食物那樣，使得栽培馬鈴薯的土地面積在全耕地中所佔的比例，等於現今栽種小麥及其他人類食用穀物的土地面積在全耕地中所佔的比例，那末同一面積的耕地必能養活多得多的人民。而且，勞動者如果一般都靠馬鈴薯過活，那末在生產中，除了扣回耕作資本及維持勞動外，還有更大的剩餘。這剩餘的大部分，亦將屬於地主。人口就會增加，而地租也會增高，大大超過現今的地租。 凡適於栽種馬鈴薯的土地，亦適於栽種其他一切有用植物。假如馬鈴薯耕地，在全部耕地中所佔比例，和今日穀田所佔比例相同，那末馬鈴薯耕地的地租，就將像今日穀田地租那樣，規定其他大部分耕地的地租。 我聽說，蘭開夏某些地方認為，勞動人民吃燕麥麵包，比吃小麥麵包，肚子更飽。而在蘇格蘭，我也聽到同樣的話。我對於此種傳聞，總覺有點疑問。吃燕麥麵包的蘇格蘭普通人民，一般地說，不像吃小麥麵包的同一階級英格蘭人民那麼強壯，那麼清秀；他們既不像英格蘭人那麼起勁地工作，也不像英格蘭人那麼健康。由於在這兩地上流人中間沒有這種差異，經驗似乎告訴我們，蘇格蘭普通人民的食物，沒有英格蘭普通人民的食物那麼適合於人類的體質。但就馬鈴薯說，情形卻完全兩樣。倫敦的轎夫、腳夫和煤炭挑夫，以及那些靠賣淫為生的不幸婦女（也許是英國領土中最強壯男子和最美麗女子），據說，這些人的大部分，來自一般隻馬鈴薯為食物的愛爾蘭最下級人民。馬鈴薯提供最明確的證據，證明它含有營養素，而且特別適合於人類的體質。 馬鈴薯很難保存一年，而且不可能像穀物那樣貯藏二三年。不能在腐爛以前賣出的恐懼，使人不想栽種馬鈴薯，而在任何大國，馬鈴薯不像麵包那樣，成為各階級人民的主耍植物性糧食，這也許是一個主要原因。 第二節論有時提供有時不提供地租的土地生產物 在各種土地生產物中，似乎只有人類食物是必然提供地租的；其他生產物，隨著不同情況，有時提供地租，有時不提供地租。 人類最需要的東西，除了食物，就是衣服及住宅。 在原始自然狀態下，土地在衣服及住宅材料方面所能供給的人數，比在食物方面所能供給的人數多得多。但在進步狀態下，土地在前一方面所能供給的人數，有時卻比在後一方面所能供給的人數少，至少，就人們需要衣服住宅材料和願意支付代價這二方面說，是如此。所以，在原始自然狀態下，衣服和住宅材料總是過剩，因而沒有多少價值，甚或完全沒有價值。在進步狀態下，此等材料往往缺乏，其價值於是增大。在前一場合，大部分衣住材料，由於無用被拋棄，而使用部分的價格，可以說只等於改造這些材料使其適於人用所花的勞動與費用。因此，對於地主，自不能提供地租。在後一場合，這些材料全被使用，而且往往求過於供。於是，對於此等材料的任何部分，總有人願意以超過其產製和上市的費用的價格來購買。所以，此等材料的價格，對地主總可提供若干地租。 原始的衣服材料，乃是較大動物的皮。所以，只那些動物的肉為主要食料的狩獵和牧畜民族，在獲取食料時，就獲得了他們自身穿不了的衣服。如果沒有對外貿易，那末此等多餘材料，便看作無價值東西而被拋棄。就未被歐洲人發現以前的北美狩獵民族說，情況大抵如此。現在，他們以過剩的毛皮和歐洲人交換毛氈、火器和白蘭地酒，這樣就使他們的毛皮具有若干價值。我相信，在現在世界的通商狀態下，即使最不開化的民族，只要土地所有制業已確立，就在一定程度上有這種對外貿易，他們在國內土地生產但不能在國內加工或消費的衣服材料，在較富裕的鄰國中，找到那樣的銷路，以致此等材料的價格，抬高到超過其運輸費用。於是，此等材料的價格，就給地主提供了若干地租。當蘇格蘭高地牲畜的大部分，在內部丘陵地帶消費的時候，獸皮成為輸出的最主要商品，換回其他物品，這樣就稍稍增加了高地土地的地租。以前，英格蘭不能在本國加工或消費的羊毛，也在當時更富裕和更勤勞的弗蘭德人的國家裡找到了銷路，其售價對羊毛產地也提供了若干地租。然而，在耕作狀態不比當時英格蘭及今日蘇格蘭高地更為進步，又無對外貿易的國家，衣服材料顯然是那麼過剩，以致有一大部分由於無用而被拋棄，那就不能給地主提供地租。 住屋材料，未必都能像衣服材料那樣容易運往遙遠地方，因而，也不像衣服材料那樣容易成為國外貿易的對象。即使在今日商業狀況下，也常常如此。在住屋材料生產過剩的國家，這些過剩材料，不能給地主提供什麼價值。倫敦附近的良好石礦，提供了相當大的地租，而蘇格蘭和威爾土許多地方的石礦，卻不提供地租。在人口稠密農耕進步的國家中，用於建築的無果樹木，價值很高，其產地提供了相當大的地租，而在北美許多地方，樹木產地的所有者，卻不但得不到地租，如果有人願意採伐並運去他的大部分大樹，他還會非常感謝。蘇格蘭高地有些地方，由於缺少公路和水運，所以能向市場運送的只有樹皮，而木材則隨地委棄，聽其腐爛。當住屋材料是那麼過剩的時候，實際上被使用的那一部分的價值，也不過等於加工時所花的勞動和費用。這一部分，對地主不提供地租。然而當鄰近富裕國民，有住屋材料的需要時，又當別論。例如，倫敦街道的鋪石，曾使蘇格蘭海岸一部分不毛岩石的所有者，從向來不提供地租的岩石收到地租。又如，挪威及波羅的海沿岸的樹木，在不列顛許多地方找到了國內找不到的市場，於是這些樹木給其所有者提供了若干地租。 國家的人口，不和它們衣住材料所能供給的人數成比例，而和它們食物所能供給的人數成比例。食物要是得到供給，那就不難找到必要的衣服及住宅。但是，有了住宅衣服，往往不易找到食物。即在不列顛許多地方，只一人一日的勞動，也能造成稱為住宅的簡單建築物。把獸皮製成最簡單的衣服，只需要一天多的勞動。就野蠻或未開化民族說，為獲得這種衣服及住宅，所費不過佔全年勞動百分之一。而其餘百分之九十九的勞動，用於獲取食物，往往只勉強夠用。 但由於土地改良和耕作的結果，一家的勞動，能供給二家的食物，於是半數人口的勞動便足以生產供給全社會的食物，所以共余半數，至少其中的大部分的勞動，能用來生產其他物品，即用以滿足人類其他慾望和嗜好。衣服，住宅，傢具，以及所謂成套的應用物品，便是大部分這些慾望和嗜好的主要對象。富人所消費的糧食，並不比他窮苦鄰人所消費的多。在質的方面，也許大不相同，選擇和烹調富人的糧食，可能需要更大的勞動和技術，而在量的方面，幾乎相同。但是，我們且把富人堂皇的邸宅，巨大的衣櫥，和貧民的陋屋敝衣比較一下罷；這兩者，不論在質的方面、量的方面，都會令人感到極大的差異。各個人食慾，都受胃的狹小容量的支配，而對於住宅、衣服、傢具及應用物品的欲求，似乎卻無止境。所以，對自己所消費不了的剩餘食物有支配權的人，一定願意用剩餘食物或其代價來交換足以滿足其他慾望的東西。用滿足有限慾望以後的剩餘物品，來換取無限慾望的滿足。另一方面，窮人為取得食物，竭力勞作，以滿足富人此等嗜好；而窮人為使自己的食物供給較有把握，往往相互競爭，使其作品，益臻完善，益趨低廉。勞動者人數，隨食物量增大而增加，換言之，隨土地改良及耕作的進步而增加。由於他們工作的性質容許極度的分工，所以他們能夠加工的原料的數量增加得比他們的人數多得多。因此，人類發明才能在建築物、衣服、應用物品或傢具上有用的或作為裝飾品使用的各種原料，甚至地中的化石、礦產、貴金屬和寶石，都有了需要。 這樣看來，食物不僅僅是地租的原始來源，而後來求提供地租的土地的其他生產物說，其價值中相當干地租的部分，亦來自生產食物的勞動生產力的增進，而勞動生產力這樣的增進，是土地改良和耕作的結果。但是，那些到後來才提供地租的其他土地的生產物，並不一定都能提供地租。即使土地業已改良並耕作的國家，對這類土地生產物的需求，未必都達到那樣的程度，以致其價格，除了支付工資，償還資本並提供資本的普通利潤，還有剩餘。這類生產物是否能提供地租，要看各種情況而定。 例如，煤礦能否提供地租，部分要看它的產出力，部分要看它的位置。 礦山的產出力是大還是小，要看使用一定數量勞動、從這礦山所能取出的礦物量是多於或是少於使用等量勞動從大部分其地同類礦山所能取出的數量。 有些煤礦，位置很便宜，但由於產出力過小，不能開採。其生產物，不能償還費用。這樣的煤礦，不能提供利潤，也不能提供地租。 有些煤礦的產出物，僅夠支付勞動工資，償還開礦資本，並提供其普通利潤。企業家由這種煤礦，能期待若干利潤，地主卻不能由此得到地租。所以，像這類煤礦，除了地主自己開採，投下資本，可期得到普通利潤外，其餘任何人，都不能經營有利。蘇格蘭有許多煤礦，由地主親自經營。這些煤礦，不能由他人經營，因為沒有地租，地主不許任何人採掘，而任何人採掘，也不能付給地主以地租。 蘇格蘭還有些煤礦，產出力很大，但由干位置不好，不能進行採掘。足夠支付開礦費用的礦山產量，有時雖可使用一般勞動量或比一般少的勞動量採掘出來，但在人口稀少，而缺少公路或水運的內地，這麼多的礦產，將無法賣出。 和木柴比較，煤炭是比較不適意的燃料，據說，還是比較不合衛生的燃料。在消費煤炭的地方，其費用一般要比木柴的費用少。 此外，木柴價格，幾乎像牲畜價格一樣，隨農業狀態的變動而變動，其變動的原因，和牲畜價格變動的原因，完全相同。在農業幼稚狀態下，各國大部分地方都是樹木。那些樹木，在當時地主眼中，全是毫無價值的障礙物，如果有人願意採伐，他定然是歡喜不過的。後來，農業進步，那些樹木，部分由於耕作發達而被砍去，部分由於牲畜增加而歸於毀滅。牲畜頭數增加的比例，和全由人類勤勞而獲得的穀物增加的比例，雖不相同，但在人類的注意和保護下，牲畜也繁殖起來。人類在豐饒的季節，預先給牲畜貯藏食料，以備在缺少季節使用，樣樣人類給牲畜提供的食物量，就此未開發的自然所提供的多。人類給牲畜剷除敵害，使它們能安然自由享受自然所給與的一切。許許多多畜群，隨意放牧森林，森林中的老樹，雖不受到損害，但幼樹卻受到摧殘。其結果，在一二世紀後，整個森林歸於毀滅。這樣，木柴的不足，抬高了木柴的價格。這價格，給地主提供了很好的地租。地主有時覺得，從最好土地栽植無果樹木，更為有利，而大的利潤，往往足夠抵消其收入的遲緩。這似乎是現今不列顛境內許多地方的情況，在這些地方，格林的利潤，被認為和穀田或種牧草的利潤相等。不過，地主由植林所得的利益，不論何處，至少在相當長的期間內，不能超過穀田或牧場的地租，而在耕作進步的內地，其利益往往比此種地租少得多。在土地改良得很好的海岸，作為燃料的煤炭，要是容易得到供給，那末建築木材由耕作事業較落後的外國輸入，往往比本國生產更為便宜。愛丁堡最近數年建築的新城市，也許沒有一根木材是蘇格蘭產的。 不論木柴的價格是怎樣，如果一個地方燒煤炭的費用，和燒木柴的費用幾乎相等，那末我們可相信，在那情況下，煤炭在那地方的價格就達到最高的水平。英格蘭內地某些地方，特別是牛津郡，情況似乎就是如此。牛津郡普通人民的火爐中，通常都混用木柴與煤炭，可見這兩種燃料的費用不可能有很大的差異。 在產煤國家，任何地方的煤炭價格，都比這最高價格低得多。否則，煤炭就擔負不起由陸運或水運送往遙遠地方的運輸費用。這樣，煤炭能夠賣出的，不過是很少的份量。煤礦採掘者及所有者，為自己利益計，定會覺得，與其以最高價格賣出少量，倒不如以比最低價格略高的價格賣出多量。此外，產出力最大的煤礦，支配附近一切煤礦的煤炭價格。那些產出力最大煤礦的所有者及經營者發覺，只略低於附近煤礦的價格出售煤炭，就能增大其地租與利潤。這樣一來，鄰近煤礦，不久也不得不以同樣的價格出售煤炭，儘管它們不能以這價格出售。儘管這樣的價格總要削減，有時甚至剝奪它們的地租與利潤。於是一部分煤礦只好停止經營，另一部分煤礦因不能提供地租而只能由所有者自己來經營。 像一切其他商品一樣，煤炭能在相當長的時期內繼續售賣的最低價格，乃是僅足補償使它上市所需用的資本及其普通利潤的價格。那些對地主不提供地租，因而非由地主自己來經營就得完全棄置的煤礦，其煤炭價格，一般必和這最低價格大致相同。 即在煤炭提供地租的地方，煤礦價格中的地租部分，一般比其他大多數土地原生產物價格中的地租部分小。土地地面的地租，通常等於總生產額的三分之一。這份額，大概是確定的，不受收穫上意外事變的影響。然而就煤礦說，則以總生產額的五分之一為非常大的地租，而以總生產額的十分之一為普通地租。而且，這地租額極不確定，要看生產額有無意外變動而定。意外變動是那樣的大，以致在三十倍年租被認為是購買田產的普通價格的國家，十倍年租卻被看做是收買煤礦的高價。 對所有者說，煤礦的價值，取決於煤礦的產出力，也同樣取決於煤礦的位置。而金屬礦山的價值，則取決於產出力的多，取決於位置的少。由礦石分離出來的普通金屬，尤其是貴金屬，具有那麼大的價值，以致一般地說，都負擔得起長時間陸運和長距離水運的費用。其市場不局限於礦山鄰近國家，而擴及全世界。例如日本的銅，成為歐洲貿易商品；西班牙的鐵，成為智利及秘魯的貿易商品；秘魯的銀，不僅在歐洲找到了銷路，而且通過歐洲，也在中國找到了銷路。 西莫蘭及什羅普郡的煤炭價格，對紐卡斯爾的煤炭價格，沒有多大影響，而利奧諾爾的煤炭價格，對紐卡斯爾的煤炭價格，則毫無影響。這些煤礦產物，絕不會互相競爭。但距離很遠的金屬礦產物，卻往往有發生相互競爭的可能，而事實上，也常如此。因此，世界產金屬最多的地方，普通金屬價格，尤其是貴金屬價格，必然或多或少地影響世界各地礦山的金屬價格。日本銅的價格，必對歐洲銅礦上銅的價格發生影響。秘魯銀的價格，換言之，秘魯銀在當地所能購買的勞動量或貨物量，不但對歐洲銀礦上銀的價格有影響，而且對中國銀礦上銀的價格，也有影響。秘魯銀礦發現以後，大部分歐洲銀礦歸於廢棄。銀價降得那麼低，以致那些銀礦產物，不能償還開採費用，或者說，除償還開採時所消費的衣食住及其他必需品外，不能提供一些利潤。波托西銀礦發現後，古巴及聖多明各的礦山，乃至秘魯的舊礦山，也有這種情況。 這樣看來，各礦山所產各種金屬的價格，在一定程度上，都受世界當時產量最大的礦山產物價格的支配，所以大部分礦山所產的金屬價格，除償還其採掘費用外，沒有多大剩餘，因而，對地主，不能提供很高的地租。在大多數礦山所產的賤金屬價格中，地租似乎只佔小部分，而在貴金屬價格中，地租所佔部分尤小。勞動與利潤，構成了貴賤金屬價格的大部分。 以產量豐富著稱於世的康沃爾錫礦的平均地租，據這錫礦區副監督波勒斯說，高達總產量的六分之一。他並說，有些礦山的地租超過這比率，有些不及這比率。蘇格蘭許多產量很豐富的鋁礦的地租，也占總產量的六分之一。 據佛勒齊及烏羅阿兩氏稱，秘魯銀礦所有者，往往只要求經營銀礦的人，在他設立的磨場中磨碎礦石，並把一部分磨碎的礦石給與所有者作為磨碾的代價。的確，直到一七三六年，西班牙國王對這些銀礦所徵收的礦稅，計達標準銀產額五分之一；截至此時為止，這可視為大部分秘魯銀礦的真實地租，秘魯銀礦當時是世界最豐富的銀礦。如果礦不徵稅，這五分之一當然屬於地主，而當時由於負擔不起這種捐稅而沒有採掘的許多礦山，定會開採。康沃爾公爵所徵的錫稅，據說為全價值的百分之五以上，即二十分之一以上；不論其稅率怎樣，要是不課稅，這當然屬於礦山所有者。假定以二十分之一，與上述六分之一相加，就可發現，康沃爾錫礦的全部平均地租對秘魯銀礦的全部平均地租的比例，是十三比十二。然而，秘魯銀礦現今連這低微的地租也不能擔負，而銀稅也在一七三六年由五分之一，減到十分之一。銀說雖輕微如此，但與二十分取一的錫稅比較，卻更能引誘人們做走私生意，而就走私說，貴重的物品必比容積大的物品容易得多。所以，有人說，西班牙國王得不到什麼稅收，而康沃爾公爵卻得到很好稅收。以此之故，地租在世界最豐富錫礦生產錫的價格中所佔的部分，可能比地租在世界最豐富銀礦生產銀的價格中所佔的部分大。在償還開採那些礦產物所使用的資本及共普通利潤後，留歸礦山所有者的剩餘部分，賤金屬似比貴金屬大。 秘魯銀礦開採者的利潤，通常亦不甚大。最熟悉當地情形並最受人敬佩的上述那兩位作家告訴我們說，在秘魯著手開採新銀礦的人，都被認為是注定要傾家蕩產的，所以大家都避開他。看來，採礦業在秘魯和在這裡一樣被看作彩票，中彩的少，不中彩的多，而幾個大彩，卻誘引許多冒險家做這樣無結果的嘗試，失去他們的財產。 可是，由於秘魯國王的歲入大部分來自銀礦，所以秘魯法律盡量獎勵新礦的發現及開採。發現新礦山者，不論是誰，一律按照他看準的礦派方向，劃出一塊長二百四十六呎寬一百二十三呎的礦區歸他所有，並自行開採，不給地主任何報酬。鑒於自己的利益，康沃爾公爵也在那古公國內，制訂了類似的規定。凡在荒野或未圈地內發現錫礦的人，都可在一定範圍內，劃出錫礦的境界，這叫做為礦山定界。這境界設定者，就是該礦區實際所有者。他可以不經原地主許可自行開採，或租與他人開採，不過在採掘時要給地主微薄的報酬。在以上那兩種規定中，私有財產的神聖權利都由於國庫歲入想像上的權利而被侵犯了。 秘魯同樣獎勵新金礦的發現與開採，而國王的金稅只佔標準金產量的二十分之一。原來金稅與銀稅同為五分之一，後來減到十分之一，然而就開採的情況看來，即十分之一的稅率也覺太重。上述兩作家佛勒齊和烏羅阿曾說，由銀礦發財的已屬罕見，由金礦發財的更為罕見。這二十分之一似乎是智利、秘魯大部分金礦所支付的全部地租。金的走私比銀的走私容易得多，這不但由於和容積對比，金的價值高於銀的價值，而且由於金的固有狀態特殊。像大多數其他金屬那樣，銀在被發現時，一般攙有其他礦物，很少是純質，要把銀從這礦化物中分解出來，須經過極困難和極煩瑣的操作，而這種操作，要在特設的廠坊進行，這樣就容易受到國王官吏的監督。反之，金在被發現時，幾乎都是純質，有時發現相當大的純金塊，即使攙有幾乎看不出來的砂土及其他外附物，但通過極簡短的操作，也能使純金從這些混雜物分解出來。不論何人，只要持有少量水銀，就可在自己私宅中進行分解工作。所以，國王如果從報稅只得到很少的收入，那末他從金稅所得的收入可能要少得多，而地租在金價中所佔的部分，必定比它在銀價中所佔的部分小得多。 貴金屬能在市場出賣的最低價格，換言之，貴金屬長期在市場上所能交換的最小其他貨物量，要受決定一切其他貨物普通最低價格的原理的支配。決定這種最低價格的，是使貴金屬從礦裡走上市場通常所需投下的資本，換言之，是使貴金屬從礦裡走上市場通常所需消費的衣食住。這最低價格必須足夠償還所費的資本並提供這資本的普通利潤。 但貴金屬的最高價格似乎不取決於任何他物，而只取決於貴金屬本身的實際供給是不足還是豐裕。貴金屬的最高價格，不由任何其他貨物的最高價格決定，不像煤炭那樣，其價格由木柴的價格決定，除木柴外任何東西的缺乏都不能使煤炭價格上漲。把金的稀缺性增加到一定程度，那末最小一塊金可能變得比金鋼鑽還昂貴，並可能換得更大數量的其他貨物。 對貴金屬的需求，一半出於其效用，一半出於其美質。除鐵外，貴金屬也許比任何其他金屬有用。貴金屬容易保持清潔，而且不易生銹，所只，食桌及廚房用具，如以金銀製造，更惹人喜愛。銀製的煮器比鋁製、銅製或錫製的煮器清潔。金製的煮器又比銀製的煮器清潔。不過，貴金屬的主要價值，在於它的美質，而這美質，使貴金屬特別適宜於作衣物和傢具的裝飾。任何顏料或染料，都不能提供象鍍金那麼光亮的色彩。貴金屬的這種美質，又因貴金屬的稀少而大大增加。在大部分富人看來，富的娛悅，主要在於富的炫耀，而自己具有別人求之不得的富裕的決定性標幟時，算是最大的炫耀。在他們看來，有幾分用處或有幾分美的物品，由於稀少而大大增加其價值，換句話說，由於收集相當數量的這種物品，需要有很大勞動量，而這麼大的勞動量的代價，只有他們才能支付，因而大大增加其價值。他們情願用比這種物品美麗得多、有用得多、但比較普通的物品的價格更高的價格來購買這種物品。效用、美麗和稀少這些特質，乃是貴金屬具有高價，即到處都能換得很大數量其他貨物的根本原因。貴金屬並不是由於用作貨幣而後具有高價值的，它在未用作貨幣以前，就已有了高價值，而高價值正是使它適宜於作這種用途的特質。不過，這種用途，由於引起了新需求，由於減少了能被用於其他用途的數量，後來保持或增加了其價值。 對寶石的需求，全由美質而產生。寶石除作為裝飾物外，沒有其他效用。其美質的價值，因為稀少，即因為採掘困難和採掘費用浩大，而大大增加。所以，在大多數場合，工資及利潤，幾乎占寶石高價格的全部。地祖在寶石價格中只佔極小部分，往往不佔任何部分，只產出力最大的礦山才提供相當大的地租。寶石商塔弗尼埃考察戈爾康達和維沙波爾兩地的金鋼石礦山時聽說，當地礦山是為著國王的利益而開採的，而國王曾命令，除產最大和最美的金鋼石的礦山外，共余所有礦山一律封閉。在所有者看來，共余所有礦山都是不值得開採的。