Page:Manual of Political Economy.djvu/170

Rh the simple reasoning by which it has been established, may be regarded as a statement and a proof of Ricardo's celebrated theory of rent. The theory, as here expounded, may appear so simple, nay, perhaps, so obvious, that our readers will not readily appreciate its importance, nor will they perhaps believe that the theory itself has been warmly controverted by eminent men. It will be advisable to consider the ordinary objections urged against the theory, for we shall be able thus still farther to elucidate it, and these objections will afford an appropriate example of the popular prejudice which so frequently attempts to discredit the conclusions of science. One of the attacks on Ricardo's theory may be found in some prefatory remarks by the late Dr. Whewell, prefixed to a 'Collection of Some Fragmentary Tracts on Political Economy, by Mr. Jones.' Dr. Whewell objects to Ricardo's theory because the rent of land is, over the greater portion of the world, controlled by custom; and even in England, where land is let by competition, Dr. Whewell maintains that this theory is never employed to settle the rents that are paid; he therefore made two specific allegations: his first position is, that the theory is of comparatively little value because of its limited application, and, secondly, that it can be of no practical importance even in the exceptional cases where it may be regarded as capable of a practical application. In this chapter we shall confine our attention to the last of these allegations; the modifications which the theory requires, when rents are fixed by custom and not by competition, will be considered in another chapter. No one can reasonably suppose that Ricardo, or any of those who adopt this theory, imagine that a land-steward avails himself of it when he is fixing the rent of any particular land. No farmer when about to rent a farm asks himself, What is the value of this farm above the worst land in cultivation? But these considerations do not afford any valid objections against the theory; it might as well be said that the laws of digestion and respiration are not worth explaining, because no one thinks of these laws when he eats or