e hands of the occupant into those of the proprietor in the name of increase； and as the price of the permission to occupy； is a permanent gain for the latter； and a dead loss and annihilation for the former； to whom none of it will return； save in the forms of gift； alms； wages paid for his services； or the price of merchandise which he has delivered。 In a word； increase perishes so far as the borrower is concerned； or to use the more energetic Latin phrase；_res perit solventi_。
3。 THE RIGHT OF INCREASE OPPRESSES THE PROPRIETOR AS WELL AS THE STRANGER。 The master of a thing； as its proprietor； levies a tax for the use of his property upon himself as its possessor； equal to that which he would receive from a third party； so that capital bears interest in the hands of the capitalist； as well as in those of the borrower and the commandite。 If； indeed； rather than accept a rent of five hundred francs for my apartment； I prefer to occupy and enjoy it； it is clear that I shall become my own debtor for a rent equal to that which I deny myself。 This principle is universally practised in business； and is regarded as an axiom by the economists。 Manufacturers； also； who have the advantage of being proprietors of their floating capital； although they owe no interest to any one； in calculating their profits subtract from them； not only their running expenses and the wages of their employees； but also the interest on their capital。 For the same reason； money…lenders retain in their own possession as little money as possible； for； since all capital necessarily bears interest； if this interest is supplied by no one； it comes out of the capital； which is to that extent diminished。 Thus； by the right of increase； capital eats itself up。 This is； doubtless； the idea that Papinius intended to convey in the phrase； as elegant as it is forcible_Foenus mordet solidam_。 I beg pardon for using Latin so frequently in discussing this subject； it is an homage which I pay to the most usurious nation that ever existed。
FIRST PROPOSITION。
Property is impossible； because it demands Something for Nothing。
The discussion of this proposition covers the same ground as that of the origin of farm…rent； which is so much debated by the economists。 When I read the writings of the greater part of these men； I cannot avoid a feeling of contempt mingled with anger； in view of this mass of nonsense； in which the detestable vies with the absurd。 It would be a repetition of the story of the elephant in the moon； were it not for the atrocity of the consequences。 To seek a rational and legitimate origin of that which is； and ever must be； only robbery； extortion； and plunderthat must be the height of the proprietor's folly； the last degree of bedevilment into which minds； otherwise judicious； can be thrown by the perversity of selfishness。
〃A farmer；〃 says Say； 〃is a wheat manufacturer who； among other tools which serve him in modifying the material from which he makes the wheat； employs one large tool； which we call a field。 If he is not the proprietor of the field； if he is only a tenant； he pays the proprietor for the productive service of this tool。 The tenant is reimbursed by the purchaser； the latter by another； until the product reaches the consumer； who redeems the first payment； PLUS all the others； by means of which the product has at last come into his hands。〃
Let us lay aside the subsequent payments by which the product reaches the consumer； and； for the present； pay attention only to the first one of all；the rent paid to the proprietor by the tenant。 On what ground； we ask； is the proprietor entitled to this rent？
According to Ricardo； MacCulloch； and Mill； farm…rent； properly speaking； is simply the EXCESS OF THE PRODUCT OF THE MOST FERTILE LAND OVER THAT OF LANDS OF AN INFERIOR QUALITY； so that farm…rent is not demanded for the former until the increase of population renders necessary the cultivation of the latter。
It is difficult to see any sense in this。 How can a right to the land be based upon a difference in the quality of the land？ How can varieties of soil engender a principle of legislation and politics？ This reasoning is either so subtle； or so stupid； that the more I think of it； the more bewildered I become。 Suppose two pieces of land of equal area； the one； A； capable of supporting ten thousand inhabitants； the other； B； capable of supporting nine thousand only： when； owing to an increase in their number； the inhabitants of A shall be forced to cultivate B； the landed proprietors of A will exact from their tenants in A a rent proportional to the difference between ten and nine。 So say； I think； Ricardo； MacCulloch； and Mill。 But if A supports as many inhabitants as it can contain；that is； if the inhabitants of A； by our hypothesis； have only just enough land to keep them alive；how can they pay farm…rent？
If they had gone no farther than to say that the difference in land has OCCASIONED farm…rent； instead of CAUSED it； this observation would have taught us a valuable lesson； namely； that farm…rent grew out of a desire for equality。 Indeed； if all men have an equal right to the possession of good land； no one can be forced to cultivate bad land without indemnification。 Farm… rentaccording to Ricardo； MacCulloch； and Millwould then have been a compensation for loss and hardship。 This system of practical equality is a bad one； no doubt； but it sprang from good intentions。 What argument can Ricardo； MacCulloch； and Mill develop therefrom in favor of property？ Their theory turns against themselves； and strangles them。
Malthus thinks that farm…rent has its source in the power possessed by land of producing more than is necessary to supply the wants of the men who cultivate it。 I would ask Malthus why successful labor should entitle the idle to a portion of the products？
But the worthy Malthus is mistaken in regard to the fact。 Yes； land has the power of producing more than is needed by those who cultivate it； if by CULTIVATORS is meant tenants only。 The tailor also makes more clothes than he wears； and the cabinet… maker more furniture than he uses。 But； since the various professions imply and sustain one another； not only the farmer； but the followers of all arts and tradeseven to the doctor and the school…teacherare； and ought to be； regarded as CULTIVATORS OF THE LAND。 Malthus bases farm…rent upon the principle of commerce。 Now； the fundamental law of commerce being equivalence of the products exchanged； any thing which destroys this equivalence violates the law。 There is an error in the estimate which needs to be corrected。
Buchanana commentator on Smithregarded farm…rent as the result of a monopoly； and maintained that labor alone is productive。 Consequently； he thought that； without this monopoly； products would rise in price； and he found no basis for farm…rent save in the civil law。 This opinion is a corollary of that which makes the civil law the basis of property。 But why has the civil lawwhich ought to be the written expression of justiceauthorized this monopoly？ Whoever says monopoly； necessarily excludes justice。 Now； to say that farm…rent is a monopoly sanctioned by the law； is to say that injustice is based on justice；a contradiction in terms。
Say answers Buchanan； that the proprietor is not a monopolist； because a monopolist 〃is one who does not increase the utility of the merchandise which passes through his hands。〃
How much does the proprietor increase the utility of his tenant's products？ Has he ploughed； sowed； reaped； mowed； winnowed； weeded？ These are the processes by which the tenant and his employees increase the utility of the material which they consume for the purpose of reproduction。
〃The landed proprietor increases the utility of products by means of his implement； the land。 This implement receives in one state； and returns in another the materials of which wheat is composed。 The action of the land is a chemical process； which so modifies the material that it multiplies it by destroying it。 The soil is then a producer of utility； and when it ＇the soil？＇ asks its pay in the form of profit； or farm rent； for its proprietor； it at the same time gives something to the consumer in exchange for the amount which the consumer pays it。 It gives him a produced utility； and it is the production of this utility which warrants us in calling land productive； as well as labor。〃
Let us clear up this matter。
The blacksmith who manufactures for the farmer implements of husbandry； the wheelwright who makes him a cart； the mason who builds his barn； the carpenter； the basket…maker； &c。；all of whom contribute to agricultural production by the tools which they provide；are producers of utility； consequently； they are entitled to a part of the products。
〃Undoubtedly；〃 says Say； 〃but the land also is an implement whose service must be paid for； then。 。 。 。〃
I admit that the land is an implement； but who made it？ Did the proprietor？ Did heby the efficacious virtue of the right of property； by this MORAL QUALITY infused into the soilendow it with vigor and fertility？ Exactly there lies the monopoly of the proprietor； in the fact that； though he d