Ricardo saw in the productive powers of land a free gift of nature which had been monopolised by a certain number ofpersons，and which became，with the increased demand for food，a larger and larger value in the hands of its possessors.Tothis value，however，as not being the result of labour，the owner，it might be maintained，had no rightful claim；he could notjustly demand a payment for what was done by the "original and indestructible powers of the soil."But Carey held that land，as we are concerned with it in industrial life，is really an instrument of production which has been formed as such by man，and that its value is due to the labour expended on it in the past，though measured，not by the sum of that labour，but by thelabour necessary under existing conditions to bring new land to the same stage of productiveness.He studies the occupationand reclamation of land with peculiar advantage as an American，for whom the traditions of first settlement are living andfresh，and before whose eyes the process is indeed still going on.The difficulties of adapting a primitive soil to the work ofyielding organic products for man's use can be lightly estimated only by an inhabitant of a country long under cultivation.Itis，in Carey's view，the overcoming of these difficulties by arduous and continued effort that entitles the first occupier of landto his property in the soil.Its present value forms a very small proportion of the cost expended on it，because it representsonly what would be required，with the science and appliances of our time，to bring the land from its primitive into its presentstate.Property in land is therefore only a form of invested capital a quantity of labour or the fruits of labour permanentlyincorporated with the soil；for which，like any other capitalist，the owner is compensated by a share of the produce.He is notrewarded for what is done by the powers of nature，and society is in no sense defrauded by his sole possession.Theso-called Ricardian theory of rent is a speculative fancy，contradicted by all experience.Cultivation does not in fact，as thattheory supposes，begin with the best，and move downwards to the poorer soils in the order of their inferiority.(66)The lightand dry higher lands are first cultivated；and only when population has become dense and capital has accumulated，are thelow-lying lands，with their greater fertility，but also with their morasses，inundations，and miasmas，attacked and broughtinto occupation.Rent，regarded as a proportion of the produce，sinks，like all interest on capital，in process of time，but，asan absolute amount，increases.The share of the labourer increases，both as a proportion and an absolute amount.And thusthe interest of these different social classes are in harmony.
But，Carey proceeds to say，in order that this harmonious progress may be realised，what is taken from the land must begiven back to it.All the articles derived from it are really separated parts of it，which must be restored on pain of itsexhaustion.Hence the producer and the consumer must be close to each other；the products must not be exported to aforeign country in exchange for its manufactures，and thus go to enrich as manure a foreign soil.In immediate exchangevalue the landowner may gain by such exportation，but the productive powers of the land will suffer.And thus Carey，whohad set out as an earnest advocate of free trade，arrives at the doctrine of protection：the "co-ordinating power"in societymust intervene to prevent private advantage from working public mischief.(67)He attributes his conversion on the question tohis observation of the effects of liberal and protective tariffs respectively on American prosperity.This observation，he says，threw him back on theory，and led him to see that the intervention referred to might be necessary to remove (as he phrasesit)the obstacles to the progress of younger communities created by the action of older and wealthier nations.But it seemsprobable that the influence of List's writings，added to his own deep-rooted and hereditary jealousy and dislike of Englishpredominance，had something to do with his change of attitude.
The practical conclusion at which he thus arrived，though it is by no means in contradiction to the doctrine of the existenceof natural economic laws，accords but ill with his optimistic scheme；and another economist，Frederic Bastiat，accepting hisfundamental ideas，applied himself to remove the foreign accretion，as he regarded it，and to preach the theory ofspontaneous social harmonies in relation with the practice of free trade as its legitimate outcome.(68)FRANCE(continued)Bastiat (1801-1850)，though not a profound thinker，was a brilliant and popular writer on economic questions.Though healways had an inclination for such studies，he was first impelled to the active propagation of his views by his earnestsympathy with the English anti-corn-law agitation.Naturally of an ardent temperament，he threw himself with zeal into thefree-trade controversy，through which he hoped to influence French economic policy，and published in 1845a history of thestruggle under the title of Cobden et La Ligue .In 184548appeared his Sophismes économiques (Eng.trans.by G.R.
