cured and lost in the mass of superincumbent error, and has in
consequence produced little effect. Their great practical conclusion,
namely, the propriety of taxing exclusively the net rents of the
landlords, evidently depends upon their considering these rents as
completely disposable, like that excess of price above the cost of
production which distinguishes a common monopoly.

M. Say, in his valuable treatise on political economy, in which he
has explained with great clearness many points which have not been
sufficiently developed by Adam Smith, has not treated the subject of
rent in a manner entirely satisfactory. In speaking of the different
natural agents which, as well as the land, co-operate with the labours
of man, he observes, 'Heureusement personne n'a pu dire le vent et le
soleil m'appartiennent, et le service qu'ils rendent doit m'etre paye.'
[2] And, though he acknowledges that, for obvious reasons, property in
land is necessary, yet he evidently considers rent as almost exclusively
owing to such appropriation, and to external demand.

In the excellent work of M. de Sismondi, De la richesse commerciale,
he says in a note on the subject of rent, 'Cette partie de la rente
fonciere est celle que les Economistes ont decoree du nom du produit
net comme etant le seul fruit du travail qui aj outat quelquechose a la
richesse nationale. On pourrait au contraire soutenir contre eux,
que c'est la seule partie du produit du travail, dont la valeur soit
purement nominale, et n'ait rien de reelle: c'est en effet le resultat
de l'augmentation de prix qu'obtient un vendeur en vertu de son
privilege, sans que la chose vendue en vaille reellement d'avantage.'
[3] The prevailing opinions among the more modern writers in our own
country, have appeared to me to incline towards a similar view of the
subject; and, not to multiply citations, I shall only add, that in a
very respectable edition of the Wealth of nations, lately published by
Mr Buchanan, of Edinburgh, the idea of monopoly is pushed still further.
And while former writers, though they considered rent as governed by the
laws of monopoly, were still of opinion that this monopoly in the case
of land was necessary and useful, Mr Buchanan sometimes speaks of it
even as prejudicial, and as depriving the consumer of what it gives to
the landlord.

In treating of productive and unproductive labour in the last volume,
he observes, [4] that, 'The net surplus by which the Eco