price above the cost of production, is, in the present case, the
specific cause of such excess; and the diminished fertility,
which in the former case might increase the price to almost any
excess above the cost of production, may be safely asserted to be
the sole cause which could permanently maintain the necessaries
of life at a price not exceeding the cost of production.

Is it, then, possible to consider the price of the
necessaries of life as regulated upon the principle of a common
monopoly? Is it possible, with M. de Sismondi, to regard rent as
the sole produce of labour, which has a value purely nominal, and
the mere result of that augmentation of price which a seller
obtains in consequence of a peculiar privilege; or, with Mr
Buchanan, to consider it as no addition to the national wealth,
but merely as a transfer of value, advantageous only to the
landlords, and proportionately injurious to the consumers?

Is it not, on the contrary, a clear indication of a most
inestimable quality in the soil, which God has bestowed on man -
the quality of being able to maintain more persons than are
necessary to work it? Is it not a part, and we shall see further
on that it is an absolutely necessary part, of that surplus
produce from the land,(9) which has been justly stated to be the
source of all power and enjoyment; and without which, in fact,
there would be no cities, no military or naval force, no arts, no
learning, none of the finer manufactures, none of the
conveniences and luxuries of foreign countries, and none of that
cultivated and polished society, which not only elevates and
dignifies individuals, but which extends its beneficial influence
through the whole mass of the people?