nature of rent appear to me, in like manner, to be quite just;
but they have mixed them with so much error, and have drawn such
preposterous and contradictory conclusions from them, that what
is true in their doctrines, has been obscured 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