«Buchanan.»—This commentator, adopting the theory of his master on Rent, is pressed by logic to blame him for having represented it as advantageous: “In dwelling on the reproduction of rent as so great an advantage to society, Smith does not reflect that rent is the effect of high price, and that what the landlord gains in this way, he gains ‹at the expense› of the community at large. There is no absolute gain to society by the reproduction of rent. It is only one class profiting at the expense of another class.”[57] Here the logical deduction makes its appearance—rent is an injustice. «Ricardo.»—“Rent is that portion of the produce of the earth ‹which is paid› to the landlord for the use of the ‹original and indestructible powers of the soil›.” [p253] And, in order that there may be no mistake, the author adds: “It is often confounded with the interest and profit of capital. . . . . It is evident that a portion only of the money annually to be paid for the improved farm would be for ‹the original and indestructible powers of the soil›, the other portion would be paid for the use of the capital which had been employed in ameliorating the quality of the land, and in erecting such buildings as were necessary to secure and preserve the produce. . . . In the future pages of this work, then, whenever I speak of the rent of land, I wish to be understood as speaking of that compensation which is paid to the owner of land ‹for the use of its original and indestructible powers›.”[58] «M’Culloch.»—“What is properly termed Rent is the sum paid ‹for the use of the natural and inherent powers of the soil›. It is entirely distinct from the sum paid for the use of buildings, enclosures, roads, or other amelioration. ‹Rent is then always a monopoly›.” «Scrope.»—“The value of land, and its power of yielding Rent, are due to two circumstances,—1st, The appropriation of ‹its natural powers›; 2d, The labour applied to its amelioration.” We are not kept long waiting for the consequence: “Under the first of these relations ‹rent is a monopoly›. It restricts our usufruct and enjoyment of the gifts which God has given to men for the satisfaction of their wants. This restriction ‹is just, only in as far as it is necessary› for the common good.” In what perplexity must those good souls be landed who refuse to admit anything to be necessary which is not just? Scrope ends with these words: “When it goes beyond this point, it must be modified on the same principle which caused it to be established.”