lturists are let alone. But, on the contrary, there is a chance
not of one future famine, but of many, if the protective duties are
removed, and the land at present under tillage permitted to fall back.
You talk of the present distress and low wages of the agricultural
laborer. It is a favourite theme with a certain section of
philanthropists, whose hatred to the aristocracy of this country is only
equalled by their ignorance and consummate assurance. Is that, or can
that be made--supposing that it generally exists--an argument for a
repeal of the corn-laws? If the condition of the labouring man be now
indifferent, what will it become if you deprive him of that employment
from which he now derives his subsistence? Agriculture is subject to the
operation of the laws which govern every branch of industrial labour. It
must either progress or fall back--it cannot by possibility stand still.
It will progress if you give it fair play; if you check it, it will
inevitably decline. What provision do you propose to make for the
multitude of labourers who will thus be thrown out of employment?
They--the poor--are by far more deeply interested in this question than
the rich. Every corn field converted into pasture, will throw some of
these men loose upon society. What do you propose do with them? Have you
poor's-houses--new Bastilles--large enough to contain them? are they to
be desired to leave their homes, desert their families, and seek
employment in the construction of railways--a roving and a houseless
gang? These are very serious considerations, and they require something
more than a theoretical answer. You are not dealing here with a
fractional or insignificant interest, but with one which, numerically
speaking, is the most important of any in the empire. The number of
persons in the United Kingdom immediately supported by agriculture, is
infinitely greater than that dependent in like manner upon manufactures.
It is a class which you do not count by thousands, but by millions; so
that the experiment must be made upon the broadest scale, and the danger
of its failure is commensurate. Rely upon it, this is not a subject with
which legislators may venture to trifle. If the land of this country is
once allowed to recede--as it must do if the power of foreign
competition in grain should prove too much for native industry--the
consequences may be more ruinous than any of us can yet foresee.

We need hardly say that a period of agri