so difficult to eradicate. It was we who drained away the bogs and
morasses, and by the help of lime and marl converted them into rich
land. It was we that built the dwelling-houses and offices. It was we
that made the fences, and planted the hedge-rows and orchards. It was
we that paid for the making of the roads and bridges. The landlords
gave us the wild country to work upon; we have done the rest. Our
industry enabled them to build their stately mansions, and we have
continued to pay to them their princely revenues. Our forefathers
came with them as settlers, that they might "plant" the country with
a loyal and industrious race of people, and they came on the assurance
that they and their children's children were to remain for ever rooted
where they were planted. They did their duty faithfully and well by
the land, by the landlords, and by the Government. Where the children
that inherited their rights failed, their interest in their farms has
been purchased dearly by others of the same race who have taken their
places. By what right, then, can they be turned out?'

It is not possible, if it were desirable, to introduce the 'high
farming system' in this county. But if possible, would it be
desirable? In the eye of a scientific agriculturist it might be better
that all those comfortable farm-houses, with the innumerable fences
crossing the landscape in every possible form, making all sorts
of mathematical figures, presenting the appearance of an immense
variegated patchwork--were levelled and removed so that the plough and
all the modern machinery might range unobstructed over hill and vale.
But assuredly it would not seem better to the philanthropist, the
Christian, or the statesman. To the chancellor of the exchequer it
would make the most serious difference; for a few herds and ploughmen
would consume but a very small portion indeed of the excisable
articles now used by the tenant farmers of this county. I have taken