be succeeded by a son who is a 'fast young man,' addicted to the
turf and overwhelmed in debt, while the estate gets into the hands of
usurers.

Because in such a case the law affords no protection to the property
of the tenant, which his family may have been accumulating on the
land since the first of them came over from England or Scotland,
and settled around their commander, after helping by their swords to
conquer the country, and preserve it to the crown of England.

Because it is not in human nature to avoid encroaching on the rights
and property of others, if it can be done at will--done legally, and
done under the pretext that it is necessary for 'improvement,' and
will be a benefit even to those who are despoiled.

Because the custom is no protection to a man's political rights as
a British subject. No tenant farmer can vote against his landlord in
obedience to his conscience without the risk of ruining his family.
The greater his interest in the land, the larger his investments,
the heavier his stake; the greater his accumulations in his bank--the
farm--the greater will be his dependence, the more complete
his political bondage. He has the more to lose. Therefore, if a
Conservative, he must vote for a Radical or a Catholic, who would pull
down the Church Establishment; or if a Catholic, he must vote for a
'No-popery' candidate, who ignores tenant-right, and against a
Liberal statesman, whose life has been devoted to the interests of the
country.

It appears to me that the difficulty of settling this question is
much aggravated by the importation of opinions from the United States