an employer of wages and his workmen, on the expiration of their respective contracts, as should render such obligations more imperative on the one than on the other. Indeed, if a distinction were to be drawn, it would tell rather in the landlord's favour, inasmuch as the wealth accruing to him from the exertions of his tenants chiefly represents a low rate of interest on capital already accumulated without their co-operation; whereas, in the ease of the manufacturer, a great portion of his capital, and of its rapidly increasing profits, has been created by the toil of those whom he finds it convenient to dismiss at a week's notice.
But, whatever the nature of the moral duties of landlord or master, under such circumstances, it is clear they cannot become the subject of legal enactment; and if any proof were needed of the ripeness of the working classes for a large extension of the franchise, it might be found in the economical sagacity and keen moral sense which have enabled them to distinguish the limits within which Parliament can be justly required to arbitrate in such matters between themselves and their employers.
I now turn to the two concluding points in our inquiry, viz.—1st, the extent to which the present discontent is to be attributed to laws affecting the tenure of land; and 2nd, the degree to which any change in those laws would modify that discontent. I have no disposition to deny the existence of a certain amount of disaffection in the minds of a large
