be more advantageously invested, our capitalists and men of science
would not oppose the substitution of inanimate for animate power in the
way they have done. Neither, did the landed interest maturely weigh the
varied benefits it will produce in agriculture, would they view it in
the light of an invasion upon their respective interests. They do not
give a _quid_ without receiving a _quo_ every way as valuable. The
reduction of farm consumption--the bugbear of the project--will be
met and compensated by a steady and proportionate demand from other
quarters. Whilst in the United Kingdom, the 8,100,000 acres of land now
required to feed the horses, together with the capital sunk in their
purchase, will, when both applied to other and general purposes, amply
compensate for the exchange.

In order more readily to show one effect, let the horses be considered
only 1,000; a smaller number may not make the argument so difficult. Let
us reduce _this_ number, and the farmer may then turn his oat-ground
into wheat-ground; and instead of so much land being employed to furnish
food for a thousand horses, the same land, when turned into tillage fit
to sow wheat upon, will produce sufficient bread-corn to feed two
thousand poor families.

Again, if instead of 20,000 horses, we keep 30,000 fat oxen, butchers'
meat will be always cheap to the operative classes, whilst the quantity
of tallow will of course make candles cheap: and so many hides lower the
price of leather, and of shoes and all other articles made of leather.
Or the same quantity of land may then keep thirty thousand cows, the
milk of which will make both butter and cheese cheaper to the poor,
as well as the labouring manufacturer; all which articles are very
considerable, and of material moment in the prices of our manufacturers,
as they, in a great measure, work their trade to rise and fall in price,