corn was not met by a corresponding increase in live stock--in
other words, the decrease of land under grain is not, PER SE,
followed by an increase of meat. If the area under grain were
increased, it would be preceded by an increase in the growth of
turnips, and followed by a greater growth of clover; and these
cattle-feeding products would materially add to the meat supply.

A most important change in the system of landholding was effected
by the spread of RAILWAYS. It was brought about by the influence of
the trading as opposed to the landlord class. In their inception
they did not appear likely to effect any great alteration in the
land laws. The shareholders had no compulsory power of purchase,
hence enormous sums were paid for the land required; but as the
system extended, Parliament asserted the ownership of the nation,
over land in the possession of the individual. Acting on the idea
that no man was more than a tenant, the state took the land from
the occupier, as well as the tenant-in-fee, and gave it, not at
their own price, but an assessed value, to the partners in a
railway who traded for their mutual benefit, yet as they offered to
convey travellers and goods at a quicker rate than on the ordinary
roads, the state enabled them to acquire land by compulsion. A
general act, the Land Clauses Act, was passed in 1846, which gives
privileges with regard to the acquisition of land to the promoters
of such works as railways, docks, canals, etc. Numbers of acts are
passed every session which assert the right of the state over the
land, and transfer it from one man, or set of men, to another. It
seems to me that the principle is clear, and rests upon the
assertion of the state's ownership of the land; but it has often
struck me to ask, Why is this application of state rights limited
to land required for these objects? why not apply to the land at