further the margin of cultivation, and at the same time cause a
higher farming of that within the non-existing margin; in both ways
it would raise the demand for agricultural labour, and would raise
wages.

On the whole, I incline to think that a sliding-scale duty on wheat
up to 48s. a quarter would not perceptibly alter the position of the
agricultural labourer, or might possibly improve it: it would lower
the wages and diminish the profits of capital in other trades. This
is not (as before explained) a fair way of arguing the question;
because it is impossible to calculate the indirect effects of Free
Trade in wheat, which ultimately came round to benefit the
agricultural labourer.

But considering how the efficiency of the agricultural labourer has
been improved by improved machines since 1846, it is hardly possible
to doubt that the agricultural labourer is much more indebted to the
engineers than to the Corn Law League for his improved position.
Under "machines" too may be included railway communications: also let
us not forget how much the agricultural labourer owes, not only to
drills and mowing-machines, but to boot-sewing machines, improved
tea-ships, etc.

If we look to the general increase of wealth in England since 1846,
the first thing that strikes us is the increase in the tribute, which
is about thrice what it was. This increase is largely imperial, i.e.
due to colonisation, annexation, etc. But here again we must not
overlook the reaction of causes on each other: our Free Trade in
corn, our improvements in machinery and ships, have so largely
contributed to spread our empire that it becomes impossible to