The Land and the Commzmity. 137 



foundation would seem to be neither frivolous nor ill-con- 

 structed. How, then, could these latent powers of production 

 be developed so as to insure the greatest possible good to the 

 community ? Was it best to withdraw that portion of the 

 population from manufactures and set it to work on cultiva- 

 tion ? Here, however, opinions were divided. For, on the one 

 hand, Wallace ^ had declared that " The more persons employ 

 themselves in agriculture and fishing, and the arts, which are 

 necessary for managing them to the greatest advantage, the 

 world will be more populous, and, as fewer hands are employed 

 in this manner, there will be fewer people. It is of no con- 

 sequence in this argument how the people are employed 

 otherwise ; nay, though they are employed in arts which may 

 increase the riches and numbers of particular nations, if they 

 are not employed in such as are necessary for providing food." 

 On the other hand, Sir James Stewart had opined ^ that " It 

 does not follow from the importance of agriculture that almost 

 everybody in the State should be employed in it; that would 

 be inverting the order of things, and turning the servant into 

 the master. The duty and business of man is not to feed : 

 he is fed in order to do his duty and to become useful." So 

 also in another place he says, " That if an additional number 

 of people produced, do no more than feed themselves, then I 

 perceive no advantage gained to the society by their pro- 

 duction." 



Now it is important to notice that at the root of this con- 

 troversy were several questions, some of which still vex land 

 reformers. The principal of these were the effects on national 

 prosperity of the old and new systems of husbandry, of the 

 sizes of estates and holdings, and of peasant proprietorship 

 and tenant farming. 



Let us then follow this controversy of Wallace and Stewart 

 through these various phases, taking care not to neglect the 

 historical importance of the arguments used. 



We have, on the one hand, Wallace asserting that, as regards 

 the general welfare it was impossible to employ too much 



' Numbers of Mankind, pp. 19, 21. 



' Inquiry into the Principles of Political Economy, pp. 25, 32. 



