The Labour QiLCstioii. 325 



culpation, that tliey were not only placed in an anomalous 

 position, by having to regulate the rate of remuneration on 

 behalf of their own employes, they were also positively warned 

 by the political economists of the day, that the community's 

 interests would bo injured unless they compensated for any 

 rise in the prices of the necessaries of life by a diminution in 

 those of labour. It was not just for the State to entrust the 

 guardianship of the sheepfold to the wolf, and it is equally 

 unjust for posterity to blame the landlord, when he per- 

 formed his delicate duty on principles deemed at the period 

 compatible with the highest public moralit}'. Any increase 

 in the cost of production was regarded by the political 

 economist before the days of Adam Smith as inimical to the 

 interests of the commonwealth. As soon as Adam Smith had 

 shown the true nature of labour in its relationship to the 

 public wealth, it ceased to be hampered, and the justice 

 himself was the first to advocate from his seat in Parliament 

 the abolition of all legislation of this kind.^ This is the more 

 commendable when we consider that the mercantile class 

 utterly ignored its responsibilities under the poor laws, while 

 from it all clamour against landlords' abuses originated. 



^ In 181 i the Act of Elizabeth was repealed. 



