will convince the reader that there are grounds for opposing the railway, far stronger, and arguments more powerful, than the disturbance of birds and artists.
One naturally enquires,—What are these 'laws of economy,' the mere mention of which is supposed to settle the question in spite of all 'finer considerations'? The political economists often tell us that the 'laws' of their science are not commands or injunctions, but merely scientific statements of facts. It may, for example, be a law of so-called political economy that, if a mountain contain deposits of ore which, when reached by a railway, might be profitably worked, the construction of such railway would increase 'the material prosperity of individuals, and the material prosperity of the country.' And hence it might be hastily assumed that, if there be iron in the vale of Grasmere, the sooner we make a line to the place the better. But, before taking this step, it must be shewn that the consummation, in the Lake District, of that state of individuals and country which we describe by the term 'material prosperity,' is so pre-eminently desirable, as to outweigh all other, even confessedly 'finer'—considerations.
Now, of the material prosperity of the country at large, I suppose there can be no dispute. It may be suffering, so far as trade is concerned, a temporary relapse, after a period of inflation; but it is still happy
