Here we have a rich landowner; he demands the eviction of a tenant who has not paid his rent. From a legal point of view the case is beyond dispute; since the poor farmer can’t pay, out he must go. But if we look into the facts we shall learn something like this: The landlord has squandered his rents persistently in rollicking pleasure; the tenant has worked hard all day and every day. The landlord has done nothing to improve his estate. Nevertheless its value has trebled in fifty years owing to rise in price of land due to the construction of a railway, to the making of new highroads, to the draining of a marsh, to the enclosure and cultivation of wastelands. But the tenant, who has contributed largely towards this increase, has ruined himself; he fell into the hands of usurers, and, head over ears in debts, he can no longer pay the landlord. The law, always on the side of property, is quite clear: the landlord is in the right. But you, whose feeling of justice has not yet been stifled by legal fictions, what will you do? Will you contend that the farmer ought to be turned out upon the high road? – for that is what the law ordains – or will you urge that the landlord should pay back to the farmer the whole of the increase of value in his property which is due to the farmer’s labor? – that is what equity decrees. Which side will you take? For the law and against justice, or for justice and against the law?