THE CASE STATED, OF THE COMPARATIVE 

 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF 

 LARGE AND SMALL FARMS. 



It has been more than two years since we marked 

 for re-publication the following portion of Arthur 

 Young's interesting Agricultural Travels in France — 

 and o;ir attention has been again called to it, by meet- 

 ing with the opposite views of Count Chaptal, in his 

 Chimie apphquee a I' 'Agriculture— of which we have 

 recently obtained the second edition (of 1829) from 

 Paris, and also, the English translation published in 

 Boston, of which we will avail ourselves in making ex- 

 tracts. The reasoning of both these writers, though of 

 general application, was especially designed to apply 

 to the condition of France: and that, country, before 

 the revolution of 1789, presented numerous cases of the 

 most striking evils, both of too large and too small di- 

 visions of landed property — and since then, the greatly 

 increased divisions (caused by the present legal policy 

 of France,) have served to lessen or remove the for- 

 mer class of evils, and to multiply the latter. Young's 

 work was written nearly 40 years before Chaptal's — 

 and during that eventful time, numerous changes have 

 been made in landed properties, the general tendency 

 of all of which have been to multiply distinct farms, 

 by reducing sizes. The later experience enjoyed by 

 Chaptal, ought to give his testimony additional value 

 and importance: but this is left to the judgement of 

 the reader. We aim to present fairly both sides of this 

 long disputed question, and not, at this time, to ofier 

 our own views. It is sufficient to say, that to some 

 extent, the advocates of both sides are right, and in 

 other respects, that both are wrong. Each party views, 

 as is usual, only the benefits of his own side, and the 

 evils of his opponent's — anil there are enough facts for 

 either, if considered alone, to make out a very plausible 

 case. In Virginia, our legal land policy prevents all 

 possibility of there being much evil from farms being 

 too large, (or at least of their long remaining so,) and 

 while western lands are vacant, no proprietor will sub- 

 mit to bear the evils of cultivating the smallest landed 

 properties. But in avoiding these, our country has 

 encountered a different evil, which possibly is not less 

 than either of the former. This is the frequent (and 

 from existing circumstances, compulsory) changes of 

 boundary lines of farms, so as to divide large farms 

 into small, and then to convert the same small ones, by 

 consolidating several, to large. 



From Young's Travels in France. 



Objections to small farms. — The small properties 

 of the peasants are found every where [in France,] 

 to a degree we have no idea of in England; they are 

 found in every part of the kingdom, even in those 

 provinces where other tenures prevail: but in Quer- 

 cy, Languedoc, the whole district of the Pyrenees, 

 Beam, Gascoign, part of Guienne, Alsace, Flan- 

 ders, and Loraine, they abound to a greater de- 



Vol. Ill — SI 



gree than common. Tn Flanders, Alsace, on the 

 Garonne, and Beam, I found many in comiorlable 

 circumstances, such as might rather be called 

 small farmers than cottagers, and in Bas Bretag- 

 ne, many are reputed mn, but in general they are 

 poor and miserable, much arising from the minute 

 division of their little (arms' among all the children.. 

 In Loraine, and the part of Champagne that joins 

 it, they are. quite wretched. I have, more than 

 once, seen division carried to such excess, that a 

 single fruit tree, standing in about ten perch of 

 ground, has constituted a iann, and the local situ- 

 ation of a family decided by the possession. 

 # " * # * * 



Hiring at. money rent is the general practice in 

 Picardy, Artois, part of Flanders, Normandy (ex- 

 cept the Pays de Caux,) Isle of France, and Pays 

 de Beauce; and I found some in Beam and about 

 Navarens. Such tenures are found also in most 

 parts of France, scattered among those which are 

 different and predominant; but, upon a moderate 

 estimate, they have not yet made their way 

 through more than a sixth or seventh of the king- 

 dom. 



Feudal tenures. — These are fiefs granted by the 

 seigneurs of parishes, under a reservation of fines, 

 quitrents, forfeitures, services, &c.; I found them 

 abounding most in Bretagne, Limosin, Berry, La 

 Marche, &c. where they spread through whole 

 provinces; but they are scattered very much in 

 every part of the kingdom. About Verson, Va- 

 tan, &c. in Berry they complained so heavily of 

 these burthens, that, the mode of levying and en- 

 forcing them must constitute much of the evil; 

 they are every where much more burthensome 

 than apparent, from the amount which I attribute 

 to that circumstance. Legal adjudications, they 

 assert, are very severe against the tenant, in favor 

 of the seigneur. 



Monopoly. — This is commonly practised in vari- 

 ous of the provinces where me'.aying is known; men 

 of some substance hire great tracks of land, at a mo- 

 ney rent, and re-let it in small divisions to metay- 

 ers, who pay half the produce. I heard many 

 complaints of it in La Marche, Berry, Poitou, and 

 Angoumois, and it is met with in other provinces; 

 it appears to flow from the difficulties inherent in 

 the metaying system, but is itself a mischievous 

 practice, well known in Ireland, where these mid- 

 dle men are almost banished. 



Metayers. — This is the tenure under which, per- 

 haps, seven-eighths of the lands of France are 

 held; it pervades almost every part of Sologne, 

 Berry, La Marche, Limosin, Anjou, Bourgogne, 

 Bourbonnois, Nevemois, Auvergne, &c. and is 

 found in Bretagne, Maine, Provence, and all the 

 southern counties, &c. In Champagne there are 

 many at tier franc, which is the third of the pro- 

 duce, but in general it is half. The landlord com- 

 monly finds half the cattle, and half the feed; and 

 the metayer labor, implements, and taxes; but in 

 some districts the landlord bears a share of these. 

 In Berry some are at half, some one-third, some 

 one-fourth produce. In Roussillon the landlord pays 

 half the taxes; and in Guienne, from Auch to 



