192 LAND REFORM 



working of the two systems — English and French — 

 can be traced throughout a long period of years. At 

 the end of that period the contrast between the results 

 of the two systems, both from an economic and a 

 social point of view, is very striking. 



Arthur Young, who is regarded, even by French 

 writers, as the best authority on the condition of agri- 

 culture in France at the time he wrote, gives a most 

 deplorable account of it. ("Young's Travels in France, 

 1787, 1788, 1789.") Nearly one hundred years after 

 Arthur Young wrote, another Englishman — George 

 Gibson Richardson — who knew France well, and who 

 was equally observant and equally qualified, gave us 

 detailed descriptions of the condition of French agri- 

 culture. His book^ is dedicated to one of the best 

 writers on French rural economy — Leonce de La- 

 vergne — who warmly acknowledged " the important 

 service rendered to French agriculture " by Mr. Rich- 

 ardson. The book in question is specially instructive 

 from the fact that the author went over the districts 

 visited by Arthur Young and applied his practical 

 knowledge to a careful examination of those districts. 

 He recites Young's description of the miserable state 

 of agriculture in a given district, and then describes 

 the state of things which he — Richardson — found in 

 that district. A comparison can thus be made between 

 the conditions of agriculture at two periods, with an 

 interval of about one hundred years. 



The facts, figures, and descriptions given show the 

 marvellous and steady progress made in France since 

 the present system was adopted. It is interesting to 

 note the variety — both as regards size and tenure — of 



^ "Corn- and Cattle-producing Districts in France," by George Gibson 

 Richardson. 



