CONSTITUTION OF PROPERTY. 101 



cloned to tenants as poor as they are ignorant, languishes 

 in a state of neglect, or gives only those scanty produc- 

 tions which it cannot deny. In England the case is dif- 

 ferent. Many noblemen think it no disgrace to manage 

 their own properties, and to devote to the improvement 

 of the land the greater portion of what they draw from 

 it. But the essential evil of very large properties is not 

 altogether destroyed ; for although many landlords admir- 

 ably fulfil their duties, how many of them neglect their 

 inheritance ! 



Is it right, then, to extol the large-property system to 

 the disparagement of others, as has been done, to wish to 

 extend it everywhere, and to proscribe the small 1 Evi- 

 dently not. In viewing the question merely in an agri- 

 cultural aspect, the only one to be considered at present, 

 general results argue more in favour of small properties 

 than of large. Besides, it is no easy matter to change 

 the condition of property in a country. This condition 

 owes its origin to an accumulation of ancient circum- 

 stances essentially necessary, and which are not to be 

 done away with at pleasure. To assert that large pro- 

 perties in England are the sole cause of agricultural pro- 

 gress, and for this reason to wish to impose that system 

 upon countries which reject it, is manifestly wrong in 

 itself; and to lay down as a rule that progress in farm- 

 ing cannot go on, except upon the condition of an im- 

 practicable social revolution, is fortunately erroneous. 



I do not the less admit that the state of property 

 in England is more favourable to agriculture than in 

 France; I wish only to contend against the exaggera- 

 tion of this view. 



The question has been little understood. What is of 

 consequence to cultivation is, not that the property should 

 be large, but that it should be rich, and these are two 



