TRANSACTIONS OF SECTION F. 



8C.3 



which determines Uie number nnd well-beinjr of tlio population ; secondly, the dis- 

 tribution of wealth, the equality or inequality of conditions ; thirdly, political 

 institutions and the forms of government ; the difl'usion of landed property being 

 favourable to the establishment nnd niniiitenance of a democratic reyime, a« in 

 Switzerland, Norway, and flie United Slatt's, the concentration of property lead- 

 injif, on the other hand, to the aristocratic regime, as was the case almost everywhere 

 under the old rcf/imr of France and is still to-day in l']n<Tland. There can, then, 

 M'arcely be a subject more deservin;^ of the attention of the economist and the 

 legislator. 



What end ou<^ht lejrislation to have in view in repulatinfr property in land ? 

 The same end at which the whole orpfanisation of society should aim, viz., to enable 

 the largest {)08sible number of persons to share in the benefits of civilisation — 

 morality, education, freedom, and well-being— these beneiits beinf,' raised to their 

 maximum. 



In order tbat laud laws may conduce to tliis result, they must be such as to- 

 cause the maximum quantity of produce to be obtained from the soil, and to ensure 

 that this produce shall be shared amongst the largest number of persons in propor- 

 lion to the useful labour of each, as equity prescribes. 



It is clear that this result will only be attained when the land is cultivated by 

 the owner. 



If a landowner possesses a vast extent of land worked by tenants, whatever 

 may be the form of tenure — whetber slavery as in antiquity, metai/er cultivation 

 and forced labour as in the middle ages, or farming competition rents as at the 

 present day, the distribution of the produce will always take place in much the 

 same way : he who works and produces will first retain what is necessary to enable 

 him to maintain life and to bring up children to take bis place ; what remains, that 

 ijto say, the net produce, will go to the landowner in the shape of rent. This 

 system, then, is in conflict witb what we have laid down as our desideratum, in two 

 TOS. In tbe first ])lace, it does not instigate to the greatest possible production, 

 since it does not give to tbe producer the entirety of his product ; secondly, it re- 

 serves the principal advantages of civilisation for a single privileged person, whilst 

 it shuts them out from the greater number. 



Under the system of small properties, cultivated by the owners, this stimulus 

 to strenuous and intelligent industry which, according to Arthur Young, ' turns 

 sands into gold ' is brougbt out to its fullest extent, for those who make improve- 

 ments have the full profit of them ; and, moreover, the net produce, instead of being 

 monopolised by the few, is distributed amongst a large number of families. 



On behalf of large properties many considerations are urged. In the first place,, 

 we are told the working expenses are relatively smaller on a large farm. That 

 is true, but on small properties the gross produce is greater. Now, as Adam Smith 

 has shown, a nation lives on the gross produce, not on tbe net produce. 



In the second place it is asserted that the employment of elaborate and costly 

 machiuerj', such as steam ploughs and threshing machines, is impossible under the 

 system of small properties. This is a mistake. In Flanders, where the ownerships 

 "f holdings are of very small extent, expensive machinery is bought, either by a, 

 wiety of cultivators, or by an individual who lets it out to tbe small farmers iu 

 turn. 



It is further urged that the great proprietors will set an example of good farm- 

 ing. In England, it is true, it has often been so ; but on the Continent agricultural 

 progress has been principally due to tbe small proprietors. And, moreover, good 

 methods of culture might easily be disseminated by schools of agriculture, as has 

 heen done in Wurtemberg and in Denmark, for instance. 



After all, the verdict of experience is unmistakable. Everywhere, except 

 perhaps in England, where tbe conditions are quite exceptional, districts where large 

 property prevails are inferior from every point of view to those where small property 

 IS the rule: in quantity of live stock, gross produce, income, multiplicity of roads^ 

 density of population, condition and value of the farms. To be convinced of this, 

 it is enough to compare in France, tbe centre with French Flanders; in Italy, the 

 Roman States and all the south of tbe kingdom of Naples and Sicily, with Tuscany 



