TBANSACTIOXS OF SECTION F. 8f>3 



■which determines the number and well-being of the population ; secondly, the dis- 

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

 institutions and the forms of government ; the diffusion of landed property being 

 favourable to the establishment and maintenance of a democratic regime, as in 

 Switzerland, Norway, and the United States, the concentration of property lead- 

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

 under the old regime of France and is still to-day in England. There can, then, 

 scarcely be a subject more deserving of the attention of the economist and the 

 legislator. ' 



What end ought legislation to have in view in regulating property in land ? 

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



the largest possible number of persons to share in the benefits of civilisation 



morality, education, freedom, and well-being— these benefits being raised to their 

 maximum. 



In order that land laws may conduce to this 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- 

 tion 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 — whether slavery as in antiquity, metayer 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 his place ; what remains, that 

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

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

 ways. In the first place, it does not instigate to the greatest possible production, 

 since it does not give to the 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 Youno-, ' turns 

 sands into gold ' is brought 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 the net produce. 



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

 machinery, such as steam ploughs aud threshing machines, is impossible under the 

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

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

 society of cultivators, or by an individual who lets it out to the small farmers in 

 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 the small proprietors. And, moreover, good 

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

 been done in Wurtemberg and in Denmark, for instance. 



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

 perhaps in England, where the 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, the centre with French Flanders ; in Italy, the 

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



