to apply to the different variations of soil, climate, and vegetation.

Let us take then all these circumstances into consideration :

The small increase in the number of properties, during the last thirty years, under every circumstance most favorable to their in

crease

The possibility of checking such increase by easy and paternal legislation, which would not affect the existing law of succession

The circumstances which, if the division of land remain as it is, or were even to progress, would diminish the evils attendant upon it

Let us take, I say, all these circumstances into consideration, and I think we shall allow, that whatever may be the evil naturally resulting from the anti-primogenital law of France, it is not likely to be greater twenty years hence than it is at the moment at which I am now writing.

CHAPTER XIV.

It is the present state of France that we have to consider without fears for the future, in respect to this question -Folly of comparisons between France and England, and France and Ireland-A small Lessee different from a small Proprietor—A bad system of agriculture made, by energy, a good one-More persons occupied on Land by its Division than there need be-Population made more agricultural-Manufacturing Populations considered-Difference between the course to be pursued in England, and advice to be given to France.

It is, then, the present state of prosperity in France that we have to consider, with a judgment no longer under the influence of that terrible hobgoblin of indefinite subdivision by which we have been perpetually alarmed as to the future.

Those who contend against the existing state of property in that country, begin by telling you that in England landed property is agglomerated; in France landed property is divided;—that England is better cultivated than France, and that therefore the agglomeration of landed property is better for agriculture than the division.

I need hardly say, that it is impossible

to derive any accurate result from a mere comparison between England and France.

The more extensive a country is, the more variety it admits in language, character, and habits, the more it is deprived of natural and artificial communications, the less likely is it to adopt and circulate improvements.

* * * *

"Quand j'habitais les ports de la Flandre,” says M. Charles Dupin, "et surtout ceux de la Provence, j'étais toujours étonné d'entendre des gens du pays, distinguer les hommes nés au centre de la France, en les appelant des Françiots, et les traiter en étrangers * * * Lorsqu'en 1825, 1826, je me suis occupé de procurer, à la classe ouvrière de nos départemens, les plus simples élémens des sciences appliquées aux arts, je suis tombé dans un étonnement dont j'ai peine encore à revenir, en voyant que, sur tous les points de nos immenses frontières, à Bayonne ainsi qu'à Dunkerque, à Strasbourg ainsi qu'à Quimper, à Montpellier ainsi qu'à Mulhouse, l'un des obstacles les plus grands que les professeurs avaient rencontrés s'est trouvé dans la difficulté de faire entendre le langage expressif et correct de la langue française à des hommes qui ne pensent couramment qu'avec le secours d'idiomes étrangers ou de patois barbares."*

* See Appendix for translation.

France is more extensive than England, admits more varieties in language, character, and habits, is less amalgamated by natural and artificial communications; it is consequently less likely to adopt and circulate improvements. Whatever difference, therefore, exist between the agricultural state of England and France, it is absurd to attribute the whole of that difference to the different system of succession in the two countries.

Besides, when we speak of the different state of agriculture in England and France, we must not forget that agriculture has been encouraged, in the first, by an immense premium, more especially during the war; and that it has moreover owed much to the habits of speculation and expenditure springing from an extensive commerce, which, though not entirely independent of our law of inheritance, are certainly not incorporate with it.

But, if a comparison between England and France is of little value, a comparison between England and Ireland is still more absurd. Poor Ireland! if any body wants to shew that this or that is pernicious to a state, away he speeds to you for an example.

"See what Catholicism produces," says the Protestant;"look at-Ireland!"

"See what an established church produces," says the dissenter;-"look at-Ireland!"

"See what a centralized legislation produces," says the repealer ;-"look at Ireland!" "See what the want of a provision against mendicity produces," says the poor-law-systemman;-"look at-Ireland!”

"See what the division of land produces," says Mr. Macculloch ;-"look at Ireland!"

Unhappy monopolist of misfortune-too true is it my poor sister country, that we may always turn to you for a calamity!

But alas! if we wish for admonition, let us look for it, not in any part of your condition, but the whole. The slightest scratch becomes a gangrene, when the blood of all the body is corrupt; and it is ridiculous to talk of the effects of one mischief in a state of society, which is travailed by every mischief under the

sun.

What system of agriculture, I should like to know, would flourish in a nation planted by hostile races, and severed by contending creeds; amongst a people perpetually engaged in plots and pillage? If the same system of agriculture prevailed in France and in Ireland, the effects of the system would be different, as in every other respect the two countries differ. But the