attain that object, is not sufficiently promising to justify us in running the risk it would entail; nevertheless, if he can persuade the British taxpayer to agree, I should certainly offer no opposition to the experiment.[1]
We now come to a series of proposals of a very different complexion, proposals which involve the transfer of a large amount of proprietary rights from the landlord to the tenant. Now I do not deny the right of the state to deal in a very peremptory manner with private property of all kinds, and especially with landed property; but, in assuming this right, it must be made clear that its exercise will be of indisputable benefit to the community at large, and the individual to whose prejudice it is enforced must be compensated at the public expense
- ↑ The opinion of M. de Lavergne, himself an advocate of "la petite culture," and thoroughly master of this subject, may be worth considering. If it is objected that M. de Lavergne is a foreigner, I would venture to reply that he is probably better acquainted with the agricultural condition of Ireland than most Englishmen.
"Pour la petite propriété proprement dite, dont beaucoup d'excellents esprits, entre autres M. Stuart Mill dans ses nouveaux Principes d'economic politique, avaient réclamé l'introduction, elle me parait beaucoup moins désirable en présence de pareils faits. Probablement l'Irlande arrivera quelque jour à la petite propriété, c'est sa tendance naturelle; mais, pour la
moment, sa population rurale est trop pauvre: elle a besoin de gagner dans la culture de quoi devenir proprietaire: il n'est pas de son interêt d'y penser auparavant."Essai sur l'Economic Rurale d'Angleterre, &c. p. 420,
par M. L. de Lavergne. Paris, 1863
