The Sun.
London, England, 1869-08-14 00:00:00

Such reasoning from one of the ablest, and cer-
tainly the most liberal, of the party representing
the proprietary interest, is well deserving attention at
a time when land schemes are likely to be uppermost
in public attention for many months to come.
But there is another side to the question, and it is
right to point it out. So far as England is con-
cerned, few persons will deny the accuracy of Lord
STANLEY'S reasoning ; but it is an unquestionable
fact that the small-proprietor system is tried else-
where and succeeds. In Belgium and in France, as
well as other countries, the subdivision of the
soil is carried on to an indefinite extent, and
with no evil consequences. The wealth of neither-
of these countries is comparable to that of England;
but their riches are more evenly distributed. There
the system of small ownerships gives rise to the
most careful cultivation, and to an extreme
industry, which in great measure compen-
sates for the undoubted superiority of British
implements. Every plot of land does, by rigid at-
tention, maintain after the patriarchal fashion its
own family. There are no great proprietors in
France and Belgium corresponding to the house
of which Lord STANLEY himself is the repre-

sentative. But it is only fair to admit that there
is none of the extreme poverty with which England
is all but paralysed. There is nothing to be gained by
ignoring facts, and a salutary lesson may readily be

derived from the success of the peasant proprietary

system abroad. How far it will withstand the more

general use of scientific appliances is a question whic'

remains to be decided. It is not to be expected that
the small ownership plan will make progress in this
country, and, as Lord STANLEY skews, there are
the gravest objections to its adoption. We

cannot go back in the course of time, and throw
over our great scientific inventions for the

sake of social equality. If the English peasant
desires proprietorship, he must go to the colonies or

to the United States, where the principle that
the tiller of the soil is also the owner

is fully recognised.

But though overturning

our own system is not to be thought of, it is scarcely
less certain that a judicious compromise between the

two may be effected. If small proprietorships are ad

verse to scientific improvements, great and irresponsible

proprietorships are not less detrimental to the industry

and progress of the masses who are in a state O.
complete subordination. The good effect of inde.

pendent ownership in foreign countries ought to teach

us to combine the two ; to retain the facilities

which great estates afford for the development of
scientific improvements, but at the same time to

encourage the industry of the cultivator by giving
him the full reward of his labour. This is the

problem to be solved.

The news which we published a day or two ago

hat the SULTAN had countermanded orders for
breechloaders and a ship of war given by the
Viceroy of EGYPT is supplemented by other indica-
tions that the relations between these two magnates
are in a critical state. It is very probable that the
difficulty may be tided over for a while, that the
Powers may bring the disputants to terms ; but the
danger of a rupture is too great and of too much im-
portance to England to be neglected. That we
have a considerable interest at stake in
Egypt our expeditions to prevent that country
from falling into French hands abundantly
testify. England has always been anxious
that the Isthmus of Suez should not come
into the possession of an unfriendly Power; and
now that the route by the Read Sea is likely to be
made more and more the highway to India, the destiny
of Egypt becomes a question of proportionately
greater Imperial moment. The quarrel which has
broken out between the SULTAN and the KHEDIVE is
one of old standing. In 1811 Egypt, formerly a pro-
vince of Turkey, became independent. The wars of
MEHEMET ALt proved so successful that about 1839
it seemed probable that he would succeed in totally
overpowering the Ottoman Government; but in
1,3-40 a combination of the
great Powers drove
him out of Syria, restored certain territory to the
SULTAN, aid reduced Egypt to the condition of a
pashalik, owing a certain allegiance to the Porte.
By an ordinance of 1841, the sovereignty of Egypt
was secured to MEHEMET'S family ; but the powers
of the ruler were strictly limited. He was to hold a
position analagous to that of a Governor-General for
life. His jurisdiction over the internal affairs of his
territory was complete, but he could not make war,
conclude peace, or sign treaties; and he was bound to
give assistance to the Porte whenever Turkey was
engaged in foreign enterprise. VV
It is only in accordance with the general

even if the coat, the boots, and the hat were but
raised upon a pole, would be the signal for an insur-
rection. History, it has been remarked, moves in
circles or cycles. The time was coming round. The
name was enough—apart from the grey great-coat,
the jack-boots, and the three-cornered hat. The
signal was given for the insurrection looked forward
to by CHATEAUBRIAND —and, in answerto that signal,
the rallying cry of the name of NAPOLEON—the adult
male population of France thrice rose en masse as the
insurgents. The conspirators with the heir of NAPO-
LEON were first of all nearly six millions, were
secondly nearly seven millions, were thirdly nearly
eight millions of Frenchmen. The Empire founded
by NAPOLEON after all had not perished. The work
of Waterloo was, in the fullness of time, utterly
un lone. The Hero ha 2, now, for this last quarter of
a century, reposed, as he hinnelf willed, on
the banks of the Seine in the midst of the
French people whom he loved so much. And,
now, one whole century having elapsed since the
memoralile date of his birth, his heir, the heir to his
extraordinary fortunes and to his crown, the Emperor
NAPOLEON 111., is reigning at the palace of the
Tuileries, over a peacJful and prosperous France, as
the Imperial Head of a Free and Constitutional Go-
vernment.

IN his address to the Agricultural Society at
Ormskirk Lord STANLEY abandoned politics, and
confined himself to some interesting, and in the
main sound, generalities. But though there
is not much to find fault with in
his descant on capital and the soil, the
owner and the cultivator, there is some reason to
complain that his broad theorems were not sup-
ported by a very extensive range of evidence. Lord
STANLEY'S main proposition was to refute the old
idea—now again finding favour—that the tiller of the
soil ought to be the owner, and that peasant proprietor-
ship realises the social idea of the greatest happiness
for the greatest number. The Arcadian dream of a
return to the patriarchal times, when every man's
ground satisfied the wants of the family that dwelt
upon it, and when no man was in fear of legal dis-
possession, is so much in accordance with the preju-
dices of humanity that it is always likely to find
favour. But the late Foreign Secretary has no
sympathy with a scheme which is retrogressive, and
which, so to speak, goes back from the system of the
factory with its thousand hands to the system of the
hand-loom weaver. Farming, he points out, is becom-
ing every year more scientific, and, therefore,
more costly. The cultivation of the soil
cannot now be remunerative if it is practised on so
small a scale that the use of modern implements
becomes impossible. There was a time when it made
less difference whether the land was divided into
large or small ownerships. When all had the same
rude implements, when there was no steam plough or
threshing machine, there was less to be gained by
uniting large districts under one owner. There
were, so to speak, no costly tools, and therefore
nobody could gain an advantage by them; but mow
an infinity of contrivances are in use for cheapening
and improving agricultural operations. These
advantages can be had only by wealthy proprietors;
the poor must go on in the old rude, and now unpro- ,
fitable, way. Just as a single artisan cannot hope to
rival the productions of an elaborate manufactory, so
a peasant proprietor cannot hope to withstand the
competition of a large farm. Agriculture cannot,
any more than manufactures, succeed without
capital.