tion of the capital, which, at compound interest, extinguished the debt in 47 years. So well regulated was the scheme that for that period the new 'graduating proprietor' or farmer tenant was called upon actually to pay less to the State than his rent to the landlord, even charging himself with taxes amd cost of collection. The project was so nicely adjusted, and is so intimately applicable to the question, that a brief and bare description of it will not be out of place. Thus, supposing the old rent to be 100 florins, a peasant, under the new arrangement, is called upon only to pay 97, and discharges the debt, interest, &c., in this wise:
| florins. | |||
| 3 per cent, on 1,800 florins (18 times the rent being allowed landlord) | 54 | ||
| 1 per cent, as a sinking fund | 18 | ||
| 3 per cent, on rentcharge as cost of collection, bad debts, &c. | 3 | ||
| Add to this the taxes formerly paid by landlord | 22 | ||
| Total | 97 | ||
It therefore will be remembered that while the 100 florins to the landlord would continue for an indefinite period, the reduced rent to the State ceases—the farm becomes a freehold. The latter arrangement is also preferable, as it entirely eliminates the possibility of an increase of the charge under any circumstances. Speaking of the condition of the Hessians and Rhine peasantry generally, M. Morier says:—
'I hardly observe that an ablebodied pauper is a thing unkown amongst them. … The most vivid impression I carried away with me was the equable manner in which the wealth of the place appeared to be divided amongst its inhabitants.'
But in Belgium we see perhaps the most astonishingly favourable results arising from the system of peasant proprietary. We find that in Flanders, though the peasant labours under such natural disadvantages that the soil will not produce a single crop without two manurings, yet the land is made fertile by the surprising efforts of his untiring
