enjoy more of the material comforts which go to make up a nation's prosperity than the French. They are, through their agricultural industry, accumulating vast wealth, and when, so: en years ago, a ravaging and devastating oared the fair face of their country, and a victorious conqueror imposed a crushing indemnity upon them, the hoarded resources of the peasant owners almost alone discharged the giant liability, and made up for the losses sustained by war-ruined industry. Twice within this century alone they had to suffer similar disasters, and yet, with a strange power of resilient energy, they threw off the burden. The savings of the small proprietors to-day are invested in State funds, and by means of such 'rentes' the Government is enabled to embark in enterprises which seem startling even to English speculators. Expensive works for benefitting and developing internal commerce are undertaken through the credit of the vast wealthy proprietary that supports such undertakings, and so readily lends its money to the National Exchequer. Under what other system of land tenure could such security be shown, such unexampled prosperity be seen? Surely not under the sadly precarious and uncertain relations of Irish landlord and tenant an arrangement certain to keep the bread-winner in a perpetual state of wretched misery. There was a time, not so long ago, when the French peasantry could vie with ours in destitution, unrest and poverty. Before this generous change in their land system, which made France what it is, was effected, the people were described as being ' without cattle to furnish manure, without horses to execute the plans of agriculture, their farm houses mean, their furniture beggarly, themselves and their beasts the images of famine.' What a change has now been brought about, and how different the condition of the peasantry! From being oppressed by feudal exactions they have become the
