By this latter method, it is said, a fair proportion of all classes would be maintained in the Highlands, noblemen, gentlemen, farmers large and small, cottars, labourers, and that only when there is such a mixture can a country be said to be prosperous. Moreover, it is held a proprietor, who in this country should be considered as a steward rather than the absolute owner of his estate, has no right to exclude the small farmer from having a chance of making a respectable living by the occupation for which he is suited; that he stands in the way of his own and his country’s interests when he discourages the small farmer, for only by a mixture of the two systems can the land be made the most of; and that, to say the least of it, it is selfish and wrong in proprietors not to consider the case of the poor as well as the rich. On the question as to the expediency of large or small farms we cannot pretend to be able to judge; we know too little of its real merits. However, it appears to us that there is no reason why both systems cannot be very well combined in many parts of the Highlands, although there are many districts, we believe, totally unsuited for anything else but sheep-farms of the largest dimensions. Were the small farms made large enough to sufficiently support the farmer and his family, and remunerate him for his outlay and labour, were precautions taken against the subdivision of these moderate-sized holdings, and were leases of sufficient duration granted to all, it seems to us that there is nothing in the nature of things why there should not be farms of a small size in the Highlands as well as farms covering many miles in extent. We certainly do think it too bad to cut out the small respectable class of farmers entirely, and put the land of the country in the hands of a sort of farmer aristocracy; it is unfair and prejudicial to the best interests of the country. But the small farmers must first show that they deserve to be considered; certainly the small farmers under the old Highland system, which we believe is not yet quite extinct in some remote districts, deserved only to have the land they so mismanaged taken from them and given to others who could make a better use of it. Some consideration, we think, ought to be had towards the natives of the country, those whose ancestors have occupied the land for centuries, and if they are able to pay as good a rent as others, and show themselves willing to manage the land as well, in all humanity they ought to have the preference. But these are matters which we think ought to be left to adjust themselves according to the inevitable laws which regulate all human affairs. Interference in any way between landlord and tenant by way of denunciation, vituperation, or legislation, seems to us only to make matters worse. It seems to us that the simplest commercial maxims--the laws of profit and loss, if they have fair play--will ultimately lead to the best system of managing the land