VIII.-Agriculture in France. By EDWARD SPENDER, A PERIOD of political revolution is the worst of all times for the consideration of social reforms. Amid the glare of burning cities and the tumult of contending armies, the Reformer has small chance of making himself seen or heard. It may be stated as an invariable law, that social improvements progress in inverse proportion to the frequency of political convulsions. It is not to be expected that that land will be highly cultivated which lies on the slope of a volcano and in the direct course of the lava-current. We shall not, therefore, be surprised if, after a brief investigation of the condition of French Agriculture, we find that in many things our neighbours are very much more in the rear than might have been expected of a country which ranks with the first in the world. In a nation whose revolutions occur every decade-nay, even more often, as Talleyrand, prince of diplomatists, who "swore 'eternal allegiance' to eleven constitutions," has testified -the statesmen will have been too intent in framing schemes of government to descend to the less interesting though more useful details, which have far greater influence on the general happiness and prosperity than all the first principles of statecraft. Now that France is enjoying-enduring rather-a respite from the crucial experiments of system-makers, she is wisely employing her unwonted and compulsory leisure by an inquiry into the present condition and future improvement of her agriculture. That this is a most important inquiry, statistics will prove. The number of able-bodied men in France is about eight millions. Of these, six millions are cultivators of the soil; that is, a sixth of the whole population. In England only one-tenth of the whole population is agricultural, and this proportion includes women and children. If we add these to our estimate, we may infer that at least one-half of the inhabitants of France are connected with the land. Where so large a proportion of the population is directly interested in one pursuit (the whole nation is, of course, indirectly influenced thereby), it becomes important to note from time to time the progress that has been made in it. This matter has likewise its interest for ourselves. In the great body politic the commercial prosperity of one member is to the advantage of all. No great stretch of imagination is needed to suppose that if, instead of being one vast "encumbered estate," France had been properly cultivated, if in place of a squalid people striving to keep off starvation by bread made of grass and bark of trees, and having for answer to all complaints "a new gallows forty feet high,"*-there had been before 1789 an industrious, well-fed, orderly nation,-England would have been spared nearly thirty years of battle, thousands of her sons, and millions of her treasure. * The actual figures, according to the census of 1851, were, 14,318,476 agriculteurs, out of a total population of 35,783,170. This does not include any of the " women and children at the charge of their husbands and parents," who with the unclassified population make up 12,245,782. If anything has served to quench the first flames of a war that lately threatened us, and which half a century earlier would by this time have devastated half Europe, it was the united condemnation of that war by the voice of public opinion-an opinion, be it remembered, concerned far more with the impolicy than the wickedness of war; with the evils that result from it far more than the guilt which would promote it. This useful creed-a lawful creed so far as it goes-is amazingly strengthened by every increase of commercial intercourse between ourselves and other countries. Our neighbours have recently borrowed from us an institution to which English agriculturists are daily and increasingly acknowledging their obligation. The French Concours will soon become as influential and as useful as our own meetings and shows. Another and still more important improvement is now in contemplation. La Liberté commerciale is befriended by Imperial favour. It remains to be seen whether it will win as complete a victory as Free-trade obtained in these Islands some thirteen years ago. I propose to consider each of these topics in full. But, previously, we will take a retrospective view of French Agriculture from the period of the first Revolution. At the commencement of the Revolution two arbitrary laws greatly affecting the land were passed-such laws as are enacted only in times of great excitement. The property of the Church and the possessions of the Noblesse were confiscated for the good of the nation. The ecclesiastical revenues were not very large. They were valued by the Bishop of Autun, in 1789, at seventy million francs per annum (2,800,000l.) The nobility possessed nominally a quarter of the soil, "but so neglected, so badly looked-after, so burdened with debts of all kinds, that the net revenue was almost nothing." A few Grands-Seigneurs lived splendidly at Versailles, but the large majority of the territorial magnates "vegetated wretchedly on small manors, which often did not bring in more than 2000 or 3000 francs of rent" (801. to 120l.)† The grants of indemnity in 1825 prove exactly the value of these estates. While some few of the returned émigrés received 40,000l., by far the greater number obtained about * Carlyle's 'History of the French Revolution, Part i. c. 2. † Revue des Deux Mondes,' Novembre, 1858, p. 450. 1 2000l. To some few claimants, though these doubtless were peasants, 47. and 21. were awarded.* But the land of the millionaires was even worse cultivated than that of the peasants. Wherever you come across the estates of a great lord, the land is sure to be uncultivated, said Arthur Young. He noticed, especially, the domains of the two largest proprietors in France, and these were fallows or deserts. "If I were, just for a few days, the sole ruler in France, I would make these lords swing," was the angry exclamation of the English traveller. The French rulers behaved more leniently than this, yet still with sufficient severity. Instead of selling a portion of these encumbered estates for the liquidation of the heavy debts of their proprietors, they confiscated the whole to the national fund, notwithstanding that the Revolution numbered supporters among ng the noblesse as illustrious as Lafayette, La Rochefoucauld-Liancourt, Lally-Tolendal, and Mirabeau. ... Where the landlords are paupers, it is difficult to say into what depths of misery the tenants will fall. Several years before the Reign of Terror, French statesmen had mourned over the sad condition of their country. The celebrated Vauban wrote nearly a century before the Revolution:--"The mass of pauperism is now extremely great. Almost a tenth of the population is as poor as beggars, and actually begs. Of the remaining nine-tenths five are unable to give alms, because they themselves are reduced to the same plight; and of the other four-tenths three-tenths are in a very miserable condition." Arthur Young, who travelled through France during the years 1787-88-89, adds his testimony to the general poverty of the agricultural classes. "It reminded me," he says emphatically, "of the miseries of Ireland." There is, however, one bright light in this gloomy picture. Passing through the districts where small properties abounded, Young noted a wonderful contrast to the rest of the country. Of the neighbourhood of Dunkirk he remarks:-"The magic of property turns sand into gold." And again, "Much watering at St. Lawrence; the scenery very interesting to a farmer. An activity has been here that has swept away all difficulties before it, and clothed the very rocks with verdure. It would be a disgrace to common sense to ask the cause; the enjoyment of property must have done it." The immediate effect of the Revolutionary changes on agriculture was undoubtedly injurious. Although the land was now free from all those taxes and imposts which so impoverished the occupiers of it, there was no improvement in the tillage. The anarchy of the cities had spread to the villages. Bands of robbers scattered themselves through the provinces. Their hatred was manifested not against the feudal rights of the nobles, but against property itself, though now no longer in the hands of a privileged class. "War to the castle, peace to the cottage," was the cry. But the flames which destroyed the one did not spare the other. The spoilers, in their haste to devastate the parterres and preserves, trampled down the fields ready for the harvest. "The inevitable consequences of these disorders were soon manifested. Food, already scarce, became still more so, and the first effect of agricultural freedom was a famine."* * The Minister of Finance reckoned the number of acquirers of ecclesiastical property at 666,000; of property belonging to the old corporations, 440,000; and the sales of communal property at 110,000. The ten years that followed this disastrous 1789 were even more gloomy. Tyrannical laws arbitrarily fixing the prices of food were the not-surprising result of a government which was overawed by a famishing population. During the Consulate the prospect began to brighten. Chaptal, during his brief term of office, did what he could for agriculture. But with the wars of the Empire another grave evil arose. The labouring class was decimated by repeated conscriptions. The country was drained of its revenues. Want of capital and scarcity of hands were the double difficulty against which the farmer had to strive. Absurd regulations contending with the natural laws of commerce hampered him still more, forbidding him to sell wheat at more than a certain maximum price, and interfering with the management of his live-stock; so that it is a matter of wonder to find that the cultivation of the soil was not completely abandoned. We must not, however, put down everything to the side of loss. A large amount of gain was to be derived from the Code Napoléon, which will confer more lasting glory on the memory of its author than a hundred such victories as Marengo and Austerlitz. The codification of the laws affected the value of real property to an amazing degree. Security and cheapness in obtaining a title increase the value of property not only directly, but also indirectly by promoting an increase in the number of purchasers. Napoleon's great measure, therefore, supplemented and extended the laws of the Republic which provided for the subdivision and equal inheritance of the land. From the period of the first to the second empire agriculture has progressed,slowly, indeed, judged by an English standard of advance,-yet surely, as will be seen from the subjoined statistics, which I borrow from M. de Lavergne. This improvement is manifested in two ways: by the amount of land under cultivation, and by * Revue des Deux Mondes' Novembre, 1858, p. 455. the quantity of produce per acre obtained from that land. Accordingly we learn from Arthur Young that in 1789 the soil of France was thus divided : At the present time the distribution is as follows:-* The contrast is not great when we remember that the two periods here taken are seventy years apart. The reclamation of 5,000,000 acres of waste land and 3,000,000 acres of wood is a small matter when compared to what has been done in our own * According to the last survey, the total superficies of territory is 52,305,744 hectares, 32 ares, as under : Hectares. Ares. " .. .. 49,285,292 52 Ground not taxable, roads, streets, rivers, lakes, &c. 2,775,408 35 The taxable estates, not built on, are made up of the following: |