1

vast tracts of their arable land: an early harvest, and the command of plants, which will not thrive equally well in more northern climates, give them this invaluable advan. tage. We see wheat stubbles left in England, from the middle of August, to yield a few shillings by sheep, which, in a hotter climate, would afford a second crop, yielding food for man, such as millet, the fifty day maize (the cinquantina of the Italians) &c. or prove a better season for turnips, cabbages, &c. than the common season for them here. In Dauphine, I saw buck-wheat in full blossom the 23d of August, that had been sown after wheat. I do no more than name it here, since, in another place, it must be examined more particularly. Mulberries might in France be an object of far greater importance than they are at present, and yet the spring frosts are fatal impediments to the culture: that this plant must be considered for all important purposes, as adapted only to southern climates, appears from this, that Tours is the only place I know in France, north of the maize climate, where they are cultivated for silk with any success; considerable experiments have been made (as I shall shew in the proper place) for introducing them into Normandy and elsewhere, but with no success: and the force of this observation is doubled, by the following fact; that they succeed much better in the olive climate than in any part of the kingdom. But that they might be greatly extended, cannot for a moment be doubted. In going south, we did not meet with them till we came to Causade, near Montauban. In returning north, we saw them at Auch only. A few at Aguillon, planted by the duke; the promenade at Poitiers planted by the intendant; and another at Verteul, by the duke d'Anville; all which are experiments that have not been copied, except at Auch. But at Tours there is a small district of them. In another direction, they are not met with after Moulins, and there very few. Maize is an object of much greater consequence than mulberries; when I give the courses of the French crops, it will be found that the only good husbandry in the kingdom (some small and very rich districts excepted) arises from the possession and management of this plant. Where there is no maize, there are fallows; and where there are fallows, the people starve for want. For the inhabitants of a country to live upon that plant, which is the preparation for wheat, and at the same time to keep their cattle fat upon the leaves of it, is to possess a treasure, for which they are indebted to their climate. The quantity of all the common sorts of fruits, which, through the greater part of France, is such as to form a considerable object in the subsistence of the great mass of people, is a point of more consequence than appears at first sight. To balance these favourable circumstances, other countries, not so happily situated (especially England) have advantages of an opposite nature, which are very material in the practice of their agriculture: that humidity of atmosphere, with the French provinces north of vines enjoy; which England has in a greater degree, and Ireland still more, and which is better marked by the hygrometer than by the rain gauge, is of singular importance in the maintenance of cattle by pasturage, and in adapting the courses of crops to their support. Artificial grasses, turnips, cabbages, potatoes, &c. thrive best in a humid climate. It would take up too much room here fully to explain this; to mention it will be sufficient for those who have reflected on similar subjects. From a due attention to all the various circumstances that affect this question, which, relatively to agriculture, is the best climate, that of France, or that of England? I have no hesitation in giving the preference to France. I have often heard, in conversation, the contrary asserted, and with some appearance of reason; but I believe the opinion has arisen more from considering the actual state of husbandry in the two countries, than the dis

.

tinct properties of the two climates. We make very good use of ours; but the French are, in this respect, in their infancy, through more than half the kingdom.*

CHAP. V.... OF THE POPULATION OF FRANCE.

AS the subject of population is best treated by an inquiry into the industry, agriculture, division of landed property, &c. I shall at present merely lay before the reader some facts collected with care in France, that afford useful data for political arithmeticians. Mons. l'abbe Expilly, in his Dictionnaire de la France, makes the number 21,000,000. And the marquis de Mirabeaut mentions an enumeration of the kingdom in 1755; total 18,107,000. In Normandy 1,665,200 and in Bretagne 847,500. Mons. de Buffon, in his Histoire Naturelle, assigns for the population of the kingdom 22,672,077. Mons. Messance, in his Recherches sur la Population, quarto, 1766, gives the details from which he draws the conclusion, that in many towns in Auvergne the births are to the number of inhabitants as 1 to 24; the marriages per annum 1 to 114 inhabitants; and families, one with another, composed of 5 or 24 families contain 124 inhabitants. In various towns in the Lyonnois, births are to the inhabitants as 1 to 23%; the marriages per annum 1 to 111 persons; and families composed 4; 80 families contain 381 inhabitants. In various towns in Normandy the births to the inhabitants as 1 to 27; marriages per annum 1 to 114 persons ; families are composed of 3; 20 represent 76 inhabitants. In the city of Lyons families are composed of 5 ; 60 represent 316 inhabitants; and there are a few above 24 persons per house in that city. In the city of Rouen families are composed of 6 persons; and there are 6 persons per house. At Lyons 1 in 351 dies annually; at Rouen 1 in 271. Mean life in some parishes in the generality of Lyons 25 years; ditto in the generality of Rouen 25 years 10 months. At Paris 1 in 30 dies annually: a family consists of 8, and each house contains 241 persons. By comparing the number of births in every month at Paris for forty years, he found that those in which conception flourished most were May, June, July, and August, and that the mortality for forty years was as follows:

1

Months.

77,803 | February,

76,815 December,

72,198 June,

58,272 November,

54,029

January,

69,166 | July,

It should appear from this table, that the influence of the sun is as important to human health as it is to vegetation. What pity that we have not similar tables of cities in all the different latitudes and circumstances of the globe.

* The minute details concerning agriculture are omitted, as, however valuable in themselves, they little accord with the nature of this publication.

† L'Ami des Hommes, 1760, fifth edit. tom. iv. p. 184.

+ The committee of Mendicite asserts, that each family in France consists of five, as each has three children. Cinquieme Rapport, p. 34.

At Clermont Ferrand 1 in 38 dies annually. At Carcassonne 1 in 221⁄2. At Valence 1 in 24. At Vitry le Francois 1 in 231. At Elbœuf 1 in 291. At Loviers 1 in 311⁄2. At Honfleur 1 in 24. At Vernon 1 in 25. At Gisors 1 in 29. At Pont-au-de-Mer 1 in 33. At Neufchatel 1 in 241. At Pont l'Eveque 1 in 26. At le Havre 1 in 35. Upon a comparison in seven principal provinces of the kingdom, population in sixty years has augmented in the proportion of 211 to 196, or a thirteenth. General deduction-that the number of people in France in 1764 was 23,909,400. Monsieur Moheau* gives to the best peopled provinces 1700 inhabitants per square league; and to the worst 500; the medium 872, at which rate he makes the total 23,500,000, and an increase of a ninth since 1688. The isle of Oleron is peopled at the rate of 2886 per league, and that of Re 4205. He also calculates that 1 in 36 dies, and 1 in 26 is born every year. Mons. Necker, in his work de l'Administration des Finances de la France, has the following particulars, which it is also necessary to have in our attention: Births in the whole kingdom per annum on an average, of 1776, 77, 78, 79, and 80, were 963,207: which, multiplied by 25%, the proportion he fixes on, gives 24,802,580 inhabitants in France. He notices the gross error of the economistes, in estimating the population of the kingdom at 15 or 16 millions. A later authority, but given in whole numbers, and therefore not accurate, states the population of the kingdom at 25,500,000 of which the clergy are supposed to be 80,000, the nobility 110,000 the protestants 3,000,000, and Jews 30,000:† the committee of imposts assert, that to multiply the births in the cities of France by 30, will give their population with sufficient truth; but for the country not so high. The rule of 30 would make the population 28,896,210. But much later than all these authorities, the National Assembly has ordered such inquiries to be made into the population of the kingdom, as have produced a much greater degree of accuracy than was ever approached before: this has been done by the returns of taxes, in which all persons, not liable to be charged are entered in what we should call the duplicates; and as the directions for making these lists are positive and explicit, and no advantage whatever results to the people by concealing their numbers, but on the contrary, in many instances, they are favoured in taxation, by reason of the number of their children, we may surely conclude, that these returns are the safest guides to direct our calculations. Here follows the detail :

ETAT GENERALE DE LA POPULATION DU ROYAUME DE LA FRANCE.

Estimating the acres at 131,722,295, and the people as here detailed, we find that it makes, within a small fraction, five acres a head. That proportion would be 131,815,270 acres. If England were equally well peopled, there should be upon 46,915,933 acres, rather more than 9,000,000 souls. And for our two islands, to equal France in this respect, there should be in them 19,867,117 souls; instead of which there are not more than 15,000,000.

An observation, rather curious, may be made on this detail; it appears, that less than one-fourth of the people inhabit towns; a very remarkable circumstance, because it is commonly observed, and doubtless founded on certain facts, that in flourishing countries the half of a nation is found in towns. Many writers, I believe, have looked upon this as the proportion in England: in Holland, and in Lombardy, the richest countries in Europe, the same probably exists. I am much inclined to connect this singular fact, relating to France, with that want of effect and success in its agriculture, which I have remarked in almost every part of the kingdom; resulting also from the extreme division of the soil into little properties. It appears likewise, from this detail, that their towns are not considerable enough to give that animation and vigour to the industry of the country, which is best encouraged by the activity of the demand which cities afford for the products of agriculture. A more certain and unequivocal proof of the justice of my remarks, on the too great and mischievous division of landed property and farms in that kingdom could hardly have arisen: and it yields the clearest conviction, that the progress of national improvement has been upon the whole but small in France. The manufactures and commerce of the kingdom must have made a less advance than one would have conceived possible, not to have effected a proportion far different from this of a fifth. A really active industry, proportioned to the real resources of the kingdom, should long ago have purged the country (to use an expression of Sir James Stuart's) of those superfluous mouths, I do not say hands; for they eat more than they work; and it is their want of employment that ought to drive them into towns. Another observation is suggested by this curious table of population : I have repeatedly, in the diary of my journey, remarked, that the near approach to Paris is a desert compared to that of London; that the difference is infinitely greater than the difference of their population; and that the want of traffic, on the high roads, is found every where in the kingdom as well as at Paris. Now it deserves notice, that the great resort, which is every where observable on the highways of England, flows from the number, size, and wealth of our towns, much more than from any other circumstance. It is not the country, but towns that give the rapid circulation from one part of a kingdom to the other; and though, at first sight, France may be thought to have the advantage in this respect, yet a nearer view of the subject will allow of no such conclusion. In the following list, the English column has surely the advantage :

The vast superiority of London and Dublin, to Paris and Lyons, renders the whole comparison ridiculous. I believe, London, without exaggeration, to be alone equal to Paris, Lyons, Bourdeaux, and Marseilles, as appears by the lists of population, and by the wealth and trade of all. But if we reflect, that the towns of England, &c. are portions of a population of fifteen millions only, and those of France parts of twenty-six millions, the comparison shews at once the vastly greater activity there must be in one country than in the other.*

Of all the subjects of political economy, I know not one that has given rise to such a cloud of errors as this of population. It seems, for some centuries, to have been considered as the only sure test of national prosperity. The politicians of those times, and