THE FARMER'S MAGAZINE. 



279 



THE AGRICULTURE OF FRANCE. 



At the height of what miglit have been so delicate a 

 crisis, it becomes us to be especially careful as to what 

 we say of our neighbours. With the notoriety of the 

 Fleet- street Foruui by way of a warning, we should be 

 more than usually nice in our parts of speech. There 

 should not be a phrase to quarrel with, or even a word 

 to cavil at. It is difficult, then, to imagine an orator 

 vehement in his denunciation of what is going on over 

 the other side of the Channel — how the higher classes 

 in France are bought and sold with honours — how the 

 nionied men are rotten to the core — how tlie improve- 

 ments in Paris are made at an un'air expense to the 

 country — how those who would do good have no 

 power — and so on. And yet it has been our fate to 

 lioar lately a great deal in this strain ; not, how- 

 ever, at a gin-and-water parliament in the City, nor 

 from the over-excited aspirant of a debating club. On 

 the contrary, no less august a body than tlie Society of 

 Arts gave its countenance to the occasion. Further 

 than this, the reader has only to associate the staid de- 

 corum of its discussion-room with the wild Irishman or 

 lieadlong patriot who rejoiced in so unexpected an op- 

 portunity of having his "fling." 



This would make the offence complete ; but luckily 

 the Society is saved the more serious part of the charge. 

 It ii no wild Irishman who talks liketliis; no ferocious 

 Cuffey bound on re-organizing, not merely his own 

 country, but all the world over. For the very reverse, 

 take a plump, really contented-looking gentleman, 

 wlio speaks with an accent so decidedly foreign that it 

 is difficult to follow him — who announces himself as a 

 landed proprieter in Normandy — and who, in fact, is a 

 Frenchman, just giving his opinion on the political 

 economy of his own country. The Society of Arts is 

 inexpi-essibly relieved, and the "reading" proceeds 

 with, far more equanimity than had Brian Boru or 

 some home-bred Hampden been in possession of the 

 chair. 



Strangely enough, the text-word of this address was 

 Agriculture. Now if there is one thing more than 

 another that we Englishmen should be inclined to 

 regard with a feeling of satisfaction, it is the effort 

 France has lately been making in this way. If there 

 be any one cause that has induced more than another 

 to kindly intercommunication between the two coun- 

 tries, it has assuredly been this desire to improve the 

 cultivation of France. The international shows are still 

 fresh upon our recollections. The manner in which 

 the English were received, and the way in which they 

 endeavoured to return the compliment — the individual 

 courtesies of the Emperor to men distinguished amongst 

 us in the pursuit — His evident sympathy with the art — 

 the prices he gives for stock — tlie example he is setting 

 in farming — when we come to reflect on all these re- 

 cent manifestations, one might suppose a glance over 

 the agriculture of France would surely by this time 

 turn to the sunny side of the picture. 



Stranger even still, perhaps, there was no one, 

 who by his antecedents stood better recommended 

 to read a paper on French farming than the in- 

 troducer of this subject. One of the first points in his 

 favour was that he was well known to English farmers; 

 another, that he had a natural taste for the occupation ; 

 and, a tliird, that he is now pursuing it in France. 

 Monsieur Trehonnais was just the man to have made 

 a practical comparison between the cultivation of the 

 two countries. With his intimate knowledge of either, 



it should have been his peculiar province to have 

 directed the excellence of ours to the wants of his own 

 system. Unfortunately he did not dwell enough upon 

 this very essential matter. The first part of a long 

 address was devoted to the agriculture of France, 

 traced as far as three hundred years back, and of course 

 dependent upon tlie authorities of those times. The 

 second sccticm, which touched more upon the present 

 condition of the country, partook rather of an essay 

 upon political economy than one directly I'eferring to 

 agriculure. In fact, the subject itself was little more 

 than incidentally touched on, and what was said of it 

 was tinged with something very like, utter despondency. 



According to Monsieur Ti'elionnais, the farming of 

 France is as bad as it jiossibly can be — worse than it 

 was three hundred years ago. This would appear to 

 be mainly attributable to two grand causes — want of 

 labour, and want of capital. France, be it remembered, 

 is essentially a military nation; and the continual drain 

 of able-bodied men must of course tell upon the culti- 

 vation of the country. The two arts never yet 

 flourished together. Monsieur Trehonnais further at- 

 tributes this scarcity to what he considers the present 

 injudicious centralization in towns. The embellish- 

 ments of Paris, f(U' example, are made at the expense 

 of agriculture. The 300,000 additional inhabitants of 

 a few years chiefly consist of mechanics and labourers 

 removed from the country. The want of capital na- 

 turally follows. He speaks of the amount of treasure 

 lavished on the city — ilie disproportionate expenditure 

 for public works in Paris compared with the whole of 

 France. The chief cause of this want of means for im- 

 proving the land — at least, the one generally received 

 as such amongst us— he will not admit. He believes 

 the evil influence consequent on the division of property 

 to be more apparent than real. At the same time he 

 allows that share for share does take place : the daugh- 

 ters receiving an equivalent in money, and the land re- 

 maining with the son. Under such a system, it is 

 almost impossible to imagine anything but the soil being 

 continually mortgaged with these "equivalents," and 

 left without a franc for its own improvement. In this 

 country no man now does so badly as the one who just 

 hangs on to his own bit of land. With the small oc- 

 cupier, either owner or tenant, no great progress can be 

 attained ; and France is overrun with these small hold- 

 ings. Monsieur Trehonnais thinks it only right they 

 should be thus limited in accordance with the means of 

 the people. He must remember, however, that nothing 

 can be done without capital, while the gi-eatest bar to its 

 use is the perpetuation of these little properties. Men 

 in such a position can never command it. If we needed 

 any illustration of this, we have only to look to Ireland 

 as it was, and as it is. It is hard to suppose that the 

 agriculture of France can be materially advanced 

 without some more decided action of the law of pri- 

 mogeniture. 



Monsieur Trehonnais himself unintentionally sup- 

 ports this view of the case. He will have everything 

 depend upon individual exertion— a sound conclusion 

 enough, although he rather over-impresses it. It strikes 

 but harshly to hear the recent efforts of the Emperor 

 characterized as worse than useless :— " But, I may be 

 asked has the French Government done nothing to 

 revive agriculture? There is a Minister of Agricul- 

 ture ; there is a large and influential staffof agricultu- 

 ral inspectors; there are innumerable Government 



