FRANCE. (EFFECTS OF THE REVOLUTION.) 



1 1 very low prices, partly because many did not 

 believe their possession certain, partly because there 

 were not many buyers capable of paying their full 

 value. Towards the end of 1800, there were national 

 domains of the value of 700,000,000 still remaining 

 unsold (340,000,000 in the old provinces, 160,000,000 

 in the conquered provinces (so called) and 200,000,000 

 in national woods). Among these, there were many 

 estates of the church, which were used to constitute 

 the funds of the legion of honour and of the senator- 

 ships. According to an old work (Le Cabinet du 

 ftoi, quoted by Linnseus, Notitia Regni Francice, 

 Strasburg, 16u4), the property of the church in 

 ancient France consisted (with the exception of the 

 foreign clergy, so called, mentioned above), of 180,000 

 fiefs (of which 83,000 had superior courts), 249,000 

 farms and metairies, 1,700,000 acres of vineyards 

 (besides 400,000 acres, from which they received 

 one-third or one-fourth of the wine), 600,000 acres of 

 unoccupied land, 135,000 of ponds, 900,000 acres of 

 meadow land, 245,000 water wheels in flour and 

 paper mills, iron works, &c., 1,800,000 acres of 

 woods, 1,400,000 acres of pasturage. The greater 

 part of the soil was also subject to the tithe to the 

 clergy, and there was not a patch of ground on which 

 there was not a mortgage, rent, or religious founda- 

 tion (an annual tax of from 5, 10, to 50 sous for a 

 mass, a burning lamp, &c.); even the royal domains 

 were not exempt. 2. This mass of landed property 

 is now divided among a great number of smaller or 

 larger proprietors, and thus, with the abolition of 

 the feudal system, was created a class of free proprie- 

 tors of the soil, so necessary for the safety and 

 liberty of a state. The subdivision of the soil appears 

 from the fact, that of the numerous class of landed 

 proprietors (about 5,000,000), who pay taxes, there 

 were, in 1820, only 90,879 who had to pay an annual 

 tax of 300 francs and over, and, consequently, could 

 vote in the election of deputies. The number of 

 electors was afterwards considerably diminished by 

 the division of property and the diminution of the 

 land tax. (In the lists of 1818, there are, altogether, 

 10,414,121 taxable persons, of whom only 40,773 

 paid over 500 francs annually; and these, together, 

 paid one-fifth of the land tax, whilst the petite pro- 

 priete paid four-fifths.) By the budget of 1822, it 

 appeared that only 216,000,000 were then paid by'the 

 whole mass of real estate, while, before the revolu- 

 tion, the smaller portion of it paid 170,000,000. It 

 appears from this single fact, that the burdens of 

 France are comparatively much smaller than before 

 the revolution. The comparison, however, is not 

 complete, unless we consider, also, the abolition of 

 the tithes, the corve'es, the quartering of soldiers, and 

 the feudal privileges. This division of the soil into 

 small properties, which is naturally connected with 

 a more careful cultivation, must be considered as the 

 chief cause of the rapid increase of the population of 

 France. Within thirty years, it has increased one- 

 fifth. It was, in 1789, a matter of great dispute 

 whether France had more than 20,000,000 of inhabi- 

 tants. Those who estimated it highest never rated 

 it at more than 25,000,000. After all the destruc- 

 tion of the revolution, and of twenty-five years' war, 

 the population amounted, in 1821, to 30,465,291. 

 We are far from considering the increase of popula- 

 tion as the chief aim of states, or even as the princi- 

 pal standard of public welfare ; but, in most cases, 

 it will be found a proof of public prosperity. 3. The 

 distribution of property is secured by the civil code, 

 which requires that all estates should be divisible. 

 The power of creating entails was very limited before 

 the revolution, and, by the laws of August 25, and 

 October 25, 1792, such restrictions on the free dis- 

 posal of property were abolished altogether. Napo- 



leon, it is true, re-established entails in 1807, and the 

 modern legislation lias not only sanctioned them, but 

 even rendered them necessary for peers, by the ordi- 

 nance of August 25, 1817, according to which no 

 one could, in future, be raised to the peerage without 

 previously establishing a majorat. But the amount 

 of these estates, exempted from the common rule of 

 distribution of inheritances, is comparatively small. 

 The majorat of a duke need only yield 30,000 francs 

 net income ; that of a marquis or count, 20,000, and 

 that of a vicomte or baron, only 10,000. The nation 

 is opposed to this system, and, though the old nobility 

 has often spoken of the necessity of strengthening 

 the aristocracy by imitating the British constitu- 

 tion and usages, according to which all real estate, 

 small or large, generally goes to the eldest son (the 

 fundamental idea in Cottu's work De V Administra- 

 tion de la Justice Criminelle en Angleterre], the pro- 

 position has always been rejected by the nation at 

 large ; and, since the revolution of 1830, there is 

 little probability that the aristocracy will succeed in 

 this point. It would have been madness to imitate 

 Britain in this point, as the organization of France 

 is founded on totally different principles from that of 

 Britain. 4. The equality of all, in the eye of the 

 law, has been established in France so firmly by the 

 revolution, that it probably cannot be eradicated. 

 It is true that the charts constitutionnelle violated 

 this principle in spite of its own words Tons les 

 Francais sont sgaux devant la loi. The law of elec- 

 tion, in 1820, extended this abuse, and would have 

 become truly aristocratic had Polignac's law of elec- 

 tion, promulgated in 1830, taken effect ; but the 

 revolution, which the measures of that year produced, 

 showed how firmly the nation was attached to the 

 legal equality of all. Indeed, had the laws of elec- 

 tion previously existing been allowed quietly to take 

 their root, and had the law of primogeniture been at 

 any time added, a lower nobility would have been 

 created, consisting of hereditary electors (from which 

 the large mass of the nation would have been ex 

 eluded), and the rendering of the offices of mayors 

 and justices of the peace also hereditary would have 

 been a single and easy step. Hardly the fiftieth part 

 of the nation enjoyed the right of voting. Of 

 10,000,000 of taxable heads of families, only 90,879 

 paid 300 francs direct taxes in 1820 ; and of these 

 74,000 paid that amount on land, only 3836 on manu- 

 factures, and 12,140 on mixed property. Had pri- 

 mogeniture been introduced, an electoral nobility 

 would have been formed, of which those would have 

 constituted a distinct class who paid 1000 francs 

 annually, and who alone, by the fortieth article of 

 the old charts constitutionnelle, were eligible to office, 

 and of whom there were, in 1820, according to a 

 ministerial report, only 16,072. Our readers may 

 think that, notwithstanding these laws, there was 

 yet a wide distance from the ancien regime to the 

 modern state of France ; but, although the law of 

 March 17, 1788, which declared that no person, not 

 of noble descent, through four generations, could be 

 appointed sub-lieutenant, was not actually re-enacted, 

 yet it was silently practised upon, and few officers, 

 not so descended, were retained in service beyond 

 the term required by law. 



We have not space to explain minutely all the de- 

 tails of the great regeneration effected, by the revo- 

 lution, through all the different branches of the ad- 

 ministration, the education, and moral condition of 

 the nation. (For what has been done in criminal 

 and civil legislation, see Cassation, Court of, and 

 Codes, les Cinq.) The whole system of finances, 

 which is so vitally important to a government, owes 

 much to Napoleon. Although formerly so confused, 

 that nine years were necessary to correct the chief 



