FARMERS' REGISTER 



263 



From the Edinburgh Encyclop;edia. 

 AGRICULTURE OF FRANCK. 



Before tlie revolution, agriciilliire in France was 

 nearly in the same state in vvliicli it is still in al- 

 most every country in continental Europe. About 

 two-fifihs of the land susceptible of culiivation, 

 were in what is termed culture and pasturajje. and 

 produced on an averafre, about one-half of what 

 jrood culture, on the like quantity of the same soil, 

 would have produced. 



If France has been in any respect benefited by 

 the revolution — if she can claim any permanent 

 and general good arising from it as a compensa- 

 tion and atonement for the physical and moral 

 evils she has suffered and alllicted — that benefit 

 and good must be looked ibr in the stale of her 

 landed property, and in the condition of her agri- 

 cultural population. 



IJelbre the revolution, the land in France was 

 held by various tenures, almost all of which were 

 decidedly and extremely unfavorable to agricul- 

 ture. The manor rants of the clergy have been 

 variously estimated. Condorcet, in his Life of 

 Turgot, gives it as his opinion, that the clergy 

 enjoyed near a fifth part of the property of the 

 kingdom. Neckar calculated their revenue at 

 130,000,000 iivres; but it is probable that their 

 manor rents may fairly be estimated to have 

 amounted to about 120,000,000 Iivres, or 4,800,- 

 000/. sterling, exclusive of^ their tithes, which 

 may be rated at about 3,600,000/. sterling. The 

 domains of the crown and of the princes of the 

 blood, rented for about 1.200,000/. sterling; the 

 fijudal and honorary dues paid to the nobility, 

 wiih cnrvees. militia, &c., amounted at least to 

 5,000,000/. sterling. Besides, the government 

 drew /mm the produce of agriculture the sum of 

 8,000,000/. sterling. In short, it has been calcu- 

 lated, that, exclusive of the rents of land paid to 

 the lay-proprietors, and of the duties of excise, 

 consumption, and the like, the produce of the soil 

 was charged annually with upwards of 21,000,- 

 000/. sterling. 



But agriculture labored under disadvantages 

 still more discouraging and oppressive, previously' 

 10 the revolution ; to understand and estimate 

 which, it will be proper to consider the difi'erent 

 modes of occupying land which then exisied, 

 some of which, however, as we shall afterwards 

 see, still remain. In the first place, there were 

 the small properties of the peasants. These were 

 to be found every where to a degree of which we 

 liave no conception in England, atid which we 

 should not have expected in the midst of the enor- 

 mous possessions, and the oppressive privileges, 

 of the nobility and the clergy. Even in those 

 provinces where other tenures prevailed, they 

 were to be Ibund ; but principally in Langucdoc ; 

 Quercy, which now forms the department of Lot; 

 the whole district of the Pyrenees, Berne, Gas- 

 cony, part of Guienne, Alsace, Flanders and Lor- 

 raine. The condition of the peasantry, who pos- 

 sessed these small properties, varied nnjch in dil- 

 ferent parts of the kingdom. In Flanders, Al- 

 sace, on the Garonne, and more particularly in 

 Berne, they were in comfortable circumstances, 

 and might rather be called fiirmers than cottagers ; 

 and in Lower Brittany many of them were rich ; 

 but this character could by no means be applied 

 to them generally. In fiict, the minute division 



of property had produced the effects which might 

 be expected from it ; and poverty and misery were 

 too visible, especially in Ijorraine, and the parts of 

 Champagne which are contiguous to it. 



The second mode of possessing land, was by a 

 money rent. 'J'iiis, belbre the revolution, was the 

 general practice in Picardy, Normandy, part of 

 Flanders, Artois, Isle of France, and Pays de 

 Beauce. It ak-^o existed in some of the southern 

 districts of France, particularly in Berne, and_ 

 about Navareens, a town in the department of 

 the Lower Pyrenees. These tenures were also 

 f()und in other parts of France, scattered among 

 those which were different and predominant ; but, 

 upon a moderate estimate, before tlie revolution, 

 they did not exist in more than a sixth or a se- 

 venth of the kingdom. 



Feudal tenures were the third mode of occupy- 

 ing land. They abounded most in BriUany, 

 Limosin, Berry, La Manche, &c., but they were 

 scattered in a greater or less degree through the 

 whole kingdom. These feudal tenures were fiefs 

 granted by the seigneurs of the parishes, under a 

 reservation of fines, quit rents, forfeitures, sei vices, 

 &c. As they lormed the most oppressive evil un- 

 der \v'hich agriculture labored previously to t!ie 

 revolution, and from which that event must cer- 

 tainly be allowed the merit otMiaving J'reed it, 

 it may be proper to notice some of them. Even to 

 enumerate the whole of these oppressions ^would 

 lar exceed our limits ; and, indeed, the English 

 language does not supply terms by which many of 

 them can be expressed. 



Among the more mild and tolerable of these 

 feudal tenures, may be mentioned the obligation 

 the tenant was under, of grinding his corn at the 

 mills of the seigneur only; of pressing his grapes 

 at his press only ; oi' baking his bread m his oven. 

 The peasantry in Brittany were obliged to beat the 

 water in marshy districts, to keep the frogs silent, 

 in order that the lady of the seigneur, during her 

 lying-in, might not be disturbed by their noise. 

 In short, every petty oppression which could ren- 

 der the lives of tlie peasantry miserLible, or interliire 

 with the operations of agriculture, was authorized 

 by these leudal tenures; though it must be con- 

 lesstd, that, belbre the revolution, some of the 

 seigneurs, convinced of their injustice as well as 

 impolicy, jbrebore to exact them. Nor were the 

 oppressions of the leudal tenures ihe only ones to 

 vviiich agriculture was exposed. There were nu- 

 merous edicts ibr preserving the game, which 

 ()rohibited weeding and hoeing, lest the joung 

 partridges should be disturbed; steeping seed, 

 iest it should injure the game; manuring with 

 night soil, lest the flavor of the partridges should 

 be injured, by lijeding on the corn so produced; 

 mowing hay before a certain lime, so late as to 

 spoil many crops ; and taking away the stubble, 

 which would deprive the birds of sheller. These 

 were oppressions, to which all the tenants ol land, 

 as well as those who held under feudal tenures, 

 and even the proprieioi's of land, in many cases, 

 were exposed. The latter, indeed, were dread- 

 fully tormented by what were called die C'apilain- 

 ries, which, asattectiiig them in some measure, aa 

 lire feudal tenures atlected the iiirmers, may be 

 noticed under this liead. By this term was to be 

 understood, the paramountsliip of certain districts, 

 granted by the king to princes of the blood, by 

 which they were put in jjosscssion of ihe i)roperiy 



