264 



FARMli^RS' KEGISTiiH 



of all game, even on lands which did not belong 

 to them, and even on manors granted long bel'ote 

 to individuals ; go Ihat by this paramountohip ail 

 manorial rights were annihilated, 'i'he privileges 

 thus conferred, were most grievous and oppres- 

 sive ; for by game was understood, whole droves 

 of wild boars, and herds of deer not confined, but 

 wandering over the whole country, to the destruc- 

 tion of the crops; and if any person presumed to 

 kill them, he was liable to be sent to the galleys. 

 It may easily be conceived, that the minute vexa- 

 tions, as well as the more prominent tyrannies, to 

 which the fijudal tenures gave rise, would occa- 

 sion Irequent disputes between the seigneur and 

 his tenants ; but the latter preferred subrnitiing to 

 them, rather Ihan appealing to the decision of 

 judges, vvho were absolutely dependent on the 

 seigneurs. 



We may here also notice the corvces, as one of 

 the taxes peculiarly oppressive and injurious to 

 agriculture, though not confined to the tenure we 

 are now considering. By the corvees, individuals 

 were obliged to mend the roads by their personal 

 labor; hence it is evident lliat this tax must have 

 lallen exclusively on the poor; or if it was per- 

 formed by those who kept laborers, it must have 

 deprived them of the means of fully attending to 

 their agricultural operations. This tax was not 

 only impolilic, in so much as it placed the repair 

 of the roads under the care of those who were to- 

 tally destitute of the little skill requisite lor such a 

 task, but it was an easy engine of oppression ; for, 

 under the pretence that the work might be done 

 without inlerrupiion, those who were liable to the 

 corvee had it frequently allotted to them at some 

 leagues from their habitations. Besides these 

 corvces, wiiich were an oppression to agriculture 

 over the whole of France, there were the military 

 corvees, which fell only on the villages lying in 

 the route of the troops ; tiie inhabitants of which 

 were obliged to leave their occupation, however 

 inconvenient and injurious it might be, and repair 

 the roads along which the soldiers were to travel. 

 Such are a lew of the opjjressions under which 

 agriculture in France labored, previously to the 

 revolution, arising either from the feudal tenures, 

 or lirom the more general operation of the laws 

 and measures of government, the privileges of 

 the nobility and clergy, and the usages of the 

 country. 



The fourth mode of occupying land, resembled 

 that which is common in Ireland, and which is 

 there complained of as a great grievance, and as 

 ttie source of much misery and oppression. Men 

 possessed of some properly, hired great tracts of 

 land at a money rent, and relet it in small divi- 

 sions to metaijcfs, vvho paid lialf the product. 

 Tliis mode of occupying land was most common 

 in La JManche, Berry, Puitou, and Angoumois, 

 but it was also met wuh in oiher provinces. 



The lust tenure was that of ihe metayer. These, 

 who are a i^pecies of farmers Ihat gradually suc- 

 ceeded to the slave cuUivutory of ancient times, 

 and who, in Laiin, are called coloai partiarii, 

 have been so long in disuse in England, lii.it there 

 is no English name for them. They may be ge- 

 nerally described, as supplying the labor necessa- 

 ry to culiivate the land, while ilic proprietor fur- 

 nishes ihem with the seed, caitle and instruments 

 of liusbandry, and, in short the vvhole stock ne- 

 cessary lor cullivaiing the larm. The common 



agreement was, that the produce should be equal- 

 ly divided between the proprietor and larmer, after 

 setting aside what was necessary for keeping up 

 the stock, which was restored to the proprietor, 

 when the farmer either quilted, or was turned out 

 ofhis farm. 



Bfore the revolution, seven-eiuhths of the lands 

 in France were held under this tenure. It per- 

 vaded almost every part of Sologne, Berry, La 

 Manche, Limosin, Anjou, Burgundy, Bourbon- 

 nois, Nivernois, Auvergne, &c., and was Ibund in 

 Brittany, Maine, Provence and all of the southern 

 districts. In general, the half of the produce was 

 paid to the proprietor; but in Champngne only a 

 third. There were also other variations ; in some 

 parts, the proprietor found half the cattle and 

 seed, and the metayer, the labor and implements, 

 besides paying the taxes ; the last, in other dis- 

 tricts, were partly paid by the proprietor. In Nor- 

 mandy, a singular species of this tenure prevailed, 

 viz., on the liirms which the proprietors kept in 

 their own hands. 



It is scarcely necessary to point out the misera- 

 ble state of agriculture, winch must exist in a 

 country where the system of metaying prevails. 

 In the first place, it proves a lamentable deficiency 

 of agricultural capital; and, in the second place, 

 it has a manliest tendency to perpetuate this evil, 

 and to keep the tenant in the lowest state of de- 

 pendence, misery, and poverty. In some parts of 

 France, the metayers were so poor, and conse- 

 quently so dependent on their landlords, that they 

 were almost every year obliged to borrow from 

 them their bread, before the harvest came round. 



Such were the tenures of land before the revo- 

 lution. Let us now inquire what effects that event 

 has produced on them, and on the condition of the 

 agricultural class in general. 



In the first place, the number of small proper- 

 ties has been considerably increased in all parts 

 of France. The national domains, which con- 

 sisted of the confiscated estates of the church and 

 emigrant nobility, were exposed to sale during the 

 pecuniary distresses of the revolutionary govern- 

 ment. For the accommodation of the lowest or- 

 der of purchasers, they were divided into small 

 portions, and five years were allowed for com- 

 pleting the payment. In consequence of this in- 

 dulgence, and of the depreciation of assignats, 

 the poorest classes of the peasantry were enabled 

 to become proprietors, possessing li^om one to ten 

 acres. They support themselves by cultivating 

 these, and by laboring, at the same time, for the 

 neighboring fiumers. The number of small pro- 

 perties has also increased fi-om another cause, 

 since the revolution. Before that event, it seems 

 lo have been the law, or at least the invariable 

 custom, m some parts of France, lo divide the 

 landed property among all the children. This lo- 

 cal law, or custom, was extended, soon after the 

 revolution, to the whole kingdom ; so that, by the 

 present law of France, land, on Ihe death of a 

 proprietor, is divided, by the law itsellj amouir his 

 children. The depilorable consequences which 

 must ultimately result from this division and sub- 

 division of little properties, in a country like 

 France, already so fully appropriated, need not be 

 pointed out; they are sutficientlj' obvious. We 

 content ourselves with staling the fact, as illustrat- 

 ing one mode in which the tenure of landed pro^ 

 perty has been affected hy the revolution. 



