OCCUPYING OWNERSHIP 189 



For a long time afterwards the new system intro- 

 duced under it was fiercely discussed. Even in 

 France a large party was strongly opposed to it. 

 All those who looked with regret at the dis- 

 appearance of the old state of things before the 

 Revolution, urged that small ownerships and the 

 division of the soil as provided by the Code would 

 lead to the ruin of France. They argued that the 

 ultimate effect would be that the land would be cut up 

 into little squares like a vast chessboard, on each 

 square of which would be a family living in a ''petite 

 case " (little hut or nigger's cabin) and toiling for a 

 mere existence. This party became strong enough to 

 cause a Bill to be introduced in the French Chamber 

 (1826) the object of which was to stop the division 

 of land and to go back a great way towards the old 

 methods of cultivation. The Bill was, however, de- 

 feated. Facts showed that the principles of the Code, 

 so far from producing the evils named, were rapidly 

 adding to the agricultural prosperity of France, by 

 attracting to the land the resources and energies of 

 the nation. As to the social effect — " The Code had 

 sensibly reduced the number of the poor and of the 

 unemployed. The labourers had gained ground in 

 welfare and self-respect. Each portion of the land 

 that had passed into their hands had made them a 

 guarantee for social order. "^ 



During the period referred to, the discussion was 

 equally active and general in England ; but the 

 British political and agricultural economists were 

 strongly in favour of the English system. Only 

 poets and sentimentalists, they said, could be in 

 favour of that of the French. These writers de- 

 ' Passy, " Des systfemes de culture, etc.," 2nd edition, p. 19. 



