thought that their official rank gave them social precedence amongst all there was jealous competition for official promotion: and all were anxious to retain in their own families lucrative offices which they had once acquired. Such being the state of the country, it is not to be wondered at that there should be a revolution, or that the overthrow of the ancient fabric should be both sudden and complete. The masses were so miserable, and so helpless, that revolution was their only remedy: there was not only no principle of social cohesion, but there were positive principles of disruption and centralization had so weakened the extremities, that, when the centre was shaken, the whole fabric necessarily fell to pieces. It is true that, in the years immediately preceding the Revolution, the administration had been milder than before. But no mere administrative changes could remedy the evils which were inherent in the system. Small reforms, instead of appeasing the people, rendered them more impatient and more discontented than before. Measures of relief undertaken by the government necessitated ruinous loans. The inquiries instituted by government into the condition of the people served chiefly to aggravate their sense of suffering. The rejection of all proposals to tax the privileged classes irritated those on whom the burden of taxation really fell. The very impotence of the king to redress grievances, the existence of which he acknowledged, made those grievances seem more intolerable. The Intendants resented the attempts which had been made to diminish their own powers, and to turn them into presidents and advisers of local assemblies. The people were quite unfitted to take part in the adminis tration of their own affairs, even when they were allowed to do so, partly because of their inexperience, partly because of the impossibility of co-operation between classes who stood on such an unequal footing as the classes in France did. In spite of what Burke says, we must allow that reform was useless, and revolution inevitable. If we would understand the condition to which the old régime had reduced the people, we must contrast the glowing pages of Burke with the more sober account of an eye-witness, Arthur Young. Burke dwells upon the wealth of the country, upon its population, and its magnificent public works. Young, in his diary for 1787, notices that there were magnificent roads, but that they were made by forced labour, or paid for by excessive taxation. Moreover, though there were fine roads, there was no traffic on them. They, therefore, served no purpose of real utility, but only proved the absurdity and oppression of the government. The property of great lords throughout the country was desert and The king sometimes granted to princes of the blood a capitainerie, that is, the exclusive right to all the game in a district, even on land which did not belong to them. Whole droves of wild boar and herds of deer wandered at pleasure over the country, destroying the crops, and all sorts and modes of cultivation, which could in any way interfere with the well-being of the game, were absolutely forbidden. The residences of the seigneurs were generally in the midst of a forest peopled with deer, wild boar, and wolves. Oh! exclaims Young, if I was the legislator of France, I would make such great lords skip again. The fact is that the waste. nobles had no taste for country life and rural pursuits. They would not spend their money on the improvement of their estates, or in promoting the well-being of the peasants. The land was necessarily starved. The lords would not, and the peasants could not spend anything upon it. The peasants were content if they could get a bare subsistence. There was not, as in England, a class of capitalist farmers, sufficiently independent to make equitable bargains with their landlords. In the division. of the gross produce of the soil, the landlord in France got one half. In England, he received, in the form of rent from one-fourth to one-tenth; generally between one-fourth and one-sixth. The English farmer required not only support for himself and his family, but interest on his capital; and it was his capital which gave to the land its productiveness. Speaking generally, the produce of land per acre was less in France than in England; yet, owing to the competition of peasants for land, the price of it was as high as in England. Infinite misery was caused by the universal desire to possess landed property. Land must be ill cultivated, and the national interest must suffer, when men, who by reason of their poverty ought to be working for wages, insist on cultivating land on their own account. When those who ought to be labourers become proprietors, they cannot afford to make their properties pay, and in bad seasons they are inevitably reduced to want. Besides the general unskilfulness of cultivation, and the want of capital, agriculture was hampered, as we have seen, by the oppressive and unequal system of taxation. It appeared to Young that the object in view was quite as much to keep the people poor, as to make the king rich. The taille, levied arbitrarily, and raised with every increase in the farmer's wealth, seemed specially devised to put an end to profit, to success, and to merit. The farmers who were not really poor, naturally pretended to be so. Consequently, Young saw poor cattle, poor implements, and poor manure even on the farms of men who could afford the best. Even where there ́was capital, there was a natural unwillingness to invest it in land, where it was, of necessity, exposed to the rapine of regal and noble harpies." The management of sheep was as unskilful as agriculture. The wool produced was poor in quality and small in amount. The consequence was that it was necessary to import for manufacture what might have been produced at home. Young calculates that the working classes received seventy-six per cent. less in France than in England. 66 They were to this extent worse fed, worse clothed, and worse supported both in sickness and in health than the same classes in England, notwithstanding both the immense quantity of precious metals, and the imposing appearance of wealth in France." The poor food and low wages of the labourers of course reacted unfavourably on agriculture Overpopulation intensified the misery of the poor. Young attributes this overpopulation to the minute subdivision of landed properties. The smallest farm was regarded as affording means for married life, and there was no variety of industry to carry off the surplus population. To complete the picture, we have to add the appalling weight of feudal dues and services, and the venality and partiality of the administration of justice. To sum up the rural population of France was 1 2. ignorant, isolated, oppressed, and poverty stricken. It was filled with a bitter hate against the existing system, and ready to follow any leaders who promised a happier state of things. The political inexperience of some among the revolutionary leaders, their extravagant hopes, and the folly of their political methods, which ✔Burke satirizes, were the natural result of the situation. Hope was the natural reaction from despair; inexperience was the result of exclusion from all share of authority, and consequent absence of all opportunities of acquiring political capacity. Independence and self-help had been utterly destroyed. It was to government and its officers that the people looked to take the initiative in everything, and it was upon government that the blame of public suffering was thrown. The spirit of loyalty was by no means dead. But there was nothing left for the people but to rebel against a king who seemed to have deserted them, and against a government that appeared to be their declared and open enemy. CS, R. 22 in This bk. + Then BK's harmon Arthur Young urges men to remember the grievances no country ever use power with moderation; excess is |