young’s TRAVELS IN FRANCE.
426
fuflkiently eftabiilhel for the proteflion of property,} except the cafe of tythes ; but Ifee the rife of many evils; re (frictions and prohibitions on the trade of corn—a varyingland-tax—and impeded inclofures, are mifehiefs on principle , that may have a genera-tive faculty ; and will prove infinite draw-backs from the profperity which certainlywas attainable. It is to be hoped, that the good fenfe of the alfembly will reverfe thisfyftem by degrees; for, if it is not reverfed, agriculture cannot flourish.
The eifeft of the revolution, on the public revenue, is one great point on whichMonf. de C.alonne lays confiderable ft refs; and it has been fmee urged in France ,that the ruin of 30,000 families, thrown absolutely out of employment, and confe-quently out of bread, in the collection of the taxes on fait and tobacco only, has hada powerful influence in fpreading univerfal diftrefs and mifery. The public revenuefunk, in one year, 175 millions: this was not a lofs of that fum ; the people to whomafiignats were paid on that account loft no more than the difeount; the lofs, therefore,to the people to whom that revenue was paid, could amount to no more than from 4to 10 per cent *. But was it a lofs to the miferable fubjeCts who formerly paid thofetaxes ; and who paid them by the fweat of their brows, at the expence of the breadout of their children’s mouths, aflefled with tyranny, and levied in blood ? Do theyfeel a lofs in having 175 millions in their pockets in 1789, more than they had in1788? and in poflefling another 175 millions more in 1790, and the inheritance infuture ? Is not fuch a change eafe, wealth, life, and animation, to thofe clafles who,while the pens of political fatirifts ilander all innovations, are every moment reviving,by inheriting from that revolution fomething which the old government affuredly didnot give ? The revenue of the clergy may be called the revenue of the public :—thofe to whom the difference between the prefent payment of one hundred and lortyBullions and the old tythes are a deduction of all revenue, are/ beyond doubt, ingreat diftrefs ; but what fay the farmers throughout the kingdom, from whom the de-teftable burthen of thofe taxes was extorted ? Do not they find their culture lightened,their indullry freed, their products their own ? Go to the ariflocratical politician atParis, or at London, and you hear only of the ruin of France —go to the cottage ofthe metayer , or the houfe of the farmer, and demand of him what the refult has been—there will be but one voice from Calais to Bayonne. If tythes were to be at oneftroke abolifhed in England f, no doubt the clergy would fuffer, but would not theagriculture of the kingdom, with every man dependent on it, rife with a vigour neverbefore experienced.
Future Effects.
It would betray no inconfiderable prefumption to attempt to predict what will be theevent of the revolution now pafling in France ; I am not fo imprudent. But there areconfiderations that may be offered to the attention of thofe who love to ipeculate onfuture events better than I do. There are three apparent benefits in an ariftocracy
* Since tin’s was written, affigna's fell, in Dec. i-g r, and Jan. 1792, to 34 to 3S per cent, paid in lilvcr,and 42 to 50 paid in gold, ariling from great emiflions ; from the quantity of private paper ifTued; fromforged ones being common ; aid trorn the profpeft of a war
■f It is an error in France70 fuppofe, that the revenue of the church is fmall in England. The RoyalSociety of Agriculture at Paris Hates that revenue a 2to,cool. ; it cannot be Hated at lefs than five mil-lions Herling Mem. prefente par /a S . R- el’Ag. a l’/tjfembtee National, 17S9, p. ,2. One of the greateftand wifeft men we have in England perfifts in afferting it to be much lefs than two millions. From verynumerous enquiries, which I am Hill purfuing, I have reafon to believe this opinion to be founded on infut-ficient data.
forming
6