The Physiocratic or Agricultural System
Had the great enterprise of Colbert been permitted to succeed-- had not the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, the love ofsplendour and false ambition of Louis XIV, and the debauchery andextravagance of his successors, nipped in the bud the seeds whichColbert had sown -- if consequently a wealthy manufacturing andcommercial interest had arisen in France, if by good fortune theenormous properties of the French clergy had been given over to thepublic, if these events had resulted in the formation of a powerfullower house of Parliament, by whose influence the feudalaristocracy had been reformed -- the physiocratic system wouldhardly have ever come to light.That system was evidently deducedfrom the then existing circumstances of France, and was onlyapplicable to those circumstances.
At the period of its introduction the greater part of thelanded property in France was in the hands of the clergy and thenobility It was cultivated by a peasantry languishing under a stateof serfdom and personal oppression, who were sunk in superstition,ignorance, indolence, and poverty The owners of the land, whoconstituted its productive instruments, were devoted to frivolouspursuits, and had neither mind for, nor interest in, agriculture.
The actual cultivators had neither the mental nor material meansfor agricultural improvements.The oppression of feudalism onagricultural production was increased by the insatiable demandsmade by the monarchy on the producers, which were made moreintolerable by the freedom from taxation enjoyed by the clergy andnobility.Under such circumstances it was impossible that the mostimportant branches of trade could succeed, those namely whichdepend on the productiveness of native agriculture, and theconsumption of the great masses of the people; those only couldmanage to thrive which produced articles of luxury for the use ofthe privileged classes.The foreign trade was restricted by theinability of the material producers to consume any considerablequantity of the produce of tropical countries, and to pay for themby their own surplus produce; the inland trade was oppressed byprovincial customs duties.
Under such circumstances, nothing could be more natural thanthat thoughtful men, in their investigations into the causes of theprevailing poverty and misery, should have arrived at theconviction, that national welfare could not be attained so long asagriculture was not freed from its fetters, so long as the ownersof land and capital took no interest in agriculture, so long as thepeasantry remained sunk in personal subjection, in superstition,idleness, and ignorance, so long as taxation remained undiminishedand was not equally borne by all classes, so long as internaltariff restrictions existed, and foreign trade did not flourish.
