It is just the reverse in 1789 In conformity with the doctrine of the
social contract, the principle is set up that every man is born free,
and that his freedom has always been inalienable. If he formerly
submitted to slavery or to serfdom, it was owing to his having had a
knife at his throat; a contract of this sort is essentially null and
void. So much the worse for those who have the benefit of it at the
present day; they are holders of stolen property, and must restore it to
the legitimate owners. Let no one object that this property was acquired
for cash down, and in good faith; they ought to have known beforehand
that man and his liberty are not commercial matters, and that unjust
acquisitions rightly perish in their hands.[2220] Nobody dreams that
the State which was a party to this transaction is the responsible
guarantor. Only one scruple affects the Assembly; its jurists and
Merlin, its reporter, are obliged to yield to proof; they know that
in current practice, and by innumerable ancient and modern titles, the
noble in many cases is nothing but an ordinary lessor, and that if, in
those cases, he collects his dues, it is simply in his capacity as a
private person, by virtue of a mutual contract, because he has given a
perpetual lease of a certain portion of his land; and he has given
it only in consideration of an annual payment in money or produce, or
services, together with another contingent claim which the farmer pays
in case of the transmission of the lease. These two obligations could
not be canceled without indemnity; if it were done, more than one-half
of the proprietors in France would be dispossessed in favor of the
farmers. Hence the distinction which the Assembly makes in the feudal
dues.--On the one hand it abolishes without indemnity all those dues
which the noble receives by virtue of being the local sovereign, the
ancient proprietor of persons and the usurper of public powers; all
those which the lessee paid as serf, subject to rights of inheritance,
and as former vassal or dependent. On the other hand, it maintains
and decrees as redeemable at a certain rate all those which the noble
receives through his title of landed proprietor and of simple lessor;
all those which the lessee pays by virtue of being a free contracting
party, former purchaser, tenant, farmer or grantee of landed estate.--By
this division it fancies that it has respected lawful ownership by
overthrowing illegitimate property, and that in the feudal scheme of
obligations, it has separated the wheat from the chaff.[2221]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account