Chamberss Edinburgh Journal, No. 424

Chambers's Edinburgh Journal,
No. 424

The Project Gutenberg EBook of Chambers's Edinburgh Journal, No.
424, New
Series, February 14, 1852, by Various This eBook is for the use of
anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever.
You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project
Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.net
Title: Chambers's Edinburgh Journal, No. 424, New Series, February
14, 1852
Author: Various
Editor: Robert Chambers and William Chambers
Release Date: April 5, 2005 [EBook #15549]
Language: English
Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1
*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK
EDINBURGH JOURNAL ***

Produced by Malcolm Farmer, Richard J. Shiffer and the PG Online
Distributed Proofreading Team.

CHAMBERS' EDINBURGH JOURNAL
CONDUCTED BY WILLIAM AND ROBERT CHAMBERS,

EDITORS OF 'CHAMBERS'S INFORMATION FOR THE PEOPLE,'
'CHAMBERS'S EDUCATIONAL COURSE,' &c.
No. 424. NEW SERIES. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1852. PRICE
1-1/2 d.

THE PATTERN NATION.
It seems to be the destiny of France to work out all sorts of problems in
state and social policy. It may be said to volunteer experiments in
government for the benefit of mankind. All kinds of forms it tries, one
after the other: each, in turn, is supposed to be the right thing; and when
found to be wrong, an effort, fair or unfair, is made to try something
else. It would surely be the height of ingratitude not to thank our
versatile neighbour for this apparently endless series of experiments.
Unfortunately, the novel projects extemporised by the French are not
on all occasions easily laid aside. What they have laid hold on, they
cannot get rid of. We have a striking instance of this in the practice of
subdividing lands. Forms of state administration may be altered, and
after all not much harm done; it is only changing one variety of power
at the Tuileries for another. A very different thing is a revolution in the
method of holding landed property. Few things are more dangerous
than to meddle with laws of inheritance: if care be not taken, the whole
fabric of society may be overthrown. The unpleasant predicament
which the French have got into on this account is most alarming--far
more terrible than the wildest of their revolutions. How they are to get
out of it, no man can tell.
Latterly, the world has heard much of Socialism. This is the term
applied to certain new and untried schemes of social organisation, by
which, among other things, it is proposed to supersede the ordinary
rights of property and laws of inheritance--the latter, as is observed,
having, after due experience, failed to realise that happiness of
condition which was anticipated sixty years ago at their institution. As
it is always instructive to look back on the first departure from rectitude,
let us say a few words as to how the French fell into their present
unhappy position.
At the Revolution of 1789-93, it will be recollected that the laws of
primogeniture were overthrown, and it was ordained that in future
every man's property should be divided equally among his children at

his death: there can be no doubt that considerations of justice and
humanity were at the foundation of this new law of inheritance.
Hitherto, there had been a great disparity in the condition of high and
low: certain properties, descending from eldest son to eldest son, had
become enormously large, and were generally ill managed; while
prodigious numbers of people had no property at all, and were
dependents on feudal superiors. The country was undoubtedly in a bad
condition, and some modification of the law was desirable. Reckless of
consequences, the system as it stood was utterly swept away, and that
of equal partition took its place. About the same period, vast domains
belonging to the crown, the clergy, and the nobility, were sequestrated
and sold in small parcels; so that there sprang up almost at once a
proprietary of quite a new description. Had the law of equal partition
been extended only to cases in which there was no testamentary
provision, it could not have inflicted serious damage, and would at all
events have been consistent with reason and expediency: but it went the
length of depriving a parent of the right to distribute his property in the
manner he judged best, and handed over every tittle of his earnings in
equal shares to his children. One child might be worthless, and another
the reverse; no matter--all were to be treated alike. No preference could
be shewn, no posthumous reward could be given for general
good-conduct or filial respect. In all this, there was something so
revolting to common sense, that one feels a degree of wonder that so
acute a people as the French should have failed