The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1883-06-03

man. 1T was not" he says ''the
national spirit OF Frenchmen which Gre
ated the Balic rule. but the Salic rule"
and the remarkable phenomenon by which
the rule had been suggested. had great
share In creating the French national spirit"
Apropos Of tho heed paid to the Salic rule in
recent times. Sir II. =. Maine reminds lis that
although this principle was introduced In the
Spanish monarchy upon the accession OF the
Bourbon dynasty. yet it was formally sct aside
in the case OF Isabella H.. and Is. OF course
again disregardod In the person of her son. the
present King. On the other hand. the success
sion to the German empire. following that OF
the Prussian Kingdom Is Sale; and In Russia
where one Of the most usual modes OF success
sion WINS that Of the widow Of tho preceding
Emperor the exclusive dcvolution OF the crown
through males on males has been the law since
the reign of Paul |.
In his essay on the comparative rate OF decay
Of fouda property In France and England. Sir
II. :. Maine dispels good many current fa'la-
cics. and ascribcs to its true causes the exccp-
tional rancor with which the rural cutivator
regarded the handwriting aristocrat under the
ou,ien rtyime. II was not at ALL rs is common
ly supposed because the French mobiles
monopolzed much larger share OF the ma
tonal soil than did the nobility and gentry In
Great Britain. much larger proportion OF
the arabic land belonged to great landowners
in England. and there was II lar smaller num-
Der of ycomen or peasant proprietors. sir H.
S. Maine indeed. pronounecs it one OF the
mos. vulgar of errors to suppose that small
properties in France dato from the
Revolution. Immediately before it Ar
thur Young. one OF the most obscrv-
ant OF English travellers. expresses himself rs
am..:cd at their multitude. And this multi
nal inap nj sin IN n
buying up the domains of the richer nobility
ruined by the court life at Versailles" In n
word. the fundamental grievance OF the French
peasant was not agrarian. but ndministra-
tive what he complained OF was not so much
the distribution of the land as the exasperat-
Ing fouda dues to which his holding was sub
Jected and the innumorable petty monopolics
by which his profits were curtaied. Now. these
dues and monopolies which remained in fun
force in France up to 1889. had become almost
extinct in England. Moreover, the manoria
courts were still active in the French provinces.
and powerfully assisted the French srisncur
to enforce his traditional privileges n! the eX
pcLsc of tho vlleins In England. on the other
hand. these local tribunals had been almost
wholly superseded by the courts of the Justices
Of the Peace. which drew their authority. of
course. from the Crown. The author does not
wish he tolls us, to he understood rs affirming
that the contrast between the view oil i,uih
obligations and rights taken in England and
France n century ago IL wholly to be explained
BY the causes Analysed in this essay. although
he thinks these agencies have be"h kept too
much II the background. He concnrs with De
Toclueville in believing TINT the enormous
social prestige of the French court and its
constant indulgence of its military tastes had
AT length transformed the French territorial
nobility into II caste AS utterly distinct from
the cultvating peasantry as is the rnlput from
the sudra in India. or as WAS the white planter
Of the uthern Estates from the negro who Ia
bored in his cotton fields.