t will, I conceive, not be difficult to shew,
that though certainly a consequence of the great change, it is far from
being a happy one. We surely would not pronounce it a happy state of
things, where the interests of all other branches of the community were
sacrificed to promote the welfare of the peasantry alone.

The peasantry, no doubt, when their rights are preserved to them, as
they are the most numerous, so they become the most important members of
a civil society. "Although," as is well observed by Arthur Young, "they
be disregarded by the superficial, or viewed with contempt by the vain,
they will be placed, by those who judge of things not by their external
appearance, but by their intrinsic worth, as the most useful class of
mankind; their occupations conduce not only to the prosperity, but to
the very existence of society; their life is one unvaried course of
hardy exertion and persevering toil. The vigour of their youth is
exhausted by labour, and what are the hopes and consolations of their
age? Sickness may deprive them of the opportunity of providing the least
supply for the declining years of life, and the gloomy confinement of a
work-house, or the scanty pittance of parochial help, are their only
resources. By their condition may be estimated the real prosperity of a
country; the real opulence, strength, and security of the public are
proportionate to the comfort which they enjoy, and their wretchedness is
a _sure criterion of a bad administration_."

I have quoted this passage at length, in order that I might shew that
France supplies us in this case, as in many others, with a wide
exception from those general rules in politics which time and experience
had long sanctioned. We shall in vain look at the state of the peasantry
of that country as affording a criterion of the situation of any other
branch of the community. It did not remain concealed from the deep and
penetrating eye of Napoleon, that if the peasantry of a country were
supported, and their condition improved, any revolution might be
effected; any measure, however tyrannical, provided it did not touch
them, might be executed with ease. For the sake of the peasantry, we
shall perceive that the yeomanry, the farmers, the _bourgeoisie_, the
nobility, were allowed to dwindle into insignificance. His leading
principle was never to interfere with their properties, however they may
have been obtained; and he invariably found, that if permitted to