• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

Arthur Young, Travels During the Years 1787, 1788, and 1789… in the Kingdom of France

The Englishman, in eleven years, gets three bushels more of wheat than the Frenchman. He gets three crops of barley, tares [vetches grown for fodder], or beans, which produce nearly twice as many bushels per acre, as what the three French crops of spring corn [grain] produce. And he farther gets, at the same time, three crops of turnips, and two of clover, the turnips worth 40 s. the acre, and the clover 60 s. That is 121 for both. What an enormous superiority. More wheat; almost double of the spring corn; and above 20 s. per acre per annum in turnips and clover. But farther; the Englishman’s land, by means of the manure arising from the consumption of the turnips and clover is in a constant state of improvement, while the Frenchman’s farm is stationary.

The great populousness of France, I attribute very much to the division of the lands into small properties, which takes place in that country to a degree of which we have in England but little conception…. It has been said to me in France, “Would you leave uncultivated lands wastes, rather than let them be cultivated in small portions, through a fear of population?” I certainly would not: I would, on the contrary, encourage their culture; but I would prohibit the division of small farms, which is as mischievous to cultivation, as it is sure to be distressing to the people…. Go to districts where the properties are minutely divided, and you will find (at least I have done it) universally, great distress, and even misery, and probably very bad agriculture. Go to others, where such subdivision has not taken place, and you will find a better cultivation, and infinitely less misery. When you are engaged in this political tour, finish it by seeing England, and I will show you a set of peasants well clothed, well nourished, and tolerably drunken from superfluity, well-lodged, and at their ease.

In Young’s eyes, how did French agricultural practices compare with those of the English? Was this an unbiased account? Why or why not?

* * *

If ten or twelve businessmen of Amsterdam of the first rank meet for a banking operation, they can in a moment send circulating throughout Europe over two hundred million florins in paper money, which is preferred to cash. There is no Sovereign who could do as much…. This credit is a power which the ten or twelve businessmen will be able to exert over all the States of Europe, in complete independence of any authority.6

The decline of Dutch trade, industry, and power meant that Dutch capitalists were inclined to lend money abroad because they had fewer opportunities at home.

European Industry

The most important product of European industry in the eighteenth century was textiles. Woolen cloth made up 75 percent of Britain’s exports in the early part of the century. France, too, was a leader in the production of woolen cloth, and other major states emulated both France and Britain by encouraging the development of their own textile industries.

COTTAGE INDUSTRY Most textiles were still produced by traditional methods. In cities that were textile centers, master artisans used timeworn methods to turn out finished goods in their guild workshops. But by the eighteenth century, textile production was beginning to shift to the countryside in parts of Europe. In the countryside, textiles were produced by the “putting-out” or “domestic” system, in which a merchant-capitalist entrepreneur bought the raw materials, mostly wool and flax, and “put them out” to rural workers, who spun the raw material into yarn and then wove it into cloth on simple looms. Capitalist entrepreneurs sold the finished product, made a profit, and used it to manufacture more. This system became known as the cottage industry because spinners and weavers did their work in their own cottages. The cottage industry was truly a family enterprise: women and children could spin