Jean-Sifrein Maury On The Nature Of Property

On the Nature of Property – Jean-Sifrein Maury
In the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, it is stated that “property is an inviolable and sacred right…” and the current draft of the Constitution states that “the constitution guarantees the inviolability of property or a just and prior indemnity for that of which a legally established public necessity may demand the sacrifice.” This is a section of the Constitution that should be applauded. For in this statement, there lies a great and admirable protection of citizens – a protection of them from the government. By stating this as law no longer can the government take anyone’s land in the state and if they do, just compensation is required. Despite all this though, the current state …show more content…
Now one might say this is permissible if the Church receives just compensation for the lands taken, and this is what the law permits in its current form. However, no compensation was offered for the Church. There was no promise of land located elsewhere or of any financial repayment. The best that could be offered to the Church was the ability to buy back the land. Following these events, one must wonder what the true policy of the state is on government. How can it say its policy on property is what it is while simultaneously breaking these laws in practice? From this, there exist only two options – to return the lands to the Church or to forgo all property rights. Surely, the later cannot and will not be considered as a serious option for France. For if the future of property follows the precedent established, who in France is safe from the seizure of property? What is there left to protect the rights of the citizens of France to their property? Obviously, the law of France in its current state will not do so. It is because of this current danger and the ever-present ability to multiply that the nature of property as sacred and inalienable must be upheld. This is not a policy to be upheld only …show more content…
Many in the Assembly accept either one or both of these justifications for property. Yet, despite claiming they believe these things, many of them went against these beliefs. The Church, which had been rightfully given the land and was using it to serve the people of France, lost its land – land which was divided among many abbeys, parishes, schools, and hospitals. Clearly, seizing the Church lands breaks all of Rousseau’s rules. This truly shows a sense of duplicity in some of the members of the National Assembly. They claim to hold to these lofty ideas, yet they betray their so-called beliefs for personal reasons. Burke further points to this duplicity by saying “Of what import is it under what names you injure men and deprive [the Church] of the just emoluments of a profession in which they were not only permitted but encouraged by the state to engage…” The Church has been attacked and pillaged by men who see it as their enemy. They co-opted the law in order to perceive this goal. What means is there then to prevent this from happening again to any citizen? There is only one option to make property sacred,