One cannot but recall the declaration of August 18, 1792: “A State that is truly free ought not to suffer within its bosom any corporation, not even such as, being dedicated to public instruction, have merited well of the country”

Yes, private property had been declared an inviolable and sacred right, but to the truly philosophical jurist with a craving for the natural, corporations such as dioceses, parishes, religious orders, universities, trade guilds were mere fictitious persons. To whom, therefore, did all these lands and buildings, rents and revenues really belong? To the present members? Surely not, for they were not free to deal with them as they wished or to divide them amongst themselves. So, as we all know, they were declared to be, in effect, ownerless and, thus, the goods of the nation. It was the same with the communes, the towns and the villages (There was a great deal of village property, under the Ancien Régime)

Now, even the Revolutionary legislators spared partnerships, and for a long time now, France has provided a legal framework for all sorts of groups, provided (but notice this) that these groups’ one and only object is to make a profit.

Following the French example, modern States seem to think that selfish people who want dividends should be given every encouragement, while they remain deeply suspicious of the comparatively unselfish people who want to combine for some religious, charitable, literary, scientific, artistic or even sporting purposes. The reasons are precisely those outlined in Mr Forster’s article

But my real point is about what could be done, not what has been done.

And what about the Church? But of course, property rights holds more allegiance for most.

The reality is that the grantmaking institutions in 20C were very much involved in furthering the progressive enterprise of destroying traditional mediating institutions between the State and the individual.