CHAPTER IV.

AGRICULTURAL TRIBES.

§ 1. Numbers of positive and negative cases in the three agricultural groups.

The list given in § 3 of the first chapter of this second Part contains the following numbers of agricultural tribes with and without slaves, classified according to the division into three groups we have made in § 2 of the same chapter:

FIRST AGRICULTURAL GROUP [1270].

a1 a1 + c a1 + t Total. ——————————— ——————————— —————————— —————————— Pos. Neg. Pos. Neg. Pos. Neg. Pos. Neg. North America 6 6 South America 6 9 6 9 Melanesia 2 12 3 1 5 13 Polynesia 1 1 Malay Archipelago 11 4 1 12 4 Indo-Chinese Peninsula 1 1 India 2 3 1 2 4 Bantu tribes 4 1 1 3 1 7 3 Soudan Negroes 1 2 1 2 2 -- -- - - - - -- -- 26 37 0 3 8 3 34 43

SECOND AGRICULTURAL GROUP.

a2 a2 + c a2 + t a3 + c + t Total. —————————— —————————— ————————— —————————— ————————— Pos. Neg. Pos. Neg. Pos. Neg. Pos. Neg. Pos. Neg. N. America 11 11 S. America 1 2 1 2 Melanesia 1 3 1 3 Polynesia 1 6 1 6 Micronesia 5 5 Malay Arch. 29 1 3 7 2 41 1 Indo-Chin. Penins. 5 5 India 4 4 1 5 4 Bantu tribes 18 6 7 3 12 1 38 9 Soudan Negroes 5 4 4 2 7 4 20 6 Hamitic peoples 2 1 2 4 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --- -- 66 43 17 5 26 0 7 0 116 48

THIRD AGRICULTURAL GROUP.

a2 a2 + c a2 + t a3 + c + t Total. —————————— ————————— ————————— —————————— —————————— Pos. Neg. Pos. Neg. Pos. Neg. Pos. Neg. Pos. Neg. N. America 1 1 Malay Arch. 9 1 9 1 Indo-Chin. Peninsula 1 1 Caucasus 1 1 Bantu tribes 1 1 5 6 1 Soudan Negroes 1 1 Hamitic peoples 2 1 2 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 10 1 3 3 6 0 1 0 20 4

§ 2. Development of agriculture and development of slavery.

What do these numbers teach us?

In the first place we see that many (170) agricultural tribes keep slaves. Hence it appears that slavery is by no means incompatible with agriculture. But there are also many (95) agricultural tribes without slaves, so the existence of agriculture among savage tribes does not necessarily lead to the keeping of slaves.

In the second place it appears that the more agriculture is developed, the more frequent slavery becomes. Looking at those agricultural tribes among which subsistence does not depend to any considerable extent on cattle-breeding or trade (a1, a2, a3), we find that in the first group there are 26 positive and 37 negative cases, i.e. 41,3 per cent. of these tribes keep slaves. In the second group the corresponding numbers are 66 positive cases, 43 negative cases, and 60,6 per cent.; in the third group 10 positive cases, 1 negative case, and 90,9 per cent. We see that in the second group slavery is more frequent than in the first, whereas in the third group it is almost universal. It has, however, to be taken into consideration, that the great majority (9 out of 10) of the slave-keeping tribes belonging to the third group live in the Malay Archipelago, and 5 out of these 9 are divisions of the Battas. We may not, therefore, attach much importance to the numbers relating to the third group; for they may be strongly influenced by local circumstances. Taking the second and third group together we find 76 positive and 44 negative cases, i.e. 63,3 per cent. keep slaves, which percentage is considerably higher than that of the first group.

We do not claim mathematical exactness for these numbers. But at any rate we may say that they sufficiently prove, that slavery is considerably more frequent among truly agricultural tribes, which subsist chiefly by agriculture, than among incipient agriculturists, who still depend on hunting or fishing for a large portion of their food.

The total numbers lead to the same conclusion. Looking at these we find in the first group 34 positive and 43 negative cases, i.e. 44,2 per cent. keep slaves. For the second group the corresponding numbers are 116 pos. cases, 48 neg. cases and 70,7 per cent; for the third group 20 pos. cases, 4 neg. cases and 83,3 per cent.; for the second and third group taken together 136 pos. cases, 52 neg. cases and 72,3 per cent.

This agrees with what we expected. The tribes belonging to the first group, the “hunting agriculturists” (Jägerbauern), as Dargun calls them, bear a strong resemblance to hunting tribes. Generally the men’s business is hunting and warfare, whereas the women have to till the soil. The division of labour between the sexes does not much differ here from that which exists in Australia, where the men hunt and the women gather fruits and dig roots. These tribes are also often nomadic: when the fruits of their fields are scarcely ripe, they reap them and remove to some other place [1271].

The best specimens of this type are found in South America.

Azara, speaking of the Indians living in and around Paraguay, remarks: “Even the agricultural tribes are more or less nomadic. Wherever the Indians pass they sow something, and later on return to reap the fruits” [1272].

Lery, a writer of the 16th century, tells us that among the Tupinambas the principal cultures were two roots, which he calls aypi and maniot. They were cultivated by the women. After being planted the roots needed no further care, and within 2 or 3 months were fit to be dug up. Maize was also cultivated by the women. The Tupinambas depended on hunting and fishing for a considerable portion of their food. They did not generally remain for longer than 5 or 6 months in one place, but were always removing from one place to another, carrying their house-building materials with them [1273].

Von den Steinen, describing the tribes on the Upper Schingu (in Brazil), states that, though largely subsisting on agriculture, they are psychically hunters rather than agriculturists. Like everywhere in Brazil, the women not only prepare the food, but cultivate the manioc. The men cultivate nothing but tobacco, the smoking of which is their exclusive privilege [1274].

We have seen (in chap. II of this second Part) that hunters hardly ever keep slaves; and as the “hunting agriculturists” so much resemble true hunters, it is easy to understand why among the majority of them slavery does not exist. Slaves cannot be employed for hunting, and the women can easily perform the small amount of cultivation wanted by these tribes. Moreover, the men who, as warriors, are able to procure slaves, are not likely to take them for the sole benefit of the women. And where the men are always hunting, the women would have to supervise the slaves and keep them in order, which is not easy for them.

That this lowest stage of agriculture is not favourable to the growth of slavery, is confirmed by what Mr. A. C. Kruyt had the kindness to write us regarding Central Celebes. There is one native tribe, the Topebato, that formerly did not keep slaves, the probable cause being that they had remained hunters longer than the other tribes in the neighbourhood. In a legend, in which it is told that the gods made gifts to the different tribes characterizing their manner of life, the Topebato get a dog allotted to them for the chase, and though now they till the soil, they are still passionate hunters. They now buy a few slaves and so in the course of time a slave class will originate among them.

Yet there are a considerable number of positive cases in our first group (26 out of 63). We will, of course, make due allowance for mistakes; there may be several tribes contained in our first group which on closer scrutiny would prove to be true agriculturists and not Jägerbauern. But we cannot think but that among these 26 tribes there are many, which have been justly placed in the first group. The existence of slavery among them will have to be accounted for by secondary causes, internal and external, such as we have found in the foregoing chapters and of which we shall perhaps find some more in the continuation of this chapter.

We must, however, bear in mind that our first group does not only contain “hunting”, but also “fishing agriculturists”; and we know that fishers are more likely to keep slaves than hunters. This may perhaps account for the existence of slavery among some of these tribes. But our numbers give us no hint in this direction. We find, indeed, that 11 out of 26 positive cases are afforded by tribes inhabiting the islands of the Malay Archipelago; but among these there are some Dyak tribes living in the interior of Borneo. Moreover, South America affords 6 positive, and the Melanesian islands 12 negative cases. We may suppose that whatever effect this factor has is neutralized by the intervention of other circumstances.

§ 3. Capital and labour among agricultural tribes.

We have seen that among the purely agricultural tribes of the second and third stages there are altogether 76 positive and 44 negative cases, i.e. more than three-fifths of them keep slaves. These numbers make it probable, that the existence of slavery among agricultural tribes has to be accounted for by general causes, that agricultural life as such is favourable to the growth of slavery. We have to inquire now, whether this supposition is justified by an application of the general principle laid down in § 6 of the second chapter, i.e. whether among agricultural tribes subsistence is dependent on capital, and if not, whether it is easy or difficult to procure.

It appears that, where agriculture is carried on without the aid of domestic animals, subsistence does not depend on capital. The savage agriculturist is unacquainted with the more perfect and costly agricultural implements used in Europe, and, where population is scarce (as it is among most savages) cultivates only such grounds as are most fertile and easiest of access. Even the plough is used by very few savages; they most often content themselves with a pointed stick or hoe, wherefore Hahn calls the agriculture carried on by them hoe-culture (Hackbau), as distinguished from agriculture proper (Ackerbau) [1275]. And even where agriculture is carried on in a more skilful manner, e.g. by means of irrigation, it is not capital that is wanted, but labour. The construction of the irrigation-works may be a long and laborious task, but the materials cost nothing. There is only one instance in which we have found it stated that agriculture cannot well be carried on without capital. Radloff tells us that the Kazak Kirghiz, besides rearing cattle, are largely agricultural. Some fields want constant irrigation, and the water is very difficult to procure. The rich use a paddle-wheel; the poor bring the water to their fields in buckets and wooden vessels, but this is of little avail. Therefore it is only the rich who are capable of carrying on agriculture to any considerable extent [1276]. But this state of things probably had not yet existed more than some 30 years; for Levchine (writing about 30 years earlier than Radloff) states that in his time agriculture was of little importance; and he does not make any mention of irrigation [1277]. The introduction of the paddle wheel has therefore probably to be ascribed to the Russians; for the Kazak Kirghiz, in Radloff’s time, were already strongly influenced by them; so we may not speak here of a fact belonging to savage life. We have not found any other instance of this dependence of agriculture on capital; but even if there be a few instances, we are justified in concluding that, generally speaking, the savage agriculturist can perfectly well do without capital, except, of course, where he depends on cattle.

Moreover, subsistence is fairly easy to procure. Agriculture, where it is carried on in such simple manner as among most savages, does not require much skill or application. As compared with hunting, seafaring and manufactures, it is rather dull work, requiring patience rather than strength or skill. It is one of the occupations about which there is no excitement, and which in many primitive societies are performed by the women. Hunting requires personal qualities, and a good hunter is held in high esteem; but we have not found it stated in a single instance, that a man’s influence or power depends on his ability in agriculture.

Subsistence, therefore, is independent of capital and easy to procure. Every one is able to clear a piece of ground and provide for himself; nobody offers his services to another, and so, if a man wants a labourer, he must compel his fellow-man to work for him. “All freemen in new countries” says Bagehot “must be pretty equal; every one has labour, and every one has land; capital, at least in agricultural countries (for pastoral countries are very different), is of little use; it cannot hire labour; the labourers go and work for themselves. There is a story often told of a great English capitalist who went out to Australia with a shipload of labourers and a carriage; his plan was that the labourers should build a house for him, and that he would keep his carriage, just as in England. But (so the story goes) he had to try to live in his carriage, for his labourers left him, and went away to work for themselves” [1278]. Similarly, Sombart observes: “Colonies, in which there are no labourers to exploit, are like knives without blades” [1279]. In such countries, if a man wants others to work in his service and according to his instructions, he must compel them to do so, i.e. he must enslave them. And agriculture, requiring little skill and application, is very fit to be imposed upon slaves: compulsory agricultural labour, though not so productive as voluntary labour, can yet yield some profit. Moreover, the agricultural slave is rather easy to control; his work does not require independent action. It is also easy to prevent him from running away. In all this he differs from a hunting slave. And agriculture is also more favourable to the existence of slavery than cattle-breeding; for among pastoral tribes there is but a fixed and rather small amount of work to be done; but where men subsist by agriculture, any increase in the number of slaves brings about an increase of food.

We cannot, therefore, agree with Adam Smith, who asserts that in those countries where slaves are employed, it would be more profitable to employ free labourers, and that it was, in general, pride and love of power in the master that led to the employment of slaves [1280]. A free labourer, it is true, is more interested in the work he has to do, and therefore likely to do it better, than a slave; but in those countries where there is an abundance of fertile soil, and capital is of little use, free labourers cannot be had; every freeman prefers working for himself, or perhaps not working at all.

Cairnes, speaking of Negro slavery as it was carried on in the United States, admits that slave labour has sometimes an advantage over free labour, but only where tobacco, cotton and similar crops are raised for industrial purposes, not where cereals are grown. “The economic advantages of slavery” he remarks “are easily stated: they are all comprised in the fact that the employer of slaves has absolute power over his workmen, and enjoys the disposal of the whole fruit of their labours. Slave labour, therefore, admits of the most complete organization; that is to say, it may be combined on an extensive scale, and directed by a controlling mind to a single end, and its cost can never rise above that which is necessary to maintain the slave in health and strength. On the other hand, the economical defects of slave labour are very serious. They may be summed up under the three following heads:—it is given reluctantly; it is unskilful; it is wanting in versatility.... The line dividing the Slave from the Free States marks also an important division in the agricultural capabilities of North America. North of this line, the products for which the soil and climate are best adapted are cereal crops, while south of it the prevailing crops are tobacco, rice, cotton, and sugar; and these two classes of crops are broadly distinguished in the methods of culture suitable to each. The cultivation of the one class, of which cotton may be taken as the type, requires for its efficient conduct that labour should be combined and organized on an extensive scale. On the other hand, for the raising of cereal crops this condition is not so essential. Even where labour is abundant and that labour free, the large capitalist does not in this mode of farming appear on the whole to have any preponderating advantage over the small proprietor, who, with his family, cultivates his own farm, as the example of the best cultivated states in Europe proves. Whatever superiority he may have in the power of combining and directing labour seems to be compensated by the greater energy and spirit which the sense of property gives to the exertions of the small proprietor. But there is another essential circumstance in which these two classes of crops differ. A single labourer, Mr. Russell tells us, can cultivate twenty acres of wheat or Indian corn, while he cannot manage more than two of tobacco, or three of cotton. It appears from this that tobacco and cotton fulfil that condition which we saw was essential to the economical employment of slaves—the possibility of working large numbers within a limited space; while wheat and Indian corn, in the cultivation of which the labourers are dispersed over a wide surface, fail in this respect. We thus find that cotton, and the class of crops of which cotton may be taken as the type, favour the employment of slaves in competition with peasant proprietors in two leading ways: first, they need extensive combination and organization of labour—requirements which slavery is eminently calculated to supply, but in respect to which the labour of peasant proprietors is defective; and secondly, they allow of labour being concentrated, and thus minimize the cardinal evil of slave labour—the reluctance with which it is yielded. On the other hand, the cultivation of cereal crops, in which extensive combination of labour is not important, and in which the operations of industry are widely diffused, offers none of these advantages for the employment of slaves, while it is remarkably fitted to bring out in the highest degree the especial excellencies of the industry of free proprietors. Owing to these causes it has happened that slavery has been maintained in the Southern States [1281], which favour the growth of tobacco, cotton, and analogous products, while, in the Northern States, of which cereal crops are the great staple, it from an early period declined and has ultimately died out. And, in confirmation of this view, it may be added that wherever in the Southern States the external conditions are especially favourable to cereal crops, as in parts of Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri, and along the slopes of the Alleghanies, there slavery has always failed to maintain itself. It is owing to this cause that there now exists in some parts of the South a considerable element of free labouring population” [1282].

This reasoning is quite correct so far as Negro slavery in the United States is concerned; but it does not hold with regard to primitive slavery or “retail slavery” as Bagehot calls it. The few slaves kept in primitive agricultural societies work together with their masters, who can therefore continually supervise their work and do not want overseers. Moreover, the slave in primitive and simple societies is not looked upon as a piece of machinery; he is, so to speak, an inferior member of the family, sharing in its pleasures, sorrows, and occupations; therefore it is not only the fear of punishment that induces him to work; he is interested in the welfare of the family, and knows that the better he works, the more he will be valued, and the more food there will be of which he will get his due share [1283]. This retail slavery, as Bagehot remarks, “the slavery in which a master owns a few slaves, whom he well knows and daily sees—is not at all an intolerable state; the slaves of Abraham had no doubt a fair life, as things went in that day. But wholesale slavery, where men are but one of the investments of large capital, and where a great owner, so far from knowing each slave, can hardly tell how many gangs of them he works, is an abominable state” [1284]. Retail slavery, therefore, can very well exist where cereal crops are raised; it is even the most convenient system of labour in primitive agricultural societies.

We see that the general economic state of truly agricultural tribes may account for the existence of slavery among so many of these tribes. We shall now inquire what secondary causes there are at work among agricultural tribes, and what effect they have. But we shall have to speak first of a great factor in economic life, which we have not met with before.

§ 4. Land and population.

The general principle laid down in the last paragraph is that in primitive agricultural societies capital is of little use and subsistence easy to acquire; therefore every able-bodied man can, by taking a piece of land into cultivation, provide for himself. Hence it follows that nobody voluntarily serves another; he who wants a labourer must subject him, and this subjection will often assume the character of slavery.

But this general rule requires an important qualification. Hitherto we have supposed, that there is much more fertile land than is required to be cultivated for the support of the actual population. Such, indeed, is the case among most savages; but it is not always so. And where it is not so, our general rule does not obtain. When all land fit for cultivation has been appropriated, a man, though able-bodied and willing to work, if he owns no land, cannot earn his subsistence independently of a landlord; he has to apply to the owners of the land for employment as a tenant or servant. In such case free labourers are available; therefore slaves are not wanted.

In this and the ensuing paragraphs we shall endeavour to prove by facts the hypothesis arrived at here by a deductive reasoning, which we may express thus: where all land fit for cultivation has been appropriated, slavery is not likely to exist.

The same view is held by some theoretical writers.

According to Cairnes “slavery, as a permanent system, has need not merely of a fertile soil, but of a practically unlimited extent of it. This arises from the defect of slave labour in point of versatility. As has been already remarked, the difficulty of teaching the slave anything is so great—the result of the compulsory ignorance in which he is kept, combined with want of intelligent interest in his work—that the only chance of rendering his labour profitable is, when he has once learned a lesson, to keep him to that lesson for life. Accordingly where agricultural operations are carried on by slaves, the business of each gang is always restricted to the raising of a single product.... Whatever crop may be best suited to the character of the soil and the nature of slave industry, whether cotton, tobacco, sugar, or rice, that crop is cultivated, and that alone. Rotation of crops is thus precluded by the conditions of the case. The soil is tasked again and again to yield the same product, and the inevitable result follows. After a short series of years its fertility is completely exhausted, the planter—“land-killer” he is called in the picturesque nomenclature of the South—abandons the ground which he has rendered worthless, and passes on to seek in new soils for that fertility under which alone the agencies at his disposal can be profitably employed.... Slave cultivation, wherever it has been tried in the new world, has issued in the same results. Precluding the conditions of rotation of crops or skilful management, it tends inevitably to exhaust the land of a country and consequently requires for its permanent success not merely a fertile soil but a practically unlimited extent of it.” Therefore expansion is a necessity of slave societies [1285].

In the same sense Weber, speaking of the ancient states of Asia and Europe, remarks that slavery is uneconomical, where a dense population and high prices of the land render an intensive cultivation necessary [1286].

It is easy to see that these arguments do not apply to slavery as practised by savages. Rotation of crops and skilful management are wanting among most savage tribes, whether they keep slaves or not. Moreover, as we have already remarked, the slaves kept by them are not pieces of machinery, nor, as in the United States, kept in compulsory ignorance; they are rather regarded as members of the master’s family; there is no great difference between master and slave [1287]. We may therefore suppose that, whether a savage tribe keeps slaves or not, agriculture is carried on in the same manner.

Loria also holds that slavery requires an abundant supply of ground; but his arguments are quite different from Cairnes’. His reasoning is as follows.

As long as there is land not yet appropriated, which a man destitute of capital can take into cultivation, capitalistic property cannot exist; for nobody is inclined to work for a capitalist, when he can work for his own profit on land that costs him nothing. If, then, the capitalist wants by any means to get a profit, he must violently suppress the free land to which the labourer owes his force and liberty. And as long as the population is scarce and therefore all land cannot possibly be appropriated, the only means of suppressing the free land is by subjugating the labourer. This subjugation assumes at first the form of slavery; afterwards, when the decreasing fertility of the soil has to be made up for by a greater fertility of labour, slavery gives place to serfdom, which is milder and makes labour more productive.

When the population increases, and all land that can be cultivated by labour without the aid of capital had been appropriated, quite another state of things prevails. The labourer has now no other resource but to sell his labour to the capitalist for such wages as the latter likes to give; he is compelled to yield to the capitalist the greater part of the produce of his labour. Now the latter need no longer use violence to get his profit; for it falls to him by the automatic operation of the social system. Yet, even then the capitalistic régime is not absolutely certain to arise, for there is still land not yet appropriated, that can be cultivated with the aid of capital. If, therefore, the labourers could save a portion of their earnings and thus accumulate capital, they would be able to take this land into cultivation and so make themselves independent of their employers. This consideration induces the capitalist to keep wages so low that they cannot exceed the immediate wants of the labourers, which he brings about by various artificial means.

When, finally, a further increase of population makes the total appropriation of the land possible, the mere appropriation of it by the capitalist class renders the labourers for ever subjected. The capitalist need no longer have recourse to artificial methods of reducing wages; the system operates automatically. The capitalists have only to retain the land for themselves; they will then secure a perpetual revenue at the cost of the labouring class.

“The basis of capitalistic property is thus always the same, viz. the suppression of the free land, the exclusion of the labourer from the appropriation of the land. This is brought about by various means, according to the fertility of the land and the extent to which it has already been appropriated. As long as there is free land fit for cultivation by labour without the aid of capital, the only means of suppressing it are slavery and serfdom; afterwards, when the land not yet appropriated can only be cultivated by one who owns capital, it is sufficient systematically to reduce wages to a level that does not enable the labourers to save; when, finally, the population has so far increased as to make the appropriation of all land possible, the capitalists have only to keep the land to themselves” [1288].

Many objections can be made to Loria’s arguments. He is constantly confusing capitalist and landlord. He seems to consider capitalists and labourers as two strictly separated classes, though we see continually people passing from one class to the other. And when he tells us that, if wages were higher, the labourers would save a portion of their earnings and so accumulate capital, but that the employers, wishing to prevent this, keep wages low,—he ascribes to both capitalists and labourers so much forethought and consciousness of class-interest as men scarcely ever have, except in books on political economy [1289]. Yet we cannot think but that in the main Loria is right. The gist of his reasoning is what we have already remarked in the beginning of this paragraph. As long as there is an abundance of land not yet appropriated, and therefore at the disposal of whoever may choose to cultivate it, nobody applies to another for employment, and the only labourers a man can procure are forced labourers. But when all land has been appropriated, those who own no land are at the mercy of the landholders, and voluntarily serve them; therefore slaves are not wanted.

Much more fully has the true reason, why in densely peopled countries there is little use for slaves, been recognized by Wakefield in his book on the art of colonization. With him, the theory is not based upon a general conception of society, but upon the facts of the colonial history of his own time.

Wakefield, then, complains that in Australia and other colonies manufactures cannot thrive; the reason for this is, according to him, that there are no labourers to be had; for there is so much free land that every newly-arrived labourer becomes a landowner rather than work for wages. Therefore there are many colonies which would keep slaves if the home government let them. This leads the writer to an investigation of the circumstances which induce men to keep slaves.

“They are not moral, but economical circumstances; they relate not to vice and virtue, but to production. They are the circumstances, in which one man finds it difficult or impossible to get other men to work under his direction for wages. They are the circumstances ... which stand in the way of combination and constancy of labour, and which all civilized nations, in a certain stage of their advance from barbarism, have endeavoured to counteract, and have in some measure counteracted, by means of some kind of slavery. Hitherto in this world, labour has never been employed on any considerable scale, with constancy and in combination, except by one or other of two means; either by hiring, or by slavery of some kind. What the principle of association may do in the production of wealth, and for the labouring classes, without either slavery or hiring, remains to be seen; but at present we cannot rely upon it....

“Slavery is evidently a make-shift for hiring; a proceeding to which recourse is had, only when hiring is impossible or difficult ... it is adopted because at the time and under the circumstances there is no other way of getting labourers to work with constancy and in combination. What, then, are the circumstances under which this happens?

“It happens whenever population is scanty in proportion to land. Slavery ... has been confined to countries of a scanty population, has never existed in very populous countries, and has gradually ceased in the countries whose population gradually increased to the point of density. And the reason is plain enough.... In populous countries, the desire to own land is not easily gratified, because the land is scarce and dear: the plentifulness and cheapness of land in thinly-peopled countries enables almost everybody who wishes it to become a landowner. In thinly-peopled countries, accordingly, the great majority of free people are landowners who cultivate their own land; and labour for hire is necessarily scarce: in densely-peopled countries, on the contrary, the great majority of the people cannot obtain land, and there is plenty of labour for hire. Of plentifulness of labour for hire, the cause is dearness of land: cheapness of land is the cause of scarcity of labour for hire” [1290].

Wakefield proposed that the government should sell the new land in the colonies at a sufficient price, i.e. at a price which would oblige the newly arrived labourers to serve a few years for wages before being able to become landowners [1291].

Another writer on colonial matters of the same period, Merivale, follows quite the same line of argument as Wakefield. The great demand for slaves and the great profitableness of slavery, he says, arise altogether from the scarcity of labour. “When the pressure of population induces the freeman to offer his services, as he does in all old countries, for little more than the natural minimum of wages, those services are very certain to be more productive and less expensive than those of the bondsman, whose support is a charge to the master, and who has nothing to gain by his industry.... This being the case, it is obvious that the limit of the profitable duration of slavery is attained whenever the population has become so dense that it is cheaper to employ the free labourer for hire. Towards this limit every community is approximating, however slowly.” That the relation between land and population is indeed the determining factor as regards the system of labour most suitable to a country, is clearly shown by the effect which the emancipation of the slaves had upon the economic development of the different colonies. Merivale then proceeds to divide the British slave colonies, at the time of emancipation, into three classes, as respects their economical situation. First, the oldest settlements, established in the smaller Antilles (Barbadoes, Antigua, etc.). They were those in which the land was nearly all occupied. “They were less injured than any others by the immediate effect of emancipation; for the negroes had no resource except in continuing to work; there was no unoccupied land for them to possess, no independent mode of obtaining a subsistence to which they could resort, still less of obtaining those luxuries which habit had rendered desirable to them.” “The next class is that of colonies in which the fertile or advantageously situated soil was all cultivated, and becoming exhausted; but there remained much unoccupied soil, of a less valuable description, and the population was not dense in proportion to the whole surface.” This applies especially to Jamaica. Here the colonists “were injured, perhaps, by the abolition of the slave trade; and they suffer now, since emancipation, by the difficulty of compelling the negroes to perform hired labour while they have their own provision grounds, and other resources, at their disposal.” “Finally, there is a third class of colonies, in some of which the fertility of the cultivated soil is as yet unexhausted, in others there is abundance of fertile and unoccupied land. Such are the Mauritius and Trinidad, and, in a far higher degree, Guiana”. In these colonies, after emancipation, “the negroes have found it easy to obtain a subsistence in a country overflowing with natural wealth: they have been rescued from a servitude involving, perhaps, a greater amount of labour than in any other settlements: they have abundance of land to resort to for their maintenance. The accounts, both from Guiana and Trinidad, seem to report the negroes as generally peaceful and well-inclined, but indisposed to labour, to which they can only be tempted by the most exorbitant offers of wages” [1292].

There is one more reason why slaves are of little use in those countries where all land has been appropriated. When there is free land, a man can, by increasing the number of his slaves, to any extent augment his revenue: every slave will take a new patch of land into cultivation; the more slaves a man owns, the more land he will have in tillage. But when the supply of land is limited, each landowner can employ only a definite number of labourers. As soon as there are hands enough to cultivate his grounds, an increase in the number of labourers soon becomes unprofitable. What we have said of pastoral tribes obtains here too: it may be that slaves are wanted, but when they are procured the point will soon be reached at which a further increase in their number yields no longer any profit. Therefore, when all land has been appropriated, even though it be equally divided between the members of the community and so a labouring class be wanting, there is little use for slaves.

It must be understood that we speak here of self-dependent agricultural countries. Where manufactures and the trade with foreign parts are highly developed, economic life becomes much more complicated and presents quite another character.

What we want to prove is that in such self-dependent agricultural countries, when all arable land has been appropriated, slavery is not likely to exist.

All land has been appropriated, when every piece of land is claimed by some one as his property. The owner, of course, need not be an individual; land may also be owned by a group of individuals. Yet the statements of our ethnographers concerning tribal property may not be accepted without much caution. They often tell us that a tribe claims the ownership of the territory it inhabits. This so-called right of property held by the tribe often proves to consist in this, that no strangers are admitted to the territory, but every member of the tribe may cultivate as much of the land as he likes. In such case, whether it be the tribe or the king to whom the land is stated to belong, the term “ownership” is very inappropriately used [1293]. We shall only speak of appropriation of land when some one claims the use of it to the exclusion of all others, and values his property. Where the so-called owner is always willing to give a piece of it in cultivation to whoever wants to cultivate it, we shall not speak of appropriation; where, however, the land is never (except by way of favour) given in use gratis, but a rent is always stipulated, it appears that the owner values it, it has now really been appropriated [1294].

It is not always clearly stated whether all land has been appropriated. Then we shall have recourse to some criteria from which we may infer whether such be the case.

The principal criterion is the existence of a class of freemen destitute of land [1295]. Where such people are found we may be sure that there is no free land; else they would be able to take it into cultivation. It need scarcely be added that even where no such people are found, it may be that all land has been appropriated, everybody sharing in it.

The appropriation of the land does not imply that all land is actually being cultivated. There may be land actually out of tillage and yet valued by the owner. But when it is stated that all land is being cultivated, it must all have been appropriated. This will therefore be our second criterion.

There is another criterion that proves that all land has not yet been appropriated. When we are told that clearing a piece of land is a modus acquirendi of landed property, there must still be free land.

The appropriation of all land implies that property in land exists; but the reverse is not true: when we are informed that property in land exists, this does not prove that all land has already been appropriated. For as soon as the population has so far increased as to require the cultivation of land less fertile than that which was at first exclusively cultivated, the more fertile land acquires value. “On the first settling of a country” says Ricardo “in which there is an abundance of rich and fertile land, a very small proportion of which is required to be cultivated for the support of the actual population, or indeed can be cultivated with the capital which the population can command, there will be no rent; for no one would pay for the use of land, when there was an abundant quantity not yet appropriated, and, therefore, at the disposal of whosoever might choose to cultivate it.” But “when in the progress of society, land of the second degree of fertility is taken into cultivation, rent immediately commences on that of the first quality, and the amount of that rent will depend on the difference in the quality of these two portions of land” [1296]. As soon as land of the second degree of fertility is cultivated, rent commences; but in such cases there is possibly much land of the second degree not yet appropriated, and at any rate land of the 3rd, 4th, etc. degrees. Accordingly we find that among some savage tribes, where there is an abundance of free land, some very fertile or very favourably situated pieces of land are highly valued. We shall give one instance. Among the Sea Dyaks land is so abundant that, if a Dyak, when about to cultivate a piece of land, finds a dead animal lying on it, which he considers a bad omen, he immediately leaves the land, and seeks a new field. Yet among the same Sea Dyaks “parents and children, brothers and sisters, very seldom quarrel; when they do so, it is from having married into a family with whom afterwards they may have disputes about land. One would imagine that was a subject not likely to create dissensions in a country like Borneo; but there are favourite farming-grounds, and boundaries are not very settled. It used to be the practice not to have recourse to arms on those occasions, but the two parties collecting their relatives and friends, would fight with sticks for the coveted spot” [1297]. The last sentence proves that these quarrels were rather frequent. When, therefore, it is stated that land has value, or that lands are rented, or that the wealth of individuals consists partly in landed property, this does not prove that all land has already been appropriated.

We have spoken of all land fit for cultivation being appropriated. What land is fit for cultivation in each country depends on the ability of the inhabitants in agriculture. Much will also depend on the character of the individuals. Where these are vigorous and enterprising, the people destitute of arable land will endure many hardships in taking new lands into cultivation, whereas weak and indolent men will prefer being employed by the rich. A good instance of this is furnished by the Bontoc Igorot of Northern Luzon. Landed property here is highly developed. “It is largely by the possession or nonpossession of real property that a man is considered rich or poor.” “Irrigated rice lands are commonly leased.” “Unirrigated mountain camote lands are rented outright.” Yet there is still unoccupied land. “Public lands and forests extend in an irregular strip around most pueblos.... Public forests surround the outlying private forests. They are usually from three to six hours distant. From them any man gathers what he pleases, but until the American came to Bontoc the Igorot seldom went that far for wood or lumber, as it was unsafe.” There are, however, people who do not own land enough to live upon. “It is claimed that each household owns its dwelling and at least two sementeras and one granary, though a man with no more property than this is a poor man and some one in his family must work much of the time for wages, because two average sementeras will not furnish all the rice needed by a family for food” [1298]. So the poor work for wages rather than going to settle on the outlying public lands, to which they have free access. Here again we see that economic phenomena have always a psychological basis [1299].

We shall not, in order to prove our hypothesis, examine the regulations of landed property among all agricultural savage tribes, but confine ourselves to one geographical group, in which the phenomena we have spoken of in this paragraph most strikingly present themselves. This group is Oceania, comprehending Polynesia, Micronesia, and Melanesia. We shall, however, leave out of regard New Guinea, one of the largest islands of the world. The rest of Oceania consists chiefly of small islands.

Slavery in Oceania (with the exception of New Guinea) has never prevailed to any great extent. In the second chapter of Part I it has been shown that slavery, so far as we can know, existed only in the N. W. Solomon Islands, on the Gazelle Peninsula of Neu Pommern, and in New Zealand.

We shall try to account for this fact by showing that on most of the Oceanic islands all land had been appropriated, which led to a state of things inconsistent with slavery as a social system.

In the following paragraphs we shall inquire what our ethnographers have to say about landed property in Oceania and the extent to which the land had been appropriated.

§ 5. Land tenure in Polynesia.

In this and the following two paragraphs we shall not mention all particulars of land tenure given by the ethnographers, but only those which may enable us to decide whether all land had been appropriated.

Mahler, speaking of Polynesia and Micronesia generally, remarks that on many islands the burial-places occupied large tracts of land; but this does not prove that there was abundance of land, for these places were hardly ever anything but (according to Penny), “barren points where the wind howls and the sea moans, or rocky caverns in which the waves dash with sullen roar” [1300].

Waltershausen tells us that in Polynesia the cultivated land belonged to the king and nobility, to the exclusion of the labouring classes. The upper classes also owned the fruit-trees, the small coral islets surrounding the larger islands, the lakes, the rivers, and those parts of the sea which extended from the land to the reefs. The untilled land was the property of the tribe and, unless the king forbade it, every one might cut the wood growing on it for building houses and canoes; but only the ruling classes might take it into cultivation [1301].

Mariner states that in Tonga property principally consists in plantations, canoes and houses. The plantations are owned by the chiefs and the nobles. Agricultural labourers are very much despised; they serve the chiefs on whom they are dependent. West tells us that “the feudal principle, that the whole country belonged exclusively to the king, regulated the disposal and tenure of lands,” and so the lower classes were in a slavelike condition. “Lands were held in fief. The great landlords derived them by hereditary right, in conjunction with their chieftainship, but held them at the will of the supreme ruler.” These landlords distributed their lands among their relations and followers [1302].

In Niué or Savage Island, “the land belongs to clans represented by their heads”. “At present there is land enough for all, and the junior members of the clan come to the headman whenever they want land to plant upon. Titles can be acquired by cultivation” [1303].

“The land in Samoa” says Turner “is owned alike by the chiefs and these heads of families. The land belonging to each family is well known, and the person who, for the time being holds the title of the family head, has the right to dispose of it. It is the same with the chiefs. There are certain tracts of bush or forest land which belong to them. The uncultivated bush is sometimes claimed by those who own the land on its borders. The lagoon also, as far as the reef, is considered the property of those off whose village it is situated.” Von Bülow concludes from the legends and traditions of the Samoans that formerly all the land belonged to the chiefs. But now the land is owned by the families [1304].

Gardiner gives an elaborate account of the regulation of landed property in Rotuma: “No private property in land formerly existed, it was all vested in the pure for the time being of the hoag [1305]; the district generally had rights over it. It usually consisted of four kinds: bush, swamp, coast, and proprietary water in the boat channel; common to the hoag, too, were wells and graveyards. Every member of the hoag knew its boundaries, which consisted of lines between certain trees or prominent rocks, posts, and even stone walls. In the bush land every hoag possessed property; it lay on the slopes of hills and in valleys between at some slight distance from the coast, from which it was separated by a stone wall, running round the whole island. On it taro, yams, bananas, plantains, and a few cocoanut trees were grown for food, while the paths into it and through it were planted with the Tahitian chestnut, the fava tree, and the sagopalm. The Tahitian chestnut and fava trees were favourite boundary marks owing to their size and longevity. Swamp land is only possessed by Noatau, Oinafa, Matusa, and Itomotu. It is low-lying land, on extensive beach sand flats, which exist in these districts. The tide always keeps it wet, percolating through the sand, and in it is grown the papoi, or broka, against famine. The possession of a good-sized strip always caused and gave to the hoag a position of importance; its boundaries were stones at the sides. Coast land lay outside the surrounding wall, to which the hoag had a strip from and including the foreshore. On it as near as possible to the coast the house or houses of the hoag were placed, while the rest of the land was planted with cocoanuts for drinking purposes. Hifo trees are stated to have been planted formerly to show the boundaries, but they more often now consist of stones or cocoanut trees, the ownership of which is a constant source of dispute. Districts and even villages were sharply marked off by walls down to the beach. All had the right of turning out their pigs on this land, and each hoag had to keep in proper repair the parts of the wall adjacent to it. Each had, however, usually an enclosure on its own land for its own pigs, when young. The proprietary water ran from the foreshore to the reef, a continuation of the strip on shore. At Noatau and Matusa, where it is very broad, it was to some extent cross-divided. It consists of a sand flat covered by 10–12 feet of water at high-tide. On it fish of all sorts are caught by traps and various devices, and shell-fish are gathered. As these form no inconsiderable portion of the daily food, indeed the principal animal food, the value of this property was always very considerable. The reef—i.e. the part on the outside exposed at the low tide—was the common property of all. It was explained to me that fish, crabs, etc., cannot be cultivated there, owing to the heavy breaking seas, but are sent up by the atua, or spirits.” “Any land, not being planted, is willingly lent to another hoag on condition of two baskets of first-fruits of each patch being brought to the pure, but cocoanut trees on the land cannot be touched by the tenant, nor is he entitled to their usufruct. If a hoag owns land in one district, but lives in another, first-fruits are always paid to the chief of the district, in which its lands lie. Any encroachment on the land was very vigorously resented, it was usually referred to the district chief to settle, and his decision loyally adhered to.” “If he [a man] had planted more cocoanuts than required by the hoag, he has the entire usufruct of these trees during his lifetime, quite independently of the apportionment of the land below them for planting.” We see that the idea of landownership is most fully developed here. During the 19th century the population has much diminished, and so “most of the hoag have far more land than they can cultivate.” But formerly it was otherwise. “Examining the remains of planting, it appears as if the whole island, wherever practicable, was at one time tilled. The land, where there is a good and deep soil, is, and was, no doubt tilled regularly from year to year, while the rocky country was planted more or less in rotation with yams and kava. Even on the steepest slopes, there are signs of clearing, the summit alone being left crowned by the hifo. The bottoms of the craters of many hills used to be planted too; in the crater of Sol Satarua, the lulu as it is termed, there are still bananas growing, but planted so long ago that the fact that it had a lulu at all was almost forgotten” [1306]. According to Hale, food was not always abundant on this island; therefore the natives liked to engage themselves as sailors on whaling-ships, until they had earned enough to buy a piece of land [1307]. In Hale’s time land was evidently not so abundant as it is now that the population is so rapidly declining.

In Tahiti “every portion of land had its respective owner; and even the distinct trees on the land had sometimes different proprietors, and a tree, and the land on which it grew, different owners.” What our informant further tells us of the present state of things as compared with that of earlier times, shows a remarkable likeness to Gardiner’s statement about Rotuma. Ellis states that “an extent of soil capable of cultivation, and other resources, are adequate to the maintenance of a population tenfold increased above its present numbers.” But a great depopulation has taken place in the course of years. “In the bottom of every valley, even to the recesses in the mountains, on the sides of the inferior hills, and on the brows of almost every promontory, in each of the islands, monuments of former generations are still met with in great abundance. Stone pavements of their dwellings and court-yards, foundations of houses, and remains of family temples, are numerous. Occasionally they are found in exposed situations, but generally amidst thickets of brushwood or groves of trees, some of which are of the largest growth. All these relics are of the same kind as those observed among the natives at the time of their discovery, evidently proving that they belong to the same race, though to a more populous era of their history. The stone tools occasionally found near these vestiges of antiquity demonstrate the same lamentable fact.” According to Moerenhout “landed properties constituted the principal, or rather the only wealth of these people; therefore the power of the chiefs always depended on the quantity and quality of their lands; moreover, the more people they could support, the more sure they were of having subjects.” This writer does not, however, enter into many details [1308].

In Hawaii four social ranks existed. The members of the third rank, according to Ellis, “are generally called haku aina, proprietors of the land.” “In the fourth rank may be included the small farmers, who rent from ten to twenty or thirty acres of land; the mechanics, ... indeed all the labouring classes, those who attach themselves to some chief or farmer, and labour on his land for their food and clothing, as well as those who cultivate small portions of land for their own advantage.” “Sometimes the poor people take a piece of land, on condition of cultivating a given portion for the chief, and the remainder for themselves, making a fresh agreement after every crop.” Hale states that formerly there were no landed proprietors; all the land was “the property of the king, and leased by him to inferior chiefs (hatu aina, landlords), who underlet it to the people; as the king, however, though absolute in theory, was aware that his power depended very much on the co-operation of the high chiefs, they became, to a certain degree, partakers in his authority.” Remy tells us that the land belonged exclusively to the great chiefs, who leased it and received considerable rents. Chamisso and Marcuse equally state that the land belonged to the chiefs [1309].

In Rarotonga, according to Gerland, a man’s power depends on the quantity of land he owns. Meinicke states that there are four social classes. The third class is composed of the landed proprietors; the lowest class are those who own no land and live as tenants on the estates of the nobles [1310].

On the Marquesas Islands, according to Gerland, three ranks formerly existed: chiefs, landholders, and the common people. The landholders were the most powerful class; the common people were obliged to pay them a tribute. Yet those who owned most land were not always most respected, and even of the common people some owned land. Meinicke, however, states that the whole of the land is the property of the nobles. Hale, after speaking of the nobles, adds that the rest of the people were the landholders and their relatives and tenants [1311].

In Mangarewa (belonging to the Paumotu group) the nobles were the proprietors of the soil; they often let out their lands to the third class, the common people [1312].

Meinicke tells us that in the Manahiki group the cocoanut trees and the lagoons (for fishing purposes) were private property [1313].

In an article, quoted by Schurtz, it is stated that in the Tokelau group the land belongs exclusively to the nobles. Lister, speaking of Fakaofu or Bowditch Island (in the Tokelau group), says: “Two islets belonged ... to the king. Two others were common property, and the rest were divided up as the property of individuals” [1314]. So it seems that in this part of the group there was land which had not yet been appropriated.

In the Abgarris, Marqueen and Tasman groups all the land belongs to the chiefs and the nobles, the common people having no landed property [1315].

Tregear has the following notes on landed property in New Zealand: “Land was held primarily by tribal right; but within this tribal right each free warrior of the tribe had particular rights over some portion. He could not part with the land because it was not his to give or sell, but he had better rights to certain portions than others of his tribe. He would claim by having the bones of his father or grandfather there, or that they once rested there; or by the fact of his navel-string having been cut there; or by his blood having been shed on it; or by having been cursed there; or by having helped in the war party which took the land; or by his wife being owner by descent; or by having been invited by the owners to live there.” Thomson states that “all free persons, male and female, constituting the nation were proprietors of the soil.” The chiefs were the greatest landholders. “Conquest and occupation gave titles to land. The right of fishing in rivers and sea belonged to the adjoining landed proprietor. Amongst the families of each tribe there are also laws regarding landed property. Thus the cultivation of a portion of forest land renders it the property of those who cleared it, and this right descended from generation to generation.... It was illegal for one family to plant in another’s clearing without permission”. “The independence and social happiness of the people were chiefly caused by cultivating their own lands.” According to Taylor, each tribe had its own district; “each member can cultivate any portion of it he thinks fit, if unoccupied, or if it has not been previously cultivated by another.” Polack says: “Possession is obtained by planting a portion (however small) of the soil, and reaping the same” [1316].

On Easter Island, according to Geiseler, every piece of land has its own name and its owner. The natives attach much value to landed property [1317].

We see that on most Polynesian islands all land has, or had been appropriated. Regarding Rotuma, Tahiti and Easter Island this is explicitly stated; and the same must be the case in Tonga, Hawaii, Rarotonga, the Marquesas Islands, Mangarewa, part of the Tokelau group, and the Abgarris, Marqueen and Tasman groups, where classes destitute of land are found. In Manahiki property in land was strongly developed; but whether there was still free land is not clear. In Samoa there was still unappropriated bush land, though this was already “sometimes claimed by those who own the land on its borders.” In New Zealand clearing was still a modus acquirendi, which proves that all land had not yet been appropriated. Equally on Savage Island titles can be acquired by cultivation.

§ 6. Land tenure in Micronesia.

Kubary tells us that the population of Ebon, and of the whole Rallik group (in the Marshall Islands), consists of four ranks. “The common people are called armidj kajur and form the greater part of the subjects. They have no property, except the land allotted to them by the chief, who can take it from them at his pleasure. Every week they have, each of them, to provide the chief with prepared food, the quantity and quality of which are determined. The next class are the leotakatak, who hold their property by hereditary right and not from the chief. The chief cannot take the property of these men unless he kills them first.” “The punishments inflicted by the chiefs in former times consisted most often in capital punishment, and more rarely, in less serious cases, in confiscation of land and house” [1318].

Several other writers affirm that in the Marshall group the upper classes are the sole proprietors of the soil and the common people are destitute of land [1319].

Regarding the isle of Nauru we are told that not only every inch of land and every palm, but even the reefs and the sea washing them, are held as property [1320].

On the Pelau Islands the right of disposing of the land of the tribe vests in the obokúl (chief of a family-group); but he cannot alienate any land without the consent of his nephews. However, a regular agriculture does not exist, and most of the land remains untilled; therefore the opposition of the nephews generally bears a formal character; they only aim at extorting a present from the obokúl. The obokúl divides the land among the members of the tribe for cultivation. He may also cede pieces of land to aliens for use without payment; such persons then enter into the position of kaukáth, i.e. they are considered as related to the tribe without possessing the same rights, they occasionally provide the obokúl with food, and help him in his work. In another place our informant states that there is not often reason for disputes about land, as the population is scarce and large tracts of land are uncultivated [1321].

On the Mortlock Islands the chief of each tribe has an unlimited right to dispose of the land belonging to the tribe. He divides it among the heads of families on condition of their paying a tribute in kind. The latter assign to each member of their groups a piece of land for cultivation. Most land is divided up between the several keys (family-groups); the land which is not yet occupied is the property of the principal key and thus more directly than the rest at the disposal of the chief [1322].

On the isle of Kusaie twelve principal chiefs own all the land; but the chiefs of the second rank administer and cultivate it for them. The common people are obliged to pay a tribute to the chiefs and serve them. The highest mountains are planted up to their summits with bananas, taro, sugarcane, etc [1323].

On the Eastern Caroline Islands the land belongs exclusively to the two upper classes; the third class are attached to the soil on which they live [1324].

Hale states that in Ponape or Ascension Island there are three classes. All the land belongs to the two upper classes. The estates are never alienated and pass only by succession [1325].

Gerland tells us that on the Marianne Islands the nobles were hereditary owners of the whole of the land [1326].

As to the Kingsmill Islands, the particulars given by Wilkes and Parkinson, as quoted in the second chapter of Part I [1327] sufficiently prove that all land had been appropriated. According to Wilkes “any one who owns land can always call upon others to provide him with a house, canoe, and the necessaries of life; but one who has none is considered as a slave, and can hold no property whatever.” Hale tells us that “the katoka are persons not originally of noble birth, who either by the favour of their chief or by good fortune in war, have acquired land and with it freedom” [1328]. If in Wilkes’ statement we read “proletarian” instead of “slave,” and take Hale’s “freedom” in an economic, not in a legal sense, we find that here too the lowest class were destitute of landed property.

The conclusion is that on most of the islands of Micronesia all land has been appropriated, most often by the upper classes to the exclusion of the lower. In Pelau, though a vast amount of land is actually out of tillage, the regulation of landed property related by Kubary proves that all land is held as property. Here, as well as in Rotuma and Tahiti, we have to deal with the effects of the depopulation that has taken place in Oceania. In Mortlock there seems to be free land; but Kubary’s account is not very clear.

§ 7. Land tenure in Melanesia.

Codrington, in his article “On social regulations in Melanesia,” remarks that his observations “are limited to the Northern New Hebrides, the Banks Islands, the Santa Cruz Group, and the South-eastern Solomon Islands” [1329]. Of land tenure he says: “Land is everywhere divided into (1) the Town, (2) the Gardens, (3) the Bush. Of these the two first are held as property, the third is unappropriated.... Everywhere, or almost everywhere, the abundance of land makes it of little value. If an individual reclaims for himself a piece of bush land, it becomes his own” [1330].

Somerville, speaking of New Georgia (one of the central Solomon Islands, and therefore not included in Codrington’s description) remarks: “Property seems to be well recognised: every one of the myriad islets of the great eastern lagoon has its understood owner, no matter if cocoanuts be growing there or not. Groves of cocoanut trees are well protected by hopes, as before described, as are also taro patches. Hunting rights over opossums on a man’s property are also protected by hopes” [1331]. Ribbe, however, states that in the New Georgia group, uncultivated land, i.e. bush and forest, has no owner, except the parts planted with sago trees and fruit trees. Every one may clear and cultivate this land and so acquire a right of property [1332].

On the Shortland Islands, near Bougainville (N. W. Solomon Islands), landed property in the European sense does not exist. Everybody has the right to take a part of the wood into cultivation. By doing so, he acquires a right of property, but only for so long as he has the land in use [1333].

Woodford describes the regulation of landed property in the Solomon Islands in general in the following terms: “As to the system of land tenure among them, I believe that to land, per se, they attach but little value. Any individual of the tribe appears to be able to select at will a piece of land from the forest, which he clears, fences in, and upon it rears his crop of yams or bananas. After the crops are taken off, the land is allowed to relapse again to forest. When, however, a native plants cocoanuts his property appears to be in the trees themselves, apart altogether from any idea of ownership in the land upon which they are planted. I do not think that any objection would be raised to another native utilizing the ground upon which the cocoanuts were planted for other crops so long as the trees themselves were in no way damaged or interfered with. Property in cocoanuts appears to pass, upon a man’s death, to his heirs” [1334].

Of land tenure on the isle of Aneityum, in the New Hebrides, Inglis says: “There is neither a town nor a village in the whole Island. The system of cottage farming is in a state of full development there. There is no large proprietor, no powerful or wealthy chief; every man sits proprietor of his own cottage, his own garden, and his own cultivated patches—you could not call them fields. The waste lands and the forests, to the summits of the mountains, belong to the tribe. They are a kind of crown lands, but what each man cultivates belongs to himself” [1335].

In New Caledonia, according to Brainne, a noble’s authority depends on the range of cultivated grounds he owns, and one who possesses large tracts of cultivated land and large plantations of cocoanut trees is called a great chief. Glaumont tells us that “property is acquired by purchase or exchange. It may also be acquired by labour. Thus uncultivated grounds belong to the tribe, are so to speak common property; but if a Kanaka clears and cultivates a portion of this bush land it passes into his property. Property is held sacred (viz. in time of peace); the chief himself, however powerful, would not dare to take away the field of taros or ignames from the least of his subjects.” Lambert tells us that individual property in land is highly developed. The forest land, however, has no owner; every one may take a portion of it into cultivation and by doing so acquire a right of property. Meinicke says: “Each tribe possesses a separate territory in which the land fit for cultivation is the individual property of the chiefs and nobles, whereas the rest is at the disposal of all.” According to Rochas there are two ranks: nobles and common people; but the latter enjoy a rather independent position and always own some land. The rights of property in land are highly respected, even by the chiefs [1336].

Williams, describing Fiji, speaks of a feudal government; but he adds that the ancient divisions of landed property are much respected. Seemann states that the “real power of the state resides in the landholders or gentry”; and Hale tells us that the members of the lowest class “work for the chiefs and landholders and are supported by them.” The fullest account of land tenure in Fiji is given by Fison. The lands are of three kinds. “1. The Yavu or Town-lot; 2. The Qele, or Arable Land; and 3. the Veikau, or Forest.” “The town-lots and the arable lands are divided among the taukei (landowners), while the forest lands are held in common by them. Arable land also, which is not in actual use, is in some places common to a certain extent.” “The land is vested in—or, at any rate, is held by—certain joint tribal owners who have a common descent. These are called the Taukei ni vanua or owners of the land.... Not all the people are landowners.” Fison then speaks of some classes destitute of land, of whom it is not quite clear whether they are tenants or serfs. But the following statement of his clearly shows that all land has been appropriated: “In addition to the koro [villages] already mentioned, there are others inhabited by tribes who have either migrated from their own lands owing to disagreement with their kinsfolk, or have been driven thence by war. These emigrants beg land from a taukei tribe, and settle down upon it. They are not landowners where they are now living, but it does not follow that they are kaisi [base-born men, who are very much despised]. If they were taukei in their own land they cannot be placed on the level of the people without a father.” They pay “rent of produce and service.... Tribes such as these are tenants at will, and the land may be taken from them whenever it may be required. How long soever their occupation may continue, it does not establish a title. The descendants of the taukei can always resume the lands, upon giving formal notice, and presenting some property or other, which is called “the falling back of the soil” [1337]. These emigrants are neither slaves nor serfs, but destitute of land; if there were free land fit for cultivation, they would appropriate it instead of becoming tenants at will.”

On the Gazelle Peninsula of Neu Pommern, according to Pfeil, uncultivated land as such is not claimed by any one as his property. When a native wants land, he takes some piece which is not in use, without having to ask leave of anybody. Hahl also states that in the Northern part of the Gazelle Peninsula grass or forest land as a rule is at the disposal of whoever wishes to cultivate it. Equally among the Baining of the Gazelle Peninsula, as Parkinson tells us, the land is regarded as private property as long as it is being cultivated [1338].

In the Nissan Islands poverty is unknown, as there is an abundance of free land. Private property in land is acquired by taking it into cultivation. Land is sold and leased [1339].

Haddon, in his article on the Western Tribes of Torres Straits, remarks: “I have no precise information as to land laws, but I believe that the whole of the land is divided up into properties, certainly the arable land is, the chief sharing like anyone else. There is no one person or class of landowners who possess land to the total exclusion of anyone else. Title to land is derived from inheritance, gift or purchase. I never heard of any means of conveyance” [1340].

Hunt, describing the Murray Islands, says: “The chiefs held only their own hereditary lands, but the first fruits of all cultivated lands were presented to them as their share.... Any dispute about land would be settled by the old men who would meet and discuss the point in dispute and then pronounce their decision. Land was never sold, but could be leased, when, if used for planting, a share in the first fruits would be paid to the owner” [1341].

From the foregoing it appears that in many parts of Melanesia clearing is a modus acquirendi, viz. in the Solomon Islands, Northern New Hebrides, Banks Islands, Santa Cruz Group, New Caledonia, Gazelle Peninsula of Neu Pommern and Nissan Islands. Yet the rights of landowners are recognized everywhere in these islands. Here, as Ricardo would say, land of the second degree of fertility has already been taken into cultivation, and so rent has commenced on that of the first; but there is still free land. In Aneityum, too, there seems to be land not yet appropriated. In Fiji people destitute of land are found. Among the Western tribes of Torres Straits all arable land is divided up into properties, as Haddon tells us; but whether the rest of the land is still free is not quite clear. With regard to the Murray Islands we cannot arrive at any definite conclusion.

Generally speaking we may conclude that in Polynesia and Micronesia all land has been appropriated, whereas in the Melanesian Islands free land still exists.

We see further that not only the arable land is held as property, but often also the fruit-trees, lakes and streams, the shore and the lagoon as far as the reef. On most Polynesian and Micronesian islands whatever portion of land or water can yield any profit has been appropriated.

§ 8. Landlords, tenants and labourers in Oceania.

It appears from the foregoing paragraphs that in those islands where all land has been appropriated, there are nearly always found people destitute of land. The only exceptions are Rotuma and Pelau. Gardiner, in his very minute article on Rotuma, makes no mention of social ranks; and Kubary, as we have already seen in the second chapter of Part I, states that “among the Pelau islanders there is no question of a division of the people into ranks or classes.” But Semper, as has also been shown in the same chapter, speaks of a despised working class [1342]. Regarding the social classes on Easter Island we are not sufficiently informed.

Another state of things would not be inconceivable. It were quite possible that every inhabitant had appropriated a portion of the land, nothing of it remaining unclaimed. Yet it is easy to understand that, when all land has become individual property, a class of people destitute of land is likely soon to arise. In large families the portions falling to each of the children will often become too small to live upon. And where it is customary to buy and sell land, there may be improvident people who squander the land that was to afford them subsistence. But the principal cause probably is the arbitrary conduct of the chiefs and other men of power who appropriate the land of their enemies, and even, under some pretext, that belonging to their own subjects.

In Tahiti the chiefs had “a desire for war, as a means of enlarging their territory, and augmenting their power” [1343].

Regarding Hawaii Ellis tells us: “When Tamehameha had subdued the greater part of the islands, he distributed them among his favourite chiefs and warriors, on condition of their rendering him, not only military service, but a certain proportion of the produce of their lands. This also appears to have been their ancient practice on similar occasions, as the hoopahora or papahora, division of land among the ranakira or victors, invariably followed the conquest of a district or island”. Wilkes says: “Any chieftain, who could collect a sufficient number of followers to conquer a district, or an island, and had succeeded in his object, proceeded to divide the spoils, or “cut up the land”, as the natives termed it. The king, or principal chief, made his choice from the best of the lands. Afterwards the remaining part of the territory was distributed among the leaders, and these again subdivided their shares to others, who became vassals, owing fealty to the sovereigns of the fee. The king placed some of his own particular servants on his portion as his agents, to superintend the cultivation. The original occupants who were on the land, usually remained under their new conqueror, and by them the lands were cultivated, and rent or taxes paid.” Remy equally states that a victorious chief gave the lands of the conquered party to his followers [1344].

On Niué (Savage Island), “in fighting times the braves (toa) ignored all rights and seized upon any land that they were strong enough to hold” [1345].

On Nauru the chief had the right to keep all the land his tribe had conquered for himself or distribute it among the other chiefs of the tribe [1346].

In the Kingsmill Islands the katoka are persons who “either by the favour of their chief or by good fortune in war, have acquired land” [1347]. Hence it appears that, here too, the victors used to occupy the lands of the conquered.

In Fiji, according to Waterhouse, one of the motives of war was the desire for land. Williams also states that each government “seeks aggrandizement at the expense of the rest” by means of conquest, and he adds that the inhabitants of conquered districts were reduced to an abject servitude. According to Wilkes, “the victorious party often requires the conquered to yield the right of soil”. Fison says: “It is certain that in former days, when population seems to have been on the increase ... tribes were dispossessed of their lands by other tribes who took them into their occupation, and are the tauke of the present day” [1348].

We have seen in § 5 that a New Zealander sometimes claimed land “by having helped in the war party which took the land.” According to Ellis, a desire to enlarge their territory led to frequent wars. Thomson tells us: “Sometimes whole tribes became nominally slaves, although permitted to live at their usual places of residence, on the condition of catching eels and preparing food for their conquerors at certain seasons” [1349].

In New Caledonia the inhabitants of conquered districts have to pay a tribute to the conqueror, but generally continue living under their own chiefs [1350].

Von Bülow states that in Samoa conquered lands become the private property of the victorious chief [1351].

It appears that this conquering of land does not always create a class destitute of land; sometimes the inhabitants have only to pay a tribute. But where individuals belonging to the victorious tribe receive portions of the conquered land allotted to them, as in New Zealand and the Kingsmill Islands, or where, as in Samoa, the land becomes the private property of the conquering chief, the original owners consequently are deprived of their property.

It also occurs that within the tribe the land is taken away from its owner.

Williams states that in Fiji an adulterer may be deprived of his land as a punishment; and Fison tells us that the chiefs have overridden the ancient customs regarding land tenure [1352].

In Tahiti, those who resisted the king’s authority were banished and deprived of their lands. “Should the offender have been guilty of disobedience to the just demands of the king, though the lands might be his hereditary property, he must leave them, and become, as the people expressed it, a “wanderer upon the road”” [1353].

In Niué, widows and orphans “are frequently robbed of the land inherited from their dead husbands and fathers” [1354].

In Ebon, confiscation of land by the chief was formerly a mode of punishment [1355].

On the Kingsmill Islands, if a noble girl were to have connection with a man of the middle class, she would lose her landed property [1356].

On Nauru, according to Krämer, a murderer in most cases has to yield his land to the parents of his victim. Jung tells us that formerly the chiefs often had to settle disputes about land among their subjects. They then generally took the land from the quarreling parties and regarded it as their own [1357].

Among the Melanesians described by Codrington the chiefs “often use their power to drive away the owners of gardens they desire to occupy” [1358].

Where land is so highly valued, and wealth and power depend upon the possession of it, the chiefs and other men of power will be inclined to appropriate as much of it as possible. This is not always easy, and sometimes, in democratically organized societies, hardly practicable; but we may be sure that it will be done on the very first opportunity. This is strikingly proved by what Gardiner tells us of Rotuma: “Since the introduction of missionaries, too, much land has been seized by the chiefs, who, as a rule, in each district were its missionaries, as fines for the fornications of individuals. A certain amount of cocoanut oil was then given by the chiefs to the Wesleyan Mission, apparently in payment for their support. The mission in the name of which it was done, though generally without the knowledge of the white teachers, was so powerful that the hoag had no redress.” Formerly individual rights to land in Rotuma were highly respected: “The victorious side obtained no territorial aggrandisement, as it was to the common interest of all to maintain the integrity of the land, and the victors might on some future occasion be themselves in the position of the vanquished” [1359]. We may suppose that originally the chiefs were not powerful enough to appropriate land belonging to others; but the additional power that the new religion gave them enabled them to seize the lands of their subjects, and they immediately availed themselves of this opportunity.

A similar change has taken place in Samoa. In Turner’s time Samoan government had “more of the patriarchal and democratic in it, than of the monarchical.” Von Bülow, writing several years later than Turner, states that some chiefs have lately introduced what he calls serfdom. In the villages where this state of things exists the inhabitants live on land belonging to the chief. They pay no rent, but are obliged to stand by the chief in war and peace. They are personally free and have the right to emigrate, but own no land [1360].

We can now perfectly understand why people destitute of land are found in so many of these islands. And as most often not only the arable land, but fruit-trees, lakes, streams, and the sea adjoining the land are individual property, these people are entirely at the mercy of the landowners. We shall see that they have to perform the drudgery for the landlords, and are sometimes heavily oppressed.

In Tonga, the lowest class were the tooas. “The tooas can be divided into three categories. A few of them are warriors and form part of the retinue of the chiefs; some are professed cooks in the service of the superior or inferior chiefs; others, and these form the majority, till the soil. The latter are found all over the country and have no other employment” [1361].

“The institutions of Niué seem always to have been republican” says B. Thomson [1362].

In Samoa, in Turner’s time, a democratic and even communistic régime prevailed. Speaking of the chief, Turner says: “With a few exceptions, he moves about, and shares in everyday employments, just like a common man. He goes out with the fishing party, works in his plantations, helps at house-building, and lends a hand at the native oven.” The Samoans were very hospitable: “In addition to their own individual wants, their hospitable custom in supplying, without money and without stint, the wants of visitors from all parts of the group, was a great drain on their plantations.” Hale states that “the common people are in general the relatives and dependents of the tulafales [landlords] and have no direct influence in the government” [1363]. We have seen that recently a class of people destitute of land has been created by some chiefs; but their lot does not seem to be a hard one.

Gardiner, in his description of Rotuma, makes no mention of social classes.

In Tahiti, the lowest class were the manahune, including, besides the titi or slaves, “the teuteu or servants of the chiefs; all who were destitute of any land, and ignorant of the rude arts of carpentering, building, etc., which are respected among them, and such as were reduced to a state of dependence upon those in higher stations.” Speaking of the great landholders, our informant says: “Possessing at all times the most ample stores of native provisions, the number of their dependents, or retainers, was great. The destitute and thoughtless readily attached themselves to their establishments, for the purpose of securing the means of subsistence without care or apprehension of want.” That the landholders enjoyed great consideration is also proved by Wilkes’s remark, that the chiefs “find in their possession [of land] an acknowledged right to rank and respectability” [1364].

In Hawaii, four social ranks existed. The members of the third rank held land, “cultivating it either by their own dependents and domestics, or letting it out in small allotments to tenants.... In the fourth rank may be included the small farmers, who rent from ten to twenty or thirty acres of land; the mechanics, namely, canoe and house builders, fishermen, musicians, and dancers; indeed, all the labouring classes, those who attach themselves to some chief or farmer, and labour on his land for their food and clothing, as well as those who cultivate small portions of land for their own advantage.” “Sometimes the poor people take a piece of land, on condition of cultivating a given portion for the chief, and the remainder for themselves, making a fresh agreement after every crop. In addition to the above demands, the common people are in general obliged to labour, if required, part of two days out of seven, in cultivating farms, building houses, etc. for their landlord. A time is usually appointed for receiving the rent, when the people repair to the governor’s with what they have to pay. If the required amount is furnished, they return, and, as they express it (komo hou), enter again on their land. But if unable to pay the required sum, and their landlords are dissatisfied with the presents they have received, or think the tenants have neglected their farm, they are forbidden to return, and the land is offered to another. When, however, the produce brought is nearly equal to the required rent, and the chiefs think the occupants have exerted themselves to procure it, they remit the deficiency, and allow them to return” [1365]. This is quite the reverse of what occurs in slave countries. The slave or serf is prevented from escaping and compelled to remain with his master; the Hawaiian tenant, if the landlord is dissatisfied with the produce brought, is forbidden to return to the land of his employer. In the same sense, Wilkes remarks: “What appears most extraordinary, this bond [i.e. the bond between landlord and tenant] was more often severed by the superiors than by their vassals” [1366].

In Rarotonga, the lowest class are the unga or servants who have to cultivate the lands of the nobles, build their houses and canoes, make nets for them, pay them tributes, and in general obey all their demands [1367].

In the Marquesas Islands, the kikinos (common people) were servants and soldiers of the chiefs. They were always free to leave their employers. The chief, in his turn, if he was not satisfied with a servant, might expel him from his domain [1368]. Here again we may mark the great difference between the lower classes of Polynesia and slaves; for the latter are not expelled by way of punishment, but on the contrary forced to remain with their masters.

In Mangarewa, as has been noticed, the whole of the land belonged to the nobility, who often leased their lands to the third class, the common people [1369].

In the Tokelau group, the common people till the lands of the nobles for a payment in kind. A labourer has the right to leave his employer and go into another man’s service [1370].

In the Abgarris, Marqueen and Tasman groups, the common people own no land; they serve the members of the upper classes and form their retinue; in reward they are provided with cocoanuts and other fruits and allowed to fish on the reef and in the lagoon [1371].

In New Zealand, as has been shown in § 5, every freeman owned land. Accordingly, we find only a beginning of the formation of a class of free labourers. Polack states that “the poorest classes work as freedmen on the farms of their richer relatives” [1372].

On Easter Island, the king formerly held a despotic sway over the common people, i.e. those who did not belong to the nobility [1373].

Gerland remarks that the two principal classes, nobles and common people, were nowhere in Polynesia less strictly separated than in Samoa and New Zealand. This strikingly shows that the appropriation of the land was really the basis of Polynesian aristocracy; for Samoa and New Zealand, as we have found, were almost the only Polynesian groups in which there was still free land [1374].

Regarding the condition of the common people in Micronesia we have already mentioned many particulars in § 7 of the second chapter of Part I in inquiring whether they were to be regarded as slaves, and in § 6 of this chapter in order to prove that all land had been appropriated. We shall briefly repeat here what bears on their condition and the work imposed upon them, adding such details as have not yet been mentioned.

Steinbach states that in the Marshall Islands neither the lowest nor the next higher class owns land, “but they are allowed to grow as much produce or catch as much fish as is necessary for their sustenance. They have to perform certain services for the chiefs, such as the cutting of copra”. And Krämer tells us that the common people are a subjected class without property. The kings have an absolute rule over the people and many islands are their exclusive property. They may take as many women as they like from among the people as wives or concubines. The common man has only one wife and even this one his superiors may take away at their pleasure [1375].

On Nauru, the lower classes (sometimes called “serfs” or “slaves” by the authors) are in the service of the chiefs and nobles.

In Ebon, the common people live on land allotted to them by the chief who can take it from them at his pleasure. Every week they have, each of them, to provide the chief with a fixed quantity of food.

In Mortlock, according to Kubary, social ranks do not exist.

On the isle of Kusaie the chiefs have unlimited power. The common people are obliged to build houses and canoes for them and till their lands; the chiefs may always seize the goods and command the services of the people; the cocoanuts, which are rare, are for the chiefs alone; they receive a certain proportion of all the fish that is caught [1376].

In Yap, the lowest class (whom Gräffe wrongly calls slaves) are obliged daily to provide the upper classes with agricultural produce, and whenever the chiefs require it to aid in constructing houses and canoes. Whatever they possess, even to their wives and daughters, may at any time be required by the upper classes. Yet all labour is not exclusively incumbent on them. They are only bound to definite taxes, viz. to a tribute of victuals, and of mats and other materials for housebuilding; and their “slave-state” consists rather in a low and dependent condition than in being taxed with labour.

On the Marianne Islands there were three classes: nobles, semi-nobles, and common people. The common people were strictly separated from the nobles and entirely subjected to them. They were not allowed to navigate or fish or take part in any other pursuit followed by the nobles. Their principal occupations were tilling the soil, constructing roads, building canoe-houses, making nets, carrying ammunition in war, cooking rice, roots, etc. As they were forbidden to use canoes and fishing implements, the only fish they could procure were eels, which the nobles disdained; and even these they might only catch with the hand, not by means of nets or fish-hooks [1377].

In Pelau, according to Kubary, there are no social classes; but the wants of the chiefs are generally provided for by the work of dependent relatives, who are treated as adopted children and may at any time leave their employers. Semper, however, speaks of a despised working class.

On the Kingsmill Islands, according to Parkinson, there are two subjected classes. One is the class of the te torre, who live as vassals on the lands of the great landholders; they get a small piece of land for their own use; they must provide their lord with men when at war, and bring him the number of cocoanuts he desires, and what he needs for his household. The lowest class are the te bei or kaungo. They have no property, no land to live upon; they live with the great landholders by whom they are maintained; they on their part must work for their lords, i.e. fish, prepare food, etc. The lord, by giving them a piece of land, can raise them to the class of the te torre. These two classes have no voice in government matters; they follow their lord without grumbling; his will is their will; an offence against the lord is regarded by them as a personal offence, and avenged as such. Generally no one marries outside his class. In ordinary life there is no difference between master and vassal; they drink, dance, and play together; they wear the same kind of dress.

We shall inquire now what is the condition of the lower classes in Melanesia.

Rochas states that in New Caledonia the common people enjoy a rather independent position; they have to perform some services for the chiefs, which chiefly consist in cultivating their lands; but they always own a piece of land themselves. They are, however, sometimes killed by the upper chiefs for cannibal purposes. Glaumont enumerates the following classes: sorcerers, warriors, common people, slaves. But he adds that the chief himself, however powerful, would not dare to take away the field of taros or ignames belonging to the least of his subjects. According to Brainne, there are two classes: numerous chiefs of various kinds, and serfs, over whom the former, especially the superior chiefs, have the right of life and death. Lambert, a good authority, remarks that the only division of the people is that between the chiefs and their relatives and the rest of the population, and observes that those writers are wrong who speak of a class of nobles. The chief is not allowed to dispose of the property of his subjects [1378]. So it seems that the natives here are rather democratically organized.

In Fiji, according to Williams, the lower classes were formerly heavily oppressed. The chiefs looked upon them as their property, and took away their goods and often even their lives; this was considered “chief-like.” “Subjects” says Williams “do not pay rent for their land, but a kind of tax on all their produce, beside giving their labour occasionally in peace, and their service, when needed, in war, for the benefit of the king or their own chief.” Waterhouse states that many poor men could not procure a wife; they then borrowed one from a chief, and so became his retainers. Fison, speaking of the inhabitants of certain villages, says: “These are of the lowest rank, or rather of no rank at all. They are kaisi, the descendants of “children without a father.” They are vakatau ni were (husbandmen), but they are not yeomen like the taukei. Neither the lands they cultivate, nor the town lots on which they dwell are their own. They are not even tenants. They are hereditary bondsmen, adscripti glebae, whose business it is to raise food for their masters. Their lords may oppress them, and they have no redress. In times of peace they must work for them and in war time they must fight for them to the death”. According to Wilkes, “in each tribe great and marked distinctions of rank exist. The classes which are readily distinguished are as follows: 1. kings; 2. chiefs; 3. warriors; 4. landholders (matanivanua); 5. slaves (kai-si).” In another passage he speaks of “the kai-si or common people”. In Jackson’s narrative, quoted above, mention is also made of these kai-si or inhabitants of “slave lands” [1379].

Codrington remarks: “In the native view of mankind, almost everywhere in the islands which are here under consideration [Solomon Islands, Santa Cruz Group, Banks’ Islands, and New Hebrides], nothing seems more fundamental than the division of the people into two or more classes, which are exogamous, and in which descent is counted through the mother.... Generally speaking, it may be said that to a Melanesian man all women, of his own generation at least, are either sisters or wives, to the Melanesian woman all men are either brothers or husbands” [1380]. This seems to be sufficient proof that a subjected and despised lowest class does not exist; else the natives would not all be “brothers” and “sisters”.

This conclusion is strengthened by consulting some other writers.

Guppy, describing the Solomon Islands, makes no mention of social ranks. Elton states that the chiefs have little power [1381]. Nor have we found in any of the other writers anything tending to prove that the common people are oppressed.

Regarding the New Hebrides, Hagen and Pineau, after speaking of the chiefs, state that the next class are the warriors, which rank can be obtained by a payment of pigs. They make no mention of a despised or oppressed working class. Inglis, as we have seen above, states that in the isle of Aneityum “there is no large proprietor, no powerful or wealthy chief; every man sits proprietor of his own cottage, his own garden, and his own cultivated patches.” Turner, speaking of the isle of Tana, says: “The affairs of this little community are regulated by the chiefs and the heads of families”; and in Eromanga, according to the same writer, the chiefs “were numerous, but not powerful”. According to Ribbe, in the Shortland Islands (near Bougainville), the chiefs have little power [1382]. From all this we may safely conclude that social life in the New Hebrides is democratically organized.

In the Gazelle Peninsula of Neu Pommern wealth gives power; but there is no social or political difference between the rich and the poor [1383].

In the Nissan Islands poverty is unknown, as there is an abundance of free land fit for cultivation. Social classes do not exist. There is no nobility, unless the chief and his relatives be regarded as such [1384].

Parkinson states that among the Moanus of the Admiralty Islands the power of the chiefs is considerable [1385]. We do not, however, hear of a subjection of the common people by the upper classes.

Haddon, speaking of the Western Tribes of Torres Straits, says: “Each household is practically self-sufficient. So far as I could gather there was no division of labour as between man and man, every man made his garden, fished and fought” [1386].

Hunt, in his description of the Murray Islands, makes no mention of social ranks.

Generally speaking, we may conclude that in Polynesia and Micronesia there are lower classes destitute of land and entirely at the mercy of the landholders, whereas in Melanesia such classes do not exist. This agrees with our former conclusion, that in the two first-named geographical districts all land has, or had been appropriated, which is not the case in Melanesia. And if we consider the single groups of islands, we find that wherever in Polynesia there is still free land (Samoa, New Zealand), a more or less democratic régime prevails, and where in Melanesia all land has been appropriated (Fiji) there is a subjected lower class. In the same sense, Moerenhout, speaking of Polynesia, remarks that, in the sparsely populated islands the chiefs had little power, but wherever there was a dense population, wars were frequent and the chiefs reigned despotically [1387]. There are, as we have already remarked, a few exceptions to this general rule (Rotuma, Pelau); but in these cases it is quite possible that a subjected class formerly existed. For a great depopulation has taken place in Oceania, especially in Polynesia and Micronesia [1388]; and the value of land must have decreased together with the population. We have seen that in Rotuma all land is still held as property, but large tracts are out of tillage, though there are everywhere traces of former cultivation. In Pelau too, as has been said in § 6, the rights of property are still recognized, though there is but little land actually in cultivation. That the class of people destitute of land tends to disappear when the population decreases, is strikingly shown by the following statement of Ellis’s regarding Tahiti: “Although the manahune [lowest class] have always included a large number of the inhabitants, they have not in modern times been so numerous as some other ranks. Since the population has been so greatly diminished, the means of subsistence so abundant, and such vast portions of the country uncultivated, an industrious individual has seldom experienced much difficulty in securing at least the occupancy of a piece of land” [1389].

This depopulation may perhaps also account for the discrepancy between Semper’s and Kubary’s accounts of Pelau. Semper spoke of a despised working class; but Kubary, who wrote several years after, stated that there were no social ranks. It is quite possible that in the meantime the population had been so greatly diminished, that every one could obtain possession of a piece of land.

Ellis’s above-quoted statement also shows that there is a fundamental difference between such lower classes as were found in Tahiti and slaves. The former were not at all forbidden to provide for themselves, and indeed, when the population had decreased, many of them began to cultivate a piece of land for their own profit. But in former times they were not able to do so, as all land was the property of the upper classes. The lower classes of Oceania were proletarians who wanted employment. The means of subsistence were the exclusive property of the upper classes, and therefore the poor were wholly dependent on them. In slave countries free labourers are not available, and therefore those who want labourers have recourse to slavery; in Oceania the labour market was overstocked, and therefore the poor eagerly asked the landlords for employment even in the meanest work [1390].

There are some more details on record proving that labourers were not wanted.

In Rotuma “Polynesian or Micronesian strangers, fa helav, were usually married into different hoag, or adopted with the consent of all the members of the hoag. A few Fijians and Melanesians have become fa asoa, or helping men, of different chiefs; no women would have anything to do with them, and no hoag would adopt them. They remained on the island as long as they liked, and transferred their services as they liked; they were treated as inferior members of the hoag, to which they gave their services” [1391]. In a slave country these Melanesians, looked upon as an inferior race and therefore not adopted, would have been eagerly taken as slaves and prevented from escaping; but here it is quite the reverse: they may stay if they like, but they may also go away if they like; nobody wants them.

What Hale tells us of the inhabitants of Ponape is also very remarkable. When it is feared that there will be over-population, some of the lower orders with their wives and children voluntarily go away in their canoes [1392]. If these lower classes were slaves, they would not be allowed to emigrate; the masters would value them as their property and prevent them from escaping. Such is not the case here; they remove because there is no room for them.

We see that common labourers are little wanted in Oceania. Some kinds of workmen, however, are much in request in some of these islands.

Mariner states that in Tonga the esteem in which the different trades are held depends on their utility. Most people pursue the same trade as their fathers did before them, because they have learned it in their youth. This especially applies to those trades which are considered most difficult and therefore highly honoured. There is no law obliging a son to follow his father’s trade; but it is the custom; and the hope of a high profit stimulates the energy of those who pursue a difficult trade. The noblest trades are those of canoe-builder and undertaker of funerals. They are followed by none but mataboles and mooas (2nd and 3rd classes), the tooas (4th class) being excluded from them. All other trades are followed by mooas and tooas alike, except three which the mooas consider beneath their dignity and therefore leave to the tooas: those of barber, cook, and agriculturist. The latter two, the most despised trades, are hereditary. Neither cooking nor cultivating requires any particular capacities, everybody is capable of following these pursuits, and those whose fathers were engaged in either of them have no alternative but to continue in the same way. The esteem, however, in which an individual is held, does not only depend on the trade he follows, but on his ability in it. He who distinguishes himself in a lower trade enjoys more consideration than he who following a higher trade proves to be unqualified for it [1393].

We see that those trades which require no particular abilities are most despised here, whereas skilled labour is highly honoured and performed even by the higher classes.

In some more cases it is stated that skilled workmen are better paid and more highly valued than unskilled.

In Tahiti the lowest class included those “who were destitute of any land, and ignorant of the rude arts of carpentering, building, etc., which were respected among them.... The fishermen and artisans (sometimes ranking with this class, but more frequently with that immediately above it) may be said to have constituted the connecting link between the two” [1394].

Wilkes states that in the Kingsmill Islands “the trade of carpenter is held in great repute.” Professed tattooers are also highly esteemed and well paid [1395].

In Fiji the carpenters formed a separate caste, called King’s carpenters, having chiefs of their own, for whom and their work they showed respect. Among the social ranks the 4th were distinguished warriors of low birth, chiefs of the carpenters, and chiefs of the fishers for turtle, the 5th were the common people [1396]. We see that here too skilled workmen rank above the bulk of the people.

Skilled labour is thus highly valued in some of these islands. The skilled workmen, so far from being slaves, are held in high esteem; but those who have no peculiar accomplishments are obliged to perform the rudest and most despised work. This applies especially to the agricultural labourers. These are entirely dependent on the landowners, and there are more of them than can be profitably employed. They much resemble the proletarians of modern European countries.

The great significance of the appropriation of the land clearly appears, when we consider a phenomenon frequently occurring among savages: debt-slavery. Among some savage tribes there are rich and poor as well as in Polynesia; the poor, however, do not apply to the rich for employment, but are enslaved by them. Thus among the Tagals and Visayas, in the time of the conquista, most slaves had become such by being unable to pay debts they had contracted. If, in a time of famine, a poor man had been fed for some days by his rich neighbour, he became his slave. Sometimes the rich even placed a quantity of rice in some conspicuous place and lay on the look-out; if then a poor man came and ate of the rice, he was seized and enslaved [1397]. Such a thing would never have happened in Polynesia, and the reason why is evident. Among the Tagals and Visayas the poor were able, in ordinary times, to provide for themselves they did not offer their services to the rich; the latter had to avail themselves of such an opportunity as a famine, to lay hands on them and compel them to work for them, not only during the famine, but afterwards when, if free, they would have been able to subsist independently of the rich. But in Polynesia the means of subsistence are permanently in the hands of the rich to the exclusion of the poor; therefore the rich need not compel the poor to work for them, for they are always at their mercy. Among the Tagals and Visayas the poor, though destitute of wealth, were not without resources: they had the free land always at their disposal; and it was only in extraordinary circumstances (e.g. when the harvest had failed) that they were temporarily dependent on the rich. In Polynesia the poor are destitute of land, and therefore permanently dependent on the landlords.

Their state would even be worse than it actually is, were it not that they are useful in another, non-economic way: they strengthen their employers’ force in warfare.

In Tahiti “in times of war, all capable of bearing arms were called upon to join the forces of the chieftain to whom they belonged, and the farmers, who held their lands partly by feudal tenure, were obliged to render military service whenever their landlord required it. There were, besides these, a number of men celebrated for their valour, strength, or address in war, who were called aito, fighting-men or warriors. This title, the result of achievements in battle, was highly respected, and proportionably sought by the daring and ambitious. It was not, like the chieftainship and other prevailing distinctions, confined to any class, but open to all; and many from the lower ranks have risen, as warriors, to a high station in the community” [1398].

In Hawaii, “when war was declared, the king and warrior chiefs, together with the priests, fixed the time and place for commencing, and the manner of carrying it on. In the meantime, the Runapai (messengers of war) were sent to the districts and villages under their authority, to require the services of their tenants, in numbers proportionate to the magnitude of the expedition” [1399].

In Samoa, as we have seen, those residing on land belonging to the chief were obliged to stand by him in war and peace [1400].

In Tonga, according to Mariner, “the retinue of the upper chiefs consists of mataboles or inferior chiefs (2nd class), and each of these has under his command a number of mooas (3rd class), who constitute the army of the upper chiefs. Some tooas (4th class) are also admitted into this army, if they have given proofs of bravery” [1401].

In the Marquesas Islands the rank of a noble could be acquired through acts of bravery [1402].

On the Kingsmill Islands the tenants must provide their lord with men when at war [1403].

In Fiji, according to Williams, all men capable of bearing arms, of all classes, took part in military operations; and Fison, as we have seen above, states that the people of the lowest rank in war time had to fight for their lords to the death [1404].

Concluding, we may remark that the facts observed in Oceania fully justify our theory, that slavery is inconsistent with a state of society in which all land is held as property.

§ 9. Transition from serfdom to freedom in Western Europe.

The conclusion we have arrived at is that the appropriation of the soil is a factor of great importance in shaping the social life of agricultural peoples [1405]. When all land is held as property, a class of people destitute of the means of subsistence is likely soon to arise; such people must seek employment and live on the wages they can earn. But in countries where there is still free land, a class of free agricultural labourers dependent on wages does not exist; therefore in such countries the landowners often resort to slavery as a means of procuring labourers. Generally speaking, slavery as an industrial system can only exist where there is still free land.

If this theory is correct, it must hold not only with regard to the simply organized societies of Polynesia and Micronesia, but also with regard to civilized nations. Among such nations too slavery must disappear as soon as all land has been appropriated. And as we know that in Western Europe all land is now held as property and everybody is personally free, whereas in former times, when these countries were far less densely peopled than now, slavery and serfdom existed, it does not seem unreasonable to suppose that the appropriation of the soil has had much to do with the disappearance of servile labour. This opinion is also held by Wakefield. “The serfdom of the middle-ages was for all Europe, what it is for Poland and Russia still [1406], a kind of slavery required by the small proportion of people to land; a substitute for hired labour, which gradually expired with the increase of population, as it will expire in Poland and Russia when land shall, in those countries, become as scarce and dear as it became in England some time after the conquest” [1407]. We think Wakefield is quite right here, and we shall adduce some facts in corroboration of this view.

But we must first remind the reader of what we have already said in the Introduction. We confine ourselves in this book to an investigation of the facts of savage life. The study of these facts leads us to conclusions, some of which (and among these the conclusion we are now dealing with) have a wider bearing and can further our understanding of the history of civilized nations. But the scope of the present volume does not allow us to make any special investigation of this history and inquire whether the same causes can be seen at work here that have been found to shape the social life of savage tribes. Accordingly, we shall not try to prove that the appropriation of the soil has really been the main cause of the disappearance of slavery and serfdom in Western Europe. We only intend to show that the matter can be viewed from this side. We wish to claim attention for this important factor, that is commonly overlooked, and thus clear the way for future research. This and the next two paragraphs have to be regarded as a digression, standing apart from the main body of our book.

The character of these paragraphs may justify us in limiting our remarks to two countries, the economic history of which has of late years been the subject of thorough study by eminent writers, viz. England and Germany, and using only a small part of the literature existing on this matter. We have, however, taken care to consult none but first-rate authorities.

We have spoken of the disappearance of slavery and serfdom. In connection with this two remarks have to be made.

First. Slavery in the strict sense existed for a long time in both England and Germany. In England, shortly after the Norman Conquest, slaves were still rather numerous. “The servi or slaves” says Ashley “whose average percentage for the whole land is 9, and who in some of the eastern and midland shires do not appear at all, or fall to a percentage of 4 or 5, rise in the country on the Welsh border and in the south-west to 17, 18, 21, and 24 per cent.” A century later, however, absolute slavery had disappeared [1408]. And in Germany there was also a class of servi, who had to perform whatever services the lords might require, and even in the 11th century, though their condition had already much improved, were sometimes sold apart from the land [1409].

Secondly. The argument that leads us to conclude that slavery, is inconsistent with a state of society in which all land is held as property, equally applies to serfdom. For the serf, as well as the slave, was compelled to work. There is a great difference between slaves and serfs on one side, and modern labourers and tenants on the other. The labourer has to work for his employer, and the tenant has to pay rent; but both can always declare the contract off and so put an end to their obligations. And even as long as the contract lasts, if they do not discharge their duties, they can only be condemned to pay damages; but the labourer cannot be compelled to work, nor the tenant to remain on the farm. The slaves and serfs of early times, however, were under personal compulsion. The slave was the property of his master, whom he was not allowed to leave. And the serf, as we so often read, was “bound to the soil,” “astricted to the estate”, “an die Scholle gefesselt”, which means that he was forbidden to remove from the spot assigned to him. Professor Cunningham states that in England, in the 11th century “a very large proportion of the population were serfs who could not move to other estates or to towns” [1410], and Amira tells us that in Germany, in the Middle Ages, the villeins (Grundhörigen) were not allowed to remove from the land which they cultivated [1411]. Therefore our argument holds with regard to serfdom as well as slavery. For when all land has been appropriated, a landlord can always find free tenants who are willing to pay him a rent, and free labourers who are willing to work for him, and so he wants neither serfs nor slaves. We may quote here Oppenheimer’s remark that, as soon as all land has been appropriated, “serfdom in the proper sense, implying the astriction of the labourer to the soil, has become superfluous. The labourer can safely be allowed personal freedom, and it is allowed him. The produce of his labour can now be taken from him, in the form of rent, though he may be personally free. For he is excluded from the means of production, as far as they could be accessible to him, and so he has to accept the terms of the proprietor or to starve” [1412].

It is of some interest to emphasize what we have said concerning the difference between serfs and free tenants. A free tenant, whatever be the conditions of his tenure, can always remove from the land and cannot be compelled to cultivate it. A serf, whatever be the extent of his obligations, is bound to the soil; if he escapes the lord can bring him back and set him to work again. The right of emigrating (German “Freizügigkeit”) is the true mark of freedom. And therefore, as soon as the obligations which were personal have become territorial, i.e. as soon as the services and payments which formerly were exacted from definite persons, are exacted from the cultivators of definite pieces of land as such, nobody being any longer obliged to become or remain the cultivator of any definite piece of land,—serfdom has ceased to exist, even though the services and payments have remained exactly the same.

The line of demarcation between free and unfree cultivators has not, however, always been drawn in a strict, scientific manner. Ashley, speaking of the 11th—14th centuries, says: “The term libere tenentes is elastic enough to cover men in very different positions.... But the larger number of those known by that name were, clearly, virgate-holding villeins or the descendants of such, who had commuted their more onerous labour services of two or three days a week for a money or corn payment, and had been freed from what were regarded as the more servile “incidents” of their position. What these exactly were, or, indeed, what was understood by free tenure, it is difficult now to determine, precisely because the lawyers and landlords of the time did not themselves know. The most widely spread idea was that inability to give a daughter in marriage or to sell an ox or a horse without the lord’s consent, for which a fine had to be paid, was the certain mark of servile tenure” [1413].

Now we cannot wonder that the lawyers and landlords of the Middle Ages had no very clear ideas about serfdom and freedom. But modern writers on economic history should have the true distinction always before their minds. Some of them, however, we think fail in this respect.

In order to demonstrate this we must speak of a change which, in the later Middle Ages, took place in the manorial economy. The land belonging to each landlord had always been divided into two parts, viz. “that part cultivated for the immediate benefit of the lord, the demesne or inland, and that held of him by tenants, the land in villenage” [1414]. These tenants were not, however, free tenants, but villeins bound to the soil and obliged to work on the demesne. “The whole of the land of the manor, both demesne and villenage, was cultivated on an elaborate system of joint labour. The only permanent labourers upon the demesne itself were a few slaves; all or almost all the labour there necessary was furnished by the villeins and cotters, as the condition on which they held their holdings, and under the supervision of the lord’s bailiff”. The labour dues of the villeins consisted of week work, i.e. a man’s labour for two or three days a week throughout the year, precariae, i.e. additional labour at ploughing and at harvest time, and miscellaneous services [1415].

But in the course of time money payments were largely substituted for these labour dues. Commutation of the week work went on extensively shortly after the Norman Conquest, and commutation of the whole of the services occurs occasionally as early as 1240. “With the reign of Edward II complete commutation became general” [1416]. The cultivators had now to pay money to the lord instead of working on the demesne.

Though the change occurred at a time when personal serfdom was gradually declining, it is easy to see that this commutation is not identical with the transition from serfdom to freedom. A free tenant may by contract take upon himself to perform some kind of work for the landlord. This was the case in England where “the rendering of services reappeared in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, not as the incidents of villanage, but as a form of agreement which proved more or less convenient to one party and perhaps to both” [1417]. On the other hand, it is quite possible that a cultivator who pays money instead of rendering services, is yet bound to the soil and devoid of personal freedom. Ashley, speaking of the 13th century, states that most of the cultivators “had continued to hold by servile tenure, as villeins or customary tenants, even when they had commuted all or most of their services.... There can be no doubt that ... they were bound to the soil; in the sense, at any rate, that the lord would demand a heavy fine before he would give one of them permission to leave the manor” [1418].

Now, though none of our writers on economic history explicitly say that these two things, the commutation of labour dues for money and the transition from serfdom to freedom, are identical, we think some of them do not sufficiently keep in view the difference existing between the two. Thus only can we account for the prevalence of a theory which seems to be the current mode of explaining the fall of serfdom and rise of freedom.

This theory has been introduced by a German writer, Professor Hildebrand. He distinguishes three stages of economic development: natural economy, money economy, and credit economy.

In the system of natural economy goods are exchanged directly for goods; when money economy prevails use is made of a means of exchange, money; and when credit economy has been developed goods are exchanged for a promise in the future to give back the same or a like value, i.e. on credit. Every nation begins with natural economy, for the use of money as a means of exchange supposes an abundance of labour or products of labour which enables people to procure the precious metals. As long as natural economy prevails capital does not exist: the soil and human labour are the only productive agencies. There are, therefore, two classes of people only; labourers and landowners. Sometimes every landowner is at the same time a labourer; in such cases democracy prevails. But it often occurs that labourers and landowners form separate classes. These are then mutually dependent on each other; for the labourer wants a landlord to give him employment and so enable him to earn his subsistence, and the landlord wants labourers to cultivate his lands. This interdependence effects that the relations existing between the two classes assume a durable character. The labour contracts are made to last for the life of the labourer or even become hereditary. The labourer is bound to the soil and forbidden to leave the manor.

As soon as money economy exists, capital arises and takes its place as the third factor of production. The owning classes comprise now both capitalists and landlords. The labourer has no longer to apply to the landlord for employment, but can leave him and work for the capitalist; he is therefore no longer astricted to the soil. The wages he receives from the capitalist are paid in the form of money, and so the labourer is much freer than before, for this money can be turned to various purposes. Moreover, capital (as opposed to land) can be augmented to any extent, and this enables the labourer to become a capitalist himself.

The position of the labourers who remain on the land also undergoes a change. The landlord who brings the agricultural produce to the market can pay wages in money and therefore hire able and dismiss incompetent labourers. His lands, worked with free labourers who serve for wages, yield him a far greater income than formerly when they were cultivated by serfs. Moreover, the fixed labour dues of the serfs do not answer the purposes of an improved economy. It is thus the interest of the landlord to put an end to his fixed and hereditary contracts and loosen the ties with which natural economy had bound the agricultural labourer. The dues in kind and services are commuted for money payments. The labourer, who was a serf, becomes now either a free peasant or a free servant and day-wage worker who is no longer astricted to the soil, but can leave his employer whenever he likes and seek such work as most agrees with his capacity and inclination.

On the other hand, the employers have become independent of the labourers. In the system of natural economy the landlord took care not to lose his labourers, whom he wanted to cultivate his land; but now landlords and capitalists can always get as many labourers as they like and dismiss them as soon as they are no longer of any use. This leads to an oppression of the poor by the rich [1419].

This is Hildebrand’s theory, so far as the condition of the labouring classes is concerned. Natural economy, according to him, leads to serfdom, money economy leads to freedom.

We think this theory is erroneous.

It would perhaps be better not to speak of “natural economy” and “money economy”; for these terms are likely to lead to misunderstanding. The mere existence of money is of comparatively little consequence. A circulating medium arises as soon as it is wanted; and where the precious metals are unknown something else will do, as in Melanesia and among many Negro tribes, where shells are used for money. The existence of a circulating medium denotes a development of commerce; for barter on any extensive scale is hardly possible. Therefore we had better speak of self-sufficing and commercial communities. As long as each village is practically self-dependent money is not wanted; but as soon as the interchange of commodities takes any considerable dimensions the need for a means of exchange becomes pressing. And there is, indeed, a great difference in social structure between self-sufficing and commercial communities [1420]; but if we ascribe this difference to the existence of gold and silver coins we arrive at false conclusions. A proof of this is the fact that Hildebrand thinks capital can only exist when there is money. Yet we know that the Germans have kept cattle from early times, long before money economy prevailed; and cattle are decidedly to be called capital; they cannot be classified under either of the only two means of production which, according to Hildebrand, exist in a system of natural economy: land and human labour; and in our chapter on pastoral tribes we have seen that cattle-keepers form strongly marked capitalistic communities.

But even if we speak of self-dependent and commercial communities, we cannot admit that in the former labour must necessarily be servile and in the latter free.

First. How can natural economy, i.e. the absence of commerce, lead to serfdom? Hildebrand says: landlords and labourers are mutually dependent on each other, and so their relations assume a durable character, and the labourer is astricted to the soil. We think his meaning is the following. In self-sufficing communities the fluidity of labour which exists in modern society, is wanting. In such countries there can be famine in one district, whilst in a contiguous district there is plenty of food; similarly labour can be scarce in one place whilst it is abundant in a neighbouring place. Therefore a landlord cannot afford to let his labourers leave the manor; for as there is little intercourse between the different villages and districts it is difficult for him to procure other labourers. It is thus most convenient for him to bind his labourers to the soil and forbid them to leave him.

This may at first sight seem a reasonable explanation of the origin of serfdom. But on closer scrutiny it will be seen that this argument does not hold. When there is little intercourse, each landlord is dependent on the labourers of his own district; and there must be a great stability in the relations of the two classes. But this need not bring about an astriction of the labourers to the soil. The landlord cannot easily procure labourers from other districts; but it is even more difficult for the labourers to find employment in foreign parts; for such intercourse as there is, is kept by the ruling, not by the labouring classes. Therefore it is not necessary to bind the labourers to the soil; for they are already naturally dependent on the landlords of their own district. We think slavery and serfdom can only be accounted for by a general scarcity of labour. When labour is everywhere scarce a labourer who leaves his employer can everywhere find employment, whereas an employer cannot easily procure labourers; it is then the interest of the employer to prevent his labourers from leaving him. But the mere lack of intercourse limits the labourer in his choice of employment even more than it limits the employer in his choice of labourers.

Nor do the facts agree with this theory. We have seen that among pastoral tribes free labourers are frequently found, though labour is by no means fluid and the labourers are paid in kind, not in money. Among the natives of Hawaii, who lived under a system of natural economy, labour was also free. The passage in which Ellis describes the relation between landlords and cultivators has already been quoted by us, but it is remarkable enough to repeat here. “Sometimes the poor people take a piece of land, on condition of cultivating a given portion for the chief, and the remainder for themselves, making a fresh agreement after every crop. In addition to the above demands, the common people are in general obliged to labour if required, part of two days out of seven, in cultivating farms, building houses, etc. for their landlord. A time is usually appointed for receiving the rent, when the people repair to the governor’s with what they have to pay. If the required amount is furnished, they return, and, as they call it (komo hou) enter again on their land. But if unable to pay the required sum, and their landlords are dissatisfied with the presents they have received, or think the tenants have neglected their farm, they are forbidden to return, and the land is offered to another. When, however, the produce brought is nearly equal to the required rent, and the chiefs think the occupants have exerted themselves to procure it, they remit the deficiency, and allow them to return” [1421]. These cultivators are by no means astricted to the soil. They make a fresh agreement after every crop. If the produce brought is insufficient, they are either removed or by way of favour allowed to return [1422].

Our conclusion is that, though in medieval Western Europe serfdom and natural economy existed at the same time, the former is not a necessary consequence of the latter.

Secondly. Does money economy, i.e. commerce, always lead to freedom? We know now that serfdom is not invariably connected with natural economy. Yet it might be that, wherever both natural economy and serfdom exist (as it was the case in the early Middle Ages) the rise of money economy always brought serfdom to a close.

The argument by which Hildebrand attempts to prove this is rather strange. The development of town life and manufactures, according to him, enables the labourers to find employment in manufactures; they are now no longer dependent on the landlords. The manufacturing capitalists pay them money-wages which they can spend in whatever way they like, and so they become more free than they were before.

We think this argument is quite insufficient. The labourers find employment in manufactures, says Hildebrand. But he had told us before that they were astricted to the soil. What enables them now to leave the landlords? Further: why do not the town labourers become slaves or serfs? Here Hildebrand’s reasoning is very strange. They receive money-wages which they can spend in whatever way they like. Now one who receives money with which he can buy all kinds of commodities is in a certain sense more free than one who, under a system of natural economy, receives bread and meat which he cannot sell. But this has nothing to do with the legal status of the labourer. A slave who receives pocket-money from his master is free to buy with it what he likes, yet he remains a slave.

But the condition of those of the labouring classes who remain on the land also undergoes a change, according to Hildebrand. The landlord can now sell the produce of his land for money, and this money enables him to hire free labourers.

We cannot see why this should be so, why the mere possibility of paying money-wages (all other circumstances having remained the same) should lead to free labour contracts. We should rather think that the afflux of labourers to the towns of which Hildebrand speaks would make agricultural labour scarce, and each landlord would be most anxious to retain those labourers that had not yet escaped to the towns; they would now, more than ever before, be astricted to the soil.

Hildebrand, however, thinks it will be the interest of the landlord to put an end to the hereditary tenures of his serfs and work his lands with free labourers. And he adds that the dues in kind and services are commuted for money payments. The cultivator who was a serf becomes now either a free landholder or a free labourer.

Whether Hildebrand means to say that the commutation of dues in kind and services for money payments is identical with the transition from serfdom to freedom, does not clearly appear.

We think that the regarding of this commutation as the main fact in the economic history of the later Middle Ages lies at the root of the evil and has given rise to this theory. Money economy, according to Hildebrand, leads to commutation, and commutation is the same as, or at any rate leads to, the disappearance of serfdom.

What does this commutation mean? Formerly the peasants had to work on the demesne which was cultivated for the immediate benefit of the lord; in later times they paid money instead. What was the reason of this change? It must have been that the demesne was cultivated in some other way so that their services were no longer wanted. Sometimes free labourers were employed. “It is evident” says Ashley “that the lord would not have consented, first to partial and then to complete commutation, had he not been able to hire labourers” [1423]. But the main reason was that portions of the demesne were let for rents. “If the lord found it his interest to let portions of the demesne instead of cultivating it through his bailiff or reeve, his need for the services of the villeins would be pro tanto diminished, and he would be readier to accept commutation” [1424]. The same was the case in Germany, where between the 10th and 13th centuries the extent of the land which the landlords kept in their own hands was continually diminishing, so that there was less and less use for the services of the villeins, and commutation took place on a great scale. The landlords, who formerly had taken the lead of agricultural operations, became now mere receivers of rent [1425].

Now we must admit that commutation of labour dues for money payments was not possible before money was used. Yet the fact that commutation of services for payments in kind, which does not suppose money economy, also occurred [1426], shows that the rise of money economy cannot have been the sole cause of this change. We may even go farther and say: if it has been a cause at all, it has not certainly been one of the principal causes. The commutation of the labour dues means that the demesne was thenceforth either worked with free labourers or let for rent. The existence of a class of freemen dependent on wages cannot, however, be accounted for by money economy. Nor can we see how money economy can have led to the letting of the demesnes which the landlords had formerly kept in their own hands. Ochenkowski supposes that in England, after the Norman Conquest, the need of the landlords for money led to commutation [1427]. But there is no reason why the landlords could not, instead of receiving money payments, obtain money by selling the produce of their lands. As long as there was no market for agricultural products the landlord, whether he himself had the lead of agricultural operations or let the demesne on condition of receiving a payment in kind, could not obtain money. As soon as there was a market he could make money in three ways: by working the demesne himself and selling the produce, by letting it on condition of receiving part of the produce, which he could bring to the market [1428], and by letting it for a rent in money. Money economy seems to have had little to do with the commutation.

Hildebrand’s theory is: money economy led to commutation and commutation led to freedom. We have seen that the first half of this does not hold. What about the second half? Can the commutation have loosened the ties which bound the cultivator to the soil? We think not. For if the landlord could not let the villein who worked on the demesne leave the manor, because he was difficult to replace, he had exactly the same reason for keeping the villein who paid money astricted to the soil. The use of money and the rise of commerce had not augmented the number of agricultural labourers; they had even decreased, as many of them had gone to the towns. And it was even more difficult to replace the money-paying than the labouring villein; for the former had to be a fit person who could conduct his business well enough to be able at the end of the year to furnish the required sum, whereas any able-bodied man could perform agricultural labour under the supervision of the lord’s bailiff. Our conclusion is that money economy did not lead to commutation, and that commutation did not lead to freedom.

Yet money economy, taken in the sense of town life and commerce, did sometimes affect the condition of the rural classes. Such was the case in Italy where, in the 13th century, the wealthy commercial cities took an active part in the emancipation of the serfs. Florence especially strongly encouraged their enfranchisement. In 1257 this city even went so far as to set free all the serfs in the surrounding country, indemnifying the lords. The city government pretended to act from Christian and philanthropic motives. “But” adds our informant “though the city governments of Central Italy were the first to pronounce themselves in favour of the personal freedom of the peasants, they by no means countenanced the idea of leaving the land to those who had held it for centuries. On the contrary, the citizens endeavour to acquire landed properties, and when they have got them they put an end to the hereditary tenures and replace them by tenancies.” Many of the former serfs had to leave the lands of their ancestors and augmented the number of proletarians in the towns. They were replaced by leaseholders [1429].

The disappearance of serfdom was thus accelerated by the measures of the Italian cities. How much of sentiment there was in these measures, and how much of self-interest, we do not know. But at any rate serfdom must already have been drawing to an end before the cities meddled with it. For a firmly established system that discharges an important economic function is not uprooted by mere sentiment. And so far as the self-interest of the citizens induced them to replace the serfs by free tenants, the latter system must have been economically more useful than the former, which was probably only kept up by the landlords because they were accustomed to it. Times had changed and the old system of cultivation had become obsolete; and the citizens of the towns, whom no personal relation bound to the serfs, expelled them and let the land to free tenants. Before their intervention there must already have been at work an internal cause, which effected that cultivation by serfs was no longer the most profitable mode of managing landed properties.

We do not mean to say that there was no internal connection between the transition from serfdom to freedom and the simultaneous rise of town life, commerce and manufactures. We think there was such a connection. But we cannot agree with the theory that the disappearance of serfdom was a consequence of the commercial development of Western Europe. It seems to us that the rise of commerce was not the cause of the decline of serfdom, but that both were effects of the same principal cause, the relative scarcity of land which made itself felt towards the end of the Middle Ages. As soon as people had to shift on a limited area, the use of commerce, which enables each district to produce what it is most fit to, and so enhances the productiveness of labour, became more apparent than it had been at a time when there was plenty of land. In the same sense, Malthus remarks: “The great cause which fills towns and manufactories is an insufficiency of employment, and consequently the means of support in the country; and if each labourer, in the parish where he was born, could command food, clothing, and lodging for ten children, the population of the towns would soon bear but a small proportion to the population of the country” [1430]. Lange also says that poverty of the masses is a condition of the rise of manufactures [1431]. Besides these economists, we may quote the eminent geographist Ratzel, who observes, that in a country with a growing population the soil finally cannot any longer feed the whole of the people and so an ever increasing part of the population devote themselves to manufactures and commerce [1432]. That this occurs even in primitive civilization, follows from what Krieger tells us about the natives inhabiting the small islands adjoining New Guinea, especially Berlin Harbour and Dallmann Harbour. The goad of necessity, he remarks, has urged them to a progress in the arts of life. The want of room rendered extension of the plantations on their islets impossible and so they began to manufacture carved work and pottery, which they exported to the continent in exchange for food [1433].

As for the medieval history of Europe, Inama-Sternegg observes that the increase of the population, requiring an extension of the means of subsistence, led to the rise of towns and manufactures [1434].

But however this may be, we are certain that the rise of money economy cannot have been the sole, or even the chief cause of the disappearance of servile labour. This is sufficiently shown by the fact that before the emancipation of the Negroes a system of servile labour on a large scale prevailed in the United States and the West Indies, i.e. in countries working for export.

Hildebrand’s theory has been accepted by some writers on economic history. Ochenkowski repeatedly asserts that the change in the condition of the rural population was the effect of money economy. Inama-Sternegg, in one passage of his excellent book on the economic history of Germany, expresses the opinion that in the early Middle Ages natural economy, defined by him as the absence of regular commercial intercourse, made astriction of the labourers to the soil necessary. Professor Cunningham, in his book on Western Civilization, ascribes the changes which in the history of ancient Greece and Rome took place in the status of the labouring classes to the prevalence of natural economy and money economy respectively [1435]. But none of these writers give any new argument in favour of the theory.

Our conclusion is that the rise of money economy was not the cause of the disappearance of serfdom. We shall inquire now whether Wakefield’s theory, with which we agree, can further our understanding of the economic history of England and Germany.

§ 10. The rural classes of medieval England.

Of land tenure in England before the 11th century we do not know very much [1436].

The first detailed account of the economic condition of the country is contained in Domesday Book, in which William of Normandy embodied the results of an inquiry into the state of the kingdom he had secured.

“When Domesday Survey was compiled” says Cunningham, “every yard of English soil was as really, if not as definitely, subject to proprietary rights as it is now” [1437]. We do not, however, think that much importance has to be attached to this statement; for there was still much uncultivated land and, though the king claimed a right of property over this land, it was not yet held as property in the strict sense of the word, which means that all except the owner are excluded from its use. This appears from what took place in 1305, under Edward I. “By an adjustment of boundaries considerable portions of the Crown forest were given over to certain barons, who gained personally; but the position of the tenants was so much altered for the worse that their case obtained special attention in the Ordinance of the Forest, by which their rights of pasture and common were secured” [1438]. We see that these Crown forests had been open to the use of the peasants, so that practically there was still free land. And in this time of extensive tillage the common pasture played a great part in the rural economy [1439].

Accordingly, rent in the modern sense did not yet exist. The landlords had abundance of land; but the land was worth little if it was not provided with people to cultivate it. “The rent of the proprietor now is directly connected with the physical character of his estate, its productiveness and its situation. The income of the lord of a Domesday Manor depended on the tolls he received, and the payments of his dependents: and thus was based on the way in which his estates were stocked with meat and men, rather than on the physical condition of the land. His income was a very different thing from modern rent” [1440]. Even in later centuries “a fertile estate would have yielded but little annual income, unless the necessary labour was attached to it” [1441].

In this time the whole of Central England was covered with manors, and the mass of the rural population consisted of two classes: landlords and villeins; the latter were not all of the same condition, but none of them enjoyed entire personal freedom [1442]. Of those cultivators who are described as freemen and socmen some could “sell their lands without leave asked or given, but others could only do so on obtaining licence from the lord” [1443]. Finally there were some slaves [1444]. Every freeman was a landholder, therefore there was no class of free labourers. “The labourer, as a man who depended on some employer for the opportunity and means of doing his work, seems to have been almost unknown in the eleventh century” [1445].

All this agrees with our theory. All land had not yet practically been appropriated; therefore people could not be got to cultivate the land for the benefit of the landlords, unless they were deprived of personal freedom.

During the two following centuries population increased and land became more scarce. In the 13th century some lords already began to inclose portions of the waste, which had always been used for common pasturage, and “it was necessary to limit by the statute of Merton, in 1236, the lord’s “right of approver” or improvement, by the condition that he should not take away so much as not to leave enough for the purpose of pasture” [1446]. Forests were often fenced off and the rights of common pasture restricted [1447]. We have already mentioned an instance in which the condition of the peasants was much altered for the worse by such measures.

The changes which, during the same period, took place in the condition of the rural classes, are grouped by Ashley under four heads: “1. the growth of a large class of free tenants; 2. the commutation of the week work for money or corn payments; 3. the commutation of the boon-days and other special services; and 4. the appearance of a class of men dependent wholly or in part on the wages they received for agricultural labour” [1448].

In a passage quoted in the last paragraph Ashley states that most of the “free tenants” were villeins who had commuted their labour services for a money or corn payment, and had been freed from the more servile “incidents” of their position, such as inability to sell a horse without the lord’s consent [1449]. Hence it follows that personal freedom, i.e. the right to leave the manor, was not regarded as characteristic of free tenure. Yet at the end of the 13th century every tenant was already permitted to sell his lands or parts of them [1450]. This transition from personal to territorial obligations was certainly due to the increase of population and consequent enhanced value of land. In early times labour was scarce and therefore the landlord could not let a cultivator leave the manor. But now land, or at least some pieces of land, had already acquired so much value that there were always people to be found ready to cultivate them on condition of paying certain dues to the lord.

The principal cause of the commutation of labour dues for money was that the lord let portions of the demesne instead of cultivating it through his bailiff or reeve. He had now less need for the services of the villeins; for these services had consisted mainly in working on the demesne [1451]. This change in the mode of cultivation was perhaps due partly to political circumstances (absence of the lord at court or in war), as in Germany it certainly was. But we think there were economic causes also at work. In early times, when land was abundant, it was necessary for the lord to keep the cultivators he wanted in personal subjection; he therefore made them work in his presence and under the supervision of his bailiff. But now the villeins had come to attach value to their holdings, they were no longer inclined to run away, for it would have been difficult for them to find land to live upon. The villein claimed an hereditary right to the land he cultivated, and the question as to whether he had any such right already began to be discussed by the lawyers [1452].

At the beginning of the 14th century most of the cultivators were still bound to the soil [1453], but the first germs of a thorough change were already present. There were free tenants who could sell their lands; tenancies at will already occurred, though not frequently [1454]; and a class of free labourers arose. In Grossteste’s rules, dating from 1240 or 1241, it is said that servants and retainers “are to do what they are bid immediately without any grumbling or contradiction; if they show any such disloyal spirit they must be dismissed, for many can be had to fill their places” [1455]. And there were also agricultural labourers who, though holding small pieces of land, had not enough land to live upon, and were partially dependent on wages. Even where the peasants were still obliged to cultivate the demesne, they did not usually perform such work themselves, but hired labourers to do it; the usual phrase is that they have to “find” a man for the work [1456].

Here again our theory holds. Population had increased, land became scarce, and the transition from serfdom to freedom commenced. If the population of England had continued increasing, most of the villeins would probably have become freeholders or copyholders, whereas the lands that the lords had kept in their own hands would have been leased. And poor people who had neither land of their own nor capital enough to become farmers would have served for wages.

But an unexpected event entirely changed the economic condition of England. The Black Death, which made its first appearance in 1349, swept away a large part of the population. Whole villages were practically annihilated and large tracts of land went out of tillage. The economic consequences were such as we should expect. “As one immediate result there was great difficulty in getting labourers; the difficulty was aggravated in those cases where the tenants had died off and the lords were left with large holdings on their hands and no means of working them; while they lost the predial services of these deceased tenants on the home farm. There was consequently an immensely increased demand for hired labourers at the very time when their numbers were so much thinned, and it seemed as if the agriculture of the country was completely ruined” [1457]. Land was now again abundant, and so “instead of ousting tenants, lords of land found it hard enough to retain them even with lightened services” [1458]. And the natural consequence was that the landlords attempted to re-attach tenants and labourers to the soil. Whether, as Professor Thorold Rogers asserts, the customary tenants, who had commuted their labour dues for money, were forced back into the servile position of their ancestors, is not certain [1459]. At any rate “we may grant that, now that labour had become so costly, the lords would insist on the exact performance of such labour dues as had not yet been commuted, and on the punctual payment of all money rents. There is much reason to believe, moreover, that they abused their power of imposing “amercements” on their tenants in the manor courts for trivial breaches of duty” [1460]. This severe and unaccustomed pressure on the villeins, who were becoming comfortable copyholders, resulted in Wat Tyler’s revolt of 1381 [1461].

Nor were the labourers any longer allowed to dispose freely of their labour power. “While the plague was actually raging parliament could not meet, but a proclamation was at once issued by the king with the advice of certain prelates and nobles, of which the preamble states that, “many seeing the necessity of masters and great scarcity of servants will not serve unless they get excessive wages”, and that consequently the land can be scarcely tilled. Everyone, free or villan, who can work and has no other means of livelihood, is not to refuse to do so for anyone who offers the accustomed wages; each lord is to have the preference in hiring the men on his own estate, but none is to have too many men for his work; no labourer is to leave his employment before the specified time; nor to receive more rations or wages than he did in the twentieth year of the king and the common years before that; none are to give or take more wages in town or country” [1462].

The depopulation of this time caused a reappearance of free land, i.e. of land which had practically no value, and so agricultural labourers were scarcely to be had. Therefore the lords to some extent reattached the cultivators to the soil.

These measures, however, were of little avail. It was not easy to prevent an employer from secretly giving more than the statutory wages. The penalties for infraction of the regulation were rendered more severe, the fines being replaced by imprisonment; yet the whole legislation proved a failure [1463].

And even if the statutes of labourers had been everywhere enforced, “many landowners would have been left in a position of great difficulty; if there was no one to do the work it did not much matter what they were to be paid, and in not a few villages scarcely any one was left to carry on the ordinary agricultural operations.” Therefore new expedients had to be devised, of which the most general appears to have been the stock and land lease; “the new tenant took the land and the stock off the lord’s hands and made in return a definite annual payment.” These tenants “probably sprang from the class of free labourers, as the surviving villains who already had their own holdings, would not be so easily able to offer for a portion of the domain land which the lord desired to let” [1464].

Here again we see the consequences of the abundance of land. The land alone could not fetch a reasonable price; stock and land had to be leased together.

As these leaseholders were taken from the labouring class, this measure, of course, still further diminished the supply of labour.

All these palliatives could not, indeed, better the position of the landlords to any considerable extent. They had to wait for an increase of population which would render to the land the value that it had before the Black Death. As, however, the plague recurred several times, the population appears to have scarcely increased [1465].

The landlords remained in this difficult position till about 1450 [1466], when a new and very efficacious remedy was suggested to them: they applied a new mode of working their estates, which rendered them the practical command over the land, without need of a denser population. The extension of the wool trade and the dearth of labour made it far more profitable to keep large flocks of sheep than to grow corn. Consequently much land was laid down in pasture; there was a steady increase of sheep farming during the 15th century and a corresponding decrease of corn growing [1467].

In our chapter on pastoral tribes it has been shown that the care of flocks and herds does not require much labour. We can, therefore, easily understand that after the rise of sheep farming there was far less need for agricultural labour than before. There had been scarcity of labour; now there was over-population and many people were thrown out of employment; for over-population exists, not only when there are more people than the land can support, but when there are more people dependent on wages than can be profitably employed by the owners of land and capital [1468].

Sheep farming was introduced in the first place on the manorial demesnes, of which the lords had the free disposal. The demesne usually formed from one-third to a half of the whole arable area of a manor. Since the labour services of the villeins had been commuted, the tillage of the demesne had furnished employment to many small tenants and landless cottagers who, partly or entirely, depended on wages. The substitution of pasture for tillage on the demesne, therefore, brought many of them to ruin; for none but a few shepherds could thenceforth be employed [1469].

But far graver evils resulted from the appropriation by the lords of the commons and the land held by villeins or customary tenants.

The commons, i.e. the common pasture and waste, had always been used jointly by the lord and villeins. Whether the latter had any legal right to them is not certain; probably they had not; but they had always been accustomed to have the free use of them. Now the lords began to inclose large parts of these commons for the formation of sheep runs. The consequence was that many of the customary tenants, who had relied on the commons for pasturing their cattle, could no longer keep the cattle necessary for the cultivation of their holding. Their farming became unprofitable, and they had to leave their lands, which were instantly occupied by the lords and laid down in pasture [1470].

Even when the cultivator had not left his tenement, the lord sometimes appropriated and “inclosed” it.

The inclosures which took place, especially in the 16th century, are a fact of foremost importance in the history of English agriculture. The term “inclosure” has two different meanings. In medieval England the lands of the villeins, with those of the lord interspersed between them, lay scattered in a number of acre or half-acre strips, no two strips held by one man being contiguous. This system, dating from a time of extensive tillage, fell short of the exigencies of advanced culture, and had to be removed before any improvement in the mode of cultivation could be made. Therefore inclosures have often, especially in the reign of Elizabeth, been made with the common consent of all the landholders concerned, the result being that every tenant, instead of many scattered strips, obtained one or a few fields lying together. “But in the earlier part of the same movement, during the period which may be roughly defined as from 1450 to 1550, inclosure meant to a large extent the actual dispossession of the customary tenants by their manorial lords. This took place either in the form of the violent ousting of the sitting tenant, or of a refusal on the death of one tenant to admit the son who in earlier centuries would have been treated as his natural successor” [1471]. It was this latter kind of inclosure that was condemned by several writers of the 16th century, for instance by Hales, who by inclosure did not mean “where a man doth enclose and hedge in his own proper grounds where no man hath commons. For such enclosure is very beneficial to the commonwealth; it is a cause of great encrease of wood; but it is meant thereby when any man hath taken away and enclosed any other men’s commons, or hath pulled down houses of husbandry and converted the lands from tillage to pasture” [1472].

Ashley, discussing the question as to whether the lords had a right to turn out the villeins, arrives at the conclusion that “during historical times and until comparatively modern days, the cultivators of the soil were always in a condition of dependence, and held their lands at the arbitrary will of their lords. For centuries the lord knew no other way of getting his land cultivated, and had no wish to get rid of a tenant; whenever he did so, it was altogether exceptional. But with the tendency to limitation and definition so characteristic of the feudal period, custom tended to harden into law, and it would seem to have been on the point of becoming law when a change in the economic situation,—the increasing advantage of pasture over tillage,—prompted the lords to fall back on their old rights. Then followed a struggle between a legal theory becoming obsolete, but backed by the influence of the landowners, and a custom on its way to become law, backed by public sentiment and by the policy of the government” [1473].

This is in perfect keeping with our theory. In former times land was abundant, and therefore the lord “had no wish to get rid of a tenant,” for he “knew no other way of getting his land cultivated”. But now sheep farming made appropriation of the whole of the land possible, and so the lord was no longer in need of the villeins; he even went so far as to evict those whom his ancestors had attached to the soil. And even where the cultivators remained on the land, they often, and not always voluntarily, became leaseholders instead of copyholders; and “in many cases a lease was but a stepping-stone to tenure at will” [1474]. The lords no longer contented themselves with the customary payments; instead of villeins they wanted leaseholders, whose rents they could raise at the end of each term, according as the value of the land had increased. “Rents were raised with great rapidity as the tenant had to pay a sum equivalent to the utility of his holding as part of a large pasture farm.” [1475].

There was also far less need for agricultural labourers than before. “The decay of tillage and lack of rural employment, during this century,” says Professor Cunningham “rest on unimpeachable evidence” [1476]. In the 14th century “the problem of the unemployed, as it now presents itself, had not yet arisen.” But the agrarian changes “deprived great numbers of the agricultural labouring class,—small customary tenants and cottagers,—of the means of support in their old places of abode, and sent them wandering over the country” [1477].

The appropriation of the whole of the land had thus given to the rural economy of England a new and essentially modern character: there were now leaseholders and tenants at will, labouring poor and unemployed. And the ancient institution of serfdom could not hold its own in the presence of such thorough changes. “The slow agricultural revolution which rendered their services less useful to the manorial lords, gradually set the villans free by removing the interest their masters had in retaining a hold upon them.” “In some instances the exaction of predial services from villans by manorial lords can be traced as late as the time of Elizabeth; but though no change was made in the law, the lords seem to have found that it was not worth their while to assert their rights over the persons of their bondmen” [1478].

There were, however, many parts of England in which scarcely any inclosures took place [1479]. Here the villeins remained on their lands and gradually became copyholders. They were still bound to services, which, however, were generally commuted for small money payments, so the conditions of their tenure were annoying rather than oppressive. Moreover, their obligations were no longer personal, but territorial; they were not astricted to the soil. And as they had an hereditary right to their holdings, they differed but little from freeholders. The “innocuous curiosities of copyhold,” survivals of ancient serfdom, have lasted up to modern times [1480].

Our theory can thus be of much use in accounting for the changes which have taken place in the rural economy of England. As long as there was still free land, i.e. land which, though sometimes claimed by an owner, could not fetch any reasonable price, the cultivators were astricted to the soil; but as soon as the proprietors had got the practical command over the whole of the land, many of the villeins were evicted and replaced by leaseholders or tenants at will or became such themselves; and the remainder became copyholders, i.e. proprietors obliged to some services or payments without being personally unfree.

We shall inquire now whether in Germany too the appropriation of the whole of the land coincided with the transition from serfdom to freedom.

§ 11. The rural classes of medieval Germany.

In the time of the Merovingians the greater part of the country was covered with forests and people relied on the products of the forests for a considerable portion of their subsistence. Land was abundant, and even the cultivated land had hardly any exchange value [1481].

Much new land was, however, already being taken into cultivation. The village communities, consisting of free peasants, as well as separate members of these communities, cleared considerable portions of the waste land lying round the villages. In the 8th century some communities already forbade individuals to reclaim land; but this was still of rare occurrence; generally speaking the waste could be appropriated by whoever chose to take it into cultivation [1482].

The bulk of the population consisted of free peasants. There were two unfree classes: slaves and lites (a kind of serfs); but these were not numerous [1483].

The free peasant, though he had plenty of land, was rather poorly off; he had no slaves and so could only dispose of the labour power of himself and his family; and in this time of extensive tillage the produce of each man’s labour was small [1484].

Great proprietors were still rare. They worked their own lands with slaves. Sometimes, however, they gave pieces of land in use, generally to slaves; for, says our informant, the free peasants did not like to take the land of the nobles and so make themselves dependent on them [1485]. And when land was given in use to free peasants (especially by the church) this was done on very advantageous terms, often at a nominal rent [1486].

Land was thus abundant, slavery existed, and tenant farmers and free labourers were absent.

In the Carolingian period the clearing of forests went on continually. Some land was still reclaimed by free peasants, but much more by the great proprietors who controlled abundant labour forces [1487]. The lords were already beginning to claim much uncultivated land, the reclaiming of which they only allowed on condition of the cultivator subjecting himself to them. There was far less unappropriated land than in the foregoing period, and such as there was was claimed by the king [1488]. Yet we cannot speak of an appropriation of the whole of the land; for we know that a claim of the king to large tracts of uninhabited land is practically of little consequence. Accordingly our informant states that land was still abundant. The free peasants were already in a difficult position, not, however, because land was scarce, but because they could not provide the labour necessary to convert woods and marshes into arable land [1489].

In this period the free peasants began to be absorbed by the great proprietors. The latter wanted labourers and did their utmost to astrict the common freemen to their estates. Many people placed themselves under the protection of nobles; others, being reduced to poverty (especially through the institution of the wergild, and the compulsory military service which interfered with the cultivation of the land) fell into the hands of the lords; and some were straightway made serfs by violence. As the landlords had the right of jurisdiction and other public rights, they could easily subject the small landholders under some pretext or even without any. Former free peasants, lites, and such slaves as had received a piece of land in use, though designated by different names, came to form practically one class, the labouring as opposed to the ruling class [1490]. A manorial organization arose similar to that which existed in England. There were some slaves for personal service and agricultural labour and a great number of dependent peasants of various kinds, who had to cultivate the demesne of the lord and yield him part of the produce of their own holdings [1491].

Free labourers were found rarely if at all [1492].

Our informant in several passages speaks of freemen destitute of land [1493]. But these people are not in any way to be identified with the poor of modern times who depend on wages. They were generally foreigners who had no rights in any village community; but the lords were always ready to receive them and give them a piece of land in use on condition of their rendering services and paying tributes. The natural increase of the labouring population and immigration of foreign labour did not yet cause any difficulty [1494].

Most of the cultivators of this time had not the right of leaving the manors to which their holdings belonged [1495].

We see that in this period there was still much free land; slavery existed and serfdom was on the increase; leaseholders, tenants at will and free labourers were wanting. All this agrees with our theory.

In the next period colonization and reclaiming of waste land went on on a large scale. But at the same time the population increased and the value of the land increased with it. Lamprecht, speaking of the 13th century, writes: “Colonization and reclaiming of land had entirely changed the condition of the rural population between the 10th and the 13th century. In the time of the Carolingians wood and land had still been regarded as inexhaustible goods of the nation, like the sun, air and water; but now the limitations of the geographical basis of national life appeared more and more clearly. There had been an immense range of land to grow food upon; but now the supply of land became limited, chiefly and first on the Rhine, in Suabia and Franconia, afterwards in Saxony, and finally in Bavaria, the Tyrol, and Styria; people had to shift on a limited area. The soil became, more than before, an object of economic value; its price kept continually increasing. In the 12th century, in some prosperous districts, land seems to have attained twelve times the value it had in the 9th; and even afterwards, down to the second half of the 13th century, an increase of about 50 per cent. is to be observed. Taking into consideration that land was still regarded, especially by the ruling classes, as the only basis of social and political influence (though already other sources of large incomes were gradually arising), we may understand how intense the struggle for the possession of the soil must have been at this period” [1496].

The right of the king to unappropriated land was now enforced more strictly than before, and the lords began to claim a right of property over the commons surrounding the villages, which, however, were often still left to the use of the peasants [1497].

However, there was no over-population as yet. The proprietors did their best to attract people to the vast newly colonized districts, especially to the eastern parts of Germany [1498].

During the whole of this period the landlords went on subjugating the rural population, so that at the end of it the peasant proprietors, who had once formed the bulk of the population, had almost entirely disappeared, and most of the land was taken up with the estates of the great proprietors [1499].

But the increase in the value of land already made itself felt in the way in which the lords managed their estates. They less and less frequently worked their own lands; their chief aim was no longer the disposal of the labour of their dependents, but the receiving of rent. The labour dues were often commuted for money payments [1500].

Labour was not worth so much to the lords as it had been. They sometimes emancipated their slaves, retaining the land which they had given them in use [1501].

At the same time a class of free tenants arose. Lamprecht remarks that while the value of land had considerably increased the tributes which the villeins had to pay had remained unchanged for several centuries. In an economic sense the landlords had been dispossessed of a large proportion of their property in the land. Therefore it was not their interest to let serfdom continue.

“At this time, especially since the middle of the 12th century, the villeins and landlords of the most progressive districts settled their mutual relations by free contract. Serfdom was abolished, sometimes entirely, sometimes for the greater part, some formalities only subsisting. The former villein acquired the right to emigrate, and remained as a free tenant on the land he had till then occupied. Thus, by leasing his lands for terms of years, and sometimes for life or on hereditary tenancy, the landlord got back the full rent of his property; and this system, especially the lease for years, enabled him to raise the rent at the end of each term, according as the value of the land had increased in the meantime” [1502].

Inama-Sternegg does not quite agree with this view of Lamprecht’s. Even where the rent was higher than the former customary payment, he says, the leaseholder was free from the labour dues and additional payments to which the villein had been bound, so the transition from fixed payment to rent did not always mean an enhancement of the obligation of the peasant [1503]. Yet this writer too states that the leasing of land became more and more frequent. There were free contracts between proprietor and tenant, which did not interfere with the personal liberty of the latter; even non-fulfilment of his obligations by the tenant had only pecuniary consequences [1504].

We cannot but think that the reason given by Lamprecht for the transition from servile to free tenure is true. For even when the original rent was not higher than the former customary payment plus the value of the labour dues, the possibility of raising the rent after each term remained.

We hear of free tenants in this period, but not yet of free labourers. This is exactly what our theory teaches us to expect. Land, in some parts of Germany, had already acquired a high value; such land must have been very remunerative, and so people were ready to pay a rent for its use, even though there was still land to be had gratis or at a nominal rent, but far from the market and therefore less profitable. But the country was not yet so densely peopled that there were men who could not secure the use of any piece of land; therefore a class of people dependent on wages did not yet exist.

In the 13th century much new land was still taken into cultivation, in Western as well as Eastern Germany; but in the following centuries very little land was added to the arable area. The woods, which had formerly been regarded as inexhaustible, were no longer present in great abundance, and the rulers of the German states as well as the landlords exerted themselves to preserve the remainder and forbade the peasants to clear them. From the middle of the 14th century these prohibitive measures became general [1505].

As the population continued to increase, land became scarce. In many parts of Southern and Western Germany the lords parcelled out their lands in small portions, and farms of the size which had been customary for centuries became rare [1506].

The rights of the peasants to the use of the commons, on which they had always relied for a considerable portion of their subsistence, were now restricted, and the lords asserted their claims to the commons more strictly than before [1507].

Another consequence of the increase of population was that cattle-keeping was no longer possible on such a large scale as formerly when the common pasture occupied a great part of the land. At the end of the Middle Ages there was a scarcity of meat, and people had to rely, more than before, on vegetable food [1508].

The need of the landlords for the services of the peasants went on diminishing. They no longer worked their own estates; nearly the whole of their income consisted of the payments in kind and in money which they received from their dependents [1509].

In Lower Saxony and part of Westphalia the lords, as early as the 13th century, emancipated considerable numbers of villeins in their own interest. For the villeins had gradually acquired some right to their holdings, and the landlords, by setting them free, got back the free disposal of the land, which they thenceforth let out to free tenants [1510].

In the 14th century the lords began to turn out peasants (Bauernlegen) and lease the land of which they thus re-acquired the free disposal [1511].

Free tenancies became now general, parts of the demesne, as well as lands which had been held in servile tenure, being leased. The increased demand for land enabled the lords to let small allotments at extravagant prices [1512].

Even where the customary tenures remained, the obligations of the peasants, which had been personal, in many cases became territorial, the holder of the land as such being subject to payments. And the conditions of this tenure were so little servile that sometimes nobles and knights received such land in use and took the obligations on themselves [1513].

The difference between farmers and agricultural labourers now first came into existence. The latter most often held a small patch of land, but this was not sufficient to live upon; they depended on wages. Besides agricultural labourers there were male and female servants for household labour. The regulation of wages by law, which occurred especially after the ravages of the great plague, proves that in the southern and western parts of Germany free labour had become general. Such servile work as still remained was often done by labourers hired by the peasant to whose duty the work fell, just as in the case of the English peasant who “found” a man [1514].

All land was now held as property; consequently the land was more and more held by free tenants and worked with free labourers dependent on wages, whereas serfdom gradually died out.

In the 15th century, however, according to both Lamprecht and Inama-Sternegg, serfdom and even slavery reappeared.

Lamprecht, after speaking of the raising of rents by the landlords, adds: “But more disastrous in its consequences than all this was the manner in which the landlords dealt with the increasing surplus population of the farms occupied by their villeins. Formerly, younger sons of villeins, as well as children of free parents, had removed to the woods for the purpose of clearing them; and it was with their help that the landlords had in the course of the 12th and 13th centuries extended their landed properties. In later times such younger sons had often gone to the towns or the newly colonized districts of Eastern Germany. Now there was a stagnation among them as well as among the small remainder of the free population. There remained no other alternative but to divide the farms of the villeins. But the interest of the landlord was opposed to this. He had no security of receiving rent and services from farms parcelled out into small allotments. Therefore he did not, as a rule, divide the farms into more than four parts; and those of the servile population who could not secure the use of such a small holding were regarded as slaves. This institution, the origin of which went back to the first half of the 12th century, had till then been almost entirely foreign to the development of Germany. Together with a rural proletariat destitute of nearly everything, a real slavery came now for the first time into existence on German ground.... And this new slave class went on continually increasing; in the first half of the 15th century they already formed a considerable number, about whose fate patriots were very uneasy.... Nor did the evil stop here. The term slavery, used first with regard to villeins who occupied no farm, was soon applied to all villeins, in order to tax them more and more heavily and dispute their right of succeeding to the farms of their parents, which had been established at least since the end of the 12th century. Finally the landlords came to regard even free tenants as slaves and slavery as the only status of the rural population” [1515].

We can easily understand that the lords designated these proletarians by the most contemptuous name they could devise. But were they really slaves? A slave, as opposed to a free labourer, is not allowed to leave his master. Now it is remarkable that Inama-Sternegg, describing the condition of the rural population in the different states of Germany, though he states that in the newly colonized eastern parts of Germany the peasants, who had been free, were restricted in their right of leaving their lords, mentions no such particulars of Western Germany [1516]. And the chief aim of the peasants, in their revolts at the end of the 15th century, was not to acquire personal freedom, but to retain the use of the commons, which the lords were appropriating [1517].

The peasants were, indeed, obliged to more services in the 15th than in the 13th and 14th centuries. But we cannot regard this as a mark of returning serfdom or slavery; for Inama-Sternegg explicitly states that the greater oppression of the rural classes in the 15th century was chiefly due to the increase of the services required by the rulers of the several German states. The services exacted by the landlords had rather diminished [1518].

The same writer, recapitulating his conclusions as to the condition of the rural population at the end of the Middle Ages, begins by saying that the cultivators, who formerly had had an hereditary right to the land on condition of paying a fixed sum, were now far more heavily taxed and had little security of remaining on the land [1519]. We think that this is what the statements of our informants about the reappearance of slavery mean. The cultivators were not slaves, but impoverished and despised tenants at will and agricultural labourers.

At any rate, in the 16th century eviction of peasants, which is the reverse of astriction to the soil, became of frequent occurrence. Ashley, who has consulted some of the best literature, states that “the Bavarian code of 1518 laid down that the peasant had no hereditary right to his holding, and not even a life interest unless he could show some documentary evidence. In Mecklenburg a decree of 1606 declared that the peasants were not emphyteutae but coloni, whom their lords could compel to give up the lands allotted to them, and who could claim no right of inheritance even when their ancestors had held the land from time immemorial. In Holstein, again, a great number of the peasants were expelled from their holdings, and such as remained became tenants at will” [1520].

Serfdom, in Southern and Western Germany, thus died out towards the end of the Middle Ages, at a time when population had become numerous and land scarce.

The eastern parts of Germany had quite another agrarian history. Here serfdom was not common before the 16th century. From this time, however, and especially after the Thirty Years’ War, it became more and more general. As this is quite a separate history we shall not speak of it any further [1521].

We think the above remarks on England and the older parts of Germany may suffice to show that our theory can throw some light on the agrarian history of Western Europe.

We are fully aware that the condition of the rural classes must have been determined by many more circumstances of greater and lesser importance. But it seems to us that the general cause of which we have spoken in these paragraphs is second to no other in its operation [1522].

§ 12. Open and closed resources.

We have said that among agricultural peoples slavery, as an industrial system, only exists where there is still free land; it disappears as soon as all land has been appropriated. We have also seen that slavery does not prevail to any considerable extent where subsistence is dependent on capital [1523]. We may now combine these two conclusions into this general rule: slavery, as an industrial system, is not likely to exist where subsistence depends on material resources which are present in limited quantity.

A tribe or nation cannot subsist without labour (though the amount of labour required is sometimes small); but, besides this, material resources are always necessary. The resources which man uses to procure his subsistence are of two kinds: gifts of nature, and products of human labour. The latter are commonly termed capital; their supply is always limited. Most of the former (air, water, the heat of the sun, etc.) exist in unlimited quantity, i.e. there is so much of them that nobody wants to appropriate them. Land is also a gift of nature, and in some very thinly peopled countries, where there is much more fertile ground than can be cultivated, it has not any more value than air and water. But as all land has not the same properties, it soon comes to pass that the most fertile and most favourably situated land is appropriated by some men to the exclusion of others. This is the origin of rent. Finally, when the less valuable grounds have also been appropriated, free land no longer exists; there is no piece of land but has its definite owner [1524]. This last state of things has social consequences very similar to those which exist where subsistence depends on capital. In both cases indispensable means of production are in the hands of definite persons; therefore a man destitute either of land or of capital (according as subsistence depends on the former or the latter), cannot subsist independently of the owners, but has to apply to them for employment. Moreover, in both cases more than a limited quantity of labour cannot be profitably employed: the owner of capital, or of a limited space of land, cannot derive any profit from employing more than a certain number of labourers. Therefore in either case slavery, as an industrial system, is not likely to exist.

These considerations lead us to an important conclusion. All the peoples of the earth, whether they subsist by hunting, fishing, cattle-breeding, agriculture, trade or manufactures, may be divided into two categories. Among the peoples of the first category the means of subsistence are open to all; every one who is able-bodied and not defective in mind can provide for himself independently of any capitalist or landlord. Among some of these peoples capital is of some use, and some valuable lands are already held as property; but those who are destitute of such advantages can perfectly well do without them, for there are still abundant natural supplies open to them. Among the peoples of the other category subsistence depends on resources of which the supply is limited, and therefore people destitute of these resources are dependent on the owners. It may be convenient to suggest technical names for these two categories. We shall speak of peoples with open resources and peoples with closed resources. We think the meaning of these terms is clear, and they may be convenient for use. The distinction is an important one. We suppose we have sufficiently proved that the relations between the social classes differ largely, according as resources are open or closed: only among peoples with open resources can slavery and serfdom exist, whereas free labourers dependent on wages are only found among peoples with closed resources [1525]. Our distinction may prove valuable in other respects also, e.g. over-population and lack of employment are unknown among peoples with open resources; war, which, when resources are open, has sometimes rather the character of a sport, becomes more serious when resources have become closed, for then its object is to extend the supply of land or capital at the cost of the enemy [1526]; pessimism is more likely to prevail among peoples with closed than among peoples with open resources, etc. [1527]. We shall not, however, enlarge upon these points any further.

Most savage tribes have open resources. All hunters have (with the exception, perhaps, of some Australians): neither the game nor the hunting territories are held as property. Further, most fishers: fishing is carried on in a simple manner and does not yet require capital. And finally, most agricultural tribes; among them superest ager, as Tacitus says of the ancient Germans [1528].

Savage tribes with closed resources are: 1º possibly some Australian hunters, if it is true that among them every inch of ground is held as property, 2º the Eskimos (fishers), who cannot get on without a boat, or a sledge and dogs, 3º all pastoral tribes, 4º the agricultural tribes inhabiting most of the Polynesian and Micronesian islands, the Fijians and perhaps a few agricultural tribes outside Oceania.

We shall not inquire whether the civilized nations of ancient and modern times have, or had, open or closed resources. We will only remark that in Western Europe resources, from open, have become closed. Yet they are not altogether closed, as long as there are still thinly peopled countries open for emigration. Whether the white races will still have room for expansion for a considerable time, we cannot know.

When we were preparing the first edition of this work, we thought the distinction between countries with open and with closed resources had not been made before. Since we read Lange’s book on the labour problem and saw that the author speaks in the same sense of open and closed countries or open and closed economy. We give here the passages of most interest, bearing on the subject. “There is a great difference between the economy of open and closed civilized countries. In the former there is still an abundance of land fit for cultivation, of which every labourer has the free use; in the latter all land has been taken into cultivation and appropriated. This difference is so fundamental, that it would be best to formulate a separate economic theory for either of the two cases and then, in applying the theory to the facts, to examine how far, in every instance, the characteristics of open or closed economy are present. The latter proceeding is always necessary, for the important distinction we have made is a relative one, no country presenting exclusively the conditions of either open or closed culture.” In another chapter the author dwells more at length on the idea, laid down in the last sentence. “The earth still contains large territories, not yet taken into cultivation, which in a certain sense are open to every one; but there are such factors as habits, prejudices, etc., which bind people to their own country, and there are further material impediments to emigration from old civilized countries, which are so great, that the economy of such countries may practically be regarded as closed, without being such in an absolute sense. On the other hand, even in the most open colonial country there are always circumstances which make the occupation of uncultivated land difficult and so the economy of such a country presents some characteristics of a closed economy. Between these two types there are numberless intermediate stages and therefore economic life is in reality subject to the influences of both open and closed economy. But in theory a sharp line of demarcation must be drawn between these two states of society; for only so can we attain to a right understanding of real economic life” [1529].

In the following paragraphs we shall speak of the effect of secondary causes among agricultural tribes. We shall not, however, enter into many details. The difficulty, in our branch of science, is always, that we have so few works of predecessors to rely upon. For instance, we shall speak of the influence of trade among agricultural tribes. Now, if any accurate researches had been made into the general effects of trade, we should be able to conclude that trade having been proved to have such general effects, it must have such an influence on slavery. But as such is not the case, we should be obliged, if we were thoroughly to investigate the subject, to inquire what are the general effects of trade. An equally close study of militarism, of the condition of women, etc., would be required. And as in this way our book would never come to an end, we shall content ourselves with giving a few outlines, which we hope may turn the attention of other ethnologists to the important problems which the ensuing paragraphs will contain.

§ 13. Condition of women.

As we have remarked before, the position held by the women of a tribe determines to some extent whether or not slaves are wanted. Where all the drudgery is performed, and can be performed, by the women, and the men do not want to relieve them of it, there is no great use for slave labour. But where women enjoy high consideration, the men are more likely to procure slaves who are to assist the women in their work.

We shall speak first of the latter fact, of slaves performing female labour. It is very often stated that slaves are employed for domestic labour. And as, in countries where slavery does not exist, domestic labour is nearly always incumbent on the women, slaves who perform such work alleviate the women’s task. Where slavery prevails to a great extent it even occurs that slave-owners, female as well as male, have scarcely anything to do, all work falling to the share of the slaves. The slave-owners, in such case, form the aristocracy; the slaves, and the poor freemen unable to purchase slaves, are the labouring classes. We may remind the reader of ancient Rome, where the domestic slaves, the familia urbana, performed all domestic services required by the rich, and of the women of the upper classes in Mohammedan countries, who spend their time in idleness in the harems.

We have seen that among some pastoral tribes domestic labour is the chief occupation of the slaves. We do not recollect having found any instance of a similar state of things among any agricultural tribe, and cannot think that such will anywhere be the case. A rich cattle-keeper can easily support, by the produce of his cattle, some domestic slaves who perform no productive labour. But among agricultural tribes it is otherwise: subsistence here depends almost entirely on labour; therefore slaves performing unproductive labour can only be kept if there are other slaves who till the soil and procure food for the family. It is not probable that the master will himself undertake the cultivation required to feed the slaves who assist his wife in her work; nor would the wife be glad to receive slaves from her husband, if she had to provide for them by working on the field. The Romans would not have kept a familia urbana, if there had not also been a familia rustica.

Hitherto we have spoken of unproductive female labour. But women, in primitive agricultural societies, often perform productive labour also: in many cases the tilling of the soil is incumbent on them. We may suppose that the introduction of slaves has often served to free the women from this task. We shall not, however, proceed to a closer examination of this point; for this would require a digression on the division of labour between the sexes, which falls beyond the scope of the present volume.

On the other hand, the place of slaves is often supplied by wives. We have seen that among the Australian hunters polygamy widely prevails and serves economic purposes. The same is the case among some agricultural tribes.

In § 8 the non-existence of slavery in most of the Melanesian islands has been left unexplained. We shall see now that in several of these islands a “slavery of women” prevails which bears much resemblance to slavery proper. Purchase of wives is in vogue; and most of the women are bought by the rich, many of whom possess a large number of wives. And the women must work hard to increase the income of their owners [1530].

Guppy, in his description of the Solomon Islands, states: “The powerful chiefs of the islands of Bougainville Straits usually possess a large number of wives of whom only the few that retain their youth and comeliness enjoy much of the society of their lord. The majority, having been supplanted in the esteem of their common husband, have sunk into a condition of drudgery, finding their employment and their livelihood in toiling for the master whose affections they once possessed. I learned from Gorai, the Shortland chief, who has between eighty and a hundred wives, that the main objection he has against missionaries settling on his islands is, that they would insist on his giving up nearly all his wives, thereby depriving him of those by whose labour his plantations are cultivated and his household supplied with food. A great chief, he remarked, required a large staff of workers to cultivate his extensive lands, or, in other words, numerous women to work in his plantations and to bring the produce home” [1531].

This statement is very remarkable. In the second chapter of Part I we have seen that in these same islands of Bougainville Straits boys are captured from the neighbouring islands. Guppy calls them slaves, but at the same time tells us that they “enjoy most of the rights of a native of the common class” [1532]. There is thus no difficulty in obtaining slaves; yet slavery is little developed, for the simple reason that polygamy perfectly serves the purposes of slavery.

Ribbe equally remarks that on Bougainville polygamy is common. The wife is the slave of her husband: she has to till the fields, to perform most of the domestic work and to take care of the children. In the Shortland Islands (near Bougainville) the wife is the slave and beast of burden of her husband, rather than his companion [1533].

In the Nissan Islands, according to Sorge, most of the work is done by the women [1534].

In the New Hebrides polygamy also prevails. The price paid for a wife varies from 10 to 20 pigs, “according to her capabilities as a worker in the yam-patch.” “They [the women] learn in their girlhood all that fits them to be man’s slave and toiler in the fields”. “Women are degraded to the level of brute beasts, doing all the hard field work, and being made to carry loads which appear quite disproportionate to their ugly-shaped bodies and thin legs” [1535]. Hagen and Pineau give a similar account of female labour, and add that a man’s wealth depends on the number of his wives [1536].

De Vaux, speaking of the women of New Caledonia, says: “All the drudgery is incumbent on them. They perform the clearing and digging of the soil, carry on their backs crushing loads of ignames and taros to the village, and, if a chief has promised you assistance in some fatiguing work that you want to have quickly done, he will send you a gang of these miserable beings who may scarcely be called women.” Turner remarks: “Chiefs had ten, twenty, and thirty wives. The more wives the better plantations and the more food.” “If a wife misbehaved, the chief did not divorce her, but made her work all the harder”. And Rochas tells us that the New Caledonians keep no servants, but have many wives instead; rich men have as many wives as they want for the cultivation of their fields [1537].

In Neu Pommern, according to Parkinson, “every man who can afford it buys many wives. For a wife is a capital that yields a fair interest; she works from an early age till her strength is spent; and when, from age or by being overtaxed with labour, she grows sickly and decrepit, she perishes unheeded by anybody. The wife is nothing but the beast of burden of her husband; she performs all labour, tills the soil, cleans the dwelling, prepares the food, and carries the reaped produce in heavy baskets far away to the market. The husband therefore regards his wife as a valuable property.” “The husband continually urges his wives to work, that they may earn much dewarra [shell-money] for him; for the more dewarra he owns the greater is the consideration and influence he enjoys. But the lot of the wives is not bettered by an increase in the wealth of the husband. The wives of a man who owns thousands of coils of dewarra have no better life and are no less overworked than the wife of a very poor man who has no property except his only wife.” And Danks states that “a man may have as many wives as he can afford to purchase. If he cannot afford to purchase one, and his credit is low, he may have to remain single. The headmen are generally rich men, hence they invariably have a number of wives, ranging from three to six”. “Married life in New Britain is a hard one for the women. They are beaten and ill-treated by their husbands as occasion may arise” [1538].

In New Mecklenburg the condition of the women is equally bad [1539].

In Fiji, according to Williams, “polygamy is looked upon as a principal source of a chiefs power and wealth.” And Pritchard says: “The greater the number of wives a man had, the better his social position.... Besides the acknowledged wives, there were attached to the household of the chiefs slave-women, who, though performing the most menial services, were at the same time nothing else than what the odalisques are in the Turkish harem” [1540].

We see that these Melanesian wives supply the place of slaves. They are bought like slaves; they have to work for their owners like slaves; and their labour, like that of slaves, increases the wealth of their lords. Another point of resemblance is this. In slave countries it is generally the rich only who are able to procure slaves; poor freemen have to work for themselves. Here it is the rich who appropriate the women; and many of the poor have to remain single. Here, as in all countries where polygamy is practised, it is only the minority of the men who can live in polygamy; for everywhere the number of women is nearly equal to that of men. And as in Melanesia the rich, who otherwise would want slaves, have many wives to work for them, slaves are not required.

We cannot explain here why in Melanesia womankind is so much at a discount, whereas among some other savage tribes (e.g. on the North Pacific Coast of North America) the sex commands such respect [1541]. But we clearly see what is the effect of this state of things. Much labour is wanted; otherwise the women would not have to work so hard, and the rich would not keep so many female labourers. Yet slaves are not kept in any considerable number, because the women supply the place of slaves.

One might object, that possibly the women are held in such a slavelike state because male slaves are impossible or very difficult to procure, or because the coercive power of these tribes is not strong enough to admit of the keeping of slaves, or because male captives, where they are introduced into the tribe (as in the islands Bougainville Straits), are wanted for warriors. Shortly expressed the objection is, that slavery is not wanting because there exists a “slavery of women,” but “slavery of women” exists because slavery proper is wanting. We must own that this is quite possible. But, whatever be the cause of this “slavery of women,” as soon as it exists it renders slavery less necessary than it would otherwise be. War is frequent in Melanesia [1542], so there is no physical impossibility of procuring captives. And though it may be difficult to keep male slaves subjected,—if the men were unable to impose all work on the women and obliged to perform their due share of it themselves, they would decidedly take more pains to procure slaves and set them to work. A low condition of women, though only a secondary factor, certainly is a factor which tends to make slavery proper superfluous.

§ 14. Commerce.

In § 1 of this chapter we have found the following numbers of positive and negative cases among commercial agricultural tribes:

Positive. Negative. a1 + t 8 3 a2 + t 26 a2 + c + t 7 a3 + t 6 a3 + c + t 1 -- -- Total 48 3

We use the term “commercial tribes” in a wide sense, as including not only those tribes among which many people subsist by trading, but those that exchange a considerable part of their produce for foreign merchandise. For instance, a tribe that grows corn for export is a commercial tribe in the sense we attach to the word.

We see that, with very few exceptions, all commercial agricultural tribes keep slaves. This proves that among agricultural tribes the development of trade greatly furthers the growth of slavery.

We have not much to say in explanation of this fact. When speaking of the slave-keeping tribes of the Pacific Coast of North America, we have already remarked that the development of trade tends to further slavery in various ways. Commercial tribes are likely to carry on a trade in slaves, and this makes the keeping of slaves very easy. Where the freemen take to commercial pursuits, they want others to perform the common drudgery for every-day subsistence. The trade itself may also require menial work: the articles of commerce have to be prepared and transported, trading vessels have to be rowed, etc. And finally, commerce often leads to a development of wealth and luxury; a man can now, by the labour of his slaves, acquire not only the necessaries, but the refinements of life [1543].

The last point is an important one. In self-dependent agricultural countries the main use of slave labour consists in providing the master with food. If, then, a man keeps a large number of slaves who work for him, he is able to entertain his friends, or to keep a retinue of unproductive slaves or servants, whose wants are provided for by the work of the soil-tilling slaves. But where this is the sole profit one can derive from one’s slaves, an owner who keeps a considerable number of them does not want to make them work very hard; he often contents himself with receiving a tribute, and so the slaves become serfs. In this way the slave-owner gets less out of his slaves than would otherwise be the case; but he does not want more, and he need not now continually supervise their work. Slavery is not likely to exist on a large scale.

Where commercial relations with foreign parts are maintained, it is otherwise. A slave-owner who receives large quantities of agricultural produce from his slaves can now exchange them for foreign merchandise. Retaining for himself as much food as he wants, he exchanges the rest for such objects as are either useful and agreeable in themselves, or give him distinction among his countrymen. The use of slave labour becomes thus practically unlimited. Kohler rightly remarks that only where the economic instinct is awake, can slavery attain to a full development, and Schmoller observes that, when the patriarchal family began to produce for the market, covetousness and pursuit of gain arose and the treatment of slaves became worse [1544].

We must further take into consideration that slavery on a very large scale is only possible, where industrial crops are raised. “Tobacco and cotton” says Cairnes, “fulfil that condition which we saw was essential to the economical employment of slaves—the possibility of working large numbers within a limited space; while wheat and Indian corn, in the cultivation of which the labourers are dispersed over a wide surface, fail in this respect” [1545]. And cotton and similar crops are only cultivated in large quantity where they are exported.

Of such “wholesale slavery”, as Bagehot terms it, we find a few instances among savage tribes.

Köler tells us that in Bonny the great majority of the inhabitants are slaves. The keeping of slaves is very expensive, as agriculture and industry scarcely exist; all food has to be imported. The freemen are traders in palm-oil, and want large numbers of slaves to row the canoes in which this oil is transported [1546].

Among the Ewe of the Slave Coast slavery is practised on a very large scale. Some men keep 200–300 slaves, who form their capital. The slaves are generally employed in carrying oil from the inland to the coast for sale to Europeans. The maintaining of order among such great numbers of slaves requires great severity. Slavery marks all their institutions. It is a common saying with them that “the large water-tub does not go to the spring”, whereby they mean that freemen must not do such work as is only fit for slaves and boys [1547].

Miss Kingsley, speaking of the social classes among the tribes, inhabiting the territory of the Oil Rivers on the Western Coast of Africa, says: “The third and fourth classes are true slave classes, the higher one in rank being what is called the Winnaboes or Trade boys, the lower the pull-away boys and the plantation hands. The best point in it, as a system, is that it gives to the poorest boy who paddles an oil canoe a chance of becoming a king” [1548].

Among the Garos, where cotton is the principal culture, two-fifths of the population are slaves. “The distinction [between freemen and slaves] is jealously preserved.... It is from the possession of a large number of them [slaves] that a man obtains influence amongst his tribe” [1549].

It is clear that among these tribes slavery would not prevail to such a great extent, if the preparing and transporting of the articles of export did not require so much labour.

In these cases trade is the cause of “wholesale slavery”, not necessarily of slavery in general. “Retail slavery” may have existed among these tribes before they became so largely commercial. But, seeing that among them the extension of commercial relations has so greatly increased the use of slave labour, we may safely suppose that in several cases the development of trade has given rise to slavery among tribes which did not practise it before. This is also made probable by the list given at the beginning of this paragraph.

We shall not proceed to a closer investigation of this subject. We have already remarked that as yet we know very little about the general effects of trade and the place it occupies in social life among savages. And we must know more of this, before we can arrive at any accurate conclusion with regard to the influence of trade on the rise and growth of slavery.

When speaking of hunters and fishers, we have found that the influence of trade is more considerable where manufactured goods, than where raw products are exported. This will probably also apply to agricultural tribes, viz. if we take the term “manufactured goods” in a wide sense, as including agricultural produce. Raw products in our sense means articles which can be exported without any labour being previously applied to them, e.g. the various kinds of stone and earth exchanged by Eskimos and Australians. The articles exported by commercial agricultural tribes are nearly always manufactured goods in this wider sense.

It might be interesting to divide the commercial tribes (in the wider sense) into three categories, according as they export agricultural produce, manufactured goods in the common, restricted sense, or articles purchased abroad (articles of transit trade), the last category comprising the commercial tribes in the restricted sense, and inquire what are the social effects of commerce in each case. But such a subject wants separate treatment; we cannot deal with it here. We will only express our opinion, that the significance of trade and industry among savages is commonly underrated. Whether we are right here will appear when these points have been more closely studied than they are now.

In another paragraph we shall have to speak of a peculiar branch of trade, the trade in slaves.

§ 15. Slaves employed in warfare.

In several cases it is stated that slaves are employed in warfare. Leaving out of regard the cattle-breeding agricultural tribes, of which we have already spoken in chapter III, we find the following instances.

Thomson tells us that in New Zealand slaves accompanied their masters on fishing and fighting expeditions; and in another place he states that women and slaves accompanied the warriors to carry burdens [1550]. Polack says: “Slaves are permitted to take part in a war”, and Brown, speaking of slaves in New Zealand, remarks: “If any of them show superior talents for war, they are duly appreciated, and many slaves by this means raise themselves to the chieftainship of the tribe” [1551].

Dalton, speaking of the slaves kept by the Garos, says: “It is from the possession of a large number of them that a man obtains influence amongst his tribe. Each great chief can go to war with a body-guard of 60 such followers entirely devoted to him” [1552].

Among the Lawas too, according to Colquhoun, slaves are employed as warriors [1553].

In Nias slaves are often compelled to go to war with their masters, except when war is made upon the native village of the slaves. The slaves fight bravely, and in war bear arms like the freemen, but are never set at liberty for their bravery [1554].

Among the Kayans slaves serve as warriors and can even become war-chiefs [1555].

Among the natives of Central Celebes, slaves who excel in those qualities which are highly valued in freemen, i.e. bravery or oratorical power, are practically no longer regarded as slaves [1556].

Among the Tagals and Visayas, in the time of the conquista, generally freemen and vassals only took part in military operations; but sometimes slaves too, especially in naval wars: the slaves were then employed for rowing the boats [1557].

The forces sent out by Lunda chiefs on marauding expeditions consist of freemen and slaves [1558].

Among the Angoni the domestic slaves join their masters in the slave-raids [1559].

Bérenger-Féraud tells us that among the Wolofs the slaves of the king are soldiers and form his body-guard; they also collect taxes for him [1560].

Among the Barea and Kunama the spoils taken in war by a native-born slave belong to his master [1561]. Hence it appears that these slaves are employed in warfare.

In the French Soudan the master provides his domestic slaves with arms and takes them with him to the battle-field [1562].

Among the Soninkays and Malinkays of French Guinea, one class of warriors is composed of the slaves of the chiefs. At the close of a war they return to their agricultural pursuits; but they are always ready to take arms again [1563].

These are the only instances we have noticed, of purely agricultural tribes among which slaves perform a military function. There may be some more cases. Our informants do not always enter into many details; therefore, when they are silent on the subject, this does not always prove that slaves are not allowed to fight. Yet, considering the small number of instances we have been able to collect, we may safely conclude that among most agricultural tribes slaves do not share in military operations.

This is what we expected. Slaves are not allowed to follow the noble military art, which is the privilege of freemen [1564]. A slave is not a warrior for the same reason that he is not a hunter. Moreover, it were too dangerous to trust him with weapons; he might be inclined to rise against his oppressors. And finally, when slaves are procured by capture in war or kidnapping, they would often have to fight against their own tribe, and would be very likely to go over to the enemies of their masters.

It is further remarkable that the tribes we have enumerated in this paragraph are all in the higher stages of agriculture, as may be seen from chapter I. We have not found a single instance of hunting agriculturists employing their slaves in warfare. There are even hunting agriculturists of the lowest type, of whom it is explicitly stated that they do not allow their slaves to fight. Martius tells us that several wild tribes of Brazil keep slaves. The slaves are differently treated by the different tribes; but it is a general characteristic of slavery, that slaves are not allowed to bear arms [1565]. And Azara states that in his time the Mbayas subsisted on hunting and fishing, and on the produce of the soil that was tilled to a small extent by their slaves and by a neighbouring tribe, the Guanas. Here too, warfare was the business of the freemen to the exclusion of the slaves [1566].

This may, at first sight, seem strange. If it is true, as Powell asserts, (and it does not seem to us improbable) that slavery originated from the adoption of captives [1567], we should expect to find an intermediate stage, in which the captives, though already enslaved instead of adopted, still shared in military operations, the differentiation of the “regulative part of society” from the “operative part” (to borrow Spencer’s words) not yet being complete. The existence of slavery, mainly for military purposes, among the hunting Abipones and some pastoral tribes, seems to indicate such a stage. But among agricultural tribes we find no trace of it. Some agricultural tribes (of which the Iroquois are the classical instance) adopt their captives; then there are many which keep slaves who are not allowed to fight; and, finally, in the higher stages of agriculture, we find a few tribes among which slaves share in military operations.

Yet the cause of this seeming incongruity is not difficult to detect. Pastoral tribes are always stronger, from a military point of view, than primitive agricultural tribes. In chapter III we have seen that the former often keep their agricultural neighbours in a state of subjection. Therefore it is much easier for them to employ their slaves in warfare than for hunting agriculturists; the latter, if they are to keep slaves at all, must take care to disarm them and so prevent them from doing harm.

Among agriculturists in the higher stages it is otherwise. There is often an elaborate division of labour; the governing classes are differentiated from the labouring classes, and the army is regularly constituted. Now it is not at all dangerous to enlist the slaves into the inferior ranks of the army, under the lead of the governing classes. The slaves, generally brought by traders from a far distance, have no longer to fight against their native tribe, but against strangers. And where slavery prevails to a great extent, the owners of numerous slaves, who form the aristocracy, will often be inclined to rely on their slaves for the maintenance of their power over the common freemen; whereas the slaves, who are no longer on the same footing of familiarity with the freemen as in primitive slavery, but despised and hated for being the tools of the aristocracy, regard their master as their natural protector and are willing to stand by him [1568].

Such was the course of evolution in ancient Rome. In the old times the slaves were not allowed to fight. “For entering the military service or taking on him any state office, a slave was punished with death” [1569]. But later on a change took place. Speaking of the last days of the republic, Ingram remarks: “In the subsequent civil conflicts the aid of slaves was sought by both parties, even by Marius himself, and afterwards by Catiline, though he finally rejected their services. Clodius and Milo employed bands of gladiators in their city riots, and this action on the part of the latter was approved by Cicero. In the First Civil War they were to be found in both camps, and the murderers of Caesar, those soi-disant vindicators of liberty, were escorted to the Capitol by gladiators. Antony, Octavius, and Sextus Pompeius employed them in the Second Civil War” [1570]. But the slaves soon began to take arms against those who had taught them to fight. “It is recorded by Augustus on the Monumentum Ancyranum that he gave back to their masters for punishment about 30,000 slaves who had absconded and borne arms against the state. Under Tiberius, at the death of Caligula, and in the reign of Nero, there were threatening movements of the slaves. Nor did the danger of servile insurrection disappear in the later stages of the Empire. The armies of the invading Goths were swelled by their countrymen who had been captured or bought by Romans. The slaves of Gaul almost en masse took part in the revolt of the Bagaudae, and forty thousand slaves joined Alaric at the siege of Rome” [1571].

The last passage shows that even in a state where the power of the government and the military art are highly developed it is not safe to employ slaves in warfare. They may actually be the ready tools of the aristocracy; but in the long run they will come to form a dangerous element in the state. Yet, as it may be momentarily convenient to an ambitious statesman to employ them, it will sometimes be done; whereas among hunting agriculturists the danger is so obvious that it is not even attempted.

As it is only among a few agricultural tribes, and these in the higher stages, that slaves perform a military function, we cannot think that this has been an important factor in the rise of slavery; and it has probably been nowhere the only motive for making slaves.

Something analogous to the employment of slaves in warfare is their holding high offices of state. This occurs in some despotically governed African countries. Goldstein remarks that in the Soudan states the numerous court and state offices are generally held by slaves. The king prefers them as public officers to royal princes, who might be inclined to rise against him [1572]. Among the Bayanzi, according to Torday and Joyce, “the great chief usually has a confidential adviser, who, in all cases observed, was a slave; such slaves have great influence, and receive numerous presents from their masters; they often impersonate the chief before strangers, while their master keeps in the background” [1573]. In imperial Rome freedmen were appointed to high offices [1574].

§ 16. Slaves kept as a luxury.

Sometimes we are told that it is considered an honour to possess many slaves. We shall give a few instances.

Among the Lampongs the keeping of slaves is indicative of wealth and power [1575].

Among the Tagals and Visayas, in the time of the conquista, a man’s influence, power and reputation depended on the number of his slaves [1576].

Among the Ininga and Galloa it is the ambition of a freeman to have as many slaves as possible [1577].

Compiègne states that a Mpongwe asked him to give him a portion of his wages in advance, in order to buy a slave. “He will work for me and my wife” said the man, “and I shall be a person of rank” [1578].

Among the Bambala, “when a man buys a new slave, he ornaments him on the first day with his best clothes and ornaments, and walks round the village with him to show him to his friends” [1579].

We have only taken a few instances at random. It cannot be interesting to the reader to know how often the same fact has been noticed by ethnographers. For we may suppose that wherever slavery exists, the possession of a great number of slaves is a mark of distinction. The possession of slaves, like other property, is indicative of wealth; and where slaves are acquired by capture in war it shows the bravery of the captor. Moreover, among agricultural tribes the labour of the slaves augments the revenue of their owner, and so the keeping of slaves is not only a sign but a source of wealth; therefore the slave-owner is looked upon as one who has at his disposal a means of acquiring wealth. Martius, speaking of the wild tribes of Brazil, remarks that a chief who keeps many slaves can take more land into cultivation than other people. He has therefore always an abundant supply of food, which tends to increase the esteem in which he is held [1580].

Where industry and art are little developed, slaves, besides wives and domestic animals, are almost the only luxury that is to be had. The reader will remember Levchine’s statement about a rich Kazak Kirghiz, whose numerous horses gave him no profit, but great renown [1581]. In the lower stages of culture a rich man cannot build a palace, or keep a motor-car, or buy pictures; he can only show his wealth to the public by keeping a large number of men or domestic animals continually running about him. Leroy-Beaulieu justly remarks: “The luxury of primitive times is very simple; it consists mainly in the grouping about the rich man (who most often is at the same time a man of high birth) of a large body of servants maintained by him, and in practising hospitality on a large scale. Among patriarchal peoples there is almost perfect equality of material life between men of different stations. Food, clothing, furniture even, differs but little” [1582].

But, though a rich man may display his wealth by keeping a great number of slaves, we do not mean to say that among any agricultural tribe all slaves are kept as a mere luxury. This seems improbable. Among pastoral tribes, as we have seen before, it sometimes occurs. The owner of numerous herds may support a large body of slaves, who have scarcely anything to do. But among agricultural tribes it is quite otherwise. Subsistence here is largely dependent on labour; much labour is required to provide for the slaves, and the master will not choose to work for them himself. The slaves, therefore, must perform at least as much productive labour as is required to provide for their own wants; and there is no reason why the master should not make them work somewhat more, to receive a surplus; the more so, as he is thus enabled to display his wealth in the other manner mentioned by Leroy-Beaulieu, viz. by practising hospitality on a large scale.

It is, of course, perfectly possible, and indeed it often occurs, that some slaves are kept as a mere luxury, either doing nothing at all, or performing personal services. But then there must be other slaves who, by performing productive labour, provide for their master, their fellow-slaves, and themselves. There cannot be a class of unproductive labourers, without there being a class of productive labourers too. We can only imagine one case, in which all slaves might be kept as a mere luxury. It might be, that there were a class of productive labourers consisting of freemen, who provided for the slave-owners and their unproductive slaves. There might, for instance, be an aristocracy, levying taxes on the common people and keeping slaves as a luxury. Such is indeed the case among the pastoral Beni Amer. It might also occur among agricultural tribes; but we have not found any instance of it.

Only in two cases have we found it stated that slaves are not productive.

Coquilhat tells us that on the Upper Congo the keeping of slaves does not increase the master’s income; for agriculture is insignificant, and these tribes are not commercial. But he also states that the soil is tilled by old women and male slaves, so slaves do not seem to be kept as a mere luxury [1583].

Among the Fanti, according to Finsch, slaves are articles of luxury; they are as lazy as their masters. They are acquired as prisoners of war or by purchase. Every noble Fanti owns numerous slaves; for it is a mark of distinction to keep many of them. Some slaves carry parasols or fans; others by trumpeting announce the arrival of the patrician. Most of them do nothing at all. But the same writer states that the condition of the pawns (who, as has been shown in the first chapter of