continued, without interruption, in the hands
of the same family since the times of feudal
anarchy. Compare the present condition of
those estates with the possessions of the small
proprietors in their neighbourhood, and you
will require no other argument to convince
you how unfavourable such extensive property
is to improvement.
If little improvement was to be expected
from such great proprietors, still less was to
be hoped for from those who occupied the land
under them. In the ancient state of Europe,
the occupiers of land were all tenants at will.
They were all, or almost all, slaves, but their
slavery was of a milder kind than that known
among the ancient Greeks and Romans, or
even in our West Indian colonies. They were
supposed to belong more directly to the land
than to their master. They could, therefore,
be sold with it, but not separately. They could
marry, provided it was with the consent of
their master; and he could not afterwards
dissolve the marriage by selling the man and
wife to different persons. If he maimed or
murdered any of them, he was liable to some
penalty, though generally but to a small one.
They were not, however, capable of acquiring
property. Whatever they acquired was acquired
to their master, and he could take it
from them at pleasure. Whatever cultivation
and improvement could be carried on by means
of such slaves, was properly carried on by their
master. It was at his expense. The seed, the
cattle, and the instruments of husbandry, were
all his. It was for his benefit. Such slaves
could acquire nothing but their daily maintenance.
It was properly the proprietor himself,
therefore, that in this case occupied his
own lands, and cultivated them by his own
bondmen. This species of slavery still subsists
in Russia, Poland, Hungary, Bohemia,
Moravia, and other parts of Germany. It is
only in the western and south-western provinces
of Europe that it has gradually been
abolished altogether.
But if great improvements are seldom to
be expected from great proprietors, they are
least of all to be expected when they employ
slaves for their workmen. The experience of
all ages and nations, I believe, demonstrates
that the work done by slaves, though it appears
to cost only their maintenance, is in the
end the dearest of any. A person who can acquire
no property can have no other interest
but to eat as much and to labour as little as
possible. Whatever work he does beyond what
is sufficient to purchase his own maintenance,
can be squeezed out of him by violence only,
and not by any interest of his own. In ancient
Italy, how much the cultivation of corn
degenerated, how unprofitable it became to
the master, when is fell under the management
of slaves, is remarked both by Pliny and
Columella. In the time of Aristotle, it had
not been much better in ancient Greece.
Speaking of the ideal republic described in the
laws of Plato, to maintain 5000 idle men (the
number of warriors supposed necessary for its
defence), together with their women and servants,
would require, he says, a territory of
boundless extent and fertility, like the plains
of Babylon.
The pride of man makes him love to domineer,
and nothing mortifies him to much as
to be obliged to condescend to persuade his
inferiors. Wherever the law allows it, and
the nature of the work can afford it, therefore,
he will generally prefer the service of
slaves to that of freemen. The planting of
sugar and tobacco can afford the expense of
slave cultivation. The raising of corn, it
seems, in the present times, cannot. In the
English colonies, of which the principal produce
is corn, the far greater part of the work
is done by freemen. The late resolution of
the Quakers in Pennsylvania, to set at liberty
all their negro slaves, may satisfy us that
their number cannot be very great. Had they
made any considerable part of their property,
such a resolution could never have been agreed
to. In our sugar colonies, on the contrary,
the whole work is done by slaves, and in our
tobacco colonies a very great part of it. The
profits of a sugar plantation in any of our
West Indian colonies, are generally much
greater than those of any other cultivation that
is known either in Europe or America; and
the profits of a tobacco plantation, though inferior
to those of sugar, are superior to those
of corn, as has already been observed. Both
can afford the expense of slave cultivation,
but sugar can afford it still better than tobacco.
The number of negroes, accordingly, is
much greater, in proportion to that of whites,
in our sugar than in our tobacco colonies.
To the slave cultivators of ancient times, gradually
succeeded a species of farmers, known
at present in France by the name of metayers.
They are called in Latin Coloni Partiarii.
They have been so long in disuse in England,
that at present I know no English name for
them. The proprietor furnished them with
the seed, cattle, and instruments of husbandry,
the whole stock, in short, necessary for cultivating
the farm. The produce was divided
equally between the proprietor and the farmer,
after setting aside what was judged necessary
for keeping up the stock, which was
restored to the proprietor, when the farmer
either quitted or was turned out of the farm.
Land occupied by such tenants is properly
cultivated at the expense of the proprietors, as
much as that occupied by slaves. There is,
however, one very essential difference between
them. Such tenants being freemen, are capable
of acquiring property; and having a
certain proportion of the produce of the land,
they have a plain interest that the whole produce
should be as great as possible, in order
that their own proportion may be so. A slave,