Chapter IV: Agricultural Tribes (1)

§ 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].