Chapter IV: Agricultural Tribes (3)

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.