wealbk03-第4章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


Plato；　to　maintain　five　thousand　idle　men　（the　number　of　warriors

supposed　necessary　for　its　defence）　together　with　their　women　and

servants；　would　require；　he　says；　a　territory　of　boundless　extent

and　fertility；　like　the　plains　of　Babylon。

　　　　　The　pride　of　man　makes　him　love　to　domineer；　and　nothing

mortifies　him　so　much　as　to　be　obliged　to　condescend　to　persuade

his　inferiors。　Wherever　the　law　allows　it；　and　the　nature　of　the

work　can　afford　it；　therefore；　he　will　generally　prefer　the

service　of　slaves　to　that　of　freemen。　The　planting　of　sugar　and

tobacco　can　afford　the　expense　of　slave…cultivation。　The　raising

of　corn；　it　seems；　in　the　present　times；　cannot。　In　the　English

colonies；　of　which　the　principal　produce　is　corn；　the　far　greater

part　of　the　work　is　done　by　freemen。　The　late　resolution　of　the

Quakers　in　Pennsylvania　to　set　at　liberty　all　their　negro　slaves

may　satisfy　us　that　their　number　cannot　be　very　great。　Had　they

made　any　considerable　part　of　their　property；　such　a　resolution

could　never　have　been　agreed　to。　In　our　sugar　colonies；　on　the

contrary；　the　whole　work　is　done　by　slaves；　and　in　our　tobacco

colonies　a　very　great　part　of　it。　The　profits　of　a

sugar…plantation　in　any　of　our　West　Indian　colonies　are　generally

much　greater　than　those　of　any　other　cultivation　that　is　known

either　in　Europe　or　America；　and　the　profits　of　a　tobacco

plantation；　though　inferior　to　those　of　sugar；　are　superior　to

those　of　corn；　as　has　already　been　observed。　Both　can　afford　the

expense　of　slave…cultivation；　but　sugar　can　afford　it　still

better　than　tobacco。　The　number　of　negroes　accordingly　is　much

greater；　in　proportion　to　that　of　whites；　in　our　sugar　than　in

our　tobacco　colonies。

　　　　　To　the　slave　cultivators　of　ancient　times　gradually

succeeded　a　species　of　farmers　known　at　present　in　France　by　the

name　of　metayers。　They　are　called　in　Latin；　Coloni　partiarii。

They　have　been　so　long　in　disuse　in　England　that　at　present　I

know　no　English　name　for　them。　The　proprietor　furnished　them　with

the　seed；　cattle；　and　instruments　of　husbandry；　the　whole　stock；

in　short；　necessary　for　cultivating　the　farm。　The　produce　was

divided　equally　between　the　proprietor　and　the　farmer；　after

setting　aside　what　was　judged　necessary　for　keeping　up　the　stock；

which　was　restored　to　the　proprietor　when　the　farmer　either

quitted；　or　was　turned　out　of　the　farm。

　　　　　Land　occupied　by　such　tenants　is　properly　cultivated　at　the

expense　of　the　proprietor　as　much　as　that　occupied　by　slaves。

There　is；　however；　one　very　essential　difference　between　them。

Such　tenants；　being　freemen；　are　capable　of　acquiring　property；

and　having　a　certain　proportion　of　the　produce　of　the　land；　they

have　a　plain　interest　that　the　whole　produce　should　be　as　great

as　possible；　in　order　that　their　own　proportion　may　be　so。　A

slave；　on　the　contrary；　who　can　acquire　nothing　but　his

maintenance；　consults　his　own　ease　by　making　the　land　produce　as

little　as　possible　over　and　above　that　maintenance。　It　is

probable　that　it　was　partly　upon　account　of　this　advantage；　and

partly　upon　account　of　the　encroachments　which　the　sovereign；

always　jealous　of　the　great　lords；　gradually　encouraged　their

villains　to　make　upon　their　authority；　and　which　seem　at　last　to

have　been　such　as　rendered　this　species　of　servitude　altogether

inconvenient；　that　tenure　in　villanage　gradually　wore　out　through

the　greater　part　of　Europe。　The　time　and　manner；　however；　in

which　so　important　a　revolution　was　brought　about　is　one　of　the

most　obscure　points　in　modern　history。　The　Church　of　Rome　claims

great　merit　in　it；　and　it　is　certain　that　so　early　as　the　twelfth

century；　Alexander　III　published　a　bull　for　the　general

emancipation　of　slaves。　It　seems；　however；　to　have　been　rather　a

pious　exhortation　than　a　law　to　which　exact　obedience　was

required　from　the　faithful。　Slavery　continued　to　take　place

almost　universally　for　several　centuries　afterwards；　till　it　was

gradually　abolished　by　the　joint　operation　of　the　two　interests

above　mentioned；　that　of　the　proprietor　on　the　one　hand；　and　that

of　the　sovereign　on　the　other。　A　villain　enfranchised；　and　at　the

same　time　allowed　to　continue　in　possession　of　the　land；　having

no　stock　of　his　own；　could　cultivate　it　only　by　means　of　what　the

landlord　advanced　to　him；　and　must；　therefore；　have　been　what　the

French　called　a　metayer。

　　　　　It　could　never；　however；　be　the　interest　even　of　this　last

species　of　cultivators　to　lay　out；　in　the　further　improvement　of

the　land；　any　part　of　the　little　stock　which　they　might　save　from

their　own　share　of　the　produce；　because　the　lord；　who　laid　out

nothing；　was　to　get　one　half　of　whatever　it　produced。　The　tithe；

which　is　but　a　tenth　of　the　produce；　is　found　to　be　a　very　great

hindrance　to　improvement。　A　tax；　therefore；　which　amounted　to　one

half　must　have　been　an　effectual　bar　to　it。　It　might　be　the

interest　of　a　metayer　to　make　the　land　produce　as　much　as　could

be　brought　out　of　it　by　means　of　the　stock　furnished　by　the

proprietor；　but　it　could　never　be　his　interest　to　mix　any　part　of

his　own　with　it。　In　France；　where　five　parts　out　of　six　of　the

whole　kingdom　are　said　to　be　still　occupied　by　this　species　of

cultivators；　the　proprietors　complain　that　their　metayers　take

every　opportunity　of　employing　the　master's　cattle　rather　in

carriage　than　in　cultivation；　because　in　the　one　case　they　get

the　whole　profits　to　themselves；　in　the　other　they　share　them

with　their　landlord。　This　species　of　tenants　still　subsists　in

some　parts　of　Scotland。　They　are　called　steel…bow　tenants。　Those

ancient　English　tenants；　who　are　said　by　Chief　Baron　Gilbert　and

Doctor　Blackstone　to　have　been　rather　bailiffs　of　the　landlord

than　farmers　properly　so　called；　were　probably　of　the　same　kind。

　　　　　To　this　species　of　tenancy　succeeded；　though　by　very　slow

degrees；　farmers　properly　so　called；　who　cultivated　the　land　with

their　own　stock；　paying　a　rent　certain　to　the　landlord。　When　such

farmers　have　a　lease　for　a　term　of　years；　they　may　sometimes　find

it　for　their　interest　to　lay　out　part　of　their　capital　in　the

further　improvement　of　the　farm；　because　they　may　sometimes

expect　to　recover　it；　with　a　large　profit；　before　the　expiration

of　the　lease。　The　possession　even　of　such　farmers；　however；　was

long　extremely　precarious；　and　still　is　so　in　many　parts　of

Europe。　They　could　before　the　expiration　of　their　term　be　legally

outed　of　their　lease　by　a　new　purchaser；　in　England；　even　by　the

fictitious　action　of　a　common　recovery。　If　they　were　turned　out

illegally　by　the　violence　of　their　master；　the　action　by　which

they　obtained　redress　was　extremely　imperfect。　It　did　not　always

reinstate　them　in　the　possession　of　the　land；　but　gave　them

damages　which　never　amounted　to　the　real　loss。　Even　in　England；

the　country　perhaps　of　Europe　where　the　yeomanry　has　always　been

most　respected；　it　was　not　till　about　the　14th　of　Henry　VII　that

the　action　of　ejectment　was　invented；　by　which　the　tenant

recovers；　not　damages　only　but　possession；　and　in　which　his　claim

is　not　necessarily　concluded　by　the　uncertain　decision　of　a

single　assize。　This　action　has　been　found　so　effectual　a　remedy

that；　in　the　modern　practice；　when　the　landlord　has　occasion　to

sue　for　the　possession　of　the　land；　he　seldom　makes　use　of　the

actions　which　properly　belong　to　him　as　landlord；　the　Writ　of

Right　or　the　Writ　of　Entry；　but　sues　in　the　name　of　his　tenant　by

the　Writ　of　Ejectment。　In　England；　therefore；　the　security　of　the

tenant　is　equal　to　that　of　the　proprietor。　In　England；　besides；　a

lease　for　life　of　forty　shillings　a　year　value　is　a　freehold；　and

entitles　the　lessee　to　vote　for　a　Member　of　Parliament；　and　as　a

great　part　of　the　yeomanry　have　freeholds　of　this　kind；　the　whole

order　becomes　respectable　to　their　landlords　on　account　of　the

political　consideration　which　this　gives　them。　There　is；　I

believe；　nowhere　in　Europe；　except　in　England；　any　instance　of

the　tenant　building　upon　the　land　of　which　he　had　no　lease；　and

trusting　that　the　honour　of　his　landlord　would　t