[224] Muratori, op. cit. i. 234 sq. Idem, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, xviii. 268, 292.
[225] Biot, op. cit. p. 318 sqq. Saco, Historia de la esclavitud, iii. 241 sqq.
[226] Ward, Enquiry into the Foundation and History of the Law of Nations in Europe, i. 298 sq. Babington, op. cit. p. 147. Ayala, De jure et officiis bellicis, i. 5. 19. In the sixteenth century the statutes of some Italian towns make mention of the sale of slaves, who probably were Turkish captives (Nys, Le droit de la guerre et les précurseurs de Grotius, p. 140).
This transformation has been traced to the diminished supply of slaves, which made it the interest of each family to preserve indefinitely its own hereditary slaves, and to keep up their number by the method of propagation. The existence and physical well-being of the slave became consequently an object of greater value to his master, and the latter found it most profitable to attach his slaves to certain pieces of land.[227] Moreover, the cultivation of the ground required that the slaves should have a fixed residence in different parts of the master’s estate, and when a slave had thus been for a long time engaged in a particular farm, he was so much the better qualified to continue in the management of it for the future. By degrees he therefore came to be regarded as belonging to the stock upon the ground, and was disposed of as a part of the estate which he had been accustomed to cultivate.[228]
[227] Storch, Cours d’économie politique, iv. 260. Ingram, op. cit. p. 72.
[228] Millar, op. cit. p. 263 sqq.
But serfdom itself was merely a transitory condition destined to lead up to a state of entire liberty. As the proprietor of a large estate could not oversee the behaviour of his villeins, scattered over a wide area of land, the only means of exciting their industry would be to offer them a reward for the work which they performed. Thus, besides the ordinary maintenance allotted to them, they frequently obtained a part of the profits, and became capable of having separate property.[229] In many cases this no doubt enabled the serf to purchase his liberty out of his earnings;[230] whilst in others the master would have an interest in allowing him to pay a fixed rent and to retain the surplus for himself. The landlord was then freed from the hazard of accidental losses, and obtained not only a certain, but frequently an additional, revenue from his land, owing to the greater exertions of cultivators who worked for their own benefit;[231] and at the same time the personal subjection of the peasants naturally came to an end, as it was of no consequence to the landlord how they conducted themselves provided that they punctually paid the rents. Nor was there any reason to insist that they should remain in the farm longer than they pleased; for the profits it afforded made them commonly not more willing to leave it than the proprietor was to put them away.[232] Another factor which led to the disappearance of serfdom was the encouragement which Sovereigns, always jealous of the great lords, gave to the villeins to encroach upon their authority.[233] We have convincing proof that in England, before the end of Edward III.’s reign, the villeins found themselves sufficiently powerful to protect one another, and to withhold their ancient and accustomed services from their lord.[234] In Germany, again, the landlords sometimes furnished their villeins with arms to defend the cause of their master, and this undoubtedly tended to their enfranchisement, as persons who are taught to use and allowed to possess weapons will soon make themselves respected.[235] A great number of villeins also shook off the fetters of their servitude by fleeing for refuge to some chartered town,[236] where they became free at once,[237] or, more commonly, after a certain stipulated period—a year and a day,[238] or more;[239] and it seems, besides, that the rapid disappearance of serfdom in the prospering free towns indirectly, by way of example, promoted the enfranchisement of rural serfs.[240] There are, further, instances of lords liberating their villeins at the intercession of their spiritual confessors, the clergy availing themselves of every opportunity to lessen the formidable power of their great rivals, the temporal nobility.[241] But the influence which the Church exercised in favour of the enfranchisement of serfs was even less than her share in the abolition of slavery proper.[242] She represented serfdom as a divine institution,[243] as a school of humility, as a road to future glory.[244] She was herself the greatest serf-holder;[245] and so strenuously did she persist in retaining her villeins, that after Voltaire had raised his powerful outcry in favour of liberty and Louis XVI. himself had been induced to abolish “the right of servitude” in consideration of “the love of humanity,” the Church still refused to emancipate her serfs.[246] But whilst the cause of freedom owes little to the Christian Church, it owes so much the more to the feelings of humanity and justice in some of her opponents.
[229] Millar, op. cit. p. 264. Simonde de Sismondi, Histoire des républiques italiennes du moyen âge, xvi. 365 sq. Guérard, Cartulaire de l’Abbaye de Saint-Père de Chartres, i. p. xli. Dunham, History of the Germanic Empire, i. 230.
[230] See Vinogradoff, Villainage in England, p. 87; Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law before the Time of Edward I. i. 36, 427.
[231] Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, p. 173. Millar, op. cit. p. 267 sqq. Mill, Principles of Political Economy, i. 309, 311. Dunham, op. cit. i. 228 sq. On the inefficiency of slave labour, see also Storch, op. cit. iv. 275 sqq.