§ 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[136]. When all land is held as property, [[347]]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[137], 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”[138]. 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 [[348]]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[139]. 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[140].
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 [[349]]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”[141], 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[142]. 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”[143].
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 [[350]]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.