Slavery as an industrial system

by H. J. Nieboer

The free peasant, though he had plenty of land, was rather poorly off; he had no slaves and so could only dispose of the labour power of himself and his family; and in this [[374]]time of extensive tillage the produce of each man’s labour was small[215].

Great proprietors were still rare. They worked their own lands with slaves. Sometimes, however, they gave pieces of land in use, generally to slaves; for, says our informant, the free peasants did not like to take the land of the nobles and so make themselves dependent on them[216]. And when land was given in use to free peasants (especially by the church) this was done on very advantageous terms, often at a nominal rent[217].

Land was thus abundant, slavery existed, and tenant farmers and free labourers were absent.

In the Carolingian period the clearing of forests went on continually. Some land was still reclaimed by free peasants, but much more by the great proprietors who controlled abundant labour forces[218]. The lords were already beginning to claim much uncultivated land, the reclaiming of which they only allowed on condition of the cultivator subjecting himself to them. There was far less unappropriated land than in the foregoing period, and such as there was was claimed by the king[219]. Yet we cannot speak of an appropriation of the whole of the land; for we know that a claim of the king to large tracts of uninhabited land is practically of little consequence. Accordingly our informant states that land was still abundant. The free peasants were already in a difficult position, not, however, because land was scarce, but because they could not provide the labour necessary to convert woods and marshes into arable land[220].

In this period the free peasants began to be absorbed by the great proprietors. The latter wanted labourers and did their utmost to astrict the common freemen to their estates. Many people placed themselves under the protection of nobles; others, being reduced to poverty (especially through the institution of the wergild, and the compulsory military service which interfered with the cultivation of the land) fell into the hands of the lords; and some were straightway made serfs by violence. As the landlords had the right of jurisdiction and [[375]]other public rights, they could easily subject the small landholders under some pretext or even without any. Former free peasants, lites, and such slaves as had received a piece of land in use, though designated by different names, came to form practically one class, the labouring as opposed to the ruling class[221]. A manorial organization arose similar to that which existed in England. There were some slaves for personal service and agricultural labour and a great number of dependent peasants of various kinds, who had to cultivate the demesne of the lord and yield him part of the produce of their own holdings[222].

Free labourers were found rarely if at all[223].

Our informant in several passages speaks of freemen destitute of land[224]. But these people are not in any way to be identified with the poor of modern times who depend on wages. They were generally foreigners who had no rights in any village community; but the lords were always ready to receive them and give them a piece of land in use on condition of their rendering services and paying tributes. The natural increase of the labouring population and immigration of foreign labour did not yet cause any difficulty[225].

Most of the cultivators of this time had not the right of leaving the manors to which their holdings belonged[226].

We see that in this period there was still much free land; slavery existed and serfdom was on the increase; leaseholders, tenants at will and free labourers were wanting. All this agrees with our theory.

In the next period colonization and reclaiming of waste land went on on a large scale. But at the same time the population increased and the value of the land increased with it. Lamprecht, speaking of the 13^th century, writes: “Colonization and reclaiming of land had entirely changed the condition of the rural population between the 10^th and the 13^th century. In the time of the Carolingians wood and land had [[376]]still been regarded as inexhaustible goods of the nation, like the sun, air and water; but now the limitations of the geographical basis of national life appeared more and more clearly. There had been an immense range of land to grow food upon; but now the supply of land became limited, chiefly and first on the Rhine, in Suabia and Franconia, afterwards in Saxony, and finally in Bavaria, the Tyrol, and Styria; people had to shift on a limited area. The soil became, more than before, an object of economic value; its price kept continually increasing. In the 12^th century, in some prosperous districts, land seems to have attained twelve times the value it had in the 9^th; and even afterwards, down to the second half of the 13^th century, an increase of about 50 per cent. is to be observed. Taking into consideration that land was still regarded, especially by the ruling classes, as the only basis of social and political influence (though already other sources of large incomes were gradually arising), we may understand how intense the struggle for the possession of the soil must have been at this period”[227].