Slavery in Mexico was, according to all accounts, a moderate subjection, consisting merely of an obligation to render personal service, nor could that be exacted without allowing the slave a certain amount of time to labor for his own advantage. Slaves were kindly treated and were allowed far greater privileges than any in the old world; they could marry and bring up families, hold property, including other slaves to serve them, and their children were invariably born free. There is, however, some obscurity on this point, as Sahagun tells us that in the year Ce Tochtli, which came round every fifty-two years, there was generally a great famine in the land, and at that time many persons, driven to it by hunger, sold not only themselves as slaves, but also their children and descendants for countless generations.[140] Very young or poor slaves lived at the home of their master, and were treated almost as members of the family; the other slaves lived independently, either on their owner's land, or upon their own. It frequently happened that a master succumbed to the charms of one of his female slaves and made her his wife, or that a comely bondman found favor in the sight of his mistress, and became her lord; nor was this so strange as it may at first appear, there being no difference of race or color to make such alliances repugnant or shameful. Feelings of affection and respect existed, as a rule, between master and servant. A slave who had served long and faithfully was often entrusted with the stewardship of his owner's household and property, and, on the other hand, if the master through misfortune should become poor, his bondmen would cheerfully labor for his support. No well-behaved slave could be sold without his consent unless his owner could prove that poverty or debt made such sale unavoidable; nor could such faults as laziness, disobedience, or running away, be punished without due warning, which the master for his own justification usually gave in the presence of respectable witnesses. If after this had occurred two or three times the slave continued refractory, a wooden collar was placed on his neck, and then his master was authorized to transfer him against his will. Purchasers of a collared slave always inquired how many times he had been so disposed of before, and if after two or three such sales he continued incorrigible, he could be sold for the sacrifice. But even yet he has one chance left; if he can escape from his master's premises and gain the courtyard of the royal palace, he not only avoids punishment, but he is from that day forth a free man; moreover, no person, save his owner or his owner's sons, is allowed in any manner to prevent him from reaching the asylum, under penalty of being made the slave of him whom he attempts to deprive of his chance for freedom.
The sale of a slave was conducted with much formality, and must be made in the presence of at least four respectable witnesses; in cases of self-sale the witnesses acted as conscientious arbitrators to secure the highest price and most favorable conditions for him who sold himself. The usual price for an average slave was twenty mantles, equivalent to one load of cotton cloth; some were worth less, while others brought as many as forty mantles.
Slavery among the Nahua nations appears, then, to have been only a partial deprivation of a freeman's rights. As a slave was permitted to possess property and even other slaves of his own, and as his children were born free and he had complete control of his own family, we can scarcely say he lost his citizenship, although it is true he was not eligible for public office. It was a common practice for a master during his lifetime, or on his death-bed, to emancipate his slaves, but if no such provision were made they went to the heirs with the rest of the property. Murder of a slave, even by his master, was a capital offence.
Yet in spite of all this testimony in favor of the mildness of slavery among the Nahua nations, there is still room for some reasonable doubt concerning the patriarchal character of the system; inasmuch as we are told that many slaves, not mentioned as being prisoners of war or criminals, as well as servants, dwarfs, or deformed persons, and purchased children, were put to death at religious feasts and royal funerals.[141]
TENURE OF LANDS.
The lands were divided between the crown, the nobility, the various tribes or clans of the people, and the temples. The division, however, was by no means equal, by far the greater portion being appropriated by the king and the aristocracy.[142] All landed property was duly surveyed, and each estate was accurately marked out on maps, or paintings, kept on file by a competent officer in the district where they were situated. The crown lands were painted in purple, those of the nobility in scarlet, and those of the calpullis, or wards, in light yellow. Certain portions of the crown property called tecpantlalli, or 'lands of the palace,' were granted to nobles of the rank of Tecuhtli, who were called tecpanpouhque or tecpantlaca, 'people of the palace.' They had the free use and enjoyment of such lands, and in return certain services were expected of them. It was their duty to attend to the repairs and proper arrangement of the royal residences, and to cultivate and keep in order the royal gardens, for all of which they had to provide the necessary number of workmen; besides this they were obliged to wait on the king and accompany him whenever he appeared in public. Although in consideration of these services the 'people of the palace' paid no rent, yet the eminent domain of their lands was vested in the sovereign. When one of them died his eldest son inherited his privileges, subject to the same obligations, but if he changed his residence to another part of the country, or died without male issue, the usufruct was forfeited and the land reverted to the sovereign, who transferred it to another usufructuary, or left the choice of one to the community in whose district the property was situated.[143] The produce of other lands belonging to the crown was set apart for the support of the royal household, and for benevolent purposes.
LANDED PROPERTY OF THE NOBLES.
In conquered provinces, the habits and customs and established form of government of the vanquished were usually respected. The sovereigns of Anáhuac retained the native princes in power, and allowed the people to keep their property; but they invariably set apart a certain part of the territory, proportioned to the conquest, which became the property of the conquering monarch. These lands, called yaotlalli, which means 'war lands,' were cultivated by the conquered people for the benefit of their conqueror. If they belonged to Mexico their name was mexica-tlalli; if to Acolhuacan, acolhua-tlalli, and so on.[144]
INHERITANCE OF ESTATES.
The lands of the nobility were called pillalli, and were either ancient possessions of the nobles transmitted by inheritance from father to son, or were rewards of valor granted by the king. They were held by various tenures; some of them could be alienated at the will of the owner, subject only to the restriction that they should not pass into the hands of a plebeian; others were entailed upon the eldest male issue and could not be otherwise disposed of. Many of the Aztec estates were of very ancient origin. After the Chichimecs obtained undisputed possession of the valley of Mexico, their chief or sovereign Xolotl made grants of land to his own people, and to others who acknowledged him as their supreme lord, under the condition that the grantees should render service to the crown with their persons, vassals, and estates, whenever he should require it of them, and the same policy was adopted by his successors.[145] Sons generally inherited their father's estates by right of primogeniture, but if the eldest son was judged incapable of taking proper care of the property, the father left it to whichever son he pleased, stipulating, however, that the heir should insure a competency to him he had supplanted.[146] In the republic of Tlascala daughters could not inherit an estate, the object being to prevent landed property from going into the hands of strangers. In the kingdoms of Mexico, Tezcuco, and Tlacopan it is probable that the law was the same in this respect, but the authorities give us no information concerning the matter.[147] These feudatories paid no rent for their lands, but were bound to assist their suzerain, the king, with their persons, vassals, and fortunes in all cases of foreign or civil war. Each king, on his accession, confirmed the investiture of estates derived from the crown.[148] The lands of the people were called calpulli, and every city was divided into as many of these as there were wards in it, and the whole number of calpulli being collectively named altepatlalli. The calpulli, as well as the tlaxicalli, or streets, were all measured out and their boundaries marked, so that the inhabitants of one ward or street could not invade the possessions of another. Each of these divisions belonged to its respective community, and was of greater or less extent and importance according to the partition which had been made by the first settlers in Anáhuac. The owners of a calpulli were all members of the same clan or tribe, and their district bore their name. The right of tenure was perpetual and inalienable, and was the common property of the community and not of individuals. Any member of the community not possessed of any land, had the right to ask for a portion suitable to his position and requirements, which was granted him. This portion he was entitled to hold as long as he cultivated and improved it, and he could transmit it to his heirs; he had no authority to sell his portion, but he could let it to another for a number of years. If he neglected to cultivate it for two years the head man of the calpulli remonstrated with him; if he paid no heed to this warning he was ousted the following year in favor of some other person; a reasonable excuse for such neglect was, however, always accepted. If the land assigned to anyone proved unfruitful and barren, he was at liberty to abandon it and another portion was granted him. Under no pretext whatever could any person settle upon the land lawfully occupied by another, nor could the authorities of the calpulli deprive the latter of his right. If a land-owner died without heirs, his portion was considered vacant and assigned to the first applicant for it. If a calpulli was in great need the authorities were allowed to lease its lands, but under no circumstances were the inhabitants permitted to work on the lands of another district. The elders of the tribe formed the council of the calpulli; this body elected a principal, called calpullec, whose duty it was to watch over the interests of the community; he acted only with the advice and consent of the council. Each city set apart a piece of land in the suburbs wherefrom to supply the needs of the army in time of war. These portions were called milchimalli, or cacalomilli, according to the kind of grain they produced, and were cultivated jointly by all the calpullis. It was not unusual for the kings to make a life-grant of a portion of the people's property to some favorite noble, for though there is no doubt that the calpulli lands of right belonged to the people, yet in this respect as in others, the kings were wont to usurp a power not their own.[149] Every temple, great and insignificant, had its own lands and country estates, the produce of which was applied to the support of the priests and of public worship; the tenants who occupied these lands were looked upon as vassals of the temples. The chief priests, who, on the temple lands, exercised a power similar to that of the royal governors, frequently visited these estates to inspect their condition and to administer justice to their tenants. The temple of Huitzilopochtli was considered the wealthiest in Mexico. Torquemada says that in Tezcuco fifteen large cities furnished the temples of that kingdom with wood, provisions, and other necessaries.[150] Clavigero makes the number of towns twenty-nine.[151]