Front Page Titles (by Subject) CHAPTER V: Of Slavery - The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume II - The Principles of Political Economy with Some of Their Applications to Social Philosophy (Books I-II)
Return to Title Page for The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume II - The Principles of Political Economy with Some of Their Applications to Social Philosophy (Books I-II)
The Online Library of Liberty
A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.
Search this Title:
CHAPTER V: Of Slavery - John Stuart Mill, The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume II - The Principles of Political Economy with Some of Their Applications to Social Philosophy (Books I-II) 
The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume II - The Principles of Political Economy with Some of Their Applications to Social Philosophy (Books I-II), ed. John M. Robson, introduction by V.W. Bladen (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1965).
About Liberty Fund:
Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.
The online edition of the Collected Works is published under licence from the copyright holder, The University of Toronto Press. ©2006 The University of Toronto Press. All rights reserved. No part of this material may be reproduced in any form or medium without the permission of The University of Toronto Press.
Fair use statement:
This material is put online to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. Unless otherwise stated in the Copyright Information section above, this material may be used freely for educational and academic purposes. It may not be used in any way for profit.
§ 1. [Slavery considered in relation to the slaves] Among the forms which society assumes under the influence of the institution of property, there are, as I have already remarked, two, otherwise of a widely dissimilar character, but resembling in this, that the ownership of the land, the labour, and the capital, is in the same hands. One of these cases is that of slavery, the other is that of peasant proprietors. In the one, the landowner owns the labour, in the other the labourer owns the land. We begin with the first.
In this system all the produce belongs to the landlord. The food and other necessaries of his labourers are part of his expenses. The labourers possess nothing but what he thinks fit to give them, and until he thinks fit to take it back: and atheya work as hard as he chooses, or is able, to compel them. Their wretchedness is only limited by his humanity, or his bpecuniary interest.b With the first consideration, we have on the present occasion nothing to do. What the second in so detestable a constitution of society may dictate, depends on the facilities for importing fresh slaves. If fullgrown able-bodied slaves can be procured in sufficient numbers, and imported at a moderate expense, c self-interest will recommend working the slaves to death, and replacing them by importation in preference to the slow and expensive process of breeding them. Nor are the slave-owners generally backward in learning this lesson. It is notorious that such was the practice in our d slave colonies, while the slave trade was legal; and it is said to be so still ein Cubae .
When, as among the ancients, the slave-market could only be supplied by captives either taken in war, or kidnapped from thinly scattered tribes on the remote confines of the known world, it was generally more profitable to keep up the number by breeding, which necessitates a far better treatment of them; and for this reason, joined with several others, the condition of slaves, notwithstanding occasional enormities, was probably much less bad in the ancient world, than in the colonies of modern nations. The Helots are usually cited as the type of the most hideous form of personal slavery, but with how little truth appears from the fact that they were regularly armed (though not with the panoply of the hoplite) and formed an integral part of the military strength of the State. They were doubtless an inferior and degraded caste, but their slavery seems to have been one of the least onerous varieties of serfdom. Slavery appears in far more frightful colours among the Romans, during the period in which the Roman aristocracy was gorging itself with the plunder of a newly-conquered world. The Romans were a cruel people, and the worthless nobles sported with the lives of their myriads of slaves with the same reckless prodigality with which they squandered any other part of their ill-acquired possessions. Yet, slavery is divested of one of its worst features when it is compatible with hope: enfranchisement was easy and common: enfranchised slaves obtained at once the full rights of citizens, and instances were frequent of their acquiring not only riches, but latterly even honours. By the progress of milder legislation under the Emperors, much of the protection of law was thrown round the slave, he became capable of possessing property, and the evil altogether assumed a considerably gentler aspect. Until, however, slavery assumes the mitigated form of villenage, in which not only the fslaves havef property and legal rights, but gtheirg obligations are more or less limited by usage, and hthey partly labour for theirh own benefit; itheiri condition is seldom such as to produce a rapid growth jeither of population or of production.
§ 2. [Slavery in relation to production] So long as slave countries arej underpeopled in proportion to their cultivable land, the labour of the slaves, a under any tolerable management, produces much more than is sufficient for their support; especially as the great amount of superintendence dence which their labour requires, preventing the dispersion of the population, insures some of the advantages of combined labour. Hence, in a good soil and climate, and with reasonable care of his own interests, the owner of many slaves has the means of being rich. b The influence, however, of such a state of society on production, is perfectly well understood. It is a truism to assert, that labour extorted by fear of punishment is inefficient and unproductive. It is true that in some circumstances, human beings can be driven by the lash to attempt, and even to accomplish, things which they would not have undertaken for any payment which it could have been worth while to an employer to offer them. And it is likely that productive operations which require much combination of labour, the production of sugar for example, would not have taken place so soon in the American colonies, if slavery had not existed to keep masses of labour together. There are also savage tribes so averse from regular industry, that industrial life is scarcely able to introduce itself among them until they are either conquered candc made slaves of, or become conquerors and make others so. But after allowing the full value of these considerations, it remains certain that slavery d is incompatible with any high state of the arts of life, and any egreate efficiency of labour. For all products which require much skill, slave countries are fusuallyf dependent on foreigners. Hopeless slavery effectually brutifies the intellect; and intelligence in the slaves, though often encouraged in the ancient world and in the East, is in a more advanced state of society a source of so much danger and an object of so much dread to the masters, that in some gof the States of America it wasg a highly penal offence to teach a slave to read. All processes carried on by slave labour are conducted in the rudest and most unimproved manner. And even the animal strength of the slave is, on an average, not half exerted. hThe unproductiveness and wastefulness of the industrial system in the Slave Statesi is instructively displayed in the valuable writings of Mr. Olmsted.h The mildest form of slavery is certainly the condition of the serf, who is attached to the soil, supports himself from his j allotment, and works a certain number of days in the week for his lord. Yet there is but one opinion on the extreme inefficiency of serf labour. The following passage is from Professor Jones,* whose Essay on the Distribution of Wealth (or rather on Rent), is a copious repertory of valuable facts on the landed tenures of different countries.
“The Russians, or rather those German writers who have observed the manners and habits of Russia, state some strong facts on this point. Two Middlesex mowers, they say, will mow in a day as much grass as six Russian serfs, and in spite of the dearness of provisions in England and their cheapness in Russia, the mowing a quantity of hay which would cost an English farmer half a copeck, will cost a Russian proprietor three or four copecks.* The Prussian counsellor of state, Jacob, is considered to have proved, that in Russia, where everything is cheap, the labour of a serf is doubly as expensive as that of a labourer in England. M. Schmalz gives a startling account of the unproductiveness of serf labour in Prussia, from his own knowledge and observation.† In Austria, it is distinctly stated, that the labour of a serf is equal to only one-third of that of a free hired labourer. This calculation, made in an able work on agriculture (with some extracts from which I have been favoured), is applied to the practical purpose of deciding on the number of labourers necessary to cultivate an estate of a given magnitude. So palpable, indeed, are the ill effects of labour rents on the industry of the agricultural population, that in Austria itself, where proposals kofk changes of any kind do not readily make their way, schemes and plans for the commutation of labour rents are as popular as in the more stirring German provinces of the North.”‡
What is wanting in the quality of the labour itself, is not made up by any excellence in the direction and superintendence. As the same writer§ remarks, the landed proprietors “are necessarily, in their character of cultivators of their own domains, the only guides and directors of the industry of the agricultural population,” since there can be no intermediate class of capitalist farmers where the labourers are the property of the lord. Great landowners are everywhere an idle class, or if they labour at all, addict themselves only to the more exciting kinds of exertion; that lion’s share which superiors always reserve for themselves. “It would,” as Mr. Jones observes, “be hopeless and irrational to expect, that a race of noble proprietors, fenced round with privileges and dignity, and attracted to military and political pursuits by the advantages and habits of their station, should ever become attentive cultivators as a body.” Even in England, if the cultivation of every estate depended upon its proprietor, any one lcanl judge what would be the result. There would be a few cases of great science and energy, and numerous individual instances of moderate success, but the general state of agriculture would be contemptible.
§ 3. [Emancipation considered in relation to the interest of the slave-owners] Whether the proprietors themselves would lose by the emancipation of their slaves, is a different question from the comparative effectiveness of free and slave labour to the community. There has been much discussion of this question as an abstract thesis; as if it could possibly admit of any universal solution. Whether slavery or free labour is most profitable to the employer, depends on the wages of the free labourer. These, again, depend on the numbers of the labouring population, compared with the capital and the land. Hired labour is generally so much more efficient than slave labour, that the employer can pay a considerably greater value in wages, than the maintenance of his slaves cost him before, and yet be a gainer by the change: but he cannot do this without limit. The decline of serfdom in Europe, and its adestructiona in the Western nations, bwereb doubtless hastened by the changes which the growth of population must have made in the pecuniary interests of the master. As population pressed harder upon the land, without any improvement in agriculture, the maintenance of the serfs necessarily became more costly, and their labour less valuable. With the rate of wages such as it is in Ireland, or in England (where, in proportion to its efficiency, clabour is quite as cheapc as in Ireland), no one can for a moment imagine that slavery could be profitable. If the Irish peasantry were slaves, their masters would be as willing, as their landlords now are, to pay large sums merely to get rid of them. In the rich and underpeopled soil of the West India islands, there is just as little doubt that the balance of profits between free and slave labour was greatly on the side of slavery, and that the compensation granted to the slave-owners for its abolition was not more, dperhaps evend less, than an equivalent for their loss.
More needs not be said here on a cause so completely judged and decided as that of slavery. eIts demerits are no longer a question requiring argument; though the temper of mind manifested by the larger part of the influential classes in Great Britain respecting the strugglef in America, shows how grievously the feelings of the present generation of Englishmen, on this subject, ghadg fallen behind the positive acts of the generation which preceded them. That the sons of the deliverers of the West Indian Negroes should hexpecth with complacency, and encourage by their sympathies, the iestablishmenti of a great and powerful military commonwealth, pledged by its principles and driven by its strongest interests to be the armed propagator of slavery through every region of the earth into which its power jcouldj penetrate, discloses a mental state in the leading portion of our higher and middle classes which it is melancholy to see, and will be a lasting blot in English history. Fortunately they k stopped short of actually aiding, otherwise than by words, the nefarious enterprise to which they lwerel not ashamed of wishing success; and m at the expense of the best blood of the Free States, but to their immeasurable elevation in mental and moral worth, the curse of slavery nhas beenn cast out from the great American republic, to find its last temporary refuge in Brazil and Cuba. No European country, except Spain alone, any longer participates in the enormity. Even serfage has now ceased to have a legal existence in Europe. Denmark has the honour of being the first Continental nation which imitated England in liberating its colonial slaves; and the abolition of slavery was one of the earliest acts of the heroic and calumniated Provisional Government of France. The Dutch Government was not long behind, and its colonies and dependencies are now, I believe without exception, free from actual slavery, though forced labour for the public authorities is still a recognised institution in Java, soon, we may hope, to be exchanged for complete personal freedom.e
[a-a]+48, 49, 52, 57, 62, 65, 71
[b-b]MS, 48, 49 “enlightened self-interest.”
[c]MS, 48, 49 enlightened
[d]MS, 48, 49, 52, 57 own
[e-e]MS in those States of the American Union which receive a regular supply of negroes from other States] 48, 49, 52 in Cuba, and in . . . as MS
[f-f]MS, 48, 49 slave has
[g-g]MS, 48, 49 his
[h-h]MS, 48, 49 he partly labours for his
[i-i]MS, 48, 49 his
[j-j]MS of population. This cannot be from physical privation, for no slave-labourers are worse fed, clothed, or lodged, than the free peasantry of Ireland. The cause usually assigned, is the great disproportion of the sexes which almost always exists where slaves are not bred but imported: this explanation however is not sufficient, as the negro population of our West India colonies continued nearly stationary, after the slave-trade to those colonies was suppressed. It is perhaps the general weakness of family ties among slaves, which causes fewer children to be born, or a greater proportion of those born to perish in infancy. Whatever be the cause, a slave-population is seldom a rapidly increasing one. Slave countries, unless of very small extent or limited natural resources, are generally] 48, 49 as MS . . . imported: this cannot however be the sole cause, as . . . suppressed. Whatever be the causes, a . . . as MS
[a]MS, 48, 49 therefore,
[b]MS, 48, 49 [§ 2 begins]
[c-c]48 or [printer’s error?]
[d]MS, 48 , even in the most mitigated form,
[e-e]MS, 48, 49, 52, 57 real
[f-f]MS, 48, 49 always
[g-g]MS, 48, 49, 52, 57, 62 countries it is] 65 of the States of America it is
[h-h]+62 [as footnote to exerted], 65, 71
[i]62 of North America,
[* ]Essay on the Distribution of Wealth and on the Sources of Taxation. By the Rev. Richard Jones [London: Murray, 1831]. Page 50 [-51].
[* ][MS square-bracketed in text] “Schmalz, Economie Politique, French translation [by M. Fritob. Paris: Bertrand, 1826], vol. i. p. 66.”
[† ][MS square-bracketed in text] “Vol. ii. p. 107.”
[k-k]Source, MS, 48, 49, 52, 57 for
[‡ ] The Hungarian revolutionary government, during its brief existence, bestowed on that country one of the greatest benefits it could receive, and one which the tyranny that succeeded [52, 57 that has succeeded] did not dare [52, 57, 62, 65 has not dared] to take away: it freed the peasantry from what remained of the bondage of serfdom, the labour rents; decreeing compensation to the landlords at the expense of the state, and not at that of the liberated peasants.
[§ ]Jones, pp. 53, 54.
[l-l]52, 57 could
[a-a]MS, 48, 49, 52, 57, 62 extinction
[b-b]MS, 48, 49, 52, 57, 62 was
[c-c]MS it is quite as low
[d-d]MS, 48, 49, 52, 57 but in all probability
[e-e]251MS It will be curious to see how long the other nations possessing slave colonies will be content to remain behind England in a matter of such concernment both to justice, which decidedly is not at present a fashionable virtue, and to philanthropy, which certainly is so. Europe is far more inexcusable than America in tolerating an enormity, of which she could rid herself with so much greater ease. I speak of negro-slavery, not of the servage of the Slavonic nations, who have not yet advanced beyond a state of civilization corresponding to the age of villenage in Western Europe, and must emerge from it in the same gradual manner, however much accelerated by that salutary influence of the ideas of more advanced countries, which is so important to those more backward, in enabling them to make up for lost time.] 48 as MS . . . Europe, and can only be expected to emerge . . . by the salutary . . . advanced countries.] 49 as MS . . . is so.* [footnote:] *Denmark has the honour of being the first Continental nation which followed the example of England; and the emancipation of the slaves was one of the earliest acts of the French Provisional Government. Still more recently, the progress of the American mind towards a determination to rid itself of this odious stain has been manifested by very gratifying symptoms. [end of note; text resumes:] . . . as 48] 52, 57 as 49 . . . acts of the heroic and calumniated Provisional Government of France . . . Western Europe, and who, to all appearance, will be indebted for their liberation from this great evil, to the influence of the ideas of the more advanced countries, rather than to the rapidity of their own progress in improvement.] 62 as 52 . . . of France. The Dutch Government is now seriously engaged in the same beneficent enterprise . . . as 52
[f]65 now taking place
[l-l]65 have not been
[m]65 it is now probable that,
[n-n]65 will be