Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

 Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow Wednesday February 16th. 1763 - Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence Vol. 5 Lectures On Jurisprudence

Return to Title Page for Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence Vol. 5 Lectures On Jurisprudence

Search this Title:

Wednesday February 16th. 1763 - Adam Smith, Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence Vol. 5 Lectures On Jurisprudence [1762]

Edition used:

Lectures On Jurisprudence, ed. R.. L. Meek, D. D. Raphael and P. G. Stein, vol. V of the Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1982).

Part of: The Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith, 7 vols.

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.


Wednesday February 16th. 1763

We may observe here that the state of slavery is a much more tollerable one in a [a] poor and barbarous people than in a rich and polished one. There are severall things which naturally tend to produce this effect. 1st, in a wealthy and opulent country where slavery is tollerated their number is always very great, and far greater than that of the freemen. Their wealth enables them to maintain immense numbers. A wealthy noble man would have 1000 or perhaps severall 1000s. We are told that Trebellius,12 a man who was reckoned one of the most sober and least expensive at that time, that some times he had 200 and some times but 10 slaves, according as his work required. From whence we may see, by the manner in which it is told, that 10 slaves was as few or fewer than any one who pretended to the character of a gentleman would keep at that time. The slaves in this manner were generally at least ten times as numerous as the free men. They were | consequently a very formidable body, and would keep the state in continuall terror. In a poor country on the other hand the wealth of the inhabitants can not put it in their power to maintain a great many slaves; there will be few that can come the length of 10 or 12; many will have but 2 or 3, and the far greatest part none at all. The number of slaves therefore in this country would be less or very little greater than that of the freemen, and consequently would not put them in any terror. In rich countries therefore, as they will be in continuall fear of their slaves, so will they treat them with the greatest severity and take every method to keep them under. We see accordingly that at Rome, where the riches was immense and the people in continual dread of their slaves, of which there were a prodigious number, far greater than that of the free men, the slaves were treated with the utmost severity, and were put to death on the smallest transgression. Amongst the old Germans and others, as Tacitus13 tells, they were used with the greatest humanity. He says a man would kill his | slave their in no other way than he did his enemy, that is, he would kill him in a fit of passion, but not thro caprice or for any small transgression. We see in the same manner the slaves in the American colonies on the continent are treated with great humanity and used in a very gentle manner. Their masters are not at all rich, and consequently can not afford to keep any great number and are in no terror concerning <?them>. In the West Indian sugar islands, where they are strictly used, their numbers are very great. The sugar trade as every one knows is much more profitable than the cultivation of corn, in which the planters of North America are chiefly employed, and who as they have thereby but very moderate fortunes keep but few slaves. But the sugar trade being the most profitable of any, and many persons often raising themselves immense fortunes in a very short time, they can well afford to keep a multitude of slaves; their numbers therefore far exceed the number of freemen. This keeps them in continuall dread of them, and the greatest rigour and severity is consequently exercised upon them. They are put to death in prodigious numbers on the least appearance of insurrection. | Any one who appears to make the least disturbance is immediately hanged up; and this not in the common way with a rope, but with an iron collar such as they use for the dogs,x in which they will hang 6 or 7 days till they die of hunger. Besides the dread the freemen are in of the slaves in a rich country, there are other things which will make them be treated with much greater severity. In a poor country there can be no great difference betwixt the master and the slave in any respect. They will eat at the same table, work together, and be cloathed in the same manner, and will be alike in every other particular. In a rich country the disproportion betwixt them will be prodigious in all these respects. This dis<pro>portion will make the rich men much more sevr14 to their slaves than the poorer ones. A man of great fortune, a nobleman, is much farther removed from the condition of his servant than a farmer. The farmer generally works along with his servant; they eat together, andy are little different. The disproportion betwixt them, the condition of the nobleman and his servant, is so great that he will hardly look on him as being of the same kind; he thinks he has little title | even to the ordinary enjoyments of life, and feels but little for his misfortunes. The farmer on the other hand considers his servant as almost on an equall with himself, and is therefore the more capable of feeling with him. Those persons most excite our compassion and are most apt to affect our sympathy who most resemble ourselves, and the greater the difference the less we are affected by them. {The same will be the case with slaves.} The old Romans during their simple and rude state treated their slaves in a very different manner from what they did when more advanced in riches and refinement. In those early times, which are generally accounted the virtuous as well as the simple times of Rome, there was no great number of slaves, and those which there werez <?were> treated with the greatest humanity.15 Their number was not sufficient to make them jealous of them, and they16 was also much less disproportion in their manner of life. They wrought, they eata altogether[ther]; so far were they from looking on them as creatures of little value and below their regard that they put the greatest confidence in them; they looked on them as faithfull friends, in whom they would find sincer<e> affection. {The slaves were treated much in the same way as the children of the family.} So far re|moved were they from theb cruelty of their posterity, who would feed their fish with the bodies of their slaves. The Germans had very little distinction from their slaves; idem Cattus,17 idem victus; they had the same dress and the same manner of living, and they were accordingly very humane to them. In the same manner a North–American planter, as he is often at the same work and engaged in the same labour, [he] looks on his slave as his friend and partner, and treats him with the greatest kindness; when the rich and proud West Indian who is far above the employment of the slave in every point gives him the hardest usage. It is not the barbarity of the North Americans but merely their poverty which makes them thus familiar, and of consequence as I have shew<n> humane. The more society is improved the greater is the misery of a slavish condition; they are treated much better in the rude periods of mankind than in the more improved. Opulence and refinement tend greatly to increase their misery. The more arbitrary the government is in like manner the slaves are in the better condition, and the freer the people the more miserable are the slaves; in a democracy they are more miserable than in any other. | The greater <the> freedom of the free, the more intollerable is the slavery of the slaves. Opulence and freedom, the two greatest blessings men can possess, tend greatly to the misery of this body of men, which in most countries where slavery is allowed makes by far the greatest part. A humane man would wish therefore if slavery has to be generally established that these greatest blessing<s>, being incompatible with the happiness of the greatest part of mankind, were never to take place.

It is evident that the state of slavery must be very unhappy to the slave himself. This I need hardly prove, tho some writers have called it in question. But it will not be difficult to shew that it is so to the masters. That is, that the cultivation of land by slaves is not so advantageous as by free tenents; that the advantage gained by the labours [slaves] of the slaves, if we deduce their originall cost and the expence of their maintenanc<e>, will not be as great as that which is gaind from free tenents. In the antient governments where slaves were the sole cultivators of the land the method was to assign them a piece of ground to cultivate, all the produce of which belong’d to their master, except what he allowed to them for their maintenance. | We find that this part which was over that which was necessary for the maintenance of the cultivators in the fruitfull countries of Greece and Italy was about ⅙ part of the produce, whereas in Scotland and England where the rents are high the tenant pays ⅓ part for the rent. The cultivation of the lands of Greece and Italy must evidently from thence have been very bad, when they produced only ⅙ part more than was necessary to maintain the cultivators, altho the soil be exceedingly fruitfull and the climate very favourable; whereas the barren and cold countries of Scot. and Eng. afford 2ce as much to the landlord and mustc consequently the land produces about Blank in MS.d much as it did before. The reason of the loss in cultivating land in this manner other than by free tenants will be very evident. The slave or villain who cultivated the land cultivated it entirely for his master; whatever it produced over and above his maintenance belonged to the landlord; he had therefore no inducement to be at any great expense or trouble in manuring or tilling the land; if he made it produce what was sufficient for his own maintenance this was all that he was | anxious about. The overseeer perhaps by a hearty drubbing or other hard usage might make him exert himself a little farther, so as to produce from the farm a small portion for the landlord; but this would not be very great, and accordingly we see that a farm which yieldede ⅙ part of the produce to the master was reckoned to [to] be tollerably well cultivated. On the other hand as the free tenant pays a stated rent to the master, whatever he makes the farm produce above that rent is intirely his own property, and the master can not exact as he could from the ancient villains or slaves exact, any part they have saved above the rent,f what they had saved out of the part allowed for their maintenance. This gives them much greater spirit and alacrity for their work; they will then be at expense to manure and improve their land, and will soon bring it to that degree of cultivation as to be able to pay ⅓ part to their masters and nevertheless have a much better as well as a more certain livelyhood out of the remaining two thirds; and whatever they produce above that, which is supposed to be about ⅓ of the produce, is altogether their own. Such a manner of cultivation is therefore far | preferable to that by slaves, not only to the servantsg but even to the master.— Notwithstanding of these superior [of] advantages it is not likely that slavery should be ever abolished, and it was owing to some peculiar circumstances that it has been abolished in the small corner of the world in which it now is. In a democraticall government it is hardly [hardly] possible that it ever should, as the legislators are hereh persons who are each masters of slaves; they therefore will never incline to part with so valuable a part of their property; and tho as I have here shewn their real interest would lead them to set free their slaves and cultivate their lands by free servants or tenents, yet the love of domination and authority and the pleasure men take in having every <thing> done by their express orders, rather than to condescend to bargain and treat with those whom they look upon as their inferiors and are inclined to use in a haughty way; this love of domination and tyrannizing, I say, will make it impossible for the slaves in a free country ever to recover their liberty.— In a monarchicall and absolute government their condition will possibly be a good deal better; the monarch | here being the sole judge and ruler, and not being affected by the easing the condition of the slaves, may probably incline to mitigate their condition; and this we see has been done in all arbitrary governments in a considerable degree. The condition of the slaves under the absolute government of the emperors was much more tollerable than under the free one of the Republick. But although the authority of the sovereign may go a considerable way in the mitigating of the condition of slaves, yet it never has <and> can never proceed so far as to abolish slavery altogether. In all countries where slavery takes place[s] the greatest part of the riches of the subjects consists in slaves. If he is possessed of a land estate the whole management of it is carried on by the slaves; without them there can be nothing done; they work and till the ground, and practise every thing else that is necessary to the cultivation of the land or the support of their master. A man of a considerable estate would have some thousands of slaves upon it, and the meaner sort in proportion, but allmost every one if the country be tollerably wealthy will havei some slaves; and in them the greatest part | of their wealth will consist. In the same manner we see at this time the great stock of a West India planter consists in the slaves he has in his plantation. To abolish slavery therefore would be to deprive the far greater part of the subjects, and the nobles in particular, of the chief and most valuable part of their substance. This they would never submit to, and a generall insurrection would ensue. For no single man ever had or possibly could have power sufficient to enable him to strip his subjects in that manner. If he set a slave at liberty this was robbing his master of the whole value of him. This therefore could never take place. This institution therefore of slavery, which has taken place in the beginning of every society, has hardly any possibility of being abolished. The government in the first stages of society is as I said18 very weak, and can not interpose much in the affairs of individualls. Government is far advanced before the legislative power can appoint judges at pleasure, as is now the case in Britain where the king can ap|point any one a judge he pleases who is a lawyer by profession, and for the lower judiciall offices any one he pleases. This could not be done in an early society. The people would not submit themselves in that manner. The government therefore would find it necessary to take advantage of the superiority and authority of certain persons who were respected in the country and put the judicial power into their hands. Jurisdictions were in this manner established, and the same cause made it necessary to strengthen the hands of all private masters of families. Slavery therefore has been universall in the beginnings of society, and the love of dominion and authority over others will probably make it perpetuall. The circumstances which have made slavery be abolished in the corner of Europe in which it now is are peculiar to it, and which happening to concurr at the same time have brought about that change.j

The government of Europe was at that time feudall. The power of the great lords consisted in their vassalls and their | villains. The whole of the land at this time was (as was before mentioned) cultivated by villains or slaves in the same manner as by the slaves in the ancient governments of Rome and Greece. There were two thing<s> which brought about their freedom. In the first place, the church and the clergy were at that time a very powerfull set of men in all the countries of the west of Europe. The clergy have allways more weigh<t> and authority over the lower and more laborious part of mankind than over the rich and the powerfull. There authorityk therefore was at this time chiefly over these villains or slaves. They saw then or thought they <?did> that it would tend greatly to aggrandize the power of <the> church, that these people over whom they had the greatest influence were set at liberty and rendered independent of their masters. They therefore promoted greatly the emancipation of the villains, and discouraged as much as lay in their power the authority of the great men over them.— The kings interest tended also to promote the same thing. The power of the nobles, which often was dangerous to their authority, consisted in the dependance of their | vassals, and theirs again of their vassalls or villains. The slaves when numerous and in a rich and free country, as they become an object of dread and terror to the body of the people are never trusted with arms, as they are therel the naturall enemies of the governing part; but in a poor country and one under arbitrary government, especially in rude times, they are no object of terror to the government or great people; theym accordingly made the chief body of the soldier<s>n in these times, and in them the power of their superiors consisted. The kings interest also led him on this account to lessen the authority of the nobles and their vassalls over their villains. The kings courts on this account were very favourable to all claims of the villains, and on every occasion endeavoured to lessen the authority of the landlord over them. They gave particular favour to the speciall villains, as they were called. These were such as having got some substanc<e> by some means or other, agreed to hold a piece of land of the lord of the manor and pay him in the manner that | the others did, during the pleasure of their master. The words that were used in this bargain were that they should hold according to the custom of the manor. The court took advantage of this expression for the benefit of the dependents and interpreted them thus: that as the lords did not commonly or customarily turn them out unless for some great offence, so they made their agreement to be that they were to continue in possession for ever, unless on any such transgressions or offences as were punishable by law. In this manner they became from being speciall villains to be copy–holders.o The landholders werep in this manner restricted in their authority over their villains by two of the most powerfull members of the state. The clergy, a body at that time very powerfull, thought it their interest to encourage the villains, and the authority of the king, the head of the state, coincided with theirs. They in this manner agreeing rendered the authority of the masters of the villains but very inconsiderable, if compared to what it had | been some time before. They saw too perhaps that their lands were but very ill cultivated when under the management of these villains. They therefore thought it would be more for their own advantage to emancipate their villains and enter into an agreement with them with regard to the cultivation of their lands. In this manner slavery came to be abolished; for at this time the villains were the only sort of slaves.q Our ancestors were then a rough, manly people who had no sort of domestic luxury or effeminacy; their whole slaves were then employed in the cultivation of the land. When thereforer villainage was abollished slavery was so also. The great power of the clergy thus concurring with that of the king set the slaves at liberty. But it was absolutely necessary both that the authority of the king and of the clergy should be great. Where ever any one of these was wanting, slavery still continues. In Scotland, England, | the authority of the king and of the church have been both very great; slavery has of consequence been abolished; the <?same> has been the case in France, Spain, etc. But in the elective kingdom of Poland, the elective empire of Germany, and the kingdom of Bohemia, which was elective till the House of Austria got possession of it, slavery still continues;s they have the adscripti glebae solo advincti,19 as they call them, on the same footing as the old villains in this country. For in all these countries the authority of the king could never be very considerable; for all elective kings as I shall shew more fully afterwards have much less power than those who are hereditary. On the other hand tho zars of Moscovy have very great power, yet slavery is still in use, as the authority of the Greek church tho very considerable has never been nearly so great as that of the Romish church was in the other countries of Europe; as we see from the accounts of that country even before the time of Peter the Great.

The villains being thus emancipated had no stock wherewith they could undertake the | cultivation of a farm.— Tenents holding by steel–bow, or mettierést as they are called in France, were the first species of free tenents who followed on the abolition of villainage. The landlord agreed to furnish them with every thing necessary for their work, as they had nothing of their own. He gave them oxen, which they were to restore at the end of their lease, which was generally at the end of the year, ad arbitrium boni viri, equall in number and value to those they had received; he gave them all other necessaries; with these they cultivated the land, and had for their labour a part of the produce. The agreement was that they should divide the produce at years end; the farmer took one sheaf and the landlord another and in this manner they divided equally the whole produce. ’Twas in this manner the tenents by steel bow were the first which followed on the villains. This manner, tho as I shall hereafter shew the worst of any by free tenents, was yet greatly preferable to that by slaves. Whatever the slave by culture made the farm produce above what was necessary for his maintenance belonged to the master, | and if he had from his part saved a little his master could recall it at pleasure. He had by this means no temptation to any extraordinary exertion of labour. But the farmer by steel–bow was equally profited by a great produce as the landlord; he had so many sheaves more, as well as the landlord, than when the crop was indifferent. His interest thereforeu as well as that of the landlord <?>. But still it was a great discouragement that when he had bestowed an extraordinary expense or labour on the farm the landlord, who had done nothing more than he did in any other year, should carry off the half of the profits. All such defalcations from the produce of industry must greatly retard any efforts of the farmer. Tythes are for this reason, as shall also be more fully explaind, very detrimentall to the industry of the farmer, as the parson without any labour of his takes the 10th part of all the farm produced by the additionall industry of the farmer.— When these farmers by steel bow had by hard labour and great parsimony got together | in 10 or 20 years as much as would enable them to stock a farm, they would thenv make an offer to their master that they should stock the farm themselves and maintain this stock, and instead of his having the uncertain produce of the harvest, which might vary with the season, he should have a yearly gratuity, on condition that he should not be removed at pleasure but should hold his farm for a term of years. This proposall would not only be agreable to the farmer but also to the landlord. He would be very willing to change the half of the product of the farm, which might vary with <the> season, into a certain some20 proportionable to that which he got one year with another. And from this it is that the half of the product was generally reckond to be the proportion of the rent. This way of farming would tend much more to promote industry than the former. The farmer here is certain that all which he can raise from the farm above the stated rent will be his own, and therefore has a great inducement to exert his activity upon it. This stated rent where | land is high rated is about ⅓ of the produce, and this as I said21 is greatly more than what was paid out of a farm when cultivated by slaves; and the part which the farmer has is also much greater.

There is one instance, and that one which we are best acquainted with, which shows very plainly the dissadvantage of the culture or work of any sort being carried on by slaves when compared with that carried on by free and hiredw men. That is the colliers and salters, which are the only vestiges of slavery which remain amongst us. Tho these are in far better condition than the servi or villani formerly, yet the labour carried on by them is very expensive.— They are far more easy in many points than those antient slaves. In the first place, their lives are under the protection of the laws of the land, as well as those of other subjects. A master of a coal or salt work can not kill his slave at pleasure as the Romans could, and is as liable for such a murder as for any other.— Their property is also safe, for they do not, as the old slaves, work | intirely for their master, deducing only what is necessary for their support, but are paid for the work they do in the same manner as other labourers; and whatever they acquire in this manner is intirely their own and can not be siezed by their master. They can be sold, it is true, but then it is only in a certain manner. When the work is sold all the colliers or salters which belong to it are sold allong with it. They in this respect resemble the villani or adscripti glebae in Germany, which always go along with the land they cultivate but can not be sold seperate. The colliers in the same manner are adscriptix operi; they are sold allong with the work, but can not be sold or given away singly.22 They have also the liberty of marriage, for as they are not seperated from one another the<y> may marry and live together as other labourers. They have also the free exercise of religion, which the nature of it makes free to all. But we are not to imagine the temper of the Christian religion is necessarily contrary to slavery. The masters | in our colonies are Christians, and yet slavery is allowed amongst them. The Constan<t>inopolitan emperors were very jealousy Chrristians, and yet never thought of abolishing slavery. There are also many Christian countries where slavery is tollerated at this time.— The colliers in this manner have a great many of the priviledges of free men; their lives are under the protection of the laws as others; their property is also insured to them; and their liberty is not alltogether taken away. They have the benefit of marriage and the exercise of religion. So that they are no way restrictedz more than other men, excepting that they are bound to exercise a certain business and in a certain place. And this has been the case with many other persons who thought themselves free. Many nations in the East Indies who account themselves altogether free are bound to exercise the trade or profession of their father. The old Aegyptians, who never thought themselves in any respect slaves, were after the time of Sesostris23 obliged in like manner to adhere to <the> exercise of their forefathers business. Yet altho | they differ in so small a degree from free men, their labour is much higher. The price of the work done by day labourers in time of peace when workmen are not scarce is very moderate in this country; I mean of such labours whose art24 requires no art but mere labour. Those which require even some degree of art are but very low. A weaver, e.g., will ask from 8d to 9d per day; and others which require no art, that is, such as are acquired without great instruction by a short practise, as that of a plowman, ditcher, etc., which every strong man who lives in the country acquires without serving an apprenticeship, these earn from 8d to 5d per day. 6d is the mean rate. A collier on the other hand, whose work is mere labour such as any man who can handle the pick will learn by a very short practise, earn<s> at the rate of 2sh, 2sh6d, or 3sh per day. This immoderate price of labour in these works would soon fall if the masters of them would set their colliers and salters at liberty, and open the work to all free men, who are now deterred from ever entering into one as it is a rule that one who works a year and day in the coal | pit becomes a slave as the rest and may be claimed by the owner, unless he has bargain’d not to take advantage of this. But this the masters of coal works will never agree to. The love of domination and authority over others, which I am afraid is naturall to mankind, a certain desire of having others below one, and the pleasure it gives one to have some personsa whom he can order to do his work rather than be obliged to persuade others to bargain with him, will for ever hinder this from taking place. This work indeed, being somewhat more dissagreable and more hazardous than others of the same sort, they might perhaps require wages somewhat higher, but this would not come above 8d or 9d; so that a collier has now about 4 times the wages he would have were the work open to all men. But notwithstanding of this high wages we see the colliers frequently run off from the works in this country to those about Newcastle, where they will not earn above 13d or 14d a day as the work is open; but we never saw any come from Newcastle here.— — —

| There are severall other inconveniencies arising from the institution of slavery, which I shall take notice of in treating of police.25 I shall only observe one or two remarkable ones. 1st, that it is very detrimentall to population. As it is for the labour of the slaves that the masters desire to have them, so it is chiefly male slaves which they procure as they are most able to sustain a great degree of hard labour. The women are not of such strength, and are therefore not much coveted. They are never desired for propagating, for as it is always much cheaper to bye an ox or a horse out of a poor country where maintenance is cheap than to rear them in a rich one, so is it much cheaper to bye a slave from a poor country than to rear them at home. We see accordingly that there were very few vernae, as they called them, in Rome;26 the far greater part were brought from Syria, Scythia, Cappadocia, or other poor countries. We are told that at the isle of Delos, which lay in the course betwixt Rome and these different countries, there have been sold in one day on account of | the Romans above 10000 slaves at market time;27 and we may see from thence what a prodigious annual import of them there must have been at that time. There is also a prodigious number, tho not so great as the former, annually carried from the coast of Africa to the severall European colonies in America and the West Indian islands. Of these there is but a very small part women. Demosthenes28 in one of his orations, giving a catalogue of the fortune his father left him, tells us he left him fifty male slaves and 2 female ones, so that here the proportion is as 1:25. Nor is there many more in the West India sugar islands. It must necessarily happen from the nature of things that these women will live in a state of prostitution, a state of all others the least proper for propagation; so that there is no great probability that there will be many children born of them. But if it should happen that there were some born, as must necessarily happen sometimes, there is no great prospect of their being reared up to maturity.— A child is a very delicate plant, one that requires a great deal | of care and attendance, and attention in the rearing.— It is generally reckond that the half of mankind die before 5 years of age. But this is the case only with the meaner and poorer sort, whose children are neglected and exposed to many hardships from the inclemencies of the weather and other dangers. The better sort, who can afford attendance and attention to their children, seldom lose near so many. Few women of midd<l>ingb rank who have born 8 children have lost 4 by the time they are 5 years old, and frequently none of them at all. It is therefore neglect alone that is the cause of this great mortality. And what children are so likely to be neglected as those of slaves, who are themselves despised and neglected by all. Tho therefore some children be born, few of these will be reared. It is found that by all thes<e> concurrent reasons the stock of slaves in the West Indies would be exhausted alltogether in 5 or 6 years, so that in each year they must import about ⅕ or ⅙ of the whole;29 a proportion | which we find in no other state of men.

I shall only observe farther on this head that slavery remarkably diminishes the number of freemen. That it must diminish the number of freemen is altogether evident, as a great part of the free will become slaves. But it does this in a most astonishing proportion and such as one can hardly conceive.

A man according to the ordinary computation may make a shift to support himself and perhaps a wife and family on 10 pounds a year. When therefore we look on a man of an overgrown or large estate, we are apt to conceive of him at first sight as a monster who destroys what might afford subsistence for a vast number of the human species. And in this light our forefathers did consider them, and took all methods to prevent their arising.— A man who has an estate of £10,000 per ann. has what might afford a subsistence to 1,000 men and their families; but this, supposing him to be a mean man who gives | nothing away and has no generosity, he consumes on himself and 4 or 5 servants.30 We look on this man as a pest to society, as a monster, a great fish who devours up all the lesser ones; for it is all one whether one destroys the persons themselves or that which ought to afford them their maintenance. A man who consumes 10,000 pounds appears to destroy what ought to give maintenance to 1000 men. He therefore appears to be the most destructive member of society we can possibly conceive.— But if we observec this man we will find that he is no way prejudiciall to society but rather of advantage to it. In the 1st place, he eats no more than what any other man does; he has not a larger stomach than any ordinary plowman;31 all the odds is that his is better chosen and culld out from the heap. As to his cloaths, he may indeed seem to consume more of these. He has indeed a great many suits and is at a great expense for cloaths, but then he does not consume these all at once. In reality he does not consume so much as an ordinary plowman. His cloaths are of greater | variety, it is true, but then he wears them very little; he is hardly ever out of his chair unless it be to take a walk in a fine day. He never exposes them to be spoiled by the weather or rubbedd and torn by hard labour. After he has done with them they are fit for many different purposes; whereas the plowman who has his cloaths continually exposed to all sorts of destruction wears considerably more; his cloaths when he has done with them are fit for nothing but to be thrown on the dung hill to manure the land. This man therefore, as he consumes hardly any more, nay perhaps not so much as another, all the odds is that what he consumes is culled with nicety and care. And as the flower when the finest part is taken from it is almost as good as before, so what this man leaves is not much less fit for the maintenance of men than it was before. Let us suppose that he has this rent paid in kind (for there can be no odds in that), and that one man pays him 1000 measures of wheat, another as many of barley, another as many oxen, as many sheep, | another as many measures of wine, and anothe<r> of oil. Now of all of these he consumes but a very small part. That part is indeed chosen with great nicety and care; the rest he gives away to those whoe cull out this part for him. This part which he consumes is wrought up by labour so as to be worth immensely more than what it was before, or what the part which would support a man was naturally worth. This part here is changed from 10£ value to be worth 10000, so that it is wrought up to 1000 times its value. In the same manner those who receive the rest of his goods will perhaps spend 5 or 600£, so that there what is consumed by them is wrought up to above 100 times its value. Others again below these consume what costs them 200 or three hundred pound; others again 50 or 60, and so down to those who consume but about 10£ or less in the year. The produce of his estate is by this means wrought up to be worth altogether 1000 times its originall value. It will not however support more men than before; the rich man has not that effect. But he gives occasion to a greatlyf of work and manufacturing, such as is necessary | to raise so much in its value. It would therefore be of no advantage to the state in the present state of things to prevent the growth of such large fortunes. For tho an agrarian law would render all on an equality, which has indeed something very agreable in it, yet a people who are all on an equality will necessar<il>y be very poor and unable to defend themselves in any pressing occasion. They have nothing savedg which can give them relief in time of need. But when goods are manufactured, a very small quantity of them will procure an immense one of the unmanufactured produce of an other country. Half a ships loading of cambricks or broad cloath will procure in Russia as much unmanufactured flax as will load a whole fleet. The higher the manufacture is carried the greater will be the quantity it will procure. A man can carry as much of the finer Brussels lace in his pocket as will get him at Riga or Petersburgh as much flax or hemp as will load a ship. A poor country of the sort above mentiond will be entirely ruined by a famine; they have nothing within themselves and have no way of procuring | from others. If they be obliged even in time of plenty to send an army out of their own country they have great difficulty in procuring them subsistence. But in a country where manufactures are carried on a small part of this manufactured produce will bring a great quantity of unmanufactured, which may supply their present necessities or employ their industry so as to procure more in futurity. So that in the present state of things a man of a great fortune is rather of advantage than dissadvantage to the state, providing that there is a graduall descent of fortunes betwixt these great ones and others of the least and lowest fortune. For it will be shewn hereafter32 that one who leaps over the heads of all his country men is of real detriment to the community. This i<s> not the case in England, where we have fortunes gradually descending from £40,000 to 2 or 300.— — — — —

But altho in this present condition it would be very unnecessary and even detrimentall to crush all such overgrown fortunes, yet in the ancient times the case was very different. The wisest men were always of opinion that these overgrown fortunes were very detrimentall to the interest of the community. They looked on these wealthy men | as the objects of their dread and aversion, as so many monsters who consumed what should have supported a great number of free citizens. Their fears we will find were well grounded. A man, e.g., who possessed an estate of £10,000 per annum then actually destroyed not only the maintenance of 1000033 but of 6,000 free citizens. For we are to consider that the lands were then intirely cultivated by slaves; there was no such thing as free tenents. A man who was possessed of 10,000 occupied then not only the ground which produced to the value of £30000, as he would in the present state of affairs, but what yielded to the value of 60000. Five sixths of this was consumed by the slaves who cultivated it, so that here the greatest part of the produce was bestow’d on the slaves. The remaining part also was not as at present distributed amongst free citizens [(as at present)] who wrought to the rich man and raised up what he consumed to the value of what he laid out, but on his own slaves or those of other rich men. The rich men then set up their slaves in all the different trades they had occasion for; one was a mason, another a carpenter, another a shop–keeper, another a brewer or a baker, etc. These were always employed to | do his work; and if it happened that a rich man had occasion for a workman in a trade which was exercised by none of his own slaves, he would rather oblige another rich man who was his friend by employing his slave than employ a poor citizen, as we see Cicero employd Cyrus,34 the slave of his rich friend, as his architect. So that the whole produce of the estates of the rich was consumed by the master and his slaves. We see from this the reason of what otherwise, as it is intirely different from the customs of our times, appears to us allmost unintelligible. We are told by Aristotleh35 and Cicero36 that the two sources of all seditions at Athens and at Rome were the demands of the people for an agrarian law or an abolition of debts. This was no doubt a demand of the taking away so much of ones property and giving it to those to whom it did not belong. We never hear of any such demands as these at this time. What is the reason of this? Are the people of our country at this time more honestly inclined than they were formerly? We can not pretend that they are. But | their circumstances are very different. The poor now never owe any thing as no one will trust them. But at Rome every poor citizen was deep in debt, and the case was the same at Athens. The poor people now who have neither a land estate nor any fortune in money can gain a livelyhood by working as a servant to a farmer in the country, or byi working to any tradesman whose business they understand. But at Rome the whole business was engrossed by the slaves, and the poor citizens who had neither an estate in land nor a fortune in money were in a very miserable condition; there was no business to which they could apply themselves with any hopes of success. The only means of support they had was either from the generall largesses which were made to them, or by the money they got for their votes at elections. But as the candidates would have been ruined by the purchasing the votes of the whole people at every election, they fell | upon an expedient to prevent this. They lent them a considerable summ, a good deal more than what they gave for a vote, at a very high interest, ordinarily about 12 p cent and often higher, even up to 30 or 40 p cent. This soon ran up to a very great amount such as they had no hopes of being able to pay. The creditors were in this manner sure of their votes without any new largess, as they had already a debt upon them which they could not pay, and no other could out bid them, as to gain their vote he must pay off their debt, and as this had by interest come to a great amount there was no one who would be able to pay it off. By this means the poorer citizens were deprived of their only means of subsistence. It is a rule generally observed that no one can be obliged to sell his goods when he is not willing. Bun37 in time of necessity the people will break thro all laws. In a famine it often happens that they will break open granaries38 and force | the owners to sell at what they think a reasonable price. In the same manner it is generally observed as a rule of justice that the property of any thing can not be wrestedj out of the proprietors hands, nor can debts be taken away against the creditors inclination. But when the Roman people found the whole property taken from them by a few citizens, and the whole of the money in the empire ingrossed also, and themselves in this manner reduced to the greatest poverty, it need not be wondered at that they desired laws which prevent these inconveniencies.— We may see from this that slavery amongst its inconveniencies has this bad consequence, thatk it renders rich and wealthy men of large properties of great and real detriment, which otherwise are rather of service as they promote trade and commerce.

I shall now observe the different methods in which slaves mightl be acquired in those countries where it has been in use.— | The 1st, captives taken in war. These are considered as belonging entirely to the captor in all countries where slavery takes place. When the conqueror has got his enemy into his power there is then no one to protect him; his life and all he has he owes to the mercy of his conqueror if he inclines to spare him. He is reckoned to belong intirely to the conqueror, in recompence for his delivery, and as there was no one to protect him. This seems to have been the originall introduction of slaves, and was universally received amongs<t> all the early nations, and continues still in many countries. We are told by Tacitus that in the two battles of Blank in MS.39 betwixt the armies of Galba and Vittellius, and the latter an<d> Vespasian, there were no prisoners made on either side; for as they were their country men they could not become slaves, and for this reason no quarter was given.40 —As the captives had no person who could protect or defend them, so their children were in as helpless a condition. They therefore became slaves | as well as their fathers, which makes 2d method of acquiring slaves, which comprehends all those who are born of slaves.— 3d method is when criminalls are adjudged to slavery. Slavery is a punishment often inflicted on criminalls in those countries as any other, and those who are condemned to it are either given over to the person injured or else they were considered as belonging to the publick. 4th is that by which insolvent debtors were adjudgedm or given over to their creditors. These 4, as well as the 5th., are all admitted in every country where slavery takes place at this day, in Turky, Persie, and in Russia, they make all the prisoners they take in their wars with the Turks slaves in the same manner as the Romans did their prisoners, tho they do not of those whom they take from their fellow Christians. They admit also of all the others. 5th method is that by which a free citizen becomes a slave by selling himself to a master. | But as the person and all that he hath becomes his masters from the moment the bargain begins, such bargains would be altogether ilusory and the slave would receive no benefit from the illegible wordn . But the case where this generally happens is where an insolvent debtor does not incline that he should become the slave of his creditor, but chooses rather to belong to some other person. This person on paying his debts gets him for his slave.— These are all the methods.— I shall only observe farther with regard to slavery, in confirmation of what I asserted, that it was the weakness of government that gave rise to it; that this was entirely the case with regard to the West Indian and at

End of Volume Three of MS.

[12 ]In fact Tigellius: Horace, Satires, I.2.3 ff. and I.3.11–12.

[13 ]Germania, xxv.

[x]Reading doubtful

[14 ]Sic. No doubt ‘severe’ was intended.

[y]Illegible word deleted

[z]Illegible word deleted

[15 ]Montesquieu, XV.15.

[16 ]Sic. No doubt ‘there’ was intended.

[a]‘and’ deleted

[b]‘savage’ deleted

[17 ]i.e. a German. The Catti (or Chatti), often mentioned in Tacitus, were one of the most important tribes of the Germans. The meaning is, ‘like master, like man’.

[c]Sic

[d]Blank in MS.

[e]‘which’ deleted

[f]Numbers written above the last eighteen words indicate that they were intended to read: ‘any part they have saved above the rent, as he could from the ancient villains or slaves exact’

[g]Replaces ‘master’

[h]‘the’ deleted

[i]‘a considerable number’ deleted

[18 ]Above, ii.95,152; iii.7.

[j]‘I’ deleted

[k]‘and’ is interlined at this point, but has possibly been deleted

[l]Reading doubtful

[m]‘were’ deleted

[n]Replaces ‘people’

[o]Above ‘copy–holders’ the word ‘no’ is interlined, and in the margin near this point the following is written vertically: ‘N.B. I doubt this is not altogether as Mr. Smith deld it.’

[p]Replaces ‘being’

[q]Illegible word or words deleted

[r]‘the’ deleted

[s]‘which’ deleted

[19 ]‘Registered with the land, attached to the soil’.

[t]Reading doubtful; presumably a mis–spelling of métayers

[u]‘required’ deleted

[v]Illegible word deleted

[20 ]Sic. Presumably ‘sum’ was intended.

[21 ]112 above.

[w]Reading of last three words doubtful

[x]‘glebae’ deleted

[22 ]Erskine, I.7.39.

[y]Reading doubtful

[z]‘in thei’ deleted

[23 ]Dicaearchus, fragm. 7 (Müller, Fr. Hist. Gr., 2.235), says Sesostris enacted that all occupations should be hereditary. Aristotle, Politics, 1329b2–4, reports a tradition that Sesostris enacted a separation of military and farming classes.

[24 ]Sic. Possibly ‘exercise’ was intended.

[a]‘by’ deleted

[25 ]Cf. LJ(B) 290–1, 299–300, below.

[26 ]Hume, Essays, I.389. Vernae were slaves born in the master’s house.

[27 ]Strabo, XIV.668, cited by Hume, Essays, I.389.

[28 ]Demosthenes, Against Aphobus, I.9–10, cited by Hume, Essays, I.391; all fifty–two slaves were males.

[b]Replaces ‘tollerable’

[29 ]Hume, Essays, I.390, note: ‘It is computed in the West Indies, that a stock of slaves grow worse five per cent every year, unless new slaves be bought to recruit them.’

[30 ]Cf. i.116–17 above.

[c]Replaces an illegible word

[31 ]Cf. TMS IV.1.10: ‘The capacity of his stomach bears no proportion to the immensity of his desires, and will receive no more than that of the meanest peasant.’

[d]Reading doubtful

[e]Two or three illegible words deleted

[f]Sic

[g]Reading doubtful

[32 ]144 below.

[33 ]Sic. Probably ‘1000’ was intended.

[34 ]Cicero’s architect Cyrus (Ad Atticum, II.3.2; Ad Quintum Fratrem, II.2.2) was probably not a slave. Smith probably confuses him with Eros, a slave accountant of his rich friend Atticus, whom Cicero employed to look after his financial affairs (e.g. Ad Att., XII.7.1; XII.21.4; XIII.2a.1).

[h]Replaces ‘Demosthenes’

[35 ]Not in Aristotle (W. L. Newman, Politics of Aristotle, IV.335); cf. Plato, Republic, VIII.565E; Demosthenes, Against Timocrates, 149, and On the Treaty with Alexander, 15.

[36 ]De Officiis, II.78.

[i]Illegible word deleted

[37 ]Sic. No doubt ‘But’ was intended.

[38 ]Cf. Hume, Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals, III.i (ed. Selby–Bigge, § 147).

[j]Reading doubtful

[k]‘those’ deleted

[l]Replaces ‘may’

[39 ]Blank in MS. The missing word is ‘Bedriacum’. See next editorial note.

[40 ]Histories, II.44 on the battles of Bedriacum, the first between Otho and Vitellius and the second between Vitellius and the forces of Vespasian; cf. Plutarch, Life of Otho, 14.

[m]‘by’ deleted

[n]Illegible word