commercial projects； requires an exact attention to small savings
and small gains； of which a man born to a great fortune； even
though naturally frugal； is very seldom capable。 The situation of
such a person naturally disposes him to attend rather to ornament
which pleases his fancy than to profit for which he has so little
occasion。 The elegance of his dress； of his equipage； of his
house； and household furniture； are objects which from his
infancy he has been accustomed to have some anxiety about。 The
turn of mind which this habit naturally forms follows him when he
comes to think of the improvement of land。 He embellishes perhaps
four or five hundred acres in the neighbourhood of his house； at
ten times the expense which the land is worth after all his
improvements； and finds that if he was to improve his whole
estate in the same manner； and he has little taste for any other；
he would be a bankrupt before he had finished the tenth part of
it。 There still remain in both parts of the United Kingdom some
great estates which have continued without interruption in the
hands of the same family since the times of feudal anarchy。
Compare the present condition of those estates with the
possessions of the small proprietors in their neighbourhood； and
you will require no other argument to convince you how
unfavourable such extensive property is to improvement。
If little improvement was to be expected from such great
proprietors； still less was to be hoped for from those who
occupied the land under them。 In the ancient state of Europe； the
occupiers of land were all tenants at will。 They were all or
almost all slaves； but their slavery was of a milder kind than
that known among the ancient Greeks and Romans； or even in our
West Indian colonies。 They were supposed to belong more directly
to the land than to their master。 They could； therefore； be sold
with it； but not separately。 They could marry； provided it was
with the consent of their master； and he could not afterwards
dissolve the marriage by selling the man and wife to different
persons。 If he maimed or murdered any of them； he was liable to
some penalty； though generally but to a small one。 They were not；
however； capable of acquiring property。 Whatever they acquired
was acquired to their master； and he could take it from them at
pleasure。 Whatever cultivation and improvement could be carried
on by means of such slaves was properly carried on by their
master。 It was at his expense。 The seed； the cattle； and the
instruments of husbandry were all his。 It was for his benefit。
Such slaves could acquire nothing but their daily maintenance。 It
was properly the proprietor himself； therefore； that； in this
case； occupied his own lands； and cultivated them by his own
bondmen。 This species of slavery still subsists in Russia；
Poland； Hungary； Bohemia； Moravia； and other parts of Germany。 It
is only in the western and southwestern provinces of Europe that
it has gradually been abolished altogether。
But if great improvements are seldom to be expected from
great proprietors； they are least of all to be expected when they
employ slaves for their workmen。 The experience of all ages and
nations； I believe； demonstrates that the work done by slaves；
though it appears to cost only their maintenance； is in the end
the dearest of any。 A person who can acquire no property； can
have no other interest but to eat as much； and to labour as
little as possible。 Whatever work he does beyond what is
sufficient to purchase his own maintenance can be squeezed out of
him by violence only； and not by any interest of his own。 In
ancient Italy； how much the cultivation of corn degenerated； how
unprofitable it became to the master when it fell under the
management of slaves； is remarked by both Pliny and Columella。 In
the time of Aristotle it had not been much better in ancient
Greece。 Speaking of the ideal republic described in the laws of
Plato； to maintain five thousand idle men （the number of warriors
supposed necessary for its defence） together with their women and
servants； would require； he says； a territory of boundless extent
and fertility； like the plains of Babylon。
The pride of man makes him love to domineer； and nothing
mortifies him so much as to be obliged to condescend to persuade
his inferiors。 Wherever the law allows it； and the nature of the
work can afford it； therefore； he will generally prefer the
service of slaves to that of freemen。 The planting of sugar and
tobacco can afford the expense of slave…cultivation。 The raising
of corn； it seems； in the present times； cannot。 In the English
colonies； of which the principal produce is corn； the far greater
part of the work is done by freemen。 The late resolution of the
Quakers in Pennsylvania to set at liberty all their negro slaves
may satisfy us that their number cannot be very great。 Had they
made any considerable part of their property； such a resolution
could never have been agreed to。 In our sugar colonies； on the
contrary； the whole work is done by slaves； and in our tobacco
colonies a very great part of it。 The profits of a
sugar…plantation in any of our West Indian colonies are generally
much greater than those of any other cultivation that is known
either in Europe or America； and the profits of a tobacco
plantation； though inferior to those of sugar； are superior to
those of corn； as has already been observed。 Both can afford the
expense of slave…cultivation； but sugar can afford it still
better than tobacco。 The number of negroes accordingly is much
greater； in proportion to that of whites； in our sugar than in
our tobacco colonies。
To the slave cultivators of ancient times gradually
succeeded a species of farmers known at present in France by the
name of metayers。 They are called in Latin； Coloni partiarii。
They have been so long in disuse in England that at present I
know no English name for them。 The proprietor furnished them with
the seed； cattle； and instruments of husbandry； the whole stock；
in short； necessary for cultivating the farm。 The produce was
divided equally between the proprietor and the farmer； after
setting aside what was judged necessary for keeping up the stock；
which was restored to the proprietor when the farmer either
quitted； or was turned out of the farm。
Land occupied by such tenants is properly cultivated at the
expense of the proprietor as much as that occupied by slaves。
There is； however； one very essential difference between them。
Such tenants； being freemen； are capable of acquiring property；
and having a certain proportion of the produce of the land； they
have a plain interest that the whole produce should be as great
as possible； in order that their own proportion may be so。 A
slave； on the contrary； who can acquire nothing but his
maintenance； consults his own ease by making the land produce as
little as possible over and above that maintenance。 It is
probable that it was partly upon account of this advantage； and
partly upon account of the encroachments which the sovereign；
always jealous of the great lords； gradually encouraged their
villains to make upon their authority； and which seem at last to
have been such as rendered this species of servitude altogether
inconvenient； that tenure in villanage gradually wore out through
the greater part of Europe。 The time and manner； however； in
which so important a revolution was brought about is one of the
most obscure points in modern history。 The Church of Rome claims
great merit in it； and it is certain that so early as the twelfth
century； Alexander III published a bull for the general
emancipation of slaves。 It seems； however； to have been rather a
pious exhortation than a law to which exact obedience was
required from the faithful。 Slavery continued to take place
almost universally for several centuries afterwards； till it was
gradually abolished by the joint operation of the two interests
above mentioned； that of the proprietor on the one hand； and that
of the sovereign on the other。 A villain enfranchised； and at the
same time allowed to continue in possession of the land； having
no stock of his own； could cultivate it only by means of what the
landlord advanced to him； and must； therefore； have been what the
French called a metayer。
It could never； however； be the interest even of this last
species of cultivators to lay out； in the further improvement of
the land； any part of the little stock which they might save from
their own share of the produce； because the lord； who laid out
nothing； was to get one half of whatever it produced。 The tithe；
which is but a tenth of the produce； is found to be a very great
hindrance to improvement。 A tax； therefore； which amounted to one
half must have been an effectual bar to it。 It might be the
interest of a metayer to make the land produce as much as could
be brought out of it by means of the stock furnished by the
proprietor； but it could never be his interest to mix any part of
his own with it。 In France； where five parts out of six of the
whole kingdom are said to be still occupied by this species of
cultivators； the proprietors complain that their metayers take
every opportunity of employing the master's cattle rather in
carriage than in cultivation； because in the one case they get
the whole profits to themselves； in the other they share them
with their landlord。 This species of tenants still subsists in
some parts of Scotland。 They are called steel…bow tenants。 Those
ancient English tenants； who are said by Chief Baron Gilbert and
Doctor Blackstone to have been rather bailiffs of the landlord
than farmers properly so called； were probably of the same kind。
To this species of tenancy succeeded； though by very slow
degrees； farmers properly so called； who cultivated the land with
their own stock； paying a rent certain to the landlord。 When such
farmers have a lease for a term of years； they may sometimes find
it for their interest to lay out part of their capital in the
f