Forinstance，theexclusiverighttothelandforpurposesof
　　cultivationdoesnotimplyanexclusiverighttoitforpurposes
　　ofaccess;andnosuchrightoughttoberecognised，exceptto
　　theextentnecessarytoprotecttheproduceagainstdamage，and
　　theowner’sprivacyagainstinvasion。ThepretensionoftwoDukes
　　toshutupapartoftheHighlands，andexcludetherestof
　　mankindfrommanysquaremilesofmountainscenerytoprevent
　　disturbancetowildanimals，isanabuse;itexceedsthe
　　legitimateboundsoftherightoflandedproperty。Whenlandis
　　notintendedtobecultivated，nogoodreasoncaningeneralbe
　　givenforitsbeingprivatepropertyatall;andifanyoneis
　　permittedtocallithis，heoughttoknowthatheholdsitby
　　sufferanceofthecommunity，andonanimpliedconditionthathis
　　ownership，sinceitcannotpossiblydothemanygood，atleast
　　shallnotdeprivethemofany，whichcouldhavederivedfromthe
　　landifithadbeenunappropriated。Eveninthecaseof
　　cultivatedland，amanwhom，thoughonlyoneamongmillions，the
　　lawpermitstoholdthousandsofacresashissingleshare，is
　　notentitledtothinkthatallthisisgiventohimtouseand
　　abuse，anddealwithasifitconcernednobodybuthimself。The
　　rentsorprofitswhichhecanobtainfromitareathissole
　　disposal;butwithregardtotheland，ineverythingwhichhe
　　doeswithit，andineverythingwhichheabstainsfromdoing，he
　　ismorallybound，andshouldwheneverthecaseadmitsbelegally
　　compelled，tomakehisinterestandpleasureconsistentwiththe
　　publicgood。Thespeciesatlargestillretains，ofitsoriginal
　　claimtothesoiloftheplanetwhichitinhabits，asmuchasis
　　compatiblewiththepurposesforwhichithaspartedwiththe
　　remainder。
　　7。Besidespropertyintheproduceoflabour，andpropertyin
　　land，thereareotherthingswhichareorhavebeensubjectsof
　　property，inwhichnoproprietaryrightsoughttoexistatall。
　　Butasthecivilizedworldhasingeneralmadeupitsmindon
　　mostofthese，thereisnonecessityfordwellingontheminthis
　　place。Attheheadofthem，ispropertyinhumanbeings。Itis
　　almostsuperfluoustoobserve，thatthisinstitutioncanhaveno
　　placeinanysocietyevenpretendingtobefoundedonjustice，or
　　onfellowshipbetweenhumancreatures。But，iniquitousasitis，
　　yetwhenthestatehasexpresslylegalizedit，andhumanbeings，
　　forgenerations，havebeenbought，sold，andinheritedunder
　　sanctionoflaw，itisanotherwrong，inabolishingtheproperty，
　　nottomakefullcompensation。Thiswrongwasavoidedbythe
　　greatmeasureofjusticein1833，oneofthemostvirtuousacts，
　　aswellasthemostpracticallybeneficent，everdone
　　collectivelybyanation。Otherexamplesofpropertywhichought
　　nottohavebeencreated，arepropertiesinpublictrusts;such
　　asjudicialofficesundertheoldFrenchregime，andthe
　　heritablejurisdictionswhich，incountriesnotwhollyemerged
　　fromfeudality，passwiththeland。Ourowncountryaffords，as
　　casesinpoint，thatofacommissioninthearmy，andofan
　　advowson，orrightofnominationtoanecclesiasticalbenefice。A
　　propertyisalsosometimescreatedinarightoftaxingthe
　　public;inamonopoly，forinstance，orotherexclusive
　　privilege。Theseabusesprevailmostinsemibarbarouscountries
　　butarenotwithoutexampleinthemostcivilized。InFrance
　　thereareseveralimportanttradesandprofessions，including
　　notaries，attorneys，brokers，appraisers，printers，and（until
　　lately）bakersandbutchers，ofwhichthenumbersarelimitedby
　　law。Thebrevetorprivilegeofoneofthepermittednumber
　　consequentlybringsahighpriceinthemarket。Whensuchisthe
　　case，compensationprobablycouldnotwithjusticeberefused，on
　　theabolitionoftheprivilege。Thereareothercasesinwhich
　　thiswouldbemoredoubtful。Thequestionwouldturnuponwhat，
　　inthepeculiarcircumstances，wassufficienttoconstitute
　　prescription;andwhetherthelegalrecognitionwhichtheabuse
　　hadobtained，wassufficienttoconstituteitaninstitution，or
　　amountedonlytoanoccasionallicence。Itwouldbeabsurdto
　　claimcompensationforlossescausedbychangesinatariff，a
　　thingconfessedlyvariablefromyeartoyear;orformonopolies
　　likethosegrantedtoindividualsbytheTudors，favoursofa
　　despoticauthority，whichthepowerthatgavewascompetentat
　　anytimetorecal。
　　Somuchontheinstitutionofproperty，asubjectofwhich，
　　forthepurposesofpoliticaleconomy，itwasindispensableto
　　treat，butonwhichwecouldnotusefullyconfineourselvesto
　　economicalconsiderations。Wehavenowtoinquireonwhat
　　principlesandwithwhatresultsthedistributionoftheproduce
　　oflandandlabouriseffected，undertherelationswhichthis
　　institutioncreatesamongthedifferentmembersofthecommunity。
　　NOTES:
　　1。See，foradmirableillustrationsofthisandmanykindred
　　points，MrMaine’sprofoundworkonAncientLawanditsrelation
　　toModernIdeas。
　　2。Inthecaseofcapitalemployed，inthehandsoftheowner
　　himself，incarryingonanyoftheoperationsofindustry，there
　　arestronggroundsforleavingtohimthepowerofbequeathingto
　　onepersonthewholeofthefundsactuallyengagedinasingle
　　enterprise。Itiswellthatheshouldbeenabledtoleavethe
　　enterpriseunderthecontrolofwhicheverofhisheirsheregards
　　asbestfittedtoconductitvirtuouslyandefficiently:andthe
　　necessity（verfrequentandinconvientundertheFrenchlaw）
　　wouldbethusobviated，ofbreakingupamanufacturingor
　　commercialestablishmentatthedeathofitschief。Inlike
　　manner，itshouldbeallowedtoaproprietorwholeavestooneof
　　hissuccessorsthemoreburthenofkeepingupanancestralwho
　　leavestooneofhissuccessorsthemoralburthernofkeepingup
　　anancestralmansionandparkorpleasure—ground，tobestowalong
　　withthemasmuchotherpropertyasisrequiredfortheir
　　sufficientmaintenance。
　　3。"Munificentbequestsanddonationsforpublicpurposes，
　　whethercharitableoreducation，formastrikingfeatureinthe
　　modernhistoryoftheUnitedStates，andexpeciallyofNew
　　England。Notonlyisitcommonforrichcapitaliststoleaveby
　　willaportionoftheirfortunetowardstheendowmentofnational
　　institutions，butindividualsduringtheirlifetimemake
　　magnificentgrantsofmoneyforthesameobjects。Thereishere
　　nocompulsorylawfortheequalpartitionofpropertyamong
　　children，asinFrance，andontheotherhand，nocustomof
　　entailorprimogeniture，asinEngland，sothattheaffluentfeel
　　themselvesatlibertytosharetheirwealthbetweentheirkindred
　　andthepublic;itbeingimpossibletofoundafamily，and
　　parentshavingfrequentlythehappinessofseeingalltheir
　　childrenwellprovidedforandindependentlongbeforetheir
　　death。Ihaveseenalistofbequestsanddonationsmadeduring
　　thelastthirtyyearsforthebenefitofreligious，charitable，
　　andliteraryinstitutionsinthestateofMassachusettsalone，
　　andtheyamountedtonolessasumthansixmillionsofdollars，
　　ormorethanamillionsterling。"——Lyell’sTravelsinAmerica，
　　vol。i。p。263。
　　4。"Cequidonnaital’hommel’intelligenceetlaconstancedans
　　sestravaus，quiluifaisaitdirigertousseseffortsversunbut
　　utileasarace，c’etaitlesentimentdelaperpetuite。Les
　　terrainslesplusfertilessonttoujoursceuxqueleseauxont
　　deposeslelongdeleurcours，maiscesontaussiceuxqu’elles
　　menacentdeleursinodationsouqu’ellescorrompentpardes
　　marecages。Aveclagarantiedelaperetuite，l’hommeentrepritde
　　longsetpeniblestravauxpourdonnerauxmarecagesun
　　ecoulement，poureleverdesdiguescontrelesinondations，pour
　　repartirpardescanauxd’arrosementdeseauxfertilisantessur
　　lesmemeschampsquelesmemeseauxcondamnaientalasterilite。
　　Souslamemegarantie，l’homme，nesecontentantplusdesfruits
　　annuelsdelaterre，ademeleparmilavegetationsauvageles
　　plantesvivaces，lesarbustes，lesarbresquipouvaientluietre
　　utiles，illesaperfectionnesparlaculture，ilachangeen
　　quelquesorteleuressence，etilamultiplies。Parmilesfruits，
　　eneffet，onenreconnaitquedessieclesdecultureontseulspu
　　ameneralaperfectionqu’ilsontatteinteaujourd’hui，tandis
　　qued’autresonteteimportesdesregionslespluslointaines。
　　L’hommeenmemetempsaouvertlaterrejusqu’aunegrande
　　profondeur，pourrenouvelersonsol，etlefertiliserparle
　　melangedesespartiesetlesimpressionsdel’air;itafixesur
　　lescollineslaterrequis’enechappait，etilacouvertlaface
　　entieredelacampagned’unevegetationpartoutabondante，et
　　partoutabondante，etpartoututilealaracehumanine。Parmises
　　travaux，ilyenad’autresdontsesderniersneveuxjouiront
　　encouredansplusieurssiecles。tousontconcouruaaugmenterla
　　forceproductivedelanature，adonneralaracehumaineun
　　revenuinfinimentplusabondant，unrevenudontuneportion
　　considerableestconsommeeparceuxquin’ontpointpartala
　　proprieteterritoriale，etquicependantn’auraientpointtrouve
　　denourrituresanscepartagedusolquisemplelesavoir
　　desherites。"Sismondi，Etudesurl’EconomiePolitique，Troisieme
　　Essai，DelaRichesseTerritoriale。
　　5。Imustbegthereadertobearinmindthatthisparagraphwas
　　writtenmorethantwentyyearsago。Sowonderfularethechanges，
　　bothmoralandeconomical，takingplaceinourage，that，without
　　perpetuallyre—writingaworklikethepresent，itisimpossible
　　tokeepupwiththem。
　　ThePrinciplesofPoliticalEconomy
　　byJohnStuartMill
　　Book2，Chapter3
　　OftheClassesAmongWhomtheProduceisDistributed
　　1。Privatepropertybeingassumedasafact，wehavenextto
　　enumeratethedifferentclassesofpersonstowhomitgivesrise;
　　whoseconcurrence，oratleastwhosepermission，isnecessaryto
　　production，andwhoarethereforeabletostipulateforashare
　　oftheproduce。Wehavetoinquire，accordingtowhatlawsthe
　　producedistributesitselfamongtheseclasses，bythe
　　spontaneousactionoftheinterestsofthoseconcerned:after
　　which，afurtherquestionwillbe，whateffectsareormightbe
　　producedbylaws，institutions，andmeasuresofgovernment，in
　　supersedingormodifyingthatspontaneousdistribution。
　　Thethreerequisitesofproduction，ashasbeensooften
　　repeated，arelabour，capital，andland:understandingby
　　capital，themeansandapplianceswhicharetheaccumulated
　　resultsofpreviouslabour，andbyland，thematerialsand
　　instrumentssuppliedbynature，whethercontainedintheinterior
　　oftheearth，orconstitutingitssurface。Sinceeachofthese
　　elementsofproductionmaybeseparatelyappropriated，the
　　industrialcommunitymaybeconsideredasdividedinto
　　landowners，capitalists，andproductivelabourers。Eachofthese
　　classes，assuch，obtainsashareoftheproduce:nootherperson
　　orclassobtainsanything，exceptbyconcessionfromthem。The
　　remainderofthecommunityis，infact，supportedattheir
　　expense，giving，ifanyequivalent，oneconsistingof
　　unproductiveservices。Thesethreeclasses，therefore，are
　　consideredinpoliticaleconomyasmakingupthewholecommunity。
　　2。Butalthoughthesethreesometimesexistasseparate
　　classes，dividingtheproduceamongthem，theydonotnecessarily
　　oralwayssoexist。Thefactissomuchotherwise，thatthereare
　　onlyoneortwocommunitiesinwhichthecompleteseparationof
　　theseclassesisthegeneralrule。EnglandandScotland，with
　　partsofBelgiumandHolland，arealmosttheonlycountriesin
　　theworld，wheretheland，capital，andlabouremployedin
　　agriculture，aregenerallythepropertyofseparateowners。The
　　ordinarycaseis，thatthesamepersonownseithertwoofthese
　　requisites，orallthree。
　　Thecaseinwhichthesamepersonownsallthree，embraces
　　thetwoextremesofexistingsociety，inrespecttothe
　　independenceanddignityofthelabouringclass。First，whenthe
　　labourerhimselfistheproprietor。Thisisthecommonestcasein
　　theNorthernStatesoftheAmericanUnion;oneofthecommonest
　　inFrance，Switzerland，thethreeScandinaviankingdoms，and
　　partsofGermany;（1*）andacommoncaseinpartsofItalyandin
　　Belgium。Inallthesecountriesthereare，nodoubt，largelanded
　　properties，andastillgreaternumberwhich，withoutbeing
　　large，requiretheoccasionalorconstantaidofhiredlabourers。
　　Much，however，ofthelandisownedinportionstoosmallto
　　requireanyotherlabourthanthatofthepeasantandhisfamily，
　　orfullytooccupyeventhat。Thecapitalemployedisnotalways
　　thatofthepeasantproprietor，manyofthesesmallproperties
　　beingmortgagedtoobtainthemeansofcultivating;butthe
　　capitalisinvestedatthepeasant’srisk，andthoughhepays
　　interestforit，itgivestonooneanyrightofinterference，
　　except，perhaps，eventuallytotakepossessionoftheland，if
　　theinterestceasestobepaid。
　　Theothercaseinwhichtheland，labour，andcapital，belong
　　tothesameperson，isthecaseofslavecountries，inwhichthe
　　labourersthemselvesareownedbythelandowner。OurWestIndia
　　coloniesbeforeemancipation，andthesugarcoloniesofthe
　　nationsbywhomasimilaractofjusticeisstillunperformed，
　　areexamplesoflargeestablishmentsforagriculturaland
　　manufacturinglabour（theproductionofsugarandrumisa
　　combinationofboth）inwhichtheland，thefactories（ifthey
　　maybesocalled），themachinery，andthedegradedlabourers，are
　　allthepropertyofacapitalist。Inthiscase，aswellasinits
　　extremeopposite，thecaseofthepeasantproprietor，thereisno
　　divisionoftheproduce。
　　3。Whenthethreerequisitesarenotallownedbythesame
　　person，itoftenhappensthattwoofthemareso。Sometimesthe
　　samepersonownsthecapitalandtheland，butnotthelabour。
　　Thelandlordmakeshisengagementdirectlywiththelabourer，and
　　suppliesthewholeorpartofthestocknecessaryfor
　　cultivation。Thissystemistheusualoneinthosepartsof
　　ContinentalEurope，inwhichthelabourersareneitherserfson
　　theonehand，norproprietorsontheother。Itwasverycommonin
　　FrancebeforetheRevolution，andisstillpractisedinsome
　　partsofthatcountry，whenthelandisnotthepropertyofthe
　　cultivator。Itprevailsgenerallyintheleveldistrictsof
　　Italy，exceptthoseprincipallypastoral，suchastheMaremmaof
　　TuscanyandtheCampagnaofRome。Onthissystemthedivisionof
　　theproduceisbetweentwoclasses，thelandownerandthe
　　labourer。
　　Inothercasesagainthelabourerdoesnotowntheland，but
　　ownsthelittlestockemployedonit，thelandlordnotbeingin
　　thehabitofsupplyingany。Thissystemgenerallyprevailsin
　　Ireland。ItisnearlyuniversalinIndia，andinmostcountries
　　oftheEast;whetherthegovernmentretains，asitgenerally
　　does，theownershipofthesoil，orallowsportionstobecome，
　　eitherabsolutelyorinaqualifiedsense，thepropertyof
　　individuals。InIndia，however，thingsaresofarbetterthanin
　　Ireland，thattheowneroflandisinthehabitofmaking
　　advancestothecultivators，iftheycannotcultivatewithout
　　them。Fortheseadvancesthenativelandedproprietorusually
　　demandshighinterest;buttheprincipallandowner，the
　　government，makesthemgratuitously，recoveringtheadvanceafter
　　theharvest，togetherwiththerent。Theproduceisheredivided
　　asbefore，betweenthesametwoclasses，thelandownerandthe
　　labourer。
　　Thesearetheprincipalvariationsintheclassificationof
　　thoseamongwhomtheproduceofagriculturallabouris
　　distributed。Inthecaseofmanufacturingindustrytherenever
　　aremorethantwoclasses，thelabourersandthecapitalists。The
　　originalartisansinallcountrieswereeitherslaves，orthe
　　womenofthefamily。Inthemanufacturingestablishmentsofthe
　　ancients，whetheronalargeoronasmallscale，thelabourers
　　wereusuallythepropertyofthecapitalist。Ingeneral，ifany
　　manuallabourwasthoughtcompatiblewiththedignityofa
　　freeman，itwasonlyagriculturallabour。Theconversesystem，in
　　whichthecapitalwasownedbythelabourer，wascoevalwithfree
　　labour，andunderitthefirstgreatadvancesofmanufacturing
　　industrywereachieved。Theartisanownedtheloomorthefew
　　toolsheused，andworkedonhisownaccount;oratleastended
　　bydoingso，thoughheusuallyworkedforanother，firstas
　　apprenticeandnextasjourneyman，foracertainnumberofyears
　　beforehecouldbeadmittedamaster。Butthestatusofa
　　permanentjourneyman，allhislifeahiredlabourerandnothing
　　more，hadnoplaceinthecraftsandguildsofthemiddleages。
　　Incountryvillages，whereacarpenterorablacksmithcannot
　　liveandsupporthiredlabourersonthereturnsofhisbusiness，
　　heisevennowhisownworkman;andshopkeepersinsimilar
　　circumstancesaretheirownshopmen，orshopwomen。Butwherever
　　theextentofthemarketadmitsofit，thedistinctionisnow
　　fullyestablishedbetweentheclassofcapitalists，oremployers
　　oflabour，andtheclassoflabourers;thecapitalists，in
　　general，contributingnootherlabourthanthatofdirectionand
　　superintendence。
　　NOTES:
　　1。"TheNorwegianreturn"（saytheCommissionersofPoorLaw
　　Enquiry，towhominformationwasfurnishedfromnearlyevery
　　countryinEuropeandAmericabytheambassadorsandconsuls
　　there）"statesthatatthelastcensusin1825，outofa
　　populationof1，051，318persons，therewere59，464freeholders。
　　Asby59，464freeholdersmustbemeant59，464headsoffamilies，
　　orabout300，000individuals;thefreeholdersmustformmorethan
　　afourthofthewholepopulation。MrMacgregorstatesthatin
　　Denmark（bywhichZealandandtheadjoiningislandsareprobably
　　meant）outofapopulationof926，110，thenumberoflanded
　　proprietorsandfarmersis415，110，ornearlyone—half。In
　　Sleswick—Holstein，outofapopulationof604，085，itis196，017，
　　oraboutone—third。Theproportionofproprietorsandfarmersto
　　thewholepopulationisnotgiveninSweden;buttheStockholm
　　returnestimatestheaveragequantityoflandannexedtoa
　　labourer’shabitationatfromonetofiveacres;andthroughthe
　　Gottenburgreturngivesalowerestimate，itadds，thatthe
　　peasantspossessmuchoftheland。InWurtemburgwearetoldthat
　　morethantwo—thirdsofthelabouringpopulationarethe
　　proprietorsoftheirownhabitations，andthatalmostallownat
　　leastagardenoffromthree—quartersofanacretoanacreanda
　　half。"Insomeofthesestatements，proprietorsandfarmersare
　　notdiscriminated;but"allthereturnsconcurinstatingthe
　　numberofday—labourerstobeverysmall。"——（PrefacetoForeign
　　Communications，p。xxxviii）Asthegeneralstatusofthe
　　labouringpeople，theconditionofaworkmanforhireisalmost
　　peculiartoGreatBritain。
　　ThePrinciplesofPoliticalEconomy
　　byJohnStuartMill
　　Book2，Chapter4
　　OfCompetition，andCustom
　　1。Undertheruleofindividualproperty，thedivisionofthe
　　produceistheresultoftwodeterminingagencies:Competition，
　　andCustom。Itisimportanttoascertaintheamountofinfluence
　　whichbelongstoeachofthesecauses，andinwhatmannerthe
　　operationofoneismodifiedbytheother。
　　Politicaleconomistsgenerally，andEnglishpolitical
　　economistsaboveothers，havebeenaccustomedtolayalmost
　　exclusivestressuponthefirstoftheseagencies;toexaggerate
　　theeffectofcompetition，andtotakeintolittleaccountthe
　　otherandconflictingprinciple。Theyareapttoexpress
　　themselvesasiftheythoughtthatcompetitionactuallydoes，in
　　allcases，whateveritcanbeshowntohethetendencyof
　　competitiontodo。Thisispartlyintelligible，ifweconsider
　　thatonlythroughtheprincipleofcompetitionhaspolitical
　　economyanypretensiontothecharacterofascience。Sofaras
　　rents，profits，wages，prices，aredeterminedbycompetition，
　　lawsmaybeassignedforthem。Assumecompetitiontobetheir
　　exclusiveregulator，andprinciplesofbroadgeneralityand
　　scientificprecisionmaybelaiddown，accordingtowhichthey
　　willberegulated。Thepoliticaleconomistjustlydeemsthishis
　　properbusiness:andasanabstractorhypotheticalscience，
　　politicaleconomycannotberequiredtodo，andindeedcannotdo，
　　anythingmore。Butitwouldbeagreatmisconceptionofthe
　　actualcourseofhumanaffairs，tosupposethatcompetition
　　exercisesinfactthisunlimitedsway。Iamnotspeakingof
　　monopolies，eithernaturalorartificial，orofanyinterferences
　　ofauthoritywiththelibertyofproductionorexchange。Such
　　disturbingcauseshavealwaysbeenallowedforbypolitical
　　economists。Ispeakofcasesinwhichthereisnothingto
　　restraincompetition;nohindrancetoiteitherinthenatureof
　　thecaseorinartificialobstacles;yetinwhichtheresultis
　　notdeterminedbycompetition，butbycustomorusage;
　　competitioneithernottakingplaceatall，orproducingits
　　effectinquiteadifferentmannerfromthatwhichisordinarily
　　assumedtobenaturaltoit。
　　2。Competition，infact，hasonlybecomeinanyconsiderable
　　degreethegoverningprincipleofcontracts，atacomparatively
　　modernperiod。Thefartherwelookbackintohistory，themorewe
　　seealltransactionsandengagementsundertheinfluenceoffixed
　　customs。Thereasonisevident。Customisthemostpowerful
　　protectoroftheweakthestrong;theirsoleprotectorwhere
　　therearenolawsorgovernmentadequatetothepurpose。Custom
　　isabarrierwhich，eveninthemostoppressedconditionof
　　mankind，tyrannyisforcedinsomedegreetorespect。Tothe
　　industriouspopulation，inaturbulentmilitarycommunity，
　　freedomofcompetitionisavainphrase;theyareneverina
　　conditiontomaketermsforthemselvesbyit:thereisalwaysa
　　masterwhothrowshisswordintothescale，andthetermsare
　　suchasheimposes。Butthoughthelawofthestrongestdecides，
　　itisnottheinterestnoringeneralthepracticeofthe
　　strongesttostrainthatlawtotheutmost，andeveryrelaxation
　　ofithasatendencytobecomeacustom，andeverycustomto
　　becomearight。Rightsthusoriginating，andnotcompetitionin
　　anyshape，determine，inarudestateofsociety，theshareof
　　theproduceenjoyedbythosewhoproduceit。Therelations，more
　　especially，betweenthelandownerandthecultivator，andthe
　　paymentsmadebythelattertotheformer，are，inallstatesof
　　societybutthemostmodern，determinedbytheusageofthe
　　country。Neveruntillatetimeshavearighttoretainhis
　　holdings，whilehefulfilsthecustomaryrequirements;andthus
　　become，inacertainsense，aco—proprietorofthesoil。Even
　　wheretheholderhasnotacquiredthisfixityoftenure，the
　　termsofoccupationhaveoftenbeenfixedandinvariable。
　　InIndia，forexample，andotherAsiaticcommunities
　　similarlyconstituted，theryots，orpeasant—farmers，arenot
　　regardedastenantsatwill，norevenastenantsbyvirtueofa
　　lease。Inmostvillagesthereareindeedsomeryotsonthis
　　precariousfooting，consistingofthose，orthedescendantsof
　　those，whohavesettledintheplaceataknownandcomparatively
　　recentperiod;butallwhoarelookeduponasdescendantsor
　　representativesoftheoriginalinhabitants，andevenmanymere
　　tenantsofancientdate，arethoughtentitledtoretaintheir
　　land，aslongastheypaythecustomaryrents。Whatthese
　　customaryrentsare，oroughttobe，hasindeed，inmostcases，
　　becomeamatterofobscurity;usurpation，tyranny，andforeign
　　conquesthavingtoagreatdegreeobliteratedtheevidencesof
　　them。ButwhenanoldandpurelyHindooprincipalityfallsunder
　　thedominionoftheBritishGovernment，orthemanagementofits
　　officers，andwhenthedetailsoftherevenuesystemcometobe
　　inquiredinto，itisusuallyfoundthatthoughthedemandsofthe
　　greatlandholder，theState，havebeenswelledbyfiscalrapacity
　　untilalllimitispracticallylostsightof，ithasyetbeen
　　thoughtnecessarytohaveadistinctnameandaseparatepretext
　　foreachincreaseofexaction;sothatthedemandhassometimes
　　cometoconsistofthirtyorfortydifferentitems，inaddition
　　tothenominalrent。Thiscircuitousmodeofincreasingthe
　　paymentsassuredlywouldnothavebeenresortedto，iftherehad
　　beenanacknowledgedrightinthelandlordtoincreasetherent。
　　Itsadoptionisaproofthattherewasonceaneffective
　　limitation，arealcustomaryrent;andthattheunderstoodright
　　oftheryottotheland，solongashepaidrentaccordingto
　　custom，wasatsometimeorothermorethannominal。（1*）The
　　BritishGovernmentofIndiaalwayssimplifiesthetenureby
　　consolidatingthevariousassessmentsintoone，thusmakingthe
　　rentnominallyaswellasreallyanarbitrarything，oratleast
　　amatterofspecificagreement:butitscrupulouslyrespectsthe
　　rightoftheryottotheland，thoughuntilthereformsofthe
　　presentgeneration（reformsevennowonlypartiallycarriedinto
　　effect）itseldomlefthimmuchmorethanabaresubsistence。
　　InmodernEuropethecultivatorshavegraduallyemergedfrom
　　astateofpersonalslavery。Thebarbarianconquerorsofthe
　　WesternEmpirefoundthattheeasiestmodeofmanagingtheir
　　conquestswouldbetoleavetheoccupationofthelandinthe
　　handsinwhichtheyfoundit，andtosavethemselvesalabourso
　　uncongenialasthesuperintendenceoftroopsofslaves，by
　　allowingtheslavestoretaininacertaindegreethecontrolof
　　theirownactions，underanobligationtofurnishthelordwith
　　provisionsandlabour。Acommonexpedientwastoassigntothe
　　serf，forhisexclusiveuse，asmuchlandaswasthought
　　sufficientforhissupport，andtomakehimworkontheother
　　landsofhislordwheneverrequired。Bydegreestheseindefinite
　　obligationsweretransformedintoadefiniteone，ofsupplyinga
　　fixedquantityofprovisionsorafixedquantityoflabour:and
　　asthelords，intime，becameinclinedtoemploytheirincomein
　　thepurchaseofluxuriesratherthaninthemaintenanceof
　　retainers，thepaymentsinkindwerecommutedforpaymentsin
　　money。Eachconcession，atfirstvoluntaryandrevocableat
　　pleasure，graduallyacquiredtheforceofcustom，andwasatlast
　　recognisedandenforcedbythetribunals。Inthismannerthe
　　serfsprogressivelyroseintoafreetenantry，whoheldtheir
　　landinperpetuityonfixedconditions。Theconditionswere
　　sometimesveryonerous，andthepeopleverymiserable。Buttheir
　　obligationsweredeterminedbytheusageorlawofthecountry，
　　andnotbycompetition。
　　Wherethecultivatorshadneverbeen，strictlyspeaking，in
　　personalbondage，oraftertheyhadceasedtobeso，the
　　exigenciesofapoorandlittleadvancedsocietygaveriseto
　　anotherarrangement，whichinsomepartsofEurope，evenhighly
　　improvedparts，hasbeenfoundsufficientlyadvantageoustobe
　　continuedtothepresentday。Ispeakofthem閠ayersystem。
　　Underthis，thelandisdivided，insmallfarms，amongsingle
　　families，thelandlordgenerallysupplyingthestockwhichthe
　　agriculturalsystemofthecountryisconsideredtorequire，and
　　receiving，inlieuofrentandprofit，afixedproportionofthe
　　produce。Thisproportion，whichisgenerallypaidinkind，is
　　usually，（asisimpliedinthewordsm閠ayer，mezzaiuolo，and
　　medietarius，）one—half。Thereareplaces，however，suchasthe
　　richvolcanicsoiloftheprovinceofNaples，wherethelandlord
　　takestwo—thirds，andyetthecultivatorbymeansofanexcellent
　　agriculturecontrivestolive。Butwhethertheproportionis
　　two—thirdsorone—half，itisafixedproportion;notvariable
　　fromfarmtofarm，orfromtenanttotenant。Thecustomofthe
　　countryistheuniversalrule;nobodythinksofraisingor
　　loweringrents，oroflettinglandonotherthanthecustomary
　　conditions。Competition，asaregulatorofrent，hasno
　　existence。
　　3。Prices，whenevertherewasnomonopoly，cameearlierunder
　　theinfluenceofcompetition，andaremuchmoreuniversally
　　subjecttoit，thanrents:butthatinfluenceisbynomeans，
　　eveninthepresentactivityofmercantilecompetition，so
　　absoluteasissometimesassumed。Thereisnopropositionwhich
　　meetsusinthefieldofpoliticaleconomyoftenerthanthis—that
　　therecannotbetwopricesinthesamemarket。Suchundoubtedly
　　isthenaturaleffectofunimpededcompetition;yeteveryone
　　knowsthatthereare，almostalways，twopricesinthesame
　　market。Notonlyarethereineverylargetown，andinalmost
　　everytrade，cheapshopsanddearshops，butthesameshopoften
　　sellsthesamearticleatdifferentpricestodifferent
　　customers:and，asageneralrule，eachretaileradaptshisscale
　　ofpricestotheclassofcustomerswhomheexpects。The
　　wholesaletrade，inthegreatarticlesofcommerce，isreally
　　underthedominionofcompetition。There，thebuyersaswellas
　　sellersaretradersormanufacturers，andtheirpurchasesarenot
　　influencedbyindolenceorvulgarfinery，nordependonthe
　　smallermotivesofpersonalconvenience，butarebusiness
　　transactions。Inthewholesalemarketsthereforeitistrueasa
　　generalproposition，thattherearenottwopricesatonetime
　　forthesamething:thereisateachtimeandplaceamarket
　　price，whichcanbequotedinaprice—current。Butretailprice，
　　thepricepaidbytheactualconsumer，seemstofeelveryslowly
　　andimperfectlytheeffectofcompetition;andwhencompetition
　　doesexist，itoften，insteadofloweringprices，merelydivides
　　thegainsofthehighpriceamongagreaternumberofdealers。
　　Henceitisthat，ofthepricepaidbytheconsumer，solargea
　　proportionisabsorbedbythegainsofretailers;andanyonewho
　　inquiresintotheamountwhichreachesthehandsofthosewho
　　madethethingshebuys，willoftenbeastonishedatits
　　smallness。Whenindeedthemarket，beingthatofagreatcity，
　　holdsoutasufficientinducementtolargecapitaliststoengage
　　inretailoperations，itisgenerallyfoundabetterspeculation
　　toattractalargebusinessbyundersellingothers，thanmerely
　　todividethefieldofemploymentwiththem。Thisinfluenceof
　　competitionismakingitselffeltmoreandmorethroughthe
　　principalbranchesofretailtradeinthelargetowns;andthe
　　rapidityandcheapnessoftransport，bymakingconsumersless
　　dependentonthedealersintheirimmediateneighbourhood，are
　　tendingtoassimilatemoreandmorethewholecountrytoalarge
　　town:buthithertoitisonlyinthegreatcentresofbusiness
　　thatretailtransactionshavebeenchiefly，orevenmuch，
　　determined，bycompetition。Elsewhereitratheracts，whenit
　　actsatall，asanoccasionaldisturbinginfluence;thehabitual
　　regulatoriscustom，modifiedfromtimetotimebynotions
　　existinginthemindsofpurchasersandsellers，ofsomekindof
　　equityorjustice。
　　Inmanytradesthetermsonwhichbusinessisdonearea
　　matterofpositivearrangementamongthetrade，whousethemeans
　　theyalwayspossessofmakingthesituationofanymemberofthe
　　bodywhodepartsfromitsfixedcustoms，inconvenientor
　　disagreeable。Itiswellknownthatthebooksellingtradewas，
　　untillately，oneofthese，andthatnotwithstandingtheactive
　　spiritofrivalryinthetrade，competitiondidnotproduceits
　　naturaleffectinbreakingdownthetraderules。Allprofessional
　　remunerationisregulatedbycustom。Thefeesofphysicians，
　　surgeons，andbarristers，thechargesofattorneys，arenearly
　　invariable。Notcertainlyforwantofabundantcompetitionin
　　thoseprofessions，butbecausethecompetitionoperatesby
　　diminishingeachcompetitor’schanceoffees，notbyloweringthe
　　feesthemselves。
　　Sincecustomstandsitsgroundagainstcompetitiontoso
　　considerableanextent，evenwhere，fromthemultitudeof
　　competitorsandthegeneralenergyinthepursuitofgain，the
　　spiritofcompetitionisstrongest，wemaybesurethatthisis
　　muchmorethecasewherepeoplearecontentwithsmallergains，
　　andestimatetheirpecuniaryinterestatalowerratewhen
　　balancedagainsttheireaseortheirpleasure。Ibelieveitwill
　　oftenbefound，inContinentalEurope，thatpricesandcharges，
　　ofsomeorofallsorts，aremuchhigherinsomeplacesthanin
　　othersnotfardistant，withoutitsbeingpossibletoassignany
　　othercausethanthatithasalwaysbeenso:thecustomersare
　　usedtoit，andacquiesceinit。Anenterprisingcompetitor，with
　　sufficientcapital，mightforcedownthecharges，andmakehis
　　fortuneduringtheprocess;buttherearenoenterprising
　　competitors;thosewhohavecapitalprefertoleaveitwhereit
　　is，ortomakelessprofitbyitinamorequietway。
　　Theseobservationsmustbereceivedasageneralcorrection
　　tobeappliedwheneverrelevant，whetherexpresslymentionedor
　　not，totheconclusionscontainedinthesubsequentportionsof
　　thistreatise。Ourreasoningsmust，ingeneral，proceedasifthe
　　knownandnaturaleffectsofcompetitionwereactuallyproduced
　　byit，inallcasesinwhichitisnotrestrainedbysome
　　positiveobstacle。Wherecompetition，thoughfreetoexist，does
　　notexist，orwhereitexists，buthasitsnaturalconsequences
　　overruledbyanyotheragency，theconclusionswillfailmoreor
　　lessofbeingapplicable。Toescapeerror，weought，inapplying
　　theconclusionsofpoliticaleconomytotheactualaffairsof
　　life，toconsidernotonlywhatwillhappensupposingthemaximum
　　ofcompetition，buthowfartheresultwillbeaffectedif
　　competitionfallsshortofthemaximum。
　　Thestatesofeconomicalrelationwhichstandfirstinorder
　　tobediscussedandappreciated，arethoseinwhichcompetition
　　hasnopart，thearbiteroftransactionsbeingeitherbruteforce
　　orestablishedusage。Thesewillbethesubjectofthenextfour
　　chapters。
　　NOTES:
　　1。TheancientlawbooksoftheHindoosmentioninsomecases
　　one—sixth，inothersone—fourthoftheproduce，asaproperrent;
　　butthereisnoevidencethattheruleslaiddowninthosebooks
　　were，atanyperiodofhistory，reallyactedupon。
　　ThePrinciplesofPoliticalEconomy
　　byJohnStuartMill
　　Book2，Chapter5
　　OfSlavery
　　1。Amongtheformswhichsocietyassumesundertheinfluence
　　oftheinstitutionofproperty，thereare，asIhavealready
　　remarked，two，otherwiseofawidelydissimilarcharacter，but
　　resemblinginthis，thattheownershipoftheland，thelabour，
　　andthecapital，isinthesamehands。Oneofthesecasesisthat
　　ofslavery，theotheristhatofpeasantproprietors。Intheone，
　　thelandownerownsthelabour，intheotherthelabourerownsthe
　　land。Webeginwiththefirst。
　　Inthissystemalltheproducebelongstothelandlord。The
　　foodandothernecessariesofhislabourersarepartofhis
　　expenses。Thelabourerspossessnothingbutwhathethinksfitto
　　givethem，anduntilhethinksfittotakeitback:andtheywork
　　ashardashechooses，orisable，tocompelthem。Their
　　wretchednessisonlylimitedbyhishumanity，orhispecuniary
　　interest。Withthefirstconsideration，wehaveonthepresent
　　occasionnothingtodo。Whatthesecondinsodetestablea
　　constitutionofsocietymaydictate，dependsonthefacilities
　　forimportingfreshslaves。Iffull—grownable—bodiedslavescan
　　beprocurredinsufficientnumbers，andimportedatamoderate
　　expense，self—interestwillrecommendworkingtheslavesto
　　death，andreplacingthemimportationinpreferencetotheslow
　　andexpensiveprocessofbreedingthem。Noraretheslave—owners
　　generallybackwardinlearningthislesson。Itisnotoriousthat
　　suchwasthepracticeinourslavecolonies，whiletheslave
　　tradewaslegal;anditissaidtobesostillinamongtheCuba
　　When，asamongtheancients，theslave—marketcouldonlybe
　　suppliedbycaptiveseithertakeninwar，orkidnappedfrom
　　thinlyscatteredtribesontheremoteconfinesoftheknown
　　world，itwasgenerallymoreprofitabletokeepupthenumberby
　　breeding，whichnecessitatesafarbettertreatmentofthem;and
　　forthisreason，joinedwithseveralothers，theconditionof
　　slaves，notwithstandingoccasionalenormities，wasprobablymuch
　　lessbadintheancientworld，thaninthecoloniesofmodern
　　nations。TheHelotsareusuallycitedasthetypeofthemost
　　hideousformofpersonalslavery，butwithhowlittletruth
　　appearsfromthefactthattheywereregularlyarmed（thoughnot
　　withthepanoplyofthehoplite）andformedanintegralpartof
　　themilitarystrengthoftheState。Theyweredoubtlessan
　　inferioranddegradedcaste，buttheirslaveryseemstohavebeen
　　oneoftheleastonerousvarietiesofserfdom。Slaveryappearsin
　　farmorefrightfulcoloursamongtheRomans，duringtheperiodin
　　whichtheRomanaristocracywasgorgingitselfwiththeplunder
　　ofanewly—conqueredworld。TheRomanswereacruelpeople，and
　　theworthlessnoblessportedwiththelivesoftheirmyriadsof
　　slaveswiththesamerecklessprodigalitywithwhichthey
　　squanderedanyotherpartoftheirill—acquiredpossessions。Yet，
　　slaveryisdivestedofoneofitsworstfeatureswhenitis
　　compatiblewithhope;enfranchisementwaseasyandcommon:
　　enfranchisedslavesobtainedatoncethefullrightsofcitizens，
　　andinstanceswerefrequentoftheiracquiringnotonlyriches，
　　butlatterlyevenhonours。Bytheprogressofmilderlegislation
　　undertheEmperors，muchoftheprotectionoflawwasthrown
　　roundtheslave，hebecamecapableofpossessingproperty，and
　　theevilaltogetherassumedaconsiderablygentleraspect。Until，
　　however，slaveryassumesthemitigatedformofvillenage，in
　　whichnotonlytheslaveshavepropertyandlegalrights，but
　　theirobligationsaremoreorlesslimitedbyusage，andthey
　　partlylabourfortheirownbenefit;theirconditionisseldom
　　suchastoproducearapidgrowthneitherofpopulationorof
　　production。
　　2。Solongasslavecountriesareunderpeopledinproportion
　　totheircultivableland，thelabouroftheslaves，underany
　　tolerablemanagement，producesmuchmorethanissufficientfor
　　theirsupport;especiallyasthegreatamountofsuperintendence
　　whichtheirlabourrequires，preventingthedispersionofthe
　　population，insuressomeoftheadvantagesofcombinedlabour。
　　Hence，inagoodsoilandclimate，andwithreasonablecareof
　　hisowninterests，theownerofmanyslaveshasthemeansof
　　beingrich。Theinfluence，however，ofsuchastateofsocietyon
　　production，isperfectlywellunderstood。Itistruismtoassert
　　thatlabourextortedbyfearofpunishmentisinefficientand
　　unproductive。Itistruethatinsomecircumstances，humanbeings
　　canbedrivenbythelashtoattempt，andeventoaccomplish，
　　thingswhichtheywouldnothaveundertakenforanypaymentwhich
　　itcouldhavebeenworthwhiletoanemployertoofferthem。And
　　itislikelythatproductiveoperationswhichrequiremuch
　　combinationoflabour，theproductionofsugarforexample，would
　　nothavetakenplacesosoonintheAmericancolonies，ifslavery
　　hadnotexistedtokeepmassesoflabourtogether。Therearealso
　　savagetribessoaversefromregularindustry，thatindustrial
　　lifeisscarcelyabletointroduceitselfamongthemuntilthey
　　areeitherconqueredandmadeslavesof，orbecomeconquerorsand
　　makeothersso。Butafterallowingthefullvalueofthese
　　considerations，itremainscertainthatslaveryisincompatible
　　withanyhighstateoftheartsoflife，andanygreatefficiency
　　oflabour。Forallproductswhichrequiremuchskill，slave
　　countriesareusuallydependentonforeigners。Hopelessslavery
　　effectuallybrutifiestheintellect;andintelligenceinthe
　　slaves，thoughoftenencouragedintheancientworldandinthe
　　East，isinamoreadvancedstateofsocietyasourceofsomuch
　　dangerandanobjectofsomuchdreadtothemasters，thatin
　　someoftheStatesofAmericaitwasahighlypenaloffenceto
　　teachaslavetoread。Allprocessescarriedonbyslavelabour
　　areconductedintherudeststrengthoftheslaveis，onan
　　average，nothalfexerted。andmostunimprovedmanner。Andeven
　　theanimalstrengthoftheslaveis，onanaverage，nothalf
　　exerted。Theunproductivenessandwastefulnessoftheindustrial
　　systemintheSlaveStatesisinstructivelydisplayedinthe
　　valuablewritingsofMr。Olmsted。Themildestformofslaveryis
　　certainlytheconditionoftheserf，whoisattachedtothesoil，
　　supportshimselffromhisallotment，andworksacertainnumber
　　ofdaysintheweekforhislord。Yetthereisbutoneopinionon
　　theextremeinefficiencyofserflabour。Thefollowingpassageis
　　fromProfessorJones，（1*）whoseEssayontheDistributionof
　　Wealth（orratheronRent），isacopiousrepertoryofvaluable
　　factsonthelandedtenuresofdifferentcountries。
　　"TheRussians，orratherthoseGermanwriterswhohave
　　observedthemannersandhabitsofRussia，statesomestrong
　　factsonthispoint。TwoMiddlesexmowers，theysay，willmowin
　　adayasmuchgrassassixRussianserfs，andinspiteofthe
　　dearnessofprovisionsinEnglandandtheircheapnessinRussia，
　　themowingaquantityofhaywhichwouldcostanEnglishfarmer
　　halfacopeck，willcostaRussianproprietorthreeorfour
　　copecks。*ThePrussiancounsellorofstate，Jacob，isconsidered
　　tohaveproved，thatinRussia，whereeverythingischeap，the
　　labourofaserfisdoublyasexpensiveasthatofalabourerin
　　England。M。Schmalzgivesastartlingaccountofthe
　　unproductivenessofserflabourinPrussia，fromhisown
　　knowledgeandobservation。*InAustria，itisdistinctlystated，
　　thatthelabourofaserfisequaltoonlyone—thirdofthatofa
　　freehiredlabourer。Thiscalculation，madeinanableworkon
　　agriculture（withsomeextractsfromwhichIhavebeenfavoured），
　　isappliedtothepracticalpurposeofdecidingonthenumberof
　　labourersnecessitytocultivateanestateofagivenmagnitude。
　　Sopalpable，indeed，aretheilleffectsoflabourrentsonthe
　　industryoftheagriculturalpopulation，thatinAustriaitself，
　　whereproposalsofchangesofanykinddonotreadilymaketheir
　　way，schemesandplansforthecommutationoflabourrentsareas
　　popularasinthemorestirringGermanprovincesoftheNorth。"*
　　Whatiswantinginthequalityofthelabouritself，isnot
　　madeupbyanyexcellenceinthedirectionandsuperintendence。
　　Asthesamewriterremarks，thelandedproprietors"are
　　necessarily，intheircharacterofcultivatorsoftheirown
　　domains，theonlyguidesanddirectorsoftheindustryofthe
　　agriculturalpopulation，"sincetherecanbenointermediate
　　classofcapitalistfarmerswherethelabourersaretheproperty
　　ofthelord。Greatlandownersareeverywhereanidleclass，orif
　　theylabouratall，addictthemselvesonlytothemoreexciting
　　kindsofexertion;thatlion’ssharewhichsuperiorsalways
　　reserveforthemselves。"Itwould，"asMr。Jonesobserves，"be
　　hopelessandirrationaltoexpect，thataraceofnoble
　　proprietors，fencedroundwithprivilegesanddignity，and
　　attractedtomilitaryandpoliticalpursuitsbytheadvantages
　　andhabitsoftheirstation，shouldeverbecomeattentive
　　cultivatorsasabody。"EveninEngland，ifthecultivationof
　　everyestatedependeduponitsproprietor，anyonecanjudgewhat
　　wouldbetheresult。Therewouldbeafewcasesofgreatscience
　　andenergy，andnumerousindividualinstancesofmoderate
　　success，butthegeneralstateofagriculturewouldbe
　　contemptible。
　　3。Whethertheproprietorsthemselveswouldlosebythe
　　emancipationoftheirslaves，isadifferentquestionfromthe
　　comparativeeffectivenessoffreeandslavelabourtothe
　　community。Therehasbeenmuchdiscussionofthisquestionasan
　　abstractthesis;asifitcouldpossiblyadmitofanyuniversal
　　solution。Whetherslaveryorfreelabourismostprofitableto
　　theemployer，dependsonthewagesofthefreelabourer。These，
　　again，dependonthenumbersofthelabouringpopulation，
　　comparedwiththecapitalandtheland。Hiredlabourisgenerally
　　somuchmoreefficientthanslavelabour，thattheemployercan
　　payaconsiderablygreatervalueinwages，thanthemaintenance
　　ofhisslavescosthimbefore，andyetbeagainerbythechange:
　　buthecannotdothiswithoutofserfdominEurope，andits
　　destructionintheWesternnations，weredoubtlesshastenedby
　　thechangewhichthegrowthofpopulationmusthavemadeinthe
　　pecuniaryinterestsofthemaster。Aspopulationpressedharder
　　upontheland，withanyimprovementsinagriculture，the
　　maintenanceoftheserfsnecessarilybecamemorecostly，and
　　theirlabourlessvaluable。Withtherateofwagessuchasitis
　　inIreland，orinEngland（where，inproportiontoits
　　efficiency，labourisquiteascheapasinIreland），noonecan
　　foramomentimaginethatslaverycouldbeprofitable。Ifthe
　　Irishpeasantrywereslaves，theirmasterswouldbeaswilling，
　　astheirlandlordsnoware，topaylargesumsmerelytogetrid
　　ofthem。IntherichandunderpeopledsoiloftheWestIndia
　　islands，thereisjustaslittledoubtthatthebalanceof
　　profitsbetweenfreeandslavelabourwasgreatlyonthesideof
　　slavery，andthatthecompensationcantedtotheslave—ownersfor
　　itsabolitionwasnotmore，perhapsevenless，thananequivalent
　　fortheirloss。
　　Moreneedsnotbesaidhereonacausesocompletelyjudged
　　anddecidedasthatofslavery。Itsdemeritsarenolongera
　　questionrequiringargument;thoughthetemperofmindmanifested
　　bythelargerpartoftheinfluentialclassesinGreatBritain
　　respectingthestruggleinAmerica，showshowgrievouslythe
　　feelingsofthepresentgenerationofEnglishmen，onthis
　　subject，hadfallenbehindthepositiveactsofthegeneration
　　whichprecededthem。ThatthesonsofthedeliverersoftheWest
　　IndianNegroesshouldexpectwithcomplacency，andencourageby
　　theirsympathies，theestablishmentofagreatandpowerful
　　militarycommonwealth，pledgedbyitsprinciplesanddrivenby
　　itsstrongestintereststobethearmedpropagatorofslavery
　　througheveryregionoftheearthintowhichitspowercould
　　penetrate，disclosesamentalstateintheleadingportionofour
　　higherandmiddleclasseswhichitismelancholytosee，andwill
　　bealastingblotinEnglishhistory。Fortunatelytheystopped
　　shortofactuallyaiding，otherwisethanbywords，thenefarious
　　enterprisetowhichtheywerenotashamedofwishingsuccess;and
　　attheexpenseofthebestbloodoftheFreeStates，buttotheir
　　immeasurableelevationinmentalandmoralworth，thecurseof
　　slaveryhasbeencastoutfromthegreatAmericanrepublic，to
　　finditslasttemporaryrefugeinBrazilandCuba。NoEuropean
　　country，exceptSpainalone，anylongerparticipatesinthe
　　enormity。Evenserfagehasnowceasedtohavealegalexistence
　　inEurope。DenmarkhasthehonourofbeingthefirstContinental
　　nationwhichimitatedEnglandinliberatingitscolonialslaves;
　　andtheabolitionofslaverywasoneoftheearliestactsofthe
　　heroicandcalumniatedProvisionalGovernmentofFrance。The
　　DutchGovernmentwasnotlongbehind，anditscoloniesand
　　dependenciesarenow，Ibelievewithoutexception，freefrom
　　actualslavery，thoughforcedlabourforthepublicauthorities
　　isstillarecognisedinstitutioninJava，soon，wemayhope，to
　　heexchangedforcompletepersonalfreedom。
　　NOTES:
　　1。EssayontheDistributionofWealthandontheSourcesof
　　Taxation。BytheRev。RichardJones，page50。
　　ThePrinciplesofPoliticalEconomybyJohnStuartMillBook2，Chapter6
　　OfPeasantProprietors1。Intheregimeofpeasantproperties，asinthatofslavery，thewholeproducebelongstoasingleowner’andthedistinctionofrent，profits，andwages，doesnotexist。Inallotherrespects，thetwostatesofsocietyaretheextremeoppositesofeachother。Theoneisthestateofgreatestoppressionanddegradationtothelabouringclass。Theotheristhatinwhichtheyarethemostuncontrolledarbitersoftheirownlot。
　　Theadvantage，however，ofsmallpropertiesinland，isoneofthemostdisputedquestionsintherangeofpoliticaleconomy。
　　OntheContinent，thoughtherearesomedissentientsfromtheprevailingopinion，thebenefitofhavinganumerousproprietarypopulationexistsinthemindsofmostpeopleintheformofanaxiom。ButEnglishauthoritiesareeitherunawareofthejudgmentofContinentalagriculturists，orarecontenttoputitaside，onthepleaoftheirhavingnoexperienceoflargepropertiesinfavourablecircumstances:theadvantageoflargepropertiesbeingonlyfeltwheretherearealsolargefarms;andasthis，inarabledistricts，impliesagreateraccumulationofcapitalthanusuallyexistsontheContinent，thegreatContinentalestates，exceptinthecaseofgrazingfarms，aremostlyletoutforcultivationinsmallportions。Thereissometruthinthis;buttheargumentadmitsofbeingretorted;foriftheContinentknowslittle，byexperience，ofcultivationonalargescaleandbylargecapital，thegeneralityofEnglishwritersarenobetteracquaintedpracticallywithpeasantproprietors，andhavealmostalwaysthemosterroneousideasoftheirsocialconditionandmodeoflife。YettheoldtraditionsevenofEnglandareonthesamesidewiththegeneralopinionoftheContinent。The"yeomanry"whowerevauntedasthegloryofEnglandwhiletheyexisted，andhavebeensomuchmournedoversincetheydisappeared，wereeithersmallproprietorsorsmallfarmers，andiftheyweremostlythelast，thecharactertheyboreforsturdyindependenceisthemorenoticeable。ThereisapartofEngland，unfortunatelyaverysmallpart，wherepeasantproprietorsarestillcommon;forsucharethe"statesmen"ofCumberlandandWestmoreland，thoughtheypay，Ibelieve，generallyifnotuniversally，certaincustomarydues，which，beingfixed，nomoreaffecttheircharacterofproprietor，thantheland—taxdoes。