446 Slavery ' natural ' or ' unnatural ' ? 



Now in speaking of ancient conditions we must never lose sight of 

 the fact that in its origin slavery was a favour. By the undissembled 

 rule of force the conquered only retained his life through the mercy of 

 the conqueror. By a contract tacit or expressed he was pledged for 

 life to the service and profit of his master. And the master could, if 

 his interest pointed that way, make over his rights to a third party. 

 Hence the growth of a slave-market, and the relation of master and 

 slave no longer was normally that of individual conqueror and con- 

 quered. But the original notion was by no means extinct, and it 

 continued to colour the current view of slavery as * natural/ a thing of 

 course, an unquestioned social fact. Nor was there anything in the 

 condition of the slave to arouse a feeling of horror, so long as patriarchal 

 rule prevailed. If the Head of the family possessed absolute power 

 over the slave, his power over members of the family in general was 

 in kind the same. The bondman, a humble dependant rather than 

 a mere chattel, was in a sense also a member of the family and under 

 the protection of the household gods. What was there for an observer, 

 let him be ever so kind-hearted, to object to? Accordingly, as the 

 state developed, it too kept slaves of its own, employing them in mean 

 functions for which it was needful to have a staff always at hand. In 

 short, the institution was taken for granted, and growing intercourse 

 with foreigners only served to reveal its universal prevalence. 



How came it then that in course of time humanitarian scruples 

 arose, and questioners were found to argue that the system was ' un- 

 natural ' and wrong ? The answer must be sought in the application 

 of an originally domestic institution to industrial ends. Once the stage 

 was reached at which the products of labour were habitually put on 

 the market, and the producer got his living by their regular sale, it 

 was soon discovered that to produce and deal on a larger scale was 

 more economical, and therefore more profitable, than on a smaller one. 

 In the handicrafts this was so obvious that slave assistants were com- 

 monly kept by tradesmen : it was important to be sure of having the 

 necessary help when wanted. The same was the case in the professions 

 based on special training : the surgeon, the architect, the surveyor, the 

 banker, employed slave subordinates, and had often been slaves them- 

 selves. In all these departments, not to mention domestic service, the 

 position of the slave was affected by two important considerations. 

 First, he was one of a few, and under immediate observation, so that 

 escape from servitude was practically impossible. Secondly, there was 

 a reasonable chance of earning manumission by long faithful service. 

 But there were occupations in which it was far more difficult to recon- 

 cile the interests of the slave with those of the master. Such were the 

 exploitation of mines and quarries, in which labour was simply applied 



