3& AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS 



The original engrossing of uncultivated lands, though a great, 

 might have been but a transitory evil. They might soon have been 

 divided again, and broken into small parcels, either by succession or 

 by alienation. The law of primogeniture hindered them from being 

 divided by succession; the introduction of entails prevented their 

 being broken into small parcels by alienation. 



It seldom happens, however, that a great proprietor is a great 

 improver. In the disorderly times that gave birth to those barbarous 

 institutions, the great proprietor was sufficiently employed in defend- 

 ing his own territories, or in extending his jurisdiction and authority 

 over those of his neighbours. He had no leisure to attend to the cul- 

 tivation and improvement of land. When the establishment of law 

 and order afforded him this leisure, he often wanted the inclination, 

 and almost always the requisite abilities. If the expense of his house 

 and person either equalled or exceeded his revenue, as it did very fre- 

 quently, he had no stock to employ in this manner. If he was an 

 economist, he generally found it more profitable to employ his annual 

 savings in new purchases than in the improvement of his old estate. 

 To improve land with profit, like all other 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. 



If little improvement was to be expected from such great pro- 

 prietors, 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 afterward dissolve the marriage by selling the man and 

 wife to different persons. They were not, however, capable of acquir- 

 ing 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 



