possession, we seem afraid to look back to the means by which it was acquired; or at best we rest satisfied with the decision of the laws in our favour, without examining the reason or authority out of which those laws have arisen.

We think it enough that our title is derived from the grant of the former proprietor, or by descent from our ancestors, or by the last will and testament of the former owner: not caring to reflect that (accurately and strictly speaking) there is no foundation in nature why a set of words upon parchment should convey the dominion of land; why the son should have a right to exclude his fellow-creatures from a certain spot of ground because his father had done so before him; or why the occupier of a particular field, or owner of a jewel, should be entitled to tell the rest of the world which of them should enjoy it when he can himself no longer maintain possession of it.

In the beginning of the world, the all-bountiful Creator gave to man "dominion over all the earth; and over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." This is the only true and solid foundation of man's dominion over external things. The earth, therefore, and all things therein, are the general property of all mankind; and, while the earth contained few inhabitants, it is reasonable to suppose that all was in common among them, and that every one took from the public stock to his own use such things as his immediate necessities required.

These general notions of property were in those days sufficient to answer all the purposes of human life, and might perhaps still have answered them, had it been possible for mankind to have remained in a state of primeval simplicity, as may be collected from the manners of many American tribes when first discovered by Europeans. Not that this communion of goods seems ever to have been applicable, even in the earliest ages, to aught but the substance of the

thing; nor could it be extended to the use of it; for, by the law of nature and reason, he, who first began to use it, acquired therein a kind of transient property that lasted so long as he was using it, and no longer; or, to speak with greater precision, the right of possession continued for the same time only that the act of possession lasted.

Thus the land was in common, and no part of it was the permanent property of any man in particular; yet whoever was in the occupation of any particular spot of it, for rest, for shade, or the like, acquired for the time a sort of ownership, from which it would have been unjust, and contrary to the law of nature, to have driven him by force; but the instant that he quitted the use or occupation of it, another might seize it, without injustice. Thus also a vine or other tree might be said to be in common, as all men were equally entitled to its produce; and yet any private individual might gain the sole property of the fruit which he had gathered for his own repast. This doctrine has been well illustrated by comparing the world to a great theatre, which is common to the public, and yet the place which any man has taken is for the time his own.

But when mankind increased in number, craft, and ambition, it became necessary to entertain conceptions of more permanent dominion, and to appropriate to individuals not the immediate use only, but the very substance of the thing to be used. Otherwise innumerable tumults must have arisen, and the good order of the world have been continually broken and disturbed, while a variety of persons were striving who should get the first occupation of the same thing, or disputing which of them had actually gained it. As human life also grew more and more refined, abundance of conveniences were devised to render it more easy, commodious, and agreeable: such as habitations for shelter and safety, and raiment for warmth and decency. No man, however, would be at the trouble to provide either, so long as his property in them lasted only

while he used them: if, as soon as he walked out of his tent, or pulled off his garment, the next stranger who came by would have a right to inhabit the one and to wear the other.

In the case of habitations, even the brute creation, to whom everything else was in common, maintained a kind of permanent property in their dwellings, especially for the protection of their young; the birds of the air had nests, and the beasts of the field had caverns, the invasion of which they esteemed a flagrant injustice, and would sacrifice their lives to preserve them. A property was soon established in every man's house and homestall, which seem to have been originally mere temporary huts or moveable cabins, suited to the wandering life of their owners, before any extensive property in the soil or ground was established.

There can be no doubt but that moveables of every kind became sooner appropriated than the permanent substantial soil partly because they were more susceptible of a long occupancy, which might be continued for months together without any sensible interruption, and at length by usage ripen into an established right; but principally because few of them could be fit for use till improved by the bodily labour of the occupant, which bodily labour, bestowed upon any subject which lay in common to all men, is universally allowed to give the fairest and most reasonable title to an exclusive property therein.

The article of food was a more immediate call, and therefore a more early consideration. Such as were not contented with the spontaneous product of the earth, sought for a more solid refreshment in the flesh of beasts, which they obtained by hunting. But the frequent disappointments incident to that method of provision, induced them to gather together such animals as were of a more tame nature; and to establish a permanent property in their flocks and herds, in order to sustain themselves in a less precarious manner, partly by the milk of the dams, and partly by the flesh of the young.

The support of their cattle made the article of water also a very important point. And therefore the book of Genesis (the most venerable monument of antiquity, considered merely with a view to history), will furnish us with frequent instances of violent contentions concerning wells: the exclusive property of which appears to have been established in the first digger, even in such places where the herbage remained yet in common as before, and open to every occupant, except, perhaps, in the neighbourhood of towns, where the necessity of a sole and exclusive property in lands (for the sake of agriculture) was earlier felt, and therefore more readily complied with. Otherwise, when the multitude of men and cattle had consumed every convenience on one spot of ground, it was deemed a natural right to occupy such other lands as would more easily supply their necessities.

This practice is still retained among the wild and uncultivated nations that have never been formed into civil states, like the Tartars and others in the East: where the climate itself, and the boundless extent of their territory, conspire to retain them still in the same savage state of vagrant liberty, which was universal in the earliest ages; and which, Tacitus informs us, continued among the Germans till the decline of the Roman empire.

Upon the same principle was founded the right of migration, or sending colonies to find out new habitations, when the mother-country was overcharged with inhabitants, which was practised as well by the Phoenicians and Greeks, as the Germans, Scythians, and other northern people. And, so long as it was confined to the stocking and cultivation of desert uninhabited countries, it kept strictly within the limits of the law of nature. But how far the seizing on countries already peopled, and driving out or massacring the innocent and defenceless natives, merely because they differed from their invaders in language, in religion, in customs, in government, or in colour: how far such a conduct was consonant to nature or

to reason deserved well to be considered by those who have rendered their names immortal by thus "civilising" mankind.

As the world by degrees grew more populous, it daily became more difficult to find out new spots to inhabit, without encroaching upon former occupants; and, by constantly occupying the same individual spot, the fruits of the earth were consumed, without any provision for a future supply or succession. It therefore became necessary to pursue some regular method of providing a means of constant subsistence; and this necessity produced, or at least promoted and encouraged, the art of agriculture. And the art of agriculture, by a regular connection and consequence, introduced and established the idea of a more permanent property in the soil, than had hitherto been received and adopted. It was clear that the earth would not produce her fruits in sufficient quantities, without the assistance of tillage; but who would be at the pains of tilling it, if another might watch an opportunity to seize upon and enjoy the product of his industry, art, and labour? Had not, therefore, a separate property in lands, as well as moveables, been vested in some individuals, the world must have continued a forest, and men have been mere animals of prey; whereas now, so closely are our duty and our happiness interwoven, that the result of this very necessity has been the ennobling of the human species, by giving it opportunities of improving its rational, as well as of exerting its natural faculties.

Necessity begat property; and, in order to ensure that property, recourse was had to civil society, which brought with it a long train of inseparable consequences, namely, states, governments, laws, punishments.

Thus connected together, it was found that a part only of society was sufficient to provide, by their manual labour, for the necessary subsistence of all, and leisure was given to others to cultivate the human mind, to invent useful arts, and to lay the foundations of science.