and yet have no right to use the means neces- nothing else. The degree of guilt incurred by sary to obtain it. This difficulty, like most violating the obligation, is a different thing, others in morality, is resolvable into the ne- and is determined by circumstances altogether cessity of general rules. The reader recollects, independent of this distinction. A man who that a person is said to have a "right" to a by a partial, prejudiced, or corrupt vote, disthing, when it is "consistent with the will appoints a worthy candidate of a station in of God" that he should possess it. So that life, upon which his hopes, possibly, or livelithe question is reduced to this: How it comes hood, depended, and who thereby grievously to pass that it should be consistent with the discourages merit and emulation in others, will of God that a person should possess a thing, commits, am persuaded, a much greater and yet not be consistent with the same will crime, than if he filched a book out of a library, that he should use force to obtain it? The an- or picked a pocket of a handkerchief; though swer is, that by reason of the indeterminate- in the one case he violates only an imperfect ness, either of the object, or of the circum-right, in the other a perfect one. stances of the right, the permission of force in As positive precepts are often indeterminate this case would, in its consequence, lead to the in their extent, and as the indeterminateness permission of force in other cases, where there of an obligation is that which makes it imperexisted no right at all. The candidate above fect; it comes to pass, that positive precepts described has, no doubt, a right to success; commonly produce an imperfect obligation. but his right depends upon his qualifications, | Negative precepts or prohibitions, being ge for instance, upon his comparative virtue, nerally precise, constitute accordingly perfect learning, &c. there must be somebody there- obligations. fore to compare them. The existence, degree, and respective importance, of these qualifications, are all indeterminate: there must be somebody therefore to determine them. To allow the candidate to demand success by force, Religion and virtue find their principal exis to make him the judge of his own qualifi-ercise among the imperfect obligations; the cations. You cannot do this, but you must laws of civil society taking pretty good care of make all other candidates the same; which the rest.

would open a door to demands without number, reason, or right. In like manner, a poor man has a right to relief from the rich; but the mode, season, and quantum of that relief, who shall contribute to it, or how much, are not ascertained. Yet these points must be ascertained, before a claim to relief can be prosecuted by force. For, to allow the poor to ascertain them for themselves, would be to expose property to so many of these claims, that it would lose its value, or rather its nature, that is, cease indeed to be property. The same observation holds of all other cases of imperfect rights; not to mention, that in the instances of gratitude, affection, reverence, and the like, force is excluded by the very idea of the duty, which must be voluntary, or cannot exist at all.

The fifth commandment is positive, and the duty which results from it is imperfect. The sixth commandment is negative, and imposes a perfect obligation.

CHAPTER XI.

THE GENERAL RIGHTS OF MANKIND.

By the General rights of Mankind, I mean the rights which belong to the species collec. tively; the original stock, as I may say, which they have since distributed among themselves. These are,

1. A right to the fruits or vegetable produce of the earth.

The insensible parts of the creation are incapable of injury; and it is nugatory to inquire into the right, where the use can be attended with no injury. But it may be worth observ. Wherever the right is imperfect, the cor-ing, for the sake of an inference which will responding obligation is so too. I am obliged appear below, that, as God had created us with to prefer the best candidate, to relieve the poor, a want and desire of food, and provided things be grateful to my benefactors, take care of my children, and reverence my parents; but in all these cases, my obligation, like their right, is imperfect.

suited by their nature to sustain and satisfy us, we may fairly presume, that he intended we should apply these things to that purpose. 2. A right to the flesh of animals.

I call these obligations" imperfect," in con- This is a very different claim from the forformity to the established language of writers mer. Some excuse seems necessary for the pain upon the subject. The term, however, seems and loss which we occasion to brutes, by reill chosen on this account, that it leads many straining them of their liberty, mutilating their to imagine, that there is less guilt in the vio. bodies, and, at last, putting an end to their lation of an imperfect obligation, than of a per- lives (which we suppose to be the whole of fect one: which is a groundless notion. For their existence), for our pleasure or convenian obligation being perfect or imperfect, de-ency.

termines only whether violence may or may The reasons alleged in vindication of this not be employed to enforce it; and determines practice, are the following: that the several

species of brutes being created to prey upon one another, affords a kind of analogy to prove that the human species were intended to feed upon them; that, if let alone, they would over-run the earth, and exclude mankind from the occupation of it; that they are requited for what they suffer at our hands, by our care and protection.

Upon which reasons I would observe, that the analogy contended for is extremely lame; since brutes have no power to support life by any other means, and since we have; for the whole human species might subsist entirely upon fruit, pulse, herbs, and roots, as many tribes of Hindoos actually do. The two other reasons may be valid reasons, as far as they go; for, no doubt, if man had been supported entirely by vegetable food, a great part of those animals which die to furnish his table, would never have lived: but they by no means justify our right over the lives of brutes to the extent in which we exercise it. What danger is there, for instance, of fish interfering with ns, in the occupation of their element? or what do we contribute to their support or preservation ?

::

From reason then, or revelation, or from both together, it appears to be God Almighty's intention, that the productions of the earth should be applied to the sustentation of human life. Consequently all waste and misapplication of these productions, is contrary to the Divine intention and will; and therefore wrong, for the same reason that any other crime is so. Such as, what is related of William the Conqueror, the converting of twenty manors into a forest for hunting; or, which is not much better, suffering them to continue in that state; or the letting of large tracts of land lie barren, because the owner cannot cultivate them, nor will part with them to those who can; or destroying, or suffering to perish, great part of an article of human provision, in order to enhance the price of the remainder, (which is said to have been, till lately, the case with fish caught upon the English coast;) or diminishing the breed of animals, by a wanton, or improvident, consumption of the young, as of the spawn of shell-fish, or the fry of salmon, by the use of unlawful nets, or at improper seasons: to this head may also be referred, what is the same evil in a smaller way, the expending of human food on superfluous dogs or horses; and, lastly, the reducing of the quantity, in order to alter the quality, and to alter it generally for the worse; as the distillation of spirits from bread-corn, the boiling down of solid meat for sauces, essences, &c.

This seems to be the lesson which our Savi. our, after his manner, inculcates, when he bids his disciples "gather up the fragments, that nothing be lost." And it opens indeed a new field of duty. Schemes of wealth or profit, prompt the active part of mankind to cast about, how they may convert their property to the most advantage; and their own advantage, and that of the public, commonly concur. But it has not as yet entered into the minds of mankind, to reflect that it is a duty, to add what we can to the common stock of provision, by extracting out of our estates the most they will yield; or that it is any sin to neglect this.

It seems to me, that it would be difficult to defend this right by any arguments which the light and order of nature afford; and that we are beholden for it to the permission recorded in Scripture, Gen. ix. 1, 2, 3: "And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth and the fear of you, and the dread of you, shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, and upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered; every moving thing shall be meat for you; even as the green herb, have I given you all things." To Adam and his posterity had every green been granted, at the creation, “ herb for meat," and nothing more. In the last clause of the passage now produced, the old grant is recited, and extended to the flesh of animals ; even as the green herb, have I From the same intention of God Almighty, given you all things." But this was not till after the flood; the inhabitants of the an- we also deduce another conclusion, namely, tediluvian world had therefore no such per-" that nothing ought to be made exclusive promission, that we know of. Whether they ac-perty, which can be conveniently enjoyed in tually refrained from the flesh of animals, is common." another question. Abel, we read, was a keeper of sheep; and for what purpose he kept them, except for food, is difficult to say (unless it were sacrifices): might not, however, some of the stricter sects among the antediluvians be scrupulous as to this point? and might not Noah and his family be of this description? for it is not probable that God would publish a permission, to authorise a practice which had never been disputed.

It is the general intention of God Almighty, that the produce of the earth be applied to the use of man. This appears from the constitution of nature; or, if you will, from his express declaration; and this is all that appears at first. Under this general donation, one man has the same right as another. You pluck an apple from a tree, or take a lamb from a flock, for your immediate use and nourishment, and I do the same; and we both plead for what Wanton, and, what is worse, studied cruelty we do, the general intention of the Supreme to brutes, is certainly wrong, as coming within Proprietor. So far all is right: but you canQue of these reasons.

not claim the whole tree, or the whole flock, ¡ and exclude me from any share of them, and

plead this general intention for what you do. limits of its own territories, they erect a claim The plea will not serve you; you must show which interferes with the benevolent designs of something more. You must show, by proba- Providence, and which no human authority can ble arguments at least, that it is God's inten-justify.

tion, that these things should be parcelled out 3. Another right, which may be called a geto individuals; and that the established dis-neral right, as it is incidental to every man who tribution, under which you claim, should be is in a situation to claim it, is the right of exupholden. Show me this, and I am satisfied. treme necessity; by which is meant, a right to But until this be shown, the general inten- use or destroy another's property when it is tion, which has been made appear, and which necessary for our own preservation to do so : is all that does appear, must prevail; and, un- as a right to take, without or against the ownder that, my title is as good as yours. Now er's leave, the first food, clothes, or shelter, we there is no argument to induce such a presump-meet with, when we are in danger of perishing tion, but one; that the thing cannot be en- through want of them; a right to throw goods joyed at all, or enjoyed with the same, or with overboard to save the ship; or to pull down a nearly the same advantage, while it continues house, in order to stop the progress of a fire; in common, as when appropriated. This is and a few other instances of the same kind. Of true, where there is not enough for all, or which right the foundation seems to be this: where the article in question requires care or that when property was first instituted, the inlabour in the production or preservation: but stitution was not intended to operate to the dewhere no such reason obtains, and the thing struction of any; therefore when such conse、 is in its nature capable of being enjoyed by as quences would follow, all regard to it is supermany as will, it seems an arbitrary usurpation seded. Or rather, perhaps, these are the few upon the rights of mankind, to confine the cases, where the particular consequence exceeds use of it to any. the general consequence; where the remote If a medicinal spring were discovered in a mischief resulting from the violation of the gepiece of ground which was private property, co-neral rule, is overbalanced by the immediate pious enough for every purpose to which it could be applied, I would award a compensation Restitution, however, is due, when in our to the owner of the field, and a liberal profit to power: because the laws of property are to be the author of the discovery, especially if he had adhered to, so far as consists with safety; and bestowed pains or expense upon the search: because restitution, which is one of those laws, but I question whether any human laws would supposes the danger to be over. But what is be justified, or would justify the owner, in pro-to be restored? Not the full value of the prohibiting mankind from the use of the water, or perty destroyed, but what it was worth at the setting such a price upon it as would almost time of destroying it; which, considering the amount to a prohibition. danger it was in of perishing, might be very little.

If there be fisheries, which are inexhaustible, as the cod-fishery upon the Banks of Newfoundland, and the herring-fishery in the British seas, are said to be; then all those conventions, by which one or two nations claim to themselves, and guaranty to each other, the exclusive enjoyment of these fisheries, are so many encroachments upon the general rights of mankind.

Upon the same principle may be determined a question, which makes a great figure in books of natural law, utrum mare sit liberum ? that is, as I understand it, whether the exclusive ght of navigating particular seas, or a control over the navigation of these seas, can be claimed, consistently with the law of nature, by any nation? What is necessary for each nation's safety, we allow as their own bays, creeks, and harbours, the sea contiguous to, that is, within cannon-shot, or three leagues of their corst: and upon this principle of safety (if upon any principle,) must be defended the claim of the Venetian State to the Adriatic, of Denmark to the Baltic Sea, and of Great Britain to the seas which invest the island. But, when Spain asserts a right to the Pacific Ocean, or Portugal to the Indian Seas, or when any nation extends its pretensions much beyond the

advantage.

BOOK III

RELATIVE DUTIES.

PART I.

OF RELATIVE DUTIES WHICH ARE
DETERMINATE.

CHAPTER I.

OF PROPERTY.

If you should see a flock of pigeons in a field of corn: and if (instead of each picking where and what it liked, taking just as much as it wanted, and no more) you should see ninetynine of them gathering all they got, into a

though this sort of property obtain in a small degree, the inhabitants, for want of a more secure and regular establishment of it, are driven oftentimes by the scarcity of provision to de

II. It preserves the produce of the earth to maturity.

heap; reserving nothing for themselves, but the chaff and the refuse; keeping this heap for one, and that the weakest, perhaps worst, pigeon of the flock; sitting round, and looking on, all the winter, whilst this one was devour-vour one another. ing, throwing about, and wasting it; and if a pigeon more hardy or hungry than the rest, touched a grain of the hoard, all the others fly- We may judge what would be the effects of ing upon it, and tearing it to pieces; if you a community of right to the productions of the should see this, you would see nothing more earth, from the trifling specimens which we than what is every day practised and establish- see of it at present. A cherry-tree in a hedgeed among men. Among men, you see the row, nuts in a wood, the grass of an unstinted ninety-and-nine toiling and scraping together pasture, are seldom of much advantage to any a heap of superfluities for one (and this one body, because people do not wait for the protoo, oftentimes the feeblest and worst of the per season of reaping them. Corn, if any were whole set, a child, a woman, a madman, or a sown, would never ripen; lambs and calves fool;) getting nothing for themselves all the would never grow up to sheep and cows, because while, but a little of the coarsest of the provi- the first person that met them would reflect, sion, which their own industry produces; look- that he had better take them as they are, than ing quietly on, while they see the fruits of all leave them for another. their labour spent or spoiled: and if one of the number take or touch a particle of the hoard, the others joining against him and hanging him for the theft.

CHAPTER II.

THE USE OF THE INSTITUTION OF
PROPERTY.

THERE must be some very important advantages to account for an institution, which, in the view of it above given, is so paradoxical and unnatural.

The principal of these advantages are the following:

I. It increases the produce of the earth. The earth, in climates like ours, produces little without cultivation: and none would be found willing to cultivate the ground, if others were to be admitted to an equal share of the produce. The same is true of the care of flocks and herds of tame animals.

Crabs and acorns, red deer, rabbits, game, and fish, are all which we should have to subsist upon in this country, if we trusted to the spontaneous productions of the soil; and it fares not much better with other countries. A nation of North American savages, consisting of two or three hundred, will take up, and be halfstarved upon, a tract of land, which in Europe, and with European management, would be sufficient for the maintenance of as many thousands.

III. It prevents contests.

War and waste, tumult and confusion, musɛ be unavoidable and eternal, where there is not enough for all, and where there are no rules to adjust the division.

IV. It improves the conveniency of living. This it does two ways. It enables mankind to divide themselves into distinct professions; which is impossible, unless a man can exchange the productions of his own art for what he wants from others; and exchange implies property. Much of the advantage of civilised over savage life, depends upon this. When a man is from necessity his own tailor, tent-maker, carpenter, cook, huntsman, and fisherman, it is not probable that he will be expert at any of his callings. Hence the rude habitations, furniture, clothing, and implements, of savages; and the tedious length of time which all their operations require.

It likewise encourages those arts, by which the accommodations of human life are supplied, by appropriating to the artist the benefit of his discoveries and improvements; without which appropriation, ingenuity will never be exerted with effect.

Upon these several accounts we may venture, with a few exceptions, to pronounce, that even the poorest and the worst provided, in coun. tries where property and the consequences of property prevail, are in a better situation, with respect to food, raiment, houses, and what are called the necessaries of life, than any are ir. places where most things remain in common.

The balance, therefore, upon the whole, must preponderate in favour of property with a manifest and great excess.

In some fertile soils, together with great Inequality of property, in the degree in which abundance of fish upon their coasts, and in re- it exists in most countries of Europe, abstractgions where clothes are unnecessary, a consi-edly considered, is an evil: but it is an evil derable degree of population may subsist without property in land; which is the case in the islands of Otaheite: but in less favoured situations, as in the country New Zealand,

which flows from those rules concerning the acquisition and disposal of property, by which men are incited to industry, and by which the object of their industry, is rendered secure and

MORAL AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY.

valuable. If there be any great inequality un- | occupied, entered upon them, by the same title connected with this origin, it ought to be cor- as his predecessors; and made way in his turn rected.

for any one that happened to succeed him. All more permanent property in land was proba bly posterior to civil government and to laws; and therefore settled by these, or according to the will of the reigning chief.

CHAPTER III.

THE HISTORY OF PROPERTY.

CHAPTER IV.

IN WHAT THE RIGHT OF PROPERTY 13
FOUNDED

there is a difficulty in explaining the origin of We now speak of Property in Land: and this property, consistently with the law of nature; for the land was once, no doubt, common; and the question is, how any particular part of it could justly be taken out of the com. mon, and so appropriated to the first owner, as to give him a better right to it than others; and, what is more, a right to exclude all others from it.

THE first objects of property were the fruits which a man gathered, and the wild animals he caught; next to these, the tents or houses which he built, the tools he made use of to catch or prepare his food; and afterwards weapons of war and offence. Many of the savage tribes in North America have advanced no further than this yet; for they are said to reap their harvest, and return the produce of their market with foreigners, into the common hoard or treasury of the tribe. Flocks and herds of tame animals soon became property; Abel, the second from Adam, was a keeper of sheep; sheep and oxen, camels and asses, composed the wealth of the Jewish patriarchs, as they do still of the modern Arabs. As the world was first peopled in the East, where there ex-counts of this matter; which diversity alone, Moralists have given many different acisted a great scarcity of water, wells probably perhaps, is a proof that none of them are sawere next made property; as we learn from tisfactory. the frequent and serious mention of them in

One tells us that mankind, when they suf

the Old Testament; the contentions and trea- fered a particular person to occupy a piece of ties about them; and from its being record-ground, by tacit consent relinquished their ed, among the most memorable achievements right to it; and as the piece of ground, they of very eminent men, covered a well. Land, which is now so impor- mankind thus gave up their right to the first that they dug or dis- say, belonged to mankind collectively, and tant a part of property, which alone our laws peaceable occupier, it thenceforward became call real property, and regard upon all occa-his property, and no one afterwards had a right sions with such peculiar attention, was proba- to molest him in it. bly not made property in any country, till long after the institution of many other species of sent can never be presumed from silence, where The objection to this account is, that conproperty, that is, till the country became po- the person whose consent is required knows pulous, and tillage began to be thought of. nothing about the matter; which must have The first partition of an estate which we read been the case with all mankind, except the of, was that which took place between Abram neighbourhood of the place where the approand Lot, and was one of the simplest imagin-priation was made. And to suppose that the "If thou wilt take the left hand, then piece of ground previously belonged to the "I will go to the right; or if thou depart to neighbourhood, and that they had a just power "the right hand, then I will go to the left." of conferring a right to it upon whom they There are no traces of property in land in Ca- pleased, is to suppose the question resolved. sar's account of Britain; little of it in the his-and a partition of land to have already taken tory of the Jewish patriarchs; none of it found place. amongst the nations of North America; the Scythians are expressly said to have appropri-bour are his own exclusively; that, by occu ated their cattle and houses, but to have left pying a piece of ground, a man inseparably Another says, that each man's limbs and laheir land in common. piece of ground becomes thenceforward his mixes his labour with it; by which means the own, as you cannot take it from him without depriving him at the same time of something which is indisputably his.

able:

Property in immoveables continued at first no longer than the occupation: that is, so long as a man's family continued in possession of a cave, or whilst his flocks depastured upon a neighbouring hill, no one attempted, or thought he had a right, to disturb or drive them out: indeed a fair reason, where the value of the but when the man quitted his cave, or chang- labour bears a considerable proportion to the This is Mr. Locke's solution; and seems ed his pasture, the first who found them un-value of the thing; or where the thing derives its chief use and value from the labour. game and fish though they be common whilst

Genesis xxi. ; xxvi. 18.

Thus