common stock, to be distributed, or appropriated in mass, solely from a regard to the greatest good of the greatest number.

These considerations are applicable to all inherited property, whether real or personal; but they are most conclusive in the case of the ownership of land. Without going into the question respecting the manner in which territory was first parcelled out and appropriated to exclusive use, or whether the original division took place by express compact, or by silent sufferance which gradually became prescriptive right, there is no doubt that the land first belonged in common to all men, and the appropriation of it by individuals is now admitted to be equitable only because it is believed to be expedient. The earth was given to be the habitation, and to provide for the subsistence, of all men, and it was at first enjoyed in common. The ocean and the air are so used even now; the former is the common highway of nations, because its vast extent affords room for all; while the right of navigating straits, narrow seas, and inlets into the land, is sometimes limited, under the pretext that one government must have the entire control of them in order to prevent interference and disputes, or to provide for its own safety, or to repay itself for disbursements required in order to make the navigation of them safe for all. These are reasons of mutual convenience; and perfectly similar reasons are alleged to justify the division of land, and the appropriation of it by individual owners. That appropriation of it in the first instance was certainly a usurpation, for it must have taken place without the consent, and even without the knowledge, of the vast majority of those who, up to that period, had enjoyed it in common, each one of whom had consequently as good a right to it as he who first fenced it in. If it could be proved that this division did not promote the general welfare, or that it produced on the whole more harm than good, every person might claim either a share of the land, or the privilege of cultivating the whole of it in common with others, as his natural birthright. In fact, a portion of the land is always given up for general use as a highway, because it is for the common advantage that all should have the privilege of passing over it. The farms contiguous to the highway could not equitably be held as private property, except from a similar regard to the common interest.

Two considerations, however, must be admitted to modify the inferences which might otherwise be drawn from this statement. The first may be given in the language of Mr. Mill. "If the land derived its productive power wholly from nature," he says, "and not at all from industry, or if there were any means of discriminating what is derived from each source, it not only would not be necessary, but it would be the height of injustice, to let the gift of nature be engrossed by a few." But this is not the case, for "though land is not the produce of industry, most of its valuable qualities are so. Labor is not only requisite for using, but almost equally so for fashioning, the instrument. Considerable labor is often required at the commencement, to clear the land for cultivation. In many cases, even when cleared, its productiveness is wholly the effect of labor and art. The Bedford Level produced little or nothing until artificially drained. The bogs of Ireland, until the same thing is done to them, can produce little besides fuel. One of the barrenest soils in the world, composed of the material of the Goodwin Sands, the Pays de Waes in Flanders, has been so fertilized by industry, as to have become one of the most productive in Europe. Cultivation also requires buildings and fences, which are wholly the produce of labor. The fruits of this industry cannot be reaped in a short period. The labor and outlay are immediate, the benefit is spread over many years, perhaps over all future time. A holder will not incur this labor and outlay, when his successors, and not himself, will be benefited by it. If he undertakes such improvements, he must have a long period before him in which to profit by them and he cannot continue always to have a long period before him, unless his tenure is perpetual."

Again, land usually does not long continue in the possession of the person, or even of the natural heirs of the person, who first appropriated it, or took it out of the common stock. He sells it to another, who pays a price for it out of the accumulated fruits of his previous industry, these fruits being his own property by the highest title under which property is ever held. Society cannot reclaim the land, then, without stripping the present owners of their rights, which they have acquired in the most unexceptionable manner. Whatever claim the community may have, is good only against him who first wrongly

appropriated what was not his own, and not against one who now possesses nothing that he has not fairly paid for out of the proceeds of his previous industry and frugality, and who has vested his wealth in a purchase of land under the tacit sanction of the public, who cannot, at this late day, retrieve the consequences of their previous neglect without gross injustice.

Little reasoning is needed to confute the theory of the Communists, who propose an equal division of goods as a remedy for nearly all the evils with which society is afflicted. They are not aware, or do not reflect, that the sight of the two extremes of opulence and poverty, — the hope of rising to the one and the fear of falling into the other, is the constant stimulus which keeps up that energy and activity of the human race, through which alone these goods are created. Make men secure of a provision for all their wants, take away from them all objects of ambition, destroy both anxiety and emulation,and these are the certain results of an enforced equality of property and condition, — and after a few years, even if there remained anything to be divided among them, (which there would not, for their wastefulness under such circumstances would equal their indolence,) they would become useless and discontented drones, devoured by ennui, or eager for wrangling and fighting with each other, as the only means of relieving their otherwise stagnant existence.

But the theorists tell us, that the necessity of laboring for the good of the community would be a motive to action, which would supply the place of the necessity which every person now feels of laboring for himself. We answer, that the common adage, "what is everybody's business is nobody's," is enough to show the folly of this supposition, which implies great ignorance of the dispositions of mankind. The commonest observation proves, that, to make a man industrious, you must show him that the fruits of his industry will be wholly his own; if he is to share them equally with a thousand others, who have not shared the particular effort which produced them, he will throw aside his implements of labor in disgust, or relinquish them on the first approach of weariness. The motive to exertion must be immediate, or it will not be sufficiently pungent. It matters not, if you prove to him by a demonstration, that his individual welfare is inseparably con

nected with the interests of the whole community. Men do not act from such far-sighted calculation as this; they look first to their own interests at the present moment. Practically, each one will argue thus: 'I am but a unit in a vast multitude, and the effect which my idleness or industry at this time will have on the general welfare, will be a quantity too small to be appreciated; and little as the general stock will be diminished by my refusal to work, my personal share of that diminution or loss, being the quotient after another division among the whole multitude, will be an infinitesimal of the second de- while the effort to gree, an atom that I cannot distinguish, overcome my present unwillingness to labor will be considerable. I will remain idle, then.' This is very selfish and shortsighted reasoning, it is true; but it needs very little knowledge of human nature to convince one, that it is the only way in which the bulk of mankind will reason, and very little calculation of consequences to see what would be the result, if every member of the community should thus think and act.

Of course, we shall be told that men must be educated, and taught to act with more foresight and less selfishness, and from considerations of duty and benevolence, instead of blindly following the impulses of the moment. Certainly, let them be educated, and their moral condition be improved, by all means; when they have become universally intelligent, philanthropic, and industrious, and are no longer actuated by selfish motives, property may well be abolished, and society may exist under any form, for the social state cannot then fail to be a happy one, however constituted. Meanwhile, as this work of improving the character of the whole race will probably be a slow and tedious one, and as the new institutions will not be practicable till it is completed, it might be well to commence with the opulent classes alone, who are comparatively few in number, and who, when converted and made purely benevolent and unselfish, will need no persuasion, no new framework of society, to induce them to share their goods equally with their less fortunate brethren. Human nature, as it is now constituted, it is evident, is not compatible with the maintenance of your new institutions; any such improvement in it as might render it fit for their support, would take away the necessity of making any change.

The general advantages of the institution of property are so obvious, that it may be said to exist by general consent. Without it, mankind would relapse into barbarism, — nay, into the condition of the wild beasts; for even a tribe of savages cannot live together without exclusive ownership of their rude tools, arms, clothing, and habitations. No one would submit to the labor of tilling the ground, because others would have an equal right with him to reap the harvest. No man would even erect a hut, if his neighbors could claim possession of it as soon as it was completed. Prudence and frugality would be impossible virtues; no provision for the future would be made, if those who wasted and spoiled were allowed to enjoy that provision as well as those who saved it. No society could be organized; for the only bond of association is the possession of certain property and rights, from the enjoyment of which those who are not members of the society are excluded. Universal want would lead to universal war, and that condition of mankind which Hobbes imagined as the inevitable result of the evil principles of human nature, when not checked by despotism, would become a fearful reality.

To guard against these tremendous evils, the sacredness of property is recognized, government is instituted for its protection, and laws are made to facilitate its increase, to regulate its use, and to provide for the distribution of it, when the death of its producer or former owner leaves it to the disposal of his survivors. The rule almost universally adopted in the last case is, to distribute it among those who are nearest of kin to the deceased, though in very different proportions, according to the different policy of the law in different countries. A man's nearest relations are commonly said to be his natural heirs, not because they have any natural or indefeasible right to his estates, but because they are nearest to his affections, and, if his will were to be consulted, they would generally succeed to the ownership. The strongest natural claim to property thus left vacant is surely that of the community at large, to whom, if it be land, it originally belonged, and under whose protection and by whose aid, whether it be real or personal, it was accumu lated. Their claim, in fact, is universally admitted, as they assume the power of giving the property away by designating the persons who shall inherit it, and the proportions which they