But let us suppose a civilised being to come among a tribe of savages, and succeed in teaching some of them the arts of life he instructs one how to render his hut more commodious, another to collect a little store of provisions for the winter, a third to improve the construction of his bows and arrows; what would be the consequences? CAROLINE. One might expect that the enjoyment derived from these improvements would lead their countrymen to adopt them, and would introduce a general spirit of industry. MRS. B. Is it not more probable that the idle savages would, either by force or fraud, wrest from the industrious their hard-earned possessions; that the one would be driven from the hut he had constructed with so much labour, another robbed of the provisions he had stored, and a third would see his well-pointed arrows aimed at his own breast? Here then is a fatal termination to all improvement. Who will work to procure such precarious possessions, which expose him to danger, instead of ensuring his enjoyment? CAROLINE. But all this would be prevented if laws were made for the protection of property. MRS. B. True; but the right of property must be established, before it can be protected. For nature has given mankind every thing in common, and property is of human institution. It takes place in such early stages of society that one is apt to imagine it of natural origin; but until it has been established by law, no man has a right to call any thing his own. CAROLINE. What, not the game he has killed, the hut he has built, or the implements he has constructed? These may be wrested from him by force; but he who thus obtains them acquires no right to them. MRS. B. When a man has produced any thing by his labour, he has, no doubt, in equity the fairest claim to it; but his right to separate it from the common stock of nature, and appropriate it to his own use, depends entirely upon the law of the land. In the case of property in land, for instance, it is the law which decrees that such a piece of ground shall belong to Thomas, such another to John, and a third to James; that these men shall have an exclusive right to the possession of the land and of its produce; that they may keep, sell, or exchange it; give it away during their lives, or bequeath it after their deaths. And, in order that this law should be respected, punishments are enacted for those who should transgress it. It is not until such laws have been made for the institution and protection of property, of whatever description it be, that the right of property is established. CAROLINE. You astonish me! I thought that property in land had always existed; I had no idea that it was a legal institution, but imagined that it had originated from the earliest period of the world. We read that in the time of the ancient patriarchs, when families became too numerous, they separated; and that those who went to settle elsewhere, fed their flocks, and occupied the land without molestation. There was no one to dispute their right to it; and after their deaths the children inhabited and cultivated the land of their fathers. If we were to found a colony in a desert island, every man would cultivate as much ground as he wanted for his own use, and each having an equal interest in the preservation of his possessions, property would thus be established by general agreement, without any legal institution. MRS. B. This general agreement is a kind of law, a very imperfect one it is true, and which was perhaps originally founded on the relative strength of individuals. If one man attempts to carry off the cattle or the fruits of another, the latter opposes force to force; if he is stronger or better armed, he either kills his antagonist or drives him away; if weaker, he is despoiled, or he calls in his neighbours to his succour, shows them the common danger, and may induce them to unite with him in taking vengeance on the aggressor. Many incidents of this nature must occur before regular laws are instituted; that is to say, before a public authority is established, which shall protect individuals against those who attack them, and punish the offenders. It is then only that a man may say, "This is my field; this is my house; this seed which I cast into the ground will bring forth an abundant provision for me and my family; these trees, which I plant, will every year yield us fruit, which we alone shall have a right to gather." CAROLINE. --- I now comprehend perfectly the advantage of such laws it is security — before they were established, the strong might wrest every thing from the weak; and old men, women, and children who had no means of defence, were exposed to their rapine and violence. The idle and improvident, when in want of subsistence, became the natural enemies of the laborious and industrious. So that without this law the men who had toiled hardest would be most likely to fall victims to those who had done nothing. In word, the wasps would devour the honey of the bees. MRS. B. Yes, security is the grand point; it is security which stimulates industry, and renders labour productive; every step towards security is a step towards civilisation, towards wealth, and towards general happiness. CAROLINE. All this is very true; yet an objection to the institution of property in land has just occurred to me which appears of considerable importance. Before land became private property, the earth, you say, was possessed in common by all mankind; every one had an equal claim to it. But the law which institutes landed property takes it from mankind at large, to give it to a few individuals; in order, therefore, to make some men rich, it makes others poor. Now what right has the law to dispossess some in order to enrich others? It should be just, before it is generous. This objection, however, does not extend to any other than landed property; nothing is more fair than that men should gather the fruits of their labour; that they should possess the houses they |