broiled and eat in common.

After eating

they go to reft: they return to their fish

ing next ebb of the tide, whether it be day or night, foul or fair; for go they muft, or ftarve. In fmall tribes, where patriotifm is vigorous, or in a country thinly peopled in proportion to its fertility, the living in common is agreeable: but in a large ftate where felfifhnefs prevails, or in any ftate where great population requires extraordinary culture, the best method is to permit every man to flift for himself and his family: men wish to labour for themselves; and they labour more ardently for themselves, than for the public. Private property became more and facred in the progrefs of arts and manufactures to allow an artift of fuperior skill no profit above others, would be a fad difcouragement to industry, and be scarce confiftent with justice.

The fenfe of property is not confined to the human fpecies. The beavers perceive the timber they ftore up for food, to be their property; and the bees fcem to have the fame perception with refpect to their winter's provifion of honey. Sheep know when they are in a trefpafs, and run to

man.

their own pasture on the first glimpse of a Monkies do the fame when detected in robbing an orchard. Sheep and horned cattle have a sense of property with respect to their refting-place in a fold or inclosure, which every one guards against the incroachments of others. He muft be a fceptic indeed, who denies that perception to rooks: thieves there are among them as among men; but if a rook purloin a stick from another's neft, a council is held, much chattering enfues, and the lex talionis is applied by demolishing the neft of the criminal. To man are furnished rude materials only: to convert these into food and clothing requires industry; and if he had not a fenfe that the product of his labour belongs to himself, his industry would be faint. In general, it is pleasant to observe, that the fense of property is always given where it is useful, and never but where it is useful.

An ingenious writer, defcribing the inhabitants of Guiana, who continue hunters and fishers, makes an eloquent harangue upon the happiness they enjoy, in having few wants and defires, and little notion of private property. "The manners of thefe "Indians

A

"Indians exhibit an amiable picture of

primeval innocence and happiness. The "eafe with which their few wants are "fupplied, renders divifion of land un

neceffary; nor does it afford any temptation to fraud or violence. That prone

nefs to vice, which among civilized na❝tions is esteemed a propenfity of nature, "has no exiftence in a country where e

66

very man enjoys in perfection his native "freedom and independence, without hurting or being hurt by others. A per"fect equality of rank, banifhing all di"ftinctions but of age and perfonal merit, promotes freedom in converfation, and "firmness in action, and fuggefts no defires but what may be gratified with innocence. Envy and difcontent cannot "fubfift where there is perfect equality; 66 we fcarce even hear of a difcontented lover, as there is no difference of rank and fortune, the common obftacles that prevent fruition. Thofe who have been unhappily accuftomed to the refinements of luxury, will fearce be able to "conceive, that an Indian, with no co"vering but what modefty requires, with "no fhelter that deferves the name of a VOL. I. "houfe,

66

66

cr

houfe, and with no food but of the "coarfeft kind, painfully procured by

66

་

hunting, can feel any happiness: and yet, to judge from external appearance, the happiness of these people

may be envied by the wealthy of the "moft refined nations; and juftly, be"caufe their ignorance of extravagant

defires, and endless purfuits, that tor

ment the great world, excludes every "with beyond the prefent. In a word, the "inhabitants of Guiana are an example "of what Socrates juftly obferves, that "they who want the leaft, approach the "neareft to the gods, who want nothing." It is admitted, that the innocence of favages, here painted in fine colours, is in every respect more amiable than the luxury of the opulent. But is our author unacquainted with a middle ftate, more fuitable than either extreme to the dignity of human nature? The appetite for property is not bestowed upon us in vain: it has given birth to many arts: it is highly beneficial by furnishing opportunity for gratifying the moft dignified natural affections; for without private property, what place

would

would there be for benevolence or charity (a)? Without private property there would be no induftry; and without induftry, men would remain favages for ever.

The appetite for property, in its nature. a great bleffing, degenerates, I acknowledge, into a great curfe when it tranfgreffes the bounds of moderation. Before money was introduced, the appetite feldom was immoderate, because plain neceffaries were its only objects. But money is a species of property, of fuch extenfive ufe as greatly to inflame the appetite. Money prompts men to be industrious; and the beautiful productions of induftry and art, roufing the imagination, excite a violent defire for grand houses, fine gardens, and for every thing gay and fplendid. Habitual wants multiply: luxury and fenfuality gain ground: the appetite for property becomes headstrong, and must be gratified, even at the expence of juftice and honour. Examples of this progrefs are without number; and yet the following history deferves to be kept in memory, as a striking and lamentable illuAration. Hifpaniola was that part of A(a) Historical Law Tras, Tract 3.

merica