modifications in the customs and laws by which the tenure or occupation of the land is regulated.* Some of these modifications afford more, some less, encou ragement than others to production. That system is evidently to be preferred which affords the most. It has, indeed, seldom been sufficiently remarked by those who have studied the nature and causes of national wealth, to what a pre-eminent degree the social and economical condition of a people is influenced by the laws and customs that prevail among them respecting the occupation and ownership of land. There is no exaggeration in the assertion that, by these circumstances almost alone, the position of any nation in the scale of civilization is practically determined. Nor will any one be inclined to doubt this, when he adverts to the simple consideration that it is from the land, and the land alone, that nations derive as well the whole of the food on which they are supported, as the raw materials out of which by their industry and ingenuity they elaborate all the other necessaries, comforts, and luxuries of life; so that it must entirely depend upon the more or less easy

*The exclusive property in wells appears from Scripture to have been established in the first digger or occupant, even in places where the ground and herbage remained yet in common. See Blackstone, ii. c. i. p. 5; who also states, 'It is agreed upon all hands that occupancy gave the original right to the permanent property in the substance of the earth, which excludes every one else but the owner from the use of it.' Occupancy by use, that is, full and complete utilization, (if the word is allowable,) must be intended; though Blackstone does not clearly express this. It is not probable that any individual would have been allowed to appropriate more land than he could occupy in this sense. Id. p. 5.

THE APPROPRIATION OF LAND.

99

and equitable terms on which the cultivation of the soil by those who possess the means, is permitted or encouraged by those who own it, whether the production of every kind of wealth be restrained within the narrowest limits, or developed to the utmost extent of which human industry is capable under the most favourable circumstances.

The terms on which the cultivators of the soil are admitted to its occupation vary materially in different parts of the globe; and a review of these different customs and of their effects during a series of ages, as unfolded both in history and from recent observation, exhibiting their respective merits and defects, and the influence they severally exercise over the moral, economical, and political condition of the countries in which they prevail, would in itself be a work of great interest. The space we can afford to this branch of our subject, perhaps the most important division of the whole field of inquiry which is subjected to the social economist, is less than it deserves, but we will endeavour to compress all the prominent points into a manageable compass.

The natural and equitable title to property in land which arises from its appropriation per 6 industriam,' by the labour necessary to render it productive, must always have required the sanction and support of the law,--that is to say, of whatever supreme authority was set up in a state for the purpose of securing the common welfare by restraining individual rapacity. But power, once established, seldom contents itself with promoting the legitimate objects of its appointment. 'Quis custodiet ipsos custodes ?' Those who were en

trusted with the regulation of the terms on which the land of a country with all its natural productions might be appropriated, have very naturally availed themselves of this authority, when they could, to appropriate as much as possible of it, or of its produce, to themselves.

-or the

The origin of the peculiar political institutions of most nations is buried in considerable obscurity. It has even been disputed which of the two great principles of government is the most ancient and natural, the despotic,-under which one claims a right to supreme power over the many,free, under which the many claim the right to be governed only by officers of their own choice. But it is so perfectly obvious that one individual can never have acquired power over a numerous society except with the consent of the majority,or, at least, of an overwhelming body of supporters, that the question of priority does not appear to us to admit of a doubt. It is, however, of little moment. Referring to fact, we find that the earliest authentic accounts we possess of human societies generally agree in describing their infant condition as one of great simplicity, very similar to that of .most savage tribes at the present day, in which, while the rights of each individual, at least of each full grown male, are considered equal, a power is lodged, by common consent, in some officer or body of officers, to make and enforce the laws necessary for the general welfare. Among hunting tribes, the personal activity requisite for the support of each individual, and the state of constant warfare in which they necessarily lived,-through the unavoidable conflict of neighbouring tribes for

THE APPROPRIATION OF LAND.

TOF

their hunting-grounds as game became scarce, and even occasionally of individuals for their prey— must have rendered every male a warrior, and might enable him, if he chose, to claim and exercise an equal share of power. Yet, if we are to judge by the analogy of modern instances, the authority of chiefs and elder warriors-an authority obtained partly by superior strength and activity, partly by superior sagacity and experience would, even in such a state of society, be generally recognized. But as men settled down into pastoral and agricultural occupations, and the division of labour commenced, the duty of protecting the society from external aggression would naturally be confided to a class selected for this purpose; and, in like manner, the business of making and executing the laws necessary for the common good would be entrusted to another body of functionaries. The most experienced elders would be probably chosen for the latter purpose;. the most vigorous, active, and energetic in middle life, for the former. Now subordination and obedience are the essentials of military success. To be effective, therefore, every army must have had its leaders. Unfortunately, the command of an army too often confers a power not only of repelling foreign aggression, but of securing domestic domination. A successful general, whom his soldiers, trained to military duty, have been long accustomed implicitly and unhesitatingly to obey, is enabled, if he chooses, to put down all other authority, and establish his will as sole law throughout the country of which he was chosen, and still, perhaps, affects to consider himself the protector.

6

Such an usurpation is as easy as it is probable, under the circumstances of strong temptation in which military leaders are often placed. And these tricks have, in fact, full often been played before high heaven;'-so often, as almost to justify the ostracising jealousy of the classical republics. History proves that all absolute governments, of which the origin is recorded, commenced in some circumstance of this character, which may be considered as the natural generation of despotism.

Wherever despotic power exists, whether the result of domestic treachery or foreign invasion, there property, as well in land, as of all other kind, and even life itself-is, of course, held only at the will of the ruler. And, accordingly, we find in countries which appear to have been subjected to this form of government, that the exclusive proprietorship of the land, as the primary source of all wealth, has been claimed by the sovereign.

In some parts of the world this claim has been practically exercised up to the present day,-in others but nominally; the usufruct of the soil having been transferred by grant of the sovereign to inferior holders, and his claim continued, perhaps, only in some mere formality, itself often obsolete and disregarded. Throughout all Asia, from China to Turkey, (excepting only the Russian provinces,) the revenue of the ruler is still, and always has been, raised from the cultivators of the soil by a sort of land tax, consisting of a proportion of the produce, which varies, as may naturally be imagined, with the tyranny or mildness of the reigning sovereign, and the greater or less powers of exaction with which the intermediate collectors