OF THE RULES WHICH DETERMINE PROPERTY.
Though the establishment of the rule, concerning the stability of
possession, be not only useful, but even absolutely necessary to human
society, it can never serve to any purpose, while it remains in such
general terms. Some method must be shown, by which we may distinguish
what particular goods are to be assigned to each particular person,
while the rest of mankind are excluded from their possession and
enjoyment. Our next business, then, must be to discover the reasons
which modify this general rule, and fit it to the common use and
practice of the world.
'Tis obvious, that those reasons are not derived from any utility or
advantage, which either the _particular_ person or the public may
reap from his enjoyment of any _particular_ goods, beyond what would
result from the possession of them by any other person. 'Twere better,
no doubt, that every one were possessed of what is most suitable
to him, and proper for his use: But besides, that this relation of
fitness may be common to several at once, 'tis liable to so many
controversies, and men are so partial and passionate in judging of
these controversies, that such a loose and uncertain rule would be
absolutely incompatible with the peace of human society. The convention
concerning the stability of possession is entered into, in order to cut
off all occasions of discord and contention; and this end would never
be attained, were we allowed to apply this rule differently in every
particular case, according to every particular utility which might be
discovered in such an application. Justice, in her decisions, never
regards the fitness or unfitness of objects to particular persons, but
conducts herself by more extensive views. Whether a man be generous, or
a miser, he is equally well received by her, and obtains, with the same
facility, a decision in his favour, even for what is entirely useless
to him.
It follows, therefore, that the general rule, _that possession must be
stable_, is not applied by particular judgments, but by other general
rules, which must extend to the whole society, and be inflexible
either by spite or favour. To illustrate this, I propose the following
instance. I first consider men in their savage and solitary condition;
and suppose that, being sensible of the misery of that state, and
foreseeing the advantages that would result from society, they seek
each other's company, and make an offer of mutual protection and
assistance. I also suppose that they are endowed with such sagacity as
immediately to perceive that the chief impediment to this project of
society and partnership lies in the avidity and selfishness of their
natural temper; to remedy which, they enter into a convention which for
the stability of possession, and for mutual restraint and forbearance.
I am sensible that this method of proceeding is not altogether natural;
but, besides that, I here only suppose those reflections to be formed
at once, which, in fact, arise insensibly and by degrees; besides this,
I say, 'tis very possible that several persons, being by different
accidents separated from the societies to which they formerly belonged,
may be obliged to form a new society among themselves; in which case
they are entirely in the situation above-mentioned.
'Tis evident, then, that their first difficulty in this situation,
after the general convention for the establishment of society, and for
the constancy of possession, is, how to separate their possessions,
and assign to each his particular portion, which he must for the
future unalterably enjoy. This difficulty will not detain them long;
but it must immediately occur to them, as the most natural expedient,
that every one continue to enjoy what he is at present master of, and
that property or constant possession be conjoined to the immediate
possession. Such is the effect of custom, that it not only reconciles
us to any thing we have long enjoyed, but even gives us an affection
for it, and makes us prefer it to other objects, which may be more
valuable, but are less known to us. What has long lain under our eye,
and has often been employed to our advantage, _that_ we are always the
most unwilling to part with; but can easily live without possessions
which we never have enjoyed, and are not accustomed to. 'Tis evident,
therefore, that men would easily acquiesce in this expedient, _that
every one continue to enjoy what he is at present possessed of_; and
this is the reason why they would so naturally agree in preferring
it.[1]
But we may observe, that, though the rule of the assignment of property
to the present possessor be natural, and by that means useful, yet
its utility extends not beyond the first formation of society; nor
would any thing be more pernicious than the constant observance of
it; by which restitution would be excluded, and every injustice would
be authorized and rewarded. We must, therefore, seek for some other
circumstance, that may give rise to property after society is once
established; and of this kind I find four most considerable, viz.
Occupation, Prescription, Accession, and Succession. We shall briefly
examine each of these, beginning with _occupation_.
The possession of all external goods is changeable and uncertain;
which is one of the most considerable impediments to the establishment
of society, and is the reason why, by universal agreement, express
or tacit, men restrain themselves by what we now call the rules of
justice and equity. The misery of the condition which precedes this
restraint, is the cause why we submit to that remedy as quickly as
possible; and this affords us an easy reason why why annex the idea of
property to the first possession, or to _occupation_. Men are unwilling
to leave property in suspense, even for the shortest time, or open the
least door to violence and disorder. To which we may add, that the
first possession always engages the attention most; and did we neglect
it, there would be no colour of reason for assigning property to any
succeeding possession.[2]
There remains nothing but to determine exactly what is meant by
possession; and this is not so easy as may at first sight be imagined.
We are said to be in possession of any thing, not only when we
immediately touch it, but also when we are so situated with respect
to it, as to have it in our power to use it; and may move, alter,
or destroy it, according to our present pleasure or advantage. This
relation, then, is a species of cause and effect; and as property is
nothing but a stable possession, derived from the rules of justice,
or the conventions of men, 'tis to be considered as the same species
of relation. But here we may observe, that, as the power of using any
object becomes more or less certain, according as the interruptions
we may meet with are more or less probable; and as this probability
may increase by insensible degrees, 'tis in many cases impossible to
determine when possession begins or ends; nor is there any certain
standard by which we can decide such controversies. A wild boar that
falls into our snares, is deemed to be in our possession if it be
impossible for him to escape. But what do we mean by impossible? How
do we separate this impossibility from an improbability? And how
distinguish that exactly from a probability? Mark the precise limits of
the one and the other, and show the standard, by which we may decide
all disputes that may arise, and, as we find, by experience, frequently
do arise upon this subject.[3]
But such disputes may not arise concerning the real existence of
property and possession, but also concerning their extent; and these
disputes are often susceptible of no decision, or can be decided by no
other faculty than the imagination. A person who lands on the shore of
a small island that is desart and uncultivated is deemed its possessor
from the very first moment, and acquires the property of the whole;
because the object is there bounded and circumscribed in the fancy, and
at the same time is proportioned to the new possessor. The same person
landing on a desart island as large as Great Britain, extends his
property no farther than his immediate possession; though a numerous
colony are esteemed the proprietors of the whole from the instant of
their debarkment.
But if it often happens that the title of first possession becomes
obscure through time, and that 'tis impossible to determine many
controversies which may arise concerning it; in that case, long
possession or _prescription_ naturally takes place, and gives a person
a sufficient property in any thing he enjoys. The nature of human
society admits not of any great accuracy; nor can we always remount
to the first origin of things, in order to determine their present
condition. Any considerable space of time sets objects at such a
distance that they seem in a manner to lose their reality, and have
as little influence on the mind as if they never had been in being. A
man's title that is clear and certain at present, will seem obscure
and doubtful fifty years hence, even though the facts on which it is
founded should be proved with the greatest evidence and certainty.
The same facts have not the same influence after so long an interval
of time. And this may be received as a convincing argument for our
preceding doctrine with regard to property and justice. Possession
during a long tract of time conveys a title to any object. But as 'tis
certain that, however every thing be produced in time, there is nothing
real that is produced by time, it follows, that property being produced
by time, is not any thing real in the objects, but is the offspring of
the sentiments, on which alone time is found to have any influence.[4]
We acquire the property of objects by _accession_, when they are
connected in an intimate manner with objects that are already our
property, and at the same time are inferior to them. Thus, the fruits
of our garden, the offspring of our cattle, and the work of our slaves,
are all of them esteemed our property, even before possession. Where
objects are connected together in the imagination, they are apt to be
put on the same footing, and are commonly supposed to be endowed with
the same qualities. We readily pass from one to the other, and make no
difference in our judgments concerning them, especially if the latter
be inferior to the former. [5]
The right of _succession_ is a very natural one, from the presumed
consent of the parent or near relation, and from the general interest
of mankind, which requires that men's possessions should pass to those
who are dearest to them, in order to render them more industrious
and frugal. Perhaps these causes are seconded by the influence of
_relation_, or the association of ideas, by which we are naturally
directed to consider the son after the parent's decease, and ascribe
to him a title to his father's possessions. Those goods must become the
property of somebody: but _of whom_ is the question. Here 'tis evident
the person's children naturally present themselves to the mind; and
being already connected to those possessions by means of their deceased
parent, we are apt to connect them still farther by the relation of
property. Of this there are many parallel instances.[6]
[1] No questions in philosophy are more difficult, than when a number
of causes present themselves for the same phenomenon, to determine
which is the principal and predominant. There seldom is any very
precise argument to fix our choice, and men must be contented to
be guided by a kind of taste or fancy, arising from analogy, and a
comparison of similar instances. Thus, in the present case, there
are, no doubt, motives of public interest for most of the rules
which determine property; but still I suspect, that these rules are
principally fixed by the imagination, or the more frivolous properties
of our thought and conception. I shall continue to explain these
causes, leaving it to the reader's choice, whether he will prefer those
derived from public utility, or those derived from the imagination. We
shall begin with the right of the present possessor.
'Tis a quality which I have already observed(*) in human nature, that
when two objects appear in a close relation to each other, the mind is
apt to ascribe to them any additional relation, in order to complete
the union; and this inclination is so strong, as often to make us run
into errors (such as that of the conjunction of thought and matter) if
we find that they can serve to that purpose. Many of our impressions
are incapable of place or local position; and yet those very
impressions we suppose to have a local conjunction with the impressions
of sight and touch, merely because they are conjoined by causation, and
are already united in the imagination. Since, therefore, we can feign a
new relation, and even an absurd one, in order to complete any union,
'twill easily be imagined, that if there be any relations which depend
on the mind, 'twill readily conjoin them to any preceding relation,
and unite, by a new bond, such objects as have already an union in the
fancy. Thus, for instance, we never fail, in our arrangement of bodies,
to place those which are resembling in contiguity to each other, or at
least in _correspondent_ points of view; because we feel a satisfaction
in joining the relation of contiguity to that of resemblance, or the
resemblance of situation to that of qualities. And this is easily
accounted for from the known properties of human nature. When the mind
is determined to join certain objects, but undetermined in its choice
of the particular objects, it naturally turns its eye to such as are
related together. They are already united in the mind: they present
themselves at the same time to the conception; and instead of requiring
any new reason for their conjunction, it would require a very powerful
reason to make us overlook this natural affinity. This we shall have
occasion to explain more fully afterwards when we come to treat of
_beauty_. In the mean time, we may content ourselves with observing,
that the same love of order and uniformity which arranges the books in
a library, and the chairs in a parlour, contributes to the formation
of society, and to the well-being of mankind, by modifying the general
rule concerning the stability of possession. And as property forms a
relation betwixt a person and an object, 'tis natural to found it on
some preceding relation; and, as property is nothing but a constant
possession, secured by the laws of society, 'tis natural to add it to
the present possession, which is a relation that resembles it. For
this also has its influence. If it be natural to conjoin till sorts of
relations, 'tis more so to conjoin such relations as are resembling,
and are related together. (*) Book I. Part IV. Sect. 5
[2] Some philosophers account for the right of occupation, by saying
that every one has a property in his own labour; and when he joins that
labour to any thing, it gives him the property of the whole: but, I.
There are several kinds of occupation where we cannot be said to join
our labour to the object we acquire: as when we possess a meadow by
grazing our cattle upon it 2. This accounts for the matter by means of
_accession_; which is taking a needless circuit. 3. We cannot be said
to join our labour to any thing but in a figurative sense. Properly
speaking, we only make an alteration on it by our labour. This forms
a relation betwixt us and the object; and thence arises the property,
according to the preceding principles.
[3] If we seek a solution of these difficulties in reason and public
interest, we never shall find satisfaction; and if we look for it in
the imagination, 'tis evident, that the qualities which operate upon
that faculty, run so insensibly and gradually into each other, that
'tis impossible to give them any precise bounds or termination. The
difficulties on this head must increase, when we consider that our
judgment alters very sensibly according to the subject, and that the
same power and proximity will be deemed possession in one case, which
is not esteemed such in another. A person who has hunted a hare to
the last degree of weariness, would look upon it as an injustice for
another to rush in before him, and seize his prey. But the same person,
advancing to pluck an apple that hangs within his reach, has no reason
to complain if another, more alert, passes him, and takes possession.
What is the reason of this difference, but that immobility, not being
natural to the hare, but the effect of industry, forms in that case a
strong relation with the hunter, which is wanting in the other?
Here, then, it appears, that a certain and infallible power of
enjoyment, without touch or some other sensible relation, often
produces not property: and I farther observe, that a sensible relation,
without any present power, is sometimes sufficient to give a title to
any object. The sight of a thing is seldom a considerable relation, and
is only regarded as such, when the object is hidden, or very obscure;
in which case we find that the view alone conveys a property; according
to that maxim, _that even a whole continent belongs to the nation which
first discovered it_. 'Tis however remarkable, that both in the case of
discovery and that of possession, the first discoverer and possessor
must join to the relation an intention of rendering himself proprietor,
otherwise the relation will not have its effect; and that because the
connexion in our fancy betwixt the property and the relation is not so
great but that it requires to be helped by such an intention.
From all these circumstances, 'tis easy to see how perplexed many
questions may become concerning the acquisition of property by
occupation; and the least effort of thought may present us with
instances which are not susceptible of any reasonable decision. If we
prefer examples which are real to such as are feigned, we may consider
the following one, which is to be met with in almost every writer
that has treated of the laws of nature. Two Grecian colonies, leaving
their native country in search of new seats, were informed that a city
near them was deserted by its inhabitants. To know the truth of this
report, they despatched at once two messengers, one from each colony,
who finding, on their approach, that the information was true, begun a
race together, with an intention to take possession of the city, each
of them for his countrymen. One of these messengers, finding that he
was not an equal match for the other, launched his spear at the gates
of the city, and was so fortunate as to fix it there before the arrival
of his companion. This produced a dispute betwixt the two colonies,
which of them was the proprietor of the empty city; and this dispute
still subsists among philosophers. For my part, I find the dispute
impossible to be decided, and that because the whole question hangs
upon the fancy, which in this case is not possessed of any precise or
determinate standard upon which it can give sentence. To make this
evident, let us consider, that if these two persons had been simply
members of the colonies, and not messengers or deputies, their actions
would not have been of any consequence; since in that case their
relation to the colonies would have been but feeble and imperfect. Add
to this, that nothing determined them to run to the gates rather than
the walls or any other part of the city, but that the gates, being the
most *obviated*, and remarkable part, satisfy the fancy best in taking
them for the whole; as we find by the poets, who frequently draw their
images and metaphors from them. Besides, we may consider that the touch
or contact of the one messenger is not properly possession, no more
than the piercing the gates with the spear, but only forms a relation;
and there is a relation in the other case equally obvious, though not
perhaps of equal force. Which of these relations, then, conveys a right
and property, or whether any of them be sufficient for that effect, I
leave to the decision of such as are wiser than myself.
[4] Present possession is plainly a relation betwixt a person and an
object; but is not sufficient to counterbalance the relation of first
possession, unless the former be long and uninterrupted; in which case
the relation is increased on the side of the present possession by
the extent of time, and diminished on that of first possession by the
distance. This change in the relation produces a consequent change in
the property.
[5] This source of property can never be explained but from the
imagination; and one may affirm, that the causes are here unmixed. We
shall proceed to explain them more particularly, and illustrate them by
examples from common life and experience.
It has been observed above, that the mind has a natural propensity to
join relations, especially resembling ones, and finds a kind of fitness
and uniformity in such an union. From this propensity are derived these
laws of nature, _that upon the first formation of society, property
always follows the present possession_; and afterwards, _that it arises
from first or from long possession_. Now, we may easily observe, that
relation is not confined merely to one degree; but that from an object
that is related to us, we acquire a relation to every other object
which is related to it, and so on, till the thought loses the chain by
too long a progress. However the relation may weaken by each remove,
'tis not immediately destroyed; but frequently connects two objects
by means of an intermediate one, which is related to both. And this
principle is of such force as to give rise to the right of _accession_,
and causes us to acquire the property, not only of such objects as we
are immediately possessed of, but also of such as are closely connected
with them.
Suppose a German, a Frenchman, and a Spaniard, to come into a room
where there are placed upon the table three bottles of wine, Rhenish,
Burgundy, and Port; and suppose they should fall a quarrelling about
the division of them, a person who was chosen for umpire would
naturally, to show his impartiality, give every one the product of his
own country; and this from a principle which, in some measure, is the
source of those laws of nature that ascribe property to occupation,
prescription and accession.
In all these cases, and particularly that of accession, there is first
a _natural_ union betwixt the idea of the person and that of the
object, and afterwards a new and moral union produced by that right
or property which we ascribe to the person. But here there occurs a
difficulty which merits our attention, and may afford us an opportunity
of putting to trial that singular method of reasoning which has been
employed on the present subject. I have already observed, that the
imagination passes with greater facility from little to great, than
from great to little, and that the transition of ideas is always easier
and smoother in the former case than in the latter. Now, as the right
of accession arises from the easy transition of ideas by which related
objects are connected together, it should naturally be imagined that
the right of accession must increase in strength, in proportion as
the transition of ideas is performed with greater facility. It may
therefore be thought; that when we have acquired the property of any
small object, we shall readily consider any great object related to it
as an accession, and as belonging to the proprietor of the small one;
since the transition is in that case very easy from the small object
to the great one, and should connect them together in the closest
manner. But in fact the case is always found to be otherwise. The
empire of Great Britain seems to draw along with it the dominion of
the Orkneys, the Hebrides, the Isle of Man, and the Isle of Wight; but
the authority over those lesser islands does not naturally imply any
title to Great Britain. In short, a small object naturally follows a
great one as its accession; but a great one is never supposed to belong
to the proprietor of a small one related to it, merely on account of
that property and relation. Yet in this latter case the transition of
ideas is smoother from the proprietor to the small object which is
his property, and from the small object to the great one, than in the
former case from the proprietor to the great object, and from the great
one to the small. It may therefore be thought, that these phenomena are
objections to the foregoing hypothesis, _that the ascribing of property
to accession is nothing but an effect of the relations of ideas, and of
the smooth transition of the imagination_.
'Twill be easy to solve this objection, if we consider the agility and
unsteadiness of the imagination, with the different views in which it
is continually placing its objects. When we attribute to a person a
property in two objects, we do not always pass from the person to one
object, and from that to the other related to it. The objects being
here to be considered as the property of the person, we are apt to join
them together, and place them in the same light. Suppose, therefore,
a great and a small object to be related together, if a person be
strongly related to the great object, he will likewise be strongly
related to both the objects considered together, because he is related
to the most considerable part. On the contrary, if he be only related
to the small object, he will not be strongly related to both considered
together, since his relation lies only with the most trivial part,
which is not apt to strike us in any great degree when we consider the
whole. And this is the reason why small objects become accessions to
great ones, and not great to small.
'Tis the general opinion of philosophers and civilians, that the sea is
incapable of becoming the property of any nation; and that because 'tis
impossible to take possession of it, or form any such distinct relation
with it, as may be the foundation of property. Where this reason
ceases, property immediately takes place. Thus, the most strenuous
advocates for the liberty of the seas universally allow, that friths
and bays naturally belong as an accession to the proprietors of the
surrounding continent These have properly no more bond or union with
the land than the _Pacific_ ocean would have; but having an union in
the fancy, and being at the same time _inferior_, they are of course
regarded as an accession.
The property of rivers, by the laws of most nations, and by the natural
turn of our thought, is attributed to the proprietors of their banks,
excepting such vast rivers as the Rhine or the Danube, which seem too
large to the imagination to follow as an accession the property of
the neighbouring fields. Yet even these rivers are considered as the
property of that nation through whose dominions they run; the idea of
a nation being a suitable bulk to correspond with them, and bear them
such a relation in the fancy.
The accessions which are made to lands bordering upon rivers, follow
the land, say the civilians, provided it be made by what they
call _alluvion_, that is, insensibly and imperceptibly; which are
circumstances that mightily assist the imagination in the conjunction.
Where there is any considerable portion torn at once from one bank,
and joined to another, it becomes not his property whose land it falls
on, till it unite with the land, and till the trees or plants have
spread their roots into both. Before that, the imagination does not
sufficiently join them.
There are other cases which somewhat resemble this of accession,
but which, at the bottom, are considerably different, and merit our
attention. Of this kind is the conjunction of the properties of
different persons, after such a manner as not to admit of _separation_.
The question is, to whom the united mass must belong.
Where this conjunction is of such a nature as to admit of _division_,
but not of _separation_, the decision is natural and easy. The
whole mass must be supposed to be common betwixt the proprietors
of the several parts, and afterwards must be divided according to
the proportions of these parts. But here I cannot forbear taking
notice of a remarkable subtilty of the Roman law, in distinguishing
betwixt _confusion_ and _commixtion_. Confusion is an union of two
bodies, such as different liquors, where the parts become entirely
undistinguishable. Commixtion is the blending of two bodies, such as
two bushels of corn, where the parts remain separate in an obvious and
visible manner. As in the latter case the imagination discovers not so
entire an union as in the former, but is able to trace and preserve
a distinct idea of the property of each; this is the reason why the
_civil_ law, though it established an entire community in the case of
_confusion_, and after that a proportional division, yet in the case of
_commixtion_, supposes each of the proprietors to maintain a distinct
right; however, necessity may at last force them to submit to the same
division. _Quod si frumentum Titii frumento tuo mistum fuerit: siquidem
ex voluntate vestra, communc est: quia singula corpora, id est, singula
grana, quæ a cujusque propria fuerunt, ex consensu vestro communicata
sunt. Quod si casu id mistum fuerit, vel Titius id miscuerit sine
tua voluntate, non videtur id communc esse; quia singula corpora
in sua substantia durant. Sed nec magis istis casibus commune sit
frumentum quam grex intelligitur esse communis, si pecora Titii tuis
pecoribus mista fuerint. Sed si ab alterutro vestrum totum id frumentum
retineatur, in rem quidem actio pro modo frumenti cujusque competit.
Arbitrio autem judicis, ut ipse æstimet quale cujusque frumentum
fuerit_. Inst. Lib. II. Tit I. § 28.
Where the properties of two persons are united after such a manner as
neither to admit of _division_ nor _separation_, as when one builds a
house on another's ground, in that case the whole must belong to one of
the proprietors; and here I assert, that it naturally is conceived to
belong to the proprietor of the most considerable part. For, however
the compound object may have a relation to two different persons, and
carry our view at once to both of them, yet, as the most considerable
part principally engages our attention, and by the strict union draws
the inferior along it; for this reason, the whole bears a relation to
the proprietor of that part, and is regarded as his property. The only
difficulty is, what we shall be pleased to call the most considerable
part, and most attractive to the imagination.
This quality depends on several different circumstances which have
little connexion with each other. One part of a compound object may
become more considerable than another, either because it is more
constant and durable; because it is of greater value; because it is
more obvious and remarkable; because it is of greater extent; or
because its existence is more separate and independent. 'Twill be easy
to conceive, that, as these circumstances may be conjoined and opposed
in all the different ways, and according to all the different degrees,
which can be imagined, there will result many cases where the reasons
on both sides are so equally balanced, that 'tis impossible for us to
give any satisfactory decision. Here, then, is the proper business of
municipal laws, to fix what the principles of human nature have left
undetermined.
The superficies yields to the soil, says the civil law: the writing to
the paper: the canvas to the picture. These decisions do not well agree
together, and are a proof of the contrariety of those principles from
which they are derived.
But of all the questions of this kind, the most curious is that which
for so many ages divided the disciples of _Proculus_ and _Sabinus_.
Suppose a person should make a cup from the metal of another, or a ship
from his wood, and suppose the proprietor of the metal or wood should
demand his goods, the question is, whether he acquires a title to the
cup or ship. _Sabinus_ maintained the affirmative, and asserted, that
the substance or matter is the foundation of all the qualities; that
it is incorruptible and immortal, and therefore superior to the form,
which is casual and dependent. On the other hand, _Proculus_ observed,
that the form is the most obvious and remarkable part, and that from
it bodies are denominated of this or that particular species. To which
he might have added, that the matter or substance is in most bodies
so fluctuating and uncertain, that 'tis utterly impossible to trace
it in all its changes. For my part, I know not from what principles
such a controversy can be certainly determined. I shall therefore
content myself with observing, that the decision of _Trebonian_ seems
to me pretty ingenious; that the cup belongs to the proprietor of the
metal, because it can be brought back to its first form: but that the
ship belongs to the author of its form, for a contrary reason. But,
however ingenious this reason may seem, it plainly depends upon the
fancy, which, by the possibility of such a reduction, finds a closer
connexion and relation betwixt a cup and the proprietor of its metal,
than betwixt a ship and the proprietor of its wood, where the substance
is more fixed and unalterable.
[6] In examining the different titles to authority in government,
we shall meet with many reasons to convince us that the right of
succession depends, in a great measure, on the imagination. Meanwhile I
shall rest contented with observing one example, which belongs to the
present subject. Suppose that a person die without children, and that
a dispute arises among his relations concerning his inheritance; 'tis
evident, that if his riches be derived partly from his father, partly
from his mother, the most natural way of determining such a dispute
is, to divide his possessions, and assign each part to the family from
whence it is derived. Now, as the person is supposed to have been
once the full and entire proprietor of those goods, I ask, what is it
makes us find a certain equity and natural reason in this partition,
except it be the imagination? His affection to these families does not
depend upon his possessions; for which reason his consent can never be
presumed precisely for such a partition. And as to the public interest,
it seems not to be in the least concerned on the one side or the other.