624 J0^•. Perci'val's Notes and Illujirations. 



authority of la^ws ; and that the laws, being the creatures of civil 

 fociety, render property itfelf equally fo. The argument, how- 

 ever is a fallacy. Law does not conftitute the right to property; 

 but only recognizes, fanfiions, and regulates the exercife of it. 

 What a man has acquired by art or induftry, without violation 

 done to others, is at his abfolute difpofal; and may, if not applied 

 to his own ufe, be given to^iis children, his relations, or friends. 

 . Nor can there be any definite time for the reftriftion of fuch 

 transfer ; and confequently it will have equal validity at the 

 hour of death as in the prime of life, provided the donation be 

 voluntary, and made with a found mind. It has indeed been 

 faid, that in a Hate of nature, a man's right to a particular fpot of 

 ground arifes from his ufing and wanting it, and confequently ceafes 

 wath the ufe and want ; fo that at his death the eftate reverts to 

 the community, without any regard to the laft ov^Tier's will. * 

 But this prefuppofes what is in itfelf a con tradiftion, that man in 

 community is a fcUtary animal, labouring, and living only for 

 himfelf: Whereas the truth is that he labours and lives more for his 

 family and his dependants, than for himfelf; that his attach- 

 ments to them ftimulate his faculties and give energy to his 

 exertions ; and that to deprive him of the future end, he feeks in 

 his acquifitions, is the fame wrong in kind, and much greater in 

 degree, becaufe more injurious to his beft and ftrongeft feelings, 

 that it would be to deprive him of the prefent ufe of them. 

 A father may leave an infirm widow, and numerous help- 

 lefs orphans ; for whom he anxioufly toiled, and toiled with 

 fuccefs. Is it equitable tliat they fliould be caft on the public 

 for fupport ? If it be not, the law, which guarantees to them 

 their father's pofleflions, only confirms, and does not inlHtute 

 their right, which is founded in nature, reafon, and julHce. 



VIII. The difpute, perhaps, about the right of the fupremc 

 magiftrate to the entire property of the whole community, is 

 rather verbal than fubftantial. For, admitting it to fubfift, it can 

 only be exercifed when rights of the whole community, ftill 

 dearer than thofe of property, are in the moft imminent hazard, 

 fuch as life, liberty, and religion. There muft then be a juftify- 



• Paley's Moral Pliilofophy, vol, I, p. 222, Svo, 



ing 



