CHAP. V.

Of PROPERTY.

Sec. 25. Whether we consider natural reason, which tells
us, that men, being once born, have a right to their
preservation, and consequently to meat and drink, and such other
things as nature affords for their subsistence: or revelation,
which gives us an account of those grants God made of the world
to Adam, and to Noah, and his sons, it is very clear, that
God, as king David says, Psal. cxv. 16. has given the
earth to the children of men; given it to mankind in common. But
this being supposed, it seems to some a very great difficulty,
how any one should ever come to have a property in any thing: I
will not content myself to answer, that if it be difficult to
make out property, upon a supposition that God gave the world
to Adam, and his posterity in common, it is impossible that any
man, but one universal monarch, should have any property upon a
supposition, that God gave the world to Adam, and his heirs in
succession, exclusive of all the rest of his posterity. But I
shall endeavour to shew, how men might come to have a property
in several parts of that which God gave to mankind in common, and
that without any express compact of all the commoners.
Sec. 26. God, who hath given the world to men in common,
hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best
advantage of life, and convenience. The earth, and all that is
therein, is given to men for the support and comfort of their
being. And tho' all the fruits it naturally produces, and beasts
it feeds, belong to mankind in common, as they are produced by
the spontaneous hand of nature; and no body has originally a
private dominion, exclusive of the rest of mankind, in any of
them, as they are thus in their natural state: yet being given
for the use of men, there must of necessity be a means to
appropriate them some way or other, before they can be of any
use, or at all beneficial to any particular man. The fruit, or
venison, which nourishes the wild Indian, who knows no
enclosure, and is still a tenant in common, must be his, and so
his, i.e. a part of him, that another can no longer have any
right to it, before it can do him any good for the support of his
life.
Sec. 27. Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be
common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own
person: this no body has any right to but himself. The
labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say,
are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state
that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his
labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and
thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from
the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this
labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right
of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property
of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is
once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left
in common for others.
Sec. 28. He that is nourished by the acorns he picked up
under an oak, or the apples he gathered from the trees in the
wood, has certainly appropriated them to himself. No body can
deny but the nourishment is his. I ask then, when did they begin
to be his? when he digested? or when he eat? or when he boiled?
or when he brought them home? or when he picked them up? and it
is plain, if the first gathering made them not his, nothing else
could. That labour put a distinction between them and common:
that added something to them more than nature, the common mother
of all, had done; and so they became his private right. And will
any one say, he had no right to those acorns or apples, he thus
appropriated, because he had not the consent of all mankind to
make them his? Was it a robbery thus to assume to himself what
belonged to all in common? If such a consent as that was
necessary, man had starved, notwithstanding the plenty God had
given him. We see in commons, which remain so by compact, that
it is the taking any part of what is common, and removing it out
of the state nature leaves it in, which begins the property;
without which the common is of no use. And the taking of this or
that part, does not depend on the express consent of all the
commoners. Thus the grass my horse has bit; the turfs my servant
has cut; and the ore I have digged in any place, where I have a
right to them in common with others, become my property,
without the assignation or consent of any body. The labour
that was mine, removing them out of that common state they were
in, hath fixed my property in them.
Sec. 29. By making an explicit consent of every commoner,
necessary to any one's appropriating to himself any part of what
is given in common, children or servants could not cut the meat,
which their father or master had provided for them in common,

without assigning to every one his peculiar part. Though the
water running in the fountain be every one's, yet who can doubt,
but that in the pitcher is his only who drew it out? His
labour hath taken it out of the hands of nature, where it was
common, and belonged equally to all her children, and hath
thereby appropriated it to himself.
Sec. 30. Thus this law of reason makes the deer that
Indian's who hath killed it; it is allowed to be his goods, who
hath bestowed his labour upon it, though before it was the common
right of every one. And amongst those who are counted the
civilized part of mankind, who have made and multiplied positive
laws to determine property, this original law of nature, for
the beginning of property, in what was before common, still
takes place; and by virtue thereof, what fish any one catches in
the ocean, that great and still remaining common of mankind; or
what ambergrise any one takes up here, is by the labour that
removes it out of that common state nature left it in, made his
property, who takes that pains about it. And even amongst us,
the hare that any one is hunting, is thought his who pursues her
during the chase: for being a beast that is still looked upon as
common, and no man's private possession; whoever has employed so
much labour about any of that kind, as to find and pursue her,
has thereby removed her from the state of nature, wherein she was
common, and hath begun a property.
Sec. 31. It will perhaps be objected to this, that if
gathering the acorns, or other fruits of the earth, &c. makes a
right to them, then any one may ingross as much as he will. To
which I answer, Not so. The same law of nature, that does by
this means give us property, does also bound that property
too. God has given us all things richly, 1 Tim. vi. 12. is
the voice of reason confirmed by inspiration. But how far has he
given it us? To enjoy. As much as any one can make use of to
any advantage of life before it spoils, so much he may by his
Tabour fix a property in: whatever is beyond this, is more than
his share, and belongs to others. Nothing was made by God for
man to spoil or destroy. And thus, considering the plenty of
natural provisions there was a long time in the world, and the
few spenders; and to how small a part of that provision the
industry of one man could extend itself, and ingross it to the
prejudice of others; especially keeping within the bounds, set
by reason, of what might serve for his use; there could be then
little room for quarrels or contentions about property so
established.
Sec. 32. But the chief matter of property being now not
the fruits of the earth, and the beasts that subsist on it, but
the earth itself; as that which takes in and carries with it
all the rest; I think it is plain, that property in that too is
acquired as the former. As much land as a man tills, plants,
improves, cultivates, and can use the product of, so much is his
property. He by his labour does, as it were, inclose it from
the common. Nor will it invalidate his right, to say every body
else has an equal title to it; and therefore he cannot
appropriate, he cannot inclose, without the consent of all his
fellow-commoners, all mankind. God, when he gave the world in
common to all mankind, commanded man also to labour, and the
penury of his condition required it of him. God and his reason
commanded him to subdue the earth, i.e. improve it for the
benefit of life, and therein lay out something upon it that was
his own, his labour. He that in obedience to this command of
God, subdued, tilled and sowed any part of it, thereby annexed to
it something that was his property, which another had no title
to, nor could without injury take from him.
Sec. 33. Nor was this appropriation of any parcel of
land, by improving it, any prejudice to any other man, since
there was still enough, and as good left; and more than the yet
unprovided could use. So that, in effect, there was never the

less left for others because of his enclosure for himself: for he
that leaves as much as another can make use of, does as good as
take nothing at all. No body could think himself injured by the
drinking of another man, though he took a good draught, who had a
whole river of the same water left him to quench his thirst: and
the case of land and water, where there is enough of both, is
perfectly the same.
Sec. 34. God gave the world to men in common; but since he
gave it them for their benefit, and the greatest conveniencies of
life they were capable to draw from it, it cannot be supposed he
meant it should always remain common and uncultivated. He gave
it to the use of the industrious and rational, (and labour was
to be his title to it;) not to the fancy or covetousness of the
quarrelsome and contentious. He that had as good left for his
improvement, as was already taken up, needed not complain, ought
not to meddle with what was already improved by another's labour:
if he did, it is plain he desired the benefit of another's pains,
which he had no right to, and not the ground which God had given
him in common with others to labour on, and whereof there was as
good left, as that already possessed, and more than he knew what
to do with, or his industry could reach to.
Sec. 35. It is true, in land that is common in
England, or any other country, where there is plenty of people
under government, who have money and commerce, no one can inclose
or appropriate any part, without the consent of all his fellow-
commoners; because this is left common by compact, i.e. by the
law of the land, which is not to be violated. And though it be
common, in respect of some men, it is not so to all mankind; but
is the joint property of this country, or this parish. Besides,
the remainder, after such enclosure, would not be as good to the
rest of the commoners, as the whole was when they could all make
use of the whole; whereas in the beginning and first peopling of
the great common of the world, it was quite otherwise. The law
man was under, was rather for appropriating. God commanded, and
his wants forced him to labour. That was his property which
could not be taken from him where-ever he had fixed it. And
hence subduing or cultivating the earth, and having dominion, we
see are joined together. The one gave title to the other. So
that God, by commanding to subdue, gave authority so far to
appropriate: and the condition of human life, which requires
labour and materials to work on, necessarily introduces private
possessions.
Sec. 36. The measure of property nature has well set by
the extent of men's labour and the conveniencies of life: no
man's labour could subdue, or appropriate all; nor could his
enjoyment consume more than a small part; so that it was
impossible for any man, this way, to intrench upon the right of
another, or acquire to himself a property, to the prejudice of
his neighbour, who would still have room for as good, and as
large a possession (after the other had taken out his) as before
it was appropriated. This measure did confine every man's
possession to a very moderate proportion, and such as he might
appropriate to himself, without injury to any body, in the first
ages of the world, when men were more in danger to be lost, by
wandering from their company, in the then vast wilderness of the
earth, than to be straitened for want of room to plant in. And
the same measure may be allowed still without prejudice to any
body, as full as the world seems: for supposing a man, or family,
in the state they were at first peopling of the world by the
children of Adam, or Noah; let him plant in some inland,
vacant places of America, we shall find that the possessions
he could make himself, upon the measures we have given, would
not be very large, nor, even to this day, prejudice the rest of
mankind, or give them reason to complain, or think themselves
injured by this man's incroachment, though the race of men have
now spread themselves to all the corners of the world, and do

infinitely exceed the small number was at the beginning. Nay,
the extent of ground is of so little value, without labour,
that I have heard it affirmed, that in Spain itself a man may
be permitted to plough, sow and reap, without being disturbed,
upon land he has no other title to, but only his making use of
it. But, on the contrary, the inhabitants think themselves
beholden to him, who, by his industry on neglected, and
consequently waste land, has increased the stock of corn, which
they wanted. But be this as it will, which I lay no stress on;
this I dare boldly affirm, that the same rule of propriety,
(viz.) that every man should have as much as he could make use
of, would hold still in the world, without straitening any body;
since there is land enough in the world to suffice double the
inhabitants, had not the invention of money, and the tacit
agreement of men to put a value on it, introduced (by consent)
larger possessions, and a right to them; which, how it has done,
I shall by and by shew more at large.
Sec. 37. This is certain, that in the beginning, before the
desire of having more than man needed had altered the intrinsic
value of things, which depends only on their usefulness to the
life of man; or had agreed, that a little piece of yellow
metal, which would keep without wasting or decay, should be
worth a great piece of flesh, or a whole heap of corn; though men
had a right to appropriate, by their labour, each one of himself,
as much of the things of nature, as he could use: yet this could
not be much, nor to the prejudice of others, where the same
plenty was still left to those who would use the same industry.
To which let me add, that he who appropriates land to himself by
his labour, does not lessen, but increase the common stock of
mankind: for the provisions serving to the support of human life,
produced by one acre of inclosed and cultivated land, are (to
speak much within compass) ten times more than those which are
yielded by an acre of land of an equal richness lying waste in
common. And therefore he that incloses land, and has a greater
plenty of the conveniencies of life from ten acres, than he could
have from an hundred left to nature, may truly be said to give
ninety acres to mankind: for his labour now supplies him with
provisions out of ten acres, which were but the product of an
hundred lying in common. I have here rated the improved land
very low, in making its product but as ten to one, when it is
much nearer an hundred to one: for I ask, whether in the wild
woods and uncultivated waste of America, left to nature,
without any improvement, tillage or husbandry, a thousand acres
yield the needy and wretched inhabitants as many conveniencies of
life, as ten acres of equally fertile land do in Devonshire,
where they are well cultivated?
Before the appropriation of land, he who gathered as much of
the wild fruit, killed, caught, or tamed, as many of the beasts,
as he could; he that so imployed his pains about any of the
spontaneous products of nature, as any way to alter them from the
state which nature put them in, by placing any of his labour
on them, did thereby acquire a propriety in them: but if they
perished, in his possession, without their due use; if the fruits
rotted, or the venison putrified, before he could spend it, he
offended against the common law of nature, and was liable to be
punished; he invaded his neighbour's share, for he had no right,
farther than his use called for any of them, and they might
serve to afford him conveniencies of life.
Sec. 38. The same measures governed the possession of
land too: whatsoever he tilled and reaped, laid up and made use
of, before it spoiled, that was his peculiar right; whatsoever he
enclosed, and could feed, and make use of, the cattle and product
was also his. But if either the grass of his enclosure rotted on
the ground, or the fruit of his planting perished without
gathering, and laying up, this part of the earth, notwithstanding
his enclosure, was still to be looked on as waste, and might be

the possession of any other. Thus, at the beginning, Cain
might take as much ground as he could till, and make it his own
land, and yet leave enough to Abel's sheep to feed on; a few
acres would serve for both their possessions. But as families
increased, and industry inlarged their stocks, their possessions
inlarged with the need of them; but yet it was commonly without
any fixed property in the ground they made use of, till they
incorporated, settled themselves together, and built cities; and
then, by consent, they came in time, to set out the bounds of
their distinct territories, and agree on limits between them and
their neighbours; and by laws within themselves, settled the
properties of those of the same society: for we see, that in
that part of the world which was first inhabited, and therefore
like to be best peopled, even as low down as Abraham's time,
they wandered with their flocks, and their herds, which was their
substance, freely up and down; and this Abraham did, in a
country where he was a stranger. Whence it is plain, that at
least a great part of the land lay in common; that the
inhabitants valued it not, nor claimed property in any more than
they made use of. But when there was not room enough in the same
place, for their herds to feed together, they by consent, as
Abraham and Lot did, Gen. xiii. 5. separated and inlarged
their pasture, where it best liked them. And for the same reason
Esau went from his father, and his brother, and planted in
mount Seir, Gen. xxxvi. 6.
Sec. 39. And thus, without supposing any private dominion,
and property in Adam, over all the world, exclusive of all
other men, which can no way be proved, nor any one's property be
made out from it; but supposing the world given, as it was, to
the children of men in common, we see how labour could make
men distinct titles to several parcels of it, for their private
uses; wherein there could be no doubt of right, no room for
quarrel.
Sec. 40. Nor is it so strange, as perhaps before
consideration it may appear, that the property of labour should
be able to over-balance the community of land: for it is labour
indeed that puts the difference of value on every thing; and
let any one consider what the difference is between an acre of
land planted with tobacco or sugar, sown with wheat or barley,
and an acre of the same land lying in common, without any
husbandry upon it, and he will find, that the improvement of
labour makes the far greater part of the value. I think it
will be but a very modest computation to say, that of the
products of the earth useful to the life of man nine tenths are
the effects of labour: nay, if we will rightly estimate things
as they come to our use, and cast up the several expences about
them, what in them is purely owing to nature, and what to
labour, we shall find, that in most of them ninety-nine
hundredths are wholly to be put on the account of labour.
Sec. 41. There cannot be a clearer demonstration of any
thing, than several nations of the Americans are of this, who
are rich in land, and poor in all the comforts of life; whom
nature having furnished as liberally as any other people, with
the materials of plenty, i.e. a fruitful soil, apt to produce
in abundance, what might serve for food, raiment, and delight;
yet for want of improving it by labour, have not one hundredth
part of the conveniencies we enjoy: and a king of a large and
fruitful territory there, feeds, lodges, and is clad worse than a
day-labourer in England.
Sec. 42. To make this a little clearer, let us but trace
some of the ordinary provisions of life, through their several
progresses, before they come to our use, and see how much they
receive of their value from human industry. Bread, wine and
cloth, are things of daily use, and great plenty; yet
notwithstanding, acorns, water and leaves, or skins, must be our
bread, drink and cloathing, did not labour furnish us with

these more useful commodities: for whatever bread is more worth
than acorns, wine than water, and cloth or silk, than leaves,
skins or moss, that is wholly owing to labour and industry;
the one of these being the food and raiment which unassisted
nature furnishes us with; the other, provisions which our
industry and pains prepare for us, which how much they exceed the
other in value, when any one hath computed, he will then see how
much labour makes the far greatest part of the value of things
we enjoy in this world: and the ground which produces the
materials, is scarce to be reckoned in, as any, or at most, but a
very small part of it; so little, that even amongst us, land that
is left wholly to nature, that hath no improvement of pasturage,
tillage, or planting, is called, as indeed it is, waste; and we
shall find the benefit of it amount to little more than nothing.
This shews how much numbers of men are to be preferred to
largeness of dominions; and that the increase of lands, and the
right employing of them, is the great art of government: and that
prince, who shall be so wise and godlike, as by established laws
of liberty to secure protection and encouragement to the honest
industry of mankind, against the oppression of power and
narrowness of party, will quickly be too hard for his neighbours:
but this by the by. To return to the argument in hand,
Sec. 43. An acre of land, that bears here twenty bushels of
wheat, and another in America, which, with the same husbandry,
would do the like, are, without doubt, of the same natural
intrinsic value: but yet the benefit mankind receives from the
one in a year, is worth 5l. and from the other possibly not
worth a penny, if all the profit an Indian received from it were
to be valued, and sold here; at least, I may truly say, not one
thousandth. It is labour then which puts the greatest part of
value upon land, without which it would scarcely be worth any
thing: it is to that we owe the greatest part of all its useful
products; for all that the straw, bran, bread, of that acre of
wheat, is more worth than the product of an acre of as good land,
which lies waste, is all the effect of labour: for it is not
barely the plough-man's pains, the reaper's and thresher's toil,
and the baker's sweat, is to be counted into the bread we eat;
the labour of those who broke the oxen, who digged and wrought
the iron and stones, who felled and framed the timber employed
about the plough, mill, oven, or any other utensils, which are a
vast number, requisite to this corn, from its being feed to be
sown to its being made bread, must all be charged on the
account of labour, and received as an effect of that: nature and
the earth furnished only the almost worthless materials, as in
themselves. It would be a strange catalogue of things, that
industry provided and made use of, about every loaf of bread,
before it came to our use, if we could trace them; iron, wood,
leather, bark, timber, stone, bricks, coals, lime, cloth, dying
drugs, pitch, tar, masts, ropes, and all the materials made use
of in the ship, that brought any of the commodities made use of
by any of the workmen, to any part of the work; all which it
would be almost impossible, at least too long, to reckon up.
Sec. 44. From all which it is evident, that though the
things of nature are given in common, yet man, by being master of
himself, and proprietor of his own person, and the actions or
labour of it, had still in himself the great foundation of
property; and that, which made up the great part of what he
applied to the support or comfort of his being, when invention
and arts had improved the conveniencies of life, was perfectly
his own, and did not belong in common to others.
Sec. 45. Thus labour, in the beginning, gave a right of
property, wherever any one was pleased to employ it upon what
was common, which remained a long while the far greater part, and
is yet more than mankind makes use of. Men, at first, for the
most part, contented themselves with what unassisted nature
offered to their necessities: and though afterwards, in some

parts of the world, (where the increase of people and stock, with
the use of money, had made land scarce, and so of some value)
the several communities settled the bounds of their distinct
territories, and by laws within themselves regulated the
properties of the private men of their society, and so, by
compact and agreement, settled the property which labour and
industry began; and the leagues that have been made between
several states and kingdoms, either expresly or tacitly disowning
all claim and right to the land in the others possession, have,
by common consent, given up their pretences to their natural
common right, which originally they had to those countries, and
so have, by positive agreement, settled a property amongst
themselves, in distinct parts and parcels of the earth; yet there
are still great tracts of ground to be found, which (the
inhabitants thereof not having joined with the rest of mankind,
in the consent of the use of their common money) lie waste, and
are more than the people who dwell on it do, or can make use of,
and so still lie in common; tho' this can scarce happen amongst
that part of mankind that have consented to the use of money.
Sec. 46. The greatest part of things really useful to the
life of man, and such as the necessity of subsisting made the
first commoners of the world look after, as it cloth the
Americans now, are generally things of short duration; such
as, if they are not consumed by use, will decay and perish of
themselves: gold, silver and diamonds, are things that fancy or
agreement hath put the value on, more than real use, and the
necessary support of life. Now of those good things which nature
hath provided in common, every one had a right (as hath been
said) to as much as he could use, and property in all that he
could effect with his labour; all that his industry could
extend to, to alter from the state nature had put it in, was his.
He that gathered a hundred bushels of acorns or apples, had
thereby a property in them, they were his goods as soon as
gathered. He was only to look, that he used them before they
spoiled, else he took more than his share, and robbed others.
And indeed it was a foolish thing, as well as dishonest, to hoard
up more than he could make use of. If he gave away a part to any
body else, so that it perished not uselesly in his possession,
these he also made use of. And if he also bartered away plums,
that would have rotted in a week, for nuts that would last good
for his eating a whole year, he did no injury; he wasted not the
common stock; destroyed no part of the portion of goods that
belonged to others, so long as nothing perished uselesly in his
hands. Again, if he would give his nuts for a piece of metal,
pleased with its colour; or exchange his sheep for shells, or
wool for a sparkling pebble or a diamond, and keep those by him
all his life he invaded not the right of others, he might heap up
as much of these durable things as he pleased; the exceeding of
the bounds of his just property not lying in the largeness of
his possession, but the perishing of any thing uselesly in it.
Sec. 47. And thus came in the use of money, some lasting
thing that men might keep without spoiling, and that by mutual
consent men would take in exchange for the truly useful, but
perishable supports of life.
Sec. 48. And as different degrees of industry were apt to
give men possessions in different proportions, so this invention
of money gave them the opportunity to continue and enlarge them:
for supposing an island, separate from all possible commerce with
the rest of the world, wherein there were but an hundred
families, but there were sheep, horses and cows, with other
useful animals, wholsome fruits, and land enough for corn for a
hundred thousand times as many, but nothing in the island, either
because of its commonness, or perishableness, fit to supply the
place of money; what reason could any one have there to enlarge
his possessions beyond the use of his family, and a plentiful
supply to its consumption, either in what their own industry

produced, or they could barter for like perishable, useful
commodities, with others? Where there is not some thing, both
lasting and scarce, and so valuable to be hoarded up, there men
will not be apt to enlarge their possessions of land, were it
never so rich, never so free for them to take: for I ask, what
would a man value ten thousand, or an hundred thousand acres of
excellent land, ready cultivated, and well stocked too with
cattle, in the middle of the inland parts of America, where he
had no hopes of commerce with other parts of the world, to draw
money to him by the sale of the product? It would not be worth
the enclosing, and we should see him give up again to the wild
common of nature, whatever was more than would supply the
conveniencies of life to be had there for him and his family.
Sec. 49. Thus in the beginning all the world was America,
and more so than that is now; for no such thing as money was
any where known. Find out something that hath the use and value
of money amongst his neighbours, you shall see the same man will
begin presently to enlarge his possessions.
Sec. 50. But since gold and silver, being little useful to
the life of man in proportion to food, raiment, and carriage, has
its value only from the consent of men, whereof labour yet
makes, in great part, the measure, it is plain, that men have
agreed to a disproportionate and unequal possession of the
earth, they having, by a tacit and voluntary consent, found out,
a way how a man may fairly possess more land than he himself can
use the product of, by receiving in exchange for the overplus
gold and silver, which may be hoarded up without injury to any
one; these metals not spoiling or decaying in the hands of the
possessor. This partage of things in an inequality of private
possessions, men have made practicable out of the bounds of
society, and without compact, only by putting a value on gold and
silver, and tacitly agreeing in the use of money: for in
governments, the laws regulate the right of property, and the
possession of land is determined by positive constitutions.
Sec. 51. And thus, I think, it is very easy to conceive,
without any difficulty, how labour could at first begin a title
of property in the common things of nature, and how the spending
it upon our uses bounded it. So that there could then be no
reason of quarrelling about title, nor any doubt about the
largeness of possession it gave. Right and conveniency went
together; for as a man had a right to all he could employ his
labour upon, so he had no temptation to labour for more than he
could make use of. This left no room for controversy about the
title, nor for encroachment on the right of others; what portion
a man carved to himself, was easily seen; and it was useless, as
well as dishonest, to carve himself too much, or take more than
he needed.