flood; the inhabitants of the antediluvian world therefore had no fuch permiffion, that we know of Whether they actually refrained from the flesh of animals, is another queftion. Abel, we read, was a keeper of fheep; and for what purpofe he kept them, except for food, is difficult to fay (unlefs it were facrifices): might not, however, fome of the ftricter fects among the antediluvians be fcrupulous as to this point? and might not Noah and his family be of this defcription? for it is not probable that God would publish a permiffion, to authorife a practice which had never been difputed.

Wanton, and what is worfe, ftudied cruelty to brutes, is certainly wrong, as coming within none of these reasons.

From reafon then, or revelation, or from both together, it appears to be God Almighty's inten tion, that the productions of the earth fhould be applied to the fuftentation of human life. Confequently, all wafte and mifapplication of thefe productions, is contrary to the divine intention and will; and therefore wrong, for the fame reafon that any other crime is fo. Such as, what is related of William the Conqueror, the converting of twenty manors into a foreft for hunting, or which is not much better, fuffering them to continue in that ftate; or the letting of large tracts of land lie barren, because the owner cannot cultivate them, nor will part with them to those who can; or deftroying, or fuffering to perifh great part of an article of human provifion, in order to enhance the price of the remainder, which is faid to have been, till lately, the cafe with fifh caught upon the English coaft; or diminishing the breed of animals, by a

wanton,

wanton, or improvident confumption of the young, as of the spawn of fhell fish, or the fry of falmon,' by the use of unlawful nets, or at improper fea fons: to this head may also be referred, what is the fame evil in a fmaller way, the expending of human food on fuperfluous dogs or horfes; and laftly, the reducing of the quantity, in order to alter the quality, and to alter it generally for the worfe; as the diftillation of fpirits from bread corn, the boiling down of folid meat for fauces, effences, &c.

This feems to be the leffon which our Saviour, after his manner, inculcates, when he bids his dif ciples gather up the fragments that nothing be "loft." And it opens indeed a new field of duty. Schemes of wealth or profit, prompt the active part of mankind to caft about, how they may convert their property to the most advantage: and their own advantage, and that of the public, commonly concur. But it has not as yet entered into the minds of mankind, to reflect that it is a duty, to add what we can to the common stock of provision, by extracting out of our eftates the most they will yield; or that it is any fin to neglect this.

From the fame intention of God Almighty, we alfo deduce another conclufion, namely," that "nothing ought to be made exclufive property, which can be conveniently enjoyed in com

"

It is the general intention of God Almighty, that the produce of the earth be applied to the use of man. This appears from the conftitution of nature, or, if you will, from his exprefs declaration; and this is all that appears hitherto. Under this general donation, one man has the fame right as another. You pluck an apple from a tree, or take a lamb out of a flock, for immediate ufe and nourishment, and I do the fame; and we both plead for what we do, the general intention of the Supreme Proprietor. So far all is right; but you cannot

claim

claim the whole tree, or the whole ftock, and exclude me from any fhare of them, and plead this general intention for what you do. The plea will not ferve you: you muft fhew, by probable arguments at leaft, that it is God's intention, that thefe things fhould be parcelled out to individuals; and that the established diftribution, under which you claim, fhould be upheld. Shew me this and I am fatisfied. But until this be fhewn, the general intention, which has been made appear, and which is all that does appear, muft prevail; and, under that, my title is as good as yours. Now there is no argument to induce fuch a prefumption, but one, that the thing cannot be enjoyed at all, or enjoyed with the fame, or with nearly the fame advantage, while it continues in common, as when appropriated. This is true, where there is not enough for all, or where the article in queftion requires care or labour in the production or prefervation: but where no fuch reafon obtains, and the thing is in its nature capable of being enjoyed by as many as will, it feems an arbitrary ufurpation upon the rights of mankind, to confine the use of it to any.

If a medicinal fpring were difcovered in a piece of ground which was private property, copious enough for every purpofe which it could be applied to, I would award a compenfation to the owner of the field, and a liberal profit to the author of the discovery, especially, if he had bestowed pains or expence upon the fearch; but I queftion, whether any human laws would be juftified, or would juftify the owner, in prohibiting mankind from the use of the water, or fetting fuch a price upon it, as would almost amount to a prohibition.

If there be fisheries, which are inexhauftible; as the cod-fifhery upon the Banks of Newfoundland, and the herring-fifhery in the British seas are faid to be; then all thofe conventions, by which one or two nations claim to themfelves, and guarantee to

each

each other, the exclufive enjoyment of these fish eries, are so many encroachments upon the general rights of mankind.

Upon the fame principle may be determined a queftion, which makes a great figure in books of natural law, utrum mare fit liberum? that is, as I understand it, whether the exclufive right of navigating particular feas, or a control over the navigation of these feas, can be claimed, confiftently with the law of nature, by any nation? What is neceffary for each nation's fafety we allow; as their own bays, creeks, and harbours, the fea contiguous to, that is within cannon fhot, or three leagues of their coaft: and, upon this principle of general fafety (if upon any principle) muft be defended, the claim of the Venetian ftate to the Adriatic, of Denmark to the Baltic fea, and of Great Britain to the feas which inveft the island. But, when Spain afferts a right to the Pacific ocean, or Portugal to the Indian feas, or when any nation extends its pretenfions much beyond the limits of its own territories, they erect a claim, which interferes with the benevolent defigns of Providence, and which no human authority can juftify.

III. Another right, which may be called a general right, as it is incidental to every man who is in a fituation to claim it, is the right of extreme neceffity by which is meant a right to use or destroy another's property, when it is neceffary for our own prefervation to do fo; as a right to take, without or againft the owner's leave, the first food, clothes, or fhelter we meet with, when we are in danger of perifhing through want of them; a right to throw goods overboard, to fave the fhip; or to pull down a houfe, in order to ftop the progrefs of a fire; and a few other inftances of the fame kind. Of which right the foundation feems to be this, that, when property was firft inftituted, the institution was not intended to operate to the deftruction

C..

of any therefore when fuch circumstances would follow, all regard to it is fuperfeded. Or rather, perhaps, these are the few cafes, where the particular confequence exceeds the general confequence; where the remote mifchief refulting from the violation of the general rule, is over-balanced by the immediate advantage.

Reftitution however is due, when in our power; because the laws of property are to be adhered to, fo far as confifts with fafety; and because reftitution, which is one of those laws, fuppofes the danger to be over. But what is to be reftored? not the full value of the property destroyed, but what it was worth at the time of deftroying it; which, confidering the danger it was in of perifhing, might be very little.

MORAL.