第6章

ThereisanaphorismofSavignywhichhasbeensometimes thoughttocountenanceaviewoftheoriginofpropertysomewhat similartothetheoriesepitomisedbyBlackstone。Thegreat GermanjuristhaslaiddownthatallPropertyisfoundedon AdversePossessionripenedbyPrescription。Itisonlywith respecttoRomanlawthatSavignymakesthisstatement，and beforeitcanfullybeappreciatedmuchlabourmustbeexpended inexplaininganddefiningtheexpressionsemployed。Hismeaning will，however，beindicatedwithsufficientaccuracyifwe considerhimtoassertthat，howfarsoeverwecarryourinquiry intotheideasofpropertyreceivedamongtheRomans，however closelyweapproachintracingthemtotheinfancyoflaw，wecan getnofartherthanaconceptionofownershipinvolvingthethree elementsinthecanon——Possession，AdversenessofPossession， thatisaholdingnotpermissiveorsubordinate，butexclusive againsttheworld，andPrescription，oraperiodoftimeduring whichtheAdversePossessionhasuninterruptedlycontinued。Itis exceedinglyprobablethatthismaximmightbeenunciatedwith moregeneralitythanwasallowedtoitbyitsauthor，andthatno soundorsafeconclusioncanbelookedforfrominvestigations intoanysystemoflawswhicharepushedfartherbackthanthe pointatwhichthesecombinedideasconstitutethenotionof proprietaryright。Meantime，sofarfrombearingoutthepopular theoryoftheoriginofproperty，Savigny’scanonisparticularly valuableasdirectingourattentiontoitsweakestpoint。Inthe viewofBlackstoneandthosewhomhefollows，itwasthemodeof assumingtheexclusiveenjoymentwhichmysteriouslyaffectedthe mindsofthefathersofourrace。Butthemysterydoesnotreside here。Itisnotwonderfulthatpropertybeganinadverse possession。Itisnotsurprisingthatthefirstproprietorshould havebeenthestrongmanarmedwhokepthisgoodsinpeace。But whyitwasthatlapseoftimecreatedasentimentofrespectfor hispossession——whichistheexactsourceoftheuniversal reverenceofmankindforthatwhichhasforalongperiodde factoexisted——arequestionsreallydeservingtheprofoundest examination，butlyingfarbeyondtheboundaryofourpresent inquiries。 Beforepointingoutthequarterinwhichwemayhopetoglean someinformation，scantyanduncertainatbest，concerningthe earlyhistoryofproprietaryright，Iventuretostatemyopinion thatthepopularimpressioninreferencetothepartplayedby Occupancyinthefirststagesofcivilisationdirectlyreverses thetruth。Occupancyistheadvisedassumptionofphysical possession；andthenotionthatanactofthisdescription confersatitleto\"resnullius，\"sofarfrombeing characteristicofveryearlysocieties，isinallprobabilitythe growthofarefinedjurisprudenceandofasettledconditionof thelaws。Itisonlywhentherightsofpropertyhavegaineda sanctionfromlongpracticalinviolabilityandwhenthevast majorityoftheobjectsofenjoymenthavebeensubjectedto privateownership，thatmerepossessionisallowedtoinvestthe firstpossessorwithdominionovercommoditiesinwhichnoprior proprietorshiphasbeenasserted。Thesentimentinwhichthis doctrineoriginatedisabsolutelyirreconcilablewiththat infrequencyanduncertaintyofproprietaryrightswhich distinguishthebeginningsofcivilisation。Itstruebasisseems tobe，notaninstinctivebiastowardstheinstitutionof Property，butapresumptionarisingoutofthelongcontinuance ofthatinstitution，thateverythingoughttohaveanowner。When possessionistakenofa\"resnullius，\"thatis，ofanobject whichisnot，orhasneverbeen，reducedtodominion，the possessorispermittedtobecomeproprietorfromafeelingthat allvaluablethingsarenaturallythesubjectsofanexclusive enjoyment，andthatinthegivencasethereisnoonetoinvest withtherightofpropertyexcepttheOccupant。TheOccupantin short，becomestheowner，becauseallthingsarepresumedtobe somebody’spropertyandbecausenoonecanbepointedoutas havingabetterrightthanhetotheproprietorshipofthis particularthing。 Evenweretherenootherobjectiontothedescriptionsof mankindintheirnaturalstatewhichwehavebeendiscussing， thereisoneparticularinwhichtheyarefatallyatvariance withtheauthenticevidencepossessedbyus。Itwillbeobserved thattheactsandmotiveswhichthesetheoriessupposearethe actsandmotivesofIndividuals。ItiseachIndividualwhofor himselfsubscribestheSocialCompact。Itissomeshifting sandbankinwhichthegrainsareIndividualmen，thataccording tothetheoryofHobbesishardenedintothesocialrockbythe wholesomedisciplineofforce。ItisanIndividualwho，inthe picturedrawnbyBlackstone，\"isintheoccupationofa determinedspotofgroundforrest，forshade，orthelike。\"The viceisonewhichnecessarilyafflictsallthetheoriesdescended fromtheNaturalLawoftheRomans，whichdifferedprincipally fromtheirCivilLawintheaccountwhichittookofIndividuals， andwhichhasrenderedpreciselyitsgreatestserviceto civilisationinenfranchisingtheindividualfromtheauthority ofarchaicsociety。ButAncientLaw，itmustagainberepeated， knowsnexttonothingofIndividuals。Itisconcernednotwith Individuals，butwithFamilies，notwithsinglehumanbeings，but groups。EvenwhenthelawoftheStatehassucceededin permeatingthesmallcirclesofkindredintowhichithad originallynomeansofpenetrating，theviewittakesof Individualsiscuriouslydifferentfromthattakenby jurisprudenceinitsmatureststage。Thelifeofeachcitizenis notregardedaslimitedbybirthanddeath；itisbuta continuationoftheexistenceofhisforefathers，anditwillbe prolongedintheexistenceofhisdescendants。 TheRomandistinctionbetweentheLawofPersonsandtheLaw ofThings，whichthoughextremelyconvenientisentirely artificial，hasevidentlydonemuchtodivertinquiryonthe subjectbeforeusfromthetruedirection。Thelessonslearnedin discussingtheJusPersonarumhavebeenforgottenwheretheJus Rerumisreached，andProperty，Contract，andDelict，havebeen consideredasifnohintsconcerningtheiroriginalnaturewere tobegainedfromthefactsascertainedrespectingtheoriginal conditionofPersons。Thefutilityofthismethodwouldbe manifestifasystemofpurearchaiclawcouldbebroughtbefore us，andiftheexperimentcouldbetriedofapplyingtoitthe Romanclassifications。Itwouldsoonbeseenthattheseparation oftheLawofPersonsfromthatofThingshasnomeaninginthe infancyoflaw，thattherulesbelongingtothetwodepartments areinextricablymingledtogether，andthatthedistinctionsof thelaterjuristsareappropriateonlytothelater jurisprudence。Fromwhathasbeensaidintheearlierportionsof thistreatise，itwillbegatheredthatthereisastronga prioriimprobabilityofourobtaininganycluetotheearly historyofproperty，ifweconfineournoticetotheproprietary rightsofindividuals。Itismorethanlikelythat joint-ownership，andnotseparateownership，isthereally archaicinstitution，andthattheformsofpropertywhichwill affordusinstructionwillbethosewhichareassociatedwiththe rightsoffamiliesandofgroupsofkindred。TheRoman jurisprudencewillnothereassistinenlighteningus，foritis exactlytheRomanjurisprudencewhich，transformedbythetheory ofNaturalLaw，hasbequeathedtothemodernstheimpressionthat individualownershipisthenormalstateofproprietaryright， andthatownershipincommonbygroupsofmenisonlythe exceptiontoageneralrule。Thereis，however，onecommunity whichwillalwaysbecarefullyexaminedbytheinquirerwhoisin questofanylostinstitutionofprimevalsociety。Howfarsoever anysuchinstitutionmayhaveundergonechangeamongthebranch oftheIndo-Europeanfamilywhichhasbeensettledforagesin India，itwillseldombefoundtohaveentirelycastasidethe shellinwhichitwasoriginallyreared。Ithappensthat，among theHindoos，wedofindaformofownershipwhichoughtatonce torivetourattentionfromitsexactlyfittinginwiththeideas whichourstudiesintheLawofPersonswouldleadusto entertainrespectingtheoriginalconditionofproperty。The VillageCommunityofIndiaisatonceanorganisedpatriarchal societyandanassemblageofco-proprietors。Thepersonal relationstoeachotherofthemenwhocomposeitare indistinguishablyconfoundedwiththeirproprietaryrights，and totheattemptsofEnglishfunctionariestoseparatethetwomay beassignedsomeofthemostformidablemiscarriagesof Anglo-Indianadministration。TheVillageCommunityisknowntobe ofimmenseantiquity。Inwhateverdirectionresearchhasbeen pushedintoIndianhistory，generalorlocal，ithasalwaysfound theCommunityinexistenceatthefarthestpointofitsprogress。 Agreatnumberofintelligentandobservantwriters，mostofwhom hadnotheoryofanysorttosupportconcerningitsnatureand origin，agreeinconsideringittheleastdestructible institutionofasocietywhichneverwillinglysurrendersanyone ofitsusagestoinnovation。Conquestsandrevolutionsseemto havesweptoveritwithoutdisturbingordisplacingit，andthe mostbeneficentsystemsofgovernmentinIndiahavealwaysbeen thosewhichhaverecogniseditasthebasisofadministration。 ThematureRomanlaw，andmodernjurisprudencefollowingin itswake，lookuponco-ownershipasanexceptionalandmomentary conditionoftherightsofproperty。Thisviewisclearly indicatedinthemaximwhichobtainsuniversallyinWestern Europe，Nemoincommunionepotestinvitusdetineri(\"Noonecan bekeptinco-proprietorshipagainsthiswill\")。ButinIndia thisorderofideasisreversed，anditmaybesaidthatseparate proprietorshipisalwaysonitswaytobecomeproprietorshipin common。Theprocesshasbeenadvertedtoalready。Assoonasa sonisborn，heacquiresavestedinterestinhisfather’s substance，andonattainingyearsofdiscretionheiseven，in certaincontingencies，permittedbytheletterofthelawtocall forapartitionofthefamilyestate。Asafact，however，a divisionrarelytakesplaceevenatthedeathofthefather，and thepropertyconstantlyremainsundividedforseveral generations，thougheverymemberofeverygenerationhasalegal righttoanundividedshareinit。Thedomainthusheldincommon issometimesadministeredbyanelectedmanager，butmore generally，andinsomeprovincesalways，itismanagedbythe eldestagnate，bytheeldestrepresentativeoftheeldestlineof thestock。Suchanassemblageofjointproprietors，abodyof kindredholdingadomainincommon，isthesimplestformofan IndianVillageCommunity，buttheCommunityismorethana brotherhoodofrelativesandmorethananassociationof partners。Itisanorganizedsociety，andbesidesprovidingfor themanagementofthecommonfund，itseldomfailstoprovide，by acompletestaffoffunctionaries，forinternalgovernment，for police，fortheadministrationofjustice，andforthe apportionmentoftaxesandpublicduties。 TheprocesswhichIhavedescribedasthatunderwhicha VillageCommunityisformed，mayberegardedastypical。Yetit isnottobesupposedthateveryVillageCommunityinIndiadrew togetherinsosimpleamanner。Although，intheNorthofIndia， thearchives，asIaminformed，almostinvariablyshowthatthe Communitywasfoundedbyasingleassemblageofblood-relations， theyalsosupplyinformationthatmenofalienextractionhave always，fromtimetotime，beenengraftedonit，andamere purchaserofasharemaygenerally，undercertainconditions，be admittedtothebrotherhood。IntheSouthofthePeninsulathere areoftenCommunitieswhichappeartohavesprungnotfromone butfromtwoormorefamilies；andtherearesomewhose compositionisknowntobeentirelyartificial；indeed，the occasionalaggregationofmenofdifferentcastesinthesame societyisfataltothehypothesisofacommondescent。Yetin allthesebrotherhoodseitherthetraditionispreserved，orthe assumptionmade，ofanoriginalcommonparentage。Mountstuart Elphinstone，whowritesmoreparticularlyoftheSouthernVillage Communities，observesofthem(HistoryofIndia，i。126):\"The popularnotionisthattheVillagelandholdersarealldescended fromoneormoreindividualswhosettledthevillage；andthat theonlyexceptionsareformedbypersonswhohavederivedtheir rightsbypurchaseorotherwisefrommembersoftheoriginal stock。Thesuppositionisconfirmedbythefactthat，tothis day，thereareonlysinglefamiliesoflandholdersinsmall villagesandnotmanyinlargeones；buteachhasbranchedout intosomanymembersthatitisnotuncommonforthewhole agriculturallabourtobedonebythelandholders，withoutthe aideitheroftenantsoroflabourers。Therightsofthe landholdersaretheircollectivelyand，thoughtheyalmostalways haveamoreorlessperfectpartitionofthem，theyneverhavean entireseparation。Alandholder，forinstance，cansellor mortgagehisrights；buthemustfirsthavetheconsentofthe Village，andthepurchaserstepsexactlyintohisplaceandtakes upallhisobligations。Ifafamilybecomesextinct，itsshare returnstothecommonstock。\" Someconsiderationswhichhavebeenofferedinthefifth chapterofthisvolumewillassistthereader，Itrust，in appreciatingthesignificanceofElphinstone’slanguage。No institutionoftheprimitiveworldislikelytohavebeen preservedtoourday，unlessithasacquiredanelasticity foreigntoitsoriginalnaturethroughsomevivifyinglegal fiction。TheVillageCommunitythenisnotnecessarilyan assemblageofblood-relations，butitiseithersuchan assemblageorabodyofco-proprietorformedonthemodelofan associationofkinsmen。Thetypewithwhichitshouldbecompared isevidentlynottheRomanFamily，buttheRomanGensorHouse。 TheGenswasalsoagrouponthemodelofthefamily。itwasthe familyextendedbyavarietyoffictionsofwhichtheexact naturewaslostinantiquity。Inhistoricaltimes，itsleading characteristicsweretheverytwowhichElphinstoneremarksin theVillageCommunity。Therewasalwaystheassumptionofa commonorigin，anassumptionsometimesnotoriouslyatvariance withfact；and，torepeatthehistorian’swords，\"ifafamily becameextinct，itssharereturnedtothecommonstock。\"Inold Romanlaw，unclaimedinheritancesescheatedtotheGentiles。It isfurthersuspectedbyallwhohaveexaminedtheirhistorythat theCommunities，liketheGentes，havebeenverygenerally adulteratedbytheadmissionofstrangers，buttheexactmodeof absorptioncannotnowbeascertained。Atpresent，theyare recruited，asElphinstonetellsus，bytheadmissionof purchasers，withtheconsentofthebrotherhood。Theacquisition oftheadoptedmemberis，however，ofthenatureofauniversal succession；togetherwiththesharehehasbought，hesucceedsto theliabilitieswhichthevendorhadincurredtowardsthe aggregategroup。HeisanEmptorFamiliae，andinheritsthelegal clothingofthepersonwhoseplacehebeginstofill。Theconsent ofthewholebrotherhoodrequiredforhisadmissionmayremindus oftheconsentwhichtheComitiaCuriata，theParliamentofthat largerbrotherhoodofself-styledkinsmen，theancientRoman commonwealth，sostrenuouslyinsistedonasessentialtothe legalisationofanAdoptionortheconfirmationofaWill。 Thetokensofanextremeantiquityarediscoverableinalmost everysinglefeatureoftheIndianVillageCommunities。Wehave somanyindependentreasonsforsuspectingthattheinfancyof lawisdistinguishedbytheprevalenceofco-ownershipbythe intermixtureofpersonalwithproprietaryrights，andbythe confusionofpublicwithprivateduties，thatweshouldbe justifiedindeducingmanyimportantconclusionsfromour observationoftheseproprietarybrotherhoods，evenifno similarlycompoundedsocietiescouldbedetectedinanyother partoftheworld。Ithappens，however，thatmuchearnest curiosityhasbeenveryrecentlyattractedtoasimilarsetof phenomenainthosepartsofEuropewhichhavebeenmostslightly affectedbythefeudaltransformationofproperty，andwhichin manyimportantparticularshaveascloseanaffinitywiththe EasternaswiththeWesternworld。TheresearchesofM。de Haxthausen，M。Tengoborski，andothers，haveshownusthatthe Russianvillagesarenotfortuitousassemblagesofmen，norare theyunionsfoundedoncontract；theyarenaturallyorganised communitieslikethoseofIndia。Itistruethatthesevillages arealwaysintheorythepatrimonyofsomenobleproprietor，and thepeasantshavewithinhistoricaltimesbeenconvertedintothe predial，andtoagreatextentintothepersonal，serfsofthe seignior。Butthepressureofthissuperiorownershiphasnever crushedtheancientorganisationofthevillage，anditis probablethattheenactmentoftheCzarofRussia，whois supposedtohaveintroducedserfdom，wasreallyintendedto preventthepeasantsfromabandoningthatco-operationwithout whichtheoldsocialordercouldnotlongbemaintained。Inthe assumptionofanagnaticconnectionbetweenthevillagers，inthe blendingofpersonalrightswithprivilegesofownership，andin avarietyofspontaneousprovisionsforinternaladministration， theRussianVillageappearstobeanearlyexactrepetitionof theIndianCommunity；butthereisoneimportantdifferencewhich wenotewiththegreatestinterest。Theco-ownersofanIndian village，thoughtheirpropertyisblended，havetheirrights distinct，andthisseparationofrightsiscompleteandcontinues indefinitely。Theseveranceofrightsisalsotheoretically completeinaRussianvillage，butthereitisonlytemporary。 Aftertheexpirationofagiven，builtnotinallcasesofthe same，periodseparateownershipsareextinguished，thelandof thevillageisthrownintoamass，andthenitisre-distributed amongthefamiliescomposingthecommunity，accordingtotheir number。Thisrepartitionhavingbeeneffected，therightsof familiesandofindividualsareagainallowedtobranchoutinto variouslines，whichtheycontinuetofollowtillanotherperiod ofdivisioncomesround。Anevenmorecuriousvariationfromthis typeofownershipoccursinsomeofthosecountrieswhichlong formedadebateablelandbetweentheTurkishempireandthe possessionsoftheHouseofAustria，InServia，inCroatia，and theAustrianSclavonia，thevillagesarealsobrotherhoodsof personswhoareatonceco-ownersandkinsmen；buttherethe internalarrangementsofthecommunitydifferfromthoseadverted tointhelasttwoexamples。Thesubstanceofthecommonproperty isinthiscaseneitherdividedinpracticenorconsideredin theoryasdivisible，buttheentirelandiscultivatedbythe combineDlabourofallthevillagers，andtheproduceisannually distributedamongthehouseholds，sometimesaccordingtotheir supposedwants，sometimesaccordingtoruleswhichgiveto particularpersonsafixedshareoftheusufruct。Allthese practicesaretracedbythejuristsoftheEastofEuropetoa principlewhichisassertedtobefoundintheearliest Sclavonianlaws，theprinciplethatthepropertyoffamilies cannotbedividedforaperpetuity。 Thegreatinterestofthesephenomenainaninquirylikethe presentarisesfromthelighttheythrowonthedevelopmentof distinctproprietaryrightsinsidethegroupsbywhichproperty seemstohavebeenoriginallyheld。Wehavethestrongestreason forthinkingthatpropertyoncebelongednottoindividualsnor eventoisolatedfamilies，buttolargersocietiescomposedon thepatriarchalmodel；butthemodeoftransitionfromancientto modernownerships，obscureatbest，wouldhavebeeninfinitely obscurerifseveraldistinguishableformsofVillageCommunities hadnotbeendiscoveredandexamined。Itisworthwhiletoattend tothevarietiesofinternalarrangementwithinthepatriarchal groupswhichare，orweretillrecently，observableamongraces ofIndo-Europeanblood。ThechiefsoftheruderHighlandclans used，itissaid，todoleoutfoodtotheheadsofthehouseholds undertheirjurisdictionattheveryshortestintervals，and sometimesdaybyday。Aperiodicaldistributionisalsomadeto theSclavonianvillagersoftheAustrianandTurkishprovincesby theeldersoftheirbody，butthenitisadistributiononcefor allofthetotalproduceoftheyear。IntheRussianvillages， however，thesubstanceofthepropertyceasestobelookedupon asindivisible，andseparateproprietaryclaimsareallowed freelytogrowup，butthentheprogressofseparationis peremptorilyarrestedafterithascontinuedacertaintime。In India，notonlyistherenoindivisibilityofthecommonfund， butseparateproprietorshipinpartsofitmaybeindefinitely prolongedandmaybranchoutintoanynumberofderivative ownerships，thedefactopartitionofthestockbeing，however， checkedbyinveterateusage，andbytheruleagainstthe admissionofstrangerswithouttheconsentofthebrotherhood。It isnotofcourseintendedtoinsistthatthesedifferentformsof theVillageCommunityrepresentdistinctstagesinaprocessof transmutationwhichhasbeeneverywhereaccomplishedinthesame manner。But，thoughtheevidencedoesnotwarrantourgoingso farasthis，itrenderslesspresumptuoustheconjecturethat privateproperty，intheshapeinwhichweknowit，waschiefly formedbythegradualdisentanglementoftheseparaterightsof individualsfromtheblendedrightsofacommunity。Ourstudies intheLawofPersonsseemedtoshowustheFamilyexpandinginto theAgnaticgroupofkinsmen，thentheAgnaticgroupdissolving intoseparatehouseholds；lastlythehouseholdsupplantedbythe individual；anditisnowsuggestedthateachstepinthechange correspondstoananalogousalterationinthenatureof Ownership。Iftherebeanytruthinthesuggestion，itistobe observedthatitmateriallyaffectstheproblemwhichtheorists ontheoriginofPropertyhavegenerallyproposedtothemselves。 Thequestion——perhapsaninsolubleonewhichtheyhavemostly agitatedis，whatwerethemotiveswhichfirstinducedmento respecteachother’spossessions？Itmaystillbeput，without muchhopeoffindingananswertoit，intheformofanyinquiry intothereasonswhichledonecompositegrouptokeepalooffrom thedomainofanother。But，ifitbetruethatfarthemost importantpassageinthehistoryofPrivatePropertyisits gradualeliminationfromtheco-ownershipofkinsmen，thenthe greatpointofinquiryisidenticalwiththatwhichliesonthe thresholdofallhistoricallaw——whatwerethemotiveswhich originallypromptedmentoholdtogetherinthefamilyunion？To suchaquestion，Jurisprudence，unassistedbyothersciences，is notcompetenttogiveareply。Thefactcanonlybenoted。 Theundividedstateofpropertyinancientsocietiesis consistentwithapeculiarsharpnessofdivision，whichshows itselfassoonasanysingleshareiscompletelyseparatedfrom thepatrimonyofthegroup。Thisphenomenonsprings，doubtless， fromthecircumstancethatthepropertyissupposedtobecomethe domainofanewgroup，sothatanydealingwithit，inits dividedstate，isatransactionbetweentwohighlycomplex bodies。IhavealreadycomparedAncientLawtoModern InternationalLaw，inrespectofthesizeandcomplexityofthe corporateassociations，whoserightsanddutiesitsettles。As thecontractsandconveyancesknowntoancientlawarecontracts andconveyancestowhichnotsingleindividuals，butorganised companiesofmen，areparties，theyareinthehighestdegree ceremonious；theyrequireavarietyofsymbolicalactsandwords intendedtoimpressthebusinessonthememoryofallwhotake partinit；andtheydemandthepresenceofaninordinatenumber ofwitnesses。Fromthesepeculiarities，andothersalliedto them，springstheuniversallyunmalleablecharacterofthe ancientformsofproperty。Sometimesthepatrimonyofthefamily isabsolutelyinalienable，aswasthecasewiththeSclavonians， andstilloftener，thoughalienationsmaynotbeentirely illegitimate，theyarevirtuallyimpracticable，asamongmostof theGermanictribes，fromthenecessityofhavingtheconsentof alargenumberofpersonstothetransfer。Wherethese impedimentsdonotexist，orcanbesurmounted，theactof conveyanceitselfisgenerallyburdenedwithaperfectloadof ceremony，inwhichnotoneiotacanbesafelyneglected。Ancient lawuniformlyrefusestodispensewithasinglegesture，however grotesque；withasinglesyllable，howeveritsmeaningmayhave beenforgotten；withasinglewitness，howeversuperfluousmaybe histestimony。Theentiresolemnitiesmustbescrupulously completedbypersonslegallyentitledtotakepartinthem，or elsetheconveyanceisnull，andthesellerisre-establishedin therightsofwhichhehadvainlyattemptedtodivesthimself。 Thesevariousobstaclestothefreecirculationofthe objectsofuseandenjoyment，beginofcoursetomakethemselves feltassoonassocietyhasacquiredevenaslightdegreeof activity，andtheexpedientsbywhichadvancingcommunities endeavourtoovercomethemformthestapleofthehistoryof Property。Ofsuchexpedientsthereisonewhichtakesprecedence oftherestfromitsantiquityanduniversality。Theideaseems tohavespontaneouslysuggesteditselftoagreatnumberofearly societies，toclassifypropertyintokinds。Onekindorsortof propertyisplacedonalowerfootingofdignitythantheothers， butatthesametimeisrelievedfromthefetterswhichantiquity hasimposedonthem。Subsequently，thesuperiorconvenienceof therulesgoverningthetransferanddescentofthelowerorder ofpropertybecomesgenerallyrecognised，andbyagradualcourse ofinnovationtheplasticityofthelessdignifiedclassof valuableobjectsiscommunicatedtotheclasseswhichstand conventionallyhigher。ThehistoryofRomanPropertyLawisthe historyoftheassimilationofResMancipitoResNecMancipi。 ThehistoryofPropertyontheEuropeanContinentisthehistory ofthesubversionofthefeudalisedlawoflandbytheRomanised lawofmoveables；and，thoughthehistoryofownershipinEngland isnotnearlycompleted，itisvisiblythelawofpersonalty whichthreatenstoabsorbandannihilatethelawofrealty。 Theonlynaturalclassificationoftheobjectsofenjoyment， theonlyclassificationwhichcorrespondswithanessential differenceinthesubject-matter，isthatwhichdividestheminto MoveablesandImmoveables。Familiarasisthisclassificationto jurisprudence，itwasveryslowlydevelopedbyRomanlaw；from whichweinheritit，andwasonlyfinallyadoptedbyitinits lateststage。TheclassificationsofAncientLawhavesometimesa superficialresemblancetothis。Theyoccasionallydivide propertyintocategories，andplaceimmoveablesinoneofthem； butthenitisfoundthattheyeitherclassalongwith immoveablesanumberofobjectswhichhavenosortofrelation withthem，orelsedivorcethemfromvariousrightstowhichthey haveacloseaffinity。Thus，theResMancipiofRomanLaw includednotonlyland，butslaves，horses，andoxen。Scottish lawrankswithlandacertainclassofsecurities，andHindoolaw associatesitwithslaves。Englishlaw，ontheotherhand，parts leasesoflandforyearsfromotherinterestsinthesoil，and joinsthemtopersonaltyunderthenameofchattelsreal。 MoreovertheclassificationsofAncientLawareclassifications implyingsuperiorityandinferiority；whilethedistinction betweenmoveablesandimmoveables，solongatleastasitwas confinedtoRomanjurisprudence，carriedwithitnosuggestion whateverofadifferenceindignity。TheResMancipi，however， didcertainlyatfirstenjoyaprecedenceovertheResNec Mancipi，asdidheritablepropertyinScotlandandrealtyin England，overthepersonaltytowhichtheywereopposed。The lawyersofallsystemshavesparednopainsinstrivingtorefer theseclassificationstosomeintelligibleprinciple；butthe reasonsoftheseverancemusteverbevainlysoughtforinthe philosophyoflaw:theybelongnottoitsphilosophy，buttoits history。Theexplanationwhichappearstocoverthegreatest numberofinstancesis，thattheobjectsofenjoymenthonoured abovetherestweretheformsofpropertyknownfirstand earliesttoeachparticularcommunity，anddignifiedtherefore emphaticallywiththedesignationofProperty。Ontheotherhand， thearticlesnotenumeratedamongthefavouredobjectsseemto havebeenplacedonalowerstanding，becausetheknowledgeof theirvaluewasposteriortotheepochatwhichthecatalogueof superiorpropertywassettled。Theywereatfirstunknown，rare， limitedintheiruses，orelseregardedasmereappendagestothe privilegedobjects。Thus，thoughtheRomanResMancipiincludeda numberofmoveablearticlesofgreatvalue，stillthemostcostly jewelswereneverallowedtotakerankasResMancipi，because theywereunknowntotheearlyRomans。Inthesamewaychattels realinEnglandaresaidtohavebeendegradedtothefootingof personalty，fromtheinfrequencyandvaluelessnessofsuch estatesunderthefeudalland-law。Butthegrandpointof interestis，thecontinueddegradationofthesecommoditieswhen theirimportancehadincreasedandtheirnumberhadmultiplied。 Whyweretheynotsuccessivelyintrudedamongthefavoured objectsofenjoyment？Onereasonisfoundinthestubbornness withwhichAncientLawadherestoitsclassifications。Itisa characteristicbothofuneducatedmindsandofearlysocieties， thattheyarelittleabletoconceiveageneralruleapartfrom theparticularapplicationsofitwithwhichtheyarepractically familiar。Theycannotdissociateageneraltermormaximfromthe specialexampleswhichmeetthemindailyexperience；andinthis waythedesignationcoveringthebest-knownformsofpropertyis deniedtoarticleswhichexactlyresembletheminbeingobjects ofenjoymentandsubjectsofright。Buttotheseinfluences， whichexertpeculiarforceinasubject-mattersostableasthat oflaw，areafterwardsaddedothersmoreconsistentwithprogress inenlightenmentandintheconceptionsofgeneralexpediency。 Courtsandlawyersbecomeatlastalivetotheinconvenienceof theembarrassingformalitiesrequiredforthetransfer，recovery， ordevolutionofthefavouredcommodities，andgrowunwillingto fetterthenewerdescriptionsofpropertywiththetechnical trammelswhichcharacterisedtheinfancyoflaw。Hencearisesa dispositiontokeeptheselastonalowergradeinthe arrangementsofJurisprudence，andtopermittheirtransferby simplerprocessesthanthosewhich，inarchaicconveyances，serve asstumbling-blockstogoodfaithandstepping-stonestofraud。 Weareperhapsinsomedangerofunderratingtheinconveniences oftheancientmodesoftransfer。Ourinstrumentsofconveyance arewritten，sothattheirlanguage，wellponderedbythe professionaldraftsman，israrelydefectiveinaccuracy。Butan ancientconveyancewasnotwritten，butacted。Gesturesandwords tooktheplaceofwrittentechnicalphraseology，andanyformula mispronounced，orsymbolicalactomitted，wouldhavevitiatedthe proceedingasfatallyasamaterialmistakeinstatingtheuses orsettingouttheremainderswould，twohundredyearsago，have vitiatedanEnglishdeed。Indeed，themischiefsofthearchaic ceremonialareeventhusonlyhalfstated。Solongaselaborate conveyances，writtenoracted，arerequiredforthealienationof landalone，thechancesofmistakearenotconsiderableinthe transferofadescriptionofpropertywhichisseldomgotridof withmuchprecipitation。Butthehigherclassofpropertyinthe ancientworldcomprisednotonlylandbutseveralofthe commonestandseveralofthemostvaluablemoveables。Whenonce thewheelsofsocietyhadbeguntomovequickly，theremusthave beenimmenseinconvenienceindemandingahighlyintricateform oftransferforahorseoranox，orforthemostcostlychattel oftheoldworld——theSlave。Suchcommoditiesmusthavebeen constantlyandevenordinarilyconveyedwithincompleteforms， andheld，therefore，underimperfecttitles。 TheResMancipiofoldRomanlawwereland——inhistorical times，landonItaliansoil，——slavesandbeastsofburden，such ashorsesandoxen。Itisimpossibletodoubtthattheobjects whichmakeuptheclassaretheinstrumentsofagricultural labour，thecommoditiesoffirstconsequencetoaprimitive people。Suchcommoditieswereatfirst，Iimagine，called emphaticallyThingsorProperty，andthemodeofconveyanceby whichtheyweretransferredwascalledaMancipiumor Mancipation；butitwasnotprobablytillmuchlaterthatthey receivedthedistinctiveappellationofResMancipi，\"Things whichrequireaMancipation。\"Bytheirsidetheremayhave existedorgrownupaclassofobjects，forwhichitwasnot worthwhiletoinsistuponthefullceremonyofMancipation。It wouldbeenoughif，intransferringtheselastfromownerto owner，apartonlyoftheordinaryformalitieswereproceeded with，namely，thatactualdelivery，physicaltransfer，or tradition，whichisthemostobviousindexofachangeof proprietorship。SuchcommoditiesweretheResNecMancipiofthe ancientjurisprudence，\"thingswhichdidnotrequirea Mancipation，\"littleprizedprobablyatfirst，andnotoften passedfromonegroupofproprietorstoanother。While，however， thelistoftheResMancipiwasirrevocablyclosed，thatofthe ResNecMancipiadmittedofindefiniteexpansion；andhenceevery freshconquestofmanovermaterialnatureaddedanitemtothe ResNecMancipi，oreffectedanimprovementinthosealready recognised。Insensibly，therefore，theymountedtoanequality withtheResMancipi，andtheimpressionofanintrinsic inferioritybeingthusdissipated，menbegantoobservethe manifoldadvantagesofthesimpleformalitywhichaccompanied theirtransferoverthemoreintricateandmorevenerable ceremonial。Twooftheagentsoflegalamelioration，Fictionsand Equity，wereassiduouslyemployedbytheRomanlawyerstogive thepracticaleffectsofaMancipationtoaTradition:and， thoughRomanlegislatorslongshrankfromenactingthattheright ofpropertyinaResMancipishouldbeimmediatelytransferredby baredeliveryofthearticle，yeteventhisstepwasatlast ventureduponbyJustinian，inwhosejurisprudencethedifference betweenResMancipiandResNecMancipidisappears，andTradition orDeliverybecomestheonegreatconveyanceknowntothelaw。 ThemarkedpreferencewhichtheRomanlawyersveryearlygaveto Traditioncausedthemtoassignitaplaceintheirtheorywhich hashelpedtoblindtheirmoderndisciplestoitstruehistory。 Itwasclassedamongthe\"natural\"modesofacquisition，both becauseitwasgenerallypractisedamongtheItaliantribes，and becauseitwasaprocesswhichattaineditsobjectbythe simplestmechanism。Iftheexpressionsofthejurisconsultsbe pressed，theyundoubtedlyimplythatTradition，whichbelongsto theLawNatural，ismoreancientthanMancipation，whichisan institutionofCivilSociety；andthis，Ineednotsay，isthe exactreverseofthetruth。 ThedistinctionbetweenResMancipiandResNecMancipiis thetypeofaclassofdistinctionstowhichcivilisationismuch indebted，distinctionswhichrunthroughthewholemassof commodities，placingafewoftheminaclassbythemselves，and relegatingtheotherstoalowercategory。Theinferiorkindsof propertyarefirst，fromdisdainanddisregard，releasedfromthe perplexedceremoniesinwhichprimitivelawdelights，andthus afterwards，inanotherstateofintellectualprogress，thesimple methodsoftransferandrecoverywhichhavebeenallowedtocome intouseserveasamodelwhichcondemnsbyitsconvenienceand simplicitythecumbroussolemnitiesinheritedfromancientdays。 But，insomesocieties，thetrammelsinwhichPropertyistiedup aremuchtoocomplicatedandstringenttoberelaxedinsoeasya manner。WhenevermalechildrenhavebeenborntoaHindoo，the lawofIndia，asIhavestated，givesthemallaninterestinhis property，andmakestheirconsentanecessaryconditionofits alienation。Inthesamespirit，thegeneralusageoftheold Germanicpeoples——itisremarkablethattheAnglo-Saxoncustoms seemtohavebeenanexceptionforbadealienationswithoutthe consentofthemalechildren；andtheprimitivelawofthe Sclavoniansevenprohibitedthemaltogether。Itisevidentthat suchimpedimentsasthesecannotbeovercomebyadistinction betweenkindsofproperty，inasmuchasthedifficultyextendsto commoditiesofallsorts；andaccordingly，AncientLaw，whenonce launchedonacourseofimprovement，encountersthemwitha distinctionofanothercharacter，adistinctionclassifying property，notaccordingtoitsnaturebutaccordingtoits origin。InIndia，wheretherearetracesofbothsystemsof classification，theonewhichweareconsideringisexemplified inthedifferencewhichHindoolawestablishesbetween InheritancesandAcquisitions。Theinheritedpropertyofthe fatherissharedbythechildrenassoonastheyareborn；but accordingtothecustomofmostprovinces，theacquisitionsmade byhimduringhislifetimearewhollyhisown，andcanbe transferredbyhimatpleasure。Asimilardistinctionwasnot unknowntoRomanlaw，inwhichtheearliestinnovationonthe ParentalPowerstooktheformofapermissiongiventothesonto keepforhimselfwhateverhemighthaveacquiredinmilitary service。Butthemostextensiveuseevermadeofthismodeof classificationappearstohavebeenamongtheGermans，Ihave repeatedlystatedthattheallod，thoughnotinalienable，was commonlytransferablewiththegreatestdifficulty。andmoreover， itdescendedexclusivelytotheagnatickindred。Hencean extraordinaryvarietyofdistinctionscametoberecognised，all intendedtodiminishtheinconveniencesinseparablefromallodial property。Thewehrgeld，forexample，orcompositionforthe homicideofarelative，whichoccupiessolargeaspaceinGerman jurisprudence，formednopartofthefamilydomain，anddescended accordingtorulesofsuccessionaltogetherdifferent。Similarly， thereipus，orfineleviableonthere-marriageofawidow，did notenterintotheallodofthepersontowhomitwaspaid，and followedalineofdevolutioninwhichtheprivilegesofthe agnateswereneglected。Thelaw，too，asamongtheHindoos， distinguishedtheAcquisitionsofthechiefofthehouseholdfrom hisInheritedproperty，andpermittedhimtodealwiththemunder muchmoreliberalconditions。Classificationsoftheothersort werealsoadmitted，andthefamiliardistinctiondrawnbetween landandmoveables；butmoveablepropertywasdividedinto severalsubordinatecategories，toeachofwhichdifferentrules applied。Thisexuberanceofclassification，whichmaystrikeus asstrangeinsorudeapeopleastheGermanconquerorsofthe Empire，isdoubtlesstobeexplainedbythepresenceintheir systemsofaconsiderableelementofRomanlaw，absorbedbythem duringtheirlongsojournontheconfinesoftheRomandominion。 Itisnotdifficulttotraceagreatnumberoftherules governingthetransferanddevolutionofthecommoditieswhich layoutsidetheallod，totheirsourceinRomanjurisprudence， fromwhichtheywereprobablyborrowedatwidelydistantepochs， andinfragmentaryimportations。Howfartheobstaclestothe freecirculationofpropertyweresurmountedbysuch contrivances，wehavenotthemeansevenofconjecturing，forthe distinctionsadvertedtohavenomodernhistory。AsIbefore explained，theallodialformofpropertywasentirelylostinthe feudal，andwhentheconsolidationoffeudalismwasonce completed，therewaspracticallybutonedistinctionleft standingofallthosewhichhadbeenknowntothewesternworld—— thedistinctionbetweenlandandgoods，immoveablesand moveables。Externallythisdistinctionwasthesamewiththat whichRomanlawhadfinallyaccepted，butthelawofthemiddle agesdifferedfromthatofRomeindistinctlyconsidering immoveablepropertytobemoredignifiedthanmoveable。Yetthis onesampleisenoughtoshowtheimportanceoftheclassof expedientstowhichitbelongs。Inallthecountriesgovernedby systemsbasedontheFrenchcodes，thatis，throughmuchthe greatestpartoftheContinentofEurope，thelawofmoveables， whichwasalwaysRomanlaw，hassupersededandannulledthe feudallawofland。Englandistheonlycountryofimportancein whichthistransmutation，thoughithasgonesomeway，isnot nearlyaccomplished。Ourown，too，itmaybeadded，istheonly considerableEuropeancountryinwhichtheseparationof moveablesfromimmoveableshasbeensomewhatdisturbedbythe sameinfluenceswhichcausedtheancientclassificationsto departfromtheonlyonewhichiscountenancedbynature。Inthe main，theEnglishdistinctionhasbeenbetweenlandandgoods； butacertainclassofgoodshavegoneasheir-loomswiththe land，andacertaindescriptionofinterestsinlandhavefrom historicalcausesbeenrankedwithpersonaltyThisisnotthe onlyinstanceinwhichEnglishjurisprudence，standingapartfrom themaincurrentoflegalmodification，hasreproducedphenomena ofarchaiclaw。 Iproceedtonoticeoneortwomorecontrivancesbywhichthe ancienttrammelsofproprietaryrightweremoreorless successfullyrelaxed，premisingthattheschemeofthistreatise onlypermitsmetomentionthosewhichareofgreatantiquity。On oneoftheminparticularitisnecessarytodwellforamoment ortwo，becausepersonsunacquaintedwiththeearlyhistoryof lawwillnotbeeasilypersuadedthataprinciple，ofwhich modernjurisprudencehasveryslowlyandwiththegreatest difficultyobtainedtherecognition，wasreallyfamiliartothe veryinfancyoflegalscience。Thereisnoprincipleinalllaw whichthemoderns，inspiteofitsbeneficialcharacter，have beensoloathtoadoptandtocarrytoitslegitimate consequencesasthatwhichwasknowntotheRomansasUsucapion， andwhichhasdescendedtomodernjurisprudenceunderthenameof Prescription。ItwasapositiveruleoftheoldestRomanlaw，a ruleolderthantheTwelveTables，thatcommoditieswhichhad beenuninterruptedlypossessedforacertainperiodbecamethe propertyofthepossessor。Theperiodofpossessionwas exceedinglyshortoneortwoyearsaccordingtothenatureofthe commoditiesandinhistoricaltimesUsucapionwasonlyallowedto operatewhenpossessionhadcommencedinaparticularway；butI thinkitlikelythatatalessadvancedepochpossessionwas convertedintoownershipunderconditionsevenlessseverethan wereadofinourauthorities。AsIhavesaidbefore，Iamfar fromassertingthattherespectofmenfordefactopossessionis aphenomenonwhichjurisprudencecanaccountforbyitself，but itisverynecessarytoremarkthatprimitivesocieties，in adoptingtheprincipleofUsucapion，werenotbesetwithanyof thespeculativedoubtsandhesitationswhichhaveimpededits receptionamongthemoderns。Prescriptionswereviewedbythe modernlawyers，firstwithrepugnance，afterwardswithreluctant approval。Inseveralcountries，includingourown，legislation longdeclinedtoadvancebeyondtherudedeviceofbarringall actionsbasedonawrongwhichhadbeensufferedearlierthana fixedpointoftimeinthepast，generallythefirstyearofsome precedingreign；norwasittillthemiddleageshadfinally closed，andJamestheFirsthadascendedthethroneofEngland， thatweobtainedatruestatuteoflimitationofaveryimperfect kind。Thistardinessincopyingoneofthemostfamouschapters ofRomanlaw，whichwasnodoubtconstantlyreadbythemajority ofEuropeanlawyers，themodernworldowestotheinfluenceof theCanonLaw。TheecclesiasticalcustomsoutofwhichtheCanon Lawgrew，concernedastheywerewithsacredorquasi-sacred interests，verynaturallyregardedtheprivilegeswhichthey conferredasincapableofbeinglostthroughdisusehowever prolonged；andinaccordancewiththisview，thespiritual jurisprudence，whenafterwardsconsolidated，wasdistinguishedby amarkedleaningagainstPrescriptions。Itwasthefateofthe CanonLawwhenheldupbytheclericallawyersasapatternto secularlegislation，tohaveapeculiarinfluenceonfirst principles。Itgavetothebodiesofcustomwhichwereformed throughoutEuropefarfewerexpressrulesthandidtheRomanlaw， butthenitseemstohavecommunicatedabiastoprofessional opiniononasurprisingnumberoffundamentalpoints，andthe tendenciesthusproducedprogressivelygainedstrengthaseach systemwasdeveloped。Oneofthedispositionsitproducedwasa disrelishforPrescriptions；butIdonotknowthatthis prejudicewouldhaveoperatedaspowerfullyasithasdone，ifit hadnotfalleninwiththedoctrineofthescholasticjuristsof therealistsect，whotaughtthat，whateverturnactual legislationmighttake，aright，howlongsoeverneglected，was inpointoffactindestructible。Theremainsofthisstateof feelingstillexist。Whereverthephilosophyoflawisearnestly discussed，questionsrespectingthespeculativebasisof Prescriptionarealwayshotlydisputed；anditisstillapoint ofthegreatestinterestinFranceandGermany，whetheraperson whohasbeenoutofpossessionforaseriesofyearsisdeprived ofhisownershipasapenaltyforhisneglect，orlosesit throughthesummaryinterpositionofthelawinitsdesireto haveafinislitium。Butnosuchscruplestroubledthemindof earlyRomansociety。Theirancientusagesdirectlytookawaythe ownershipofeverybodywhohadbeenoutofpossession，under certaincircumstances，duringoneortwoyear。Whatwastheexact tenoroftheruleofUsucapioninitsearliestshape，itisnot easytosay；but，takenwiththelimitationswhichwefind attendingitinthebooks，itwasamostusefulsecurityagainst themischiefsofatoocumbroussystemofconveyance。Inorderto havethebenefitofUsucapion，itwasnecessarythattheadverse possessionshouldhavebeguningoodfaith，thatis，withbelief onthepartofthepossessorthathewaslawfullyacquiringthe property，anditwasfartherrequiredthatthecommodityshould havebeentransferredtohimbysomemodeofalienationwhich， howeverunequaltoconferringacompletetitleintheparticular case，wasatleastrecognisedbythelaw。Inthecasetherefore ofaMancipation，howeverslovenlytheperformancemighthave been，yetifithadbeencarriedsofarastoinvolveaTradition orDelivery，theviceofthetitlewouldbecuredbyUsucapionin twoyearsatmost。IknownothinginthepracticeoftheRomans whichtestifiessostronglytotheirlegalgeniusastheuse whichtheymadeofUsucapion。Thedifficultieswhichbesetthem werenearlythesamewiththosewhichembarrassedandstill embarrassthelawyersofEngland。Owingtothecomplexityof theirsystem，whichasyettheyhadneitherthecouragenorthe powertoreconstruct，actualrightwasconstantlygetting divorcedfromtechnicalright，theequitableownershipfromthe legal。ButUsucapion，asmanipulatedbythejurisconsults， suppliedaself-actingmachinery，bywhichthedefectsoftitles topropertywerealwaysincourseofbeingcured，andbywhich theownershipsthatweretemporarilyseparatedwereagainrapidly cementedtogetherwiththebriefestpossibledelay。Usucapiondid notloseitsadvantagestillthereformsofJustinian。Butas soonaslawandequityhadbeencompletelyfused，andwhen MancipationceasedtobetheRomanconveyance，therewasno furthernecessityfortheancientcontrivance，andUsucapion， withitsperiodsoftimeconsiderablylengthened，becamethe Prescriptionwhichhasatlengthbeenadoptedbynearlyall systemsofmodernlaw。 Ipassbywithbriefmentionanotherexpedienthavingthe sameobjectwiththelast，which，thoughitdidnotimmediately makeitsappearanceinEnglishlegalhistory，wasofimmemorial antiquityinRomanlaw。suchindeedisitsapparentagethatsome Germancivilians，notsufficientlyawareofthelightthrownon thesubjectbytheanalogiesofEnglishlaw，havethoughtiteven olderthantheMancipation。IspeakoftheCessioinJure，a collusiverecovery，inaCourtoflawofpropertysoughttobe conveyed。Theplaintiffclaimedthesubjectofthisproceeding withtheordinaryformsofalitigation；thedefendantmade default；andthecommoditywasofcourseadjudgedtothe plaintiff。IneedscarcelyremindtheEnglishlawyerthatthis expedientsuggesteditselftoourforefathers，andproducedthose famousFinesandRecoverieswhichdidsomuchtoundothe harshesttrammelsofthefeudalland-law。TheRomanandEnglish contrivanceshaveverymuchincommonandillustrateeachother mostinstructively，butthereisthisdifferencebetweenthem， thattheobjectoftheEnglishlawyerswastoremove complicationsalreadyintroducedintothetitle，whiletheRoman jurisconsultssoughttopreventthembysubstitutingamodeof transfernecessarilyunimpeachableforonewhichtoooften miscarried。Thedeviceis，infact，onewhichsuggestsitselfas soonasCourtsofLawareinsteadyoperation，butare neverthelessstillundertheempireofprimitivenotions。Inan advancedstateoflegalopinion，tribunalsregardcollusive litigationasanabuseoftheirprocedure；buttherehasalways beenatimewhen，iftheirformswerescrupulouslycompliedwith， theyneverdreamedoflookingfurther。 TheinfluenceofCourtsofLawandoftheirprocedureupon Propertyhasbeenmostextensive，butthesubjectistoolarge forthedimensionsofthistreatise，andwouldcarryusfurther downthecourseoflegalhistorythanisconsistentwithits scheme。Itisdesirable，however，tomention，thattothis influencewemustattributetheimportanceofthedistinction betweenPropertyandPossession——not，indeed，thedistinction itself，which(inthelanguageofaneminentEnglishcivilian)is thesamethingasthedistinctionbetweenthelegalrighttoact uponathingandthephysicalpowertodoso——butthe extraordinaryimportancewhichthedistinctionhasobtainedin thephilosophyoflaw。Feweducatedpersonsaresolittleversed inlegalliteratureasnottohaveheardthatthelanguageofthe RomanjurisconsultsonthesubjectofPossessionlongoccasioned thegreatestpossibleperplexity，andthatthegeniusofSavigny issupposedtohavechieflyproveditselfbythesolutionwhich hediscoveredfortheenigma。Possession，infact，whenemployed bytheRomanlawyers，appearstohavecontractedashadeof meaningnoteasilyaccountedfor。Theword，asappearsfromits etymology；musthaveoriginallydenotedphysicalcontactor physicalcontactresumeableatpleasure；but，asactuallyused withoutanyqualifyingepithet，itsignifiesnotsimplyphysical detention，butphysicaldetentioncoupledwiththeintentionto holdthethingdetainedasone’sown。Savigny，followingNiebuhr， perceivedthatforthisanomalytherecouldonlybeahistorical origin。HepointedoutthatthePatricianburghersofRome，who hadbecometenantsofthegreatestpartofthepublicdomainat nominalrents，were，intheviewoftheoldRomanlaw，mere possessors，butthentheywerepossessorsintendingtokeeptheir landagainstallcomers。They，intruth，putforwardaclaim almostidenticalwiththatwhichhasrecentlybeenadvancedin EnglandbythelesseesofChurchlands。Admittingthatintheory theywerethetenants-at-willofthestate，theycontendedthat timeandundisturbedenjoymenthadripenedtheirholdingintoa speciesofownership，andthatitwouldbeunjusttoejectthem forthepurposeofredistributingthedomain。Theassociationof thisclaimwiththePatriciantenancies，permanentlyinfluenced thesenseof\"possession。\"Meanwhiletheonlylegalremediesof whichthetenantscouldavailthemselves，ifejectedor threatenedwithdisturbance，werethePossessoryInterdicts， summaryprocessesofRomanlawwhichwereeitherexpressly devisedbythePraetorfortheirprotection，orelse，according toanothertheory，hadinoldertimesbeenemployedforthe provisionalmaintenanceofpossessionspendingthesettlementof questionsoflegalright。Itcame，therefore，tobeunderstood thateverybodywhopossessedpropertyashisownhadthepowerof demandingtheInterdicts，and，byasystemofhighlyartificial pleading，theInterdictalprocesswasmouldedintoashapefitted forthetrialofconflictingclaimstoadisputedpossession。 Thencommencedamovementwhich，asMrJohnAustinpointedout， exactlyreproduceditselfinEnglishlaw。Proprietors，domini， begantopreferthesimplerformsorspeediercourseofthe InterdicttothelaggingandintricateformalitiesoftheReal Action，andforthepurposeofavailingthemselvesofthe possessoryremedyfellbackuponthepossessionwhichwas supposedtobeinvolvedintheirproprietorship。Theliberty concededtopersonswhowerenottruePossessors，butOwners，to vindicatetheirrightsbypossessoryremedies，thoughitmayhave beenatfirstaboon，hadultimatelytheeffectofseriously deterioratingbothEnglishandRomanjurisprudence。TheRomanlaw owestoitthosesubtletiesonthesubjectofPossessionwhich havedonesomuchtodiscreditit，whileEnglishlaw，afterthe actionswhichitappropriatedtotherecoveryofrealproperty hadfallenintothemosthopelessconfusion，gotridatlastof thewholetangledmassbyaheroicremedy。Noonecandoubtthat thevirtualabolitionoftheEnglishrealactionswhichtook placenearlythirtyyearssincewasapublicbenefit，butstill personssensitivetotheharmoniesofjurisprudencewilllament that，insteadofcleansing，improving，andsimplifyingthetrue proprietaryactions，wesacrificedthemalltothepossessory actionofejectment，thusbasingourwholesystemofland recoveryuponalegalfiction。 Legaltribunalshavealsopowerfullyassistedtoshapeand modifyconceptionsofproprietaryrightbymeansofthe distinctionbetweenLawandEquity，whichalwaysmakesitsfirst appearanceasadistinctionbetweenjurisdictions。Equitable propertyinEnglandissimplypropertyheldunderthe jurisdictionoftheCourtofChancery。AtRome，thePraetor’s Edictintroduceditsnovelprinciplesintheguiseofapromise thatundercertaincircumstancesaparticularactionora particularpleawouldbegranted；and，accordingly，theproperty inbonis，orEquitableProperty，ofRomanlawwasproperty exclusivelyprotectedbyremedieswhichhadtheirsourceinthe Edict。Themechanismbywhichequitablerightsweresavedfrom beingoverriddenbytheclaimsofthelegalownerwassomewhat differentinthetwosystems。Withustheirindependenceis securedbytheInjunctionoftheCourtofChancery。Sincehowever LawandEquity，whilenotasyetconsolidated，wereadministered undertheRomansystembythesameCourt，nothinglikethe Injunctionwasrequired，andtheMagistratetookthesimpler courseofrefusingtogranttotheCivilLawOwnerthoseactions andpleasbywhichalonehecouldobtainthepropertythat belongedinequitytoanother。Butthepracticaloperationof bothsystemswasnearlythesame。Both，bymeansofadistinction inprocedure，wereabletopreservenewformsofpropertyina sortofprovisionalexistence，untilthetimeshouldcomewhen theywererecognisedbythewholelaw。Inthisway，theRoman Praetorgaveanimmediaterightofpropertytothepersonwhohad acquiredaResMancipibymeredelivery，withoutwaitingforthe ripeningofUsucapion。Similarlyheintimerecognisedan ownershipintheMortgageewhohadatfirstbeenamere\"bailee\" ordepositary，andintheEmphyteuta，ortenantoflandwhichwas subjecttoafixedperpetualrent。Followingaparallellineof progress，theEnglishCourtofChancerycreatedaspecial proprietorshipfortheMortgagor，fortheCestuiqueTrust，for theMarriedWomanwhohadtheadvantageofaparticularkindof settlement，andforthePurchaserwhohadnotyetacquireda completelegalownership。Alltheseareexamplesinwhichforms ofproprietoryright，distinctlynew，wererecognisedand preserved。ButindirectlyPropertyhasbeenaffectedina thousandwaysbyequitybothinEnglandandatRome。Into whatevercornerofjurisprudenceitsauthorspushedthepowerful instrumentintheircommand，theyweresuretomeet，andtouch， andmoreorlessmateriallymodifythelawofproperty:Whenin theprecedingpagesIhavespokenofcertainancientlegal distinctionsandexpedientsashavingpowerfullyaffectedthe historyofownership，Imustbeunderstoodtomeanthatthe greatestpartoftheirinfluencehasarisenfromthehintsand suggestionsofimprovementinfusedbythemintothemental atmospherewhichwasbreathedbythefabricatorsofequitable systems。 ButtodescribetheinfluenceofEquityonOwnershipwouldbe towriteitshistorydowntoourowndays。Ihavealludedtoit principallybecauseseveralesteemedcontemporarywritershave thoughtthatintheRomanseveranceofEquitablefromLegal propertywehavethecluetothatdifferenceintheconceptionof Ownership，whichapparentlydistinguishesthelawofthemiddle agesfromthelawoftheRomanEmpire。Theleadingcharacteristic ofthefeudalconceptionisitsrecognitionofadouble proprietorship，thesuperiorownershipofthelordofthefief co-existingwiththeinferiorpropertyorestateofthetenant。 Nowthisduplicationofproprietaryrightlooks，itisurged， extremelylikeageneralisedformoftheRomandistributionof rightsoverpropertyintoQuiritarianorlegal，and(tousea wordoflateorigin)Bonitarianorequitable。Gaiushimself observesuponthesplittingofdominionintotwopartsasa singularityofRomanlaw，andexpresslycontrastsitwiththe entireorallodialownershiptowhichothernationswere accustomed。Justinian，itistrue，re-consolidateddominioninto one，butthenitwasthepartiallyreformedsystemoftheWestern Empire，andnotJustinian’sjurisprudence，withwhichthe barbarianswereincontactduringsomanycenturies。Whilethey remainedpoisedontheedgeoftheEmpire，itmaywellbethat theylearnedthisdistinction，whichafterwardsboreremarkable fruit。Infavourofthistheory，itmustatalleventsbe admittedthattheelementofRomanlawinthevariousbodiesof barbariancustomhasbeenveryimperfectlyexamined。The erroneousorinsufficienttheorieswhichhaveservedtoexplain Feudalismresembleeachotherintheirtendencytodrawoff attentionfromthisparticularingredientinitstexture。The olderinvestigators，whohavebeenmostlyfollowedinthis country，attachedanexclusiveimportancetothecircumstancesof theturbulentperiodduringwhichtheFeudalsystemgrewto maturity；andinlatertimesanewsourceoferrorhasbeenadded tothosealreadyexisting，inthatprideofnationalitywhichhas ledGermanwriterstoexaggeratethecompletenessofthesocial fabricwhichtheirforefathershadbuiltupbeforetheir appearanceintheRomanworld。OneortwoEnglishinquirerswho lookedintherightquarterforthefoundationsofthefeudal system，failedneverthelesstoconducttheirinvestigationsto anysatisfactoryresult，eitherfromsearchingtooexclusively foranalogiesinthecompilationsofJustinian，orfromconfining theirattentiontothecompendiaofRomanlawwhicharefound appendedtosomeoftheextantbarbariancodes。But，ifRoman jurisprudencehadanyinfluenceonthebarbaroussocieties，it hadprobablyproducedthegreatestpartofitseffectsbeforethe legislationofJustinian，andbeforethepreparationofthese compendia。Itwasnotthereformedandpurifiedjurisprudenceof Justinian，buttheundigestedsystemwhichprevailedinthe WesternEmpire，andwhichtheEasternCorpusJurisnever succeededindisplacing，thatIconceivetohaveclothedwith fleshandmusclethescantyskeletonofbarbaroususage。The changemustbesupposedtohavetakenplacebeforetheGermanic tribeshaddistinctlyappropriated，asconqueror，anyportionof theRomandominions，andthereforelongbeforeGermanicmonarchs hadorderedbreviariesofRomanlawtobedrawnupfortheuseof theirRomansubjects。Thenecessityforsomesuchhypothesiswill befeltbyeverybodywhocanappreciatethedifferencebetween archaicanddevelopedlaw。RudeasaretheLegesBarbarorumwhich remaintous，theyarenotrudeenoughtosatisfythetheoryof theirpurelybarbarousorigin；norhaveweanyreasonfor believingthatwehavereceived，inwrittenrecords，morethana fractionofthefixedruleswhichwerepractisedamongthemselves bythemembersoftheconqueringtribes。Ifwecanoncepersuade ourselvesthataconsiderableelementofdebasedRomanlaw alreadyexistedinthebarbariansystems，weshallhavedone somethingtoremoveagravedifficulty。TheGermanlawofthe conquerorsandtheRomanlawoftheirsubjectswouldnothave combinediftheyhadnotpossessedmoreaffinityforeachother thanrefinedjurisprudencehasusuallyforthecustomsof savages。Itisextremelylikelythatthecodesofthebarbarians， archaicastheyseem，areonlyacompoundoftrueprimitiveusage withhalf-understoodRomanrules，andthatitwastheforeign ingredientwhichenabledthemtocoalescewithaRoman jurisprudencethathadalreadyrecededsomewhatfromthe comparativefinishwhichithadacquiredundertheWestern Emperors。 But，thoughallthismustbeallowed，thereareseveral considerationswhichrenderitunlikelythatthefeudalformof ownershipwasdirectlysuggestedbytheRomanduplicationof domainialrights。Thedistinctionbetweenlegalandequitable propertystrikesoneasasubtletylittlelikelytobe appreciatedbybarbarians；and，moreover，itcanscarcelybe understoodunlessCourtsofLawarecontemplatedinregular operation。Butthestrongestreasonagainstthistheoryisthe existenceinRomanLawofaformofproperty——acreationof Equity，itistrue——whichsuppliesamuchsimplerexplanation ofthetransitionfromonesetofideastotheother。Thisisthe Emphyteusis，uponwhichtheFiefofthemiddleageshasoften beenfathered，thoughwithoutmuchknowledgeoftheexactshare whichithadinbringingfeudalownershipintotheworld。The truthisthattheEmphyteusis，notprobablyasyetknownbyits Greekdesignation，marksonestageinacurrentofideaswhich ledultimatelytofeudalism。ThefirstmentioninRomanhistory ofestateslargerthancouldbefarmedbyaPaterfamilias，with hishouseholdofsonsandslaves，occurswhenwecometothe holdingsoftheRomanpatricians。Thesegreatproprietorsappear tohavehadnoideaofanysystemoffarmingbyfreetenants。 Theirlatifundiaseemtohavebeenuniversallycultivatedby slave-gangs，underbailiffswhowerethemselvesslavesor freedmen；andtheonlyorganisationattemptedappearstohave consistedindividingtheinferiorslavesintosmallbodies，and makingthemthepeculiumofthebetterandtrustiersort，who thusacquiredakindofinterestintheefficiencyoftheir labour。Thissystemwas，however，especiallydisadvantageousto oneclassofestatedproprietors，theMunicipalities。 FunctionariesinItalywerechangedwiththerapiditywhichoften surprisesusintheadministrationofRomeherself；sothatthe superintendenceofalargeladeddomainbyanItaliancorporation musthavebeenexcessivelyimperfect。Accordingly，wearetold thatwiththemunicipalitiesbeganthepracticeoflettingout agrivectigules，thatis，ofleasinglandforaperpetuitytoa freetenant，atafixedrent，andundercertainconditions。The planwasafterwardsextensivelyimitatedbyindividual proprietors，andthetenant，whoserelationtotheownerhad originallybeendeterminedbyhiscontract，wassubsequently recognisedbythePraetorashavinghimselfaqualified proprietorship，whichintimebecameknownasanEmphyteusis。 Fromthispointthehistoryoftenurepartsintotwobranches。In thecourseofthatlongperiodduringwhichourrecordsofthe RomanEmpirearemostincomplete，theslave-gangsofthegreat Romanfamiliesbecametransformedintothecoloni，whoseorigin andsituationconstituteoneoftheobscurestquestionsinall History。Wemaysuspectthattheywereformedpartlybythe elevationoftheslaves，andpartlybythedegradationofthe freefarmers；andthattheyprovethericherclassesoftheRoman Empiretohavebecomeawareoftheincreasedvaluewhichlanded propertyobtainswhenthecultivatorhadaninterestinthe produceoftheland。Weknowthattheirservitudewaspredial； thatitwantedmanyofthecharacteristicsofabsoluteslavery， andthattheyacquittedtheirservicetothelandlordin renderingtohimafixedportionoftheannualcrop。Weknow furtherthattheysurvivedallthemutationsofsocietyinthe ancientandmodernworlds。Thoughincludedinthelowercourses ofthefeudalstructure，theycontinuedinmanycountriesto rendertothelandlordpreciselythesamedueswhichtheyhad paidtotheRomandominus，andfromaparticularclassamong them，thecolonimedietariiwhoreservedhalftheproduceforthe owner，aredescendedthemetayertenantry，whostillconductthe cultivationofthesoilinalmostalltheSouthofEurope。Onthe otherhand，theEmphyteusis，ifwemaysointerprettheallusions toitintheCorpusJuris，becameafavouriteandbeneficial modificationofproperty；anditmaybeconjecturedthatwherever freefarmersexisted，itwasthistenurewhichregulatedtheir interestintheland。ThePraetor，ashasbeensaid，treatedthe Emphyteutaasatrueproprietor。Whenejected，hewasallowedto reinstatehimselfbyaRealAction，thedistinctivebadgeof proprietoryright，andhewasprotectedfromdisturbancebythe authorofhisleasesolongasthecanon，orquit-rent，was punctuallypaid。Butatthesametimeitmustnotbesupposed thattheownershipoftheauthoroftheleasewaseitherextinct ordormant。Itwaskeptalivebyapowerofre-entryon nonpaymentoftherent，arightofpre-emptionincaseofsale， andacertaincontroloverthemodeofcultivation。Wehave， therefore，intheEmphyteusisastrikingexampleofthedouble ownershipwhichcharacterisedfeudalproperty，andone，moreover， whichismuchsimplerandmuchmoreeasilyimitatedthanthe juxtapositionoflegalandequitablerights。TheHistoryofthe Romantenuredoesnotend，However，atthispoint。Wehaveclear evidencethatbetweenthegreatfortresseswhich，disposedalong thelineoftheRhineandDanube，longsecuredthefrontierof theEmpireagainstitsbarbarianneighbours，thereextendeda successionofstripsofland，theagrilimitrophi，whichwere occupiedbyveteransoldiersoftheRomanarmyonthetermsofan Emphyteusis。Therewasadoubleownership。TheRomanStatewas landlordofthesoil，butthesoldierscultivateditwithout disturbancesolongastheyheldthemselvesreadytobecalled outformilitaryservicewheneverthestateofthebordershould requireit。Infact，asortofgarrison-duty，underasystem closelyresemblingthatofthemilitarycoloniesonthe Austro-Turkishborder，hadtakentheplaceofthequit-rentwhich wastheserviceoftheordinaryEmphyteuta。Itseemsimpossible todoubtthatthiswastheprecedentcopiedbythebarbarian monarchswhofoundedfeudalism。Ithadbeenwithintheirviewfor somehundredyears，andmanyoftheveteranswhoguardedthe borderwere，itistoberemembered，themselvesofbarbarian extraction，whoprobablyspoketheGermanictongues。Notonly doestheproximityofsoeasilyfollowedamodelexplainwhence theFrankishandLombardSovereignsgottheideaofsecuringthe militaryserviceoftheirfollowersbygrantingawayportionsof theirpublicdomain；butitperhapsexplainsthetendencywhich immediatelyshoweditselfintheBeneficestobecomehereditary， foranEmphyteusis，thoughcapableofbeingmouldedtotheterms oftheoriginalcontract，neverthelessdescendedasageneral ruletotheheirsofthegrantee。Itistruethattheholderofa benefice，andmorerecentlythelordofoneofthosefiefsinto whichthebeneficesweretransformed，appearstohaveowed certainserviceswhichwerenotlikelytohavebeenrenderedby themilitarycolonist，andwerecertainlynotrenderedbythe Emphyteuta。Thedutyofrespectandgratitudetothefeudal superior，theobligationtoassistinendowinghisdaughterand equippinghisson，theliabilitytohisguardianshipinminority， andmanyothersimilarincidentsoftenure，musthavebeen literallyborrowedfromtherelationsofPatronandFreedman underRomanlaw，thatis，ofquondam-masterandquondam-slave。 Butthenitisknownthattheearliestbeneficiarieswerethe personalcompanionsofthesovereign，anditisindisputablethat thisposition，brilliantasitseems，wasatfirstattendedby someshadeofserviledebasement。Thepersonwhoministeredto theSovereigninhisCourthadgivenupsomethingofthat absolutepersonalfreedomwhichwastheproudestprivilegeofthe allodialproprietor。 AncientLawbyHenryMaine