Chapter8:

Occupancy is the advisedly taking possession of that which at the moment is the
propertyofnoman,withtheviewofacquiringpropertyinitforyourself.Amongthingswhich
neverhadanownerarewildanimals,fishes,wildfowl,jewelsdisinterredforthefirsttime,and
landsnewlydiscoveredorneverbeforecultivated.Amongthingswhichhavenotanownerare
moveableswhichhavebeenabandoned,landswhichhavebeendeserted,and(ananomalousbut
mostformidableitem)thepropertyofanenemy.Inalltheseobjectsthefullrightsofdominion
wereacquiredbytheOccupant,whofirsttookpossessionofthemwiththeintentionofkeeping
themashisownanintentionwhich,incertaincases,hadtobemanifestedbyspecificacts.
TheLawofWarlikeCapturederivesitsrulesfromtheassumptionthatcommunitiesare
remitted to a state of nature by the outbreak of hostilities, and that, in the artificial natural
conditionthusproduced,theinstitutionofprivatepropertyfallsintoabeyancesofarasconcerns
thebelligerentsTheideawouldoccurspontaneouslytopersonspractisingtheancientformsof
Warfare, when victory dissolved the organisation of the conquering army and dismissed the
soldierstoindiscriminateplunder.
Blackstone, has summed them up inhis 2nd book and1st chapter. The earth, he
writes,andallthingsthereinwerethegeneralpropertyofmankindfromtheimmediategiftof
theCreator.Notthatthecommunionofgoodsseemsevertohavebeenapplicable,eveninthe
earliestages,toaughtbutthesubstanceofthething;norcouldbeextendedtotheuseofit.For,
bythelawofnatureandreasonhewhofirstbegantouseitacquiredthereinakindoftransient
propertythatlastedsolongashewasusingit,andnolonger;ortospeakwithgreaterprecision,
therightofpossessioncontinuedforthesametimeonlythattheactofpossessionlasted.Thusthe
groundwasincommon,andnopartwasthepermanentpropertyofanymaninparticular;yet
whoeverwasintheoccupationofanydeterminedspotofit,forrest,forshade,orthelike,
acquiredforthetimeasortofownership,fromwhichitwouldhavebeenunjustandcontraryto
thelawofnaturetohavedrivenhimbyforce,buttheinstantthathequittedtheuseofoccupation
ofit,anothermightseizeitwithoutinjustice.Hethenproceedstoarguethatwhenmankind
increasedinnumber,itbecamenecessarytoentertainconceptionsofmorepermanentdominion,
andtoappropriatetoindividualsnottheimmediateuseonly,buttheverysubstanceofthething
tobeused.ManywritersmorefamousthanBlackstoneforprecisionoflanguagehavelaiddown
that,inthebeginningofthings,Occupancyfirstgavearightagainsttheworldtoanexclusivebut
temporary enjoyment, and that afterwards this right, while it remained exclusive, became
perpetual.Theirobjectinsostatingtheirtheorywastoreconcilethedoctrinethatinthestateof
NatureresnulliusbecamepropertythroughOccupancy.
Possession,AdversenessofPossession,thatisaholdingnotpermissiveorsubordinate,
butexclusiveagainsttheworld,andPrescription,oraperiodoftimeduringwhichtheAdverse
Possessionhasuninterruptedlycontinued.Itisexceedinglyprobablethatthismaximmightbe
enunciatedwithmoregeneralitythanwasallowedtoitbyitsauthor,andthatnosoundorsafe
conclusion can belooked for from investigations intoanysystem of laws which are pushed
fartherbackthanthepointatwhichthesecombinedideasconstitutethenotionofproprietary
rightItisnotwonderfulthatpropertybeganinadversepossession.Itisnotsurprisingthatthe
firstproprietorshouldhavebeenthestrongmanarmedwhokepthisgoodsinpeace.Butwhyit
wasthatlapseoftimecreatedasentimentofrespectforhispossessionwhichistheexact
sourceoftheuniversalreverenceofmankindforthatwhichhasforalongperioddefactoexisted
arequestionsreallydeservingtheprofoundestexamination.

Itstruebasisseemstobe,notaninstinctivebiastowardstheinstitutionofProperty,but
apresumptionarisingoutofthelongcontinuanceofthatinstitution,thateverythingoughttohave
anowner.Whenpossessionistakenofaresnullius,thatis,ofanobjectwhichisnot,orhas
neverbeen,reducedtodominion,thepossessorispermittedtobecomeproprietorfromafeeling
thatallvaluablethingsarenaturallythesubjectsofanexclusiveenjoyment,andthatinthegiven
casethereisnoonetoinvestwiththerightofpropertyexcepttheOccupant.TheOccupantin
short, becomes the owner, because all things are presumed to be somebodys property and
becausenoonecanbepointedoutashavingabetterrightthanhetotheproprietorshipofthis
particularthing.
Itwillbeobservedthattheactsandmotiveswhichthesetheoriessupposearetheacts
and motives of IndividualsBut Ancient Law knows next to nothing of Individuals. It is
concernednotwithIndividuals,butwithFamilies,notwithsinglehumanbeings,butgroups
Thelifeofeachcitizenisnotregardedaslimitedbybirthanddeath;itisbutacontinuationofthe
existenceofhisforefathers,anditwillbeprolongedintheexistenceofhisdescendantsItis
morethanlikelythatjointownership,andnotseparateownership,isthereallyarchaicinstitution,
andthattheformsofpropertywhichwillaffordusinstructionwillbethosewhichareassociated
withtherightsoffamiliesandofgroupsofkindred.
TheVillageCommunityofIndia is at once anorganisedpatriarchalsocietyandan
assemblageofcoproprietors.Thepersonalrelationstoeachotherofthemenwhocomposeitare
indistinguishably confounded with their proprietary rights, and to the attempts of English
functionariestoseparatethetwomaybeassignedsomeofthemostformidablemiscarriagesof
AngloIndian administrationAs soon as a son is born, he acquires a vested interest in his
fathers substance, and on attaining years of discretion he is even, in certain contingencies,
permittedbytheletterofthelawtocallforapartitionofthefamilyestate.Asafact,however,a
divisionrarelytakesplaceevenatthedeathofthefather,andthepropertyconstantlyremains
undividedforseveralgenerations,thougheverymemberofeverygenerationhasalegalrightto
anundividedshareinit.Thedomainthusheldincommonissometimesadministeredbyan
electedmanager,butmoregenerally,andinsomeprovincesalways,itismanagedbytheeldest
agnate,bytheeldestrepresentativeoftheeldestlineofthestock.Suchanassemblageofjoint
proprietors,abodyofkindredholdingadomainincommon,isthesimplestformofanIndian
VillageCommunity,buttheCommunityismorethanabrotherhoodofrelativesandmorethanan
associationofpartners.Itisanorganizedsociety,andbesidesprovidingforthemanagementof
thecommonfund,itseldomfailstoprovide,byacompletestaffoffunctionaries,forinternal
government,forpolice,fortheadministrationofjustice,andfortheapportionmentoftaxesand
public duties. Although in the North of India, the Community was founded by a single
assemblageofbloodrelations,menofalienextractionhavealways,fromtimetotime,been
engraftedonit,andamerepurchaserofasharemaygenerally,undercertainconditions,be
admittedtothebrotherhood.IntheSouthofthePeninsulathereareoftenCommunitieswhich
appeartohavesprungnotfromonebutfromtwoormorefamilies;andtherearesomewhose
composition is known to be entirely artificial; indeed, the occasional aggregation of men of
differentcastesinthesamesocietyisfataltothehypothesisofacommondescent.Yetinallthese
brotherhoodseitherthetraditionispreserved,ortheassumptionmade,ofanoriginalcommon
parentageThe acquisition of the adoptedmember is,however, of the nature of a universal
succession;togetherwiththesharehehasbought,hesucceedstotheliabilitieswhichthevendor
had incurred towards the aggregate group. He is an Emptor Familiae, and inherits the legal
clothingofthepersonwhoseplacehebeginstofillThecoownersofanIndianvillage,though
theirpropertyisblended,havetheirrightsdistinct,andthisseparationofrightsiscompleteand
continuesindefinitely.

Wehavethestrongestreasonforthinkingthatpropertyoncebelongednottoindividuals
noreventoisolatedfamilies,buttolargersocietiescomposedonthepatriarchalmodelThe
chiefsoftheruderHighlandclansused,itissaid,todoleoutfoodtotheheadsofthehouseholds
undertheirjurisdictionattheveryshortestintervals,andsometimesdaybyday.Aperiodical
distributionisalsomadetotheSclavonianvillagersoftheAustrianandTurkishprovincesbythe
eldersoftheirbody,butthenitisadistributiononceforallofthetotalproduceoftheyear.Inthe
Russianvillages,however,thesubstanceofthepropertyceasestobelookeduponasindivisible,
andseparateproprietaryclaimsareallowedfreelytogrowup,butthentheprogressofseparation
is peremptorily arrested after it has continued a certain time. In India, not only is there no
indivisibilityofthecommonfund,butseparateproprietorshipinpartsofitmaybeindefinitely
prolongedandmaybranchoutintoanynumberofderivativeownerships,thedefactopartitionof
thestockbeing,however,checkedbyinveterateusage,andbytheruleagainsttheadmissionof
strangerswithouttheconsentofthebrotherhood.
Privateproperty,intheshapeinwhichweknowit,waschieflyformedbythegradual
disentanglementoftheseparaterightsofindividualsfromtheblendedrightsofacommunity.Our
studiesintheLawofPersonsseemedtoshowustheFamilyexpandingintotheAgnaticgroupof
kinsmen, then the Agnatic group dissolving into separate households; lastly the household
supplantedbytheindividual;anditisnowsuggestedthateachstepinthechangecorrespondsto
ananalogousalterationinthenatureofOwnershipwhatwerethemotiveswhichfirstinduced
mentorespecteachotherspossessions?
Asthecontractsandconveyancesknowntoancientlawarecontractsandconveyances
towhichnotsingleindividuals,butorganisedcompaniesofmen,areparties,theyareinthe
highestdegreeceremonious;theyrequireavarietyofsymbolicalactsandwordsintendedto
impressthebusinessonthememoryofallwhotakepartinit;andtheydemandthepresenceofan
inordinatenumberofwitnesses.Fromthesepeculiarities,andothersalliedtothem,springsthe
universallyunmalleablecharacteroftheancientformsofproperty.Sometimesthepatrimonyof
thefamilyisabsolutelyinalienable,aswasthecasewiththeSclavonians,andstilloftener,though
alienationsmaynotbeentirelyillegitimate,theyarevirtuallyimpracticable,asamongmostofthe
Germanictribes,fromthenecessityofhavingtheconsentofalargenumberofpersonstothe
transfer.Wheretheseimpedimentsdonotexist,orcanbesurmounted,theactofconveyance
itselfisgenerallyburdenedwithaperfectloadofceremony,inwhichnotoneiotacanbesafely
neglectedThesevariousobstaclestothefreecirculationoftheobjectsofuseandenjoyment,
beginofcoursetomakethemselvesfeltassoonassocietyhasacquiredevenaslightdegreeof
activity,andtheexpedientsbywhichadvancingcommunitiesendeavourtoovercomethemform
thestapleofthehistoryofPropertyTheideaseemstohavespontaneouslysuggesteditselftoa
greatnumberofearlysocieties,toclassifypropertyintokinds.Onekindorsortofpropertyis
placedonalowerfootingofdignitythantheothers,butatthesametimeisrelievedfromthe
fetterswhichantiquityhasimposedonthem.Subsequently,thesuperiorconvenienceoftherules
governingthetransferanddescentofthelowerorderofpropertybecomesgenerallyrecognised,
andbyagradualcourseofinnovationtheplasticityofthelessdignifiedclassofvaluableobjects
iscommunicatedtotheclasseswhichstandconventionallyhigher.
Chapter9:
Themistakeofjudgingthemenofotherperiodsbythemoralityofourowndayhasits
parallelinthemistakeofsupposingthateverywheelandboltinthemodernsocialmachinehad
itscounterpartinmorerudimentarysocieties.

Thepointwhichbeforeallothershastobeapprehendedintheconstitutionofprimitive
societiesisthattheindividualcreatesforhimselffewornorights,andfewornoduties.Therules
which he obeys are derived first from the station into which he is born, and next from the
imperativecommandsaddressedtohimbythechiefofthehouseholdofwhichheformspart.
SuchasystemleavestheverysmallestroomforContract.Thememberofthesamefamily(forso
wemayinterprettheevidence)arewhollyincapableofcontractingwitheachother,andthe
familyisentitledtodisregardtheengagementsbywhichanyoneofitssubordinatememberhas
attemptedtobindit.
Notrustworthyprimitiverecordcanbereadwithoutperceivingthatthehabitofmind
which induces us tomakegood apromise is as yet imperfectlydeveloped, and that acts of
flagrantperfidyareoftenmentionedwithoutblameandsometimesdescribedwithapprobation.
Thatwhichthelawarmswithitssanctionsisnotapromise,butapromiseaccompanied
withasolemnceremonialNotonlyareformalitiesofequalimportancewiththepromiseitself,
but they are, if anything, of greater importanceNo pledge is enforced if a single form be
omittedormisplaced,but,ontheotherhand,iftheformscanbeshowntohavebeenaccurately
proceeded with, it is of no avail to plead that the promise was made under duress or
deception.The transmutation of this ancient view into the familiar notion of a Contract is
plainlyseeninthehistoryofjurisprudence.Firstoneortwostepsintheceremonialaredispensed
with;thentheothersaresimplifiedorpermittedtobeneglectedoncertainconditions;lastly,a
fewspecificcontractsareseparatedfromtherestandallowedtobeenteredintowithoutform,the
selectedcontractsbeingthoseonwhichtheactivityandenergyofsocialintercoursedepends.
Slowly,butmostdistinctly,thementalengagementisolatesitselfamidthetechnicalities,and
graduallybecomesthesoleingredientonwhichtheinterestofthejurisconsultisconcentrated.
Such a mental engagement, signified through external acts, the Romans called a Pact or
Convention;andwhentheConventionhasoncebeenconceivedasthenucleusofaContract,it
soonbecomesthetendencyofadvancingjurisprudencetobreakawaytheexternalshellofform
and ceremony. Forms are thenceforward only retained so far as they are guarantees of
authenticity,andsecuritiesforcautionanddeliberation.TheideaofaContractisfullydeveloped,
or,toemploytheRomanphrase,ContractsareabsorbedinPacts.
The ancient conceptions and the ancient terms are subjected to a process of gradual
specialisation. An ancient legal conception corresponds not to one but to several modern
conceptions. An ancient technical expression serves to indicate a variety of things which in
modernlawhaveseparatenamesallottedtothem.
The extreme importance of this history of Contract, as a safeguard against almost
innumerabledelusions,mustbemyjustificationfordiscussingitatsoconsiderablealength.It
givesacompleteaccountofthemarchofideasfromonegreatlandmarkofjurisprudenceto
another.WebeginwithNexum,inwhichaContractandaConveyanceareblended,andinwhich
theformalitieswhichaccompanytheagreementareevenmoreimportantthantheagreement
itself. From the Nexum we pass to the Stipulation, which is a simplified form of the older
ceremonial.TheLiteralContractcomesnext,andhereallformalitiesarewaived,ifproofofthe
agreement can be supplied from the rigid observances of a Roman household. In the Real
Contractamoraldutyisforthefirsttimerecognised,andpersonswhohavejoinedoracquiesced
inthepartialperformanceofanengagementareforbiddentorepudiateitonaccountofdefectsin
form.Lastly,theConsensualContractsemerge,inwhichthementalattitudeofthecontractorsis
solelyregarded,andexternalcircumstanceshavenotitletonoticeexceptasevidenceofthe
inwardundertaking.ItisofcourseuncertainhowfarthisprogressofRomanideasfromagrossto
a refined conception exemplifies the necessary progress of human thought on the subject of

Contract.TheContractlawofallotherancientsocietiesbuttheRomaniseithertooscantyto
furnishinformation,orelseisentirelylost.
TheproblemofFreewillwastheologicalbeforeitbecamephilosophical,and,ifitsterms
havebeenaffectedbyjurisprudence,itwillbebecauseJurisprudencehadmadeitselffeltin
TheologyWhathastobedetermined,iswhetherjurisprudencehaseverservedasthemedium
through which theological principles have been viewed; whether, by supplying a peculiar
language,apeculiarmodeofreasoning,andapeculiarsolutionofmanyoftheproblemsoflife,it
haseveropenednewchannelsinwhichtheologicalspeculationcouldflowoutandexpanditself.
Iaffirmwithouthesitationthatthedifferencebetweenthetwotheologicalsystemsis
accountedforbythefactthat,inpassingfromtheEasttotheWest,theologicalspeculationhad
passedfromaclimateofGreekmetaphysicstoaclimateofRomanlaw.
Feudalism,Ihaverepeatedlyasserted,wasacompoundofarchaicbarbarianusagewith
Roman lawThe earliest social forms of the feudal perioddiffer inlittle from the ordinary
associationsinwhichthemenofprimitivecivilisationsareeverywhereseenunited.AFiefwas
anorganicallycompletebrotherhoodofassociateswhoseproprietaryandpersonalrightswere
inextricablyblendedtogether.IthadmuchincommonwithanIndianVillageCommunityand
muchincommonwithaHighlandclan.Butstillitpresentssomephenomenawhichwenever
findintheassociationswhicharespontaneouslyformedbybeginnersincivilisation.Truearchaic
communitiesareheldtogethernotbyexpressrules,butbysentiment,or,weshouldperhapssay,
byinstinct;andnewcomersintothebrotherhoodarebroughtwithintherangeofthisinstinctby
falselypretendingtoshareinthebloodrelationshipfromwhichitnaturallysprings.Butthe
earliestfeudalcommunitieswereneitherboundtogetherbymeresentimentnorrecruitedbya
fiction.ThetiewhichunitedthemwasContract,andtheyobtainednewassociatesbycontracting
with them. The relation of the lord to the vassals had originally been settled by express
engagement,andapersonwishingtoengrafthimselfonthebrotherhoodbycommendationor
infeudationcametoadistinctunderstandingastotheconditionsonwhichhewastobeadmitted.
ItisthereforethesphereoccupiedinthembyContractwhichprincipallydistinguishesthefeudal
institutions from the unadulterated usages of primitive races. The lord had many of the
characteristicsofapatriarchalchieftain,buthisprerogativewaslimitedbyavarietyofsettled
customstraceabletotheexpressconditionswhichhadbeenagreeduponwhentheinfeudation
tookplace.Henceflowthechiefdifferenceswhichforbidustoclassthefeudalsocietieswithtrue
archaiccommunities. Theywere muchmore durable and much more various; more durable,
becauseexpressrulesartlessdestructiblethaninstinctivehabits,andmorevarious,becausethe
contractsonwhichtheywerefoundedwereadjustedtotheminutestcircumstancesandwishesof
thepersonswhosurrenderedorgrantedawaytheirlandsItisoftensaidthattheirregularand
variouscontourofmoderncivilisationisduetotheexuberantanderraticgeniusoftheGermanic
races,anditisoftencontrastedwiththedullroutineoftheRomanEmpire.Thetruthisthatthe
Empire bequeathed to modern society the legal conception to which all this irregularity is
attributable;ifthecustomsandinstitutionsofbarbarianshaveonecharacteristicmorestriking
thananother,itistheirextremeuniformity.
Chapter 10:
Onthewholealltheknowncollectionsofancientlawarecharacterisedbyafeature
which broadly distinguishes them from systems of mature jurisprudence. The proportion of
criminaltocivillawisexceedinglydifferent.IntheGermancodes,thecivilpartofthelawhas
triflingdimensionsascomparedwiththecriminal.Thetraditionswhichspeakofthesanguinary

penaltiesinflictedbythecodeofDracoseemtoindicatethatithadthesamecharacteristic.Inthe
TwelveTablesalone,producedbyasocietyofgreaterlegalgeniusandatfirstofgentlermanners,
thecivillawhassomethinglikeitsmodernprecedence;buttherelativeamountofspacegivento
themodesofredressingwrong,thoughnotenormous,appearstohavebeenlargethemore
archaicthecode,thefullerandtheminuterisitspenallegislation.
AllcivilisedsystemsagreeindrawingadistinctionbetweenoffencesagainsttheState
(Crimes)orCommunityandoffencesagainsttheIndividual(WrongsorTorts)thepenallawof
ancientcommunitiesisnotthelawof Crimes;itisthe lawofWrongsThepersoninjured
proceedsagainstthewrongdoerbyanordinarycivilaction,andrecoverscompensationinthe
shape of moneydamages if he succeedsOffences which we are accustomed to regard
exclusivelyascrimesareexclusivelytreatedastorts,andnottheftonly,butassaultandviolent
robbery,areassociatedbythejurisconsultwithtrespass,libelandslanderwereallrequitedbya
paymentofmoney.Ifthereforethecriterionofadelict,wrong,ortortbethatthepersonwho
suffersit,andnottheState,isconceivedtobewronged,itmaybeassertedthatintheinfancyof
jurisprudencethecitizendependsfor protectionagainst violence or fraudnot ontheLawof
CrimebutontheLawofTort.
TheconceptionofoffenceagainstGod(sins)producedthefirstclassofordinances;the
conception of offence against ones neighbour produced the second; but the idea of offence
againsttheStateoraggregatecommunitydidnotatfirstproduceatruecriminaljurisprudence.
Ancientlawfurnishesotherproofsthattheearliestadministratorsofjusticesimulatedthe
probableactsofpersonsengagedinaprivatequarrel.Insettlingthedamagestobeawarded,they
tookastheirguidethemeasureofvengeancelikelytobeexactedbyanaggrievedpersonunder
thecircumstancesofthecase.
The primitive history of criminal law divides itself therefore into four stages.
UnderstandingthattheconceptionofCrime,asdistinguishedfromthatofWrongorTortand
fromthatofSin,involvestheideaofinjurytotheStateorcollectivecommunity,wefirstfind
thatthecommonwealth,inliteralconformitywiththeconception,itselfinterposeddirectly,and
byisolatedacts,toavengeitselfontheauthoroftheevilwhichithadsuffered.Thisisthepoint
fromwhichwestart;eachindictmentisnowabillofpainsandpenalties,aspeciallawnaming
the criminal and prescribing his punishment. A second step is accomplished, when the
multiplicityofcrimescompelsthelegislaturetodelegateitspowerstoparticularQuaestionesor
Commissions,eachofwhichisdeputedtoinvestigateaparticularaccusation,andifitbeproved,
topunishtheparticularoffender.Yetanothermovementismadewhenthelegislature,insteadof
waiting for the alleged commission of a crime as the occasion of appointing a Quaestio,
periodically nominates Commissioners like the Quaestores Parricidii and the Duumviri
Perduellionis,onthechanceofcertainclassesofcrimesbeingcommitted,andintheexpectation
that they will be perpetrated. The last stage is reached when the Quaestiones from being
periodicaloroccasionalbecomepermanentBenchesorChamberswhenthejudges,insteadof
beingnamedintheparticularlawnominatingtheCommission,aredirectedtobechosenthrough
allfuturetimeinaparticularwayandfromaparticularclassandwhencertainactsaredescribed
ingenerallanguageanddeclaredtobecrimes,tobevisited,intheeventoftheirperpetration,
withspecifiedpenaltiesappropriatedtoeachdescription.

IftheQuaestionesPerpetuaehadhadalongerhistory,theywoulddoubtlesshavecometo
beregardedasadistinctinstitution,andtheirrelationtotheComitiawouldhaveseemedno
closerthantheconnectionofourownCourtsofLawwiththeSovereign,whoistheoreticallythe
fountain of justice. But the imperial despotism destroyed them before their origin had been
completelyforgotten,and,solongastheylasted,thesePermanentCommissionswerelooked
uponbytheRomansasthemeredepositariesofadelegatedpower.