All these methods of acquisition apply not only to individual property, but to common property as well. Occupation may establish ownership whether there be many occupants or only one; joint labour may lead to joint ownership in the produce; property may be transferred to a body of persons as well as to a single individual. But the custom which prescribes community of goods may also itself be an independent method of acquisition: by belonging to an association of people who hold property in common a person may be part owner of a thing which has been occupied or produced by some other member of the association. Communism of one kind or another is undoubtedly a very ancient institution,[110] though its prevalence at the lower stages of civilisation has often been exaggerated.[111] But the whole question of common ownership is too complicated and lies too much apart from our special subject to admit of a detailed treatment.
[110] Cf. Kovalewsky, Tableau des origines et de l’évolution de la famille et de la propriété, p. 51 sqq.
[111] Dr. Dargun (in Zeitschr. f. vergl. Rechtswiss. v. 76, &c.) even goes so far as to say that savages know of no other property but such as belongs to individuals; but this statement is hardly justified by facts.
From the statement of facts we shall now proceed to an explanation of these facts. First, why do men recognise proprietary rights at all? Why do the moral feelings of mankind grant to certain persons a right to the exclusive disposal of certain things, in other words, why does the disposal of an object without the consent of the person called its owner give rise to moral disapproval? The “right of property,” it is true, is generally used as a term for a legal right. But in this, as in so many other cases, the legal right is essentially a formulated expression of moral feelings.
As Mr. Spencer observes, the desire to appropriate, and to keep that which has been appropriated, lies deep not only in human but in animal nature, being, indeed, a condition of survival.[112] Sticklebacks show obvious signs of anger when their territory is invaded by other sticklebacks.[113] Birds defend their nests against the attacks of intruders.[114] The dog fights for his kennel or for the prey he has caught. A monkey in the Zoological Gardens of London, which made use of a stone to open nuts, always hid it in the straw after using it, and would not allow any other monkey to touch it.[115] We find the same propensity in man from his earliest years. At the age of two, Tiedemann’s son did not let his sister sit on his chair or take any of his clothes, though he had no scruples against appropriating things which belonged to her.[116] Owing to this tendency to keep an appropriated object, and to resist its abstraction, it is dangerous for an individual to try to seize anything held by another of about equal strength; and in human societies this naturally led to the habit of leaving each in possession of whatever he had attained, especially in early times when the objects possessed were of little value, and there was no great inequality of wealth.[117] This habit was further strengthened by various circumstances, all of which tended to make interference with other persons’ possessions the subject of moral censure. From both prudential and altruistic motives parents taught their children to abstain from such interference, and this, by itself, would readily give rise to the notion of theft as a moral wrong. Society at large also tried to prevent acts of this kind, partly in order to preserve peace and order, partly out of sympathy with the possessor. Resentment is felt not only by him who is deprived of his possession, but by others on his behalf. This is seen even among some of the lower animals. The Pomeranian dogs of German carters watch the goods of their masters;[118] Mr. Romanes’s terrier protected meat from other terriers, his offspring, which lived in the same house with him, and with which he was on the very best of terms;[119] Captain Gordon Stables’s cat, which had her place on the table at meals, never allowed any unauthorised interference with the viands.[120] In men such sympathetic resentment naturally develops into genuine moral disapproval.
[112] Spencer, Principles of Sociology, ii. 644.
[114] Perty, Das Seelenleben der Thiere, p. 68.
[115] Darwin, Descent of Man, i. 125. See also Fischer, ‘Notes sur l’intelligence des singes,’ in Revue scientifique, xxxiii. 618.
[116] Compayré, L’évolution intellectuelle et morale de l’enfant, p. 312.