friend and willing servant, he could launch his boat. Crusoe ultimately left his island; for the boat had given him a greater command over his circumstances. But had he continued there in companionship with Friday, there must have been such a compact as would have prevented either struggling for the property which had been created. The course of improvement that we have imagined for Selkirk supposes that he should continue in his state of exclusive proprietor that there should be none to dispute his right. If other ships had come to his shores-if they had trafficked with him from time to time-exchanged clothes and household conveniences, and implements of cultivation, for his goat's flesh and roots-it is probable that other sailors would in time have desired to partake his plenty ;-that a colony Iwould have been founded-that the island would have become populous. It is perfectly clear that, whether for exchange amongst themselves, or for exchange with others, the members of this colony could not have stirred a step in the cultivation of the land without appropriating its produce; -and they could not have appropriated its produce without appropriating the land itself. Cultivation of the land for a common stock would have gone to the establishment precisely of the same principle ;-they would still have been exchangers amongst themselves, and the partnership would not have lasted a day, unless each man's share of what the partnership produced had been rendered perfectly secure to him. Without security they could not have accumulatedwithout accumulations they could not have exchangedwithout exchanges they could not have carried forward their labours with any compensating productiveness. Imperfect appropriation—that is, an appropriation which respects personal wealth, such as the tools and conveniences of an individual, and even secures to him the fruits of the earth when he has gathered them, but which has not reached the last step of a division of land-imperfect appropriation such as this raises up the same invincible obstacles to the production of utility; because, with this Let us original defect, there must necessarily be unprofitable labour, small accumulation, limited exchange. exemplify this by another individual case. he surveys. We have seen, in the instances of the Moskito Indian and of Selkirk, how little a solitary man can do for himself, although he may have the most unbounded command of natural supplies--although not an atom of those natural supplies, whether produced by the earth or the water, is appropriated by others-when, in fact, he is monarch of all Let us trace the course of another man, advanced in the ability to subdue all things to his use by association with his fellow-men; but carrying on that association in the rude and unproductive relations of savage life; not desiring to "replenish the earth" by cultivation, but seeking only to appropriate the means of existence which it has spontaneously produced;-labouring, indeed, and exchanging, but not labouring and exchanging in a way that will permit the accumulation of wealth, and therefore remaining poor and miserable. We are not about to draw any fanciful picture, but merely to select some facts from a real narrative. QUESTIONS UPON CHAPTER II. 1. What kind of transaction is an exchange? 3. What induces the employer to purchase labour? 4. What induces exchanges in a simple state of society? 5. What represents the value of the exchanges in a refined state of society? 6. What is the difference between the exchanges in a simple state and in a refined state of society? 7. Which is the only animal that makes exchanges? 8. What is the foundation of the principle of exchange? 9. What would be the consequence if the principle of appropriation were not acted upon at all? 10. Mention an instance of such a state. 11. What was the condition of Alexander Selkirk's entire sovereignty of the island of Juan Fernandez ? 12. What is man by nature? 13. By what are the rights of man in a social state balanced? 14. When did Alexander Selkirk become social? 15. What was the result? 16. If Alexander Selkirk had remained on the island after being visited by English ships what change would there have been in his state? 17. What must be the first step in the establishment of a colony? 18. What is necessary for the production of utility? 19. What is necessary to free exchange? 20. What is necessary to accumulation? CHAPTER III. Adventures of John Tanner-Habits of the American Indians-Their sufferings from famine, and from the absence among them of the principle of division of labour-Evils of irregular labour-Respect to propertyTheir present improved condition-Hudson's Bay Indians. IN the year 1828 there came to New York a white man named John Tanner, who had been thirty years a captive amongst the Indians in the interior of North America. He was carried off by a band of these people when he was a little boy, from a settlement on the Ohio river, which was occupied by his father, who was a clergyman. The boy was brought up in all the rude habits of the Indians, and became inured to the abiding miseries and uncertain pleasures of their wandering life. He grew in time to be a most skilful huntsman, and carried on large dealings with the agents of the Hudson's Bay Company, in the skins of beavers and other animals which he and his associates had shot or entrapped. The history of this man was altogether so curious that he was induced to furnish the materials for a complete narrative of his adventures; and, accordingly, a book, fully descriptive of them, was prepared for the press by Dr. Edwin James, and printed at New York in 1830. It is of course not within the intent of our little work to furnish any regular abridgment of John Tanner's story; but it is our wish to direct attention to some few particulars, which appeared to us strikingly to illustrate some of the positions which we desire to enforce, by thus exhibiting their practical operation. The country in which this man lived so many years is that immense territory belonging to the United States, which at that period was covered by boundless forests which the progress of civilization had not then cleared away. In this region a number of scattered Indian tribes maintained a precarious existence by hunting the moose-deer and the buffalo for their supply of food, and by entrapping the foxes and martens of the woods and the beavers of the lakes, whose skins they generally exchanged with the white traders of Europe for articles of urgent necessity, such as ammunition and guns, traps, axes, and woollen blankets; but too often for ardent spirits, equally the curse of savage and of civilized life. The contact of savage man with the outskirts of civilization perhaps afflicts him with the vices of both states. But the principle of exchange, imperfectly and irregularly as it operated amongst the Indians, furnished some incitement to their ingenuity and their industry. Habits of providence were thus to a certain degree created; it became necessary to accumulate some capital of the commodities which could be rendered valuable by their own labour, to exchange for commodities which their own labour, without exchange, was utterly unable to procure. The principle of exchange, too, being recognised amongst them in their dealings with foreigners, the security of property-without which; as we have shown, that principle cannot exist at all--was one of the great rules of life amongst themselves. But still these poor Indians, from the mode which they proposed to themselves for the attainment of property, which consisted only in securing what nature had produced, without directing the course of her productions, were very far removed from the regular attainment of those blessings which civilized society alone offers. We shall exemplify these statements by a few details. The country over which these people ranged occupies a surface that may be roughly described as five or six times as large as all England. They had the unbounded command of all the natural resources of that country; and yet their entire numbers did not equal the population of a moderately sized English county. It may be fairly said that each |