28
vious to any subdivision of it among the individuals who compose it, is property:—not private property it is true, unless it be spoken of with reference to other nations—but property, nevertheless, belonging to the whole community. If now it were proposed to divide it equally among them, could it be said, with any regard to truth—that such "an equal division is not ******** dictate of nature." Would not the very contrary be true? It would be a very singular phenomenon, indeed, if we should see them contending for an unequal distribution, in preference to that which was equal. If then, it is a dictate of nature, that men in the original allotment of the soil, the only kind of property then known, should desire an equal division of the same; how does it happen, that their posterity, may not as naturally desire an equal division for their benefit, in some shape or other? Has the institution of government changed the course of nature? Undoubtedly we must come to this conclusion, or reject the reason as unsound which Mr. Raymond gives, for opposing the equal division of property in question.
The object of the Agrarian Law, was no doubt, to prevent the enormous accumulation of property in a few hands, on the one side, and the most oppressive and demoralizing destitution, amongst much the greatest portion of the community, on the other. Let writers say what they will, of the good effects of stimulating industry, by holding
