COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND

(HTTP://EBOOKS.ADELAIDE.EDU.AU/B/BLACKSTONE/WILLIAM/COMMENT/INDEX.HTML)

BOOK 2, CHAPTER 1

OF PROPERTY, IN GENERAL
第二卷第一章 总论财产

The former book of these commentaries having treated at large of the jura personarum
[rights of persons], or such rights and duties as are annexed to the persons of men, the
objects of our inquiry in this second book will be the jura rerum [rights of things], or those
rights which a man may acquire in and to such external things as are unconnected with
his person. These are what the writers on natural law style the rights of dominion, or
property, concerning the nature and original of which I shall first premise a few
observations, before I proceed to distribute and consider its several objects.
这些解释的前一卷已经充分论述了人身权利，或者说附着于人身的权利和责任，在第二卷
即本卷中我们深究的对象是财产权利，或者说一个人对那些与他的人身并不相联结的外部
物品可以获取的权利。这些权利便是那些写作者在自然法上称之为支配权利，或财产权利的
东西，在我对财产进行划分和考虑之前，有关财产权利的性质和来源，我应当首先就前提
进行简短的论述。【自然法哲学的代表人物：Thomas Aquinas（阿奎纳斯，约 1225—1274，意大利天
主教教士，哲学家，神学家）, Francisco Suárez（1548—1617，西班牙耶稣会教士，哲学家，神学家）,
Richard Hooker（胡克，1554—1600，英国安利甘教士，神学家）, Thomas Hobbes（霍布斯，1588—
1679，英国哲学家）, Hugo Grotius（格劳秀斯，1583—1645，荷兰法学家）, Samuel von Pufendorf
（普芬多夫，1632—1694，德国哲学家）, John Locke（洛克，1632—1704，英国哲学家，自由主义之
父）, Emmerich de Vattel（瓦特尔，1714—1767，瑞士哲学家）//英文维基】

There is nothing which so generally strikes the imagination, and engages the affections
of mankind, as the right of property; or that sole and despotic dominion which one man
claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of
any other individual in the universe. And yet there are very few, that will give themselves
the trouble to consider the original and foundation of this right. Pleased as we are with
the possession, we seem afraid to look back to the means by which it was acquired, as if
fearful of some defect in our title; or at best we rest satisfied with the decision of the laws
in our favor, without examining the reason or authority upon which those laws have been
built. We think it enough that our title is derived by the grant of the former proprietor, by
descent from our ancestors, or by the last will and testament of the dying owner; not
caring to reflect that (accurately and strictly speaking) there is no foundation in nature or
in natural law, why a set of words upon parchment should convey the dominion of land;
why the son should have a right to exclude his fellow creatures from a determinate spot
of ground, because his father had done so, before him; or why the occupier of a
particular field or of a jewel, when lying on his death-bed and no longer able to maintain
possession, should be entitled to tell the rest of the world which of them should enjoy it
after him. These inquiries, it must be owned, would be useless and even troublesome in
common life. It is well if the mass of mankind will obey the laws when made, without
scrutinizing too nicely into the reasons of making them. But, when law is to be considered
not only as matter of practice, but also as a rational science, it cannot be improper or
useless to examine more deeply the rudiments and grounds of these positive
constitutions of society.
再也没有什么会像财产权利那样，如此普遍的点燃人类的想象力，并让人类的情感深陷其
中；或者，一个人对世界上所有的外部物品所宣称并行使的独占和蛮横的支配，在全人类
中完全将任何其他的个体的这种权利都排除在外。不过也有非常少的人，将这种麻烦交给他
们自己，去思考这种权利的来源和基础。我们占用财产的时候感到心满意足，当我们回过头
来审视获得这些财产的方式的时候似乎害怕了，好像害怕我们的资格存在某些缺陷；或者
最多，我们满足于法律的裁决偏向于我们的利益，却不去审查那些法律建于其上的理由或
职权（authority）。我们认为只要我们的资格来源于之前的所有者的授予，或者继承自我们
的先辈，或者来自将死的所有者最后的意志和遗嘱，这就足够了；并不关心细想（精确和
严格的说）在自然或自然法中若没有基础，为何羊皮纸上一套文字能够转移对土地的支配；
为何作为儿子能够对一块确定的土地拥有权利，而他的伙伴却被排除在外，因为他的父亲
在他之前也拥有这种权利；或者为何一片土地或一块宝石的占有者，当他躺在床上即将死
去，不再能够维持这种占有，应当授其资格让他告诉这世界上其余的人他们可以在他死后
来享用它。这些追问，必须承认，在共同生活中是没有意义的甚至是自寻烦恼。如果大多数
人类能够遵守那些（古老）法律，在它们制定的时候并未太深究制定它们的理由，那也不
错。但是，当法律被认为不仅是践行的事情，而且是一门理性的科学的时候，对这些肯定性
的社会制度的基础和粗陋形式作进一步审查就不能说是不恰当或无用的了。

In the beginning of the world, we are informed by holy writ, the all-bountiful creator gave
to man "dominion over all the earth; and over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the
air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."1 This is the only true and solid
foundation of man's dominion over external things, whatever airy metaphysical notions
may have been started by fanciful writers upon this subject. The earth, therefore, and all
things therein, are the general property of all mankind, exclusive of other beings, from the
immediate gift of the Creator. And, while the earth continued bare of inhabitants, it is
reasonable to suppose, that all was in common among them, and that every one took
from the public stock to his own use such things as his immediate necessities required.
在世界的初始，我们由圣经（holy writ）得知，慷慨的造物主赐予人“管理这地；也要管理
海里的鱼、空中的鸟和地上爬行的所有生物。”（创世纪：1：28）这便是人类对外部物品的
支配的唯一真实和坚固的基础，无论那些爱奇思异想的作家在这个问题上开创了怎样空洞
的纯粹哲学的概念。所以，这地球，及所有地球上的万物，便是所有人类的一般意义上的财
产，除其它生物之外的，造物主直接赐予的礼物。并且，只要土地上继续无人居住，便能合
理的假定：这土地上的一切所有便为人类所共有，每个人从公共储备中所取走的为他自己
所用的物品均被视为他的暂时需要所要求。

These general notions of property were then sufficient to answer all the purposes of
human life; and might perhaps still have answered them, had it been possible for
mankind to have remained in a state of primeval simplicity: as may be collected from the
manners of many American nations when first discovered by the Europeans; and from
the ancient method of living among the first Europeans themselves, if we may credit
either the memorials of them preserved in the golden age of the poets, or the uniform
accounts given by historians of those times, wherein "erant omnia communia et indivisa
omnibus, veluti unum cunctis patrimonium esset."2 ["All things were common and
undivided, as if there were but one estate for all."] Not that this communion of goods
seems ever to have been applicable, even in the earliest ages, to ought but the
substance of the thing; nor could be extended to the use of it. For, by the law of nature
and reason, he who first began to use it, acquired therein a kind of transient property, that
lasted so long as he was using it, and no longer: 3 or, to speak with greater precision, the
right of possession continued for the same time only that the act of possession lasted.
Thus the ground was in common, and no part of it was the permanent property of any
man in particular: yet whoever was in the occupation of any determinate spot of it, for
rest, for shade, or the like, acquired for the time a sort of ownership, from which it would
have been unjust, and contrary to the law of nature, to have driven him by force; but the
instant that he quitted the use or occupation of it, another might seize it without injustice.
Thus also a vine or other tree might be said to be in common, as all men were equally
entitled to its produce; and yet any private individual might gain the sole property of the
fruit, which he had gathered for his own repast. A doctrine well illustrated by Cicero, who
compares the world to a great theater, which is common to the public, and yet the place
which any man has taken is for the time his own.4
这些一般的财产概念便足以回答所有的人生意图；并且也许还能回答那些尚处于原始简朴
状态的人们：如同我们从许多美洲国家刚被欧洲人发现的时候的习惯中得出的结论；并且 ，
从 最初 的欧 洲人 他们 自己 中间 的古 老的 生活 方式 中， 如果 我们 相信 诗人 的黄 金时 代
（golden age：古希腊神话和传说中五个时代的第一个时代；五个时代为——黄金，白银，
青铜，铁，及衰败时代）所保存的那些生活方式的记忆，或者相信那些时代的历史学家所
给出的同样的说明： “ 所有的东西均共有不加分割，如同所有人只有一份财产。 ” （ 语出
Justin，100?-165?，古希腊第一位基督教护教士。现在在我看来，这种情况仅限于教会，宗教改革之后，
在英国经过两百年左右所确立的政府与教会共存，政府与教会分离，各管世俗与宗教信仰领域的原则，是
社会正常化的一项基本原则。[译注]）这种财产共有的方式看起来从来就没有存在过，即使是在
最初的时代，即使是就物品本身所应当而言；也不能扩大到物品的使用范围。因为，根据自
然和理性的法律，一个人一旦开始使用某件物品，由此便获得一种短暂的财产，只要继续
使用便持续拥有，不再使用便终止：或者，更确切的说，占有的权利与占有的行为同时开
始同时结束。这样，土地是共有的，没有任何土地会是任何特定个人的长久财产：然而，无
论是谁占有任何确定的土地，以供栖息，以供遮风挡雨，或诸如此类，便在这段时期内获
得了某种所有权利，若使用强力驱使他离开这些地方，这是不正当的，且违背自然的法律 ；
但是一旦他放弃使用或占用这些地方，他人便可获取，这没有什么非正义。又比如，一棵葡
萄树或其它的树可以说是大家共有，因为所有的人对它的产出均有同样的资格；然而任何
个人可能获得这些果实中一份独占的财产，这些他所采集的果实仅仅他自己享用。西塞罗已
经很好的说明了一个原则，他将世界比喻成一座大剧院，大剧院虽为公众所共有，然而任
何人所占用的那一小块地方在那个时候是他自己的。

But when mankind increased in number, craft, and ambition, it became necessary to
entertain conceptions of more permanent dominion; and to appropriate to individuals not
the immediate use only, but the very substance of the thing to be used. Otherwise
innumerable tumults must have arisen, and the good order of the world been continually
broken and disturbed, while a variety of persons were striving who should get the first
occupation of the same thing, or disputing which of them had actually gained it. As
human life also grew more and more refined, abundance of conveniences were devised
to render it more easy, commodious, and agreeable; as, habitations for shelter and
safety, and raiment for warmth and decency. But no man would be at the trouble to
provide either, so long as he had only an usufructuary property in them, which was to
cease the instant that he quitted possession; — if, as soon as he walked out of his tent,
or pulled off his garment, the next stranger who came by would have a right to inhabit the
one, and to wear the other. In the case of habitations in particular, it was natural to
observe, that even the brute creation, to whom every thing else was in common,
maintained a kind of permanent property in their dwellings, especially for the protection of
their young; that the birds of the air had nests, and the beasts of the field had caverns,
the invasion of which they esteemed a very flagrant injustice, and would sacrifice their
lives to preserve them. Hence a property was soon established in every man's house and
home-stall; which seem to have been originally mere temporary huts or moveable cabins,
suited to the design of Providence for more speedily peopling the earth, and suited to the
wandering life of their owners, before any extensive property in the soil or ground was
established. And there can be no doubt, but that moveables of every kind became sooner
appropriated than the permanent substantial soil: partly because they were more
susceptible of a long occupancy, which might be continued for months together without
any sensible interruption, and at length by usage ripen into an established right; but
principally because few of them could be fit for use, till improved and meliorated by the
bodily labor of the occupant; which bodily, bestowed upon any subject which before lay in
common to all men, is universally allowed to give the fairest and most reasonable title to
an exclusive property therein.
但是当人类在数量，技艺和野心上增长的时候，便有必要考虑接受更长久的支配概念； 不
仅要考虑每个人为短暂使用而占用物品，也要考虑物品本身的使用。 否则，当各种各
样的人在争斗谁应当得到同一件东西的最初占有，或争论谁实际已经获得的时候，一定会
出现无穷无尽的混乱，世界的良好秩序将不断的被破坏和打乱。因为人生变得越来越精致，
各种各样的便利器具被创造出来，使人生变得更安逸，宽松和舒心；比如，遮蔽和安全的
居所，温暖和得体的服饰。但是，没有人会自寻烦恼的规定：他只要对它们拥有使用获益的
财产权（usufructuary property：一个人对另一个人的财产可以使用和获益，只要不损坏），
一旦他放弃占用便立即停止；——如果，他一走出他的帐篷，或一脱下他的外衣，从旁经
过的陌生人便拥有权利占据帐篷，或穿上衣服。在特定居所的情形中，可以自然的看到：即
使是飞禽走兽，对它们而言即便其余的一切都是共有的，在它们的巢穴还维持着一种长久
性的财产，尤其是为保护它们的后代的东西；空中的飞鸟拥有巢，山野的走兽拥有洞穴，
对它们巢穴的侵犯被它们视为非常恶劣的非正义，甚至会牺牲生命来保护这些东西。于是，
财产权很快在每个人的房屋和居所之中建立起来；虽然最初看起来不过是些临时性的茅屋
或者可移动的船舱，在土地上进一步的财产权建立起来之前，这适合于上帝更快的让人遍
布全地的计划，适合于这些居所的所有者的游荡的生活。并且毫无疑问，每种可带走的东西
比长久稳定的土地更快的被占用：部分的原因是它们更容易长期的占有，可以持续数月而
不会觉察到中断，最后通过使用而成为一种确定下来的权利；不过主要的原因还是它们很
少能够适合使用的，直到通过占有者的身体劳动得到改善；这种亲自施于任何之前为所有
人共有的物品的劳动，普遍的允许给与这些物品最公正和最合理的排他性的财产资格。
The article of food was a more immediate call, and therefore a more early consideration.
Such, as were not contented with the spontaneous product of the earth, sought for a
more solid refreshment in the flesh of beasts, which they obtained by hunting. But the
frequent disappointments, incident to that method of provision, induced them to gather
together such animals as were of a more tame and sequacious nature; and to establish a
permanent property in their flocks and herds, in order to sustain themselves in a less
precarious manner, partly by the milk of the dams, and partly by the flesh of the young.
The support of these their cattle made the article of water also a very important point.
And therefore the book of Genesis (the most venerable monument of antiquity,
considered merely with a view to history) will furnish us with frequent instances of violent
contentions concerning wells; the exclusive property of which appears to have been
established in the first digger or occupant, even in such places where the ground and
herbage remained yet in common. Thus we find Abraham, who was but a sojourner,
asserting his right to a well in the country of Abimelech, and exacting an oath for his
security, "because he had dug that well." 5 And Isaac, about ninety years afterwards,
reclaimed this his father's property; and, after much contention with the Philistines, was
suffered to enjoy it in peace.6
食物是更为直接的需求，所以需要先加以考虑。因为不满足于地球上自然的产出
（spontaneous product），便在野兽的肉中寻找更能充饥的食物，他们通过捕猎获得野兽。
但是常常会使他们失望，这种获得食物的方式的附带结果，导致他们将那些更具驯养和顺
服本性的动物集中起来；为了以一种不稳定性较小的方式维持他们自身，部分的是因为母
兽的奶，部分的是因为幼小的肉，便对他们的兽群和牧养人确立了一种长久性的财产权。对
他们家畜的供养使得水变得非常重要。所以，《圣经·创世纪》（有关古代最庄严的文字，可
认为是对历史的一种看法）为我们提供了许多激烈争夺水井的例子；水井的排他性财产权
看起来为第一个挖掘者或占有者所拥有，即使在这些地方地面和草木仍然共有。这样，我们
发现亚伯拉罕——只不过是一个寄居者——在阿比米勒人（Abimelech）的国家中宣称他
对一口水井的权利，并为他的安全（向阿比米勒人）要求一份誓言，“因为他挖了那口水
井。”（创世纪：21：30）以撒（亚伯拉罕的儿子）大约九十年之后，又再次声明这口水井
是他父亲的财产；并且与菲利斯汀人经过许多争夺之后，最终和平的享有了它。（创世纪：
26：15，18，etc）

All this while the soil and pasture of the earth remained still in common as before, and
open to every occupant: except perhaps in the neighborhood of towns, where the
necessity of a sole and exclusive property in lands (for the sake of agriculture) was
earlier felt, and therefore more readily complied with. Otherwise, when the multitude of
men and cattle had consumed every convenience on one spot of ground, it was deemed
a natural right to seize upon and occupy such other lands as would more easily supply
their necessities. This practice is still retained among the wild and uncultivated nations
that have never been formed into civil states, like the Tartars and others in the east;
where the climate itself, and the boundless extent of their territory, conspire to retain
them still in the same savage state of vagrant liberty, which was universal in the earliest
ages; and which Tacitus informs us continued among the Germans till the decline of the
Roman empire.7 We have also a striking example of the same kind in the history of
Abraham and his nephew Lot.8 When their joint substance became so great, that pasture
and other conveniences grew scarce, the natural consequence was that a strife arose
between their servants; so that it was no longer practicable to dwell together. This
contention Abraham thus endeavored to compose: "let there be no strife, I pray thee,
between thee and me. Is not the whole land before thee? Separate thyself, I pray thee,
from me. If thou wilt take the left hand, then I will go to the right; or if thou depart to the
right hand, then I will go to the left." This plainly implies an acknowledged right, in either,
to occupy whatever ground he pleased, that was not pre-occupied by other tribes. "And
Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered every
where, even as the garden of the Lord. Then Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan, and
journeyed east; and Abraham dwelt in the land of Canaan."
此时地球上的土地和牧场仍然如从前一样处于共有状态，向每个占有者敞开：可能除了邻
近城镇的地方，这些地方对土地的独占和排他性的财产权利的必要性（为了农耕的缘故）
较早的被意识到，所以更快的得到遵守。否则（未形成城镇的地方），当一群人和家畜耗尽
了一个地方的便利条件之后，去寻求和占有更容易提供他们生活必需品的其它土地，这被
认为是一种自然权利。这种行为方式仍然保留在那些野蛮无教养（ wild and uncultivated）
的未形成世俗政府的国家之中，比如鞑靼人和其他的东方人；在这些地方气候本身，以及
他们领土的无边界性，共同促使他们仍然停留在漂泊自由的野人状态，这在最初的时代是
普遍的情形；塔西特斯(56～120?)告诉我们杰曼人（German，常译为日尔曼，我不知道
究竟是音译呢，还是意译，或许源于其它语言？）的这种状态一直保持到罗马帝国的衰落。
这种情况，我们还有一个明显的例子，即历史上的亚伯拉罕和他的外甥罗得。当他们的共同
财产（joint substance）变得如此之多，以致，牧场和其它的便利条件变得短缺，自然的
结果就是他们的仆人产生冲突；于是就不可能再居在一起了。亚伯拉罕是这样来努力来调解
这种冲突的：“你我之间，切不可纷争；你的牧人和我的牧人之间，也不可纷争，因为我们
是至亲。全地不都是在你面前吗？请你离开我吧！你若向左，我就向右；你若向右，我就向
左。” （创世纪：13：8，9）这明白的意味着一种被承认的权利，只要没有被别的部落占
有，只要他愿意便可占有任何地方。“罗得举目，看见约旦河整个平原，都有水灌溉；这地
好像耶和华的园子。罗得选择了约旦河整个平原，于是向东移动；亚伯拉罕住在迦南地。”
（创世纪：13：10，11，12）

Upon the same principle was founded the right of migration, or sending colonies to find
out new habitations, when the mother country was overcharged with inhabitants; which
was practiced as well by the Phoenicians and Greeks, as the Germans, Scythians, and
other northern people. And, so long as it was confined to the stocking and cultivation of
desert uninhabited countries, it kept strictly within the limits of the law of nature. But how
far the seizing on countries already peopled, and driving out or massacring the innocent
and defenseless natives, merely because they differed from their invaders in language, in
religion, in customs, in government, or in color; how far such a conduct was consonant to
nature, to reason, or to Christianity, deserved well to be considered by those, who have
rendered their names immortal by thus civilizing mankind.
当母国居民超载的时候，迁移或曰派遣臣民去寻找新的定居点的权利也是基于同样的原则 ；
这种权利被杰曼人，斯狄厄（Scythia，古代欧洲东南部以黑海北岸为中心的一地区）人以
及其他北方的人行使过，也被腓尼斯（Phoenicia，范围大致相当于现今黎巴嫩的古国）人
和希腊人行使过。并且，只要限于开垦荒凉的无人定居的国家，严格的讲均处于自然的法律
所许可的范围之内。但是，究竟能够在多大的范围内，在已经有人定居的国家中获取财产，
并驱赶或猎杀那些无罪和毫无抵抗的原居民，仅仅因为他们在语言，宗教，习俗，政府或
肤色上不同于入侵者；这样的行为究竟在多大的程度上能够与自然，理性或基督教相一致 ，
这些问题应当很好的根据先人——这些人的名字已经被文明的人类视为不朽——加以考虑。

As the world by degrees grew more populous, it daily became more difficult to find out
new spots to inhabit, without encroaching upon former occupants; and, by constantly
occupying the same individual spot, the fruits of the earth were consumed, and its
spontaneous produce destroyed, without any provision for a future supply or succession.
It therefore became necessary to pursue some regular method of providing a constant
subsistence; and this necessity produced, or at least promoted and encouraged, the art
of agriculture. And the art of agriculture, by a regular connection and consequence,
introduced and established the idea of a more permanent property in the soil, than had
hitherto been received and adopted. It was clear that the earth would not produce her
fruits in sufficient quantities, without the assistance of tillage: but who would be at the
pains of tilling it, if another might watch an opportunity to seize upon and enjoy the
product of his industry, art, and labor? Had not therefore a separate property in lands, as
well as moveables, been vested in some individuals, the world must have continued a
forest, and men have been mere animals of prey; which, according to some
philosophers, is the genuine state of nature. Whereas now (so graciously has Providence
interwoven our duty and our happiness together) the result of this very necessity has
been the ennobling of the human species, by giving it opportunities of improving its
rational faculties, as well as of exerting its natural. Necessity begat property; and, in order
to insure that property, recourse was had to civil society, which brought along with it a
long train of inseparable concomitants; states, government, laws, punishments, and the
public exercise of religious duties. Thus connected together, it was found that a part only
of society was sufficient to provide, by their manual labor, for the necessary subsistence
of all; and leisure was given to others to cultivate the human mind, to invent useful arts,
and to lay the foundations of science.
随着世界人口一天天的增加，寻找新的定居点而不侵犯之前的占有者，变得越来越困难；
而且，不断的占用同一个地方，地上的果实被消耗，它的自然产出被毁灭，将来的生活便
没有了储备。所以，寻求某种合乎规则的方式来保证一种恒定的生活成为了必要；这种必要
产生了，或者至少促进和鼓励了农艺。与农艺紧密相连并最终引入和建立了一种比我们今天
所接受和采用的更为长久的土地财产权的观念。很明显，土地未经足够的耕耘，便不能产出
果实：但是，如果他人可以伺机获取并享用他的勤勉，技艺和劳动的产出，谁还会忍受耕
耘土地的辛劳？所以，如果没有将分割的土地的财产权——如可带走的物品一样——授予
某些个人，世界必定会继续成为丛林，而人类只不过是被掠夺的动物而已；根据一些哲学
家的观点，这便是真实的自然状态。当然，现在正是这种必要性的结果赋予了人类的高贵
（上帝如此仁慈的将我们的责任和幸福交织在一起），使他们有机会不仅运用了他们的自
然能力，也改善了其理性的能力。必要性产生了财产权；然后为了确保财产权，必须诉诸于
世俗社会，而世俗社会拖来了长长的一列机车，装载着不可分离的伴生物；国家，政府，
法律，惩罚，以及宗教责任的公共活动。这样与之紧密相连的，人们发现社会的一部分成员
便足以通过他们的劳动提供所有成员的生活需要；而给与其他人闲暇去培育人类的思想，
发明有用的技艺，奠定科学的基础。
The only question remaining is, how this property became actually vested; of what it is
that gave a man an exclusive right to retain in a permanent manner that specific land,
which before belonged generally to every body, but particularly to nobody. And, as we
before observed that occupancy gave the right to the temporary use of the soil, so it is
agreed upon all hands that occupancy gave also the original right to the permanent
property in the substance of the earth itself; which excludes every one else but the owner
from the use of it. There is indeed some difference among the writers on natural law,
concerning the reason why occupancy should convey this right, and invest one with this
absolute property: Grotius and Pufendorf insisting, that this right of occupancy is founded
upon a tacit and implied assent of all mankind, that the first occupant should become the
owner; and Barbeyrac, Titius, Mr. Locke, and others, holding, that there is no such
implied assent, neither is it necessary that there should be; for that the very act of
occupancy, alone, being a degree of bodily labor, is from a principle of nature justice,
without any consent or compact, sufficient of itself to gain a title. A dispute that favors too
much of nice and scholastic refinement! However, both sides agree in this, that
occupancy is the thing by which the title was in fact originally gained; every man seizing
to his own continued use such spots of ground as he found most agreeable to his own
convenience, provided he found them unoccupied by any one else.
现在唯一没有解决的问题是：这种财产权实际上如何授予；这种授予方式给与一个人一种
排他性的权利，以一种长久的方式获得一块特定的土地，而这块土地之前在一般的意义上
属于每个人，并不属于特定的个人。如我们之前所论述的，占用给与了暂时使用土地的权利，
且同意人的劳动给与了占用者对地上的物品最初的长久性财产权利；这种权利将其他人排
除在外，只有它的所有者可以使用它。确实，在自然法的写作者中，在为何占有能够获得这
种权利并将这种绝对的财产权授予一个人的问题上存在某些分歧：格劳秀斯和普芬多夫主
张，这种占有权利基于全人类的默认同意，即第一个占有者应该成为所有者；巴贝拉克
（Barbeyrac，1674—1744，法国法学家），提提乌斯（Titius），洛克及其他的人认为，
并没有这样的默认同意，这样的同意也没有必要；因为正是占有的行为本身，带有了某种
程度的亲身劳动，根据自然正义的原则，无须任何同意或契约，便足以获得一种资格。一次
争论，极大的促成了精彩和学术的表达！不过，双方都同意这一点，通过占用财产权资格
便实际上被最初获得了；每个人为他自己的持续使用获取那些最适合他自己的便利的土地 ，
如果他发现这些土地并未被其他人占用的话。

Property, both in lands and moveables, being thus originally acquired by the first taker,
which taking amounts to a declaration that he intends to appropriate the thing to his own
use, it remains in him, by the principles of universal law, till such time as he does some
other act which shows an intention to abandon it: for then it becomes, naturally speaking,
publici juris [public right] once more, and is liable to be again appropriated by the next
occupant. So if one is possessed of a jewel, and casts it into the sea or a public highway,
this is such an express dereliction, that a property will be vested in the first fortunate
finder that will seize it to his own use. But if he hides it privately in the earth, or other
secret place, and it is discovered, the finder acquires no property therein; for the owner
has not by this act declared any intention to abandon it, but rather the contrary: and if he
loses or drops it by accident, it cannot be collected from thence, that he designed to quit
the possession; and therefore in such case the property still remains in the loser, who
may claim it again of the finder. And this, we may remember, is the doctrine of the law of
England, with relation to treasure trove.9
土地和可带走的物品的财产权，以这样的方式被第一个取用者最初获得，这等于是宣告：
他打算占用这件东西为他自己所用，这件东西，根据普遍法律的原则，被他保留到他以其
它的行为表明意图放弃为止：然后它再一次变成——自然的讲——公共权利，并可能被下
一个占有者再次占用。所以，如果一个人拥有一块宝石，然后掷于海中或公路（highway：
共有的道路；high sea：共有的海洋；etc）上，这便是这样的明确的放弃，财产权将授予
第一个幸运的发现并据为己有的人。但是如果他私下埋入土中，或其它隐秘的地方，然后被
发现，发现者并不能因此而获得财产权；因为所有者并未通过这样的行为宣布任何放弃它
的意图，恰恰相反：如果他因为意外而丢失或遗落它，也不能因此而得出结论，即他打算
放弃这种占有；所以在这样的事件中财产权仍为失主所有，他可以再向发现者要求归还。而
这些，我们可能记得，这是英格兰法律在发现珠宝的事件中的原则。

But this method, of one man's abandoning his property, and another's seizing the vacant
possession, however well founded in theory, could not long subsist in fact. It was
calculated merely for the rudiments of civil society, and necessarily ceased among the
complicated interests and artificial refinements of polite and established governments. In
these it was found, that what became inconvenient or useless to one man was highly
convenient and useful to another; who was ready to give in exchange for it some
equivalent, that was equally desirable to the former proprietor. This mutual convenience
introduced commercial traffic, and the reciprocal transfer of property by sale, grant, or
conveyance: which may be considered either as a continuance of the original possession
which the first occupant had; or as an abandoning of the thing by the present owner, and
an immediate successive occupancy of the same by the new proprietor. The voluntary
dereliction of the owner, and delivering the possession to another individual, amount to a
transfer of the property; the proprietor declaring his intention no longer to occupy the
thing himself, but that his own right of occupancy shall be vested in the new acquirer. Or,
taken in the other light, if I agree to part with an acre of my land to Titius, the deed of
conveyance is an evidence of my intending to abandon the property, and Titius being the
only or first man acquainted with such my intention, immediately steps in and seizes the
vacant possession: thus the consent, expressed by the conveyance, gives Titius a good
right against me; and possession, or occupancy, confirms that right against all the world
besides.
但是这种一个人放弃他的财产，另一个人获取无人占有物的方式，在理论上虽然很好建立 ，
实际上却不能长久的维持。这顶多只能算是世俗社会的初期阶段，当由文明和确定的政府建
立起复杂的利益和人为的精致的时候，这种方式便有必要停止。在这些情形中人们发现：对
一个人而言变得不便或无用的东西对另一个人而言却非常的便利和有用；那些准备拿某些
等价物（等价的判断很个人化）来交换它的人，它之前的所有者也同样的期待用它来交换
某些东西。这种相互便利引入了商业往来，以及通过出卖，授予或转让所进行的互惠的财产
转移：这种财产转移可以认为是第一个占有者所拥有的初始财产的继续；或者认为是被当
前所有者放弃，然后同样的东西被一个新的所有者所直接继承占有。所有者的这种自愿放弃，
然后将财产传递给另一个人，相当于财产的转移；所有者宣布他不再想他自己占有一件东
西了，不过他自己的占有权利会授予新的获得者。或者，我们从别的角度来看这个问题，如
果我同意将我的一英亩土地分给 Titius，这种转让行为便是我意图放弃这份财产的证据，
而 Titius 作为唯一或第一个知晓我这样的意图的人，便立即占据并获得这份空缺的财产权 ：
这样，通过转让所明确表达的同意，给与了 Titius 一件物品的权利，而将我排除在外；拥
有或曰占有，确认了一种将世界其余所有人排除在外的权利。

The most universal and effectual way, of abandoning property, is by the death of the
occupant; when, both the actual possession and intention of keeping possession
ceasing, the property, which is founded upon such possession and intention, ought also
to cease of course. For, naturally speaking, the instant a man ceases to be, he ceases to
have any dominion: else, if he had a right to dispose of his acquisitions one moment
beyond his life, he would also have a right to direct their disposal for a million of ages
after him; which would be highly absurd and inconvenient. All property must therefore
cease upon death, considering men as absolute individuals, and unconnected with civil
society: for then, by the principles before established, the next immediate occupant would
acquire a right in all that the deceased possessed. But as, under civilized governments
which are calculated for the peace of mankind, such a constitution would be productive of
endless disturbances, the universal law of almost every nation (which is a kind of
secondary law of nature) has either given the dying person a power of continuing his
property, by disposing of his possessions by will; or, in case he neglects to dispose of it,
or is not permitted to make any disposition at all, the municipal law of the country then
steps in, and declares who shall be the successor, representative, or heir of the
deceased; that is, who alone shall have a right to enter upon this vacant possession, in
order to avoid that confusion, which its becoming again common would occasion.10 And
farther, in case no testament be permitted by the law, or none be made, and no heir can
be found so qualified as the law requires, still, to prevent the robust title of occupancy
from again taking place, the doctrine of escheats is adopted in almost every country;
whereby the sovereign of the state, and those who claim under his authority, are the
ultimate heirs, and succeed to those inheritances, to which no other title can be formed.
放弃财产最普遍和有效的途径是通过占有者的死亡；当实际的拥有和继续拥有的意图都停
止的时候，基于这样的拥有和意图的财产权也应当同时终止。因为，自然的讲，一旦一个人
离开这个世界，他便终止了一切支配：否则，如果他有权利在死后处置他所获得的财富哪
怕一瞬间，他也有权利在一百万年后主导它们的处置；这非常的荒谬和不便。所以考虑到人
作为绝对的个体，与世俗社会不再联结，所有的财产权必须基于死亡而终止：为了，根据
前面已经建立起来的原则，下一个直接的占有者能够对死者所有的财产获得一种权利。但是
因为，在最多只能为了人类和平的文明政府之下，这样的制度将会产生无穷无尽的混乱，
所以几乎每个国家的普遍法律（这是自然法的次生法律）要么给与将死的人一种权力来继
续他的财产权，依他的意志来处置他的财产；要么，他忽略了对它们的处置，或者不允许
对它们进行任何处置，那么，国家的自治法律便进入，并宣布谁应当成为死者的后继者，
代理人或继承人；即，唯有谁能够拥有权利进入这个所有者空缺的财产位置，以避免这些
财产再一次进入共有状态将引起的混乱。进一步而言，在法律禁止订立遗嘱，或没有订立遗
嘱，且不能找到符合法律所要求资格的继承者的情况下，为了阻止再次产生占有资格的问
题，在几乎所有的国家都采用了“所有权重归领主”（escheat：最初来源于为避免土地处于
废弃和无主的状态，土地的所有权重归上一级的封地领主）的原则；据此，国家的君主或
声称为他的下级的人，便成为继承人的最后的选择，并实际继承那些遗产，对此没有别的
资格。
The right of inheritance, or descent to the children and relations of the deceased, seems
to have been allowed much earlier than the right of devising by testament. We are apt to
conceive at first view that it has nature on its side; yet we often mistake for nature what
we find established by long and inveterate custom. It is certainly a wise and effectual, but
clearly a political, establishment; since the permanent right of property, vested in the
ancestor himself, was no natural, but merely a civil, right. It is true, that the transmission
of one's possession to posterity has an evident tendency to make a man a good citizen
and a useful member of society: it sets the passions on the side of duty, and prompts a
man to deserve well of the public, when he is sure that the reward of his services will not
die with himself, but be transmitted to those with whom he is connected by the dearest
and most tender affections. Yet, reasonable as this foundation of the right of inheritance
may seem, it is probable that its immediate original arose not from speculations
altogether so delicate and refined; and, if not from fortuitous circumstances, at least from
a plainer and more simple principle. A man's children or nearest relations are usually
about him on his death-bed, and are the earliest witnesses of his decease. They became
therefore generally the next immediate occupants, till at length in process of time this
frequent usage ripened into general law. And therefore also in the earliest ages, on failure
of children, a man's servants born under his roof were allowed to be his heirs; being
immediately on the spot when he died. For we find the old patriarch Abraham expressly
declaring, that "since God had given him no seed, his steward Eliezer, one born in his
house, was his heir."11
遗产的权利，由死者的孩子和家人来继承，看起来比由遗嘱遗赠财产权利要早得多。我们倾
向于凭第一感觉想象遗嘱是自然的；然而我们经常在由长时间和根深蒂固的习俗所建立起
来的习惯中误解自然。遗嘱的确是一种明智和有效的不过却是一种政治的制度；自从这种长
久性的财产权利，授予我们的祖先，就不再是自然的而变成了世俗的权利。确实，如果一个
人的财产能够传递给他的后代将会有一种明显的倾向，即会促使一个人成为一个良好的公
民和对社会有用的成员：当一个人确信他的服务的报酬不会与他一同死亡，而可以传递给
他最亲近和最喜爱的人，这会激发责任的激情，并促使一个人好好为公众服务。然而，遗产
继承权利的基础看起来是多么的合理，很可能却并不是源于那么缜密和精致的总体考虑；
如果不是源于偶然的幸运条件，至少是源于一种更明白和简单的原则。一个人的孩子或最亲
近的家人通常会在他临终的床边，而成为他的死亡的最早见证人。所以，他们一般会成为下
一个直接占有者，直到随着时间的推移最后这种常用的方式变成一般的法律。所以，在最早
的时代，因为没有子嗣，一个在家中诞生的仆人也被允许成为他的继承人；在他死亡的时
候立即生效。因为我们发现我们的祖先亚伯拉罕明确宣称：“既然上帝没有给他子嗣，他的
管家 Eliezer，一个在他家出生的人，便成为他的继承人。”（创世纪：15：3）

While property continued only for life, testaments were useless and unknown; and, when
it became inheritable, the inheritance was long indefeasible, and the children or heirs at
law were incapable of exclusion by will. Till at length it was found, that so strict a rule of
inheritance made heirs disobedient and headstrong, defrauded creditors of their just
debts, and prevented many provident fathers from dividing or charging their estates as
the exigence of their families required. This introduced pretty generally the right of
disposing one's property, or a part of it, by testament; that is, by written or oral
instructions properly witnessed and authenticated, according to the pleasure of the
deceased; which we therefore emphatically style his will. This was established in some
countries much later than in others. With us in England, till modern times, a man could
only dispose of one third of his moveables from his wife and children: and, in general, no
will was permitted of lands till the reign of Henry the eighth; and then only of a certain
portion: for it was not till after the restoration that the power of devising real property
became so universal as at present.
当财产仅仅与人生相随的时候，遗嘱无用且无人知晓；当它变得可继承的时候，继承是长
时间的不可废止的，孩子或法律上的继承人便不能随意的被排除继承权。直到后来发现，如
此严格的继承规则使继承人变得不服从和任性，骗取债务权利人正当的债务，妨碍许多有
远见的父亲分割或掌管他们的财产以作他们家庭的紧急状况所需。这便引入了通过遗嘱灵活
的处置一个人的财产或财产之一部分的权利；即，根据死者的意愿，通过书写或口头的指
示，恰当的加以证明；所以，死者的意愿我们现在强调的称之为“他的意志”。遗嘱的确立在
一些国家比别的国家要晚很多。在我们英格兰，直到现代，一个人仅仅能够随意处置留给他
妻子和孩子的动产的三分之一：并且一般的，不允许随意处置土地的情况一直到亨瑞八世
才废止；之后也只能处置一部分土地：因为直到查理二世恢复原有秩序之后遗赠真实财产
（real property：不动产，包括土地及居所。参见第二卷第二章）的权力才变得像现在这样
普遍。

Wills therefore and testaments, rights of inheritance and successions, are all of them
creatures of the civil or municipal laws, and accordingly are in all respects regulated by
them; every distinct country having different ceremonies and requisites to make a
testament completely valid: neither does any thing vary more that the right of inheritance
under different national establishments. In England particularly, this diversity is carried to
such a length, as if it had been meant to point out the power of the laws in regulating the
succession to property, and how futile every claim must be that has not its foundation in
the positive rules of the state. In personal estates the father may succeed to his children;
in landed property he never can be their immediate heir, by any the remotest possibility:
in general only the eldest son, in some places only the youngest, in others all the sons
together, have a right to succeed to the inheritance: in real estates males are preferred to
females, and the eldest male will usually exclude the rest; in the division of personal
estates, the females of equal degree are admitted together with the males, and no right
of primogeniture is allowed.
所以，意志和遗嘱，继承和转继的权利，均是世俗或自治法律的创造物，从而在所有方面
均由它们加以调整；每个不同的国家都有不同的仪式和必备条件来使遗嘱完全的生效：再
也没有什么事情会比不同的国家制度下的继承权如此变化多端了。在英格兰，这种多样性达
到了这样的一种程度，让人觉得似乎对管理财产继承的法律权力要特别指出来，任何要求
若没有基于国家肯定性的规则之上便会如何的无效。对于个人财产（personal estate：个人
可带走的动产。参见第二卷第二章）父亲可以转继给他的孩子；对于土地财产，他却不能成
为他们的直接转继者，一点可能性也没有：一般的，只有最大的儿子拥有继承土地遗产的
权利，有些地方只有最小的可以，其它的地方所有的儿子共同继承：对于真实的财产，女
性偏向于让男性继承，最大的男性通常取得排他性的继承权；在个人财产的分割中，女性
获得与男性同等的继承权，并不允许长子继承权。
This one consideration may help to remove the scruples of many well-meaning persons,
who set up a mistaken conscience in opposition to the rules of law. If a man disinherits
his son, by a will duly executed, and leaves his estate to a stranger, there are many who
consider this proceeding as contrary to natural justice: while others so scrupulously
adhere to the supposed intention of the dead, that if a will of lands be attested by only
two witnesses instead of three, which the law requires, they are apt to imagine that the
heir is bound in conscience to relinquish his title to the devisee. But both of them certainly
proceed upon very erroneous principles: as if, on the one hand, the son had by nature a
right to succeed to his father's lands; or as if, on the other hand, the owner was by nature
entitled to direct the succession of his property after his own decease. Whereas the law
of nature suggests, that on the death of the possessor the estate should again become
common, and be open to the next occupant, unless otherwise ordered for the sake of civil
peace by the positive law of society. The positive law of society, which is with us the
municipal law of England, directs it to vest in such person as the last proprietor shall by
will, attended with certain requisites, appoint; and, in defect of such appointment, to go to
some particular person, who, from the result of certain local constitutions, appears to be
the heir at law. Hence it follows, that, where the appointment is regularly made, there
cannot be a shadow of right in any one but the person appointed, and, where the
necessary requisites are omitted, the right of the heir is equally strong and built upon as
solid a foundation, as the right of the devisee would have been, supposing such
requisites were observed.
以下这种考虑或许可以消除许多好心人的犹疑，这些人在反对这些法律规则中形成了一种
错误的道德感。如果一个人通过他的意志的恰当实施剥夺了他儿子的继承权，而将其财产转
继给一个陌生人，会有许多人认为这个过程是违背自然正义的：同时，其他的人如此犹犹
豫豫的主张要遵守死者的意图，以致，如果土地的处置意志仅仅得到两个而不是三个人—
—法律上要求三个 ——来证实，他们倾向于想象转继者是由于内心道德的缘故而将他的财
产资格让与接受遗赠的人。但是这两种人都是基于非常错误的原则：一方面，似乎儿子基于
一种自然权利应当继承他父亲的土地；另一方面，似乎所有者被自然授予了一种权利，能
够在他自己死亡之后主导他的财产的继承。然而自然法主张：在占有者死亡之后财产应当再
次变为共有，下一个占有者便能获得财产权，除非为了世俗和平而由肯定性的社会法律所
规定。社会的肯定性法律，与我们相伴的英格兰的自治法律，指示应当授予最近所有者的意
志所确定的人，加之以确定的必要条件，进行指定；在这样的指定所产生的缺陷中，根据
确定的自治原则所确定的某些个人，将成为法律上的继承人。遵循这样的原则，在指定财产
权得到合乎规则的执行的地方，除了被指定的人没有人能够获得这样的权利，而且，如果
这些必要条件被忽略的话，继承者的权利与接受遗赠的权利具有同样坚实的基础，只要这
些必备条件得到了遵守。

But, after all, there are some few things, which notwithstanding the general introduction
and continuance of property, must still unavoidably remain in common; being such
wherein nothing but an usufructuary property is capable of being had; and therefore they
still belong to the first occupant, during the time he holds possession of them, and no
longer. Such (among others) are the elements of light, air, and water; which a man may
occupy by means of his windows, his gardens, his mills, and other conveniences: such
also are the generality of those animals which are said to be ferae naturae [wild nature],
or of a wild and untamable disposition; which any man may seize upon and keep for his
own use or pleasure. All these things, so long as they remain in possession, every man
has a right to enjoy without disturbance; but if once they escape from his custody, or he
voluntarily abandons the use of them, they return to the common stock, and any man
else has an equal right to seize and enjoy them afterwards.
但是最后，还是有少数的东西，无法包含在一般的财产权的引入和维持当中，必须仍然不
可避免的维持共有；这样的东西只能用“使用获益的财产权”称之；所以他们仍然属于最初
的占有者，在他占有期间拥有财产权，退出占有便终止财产权。比如阳光，空气和水；这些
东西一个人可以通过他的窗户，他的园子，他的磨坊和其它的工具设备进行占有：再比如
那些一般意义上的我们所说的野性动物，或者说野生难以驯化的动物；这些动物任何人都
可以获取和留为己用，只要他愿意。这些东西，只要它们被人占用，每个人都有权利不受干
扰的享用；不过如果它们脱离他的保管，或他自愿放弃使用它们，便回归共有，随后任何
其他人均有相同的权利去获取和享用它们。

Again; there are other things, in which a permanent property may subsist, not only as to
the temporary use, but also the solid substance; and which yet would be frequently found
without a proprietor, had not the wisdom of the law provided a remedy to obviate this
inconvenience. Such are forests and other waste grounds, which were omitted to be
appropriated in the general distribution of lands: such also are wrecks, estrays, and that
species of wild animals, which the arbitrary constitutions of positive law have
distinguished from the rest by the well-known appellation of game. With regard to these
and some others, as disturbances and quarrels would frequently arise among individuals,
contending about the acquisition of this species of property by first occupancy, the law
has therefore wisely cut up the root of dissension, by vesting the things themselves in the
sovereign of the state; or else in his representatives, appointed and authorized by him,
being usually the lords of manors. And thus the legislature of England has universally
promoted the grand ends of civil society, the peace and security of individuals, by steadily
pursuing that wise and orderly maxim, of assigning to every thing capable of ownership a
legal and determinate owner.
再者；还有其它一些东西，不仅作为临时之用，而且其固定的物质形态也可产生长久性财
产权；然而常常发现它们没有所有者，法律的明智也没有规定一种矫正的方式以消除这种
不便。比如丛林和其它荒芜的土地，在一般的定居中被人们忽略：再比如残骸，走失的家畜，
以及野生动物，随意的肯定性法律制度已经将这些东西从其余当中通过广为人知的游戏称
谓区别开来。考虑这些以及其它的情况，因为混乱和争吵经常会在人们中间产生，通过最初
占有而争夺这种财产权的获得问题，所以法律通过将这些东西的所有权授予国家的君主而
明智的消除了这种争论的根源；或者授予君主所指定和授权的代理人，通常是领地的主人。
这样，英格兰的立法权力便普遍的促进了世俗社会的伟大目标——和平和个人保障，通过
稳定的追求那句明智和有序的格言——将能够找到所有者的每件东西都指定一个合法和确
定的所有者。