Scotch colonies in America is, if not irrelevant, very feeble. Colonies have often a different character from their mother state; and, what is to be observed, the Scots, at the time these colonies alluded to existed, had not sufficiently reaped the fruits of their plan of education. I deny that the comparative amount of the taxes of England and Scotland, is a fair criterion whereby to judge

96

of their relative ingenuity, industry, and enterprise." [p. 335] Besides other objections to this criterion, it is a very strong one; that a great part of the taxes which are paid in London, &c, which is the emporium of Scotland, as well as England, are paid by Scotchmen, whose enterprizing genius makes them resort there for the greater advancement of their trade, which would otherwise be all levied in Scotland. As a proof of the enterprize of my countrymen, it is a well known and undeniable fact, that there are infinitely more Scotchmen than Englishmen in the West Indies, in proportion; and, I have been told by a learned Doctor, who resided a number of years in Hindostan, and who is now a member of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, that there are actually more Scotchmen than Englishmen in the East Indies. The practice, in the North of Scotland, introduced in a great measure by Sir John Sinclair, [see the Ed. Farmer's Ma gazine] of converting a number of small farms into one large farm, and letting that to a South of Scotland farmer, was the cause of the emigration of which you have taken notice, p. 336] as affording a proof of the want of industry and ingenuity in the Scotch peasantry: but, I think it would be easy to prove the contrary from this event, because, to go to a foreign and unknown land, where houses are to be built, and the land probably to be cleared of wood before it can be cultivated for subsistence, argues more ingenuity, industry, and enterprize than to re main at home, deprived of agricultural concerns, and of both conveniency and materials for practising a mechanical profession. The Scotch, at present, believe me, Mr. Cobbett, are an industrious, ingenious, and enterprizing people, and, after what has been said, I think it can hardly be doubted, or denied, that they owe these qualities, in a great measure, to their excellent plan of education, under the protection of the English constitution. Is it not probable then, à priori, that England would be benefited by something similar? To conclude," a legislator occupied like the father of his country with the happiness of his people, will watch national education, to the end that children may suck in with the milk, the

SIR,Upon that most important subject, the Dominion of the Seas, a corre spondent has, in the last number of your Register, contended, that "occupancy, or first possession, confers right;"but, it does not apppear to me, that this proposition is laid down with sufficient precision; for we are left to conjecture to what it is that a right is conferred by occupancy, or first possession. Waving, however, for the present, the consideration of what the subject of the right may be, the doctrine, it seems, is, that the right itself may consist in occupancy, or in first possession; but, Sir, every one must see, that what is in the present occupation, or possession, of one man, may have been first possessed by another; so that two claimants thus situ ated would, upon resorting to your correspondent's rule, be, I think, somewhat puzzled to discover to which of them the right would be awarded; although they might exert to the utmost those endow ments which, according to your correspondent, are possessed in the same high perfec tion since the fall of Adam as before; that

is to say, "reason to see good from evil, and to do justice and avoid injustice. Presuming, therefore, that occupancy, or present possession, which signifies the same thing, is meant, let us endeavour to ascer tain what is the subject of the right which such occupancy is supposed to conter; and as the gentleman, in elucidating his doc trine, immediately observes, that the Crea tor " gave to man dominion over the sea and earth," and that the reason with which he was endowed shews that it is just for man to enjoy those gifts," Tam, I presume; entitled to say to him, upon your own ground then, occupancy, or actual possese sion, gives to us, who are now in possession of the Dominion of the Seas, abright to such dominion, and to a separate and ex clusive enjoyment of such dominion, tooj for you say yourself that it is on this foundation that all separate and exclusive enjoyment of property is erected. "But; your correspondent comes forward avowedly as being hostile to that conclusion which is the fair result of his own premises'; and he

must therefore mean something different from what his own remarks, in the outset of his communication, import; and, indeed, before, one gets through the whole, it is sufficiently perceptible that He means the reverse to what his former observations mean; for after having finished his argument, he inquires if it is not proved that "those vessels which are on the sea acquire a temporary right to that part of it which they occupy, and that it is unjust to deprive them or molest them in the enjoyment of it This argument, however, not having had the effect, even in the slightest degree, of reconciling me to the doctrine, that we have not a right to the Dominion of the Sea, permit me to offer to your readers some comments upon the observations which your correspondent has made with a view to its support. His argument, then, Sir, is, it seems, that the Omnipotent Being, gave to man "dominion over the sea and earth," and that the reason with which his Creator endowed him shews that it is " Occupancy which confers right," and to be sure, Sir, in the primitive condition of mankind, when all was in common, and the spontaneous productions of the earth profusely afforded the means of subsistence, notions of temporary right only, and not of permanent ownership in any determined spots, would be imbibed a right to exclusive possession, which would cease when the act of possession ceased. But, with what consistency can the notions which were entertained by the itinerant tribes of old, be, in the present state of the world, twisted into any thing at all resembling argument to prove that we have not a right to the Dominion of the Seas? Your correspondent, Sir, has already enabled us to decide with tolerable accuracy: but he shall shew us more distinctly On what other ground," he asks, can it be supported, that one man should be entitled solely to possess this or that portion of land, but that he derived it from the first man who had the good fortune to gain possession of it?" Now, can any thing be more consistent? The right of the possessor does not now, in this stage of the gentleman's argument, consist in the individual's own actual occupancy of the land, but because he derived it from the first possessor. How the first possessor could transmit to others, that right, which it stands confessed on all bands endured no longer than his own actual possession, your correspondent has not discovered to us; nor will I distress my brain by any attempt to guess. The answer to the question, however, is, that the title of an individual to any

particular piece of land, arises, not from its having been awarded to him or his an cestors, by the dictates of natural reason, but, by the law of the country in which he lives. It would, indeed, be gather a diffi-s cult task to account for the right (for instance) of the eldest son to the inheritance: of his father, in exclusion of all his brothers and sisters, upon any principle of natural reason and justice. But your correspondent: fancies that he sees something applicable to the point in dispute in the case of an estate. granted to John for the life of Thomas, where Thomas survives John. Here, the law of England not having provided furi such a contingency, by bestowing the right upon any particular person, he, who first gets possession of it after the death of John will be entitled to retain it until the death of Thomas; but not because the law of na ture, dictated by natural reason, awards it to him-for the right which he conferred i was to the possession so long as the occupant i was disposed to keep it, which might be after the death of Thomas-but because the law: of England did not allow of any person being turned out of possession, unless someh other person could make it appear that heq was by law entitled to it; which in this anomalous case could not be done. Let it, however, for the sake of the argument, be admitted, that the case of occupancy justo now spoken of, and the temporary, possesse sion of a person in a theatre, or of a ship 2 in a dock or river, to the particular seat, or ! spot occupied, bears some resemblance or, if your correspondent pleases, a complete analogy-to ancient occupancy; how will that serve him: What of argument is there in it to prove that we are not entitled: to the Dominion of the Seas, we having fought for and acquired that dominion, and that dominion being, moreover, essential to our security? Absolutely nothing, If the argument be that dominion over the sea was r the gift of God to all mankind, and there. fore no nation in particular can justify the claim of absolute dominion over any defined portion of it, the short answer to it, is, that dominion over the earth was equally the gift of God to mankind in general, and that upon the principle, upon which he con tends against out dominion of the sea, Eng lishmen can have no better right to this island than the inhabitants, of any other nation. If he tells me that we have ac quired this country, and are entitled bes cause we have continued to maintain the possession of it; I shall tell him in return, that we have acquired the dominion of the sea, and have never as yet abandoned that

civilised society will feel it an imperious duty to observe, however he might neglect them with impunity. What is termed the Law of Nations then, I look upon, to be such rules as wise and just men have considered most conducive to the integrity and prosperity of nations, having for its basis, that great principle of self preservation, which the Lawgiver of the Universe, has for the wisest of purposes, implanted in the whole animal creation. The consideration of what is just or unjust as between man and man, has by analogy, led such authors as Grotius, Puffendorff, Vattel, and others, to consider what is the duty, or rather, what line of conduct ought to be observed between one state or society and another, and such rules as they have judged equitable between nation and nation, and most likely to preserve the integrity of each, they have detailed under the appellation of the Law of Nations. With respect to the tribunal which must enforce the observance of these rules, the interest of the whole creates such tribunal, by producing a confederacy of the different states for that purpose. If in society, it would be dangerous to its welfare, to permit one member to be refractory with impunity, so among states, it would equally endanger their existence, if one were permitted to act contrary to the policy of the whole. Self preservation then, that great cement of society, would, so long as the different powers were pretty well balanced, have enforced an observance to these rules or laws; but when once a power like France became capable of violating those rules, without the possibility of punishment, I admit with you, Mr. Cobbett, that the law of nations was from that moment dissolved, and that the states of Europe must be considered as no longer called upon to act upon that system, which there is no balance of power to maintain against violation. Thus much for the Law of Nations. Now, your correspondent contends that occupancy or first possession confers right," in opposition to your principle, "that force alone confers right." Now, it occurs to me, that " right" in both propositions is improperly used; I neither think that occupancy confers right, nor that force confers it. It seems to me, that all that can be advanced is, that occupancy gives an accidental advantage, which force alone must maintain; "but that neither occupancy nor force, have any thing to do with right. Suppose an association of men emigrating to South Anterica, and that while wandering there, they should find a considerable-territory uninhabited, of which they take possession, and that the spot so possessed, is in a

state of cultivation to afford more than suff cient means of subsistence for three times the number of settlers; what right, let me ask, can such settlers have to refuse to an half-starved traveller the liberty of supporting himself by such surplus produce, or of adopting a part of that spot for his local habítation? If right be a virtue, and synonymous with justice and equity, which I have alwaysconsidered it, I can discover none in the instance I have put. What! is accident to be said to confer a right in one man to starve another? Such an idea is revolting to the judgment. All this imaginary right then, resolves itself in this; that when accident has placed me in a more fortunate, situation than my neighbour, policy dictates, that ́ ̄ I should use my best exertions to preserve my post against his and other aggressions. How absurd it is to suppose that the navigator who happens to discover an island in some hitherto unknown portion of the sea, sufficient for the support of a multitude of inha bitants, should by landing a few seamen upon it, thereby become possessed of the right of maintaining it against all the world. Having had the advantage of finding this uninhabited spot, if he can pursue the ad vantage, and prevent others from possessing themselves of it, it may be very well; but, to talk of a right, as if it were a divine right, which it would be unjust and impious to deprive him of, is perfectly farcical. The practice of nations fortifies this opinion. When a Portuguese discovered the Brazils, what did Portugal do? Merely inform the other European powers, that by the discovery they had the right; and to that they all assent? No! She sends out a force to maintain the advantage which accident has given her; colonizes the place, and fortifies it with garrisons, and other means of defence; but, if it were an acknowledged right, and so recognized by all civilized nations, such precautions would have been superfluous, and merely an insult to the other powers. The principle of the Dominion of the Seas comes then, merely to this; that as from accidental circumstances we have become the occupiers of this island, and that we tolerably well approve the spot, common prudence dictates that we should adopt the best and safest mode of preserving it; and as Buonaparte's immense territorial acquisitions are such, that we are in imminent danger of being over whelmed by his troops if he had any means of transporting them, we are urged by every ray of REASON and POLICY to maintain the Dominion of the Seas; and every argument to the contrary seems to droop under the pressure of its own folly. Thus much for

the Dominion of the Seas EXPATRIA TION OF BRITISH SUBJECTS." The writer upon this subject has advanced a doctrine, that may suit the policy of some Englishman having a considerable property in the American funds; but, that it is a doctrine either consistent with the safety of any nation, or compatible with the judgment that the most superficial consideration affords, is, what I must be permitted to deny. A Frenchman in defence of revolutionary principles, in a revolutionary age, has advanced an absurd opinion which your correspondent has given us, and which is in substance this, "That a citizen, as an inhabitant of the world," (I cannot help observing by the way, that this chimerical Frenchman is an enemy to the idea of occupancy conferring a right, as upon that principle, it would be difficult to make out that every citizen is an inhabitant of the world, preserves a sort of natural liberty " to renounce his allegiance to his king and country when he pleases, and to become "the adopted citizen of another with equal "facility; without which liberty man would

cer

be really a slave," that is, that when a man has been reaping for years all the bene fits and privileges which the laws of the country in which he has resided has afforded him, and after he has realised a pretty large fortune, (the emoluments of some situation that have been paid out of the hard earnings of the people), he is to be at liberty to ship off the property to some foreign country, and return when he pleases afterwards, with a band of ruffians, to plunder us of our property and cut our threats. Now, this doctrine, says your correspondent S. V. is tainly consonant to reason," and why it should not be adopted generally, and the spirit of it incorporated with the Law of Nations, he cannot conceive. Is it possible, Mr. Cobbett, for the most uncivilized wretch, or the most licentious of libertines, to promulgate a doctrine more repugnant to integrity, gratitude, and humanity than this? Were there no other memorial, characteristic of a Frenchman's disposition, this alone would indelibly stamp the truth of Voltaire's description of his countrymen," that in "their exterior they are monkies, and in "their hearts tigers. In opposition to this Frenchman's doctrine, we have that of Sir E. Coke, that “no man can divest himself "of bis allegiance to the country in which "he is born." S. V. who has given us this as well as the former quotation, observes, that he finds upon investigation, that it was only a dictum of Sir E. Coke's. What is the doctrine, let me ask, of the Frenchman, Picquet; is that any thing more than a dictum ?

T

God forbid that it should! If there be no black letter of the law, by which a Briton's incapacity of expatriating himself is laid, down, it is, that the understanding of every man must have rendered it unnecessaryOnly imagine, Sir, the case of a temporary dissatisfaction prevailing in a nation, and that inflamed with the intrigues of a country who has her destruction in view, and that every inhabitant was permitted to expatriate himself at pleasure, and shake off his allegiance; what is to become of the country in such a crisis? The fact is, that no reasonable man, unconnected with the interests of a foreign country, and, having the welfare of his own nearest his heart, can for one mo¬ ment entertain a doubt of the impropriety of such doctrine as that insisted upon by S. V. The only authority of S. V. (if it be not misusing the term when applying it to M. Pecquet) is the opinion of that French revolutionist, the foundation of whose opinion as: stated by himself, is an insidious sophistn; he says, unless a subject can shake off bis allegiance he is really a slave. Why, no doubt every citizen of a country is subservient to the laws of that country; all governments being public compacts to which each inhabi-} tant is a member; and as far as such compact restrains the natural liberty of the mem- ; › ber, he is so far dispossessed of his freedom; but, then it is to be considered, that he has exchanged that freedom for some supposed, equivalent. Universal freedom is inconsist ent with political society. For the govern ment of every society, however small, there must be laws, and in proportion as each member of the society is affected by those laws, so far he is deprived of his natural; lig berty; but whether that is a situation which i the understanding contemplates when speak-i ing of slavery, I leave to the judgment of the impartial reader. I presume, Mr. Cobbett, that your only object for inserting the letter of your expatriating correspondent, 15 was to expose to your readers the danger of listening to the subtleties of those gentlement who are so prone on, all occasions to deprecate an American war, and to abuse this na tion for every exertion in favour of her in- vz dependence; if so, I agree with you, Sirody that the letter of S. V. has been peculiarly fitted for the purpose; though when I call of to my mind the observation of that same Lord Coke, who says, " interdum fucata falsitas in multis est probabilios, et sæpe rasot tionibus vincit nudam veritatem," I almost o question the philosophy which has yielded to c its publication. Abas nod

2

Lincoln's Inn, Sept. 22,