wish for, I had just begun to carry when a summons came for two of my waggons (I had but three) to be at a town three miles off early on the following morning, and there to take up military baggage, and carry it so far that my teams could not return till the day after. On the third day a drizzling rain set in, and continued (more or less heavy) for five or six days. Thus my harvest was retarded, and I was at the expence of keeping my harvest men at least ten days longer than I should have done, and the appearance of my corn is so much injured, that I must either submit to sell it at a very inferior price, or consume it in my own family. Another time they overloaded one of my waggons só much, that the best horse I ever had died in their service. And all this too, Sir, when at the very place where my waggons take up the baggage, there are not less than thirty or forty, sometimes more, horses with a proportionate number of waggons and drivers kept by government. doing nothing, except now and then carrying coals (for the contractor) to the barracks. The injury too they do a farmer in making his men restless and discontented is incalculable.-One would think, Mr. Cobbett, that to a government disposed, as I believe the present to be, to economy, it would be necessary only to mention an opportunity of saving expence, and at the same time relieving an industrious part of the community from an irksome service. But it has been recommended to some of our rulers, that the employment of the waggon train in carrying a part, if not the whole of the baggage attached to regiments passing within a reasonable distance from the stations where those corps are quartered, would be a considerable saving to the public at large, and to the farmers in particular, and yet no alteration has taken place.-Perhaps, the recommendation was not made to the heads of the proper department, and therefore was disregarded. It is certainly no easy matter for a plain dealing man to know where, and how to recommend any improvement in the minor concerns of government. And, as no publication is so likely as yours to be read by the persons, whoever they may be, under whose superintendance such an alteration as I have alluded to, would come, I take the liberty of requesting you either to insert this letter, or to put my ideas on the subject in your own more forcible language, at your carliest convenience.- -H. H.Oct. 14, 1807. DOMINION OF THE SEAS. SIR,The subject of the laws and rights of nations being, in my opinion, much misconceived, permit me to use my endea vours to place it in its proper light. That nations have rights as well as individuals, and laws, too, cannot for a moment be doubted; but that these cannot be enforced nor observed with the same rigour as those of private persons, arises from the different relations which states and individuals bear to each other in the one, the makers of the laws are the subjects of them; with the other there is a protecting power which can enforce their observance. The essence of every national law is, that it shall not bend to the will of any individual; the law of nations, on the contrary, is for ever liable to that unjust controul, and this it is which has caused some men to deny that it has any existence. The rights of nations, like those of individuals, arise from their acquisitions in society, and such is the nature of man, that it is not always requisite to scrutinise too severely into the origin of these acquisitions; though it is at all times justifiable to resist the encroachments of power, whether public or private; for, though time may legalize the acquisitions of conquest or fraud, nothing can diminish their original injustice. To deny the rights and the laws of nations would be to realize that savage state of nature, which has hardly ever existed but in the warm region of a poetical fancy, and yet to attribute to them any higher origin than the tacit or express conventions of society arising from a sense of interest, is to seek for, in metaphysical refinement, that which exists only in practical convenience. These maxims referred to the conduct of Great Britain in asserting the Dominion of the Seas, and violating the rights of neutral nations, will, I trust, justify her in a departure from the general principles of the laws of nations; which not being capable of being considered in any other light than a compact among a few individuals, cease to be binding upon the rest when they are so far violated by one as to affect their common or individual safety.I remain, &c.-W. BURDON.-No. 7, Somerset Street, Portman Square. ever, that he solemnly assures me, that he meant first possession, Iam bound to believe him, although all our lexicographers and writers good and bad, and indeed all men women and children (himself only except ed), foolishly suppose with me that the word Occupancy means not first but present or actual possession-It did indeed appear to me, that if he actually meant first possession, two claimants, the one relying up-` on his having been the first possessor and the other upon the ground of his being the actual occupant would, upon resorting to your correspondent's rule, be puzzled to ascertain to which of them it awarded the right.But he says that "that rule being that occupancy or first possession confers right, he cannot see any puzzle in the business", and then he puts the following case to shew that all would be perfectly clear" If a ship (whose master is A.) occupy a certain station in the River Thames and is dispossessed of it by force by another ship (B. being her master) there are two claimants, the first Occupant and present occupier."-We should I think expect to hear A. maintain that his ship had the first possession, and that therefore he was entitled under the rule, whilst B. with equal plausibility would reply, that self same rule says the right is with me as the occupant.-But, Sir, only observe with what consummate dexterity the framer of this wonder-working rule, in pronouncing judgement eclipses the renowned Solomon, whose fare suffers not less in the compari. son with your correspondent than does that of Solon with the brewer and great modern law-giver Whitbread." My rule being" (says R. R.) that (what?) that first pos"session confers right, the first occupant (A.) has the right," so that you see, Sir, he here finds it convenient to drop that half of his rule, under which B. would be entitled, and that rule is no longer oCCUPANCY OF first possession, but first possession only. But," he proceeds, "if the first ship had left the station, and the other had taken possession of it, and the first had returned and claimed it, the present occupier (B) would clearly be entitled to retain it." Upon what ground? A. will say,' you told me in the former case that I had the right, because your rule gives it to the first posses sor, and, lo! I was in this latter case also the first possessor. No, no, says the judge, you are not Mr. A. ** because, in abandoning the station you relinquished your right to it, and it again became in common." How can that be rejoins A. seeing that when a man of the name of Wroc, asserted in opposition to your doctrine, that a first possessor 1 could not transmit the right which he acquired by such possession; you, Mr. Judge, did positively assert, that "it was never stated by you that the right ceased with the possession." You may, A. would probabis add, tell me again and again, as you have done in p. 571, that it is much better to resort at once to reason, for a rule to ascertain the justice or injustice of an action, than to resort to human courts; " but after the sample of reason which you have exhibited, I shall be foolish enough. to seek for justice from a court and jury, Such, Mr. Cobbett, are the contradictions and absurdities into which these sticklers for the needom of the seas uniformly fail !! Having after the above manner cleared the ground (as he says) from the impediments, your correspondent comes to the discus. sion of the principle of the right, and from his stile of clearing the ground "it was to have been expected that his reasoning upon the principle would have beamed upon us with all the radiance of the meridian sun. He presumes that "I confound occupancy of 66 domirion with occupancy of the matter "which confers dominion," and says, p. 571, that "the distinction which he takes between dominion over the earth and over the sea is this, in the one the right to the sovereignty is acquired by the possession or occupancy of the soil itself, in the other case no right to the sovereignty is acquired, because the sea is not capable of being actually possessed from its nature "; but he some how or other forgets to point out the one thing needful, which is WHAT that quality in the nature of the sea is, which renders it incapable of being actually possessed and prevents one nation from acquiring a sovereignty over other nations with respect to it .--At present his assertion is a merely gratuitous one.— Although however the sea is incapable of being actually possessed from its nature, yet the gentleman contends that all nations have a right to it by occupancy! Nay, that a certain portion of this self-sante sea may belong EXCLUSIVELY to nations!! What that certain portion is he does not, however, define, but it extends it seems" as far as may be necessary for navigating their ves sels." Here again I must candidly confess that I am unable to comprehend what he means.-There is certainly something which intercepts the sun's rays, possibly my dulness. He surely cannot intend that as it is necessary, for instance, for the English, the French, the Dutch and many other nations to steer one and the same course in going to their respective settlements abroad, at least, for a considerable part of the passage, so the selves possess that very sovereignty which sea through which they navigate their vessels in going there belongs EXCLUSIVELY to each of them! If I were not afraid that he would call it an unwarrantable presumption (as he did my well intended supposition that he meant present and not first possession.) I should imagine his meaning to be that so much of the sea as any particular vessel covers for the time being belongs exclusively not to the nation to which the vessel belongs but to the owner of the vessel. But then we should be at sea again, for want of knowing what there is in the nature of the sun," seeing that it admits of partial occupancy and of" exclusive right" as to a certain portion of it, which constitutes an obstacle to a dominion as extensive as we contend for.--Why, for example, may not the king upon this ground of eccupancy, be entitled to the sovereignty of the Bristol Channel, because English vessels occupy it, as much as to the sovereignty of England because England is occupied by Englishmen. What is there, I ask, in the nature of the thing which stands in the way of the right? Let it not be understood, that I am placing our claim to the dominion of the sea, upon the ground of occupancy, for I have said so much upon it only to show that there is, nothing substantial in the distinction which hath been taken.The gentleman hath not ventured to touch upon that part of my former letter, where. (after showing that all the cases which he had stated were inapplicable to the point in dispute, inasmuch as the right there was, under the guarantee of some established law,) I brought the question to a focus in the following proposition:-Suppose, that when all things were in common, two individuais, or two tribes, were equally desirous of possessing any particular unoccupied spot or territory, natural reason would not dictate that it belonged to one of them rather than to the other; and there would be no established law in such a state, to be appealed to or to which either would be bound to submit? I asked him which he supposed would decide the point but FORCE? That question he has not attempted to answer.-It shall be conceded to him that the sea was, like the earth, originally in common and (for argument's sake) that the sea unlike the earth did bot from its nature", admit of a Sovereignty being acquired in it by occupancy inerely; would it follow that this nation cannot have acquired a right to such a sovereignty by any other means or upon any other ground? Is the writer ignorant that other nations, have fought and struggled bard with us in order that they might them-riously calls for a measure, the effects of 1807. SIR, THE ARMY. -I believe it has excited the surprise of a great part of the community, that ministers have not before this time carried, either Mr. Windham's, or some other per--, manent plan into execution for the defence, of the country. No one will deny, but that the situation of Europe at present, impe-S 667] which are to be in some degree co-existent with the other branches of our constitutional law: The advantages derived from an institution when once established, are great in proportion as the plan is persevered in. It assimilates with the spirit and character of a nation, its operation is steady and uniform, and the benefits obtained from it lasting and durable. Measures of expediency, without any reference to their ultimate effects, are always hurtful in as far as relates to internal government. They have a tendency to throw a country into an unnatural state, which time reduces to its true level; they render the constitution sickly and feeble; give it an artificial strength during their operation; and when that ceases the state falls below the common standard of health and security. The operation of great and permanent principles should alone be permitted in legislation it is never well administered when left to the uncertain effects of transitory causes. The many military plans and regulations we have had in this country for some years back, have for these reasons appeared to me prejudicial and improper. Excepting Mr. Windham's late measure with regard to the levée en masse, which has not yet been acted upon, none of them seem to possess the character of what may be called, a general and comprehensive plan.-There is something peculiarly absurd in the idea, of our supporting a regular land force, sufficient to repel an enemy determined to invade us; and, at the same time, to protect our numerous colonies. Our limited population, our manufactures, the state of our finances, and the extent of coast to be guarded; all conspire against such an opinion. France is a military nation, has existed for many years by conquest, and has on foot a larger army than the aggregate force of many of the European states put together. We have to support a large marine, which ne. cessarily gives employment to many who would otherwise become soldiers. Our attention is divided betwixt the army and navy, which makes the institution of both more imperfect than they would otherwise be.1-France, on the contrary, deprived of a navy, devotes her whole attention to the perfection of her military force; and the wars she has been engaged in since the revolution, has brought it to as high a pitch of excellence, as perhaps it will admit of. It is also worthy of remark, that the conscripts which she has successively drawn from her population, to increase and fill up the deficiency of her armies, have in the course of a very short period of time (from the capacity and diligence of her officers) fought by the side of veterans, who have been constantly in the field, since the commencement of the revoWe have been for many lutionary war. years alarmed with fears of invasion, and are still, and will be, in all probability, continually exposed to them, while France is our rival and a military nation. What I would propose, therefore, in order to counterpoise in some degree her large army, is a permanent plan of defence capable of producing such a force, as to render as secure against external threats and attacks. This force, from circumstances arising from the peculiarity of our situation, cannot be regular; it must not be composed of men whose services are voluntary; it must be a force, embracing a great part of those capable of bearing arms, supported by law, and subject to the military code while in the field. A large force is indispensable, in order that we may be enabled to draw to one point, as great a number of men as possible in the least possible time. We do not know on which side we may be attacked; it is, therefore, necessary that we should be well defended on all sides. If an invading enemy once obtains an advantage, it will be found difficult to deprive him of the benefits arising from it. The consternation it causes If we cannot opinsures his future success. manner. pose him at first with a force equally efficient is the first principle of the social union. | What signifies our laws, liberties, and a constitution the envy of the world, if we cannot preserve them? It will be said, that such a force could not be very efficient. It must be admitted, that it would not be equal to a regular force; it would, however, be better than a volunteer one. But, are we to have no military force at all, because we cannot have one so perfect as we would wish? I am convinced, that were some such plan to be adopted, and to become as permanently established and observed, as any other part of our constitution, that the happiest effects would result from it, both to our security and prosperity. In the ancient republics, a citizen was also a soldier, when the necessities of the state required his services; and although, I will allow, that there is a great difference, betwixt their situations and those of the nations of modern times; yet, it is not so great as to render what was practised by the former, incompatible with the circumstances of the latter. We all know what commotion it made in the country, when France after the breaking out of the present war, threatened us with invasion. All who witnessed the effects of that threat, must be astonished that no step has yet been taken to render us permanently secure. -R. M.- -Oct. 7, 1807. DOMESTIC OFFICIAL PAPER. RIGHT OF SEARCH.-By the King, a Proclamation, for recalling and prohibiting seamen from serving foreign princes and states. GEORGE R. -Whereas it hath been represented unto us, that great numbers of mariners and seafaring men, our natural-born subjects, have been enticed to enter into the service of foreign States, and are now actually serving as well on board the ships of war belonging to the said Foreign States, as on board the merchant vessels belonging to their subjects, notwithstanding our former Proclamation, recalling them, contrary to the duty and allegiance which our said subjects owe unto us, and to the great disservice of their native country; we have, therefore, thought it necessary at the present moment, when our kingdom is menaced and endangered, and when the maritime rights, on which its power and greatness do mainly depend, are disputed and called in question, to publish, by and with the advice of our Privy Council, this our Royal Proclamation-We do hereby strictly charge and command all masters of ships, pilots, mariners, shipwrights, and other seafaring men, being our natural-born subjects, who may have been enticed into the pay or service of any foreign State, or do serve in any foreign ship or vessel, that, forthwith they and every of them do (according to their bounden duty and allegiance, and in consideration that their native country hath need of all their services), withdraw themselves, and depart from and quit such foreign services, and do return home to their native country; or do enter on board such of our ships of war as they may chance to fall in with, either on the high seas, or in any rivers, waters, havens, roads, ports, or places whatsoever or wheresoever.-And, for the better execution of the purposes of this our Royal Proclamation, we do authorize and command all Captains, Masters, and others, commanding our ships and vessels of war, to stop and make stay of all and every such person or persons (being our natural born subjects), as shall endeavour to transport or enter themselves into the service of any Foreign State, contrary to the intent and command of our Royal Proclamation, and to seize upon, take and bring away, all such persons as aforesaid, who shall be found to be employed or serving in any foreign merchant ship or vessel as aforesaid: but we do strictly enjoin all such our Captains, Masters, and others, that they do permit no man to go on board such ships and vessels belonging to States at amity with us, for the purpose of so seizing upon, taking, and bringing away such persons as aforesaid, for whose discreet and orderly demeanour the said Captains cannot answer, and that they do take special care that no unnecesary violence be done or offered to the vessel, or to the remainder of the crew, from out of which such persons shall be taken :-And in case of their receiving information of any such person or persons being employed, or serving on board of any ship of war belonging to such Foreign State, being a State at amity with us, we do authorize and command our Captains, Masters and others commanding our ships of war, to require of the Captain or Commander of such foreign ship of war, that he do forthwith release and discharge such person or persons, being our natural-born subject or subjects; and if such release and discharge shall be refused, then to transmit information of such refusal to the Commander in Chief of the squadron under whose orders such Captain or Commander shall be then serving, which information the said Commander in Chief is hereby strictly directed and enjoined to transmit, with the least possible delay, to our Minister residing at the seat of Government of that State to which the said foreign ships of war shall belong, to our Lord High 1 |