term, going into foreign countries, and not returning within six months after warning given them by the British ambassador, where the emigrant may be resident, shall be deemed aliens, by which statute we see that Englishmen are expressly allowed to become subjects to other powers; they are by this statute, alienated from England, and consequently, may enrol themselves as subjects to a foreign nation, and participate in its privileges; the legislature unequivocally permits them to withdraw their allegiance. Now, Mr. Cobbett, do you not think with me, after the above inconsistent doctrines, in which the ablest lawyers, and even law itself materially differ; that it would be well to set the subject at rest for ever. Does it seem that the character of British subject is unalienable? Is it reasonable it should so seem? But, whether it is rational or irrational, I deem it absolutely requisite, that it be declared unequivocally by the legislature, or by the executive in every treaty, whether a British subject can or cannot expatriate himself. It is requisite, because should a war break out between this country and a foreign power, we might be involved in all the horrors of a civil war, if a British subject swearing allegiance to a foreign nation, cannot according to the laws of England expatriate himself; and that man, if taken in arms, by either country, would be subject to the penalty of high treason. It is requisite also, because it has been held by persons sitting in judgment upon the claims of creditors on individuals of a foreign nation, that "although the character of British subject is "unalienable by the individual," yet the acceptance of that of subject of another country, bars all right to complain of the acts of the latter. Now, what is this but saying that a British subject cannol expatriate himself, but that having expatriated himself, he must no more look to his parent country for redress against the acts of his new task masters; here is a declaration that a British subject cannot withdraw his allegiance in one line, and in the next, an admission that he may accept the character of a foreign subject, or in other words, that he may alien his unalienable rights.—It is matter of serious reflection, that not only as to the present subject, but to a variety of other topics, we see the common law of England uncertain and mysterious, and the written law of the nation swelled to a most enornous bulk, in efforts to elucidate the common law, but oftentimes tending to perplex the subject. When after a lapse of several years the book is opened, it is, found that twenty years are not sufficient to enable us

to reconcile difficulties, and expound truly the intent of the statute law as was originally proposed. The statute above mentioned of Henry 8th, apparently admits not of the least ambignity, until that of James, the enacting of which casts some suspicion upon the existing authority, in such full and ample manner as it was construed prior to the passing of that act. This statute it is not doubted, was intended to prevent persons be ing reconciled to the Popish religion, but it imports as well the penalty to be extended to persons being withdrawn from their allegiance under certain circumstances, and not in pursuance of their own free and uncontrouled will and pleasure; and the statute of George ist. allows expatriation; had not the statute of Henry 8th been sufficiently strong. that of George seems calculated to free persons from their allegiance, most clearly and unequivocally declaring, that they shall be deemed aliens to all intents and purposes, and be treated as it afterwards enacts aliens are used and dealt with.-As a general doc.. trine, I agree that it is essential to the good government, and well being of society, that man be considered upon his birth as enlisted in that state where such birth happens to be, but that by such his birth he becomes a vassal to the soil; that he is for ever incapable of afterwards electing his place of residence; are ideas too monstrous and absurd to be se-' riously adopted; but, however, granting such to be the case, upon what routuality or rational ground is it that this United Kingdom shail countenance that doctrine of permis-sion to subjects of other countries to become her subjects, and yet will not extend the principle where her own subjects are concerned, and desire to become subjects of another country. If such has been considered to be the old law, (indeed I know it has been thus acted upon) it is time that the evil and pernicious tendencies of such absurd doctrines be done away. If our circumstances, our political interests, our connections are not what they were some hundred years since, our conduct should be new modelled; we have undergone repeated changes, and we no longer dread incroachments upon absurd doctrines.-A law clearly and unequivocally prohibitory of the removal of Englishmen to foreign countries, (with intent to expatriate themselves) does not in the catalogue of statute law or custom exist, and such a law appears to me if it were to exist,. subversive of the principles of nature and society. Still, however, our common as well as statute law from my foregoing observations, cast obscurity upon the right of expatriation; and it is meet that by a declaratory

long continue to be fed upon roots. I shall now observe, that it is not the little niceties, and the little intricacies of farming, that are of such consequence: for instance, whether the land should be ploughed with a swing or wheel plough; whether the broad cast or drill husbandry is the most advantageous; whether the South-down, Leicester, or the cross between the two, are the best sheep, and such like matters: but it is absolutely necessary, if we design to have a large army and well-manned and numerous fleets, and that our taxes should produce what they have done, and that our poor rates should be lessened, and that we should not be in dread of famine by one deficient crop, that we should cultivate a greater breadth of land. In England we want more sheep, more cattle, more roots, more artificial grasses, more grain, more hay in Ireland, coal and manufactures. I therefore say, that if Buonaparté should force us, by shutting us out of the ports of Europe to employ our capital and industry in cultivating the commons and wastes of England, he will, I think, after all, deserve well of this country, as he will thereby increase our resources.I am, Sir, &c. Sept. 5, 1807. M. H.

SINKING FUND.

(Being C. S.'s fifth letter, which is particularly submitted to the most serious attention of the Stockholders, Landed and Mercantile interests of the nation.)

SIR,As the charges, if I may so express myself, which I have already made against the funding system and sinking fund (see Political Register, Vol. IX. and X. March 15th, April 19th, August 23d, and Oct 18th, 1800), remain unanswered, and, I believe, unanswerable; and, as you may be, perhaps, satisfied that it is not for want of knowledge, but for want of principle, that your own, and the hints of different writers, given at different times, in the Political Register, as to what the security of the state directs to be done with these funds, have not been attended to, you may hold it as an opinion, I grant, that I ought to have dropped the subject, and leave sufferings and disappointments to correct those evils which have been hitherto incorrigible to reason and reflection. Perhaps I ought to have done so, because to pursue an useless and a thankless line of conduct is, in all cases, fully in practice, however wise in theory. But, as you have revived the subject, on July the 25th, by the insertion of A. G.'s analysis of Lord Henry Petty's new plan of fina ce; as the circumstances of the times may incline your

With

readers a little more, to consider the subject of these funds otherwise than a dry and barren study which belongs to statesmen exclusively; and as my object is to shew, upon the authority of Lord Henry Petty, if he is fairly reported, that we have more obstinacy than ignorance to contend with on the part of those who contend for the advantages of the funding system and sinking fund, I see no harm I can do by reverting again to the subject, if I do no good. For if there be cases in which errors and delusions, frauds and oppressions, can lead to the happiness and security of the deluded and oppressed, I defy the ingenuity of man to apply any of them to the funding system and sinking fund, and shew that their operations can secure similar advantages to the nation. respect to the sinking fund, as being the im mediate subject of my remarks, I have long held it as an opinion that no man, possessing the common powers of reason, could for a moment mistake its present pernicious and ultimate ruinous effect, if he would but attend to the whole of its operations and consequences; to its action and reaction on the nominal value of all real property; and then to the effect of that nominal value upon the real and relative condition of all classes of the community. Unalterably fixed in this opinion, and so far back as the year 1800, when I attempted to draw the public attention to the discharge of the national debt, as contributing its share, in common with speculation, and deficient crops, towards the pauper manufacturing dearness of that and the preceding year, the sinking fund appeared to me in no other light than that of an engine invented by sheer ignorance, or employed by interested design, to create faise appearances of national power; to raise false hopes of national relief from the confessed, at last, oppression of the funding system; to increase our nominal wealth, or, medium of exchange; and, therefore, to depreciate its exchangeable value, that is, to raise the price of all exchangeable articles, in the proportion which the capital discharged, and consequently thrown into trade, bears to that which was in circulation or trade before any part of the debt was discharged. The idea of discharging the debt, and that of throwing its capital into trade, cannot be separated. As the stockholders cease to be public annurtants they must, generally, become private traders o some description. And as the capital în trade is by that means increased, so are those calamities, both public and private, heightened, which as naturally result from its depreciated value, as that deprecated value results from any increase of its quantity

which is not balanced by a corresponding increase in the productions of agriculture and manufactures. As every article of trade or commerce is already in the possession of owners, the annuitants who go into trade must buy before they can sell. For instance, then, the quantity of goods in the market at any given time, is the same in quantity at another given time, but the sum of money owing to the increase of buyers is doubled at the last period. Consequently, (admitting the prudence or necessity of laying out the whole of their money) the price is advanced 50 per cent, to all traders; and to the consumer more in proportion to the profit they charge upon their capital; which is a clear deduction from the profits of the old traders. Whereas, had the quantity of goods in the market been doubled also, the price would not have risen any, or rather, the value of money would not have fallen: for, in this case it is not, as commonly expressed, the goods that rose, but the money that fell in value. On this principle, which is irrefuta ble in itself, and undeniable in its application to the subject of our inquiry; and presu ming, that it is naturally impossible to increase the productions of agriculture, and manufacture in a corresponding proportion to the increase which the sinking fund, or discharge of the national debt must make in the circulating medium, or capital in trade, it follows, as cause and effect, that the depreciation of its value, with all its consequent rain to the funded, landed, and mercantile interests, will be in the proportion in which the increase of capital will exceed that of the productions of agriculture and manufac ture, when the sinking fund succeeds in discharging the national, debt. How far the increase of capital may exceed the increase of these productions, when this admirable fund accomplishes its object, must depend upon the extent to which the agriculture and manufactures of the nation is carried beyond their present state. At this extent I will not even guess; sufficient it is for those to know, who would not go.blindfoldedly to destruc tion, rather than part with the interest which they have in the oppression and plunder of their country, that such extent cannot be equal to the extent of capital which the sinking fund will throw into trade. But, sapposing, for the sake of argument, that our agriculture and manufactures, have already found their limit, or, are incapable of extention; 2. that the present capital in trade amounts to 100 milions †, and that no

+ When Lord Sidmouth-introduced the property tax, he gave the annual income of

addition is hereafter made to it by the ability of the bank and country bauks, to supply the insatiable cravings of speculation; and, 3. That the funded property amounts to C00 millions; when the debt is discharged, the capital in trade will amount to 700 millions; the depreciation of it will therefore be in the proportion of seven to one of its present exchangeable value; and the effect will be, could human nature endure the wretchedness and torments of the case, that the quartern loaf which now sells for a shilling, must then be sold for 7s.; that the taxes and tithes, which now amount to above 70 millions, must then exceed 490 millions, if the present establishments are in existence; that the labour lost to agriculture and manufacture in coining and managing the circulating medium, must be seven times greater than it now is; and that the paupers which now amount to above 1,200,000, must then exceed 8,200,000, supposing the depreciation of money, in its various bearings on the condition of the people, to be the exclusive cause of pauperism. We can admit, Sir, for the sake of argument, that the sinking fund, fed as it may be with paper currency, can lis quidate the claims of the public upon govern ment and give it time; nay; in 24 hours, if the money could be counted in so short a time; but, as it will produce the effects I have just described, if our agriculture and manufacture be incapable of extention, one of which is to give government a claim upon the public for taxes to the amount of 490 millions annually, the public will have gained nothing but wretchedness, and the loss of the difference between that sum and the taxes which they now pay. Yet, it is impos sible to retreat, and go on with the funding system, because its interest would amount to the same sun in the course of time, and produce similar effects to the public. What then is to be done since we can neither advance or retreat without plunging ourselves deeper into difficulties? Can we stand still? No! for then the Emperor of the French would tax us still heavier, than we are, or can be; seize upon the commerce of the world, and give the laws upon the sea, as well as upon the land. But something must be done, we must ei her go backward or forward, or stand still, for we cannot fly up into

the nation, money in circulation, or capital in trade, at only 80,000,000. To take it at 100,000,000, will therefore make the depre ciation appear less than really it will be when the debt is discharged, admitting even that no increase is otherwise made in the circul ting medium;