the earth for wearing their noses as we do impose restrictions upon the navigation of their vessels. Your correspondent Candidus has, in opposition to my position, put a case to prove its absurdity and injustice, and has likewise taken notice of the practice of nations on discovery of any new territory. The case is this: "suppose," says your correspondent, an association of men emigrating to South America" (if Monte Video or Buenos Ayres be meant, an event not very likely to take place by the way)" 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 sufficient 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 habitation?" Having thus put his case, he says, "if right "be a virtue and synonimous with justice and equity, I can discover none in the in"stance I have put," nor can I discover either any justice or equity in the denial; on the contrary, it is repugnant to every principle of justice and humanity. But the doctrine of occupancy loses nothing by this admission. It was never contended by me, that a person had a right to appropriate to himself more than was necessary for his own use and enjoyment, Such an application would be an abuse of the bounty of the benevolent donor, and manifestly unjust, and a more unjustifiable act can scarcely be imagined than refusing an half starved traveller the liberty of supporting himself or of erecting an habitation: but I contend, that the first settlers acquired by occupancy of the territory the right of sovereignty over the whole spot, as well that which was necessary for their subsistence as the remainder. Such traveller therefore, had no right to obtrude himself upon the settlers without their permission: and if his admission would prove detrimental to the welfare of their community, or would interrupt the harmony which existed amongst them, they would have been justified in excluding him; but humanity would have dictated that his immediate wants should be supplied. Indeed, I cannot see any distinction between the case put by your correspondent, of a person entering into the territory of a society of settlers on the continent of America and his coming into this kingdom or into any other country; for justice and humanity in such a case suggest, that he should be re ceived and his wants relieved; but if his stay in the country into which he had entered should prove detrimental to its welfare, his removal would be justifiable and proper. The right of the settlers: to their country is co-extensive with the right which English men have to their territory; and therefore if in the case put by your correspondent he means to contend that the half starved traveller has a right to be participator in all the privileges of the first settlers, he might with equal reason contend that Frenchmen, Germans, Russians, Africans, Americans, Chinese, and every other nation upon the face of the earth, have a right, if they thought proper to come amongst us to enjoy all the privileges in common with us which we possess. I have devoted more time and attention to this case than I think it is fairly intitled to, and I come now to thể consideration of the other argument advanced by Candidus in opposition to my position, viz. The course adopted by nations on the disco, very of any new territory. And this, so far from shewing that it was the opinion of the discoverers that Occupancy does not confer right, if I am not blind indeed proves directly the reverse. What was the conduct of Columbus when he discovered America? Solemnly to take possession of the part he discovered in the name of the sovereigns who sent him, and on this they founded their right. What right had we to claim exclusively for ourselves the discoveries we made on the Continent, and of the different Islands of America? Occupancy or first possession. If this did not confer a right, any other nation would have been equally entitled with ourselves, and contentions would have, ensued in consequence. Yet, I do not any where find a dispute on this ground. The nation which first takes possession of a country is considered as having an exclusive right to it by the other nations. If this were not so, a country so taken possession of by a force inadequate to maintain it by arms against its assailants, would be taken possession of by a superior force. Yet, I do not find a single instance of this nature to have occurred, notwithstanding the numerous opportunities which have presented. But your.correspondent mentions the case of Portugal. In the discovery of the Brazils, he says, 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 sion. Fle says, "what is in the present possession or occupation of one man, may have been first possessed by another; so that two claimants thus situated would be puzzled, according to my rule, to discover to which of them the right belongs. Now, my rule being that occupancy or first pos session confers right, I cannot see any puzzle in the business. If a ship occupy a cer There " of defence: but, if it were an acknow"ledged right, and so recognized by all ci"vilized nations, such precautions would "have been superfluous, and merely an in"sult to the other powers." In answer to this, I observe, that the measures taken by Portugal would have been unnecessary if there were not wars between nations; but the Brazils being considered as a valuable acquisition, those measures were taken by hertain station in the River Thames, and is that they might not be wrested from her in the event of any war which she might thereafter be engaged in. This was obviously the reason of recourse being had to the precautions alluded to by your correspondent Candidus; of whom I now take my leave, and come to the discussion of the arguments of your other correspondent, who assumes the name of Wroc.-This gentleman has said a great deal about the expediency of the measure. He seems to think, with you, that it is absolutely necessary to our existence as an independent nation. On the discussion of this part of the subject I am not now disposed to enter; and I declined it from the beginning; nor am I prepared to say that your ideas and his are not correct. But, with regard to the justice of the measure, considered abstractedly from its being necessary to our existence as a state, your correspondent inquires to what it is that a right is con"ferred by occupancy?" My answer is, to every matter which may be the subject of occupancy. I stated in express terms, that first possession confers right; yet, your correspondent after making some extraordinary remarks, concludes with the remarkable and unwarrantable presumption, that I meant present possession. Does he imagine, that first and present are synonymous when applied to property which has passed through a hundred different hands? Does he suppose I mean that a thief who has the present possession of a purse which he has stolen, acquires a right to it by virtue of that possession? If this were my meaning, the doctrine would be as extravagant and ridiculous as that of the learned gentleman, who inserted his ideas in a former number of your Register, relative to a subject divesting himself of his allegiance. I dislike personalities and invectives, but I cannot feel otherwise than indignant at the conduct of that correspondent, and should have made myself some comments on it, if I had not thought that the doctrine he advanced, like vice, was necessary only to be seen to be despised and abhorred. to return from this digression, for which I ought to apologize, I do not clearly comprehend what your correspondent means respecting present possession and first posse. But dispossessed of it by force by another ship, Dominion of the Sea. Your correspondent, | action be just or unjust although no human in answer to my position that dominion over the sea was the gift of God to all mankind, states that dominion over the Earth was equally the gift of God to all mankind, and that on the principle upon which I contend against the dominion of the sea, Englishmen can have no better title to this island than the uhabitants of any other nation. But there does appear to me to be a wide difference between the two cases: and your correspondent, I think, confounds occupancy of dominion with occupancy of the matter which confers dominion. The inhabitants of Great Britain have acquired a right and an exclusive one to the sovereignty of their country by occupancy or first possession of the territory itself; but the sea, from its nature, is incapable of total occupancy, as much so as the air. A certain portion of it may, as I have contended, belong exclusively to nations as far as may be necessary for navigating their vessels. They retain this right as long as they keep possession of it, but the instant the act of possession ceases the sovereignty ceases also, and it again becomes common, this, then, is the distinction I make between the cases advanced by your correspondent. 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. Your correspondent imagines that the cases which I adduced in my former communication do not illustrate the doctrine of occupancy of ships at sea, because in the former there is a superior human power to punish au infringement, but the reason here assigned is very unsatisfactory; on what foundation are or ought to be these courts constituted which punish those infringements but reason, and so imperfect are they that it is frequently necessary to correct their decisions thereby; our court of cliancery has this for its object. How much better is it, then, to resort at once to reason for a rule to ascertain the justice or injustice of an action, than to resort to human courts, shackled as they are by rules, and legal quirks and quibbles! How much better to drink at the pure source of a stream than after its waters are corrupted! It is reason in all cases which shews whether an act be just or anjust. Persons who have beyond all doubt committed crimes frequently escape punishment on account of some defect in the legal proceedings; but though no human powerdoes inflict punishment in those cases does not reason point out that they are unjust? and reason equally points out, whether an power has jurisdiction over it. Besides, in legal proceedings the judge is frequently left by the law to exercise his reason to ascertain whether an act be just or not as in one of the cases I mentioned before. A person enters a Theatre and takes possession of a commodious seat which he finds vacant : another comes afterwards and dispossesses him of it for which he is summoned to appear before the sitting magistrate at Bow Street. The parties being assembled and the fact proved, the magistrate considers the nature of the offence. He reflects thus To offer violence to the person of another un justly is an assault; but how is this unjust? If force confers right according to Mr. Cobbett's Ideas, this cannot be so. But the magistrate would shrink back at the idea and would say force cannot confer right, 'tis contrary to that reason with which God endowed me to distinguish between right and wrong. And he would therefore adjudge the ejector to have been guilty of an assault and compel him to give security to appear at the sessions, to answer for the same. Therefore, after all, recourse must be had to reason to ascertain whether this action be just or unjust, and recourse must also be had to reason to find whether an action be just or not when no human power takes cognizance of it. Reason is superior to law, and appeals will be made to it against decisions of law (tho' your correspondent being a lawyer may say,ler est summa ratio, and contend that the rule is equally true with that which says, The King can do no wrong). Does your corespondent still hold out! and will he, after this, insinuate that reason is not the best rule to determine whether the dontinion of the sea is just or unjust as well as the particular instances which noticed before? Having thus taken a general review of the arguments advanced by your correspondents on the general principle of the superiority we exercise on the seas, and added some reflections and illustrations in support of my side of the question which have occurred to my mind since I sent my former communication, I will briefly notice the objections made by your correspondent Wroc to the particular instances 1 advanced in that communication. Your correspondent inquires, how the first possessor could transinit to others that right which it is confessed on all hands endured no longer than his own actual possession, and states that the title of an individual to any particular piece of land arises not from its having been awarded to him or his ancestors by the dictates of natu ral-reason, but by the law of the country in which he lives. Now, in answer to this, I must observe that it was never stated by me that the right eased with the possession. In the case of land the natural right I admit does, but aber the law interferes and enables him to transmit it to others. The right is first acquired by occupancy, but itis banded down to the present possessor by the law. My assertion, therefords, that exclusive possession can be justified on no other ground than occupancy is correct. Your corres DOMESTIC OFFICIAL PAPERS. BUENOS AYRES. From the London Gaselle Extraordinary, dated Downing street, September, 12, 1S07. Continued from p. 512,). A-creek being found soon after the first boats landed, the whole were got on shore without any opposition, or any accident, except that several of the transports were aground, but got off without daniage. The conduct of the officers and men on this occasion induced me to give out the accompa pondent says it would be a difficult task tonying general order: 200 seamen, under the orders of Captains Rowley and Joyce, were thought sufficient to land for the present; and I feel much indebted to those officers who had made themselves acquainted with the river, and piloted the squadron and transports.-Lieut. Bartholomew, of the Diadem, who was strongly recommended by Admiral Stirling, for his knowledge of the river, embarked with me; and I feel it my duty, to state to their lordships, that he was of infinite service; as were Lieut. Talbot, of the Encounter, Lieut. Acott, of the Rolla, and Lieut. Herrick, of the Raisonable, who undertook the pilotage.-On the evening of the 28th, the Paz and Staunch joined; the Staunch had taken a sloop, and destroyed 2 others of a convoy going to the south shore for troops. I have directed Capt. Thomp son, in the Fly, towards Buenos Ayres, with the Staunch, Paz, and Dolores, to endeavour to keep up a communication with the army. -I have the honour to be, &c. (Signed) GEO. MURRAY. account for the right of the eldest son to succeed to the inheritance of real estates in exclusion of his brothers and sisters. I, Mr. Cobbett, who am a younger brother, do give my hearty assent to this proposition. But, in doing so, I do not think that I make any admission inconsistent with my formier statement. The learning advanced me on the subject of the estate for the life of another person has likewise received the censure of your correspondent. He says the occupant does not retain the estate because the law of nature dictated by natural reason awards it to him, but because the law of England did not allow of any person being turned out of possession unless he could make it appear that he was by law intitled to it. Now your correspondent appears to me to admit all that I contend for; for on what ground does the law of England not allow any person to be turned out of possession? why, this that it was unjust to deprive another of that of which he had possessed himself first. But your correspondent does not state the case fairly: the language of the law is •this unless some person could make it appear that he had a better right: thereby admitting, Sir,By my letter of the 30th ult. that the person in possession had acquired a their lordships will be informed, that the arright by obcupancy. I believe I have now my under the command of Lieut. Gen. noticed, and have endeavoured to answer all Whitelocke, was landed without opposition the objections which have been advanced or accident on the 28th near Barragon, about against the sentiments which Lexpressed in 20 miles to the eastward of Buenos Ayres.my former communication, If any thing On the 30th, the Nereide, small craft and has been omitted, it is owing to inadvertence transports weighed, and anchored again to and not to disrespect, for the opinions of the westward of Quelmes; the next morn. your correspondents, who, I hope, willing I went in shore in the Flying Fish to enpoint it our at some other period, and advance arguments more convincing in opposition to my duetrine, than they have hither-to done, which would give me the most sineere and heartfelt pleasure: for I never undertook a more painful task in my life, than in endeavouring to shew that we are unjustifiable in exercising the dominion of the sea in the manner we have done. But by so doing, 1 considered, that I defended the honour of my country; and loss of honour, I conceive, to be loss of every thing, valuable.-R. R. Extract of a Letter from Rear Admiral Murray, dated Nereide, off Buenos Ayres, July $, 1807. deavour to communicate with the army, having directed some, transports with provisions to go close in, in case the ariny should want supplies.Capt. Corbe,, in his boat, discovered some of our troops, and sent Lieut. Blight, of the Nereide, on shore: he with difficulty got to them, being obliged to pass through a deep bog: on the 2d, Lieut. Blight returned and iutorined me he had sequ.Gen. Whitelocke the evening before; that the army had suffered most severely on their march, having very deep marshes to pass, and having been obliged to leave thoug provisions behind them; were much in DENMARK.Declaration of the King of (Concluded from page 544.) of such formidable magnitude, as must have But the season was approaching when that precaution would no longer have availed; and when his Majesty's fleet must have retired from that sea, and permitted France in undisturbed security, to accumulate the means of offence against his Majesty's dominions. Yet, even under these circumstances, in calling upon Denmark for the satis faction and security which his Majesty was compelled to require, and in demanding the only pledge by which that security could be rendered effectual-the temporary possession of that fleet, which was the chief induce-Majesty still proffers an amicable arrangement to France for forcing Denmark into hostilities with Great Britain; his Majesty accompanied this demand with the offer of every condition which could tend to reconcile it to the interests and to the feelings of the court of Denmark. It was for Denmark herself to state the terms and stipulations which she might require. If Denmark was apprehensive that the surrender of her fleet would be resented by France as an act of connivance, his Majesty had prepared a force ment. He is anxious to sheathe the sword, which he has been most reluctantly compelled to draw. And he is ready to demonstrate to Denmark and to the world, that having acted solely upon the sense of what was due to the security of his own "dominions, he is not desirous, from any other motive, or fot any object of advantage or aggrandisement, to carry measures of hostility beyond the limits of the necessity which has produced them. Printed by Cox and Baylis, No. 75, Great Queen Street, and published by R. Bagshaw, Brydges Street Covent Garden, where former Numbers may be had; soid also by J. Budd, Crown and Mitre Pall Mall |