Abbildungen der Seite

Expat Ri Ation. ao
(Being S. P.'s second Letter.)

SIR,--I assure you that so far as I am personally and individually concerned in the relative situation of this United Kingdom and the United States of America, a war would affect me not more than it would Candidus or yourself. I had not when I addressed my last letter to you, Sir, nor have I now any interest to serve, but that interest which you as well as every good subject are bound to support; viz. the best interests of our country. I may be mistaken; to con. viction I am open, and I shall not hesitate frankly to confess all my motives,' which

you, I expect will, in pursuance of your pro

mise (page 532) discover in your next Register, should such attributed motives really prove to be my ideas; but, whilst I notice your other promise to shew the consequen

ces of my recommendation, I cannot but

condemn the language of Candidus. When he used the expressions, the most uncivi

lized wretch, and the “most licentious of |

libertines,” he should have recollected that expressions such as these cannot by his adoption of them affect me; they cannot assist his cause, nor injure mine; and, I am sorry, Mr. Cobbett, that a man apparently not unacquainted with one of the liberal sciences, for I acquit him of any claim to “the profession," should so far forget himself as to adopt bold assertion for argument, and scurrility instead of manly and liberal animadversion. Such as these are the men who abortively vomited from the fissures of Alma Mater, have cast more obloquy upon the “Learned Languages,” than your observations have by some of your correspondents been held to libel them, and possessing a mere cacoethes scribendi, launch out unthinkingly into subjects beyond their reach, and without due consideration.—It is necessary for me to set Candidus right in some particulars, and this I deem proper to do before the publication of your next number, in which H hope to see your animadversions upon the evil consequences to which the adoption of my recommendation would, in your estimation, lead.—Candidus should be informed that the possession of American funded property, did not induce my letter in page 433. As he may presume me to be an American fund-holder or speculator, I will undeceive him. I am not nor ever was; and, if he had also given me the opportunity of stating myself not to be a land speculator, nor a mercantile adventurer, I could easily have satisfied him on either of those heads. Candidus must forgive me if I do not sub

| scribe to his observation, that the doctrine I have advanced is not consistent with the safety of any nation, (509) because it may suit him to contradict it. To my doctrine, I do not find one solid objection made by Candidus, or supported by the least argument or authority. Candidus should before he had rendered the long since deceased Monsieur Pecquet, obnoxious to the charge of adopting “revolutionary principles,' and living in a ‘revolutionary age,' have ascertained from his friends who may have access to the library, annexed to the Inn where he resides, when Mionsieur Pecquet flourished. It may be sufficient for me to observe, that Pecquet neither lived in a ‘revolutionary age,’ nor did he adopt ‘revolutionary principles,' as Candidus must have known if he had ever perused his book, a copy of which is now before me, published ‘ā Leide aux dépens de la compagnie, anno 1758, and that he died long before the parents of Candidus thought of being possessed of such a treasure as their eldest son. What is conformable to reason I hold not to be absurd, although Candidus expresses his opinion contrariwise; he complains of me certainly not in the character of a dispassionate and erudite commentator, but in terms as gentle as they are elegantly expressed to you, that the most uncivilized ‘ wretch, or the most licentious of libertines ‘ could not promulgate a doctrine more re' poignant to integrity, gratitude, and huma‘ nity'—Than what : Why, that a British subject after amassing a sum of money, the fruits of his own industry, (for the puerile observation, that that sum of money may have been paid out of the hard earnings of the people, is foreign to the matter,) shall have the power of settling in America.Now, to shew the futility of his observations, I would ask, what can prevent a man from leaving 'the United Kingdom and settling in America at this time; of adopting this want of integrity, gratitude, and humanity, with the exception of returning to cut our throats, which I deem, howsoever Candidus may view the subject, to be of that immoral and irreligious nature, that no man except Candidus could have dreamt (for in his waking moments it could not have obtruded) of such a horrible intention. I cannot see any thing to prevent a man, who, as Candidus says, may have amassed a pretty large property from shipping it off, and going with or following it to America. Tell me, Candidus, if you have drank deep of that same commentator Coke, whether you have found a law clearly and unequivocally prohibitory of removing himself and his fa

mily, and his property, to a foreign country, the departure of his subjects on an emergen

And, Candidus, let me draw your attention td another view of the subject, the melancholy side of the picture. Let us suppose, a poor man surrounded with a large family, calling upon him but ineffectually, to satisfy the cravings of nature, and whose little earnings have in part gone to satisfy the rapacity of one of those stall fed objects, who, as you allude, are paid from the hard earnings of the people, whilst each passing moment advances the misery of such a family. I would ask if such a snan be chained to the soil where he is born, if he cannot expatriate himself in the hope of exchanging want for plenty; misery for happiness He may be deceived, I grant; he may leave his fruitful soil for the barren and inhospitable tracts in some parts of the interior of America; he may not profit by the exchange; but, I consider his capacity to elect his residence as indisputable. What I wish, however, to be done, Mr. Cobbett, is this. If this United Kingdom will not permit British subjects to expatriate themselves, let the law be so declared, and prevent the mischievous tendency of attempts to expatriate, which are frequently made; and if it will sanction expatriation, let such permission no longer remain in dubiety, but be clearly expressed between the United Kingdom and the United States of America.--When I referred to Coke's dictum, and M. Pecquet's observation, it certainly was not to shew the superiority of either, and jejune as the observation of Candidus is in this respect, I cannot pass it over. When I objected to the dictum of Coke as not of sufficient auhority, I found not fault with him as a lawyer, nor with his decision, but I found fault with the observation as a dicium and not a decision. Candidus, if he ever becomes a member of the profession, for he seems at present to be only a member of the science, having much to learn, will bereafter know that there is more consideration given prior, and authority subsequently attached to a decision than a dictum. In fact, Candidus, know that a dictum is not autho rity. If Candiduš (510) holds that the law is clear, because incapacity of expatriation is not mentioned in our ancient law books, and he holds this on his mere assertion, I have an equal right to hold this opinion that the law is clear and rational, because a Briton's capacity of expatriating himself is not laid down. Candidus should know that the executive has power by proclamation to prevent

[ocr errors][merged small]

cy, and consequently, that the inconvenience referred to by Candidus cannot take place, as prevention would on symptoms of a general transportation be adopted. It is unnecessary for me perhaps, to repeat for Candidus' information, that ‘ I am unconnected with the ‘ interests of a foreign country.' I have not denied that “every subject is subservient ‘ to the laws, nor have I openly declared my ignorance, by asserting that, “when a ‘ man is admitted into society, he is not * compelled to surrender a portion of his natural liberty to preserve the laws of society.' I find not fault with the adoption of laws, but with the ambiguity of a rule of conduct. In this Candidus has also mistaken me. I will not, Mr. Cobbett, presume an improper motive for Candidus as he has presumed for me, that I am one of those who are so prone on all occasions to deprecate an American war, for I candidly declare to you my opinion, that we have forborne more with respect to America than I can deem politic; but, although I acknowledge this, I do not see why the subjects of this United Kingdom, and the citizens of the United States of America, should as Candidus thinks ‘ cut each others throats,” when we can settle our differences amicably. And, Mr. Cobbett, it may perhaps, be satisfactory both to you and Candidus, when I further declare my opinion, and which I coald have no hesitation in supporting by argument, if you had not pointed out its accuracy, that in the event of a war, although this country would in a small degree be sufferers, America would for ever regret if any vestige of her remained as a confederate body. that fatal hour which induced her to unsheath the sword. S. V.-Oct. 8, 1807.

[blocks in formation]

pressions warrant not that construction; and, because, men whom I will bring to your notice of far greater ability than I can possibly pretend to enjoy or attain, sanction my sentiments with their solid arguments; yet I cannot avoid expressing my admiration at the warmth of your passions, which have led you into an ocean of rigid animadversion of my supposed motives. It seems to you to be the very acmé of ingratitude, because when I arrive at manhood I desert the services of my nurse, who may in my infancy have attended me; because, truly, I have been in

the nurse's arms fed, administered to, and

unremittantly attended by her, it is ingratitude in me that I do not all my life time continue in my nurse's arms. Now, really, Mr. Cobbett, when I do arrive at manhood, am I to be followed by my nurse, is she to continue these kind offices to me at a period when they are no longer necessary, and if I do not submit to those tender kindnesses, am I to be charged with a sin ten times worse than the sin of witchcraft Have I not; without a liability to the charge of ingratitude, a right to run away (as you term expatriation) at the age of manhood from my nurse Surely, her power ceases when I am able to elect my place of residence, just in the same manner as does the power of the Court of Chancery, the guardian protector of infants; the power of that court ceases when I attain my ge of 21 years; and am I to be obnoxious to-thp sin of ingratitude because I do not all my life afterwards continue under the beneficent protection of that court, and remain its ward 2 When I attain that age, I apply to the court for my proper. ty, it is paid to me; and, although I never afterwards visit the Court of Chancery, the protector of my property in my juvenile years, am I to be derided because I do not plunge into that court every time I pass by its doors, to acknowledge submission in consequence of the care it has taken of meand my property? I do say, Sir, that were I compelled to consider myself thus placed in the situation you think I am, that I should be, not as Pecquet obscrves, really a slave, but infinitely worse. But, whilst I hold this doctrine, I must say that the services rendered to me in my days of helplessness, would be deeply imprinted on my mind. I should be always grateful for those services; but it is out of the power of man to prove the necessity or propriety of relapsing into or continuing a state of dependency; and if it should ever happen I were placed in battle array, opposed to that person (be that person whom it ::::ght) who had nurtured me, who had as

[ocr errors]

you state fed and cloathed, and reared me up under the Divine Benediction to man's estate, I think, Mo. Cobbett, my weapon would fall from my hand, notwithstanding that self preservation as we are told, is the first law of nature. But, Mr. Cobbett, this is a situation, and a dreadful one it is, I wish no one to be placed in, and it is this situation that I am desirous, by having the law of expatriation clearly promulgated and declared, none should be placed in. If you thought nue or any of your correspondents capable of writing down gratitude, you would, I am sure, animadvert upon the attempt with that glowing warmth which you so eminently possess, and which ranks so high among the human virtues; but, this is not in our nature to do—I will now give you the opinions of some of our ancient lawyers, upon the finity of allegiance, and on gratitude, (for even lawyers, Mr. Cobbett, are not devoid of this last mentioned superlative virtue). Bracton, lib. 3. cap. 9. Feta, cap. 2, and Stamford, fol. 37, observe that “the king is protector “ of all his subjects; that in virtue of this high trust, he is more partiolarly to take care of those who are not able to take care “ of themselves, consequently, of infants, “ who by reason of their nonage are under incapacities; from hence natural aile“ giance arises, as a debt of gratitude which can never be cancelled, though the subject “ owing it goes out of the kingdom, or su'ears allegiance to another prince."— Here we see, that in the just opinion of those lawyers, although we swear allegiance to another prince ; admitting, therefore, the right of expatriation, the debt of gratitude notwithstanding the dereliction of allegiance remains, it can never he cancelled. And, here, Mr. Cobbett, it is necessary in conse: quence of your observations on the word “cannot,” that I explain the meaning as it is here used. It is this. The debt of gratitude can never be cancelled morally or religiously; for, in any other sense it were similar to saying that no man can commit murder, or, as you say, cannot sit in the commons or kill game without qualification ; we know these things may be done without, but wrongfully, and in the former case irreligiously and immorally; that sense, however, Mr. Cobbett, your reflection must enable you to conclude, was never intended to be adopted by me. Resides, it should be recollected, that in your cons ruction of the word “cannot,' you make the same power in your case to put two interpretations of direct contrary import on the word; but, the legislature expressed and

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

intended only one, viz. that a man unless qualified shall not be eligible to sit in the Commons, or kill game; though he should sit or kill, not qualified; surely, the legislature cannot be said to have sanctioned this double construction. In the first place that he shall not; in the next place that he physically can ; the legislature declares he shall not; the corporeal man says he shall. But, Mr. Cobbett, the same persons in the disa‘bling decision, adverted to in my former communication, and enlarged upon by you; first, declare that the character of British subject is unalienable; next, virtually, that it is not unalienable; viz. the acceptance of that of subject of another country, bars all right to complain of the acts of the latter. Now, Mr. Cobbett, I do still maintain, notwithstanding your apostrophe on the justice of the decision, that it is inconsistent and at variance with itself, and that not all the special pleading you may be happily master of has hitherto borne you out in the opinion you declare upon it. The case which you profess to have drawn from real life, (551) but which I consider to be hypothetical, how-soever beneficial in your view its tendency may be by way of prevention of expatriation,

I cannot but consider impolitic and unjust.

It is impolitic because it forms the basis of dissention from its partiality and oppression, and it is unjust in this respect, that the immunities of a British subject are taken away from the man so soon as he enlists under the banners of a foreign power; but, the disabilities of a British subject still remain. Let the treatment of this miserable outcast of society as you consider him, be somewhat human ; you place him in this predicament, if he has a claim upon either country for debts, you tell him he is not a subject of either country; but, if he is compelled as he would be, if resident in America to take up arms in defence of that country, against the invasion of this country, and is taken alive, he would, or, as you observe in another pas. sage, he would deserve to be, if possible, hanged at every cross road in the kingdom. Let not such partial, impolitic, unjust, and inconsistent treatment be dealt out to this miserable wretch, who possibly, to avoid a gaol or hunger has sought an asylum in a strange land. Treat him uniformly; if you subject him to punishment when he commits an offence against his native country which he has abandoned, allow him the advantages attendant upon good conduct. Bus, Mr. Cobbett, I fully accord with your sentiments, that it would be well were the legislature to declare, that if a British subject does withdraw his allegiance, that all his

former immunities be surrendered, and all his disabilities attendant on punishments for breach of the laws of his native country be abandoned; that he shall as you say be for ever disfranchised, and deprived of all immunities as a British subject, and in no respect be considered as owing any allegiance, or capable of afterwards regaining the character of a British subject. This would check emigration, and would prevent the daily frauds committed against this United Kingdom, by or under the sanction of men who are one day British subjects, and the next American citizens, and this in conselso of the former connection between

is United Kingdom and the United States of America, should certainly have a prospective, and not a retrospective view. But, I differ with you, Mr. Cobbett, upon the subject of a declaratory law or stipulation in treaties. It is absolutely requisite, not out of tenderness to America, nor by reason of a justification on our part, but because we do permit expressly foreigners to become naturalized subjects of this United Kingdom. It is immaterial whether the price of admission to the privileges of a subject be 9d. or st 100, with respect to the act of admis ion; but, it is clear that when a foreigner is naturalized, that we claim respect to our laws, though he removes to the farthest boundaries of the earth ; and should this newly admitted subject journey to Otaheite, and during his residence there commit hostility against the subjects of this country, he would be amenable to the Jaws of his newly adopted state. I cannot, Mr. Cobbett, applaud or approve the construction put upon my former communication, it was not my object to provide for the security of persons, who in the event of war might be deemed to be subject to punishment. No, Sir, I hold that if a man withdraws his allegiance, so long as that secession continues, he shall be held to be a foreigner to all intents and purposes, in the same manner as I consider the naturalized foreigner amenable to the laws of this country, so long as this country can claim him as a subject; and if there is that indelibility attaching to a natural born British subject, let us also consistently attribute similar indelibility to a foreigner, and not trepan him to become a naturalized British subject. To act correctly we must contend for reciprocal justice. In my adoption of the term “ melancholy,” it entered not into my thoughts that there was any thing lurking under the expression to cavil at. My expression and meaning were, that an emigrant would not from choice place himself in the situation of a traitor, but that he might be

placed in it from compulsion, and it is this sad situation I wish to guard against; nor, can I discover that my principle admits of the constructions you are pleased to put upon it. I do not contend for the right of taking up arms against one's native country from choice, nor do I justify universal desertion, and universal parricide; (I have not hitherto, Mr. Cobbett, even adverted to the propriety or impropriety of arming against rulers,) nor, do I think that such base and anworthy doctrines, could plant themselves in the breast of any American, howsoever depraved (and depraved there are in all coun. tries) such men might be. And, here, Mr. Cobbett, I would by the way observe, that we true born Englishmen as you and I are, are but too apt to attribute to men of that country base and unworthy motives. You may know more of their character and conduct than I can possibly be informed of. I have never suffered under their lash, and I hope I never shall; but, I will observe, that we are too prone to attribute to native Americans base and unworthy conduct, which has emanated perhaps, from men who have to boast their birth in North or South Britain, or Hibernia; and who, perhaps, have 'found it convenient to take a hasty leave of their native country; but, who through favour of fickle fortune, have sonmehow or other wormed themselves into situations, which enable them to animadvert without controul on your conduct and mine, were we in their power. These are the men who frequently bring the American character into disgrace, and to the native Americans we attribute their indefensible conduct. Men seldom if ever emigrate for their own pleasure; they do it from compulsion; their necessities induce them ; their self-preserVation, their very existence prompt them to leave their native country. We should not,

therefore, condemn those our unfortunate fellow subjects; they deserve our tears of pity;

they draw from us our corrpassion when we find that they are compelled to abandon that country, which has “ leared them up to manhood," and that all the recollection they have towards us is, the indelible marks of gratitude imprinted on their minds, for nurturing them when they were themselves helpless; that same gratitude, Mr. Cobbett,

should their removal be attended with bene

ficial consequences, will indice a return to their natural allegiance the first moment they

are enabled to revisit us; and, I therefore, deem it to be highly impolitic to drive such

men as those from our shores, oven though

- - -----'s they should be classed as prodigal sons. It is not his own interest alone which is pur

sued, but advantages accrue to the nation from that man who may have toiled year af. ter year unsuccessfully here, but who in a foreign country may have enriched himself, and with himself his country. . If we can attribute a worthy motive to a man, it is our duty so to do; and if motives. are attributable to men, one bad, the other good, in law a rule is laid down which should be imputed to him; and I see not why, in reason, the ground work of law,' the same worthy motive should not be attributed to his conduct. The ordinances of the Creator invariably tend to good ends, and man acting religiously and under the impulse of his own reason, cannot be condemned.

for acting conformably to principle, direct

ing him to his own interest and with that the benefits of his country. Your concluding observation goes not only to preclude at man from a residence among foreigners, but puts an end to all intercourse with foreignnations, an intercourse not prohibited, as far as I am able to determine, by any law dio vine or human.—It is as much my wish, as it can be yours, to prevent men acting in the double capacity of British subject and American citizen. I cannot, Mr. Cobbett, assent to your construction of 14 and 15 Henry 8, because the Term, “ other strangers,” according to my comprehension, implies a derelection or surrender of allegiance. If it was intended to have retained the allegiance of such persons as chose to depart from their native country, it surely were sufficient to have made them liable to the payment of customs, such as “ strangers,” not “ other strangers,” paid. This, Mr. Cobbett, is the power I would that the native country should assume over its subjects, viz, in every attempt to assume the character of a subject of a foreign country, + would that this United Kingdom should boldly disown or disfranchise him, and render him incapable of ever after assuming a Proteus shape with respect to his native country, rather than partially holding him to be a subject, as in the case of friend Twister, who when he claims a benefit from his native country is told he is an American, but if he should be bold enough to commit an offence and claim to be hanged, his native country, it seems, will indulge him in his request. The word “artificer, " which I held to be an indefinite and general term, if you will take the trouble to turn to the

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]
« ZurückWeiter »