gard to the expediency of the measure, and the consequences which will result from the relinquishment of the right of search, I will not at present enter into the consideration of this, as I consider the sole point at issue to be, whether the exercise of this right be just For unjust, -R. DOMINION OF THE SEAS. Sir;-On reading one of your late Regis ters upon the subject of the dispute with 'America, it occurred to me that you might not have seen the printed instructions from the Admiralty to the Captains of our ships 'of war to ** demand Englishmen out of Fo reign Ships." It is as follows--" when he meets with any Foreign Ship or vessel "he is to send a commission officer to enquire if any seamen who are subjects of His Majesty be on board her, and to demand all such. obliging their masters to pay them their wages to that day: But this is to be done with civil and friendly "Behaviour on the part of His Majesty's Officers, who are to be very careful not to offer any viclence or ill treatment to the subjects of His Majesty's friends or "allies." You will not fail to perceive that it is the bounden duty of a Captain to search every foreign ship that he meets with, without further particular direction on that head, and that altho' he is not instructed to use force, yet to what end is he ordered to demand the seamen, if he is not bound to resist in case they should be refused?-It would be placing him in the situation, and in fact, making him act the part, of a bally. The honour of the flag too is gone for ever! Heretofore it was ordered when any of His Majesty's ships meet with any "ship or ships belonging to any Foreign "Prince or state within His Majesty's Seas (which extend to Cape Finisterre) it is exered that the said foreign ships do take in their topsail, and strike their flag, in owledgment of His Majesty's Sovergaty in these Seas; and if any shail *fessor offer to resist, it is enjoined to Pall dag, officers and commanders to use their utmost endeavours to compel them thereto, and not suffer any dishonour to be done to His Majesty." The first time I ever saw the flag of a foreigner taken in, and his topsail struck (which was the second time I went down Channel, and when i was vergbying vi leave you to judge Mr. Cobbett, and nobody cap more truly appreciate trong what my feelings were; if I were to sweitfco mier plain them I am confident I self preat injustice. We are state, that if we are firm, and your opinions are acted upon, we may resume these rights; and I hope you will never cease to ring in the ears of the ministry, that to abandon the Dominion of the Seas is to lose the only chance we may ever have of resuming our influence in the scale of nations, and of counterbalancing in any degree the gigantic power of the ruler of the continent.-I am, Sir; Your sincere friend, Z. Y. Plymouth, 9th September, 1897. DOMINION OF THE SEAS. Sir, I have read many of your publica tions with great satisfaction; it is the lot of most men situated as you are now and then to advance things that are not founded in fact. In treating of the dispute between this country and America in your last paper, you assert Vice Admiral the Honourable George Berkeley was in duty bound or words to that effect, to search the American Man of War for deserters. The annals of the British Navy do not give us an instance of any such attempt being made prior to this; and the naval instructions relating to the subject, an extract of which is given herewith, evidently relates to Merchantmen, as the master is to be applied to for the payment of such wages as may be due to them. -I agree with you the worst, and most` disgraceful part of Admiral Berkeley's Order, is the offering to have one of His Majesty's Ships searched, a right he had no power to concede, and which in its nature being illegal no officer was bound to obey it.-- On the subject I have only to add, if an Ameri cau Ship of War had attempted to do what the Leopard has done it would on our part have been considered a just cause of war; why America is to overlook it, or brook au insult of this nature which ao other independant country ever yet did, I know not; if this kingdom wished to wage war with Ames rica it is but shabby pretence we have adopted.-I am, Sir, &c A NAVAL OFFICER. Portsmouth, September 11, 1507. Article 23d. Naval Instructions." When "he meets with any Foreign Ship or Ves"sel. he is to send a Lieut. to enquire "whether there be on board of her any "Seamen who are subjects of His Majes"ty, and if there be he is to demand them, "provided it does not distress the Ship, and to require the master to pay them the wages due to them to that day; but hejs "to do this without detaining the Vessel t longer than shall be necessary, or offering any violence to, or in any way ill. treating the Master or his Crew. EXPATRIATION OF ERITISH SUBJECTS. On the Necessity of a Declaratory Law or a Stipulation with Foreign Powers, respecting the Esatriation of British Subjects, particularly with the United States of America. SIR, Whether we are still to continne in amity with the United States of America, or whether we are doomed to add another enemy to those who have joined the standard of the French Emperor, in maintenance of that which we deem to be our right to resist, either from the policy of the thing, or under the impression that our naval superiority entitles us to insist upon the right of search on the ocean, and out of the limits and boundaries of the United States of An.2rica, and to t ́ke from neutral ships of war, seamen who may appear to our naval officers to be British subjects, I shall not now discuss; this I may attempt hereafter. It is my present intention to bring into view the peculiar and awful situation into which British subjects, the mercan.le part in particular, precipitate themselves by becoming citizens of America, and by their attempts to cast off their natural allegiance to this United Kingdom, take upon themselves to serve two masters, instead of expatriating and ridding themselves of one power to whom they owe a natural allegiance-Men of enlightened and liberal ideas have held, that if a man is not enabled to throw off his natural allegiance whenever he finds himself disposed to do so, he is a slave not a subject. Perhaps, if I quote the reflection of an author, probably not unknown to you, his opinion may have more weight than any argument of mite. Mon-ieur Pecquet, author of the Spirit of Political Maxims, (being an illustration of Montesquieu's Esprit des Loix) in chapter the 21st "Des Lettres de Natu"ralité," says, "Le Citoyen, comme l'ha"bitant du Monde, couserve une sorte de liberté naturelle, de renoncer aux avan tages particulières de sa naissance, d'adopter un antre état et de s'enfaire adopter, sans quoi ce seroit réellement un esclave. "Il n'y a des chaincs supportables, en ce genre que celles que forme l'attrait et non pas la contrainte.-Ces changemens ou "transmigrations ne se font jamais, que dans l'espérance d'être mieux que dans sa propre patrie."-This doctrine is certainly consonant to reason, and why it should not be adopted generally, and the spirit of it incorporated with the law of nations, I am utterly at á loss to conceive, particularly as this united kingdom sanctions the admission of foreigners to the privileges of British subjects, whilst the black letter of the law of this country has in the opinion of many fixed as indelible marks of non expatriation upon its natural born subjects, as have been imprinted on the sable sons of Ismael. We should not blow hot and cold; the latitude we give to foreigners applying for naturalization, and that which should be extended te natural born subjects of the United Kingdom, when disposed to expatriate themselves, should be reciprocal and founded on parity of reason. That the late treaty between Great Britain and the United States of America, should not have contained a declaratory clause with respect to an accurate designation of a British subject, and an American citizen, when we recollect that the United States of America were once a portion of the British empire, cannot but be matter of astenishment to reflecting persons. The peril ous situation those respective persons place themselves in, from their attempts to withdraw their natural allegiance, and the reflection, that from the uncertainty of their right so to withdraw themselves, their parent country may become involved in all the calamities of war from their secession, and the claim to them as subjects to the claiming power, if such are found on board of ships of war, and probably aiding an enemy, (as in fact, seems to have been the case in the late rencontre between the Leopard and Chesapeak off the Capes of Virginia,) are considerations of themselves fully sufficient to warrant the expectation of a declaratory clause, and which, should a new treaty be entered into, I hope will not be unattended to. To aim at prevention of a rupture is more praiseworthy and defensible than to heal one. The adoption of the declaratory clause I allude to, ought not to be delayed a moment. The subject, if men will give themselves the trouble of reflection, must be con-> sidered to be of such momentous importance, that the most distant doubt ought not longer to continue; a due consideration of the importance of the matter in question, must necessarily involve an inquiry into the means of remedy. In order to elucidate the subject, let us notice the declarations of our ancient lawyers respecting aliens. Littleton says, (sec. 198) "he is an alien which is born out of the ligeance of the king;" but, throughout his invaluable relique he does not convey to us, that to be born out of the ligeance of the king is the sole essence of alienage. We are, therefore, not precluded inferring from the above quoted passage, that there may be other modes of becoming alienated or expatriated, than that which arises by reason of birth. The positive law is not silent upon the subject, although the com mon law does involve it in mystery.---Bracton upon the subject of alienage and expatriation, says, (lib. 5, fol. 415, 427) that the exception to a man by reason of alienage, propter defectum rationis, should rather be propter defectum subjectionis; he does not expressly state that a man cannot be absolved from, or exchange his allegiance, nor can such inference be drawn from this passage; he observes, that an exception to a man that he is an alien ought not to be alledged, propter defectum nationis, by reason of a defect of birth in another country than England, not subject to the power and authority of the king, because it may be intended, that although he was born in another nation, he may be a subject; for he may be naturalized or otherwise subject to the King of England: but it must be alledged propter defectum subjectionis, by reason of a defect of subjection, an expression admitting of no ambiguity, no doubtful construction, but directing us to a plain manifest conclusion, viz. that at the time of the allegation of his incapacity, he is not then actually subject to the king, which does admit that though he may have been once subject to a certain power, he may not be subject to that power all his life time. If this conclusion is correct, the power he is subject to allows him the means of expatriating himself.--Coke in his Commentary (129 a) states, "nemo patriam in quâ natus est, exuere, nec ligeantiæ debitum ejurare possit; which doctrine he considers to be laid down in the case of Dr. Storie (13 Eliz. Dyer, fol. 3006); but, instead of an express determination upon a well grounded principle, it seems to be a mere dictum. From this solitary decision or dictum, which soever it be, we cannot be justified in adopting the passage in Coke, or holding his opinion, however respectable, to be conclusive, as we do not find that this case of Dr. Storie h. as ever been acted upon or brought into iew as a settled doctrine. I bring into iew, Mr. Cobbett, all the material passages hat occur to me, whether for or against the principle of expatriation. I wish to have that settled which from the various opinions declared upon the subject, seems involved in obscurity, and you will agree with me, that we cannot have a better time to set the subject at rest, than upon the negociation of a new treaty with America; and which, I hope, will contain a declaratory clause upon the subject in doubt, either admitting or expressly disallowing a natural born subject of Great Britain and Ireland to expatriate himself and to become a citizen of America.-If we refer to the Statute Law of England, we shall find that the subject matter of doubt has been differently handled, as the political interest of the country might occasionally require. By the statute of 14 and 15 Henry Sth. chap 4, it appears that subjects of England in this reign went into Holland, Zea-land, Brabant, Flanders, and into other countries of foreign princes, and were there sworn to the obedience of such foreign sovereigns; wherefore, it was enacted, that all subjects born in England, and sworn to be subjects of foreign princes as long as they shall so abide, and be subject to foreign princes, shall pay customs, &c. in England, as other strangers pay. This statute is a general one, and concerns all the king's subjects, by which it is implied that persons may become subjects to other powers, and that by such election to depart from their natural allegiance they become, and it does seem to me properly so, aliens to their native country for so long time as they shall chuse to continue their new subjection; but, if they elect to become subjects again to England, they may have the king's writ, which will entitle them to be reinstated in all their former rights and immunities as Englishmen, upon their residing again in England. The next material statute is in the reign of James the First (3 Jac. 1 cap. 4 sec. 18, 22, 23), which enacts, that if any natural born subject be withdrawn from his allegiance, as therein mentioned, he shall be guilty of high treason. The 18th section of that statute refers to persons serving any foreign prince which bears relation to military men. The 22d section adjudged it treason for any person to seduce Englishmen to become subjects, to another country; this, I think, implies it had been the usage theretofore to withdraw their allegiance, and at that time it was found expedient to stop the extensive progress it was making by the above statute, which in the latter section clearly admits the right of expatriation. And the 23d section makes it in the like manner penal for any person to become subject to another country, within the meaning of the 22d section. If, therefore, the person withdraws his alle. giance of his own mere motion, and not at the request or solicitation of another, or is seduced by that other person, I apprehend he is not subject to the penalty of high trea son, enacted by the statute, as the 23d section expressly says, any such person as "aforesaid, withdrawn as aforesaid," it therefore, does not essentially disannul the implication and inference of the statute of Henry. The next and last statute which I shall mention, was made in the reign of George 1st., (5 Geo. I, chap. 27) and relates to artificers, an indefinite and very general 437] SEPTEMBER 19, 1807-Expatriation of British Subjects. term, going into foreign countries, and not [438 to reconcile difficulties, and expound truly 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 cannot 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 enorinous bulk, in efforts to elucidate the com-. "mmon 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 ab 1 Jaw or stipulation in the treaty, the inconveniences now resulting from inconsiderate expatriation should be guarded against. Would it not be a melancholy thing, for example, if an individual had left this United Kingdom, and become a member of another government, with intent wholly to relinquish any claims upon the British government, but those that every government is bound to extend to the individual of another; or, suppose an Englishman marries a foreigner, (which I believe to be the case with our present ambassador in America), and he chuses to reside in the county where his wife was born, and where her connections and property may be, (the act of marrying a foreigner entitling him to participate in all the privileges of such foreign country), and that a war should break ont between the two Countries, and the expatriated man is found in arms against his native country, and the only consideration remaining is, whether that man is to be dealt with as a traitor to his native country. A doubt, however, should not remain for a moment upon such a serious matter, for many hundred persons are in a situation similar to the above. May the horrors of a second war with America be avert. ed: this country has not yet forgotten the evil effects of the first, although more than thirty years have passed away since that took place. But, many Englishmen have sworn allegiance to America, and renounced their native country, and may be brought into serious difficulties in consequence.--I admire the law of America as it stood in 1791, and I believe stands at this time, permitting foreigners to become subject to her: by relin quishing their native countries, pro tempore, they elect to become citizens of the United States, and conforming to certain forms; and that country likewise consents to the new subject continuing subjection no longer than he pleases; for by going into a court and devering in a resignation of the rights of citizenship, the person is by the law to which I allude immediately expatriated.—The law of England upon such a mon:entous point should be in like manner clear and unequivocal, either expressly allowing or prohibit-managed; far from it; generally speaking, of inserting my letter upon the internal situation of Ireland, in your last Register, of the 28th of August, encourages me to ad÷ dress you again; not that I have any ambi- : tion that my own words should appear in. print, but I only wish to put you in posses- sion of some things that have occurred to me, which, if worth laying before the public, you will, I hope, do in your own plain and forcible language. In my letter above alluded to, I asserted,, that it was my opinion, that to give encouragement to manufacture in Ireland, was the chief, if not the only thing, to be done for the benefit of that country. Now, Sir, on the contrary, with regard to England, I am of opinion, that the overstrained (if I may use such a phrase) encouragement given to manufactures and commerce, has contributed to increase the pour rates, and to render a very considerable part of our population indigent and miserable. From some observations you have occasionally made in your Register, I believe, in this case, you think as I du; but, I perceive in general that you lay most of the blame to the taxes. In my mode of thinking, considerable mischief arises from the taxes, but not so much as may be supposed. The taxes (as 1 conceive) are part of the wealth, or capital of the country taken from the people, to he applied to feed, clothe, arm, &c. those who add nothing to the common stock. If the whole, or part of this capital, remained with ̧the different individuals from whom it was received, some would be employed in encouraging useful labour, some in gwing encouragement to what would be useless, or pernicious: that part of the capital which, would have given encouragement to useful labour, must of course be a national loss. Now, Sir, as I apprehend that manufac tures and commerce have been carried to too great an extent in England, I doubt if any. part of the capital taken by the taxes, are a loss to the nation, except that part which? would have been employed in agriculture. I do not mean to infer from this, that the blus lands now in a state of culture are badly! they are quite otherwise and truly, I find |