Images de page
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

of the king's subjects to be so willingly withdrawn or reconciled.--Here, to be sure, there is nothing positively in favour of the idea of the right of a subject to expatriate himself. Yet, does S. V. after the manner of my Lord Peter, make a shift to twist this act to his purpose; for, says he, though it is made treason in a subject to be " so with"drawn, if the person withdraws his alle"giance of his own mere motion, I appre"hend he is not subject to the penalty men ❝tioned in the 23d section." This statute, therefore, says he, "does not essentially "disannul the implication and inference "of the statute of Henry VIII. ;" which last mentioned statute does, he says, in the last section, clearly admit the right of ex

patriation."- -As S. V. draws no positive inference from this act of James I.; and merely introduces it for the purpose of disarming it of its hostility, we will leave it where it is, and see, for a moment, whether the last section of the act of Henry VIII. does clearly admit the right of expatria

tion." The words of that section I will insert, after having given the substance of the preamble and of the preceding section; there being but two sections in the act. The preamble states, that many subjects of this realm have gone with their wives and families into foreign countries, that they have there built houses and settled in trade, have sworn obeisance to the powers there, and have thus deprived their native country of the advantages, which she would naturally derive from their exertions and their wealth; that this tends to increase the opulence and strength, of those countries, and to the dimi mution of the opulence and strength of England; wherefore, it is, in the first enacting clause, ordained, that, for the future, as long as such persons so remain, they shall be compelled to pay customs, subsidies, and tolls in the same manner as other strangers; but, that (and now we come to the words of the much-relied-upon section), if here

[ocr errors]

after it shall happen any such person or persons to return into the realm, and here "to tarry and inhabit, that then he or they shall be restored to all such liberties and freedoms in paying of customs and subsi"dies, and other charges, as all other En"glishmen do use to pay, and to have a "rit out of the Chancery for the same." Verily, my Lord Peter, in discovering a per

who were contriving merely how they should prevent subjects settled abroad from enjoying those immunities which were enjoyed by subjects residing at home. And, as to the

king's writ," who would not imagine, from the manner in which it is mentioned by S. V. that it was an instrument to re-naluralize the party? The writ, as we find in the foregoing section, was merely an order, issued from the Chancery," to the customers,

68

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

comptrollers, and other officers of the king's custom, in every port, haven, or "creek, within the realm;" and, the purpose of it, in the case contemplated, was, to remove the disabilities of the party as far as related to customs, subsidies and tolls. The last statute, to which we are referred by S. V. is that of the 5th George I. chapter 27th, made as a check to the emigration of artificers. S. V. calls this an indefinite and very general term; but, he will gather, from the preamble of the act, that merchants are not meant to be included, though that, I suppose, is what he would drive at. This act says, that, if any artificer or manufacturer go into a foreign country, and does not return within six months, after warning giv en him, he shall be deemed an alien; by "which statute," says S. V. we see, that Englishmen are expressly allowed to become subjects of other powers." Express ly! Where does he find this? Does the act say any such thing? No; the act is penal all through; and, from the foregoing part of the section, it is obvious, that the party offending was to be considered as an alien, only as that construction of his character would expose him to punishment, or inconveniéfice. In case of disobedience, after having received due notice to return home, such emigrated artificer is rendered incapable of taking any legacy that shall be devised to him in this kingdom, of being an executor of adminis trator to any person in this kingdom, of taking any lands, tenements, or hereditaments, by descent, devise, or purchase; and is to forfeit all his lands, tenements, hereditaments, goods, and chattels, in this, kingdom, to the king; after which come the only words, that S. V. has thought proper to notice, to wit; and shall, trom thenceforth, be, and be deemed and taken to be an

[ocr errors]

alien, and shall be out of his Majesty's "protection." But, all this is merely for punishment. The emigrant is to be an alien

mission to wear shoulder-knots, was a bung-only as far as he is punished by being taken ler compared to him, who has, in this section, found out "a clear admission of the "right of expatriation!" There is not, in this act, a word about allegiance or alienage. No such matter was before the parliament,

in that character; and, if found in arms against his country, would, notwithstanding this act, be liable to be punished as a traitor. Besides, what does this act make for the doctrine of S. V., upon the supposition that no

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

warning be given to the emigrant to return home that case, he is not to be deem

ed an alien." So that, according to S.V.'s construction of this act, if two weavers, Jack and Dick, emigrate, and are afterwards found in arms against their country, Jack, who has had due warning to return home, is a prisoner of war, because he is to be deemed an alien; while poor Dick, who has had no Warning, and who does not add contumacy to his original offence, is to be hanged by the neck till he is dead! The warning being necessary to the perfecting of alienage, no man сар be deemed an alien, even in the sense of this act, until the warning be given. This warning to the emigrant is neither more nor less than a threat of being deprived of the right of taking legacies, holding lands, &c. and this S. V. denominates an express permission to become a subject of a foreign state!" But, if, for argument's sake, we were to adopt this absurd construction of the act of George I. what would it avail S. V. as to his main purpose; namely, that of enabling g men to withdraw themselves from their allegiance to the king, in order to their security when they had sworn allegiance to the American States? First, they must be artificers or manufacturers; next they must, from our ambassador in America, have had due warning to return home; and next, they must have refused to obey that warning. Is there one single emigrant to America, who can plead this title to the quality of alien? Why, then, refer to this act? And if for the purpose of sanctioning the principle of alienage, pray remember the subjoined conditions. Alienage upon such conditions, I do not perceive any very great objection to: Let it be made law, that whosoever shall choose to withdraw his allegiance, and become a citizen of America, shall, at once, be, for ever, deprived of the rights and immunities of au Englishman; shall take no legacy, hold no lands or houses, forfeit all his goods, chattels, annuities, and debts, and be entitled to Bo protection whatever from Engmd; pass such a law, for future operation, and I have not only no objection to it, if you except those only who have made fortunes from the public revenue, but will give it my hearty assent. But, I am not to be inveigled to. give my approbation to an alienagepro tempore;" to a to and again, a backwardand-forward, allegiance, however convenient it might be to some persons; an allegiance that would enable a man, as an American citizen, to ship off powder to the French, or to command a privateer in the service of France, to day; and, in two months afterwards, to claim, as an Englishman, his rigl.t

[ocr errors]

of throwing into jail, as his debtor, some English merchant, whom he might have ruined by his privateer; and all this" with perfect security to himself. After this, the question, the question, does it seem reasonable that "the character of British subject is unalienable," requires but little by way of answer. Nor do I see any necessity for a declaratory law, or a positive stipulation, upon the subject: To the latter I should object, because it would be an unmerited compliment to the Americans, who are the only nation that has hitherto had the audacity to raise a standard of alienrage; and because it would seem, as if we thought it necessary to justify ourselves in the eyes of the world for not permitting our laws to bend to their insolent regulations; and, to the former I should object, because it would, as well as a stipulation, imply a doubt as to the past, and give rise to claims of exemption on the part of those, who have heretofore become what they call citizens of the United States.―― S. V. seems to think, that he has reduced the law, as it is at present held, to a sad absurdity. It is requisite," says he, "to make a "declaratory law upon the subject of expa"triation, because it has been held by per

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

sons, sitting in judgment upon the claims "of creditors of individuals of a foreign na"tion, that," although the character of ""British subject is unalienable by the in

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

dividual, yet the acceptance of that of subject of another country, bars all right to complain of the acts of the "" latter." "Now," says he, "what is

this, that a British subject cannot ex"patriate himself, but having expatriated "himself, he must no more look to his pa

rent country for redress against the acts "of his new task-masters? Here is a decla

ration that a British subject cannot with"draw his allegiance in one line, and, in "the next, that he may accept of the cha"racter of a foreign subject, or, in other "words, that he may alien his inaliena. "ble rights." This passage would have reflected honour upon counsellor Botherem himself. It is really a choice specimen of what a man of talents may do in the way of beating plain words out of their honest meaning. But, Mr. Lawyer Botherem, the little word cannot, like a great number of other words, little as well as big, has two meanings; and, in the judiciously confounding of these consists, as far as my observation has gone, no small part of the art of the family of Botherent. Cannot, Sir, in the lan guage of the law, and in the sense in which you use it, in the above passage, hléans, a legal inability or prohibition with respect to

from my soul, that we kept out all foreigners, without a single exception. They are the curse of this country, and always have been its curse. But, when we naturalize people, there is some little ceremony attending it.

the doing of a thing, and not a physical ina- | bility to do it. For instance, we say, that a man cannot sit in the House of Commons, unless he has a clear real estate, worth three hundred pounds a year; but, do we thereby mean to say, that no man ever does sit there.The persons naturalized are few in number. who has not such an estate? We say, that a man cannot kill game, unless he have such or such a qualification; but, do we thereby mean to aver, that there are not thousands who do kill game without any other qualification, than that of a steady hand and a sharp eye? Speaking, in the same sense, with reference to the laws of England, I say that a man cannot become a subject to another state; but, I know that many do become subjects of other states; and, therefore, Sir, I see here none of that gross and troublesome inconsistency, of which you complain. The same illustrations will serve for But, now, Sir, your monosyllable may. let us put the case (which is, perhaps, drawn from real life) a little plainer than you have put it. A British subject, in America, previous to the close of the rebellion, whose name, for want of a better, shall be Twister, has a debt due to him from another Ameri.can. Mr. Twister becomes a citizen of the United States, takes the oath of allegiance to them, and abjures the authority of his sovereign and country. By-and-by a treaty is By-and-by a treaty is made between England and America, in which it is stipulated, that America shall cause to be paid all debts, due to English subjects, wihch debts were prevented from being paid by any acts of the government af America, and of which debts Twister's was one. "Oh!" says he, "I am an English "subject still; for my allegiance is unalien"alle" and forward he comes with his claim. "No," says America, "that will

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

not do Mr. Twister; you are our subject; "and our stipulation goes only to the pay"ment of debts, due to English subjects." Back he twists to us: "For God's sake," says he, " compel those fellows to do me "justice!" "No," say we, "for, though you cannot, agreeably to our laws, be come the subject of another state; yet, "" as you have so become, you have forfeit"ed all just claim to our protection; and you "must e'en settle the matter with that "state in the best manner that you can." Would to God, that all the decisions of all our courts were as just as this!--It is complained of by S. V. that we permit the subjects of other countries to become subjects of this country, at the same time that we will not extend the principle where our own subjects are excer, dare desirous of becoming begof other countes. I wish

We do not swear them in by dozen after
dozen, like special constables at the eve of
Pitt's going to dine in the city. Besides, we
have never, that I know of, pretended to
any right to exonerate these naturalized per-
sons from any of the duties, which they owe
to their parent state, and this is precisely the
insolent pretension which the Americans
put forward. These naturalized persons,
as long as they are under our power, are
under the protection of the laws, and are
entitled to all the rights and immunities here
enjoyed; but, if they were to return home,
or if they were taken in arms against their
native country, they would be left by us to
experience whatever treatment that country
might think proper to adopt with respect to
them. But, what the Americans claim, is,
that, in virtue of a little bit of printed pa-
per, the blanks of which are filled up for
nine-pence, well and duly paid, to some
one of their half million of pettifoggers, a
British subject becomes released, for as long
a time as he pleases, from all the obligations
appertaining to his natural allegiance; that,
in virtue of the aforesaid nine-penny certifi
cate, he may, though a director of the
"Honourable" East-India Company, carry
on a private-trade to Hindostan without risk
of seizure by the British power; that he
may supply the enemies of Great Britain
with provisions and arms and ammunition,
without subjecting himself to punishment by !
Great Britain, though he should, at the same
time, be residing in London; and, not to
tire the reader with an endless list of base
and traiterous acts, that he may, if war
should break out between America and En
gland, carry arms against the latter, with
no other risk than that to which a lawful
enemy is exposed.Now, a word or two
upon the reasonableness of our laws, as touch-
ing allegiance, in opposition to the opinion
of MONSIEUR PECQUET, whom S. V. has
chosen for his guide.
"The citizen," says

[ocr errors]

this writer, as an inhabitant of the world,

reserves always a sort of natural liberty "to renounce the particular advantages of "his birth, and to become the subject of "another state, without which he would "be, in reality, a slave. There are no "ties of this sort supportabl, except such as are formed by affection. Emigrations never take place but in the hope of being "better off in an other country than at

"

[ocr errors]

"home." Suppose this latter assertion to be true, it is no argument in favour of the doctrine before laid down. Apprentices seldom run away, and sailors seldom desert, without the hope of being better off; but, would you, for that reason, conclude, that they have a right to run away, in the one case, or to desert in the other case? But, here, Monsieur Pecquet would say, there is a breach of obligations; and, is there, then, no breach of obligations when the citizen, as he calls him, deserts his country? When a child is born, and, even Monsieur Pecquer would, I suppose, have allowed that he must be born, there are, in the country where he is born, a people, by some of whom he must be nursed and fed and clothed and reared up to man's estate. There was a long time when he was able to do nothing in the way of producing those necessaries of life, by which he himself was sustained; and, during all that time, the nation (some or other of them no matter who) were compelled to provide him with those necessaries; and, what is more, to take care to protect him against all violence, whether from foes foreign or domestic. And, being now grown a man, shall he say to the nation, I made no bargain with you, I entered into no indentures, nor did I take any bounty money when I was born; and, therefore, you have no claim upon me, and I, "as an inhabitant of the world, have a sort of natu

ral right to become a subject of any state "that I please, and, if it should so happen "to suit, to kill as many of you as I can ?" Shall he say this; and will S. V. seriously say, that he is a stave, unless he has a right to act agreeably to his words? Monsieur Pecquet seems to have overlooked the obligations contracted by man with the nation, in his childhood and in his youth. The nation were compelled to support him. No one of them, and no number of then, dared to kill him, either by blows or by starvation. He could reserve no natural right, for he never had any, except, perhaps, the right of using his senses, and of crying for food. The nation, observe, could not cast him out; and cannot now take from him the rights of his birth; but, unless he can, at his pleasure, divest himself of the duties of his birth, S. V. and Monsieur Pecquet hold him to be, "in reality a slave!" The reciprocity, of which, in other cases, S. V. talks so much, is here completely lost sight of; and, indeed, it is utterly impossible to maintain this principle of Monsieur Pecquet, with any shew of justice, unless it be allowed, that as the grown-up citizen has

a

[ocr errors]

sort of natural right to become the subject of another state whensoever he pleases," the nation have always "a sort of natural right" to throw the new-born" citizen" into the river, or to leave him upon the bare earth to the care of that world," as an inhabitant of which he, when grown up, will claim the privilege of acting.-So much for the principle in the abstract; let us now follow S. V. in a view of its application to our present concerns. His main object appears to be to provide beforehand impunity for the persons and security for the property of all those British subjects (and very numerous they are), who may, if war should take place between America and England, be exposed to punishment or loss, in consequence of the part they may take in that war, or in consequence of con fiscations levelled at British subjects. He seems to make pretty sure, that some of these persons would, in case of war, be found in arms against their native country, and asks, whether it would not be a “melancholy thing, that such persons should be "dealt with as traitors." To which I answer, that it would certainly be melancholy to reflect, that men should be so base as to raise their hand against the nation, in whose bosom they had been warmed into life, nursed, fed, and reared up to manhood; but, that, if, nevertheless, so base they should prove, I, though I never saw punishment of any sort with pleasure, and never saw an execution in my life, should feel no sorrow at seeing such men die upon the gallows. For, observe, the question here, is not, whether, in certain extreme cases, men' may or may not be justified in taking up arms against their rulers. The principle of S. V. is of quite a different nature. It justifies taking up arms against one's native country; it justifies universal desertion and universal parricide; a principle well enough, to be broached and maintained by the Americans, the greater part of whom have, properly speaking, no country; but, a principle to ba held in execration by all the rest of mankind. As to the "r perilous situation" in which the Americanized English would be placed, in case of war, there is always a ready way to avoid that; they having nothing to do but to return to their own country, or to remain inactive in America. This would expose "them to great loss, and, perhaps, to great "odium, and even to persecution, such as "being confined within their respective

[ocr errors]

townships, assessed in double taxes, and seeing their debtors, private as well as public, "freed from their demands." May be so; but, they emigrated for their own pleasure ;

after being reared up to manhood by the nation, they went away from it, in the hope "of being better off" and, it is but fair, that they should take the bad with the good. The instance chosen by S. V. is, perhaps, as perfect as any that could have been pitched upon. MR. ERSKINE chose to go to America; he chose there to marry, by which he became entitled, as S. V. says, to the rights of citizenship; he then came home and, as is usual, eat his way to the English bar; then a change of ministry sent him as envoy to America, with a pretty decent salary, leaving his father in England, in the receipt of a pension of 4,000 pounds a year for life. Now, if this gentleman, who, observe, besides the general obligations attending his infancy and youth, has received from the nation a share of those benefits arising from endowed colleges, which endowments are supported by the labour of the nation; if this gentleman were (I do not suppose the thing possible, mind) to take up arms against his native country, or to aid, either directly or indirectly, any of its enemies, he ought, if it were possible, to be hanged at every cross-road in the kingdom.-This applies equally well to merchants, manufacturers, and fund-holders. They have become, no matter how, rich from the soil and the labour of the nation; and, if they choose to withdraw themselves and to carry those riches with them," in the hope of being better of," be all the perils", which they will experience in case of war, upon their own heads. It is tight they should experience peril it is right they should suffer; for what can be supposed more unjust, than that the man, who turns his back upon his country, merely for his own interest's sake, should, in all possible cases, be, by the indulgence of his country, placed, as to property as well as person, in as perfect security as the man who remains at home, and who, by the labour or the skill of his manhood, repays the nation for the care and the labour it bestowed upon his infancy

[ocr errors]

At every step, that, we advance, there is some new aspect, in which the detestable ness of this principle appears. Allow the right of expatriation, and I see hardly any ground, upon which resistance, of any sort, against government, however villainous and. tyrannical that government may be, can be, justified. This principle, if acted upon, would dissolve all obligations between the governors and the governed, the former of whom might reasonably say to the latter, "why do you stay here; why do you "remain our subject can better yourself elsewhere?" So that, in the

if you

end, tyranny would be reserved for those only who had not the means of expatriating themselves, and never would there be a struggle made either for the preservation, or the restoration of freedom. This abominable principle is at war with the ordinances of the Creator, who has, by the gift of different languages, divided mankind into different nations, by which means is kept up that emulation, which is the great cause of exertion both of body and mind, and which, in various ways, does, more than all other causes, distinguish man from the brute.

EDINBURGH REVIEWERS. The double sheet, which will be published next week, will enable me to comply with the requests of several correspondents, who seem extremely anxious that these political adven turers should be exposed.I had, at one time, almost resolved to leave them entirely to those, who had more leisure than myself; but, when I consider how great a hand they had in the miserable measures of the Whig ministry, it does appear to me necessary to bestow one day upon them.--I cannot say but I have a sucaking kindness for them. They have done a great deal of good in lashing the boobies and bastards that are fastened upon the public; but, what has long appeared to me evident, is, that they want to supplant them, and to fasten themselves upon us, rather than which I, for my part, would haye to maintain the boob ies and bastards, who, being somewhat gorged already, are likely to suck our blood less unmercifully than those northern leeches would.All that I want to do, with respect to them, is to keep them out of place. If we can but keep them from pocketing the public money, they will be, to use the obituary phrase, most valuable members "of society." This Review, with all their partiality, is, even now, worth all the other things, called Reviews, put together... Iwill lend an hand to keep them from preying upon us; I will endeavour to prevent them from bringing a colony of Scotch schoolmasters amongst us; but, I will never jain the blockheads against them.

DOMINION OF THE SEAS,
and,

DISPUTE WITH AMERICA. SIR; At a moment like the present, every,, the most bumble individual, who bas the pride to call himself an Englishman, and who has the real honour and glory of his country at heart, can hardly be expected to refrain from endeavouring to express his sentiments, in some way or other, respecting the measures necessary for the salvation of

« PrécédentContinuer »