4

chose to remove himself into a situation where his personal character could be brought into question, and considered distinctly from local and national character, which the king of Great Britain had been pleased to superinduce upon him by ceding the country where he was born; that is, when any such individual should choose to come into the king's dominions, where alone his personal rights can have their application and exercise.

The only consideration for us, in this country, seems to be such personal character, whether it is the case of Florida, or a native of the United States, born within the king's allegiance.

Dec. 16, 1808.

December 17, 1808.

A passage has been cited by the objectors from Mr, Wooddeson's lectures; and as this is the only book authority they have been able to adduce, it must not be let pass without observation; especially as it has acquired a sort of reflected consequence, by being inserted in Sir Henry Gwillim's edition of Bacon's Abridg ment, title "Alien." The passage is this, "But when by treaty, especially if ratified by act of parliament, our sovereign cedes any island or region to another state, the inhabitants of such ceded territory, though born under the allegiance of our king, or being under his protection, while it appertained to his crown and authority, become, I apprehend, effectually aliens, or liable to the disabilities of alienage, in respect to their future concerns with this country. And similar to this, I take to be the condition of the revolted Americans, since the recognition of their independent commonwealths."[Vol. i. p. 382.]

To those who insist on this as an authority for saying that such persons become aliens and cease to be naturalborn subjects, it might be enough to reply, that a proposition laid down with an alternative, as this is, has not in it sufficient precision to be authority for any thing: "effectually aliens, or liable to the disabilities of alienage," is a circumlocution that does not suit with the plainness required in a juridical proposition. And yet, I think, the author has expressed himself not unsuitably with another sense of the word alien, accompanied, as it here is, with an exposition. It seems to me that "or" is not intended here to be a conjunction. merely; but it bears a sense that is not uncommon, it introduces a member of a sentence that is meant to be explanatory of the foregoing; and is the same as "or in other words," "or to speak more plainly," "or to speak more properly." In this sense of "or," he explains the meaning of "effectually aliens," by shewing, they are liable to the disabilities of alienage in respect to their future concerns with this country." Their "future concerns with this country" must be the trade they carry on with this country; something which they transact from a distant place, something that affects the whole community, something that arises out of their locality and national character. He is speaking of the local and national character, which we discussed before (in pa. 694,) and which was superinduced on the inhabitants of these ceded countries, in respect of which the inhabitants become a species of aliens, or as the author expresses it in an undefined epithet, "effectually aliens," or, I suppose, "in effect aliens;" that is, in the case of trading with this country.

I take this to have been what the author's mind was

then contemplating, the local and national character of such ceded colonists; and by no means their personal character, that of natural-born subjects, which he knew, as well as all lawyers, can neither be surrendered nor taken away.

Mr. Wooddeson has certainly been not sufficiently technical in expressing himself upon this occasion. It may be fit enough to oppose what he has said by an expression in the treaty of peace, which, though in like manner not technical, has evidently a meaning that cannot be mistaken, and that makes against his conclusion. In the fifth article, it is agreed, that congress shall recommend to the legislatures of the respective states, to provide for restitution of confiscated estates which belong to real British subjects. Now, if there are "real British subjects," it is implied there are British subjects who are not real, that is, less so than the others. No one can doubt, that the one expression means British subjects, not comprehended within the new states, erected and recognized by the king's acknowledgment in the treaty; the other must mean those inhabiting the United States. It is plainly indicated therefore by this phrase, that both contracting parties in the treaty admitted that the inhabitants of the United States did remain, in some sort, British subjects; and the mode in which they so continued can only be that which I have been contending for.

Dec. 17, 1808.

According to the foregoing reasoning, I think the law officers, if consulted, would give an opinion somewhat to the following effect.

Supposed opinion of the law-officers.

"In obedience to your Lordship's commands, we have

considered the question, whether inhabitants of the United States, born there before the independence, are, on coming to this kingdom, to be considered as naturalborn subjects; and we are of opinion, that such a person, coming to this kingdom, cannot be denied the character and privilege of a natural-born subject.

In forming this opinion, we have given due consideration to all the topics that have been suggested to us from different quarters, on both sides of the question, as well as to the principles of the common law, which are to be found in books of known authority amongst lawyers.

Among the suggestions that have been made to us, are stat. 22 Geo. III. c. 46, and the definitive treaty of peace with the United States; and we find ourselves obliged to declare, that nothing in those two instruments appears to us to make any alteration in the case of Americans, when compared with others of his Majesty's subjects who reside in a ceded country. In like manner as the inhabitants, natural-born subjects of his Majesty, in the two Floridas, ceded to the king of Spain, (at the same time that the independence of the United States was acknowledged) are still deemed to retain their privilege and character of natural-born subjects, so, we think, these persons being similarly circumstanced, when they come into this kingdom, cannot be denied to retain their original privileges and character.

Our reasons for thinking that the statute and treaty make no difference or peculiarity in the case of the United States, are these: The statute, upon the face of it, appears to have been made for two purposes; First, To enable the king to make peace or truce with the colonies or plantations in question; Secondly, To enable the king to suspend the operation of certain acts of parlia

ment that might stand in the way of peace. The need of the second provision is obvious; the need of the first is not so plain; but we are told, in a debate in the house of commons, by the attorney-general Wallace, who drew the bill and moved it, that it was intended to give the king a power of alienating those colonies; a power which he, and some others, considered the king as not possessing by the common law. Without saying any thing, at present, on the justness of such opinion, we allege it as the best testimony to the design of the act. This design is perfectly consistent with the conception and wording, and it does not appear to us necessary or proper to suppose any other meaning in this act. We conclude, therefore, that there was no particular design, by this legislative measure, to make any alteration in the character of the Americans, beyond that which necessarily must and always has followed upon the cession of any of his Majesty's colonies.

After these observations on the act for enabling the king to make peace, we come to the definitive treaty itself; and we find ourselves compelled to declare, that as we perceive no design in the act to enable the king to alter the personal character of the Americans, so in the treaty we discover no declaration or provision that can be construed expressly, or impliedly, to alter their original character of natural-born subjects, and to make them aliens.

In the first article of the treaty, the king acknowledges the United States of New Hampshire, &c. &c. to be free, sovereign, and independent states; and he relinquishes all claim to government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same. It is upon this provision, and these words, that the separation and independence