national guard, or militia, well organized and disciplined, is necessary to secure a country against internal disorder, and external aggression; that its numbers should be proportioned to the emergency; and should even include, in extreme cases, the largest available share of the population. When called upon legally for such a service, (unless it admit of substitution, and that should appear, in his particular case, more proper,) he will obey the call, and fulfil his duty with faithful obedience and conscientious firmness. I do not affirm that there is no possible case in which he will consent to extend his service beyond its original limit; but, in order to his doing so conscientiously, the service solicited must be strictly specific. I intend to offer a few considerations on that subject, in the sequel.

In the mean time, it must be observed, (for the practical end of our present inquiries,) that the term country is not of so clear and self-evident meaning as may be commonly supposed; and that, when Christians of different nations, (if such there be,) holding

invaders) to the office of the civil power, than there is in the hostilities which take place abroad: and greater danger arises to a government from violations of justice or humanity in the employment of military force at home, than from the much more flagrant and frequent breach of these duties in foreign warfare.

G

opinions similar to those here advanced, would ascertain the extent of their duty, they must consider the practical meaning of that term. Let us therefore inquire, What is "one's country ?"-It is not co-extensive with language only. Three languages are spoken in the Swiss Cantons, which, nevertheless, by the character both of the territory and the inhabitants, we consider as naturally confederated, and forming but one country. The same number of languages still exists in Great Britain. Neither would the extent of the ori ginal social compact at all afford a definition of country, even supposing that this extent, and the real formation of the compact, could be ascertained. For, the extent of most, or perhaps all such compacts, (if indeed any ever formally took place,) has been variously enlarged by subsequent occurrences. Scotland came willingly under the same government with England, by the accession of its sovereign to the English throne, and afterwards more completely by the legislative union. The original extent of a country, if so defined, may have been also enlarged by conquest; for, that conquered part may be considered an integral part of a country, whose inhabitants have peaceably acquiesced in the rule of the conquerors. Thus the kingdoms of the heptarchy

were united; and thus the conquered principality of Wales has long been incorporated with England.

On the other hand, the idea of country cannot be properly attached to all territories which our government and our nation may conquer; although brought under the same authority, or even under the same laws. In the reign of Tiberius, an inhabitant of Rome or Etruria could not, with any propriety, call Britain or Judæa his country; or, in the reign of Napoleon, could a Frenchman, with any truth, speak of Holland, notwithstanding its annexation, in the same terms. Normandy could not be regarded by an Englishman as part of his country, though governed by his kings; nor can Bengal or Hanover now be so regarded. Reverting to my former observations on the custom of viewing States as individuals, I may add, that there is a sort of natural individuality of nations, very different from that political individuality of States. The national individual has been often cut asunder; as, on the other hand, the political individual has often consisted of several national ones, sometimes willingly connected, or sometimes forcibly chained together. By voluntary confederacy, two or more nations may

go hand in hand; but neither confederacy nor conquest can make two national individuals into one. Germany seems to be such an individual dissected. The Roman and the French empire were examples of the forced connexion of many. France, Italy, and Spain, if brought under one government, could not, I apprehend, be viewed as naturally one country. Still less could the union of Austria and the Netherlands with Spain, and the South American empires under Charles V., bring countries so completely severed to be regarded as Great Britain, Hanover, and the East Indian empire, must be viewed in the same light. But even the natural divisions of the earth are so indefinite, and its political divisions so much more so, that a strict definition of the term country seems impracticable.* It is, nevertheless, obvious, from the foregoing considerations, that, in regard to the duty of public defence, a distinction must be made between the country and the State; otherwise, that duty, in modern times, and maritime nations, might extend to each quarter of the globe. Some

one.

* The natural country may be only a part of the political, as Holland of the kingdom of the Netherlands, or different countries of the Russian empire. On the contrary, the political country is often but a part of the natural, as Hanover of Northern Germany, and Naples of Southern Italy. The political country is sometimes but a part of the State, as Great Britain and Ireland of the whole British dominions.

V

approach, therefore, at least negatively, to a definition of country, is necessary. It is self-evident, that no territory can be considered a part of one's country, with reference to the duty of public defence, which is not a part of the State; but to this, I conceive, we may add, that those territories which are a part of the State, cannot be regarded as a part of our country, if separated from the spot we dwell on by the territory of another State, or by the ocean. This rule may be very far from meeting all practical difficulties; but it will, at least, decide many points. It shows, that the general duty of defending his country could not oblige an Austrian to engage to serve in the Netherlands, while those provinces belonged to his Emperor; nor a Spaniard or Englishman to enter a service whose conditions should extend to Peru, Bengal, or Hanover. The term, ocean, which I have used above, does not apply to streights or channels separating islands from the continent, or neighbouring islands from each other. It, therefore, leaves the question open, Whether Great Britain and Ireland are to be considered as naturally one country; and, were this decided in the negative, still a second would follow, Whether a cluster of islands, under one government, (such as these two with the islets on their