coasts,) ought not to be considered as politically one country, in which case the State may justly claim from their inhabitants a joint and mutual public defence.*

our own.

We are here reminded of a branch of the defence of country, which is of great importance to maritime nations, and, above all, to Divine Providence has afforded to Britain a peculiar bulwark of its independence, in the sea which surrounds it. even this bulwark, unhappily, requires to be manned and armed. The art of navigation was early made instrumental, by unjust and rapacious man, (who has been prompt in ap

But

* On the other hand, though I have laid down a rule (which, I presume, will be admitted) as to what can not be termed, even politically, one's country, we are not obliged to infer, that, in all instances, every part of the State to which that rule does not apply, must be considered so: that, for example, a Livonian may be justly required to defend the Chinese frontier of Russia, or an inhabitant of New Orleans or Illinois to serve on the Canadian border of the States. It is clear, that this would not be the defence of what may be naturally called his country; and it would seem to be both just and politic in those governments to introduce other limitations, according to the natural boundaries which must divide such immense territories into different countries. Yet this might be said in apology for claiming so wide a defensive service, that contiguous countries, forming one vast State, are the less liable to attack; and, if attacked, the inland or midland countries are screened from being the seat of war by the rest: whereas, in States whose component parts are intersected by other dominions, or by the ocean, the separate countries lie much more open to attack, although united under one government.

plying his " many inventions" to evil uses,) for the purpose of more extended hostility and conquest. The sea did not secure our island from repeated invasion and subjugation, till the island itself possessed an armed marine. And, though it may be fairly argued, that the inhabitants (even when much less numerous than in later times) were able to defend their country on its own shores,* we are feelingly convinced, that a naval force guards us with incomparably more certainty, at less expence of blood, and with far less extension of the ravages and miseries of war, than must take place on the land. Every Briton must acknowledge, with gratitude, that the navy has been, under Divine Providence, the invaluable means of our national safety and internal tranquillity. It It appears, therefore, that (since these are the true purposes which justify à State in calling on its subjects to bear arms) the government of our own, and of every other maritime nation, has the same right to claim of its sea-faring subjects a defensive naval ser

* Hume remarks, that the "loss sustained in the fatal battle of Hastings might have been repaired by a great nation, where the people were generally armed, and where there resided so many powerful noblemen in every province." And he assigns the disputed succession, the incompetency of Edgar Atheling to conduct their affairs, the previous subjection of the nation to the Danes, and their indifference to the maintenance of their own liberties, as essentially contributing to the Conqueror's easy success.-Hist vol. i. p. 231.

vice, as it has to require of other subjects a home service on shore. I do not ground this opinion on that alleged "sovereignty of the four seas," which our ancient kings asserted by their fleets, and Selden by argument:* for, my reasonings are not designed to apply to Great Britain exclusively; and it appears to me much more natural and just to regard the sea as free, and not belonging to any nation; the great highway between all maritime countries, but the property of none. If, when a man's dwelling is threatened by banditti, he procures officers of justice to guard it, and finds it is expedient to station them before the house, or round it, in the public highway, or in the square where he resides, his principle and their conduct are not less defensive than if they were placed within the walls. And this case fairly illustrates, in my judgment, the principle on which a naval force may be accounted purely defensive. Its general service might, I conceive, be justly extended beyond that of defensive land forces; viz. from the defence of country to that of other territories of the same government: and for these reasons; that the seaman, by the very nature of his occupation, is forced to quit his

* See Jacob's Law Dictionary, article, Navy.

country, and visit distant lands; so that his defending of the shores of other territories, occupied by his fellow subjects, is not a new kind of service, though a more remote one than that of the "circumfluent" seas: and also, that, from his commercial calling, he has a peculiar connexion with his transmarine fellow subjects, and a special interest in their defence. It would appear just, however, that the much greater extent of this service, and the much greater hardships and dangers involved in it, should be compensated, in ordinary circumstances, by a more limited duration of it; though every limitation in point of time, must yield to the paramount claim of national danger. But this opinion on the right of maritime States to require naval service from certain classes of subjects, neither favours the practice of impressing, as to the general manner, nor the acknowledged "abuses of its exercise;"* nor does it necessarily extend to the unlimited sea service for which it is allowed in this country.

* Lord Mansfield, cited in Blackstone's Commentaries, vol. i. page 420. note.-Christian's edition. The view which some of our first lawyers have taken of " the power of pressing," seems very just, but not very applicable to a navy whose service is unlimited. Lord Mansfield says, It can have no ground to stand upon, nor can it be vindicated or justified by any reason but the safety of the State." Cited,

66

ubi supra. ~

In the argument of my last Letter, that a Christian whose conscience is fully informed, cannot enter an unlimited military service, I did not attempt to disprove the right of governments to compel this; reserving my observations on that point to this branch of the discussion. If the manner of raising land forces in this country, for unlimited service, were proposed to be compulsory, it would be thought by all who have not wholly apostatized from the principles of British freedom, an intolerable measure. Even those who retain little or no regard to these principles, have exclaimed loudly against the conscriptions of the French government, as one of the most grievous abuses The system pursued in Prussia is no less arbitrary. I heard it, in 1817, repeatedly affirmed, in that country, (particularly in the Rhenish provinces, which were subject to France till the late peace,) that the Prussian levy is much more oppressive in the manner and extent of its enforcement, than was the conscription of Buonaparte. Will any distinction be here attempted, as to the better right of legitimate governments, and the probability that they will never so greatly abuse the power of raising an armed force for unlimited service compulsorily? Could, then, Paul of Russia, or Frederic the Great, or

of

power.