their treason, which has plunged Spain in anarchy and bloodshed for so many years.[1] Rebellions have almost always been conducted by minorities; and as their justification does not depend upon the numerical importance of those engaged in them, it would follow that in the case of disnaturalisation, where numbers are not requisite, as in the case of armed insurrection, the right would exist equally even if the minority consisted only of one.
There are some writers on the Law of Nations, with whom I am agreed in general, who disapprove of the Naturalisation and Disnaturalisation Act of the Session of 1869. I am compelled to differ from them with respect to that measure, for the foregoing reasons, and also because it seems to me that they have lost sight of another circumstance which affects the question. So long as kingly power was a reality, personal allegiance and duty to the sovereign was a reality also. But now that modern innovation and corruption have substituted the rule of majorities for the kingly power, the feeling of the personal duty of the subject is almost lost; and the subject, or citizen, has become only one of an aggregation of individuals, or of an association of persons with equal rights; and each member of such an association has clearly the right to choose whether he will form part of it or not: so that whatever rights of expatriation may have existed in
- ↑ Thus Hazelrigg, Hampden, Cromwell, and Pym, are said to have been prevented by the Government from emigrating to New England in 1638. See Palfrey's Hist. of New England, vol. i, pp. 502, 503.
