TO MR. BARLOW.
Philadelphia, June 20, 1792.
Dear Sir,—Though I am in hopes you are now on the ocean home-bound, yet I cannot omit the chance of my thanks reaching you, for your "Conspiracy of Kings" and advice to the privileged orders, the second part of which I am in hopes is out by this time. Be assured that your endeavors to bring the trans-Atlantic world into the road of reason, are not without their effect here. Some here are disposed to move retrograde, and to take their stand in the rear of Europe, now advancing to the high ground of natural right; but of all this your friend Mr. Baldwin gives you information, and doubtless paints to you the indignation with which the heresies of some people here fill us.
This will be conveyed by Mr. Pinckney, an honest, sensible man, and good republican. He goes our Minister Plenipotentiary to London. He will arrive at an interesting moment in Europe. God send that all the nations who join in attacking the liberties of France may end in the attainment of their own. I still hope this will not find you in Europe, and therefore add nothing more than assurances of affectionate esteem from, dear Sir, your sincere friend and servant.
TO PETER CARR.
Philadelphia, June 22, 1792.
Dear Sir,—I received in due time your favor of May 28, with the notes it contained on the subject of Waste. Your view of the subject, as far as it goes, is perfectly proper. Perhaps, on such a question in this country, where the husbandry is so different, it might be necessary to go further, and inquire whether any difference of this kind should produce a difference in the law. The main objects of the law of waste in England are, 1st, to prevent any disguise of the lands which might lessen the revisioner's evidence of title, such as the change of pasture into arable; 2d, to prevent any deterioration of it, as the cutting down forest, which in England is an injury. So careful is the law there against permitting a deterioration of the land, that though it will permit such improvements in the same line, as manuring arable lands, leading water into pasture lands, &c., yet it will not permit improvements in a different line, such as erecting buildings, converting pasture into arable, &c., lest this should lead to a deterioration. Hence we might argue in Virginia, that though the cutting down of forest in Virginia is, in our husbandry, rather an improvement generally, yet it is not so always, and therefore it is safer never to admit it. Consequently, there is no reason for adopting different rules of waste here from those established in England.
Your objection to Lord Kaims, that he is too metaphysical, is just, and it is the chief objection to which his writings are liable. It is to be observed also, that though he has given us what should be the system of equity, yet it is not the one actually established, at least not in all its parts. The English Chancellors have gone on from one thing to another without any comprehensive or systematic view of the whole field of equity, and therefore they have sometimes run into inconsistencies and contradictions.