Having alluded to _the state of nature_, it may be proper in this place to observe, that the same poetic fancies are constantly played off on “natural rights,” as on liberty and equality; whereas, the slightest reflection ought to teach us, that all society is artificial and conventional, and that no man who enters into society can any farther lay claim to “natural rights” than the law allows. Every regulation of society is so far an infringement on natural rights, if, indeed, we have any correct notion of the meaning of these terms. It is difficult, indeed, to define natural rights. We have never yet seen it done, and confess our own inability for the task. What is the use, then, in talking about that for which we cannot find even a definition? We have a right, however, since it is used for practical purposes, to make it mean something. Say, then, that it means such rights as a savage would be entitled to, when alone in the desert, to do what he is inclined, as in such circumstances he would not interfere with any social right. But in society men give up their natural rights, if the above is a fair statement of what they are; and the law becomes the rule of right. The whole system of society is artificial, and at war with natural rights; and he who claims the privilege of natural right, in opposition to the established code of society, asserts the right of rebellion. We have no objection, however, that any body should give us a definition of natural rights, that would lead to a different conclusion, if it can be done; but till that time, we are compelled to say, that this talk about natural rights, for any practical purpose in society, is something we do not understand, unless, for example, it be the right to live and to breathe; and even that may be forfeited to the law. Suppose the murderer sentenced to be hung, should claim the privilege of natural rights--would he be heard? Natural rights, as we understand them, are not available in society, when they interfere with law. That is to say, the law is always above them, and must be, so long as it is judged best to maintain the social state. There is not a single natural right that can be named, which may not, in given cases, be abridged, or controlled, or superseded, or entirely suppressed, by the artificial organisation of society. To talk of natural right, therefore, as being paramount to law, simply because it _is_ natural right, is arrant nonsense--mere declamation, at best.