Against this view of Osorio may be set the following passage from Vattel, which has all the more weight, in that it is simply an enunciation of law and right, and is not written to support or to denounce any particular person. “Many distinctions will be necessary, in order to give a complete solution to the celebrated question, whether a man may _quit his country_, or _the society of which he is a member_. The children are bound by natural ties to the society in which they were born; they are under an obligation to shew themselves grateful for the protection it has afforded to their fathers, and are in a great measure indebted to it for their birth and education. They ought, therefore, to love it, as we have already shewn, to express a just gratitude to it, and requite its services as far as possible by serving it in turn. We have observed above, that they have a right to enter into the society of which their fathers were members. But every man is born free; and the son of a citizen, when come to the years of discretion, may examine whether it be convenient for him to join the society for which he was destined by his birth. If he does not find it advantageous to remain in it, he is at liberty to quit it, on making it a compensation for what it has done in his favour, and preserving, as far as his new engagements will allow him, the sentiments of love and gratitude he owes it.”—_Chitty’s translation of Vattel_, book I, cap. xix, § 220. There are also some remarkable passages in a pamphlet by Condorcet, dated October 25th, 1791, named _Opinion sur les Emigrants_. This opinion deserves attention, both on account of its author and the time in which it was written, when popular passions and prejudices were much excited against those who were expatriating themselves from France. Condorcet begins with the statement, that: “It is a great error to imagine that the public utility is not constantly to be found united with the rights of individuals, or that the public well-being may demand acts of real injustice. This error has everywhere been the eternal excuse for the inroads of tyranny, and the pretext for the artful manœuvres employed to establish it.[2]” “On the contrary, in the case of every measure that is proposed as useful, it must first be examined whether it is just. Should it not be so, it must be concluded that it had only an empty and fallacious appearance of utility.” * * * * *