1808, the Patriot war broke out, and those prohibitory duties were withdrawn. In 1814, Ferdinand was restored, and he introduced the commercial relations that existed previously to 1796: on the faith of his decrees British merchants imported into Spain large quantities of our manufactures, and followed them up by very extensive orders; yet would the House believe, that, in less than six months afterwards, that Monarch, who owed his very existence to this country, re-imposed the very prohibitory duties which Buonaparte had compelled in 1806, and he besides took care that the decree should have a retrospective operation. This was one of the favours for which we were indebted to the present Spanish Government. Since that date still heavier duties had been laid on British goods; so that in truth the trade had been totally destroyed. But if such were the conduct of Ferdinand towards us as a nation, the instances of individual outrage were gross and tyrannical beyond conception, beyond even the lawless tyranny of an eastern despot. The Spanish cabinet had not only set at defiance the clearest law of nations, but had disregarded its own municipal regulations, for the purpose of oppressing the merchants of this kingdom. One case, selected from many, would be sufficient for the present occasion: it was that of a Mr Simpson, a merchant, who had been subjected to the most grievous oppression, not in a distant province, but in the purlieus of the court, in the heart of the capital. His house had been forcibly entered on the 14th of October 1816, all his books seized, and a sentry placed over his person he of course remonstrated, but our envoy at Madrid, Mr Vaughan, could obtain neither redress nor explanation; and at the end of a

fortnight Mr Simpson's house was again entered at night by armed men, who threatened instant death if he did not disclose where his property was kept. He was still kept in custody for some days, and at last was released; but from that hour to the present, justice had been refused, and he had not been able to obtain the restoration of a single article of his property. Such had been the conduct of the myrmidons of the court of Spain, notwithstanding it had been constantly provided, ever since the treaty of Utrecht, that the persons and dwellings of British merchants should be held sacred. Did the Noble Lord imagine that Spain, the moment she regained an ascendancy in her colonies, would not exclude our commerce? Did he not know, that while she had any authority, she had punished with death the natives who carried on intercourse with any nation but the mother country? Were we then to submit to all kinds of insults from Spain, to have our manufactures excluded, our trade ruined, and to do nothing on behalf of millions of men, who, on the other side of the globe, were anxious to receive us with open arms, and to compensate in the New World for what we had lost in the Old? It appeared that Buenos Ayres received British manufactures to the amount of more than L. 2,000,000 annually, while the utmost that had been sent to the mother country did not exceed L. 400,000. What comparison, therefore, was there between. the two, and how short-sighted was the policy Ministers were endeavouring to pursue? If this bill passed, though the hope of emancipation might not be destroyed, the event must be retarded. The South Americans turned to Great Britain as to a land of succour and freedom; and ifthey were disappointed, their disgust

would be in proportion to their despair. They would then of necessity direct their eyes to the great commercial and naval rival of this country, with whom we were at peace it was true, but with whom that peace would continue only just as long as suited the interests of that rival. He would venture to prophesy, that within six months after the passing of this bill, the Buenos-Ayres Government would be recognised by the United States, a commercial treaty would be formed, and the United States would at least monopolize the carrying trade, and undersell us with our own goods in the South American markets. Upon the legal part of the question he only wished to remark, that the acts of the 9th and 29th Geo. II. were completely a dead letter on our statutebook only three British subjects were serving with the King's licence in the Royal Armies of South America, while from 50 to 60 were serving without licence, and under those statutes were guilty of felony. If any additional proof were wanting that the acts were a dead letter, it was found in this fact, that only on Thursday last, two British officers, without licence, in the service of Ferdinand, and consequently felons by the existing law, in full Spanish uniform, at the Prince Regent's levee, took their formal leave. The utmost Spain could expect was the repeal of those two statutes. He opposed the bill, because it was calculated not only to destroy the best interests of the country, but to degrade it in the eyes of all Europe.

Mr F. Robinson contended, that if the arguments of the honourable gentleman were well founded, he had made out a case to prove that this country could not without dishonour avoid declaring war against Spain. If there were any founda

tion for the charges adduced, and if the gloomy colours in which the conduct of Spain had been painted were at all warranted, Great Britain had no choice left. With regard to the question itself, there could be no doubt that the Crown had a prerogative right to establish a neutrality, and any violation of it was punishable at common law. The measure was founded upon these admitted facts; and if it went further than the common law, it was because there was a specific obligation by a special treaty with Spain, binding this country to take the most effectual measures to prevent its subjects from supplying arms to the revolted Americans. It was therefore, of course, the wish of Ministers not to make a mere shew of neutrality, and their sincerity was first evinced by the royal proclamation. The agents of the Insurgents, notwithstanding, had succeeded in enlisting hundreds of men the very instant they were disbanded from our own regiments; and if this Government were to act with any regard to good faith in its engagements, it was bound to adopt some more effectual measure. Great ingenuity had been shown in endea vouring to prejudice the House by calling in aid passions and interests; and the first objection was, that the bill had been introduced at the suggestion of a foreign power. True it was, the dictations of other states ought not to be attended to: for instance, when Buonaparte required the prosecution of the free press of this country, after the peace of Amiens, the Government would have disgraced itself by compliance; but when treaties were involved, how could a foreign power obtain redress but by war, if its remonstrances were not listened to? In 1794, a treaty precisely similar was entered into between Great Britain and the United

States, and we had been obliged to make representations that the con. ditions were not fulfilled, and an act to endure for three years was passed: at the end of that time the same act was continued at the suggestion of Great Britain; and if it had not been attended to, a justifiable cause of war would unquestionably have been afforded. So, here, Spain would have a justifiable cause for declaring war, if we did not do our utmost to fulfil our treaty; and though her weakness might deter her from hazarding hostilities, with a generous nation that ought to be the very reason why all cause of complaint should be removed. This might be further illustrated by a reference to the expedition of Sir Gregor M'Gregor: he raised his troops in this country, he obtain ed the ships to transport them in this country, yet had no commission from any sovereign authority, and had not one foot of ground in the country to which he was proceeding. He went to attack a part of the territory still adhering to Old Spain, with which this country carried on a very advantageous trade; and though he had a right perhaps to attack Spanish property, he could not assail that of Great Britain, without being guilty of the most atrocious acts of piracy and robbery. Having done so, where was redress to be obtained? Sir Gregor Macgregor had no court but his ship, no law but his sword; and in a case of that kind, it was the absolute duty of Government to take some steps for the protection of the commercial interests of the kingdom, even supposing that honour and honesty were out of the question. Next it was urged, that the cause of the South Americans was just, that it was most fitly and naturally popular in Great Britain, and that to support it would importantly relieve the

commercial and manufacturing interests of the kingdom. No man could be more sensible than he (Mr Robinson) was of the impolicy and injustice of the system pursued by Old Spain towards her colonies for centuries; and no man who loved liberty could wonder that the struggle in which the Insurgents were engaged, excited a strong feeling in their favour here. He knew, too, that commercial pressure was at this moment peculiarly felt, and of course that there was great anxiety that this field for speculation should be opened; yet, recollecting the solemn treaties entered into by this country, he could not but pause, at least, before he consented to sacrifice to feeling and interest the honour and good faith of the nation : in his view, nothing on earth should be held so dear by a country as fidelity in its engagements. Upon the whole, therefore, he (Mr Robinson) held the measure to be of the last importance to our character; and it was impossible that the British Parliament should reject it, unless it preferred the gratification of passion, and the promotion of interest, to the preservation of good faith and national honour.

Sir James Mackintosh began by declaring that he should confine himself to the strict question of neutrality; and would undertake to prove to the House, that with the exception of the clause which went to repeal the acts of George II., the effect of the bill would be the destruction, not the protection of our neutrality. He did not object to this because it was a bill brought in at the request and on the representations of another power, but because he dissented from its provisions; he did not object to it because it was the first statute put on their books, or attempted to be put, by the Spanish ambassador, exercising a power

which was rather unprecedented, he believed; he opposed it upon other grounds. He was certainly much surprised to hear the right honourable gentleman who had just spoken upon the subject with so much eloquence and clearness, drawing, from the same premises, so different an inference to what he himself had done. Neutrality, he thought, consisted, firstly, in a government's abstaining from giving to one of two belligerent powers any undue influence over the other; and, secondly, in the impartiality of its laws to both these belligerents. Now, it appeared from the very reference to the statutes of George II., which were enacted under particular circumstances, that the common law of England on this point was strictly impartial. He should be glad to know how these statutes, being coupled with the proclamation of 1817, would make this bill necessary? If not, any act made in regard to Spain, which was not strictly fair as between herself and her colonies, was a breach of neutrality: and this, necessarily, a work of supererogation? They were called upon to pass it just when it suited the policy and the necessities of Spain to ask it of them. Much had been said about the acts of George II.; but if the right honourable gentleman had read them over with as much care as he (Sir James Mackintosh) had done, he would have found that by the 9th George II. officers entering into the service of Spain were not guilty of capital felony it was serving the King of France which was held to be so by that statute. The 29th of the same reign declared private soldiers so situated guilty of felony; no penalty was denounced against the officers. It was well known to all those conversant with the private history of the reign of George II., that at no time were individuals more affected

by laws of this nature, than during the period between 1733 and 1736, when, from the common error of mistaking the unpopularity of the minister for the unpopularity of the reigning family, the Jacobites and other disaffected persons were induced to enter into foreign services, with the view of availing themselves of that spirit of discontent which they were perpetually fancying they observed at home. The common law of this country was equally impartial in its efficacies and its inefficacies with regard to Spain, and in its conveniencies and inconve niencies with regard to both bellige rents. It was the duty of all neutral powers that their laws should be thus impartial; but their efficacy was a very different question. That depended upon considerations of policy, expediency, feeling, the temper of the people, and other circumstances. The right honourable gentleman had adverted with becoming spirit to the interference of Napoleon in the year 1802 in regard to the British press. He concurred with him in the indignant warmth he had manifested upon that point; but it was strange the very language which was then used was now urged in support of the bill. What was done upon that occasion was well known; but because a verdict at common law was obtained by the head of the French Government, did any man propose, that a bill should be brought in to abolish the liberty of the press? The evil which it was now proposed to remedy, it had been said, there was nothing in the common law that could prevent. But they had nothing to regret, therefore: if the common law had never contemplated it, would any one endure the interference of a foreign power in such a subject? The honourable gentleman had remarked upon the conduct of the United States in this particular. The United States concluded a trea

ty, and passed an act to put it into execution; and why should not we do so? Because the common law of England was sufficient, while that of America was not; because the power of making war or peace was not vested in the President of the United States as it was in our King. In America, then, a legislative act was necessary. As the proclamation of 1817 was still in force, how could any legislative measure be necessary here? It was something remarkable, that in a great commercial nation, which had so long flourished in security and glory, a bill of this kind should now be first introduced into Parliament. He would ask, admitting the truth and existence of the evil complained of, yet, even then, why were they to pass a bill so favourable to the party at whose instance it was framed? Why was Ferdinand VII. to be so favoured, a name on which he should fasten no epithets, because it could receive no addition from any thing which he could say, to those with which it was already loaded? Would they, the honourable gentlemen opposite, require Parliament to arraign the wisdom of their ancestors, and alter and invert those ancient laws which had existed throughout so many centuries? Was this true? could it be denied that they, that we had existed for a long time? and yet, in that period, was such an application as the present ever before made? If ever, it was by the same power in the reign of James I., after the memorable treaty of 1694, which put an end to a long war; and when James, in his precipitate eagerness to reconcile himself with the legitimate Princes of the Continent, first began to depart from those maxims of sound policy, which had put Elizabeth, his glorious predecessor, at the head of what he might term, a body of national inde

pendence. With the permission of the House, he would advert to an old document, which was strikingly in point. In the Memoirs of Sir Ralph Winwood, who was secretary to James I., there was a letter from him to Sir Harry Nevil: it related to a bill then lately brought in, which made it penal for a subject to go abroad into the service of a foreign power, without having first taken the oath of allegiance (as it had been then recently framed): from this he would just observe, it was quite clear that it had never been considered an offence by the common law. In the letter, which was dated July 8. 1616, Sir Harry Nevil, who had introduced the bill, observed, "that it was confined to those who entered the service of Popish princes only; but he added, the lords had spoiled the bill by making its provisions universal. Upon mentioning this circumstance to Lord Salisbury, that nobleman told him it was of no consequence, seeing how easily the amendment might be evaded." Sir Harry Nevil then went on to say, there was an apprehension of the interference of Spain; and in fact, the Lords were solicited by that power for much the same concessions as the present. But the ancient friends and councillors of Elizabeth refused to follow such a disgraceful and degrading course; and nothing appeared to show that Spain ever thought we had acted contrary to the law of nations. But instances of service like that complained of, being embarked in by subjects of this realm, were innumerable; and as the honourable gentlemen on the opposite side seemed to be more partial to them, he would mention some Spanish examples, as most to their taste. Nor were facts and historical experience the only authorities against the principle of the proposed. bill, but there was that of the writers