on the law of nations; particularly of the celebrated Bynkershoek, who was President of the Courts of Holland. On the question, whether it be a breach of neutrality to allow a friendly belligerent to levy troops in your territory, he answers in the negative. In the war of the Bishop of Munster against Holland, in 1666, the States-General complained to the Governor of the Spanish Netherlands, that he permitted the former to levy troops in his (the Governor's) territories against the States. And what did he reply to them? That the Bishop of Munster was his friend, and that the Spanish territories were as open to his levies as they were to the States for the same purpose. A great breach of the law, forsooth! Why, what would they say in the case of one of the greatest princes and most valiant leaders Europe ever saw? Every body knew that the great Gustavus Adolphus had with him not a small proportion of British troops; not a little smuggled army, and a few half-pay officers, on board a transport or two in the Downs, but a Scotch army of 6,000 men; an army which, united with a handful of other troops, enabled him to traverse a great part of Europe, burst the slavish fetters which manacled his country, and give liberty to Germany. And who was the commander of those 6,000 men? Not a Sir Gregor McGregor, of whom he knew little, and for whom he certainly cared nothing; but the Marquis of Hamilton, a man of the first distinction and consequence in his own country, and the personal friend of his King; from whom, however, he had no li cence. Yet, at that time, the Spanish and Imperial Ambassadors were resident in London; but never presumed to make a demand like that in question. Vattel had distinctly said, that it was no breach of neutrality for a nation to allow its sub

jects to serve one belligerent, and refuse them to another. He (Sir J. Mackintosh) begged to make one more allusion to the time of James I. A great body of English troops, commanded by one of the most gallant captains of his day, Sir Horace Vere, served against the Spaniards, and received pay from a foreign power. Yet Gondomar, the Spanish Ambassador, whom the King (James) was endeavouring by every means to conciliate, and to whose court he was even then making the basest and most abject submission, did not dare to ask that which was now proposed in a British House of Commons. Gondomar, the ambassador of a haughty and powerful court, the almost Viceroy of Spain, and the murderer of a man eminent for all the accomplishments and splendid talents of rare and unbounded genius, Sir Walter Raleigh; a poet, a philosopher, a statesman, a skilful soldier, an intrepid seaman; in short, one of those in whom appeared every requisite necessary for a character of heroic greatness-Gondomar, whose influence procured his destruction, and whose power placed him beyond punishment, even he never had the courage to demand of Parliament such a concession. It was not more important as a question affecting the ruined commerce of a great country, than as a most dangerous precedent; because hereafter the envoys of despotic powers might besiege the doors of a British minister, with claims equally novel, unfounded, and disgraceful, and say to him, "You cannot surely refuse to us what you have granted to such a man as Ferdinand!" What they had refused to the greatest of modern military tyrants and despotic sovereigns; what they had denied to Louis XIV. and Philip II., they were required to give to Ferdinand VII., by whom the feelings of all men breathing were

excited in a way which he would not describe. The simple question then was, whether they would change their laws at the desire of foreign power? Now, among honourable gentlemen opposite, there was a disposition not very favourable to any reform in general: they saw only one defect in our laws which they would wish to remedy. The constitution framed by our ancestors, more with a view to their own liberty, than the desires of foreign nations, did not perhaps possess sufficient conveniences; it did not possibly enable the Minister, in reply to the applications of foreign ambassadors, to say, with a smile, that certainly every thing should be done to meet the enlightened and benevolent wishes of that Marcus Aurelius of Spain, Ferdinand VII. That coarse system of our ancestors was hardly in unison with the ideas of Ministers, which dwelt upon the refined and improved governments of the continental powers; and, therefore, they must have something by way of imitation-an alien act for instance. When, in 1802, Lord Liverpool, the then Secretary of State, replied to Napoleon, with certainly as much propriety as it came from the Barons of old, "Nolumus leges Angliæ mutare," they did not leave the Parliament for the Minister. They should have told Ferdinand, that the law should be obeyed, and that he must be satisfied; and since the time of Louis XIV. every power in Europe had been compelled to be satisfied with, or to acquiesce in, the existing law. There was one sort of aid which this country would give to Spain, and not to the Insurgents: and that was an aid which the proposed bill did not guard against; he meant the supply of transports to the King of Spain. This then was an omission which bore about it all the marks of the most anti-neutral spirit, and

which amounted to a flagrant violation of the neutrality recognised by the treaty of 1814. That treaty was all favourable to the Spanish King, and by the stipulation which we entered into, of not assisting his Catholic Majesty's subjects against Spain, which subjects in South America we professed our wish to reconcile to the authority of his Majesty, we fixed a stigma of rebellion upon those very persons towards whom we now affected a neutrality. For his own part, in a contest between ty ranny and superstition on the one hand, and liberty, or even a gleam of liberty, on the other, his heart never could be neutral. Among the titles of Ferdinand to the concession he now asked of us, the Noble Lord had not stated whether there was to be numbered his readiness in meeting the applications of several ambassadors; and, among others, of the Noble Lord himself, relative to the release and liberty of some of those unfortunate gentlemen who had incurred his displeasure. Among them was a Mr Arguelles, a name which had lately received an eulogy from one of the highest authorities in Europe. The Noble Lord had talked, too, about the slave trade; but what Ferdinand did for money, the insurgent provinces did voluntarily; what Ferdinand did after long reluc tance, the Cortes had done before in an instant. What, then, was the merit of these infant states-when their conduct was contrasted with that of European ones, when it was considered that these provinces were themselves imbued with all those Creolean prejudices which must have militated against such a determination? The honourable and learned member concluded his speech, by calling the attention of the House to the melancholy fate of the Cortes, an assembly to which Spain was so vi

tally indebted. It had been said, that they (the Cortes) were not a recognised assembly: but had we not ourselves accepted from them a trophy of the victorious successes which had distinguished the period of their government, and engraved upon it an inscription, in which their name was coupled with that of the greatest captain of the age? Yet these were the very men who were now doomed to languish in dungeons and obscurity, the victims of that monarch in whose favour the measure was proposed.

In

Mr Canning, impelled by a sense of duty, rose, he observed, with considerable reluctance, to remove the splendid impediment which the honourable and learned gentleman had placed to what he thought the only fair and strict view of the case. proceeding to reply to some of the honourable and learned member's statements, which certainly abounded in eloquent invectives, he could assure him it was from no wish to pass lightly over his magnificent speech. Was it the case that no government, actuated by a spirit of freedom, had attempted to restrain the subject from serving in war any of the belligerent powers of the world? Was there any thing disgraceful, was there any thing incompatible with that spirit of freedom, in enabling a government to lay that restraint upon the actions of the subject? If so, how did it happen that the honourable gentleman approved so cordially of the proclamation of 1817? That was a proclamation, which absolutely prohibited the entrance of British subjects into the Spanish colonies; and in this act, almost the only public one of the kind, a high spirit of impartiality had been shewn, which deserved imitation by every nation. The honourable gentleman had cited many instances

from history in which the engagements of the subject in foreign service had not only been permitted but encouraged by the government. The fact was certainly indisputable; but the honourable gentleman was not to learn, that in respect to military service the state of Europe had materially altered since the time of Elizabeth and James I. Since those times most material alterations had been made; but it was not the policy of Government, but the temper of the times which had undergone a change. Instances of a contrary tendency, however, were to be found. It surely could not have been forgotten, that in 1794 this country complained of various breaches of neutrality on the part of the United States of America. What then was the conduct of that nation? Did the Americans resent these complaints as infringements of their independence? Did they refuse to take such steps as would ensure the observance of neutrality? An act was immediately passed the legislature of that country, which prohibited, under heavy penalties, the engagement of their citizens in the armies of any belligerent power. But was this the only instance in which the Americans had been guilty of this compliance to the wishes of England? It was but last year that the United States passed a law, by which the act of 1794 was confirmed in every respect. This step was taken by Government, not because any concessions were expected, but because Spain was weak and powerless; because her resentment, if at any time it might be roused, would be followed by no evil consequences. The most eloquent appeals had been made to the magnanimity and generosity of this Government; and it was asked, why should there be any interference? Did the honourable

gentleman think that it would be a wholesome state of things, that troops for foreign service should be suffered to parade about the streets of the metropolis without the power of Government to interfere? If a foreigner should happen to come in to our ports, and see all this mighty armament equipped for foreign service, he would naturally ask, "With what nation are you at war?" The answer would be, "With none." "For what purpose, then," he would ask, "are these troops levied, and by whom?" The reply of course would be, "Not by the Government, nor is it known for what service the army is intended; and be the service what it may, the Government cannot interfere." Would not this give the foreigner a high idea of the freedom of the British constitution? He was, however, most anxious that neither the House nor the country should be deceived, either by the show of magnanimity which was displayed by taking up the cause, or by any idea of real utility this country might derive in forwarding the interests of the Independents. This country saved European Spain. The fact was recorded in the page of history; but did Spain believe it? England by its exertions might save South America; but would the Independents acknowledge it? No; all the troops which could possibly be sent, would be but flies upon the wheel. Deluded by false expectations, numbers flocked to this land of milk and honey; but they would soon find that all their mighty notions were disappointed, and that at home they would have obtained more riches than if they had sacrificed themselves to this worthless cause. There was not a man in South America, who had there sacrificed himself, possessing any talents, who was not an object

of jealousy and hatred, and who, if refractory, was not now languishing in a dreary dungeon. With a knowledge of these dreadful and melancholy facts, was Government to stand idle and see these gallant men, deserving a much better fate, hurried away to suffer nothing but degradation, hatred, and punishment? He was not disposed to take any benefit of the argument which might be founded on the character of the Insurgent states; whether an acknowledged or an unacknowledged power, he would maintain towards Spanish America the strictest good faith; he would cultivate her friendship by every legitimate means, but not by recruiting her armies with our soldiers, not by a breach of faith to Old Spain. If the executive Government were not now armed with the requisite power, and if before next summer the country should exhibit the scandalous and disgraceful scenes of lawless bands parading through the streets, let not Ministers be blamed; for they had warned Parliament of the danger, and had called on them for power to prevent it.

The right honourable gentleman was followed by Mr Scarlett who opposed, and Mr Serjeant Copley who defended the bill; and after a few remarks from Mr Brougham and Lord Castlereagh, the House resolved itself into a Committee, when the bill was discussed, clause by clause, several verbal amendments made, and thus amended, agreed to, and the report ordered to be received on the following day, which was done accordingly; and on the 12th, the bill was read a third time and passed.

In its passage through the Lords, this bill gave rise to a great deal of very animated and interesting discussion, particularly on the motion of

the Earl Bathurst, for the House resolving itself into a Committee to take into consideration its several provisions and enactments. In its progress, several amendments, imposing various pecuniary penalties, were proposed and adopted. On the 2d of July, these amendments were sent down to the Commons; and together with one proposed by Mr Denman, that the informer who gave false evidence in the cases mentioned in the act should be considered guilty of perjury, and liable to all the punishments inflicted on it -agreed to, and these several amendments declared to stand part of this bill. In this state, the bill finally passed both Houses, and became law,

The labours of Mr Brougham, on the subject of the education of the poor, are too well known to require any distinct specification, and too meritorious to need praise. There can be no doubt, that numerous and almost incredible abuses were brought to light by the energy and perseverance of the Education Committee, and that the indefatigable zeal, industry, and research of the Chairman deserved the splendid eulogium bestowed on him by Mr Wilberforce in his place in Parliament. Although the substantive measure, in which the inquiries of that committee terminated, was lost, something in the way of legislative interference was loudly called for. A bill was therefore introduced by Lord Castlereagh, in which the greater part of the measures recommended by Mr Brougham was adopted; and in its progress, several of his suggestions were received; particularly for increasing the number of commissioners, in whose hands the bill proposed to vest the care and superintendence of all charitable endowments; as also

for exempting the commissioners from making a report to either House of Parliament, that drawn up for the King in Council being sufficient. On the occasion of the third reading of the bill, Mr Peel availed himself of the opportunity to remark rather severely and pointedly on some supposed irregular proceedings of Mr Brougham, as Chairman of the Committee for 1816. This called up

Mr Brougham, who defended himself against the charges brought forward, and retorted on Mr Peel, in a strain of the most powerful and cutting sarcasm. A long desultory debate ensued; but in the end, the bill was read a third time and passed.

The attention of Parliament was this session, as usual, directed to that most complex and inextricable of all questions, Parliamentary Reform. We do not propose at present to enter upon this wide field of inquiry. Prejudice, interest, and feeling, unite in attaching the great body of men to the system as it at present exists; and with the more sober and less speculative class of the community, it always appears dangerous in the extreme to put to the peril of an uncertain experiment, the substantial benefits that flow from the existing state of the representation, corrupt as it has been called. The value of any system is best determined by its practical effects; and, in the affairs of men, experience has often demonstrated that the actual result of innovating on established modes can never be determined or guided by the theoretical principles upon which they proceed. If a House of Commons that represents the property, the wisdom, the talents, and the feelings of the community, be reckoned the best that can be probably formed, we shall have little doubt in forming our estimate of the exist