The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1819-06-04 00:00:00

• • •
state, that when, in 1746, trial' Officers► serVing hi
a French corps. were taken An the British coast,
they were treated as prisoner* of war, when they
produced their commionrries in the F►eueh 'service.
A+t.,in, when a portion of the Irish brigade became
prisoner* to this country, they were not anbjected to
punishment, hut were taken into the English sera
vice. The Legislature dud not pass any mea-
sure to relieve them from the operation of the
9'h and ,29th of Gen: ill. No, they admitted
theta into she service of England—and their faith-
ful and gullatit behaviour proved hot wi►ely they
had ected.—(Hear. !,stir./—There were also, in
the Spanish service, Irish regiments : the regiment
of Hibernia, and several others. Yet individnala.
belonging to those corps, if taken, would not he
visited like malefactors. Sir Sidney Smith had
served en board the !Swedish fleet. yet Eriglatel
and Sweden continued at peace. In the battle be-
tweet' Admiral Rodney mild the Count de Grasse,
there were Swedish officers out board both fleets.—
How many Scotsmen haul served in the navy and
army of Busies ? Yet this circumstance never
called forth hostility front those powers against
whom Russia made war. During the arduous con-
test which had but recently concluded, were there
slot thousands of Danes and Swedes on board the
fleets of Great Britain ? Did they not assist in
supporting that empire over the ocean which this
couistry now maim:need ?—( 1104:v.1—This was the
fret--and would they now eatablish a new system—
would they make stew laws of neutrality—would
they impose severe penalties for the mere toleration
of that of which they hail themselves taken the
utmost advantage ?—/Bar. hear./—He would
tint quote l►eges from Puffendortf, Gratin!, or
Vottel—lisit he would say, without concealment,
that neutral powers had a right to suffer their sub-
jects to tailed into the service of foreign states.
without giving a preference to one state over
another. In 1796 this country took into its pay
corps of Hessians, II moverians, and Brunswickers—
, yet the Governineets to which those troops belong-
ed always remained neutral. The Swiss troops
were notoriously employed to support the respective
interests of hostile nations—yet no complaint was
ever muds ugaiust the Swiss Government on that
sec t. It was argued that America loud act-
ed on the some principle as that which was
recognised its this Bill. Ile admired America—he
viewed her wish feelings of Htlection—because she
continued within her bosom a bulwark of freedom,
where the oppressed might find refuge and safety.
Still he was not so much blinded by his attachment
to America es wit to feel that her spirit of aggran-
disement hail sectored her to go beyond what the
principles of justice and liberality dictated. Whet
had she done ? She, in the first instance, assisted
the South Americans—she supplied them with
vessels and with ammunition ; but Spain said to
her, " Give no further support to the South Ame•
ricans, and we will give you Florida"—and Florida
she had received as a hoots. The Gallant General
then briefly touched on the ambitious policy that
would probably he displayed by America, now she
had seethed this rich possession. She would, as
the price of further forbearance, demand Cuba.
When her object was effected, she would dash►
at the Main, and plant her standard in Mexico ;
and. having secured to herself the commerce
of South America, she would laugh at Eng-
land, as the dupe of her time-serving professions.
After a variety of observations on the injustice of
the Bill. which lie described as one that humanity
rejected and policy condemned—as a measure 10
favour of Ferdinuud and in opposition to freedom—
the Gallant General concluded by moving. " That
the Bill he read a second time this day six months."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL expressed his aur-
prise at sonic of the positions laid down by the Gal-
Witt General, who inward that individuals had a
right to enlist in the service of another state, even if
that state were at war with the Government to which
they belonged,—(" Au! no !"/—Such was the
inference to he drawn from the Gallant General's ar-
gutueut. He hail adduced cases where mercy was
skew's to individuals who belonged to the Irish bri-
gade. lie (the Attorney-General) did not quarrel
with these instances of lenity. But, if they were
i►itrnahuced cm this occasion, in opposition to the
principles of this Bill, lie most then contend, that
the inference was precisely what lie had stated—and
that the argument oent to give full power to indi-
vidual* to serve whatsoever potentate they pleased.
lle defied tiny ittilivalual to adduce a single
authority to prove, that when one state was at peace
with another, the subjects of tither had a right to
enlist in the service ol• a hostile power, mod thus to
break the neutrality thut previously subsisted. The
• principle of the Bill was this—that the sovereign
power of the realm had a right to direct its subjects
to do that which was legal—to command the obe-
dience of its ',Neror to a conformity with the acts
of the state. With reference to this principle it was,
that the law hail invested the Kisig with the autho-
rity to co tttttttttttt the return of those subjects who
departed from this country. Fran the earliest
times. the Monarchs of England possessed the
power of preventing their subjects from going
abroad ; although the mode of exerting that
power was not now in use. If such a power
did not exit, the cuusequence would be, that,
where the executive power had been forming leagues,
or professing sanity towards other nations, the state
would be a mere cipher—since bodies of men
might declare, that, in defiance of treaties, they
would erect themselves 100 a military forces and
contravene that which the state had undertaken to
do with reference to some foiendly power. This
Bill was founded also on the principle of the com-
mon low.—( Hear, hear,frour the Opposition.)--Why
then was this Bill naroduced ? Because, though the
Prince had by the common law the power of prevent.
Mg his subjects froze► enlisting in it foreign service,
• still that authotity was weak and italSeient. Why
was it 60 Because, till itidividus!r had left the
country—till they had committed the offrtice—the
Plit.ce had no actual and positive power to utter.
fere. Gentlemen had cheered loudly ',rhea he
said that this measure was founded on the common
law. When they did so, they acknowledged that
the act which it was intent to provide against was
opposed to the constouu law, mud was therefore cri-
ed. Could any per►oo argue. that, in the
midst of this metropolis, it was legal to enlist men
sod procure officers, for the purpose of employing
them against a power with whom England was
at peace ? Was it nut contrary to every principle
of mammal and municipal haw ? Unles► the House

1 pa..,.

e.-