The Sun.
London, England, 1833-08-07 00:00:00

f.) protect itself. The lion. 'Gentleman had talked about
nilitaty men going Into the service of foreign st tee Now
Vattel, and that other G. !man civilian of whom he ha.
poker), would tel. the Hon. Member that no neutrality
..uld be maintained where soldiers were saPPlie'

a hi ent.--(Hear, hear.) He must deny
-',at the officers of this country who entered into the
et viee of furl igners were compelled to do .o by want co
iteress, for at all events they had their half-pay.—(Hear,
ran ) He would nor, however, oppose the repeal of this
till, although he must add, if it were the object of thi-
;tivernment to preserve a strict neutrality in such a case
s 'hat of Portugal, neither men, mosey, nor ammunition
hold l have been permitted to depart from this country.
Sir R. INGLIS said, the Hun. and Learned Gentle

.an who h proposed .this nlotion hal said a good des
lent the natural rights of man.—(Cries of " No, no.”!
It was said amongst other ti ings that ,very man had a right
carry his talests, science, and c,urage to any mark,•
chich he might think proper, and esp dally when he
null find no market for them at home. But if that doe.
rine were allowed to prevail, it vv, ilia make courage a
,:ere mattlr of merchandise and sale in any foreien mar-
ter, no loaner whether it was emoh,yed in a case of wsr
ir not. Could it he said that. British sutjects should be
emitted to Intel fere in a foreign coot st in which, a-
Elritist subjects, this country w .s not involved ?—(Several
v.ores, " In a good cause British sut•jects shou d be per•
nitred to ititerh-re.") He held it as an itid.sputable po
4 ti, n th.t our subjects who were fighting in Portugal
•ould only he consideted in the light of buccaneers, whe.
ti.r ey were fighting in the cause to D..r. Pedro or Don
11 god. He frit, hi.wever, that it would be in vain fni
IM to oppose this motion, but r e nevertheless could not
void giving orteraore to these few expressions.—(H-ar )
Mr. O'CONNEI L said it would he sn idle attempt to

Hang an inoperative statute into eff•ct at .he present day.
fhey ILA hart in Ireland 25 sutures to prevent the people
um enlisting in the .ervice of any tot eign country; bu
ey hail been continually evaded, and no less than 144 000
,reins had perished in the Freneh service. The Foreign
Enistinent Act in this country had heen as ino, erati%e as
t was unjust ; fir it left to the Crown an option as to its

•oh.rettn;nt or its nun-rnforc••ment, whi hit did not prr

.4 to the subkcfs of the Crown. He did not agree with
the law of the Hon. Meinf.er for Oldham (Mr. Cohbett)
—( Hear, and a laugh)_—for no in,in would be justified in
.lie•lding his blood in an unjust cause. The gallant
Napi, r foueht to put down a fearful, no, not a earful, but
frightful despotism ; and he (Mr. O'Connell) was glad
rh it this virtu!), in the south of Europe would enable u•
it no distant period to dip thr wings of the Russian
feepot in the north..—(Hear.) Upon these grounds he felt
it his fluty to support the motion. _ _

Colonei EVANS said the question for the House to
consider was, whether the Act alluded to was elf ctive or
not ? If nor, then the sooner it was set aside the better.
Tor Foreign Enlivment Bid was a Holly Alliance 8.11
•iitt whi e it imiteded it did not prevent tt e enlistment of
British sul•j • cts into the service of the South American
Mates. Many of our nffivers had interfered in the case of
Greece norwittisiandims, this Act. So it was in Portugal,
41 hough a system of neutrality was strictly profissel by
the Government.
Mr. CORBETT explained.

Sir J. SCARLETT had originally opposed the Foreign
Enlignient Bill as to its general details, but there was one
ptinciple of it to which he thought few Hon. Members
would object; that was that portion of the old law which
made it capital felony for any British subject to enter into
the army of a foreign Power without the express license t f
the King. There was a common law tight in the King
to prevent his subjects at ad times from entering into the
service of any foreign Prince, and the enisting of soldiers
witEout permission from the Sovereign was a misdemea-
nor. Upon this part of the subject he was inclined to
'cave the law as it stood, is bile he considered upon the
ground of expediency it would he unwise to continue flee
Foreign Enlistment Bill.
Sir E. CODRINGTON said it must be very clear to
every man acquainted with the naval service that officers
who had devoted the greatest portion of their time to the
service must he considered to starve upon such a pittance
is 2501. a year. If a parent asked him (Sir E. Codring-
ton) as a matter of prudence, whether he would wish hi.
child to enter into the service of a foreign Power, he
wool 1, perhaps, 1.11 that parent "No, rather cut you,
son's throat." That, however, was not at present the
question and-r the discussi n. He would al.vays hummer
the condos: and services of Captains Saitorius and Net.
pirt—(Hear)—ind if it were only to procure their
rank in the British navy he would cheerfully vote fur
the repeal of the Foreig i Enlistment Bill.

Alr: FINCH did m t feel it consistent with his public
duty to go the length of repealing the Foreign Enlistment
Act.

Lord ALTHORP had originally opposed the Foreign
Enlistment Act, and from his experience sines that period
e wou:d /Jute that it was detrimental ti this country.
lieved that the common law gave a right to the
Sovere gn to prevent his subjects :rom interfling in a
foreign war, in which their Soveteign was not engaged;
hut the fact of ish subjects being engaged in a foieign
contest, such as that which had lately prevailed in Pot
toga!, the Freach of neutrality o hich had hen alluded to
could not be maintained for a moment. lf, mdeed, full
pettnission had not been allowed to British subjects to
side with each of the conflicting pities, or rather if the
permission had been given to i,ne and witht.eld from the
other, then there would have been a decided breach of
neutrality. As the common law at present stood, it
u onod be a miss, emeanor to hoi.t a fort ign standard in
this coutrry, or to emit soldiers, or to supply munitions of
war; hut even alter the repeal of the Foreign Enlistment
Bill he was of opinion that the R yal authority would be
in as toll four as it ever had been, and therefore lie would
supplut the motion.—(Cries of " I(ear, hear.")
Sir H. VERNEY wi uld give unqualified approval to
tie motion helot, roe House.

Mr. C. K TYNTE must indignantly r-pel the asser-
tion that the brave men now fie.liting for Don Pedro could
he considered in the light of the buccanet rs of former times.
M. R. GRANT would not oppose this motion, but, at
the same timeote would not be precluded from pursuing
such a coot, as in his Judgment he might think pr. per.
Mr. Al UR RAY, in reply, denied that it was inconsistent
with tt,e laws .4 n• utrali y for tie s..bje.•ts of one State to
eng ige in the service of another, or even to become ett,z ns
of a foreign n A.m. This position had not been distil, b
by the argument or any Hon. Member who had spoken ;
ut, ia reply to what had fall. n from ti e Hon. Member to.
°shod, tie must say that mote blood was spilled in the wars
i.ecasioned ly religion than any other wats whatsoever.
Sit R. IN,.LIS had protested against British subjects
engaging in a war tirieriak, n by m -re partisan, and trout
private hue ives, and he is as still of op,nion tha perm,tting
such conduct was a breach of ro utr,iity
e inlotoil was then agieed to, and leave to bring in
the 13.11 given.