Star.
London, England, 1819-06-11 00:00:00

them to rtin eery risk in so glorious a cause. Two
red at the Prince regent's
Levee vet in thhaedmiailitt appeared
military uniforms of the South American
Ritricits, and
actually
took leave in the -very same=
reginientahl—(H ear, hear, with laughter.)—No event
could prove so beneficial to England as the emanci-
pation of South America. It would be an admirable
source pf commerce in favour
of this country. But
by the Treasury Hates
which had been circulated,
the Ministers were in earnest to serve Ferdinand,
and to support the
new policy of the Legitimates !
(I/ear, hear, hear.)
Mr. ROBINSON had no hesitationallowing,
that in
that if the arguments of the
last speaker were well
founded, there was suffi • cient cause for going to war.
Notwithstanding the odium attempted to be thrown
on the Spanish Government, •and en his
Majesty's
Ministers„ the house would
acknowledge that the
measure was not only proper, but justifiable. He pro-
tested against the insinuations towards hit -Majesty's
Government, that they were not sincere in the adop-
tion of the measure. The honour and good conduct
of this country were deeply involved •in the Bill now
proposed. What he said
sufficient weight with some Gentlemen -on the oppo-
site side of the house; but he declared to GOD that
he thought the measure necessary, •and that he him-
self, as well as those with whom he had the
honour.
of acting, were perfectly sincere on the occasion—
kar, hear.) A general denial' of the rectitude of a
particular policy did not prove a hostility to freedom
in any quarter of the world. If he understood the
question, it regarded the propriety of our supporting
the Act of Neutrality between this country and a
Power with whom we were now at peace. The. vio-
lotion of that neutrality was not only •an offence
against the Common Law, but an offence against the
Law of Nations. In support of the Bill, a reference
was made to the Proclamation Of 1816, when military
officers, and those on half pay had been prohibited
from engaging in the service of the South Americans.
One would have supposed that this would have check-
ed any violation of the neutrality; but, in the course
of time, fleets and armies were equipped from our
ports ; and persons acting as agents were found ready
to enlist regiments as soon as disbanded. Under such
circumstances, could the Spanish Government look
on with indifference?—( /ear, hear).—He knew very
well wheii the passions were excited, it was easy to
bring those passions into play; but he thought it
very culpable to permit our prejudices or passions to
bias decisions or questions• of the first national im-
portance. It has been used as an argument, that the
measure proceeds from the suggestion of a Foreign
Power ; and that therefore it ought to be resisted by
Parliament. Were such an argument well-founded,
it would be a sufficient cause for exciting the jealousy
and indignation of the House. But the measure was
founded on other principles. It was for the mainte-
nance of that neutrality which had been unwarrantably
violated by the subjects of this country. Between
that supposed suggestion and the remonstrance of
Bonaparte against the Liberty of the Press of Eng-
land there was a strong analogy. To gratify Bona-•
parte by checking the liberty of our press, it would
!lave been disgraceful had Ministers come down to
the Rouse, in obedience to the dictates of Bonaparte,
to have proposed a Bill to that effect. One case bore
a close analogy to that now under discussion. In the
year Fiat, a treaty was entered into between Eng-
land and the United States of America, in which
there was a clause prohibiting
.the Government of
either country from allowing their respective subjects
to enlist in the service of Powers at peace with either
nation. This was an Act for the maintenance of
neutrality between the two Powers; and the United
States passed an Act in support of the principle.—
To bring the analogy to bear—Suppose the subjects
of the United States equipped ships against our pos-,
sessions in the Vest Indies, and suppose we deman-
ded a redress for this violation of neutrality, if the
American Government refused it, there Would be a
just cause for war—(Hear, hear.)—rThe conduct of Sir
George Mazgregor and his followers was unjustifiable
in every respect, and might be compared to that of
buccannen s and pirates. Some persons might say,
that such proceedings would be productive of great
advantages to commerce ; but he could only view
such acts as gross violations of the Law of Nations,
and open acts of robbery—(Hear.)—The sensibilities
of the human mind were laudable ; and he by no
means condemne4 those who were actuated by such
motives. The Honourable Member declared that he
was not insensible to feelings in favour of liberty ;
and he could not blame such noble impressions with-
out violating the operations of his own heart—( Hear,
hear, and loud cheeping.)—But it was necessary that
'we should not sacrifice our national interest and ho-
nour for feelings founded in error. If nations kdew
that we were govbrned by such passions or feelings,
the politicalline of obligation would suffer, and other
states would be less 'careful in their conduct towards
us—(Hear, hear.)ln no period of our history was
the maintenance of peace more desirable than that
which we now witnessed—( Hear, hear.)--Some Gen-'
tlemen attempted to console us by assurances; that
what we lost in the Old we might find in the New
WOrld. Do they think that the countries alluded to
would be more apt to confide in us by a violation of
neutrality ? No. It would not only arouse theii• appre-
hensions and fears, but tend to destroy those inesti-
mable bonds on which our peace and harmony mainly
depended—f Loud cheering.)
Sir .J.AMS MACKINTOSH said, he did not rise
to oppose the motion for the Speaker's leaving the
Chair, as he was aware there might be a convenience
in proceeding into that stage of the measure. Against
the measure itself, however, he entertained the most
determined hostility, Plating
.the question on the
fair ground of our duty to maintain perfect neutra-
lity, he would attempt to shew that the Bill under,
the consideration of the House, with the exception of
the first clause, was a complete breach bf that neutra-
lity: It proclaimed war against the liberties bf Ame-
rica—it proclaimed war against the commerce of
England—and it was a departure from that impar-
tiality which was unquestionably due to both the bel-
ligerents respecting whom it had been introduced.
Denying, as he did, the claim of a fereign Govern-
ment to require from us the adoptidn of any such
proposition, he would not oppose it on that ground---
he would not oppose it, because if adopted, it would
be the first instance in which an Act had been writ-
ten in the British Statute-book by a Spanish Ambas-
sador—( Hear hear, hear). His oppositions would be
*rounded on a mere general principle; He perfectly