Star.
London, England, 1819-06-04 00:00:00

Muse of Common; -
were not to be deluded into,
ilia'd disgr-aced oonditiono-41/ear,
heir, bat
Whence comes it that a at nation, glowing with
++
thdre lor .re4taruveicishinitsalgelowetylibTlitendfieinidgyitssheoulf
toid scuocnhdca-
detestable cause ? The people were not to blame, but
their Government. The people wished well to the
cause of their fellow-men in South America, but the
Government acted upon opinions diametrically op-
posite. The Noble Lord (Castlereagh) was not con-
tented with the free exercise of his political genius in
this country, but he must forsooth go to another he-
misphere to extend his fame!—(Hear, hear.) But
the Noble Lord ought to know; that national anti-
pathies, which he was now endeavouring to en.arge '—
,
:when once engendered, might requite ages to re-
move. He implored the House not to disgrace their
Statute books by suffering such a Bill to pass into a
law. Why should we volunteer our services in the
w
cause of an Ally, who had transferred to our danger,
if not ruin, a vast and an important territory (the
Floridas ?) Such an aggrandizement of power by so
formidable a rival, exposed our West India Colonies
to the encroachment or invasion of an enemy. It is
'said that he assigned those territories to another
Power, because he was incapable of preserving them
himself. Are we therefore to act so supinely as to
sit in silence and see our Colonies endangered ? If
Ferdinand has lost the power. of protecting, he has
not lost the inclination of oppressing his subjects. He
again implored the House to pause before' it sane-
Ironed such a law. He would by no means compro-
'mise the character of the nation, the moral feeling of
the people, in order to support the political conduct
of the Noble Lord. Every Government rests on po-
pr,lar opinion ; and although the generous and ardent
'feelings of his fellow-subjects might for some time
suffer by the bold but unwarrantable conduct of the
Noble Lord, yet the good sense of the community it
large would always command our national respect,
in defiance' of actravagant or capricious polities.—
(Loud cheering.).
Lord CASTLEREAGH contended that the Bill
was merely intarided to act prospectively and not re-
trospectively, In almost 'all the argttments which
had been advanced against it, Gentlemen had taken
false grounds.' They ought to Wok at the character
of the offence. The Government could not suffer it-
self to be implicated in the misconduct of certain in-
dividuals. This country could not interfere with the
subjects of foreign nations at war with the Sovereign
authority. It was true, when on our own• shores we
not only receive agents or emissaries from the cclun-
tries alluded to, but actually equipped formidable
armaments, that Government should interpose its
authority. The adventurers of this country not only
sent out regiments, well organized, for the service of
the South Americans, but ships of War have also pro-
ceeded thither. With 'the subjects of some foreign
powers it has been the practice to let out for hire,
troops ; this was no violation of the Latw of Nations,
(because such praitices had been recognized, by the
different powers. But the Noble Lord denied that it
bid ever been the practice of this country to let troops
lout For hire, and therefore such an assumption of
power by the individuals now offending was a direct
violation of the Law of Nations. With all the 010-
queue of the Hon. Member whO had just sat dolig,
and his Lordship maintained that his spe.ch contained
More declamation than argument—he wished to know
if the conduct of the intiividuals now alluded to was
not a sufficient cause for war on the part of Spain ?
If, for instance, we folind that Spain was fitting out
,an armament from Corunna against our West India
Colonies—and by such individuals as now referred'
to—would not that fie a sufficient cause for war on
the part of England ? What' sort of a character
would the Government of this country be supposed
to have in the eyes of Europe,.if it suffered such ad-
venturers to continue their unwarrantablt courses ?
If we remained any longer with indiffetence, we
would compromise our character, not only as a Go-
vernment, but as a Nation—(flear,hear,hear). There
were a set of mercantile adventurers in this country,
who, forgetful of the true character of -British Mer-
chants, became Political Agents, in expectation of
wonderful commercial advantages. He should be
ashamed to allow out. national character to suffer by
any such sin 2; coinpariion. So much for the law
of nations, ding' to this new analogy ! Ile be-
stowed praise on his Honourable and Learned Friend
(Sir C. Robinson) •for the explanations and definitions
which be had entered into for the information of the
House. The present Bill was founded on principles
of justice between Belligerent Powers. With regard
to all the laws which related to our fellow subjects
abroad, the British Government had always acted
with every degree of lenity and mercy. But so far as
regarded the interference of British subjects with the
interests of foreign nations in alliance with us, it was
absolutely necessary to adhere to the strictest rules of
neutrality ; and therefore the interference of the indi-
viduals new mentioned was contrary to the law-of na-
tions, and contrary to the policy of the British Goaern-
ment.What sort of a neutrality is that which Gentlemen
desired us to maintain by leavingthisiaw as we found it?
If the law be defective, it was necessary to amend it.
NO circumstance so strongly calls for the interfe.
rence of Parliament as that now under discussion,
To suffer any longer such 'aggressions; by which the
character of the Government and that of the nation
were implicated, would be acting unbecomingly and
indecorously. So far as regarded the policy of na-
tions, we' could not repel the claims of Spain. It
was our declared determination, on principles of neu-
trality, not to shew favour to one belligerent Power
more than to another. The policy with Spain, in the
lyear 1808 or 1809, *hen the latter Power was at war,
was directed by different principles. But'whatever
that policy was, it did not preclude us from the re-
cognition of former treaties. It was a respect due
to the House to call Gentlemen to a sense of their duty
by the statement of facts. The treaty of 1797 was
no bar to our interference on the present occasion.—
In reference to an Hon. Member on the second bench
(hlr.'Marryatt) the Noble Lord not only contradicted
several of his arguments, but gave the most positive
contradiction to his statement regarding the South
'American Emigrants at Trinidad. His Lordship read
an extract from an official Paper, by which it appeared
that there was no ground for the representation,
So far frorrrforcing them beat° theivmstive:place
theyawnhdeirneg,
hi s
were admitted to a landing. The Chief Of tricTri
wLotrerdinshaipssa::sedute) dwthitheoutHottr,rii•cht769o4
grants, however, with some of his followeiwretursia

• • ••.41,,1,

~~'-