power enough to defend his own possessions. If so, he might cede his territories when and to whom he pleased, and we were to sit by with folded arms. But when it was found that though he had lost the power to protect, he had not lost the power to oppress his subjects. When the question was, not the ceding a colony to our rivals, but the erecting a great empire, not to our advantage alone, but to that of the whole civilized world; at such a moment, were we to bestir ourselves, to ransack our statute books, to make that law in his favour which never was law before, and to exert our legislative power to assist this impotent, though legitimate and oppressive monarch [Hear, hear!]? He should, therefore, add his opposition to that which had been more ably offered against the bill. The nation revolted at it. The nation had been content to act on the system of non-interference, but farther than this it would not go, in opposition to its best feelings. The feelings of the English people were not to be trifled with. The government, solid as its institutions were, mainly rested, after all, on public opinion. Popular prejudice it might dissipate; popular error it might encounter; but the public opinion, founded on the good and generous feelings of the universal British nation, would be found to be stronger than even power itself! [Hear, hear!]. this had been done with the connivance of their government; indeed, the whole course of its policy was opposed to this idea. But vessels had been sent out armed from this country (and government, under the present law, had found itself unable to prevent their departure) carrying out regiments in an organized military shape, ready to take part in their quarrel. As to the law of nations on the subject, he was ready to acknowledge, that when a state was in the habit of allowing its subjects to enter into the service of belligerents as mercenary troops, if this were done without partiality, no cause of complaint could be given. But as it had not been the practice of this country to allow its subjects to enter as mercenaries in the service of foreign powers, so it was also manifestly against the law of nations to allow, that troops should be raised for one belligerent party, and not for another. As to what had been said, by the hon. gentleman who spoke last, and who, with much eloquence, certainly, had more declamation than argument, he would ask, how that gentleman would feel, if our colonies should be in a state of revolt, and armaments should be fitted out to assist them in the ports of Spain; or if the merchants of Boston or New York, should fit out expeditions to assist them. Yet, if they refused to pass this law, with what justice could they interfere? He should be ashamed, as an English minis Lord Castlereagh said, that the bill as it was now proposed, was open to no obter, to call, in that case, on a foreign jections, on account of any retrospective operation; it was purely a prospective measure. In looking at the principles in which his hon. and learned friend had proposed this bill, it would be an error to suppose that it had been directed against individuals who had chosen to separate themselves from their native country. The character of the offence, without which, he might venture to assert, parliament would not have interfered, was that of a combination to make this country the spot where levies were to be raised and organized, to take part in the unfortunate quarrel between Spain and her provinces. Not regiments merely, but what might almost be called armies, had not only been raised, but had received all their - military organization in this country, and sailed perfectly prepared to proceed to warfare on their landing. The gallant mover of the amendment had said, that in the United States, two frigates had been fitted out. But he had yet to learn, that state, merely because we might be the stronger nation, to take that course which we had refused to follow. It had been shown by the learned advocate-general (sir C. Robinson) that the measure was in strict conformity to precedents, and that when there had been any well-founded complaint on the part of a foreign state of undue interference of our subjects in its quarrels, parliament had always been ready to afford a remedy. The act passed in 1736 was manifestly enacted, not solely with a view to internal security, but to prevent the interference in foreign quarrels. It was of course acknowledged that the Crown might, as it did at that time, exercise any degree of mercy towards persons taken in the service of its enemies, who might be members of families whose removal from this country it might wish to facilitate. The manner of its dealing with these offences was at its own discretion, and did not invalidate the principle of preserving a neutrality towards two other parties. But it was said, we should leave the law as it was. But, if by the law in its present state, from an obvious oversight of the legislators, the supporters of one of two belligerent parties were exposed to the penalties of felony for any exertions, while the friends of the other might raise levies and fit out armaments, could it be said that neutrality was observed? He felt it difficult to argue so plain a point, especially when watching the countenances of the gentlemen who had spoken on the other side; he fancied he had observed that they could scarcely keep a grave face, while offering the arguments which they seemed to think due as an effort in the cause. If the evil he complained of was ever to be repressed, the parliament was specially bound to do it at a time when the character of the country had never before been so flagrantly and indecorously abused by the fitting out of armaments in our ports and cities. Herepelled the idea that because we had encouraged the South Americans in 1797, we were now bound to act in their favour. What had been done then was inconsiderable, and had produced no effect. We were then at war with Spain. He there fore protested against the doctrine, that because an attempt at one time had been made to take advantage of the feeling in an enemy's country, and had been ineffectual, that we were to be incapacitated for stipulating for neutrality with that state for ever after. Hitherto we had acted on the most perfect system of neutrality, except when the law obstructed the system. Notwithstanding a statement of an hon. gentleman who had said that arms were allowed to be exported to the provinces which were in possession of the royalists, he could assert that this was not the fact, and that permission had been refused to take arms even to Havannah, lest they might by circuitous means be introduced into those provinces. The noble lord then read extracts from the correspondence with the governor of Trinidad, to show that the assertion of Mr. Marryat, that the inhabitants of the Main, flying from the Spanish troops, had been refused a refuge in Trinidad, was not true. The governor asserted in a letter that at the time referred to 690 individuals had been admitted to an asylum without expense; and that vessels had been sent to the islands near the Main to fetch those who, flying in crowded boats, might be unable to reach Port Spain: he stated that a vessel was also furnished to take the chief of the Insurgents, Vido, to St. Bartholomew's, and that a royalist flechero, in the harbour, was kept under the guns of the batteries till he was out of reach. From November 1814 to January 1817, 3,823 individuals had found refuge in Trinidad. He was afraid that the hon. member had obtained his information, which was altogether unfounded, from other merchants, who had forgotten the British mercantile character in their occupation as agents for those colonies. In their uniting commerce and war, the merchants were not acting in a manner worthy an honest and high minded people, and the trade of the nation itself was compromised. He had seen a communication from the commander in chief in Jamaica, that the trade was materially suffering on the coast of the Main, by the indisposition of the natives towards our trade. The House of course must be aware, that the resources of Spain would be insufficient to have supported the war thus long, had she not been aided by a great body of local interests. Both the parties would have more readily received our traders, had they not mixed war with their other occupations. There was nothing in the bill to impede commerce: the government had always done their utmost to encourage and to protect it, as well against the Insurgents as against the Spaniards. As to the claims of Spain on us, he should state how the treaties with her stood. In 1808, we had entered into a treaty of alliance with her, which ended with the war. At the close of the war, a new treaty of alliance was made, which had lain on the table five years without a word having been said against it, and had been implicitly sanctioned by the general vote in favour of the arrangement at Vienna. As to the anecdote of the hon. gentleman, that the first act of the king of Spain was, to offer up thanksgivings for the purification of his kingdom from the Heretics, he had never heard, and did not believe it to be true. His first act, in reality, was, to express a desire to renew the English alliance, and to give an assurance that the family compact with France, which had been once disagreeable to us, should not be renewed. In the treaty of alliance was the article respecting the slave trade, which had since led to a happy arrangement. If the House would only consider the proclamation set forth by this country, they would immediately perceive that it was impossible for the government to permit armaments to go out without interfering to prevent it. Even those who opposed the motion went upon the ground that the common law was sufficient in itself; but he would be glad to hear from them what step could be taken under the common law to prevent such proceedings? He could state that the best legal advisers had been consulted, and their opinion was, that no proceeding could be taken under the common law. With respect to the policy pursued by other nations, it certainly was not binding upon this country. England had a right, and would at all times exercise that right, of judging for herself; but he must say that the House were greatly misinformed, if they thought that the law passed by the American government in 1818, was such as had been described, The House would find that the law alluded to made provision against the recruiting of their armies, and supply of their navies, and when other governments took such pains to support their own neutrality, they would surely admit that this country should be the last to abandon that principle, and particularly when we were bound by positive treaties to adopt that course. If the government now called for any sanguinary enactment-if they proposed to abandon the moderation by which this country was distinguished, he would admit that a ground was made out to justify the rejection of the measure; but when they only asked of parliament to put into execution the common law of the land, for which execution no adequate provision existed at present-when it was seen from the whole construction of the bill, that its operation was to be merely prospective-he thought that the House would concur in a proposition so necessary, and so well guarded against abuse. We were bound not to suffer the assemb. ling of armed bodies for the purpose acting upon either side, and the bill, founded in such a principle, was not only just in itself, but was, in fact, essential to the honour of the British nation. of Mr. Marryat, in explanation, observed, that the statement of the noble lord with reference to the transaction at Trinidad, proved only that great numbers were admitted into that colony, but did not go to contradict the particular fact to which he alluded, of certain persons having been refused. Mr. Goulburn said, he remembered that, in 1816, a complaint was made to government by the hon. gentleman and other merchants, of the refusal to admit persons into Trinidad who had arrived there; but the result of the inquiry adopted by government in consequence of the complaint was, that no person whatever had been refused admittance. Mr. Martin, of Galway, rose, amidst loud cries of question! He expressed a wish that the hon. member who was particularly loud in his call, would identify himself to his view. The Speaker observed, that the hon. member must be aware that the manner in which he had thought proper to notice the interruption was not consistent with the usual practice of the House on such occasions. Mr. Martin begged pardon if he was wrong, but assured the House, that his intention was merely to call upon the hon. member to show himself, as he was satisfied that in doing so, the Speaker would be prepared to enforce order by his authority. He then proceeded to remark, that the present bill went only to enforce a principle of law which was already recognized. If government had forborne any longer, he was persuaded the country would have rung with charges of violated neutrality. If Mr. Fox were now alive, he was certain his vote would be in favour of ministers on the present occasion. The question being put, That the bill be now read a second time, the House divided: Ayes, 155; Noes, 142. The bill was then read a second time. List of the Minority. Nugent, lord Osborne, lord F. Parnell, sir II. Pelham, hon. C. A. Russell, lord G. W. Howard, hon. W. Howorth, H. Hughes, W. L. Hume, Jos. Sneyd, N. Hutchinson, hon. C.H. Lamb, hon. G. Lamb, hon. W. Lambton, J. G. Langton, W. G. Latouche, John Latouche, Robert Lefevre, C. S. Lemon, sir W. Lloyd, sir E. Lyttelton, hon. W. Macleod, R. Sebright, sir J. Western, C. C. Wilkins, W. Wood, ald. TELLERS. Mackinnon, W. A. Mr. Canning said, that, connected with the present subject, he had a petition to present from the merchants and inhabitants of the town of Liverpool, praying that the bill should not be permitted to pass. tate to express his decided opinion, that their fears were chimercial, and that the trade of this country with South America would not prosper less from the circumstance of this country taking a decided part for the preservation of her neutrality. Ordered to lie on the table HOUSE OF COMMONS. PETITION OF JAMES MILLS.] Mr. Protheroe said, he held in his hand a petition which he understood members of that House, of greater experience and judgment than he possessed, had refused to present. From his views of the invaluable right of petitioning, he had agreed to present it. It was from Mr. James Mills, an engineer of Bristol, complaining that at a late trial at the Old Bailey for a libel, where the petitioner was prosecutor, the judge who presided refused to allow him to address the jury; and further stating that the verdict was not the result of a fair trial. Mr. Courteney, highly as he 'valued the right of petitioning, viewed the present application as an abuse of that right. In what way could the House interpose, the petitioner did not himself state; and it was most desirable that such ex parte allegations against those who administered the law should not be inserted on the Journals. Mr. Protheroe said, he had very little knowledge of the circumstance to which the petition related; but that he felt considerable delicacy in taking any objection to it, as the petitioner was one of his most active opponents during the last election for Bristol. The motion that the petition do lie on the table, was negatived. PETITION OF WILLIAM BRASSINGTON COMPLAINING OF DISTRESS FOR TAXES.] Sir Robert Wilson said, he rose to present a petition intimately connected with that important, that fearful subject, which was to occupy the attention of the House that evening. The petition was from a person of the name of Brassington, formerly residing in Goodman's-fields, and one of those unfortunate individuals who were unable to bear up under the difficulties arising from the overwhelming load of The ground on which the petitioners rested their application was, that the beneficial trade at present carried on with South America was likely to suffer from such an enactment; but, in the pre-taxation with which the country was bursent case, as in others of equal importance, he took the liberty of differing from his worthy constituents, and he did not hesi thened. He had been plundered of all his property, and reduced to absolute ruin, by those persons whom government had Ordered to lie on the table. RESOLUTIONS RELATING ΤΟ THE PUBLIC INCOME AND EXPENDITURE.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the order of the day, for going into a Committee on the First Report of the Committee of Finance, and the House having resolved itself into the said Committee, armed with such exorbitant powers in col-¡ment, and of the difficulty many had to lecting the taxes. The gallant general provide even the necessaries of life for then proceeded to read several clauses of their families, he would sooner lay his the petition. It stated, that one of the head on the block, than say "aye" to the officers, attended by three men, entered Finance Resolutions of the chancellor of his house, and claimed 30s. of taxes; the the exchequer, or to any other proposition petitioner entreated them to wait for a for adding to the present insupportable short time till he could raise the money, pressure of taxation. but they declared they would not wait one minute. Accordingly they proceeded in the most violent manner to seize on his furniture, and took away an eight day clock. His wife, who was at the time advanced in pregnancy, was so alarmed by the violence of their proceedings, that a most dangerous illness ensued, and at last she was delivered of a dead child; nor was she ever likely to recover from the fright The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, she had received. He was aware that that after the Report which had been prethere was redress to be had at law, but sented on the state of the finances of the legal proceedings were too costly for him; country, the committee would naturally and of this the officer was well aware, for expect, previously to any explanation of he had told the petitioner at the time, the arrangements which had been made that if he had no money to pay his taxes, with a view to meet the supplies of the he could have none to enable him to go current year, that some discussion should to law. The petitioner then proceeded to take place on the matters contained in describe the last dreadful scene which that Report. It was natural to expect, completed his ruin, and that of his helpless not only that the general financial state of family. An execution was levied on his the country should be brought under the property, his house was filled with men, consideration of the committee, but also and all his furniture was removed but one that some explanation should be given as bed on which his sick wife at the time to the measures which his majesty's gowas lying. The officers, though re- vernment intended to propose to parliapeatedly called on, refused to show the ment in the present state of the finances, authority by which they acted, and the as in their opinion most suited to the petitioner had been unable to procure to situation in which the country now stood. this day either an account of his property To make such an explanation the more or a receipt for his taxes. He had borne clear and intelligible, and to separate it up as long as possible under the burthen from the more minute technical details, of the taxes, and, to be enabled to pay he had suggested the mode of embodying them, he had denied himself and his fa- in the form of Resolutions the more gemily their usual comforts, till at last heneral propositions, as to our financial had seen himself deprived of his all, and his helpless family reduced to ruin. The petitioner concluded with praying, that the House would set about the reduction of the present insupportable load of taxes. The scenes disclosed in that petition, sir Robert Wilson said, confirmed him in the determination he had previously formed, not to vote a shilling of additional taxes until the grievances of the people were redressed. The greatest of those were, he was persuaded, the state of the representation; every day's experience convincing him, that a more direct connexion and congenial sympathy were wanting between those who made and those who obeyed the laws. When he reflected on the sufferings of the people at the present mo situation, unincumbered by the particular details which would come to be considered on a future occasion. He therefore hoped that the committee would feel that it would be expedient first to enter into the discussion of those prominent features of our situation which were traced in the Resolutions that he had on a former evening laid on the table. In those Resolutions he had endeavoured, in as short and simple a manner as possible, to bring into view the most material facts, as separated from the details. He had made no reference to any distinct appropriations; because in whatever way they might be arranged, and to whatever degree they might be multiplied, the great and leading question must always be, whether the public in |