party, and afterwards to remedy that, they themselves committed a still more flagrant breach towards the other party. It being admitted, that the waters of Terceira were the dominions of an independent sovereign, it is necessary to show that we were justified in violating his sovereignty, and committing an act of hostility within his territory. What is the justification of that? Why, nothing more than this" If you do not," says my right honourable friend, "punish these infractions of your law, in ten years your country will become the resort of all the machinators of Europe, and you will have reason to repent of your forbearance." The difference of opinion between myself and my right honourable friend is, that, in my opinion, we ought to prevent these infractions rigidly, to maintain our neutrality within our dominion, which would effectually guard against what my right honourable friend apprehends-while my right honourable friend consented to the breach being made within our dominions, and only sent to punish those who committed it, after they had gone from under our

sway.

It might be supposed, from my right honourable friend's remarks, that during the fifteen years we have been at peace, our neutrality had never before been violated. Has my right honourable friend, then, forgotten the repeated complaints made by Turkey,—and has he forgotten, that to those complaints we constantly replied " We will preserve our neutrality within our dominions; but we will go no further?" Turkey did not understand our explanation, and thought we might summarily dispose of Lord Cochrane, and those other subjects of his Majesty, who were assisting the Greeks. To its remonstrances Mr. Canning replied-and my right honourable friend being then a colleague of Mr. Canning, must be considered as a party to his opinions-" Arms may leave this country as natter of merchandize, and however strong the general incon

venience, the law cannot interfere to stop them. It is only when the elements of armaments are combined, that they come within the purview of the law; and if that combination does not take place until they have left this country, we have no right to interfere with them." Those were the words of Mr. Canning; who extended the doctrine to steam-vessels and yachts, that might afterwards be converted into vessels of war, and they appeared quite consistent with the acknowledged law of nations.

When my right honourable friend places so much reliance on the authority of Mr. Canning, I can only account for his having overlooked this remarkable passage, by his perceiving, that it contains within it a complete contradiction of the doctrine laid down by my right honourable friend. My right honourable friend makes it part of his case, that the elements of armament were not combined when the refugees left our shores for Terceira, and that therefore, according to the opinion of Mr. Canning, the Government had no right to interfere with them. Up to the time when the Portuguese refugees were required to disperse, he considered that the conduct of this Government towards them was correct. But it has been laid down by all writers, that if any state imposes conditions on foreigners, with regard to their residence within that state, with which they do not choose to comply, they shall be at liberty to retire from it. We undoubtedly had a right to prescribe to the Portuguese the conditions on which they might remain here; but they had an equal right to withdraw if they did not like those conditions, and we were bound to allow them to go freely away. Perhaps it would have been a breach of neutrality had they gone away armed from this country, combining within themselves the means of making an hostile attack; but they had not even side-arms, and no means of defence. Being, then, thus unprovided with arms, their departure was not a breach of neutrality.

My honourable friend, the Under-Secretary of State, has laid it down as a principle, that it makes no difference whether these refugees intended to go peaceably to a part of their own country, or for the purpose of making an attack on some other; but this is a principle much too broad for my right honourable friend, the Home Secretary, to adopt. What, I would ask, would be the consequence of such a doctrine? All the Portuguese must be adherents either of Don Miguel or of Donna Maria; and this new doctrine of neutrality, prohibiting them from leaving this country, even unarmed, whether they were going to unite themselves to the sovereign de facto, or to the sovereign de jure, would prevent them from getting home at all.

Is it, Sir, for evading such absurd laws as these, that we are to enter into the career of policy which, with alarm, I have this night heard for the first time proclaimed? I will tell my right honourable friend, that if he should act upon these doctrines, and pursue such a policy, he will not be able to keep this country for ten months, much less for ten years, out of war. Why! Sir, at the very moment I am speaking, arms and clothing are about to be sent out of this country to belligerents. Are those arms to be stopped, or are they to be followed and brought back? I believe the answer will be, No. And if it were Yes, of what use, I would ask, would be our skill in building ships, in manufacturing arms, and in preparing other instruments of war, if equally to sell them to all belligerents were considered a breach of neutrality? Should France, in the prosecution of her war with Algiers, send to this country for transports, and rockets, and other articles of resistance, I do not believe that the Government would feel itself under the necessity of detaining the vessels intended to carry out such supplies, though this we might do,much less that the Government would think of sending a squadron to Algiers, to prevent the junction of these vessels 20

VOL. III.

with the French fleet. Such a doctrine is so absurd,—it involves a subversion of all national law so alarming,— it would so inevitably lead us into immediate hostilities— that I am astonished to hear it promulgated.

I concur, Sir, with my right honourable friend, the Secretary to the Admiralty, in holding in light estimation the gratitude of Foreign states, and especially if, in using that expression Don Miguel and King Ferdinand were present to my right honourable friend's mind, together with the gratitude which they have shewn for our exertions to restore one to his dominions, and bring the other from his thraldom at Vienna, to place him in an important station, which he might to this hour have filled with distinction, had he not forfeited his honour. But I do not concur with my right honourable friend, if, in using that expression, he meant the good opinion of the people of Europe. To that, Sir, we can never be indifferent; and hitherto it has been our highest boast to have deserved it, from our rigid adherence to the law of nations, and our fixed determination never to depart from that law, for any national convenience or occasional advantage. An adherence to this determination is one of the proudest distinctions of England -the source of much of her moral power-the main cause of her high renown amongst the nations of the earth; and if we depart from that determination-if we act upon the principle of interference beyond our own jurisdiction, now for the first time advocated, we shall for ever forfeit that honourable and enviable fame, and become the most meddling and mischievous people that ever appeared in the world.

Sir, on the present occasion, I am less anxious to obtain a majority, than that the resolutions proposed by my right honourable friend should be placed on the Journals of the House; for after that shall be done, I shall have little apprehension that any proceeding, similar to the one now com

plained of, will ever again be taken. I shall have no more fear that the doctrine of a jurisdiction upon the high seas, and interference within the territory of an independent nation, will again be revived, than I have that Parliament will again renew the declaration which still stands upon our Journals, that a one pound note and a shilling are equal to a guinea.

The House divided: For Mr. Grant's motion, 78. Against it, 191.

TRANSMISSION OF BULLION FROM SOUTH AMERICA. May 17.

Mr. HUSKISSON said, he was about to present a petition of very considerable importance, on which he begged leave to offer a very few words. The subject to which the petition related was important to those merchants who carried on trade with South America and other parts of the world, and who were obliged to import large quantities of Bullion. The petitioners stated the great loss and injury to which the trade was exposed, in consequence of the high rate of freight which was charged by King's ships and Government packets, whenever, for safety, bullion was sent home in these vessels. By an order in council, King's ships and Government packets were allowed to bring home the precious metals, and they were empowered to charge two per cent. upon silver and gold sent to this country from the Mediterranean and South America. The petitioners complained, that this tax of two per cent. took away a very considerable portion of their profits; and they farther observed, that in the event of such ships being employed to carry bullion for the King's service, only one per cent. was charged, although, in each instance, the responsibility was the same. Now, why there should be a double charge on the merchant, as compared with the public, he could not