On page 65 it is said:

66

'It might have been reasonably supposed, therefore, that the course pursued by the authorities at Nassau in the case of the Flambeau and her coal ships, would have merited the approval of the Government of the United States instead of being denounced as a violation of neutrality. What, then, is the grievance of the United States? It is that the United States cruisers were precluded from using the Bahamas for belligerent operations."

*

The United States cannot permit themselves to characterize this statement as it deserves. They do not complain that they were "precluded from using the Bahamas for belligerent operations," but they do complain, and they assert that they have proved, that the insurgents were encouraged to use all the British ports for such operations.

NOTE B.-EXTRACTS FROM VARIOUS DEBATES IN THE PARLIAMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN REFERRED TO IN THE FOREGOING ARGUMENT.

I. THE FOREIGN-ENLISTMENT ACT OF JULY 3, 1819.

Debates in Parliament on the passage thereof.

In the House of Commons, 15th May, 3d, 10th, 11th, and 21st June, 1819. (See Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, first series, vol. xl, pp. 362-374, pp. 867909, pp. 1084-1117, pp. 1118-1125, pp. 1232-1285.)

Foreign Enlist ment Act of July 3, 1819.

In the House of Lords, 28th June, 1819. (See ibid., pp. 1317-1416.) On May 13, 1819, the Attorney General moved for leave to bring in a bill to prevent enlistments and equipments of vessels for foreign service. He said:

"He wished merely to give this country the right which every legitimate country should have, to prevent its subjects from breaking the neutrality existing toward acknowledged states, and those assuming the power of any states. It was in the power of any state to prevent its subjects from breaking the neutrality professed by the Government, and they were not to judge whether their so enlisting would be a breach of neutrality or not." (Pp. 362, 363.)

He said further:

"The second provision of this bill was rendered necessary by the consideration, that assistance might be rendered to foreign states through the means of the subjects of this country, not only by their enlisting in warfare, but also by their fitting out ships for the purpose of war. It was extremely important for the preservation of neutrality, that the subjects of this country should be prevented from fitting out any equipments, not only in the ports of Great Britain and Ireland, but also in the other ports of the British dominions, to be employed in foreign service. The principle in this case was the same as in the other, because by fitting out armed vessels, or by supplying the vessels of other countries with warlike stores, as effectual assistance might be rendered to a foreign power as by enlisting in their service." (P. 364.)

Sir James Mackintosh, opposing the bringing in of the Bill, said:

"It was impossible to deny that the sovereign power of every state could interfere to prevent its subjects from engaging in the wars of other states, by which its own peace might be endangered, or its own interests affected. His Majesty could command his own subjects to abstain from acts by which the relations of the state with other states might be disturbed, and could compel the observation of peace with them." (P. 366.)

Lord Castlereagh, favoring the bringing in of the Bill, said:

"It now became us to adopt a measure by which we might enforce the common law against those whose conduct would involve us in a war, and to show that we were not conniving, as we were supposed, with one of the parties." (P. 369.)

Leave was given to bring in the Bill. (P. 374.)

On June 3, 1819, the Attorney moved the second reading of this Bill, and said: "Such an enactment was required by every principle of justice; for when the state says, 'We will have nothing to do with the war waged between two separate powers,' and the subjects in opposition to it say, 'We will, however, interfere in it,' surely the house would see the necessity of enacting some penal statutes to prevent them from doing so; unless, indeed, it was to be contended that the state and the subjects who composed that state might take distinct and opposite sides in the quarrel. He should now allude to the petitions which had that evening been presented to the house against the bill; and here he could not but observe that they had either totally misunderstood or else totally misrepresented its intended object. They had stated that it was calculated to check the commercial transactions and to injure the commercial interests of the country. If by the words 'commercial interests and commercial transactions' were meant warlike adventures,' he allowed that it would; but if it were intended to argue that it would diminish a fair and legal and pacific commerce, he must enter his protest against any such doctrines. Now, he maintained, that as war was actually carried on against Spain by what the petitioners called commercial transactions, it was the duty of the house to check and injure them as speedily as possible." (P. 875.)

Mr. Denman, opposing the bill, said:

"He was perfectly at a loss to conjecture by what ingenuity the honorable and learned gentleman could torture this argument into a denial of the power of the sovereign and the legislature." (P. 877.)

On June 10, 1819, the Attorney General moved the order of the day for going into committee on this bill.

Sir James Mackintosh, opposing the bill, said:

"The right honorable gentleman had observed that such a measure as the present had been introduced by the Government of the United States and acceded to by Congress. The United States, said the right honorable gentleman, concluded a treaty with Spain, and Congress passed an act to carry that treaty into effect. And why did they do so? Because, though the common law in England was sufficient for the required purpose, in America it was not. The power of making war and peace was not vested in the President of America as it was in the King of England. In America, therefore, a legislative act was necessary. But as His Majesty's proclamation of 1817 was still in force, how could any legislative measure be necessary in this country?" (P. 1094.) Mr. Canning, supporting the bill, said:

"The house had to determine, first, if the existing laws of the country would enable her to maintain her neutrality; secondly, if the repeal of those laws would leave the power of maintaining that neutrality; and thirdly, if both the former questions were negatived, whether the proposed measure was one which it was fit to adopt." (P. 1104.) He said further:

"Was there, he would ask, anything incompatible with the spirit of liberty in enabling a government to lay such a restraint on the action of its own subjects as might insure the observance of perfect neutrality toward two belligerents? If there was, how happened it that the honorable and learned gentleman approved so cordially of the proclamation of 1817? In that proclamation, which was the only public act of the British government on the subject, a spirit of strict impartiality had been exhibited. Contemplating the character of that proclamation, what right had any man to infer that the feelings and opinions of government had undergone a change on the subject ?” (P. 1104.)

He said further:

"It surely could not be forgotten that in 1794 this country complained of various breaches of neutrality (though much inferior in degree to those now under consideration) committed on the part of subjects of the United States of America. What was the conduct of that nation in consequence? Did it resent the complaint as an infringement of its independence? Did it refuse to take such steps as would insure the immediate observance of neutrality? Neither. In 1795, immediately after the application from the British government, the legislature of the United States passed an act prohibiting, under heavy penalties, the engagement of American citizens in the armies of any belligerent power. Was that the only instance of the kind? It was but last year that the United States passed an act, by which the act of 1795 was confirmed in every respect, again prohibiting the engagement of their citizens in the service of any foreign power; and pointing distinctly to the service of Spain, or the South American provinces.” (P. 1105.)

He said further:

"If a foreigner should chance to come into any of our ports and see all this mighty armament equipping for foreign service, he would naturally ask, 'With what nation are you at war? The answer would be, 'With none.'

"For what purpose, then,' he would say,' are these troops levied, and by whom?" The reply of course must be, 'They are not levied by government; nor is it known for what service they are intended; but, be the service what it may, government cannot interfere.' Would not all that give such a foreigner a high idea of the excellence of the English constitution? Would it not suggest to him that for all the ordinary purposes of a state there was no government in England? Did the honorable and learned gentleman not think that the allowing of armaments to be fitted out in this country against a foreign power was a just cause of war?" (P. 1106.)

He said further:

"It was the doctrine laid down by the English government itself that was now on its trial. This country was now called upon to say whether it would act on its own asserted principles. Those acts, which the bill under the consideration of Parliament tended to repress, were acts which in the document put forth by England forty years ago were termed a 'manifest breach of the law of nations."" (P. 1107.)

On June 11, 1819, Lord Castlereagh, in answer to an inquiry made in the debate on the bill, said: "That His Majesty's government had issued a prohibition against the exportation of arms or warlike stores to Cuba, or any of our West India islands, for the purpose of being sent to the service either of the provinces in insurrection, or of those continuing within the allegiance of Spain. They had taken precautions to guard against our own islands being made the means of thwarting the views of the parent state." (P. 1124.)

On June 21, 1819, the order of the day being for the third reading of the Foreign Enlistment bill, Sir W. Scott, supporting the bill, said:

"It was quite unnecessary for him to argue that it was just and proper to preserve a strict neutrality between a country and its colonies, when that country was bound to

us in the ties of amity, by existing treaties. When he said a strict neutrality, he meant a neutrality which consisted in a complete abstinence, not only from absolute warfare, but from the giving of any kind of assistance to either one side or the other." (P. 1232.)

He said further:

"There could be no solecism more injurious in itself, or more mischievous in its consequences, than to argue that the subjects of a state had a right to act amicably or hostilely with reference to other countries, without any interposition of the State itself. It was hardly necessary for him to press these considerations, because all the arguments that he had heard on the subject had fully admitted that it was the right of States, and of States only, to determine whether they would continue neutral or assume a belligerent attitude-that they had the power of preventing their subjects from becoming belligerent, if they pleased to exert it. In the next place, it was fully admitted that the government of this country possessed that right, which was essential to its safety and sovereignty.” (P. 1233)

Mr. Robert Grant, supporting the Bill, said:

Why, Sir, what sort of neutrality is this, which, while it operates only as a more subtle sword of annoyance against the passive party, throws an impenetrable ægis over the assailant? A neutrality which completely protects the aggressions of the power who has stipulated to observe it, while it leaves the power to whom the stipulation has been given, only tenfold more exposed and defenseless. Let the matter next be tried on a somewhat broader ground. Every government, in its foreign relations, was the representative of the nation to which it belonged, and it was of the highest importance to the peace of nations that government should be so considered. Nations announced their intentions to each other through the medium of their rulers. Hence every state knew where to look to expressions of the will of foreign nations, where to learn whether war or peace was intended, where to demand redress for injuries, and where to visit injuries unredressed. But all this system was inverted and thrown into confusion, if the government might act in one way and the nation in another. All this system was at an end if, while we were professedly at peace with Spain, she was to be attacked by a large army of military adventurers from our own shores, a sort of extra-national body-utterly irresponsible, utterly invulnerable, except in their own persons-for whose acts no redress could be demanded of the British governmentwho might burn, pillage, and destroy, then find a safe asylum in their own country and leave us to say, We have performed our engagements—we have honorably maintained our neutral character." (P. 1243.)

He said further:

"It was, besides, to be remembered, that an exact precedent for the present measure was supplied by the act to which the honorable gentleman opposite (Mr. Scarlett) had referred: the act for preventing the exportation of arms and ammunition without the royal license. There, as here, the Crown possessed a prerogative by the common law, and there, as here, you added facilities for the exercise of that prerogative by statute." (P. 1250.)

When the House divided, there appeared, ayes, 190; noes, 129.

On June 28, 1819, upon his motion to commit the bill, Earl Bathurst, supporting the bill, said:

"The supplying belligerents with warlike stores, and equipping vessels for warlike purposes, were also prohibited. With respect to this part of the bill, he had heard no objection from any quarter. The evils experienced in commerce from vessels roaming over the seas, under unknown and unacknowledged flags, had been too generally felt to suppose that British merchants would be much dissatisfied with the regulations provided by this part of the bill.” (P. 1380.)

He said further:

"Looking, then, to the principles and grounds of general policy, he would say: that he should scarcely look for any other definition of a state incapable of maintaining the relations of peace and amity with other powers than this, that its subjects made war at pleasure upon states with whom their government was at peace, and without any interruption from that government to their pursuits. And yet such had been for some time the actual situation of this country." (P. 1380.)

He said further:

"What would the British merchants, who petitioned against this bill, say if they saw expeditions sailing from French ports to attack the sources of our commerce in every quarter of the world? He was afraid we should not be much benefited by its being left to the option of French officers to engage on either side, according to their individual opinions." (P. 1383.)

Lord Holland, opposing the bill, said:

"As an argument in favor of the present bill, the noble lord has said, that if it was not passed we could not preserve our neutrality. Now, he (Lord Holland) would, on the contrary, maintain, that the existing laws were sufficient for that purpose. He

would even run the hazard of standing up for the prerogative in this case against the noble lord." (P. 1391.)

He said further:

"A sovereign might be called upon by one belligerent party, with whom he was in alliance, to prevent his subjects from entering into the service of its enemy, so as to be employed against it. The sovereign might issue his proclamation prohibiting his subjects from enlisting; and if they did so after that proclamation, they would be guilty of a high misdemeanor and might be punished accordingly. But this was all that a belligerent state could ask. It could not demand from the sovereign a change in the municipal laws of his dominions, or a modification of them, to suit its convenience. The noble earl had said: 'Look to the United States, and see what they have done;' but he had not adverted to the difference between the power of the executive in this country and the American Union. The President of the United States had not the power, like the sovereign of England, of making peace and war; and, therefore, as the executive had not the right of enforcing peace, a foreign state had the right of demanding a law from the legislature to prevent war. The example of the United States was, therefore, no precedent for us, where the prerogative already possessed the right which a particular law was there requisite to confer." (P. 1391.) The bill on this day went through the committee.

II.-LORD ALTHORP'S MOTION FOR THE REPEAL OF THE FOREIGN ENLISTMENT ACT.

Motion to repeal

the Foreign Enlistment Act.

Debate in the House of Commons, on the 16th day of April, 1823. (See Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, second series, vol. viii, pp. 1019-1059.)

Mr. Canning, opposing the motion, said:

"Sir, the act is divided into two plain and distinct parts; the one prohibiting British subjects from entering into the military service of belligerent states; the other forbidding the fitting out of privateers for the service of those states, in British ports, with British means and money, or which are to be manned with British seamen." 1052.)

He said further:

(P.

"If I wished for a guide in a system of neutrality, I should take that laid down by America in the days of the presidency of Washington and the secretaryship of Jefferson. In 1793 complaints were made to the American Government that French ships were allowed to fit out and arm in American ports for the purpose of attacking British vessels in direct opposition to the laws of neutrality. Immediately upon this representation the American Government held that such a fitting out was contrary to the laws of neutrality; and orders were issued prohibiting the arming of any French vessel in American ports. At New York, a French vessel fitting out was seized, delivered over to the tribunals, and condemned. Upon that occasion the American Government held that such fitting out of French ships in American ports, for the purpose of cruising against English vessels, was incompatible with the sovereignty of the United States, and tended to interrupt the peace and good understanding which subsisted between that country and Great Britain. Here, sir, I contend, is the principle of neutrality upon which we ought to act. It was upon this principle that the bill in question was enacted." (P. 1056.)

He said further:

"While we declare ourselves neutral, let us avoid passing the strict line of demarkation. When war comes, if come it must, let us enter into it with all the spirit and energy which becomes us as a great and independent state. That period, however, I do not wish to anticipate, and much less desire to hasten. If a war must come, let it come in the shape of satisfaction to be demanded for injuries-of rights to be asserted-of interests to be protected—of treaties to be fulfilled. But, in God's name, let it not come on in the paltry pettifogging way of fitting out ships in our harbors to cruise for gain. At all events, let the country disdain to be sneaked into a war. Let us abide strictly by our neutrality, as long as we mean to adhere to it; and by so doing we shall, in the event of any necessity for abandoning that system, be the better able to enter with effect upon any other course which the policy of the country may require." (P. 1057.)

When the House divided there appeared for the motion, 110; against the motion, 216.

III. THE AFFAIR AT TERCEIRA.

Debate in the House of Commons on the 28th of April, 1830. (See Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, New Series, vol. xxiv. pp. 126-214.)

Terceira.

The resolutions before the house were as follows: "That prior to the 12th of December, 1828, Her Majesty the Queen, Donna Maria II, had been recognized by His Majesty, and the other great powers of Europe, to be legitimate Queen of Portugal; and that at the period above named the said Queen was