"of her character are not substantiated by proof; and that she "is, in fact, advertised for general affreightment and receiving cargo destined for Shanghae. 66 "Neither Mr. Barclay nor Mr. Edwards brought forward any " evidence to contradict these facts; on the contrary, Mr. "Edwards has, in a letter addressed to Mr. Walker, expressed "his conviction of the propriety of dismissing the libel; which "is also recommended unreservedly by Mr. Walker. "Under these circumstances, it affords me pleasure to enable you to give assurance that the Cunard Mail Steamers may "continue to enter and to leave our ports, without apprehen"sion of being captured by the Maury, and converted into "Russian men-of-war for the prosecution of hostilities in the "East Indies." The English Consul then withdrew the complaint.* We have now arrived at the end of our review of the American law. It would not be just to leave the subject without adding as the conclusion, that, during the seventy years which have elapsed since the summer of 1793, the Courts of the United States, and successive administrations of Government, have endeavoured to carry out in good faith the policy then inaugurated by Washington. The history of our own Foreign Enlistment Act may be told in a few sentences. There were, before 1819, two Statutes prohibiting enlistments in the service of Foreign States, but they did not apply to enlistment in the service of unrecognised States; and the revolted colonies of Spain in South America were at the time still unrecognised. We had engaged ourselves by treaty with Spain in 1814, in the earlier stage of the revolution, not to furnish arms or warlike articles to the insurgents.† But the revolution, as it went on, excited the strongest sympathy in England. The struggle offered an opening to the soldiers and sailors who were disbanded at the Peace of 1815. They were enlisted openly; the soldiers were openly formed into regiments and embarked in ships of war * Senate Documents, Fst and 2nd Sess. 34th Cong., 238. for South America. Nearly ten thousand joined the insurgents. The administration of Lord Liverpool introduced the present Act with the view of extending the law to the case before them, and of fulfilling the obligations of England to Spain. The Act prohibits assistance to all parties alike in a war. But the circumstances of the moment gave it an unneutral appearance. Besides, the Attorney-General brought in the Bill as a simple amendment of the law, while Lord Castlereagh defended the Bill on the ground of our Treaty with Spain. Sir James Mackintosh accused the Government of shifting their position. The title of the Bill, he said, should have been "A Bill for preventing British subjects from "lending their assistance to the South American cause.' The debate turned almost entirely upon the history of the earlier Statutes, and the prosperity of the South American States. But we must not forget to add, that Lord Stowell, then Sir W. Scott, supported the measure as carrying out a strict neutrality. The seventh and eighth sections refer to equipments, and are the only sections which it is necessary to quote. 66 "VII. And be it further enacted, That if any person, within any part of the United Kingdom, or in any part of His Majesty's dominions beyond the seas, shall, without the "leave and licence of His Majesty for that purpose first had "and obtained as aforesaid, equip, furnish, fit out, or arm, or attempt or endeavour to equip, furnish, fit out, or arm, or "procure to be equipped, furnished, fitted out, or armed, or "shall knowingly aid, assist, or be concerned in the equipping, "furnishing, fitting out, or arming of any ship or vessel, with "intent or in order that such ship or vessel shall be employed "in the service of any foreign prince, state, or potentate, or "of any foreign colony, province, or part of any province or people, or of any person or persons exercising or assuming to "exercise any powers of government in or over any foreign state, colony, province, or part of any province or people, as a transport or store ship, or with intent to cruise or commit "hostilities against any prince, state, or potentate, or against "the subjects or citizens of any prince, state, or potentate, or 66 66 66 "against the persons exercising or assuming to exercise the powers of government in any colony, province, or part of "any province or country, or against the inhabitants of any "foreign colony, province, or part of any province or country, "with whom His Majesty shall not then be at war; or shall, "within the United Kingdom, or any of His Majesty's dominions, or in any settlement, colony, territory, island, or "place belonging or subject to His Majesty, issue or deliver any commission for any ship or vessel, to the intent that "such ship or vessel shall be employed as aforesaid, every "such person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a mis"demeanor, and shall, upon conviction thereof, upon any "information or indictment, be punished by fine and imprisonment, or either of them, at the discretion of the Court "in which such offender shall be convicted; and every such ship or vessel, with the tackle, apparel, and furniture, toge"ther with all the materials, arms, ammunition, and stores, "which may belong to or be on board of any such ship or "vessel, shall be forfeited; and it shall be lawful for any "officer of His Majesty's customs or excise, or any officer of "His Majesty's navy, who is by law empowered to make "seizures for any forfeiture incurred under any of the laws "of customs or excise, or the laws of trade and navigation, "to seize such ships and vessels aforesaid, and in such places "and in such manner in which the officers of His Majesty's "customs or excise and the officers of His Majesty's navy are empowered respectively to make seizures under the laws "of customs and excise, or under the laws of trade and navigation; and that every such ship and vessel, with the tackle, "apparel, and furniture, together with all the materials, arms, "ammunition, and stores which may belong to or be on board of “such ship or vessel, may be prosecuted and condemned in the "like manner, and in such Courts as ships or vessels may be prosecuted and condemned for any breach of the laws made "for the protection of the revenues of customs and excise, or "of the laws of trade and navigation. 66 "VIII. And be it further enacted, That if any person in " any part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and "Ireland, or in any part of His Majesty's dominions beyond the "seas, without the leave and licence of His Majesty for that purpose first had and obtained as aforesaid, shall, by adding to "the number of the guns of such vessel, or by changing those "on board for other guns, or by the addition of any equipment "for war, increase or augment, or procure to be increased or 66 augmented, or shall be knowingly concerned in increasing or "augmenting the warlike force of any ship or vessel of war, or "cruiser, or other armed vessel, which at the time of her arrival "in any part of the United Kingdom, or any of His Majesty's "dominions, was a ship of war, cruiser, or armed vessel in the "service of any foreign prince, state, or potentate, or of any person or persons exercising or assuming to exercise any powers of government in or over any colony, province, or part "of any province or people belonging to the subjects of any "such prince, state, or potentate, or to the inhabitants of "any colony, province, or part of any province or country "under the control of any person or persons so exercising or assuming to exercise the powers of government, every such person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, "and shall, upon being convicted thereof, upon any informa"tion or indictment, be punished by fine and imprisonment, or "either of them, at the discretion of the Court before which "such offender shall be convicted." 66 In 1823, Lord Althorp moved for the repeal of the Act, and it was on that occasion Mr. Canning used the words referred to before :-" If I wished for a guide in the system of neutrality, "I should take that laid down by America in the days of the Presidency of Washington, and the Secretaryship of Jefferson. "The American Government held, that the 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, 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." He mentioned the Act again in a speech on the Alien Act, in 1824, made when the contest between Ferdinand the Seventh of Spain and the South American Republics was the leading topic of political interest. He said, that the Foreign Enlistment Act alone prevented the fitting out of armaments in our ports: if the Crown were stripped of the powers given by it, there was no physical impediment to any number of foreigners, whether beaten or triumphant, coming to Plymouth or Portsmouth, fitting out an armament there, and sailing with it for the conquest of South America, whether for Ferdinand or his enemies. There was scarcely a Power which did not look to the capitalists of this country for resources, and the money-lender would lend wherever he got a security. He should be sorry, therefore, to trust the neutrality of the country to the morality of money-lenders; for, get rid of the Foreign Enlistment Act, and let Ferdinand once show a little strength, and we should soon see him aided by the capitalists of this country, and an expedition sail from our ports making another attempt to crush the rising liberties of South America. He wished to retain the law, to prevent this result. These remarks throw, perhaps, but little light on the technical difficulties of the Statute; but they are valuable as showing that Mr. Canning felt how easily a commercial transaction passes into one of what he happily calls "those little flirtations that "might tend to the violation of a strict neutrality."* There is again an exposition of the Act by Mr. Canning in a despatch written to Turkey. The Sultan's Ministers complained repeatedly of the Englishmen who had joined the Greek army, and of the supplies sent out from England to Greece. The despatch was in answer to those complaints. It is, I believe, unpublished, and the only passage we have is one quoted by Mr. Huskisson, in the debate of the 28th of April, 1830, on the Terceira Expedition. Mr. Huskisson does not give the date, but, from the mention of steam vessels and yachts, it is probable that the despatch was written in 1826; for there was a steam vessel at that time built at Liverpool, intended, as was said, * Canning's Speeches, v. 264. |