moved that the second reading of the Criminal Lunatics Bill should be postponed to Monday next.

wished to take this opportunity of asking the right hon. gentleman whether it was the intention of government to make any addition to Bethlem hospital, or to give any allowance to the trustees of that hospital, should the bill brought in by the right hon. gentleman be passed into a law, He was anxious to be informed on this subject, because if such was the intention of government, he should resist the payment of one single shilling to that hospital, so long as the management of it should continue in the hands in which it now was [Hear, hear !]. An inquiry into the management of Bethlem hospital had taken place under the directions of the House, and it appeared from that inquiry that the state of the hospital had been, and was a disgrace to the metropolis. If ever there was a public institution of which the direction reflected disgrace on those concerned in it, and called on the legislature to refuse all support to it till the abuses should be remedied, it was the hospital in question, under the management of Dr. Monro and Mr. Haslam the apothecary. In consequence of the examinations which had taken place, it was discovered that the duties of all those concerned in the hospital were most shamefully neglected by them. There was a physician who walked the hospital only once a month —an apothecary, who abounded in theoretical views, but who was above attending to any thing else— a steward, a matron, and a porter, all too important in their own eyes to attend to the wants and necessities of the patients— and a surgeon often mad himself, and almost continually drunk. [Hear, hear !]. And yet, with the evidence of this misconduct before them there was a paper signed by the governors of the hospital, in which they stated, to the astonishment of all who knew any thing of the subject, that Bethlem was a pattern, not only to the hospitals of this country, but of every other. On Monday next, when the subject should come again before them, he should be prepared to enter at greater length into it. He begged pardon for making these few observations. His object, as he had stated now, was to obtain information whether any sum of money was to be given for the purposes he had already alluded to. Unless the governors should dismiss the present officers from their situations, he should move for leave to bring in a bill for the purpose of taking away the charter of the hospital.

said, he could not express any opinion as to the manner in which the hospital was conducted. He had always understood that, before he had any connexion with the office he now held, the House had come to a resolution that a wing should be added to Bethlem hospital. The confining the different criminal lunatics in one place, would relieve the country from a considerable expense.

said, he perfectly approved of confining the different criminal lunatics in one place; but he never would consent that one shilling of the public money should remain in hands in which it would be so scandalously abused.

would not anticipate the discussion; all he wished now to say was, that when any public money was granted, a public superintendance ought to be exercised; but the governors of Bethlem hospital did resist as a body their being subject to public superintendance; and till that resolution should be withdrawn, no public money could with propriety be granted to them.

The bill was ordered to be read a second time on Monday.

expressed his hope and expectation, that his right hon. friend the chancellor of the exchequer for Ireland, would at least suspend, if not withhold altogether, the grant of 1,500l. to the Belfast Academical Institution. He had moved some weeks ago, for returns from that establishment, which ought before this time to have been on the table of the House; they were necessary to enable the House to see in what manner the affairs of that institution were conducted, and whether the act of parliament which incorporates the managers and visitors of that institution, ought not to be altered. It was not necessary at the present day to establish the principle, that extended benefits to society resulted from a liberal and enlarged system of education; it was universally admitted, and parliament and the government were acting with zeal and diligence upon that principle; yet education, which was the food of the mind, which enlarged, invigorated, and fitted it for every noble pursuit, might unfortunately be administered in a poisonous form, and thus corrupt and misguide the youth of the country, if under the management of irreligious, revolutionary characters. Such, he dreaded, without the interference of parliament, would be the consequences to the youth of Ulster, from the description of persons who had worked themselves into the management of the Belfast Academy—men, some of whom had figured in the horrible transactions of 1798; but who having failed in that more prompt experiment to upset the constitution by rebellion, were now attempting the slower, but surer, means of revolution, by inculcating and infusing into early youth the religious and political precepts of Paine and Priestley. In proof of these being the objects of' many of the present directors of the Belfast Institution, he referred to a variety of documents, He stated some misrepresentations which had been made to the government relative to a subscription from the synod of Ulster to establish a professorship, to grant certificates to their probationary ministers; which he deprecated unless under very particular arrangements. He then adverted to a very disloyal meeting in Belfast, which had disgraced the celebration of a day otherwise dear to every good honest-hearted Irishman, the 17th of March last; when toasts of the most improper kind, and in hostility to every constitutional feeling and principle, were given and drank with acclamation, accompanied by speeches of such a tendency as to prove that a number of the managers, visitors, and masters of the Belfast Academy, who were participators at that democratic feast, could not be too soon dismissed from the superintendance of the morals and of the education of the students in that seminary. He concluded by again expressing his hope that the grant would be withheld.

said, it was not his intention to move any grant at present to the institution to which his right hon. friend had referred. He had, in fact, presented no petition from that body, and he hoped he should be forgiven for now avoiding a discussion which, to say the least of it, was premature.—The House then resolved itself into the committee, when the right hon. gentleman stated, that having been informed that the right hon. member for Waterford (sir John Newport) was prevented that evening from attending in consequence of illness, he had communicated to him his intention of postponing the committee to meet the right hon. baronet's convenience, but this offer was declined, as there was no intention of opposing any of the grants.

The several Resolutions were then put and agreed to.

complained of a clause in the bill regulating the amount of duty to be returned to the maltsters on their stock in hand. By this clause, the duty was to be returned according to the measurement of the stock in hand; but a deduction was to be made of 5 per cent. on pale malt, and 12 per cent. on brown malt, on the ground that an increase of bulk in that proportion took place during the process, after the duty had been paid. The hon. member, on the other hand, contended, that though there was an increase of bulk in brown malt, he was warranted, from the most extensive experience and inquiries in Essex, Hertford, Cambridge-shire, Bedfordshire, Suffolk, and Norfolk, that no increase of bulk whatever took place during the process of making pale malt, and that the increase of bulk was only a pretence set up by those unfair dealers who were in the practice of running wettings. The clause, he said, would press very heavily upon the fair dealers. He proposed as an amendment, that there should be a deduction of one per cent. only.

said, that the rate of 5 per cent. had been adopted in consequence of a satisfactory experiment made by a professor of chemistry and a lecturer on agriculture at Edinburgh.

said, that the experiment of a professor of chemistry, who knew nothing at all about making malt, was not to be put in competition with the experience of a whole kingdom.

supported the amendment. He had obtained the same result from his inquiries as the hon. member.

supported the amendment, and thought a solitary experiment on a small scale was quite inconclusive, compared with general experience, which proved that there was no increase of bulk in making the species of malt alluded to, if the malt was well made.

concurred with the hon. member who spoke last.

said, the report was founded, not on solitary experiments, but on extensive and repeated experiments made on a large scale for the purpose of ascertaining the comparative value of grain from the different parts of the kingdom, and conducted by scientific men indeed, but with the assistance of persons perfectly acquainted with the practice of malt making.

said, the experiments in question were made for the purpose of ascertaining the proportion between the spirit to be obtained from bigg and that from barley, so that the increase of bulk did not affect the result of their experiments.

said, that from the experiments it appeared that sometimes there was an increase of bulk in the process of making white malt of 9, 10, and even 11 per cent. The average on English barley was 5.

The committee divided: For the original clause, 68: for the amendment, 30.

said, he conceived that the bill was at the present moment wholly unnecessary, the circumstances of the times being totally different from what they were at the first enactment of this bill. The only reason that could be urged for its introduction now was, that because we had a war alien bill we should also have a peace one. If the House tolerated an oppressive measure of this kind, respecting foreigners, did they not suppose the character of the country must necessarily sink in the estimation of other nations, against whose subjects it was directed? Would the House, under such circumstances, arm the secretary of state with the power of sweeping out of the country, at his pleasure, all foreigners without reservation, be they alien friends or alien enemies, and no matter whether their residence shall have been long or short in Great Britain? The noble lord then took a review of the oppression to which an alien was exposed by the second and other clauses of the bill. An alien might be committed in the most summary manner to the common gaol, and then hastily sent out of the kingdom. The security of the country required the exercise of no such seyerity. If the Crown had, as it now had by the common law of the land, a power of sending any foreigners out of the land by proclamation, where was the necessity of the bill now proposed? Why should this country adopt a system of rigour, which no other country every thought of exercising? The principle of the measure was in itself so obnoxious, that it would be useless to try and modify it by the insertion of any particular clause. There was one clause, however, to which he would revert—he meant that which authorized the messenger, in whose custody the alien should be placed, to transmit, if he desired it, a representation of his case. But how was the prisoner to compel the messenger to exercise this appeal? It was astonishing that a bill so fraught with oppression should have been allowed to go to a second reading without a statement of any valid grounds or reasons for its introduction. So far from there being any thing in the circumstances of the country to justify such a proceeding, he rather thought that England, in the proud situation in which she stood, should set the example of liberality to other states, than hold out to them an inducement for adopting oppressive measures to her own subjects. It was ridiculous to say, that she was exposed to the machinations of foreigners—her insular situation rendered her less exposed than any other nation in Europe to the sudden eruption of an enemy. Impressed with the impolicy and dangerous tendency of the bill, he should conclude by moving, as an amendment to the present motion, " That the bill be read a second time that day three months."

said, there was nothing novel in the principle of this bill; but that it was precisely the counterpart of a law that had received the legislative sanction two years ago. Little opposition had been made to that measure, and every difficulty was removed on his agreeing to introduce a clause, that aliens should have the power of appealing to the privy council. The bill therefore was not new; it was exactly the same as that which the House had before thought it expedient to adopt; and if they were right in passing the alien bill in 1814, there were additional reasons for renewing it at this moment. They were not aware, perhaps, that there had been a very considerable increase of strangers in this country; they amounted at this time to upwards of 20,000. The noble lord had stated the bill to be most severe in its enactments, and altogether unjustifiable in principle; but he did not think that sufficient attention had been paid to the subject. By comparing the present bill with the late one, this would be found not a severe measure. Under both bills the alien on his arrival is required to sign a declaration, stating who he is, of what profession, in what ship he arrived, and what were his motives for coming; he then, under the present bill, receives a certificate from the inspector at the port where he landed. Under the war alien bill, he was detained at that port till his arrival was reported to the secretary of state, which was always done, unless some respectable merchant had previously applied in his favour. He was then only allowed to proceed to London, where he was compelled to take a license of residence, the bounds of which, if he exceeded by only ten miles, he was liable to be thrown into confinement. If he wished to remove to any other part of the kingdom, it was necessary for him to obtain a passport, and a new license for his new place of residence. He could not quit the kingdom without a passport, and might be sent out of it without any power of appeal. These were the restrictions under the war alien bill: at present, after receiving a certificate, he was permitted to go without restraint to any part of the kingdom: no passport was required—no licence; he had only to show his certificate. It was true, he was subject to be sent out of the kingdom, but then he had a power of appeal to the privy council, which might fairly be considered a restraint on the royal prerogative. As to the real character of this measure, it was notorious that, according to our common law, and the law of nations, it was competent to the royal prerogative to order an alien out of the country at any time, either in peace or war; and that such power belonged to his majesty, according to the law of nations, he was prepared to prove, upon the authority of Puffendorf and other jurists. He was aware that it might therefore be asked, as it had been on a former evening, what was the necessity for a bill of this nature? But to this question he would answer, that although such a power belonged to the Crown here, as well as in other nations, there was no provision by our law, independently of the alien act, how that power was to be carried into effect. He had, indeed, consulted many eminent lawyers, and looked into various authorities, without being able to find any such provision. Hence the enactment of this bill became necessary, in order to render the authority of the executive government effective. Now, with regard to the manner in which the alien law was executed, he felt convinced, that no charge of rigour could apply to his noble relation, or to any of his predecessors in office. This, indeed, was evident from the return before the House as to the number of aliens sent out of the country since the law was enacted. But it was proper to explain one item in that return. For where it was stated that 15 aliens were sent out of the country, it turned out that 6 of these 15 were persons who, having been sent away in a former year, had again returned; and he himself, and his noble relation had reason to believe that such was the case in other instances mentioned in the return, therefore, the House should not judge of the number actually sent away, from that stated in this return. He denied the allegation, that aliens had been sent out of the country, at the request of any foreign ambassador, and asserted, that the statement of an hon. member, not then in his place (Mr. Baring), with respect to Baudet and Labouchere was extremely incorrect. For so far from any foreign minister interfering on that occasion, there was at the time alluded to, no minister in England from the country to which these persons belonged; those persons were in fact sent away in consequence of a representation from his noble friend, the secretary for foreign affairs, who although he had the power of ordering those persons out of the country, thought proper to refer to the home department. The hon. member, was therefore egregiously misinformed, and especially in stating that these two persons were sent out of the country upon any commercial grounds. As to the expense of the alien-office, that had been considerably reduced. Upon the retirement of Mr. Reeves, a new arrangement had taken place. The business of the alien-office had been transferred to the office of the home department, several clerks had been dismissed, and the expense of executing the alien law was reduced from 9,000l. to somewhat less than 3,000l. a year. To the assertion that the re-enactment of this law was likely to give offence to foreign nations, he could not at all subscribe. Such a circumstance was indeed, quite improbable; for this law had reference only to political considerations, connected with our domestic interest: it was also quite improbable that the re-enactment of this law could be disagreeable to our own countrymen. On the contrary, he had received from various quarters letters from several individuals, of whom he had no personal knowledge, strongly recommending the renewal of this measure, stating, indeed, that ministers would be supine, if they did not bring forward the proposition.

said, he had listened with considerable anxiety to hear what could be advanced in support of a measure, which so deeply involved the character of this country with foreign nations, but had listened in vain. The right hon. gentleman, indeed, seemed to think that he had made out an unanswerable case, when he showed that a similar bill had been sanctioned two years ago. But what defence was that of an innovation upon the common law of the land, and the principles of the constitution? Was he to be told, when he complained of a measure which violated the ancient legal practice of the realm, which set at nought, the wholesome provisions of our ancestors for the protection and liberty of all residing within the realm, and which vested an arbitrary power in the executive government, that measure was not to be arraigned, that no jealousy was to be entertained upon the subject, because two years ago a similar one was authorized by parliament? With all due deference to the argumentative talents of the right hon. gentleman, he must still venture to think that the practice was not less novel, because it was two years old. Waving, however, for a moment all consideration of the bill in a constitutional point of view, he should like to know what parity there was between the present period and that of 1814? Was not the war completely over? Were we not in a state of profound peace? On the contrary, when the alien bill was passed in 1814, they were told that though peace indeed, had been achieved, there was abundant room for alarm, for that the peace was not consolidated. France then had a large military force, undisbanded, unbroken by any great and signal defeat, and the person who hitherto had wielded that powerful engine, though removed from France, was yet not in that state of safe custody (not under lock and key if he might so speak), in which he now was. The necessity, therefore, of the two periods, would bear no comparison. But the right hon. gentleman seemed to rely also upon the circumstance, that this peace measure, as he called it was more lenient than the war measure. That might be an argument in favour of the bill, if the bill were fit to be tolerated at all; but it was absolutely worth nothing, so far as it went to prove the propriety or expediency of an innovation upon the law of the land subjecting all foreigners within the realm to the arbitrary will of a minister, to show that we had a similar measure in time of war, but somewhat severer. What the right hon. gentleman should have done, would have been to demonstrate the actual necessity, and not refer to a past necessity; but an actual necessity was not even pretended. The right hon. gentleman seemed likewise at a loss to imagine why they, on that side of the House, felt so much jealousy upon the subject, and in order to convince the House that there was no ground for jealousy at ail, he quoted the authority of Puffendorf. Puffendorf! a Swede, a writer upon the law of nations, a jurist, brought in by the right hon. gentleman to decide upon a question of municipal law, to determine whether it was compatible with the British constitution, of which he knew nothing, of which he could know nothing, that aliens should be subjected to certain restrictions !—[Hear, hear] ! He was a little astonished indeed to hear Puffendorf appealed to by the hon. gentlemen opposite, for he remembered some years ago, when a question which really involved the principles of public law was agitated in that House, when they had to discuss the legitimacy of an attack, carrying war and devastation into a friendly foreign state, and Puffendorf was quoted to show what were the great maxims of the law of nations, as applicable to that particular case, the answer from the other side of the House was, what ! would you have us sink in this great struggle upon the authority of Puffendorf; would you have us go to the bottom with Puffendorf in our pockets; would you have us perish, because Puffendorf has declared, that we had no right to do what we did? As to Puffendorf, however, he wished to be understood as speaking with all that deference and respect to which his great authority, as a jurist, entitled him to; but the right hon. gentleman might as well have quoted the Koran, the Talmud, or the Levitical law, to support his argument, as to plead his Puffendorf. For his own part, he should go to different and to better authorities; he would cite the common law and the statute law of these realms, and call upon the right hon. gentleman and his hon. and learned friends who sat near him, to declare what other law there was upon the subject, and upon what grounds the novel and alarming pro-position rested, that the king, as a matter of right, in a time of peace, could seize the person of a peaceable alien foreigner, residing within the realm, and send him out of the country. It was contrary, in his opinion, to Magna Charta, and to the Habeas Corpus act. By the 30th chapter of Magna Charta, important privileges were given to merchant strangers residing in this realm. They had full power to enter it, to sojourn therein, to tarry, to move about, and to go out of it, as they listed, unless prevented by a public previous prohibition. He perceived that the hon. gentleman opposite seemed to attach some important meaning to the latter words, " a public previous prohibition," as if they made for their arguments; but he would remind them of the exposition of those words by one of the most profound constitutional lawyers, and the most learned to in a technical sense, which the jurisprudence of this country could boast. He alluded to lord Coke, and his interpretation of the words publicè prohibiti was, prohibiting by act of parliament. That authority he regarded as a complete confirmation of his argument, and put an end to all doubt upon the subject. He would not, however fatigue the House by going into questions of law, because he was utterly at a loss to conceive upon what ground such an assertion had been hazarded. The law, in his opinion, was the same for British subjects and foreigners so far as respected personal liberty, though the latter were certainly under some restrictions with regard to property. The right hon. gentleman seemed surprised that any offence should be taken at the slight impediments, which it was proposed to fasten upon the aliens who might choose to come into this country. According to the right hon. gentleman, they might enter when they pleased, go where they chose, and remain as long as they wished, provided only that they had a certificate from the alien-office. " Provided only"—and that provision was, in itself, a sufficient grievance, since the spirit of the act was to shut our ports against the admission of all strangers, unless they obtained such a certificate. But what followed? After he had received his certificate, it was true he might go from place to place without passports; happily they were not known in this country; but was it nothing that he was liable at any moment to be taken up without notice, to be placed in the custody of a king's messenger, and within a limited time to be sent out of the country? Was all that nothing? What a mockery it was to say he might move about, that he might go from London to York, if he chose, when before he got half way there, nay before he reached Barnet, perhaps, the Crown stepped in upon the information of some malignant or interested person (the case was supposable, and that was enough for his argument), and instead of allowing him to proceed whither his affairs might call him, he was hurried out of the kingdom. Would the right hon. gentleman contend that a liability to such hardships was a mere nothing? Would not the existence of such restraints greatly affect the number of strangers who might otherwise enter the country? Would not foreign powers entertain strong feelings upon the subject? He had no hesitation in saying, that the effects of the present bill would be heard and felt by our merchants abroad, by the subjects of this realm, whether travelling for health, or tarrying for pleasure, and if remonstrances should be made, it would be pleaded in answer, " England treats our subjects the same, and can you wonder that we should retaliate?"—The impolicy of the measure was hardly less than its unconstitutional character. The British empire had always been regarded as that spot in civilized Europe, where every man was secure in his property, his liberty, and his opinions, no matter what country gave him birth. History attested, that when persecution drove the inhabitants of the south of France, of the Low Countries, of the north of Italy, from their habitations, our hospitable shores were crowded with refugees, who sought here that freedom and that safety which their native land denied to them. They sought it, and they found it. They brought their wealth, where they had any, and they brought what, perhaps, was more valuable, their industry and skill, which they poured into our lap. The asylum which our humanity granted they amply repaid. Were we, then, now prepared to abandon that mild, and liberal, and humane policy, which had earned for us so honourable and glorious a distinction, and by fettering the alien foreigner with restrictions, or suspending penalties over his head, render even this country no longer his secure refuge in the moment of his calamity? [Hear, hear !]. Even in recent times, and he appealed to the knowledge of many who heard him, there had been actually remittances made to this country by persons abroad, in consequence of apprehensions of violence on account of religious differences. He did not name any particular state, because he did not wish to mingle a very important question with the one then before them: but the fact was undoubted, that large sums had been so remitted, in the confident expectation that they to whom they belonged might enjoy here, as formerly, the full benefit and protection of English laws. Upon that ground, therefore, but more especially upon the ground of retaliation which our own subjects might expect from foreign powers, he would earnestly solicit the attention of government, and earnestly entreat them not to pass the present bill. The right hon. gentleman, and others, who had advocated the measure, talked much about the advantage which aliens enjoyed under the act, of appealing to the privy council. Now what was the nature and value of that appeal? An example is arrested on malicious motives; some individual, concealing these motives, denounces him to the secretary of state for foreign affairs as a dangerous person, and fabricates some story to that effect: the secretary of state, all eyes and ears, receives the story, and the result of the ex-parte statement is, that this dangerous person is ordered to be taken into custody. The alien is then served with a notice in English, which he is not bound by the act of parliament to understand, and which no act of parliament can make him understand, and he is then at liberty to appeal to the privy council; here it would be supposed that counsel would at least be allowed to speak for him; but no ! he (Mr. Brougham) could state on the very highest law authority, and from a very late case, that counsel was not allowed; no examination face to face, no cross-examination; a mere ex-parte statement was received, and the secretary of state, who could not be questioned, acted on his sic volo, sic jubeo; nothing could be done. In a very late instance, a judge, applied to for a habeas corpus, stated that it was impossible it could be granted. Better abolish the clause of appeal altogether, for the protection it would afford was perfectly nugatory—it was a mere mockery. The bill should rather come out in all its premature deformity, with all its first revolting features, with all its array of arbitrary injustice, than receive a disguise that signified nothing in ameliorating its operation, but only allowed it to work with more insidious effect under the semblance of qualifying and redeeming provisions.—Then came the justification of the present measure from the mildness with which the powers granted under a former act were exercised. Only one or two persons, it was said, had any reason to complain of severity; and as there was no abuse of power formerly, therefore we now should grant power that was liable to be abused. But were two cases of injustice in sending persons out of the kingdom to be considered of trifling importance? Suppose two Englishmen, instead of two aliens, had been so treated by a minister of this country, would he not have deserved impeachment for his conduct? But here it was again pleaded that those merchants were not banished from this kingdom on the application of the ambassador of their own state, because there was no resident minister from that state here at the time when this tyrannical exercise of authority was practised, and that, therefore, the administration was not on this occasion made the instrument of gratifying the malice of foreign governments on those of their subjects who had taken refuge under the protection of ours. This might be the case: but was there, he would ask, no other inference? Did not the minister of some other foreign state apply for the banishment of those individuals? Supposing, however, that there had been no instance of oppressive severity—supposing that, as the right hon. gentleman declared, there were the best reasons of state policy for the act to which he alluded, still this previous mildness in the employment of powers that were capable of being exerted for the purpose of oppression, constituted no reason why these powers should be continued, and afforded no guarantee against abuse in their future exercise. Because no violent injustice had been committed, because ministers had found no occasion, or felt no inclination to inflict penalties upon foreigners in times past, by sending them out of the kingdom where they exercised their professions, or conducted their commercial business, therefore the right honourable author of this bill required us to surrender Magna Charta and the Habeas Corpus act !—But the House was informed that this measure was neccesary on account of the great number of aliens now in this country, whom it might be dangerous to leave under the common authorities, and subject to the common operation of law only. There were 20,000 aliens (a population equal to that of some of the continental states), and therefore it was necessary to pass an alien act. Their great number surely could be no reason why they should be oppressed, as it held out no probability that they could become dangerous. We had twelve millions of native inhabitants in Great Britain, and yet we never apprehended that their numbers would set them above the laws, or afford any pretext for narrowing their liberties. There were 10,000 Irishmen in Liverpool, there were 100,000 Irishmen in London and other parts of England, but we never thought of arming the government with extraordinary powers against them. According, however, to the mode of reasoning adopted by the supporters of the bill, we should take precautions against the Irish, who were infinitely more numerous than our alien friends, and pass a similar act for regulating their entrance and egress into and out of England. The right hon. Gentleman had advanced the extraordinary position, that he was not bound to show that the foundation of his bill was laid in justice, and reason; but that the proof of its oppression and inexpediency rested with those who opposed it, thus laying the onus of making out a case against the measure on his (Mr. B.'s) honourable friends near him, instead of attempting such a justification as would render opposition effectual. He would say, however, that it was the right hon. gentleman's business to make out a defence for his bill. It belonged to him who proposed to alter the state of our laws to point out the reason, wisdom, and necessity, of the changes he contemplated. He had not done so in any degree; he had not stated one reason for adopting a measure so oppressive; he had not removed one objection. On these grounds he would oppose the bill, even as modelled into its peace form; he would not accept even the mild dose of the right hon. gentleman. The war alien bill could be defended only on the ground of neces- sity. We were now in profound peace; we incurred no danger from any number of alien friends that might seek admittance into this country. There was therefore no justification of the present bill—not even a shadow of reason in its favour. It should be reprobated and opposed by every one who had any regard for justice, who had any reverence for the constitution of his country, who had any respect for its ancient laws and liberties, and who, extending his views to the character which the nation to which he belongs enjoys among other states, had any anxiety that the estimation of England should stand high among foreigners.

said, that being called upon by his hon. and learned friend to explain his opinions on the laws affecting aliens, he would answer the appeal by a few observations. His hon. and learned friend had requested him to declare whether he considered the king to have the power of regulating the conduct of aliens in this country, or sending them out of it, as provided for in the bill under the discussion of the House, independently of the enactments of that bill? He did not hesitate to answer that he had not such a power. Indeed, had this been the case, the present bill would have been useless. It would be absurd to make a statute where we had the authority of common law. This measure was therefore proposed to supply the defect of the law as it now stood; and to grant. the king a power which by the common law was not within the royal prerogative. The king had the power by proclamation to prohibit the entrance of aliens into the realm, or to send them out of it [Hear, hear! from the opposition benches]. He did not mean to say, that his majesty could by virtue of his prerogative deport aliens, or forcibly send them out of the country; but he could order them to leave it, and if they disobeyed, he could indict them for disobedience to his commands. Disobedience to the authority of a proclamation was an indictable offence as much as disobedience to the command of an act of parliament, which contained in itself no specific penalties for enforcing it. He would state the reasons on which the opinion was grounded. No alien had a right to come and reside in this country without the consent of the state. An alien in many respects was different from a natural-born subject, particularly in his privileges, and the power that the state had over him. The alien had nothing but temporary residence; and though in some respects he was a subject, in others he was not. When he chose to leave the realm, the state had no power to detain him; and after he had gone, it had no power to recall him, as it would a natural-born subject. If a natural-born subject left his country, his allegiance was still due to its government; he might be summoned again to its service, and if found in the ranks of its enemies, might be considered as a rebel, and punished accordingly. The native could enter his country at all times: he had a right to do so. The alien had none. It belonged to the state to admit or to reject his claim of admission. If this authority resided in the state, as it did, in what quarter was it placed? Did it exist in the legislature?—No: it belonged to the executive to enforce the laws [Hear, hear !. He adhered to this, and would establish it by analogy. Who exercised power over a natural-born subject?—the king. If he wished to leave the kingdom, who had the power of preventing him?—the king. If he was absent, what recalled him?—the king's proclamation. If he did not obey the proclamation, in whose name was his property seized, and his punishment awarded?—in the king's. On the same principle that the king exercised this authority over natural-born subjects with regard to their entering or leaving the realm, he could admit aliens into the country, refuse them admittance, or order them to depart. The hon. and learned gentleman had rested his argument on the enactment of Magna Charta with regard to merchant strangers. He had extended too much the meaning of that statute. The charter indeed enacted, that merchant strangers should be allowed to enter and to exercise the trade without molestation or hindrance, unless publicly prohibited. This did not, however, refer to all aliens, nor did it mean to protect those whom it concerned from the power of the king, but merely from the vexation of his subjects. At that time a great jealousy prevailed with regard to the admission of aliens, particularly among the corporations and trades, whose profits might be reduced by competition with foreigners If this was not the proper interpretation of the statute, why were merchant strangers mentioned instead of strangers in general? or why did it protect merchant alone, instead of aliens indiscriminately? Was there any authority in support of the doctrines he had stated? He might appeal to Mr. Justice Blackstone, who would be allowed by the hon. and learned gentleman to be well acquainted with Magna Charta. His opinion was stated in his Commentaries, and the purport of it was, that so long as aliens conducted themselves in the spirit of the laws, they were allowed to reside in this kingdom, but that they were liable to be sent out of it when the king should think it expedient to exercise his prerogative. He might add to the authority of this learned judge that of a law authority in 1705. He alluded to an opinion given by sir Edward Northey, attorney-general in queen Anne's reign, and he did not think his authority should be the less valued, or the more distrusted, on account of the official situation which he held, as it did not necessarily interfere with his impartiality. But he thought proper to say he attached no particular value to the opinion of any person purely on the ground of that person being a law officer. The authority of such an opinion depended solely on the knowledge the individual was supposed to have of the law. But when a person was placed in an official situation, it certainly was his indispensable and sacred duty to look neither to the right hand nor to the left, not to be biassed by what he might know were the wishes of the Crown, but to give his opinion as sacred as a judge. In several provinces, where no legislative authority was established, such as was in this country, the king had that authority. Accordingly, in the province of Maryland, certain papists and jesuits, of whom some were aliens and some British subjects, having come for the purpose of establishing colleges and making proselytes, two questions were put to sir Edward Northey respecting what should be done. The first question was of no importance, but the second was"—In what manner shall these persons be sent off?" The answer which that celebrated lawyer gave, was, that if they were aliens, not made denizens nor naturalized, her majesty might by law compel them to depart Maryland, though she had no right to dispose of British subjects in that manner. He (the solicitor-general) was not aware of this right being denied by any law writer, though he should be very happy in being corrected if he was wrong. He therefore conceived that by the common law the king was entitled to exercise this right. He can order them to go by his proclamation, and in case of their disobedience, they can afterwards be punished. He agreed that it did not follow that because an act was necessary in war, it was necessary now when we were in a state of profound peace, but while he would allude to former acts passed on this subject, he certainly thought the present proposed measure was a very wise and politic measure. In the year 1793, when the revolutionary spirit, which had in France overturned the most venerable fabrics of antiquity, threatened to overwhelm all that was sacred or valuable in other countries, this act was first passed. Though there was sufficient grounds one would naturally have thought then to justify the act, yet it met with as violent opposition as the present one did. Subsequent events, he thought had now convinced the country of the salutary effects that had been produced by the act. About two years ago its renewal was opposed on the same grounds as now, namely, that from our being in peace and amity with the whole world, we had no cause of alarm, and that such an act would only disgrace our statute book. And yet the astonishing occurrences of a short period after this opposition were such, as to induce the House to have recourse to the war act. He therefore decidedly approved of the continuance of the act as a very proper measure. It was true, that the present was a time of peace, and he trusted it would long continue to be so. But though the great revolution which had occurred, had now subsided, though the agitations of public feeling had been calmed, he could not think every mischievous principle was eradicated from the mind. He, for one, could never suppose that the awful occurrences of twenty-five years were to be removed by the mere signature of a treaty, and that things were instantly to return to their ordinary channel, solely on account of that signature. The revolutionary spirit had indeed been quelled, but it still existed, and was crouching to wait a proper opportunity of showing its hideous form [Hear, hear !]. As this country had, by the energy of its councils and the bravery of its arms, risen to a height unparalleled in its history, and acquired the possession of inestimable blessings, he certainly deprecated the idea of our again exposing those blessings to danger by a want of precaution. It was said, no doubt, that this power might be abused. He admitted, that power in every case was liable to abuse. Many persons, it was well known, came to this country, or might come to it, under assumed mercantile characters, who were enemies to the country. It was true, we had no alien enemies at present, and it had therefore been urged that we were pressing a measure against alien friends. But let it be remembered, this was a bill to guard us against those who might assume the character of alien friends, while their designs were the overthrow of our happy constitution. He conceived, unless the House thought they were now arrived at a period when precaution was no longer necessary, that so far from any possible harm resulting from the bill, it would, on the contrary, be productive of much good, and as such it met with his support.

said, that he rose, not for the purpose of following his learned friend through all the important legal discussions into which he had entered, but rather to bring back the debate to the merits of the bill. Its merits, in his opinion, did not much depend upon the common law right of the Crown over aliens, and he should think it a misfortune if the debate were to be carried on exclusively by persons of his profession. The bill must be decided on with a view to general policy and expediency, and it was desirable to have its merits discussed by statesmen rather than by lawyers. When he said this, however, it was not for the purpose of avoiding giving an opinion on the important question which had been discussed, and he had no hesitation in saying that in his opinion the king had not the power in time of peace, to send by his prerogative aliens out of the country. He knew of no authority for that doctrine; for the loose dictum of Mr. Justice Blackstone, stated without reference to any other book, though for almost every other proposition in his work he thought it necessary to quote his authorities, could not be considered as entitled to any weight; and as to the opinion of Mr. Edward Northey which had been cited, he protested against producing such authorities on great constitutional points, as the opinions of attorneys and solicitors-general, given at the instance of a secretary of state or of any other ministers. If such a practice were introduced, it would not be difficult, by ransacking the repositories of the secretary of state, and of the council-office, to find authority for the most dangerous doctrines.

stated that he quoted the opinion from print—from Mr. Chalmers's book.

said, he supposed that Mr. Chalmers must have got the opinion from those repositories. He did not recollect that sir Edward Northey's was considered as a name of much weight in the profession: he recollected, indeed, that he had been attorney-general under several administrations, and that he is mentioned by dean Swift, though not very respectfully; but among legal authorities, he did not remember ever before to have heard his name mentioned.

To turn from these topics, however, he would desire the House in the first place to consider what individuals come within the operation of the bill. His learned friend seemed to have altogether mistaken the object of the bill; for he supposed that it was framed merely to prevent foreigners from entering in future into the country, without the permission of his majesty's government, and therefore he had described it as a bill to prevent alien enemies from coming amongst us under the mark of alien friends; whereas the bill extends not merely to persons here-after coming into this country, but to 20,000 individuals already domiciled here; many of whom have resided amongst us for many years, have carried on business here, have here fixed their families and their establishments, have all their property in England, have married into English families, and have made England their country and their home. He could not better point out to the House who were the persons who would fall under the control of this bill, than by mentioning the difficulties which his majesty's ministers at present threw in the way of all naturalizations. The House of Lords thought proper some years ago (he thought not very constitutionally), to make a standing order, that no bill of naturalization should be read in their House a second time till there had been produced a certificate from the secretary of state, that the person named in it was a proper subject to be naturalized. The way on which the secretary of state exercised this discretion at present was, by refusing his certificate in almost all cases, and that for no other reason than that persons naturalized were released from the restraints of alien bills. A very extraordinary case of this kind had come lately to his knowledge professionally: a gentleman, a native of Germany, who came to this country when he was only eleven years old, had resided in England for fifty years, had acquired considerable property, and every shilling of it was in England. He was engaged in business, and had been for many years concerned in the flax trade. An act passed for the encouragement of that trade in the reign of Charles the Second declared, that persons engaged in it for three years should have all the rights of natural subjects. In these circumstances a friend of his devised to him and another person real estates of the value of 260,000l., upon trust to sell them and pay legacies and debts. He contracted to sell them, and then for the first time it was discovered that the act of Charles the Second had not completely naturalized him, and that he could not therefore make a good title to the estate to those who had purchased them. He applied to the secretary of state for his certificate, in order that an act of naturalization might be passed, and though all these facts were stated in his memorial, and he produced a certificate of his loyalty and good character, signed by many members of parliament and respectable merchants, his application was refused. He could specify many cases of a similar arbitrary nature, though none quite so bad as this. Let not the House believe they were merely called on to vote against the introduction of too many foreigners into this country. This was a view of the question he particularly wished them to avoid. The returns of aliens made to the House was the best criterion to decide this question by. In war there was above. 18,000 in the country, and at present there was only 22,000. It was impossible the House could know the grounds on which the bill stood, if the assertion of the noble lord, that he could state a much stronger case for the enactment of the bill now than in the year 1814, was to be credited [Hear]. If he had any such case, why had he not stated it? But the fact was, in 1814 the number of aliens was 21,616, and now it was 22,619, making an increase of one thousand and three souls, men, women, and children [Hear !]. This, no doubt was a very strong case, or, to use the expression of the noble lord, a much stronger case than in 1814 [A laugh]. It was said by the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Addington), that he had reason to believe that soon there would be a great increase of foreigners coming to this country. On what was this supposition founded? Did ministers foresee any change in the state of Europe which would cause strangers to seek that liberty here which they were bereaved of at home? The right hon. gentleman had spoken mysteriously, and probably he might have mistaken him. The bill, however, was nothing more than a preparation on our part to exclude from our shores such individuals as might be driven by necessity to seek some freedom here [Hear, hear !].

He must say that he was not at all satisfied with the explanation given respecting the case of the two dutch merchants. The right hon. gentleman had said, that the direction for sending them away had come from the foreign office, but the noble lord, the secretary for the foreign department, had never yet denied that he had interfered at the instance of a foreign minister. It was said that the law had been mildly used. He did not deny that, as far as numbers went, the powers of the act did not appear to have been abused; but while he gave ministers credit for this, he would ask the House, what occasion there was for the bill being now passed, when the removal of aliens from this country since 1793 to the present day was so rare? Was it owing to more danger being apprehended now while in peace, than when the revolutionary phrenzy of France was at its height? It was proved satisfactorily in one case, that ministers had abused their power, he meant the case of Berenger. They had seized his papers under the alien bill, and then given them over to be used against him in a criminal prosecution, though neither under the alien bill nor by the common law had the secretary of state any right whatever to seize his papers. It had been asserted, indeed, in that House, that as he was charged with a misdemeanor, his papers might be seized; but the contrary was solemnly decided in the case of Entick v. Carrington.^*

The admirable judgment of lord Camden in this case had lately been published in the New Edition of the State Trials, a Work edited with such judgment, learning, and industry, as to be an invaluable addition to our stock of knowledge, both in History and Law; and the recent death of the editor of which (Mr. Howell) could not but be considered as a great public loss.^*

^* See Howell's State Trials, No. 541. Vol. xix, p. 1030.

The papers of an alien were as sacred as those of a natural subject, and it was obvious what an engine of oppression would be put into the hands of ministers if they would not only send away aliens at the instance of foreign ministers, but also seize and examine their papers. So little was it thought at the peace of Amiens that the king would send foreigners back to their own country, which is what Mr. Justice Blackstone asserts, that when by that treaty it was stipulated that persons charged with murder, forgery, and fraudulent bankruptcy, should be mutually delivered up; it was found necessary to have recourse to parliament to enable the Crown to perform that stipulation. In the year 1803, when 1,700 persons were ordered by his majesty's proclamation to leave the country, and when they had gone, were refused admission to France, and had again to return here, these persons conducted themselves with the utmost propriety after their return; but what must have been the consequence had they been received in France while the republican system was carrying on under Robespierre? Could any man doubt that they would have been sent to the scaffold? He himself knew a very worthy man, a teacher in this country, who, on a misrepresentation, was ordered to leave the country, but fortunately found means to get the order counter-manded. This misrepresentation was afterwards found to have been given by a rival teacher. And certainly had the order not been annulled, the poor man must have been sent to poverty and beggary, as his whole existence depended on his teaching here. It was said there was a power of appeal, that power of appeal alone lay with the lords of the privy council, who, on the individual making an excuse for his conduct, were to judge whether that excuse was valid or not. The individual, let it be observed, was to prove the negative of the charges brought against him. But how was he to know these charges? And how was he to defend himself without such knowledge? A for example, might charge another with saying that he wished the French much success, and he would be very happy to see Buonaparté carried in triumph through the streets of London. Well, the accused being sent for, was unable to defend himself, If guilty, he might suspect the cause of his being sent for, and thus apologize for himself so far; but if innocent, his case was the more embarrassing. Yet this was what was called a power of appeal ! Perhaps the individual knew not our language, and though he might find some of the lords of the privy council who could talk French, he might belong to a country, the language of which was unknown to any of them. Such a case required not to be dwelt on; it spoke for itself, and he therefore thought it was better at once to strike out that clause altogether. He was astonished that his hon. and learned friend had not remarked that the act established every man a foreigner, and threw on him the burthen to prove that he was not so. This proof it was in many cases difficult to afford. For instance, if a person were naturalized by having resided seven years in a British plantation, or if he had been born abroad of a British subject, how would he, in many cases, be able to establish the fact? Even when a man was a native of this country, it was frequently a matter of the utmost possible difficulty to prove it. This provision of the act, therefore, was so repugnant to all justice, that he was surprised his hon. and learned friend had not noticed it. His hon. and learned friend had argued, that because the opposition to the bill in 1793 was unfounded, that therefore the present bill ought not to be opposed. The cases, however, were very different. Mr. Pitt would never have ventured to propose such a measure in a time of profound peace; but his majesty's present ministers had not the same scruples or apprehensions; they at once rushed in where Mr. Pitt would not have dared to tread. Every writer on the British constitution had expatiated on the liberality with which the British laws treated foreigners. Even in the dark ages of our history this wise policy was prevalent. By a statute of the 27th of Edward 3rd, merchant-strangers and others were liberally encouraged to visit this country. An act of Queen Anne, though not of long duration, naturalized all protestant foreigners. In the commencement of the foreign of Elizabeth, when circumstances induced a bitter spirit of hostility between this country and Spain, the same liberal policy was evinced. Now, however, this country, it seemed, was always to have an alien bill in war, and an alien bill in peace, and on the proposition for the latter to appeal to the former as the standard of proper restraint on the subject; in comparison with which if a milder measure were recommended in peace, it was maintained by the noble lord and his friends that it ought to be allowed to pass without opposition. He trusted, however, that parliament would not consent, in a time of such public security as the present, again to depart from the liberal policy of our ancestors on this subject.

^* A continuation of this Work is now in the Press, edited by the Son of the above named gentleman.

said, that having been particularly called upon by the hon. and learned gentleman who had just sat down, he begged leave to trouble the House with a few observations in the present stage of the measure under their consideration. Certainly, the hon. and learned gentle-man had very naturally and very fairly called on the person by whom the bill had been introduced into parliament, to explain the policy on which it proceeded: the more especially, as on a former night that person had undertaken to satisfy the House of the expediency of the measure whenever he might be required to do so. In arguing this question, it would be necessary to compare the policy of the present measure with the policy which had dictated former measures of a similar nature, and to show that there was a correspondence in the general spirit in which all had originated. The hon. and learned gentleman had stated him to have asserted, erroneously, that he (the hon. and learned gentleman) had always opposed the policy of the measure. He could assure the hon. and learned gentleman that he had no disposition to misrepresent him. All he meant was, that he had always found when the measure in any of its shapes was under consideration, that persons of great authority on the other side of the House were anxiously prepared to contend against its policy and propriety, and against the existence of an adequate necessity for its adoption. It certainly did not require the great talents of the hon. and learned gentleman to prove that the question of leaving in the hands of the executive government the discretion which the bill purposed to leave in them, might be a very fit subject for parliamentary discussion, and that without reference to particular circumstances, it was foreign to the genius and character of the institutions of this country, to confer on the executive government a power so liable to abuse. It was very easy for the hon. and learned gentleman to quote statutes to show, that the genius of our constitution leant to the side of liberality in the treatment of foreigners resorting hither. But the difference between him on the one side, and the hon. and learned gentleman, and those honourable gentlemen who opposed the bill of 1793 on the other side, was, that the latter, while they were perfectly sensible to the possibility of abuse in the execution of the bill, and to the disadvantage of narrowing the access of foreigners to this country, and the protection of them during the period of their being here, in ordinary times, appeared to be utterly insensible to the danger which might arise to the country from the unrestrained resort of foreigners in times of no ordinary description.

said, he had no difficulty in admitting the inconvenience of limiting the resort to this country of foreigners, and the possibility of abuse attendant on any law for effecting that purpose; but the question was, whether or not the danger to the state from the unrestrained access of strangers was such as to justify parliament in sleeping over it, and in refusing to confide to the executive government the means by which that danger might be effectually guarded against. Common sense must convince every one that the sovereign, who by his prerogative had not the means given him to guard against the injury which the state might suffer from aliens, ought in a time of danger to have that vested in him for the better security of the state. This was an aid which the legislature ought not to give in ordinary cases. But it by no means followed, because it was consonant to the principles of our law to treat foreigners with liberality, and for wise and beneficial purposes to encourage their resort to the country in ordinary times, that it was less consonant to the principle of our law, in extraordinary times, to provide means of security against the danger which the resort of those strangers might threaten. Reference must always be had to the particular circumstances of the case. He admitted to the hon. and learned gentleman, that without such a reference the laws of this country were abhorrent from any such regulations as those proposed in the bill before the House. They were not to be found in the ordinary war policy of this country. It was not the practice of parliament to arm the executive government with such powers in ordinary wars. They were only known to that description of war, in which a system existed the object of which was to attempt to shake all the governments of the world—a system that had been prevalent for the last 20 years.

He would not go back to argue the policy of the act of 1793. Whether the hon. and learned gentleman, or whether the hon. gentleman on that side who contended that the act of 1793 was uncalled for by the circumstances of that period still maintained that opinion, was another question. But of this he was sure, that to the great mass of parliament and of the country, it was quite unnecessary for him to prove the wisdom of the measure adopted in 1793, to which the continuance of tranquillity in this country was in a great degree attributable. It had been attempted to argue the question as if the law was not narrow in its application. The hon. and learned gentleman, on a former night, seemed to conceive that the only object of it was to defend the country from the mischievous purposes of aliens who might conspire with other individuals to subvert the government. He (lord C.) held that the law had a more extensive range. He admitted, and indeed contended, that there could be no greater abuse of the law than by allowing it to be the instrument of indulging the malevolence of foreign governments in gratifying personal resentments, or inflicting punishment on individuals who had committed only political crimes against those governments. Unless the executive government of this country could bring home to any individuals the intention of shaking the government of this country, they ought to be disarmed, with reference to those individuals, of the powers to be vested in them by the bill. As to the question of hardship, it was obvious that by putting extreme cases, there was scarcely a law in the whole code of British jurisprudence, to which the imputation of hardship might not attach. But it was not with a view to extreme cases, but to the great mass of cases that the legislature was called upon to proceed. It was monstrous to suppose, that if during a war foreigners were sent to this country not to conspire with individuals in the country, but to obtain information which might enable the enemy to wound the vital interests of the state, the executive government should be unable to interfere for the purpose of preventing the execution of their design. The object of the bill was to defend the essential interests of the British empire, in a moment of exigency, against the schemes of aliens who might meditate the most mischievous designs. If a foreign minister were to require that the powers given to the executive government of this country by the bill should be exercised for a vindictive purpose on the part of his government, he would require a gross breach of the principle of the law. But if he gave the executive government reason to be satisfied that an alien came to this country with hostile intentions towards it, that government would be answerable to the sovereign if it did not employ the powers comprehended in the bill, to protect the sovereign and the state against the designs of such a foreigner.

As to the policy of the measure in peace, the sense of parliament had been too strongly expressed on that subject to warrant the least doubt of its object. The measure, in an extended shape, had been in force during all the war. That parliament, under the existing circumstances of Europe, recognized the necessity of a similar measure, though mitigated in its enactments during peace, was evident from their having twice given their sanction to it. The hon. and learned gentleman had founded his argument against the bill in a great measure on the circumstance, that the foreigner, against whom its enactments might be enforced, would be incapable, in his appeal to the privy council, to defend himself, from his ignorance of the language, and that he was not permitted to employ counsel in his defence. He (lord C.) apprehended that there were many cases in which the subjects of this country were not allowed to have the benefit of counsel. With respect to the other objection, the foreigner could have no difficulty in obtaining an interpreter to assist him in making his case intelligible. In the particular instance to which the hon. and learned gentleman in the course of his observations had alluded, the alien availed himself of the assistance of an interpreter.

He would now advert to the principle on which the legislature had already enacted two peace alien bills. That principle was a determination to follow up the obvious policy in which the law had originated in 1793. No reasonable man could assert that the danger which rendered the measure of 1793 necessary, had ceased with the conclusion of the war. Although it was very gratifying to think that the evil principles which had called for the measure of 1793 had diminished in malignity, he must be very sanguine who supposed that they were exterminated, or even that they had to a considerable degree ceased to exist. Would the hon. and learned gentleman endeavour to persuade the House, that if an opportunity were again to offer for bringing those principles into practical operation, there were not in this country malignant spirits who would be very anxious to give them effect? Would he contend, that all precautionary arrangements to meet this evil were unnecessary? The honourable and learned gentleman said, that he (lord Castlereagh) had undertaken to prove, that if policy justified this measure on former occasions, it more strongly justified it on the present. The view which he took of the subject was this:—If it was wise to pass an alien bill after the peace of Amiens, and after the peace of Paris, it was still more imperative on parliament to pass one at the present time. The hon. and learned gentleman, on the second bench (Mr. Brougham) seemed to have recognized his (lord Castlereagh's) view of the question, as being one not of internal danger alone, but of general danger, affecting the security of the state, both from within and from without; for he understood the hon. and learned gentleman to say, that last year there might have been some danger, as France had a considerable army in the field, and as there were circumstances in the policy of this country that marked a degree of jealousy and suspicion; but that no such danger could be asserted to exist at the present moment. But would the hon. and learned gentleman say, that if the peace of Europe were again to be overset by any sudden event, the danger would not be as great as when it was over set last year? Were there not now as many elements of mischief in France, if they could be brought together, as on that occasion? The very circumstance of the convulsion which happened in Europe, immediately after the passing of the alien bill of 1814, ought to teach parliament the general policy, in the age in which we lived, of adopting precautionary measures rather than of relying on those external appearances of tranquillity which, in ordinary times, would certainly be sufficiently satisfactory. He put it to the hon. and learned gentleman whether he was not conscious that he had stated an extreme case, when he asked, if he (lord Castlereagh) meant to call the powers of the bill into action, for the purpose of making it the engine of political vengeance on the part of the French government? The hon. and learned gentleman having raised this phantom of his own imagination, combated it with great ingenuity, and obtained over it a complete triumph. But he would ask the hon. and learned gentleman in his turn, if he would recommend government and parliament to throw open the country to all those violent and troubled spirits who assembled about Buonaparté when he made his last desperate effort to disturb the repose of the world? Would the hon. and learned gentleman think it a wise or a becoming policy, to give unqualified and unlimited protection to all those aliens? Would he give unrestrained admission to all French subjects? Whatever might be the sentiments of others, he (lord C.) was not prepared to adopt such a line of policy. If the House thought with him—if they were not disposed under all the circumstances of the times, to go to the extent of liberality to which he had alluded, they must of course place in the hands of the executive government a discretionary power to use such measures as might be demanded for the security of the British empire.

He wished now to say a few words as to the sentiments of the other powers of Europe as dependent on this measure, The hon. and learned gentleman appeared to apprehend, that they should incur the indignation, or at least the ill-will, of the various states of Europe, if they entrusted the executive government with the means of protection which the bill afforded: and that those states would feel the injury so sensibly, as to induce them to resent it towards British subjects in their respective dominions, who, in all likelihood, therefore, would be treated with less liberality than they had hitherto been. He thought he could effectually relieve the hon. and learned gentleman from this alarm; for the powers of Europe to which he alluded, had expressed their sentiments very unequivocally, with respect to the promiscuous and undistinguishing admission of French subjects into other countries more especially into countries immediately bordering on France, in which, of course, greater facilities existed for fomenting disorder, and throwing public affairs into confusion. While those governments opened their own territories (which being distant were not exposed to so great a danger) to such individuals, they strongly recommended to the states bordering on France, not to make their respective countries an asylum for persons who were compelled to quit France. Several free states, and especially the general confederacy of Switzerland, had acted on that principle; not thinking it advisable to admit into their territories French subjects, whose conduct in their own country had rendered them unfit to remain in it. He could assure the hon. and learned gentleman, therefore, that if the House only satisfied themselves that they were doing justice to their own view of sound policy, it was not likely that they would expose British subjects, resident in foreign states to any inconveniences whatever.

He would proceed to show that if it was consistent with a general system of wise precaution to adopt a measure of this description in 1802 and in 1814, it was much more so in the present instance. In 1814 it was thought that the peace of Europe was secured on a firm basis, and the armies of the various allied powers returned, and were returning to their respective territories. But at the present time it was deemed necessary to keep up a very large allied force in France to secure the stability of public affairs, and to prevent any occurrence calculated to shake that system on which the peace of the world depended. Could any one therefore doubt, that if it was wise and rational to adopt precautionary measures in 1814, when so little apprehension was entertained of any sudden convulsion, it was much more wise and much more rational to adopt such measures when it was deemed expedient to leave 150,000 foreign troops in France? When such unexampled measures of external precaution were resorted to, the propriety of adopting moderated measures of internal precaution, in his opinion, appeared sufficiently obvious. He agreed with the hon. and learned gentleman in lamenting that the state of Europe was such as to require these precautions; but he considered it fortunate that the British constitution, like other free constitutions, when called upon by necessity, possessed as much power as a despotic government to adopt for a time provisions of security, without injuring the liberty which was essential to its character. His majesty's government would act with great presumption, if they thought the danger so far gone by as to render any vigilance unnecessary. At the same time, he expressed his confidence that the mere passing of the law would afford a great protection to the country from the dangers against which it was directed, without much call for its operation. But, if parliament were to refuse it, this country would soon be deluged with the worst and most dangerous characters in Europe, against whom nothing could effectually protect it but a renewal of the measure in an aggravated form, and an execution of it in the most extensive and rigorous manner. The bill which the House was now called upon to read a second time, he considered to be framed in the true spirit of prevention. It would be a mild shield against a danger which had not altogether ceased, although the hon. and learned gentleman seemed to think that it was utterly extinguished [Hear, hear !].

observed, that the noble lord had set out with dwelling emphatically on the circumstances in which the measure of 1793 had originated—differing altogether as those circumstances did from the circumstances of the present time. But the noble lord had erroneously stated the arguments of those who, in 1793, opposed the measure. No man had ever denied that an actual case of danger to the internal tranquillity of the realm would be a sufficient warranty for the enactment of such a measure. Mr. Fox had made this statement most distinctly, and had founded his opposition to the bill on the ground that no danger existed. But he would pass this by, and ask the noble lord if there was, at the present moment, such danger as that which was assumed to exist in 1793 by the friends of the bill of that day? Would the noble lord say that the same danger now existed which was assumed in 1793 by the friends of the bill? The noble lord said no such thing. He could not say so, and it would be for the House to judge how far the existence of any danger was made out, on which the present bill should rest. The noble lord had said, that gentlemen on his (Mr, Horner's) side of the House, were insensible to the dangers of the country, in their opposition to this bill. This he denied. They considered that for any misconduct of aliens in this country, the operation of the common law would be a sufficient remedy. It was so considered by our ancestors, who, until 1793, never sought any other protection against the conduct of aliens but the common law. But would it be argued that before that period the country was in no danger from the practices of aliens? He could state several periods of our history when real danger existed from aliens, and yet no such power as that conferred by an alien act was thought necessary against it. In remote periods, when this country was disturbed by contests for the Crown, and when the influence of aliens was known to be exerted against the government, this extraordinary power was not resorted to. The common law was then thought sufficient. In times when religious differences excited disturbances, and when foreigners were known to be hostile to the views of government, when so many alarms of danger were spread from the interference of the pope and the jesuits, it was not thought necessary to vest such a power in the Crown. The common law was then deemed sufficient. But to come to more modern times. During the whole period from the revolution, down to the reign of his present majesty, would it be said that this country was in no danger from aliens? There was, during the whole of that time a pretender to the throne, and one in whose favour it was known some foreign nations were prejudiced, and to support whom foreign factions were formed in this country; yet during all that time, and amidst all those dangers, an alien act was not thought necessary. No, the common law was resorted to, as a sufficient remedy against the efforts of aliens in those times to disturb the public tranquillity. This then, he conceived, was an answer to the noble lord's charge of insensibility to the danger of the country. The opposition of gentlemen on his (Mr. Horner's) side, did not proceed from insensibility, but from a wise sensibility of the danger to be dreaded from aliens on the one hand, and from the extraordinary and arbitrary power of the Crown on the other. But the noble lord had taken an extended view of the subject, and in his mind the arguments which the noble lord had used were more against than in favour of the bill. The noble lord had taken a very extended, and indeed a very surprising view of the necessity of the measure. One different altogether from that which had been taken by Mr. Pitt. Mr. Pitt's grounds were narrow, but they were defined and intelligible. He had introduced the bill as a war measure, But the noble lord had made his a peace alien bill. And for what? To protect the essential interests of British policy against the machinations of foreigners. But what were those essential objects of British policy,? Did they consist in supporting the policy of the assembled monarchs at Vienna, or in affording secure and uncontrolled sway to legitimate sovereigns, or rather to sovereigns newly created? Was it one essential object of British policy, that a certain number of persons who had composed the constituent assembly, who had so much enthusiasm as to think they could reform the constitution of their country, should not have power to reside in any other kingdom, than Russia, Prussia, or Austria? These might be considered essential objects of British policy by the noble lord, but would the House sanction or approve them? Would they, by passing this bill, give to the Crown the power of banishing from our shores, the foreign merchant, mechanic, or artist, whose exertions and industry contribute so much to our commercial wealth and national splendour? Would it invest the noble lord with a power, which he might, in order to protect the policy of Russia, Austria, France, or Spain, exert in sending such persons to the wilds of Siberia, or the dungeons of Ceuta [Hear, hear !]?—He trusted, that before they gave such a power, they would seriously consider the grounds on which it had been conferred in 1793. In the act which was then passed, what was the cause stated? Was it the undefined term; " to protect the essential objects of British policy?" No, but to guard against internal danger, not from some supposed extreme cause, but from danger—actually existing danger [Hear !].

Here the hon. and learned member read the preamble to the alien bill of 1793, which stated, that whereas an unusual number of persons, not natural-born subjects of his majesty, resided in the kingdom; and whereas danger may arise, &c &c [Hear, hear! from lord Castlereagh] The noble lord may cheer (continued Mr. Horner),but would he contend that any danger to this country was to be dreaded from the foreigners who were now in it? He—(Mr. H.) did not call on the noble lord to show that danger might not exist; but if it did, it might be to the Bourbons, not to this country. The hon. and learned gentleman then adverting to the statement of the solicitor-general, that the Crown possessed the power of sending aliens out of the country, contended that such an opinion was erroneous, and observed that the loose opinion of Blackstone on the subject was no authority, unsupported as it was by any express act or by precedent. He observed, that if such a prerogative of the Crown was to be proved, it should be proved positively and not negatively. In 1794, when such great research was used in order to prove that this prerogative was vested in the Crown, the only instance of its having ever been exercised was found to have occurred in the reign of Henry the Fourth. It had been said, that though the king had not the power to deport an alien he had a right to order him out of the country by proclamation, and the person refusing to obey such proclamation was liable to punishment. But what was the punishment prescribed in this case? A month's imprisonment, and to be sent out of the country. Undoubtedly obedience should be paid to the lawful proclamation of the king, but in this case the legality of such proclamation might be objected to, and it would not be proved by the punishment of the offender against the proclamation itself. The opinion of sir Edward Northey in support of this right, he considered in the same light as that of judge Blackstone; it was not supported by authority. The hon. and learned gentleman then contrasted the object of the war alien bill with that of the one now proposed. The former, he observed, was to preserve the external tranquillity of the country, but the latter was J intended to support foreign tyranny. [Hear, hear !]. It was in this view the noble lord viewed it, and it was for this purpose he wished the House to sanction it. It was an absurd argument in its favour, to say that it was not likely to be abused, because, unless a strong case of its necessity were made, such argument would go for nothing. But he contended it might be abused, and he would suppose three cases where such abuse might happen. Suppose, in the first place, envoys were to arrive from Holland to dun the Russian ambassador for the debt due from his government; that ambassador might find it convenient to apply to the noble lord to prevent this demand, and the noble lord might discover that it was an essential principle of British policy to send the unlucky Dutchmen out of the country by means of this alien bill. Suppose, in the second place, a body of merchants, the subjects of Ferdinand the beloved, resident in England, should be desirous of proceeding upon business to South America; the Spanish ambassador might give a hint that they were friendly to the revolutionary party in New Spain, and the noble lord might politely take the hint, and send these unoffending traders to Spain, to be dealt with according to the tender mercy of the monarch of that country. Such an occurrence was not impossible, though he did not mean to assert that it, would occur, or that there would be any foundation for his third case, which supposed that some of the persecuted Protestants of Nismes should seek refuge in Great Britain, with a clergyman, who had formerly belonged to the constituent body, at their head: the Catholic French ambassador, perhaps of the Angouleme party, might apply to have them instantly sent abroad again, and the noble lord would have no power of refusal, since, by the passing of this bill, he would deprive himself of the answer, that the laws of the country gave him no such authority; in such a case even the noble lord must lament that he had been armed with a measure which precluded him from giving protection, which his own heart would yearn to afford. He (Mr. Horner) said, he would not enter into the question, either economically or commercially, but he protested in the strongest terms against inflicting upon the national character of the empire a lasting reproach by the passing of this peace alien bill. He cared not for the opinions of foreign courts, who might with reason rejoice at the measure, since it was for their benefit it was passed: in truth, the noble lord was lending himself as an instrument to foreign powers in the persecution of their subjects, and in hunting them from one end of Europe to the other. It was not difficult to understand why ministers of a certain character could not vary their measures with the varying circumstances of the times. In 1793, the House gave extraordinary powers to an extraordinary man, and because the present government found the alien bill upon the statute-book, and learnt that it was about to expire, its revival was immediately determined upon: ministers were determined to follow the steps of Mr. Pitt, and the discontinuance of the act would be an innovation upon their system. What he required was, that the House should no longer allow this innovation upon the constitution; for until the French revolution no such law was ever passed: he trusted that the good sense of parliament would prevail over this attempt to substitute an arbitrary statute for the common law of the land.

in explanation, said that the object of the bill was not to carry into effect the policy of foreign powers, but to protect British policy from being disturbed by the misconduct of strangers. The hon. and learned member had chosen to mistake his position, for the convenience of argument.

denied that he had ever mistated any argument for the sake of convenience. He had listened most attentively to the noble lord, and he reasserted that according to his best judgment he had not misstated his position.

persisted, that his argument in favour of the bill was founded upon the belief that there did exist in the country a number of persons who harboured designs to convulse the peace of Europe.

said, that he and the noble lord were at issue, and the House must decide.

did not intend to trespass long on the time of the House, but he felt it incumbent on him to offer a few observations on what had occurred in the course of this discussion. It appeared to him that the debate had been attended by some extraordinary singularities. The gentlemen opposite had supposed certain objections to the measure under consideration, and when those who supported the bill had answered those objections, their answers had been taken up by their opponents: and what was thus advanced had been treated as their original argument. The hon. and learned gentleman had argued on the law and on the constitution as affected by this question, at considerable length, and had seemed to challenge him to an inquiry into the law of the case. On this question he was not at all disinclined to meet the hon. and learned gentleman, but he could assure the House he hoped to be able to dispose of it in a few words. He had no difficulty in stating his opinion on it, but every one who knew him, knew he would always rather hear a legal opinion from his hon. and learned friend near him, stated in that clear and luminous manner which was peculiarly his own, than volunteer one himself. He did not think the argument of his hon. and learned friend (the solicitor-general) had been fairly dealt with. It had been said that he founded it solely on the authority of Blackstone's Commentaries, and the opinion of sir Edward Northey, when he was attorney general. He thought his hon. and learned friend had treated the subject in a different manner. He had distinctly understood his argument to be this, that the king by his prerogative, independent of any other authority, had the power of sending an alien out of the country, in cases when he could not so dispose of a native subject. This his hon. and learned friend had stated to be his opinion, and in this he concurred; but he could not expect his opinion to carry any weight with it, and merely offered it as that of a very humble individual. He perfectly agreed with his hon. and learned friend, that all subjects of the realm had rights with respect to their native sovereign, which aliens could not claim. Those who were native subjects could not be sent out of the realm but by the ordinary course of law on some act of delinquency being proved to have been committed by them. It was not so with him who was born out of the realm—who was born out of allegiance to the sovereign;—he could not claim those rights which he had stated to belong to the subject born in this country—him the sovereign had a right to remove if he saw a necessity for doing so, though no act of delinquency had been proved to have been committed by the party. This opinion he and his hon. and learned friend considered to be supported by those very provisions made for the safe conduct of aliens, and for favouring them in various instances, on which the gentlemen opposite seemed most disposed to rely. So far from seeing in these regulations any thing to make against their argument, they on the contrary contended, that it was confirmed and fortified by the regulations alluded to. They did not rest their opinion solely on the authority of Blackstone's Commentaries; but if their reasoning was supported by sir William Blackstone, surely this was no mean evidence in favour of its correctness. He admitted they thought this authority of some importance; and when that of sir Edward Northey were added the did not speak of the fast learned writer on the law as becoming an important authority, from the circumstance of his having held the office of attorney-general), he was of opinion they might rely on that which was sanctioned by two such distinguished characters with some confidence. But his hon. and learned friend opposite, who denied that the sovereign had that authority with respect to aliens, which he and his hon. and learned friend (the solicitor-general) thought he had, said, the only question now before the House was, whether there should be an alien bill for a state of' peace as well as for a state of war? If this was the question, he thought it could at once be decided on the best authority, since parliament had found it necessary to arm the executive government with the means of easily using those powers which the Crown possessed, but which had been infirm, and with difficulty made available before. But it was said this power might be abused, and that any persons who had become obnoxious to foreign governments might under its provisions, be sent out of the country at twenty-four hours notice. It was not, however, pretended that in any instance this had been done under the alien acts up to the present time. In no case had any alien been sent out of the country in consequence of an application or at the instance of any foreign government. What grounds then, were there for supposing that a course might here after be adopted, which had never yet been pursued? But it was said, that such a law ought not to be passed for any purpose but for that of securing the tranquillity of this country. He (the attorney-general) and all the supporters of the bill, said the same thing. He had been astonished at the misrepresentation of the argument of his noble friend (lord Castlereagh) which had occurred. He had understood him most distinctly to say, the measure could be adopted on no ground but this, that it was essential to secure the tranquillity of England. He had particularly attended to his words, and knew that he had said, that on coming out of a war like that which we had been fated to wage for nearly a quarter of a century, that man must indeed be sanguine who could persuade himself that the principles against which we had strove were wholly extirminated throughout Europe. His noble friend had argued, that if persons came from the continent to this country, to seek the means of disturbing its repose, it was desirable that the government should be armed with those means which were necessary to frustrate such a design. That such means ought to be entrusted to the government, he did not think any one could intend seriously to deny. But then the hon. and learned gentleman went to the case of a person who had dreamed of mending the constitution, and who might now be suffering for his dream. He had argued on the supposed hardships such a person might be subjected to under this act. Having become obnoxious to his own government, and having in consequence sought a refuge here, it was argued that this bill would be made use of, to give ministers the means of lending themselves to the vengeance of that power from which the fugitive had been compelled to fly. When this was stated, it ought to be remembered that his noble friend had disclaimed all idea of lending the alien bill, to forward the views of any foreign government whatever. The hon. and learned gentleman had then endeavoured to carry the House to the contemplation of various affecting scenes, which he had drawn upon his imagination to supply. He had supposed the case of a Protestant minister, who flying with his children and his little property to this country, would be denied the asylum he had hoped to find in it from the operation of the alien bill. Ha had then supposed two Dutch gentlemen might come over to England, and be suspected of having been sent to dun the Russian ambassador for money owed by Russia to Holland. He then supposed the Russian minister to go to the office of the noble lord, and there a dialogue was to pass between them, in which the Russian minister was to state, that it would be very inconvenient for him to be dunned for the public debt of his country, and on this the noble lord was to say"—All we can do is to send them out of the country, under the alien act. I will write a letter to the secretary of state for the home department, who will send them out of the realm as suspected persons, and the inconvenience apprehended may thus be avoided."—Now, he wished the House to consider on what ground these arguments stood. No man had suggested that any thing of the kind had ever occurred, and yet on the strength of these extreme cases, which the hon. and learned gentleman had imagined, the House was called upon to refuse to arm the government with those powers which might be of the greatest importance to the preservation of public tranquillity. The means required, he contended, were necessary to enable ministers to protect the country from the designs of those who might come here for the purpose of disturbing the repose of England. But, it was asked, was there no law with respect to aliens, by which they could be punished for any crime they could commit? Unquestionably there were laws under which aliens could be brought to justice, but who, after the last twenty-five years experience, would deny that persons might come here to form plans for disturbing the country by external means, who might gain opportunities of accomplishing their object if the government had not the means of promptly re-moving them. It should be borne in mind how much better it would be to nip such designs in the bud, than to suffer them to approach maturity: it should be remembered how difficult it might be to defeat the deep-laid schemes of such conspirators, if time were allowed for their perfect formation. He conjured the House not to lose sight of these considerations, and trusted they would not let the arguments which they had heard from the opposite side of the House, induce them to deny the government those powers to meet present dangers growing out of the remnant of those which had so long hung over the country: he called upon them not to refuse their assent to a measure so necessary to the protection of the dearest and best interests of England, and which had not yet been, nor was likely hereafter to be made in any case subservient to the views or the resentments of any foreign government.

to state, that notwithstanding all he had heard from his hon. and learned friend, he still remained unconvinced that the alien bill was either agreeable to the genius of our law, or justified as a novelty by any danger such as ought to be the foundation of such a measure. He still conceived it to be the most important deviation from constitutional policy and ancient usage, that had ever been proposed to parliament on such slight or suspicious grounds. In the discussion of last session, he had called for proofs of the existence of the prerogative said to be in the Crown, of sending out of the realm alien friends in time of peace. In calling for proofs of a prerogative, he must be understood to require evidence of a long, a vowed, and uncontested exercise of it, sanctioned by parliament, or at least recognized by the courts of Westminster-hall. Till an answer was made to such a demand, he had suspended his opinion. He only ventured then to doubt the existence of such a right. But from the proofs which had not been produced and the arguments which had been offered after a twelvemonth's leisure for research, he now thought himself justified in declaring, that such a prerogative was not warranted by law. All had now been said for it that could be said. And to what did it amount? To three assertions, or as they were called authorities:—to one gross fallacy—and to some general speculations, too loose to deserve the name of argument. Three opinions were alleged in favour of this prerogative—that of sir Edward Northey—that of sir William Blackstone—and that of his learned friends opposite. The opinion of sir Edward Northey, privately given to the government when he was attorney-general in 1705, respecting certain Catholic clergy-men in the province of Maryland was, that " if they be aliens, not made denizens nor naturalized, her majesty may by law compell them to depart from Maryland;"^* and this opinion had been relied on as a proof that this was by law a prerogative of the Crown. No citation of supposed authority ever more betrayed the poverty of a case. It was the opinion of a private individual the advice of a counsel to his client—for these, notwithstanding the imposing sound of government and attorney-general, were the terms probably applicable to sir Edward Northey's assertions. The judgment of a court—even a single judgment—was in itself some evidence of law. But what was the opinion of a lawyer without the proofs on which it was founded? Sir Edward Northey quoted no precedents. He produced no arguments. What was his unsupported opinion in any case? What was it more particularly in a case which must rest either on ancient usage, or on constitutional principle, or on the union of both. We had the same books and records to consult, and the same faculty of reasoning on the constitution with sir Edward Northey. His opinion was of no more value than that of any man who had taken a part in this discussion. It was no more than that of the learned gentleman, respectable enough to demand consideration, but perfectly open to discus- sion, and not weighing a feather in the decision. It was quoted needlessly by his learned friends, to support a similar opinion of their own. This proof of assertion by assertion, this attempt to support one naked opinion by another naked opinion, was a mere multiplication of nothing by nothing, of which the result must also be nothing. Indeed, the inference was perhaps more than merely negative. This prerogative claim, as it now appeared, had been privately maintained in 1705—without precedent or reason. It had been asserted, though faintly, in 1793—without precedent or reason. It had now again been asserted, with more confidence but with like absence of precedent or reason. It had been three times in a century alleged, and three times left without support from principle or usage. The natural presumption seemed to be that what was not done could not be done, and that no foundation could be discovered for this claim either in legal authority or constitutional reasoning.

^* Chalmer's Opinions of Lawyers, I.4

As to the authority of sir William Blackstone, he certainly was not one of those who in general undervalued it. His Commentaries were undoubtedly not only distinguished by their singular elegance, but by an exactness much greater than it was reasonable to expect in so brief an account of a comprehensive and intricate science. Too much importance had been ascribed to small and inevitable inaccuracies by professed lawyers. But the very nature of the work made it absurd to quote it as an authority on points of rare occurrence, which must turn on laborious investigations of ancient usage, on which he throws out a short and hasty observation, and, contrary to his usual custom, supports it by the citation of no authority. He had, indeed, a few sentences before, made rather an, unfortunate citation from Puffendorff, which was relied on last year. He had quoted the assertion of Puffendorff, that all states must have a power to regulate the admission of strangers (and he might have added the return or expulsion of natives), apparently to prove that the power of admitting foreigners was, by the constitution of this country, vested in the Crown. Certainly, such rights exist in all states; but by whom to be exercised in each commonwealth was a question to be answered by the laws of each country. And now the wisdom of Blackstone's citation, and the supposition that he had fortified his own authority on this question by adding to it that of Puffendorff, seemed to be abandoned. What was worse, Blackstone had destroyed his own authority here, by laying down a position which no man would be found bold enough to maintain. So slight and hasty was his attention to this subject, that he lays it down, that "aliens are liable to be sent home whenever he sees occasion." This assertion is evidently false. Indeed, short as the passage is, it contains no less than, two gross errors. The first that " the king may send the alien home,"—a power which has never been claimed, and which is indeed utterly untenable. The prerogative must have spent its force as soon as it expels the alien from the British territory.—The second mistake was, that this power might be exercised without limitation over all aliens; which was clearly inconsistent with the letter of Magna Charta, and Blackstone's own interpretation of it. The only object of these criticisms was, to show that Blackstone wrote this passage negligently, and that it does not possess the weight which might justly be ascribed to his advised opinion.

In this failure of authority the next resource of the learned advocates of this bill was argument. His learned friend who spoke last had gravely told the House, that the case of aliens differed from that of natural born subjects in this, that the latter had rights which entitled them in defiance of the Crown to continue within the realm, to which the former could make no pretence. But whence did these rights flow? From the law and from the law alone. That natural born subjects had by law such rights against the Crown, that they could be banished by no human power unless they were convicted of a crime, was most happily true. But the very question was, whether alien friends enjoyed by law the same security. The learned gentleman takes it for granted that they do not. He assumes the only point in dispute. There never was a more egregious instance of begging the question. The alien, it is said, has not the same right against the Crown with the native subject; therefore the Crown has that absolute power over aliens which the law only exercises over native subjects. This is merely to say—the Crown may send aliens out of the country because it may.

But it was said, that as such a power must exist somewhere in every state, it can in our constitution be vested only in the Crown, because the Crown alone can Conveniently exercise it. This again was a mere fallacy. Undoubtedly a power of dealing with aliens according to the demands of the public safety, as well as of doing every other act which an independent commonwealth may lawfully do, is vested in the supreme authority of this realm, which consists of King, Lords and Commons. They may vest in the Crown alone a power to banish aliens, whenever so dangerous a power is absolutely necessary. A power scarcely claimed, not to say exerted, for centuries—a power granted in 1793 professedly on the ground of a danger without parrallel in our history, has no need of being permanently placed where its exertion would be always easy and convenient When the times require it, parliament may vest in the Crown the dictatorship over aliens. And this is the universal answer of this constitution to all such speculative arguments on behalf of inherent prerogatives in the Crown. Parliament can always strengthen what may be weak, or supply what may be deficient in the legal rights of the monarch. The king of England wants many powers which are necessary to the general ends of government. The want is not a fault, but an excellency of the constitution. His power is defective, that its exertion may wholly depend on parliament. It is lamed for the express purpose of disabling it to move by itself. Every mode of reasoning of a different sort is, however, unconsciously founded on principles of absolute monarchy. Whether the question, therefore, was considered on grounds of precedent or on those of reason, he saw no warrant of law for this supposed prerogative. It would, indeed, be no light proof of usage, no loose analogies, no remote inferences, no general speculations, however plausible of political expediency, which could establish the existence of such a power. No acts of violence against foreigners before the constitution was settled, or in times when its principles were suspended, could be sufficient. Still less could any constitutional reasoner consider as precedents any examples of such acts of power unknown at the time and now, for the first time, dragged out of the darkness of official repositories where they had been mouldering for centuries. They must be acts done in the light of day, in the face of the public, sanctioned by parliament, or at least, recognised as legal by courts of law. The most daring prerogative-lawyers of former times had submitted to all these conditions in their boldest attempts to enlarge the regal power. Noy, one of the most learned lawyers of his learned age, a man of very different authority from sir Edward Northey, did not presume to frame the writs for levying ship-money on his own opinion, however weighty, if he had been honest. He came armed with precedents, found indeed to be impertinent, but numerous and specious. He came fortified by every abstract argument which could be derived from the necessity of guarding the seas and shores of the kingdom against urgent danger from pirates and invaders. A decision of a very great majority of the twelve judges of England at length sanctioned his opinion. What was the result? In spite of the number of plausible examples, in spite of specious reasonings, in spite even of the judgment of the most venerable body in the law—Both Houses of Parliament unanimously condemned the grievance " aggravated," as a great man said, " not supported by the judgment." The judges were impeached, and compelled to fly from their country, or dragged as prisoners from the bench where they administered justice: and finally these judgments and proceedings were solemnly and for ever condemned by act of parliament.

If such was the fate of an exercise of prerogative—justified by so many seeming examples and high authorities, what could be thought of a case like the present?. In three and twenty years discussion, one example of the exertion of such a power had been found. There was one such case in the reign of Henry 4th balanced by another of an opposite tendency, in the reign of the very same prince. Only one rusty precedent could be found, after ransacking the whole armoury of prerogative. For four hundred years it seemed to be admitted that there was no example, or at least none such as could be quoted as authority of the exercise of this pretended prerogative. But what sort of prerogative is that which rests upon a single instance of exercise, and which has been disused for four centuries? If this or much more were sufficient, no part of English liberty could be secure. There was no violation of right, of which more than one example might not be found scattered over the records of so many ages in times of confusion or of violence.

This absence of precedent was at least decisive proof of the established policy of our ancestors. The famous clause of Magna Charta, however interpreted, the hospitality shown to the Flemish refugees from the merciless Alva, the humanity exercised even under a Popish king to the Protestants, who fled from the persecution of Louis 14th, the attempts often made and once in the very best period of our history ^* with success, to naturalize all foreign Protestants,—all these examples, and the whole course of our history show that it was our ancient policy to welcome and foster foreign fugitives, to endow them with the privileges of freemen of this realm—not to cast them as slaves on the pleasure of the Crown. And to do justice to the act of 1793, it did not profess permanently to abandon these ancient principles of English policy. Whether it was or was not justified by the circumstances of that period, it was not now in the least degree useful to discuss. But certainly the preamble of that statute most amply acknowledges, that the general policy is an unfettered admission of strangers, and that restraints are justifiable only in circumstances of extreme danger. It sets forth, that, " under the present circumstances much danger may arise to the public tranquillity from the resort and residence of a great and unusual number of aliens."

A law for the regulation of aliens defended on principles which require its perpetuity, on the ground of any less danger than that of 1793, and justified by any consideration but that of equal peril to the internal tranquillity of this country, was in all these respects a deviation from the policy of the act of 1793. That statute was founded on a temporary danger to the quiet of this kingdom of the utmost magnitude. Similar restrictions without an equal and similar danger must be condemned, not supported by the precedent of that statute. Those indeed who thought that act unnecessary must think so of the present bill. But those who consented to adopt such an extreme measure under the extraordinary circumstances of that time, were bound in consistency to be first convinced that there existed so great an evil before they concurred in the adoption of an equally violent remedy. The same species of danger was not now even pretended. No man now affected to dream of any machinations of foreigners against the quiet of this country. Nobody could contend that any measures of precaution were necessary against the agents of foreign governments or the emissaries of foreign factions. There never was a moment in which such apprehensions were more chimerical.

^* 7 Anne, c. 5, " Whereas the increase of people is a means of advancing the wealth and strength of a nation, and whereas many strangers of the Protestant or reformed religion out of a due consideration of the happy constitution of the government of this realm, would be induced to transport themselves and their estates into this kingdom, if they might be made partakers of the advantages and privileges which the natural born subjects there of do enjoy, &c"

Was it, then, to provide against danger to other governments that the ancient policy of our laws was to be altered? It had been said, " that this bill would be agree able to other governments!" The minister had notified to the House the pleasure of the continental sovereigns that we should have an alien bill. He had brought down a message from the congresses of Vienna and Paris, recommending to parliament to shut this country against all the victims of their arrangements. They had not openly stipulated for the passing of an alien law, but the House was now obviously called upon to give effects to the understanding which prevailed among all the members of these assemblies. No doubt it would always be agreeable and always convenient to governments, that refugees from their oppressions, might find no safe and honourable asylum—above all, that they might find no refuge in a free country from which they might make their complaints heard by all Europe. This was the strongest of all objections to the bill, unless we meant to render our laws the engines of every oppression that might be practised by the despotic governments of the continent. It would have been certainly very " agreeable" to Philip 2nd and to Louis 14th, that the Flemish or French Protestants had been prohibited to land on the English shore; or, what would have been the same, that they had been subjected to such an arbitrary power of expulsion, as to deter them from taking refuge in so precarious an abode.

The number of foreigners now here had been repeatedly mentioned as unusual, and in itself enough to justify precaution. These numbers were now before the House. There were now twenty-two thousand, and it appeared that the number of aliens usually resident here was probably about eighteen thousand. These were merchants, clerks, handicraftsmen, teachers, and artists, or domestic servants, who, generally speaking, must be considered as making no part of this case. They came here to exercise industry and to seek fortune. They contributed to the national wealth or enjoyment, while they augmented their own fortune. Their number was an indication of the general confidence of ingenious and industrious men throughout Europe, in the justice of our laws and the humanity of our people. How small a proportion of the resident foreigners were affected by political circumstances, would appear from an inspection of the return. It was well known, that the far greater number of the French emigrants in this country returned to France, in consequence of the amnesty of 1802. Yet from 1801 to 1804, the whole number of aliens were not reduced by four thousand. And the influx from every part of the continent after so long and so rigorous an interruption of intercourse with England, did not increase the whole number above four thousand, from 1812 to 1814. Supposing a thousand to have returned with Louis 18th, (which would probably be an exaggeration) the new aliens would not be five thousand. And as none of the followers of Napoleon were dispersed by the first conquest of France, it is apparent that the far greater part of the new comers must have consisted of that submissive and timid body who repair hither in pursuit of subsistence or fortune. The number of aliens in this country at the present moment was not half the number of the Protestant refugees in the last country. It was not a fourth more than the probable number of those who usually reside here. There was, perhaps, no other industrious and opulent country with so small a relative number; and they were of necessity persons who must have the least will and the least power to disturb the public peace.

But he was really ashamed of labouring to lessen the number of foreigners as if it were a just object of apprehension. It was too great a compliance with the illiberal and pusillanimous policy of this bill: that number was heretofore our pride; and it was not to the honour of our times that it was now become our terror. But in order to make a right estimate of this bill, it was necessary to consider these numbers in another point of view, It was a bill to subject twenty thousand residents in Great Britain to banishment at an hour's warning, on secret information, without knowledge of their offence, without the possibility of proving the clearest innocence. It might be as great a hardship to be banished from the country of choice, as from the country of birth. It might be a most severe punishment to be banished from their sole refuge, from the seat of their fortune, or the best scene of their industry. Was it nothing to be driven from friends, perhaps from connexions, from the residence which either from interest or affection they had chosen above any other? Did not a compulsory expulsion from a country naturally affect the convenience, the feelings, and the character of the man expelled? Was not this a punishment? Might it not in many cases be a more cruel punishment than just laws inflict on criminals after a conviction of dangerous offences upon clear evidence? Would the House vest in the ministers of the Crown the powers of inflicting this punishment upon twenty thousand foreigners who had chosen to reside in England? Would they grant such power where these ministers themselves with the best intentions never could certainly know whether they did right or wrong: where they must be almost entirely at the mercy of secret informers, whose malice must be freed from the only effectual check as soon as the accused are deprived of all means of detecting and exposing false accusations? Unjust banishment might be inflicted without any previous defence against it, or any subsequent responsibility for it. For it was an insolent mockery to speak of responsibility where the cause of punishment was to be concealed from the accused, concealed from parliament, from the public, and if possible even from posterity. We were indeed told that where an abuse was shown parliament would compel ministers to give information. But the object of the bill was to render the exposure of abuse impracticable? It was otherwise with many dangerous delegations of discretionary power: for instance, in what was called the suspenion of the Habeas Corpus act—there the prisoners, generally Englishmen, were sooner or later restored to liberty. If the law refused them its aid, they might still complain with safety and effect; they still had a free press and a generous country They might excite universal indignation against their oppressors. But what was the fate of the fugitive from civil or ecclesiastical tyranny, if he should be unjustly driven out under this bill? If he had found another asylum, was he likely to endanger it; would he provoke new enemies by charges of oppression against the powerful government which had just expelled him? Where, indeed, was such an asylum left? Holland and Switzerland, the Protestant principalities of Germany, formerly shared with England the honour of protecting the fugitive? Which of them would now dare to give public protection to a poor exile who entered their territories with the brand of a second banishment from England? No! they must for ever hide their wrongs, they must purchase a trembling and precarious protection by silence; they must not betray their hiding place by complaining aloud. If they are suffered to return to their native country, would they send complaints here which would subject them to new proscription from those whom this bill is introduced to please? Would they complain of the government of England in order to be placed under the government of Siberia? The means of proving abuse, in general the means of making out a probable case of abuse, are taken away by the bill; and we were called upon to prove abuses, or to consent to the bill. The grand mischief of this bill was, that it rendered the proof of abuse impossible. The law itself was the abuse. Every act done under it was wrapped up in eternal darkness that it might be secure of eternal impunity.

Surely no man would venture to say, that under such a law there was not a great probability of injustice. If there were not, why did we boast of all the protecting forms of our criminal law? Why were accusations precise, witnesses examined in presence of the accused, or by him, juries appointed to be independent and impartial, and judges and juries subjected to public opinion? All these were useless and cumbersome contrivances, if there were not a great chance of injustice in a proceeding founded in secret charges from unknown informers, followed by a clandestine banishment, which imposed silence on the exile almost as effectually as death itself. Were not the publicity of proceedings and the facility of defence, as necessary to guard the judge and minister against falsehood, as to secure the culprit from oppression?

It was vain to say that there had at last been introduced into the alien act of 1813 a power of appeal to the privy council, which would be preserved in the present. He had some knowledge of the clause which gave that appeal, and had at first sanguine hopes that it might have given some security. But he was undeceived; one such appeal had occurred. The privy council had decided that the alien was neither entitled to know the charge against him, nor to be defended by counsel. That the privy council had properly interpreted the clause, he did not presume to doubt; but their decision rendered the appeal illusory. Nothing could be more ridiculous, if it were not so deplorable, than the spectacle of a foreigner defending himself against a charge which was kept secret from him without even power to show general probability of innocence by the testimony of witnesses or by the arguments of counsel. No such principle was ever acted on in the star chamber, where the charge was known and the proceedings generally public. There was no parallel to it but in the tribunal of the holy inquisition—and not even there, as it had been modified on the late re-establishment in any Catholic state but Spain.

But it was said, this is a political and not a judicial proceeding. Of what importance was the epithet by which it is described? It is a proceeding which may affect the character, the property, the safety, in some cases perhaps the life, of twenty thousand men. There was no magic in the word " political." It is as important to these men to have securities against wrong in political as in the judicial proceedings; but it was said that such formalities would altogether enervate the measure. To this it could only be answered, that such a defence is condemnation. There could not be a more sure criterion of a tyrannical law than that its whole efficacy depended on the destruction of all the safeguards of innocent men against punishment.

At last it might be defended on the ground of confidence in personal character, to which he would very shortly answer, that he dreaded much more the imposture to which ministers were exposed by this system of darkness, than acts of oppression intentional on their part; and that if he trusted the humanity of ministers (which from personal observation he certainly was inclined to do), there was no reason why they should be trusted by the hundreds in every part of Europe, who would have sought refuge here, if their residence had been assured by law, instead of depending on the equity and mercy of ministers. The evil of alien acts consisted fully as much in their deterring many meritorious refugees, as in the expulsion of many without cause. Perhaps virtuous men were now working in chains on the walls of Ceuta, or in the harbour of Manilla, who would have sought shelter under the laws of England, but who dreaded (however unfortunately) the protection of the allies of Ferdinand 7th. To be here in such a state was to live by will and not by law. This was the very definition of slavery. Aliens under such a regulation had no assured abode. They had only a respite from banishment during the pleasure of a minister. It was a bill to reduce twenty thousand men to slavery—not by the privation of political privileges—luxuries which belong only to few nations but by being bereft of the right not to be condemned without knowledge of their crime, and punished without the possibility of manifesting innocence—which even the worst governments profess to respect as the common rights of mankind. It was a bill to repeal Magna Charta, to close the city of refuge which had opened its gates to the fugitive and the supplicant during the tempests and convulsions of six centuries. If it passed into a law, the soil of England, instead of the glorious privilege of enfranchising the slave, would henceforward have the wretched power to enslave the free.

opposed the bill, as being most unconstitutional in its principle, and highly oppressive in its operation.

The House divided: