objected to the Speaker's leaving the chair, and condemned the spirit which had lately appeared, and of which this was a part, for legislating on matters that it were better to leave to the guidance of the parties concerned. The object of this bill was to throw the management of steam boats into the hands of certain inspectors, and by this means, as he thought most unwisely, to throw off the responsibility of carefully attending to the steam-engine from the parties really interested in seeing them work with safety and effect; and all this because some accidents had occurred in high pressure engines. No such accidents were ever known, or likely to happen in those of low pressure, which were in general use. He thought there was no necessity for legislating on this subject, and that it was much better to leave the regulations in the hands of the proprietors, who were of course most interested in seeing every thing go on right. Entertaining this opinion, he would propose as an amendment to this motion, "That the bill be committed on that day three months."

said, that this bill was brought in by the recommendation of a committee appointed to consider the subject, and before whom satisfactory evidence was given of the necessity of adopting some legislative enactment, by which the recurrence of those fatal accidents that had taken place would be avoided. The object of the bill would be to have the boilers and safety valves so constructed and placed, as to prevent the occurrence of accident by any neglect of the men appointed to look after them; and also to appoint inspectors, who should see that the provisions of the law were complied with, and give a certificate to that effect, before any boat should be allowed to sail.

said, he would not press his amendment at that moment; but would reserve his opposition until a future stage of the bill.

The bill was then committed.

stated, that it was his intention that evening to move that Thomas Ferguson, who had lately been committed to Newgate for a breach of the privileges of that House, should be discharged; but as the noble secretary of state was implicated in the grounds on which he should found his motion, he was unwilling to bring the subject forward in the noble lord's absence; which he should nevertheless be compelled to do, unless any of the noble lord's friends could say that they expected him in the House.

professed himself unable positively to answer for his noble friend's appearance, although he believed it was his intention to come down to the House.

In a few minutes afterwards lord Castlereagh entered the House, when

again rose. He said, he had deferred addressing the chair until the noble lord's appearance in the House, as the noble lord was in some degree implicated in the grounds of the motion which he was about to make—namely, to discharge Thomas Ferguson, who had been committed to Newgate by order of the House, for having attempted to influence the vote of some person at the ensuing election. It was impossible for him not to feel the gross injustice of this proceeding, when he called to mind the conduct pursued by the House of Commons, under similar circumstances, in that more flagrant case in which the noble lord opposite had some years ago been implicated. It was indispensable to justice, that criminals, whether of high or low rank, should be treated with the utmost impartiality. If that had been so in the present instance—if justice had been dealt with an equal hand to the noble lord and to this Mr. Ferguson, he should have had nothing to say on the subject, for he understood that the latter had certainly committed that which the House was accustomed to call a grievous offence against its privileges. When he considered that the noble opposite had, on the occasion which he alluded to, been charged with having done all in his power to obtain for an individual a seat in that House, by a mode of corruption the most objectionable; when he considered that for that purpose the noble lord offered to barter the patronage which he possessed; when he considered that it was at that time the peculiar duty of the noble lord, as president of the board of control, to prevent any corrupt use of India patronage, when he considered that the person in whose favour the noble lord made the attempt was himself a member of the board of control; when he considered, that in order to effect the noble lord's object, it became necessary to induce another violation of duty, on the part of one of the directors of the East India company, who, if he did not take an oath, at least made a solemn asseveration that he would not convert his patronage into the means of facilitating purposes, such as that in question; when he considered that the author of all these circumstances, culpable as he would be in any condition, was infinitely more so when found in the station of a minister,—the whole formed a mass of aggravation, giving to the act a character of the most pernicious tendency, In a moral point of view he was willing to admit that at the time of the occurrence which he had described, he did not think that it ought to be very heavily visited with punishment; for the noble lord had simply acted under the system which unfortunately had long prevailed on the subject, and the existence of which was generally acknowledged; but looking at it in a constitutional point of view, he repeated, that it appeared to him to be one of the most aggravated cases of guilt that his imagination could form. It pleased the House of Commons, however, not with standing the truth of the alleged facts was admitted by the noble lord, to come to a resolution, that as the proceeding had only commenced, and was not brought to a conclusion, that although (still keeping up the old pretence) they ought to be extremely jealous of their character for purity and independence, they did not think they were called upon to adopt any definite proceeding with reference to the noble lord. But let that case of the noble lord's be compared with the case of Ferguson. The latter had attempted to do—what? That which did not comprehend a tenth, nay, not a hundredth part of the offence of the noble lord. The noble lord had been a dealer in that kind of traffic by whole-sale; he was for purchasing a seat. Mr. Ferguson's object was only to influence an individual in the vote which he should give at an election. In the first place this was a minimum of guilt. To influence a vote could not be placed in the same scale of offences as to procure, by undue means, a seat in that House. Besides, in the case of Ferguson there was no scandalous abuse of patronage. In the case of Ferguson too, as in the case of the noble lord, the proceeding had but just commenced. It was in embryo—so much in embryo, that there was every probability it would never have been followed up by any actual step. So that all which applied in extenuation of the case of the noble lord, was applicable in a tenfold degree to the case of Ferguson, who had, nevertheless, been severely punished, by being taken away from his country and family, and shut up in New gate, for an offence ten times less than that after the commission of which the noble lord got off without censure—an offence, too, still more incomplete than that of the noble lord, as the transaction had barely commenced. He should be glad to know the justice, the reason, or the common sense, of the distinction which induced the House to send one individual to gaol for a trifling offence, and to let another escape without animadversion for a transaction infinitely more criminal. But there was a still stronger case to which he was desirous of recalling the attention of the House. Some time after the occurrence which he had just described, the noble lord, and a late right hon. gentleman, then his colleague (Mr. Perceval), were charged with participating in a transaction of still deeper guilt—namely, with conniving at the procuring of money for a seat in that House, which money was paid to the agent of the Treasury, Mr. Henry Wellesley, not to be put into his pocket, but to be added to a corruption fund devoted to the purpose of influencing future elections for the purposes of government. This was unquestionably a most gross proceeding; and as far as iniquity could be said to attach to the practice of bartering seats in that House, it was most iniquitous. But that was not all. The individual who had paid his money to the agent of the Treasury, having so obtained a seat, when he came into the House unfortunately felt disposed to attend to the dictates of his conscience. On some important occasion, when his conscience would not allow him to vote with ministers, it was intimated to him that he must either resign his seat, or vote against his conscience. To ministers it was indifferent which part of the alternative the individual in question adapted; to the hon. member it was not so, and he gave up his seat. Here, then, there was every possible circumstance of aggravation of which the crime was susceptible. It was the act of a minister of the Crown. It would have been reprehensible in any individual: but it was a hundred times more so in a minister of the Crown. Here was a corrupt purchase and sale for money of a seat in the House of Commons, with the agreement that the conscience and understanding of the individual holding it were not to be exercised. It appeared that there were two kinds of conscience—that there was not only a parliamentary language, but a parliamentary conscience—that an individual was to be expected to decide by his private conscience in one case, and by his parliamentary conscience in another. The gentleman who had purchased the seat in question, not being able to reconcile his parliamentary conscience with his private conscience, resigned the seat which he had purchased. Here was a member, purchasing in the most iniquitous way from the Treasury—from ministers a seat in parliament; and having so purchased it, he nevertheless felt himself compelled by his sense of honour to give it up. This was no unfinished transaction. It was as complete as an epic poem. It had a beginning, a middle, and an end. One would have thought that the House was placed by it in such a situation, that it could adopt only one course of proceeding. But no: notwithstanding what had before occurred—notwithstanding the resolution of the House, that they were not bound to notice the former proceeding (not a tenth part so criminal as the latter), on the ground merely of its having been incomplete—what did they do? Why, it was declared from all parts of the House, that the practice in question was notorious. By one it was said to be as notorious as the sun at noon day; by another, to be as common as the streets of the metropolis; and by the majority, to be so universal, that it would be unjust to visit the noble lord and the right hon. gentleman with punishment for having adopted it. On that occasion he (sir F. Burdett) certainly felt no great anxiety that those persons should experience any heavy vengeance well knowing how many had been guilty of similar proceedings, and well knowing in what way the House of Commons was constituted. But, with all these circumstances staring them in the face; with the avowal of the existence of the practice made in the House, at the periods to which he had alluded; with the illus- tration of it contained in the petition presented four or five and twenty years ago, from the Friends of the People, complaining of the abuses that took place in the composition of the House, alleging that a certain, and that not a small number of the members were nominated by peers of the realm, and offering to substantiate that allegation at the bar—it was too Unjust, and too disgusting, on the part of the House, when an unfortunate individual like Ferguson had merely done that which it was allowed had been long a common practice, to seize him on pretence of maintaining that purity which, in fact, did not exist, but of which they affected to be jealous, and to make him undergo a severe punishment, when at the same time over ministers, who were detected in the commission of an offence of infinitely greater enormity, they unhesitatingly threw the shield of impunity. This robe of purity the House could one day wear, and the next throw off, just as it suited their convenience; though when stripped of it nothing was to be seen underneath but "filthy dowlas." But was it possible that gentlemen thought the country so blind and so stupid—did they think that all sense of justice was so completely extinguished in it—that it could look at this transaction without feeling indignation as warm as that with which he (sir F. Burdett) viewed it? He remembered one of Æsop's Fables, in which it was related, that at a certain time the morality among the beasts of the forest was so great, that, attributing it to the vengeance of the Gods, they assembled in much consternation to discover, if possible, what crime they had committed to draw down upon them so heavy a calamity. The lion of course was the first to address the meeting, and for his part disclaimed any sanguinary act by which he could have incurred the divine anger. He was followed by the wolf, the leopard, and the other beasts of prey, who all declared themselves equally innocent. At last came the ass, who, with much hesitation and shame, confessed that he had once purloined a cabbage; upon which the other beasts loudly and unanimously exclaimed against him as the obnoxious criminal, and instantly tore him to pieces as a just sacrifice to offended heaven [a laugh]. Similar was the conduct pursued by that House. But miserably deceived were they if they thought by such conduct they could retrieve the character which they accused others of endeavour- ing to run down, and which he admitted was utterly lost and gone. By throwing the broad shield of impunity over the noble lord and the right hon. gentleman, they had partaken in the offence against the constitution of which those individuals had been guilty. Well might Ferguson say, that although he was aware the laws rendered that which he had practised criminal, yet that the House of Commons, by their treatment of the noble lord and his colleague, had given a different interpretation to those laws; that they were now to be considered obsolete; that the House of Commons, by a distinct decision, had declared that the practice which those laws contemplated as unconstitutional was not so; and that it would not call down on those who joined in it the vengeance of parliament. He would not take up more of the time of the House, for the case lay in a small compass; but, under the circumstances which he had mentioned, would merely move "That Thomas Ferguson be forthwith discharged."

said, that he did not know any thing of the case of the individual in question, not having been present when the proceeding was taken by the House, on the report of the committee of privileges, to whose consideration that case had been referred. It was very evident, however, to him, that the only object which the hon. baronet had in his present proceeding was the common one with that hon. baronet, of endeavouring to find in any part of the transactions of that House some impeachment of the character and dignity of parliament. He generally observed, that whenever any incident occurred which seemed to show that the hon. baronet did not fill the space, which in his own opinion, he ought to occupy in the public eye, he endeavoured immediately to recover at least a portion of his lost popularity, and on the day succeeding such disaster, to try to regain the esteem of the worthy characters whose approbation he courted, by some proceeding similar to that which he had just originated, and consonant to the feelings and disposition of the persons whom he wished to conciliate. With respect to the circumstances to which the hon. baronet had alluded in the course of his speech, he could assure him that he felt no soreness whatever. The subject had been fully discussed and determined upon by parliament. And as to the propriety of acceding to the motion of the hon. baronet for the liberation of Mr. Ferguson, he was the last man to give an opinion upon it, having he repeated, not been present at the discussion of that individual's conduct. It was quite impossible, however, to mistake the hon. baronet's views in this business, or to doubt that this was one of the many efforts so perseveringly made by the hon. baronet for the destruction of the constitution and of the character of parliament.

observed, that if he understood the hon. baronet's object, it was, that the House should rescind that which it had already determined, not because it had determined erroneously, but because nine years ago it had omitted to do its duty in a case somewhat similar in its circumstances. To that omission he was no party. He was certainly at the time in favour of further proceedings. Still it was a decision of parliament, and was a precedent, but whether to be imitated or avoided was a fit subject for consideration it would be a sad thing, indeed, if, because the House had in any single instance neglected its duty, it could in no subsequent instance perform it. He would not enter into the case of Ferguson, for the hon. baronet had not touched upon it. Indeed, the hon. baronet had not thought the case of sufficient importance to attend the discussion upon it; but a week after it was disposed of, the hon. baronet came down, and, without notice, proposed to the House to rescind their deliberate determination. The hon. baronet had laid no ground whatever for his motion. What took place in another parliament in 1809 was no ground. Besides, it was not correct to say that the noble lord escaped without censure: although certainly he (Mr. Wynn) thought the censure too mild. The next year parliament passed an act to remove some doubts which existed on this subject by declaring acts similar to that with which the noble lord had been charged penal offences. With respect to the other case in 1810, to the decision in that case, he (Mr. Wynn) was no party. But the ground of it was that parliament having just passed the act to which he had alluded, it would not be just to make its operation retrospective, To accede to the hon. baronet's motion would be to declare that the bribery of electors was no offence, and to annul all the practice of our forefathers from the earliest periods of the history of parliament. On these grounds it appeared to him to be impossible that the House could entertain the hon. baronet's proposition. Whenever the case might come regularly before the House on the petition of the individual suffering under its displeasure, it would then be a fit subject for consideration, but at present it was not so.

said, that the hon. baronet, who was so ready to accuse others of undue practices in election matters, would perhaps remember when, in his first contest for Middlesex, he had little prospect of being returned, three hundred millers voted for him as proprietors of a mill which was not built, and of which they had become possessed but the preceding night! that the sheriffs were sent to New-gate for gross partiality to the hon. baronet, and the election was declared void. On the second contest of the hon. baronet for Middlesex, never was there a greater display of universal suffrage. Persons who were qualified, and persons who were not, were indiscriminately polled, until prosecutions for perjury were set on foot, and many of the votes abandoned; and eventually the hon. baronet did not obtain his seat. Perhaps the hon. baronet might remember the third election for Middlesex, at which he was a candidate, and at which all the practices resorted to at the second election were exposed and brought to light; and at which, while the present member for Middlesex polled 3,000 votes the hon. baronet polled only 800. This was the history of the hon. baronet's contests for Middlesex. If he had forgotten them the electors of Middlesex had not and were the hon. baronet to start a fourth time, he would experience the same result.

regretted the introduction of personalities into the present discussion. His hon. friend had alluded as slightly as possible to the individuals whom he had been obliged to mention—[A laugh from the Treasury bench].—Gentlemen might laugh, but they might remember the hon. baronet said, he rather wished, on the occasions to which he had adverted, that the offence should be visited with a light hand, because it was one of such general notoriety. He did not, therefore, think that the hon. baronet had pressed the subject in a way that ought to be at all offensive to the noble lord or to his personal friends. His object in now rising was, to state the reasons which prevented him from concurring in his hon. friend's motion. He had most un- willingly witnessed the introduction of the charge against the noble lord, and the right hon. gentleman nine or ten years ago. He had most reluctantly felt himself bound on that occasion to vote for the resolution inculpatory of their conduct; but having done so he felt it a duty to maintain his consistency by pursuing a similar course with respect to Ferguson. If the House were to agree to his hon. friend's motion, it would be at once to declare to the country, that all irregularities or breaches of privilege with respect to elections were thenceforward to pass unnoticed and unpunished. In his conscience, therefore, he must oppose the motion; though he confessed he was at a loss to understand how those hon. members who rejected the former resolutions inculpatory of the noble lord, could reject his hon. friend's present proposition.

observed, that the bill which he introduced several years ago would have gone far to remedy such evils as that to which the attention of the House was now called, had it not been deprived of all efficacy by the amendments which were engrafted on it.

, in reply, observed, that as the noble lord had said so little on the subject now before them, he did not think it necessary to take any notice of what had fallen from him. As for what the hon. colonel had said about the Middlesex elections, he certainly had a perfect recollection of all the proceedings connected with them; indeed, no man had less reason to forget them than he had. He had twice experienced the remedy which the House in its wisdom had thought proper to provide in cases of contested elections; and he could assure them, that to enjoy that benefit a third time would be out of his power. As to the votes of some of the electors on that occasion not being connected with property, the observation came badly from the hon. member, who ought to know that most of the votes for the boroughs in the country were wholly unconnected with real property. The mill votes, which the hon. member had mentioned, were objected to, and the election was, in consequence twice referred to a committee; but that committee, though they had set aside the election, never came to a decision upon those votes. They were got rid of in a general way, on the ground that the owners were never assessed to the land-tax. The observation upon that subject from the hon. member was therefore not at all in point. It was true, the sheriff of Middlesex had been sent to Newgate for the return he made; but under what circumstances? He could not have struck off the names from the poll books of numbers who had voted, and he happened to return a candidate unfavourable to ministers; but on the subsequent election, when the sheriff refused to return him (sir F. B.), though he had a decided majority on the poll books, he was not sent to Newgate. The hon. member might, perhaps, easily guess the reason. With respect to the motion immediately before the House, he had heard no one argument against it. He should not, however, press the House to a division upon it, from the disposition he saw evinced by several members, Some hon. members on his side of the House seemed determined to vote against it, to support their consistency with a former vote; and the hon. members on the opposite side would vote, from what fell from the noble lord, to support their former inconsistency.

The motion was then put, and negatived.

said, that in moving for leave to bring in a bill to continue the provisions of the Alien Act, as the subject was one which had been so frequently agitated within those walls, and so recently discussed in the most ample manner, it was unnecessary for him now to occupy much of the time of the House. The Alien bill had received a strong support from one side of the House, and had been as strongly resisted by another. He was sure that he should be the last person who would wish the House to lay aside that constitutional jealousy which it was fitting they should entertain of any measure by which the liberty of the subject, or the liberty of those foreigners who entered the country, and who ought to be received here with every mark of humanity and kindness, compatible with the safety of the state, might be affected. But he hoped at the same time, that the House on this, as well as on former occasions, would consider what was due to the public security, and that they would not let their feelings hurry them away to steps by which that security might be endangered. When this question was last under the consideration of the House, it underwent a very elaborate examination; and there was hardly any view of that part of it in particular which related to the prerogative of the Crown, which had not been examined and probed to the bottom. He did not wish now to enter into the question of prerogative; but this he would say, that he had always held it as inseparable from the governing power in any country that it should be able to take precautions against the machinations of foreigners residing in such country; and that in a country where foreigners were only amenable to the ordinary laws, the government would be unable to provide properly for the security of the state. It had been contended that in former times the Crown, by its prerogative, could expel aliens. But whatever opinion might be entertained with respect to the prerogative in former times, all were clearly of opinion that it could not now be exercised without parliamentary regulation. It was clear that this power could only be now beneficially exercised under the regulation of parliament; and whether any or what law was required, was a subject for the consideration of the House. Taking that ground, therefore, he wished to submit, not a permanent law on this subject, though he was aware that many members thought that some permanent regulation respecting the registration of aliens ought to be enacted. His view at present was, not to propose any permanent law, but merely to propose a continuance of the existing law, and for the same period as had last been taken, namely, for two years. The measure which he was thus proposing to the House, was perfectly distinct from the war alien bill, which was first introduced in 1793. When that bill was introduced we were not merely at war, but at war with a power which acted on a system of sending persons in disguise to those countries with which it was at war, for the purpose of producing convulsions in them; and in the part of the country with which he was more immediately connected, these emissaries were often but too successful. The consequence was, that all aliens, on the face of their coming here, were open to suspicion. Aliens, the moment they were admitted into the country, were assigned a particular part for their residence, were placed under the superintendence of the magistracy, and were not allowed to proceed more than ten miles from their place of resi- dence, without obtaining a certificate from a magistrate. It was thought proper to view aliens generally as objects of suspicion, and unless the magistracy had reason to be convinced of the innocency of their purpose, they could not obtain a passport to leave the place assigned to them. But immediately after the cessation of the war, the furlong with respect to aliens underwent a change. Even at the peace of Amiens, the view taken by the legislature with respect to them was, that the presumption was they were persons entering this country for innocent and not for hostile purposes. They were no longer confined to a particular place of residence, but it was at the same time allowed to the magistrates and the state to remove any individual whose conduct led to the supposition that he was abusing the hospitality which he had received. The war alien bill, therefore, viewed all foreigners with jealousy; but the peace bill considered them all as coming for commercial and innocent purposes; but still not so completely so, as that the government should be disarmed of the power to remove them, when their conduct rendered such a step necessary. From the moment a foreigner landed, and gave the necessary description of himself, he might enter the country without interruption, and go where he chose, and reside in it as long as he chose, unless the secretary of state thought he abused the liberty which was conceded to him. He believed that government could not be charged in this case with malversation, and that it would not be said that the least disposition had been manifested by the officers of the Crown to abuse the powers entrusted to them. It could not be said that any serious inconvenience had arisen to foreigners from the existing law. During the last six years not more than nine individuals had been sent out of the country; and during the last two years only three, of whom two were sent out in 1817, and only one in 1818. But the House were not to infer, from there being so few cases in which it was necessary for government to exercise the powers entrusted to them, that without this law a great amount of evil would not have existed. The executive had come to parliament, for powers to enable them to prevent the existence of danger; and if the executive had not received from parliament those precautionary powers which it demanded, it would have been necessary to have afterwards applied for a stronger force, to meet the danger which must have arisen from the want of an adequate remedy. The House would he hoped, allow him to instance what had taken place in countries where there was no alien bill. It was fair to contrast one country, in which there was an alien bill, with another country in which there was not any alien law. From this it would be seen from what mischief this country had been freed by parliaments, having armed the executive with the alien bill. If there was in this country none of those conspiracies which had been carried on in another, it was because the conspirators knew that in this country they durst not venture to carry them on. Without giving the House any precise information on this subject, which he was not bound, to do, he might say, that in the kingdom of the Netherlands, where there was no alien law, a number of unquiet spirits had taken up their residence and had organised that system of warfare against the different states of Europe by means, of the Journals of which they became proprietors and otherwise, which had made the press of that country a scandal to Europe. While these persons were established in the Netherlands, they were bold enough to open to a great power of Europe, in hopes of obtaining the protection of that state, which they considered favourable to their views, a conspiracy for subverting the established order of things, and establishing in France another dynasty. With respect to the attempt lately made against the life of the duke of Wellington, it was known that this was the fruit of a conspiracy concerted between persons settled in the Netherlands, and persons settled in the interior of France. This attempt could not proceed from any personal enmity to that illustrious person, but because it was known that his views were directed to the preservation of that government which was established in France. He alluded to these transactions to show in what situation the country would have been in under a contrary regulation from that under which it had been placed. It was not too much to state, that if there had been no alien bill in this county, there could be no doubt that the persons alluded to would have carried on a conspiracy in this country, against the peace of this country and of Europe. It was a duty we owed to ourselves, not less than to Europe, to suppress and break up those combinations against the general tranquillity. The wild and ardent spirits bred in the French Revolution, who looted forward to fresh revolutions, and who were scattered all over Europe, would have gladly availed themselves of the facilities which this country would have afforded them for the carrying their views into execution, if they had not been prevented by an alien law. These were the general grounds on which he recommended the continuance of the above bill; and he trusted the House would not hesitate a moment to entrust government with such a power, particularly when they observed the mildness with which such a power had already been used by the executive. He knew that hon. gentlemen would endeavour to show that the case was now altered—that peace having been so long established, all danger was gone by of overturning the existing establishments. But though this might be their opinion, they would not find that this was the opinion of these individuals. They were so ardently devoted to their desperate plans, that what might appear sufficient to discourage more reasonable minds, produced no such effect on them. They certainly took different views of their situations, and whenever they could have an opportunity of combining together, they would make the attempt. If the peace of this country depended on the peace and tranquillity of Europe, it was the duty of the government of this country to prevent combinations being formed in this country directed against the tranquillity of other countries. No experience could cure these individuals—all the calamities which had already taken place would not prevent them from again attempting to disturb the tranquillity of Europe. The House, ought, therefore, to arm the executive with powers adequate to repress the attempts of persons who entered into these dangerous combinations. The regulations which he had now to propose had already been thrice agreed to by the House—in 1802, in 1814, in 1816, and be now proposed them for the fourth time. The House were no doubt aware that a question of a very serious nature was now the subject of negotiation, namely, whether the army of occupation should quit France at the first period in the treaty, or remain for the whole of the five years? Whatever course was adopted, and whenever that army should withdraw, it was impossible not to entertain an anxiety respecting the turn which matters might take in that country after they were withdrawn. It was true that at present matters wore a favourable aspect in France, but, on the other hand, they might take a less favourable turn; and at all events, until we saw the result of the withdrawing the army of occupation from France, we ought to take every possible precautionary measure. On these grounds he would move, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to continue an Act of the 56th year of his present Majesty, for establishing Regulations respecting Aliens arriving in or resident in this kingdom in certain cases."

said, it was a singular argument of the noble lord, that since alien bills were necessary in time of war, they should be continued in time of peace, It had always been the policy of this country to encourage the settlement of aliens among us. Many benefits, especially in the improvement of our manufactures, had resulted from this policy. The exclusion of aliens had been introduced in consequence of the last unauspicious war with France; but it was now time to retrace our steps, and to return to the ancient constitution of the country. If the noble lord would be at all consistent, he ought to have made the alien act co-extensive with the period of the occupation of France by foreign troops; and if he did so, he could not now attempt to continue it for two years longer. He protested against the bill not for any abuses that had been committed under it, but on account of the principle on which it rested.

observed, that as it did not seem to be the wish of the House to debate the bill at present, he should not offer any observation upon it; but when the noble lord should bring it forward for a second reading, he would be prepared to move an amendment to it. At present, however, he should follow his noble friend in decidedly protesting, against such a measure at a period of profound peace.

said, he could not suffer the question to be put, without offering one or two observations, He thought that such a measure ought not to be brought forward unless some imminent danger existed, or some other great necessity for it could be shown. He had heard no such ground for the bill, from the noble lord opposite. The noble lord had said, that the necessity for it was as strong at present as in 1816. That might be very true; but as he (sir S. R.) had objected to it as unnecessary in 1816, as he conceived that no fair grounds were then given, he could not think that the same grounds being now advanced, were sufficient. The bill went upon a principle, which, though never openly avowed, was now indirectly stated, namely, that the government of this country was, to minister to the wishes of the despots of Europe. Instead of England being what she always was, an asylum for the oppressed of all nations, she was now to be turned into a sort of depôt for the persecuted, from whence their tyrants might have them brought back at will. He had heard within the last four and twenty hours objections made to a grant for the purchase of a literary collection, which, as was justly observed, might add considerably to the information and to the greatness of the country; but what was the renown which it might acquire by such means, when compared with the glory which would accrue from our being recognised all over the world, as the sanctuary where those who were driven from their homes by political or religious persecutions, were sure to find protection and a safe asylum? Every man, no matter of what country or creed, had always looked in his distresses for an asylum to England, and had always found that which he sought. Why should that great character be now taken away from us? Would the House consent to remove it without a minute inquiry into its necessity? For his own part, he should be the most ungrateful of men, if forgetting the protection which his ancestors and himself had received in this country, he was not anxious that the same resource should be left open to others, who might be similarly circumstanced; if he did not wish for the continuance of that system by which a protection was afforded to all, whether persecuted for religion or politics. It was said, that this measure had been adopted in 1802, which was a time of peace; but was there no better reason to be given for it than that? Was there no difference between the circumstances of the present peace and the short-lived truce of that period? At that time, as was very natural from the circumstances of the previous war, there was no safety in trusting to appearances; but then, even, it was only brought forward for one year, and that by the secretary of state for the home depart- ment. Indeed, it was natural to think that it was with him such a measure should originate. He was as it might be said, the representative of the internal government of the country, and every thing connected with its police was under his peculiar care. It was from him that such a measure should properly originate, and not, as it were, from the representative of the foreign potentates. It was in 1814, that the doctrine was first announced, that the alien bill was not only to preserve the peace of this country, but also to secure that of other nations. There was another objection he had to this bill. It went not only to place at the disposal of the home secretary all such aliens as might come into the country, but also those who had been long settled in it. The number of such persons was, he believed, not less than 20,000, every one of whom might be removed, if any person were found from some, perhaps, private motives to give false information against them to government. This he thought a most objectionable measure, to place men who had adopted this country from choice, and who might also be considered as natives of it at the disposal of the head minister of the police of the country. The bill applied to every man who came into the country, and it put upon him the proof of whether he was a native or not, which under many circumstances was a most serious inconvenience. There was one point in this bill to which he begged leave to call the particular attention of the members for Scotland, if there were any of them then in the House. It went directly in violation of the great charter of their rights, the Wrongous Imprisonment act. It had never, in any part of Great Britain, been made matter of legislation, that the king could send aliens out of the country. There was only the opinion of judge Blackstone for such a doctrine. But no one had ever imagined that the king had the power to send them into any other country. In the treaty of Amiens it was stipulated that criminals should be delivered up by the one country to the other, yet this was done under particular limitations. None were comprehended in those stipulations but persons charged with murder, forgery (which was thought thus equally deserving of exception as murder), and fraudulent bankruptcy, and in these cases the evidence must be shown to be so strong as to ensure conviction. Yet, when those stipulations had come to be acted upon, the Crown was unable to send the persons charged with those crimes to the country from which they had come, and it was obliged to apply to parliament. There had been a similar treaty with America, and there was a similar necessity for application to parliament. But the Wrongous Imprisonment act distinctly provided that none should be sent out of the country, and the decision of the court of session had clearly established that this exception extended to aliens. The question was fully tried in the year 1778, in the well known case of Wedderburn and Knight. Knight had been a native of Africa, and had been bought five or six years before by Wedderburn, who had brought him with him to Scotland, and afterwards wished to take him back to Jamaica. Both points, his condition as slave or free, and his obligation to return with the man who had regularly bought him, was decided by the Court of Session. He was not only declared to have been free from the moment he came into Britain, but it was also found that he could not be again sent out of the country. It was true that parliament could repeal this act, as they had repealed the act of Habeas Corpus; but, at least, the members for Scotland ought to be aware of this circumstance. It had not been previously noticed, but it certainly deserved attention. This bill, therefore, as utterly unnecessary, as derogatory to the character of the nation, as subservient to the evil designs of other countries, he could not suffer to pass through this its first stage without resisting it as much as was in his power.

The House then divided:

The Bill was then brought in, and read a first time.

presented a Petition from the several Corporations of Shoemakers, Weavers, &c of the Burgh of Irvine, in Scotland, praying the interference of the House, and complaining of the loss of their rights, from their not having the power of electing their own magistrates which was usurped by the town council, who though they practised the form of electing annually four members, yet contrived that they should always be some of their own friends. It stated the burghs as having, for the last fifty years, been under the control of the family of Eglintoun, and being liable to much injustice in consequence of the burgesses being subject to the debts of the burgh. Sir Samuel called the attention of the House to this important matter, and hoped that as being of much interest to the members for Scotland, it would receive their serious consideration. The petition was not founded on any theoretic views but on facts of which all knew the existence. He was aware that much difficulty had occurred in the explanation of the system under which the Scotch burghs had been conducted; but as the legislature had lately entered into the consideration of the subject, he hoped that this petition would receive the attention it merited.

stated his satisfaction at the manner in which the petitioners had explained their grievances. Their prayer, as far as related to the choosing of their own magistrates was, in his opinion, perfectly reasonable; and it was to be observed, that they only prayed that the laws of the parliament of Scotland should be reverted to—which had been never repealed, but which, according to the maxims of the Scots judges, were superseded by long disuse. The bill introduced by the lord advocate was inadequate to the object which it aimed at, namely, the auditing the accounts of the burghs, and that object fell very short of the rights of those burghs.

Ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed.

Sir S. Romilly then presented two other petitions from the corporation of bonnet-makers and dyers, and from that of wrights and masons, in Edinburgh, alleging similar abuses, and praying that the present bill may not pass into a law, it being calculated to increase the evil. The petitions were likewise ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed.