rose to make the motion of which he had given notice, in consequence of the recent transactions in the East Indies. Aware, as he was, how little the affairs of India were understood in that House—aware, as he was, of the indifference, not to say the apathy with which the affairs of India were viewed in this country, he should have abstained from troubling the House on the present occasion, had it not been for his conviction of the extreme importance of the late occurrences in that quarter of the world, as connected with the interests of England. The object which he had in view, was purely information. He wished for the production of such documents as might enable the House to form a correct judgment of the causes which had led to the present state of Indian affairs. So far back as the year 1783, the late lord Melville had brought forward several resolutions on the subject of India, which had received the sanction of parliament. One of those resolutions was, that to pursue the extension of the British empire in India by conquest was unbecoming the character and honour of the country. Ten years afterwards, in 1793, that resolution was embodied in an act of parliament; and was now an act of the legislature. The clause is this—To pursue schemes of conquest and extension of dominion in India is repugnant to the wish, to the honour and policy of the British nation, and that it should not be lawful either to declare war or commence hostilities without the express command of the Directors or Secret Committee, by the authority of the board of control. It certainly did appear very extraordinary, that the governments of India should have been so peculiarly circumstanced from that period to the present, that they had uniformly found them- selves under the necessity, greater or less, of violating this act of the legislature. Whether the attention were directed in India, East, West, North, or South, the truth of this assertion would be realized and confirmed. He was sure that if any hon. member, not familiar with the transactions in India, were to take up the map and see how comparatively limited our possessions were when that act was passed, and how enlarged they were at present, be would be surprised to observe that an act of the legislature intended to prevent the extension of the British empire in India, had been followed by effects so opposite to those which might have been expected from it. The present war in India was called a war against the Pindarries. A term more generally used, than, perhaps, perfectly understood. It was known to every one, that on the decline and fall of the Mahommedan empire, a great number of chieftains set up for themselves, each at the head of a small band of followers. They subsisted by pillaging their neighbours, and their descendants were now called Pindarries. The northern parts of India abounded with them. They collected annually in immense numbers, then divided into distinct bodies, carried on their operations in various directions, committed every species of plunder and outrage, dispersed as soon as they were attacked, and re-united whenever the danger with which they were threatened by their assailants was over. They are, in fact, a roving, predatory body of freebooters, composed of every renegado throughout the whole northern part of India, without any tangible property: when the rainy season commences, they disperse and live upon their spoils till the next season. They have of late years been formidably increased from the disbanded soldiery: one of the effects of the subsidiary system. The British army at present in the centre of India was avowedly there for the purpose of extirpating these robbers—a purpose which, from its constitution, and from the nature of their habits, it did not seem very well calculated to perform. And although we had declared, that our hostility was directed solely against the Pindarries, it was evident that the Mahrattas did not believe us; for the fact was, that the power against which we avowed our intention of acting, was the only enemy that we had not met in the field. We had fought the Peishwa Holkar, the rajah of Berar, and every power but that identical power which we professed to attack. He hoped that the motions which he was about to submit to the House would obtain their concurrence, were he to state no farther grounds than this—that the governor-general of India was in the field with near 100,000 men, at a distance of 1,000 miles from the capital of Bengal, in the heart of the Mahratta empire, having possessed himself of the capitals of Holkar and Scindia; that troops were marching in every direction throughout India, and that all the Mahratta powers were in arms. Surely it was not too soon to apply for information to know the cause of these events. The hon. gentleman concluded by making the following motions:—"1. That there be laid before the House, Copies or Extracts of all Advices received from the Government of India, relative to the Origin and Progress of the Discussions which terminated in Hostilities with the Peishwa. 2. Copies or Extracts of all Advices received from the government of India, relative to the Origin and Progress of the Discussions which terminated in Hostilities with the rajah of Berar. 3. Copies or Extracts of all Advices received from the several Governments of India, respecting the Aggressions of the Pindarries. 4. Copies of all Treaties concluded between the British Government in India and the native Powers since the year 1804."

said, that he was disposed not only to concur in the motions made by the hon. gentleman, as far as it was possible to do so, but to give the fullest explanation of which the subject was susceptible. He said, that he was disposed to concur in the motions of the hon. gentleman, as far as it was possible to do so; but, with respect to that which related to the rajah of Berar, there was no information to communicate to the House of the sort required by the hon. gentleman. All that was known was, that he was in actual hostility with the British; but nothing had transpired as to the causes of that hostility. With regard to the first of the hon. gentleman's motions, he flattered himself that it would be in his power to make a full and satisfactory return to it; and he was persuaded that it would appear to the hon. gentleman, when he should be in possession of the papers, that, until the Peishwa rose in hostility against us, we had been guilty of no other fault, except perhaps that of placing too confident a reliance on his good faith. As to the hon. gentleman's second motion, he had already observed, that no information had been received on the subject, and he hoped, therefore, the hon. gentleman would withdraw it; assuring him, that whenever it should be in his power to communicate information on the subject he would intimate the same to the hon. gentleman in order that, if he chose, he might move for its production. With respect to the hon. gentleman's third motion, he agreed with the hon. gentleman, that subjects connected with India were little understood in that House, and that it was very irksome to enter on any topic before an unwilling audience; never the less, if when the information came before the House, the hon. gentleman wished for the discussion of it, he should be very happy to meet him upon it. In the mean time, he could not allow what the hon. gentleman had already said to pass without a single remark. It was undoubtedly true, that the Pindarries were not a great substantive state: but when the House were informed, that for two following years, the Pindarries, possessing power amply sufficient for the purposes of destruction, broke into the British territotories with fire and sword, committing the most horrid atrocities, and producing the widest and most complete desolation, they would allow that there was abundant cause for the efforts of the British government to extirpate a pest which had proved so fatal to its neighbours, whether under British or Indian sway. He could assure the House, that in what he had just said, he by no means overstated the facts, as they would appear when a return was made to the hon. gentleman's motion. As to the hon. gentleman's fourth motion for the production of the treaties with the native powers, he had not the slightest objection to it; and those treaties, especially that with the rajah of Berar, would fully explain our relations with the powers in question, up to the breaking out of the war. With respect to what had fallen from the hon. gentleman on the subject of our general policy in India, no man could concur more cordially than he did in opinion with the hon. gentleman, that the pacific and the forbearing, was the true and advantageous, as well as the moral policy of our government in that empire. But the hon. gentleman knew as well, and much better than he did, that with every disposition on the part of the British government in India to bear and forbear, causes of serious difference would occasionally arise, which no prudence could anticipate, and no wisdom avert; and that the position of the British power in India, was such, that whatever difference of opinion might exist as to the way in which it had arrived at its present height, there could be none as to the necessity of adopting every proper measure for its preservation.

The first motion was then agreed to; as were also the third and fourth, Mr. Howorth having withdrawn the second; expressing at the same time, his sense of the extreme importance of the subject, and his intention of bringing it under the consideration of the House, as soon as the necessary information should be accessible.

said, that in calling the attention of the committee to his Royal Highness's gracious Message, it would not be necessary for him to trouble them at any length; for all the topics connected with the subject had been so recently discussed, and the general principle on which the House was disposed to act, had been so fully recognised, that all that he felt it his duty to do was, to recall that principle to the minds of the committee, and to propose its application to the present case. The present question had, indeed, to a certain degree, been determined in the late discussions; for although he was not authorized to communicate to parliament the intended marriage of his royal highness the Duke of Kent, yet the treaty for that marriage was so far in progress at the time of the discussions to which he alluded, that he should have thought himself wanting in candour, had he not opened to the House the probability that such an alliance would ere long be concluded. It might, he thought, be collected from the general character of the late discussions, that when a branch of the royal family entered into a matrimonial alliance, approved by the Crown and satisfactory to parliament, the House was disposed to vote such a decent and proper additional income as ought to be granted to a member of the royal family under such circumstances, and not to expect that he could meet his expenses with the same means when married as when single. He thought it might also be collected, that there was no disposition on the part of the House to take into consideration, in their estimate of the proper grant to be made on such an occasion, the casual income which such branch of the royal family might derive from any military situation, whether conferred upon him at home for his past services, or abroad as a mark of honorary distinction. On these principles the House had acted in their grant of 6,000l. a year to his royal highness the duke of Cambridge. He proposed, in the present instance, strictly to follow the course adopted by the House on that occasion. He proposed to make the same provision for his royal highness the duke of Kent, and the same dower to his intended duchess, in the event of her surviving him. He did not mean to propose any outfit, as he understood from his royal highness, that, under all the circumstances of the case, he did not wish for it. There were one or two observations which he wished to be allowed to make, respecting the royal marriage at present under consideration. He was persuaded that the marriage itself must be felt by the committee to be, in every point of view, highly satisfactory; and that if any consideration were wanting to recommend it, that consideration would be found in the fact, that the connexion was not new to the country; but that the illustrious female, with whom his royal highness was about to ally himself, belonged to a family, of whose virtuous and amiable qualities the country had already experienced the most convincing proof. He must say, in justice to this illustrious lady, and it was a feature of her conduct highly creditable to her, and which, he was sure, would recommend her to the respect of the committee, that although, when the treaty of marriage was in progress, she felt it her duty not to relinquish the personal guardianship of her children, by her former marriage, she did not extend that disposition to the pecuniary advantages of her widowhood; but that her marriage would deprive her of an income of 3,000l. a year on that score, and of other smaller pecuniary advantages arising from her guardianship, amounting, in the whole, to about 5,000l. a year; so that the provision of a dower for her, in the event of her surviving her illus- trious husband was but an act of bare justice. It was due also to his royal highness to state, that he was desirous that 2,000l. a year of the proposed income should be settled on his royal consort by way of pin-money. His royal highness had for some years been under the pressure of considerable incumbrances. Those incumbrances his royal highness had met in the most manly and honourable way [hear, hear!]. In consideration of these incumbrances it was not to be expected that his royal highness, immediately after his marriage (in the event of the provision being made, which he was about to propose to the committee), would live altogether in that splendid style which he would otherwise do, and which he would adopt as soon as he was liberated from those incumbrances. They had been principally incurred at an early period of his royal highness's life. His royal highness, it must be recollected, did not come into the enjoyment of a separate income until a later period of his life, than that at which it had been bestowed on other branches of the royal family. Until his royal highness was thirty-two years of age he had only 5,000l. a year allowed him by his royal father, and his emoluments of about 5,000l. a year from his situation as commander in chief of the British possessions in North America. From the narrow nature of that income arose those incumbrances which his royal highness was now in the course of discharging with so much honour to himself. Under these circumstances he would move, "That his majesty be enabled to grant a yearly sum of money out of the consolidated fund of the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, not exceeding in the whole the sum of 6,000l. to make a suitable provision for his royal highness the duke of Kent, upon his marriage."

said, that however painful to his feelings it might be, he felt it his duty to oppose the present motion. He rested his opposition on two points. In the first place, he did not know that he had ever acceded to any pledge, by which he was bound, in all cases, to make a provision for every branch of the royal family, when a marriage was about to take place. In the present instance, he could not see any necessity for making such a provision as that now called for, in addition to the income enjoyed by the illustrious duke. He differed also from the noble lord on another point. He had ob- served, that they were not to take into consideration any emolument enjoyed from military or other situations, by the royal family, when a provision of this description was demanded. He never had conceded any such principle; and, if it had not been for the late hour at which the question was brought forward on a former occasion, when a grant was made to the duke of Cambridge, he would have opposed it. When he saw the illustrious duke receiving an income of 25,000l. per annum, he could not agree to an additional vote. He considered the situation in which the country was placed, and he could not consent that 6,000l. per annum should be added to the existing burthens. He wished to ask, was there no source from which this sum could be derived without coming to parliament?—Had not the illustrious duke parents? Was not her majesty in possession of a very considerable sum, derived from the privy purse? That House had not inquired into the state of the privy purse, and, in neglecting to do so, they had neglected their duty. Out of the privy purse her majesty might have made good the sums necessary to remove the pecuniary embarrassments of the illustrious duke, and thus have rendered an application to parliament unnecessary. He was glad that parliament had at length awaked to a sense of its duty. He was glad they had told the royal family, that, if they chose to contract debts, and did not discharge them out of their regular income, parliament, when applied to—for that purpose, could not conscientiously assist them. In acting as he did, he was not influenced by a desire to do what was agreeable, but what was just. He opposed the motion with reluctance, because he had a high respect for the character of the illustrious duke, but his duty to his constituents and to the country, imperatively called on him to refuse the grant now called for.

bore unequivocal testimony to the character of the exalted individual in question, so well known by his constitutional principles, and by the benevolence of his disposition; but in the present overburthened state of the country, if it were necessary to make any addition to his royal highness's income, it ought to be made from those immense establishments maintained only for the purposes of parade and patronage, and which were easily and advantageously susceptible of diminution. After the late discussions he would not trouble the committee farther on the subject. So far, however, was he from thinking that the grant to the duke of Cambridge was a proper precedent, that if he had had an opportunity of doing so, he should have opposed it as most objectionable, on account of the immense emolument that he derived from Hanover. If it were urged that that emolument was temporary, the answer was, that when it ended that would be time enough to make the proposed provision. To the dower proposed to be granted to the illustrious consort of his royal highness he would make no opposition.

was persuaded that if the committee were to vote on the ground of the personal character or the private conduct of the illustrious individual in question, the motion would at once be disposed of; for he would venture to say, that no man had set a brighter example of public virtue—no man had more beneficially exerted himself in his high station to benefit every institution with which the best interests of the country, the protection and the education of the poor, were connected, than his royal highness the duke of Kent. But it appeared to him that his two honourable friends, who had just spoken, were perfectly right in saying, that all considerations of that nature ought to be entirely laid aside in deciding on such a proposition as that now submitted to the committee. Laying aside, therefore, all such considerations, he should vote for the motion on the same principle as that on which he had voted for the allowance to the duke of Clarence. Here was a proposed matrimonial alliance, intended for the purpose of supplying the succession to the Crown, contracted with the full consent of the executive government, given in the manner prescribed by the constitution, and meeting with (as it deserved) the sanction of parliament. There was also this additional fact, that the finances of the illustrious individual in question were in such a state as to render parliamentary aid indispensable to the completion of a marriage, which was on all hands allowed to be so desirable. Such was the dry constitutional ground on which the vote rested. That House knew nothing of the personal qualities, of the merits or demerits of their royal highnesses. It was enough that they were princes of the house of Brunswick, the succession of which it was so highly desirable if possible to secure. The only questions were, was the match calculated to obtain that object? Had it received the approbation of the Crown as prescribed by law? Did it deserve the sanction of parliament? If these questions were determined in the affirmative, as they were in the present case, and in the cases of the dukes of Clarence and Cambridge, there then came the last question—Is the assistance of parliament necessary to enable the match to be concluded? To this answer an affirmative was given in the case of the duke of Clarence, on which account he (Mr. B.) voted for an allowance to his royal highness; a negative was given to it in the case of the duke of Cambridge, on which account he voted against an allowance to his royal highness. An affirmative was now given to it in the case of the duke of Kent, on which account he was compelled by his duty to vote for an allowance to his royal highness. This was the only true constitutional ground on which the noble lord's proposition ought to be acceded to, and not the gratitude which every man must feel who had witnessed the incessant exertions of the duke of Kent for the last seven years to forward every object of a charitable and benevolent nature. He wished merely to advert (and that on public grounds) to what had dropped from the noble lord with respect to his royal highness's incumbrances. If he had been rightly informed, those incumbrances had arisen almost entirely, if not entirely, from the delay in providing for his royal highness a separate income. Instead of receiving 12,000l. a year at the age of 24, as prescribed by act of parliament, his royal highness enjoyed no income, except an allowance from his majesty, until he was 32. The appointments which had been conferred upon his royal highness had been by no means sinecures. Exposed to the severity of opposite climates, in the West Indies, in Gibraltar, in Nova Scotia, in Canada, his royal highness had spent twelve or fourteen years in active and harassing service without receiving any adequate emolument. His royal highness had also experienced great losses in his baggage, which in the case of an ordinary military officer would certainly have appeared in the army extraordinaries, but for which his royal highness had received no remuneration. His royal highness, however, made no claim whatever on this subject. But the circumstance, added to the length of time during which his in- come was so limited, and the expense to which the important situation in which he was placed subjected him, had compelled him to incur debts to such an amount that his royal highness had set apart 17,000l. out of his present revenue of 25,000l., for their discharge, which it would nevertheless take several years to effect. As on the one hand, he would not be induced by any favours that he might have received from his royal highness, or by the gratitude which, in common with the country, he felt for his royal highness's public conduct, to agree to any preposterous or misplaced expense that might be proposed on this occasion, so, on the other hand, he would not be deterred by popular clamour from opposing that more preposterous and misplaced economy that would refuse to his royal highness the fair allowance to which, under all the circumstances of the case, he was most justly entitled.

said, he must protest against the grant, though he did it with every feeling of respect towards his royal highness, who was worthy of the greatest regard and esteem. He could not, however, in the present circumstances of the country, agree to the grant.

said, he agreed with his hon. and learned friend in the principle of the votes which both of them gave respecting the other branches of the royal family. He agreed with him, too, that it was most desirable the succession should be kept up in the House of Brunswick; and as it appeared in the case of the duke of Clarence, that a marriage could not take place without some addition to his income, he had agreed to the moderate provision voted to him, thinking that would be sufficient. Certainly, the noble lord had said that that moderate addition would not be sufficient; but it now appeared from rumours that the noble lord was mistaken. It did not appear to him that the marriage of all the branches of the royal family could be considered as any great advantage to the country. It might be desirable that some of them should marry, but it was not desirable that the country should be called on to enable all of them to marry. His hon. and learned friend had assumed that the marriage of the duke of Kent would depend on this vote. But the noble lord, though he had stated to the House that the duke of Kent was under pecuniary embarrassments, did not state, that if the present vote was not agreed to, the marriage would not take place. There was, therefore, this distinction between the case of the duke of Kent and that of the duke of Clarence. He had voted against the grant to the other branches of the royal family, because he did not consider the advantage to arise from their marriage sufficient to compensate the country for the burthen of an additional grant. For the same reason, though he had every respect for the duke of Kent, and though he agreed in the praises which had been bestowed on him, in the present distressed state of the country, he could not consent to vote in favour of the motion.

wished to say a few words in consequence of what had fallen from his noble friend respecting the marriage of the duke of Clarence. All of them knew that the noble lord opposite assigned as the ground on which he called on the House to consent to a vote of 10,000l. a year to the duke of Clarence, that unless the House voted that sum, it was impossible his royal highness could marry. Notwithstanding that ground, the House had voted the lesser sum. But it must now surprise the House, that, notwithstanding the noble lord stated there was an absolute necessity for 10,000l. a year to enable the duke of Clarence to marry, it now appeared that even with 6,000l. a year it was possible for him to contract marriage.

said, he had stated to the House, when he proposed 10,000l. as the sum necessary to enable his royal highness to marry, in the understanding that his royal highness should live in England, that it was impossible for his majesty's government to advise a marriage, in the view with which he had proposed it to the House, on a smaller allowance. It was not necessary for him to state to the House what course his royal highness's feelings, and his sense of honour, dictated to him; but he would appeal to the House, if that marriage still took place, whether it would be grateful to their feelings that the sum necessary to enable his royal highness to support himself in a married state abroad, should be derived from any other source than the bounty of parliament.

said, that having opposed the grants to the other branches of the royal family, on the ground of the distressed state of the country, he could not conscientiously vote in favour of the present motion.

considered that the statements of his hon. and learned friend had been correct. There were some circumstances in addition, however, which ought to be known to the House. He believed that his royal highness had received some small sum of money on account of losses he had sustained. The House, however, were not perhaps aware of the exact state of his affairs. For many years his royal highness had not had a larger income than the eldest sons of many gentlemen in that House. He had incurred a large debt, a considerable portion of which had been discharged from the appropriation of a portion of the droits of the Admiralty. When it was considered that he had not had the parliamentary grant till he was 32 years of age, there did appear a sort of want of liberality in the House towards him. It was scarcely necessary to mention what was generally known—the great benevolence, and the useful and generous conduct of his royal highness, of which no man could be ignorant. He had watched the progress of his royal highness; he had seen what he had done for numerous charities, and his constant exertions to advance the interests of many valuable institutions. Those things would be enough to influence him in his vote. But he thought it hard that it should be stated as a reason why he had not had the parliamentary grant till he was 32 years of age, that he had been in foreign service, exposing himself to the yellow fever, and to all the hardships of a West Indian climate. So far from agreeing with that idea, he thought that ought to be a reason why his allowance should be larger. His royal highness had set apart 17,000l. for the payment of his debts, and three years, he believed, would discharge them all. A mistake had been made with regard to the present amount of his income; for though 7,000l. remained, 1,000l. and more had been long paid to certain widows of officers and soldiers, who had been his companions in arms in former days, and he had no doubt that sum would be continued to be paid by his royal highness. He voted for the motion of the noble lord upon principle alone, and he had seldom given his vote with greater satisfaction.

wished to show the consistency of the vote which he intended to give. When the grant had been proposed to the duke of Clarence as a member of the royal family, he was ready to accede to any grant of money that might secure to his royal highness a proper establishment. He had given his vote for the 10,000l. thinking it not too large under all circumstances. But he could not agree with the noble lord, when he proceeded, he thought, in the most improper course which a minister of the Crown could adopt; when he proceeded to take that course which was calculated to record the motive for which that 10,000l. had been reduced. When he selected from the other end of the royal family, if he might so speak, a man who stood so high in the public opinion as the duke of Kent, he thought the noble lord went far to display an opinion that had been entertained on the proposal of that former grant. While the marriage of the duke of Clarence was in course, he thought it was not proper that any other member of the royal family should come to the House and ask for an additional allowance for the same purpose. That should not, he conceived, be done till all hopes of increase had ceased from the marriage then pending.

The committee then divided:

Lord Castlereagh next moved, "That the sum of 6,000l. per annum be settled upon her serene highness Mary Louisa Victoria, princess of Leinengen, when she shall become duchess of Kent, in case her highness should survive his royal highness the duke of Kent, to be issuing and payable out of the consolidated fund of the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."—Agreed to.

confessed, that it was with no small degree of surprise he witnessed the introduction of this bill the other night. He was surprised that in a period of profound peace an Alien bill should have been twice submitted to their notice.—This could only be accounted for from the idea which the noble lord entertained of the subserviency and pliability of parliament, an idea which he could not but think well founded when he saw what passed in the House last night [Hear, hear!]. The noble lord had ventured to tell a British House of Commons, that this Alien bill was a mitigated system; but it was a system which was at variance with every principle of our constitution—a system which violated at one blow the spirit of those ancient regal enactments which protected the liberty of all residing within the realms—which was in direct contradiction to an express provision of Magna Charta, and which went to destroy every thing that distinguished the constitution of this country from the arbitrary governments hitherto held up to the scorn and execration of all Europe [Hear, hear, hear!]. Up to 1793, the policy of this country had been to protect all foreigners who selected this country for their residence. This spirit pervaded every act of our legislature, which had any relation to foreigners. Had the same spirit which commenced with the continental tyranny introduced under the auspices of the noble lord, then prevailed in this country, would England have profited at she did by the revocation of the edict of Nantz? The asylum given to these persecuted foreigners, had laid the foundation of those manufactures which had given to this country a superiority over every other country in the world. Even the bigotted Catholic monarch who then filled the throne of these realms, protected the Protestant subjects of France, driven from their country for adherence to their religious opinions.—James 2nd felt himself bound to receive those Protestant fugitives, from a conviction of the benefit that would arise to this country, even at a time when he was dis- pensing with the Test act in favour of his Catholic officers—when he was authorizing the cruelties and inhumanities of Kirk and Jeffreys, and pursuing, in all other respects, that system of bigotted persecution, which ultimately and happily ended in his expulsion from the throne. He mentioned those facts merely to show that in all times had foreigners enjoyed liberty and security in this country, even when the country was subject to all the danger which threatened it from a pretender to the throne. In 1793, the Alien bill was first passed, on the pretence that we were threatened with great danger from the resort of foreigners to this country. He would not now enter into the question, whether this pretence had or had not any foundation in truth—but certainly, whatever grounds there might be for an alien bill in 1793, there could not be the same now. That bill was a war measure; and stood on decidedly distinct and separate grounds; and unless it could be proved that danger was to be apprehended to the tranquillity of our own government from the machinations of aliens, whose countries were in avowed and open hostility to us, he must assert that no precedent could be drawn from the adoption of that measure. We were now at peace and amity with all the European world—all revolutionary doctrines had been annihilated by the sad experience of the last twenty-five years, their fervour and violence having subsided first into a military, and latterly into a legitimate despotism. The success of the coalesced powers of Europe had succeeded in repressing the ambitious encroachments of Napoleon, had hurled him from his powerful and elevated situation, and replaced on the vacant throne of France the exiled family of the Bourbons. In every corner of Europe had legitimacy raised its head. That cause had been strengthened by the treaties and associations of monarchs, and acknowledged as the watchword of peace by the noble lord himself at the Congress of Vienna. In furtherance of that object he had planned and executed the spoliation and partition of whole countries—divided populations possessing the same manners, language, and customs—separated subjects from a monarch whom they respected and venerated—handed over independent states to sovereigns whose rule had been immemorially the object of their detestation, and in the nicety of his calculations, as purveyor to legitimacy, had even divided his human merchandise into souls and half souls; and all this was perpetrated to ensure the safety of legitimacy, and according to the noble lord's mode of reasoning, the general peace of Europe, But had he not succeeded in all these objects? Had one single event occurred since the period of these proceedings to justify the present measure? Every act of spoliation had been carried into effect; and, according to the noble lord's own showing, there was no danger, no hostility to be apprehended from any foreigners whatever. As then, the noble lord persisted in urging the adoption of this measure, notwithstanding he could not undertake to state that any danger was to be apprehended from foreigners, they must look to other causes. What he was about to state, he believed to be the real and true cause:—the bill was not introduced for the purpose of protecting these realms from danger, but for the purpose of assisting tyrants, and upholding continental despotism [Hear, hear, hear!]—for the purpose of annihilating that small spot of liberty, that refuge from oppression, which had once existed here to the honour and glory of the British name [Hear, hear!]. It was once the boast of Englishmen, that the moment the feet of a slave touched the British soil, he became free. It was every where repeated, that however much slavery and tyranny might degrade and oppress human nature in other countries, here they had no power—however much they might elsewhere persecute all parties, sects and opinions, from the moment they reached the shores of England, that persecution ceased.

That sacred isle!

Cut off from the continent, that world of slaves:

That temple built by Heaven's peculiar care

In a recess from the contagious world,

And dedicated long to Liberty.

That health, that strength, that bloom of civil life.

But he would ask, could that description which was justly applied by the poet to this country, even in 1745, be any longer considered appropriate?—The noble lord, who now desired the renewal of the Alien bill, proposed it without any other view than that of subserviency to continental politics. If the noble lord maintained that it was not framed with that view, he would call on him to pledge himself that it would not be put in execution against any of the persecuted individuals, who could now only find a secure asylum in this country—he meant those unfortunate men who were proscribed by the king of France, after his being a second time placed on the throne of France by the allied troops. In considering this bill as it must necessarily apply to the case of those individuals, he should very shortly call the attention of the House to the nature and history of that proscription. If no Alien bill existed—if that liberty of action had been still accorded which it was once the noble policy of this country to extend to all foreigners whose countries were in a state of peace with us, he should not have deemed it necessary to express in that House any sentiments but those of mere commiseration for the fate of victims of tyranny and oppression—sentiments which he was confident would be echoed by every man both in the House and out of it, who was not subservient to the mandates of that policy which had been pursued by the allied powers during the course of the partition of Europe. But it was the object of the noble lord to prevent those unfortunate individuals from availing themselves of that protection in this country, which was due to all who conducted themselves peaceably in it, thus rendering the government of this country the accomplice of measures which history would describe as most tyrannical and unjust. When the valour of our troops a second time placed the fugitive Bourbon on the throne of France, it was the wish of all that that ruler should not, by the exercise of arbitrary power, endanger the tranquillity of Europe. Nevertheless, a fortnight after the restoration, an edict came out against thirty-eight individuals, banished them from Paris, and placed them en surveillance until their fate had undergone the decision of the French legislature. By that edict, the king not only violated the promise which he had solemnly given in the face of Europe, but he trampled by it the provisions of that charter under foot which he had voluntarily sworn to observe. Whether it was his love of revenge, or a wish to impress on the world the idea that an extensive conspiracy existed in France that induced the king to pursue this line of conduct he knew not;—if it was the former, it needed no comment—if it was the latter, he must say that no failure had ever been more complete or disgraceful for the French government had six months to establish their facts against these men —that they spared no pains is easily to be believed;—the parliament had been long assembled—almost all the proscribed had surrendered themselves, although they had every means of escaping; and the remainder, who had taken refuge without the French territories, had also declared their willingness to surrender themselves when a constitutional mode of trial was guaranteed to them. In this state of things what did the French government do? Unable, after all their attempts, to substantiate any thing against those individuals, which by the laws of their country would subject them to punishment, they pretended that the publicity of a trial would endanger the public tranquillity; and they demanded from the parliament of France a measure of proscription against them, without allowing them to be heard in their defence. Even those men who were about to revive those feudal institutions, which, happily for France, were destroyed with the revolution, and who looked on any attempt to oppose the will of their sovereign as little better than sedition; even these ultra royalists viewed this proscription with horror; and the king obtained the power wished for, on a promise of banishing those only who were most dangerous. The king obtained that power, but how did he use it? In the spirit of clemency? All those individuals had been banished, and in three years not one had been allowed to return. That all of them deserved this severity he denied—many of them were in no other respects guilty than in having fought for their country in the field of battle, or served it in the cabinet, and many of them had never even taken part in any of those political events and changes which had so greatly agitated France during the last five and twenty years. These unfortunate men were now exiled from their country, and under the existing system of the continent, which the noble lord wished to extend to this country, they found all hospitality cut off from them. Against these unfortunate men all Europe were leagued;—if one of them happened to be living in any corner of Switzerland, the Netherlands, the banks of the Rhine, or in any of the small states of Germany, he was seized by the police—treated as a felon—and handed over with every barbarity to the place allotted him;—if one word of complaint escaped him, he was answered by the Treaty of Paris and the Holy Alliance, and he was hurried off to the town allotted to him in Austria or Prussia, to be watched by spies—such being the system of continental police, was it honourable and advantageous to England to contribute to support it? And that this was the object of this bill he could not doubt, when he saw his majesty's ministers, in the midst of a complete and uninterrupted peace, call on the Houses of Parliament to suspend one of the dearest privileges of the constitution— that which insures the liberty of all strangers visiting its shores—and, in addition to that, when he recollected that the noble lord (Castlereagh) had joined with the allied powers to drive those French exiles from any asylum they might have, either in Switzerland, the Netherlands, or the Banks of the Rhine, and hand them over to their enemy, he could no longer doubt that the bill was but a pledge of the cooperation of England in measures which must inflict a stain on the national character? He implored the House to pause before they armed government with this power, which could only be exercised against those who had incurred the vengeance of foreign powers. For if it was not against such persons that this bill was directed—if it was not for the purpose of assisting foreign-governments, it could then only be justified by an apprehension of danger to this country from the attempts of these men—surely if their constitution was to be overturned by the machinations of thirty-eight men—outlaws from their country—fugitives without means of intimidation or corruption, it had indeed become unfit for the purposes to which it had been assigned by our ancestors. It had then become what he very much feared the noble lord wished it to become—a constitution for show, and not for use—a constitution to be viewed at a distance as a fit object for speculative admiration, but one which in hours of doubt or danger was to be abandoned as ineffective, and replaced by the more effectual—the more energetic—the more legitimate power of military despotism. He knew not whether the condition of the French government would justify one or the other supposition; but this he might without hazard assert, that if the majority of the people of France, or any considerable part of them, were friends to the government now established there, it was ridiculous to suppose that a small number of exiles could endanger it. But if the people of that country universally thought that their government was imposed on them by foreign arms—if they beheld it as a monument erected by the pride of their victorious enemies on their degradation—if, in short, that government was despised and detested, was it then to be avowed that, for the purpose of sustaining the unwieldy fabric, for the erection of which they had already sacrificed 500 millions, it was necessary that they should sacrifice what, in his estimation, was far dearer to them—their rights, their constitution, and their honour? Under a despotic government the monarch alone answered for the demerits and dishonour of its acts, but in this country every act passed was justly considered as emanating from the people. As their representatives the House was bound to reject every measure affecting their honour and character—every measure containing principles subversive of the laws of honour and of justice: such a measure was the one now before them, and as such he called on the House, if it repented not of having shown its independence on a late occasion, also to show its independence in a case where the honour of their constituents, the people of England, and the protection of the constitution demanded, in a far greater degree, the same exertions. He should therefore move as an amendment, "That the bill be read a second time that day six months."

said, he must oppose the amendment. He conceived that ministers would not deserve any credit for what they had done, if they exposed the country to any further dangers, by allowing indiscriminate protection to every person who might visit its shores. From the returns on the table, it appeared, that the greatest moderation had been exercised, in the use hitherto made of the power vested in ministers by this act. He should therefore vote in favour of the second reading of the bill.

After a pause, a division being called for.

said, that it appeared to be the wish of gentlemen on the other side that this question should not be much discussed. He was surprised that they had got nothing to say in defence of their measures, especially as what his hon friend who moved the amendment had stated against the present bill deserved their utmost attention. He felt much reluctance in rising to say any thing on a subject of the greatest magnitude and importance, considering that it was re- garded in that House with such indifference. He had, however, a peculiar reason for offering himself to their attention, and he felt it his duty to state a case which had come to his knowledge, and which showed the consequences of this measure on the unhappy victims. He had in 1816 stated the case of M. Befort.^* This man had been sent out of the country in 1813, although he had been established in this country and had property to the value of forty thousand pounds. He returned in 1814, and though he had stated, through the proper channel, the necessity of making some arrangements respecting his affairs, he was again sent away in less than twenty-four hours. He had kept a shop in town, and sold what was supposed to be an effectual cure for the gout, under the name of Eau Medicinale. If this gout-curer, this seller of drug·water, conspired against the peace and stability of England, the noble lord and the secretary for the home department might be justified, but they ought to show that he could be reasonably suspected of any such conspiracy. If not, the House would consider that they exposed individuals of peaceable habits and considerable property to be thus sent away from the country of their choice, and the property acquired by their industry, without any means of making their case known, but only through individuals like himself. When M. Befort had come to this country in 1810, he had been patronized by many gentlemen of distinction, particularly by Mr. Crawford and by Mr. Reeves, of the Alien office. When he was sent away on the 6th of August, 1813, he went to Portsmouth, accompanied by a person whom he would not name, but whom be could mention to any gentleman if required to do so. This person examined him in Portsmouth, strictly and personally, and in a very indecent manner. He examined, at the same time, a large trunk he had, although it had been made up in his presence. A portfolio was seized. He left the key of this depository of a suspicious musical instrument with captain Wodriffe, an officer of character he believed. After he had left the country, then, for the first time was discovered in the bottom of this portfolio, which had been previously examined, in presence of captain Wodriffe, a correspondence of a very extraordinary and certainly of a very alarming character—it was a correspondence between the pope, the Irish catholics, and the father of the order of La Trappe. The very names at once impressed the noble lord, the home secretary, with terror and alarm [a laugh]. This was the kind of forgery, of all others, most likely to effect the object desired. The mention of such a correspondence was enough, and M. Befort was said to be the gentleman through whom it was conducted. But if any foreigner had really been engaged in such a correspondence, he should say that he was amenable to the laws of the country, that his life was forfeited, or at least that he could be visited with adequate punishment. But the unfortunate foreigner whom he had mentioned had been sent out of the country for no such cause. The person who accompanied him, as he had said before, had a design upon his property, and actually appropriated 400l. or 500l., found in his portfolio, to himself. He must, however, mention a striking inaccuracy connected with this case—an inaccuracy, or at least a discordance, with a formal document, which might in the opinion of that House disprove all he had said. The return made to the House, which he held in his hand, represented that no person had been sent out of the country in 1814. If this was incorrect, then the whole account might be incorrect, and they had no return of the number of aliens who had suffered under the operation of this measure. If the act was to be carried into execution in a clandestine and private manner—if persons were to be sent out of the country God knew how or when—what a horrible engine was put into the hands of ministers! But if the three persons mentioned in the return were indeed the only instances that could be given in justification of the bill, he could not avoid putting it to the magnanimity of the House, whether, for the sake of such instances, they thought it worth while, in opposition to ancient practice, in opposition to the principles of our constitution, which had distinguished our ancestors and rendered our country the favoured land, where persons and property were secure from persecution, violence, and outrage—he put it to the magnanimity of the House, whether it was worth while, for the sake of three individuals, to offer violence to the usage of our ancestors and the principles of the constitution, and in a manner which left to foreigners no redress at all for any outrage or wrong. If such principles were, indeed, to be sanctioned in England we were subject to a mere simple despotism. Those who conducted our administration were gentlemen, he admitted, and honourable men; but they had never manifested any feeling of sympathy with the sufferings of their fellow-men under oppression and tyranny. They had aided and promoted despotism all over Europe. They had never failed to support the powerful against the weak and injured [Hear, hear!]. Gentlemen did not perhaps, feel it to be a very serious and alarming evil, because it was only a system of injustice and cruelty to the weak and helpless; but to him it appeared, for that very reason, eminently entitled to attention, and calculated to excite the justest indignation. A case like the present was peculiarly galling to the feelings of an Englishman in a foreign country—and at present many were the Englishmen scattered over Europe—when he could not hold up his head, and whatever might be his personal character or conduct, boast that England was distinguished for the vigour of her trade, the magnanimity of her politics, and, above all, the liberality and generosity of her institutions. This consideration touched him very nearly, and if others regarded it with indifference, he must say, that much of the character of Englishmen—much of their feelings and principles—were gone.

^* See Vol. 34, p. 968.

said, he believed the cause of omitting the case alluded to by the hon. gentleman in the return was, that the return went back only to 1814, and that the person in question having been sent out of the country in 1813, it was not thought proper to mention his being sent away a second time in 1814. He knew nothing of the case, but he would inquire into the cause of the omission of it in the return. It should be recollected, however, that we had been at war in 1813, and that greater severity was, therefore, necessary. As to the present bill, he must observe, that there were a number of persons in France who knew only the trade of war, and if they were allowed to settle in this country, their whole object would be to excite war. This country had surely a right to protect itself from such an evil.

The cry of "question" became now loud and general, and the gallery was ordered to be cleared, when

rose. He said, he thought it most indecent conduct on the part of ministers, not to offer one word in defence of a bill which had excited so much apprehension and dissatisfaction as the present. He, for one, should feel it a duty he owed to the character of a country, which had at a distant period of time, afforded to his own ancestors that shelter and hospitable asylum for which this nation had hitherto been so justly celebrated, in the strongest terms to protest against this odious libel on the national character. This measure was hostile to the spirit of the constitution, and the uniform policy of the legislature from the time of Edward 3rd, down to the year 1816. The policy was to cherish and encourage an influx of foreigners, who advanced the manufactures, commerce and literature of this country. He yet waited to hear a single argument for a discontinuance of that policy which their ancestors had followed with so much national advantage. This advantage was not confined to the pecuniary considerations attendant upon the commercial pursuits of foreigners; it established a character for the country, as the place of refuge for those who fled from the tyranny of their own governments: it made England the rallying point for freedom and liberty against oppression and injustice. It had been hitherto our boast, that every foreigner who came here was not only free in his person, but secure in the enjoyment of his property, while obedient to the known laws of the land. That bulwark of open trial and fair security was now to be taken away, and the bill before the House would open the door to the machinations of every secret spy against any foreigner upon whom he might fix his attention. The statement of his hon. friend near him, was a striking proof that such machinations had been at work. Malice and espionage would now have a fine field for the exercise of profitable speculation. An allusion had been made to the returns presented to the House: on this subject all he should say, was, that though three persons were only sent out of the country by the late bill, there was no information to show what was the nature of their cases, or whether they were not of the most oppressive and uncalled-for kind. But besides this, the returns only alluded to aliens sent out of the country: there was no statement to show that the powers of the bill had not been coercively applied in the country. If, however, it had been only found necessary to send three individuals away, he was at a loss to see the necessity of the bill. Surely, for so small a number, it was hardly worth legislating on such a scale, unless indeed some gentlemen thought that the country was less able to resist aggression than he was willing to believe she was. It had been said by the noble lord opposite, that it was better to prevent than to punish crime. This was true enough in a moral, and, to a certain extent, a political point of view. In the case of forgeries, for instance, it was right to take away as much as possible the temptation to commit the crime; but when the supposed evil was to arise from feelings of human nature, which laws could not adequately control, then, indeed, the principle, which was good in equity, became inapplicable to the law of a free state. It had also, like most of the measures of the noble lord, besides its unconstitutional character, a tendency to embody despotic provisions in the system and practice of British law. It was, to all intents and purposes, a repeal of the policy which characterised this country in past times, and of the good, sound, constitutional principles which had led to the wealth and power of the country. In addition to these deep infringements of constitutional principle and free law, it went to rear up in the country those pests of society, spies and informers, whose evil influence had been already so fatally felt. He would therefore enter his solemn protest against this measure, as being subversive of the most ancient and generous policy of this country towards foreigners.

, jun. said, he was not less sensible of the great blessing which we enjoyed from the wise and generous policy of our ancestors towards foreigners than any other member, but he conceived that the present bill was not incompatible with the full and free enjoyments of civil liberty, by those persons who resided here under the protection of the British constitution. The noble lord seemed to be mistaken when he asserted, that all the protection which had been given to foreigners was given to them as such. There were many ancient statutes ordaining such protection, but it was not given to them merely as foreigners, but as merchants and traders. They were protected as such by the great charter, but it was expressly stated, that such protection was given on account of their importance to the country as merchants and traders, Aliens generally were subject to many disabilities to which British natives were not liable, but from a great many of these disabilities, aliens, being merchants in this country, were exempted. When this question was before the House on a former occasion, it had been stated, that aliens were subject to the prerogative of the Crown; and he conceived that the same power which the Grown possessed of preventing its subjects from leaving the country, might, by a parity of reasoning, be used to prohibit foreigners from entering it, when the safety of the state required it.—The hon. gentleman then contended, in a forcible and eloquent manner, that when the present state of Europe was considered—when it was recollected that attempts at assassination had been made in furtherance of political principles—when the horrible state of moral degradation to which the revolution of 1793 had given rise, was viewed in its proper light, it could not be denied that there existed a mass of revolutionary materials, which required the utmost caution to prevent from again producing those atrocious plots and conspiracies, from the effects of which the nations of Europe had already suffered so severely. For a period of one hundred and fifty years, since the peace of Westphalia, there had not been such a revolutionary spirit, nor such a combination of disorderly elements as then existed in Europe. The actors in those scenes that had for the last five and twenty years plunged Europe in war and bloodshed, found no solace but in the hope of new disorders; and were such men to be admitted indiscriminately into the bosom of the country? He spoke not of foreigners in general, but of those who had waded through all the scenes and all the horrors of the revolution, who had at one time worshipped the Goddess of Reason, and at another Buonaparté. He did not wish that England should be the gathering place, the city of refuge, to apostates and traitors. These men had been thwarted and blasted in all the plans they had been forming and maturing for the last twenty years, whether as Jacobins or Buonapartists. And by whom had their plans been detected and defeated? By that country into which it was the object of the bill before them, to prevent their admission. Were there no materials in this country upon which they could operate? The subject was a painful one, but the House was aware of what had taken place in the course of the last two years. But incendiaries were not to be admitted into the bosom of the country to trifle with our liberties, lest some (however few) should bid them welcome. Notwithstanding what had fallen from the noble lord, he must contend, that in many cases a system of prevention was the dictate of sound policy. It would be a mischievous policy to wait until the danger arrived—to allow combustibles to be thrown into our houses, and to console our minds with the reflection, that when the flame was lighted, we could throw ourselves out of the windows. He fully felt the forcible appeal made to the House by the noble lord, on the subject of foreigners coming to settle in this country; and the reception that had been afforded them was a proof of public virtue. In all the countries where foreigners of that description had sought refuge, their descendants had subsequently attained the first honours and distinctions of the state. But that fact did not militate against the principle of the present bill. Admitting that it was an evil that any description of foreigners should be excluded from the country, yet still, in a case where the public safety was concerned, of two evils the least was to be chosen. Such a proceeding would not injure our name and character among foreign nations; or, should it have that effect for a time, the national character would ultimately be amply redeemed. In the year 1793, and from that time downwards, the same predictions as were at present made had been uttered with equal confidence, and had been fully falsified by the result. In what period of our history had so many foreigners enjoyed the hospitality of our shores as for the last twenty-five years? Neither the time of queen Elizabeth nor that of the Revocation of the Edict of Nantz afforded any parallel, and the future historian would select the period alluded to as one the most honourable to the national munificence and hospitality. Within that period foreigners had repaired in thousands and tens of thousands to the shores of this country. The Alien act had been dangerous only to the guilty, and not to those who had fled from the rage of persecution. At the present moment, there were 20,000 foreigners residing in this country enjoying the protection of its equal laws. Conceiving the bill to be perfectly constitutional and indispensable to the safety of the country, he felt him- self bound to give it his support, and to vote for the second reading.

rose and said:—Sir; I feel the disadvantage under which I labour in rising immediately after the able speech of my hon. friend. I cannot pretend to his eloquence, though he will excuse me if in this instance as on some former occasions, I am of opinion that he has wasted it on a subject which is not in fact before the House. My hon. friend has with powerful ability descanted on the morals and atrocities of the French revolutionists and on the mischievous intentions with which the survivors of them are disposed to overrun Europe. The question before us is not with respect to the character of foreigners who may choose to reside in this country, but whether there is any danger in admitting that residence—whether the proposed prohibition of such residence is consistent with the constitution and character of Great Britain. Now, Sir, whatever that danger may be, I feel that the principle on which the measure recommended by the noble secretary for foreign affairs to counteract the mischief is founded, and the arguments by which it has been supported must be contemplated by any one solicitous for the maintenance of our constitutional rights and our national reputation as infinitely more pregnant with alarm. On a former night the noble lord said something about the preamble of this bill. I was anxious to see it printed, for the purpose of exactly ascertaining the avowed object of the measure; but it now appears that the preamble, or rather the preamble maker assigns no reason—the accountant-general of the administration, the person to whom the difficult task is assigned of finding reasons for his majesty's ministers, is actually at a loss to put any one reason on record to justify the measure he has drawn up. He thinks it safer to invite us to pass this important bill, without any recorded reason on the face of it to justify its enactment. Thus it appears that the noble lord and his colleagues are more anxious for their own vindication at present than for that of the House with posterity. But, are gentlemen aware of the inordinate powers they are about to confer by this bill? Are they aware that it enables a minister of the Crown to send any alien who may be domiciliated among us out of the kingdom—to tear him at a moment's notice from his family and connexions, and send him per- haps to that country where he is the most obnoxious, without the appearance of a prosecutor, and without the name of a crime; without trial, without counsel, without hearing? It is true, as has been stated by the noble lord, that there is a reservation in the bill—an appeal is granted to the alien when he conceives that power is unjustly exercised towards him. But what is it but to add mockery to injustice to allow of an appeal of such a nature—an appeal from the minister who may abuse the act to his colleagues who conferred on him the power of abusing it—an appeal from the injustice of lord Sidmouth to the impartial decision of lord Castlereagh!

And it is upon such grounds as those stated by the noble lord, that we are called upon to place 20,000 individuals, many of them connected with us by every tye of relationship and common pursuit, out of the protection of those laws to which they are compelled, equally with ourselves, to pay obedience. It is upon such grounds as those that we are permanently to introduce the anomaly of a tyrannical power into the code of our free laws,—laws, every enactment of which breathes a spirit of care for the rights of the individual and of resistance to the encroachments of power. I have used the word "permanently" advisedly; because I am justified in stating that this measure will never be relinquished, if I can prove that no state of things can be contemplated in which such a law could be less necessary than at the present moment. This law is calculated to meet an external danger, a danger not merely to our foreign policy, for with this object it most be co-existent with our government itself, since no change can take place or be in tended in any part of the continent that may not be some how or other connected with the external policy of England.

To condense the arguments in favour of this bill, they all resolve themselves into this—that it is a measure against danger, external in its origin, but internal in its effect. It was originally a war measure, and the effect of a war too of a most extraordinary character. I have heard a great deal of the distinction between the peace Alien bill and the war Alien bill, but I cannot comprehend the subtlety of some gentlemen's reasoning. I see in both one and the same great ruling principle, which leaves the person and property of the alien in the hands and at the summary disposal of the minister, and establishes an arbitrary power within the realm of Great Britain. My hon. friend who spoke last in the fulness of his candour, says, that the circumstances of the present time and of the time when the bill was first introduced are certainly not similar in all their parts. But are there any two of them alike? The war of 1793, when the bill was first introduced was a war unparalleled in the history of the world—it was a war which has been emphatically termed a war of principles, not of men—it was a deadly contest for the universal establishment of opinions which at the time found able and numerous abettors in every state in Europe. At such a moment the external danger was mighty, and the internal co-operation not unimportant. Strong evils require strong measures, and they were then applied. But has the noble lord opposite the hardihood to say that there is at present any thing in the external dangers of the continent which is likely to act on the internal system. My hon. friend has expatiated on the lingering spirit of Jacobinism. If by Jacobinism he means the discontent felt by certain individuals at the existing order of things in their respective countries and their practices where they have the power to change it, then, indeed, can we never hope to be without this law. But if by Jacobins he means what remains of Buonaparté's followers, this danger must indeed be visionary here, when it is so little felt in France, the great hot-bed of its activity, that many of the colleagues and chief agents of Buonaparté himself are now the ministers and principal supporters of the Bourbon government.

But the noble lord affects to feel considerable alarm from a few French emigrants in the Netherlands. What must be the stability of the system which the noble lord and his diplomatic colleagues have arranged on the continent, if it can be shaken by the machinations of the miserable outcasts and libellers that have found refuge in that part of Europe? Has England for twenty-five years shed her best blood and treasure, and defeated the combined efforts of whole nations opposed to her, to avow, at the first moment of a general peace, her apprehension at a handful of miscreants in a corner of Europe? In the Netherlands it, is said was hatched the plan (and none could be more horrible) to assassinate the duke of Wellington. What proof is there that the plot was hatched there? Is it not more likely that it was arranged in the bosom of France itself? It has surprised me to bear the noble lord talk of the Netherlands in a strain of regret that these French men should have found refuge there. As an Englishman he ought rather to have rejoiced that though a small power, and under the shade of France, she clung to that good old policy which once distinguished Great Britain, but from which she is now unhappily forced by the cabals of foreign conclaves, acting on the weakness of those ministers that ought to have made a firmer stand for the honour and character of their country. But the noble lord has appeared to act for a considerable time rather under the influence of foreign government and principles than of the constitutional government and established principles of Great Britain. It is one of the unfortunate results of the deliberations at Vienna in which the noble lord took so large a part that a government has been forced on the Netherlands utterly alien to all those liberal principles to which that country owed its freedom and independence.

But my hon. friend who spoke last, says, that there is unhappily a disposition in this country to unite with foreign conspirators, and that hence will arise a great danger if any alien bill be not passed to enable ministers to counteract their machinations. It is impossible that any notion can be more unfounded than this. Our situation, our constitution, our character, our very language itself renders the people of England less exposed than any other people in Europe to foreign seductions. This fact does not depend on mere observation of those notorious dissimularities, but it is fortified by the most incontestible proof. When last year all the elements of internal commotion were at work in this country, did there occur the slightest appearance of any disturbance having originated in foreign influence, or being encouraged by the expectation of foreign aid? We have heard of no suspicions or alarms excited by the emissaries of any government but our own. The noble lord thinks it hard that he should be obliged to refuse the consent of England alone to the united decisions of the congress of Vienna. But were that noble lord not only the representative of England, but were he properly imbued with those maxims which have constituted the glory of England in former times, and must form her security for the future, he would have thought that England, and he himself as her minister, could never assume so noble a character in the eyes of Europe as when he should answer such a proposition by simply stating that the constitution of his country would not allow it. That it might be inconvenient, but it was an inconvenience our ancestors foresaw when they wisely judged it better to submit to any disadvantages in our foreign policy than endanger for a moment the security of our internal rights. When I speak of our ancestors, I allude to great names and venerated authorities, who when they fenced round the bulwark of our laws, never dreamt that England would ever be represented in a foreign congress by a man who would drag this country, almost against the arrangement of Providence itself, into the vortex of continental politics, or force our sturdy constitution to bend and truckle to all the fluctuations of the European system. The character of the noble lord has acquired a tinge by the intimate communion in which he has lived with the princes and the ministers of Europe, his connexion with them, and their conjoint and glorious triumphs in the last year of the war have dazzled him; he has been too anxious to participate in their splendour and to enjoy their applause, and he has imbibed sentiments very different from those old and salutary maxims which form the basis of British freedom. The noble lord is too much of an ambassador to be the representative of a free constitution. He thinks too much of the figure this country is to make at the congress of Vienna, and of the reputation which he is to maintain among the princes and statesmen with whom he is to associate to be sufficiently alive to those principles to which alone this country owes the origin of that influence which she has obtained in their counsels.

I know there are those who have little sympathy with these sentiments. But if they forget by what policy it was that Spain fell, and that Holland rose—Holland, formed out of the bosom of the deep as an asylum for persecuted industry;—if they forget that the principle of equal justice which our constitution sanctions is the chief invitation to foreigners, and that the free access of foreigners to this country is one of the great causes of our commercial wealth, if they forget that at least twenty thousand foreigners reside among us; that a vast proportion of them are wealthy and most useful to us; that there is not a charitable subscription in which we do not see their names vie with those of the first natives of the land, as if to repay by the bounty of their contributions the protection they have received in this country;—if they forget all this, at least I trust that the necessity of guarding against the establishment of any arbitrary power in England, will ever be borne in mind by an English parliament. But I will ask the chancellor of the exchequer, whose funds are so largely replenished, and whose financial system so much depends on the sums paid by these aliens, how he should like their disappearance from the country? They have been led hither, not by our public magnificence, for we had little, not by our private manners, for they were proverbially repulsive to foreigners, but by a knowledge of our equal laws, and a confidence in the security which those laws yet afford to their property and their lives. Let the noble lord make but one mistake; let him commit but one act of persecution or injustice; let him strike an alarm into the minds of these numerous individuals exercising their industry for the benefit of the empire, and the consequence may be to transfer for ever foreign labour and foreign ingenuity to more hospitable shores.—On the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, I remember to have heard it often said, that that suspension could affect only persons suspected of treasonable practices, and that those needed not to object to its enactments whom it was not calculated to reach. It has also been said by some on the present occasion, that as the measure before the House can affect only foreigners, Englishmen should not object to its adoption, exempt as they are from its operation. But such language is unworthy of the English character. I should be ashamed to argue the question on such narrow ground We have no longer the blood and feelings of Englishmen, we have lost all the enthusiasm, and I may be allowed to say, the fanaticism for liberty, by which our forefathers were distinguished, if we regard with indifference this encroachment on the rights of foreigners. When we let in this principle of tyranny to operate on foreigners, there is but one step more to reconcile our minds to the endurance of tyranny ourselves. It is said that no abuses have been discovered during the operation of the Alien bill. But we ought not to be satisfied with the existence of a power to oppress, because that power has not yet been exercised. Besides, a great evil is, that we have not the means of detecting any abuse; for the moment a sufferer under the bill is apprehended, it is in vain for him to complain (if he has any ground for doing so) to the sort of tribunal alone open to him;—he is at once hurried out of the country. The noble lord has more than once told us, that in proposing this measure, he is guided by an imperative sense of duty. Duty to whom? Not to the constitution of England, but to the congress of Vienna. He has also said a great deal as to the security against the abuse of the bill, which the character of lord Sidmouth presents. I have the utmost personal respect for lord Sidmouth; but he must not be offended with me for saying that it is as a man and not as a minister. In the former sense he has my confidence, but in the latter he has not. I will never consent to invest any man with arbitrary power. Our constitution is not one of confidence, it is full of jealousies and suspicions; it reins in power to fence round personal right, it protects the weak from the strong, it guards popular liberty against the attacks of ministerial authority. And it wisely judges that the actual exercise of arbitrary power will bear its caution with it, but that it is under the practice of mildness and moderation that tyrannical principles are introduced into the constitution of a free state. As to the prerogative of the Crown to send aliens out of the country, it has certainly been asserted by Blackstone and some other writers. But, after the triumphant refutation of this doctrine on a former night, by my hon. and learned friend near me, I hardly expected to hear it quoted this evening by my hon. friend. Admitting, however, for the sake of argument, that such a power is vested in the Crown, what becomes then of the necessity for this bill? If the former exists, the latter is useless. Why then make so desperate a struggle to introduce an unpopular measure, when the Crown already possesses the means of remedying the evil? But it is not true that this power exists in the royal authority; or, if so it is like the other royal powers under the regulation of parliament. Thus, the king has the prerogative of making war, but has not parliament the controlling power of affording the supply, and of insuring the discipline of the army? It is impossible that the power insisted on by my hon. friend can subsist in the Crown, for it is against the genius of the constitution. Again I implore the House to pause before they adopt this bill. The repetition of such measures has a fatal moral tendency. What is once granted for a temporary purpose, soon becomes permanent, when the passions of men are concerned in its perpetuity. The hand once accustomed to power, grasps it with a firm and decided attachment that is continually increasing. I have to apologise for having so long trespassed on the House, and shall only repeat my decided hostility to the bill [Hear, hear!].

The House divided on the motion, "That the bill be now read a second time:"

On the motion, that the bill be committed on Tuesday,

put a question to lord Castlereagh, for the purpose of knowing in what stage ministers meant to discuss the bill.

rose to order, and contended that a member had no right, by putting a question, to revive a conversation on a subject after the regular proceeding on the particular stage had closed.

maintained that he had a right to take the course he had adopted, as there was a question before the House, and recurring to it, he would now ask when ministers meant to debate this measure? This House must remark that in the debate which had just closed, not a syllable had fallen from any member of his majesty's government—not a word had been said by either of the law officers of the Crown. Nothing had been said either by those who were in possession, or who were in expectation of office. When was the measure to be debated on that side of the House? Were they to understand that the noble lord had entered into an engagement with the kings on the continent not to discuss this question? Was this considered necessary by the holy alliance? Was this the course most agreeable to those sovereigns who were now breaking all the promises they had made to their people, and who were stimulated to the course they pursued by the noble lord opposite, with whom they were combined? He had not wished to add one to the number whose speeches had that night remained unanswered; but he should be glad to know when their high mightinesses would deign to debate this bill; and he should also like to know what were the peculiar circumstances of Europe which called for the adoption of such a measure at this moment.

thought he might reply to the hon. gentleman, by asking when it was intended to debate this measure on the opposite side of the House? He knew of no claim that he had on those who sat on that (the Treasury side) of the House to speak on the present occasion. The hon. gentleman was not commonly in the habit of thinking what came from ministers was more entitled to attention than that which might fall from other members. He had only to say, that when the gentlemen opposite chose to discuss this bill, it was probable they would receive an answer.

The bill was then ordered to be committed on Tuesday.