said, that after what had fallen from an hon. member (Mr. Gurney) last night, he could not suffer this bill to pass without taking some notice of the unfortunate prejudice to which that hon. member had lent his sanction, namely, that it was impossible to place our currency on its former footing. He was afraid, however, from what he saw, that it was not the intention of government ever to place it on that footing. From this course nothing but the most serious evils were to be apprehended. Without a metallic currency, nothing could happen to this country but what had happened to all other countries in a similar situation. He was aware, that there were some favourable circumstances in this country, which existed in no other—the publicity of the amount of the Bank of England notes in circulation, and the influence of public opinion as a corrective of abuse. But if once the opinion got footing, that our circulation must depend on the amount of our taxation, which was boldly advanced by the hon. member last night, we could expect nothing but what had happened in every other country where such an opinion had been acted on. Let us look at what happened to France in, the revolutionary war—America during the American war—and what was now exemplified in Russia. It was known that Russia issued paper money according to its own wants; and the effects of this system were also well known. Unless we established the control of a metallic currency, we should be in precisely the same situation as Rus- sia. Unless the House should resolve to continue no longer this unwholesome state of things, and should make up their minds at once to the inconvenience of a return to cash-payments, they would never get rid of the evil. It was absurd to think that the Bank would next year, or in any future year, be more able or more willing to return to cash-payments. He was the last man to say, that a return to cash-payments would not be attended with inconvenience: he would say, on the contrary, that it would be attended with a great deal of pressure and inconvenience; but he would say also, that it would be better to suffer this pressure and inconvenience now, than to go on in our present system from year to year, till we arrived at a state when every person in the country would be afraid to look our affairs in the face. On the principle of the hon. gentleman, it was absolutely necessary we should go on till we came to this state of things, but he did not see that we were yet come to that pass that to return was impossible. He would appeal to the good sense of the House—let them reflect that now or never they could return to a wholesome currency. If they went on longer upon this system, no man in the country would be able to look our affairs in the face. He was confident that as the inconvenience must be met some day, the earlier they met it the better. They must meet the evil, and they ought to meet it in a manly and fair manner at once, and not allow themselves to be abused longer with the farce which had been played off upon them.

knew of no opinion having ever been delivered in that House, but that we should, as soon as possible, return to a state of things in which paper should be convertible into gold. The Bank directors had pledged themselves to take measures for a return to cash-payments; and treasure, with that view, had been purchased by them. It was his firm belief, that at all times the Bank of England had been anxious to return to cash-payments. At this time agents from all the foreign houses were in this metropolis; and, if the restriction was not in operation, a great part of the loans to foreign powers would be made by means of our coin.

, seeing an hon. secretary of the Treasury in his place, hoped, in the absence of the chancellor of the exchequer, he would be able to inform him, whether any and what steps were taken for paying the nine millions due by the public to the Bank of England. In an early part of the session, provision was made for six millions of that sum; but, with respect to the remaining three millions, he did not know of any provision for it. If this debt was paid to the Bank, that body would no longer have any justifiable cause for keeping up the issues to their present amount. If they were paid back these nine millions, they would stand in the face of the country with the most serious responsibility on them that ever men had. The excess would then be the act of the Bank, and not that of government. If the Bank should be paid, a reduction of their notes must take place; and if paid by this next Christmas, we should then be able to ascertain if the alarms entertained on this subject were well or ill founded. If the reduction took place gradually, though it would no doubt be attended with considerable effect, it would not produce that alarming effect which some gentlemen apprehended. It never was designed that the Bank should receive protection for the issue of a singles note more, under a state of restriction, than if no restriction had taken place. It was only the wants of government during the war that gave rise to the restriction, and justified the issues of the Bank; but on the repayment of their advances there was an end to all pretences for excessive issues. From the hour of the repayment, a gradual reduction would take place.

said, he could give the right hon. gentleman an answer which he trusted would be satisfactory. Preparations were making for the payment to the Bank, not only of the six millions, but also of the three millions, which had been mentioned; but the particular sums, and the periods when they were to be paid, were yet matters of consideration. As to what might be the conduct of the Bank when they should be repaid the whole of their debt he should not then inquire; but he had no doubt it would be marked with that honour and integrity which had distinguished them on every occasion.

was aware that some steps were taken to pay the six millions, for that sum had been already provided for, but he wanted to be informed how the three millions were to be paid, for no prevision that he knew of had yet been made for paying them; and he did not suppose they were to be taken from funds voted for another purpose.

said, that the right hon. gentleman's question, whether the Bank directors had given the notices required by the acts of parliament for the repayment of the two sums of six millions and three millions, he could inform the House that such notice had been given. It was not for the Bank to say what provision had been made; but this he could say, that it was understood, on the part of the Bank, that the sums in question would be paid off in the course of the present year. The right hon. gentleman had said a good deal about the responsibility of the directors, if they did not diminish their issue of Bank-notes, and prepare for the resumption of cash payments. That responsibility he was quite prepared to share with his colleagues in the Bank direction. The true and considerate preparation for cash payments was a matter of too much delicacy to discuss in the House, and particularly at that period. He must, therefore, decline to give any pledge as to what would be the future issue of Bank-notes, or the course to be pursued to facilitate the measure desired by all parts of the House. The directors he was persuaded, would do their duty and trust to the liberality of parliament for a fair construction of their conduct.

never meant to 'say, that the issues of the Bank ought to be reduced to a specific sum. All he meant was, that the issues ought to be limited in the same way, on payment of the debt by government, as if the restrictions were taken off. To what extent the excess went, he could not say; but he was sure that the issues were more than what was necessary. He was happy to hear from the secretary of the Treasury, that the Bank would soon be placed in a situation in which they would not need to issue more than was necessary for the wants of the country.

apprehended the three millions had been advanced by the Bank to government without interest as a sort of compensation to the public for the balances allowed to lie in their hands. He did not know what the amount of the balances now was, but he apprehended it must be considerable; and, so far as these balances could be considered a set off against the three millions, the Bank were not justified in considering the advance a ground for extending their issues. As this was now the last stage of the bill, he must state, that his opinion was in conformity with that of the hon. member for Glasgow. He was sorry that he had not had the advantage of hearing that hon. gentleman more at large, on a subject on which he was so well entitled to speak. After what had been said when the restriction was continued two years ago, and what was said now, it was impossible that any man who turned his attention to the subject could expect to see this country return to cash payments again. An hon. gentleman had stated that all who had spoken on this subject, approved of a return to cash payments; and he admitted, that with the exception of one hon. gentleman who spoke last night (Mr. Gurney), that was the case. But though they all allowed that it would be desirable to return to cash payments, what was the conduct pursued by the House: it was evident that there was no intention of returning to cash payments, or that step would have been taken ere now. He had taken the liberty to state, two years ago, that we should never again see so favourable an opportunity for having the restriction taken off; and it was curious enough, that in the late debate some gentlemen regretted that the restrictions were not taken off two years ago. He agreed with the hon. member for Glasgow, that the difficulty would increase every year. When this bill expired the difficulty would be greater than at present, and we should go on till at last all return to cash payments would be impossible. He never expected to see the resumption of cash payments.

The bill was then read a third time and passed.

said, it would not be necessary to trouble the House at any length, on the subject which in pursuance of his notice, he now submitted to their consideration. Having already decided that it was not their intention to visit Thomas Ferguson with the punishment of loss of office, and having already, by the imprisonment to which they had subjected him, done enough to vindicate their own dignity, and to serve as an effectual warning to others, he submitted to the House, that there was no necessity for detaining him any longer in prison. Mr. Ferguson had made a full acknowledgment of his guilt. He should therefore move "That he be brought up to the bar of the House to-morrow for the purpose of being discharged."

said, he should not object to the motion, as the House had not taken the same view that he had of the enormity of the prisoner's offence—an enormity much enhanced by the falsehoods which he had uttered. Those falsehoods he should have thought would have so blasted his character, that he would have been deemed unworthy to have held any place under the government. If he had had to fix the term of the imprisonment, he should perhaps have been induced to prolong it, but a few days were not of consequence enough to induce him to object to the motion now proposed.

The motion was agreed to. On the question that the Speaker do issue his warrant,

said, that he had formerly been asked, with relation to the case of Ferguson, whether he intended to follow up the subject by proposing any new legislative provision. He now suggested the propriety of extending the prohibition from interfering in elections, which had by different acts of parliament, been imposed upon the officers of the excise, the customs, the post-office, and other branches of revenue, to the officers of the assessed taxes and salt duties, who were at present the only revenue officers to whom that prohibition did not apply.

said, that as he should occupy the attention of the House for some time, he hoped they would do him the justice to recollect, that he had never before presumed to bring forward a measure of public importance. It was only from a sense of public duty that he now presented himself, lest the parliament of which so short a time remained unexpired, should pass away without some public expression of their sentiments on the subject. Although this precise question had not for a long time been before the House, yet the general question of parliamentary reform had been so deliberately and so ably discussed, that it would not be necessary for him to occupy much of their time. His own health, too, would prevent him from saying much. There had long subsisted an opinion among the people of England, that some sort of reform was necessary to renovate the constitution, and to render that House more in practice what it was in theory, the Commons House of Parliament. This opinion had been acted on out of doors, and had pro- duced multitudes of petitions to the House during a great number of years. The cause had been prosecuted with more or less zeal, and at times had appeared to approach success. Towards the close of the American war, the servility with which the House supported the ministers in that war which the people conceived to be no longer wise or necessary, had raised a strong feeling of the inadequate state of the representation. This zeal had been relaxed on the return of the prosperity of the country, and by the defection of one of the most able friends of reform, who had suddenly become its most persevering and unrelenting enemy. The French revolution too, which by its reaction had driven back for centuries the progress of liberal ideas on the continent, had also produced a mischievous effect on the cause of reform. It was then, indeed, to use a phrase of a noble lord opposite that the people "turned their backs on themselves." They had ceased to demand those rights which they had never abused, and which their temperance at that time showed that they were incapable of abusing. Since that time the cause of reform had been impeded by the insane attempts of those who were unjustly classed among the sincere lovers of reform, and by the plots which had been so exaggerated in that House. But it now gained ground; and though the machinery for plots remained in the vaults of the Treasury, it would cease to be efficacious; and if any ammunition remained in the bottom of the green bag, it was so damaged that it would not be fit for an explosion. The necessity of reform had often been acknowledged in the House itself. Distinguished members had offered to prove at the bar its corrupt constitution, but no strong desire to proceed to those proofs had ever been manifested on the part of the House. The corruption was acknowledged by the Grenville Act, which declared the House no longer fit to be trusted with the decision of its own elections—by the oaths and precautions which, it declared to be absolutely necessary to prevent partial decisions. The necessity of reform was even acknowledged by those who had themselves been traffickers in corruption—by Mr. Rigby, Mr. Dyson, and lord North. The Grenville act did certainly effect an improvement in the trial of contested, elections, though by its refusal to limit the expense of petitions, the House had continued what could only be considered a denial of justice. When anything in the shape of reform was proposed on his side of the House, it was met by gentlemen on the other, with objections of various kinds. A standing one, that would serve against any useful change on any subject, was, that it was not the time. Now, as he should think no time unfit for reform, so he feared those gentlemen would think no time fit for it. When we were in prosperity it was said to be unnecessary—when we were in distress it was said to be dangerous. Another objection was, that the advocates of reform did not agree as to ulterior measures. Now he conceived this was not peculiar to the present question. When the cabinet met to consider of new taxes, he had no doubt they were not unanimous as to the best imposition. When the House considered the poor laws, there was quite as much difference of opinion. The bills which were brought in, were even at variance with the principles of the report. The report proposed a radical cure, the bills, though produced with a sincere desire to do good, would, he feared, bring about no useful effect whatever. But if the advocates for reform felt a difficulty in agreeing to specific measures; they at least by that disagreement gave a test of the sincerity and honesty of their plans. Any modification, whether triennial or annual parliaments, open suffrage or ballot, would answer the same end, if they had meant reform as a covert way of attacking the fortress of the constitution. Another objection was, that the constitution was perfect, and that any change was ineligible. A constitution more perfect than ever issued from the constitution shops, from Plato down to the Abbé Sieyes, had arisen from accidents, and had constantly adapted itself to the succession of affairs, and that the result had been, that all orders in the State had been so nearly balanced, that they had been prevented from oppressing each other. But of all arguments against reform, the alarm of the French revolution was the most successful. But he begged those upon whom it operated, to look to the causes of that revolution. They would find that there was not one which had the slightest connexion with this country. The great cause of the mischiefs of the French revolution, was the total unfitness of the French nation at that time for the usages of a free constitution; to this should be added, the vacillat- ing nature of the king, who wished every thing that was benevolent, and yielded to every thing that was unworthy—the unbounded extravagance of the court, which no minister could supply, and which unsupplied, no minister could keep his place; the conduct and character of the duke of Orleans, who had been called the Monster Egalité, who had lavished his monstrous wealth for the worst purposes. But it was unfair to argue from reform to revolution. If they looked to the character of the people of England, if they traced their history through all their former revolutions, they would never find them inclined to anarchy. They were always afraid of going too far. They generally stopt short too soon. In the time of Charles the 1st, there was much blood shed in the field, but scarcely any on the scaffold, and the unhappy monarch himself would not have perished, had it not been found that no party could trust him. In the Revolution which made way for that change of succession, which had placed the present family on the throne, not a drop of blood had been shed. The monarch was suffered to depart in safety, and none of his adherents would have suffered, but from their obstinacy in attempts against the new government. But if the revolution had been bloody, it remained to be proved that reform was revolution. The gentlemen on the other side had no objection to reform, or rather to changes in the constitution, which would increase their own power. Those only which might recover something for the people did they always oppose. The constitution required reform, and constant changes were necessarily to be made. If no changes were to take place it was to little purpose that the House met six months in every year, and the most complete subversion of the present system of government would be to determine, that no changes should be made by law. Time, by the immutable decree of heaven, was the great innovator, and without legal attempts to counteract its effects, it would gradually consume every human institution. One of the greatest obstacles to reform was corruption, and unfortunately the greater the corruption, and thence the necessity for reform—the greater the opposition to any remedy. The first act of the late empress Catharine, after the conquest of Poland was, to guarantee its constitution; that was, to declare that its parliament should never be reformed.

When the Poles applied for reform, she saw the danger of granting what was so reasonable and proper; she saw that her power would be impaired by it, and she considered it a declaration of war. The reform he wished to begin with was, to shorten the duration of parliament, a reform, which might be made without any danger, and would produce the most salutary effects, and the greatest satisfaction in the country. He should not go into the question, whether parliaments were formerly annual by law, or by practice only,—for, annual by some way or other they seemed to have been. He did not, however, wish to revert to that practice, as he did not think it suited the present state of the country. In the tyrannical reign of Henry 8th the duration of parliament became undefined. Mary, who wished to be popular, brought it back to be again triennial; but ever after her death, there had been no definite limit to its duration. It became absolutely necessary to fix some limit—and there was no time more favourable than the revolution; for otherwise at that period the members of the House of Commons might have made themselves senators for life. The parliament at the revolution did not hastily form the enactment. The triennial bill was passed six years after the resolution, and after anxious consideration, and triennial parliaments became the law of the land. How they were lost in 1715 was well known. A civil war then broke forth, which was rather checked than destroyed—the fire remained under the ashes; the government were afraid to trust the country with the elections, and therefore they had the existence of the parliament prolonged for seven years. In his opinion the measure was indiscreet and unjust.—It was unnecessary to quote Locke, or any other writer, to prove that no House of Commons had the right to prolong the time for which its power had been granted by its constituents. It had been said that the previous triennial act had lengthened the duration of parliament; certain it was that the Septennial act lengthened it beyond any legislative precedent, and beyond every principle of justice. One of the arguments which was then employed against triennial parliaments, was, that the first year was always taken up with contested elections. This objection was now destroyed by the Grenville act. The inconvenience of frequent expensive elections might form a more serious objection, but the House had it in its power to reduce those expenses. The oath which members took to deny having given any compensation for their seats, might be extended to the contemplation of compensation. If he obtained leave to bring in a bill, he should also pray for leave to bring in a bill to reduce the expenses of elections. The laws against treating might be extended, the candidates might be forbid to carry the electors to the hustings, and other regulations might be adopted. In opposition to these reforms it was said, that if the power of the Crown had been increased, so had also the power of the people. He admitted that there was a great power of public opinion. This he admitted to be true, but from this power he apprehended no danger. It had arisen from an increase of knowledge; the people were more enlightened and better educated, and in a corresponding degree they were better subjects and men. It had been found so in the countries where education was most general—in Switzerland and in Scotland. But was it from popular principles that the only danger was apprehended? Was it impossible that the House, by excluding the influence of the people, should form an oligarchy which should control the throne, and rendering the sovereign a pageant, exercise the government in his name? He did not apprehend such a result, but he thought it fair to put one fear against another. It was impossible that the House should not feel some degradation, when they felt themselves under the necessity of chastising humble persons who had interfered in elections, while the great culprits were avowed and approved. It was ignorance and inexperience only, which did not practise corruption in the proper parliamentary mode, that called down their vengeance. He wished to give the House an opportunity of removing this inconsistency. One great objection to the Septennial act was, that by it that House had robbed the people of their right, and ought to restore what they had taken away. If there had been a temporary necessity for prolonging the duration of parliament, the act ought to have been temporary. A permanent act ought not to have been passed for a temporary object. But they had wanted to strengthen the power of the Crown, and they availed themselves of the people's alarm to accomplish what they probably could not have done otherwise. From his own experience, he could speak of the benefit to be derived from short parliaments. He was one of those persons who were often in the melancholy situation of being sent into the lobby on a minority. In the last two years he had been astonished to see around him on those occasions faces which were quite new to him, so that, as he at times was subject to absence of mind, he apprehended that he had mistaken the side on which he intended to vote. He felt a perfect conviction that every member in the House was determined as to the vote he should give, by the most conscientious motives. But it some how or other happened, that hon. gentlemen voted very differently from their usual practice when they approached to the period of elections. From these circumstances he concluded that by shortening the duration of parliament, he should bring about a more frequent coincidence of the wishes of the representatives with those of the constituents. That the House of Commons had exceeded its power in passing the Septennial act, he should not assert; but it had no right to exercise that power by enacting a law so inconsistent with equity as that by which it prolonged its own existence. He concluded by moving, "That leave be given to bring in a bill to repeal the act I Geo. 1st, c. 38, intituled, 'An Act for enlarging the time of continuance of Parliaments appointed by an act made in the sixth year of the reign of king William and queen Mary, intituled, An Act for the frequent meeting and calling of Parliaments.'"

seconded the motion.

said, that he was unwilling to suffer so important a question to pass without saying a few words on it. He gave his cordial assent to the motion, being convinced that to shorten the duration of parliaments would not be attended with any of those inconveniences supposed to be connected with a more extensive reform. It might do good and there was no possibility of any danger from it. Without any desire to enter into a debate on a question on former occasions so fully discussed, he would notice one argument which had been used against triennial parliaments by the late Mr. Burke, and which had made much more impression than it deserved. It was—that in frequently contested elections the candidates, aided by the power of the Crown must acquire a great preponderance over those who were independent of it. His answer to that argument was—experience. If short parliaments were really advantageous to the Crown, how did it happen that dissolutions were not more frequent? In the present reign, during which prerogative had been maintained and extended beyond all precedent, there had been eleven parliaments, of which eight had been suffered to last six years; and they were then terminated only because it was thought inconvenient to let the seven years elapse, when no choice or alternative would remain as to a general election. Those who best were acquainted with the interests of the Crown had therefore anticipated no advantages from triennial or more frequent elections. The consideration of the different complexion of the House on the approach of an election was also an unanswerable argument in favour of the proposed bill. Was there any man who heard him, who supposed that in the first session of a septennial parliament, they should find a House of Commons so disposed to resist, or a ministry so disposed to yield as in the last? In the present session let it be recollected how the country bankers' bill had been disposed of. The refusal to increase the burthens of the people, and the reduction, of taxes were other symptoms of an approaching election—very different from the symptoms manifested during the first session of a septennial parliament when gentlemen had the comfortable prospect before them of not meeting their constituents for a long course of time. The more he reflected upon the subject, the more he was convinced of the advantage of more frequent elections. He would, therefore, support the motion. Seeing no disposition however in the House to debate the subject, he would not trouble them at greater length.

said, he was desirous of expressing his entire concurrence in all the observations of his hon. and learned friend, and in nearly all which had fallen from the hon. mover. There was, however, another reason, which was alone sufficient to induce him to give his support to the present motion, and that was the opportunity it afforded of marking his disapprobation of one of the most flagitious abuses of a public trust that ever had been committed. He alluded to that act by which a House of Commons, elected for three years, had prolonged its own duration to seven. He would not say that there had been no reasons for such a proceeding at the time; but there had been none for continuing it after the original cause ceased to exist. He felt anxious to see so great an inroad upon public rights stigmatised by that censure which it appeared to him to deserve, and were it only for that purpose he should support the motion.

said, he did not wish to prolong the discussion of a subject which there seemed to be no disposition in the House to consider in that serious manner which its importance rendered desirable. However, he could not give a silent vote upon it. He rose to express his approbation of the motion, and would certainly vote for its adoption. He agreed, therefore, with the principal grounds upon which that motion was brought forward and supported. But he felt it his duty to mark his dissent from the sentiment expressed by his hon. friend who had just sat down, as well as by the hon. baronet who brought forward the motion. For he could not concur with these gentlemen in pronouncing censure upon the illustrious persons who proposed and procured the adoption of the Septennial act, because he was fully persuaded, that among the other important services which those distinguished Whigs rendered to freedom and humanity at the Revolution, they contrived through that act to save the country from popery and arbitrary power. But still that act ought not to have been continued beyond the necessity of the case—certainly it ought not to be continued at the present moment, when the causes which originally called for its enactment had altogether ceased to exist. The hon. gentleman who spoke last had maintained, in concurrence with the hon. mover, that the House of Commons by which the Septennial act was passed having been chosen for only three years, was not constitutionally competent to vote its continuance for seven years. But upon the same ground those hon. gentlemen might condemn many other acts of the British parliament—might object, indeed to the exercise of its privileges—might deny its supreme power. It was, however, to be recollected, that if this doctrine were admitted, it would follow that the unions with Scotland and Ireland were illegal and unconstitutional measures; for the parliament of Scotland violated this doctrine in uniting itself with that of England, and so did the parliament of Ireland, and so likewise did the parliament of England in surrendering its separate existence. But according to the mode of reasoning employed that night upon the subject, it would have been necessary, previous to a union, that both parliaments should have been dissolved, and an appeal made, not to the legislature, or to the supreme power, which must always reside somewhere, but to the people at large. But without entering into the discussion of abstract metaphysical questions respecting power and right which were calculated to confound the understanding rather than to produce any practical benefit, he would merely repeat, that if the Whigs, who procured the enactment of the septennial law, acted illegally or unconstitutionally, the unions with Scotland and Ireland were both illegal—unconstitutional measures. Upon the ground contended for by the two speakers to whom he referred, there were many other acts of the British parliament which could not be deemed constitutional, because they were not in the contemplation of their constituents—because measures were adopted by the trustees which were not calculated upon or prescribed by those by whom the trust of legislation was delegated. But he must take leave to observe, that the supreme power necessarily rested somewhere, and that it was the constant practice of the legislature to perform acts which the electors had never had in contemplation, but which they had confided a full authority to their representatives to perform, if necessary. If these were not the principles of the constitution, if he had not understood, or read them properly in those great authorities to whom they were in the habit of referring, he should be glad to hear them explained upon better authority by persons better informed. He would make his appeal to the learned, who read, and were able to read the works of those great men upon whose authority this power of the legislature was founded, and who exercised it themselves. He would not appeal to the unlearned. In the propriety of that course, his hon.—he was going to say his learned—friend would no doubt agree with him. For who could look for real constitutional information to those preachers of first principles, of whom we had seen so much in our time, and who, notwithstanding the arrogance of their pretensions, knew in fact nothing at all about the matter? By such authorities he was willing that the question should be judged, but he would enter his protest against the attack upon those who had originally passed the Septennial bill; although he would allow that nothing but an overruling necessity could justify it. The original measure, however, and its subsequent continuance, were two separate questions. Convinced that its continuance was not necessary, after the circumstances that called it forth had passed away, upon that ground he would support the motion.

The House divided:

took that opportunity of expressing his objection to the measure, deeming its enactment inconsistent with the honour, the dignity, and the freedom of the country. He animadverted upon the silence of the ministers and law officers of the Crown on a former evening, when the principle of this bill was under discussion, and when the House had heard three able speeches against it, which speeches, through the system of publishing the Debates of that House, which, thank God! existed, were now universally circulated throughout the country. Those speeches had made a strong impression upon the public mind; and yet ministers seemed still indisposed to offer any argument in support of this extraordinary measure.

That silence was the more surprising, as ministers had, in fact, adduced nothing in support of the bill, but a document from which they would have the House to conclude that they had not abused the powers created by the law which this bill proposed to continue, because there were, forsooth, five or six persons whom they had not sent out of the country, although they had the power of so doing. But it was known, that at the time of the disturbances at Cadiz, some years ago, an authentic paper was shown, stating that no one was to have a passport from our ministers who had not previously obtained a passport from his own government. Thus it appeared, that the execution of this law depended, in a great measure, upon the will of other states. Yet he understood it was not unusual for a foreigner, before he applied for a passport to his own government, to have application made here, to know whether, if he came to this country, he would be allowed to remain. But he would ask ministers, when they undertook to decide upon the character of a foreigner to whom this law was applicable, upon what ground they decided?—whether upon information obtained in this country, or on the other side of the water? whether from spies here or there? He believed the ambassador of that power—of which any foreigner was the subject, was the person principally, if not solely, consulted on such an occasion. He should like to witness the examination of the board of inspectors on cases of this nature—and to know whether it sat at the Foreign or at the Home office. If at the latter particularly, and lord Sidmouth was a member of that board, there was no security whatever for a correct decision; for that noble lord was, he had no hesitation in saying, the greatest dupe that had ever belonged to any administration [here there was a slight murmur of disapprobation]. Dupe was, he presumed, a parliamentary expression, and the House, as well as the country, had amply sufficient facts to justify the application. But if the friends of the noble lord were not satisfied to have him considered a dupe, he should only say that that noble lord must then be called by a still harsher name. For what was to be thought of that noble lord, who, in adverting to such a person as Oliver, gravely affirmed that he was a much injured man? But, he should like to see the board of inspectors in consultation upon the execution of this act, with, no doubt, some foreign ambassadors beside them, engaged, toad-like,—to use the figure of the poet—in spitting the venom of legitimacy into the ears of our government, and thus endeavouring to prevent this country from being what it was in better times, the asylum of persecuted men. The hon. member ridiculed the idea that any danger could arise to this country from the presence of a handful of foreigners. The state of the country at present was so different from what it was in 1792, when this law was originally enacted, that such an apprehension was quite chimerical, unless gentlemen imagined that a German or a Frenchman was likely to join a meeting at Spa-fields, with a view to address the mob in broken English, upon the benefits likely to result from annual parliaments and universal suffrage. But the fact was, that no apprehension of any domestic danger gave birth to this bill. The real cause of its continuance was, a desire to please foreign governments. For this purpose the character of our country was lowered. It was notorious that the law which this bill proposed to continue, was so thought of on the continent, that no Englishman could excuse it upon any other ground than this, that it was only a war measure, and yet it was now proposed to continue it in peace, without any assignable reason. Here the hon. member took a review of the character of those continental states, which had advanced their own character and interests, as well as benefited humanity, by affording asylum to the persecuted advocates of civil and religious liberty. He instanced Geneva, which received Voltaire into its hospitable bosom, and Holland, which gave shelter to such men as Erasmus and Bayle. But England was, in good times, the most distinguished nation in the world for this description of hospitality. Her character was now, however, reduced from that high rank. She was sunk to a level with the arbitrary governments. That congress of mighty promise, but miserable performance, at which the noble secretary for foreign affairs played such a prominent part, had had the effect of placing the police of England under the correctional police of foreign governments. He would ask, whether the ambassador of France or Spain was not entitled to require the execution of this law against any person disagreeable to the government of either, as part of an absolute compact [hear, hear!]? Such a compact was indeed admitted by a sort of innuendo in the speech of the noble lord who brought forward this bill, although its existence was denied elsewhere. To prove that the powers granted under the Alien bill had not been fairly exercised, he adverted to the case of M. Befort, who, after a residence of some time in England, had been abruptly ordered to quit the country, though he was ignorant of having in any degree infringed the law, or made himself obnoxious to the government. As an English gentleman, anxious for the honour of his country, he delivered these sentiments, and he hoped that the feeling which actuated him would influence every independent man in the House to oppose the measure, as being unwise, tyrannical, and derogatory, from the character of the country.

observed, that not a single case of any abuse of the powers granted by the former act had been alleged. Nothing was urged but what the imaginations of honourable members suggested for the purpose of aspersing his majesty's ministers. It was since the enactment of an alien bill that our humanity to foreigners had been most conspicuously displayed. He had little knowledge of the noble lord at the head of the foreign department, but he thought him entitled to public gratitude for his great services, and for having terminated the most tremendous contest in which this country had been engaged, by a glorious and advantageous peace. He considered that ministers from their former conduct ought to be again entrusted with the powers of the proposed measure. No solid argument had been brought forward against the bill, whilst it appeared to him to be a sufficient reason for it, that it would exclude from this country the outcasts of every other.

contended, that no new considerations had been urged in the course of the former debate, which called for any additional argument in support of the views taken by those who proposed the continuance of this measure. That was the only cause of the silence observed on his side of the House. As the hon. gentleman who spoke last but one had introduced one or two topics which had not been before dwelt upon, there was no indisposition on the part of ministers to enter farther in to the discussion. He thought the circumstance of there being no place of refuge for emigrant foreigners in other countries, was a reason rather for passing this bill than against it. It was not pointed against the admission of the peaceful artisan, or of persons persecuted for their religious opinions—the description which applied to the ancestors of those honourable members who had done themselves so much credit by the feelings which that recollection inspired. The House must be aware that it was against persons, of a very different character that the precautions of this measure were provided. He contended that the execution of the act had been universally confined to protect the safety of this country, and that it had never been put in force on the representation of any foreign government. The person who had been alluded to as having been sent out of this country under the provisions of this statute, came to England in the year 1807. He was then a dealer in pictures. In 1811 he applied for a passport to go abroad, when he was told that, if he went, he must not return during the war. He thought proper, however, to return; and from information that was afterwards received respecting his conduct, he was ordered to leave the kingdom. The fact was, that he first of all returned, and while he was here from 1812 to 1813, information was given by different persons, representing him to be engaged in improper objects. He was accordingly removed from the country in 1814, on the most satisfactory evidence that he could not be permitted to remain. It would not be proper for him to mention the specific grounds on which that person was sent away; but he would state, that a paper was found in his baggage which completely established the necessity of sending him out of the country. Upon the whole, he felt confident that the House would agree in the policy of continuing this act, until the spirit of the French revolution had evaporated, and until this country could be rendered secure against the designs of a disaffected and dangerous class of persons, who were continually plotting the overthrow of all governments, and the subversion of all order in society, and who thought it most convenient to repair to this country, violating its laws, and abusing its hospitality, until their plans were matured and ready to be put into execution. Men of sound principles, and of peaceable habits, would have nothing to dread from the existence of these powers in the hands of his majesty's minister; but it would deter bad men from coming to this country, when they knew that they would not be suffered to remain in it.

said, that if the right hon. gentleman did not think proper to state the specific grounds on which the person in question had been sent away, he had at least admitted that the ground on which he was removed did not consist in that correspondence which was found in his baggage. The foreigner said that he underwent the most strict examination, and that nothing was discovered to render him liable to suspicion. He had not had the means of verifying the truth of his assertions, and now he had only to set against them the statement of the right hon. gentleman. To that statement he was sincerely disposed to give every degree of credit; but, at the same time, he must add, that he thought the proceedings in the case of M. Befort tended to illustrate the vicious consequences of bills of this sort. He had been sent out of this land of freedom—this asylum, as it once had been, for the persecuted of all other countries, without any satisfactory account being given to the public; he had had only six days allowed him for packing up his goods, relinquishing his interests, and leaving the country. The right hon. gentleman had said, that no person would be sent out of this country except for plots against the state; but, on a former night, an hon. gentleman (Mr. C. Grant) had declared, that there was something in the affairs of Europe which rendered it necessary that we should keep our eyes on foreigners, lest men who should meditate a revolution in France should find an asylum here to carry on their plots. As far as the fact went of half a dozen persons being sent out of the country, this measure would not bear the smallest test; but, on the other hand, it showed the intolerant spirit of the British ministers. Let the House bear in mind, not only the number of men who might be sent out of the country, but the number of those who might be intimidated while they remained. The total number of foreigners who were here engaged in honest and industrious habits, beneficial not only to themselves, but to the public in general, was, he believed, not less than 20,000. Let the House, then, consider the alarm and terror with which that large body of persons must be continually agitated by this odious measure. It was, in itself, not only a despotic power, unworthy of the times in which we lived, and hostile to the spirit of liberty, more particularly to the liberties of this free country; but a power into which no inquiry had been instituted, and into which, in the present temper of this House, no inquiry was likely to be instituted. It was a measure singularly hostile to the character, and injurious to the interests, of the country. His opinion of its unconstitutional and unjust character remained unchanged, convinced as he was, that whenever a crisis presented itself when the public character of nations might be influential, this measure would be found to prove most prejudicial to the interests of Great Britain.

remarked, that there had been nothing stated in support of this bill, except what the House had this night heard from a right hon. gentleman opposite, and the observations on a former night of a lord of the Treasury, in which there was much more of eloquence than of convincing argument and reasoning. He was not surprised at the course which his majesty's ministers had thought proper to adopt on this occasion; they knew that their strength consisted, not in speaking, but in voting. He hoped the House, however, would consider, that those on his side who resisted this measure, were speaking on the behalf, and for the protection of persons who had no representatives in that House. There were two classes of persons to be affected by this bill: one class was, the foreigners who might seek an asylum in this country, the other, the foreigners who had settled amongst us, and had become a part of ourselves. As far as it related to foreigners who might come to reside in this country, it was to be considered on far different grounds than as it related to foreigners who had long domiciled here. In all that had been said on this subject by the other side, it was manifest, that the executive government could act only on the suggestion of foreign powers in preventing individuals from coming here; for whether they came from France, from the Netherlands, or from other places, how could they guard themselves against such persons, but by listening to the representations of foreign ministers? So that a person who was endeavouring to shelter himself here from religious or political persecution, from the terrors of the holy inquisition, the tyranny of the king of Sardinia, or the despotism of some other government that we had established on the ruins of the free and independent states of Europe, must be deprived of an asylum, on the statements made to this government by their own persecutors and enemies. In all these cases ministers would act implicitly on those representations; and under that influence, the unhappy victims of despotism and oppression would be driven back from our shores. The hon. gentleman had said, that this measure was intended only as a prevention against dangerous persons; but by this he meant, as it appeared, persons who had worshipped the goddess of Reason at one time, and afterwards worshipped Napoleon Buonaparté. It was originally stated, that this bill was to continue in force for two years only; but the right hon. gentleman had that night said that it was to continue till the principles of the French revolution had evaporated—that was, till the whole race of Buonaparté was extinct—till all those persons had expired who were supposed to entertain any friendly disposition to that family. It was said that it was a measure directed only against bad men. He admitted, that if his majesty's ministers were to know the real state of the case, they would not put it in force against good men; but the evil was that they proceeded on secret informations. When a person was brought before them, the same course was pursued as before the grand inquisitor. In Spain, he was asked, without knowing any thing of the specific charges against him, whether there was nothing which he had said against the orthodox principles of the Catholic religion, and the man was left to ponder in his mind what he could have said. So, in this country, after this bill should be passed, the unfortunate individual would be asked, Had he said nothing against the doctrine of legitimate governments—had he mentioned nothing against the family on the throne? Did any one really suppose that the unfortunate foreigners who might seek an asylum in this country could be safe under the exercise of such powers? Did any one believe that if the ministers of Charles 2nd and James 2nd had been invested with similar authority, those monarchs would have had their eyes offended by the crowd of Protestants who fled to this country for protection? No; if the same powers had existed in those times, the persecuted Protestants would not have ventured to seek an asylum in England; but they came hither, because they relied on what they knew to be the constitution of this country; they relied on the character, the hospitality, the public law of the country. It had been said; that more protection had been shown to foreigners during the last five and twenty years, than at any former period. This, he would boldly affirm, was a false statement of history. It was utterly false to say, that more protection had been shown to persecuted individuals in the last twenty-five years, than during the reigns of James 1st and Charles 1st, Charles 2nd and James 2nd. The right hon. gentleman had said that the paper alluded to in the case of Mr. Befort was found among his baggage, just as he was about to be sent out of the country. Now it might not be difficult to explain how it came there.

begged to explain. He believed the fact was, that the Custom. house officers thought it their duty to examine the articles which the individual in question wished to take with him, and in doing so, they had discovered that paper.

thanked the right hon. gentleman for this explanation. It seemed, then, that the paper was not sought for, but merely discovered in searching the baggage, and certainly it would not be fit to say much against the delicacy of Custom-house officers. In the case of Las Cases, the papers were never examined: in the case of De Berenger, they were made use of to convict him of a misdemeanor, but they were most illegally made use of. He conceived that this measure, as far as it related to foreigners who might seek to reside here, was calculated merely to carry into execution the tyrannical intentions of foreign powers, and that we were the ready agents, the willing slaves of those despotic governments. As far as related to those foreigners who had long domiciled here, that large description of persons who had been engaged in active and honest pursuits, of what crime had they been convicted that they should be put out of the protection of the law? Were any of them to be driven from this country because ministers might be told on secret information, that they were Buonapartists in their heart—that they wished to overthrow the dynasty of the Bourbons? He begged to recall to the recollection of the House the sound principles laid down in the speech of an hon. gentleman (Mr. F. Douglas) on a former night—a speech, indeed, which had remained unanswered—a speech which the noble lord opposite had deemed unworthy of reply—but a speech which he (sir S. Romilly) considered to be one of the most able and effective speeches that had ever been heard within the walls of that House. It was said, that if these powers were to be granted, they could not be in better hands than in those of the noble secretary of state for the home department (lord Sid-mouth.) Sir Samuel said, he was against tyranny in any hands. It was not his business to pay compliments to any man and therefore he said that he thought these powers in very bad hands. He respected the private character of that noble lord; he was ready to acknowledge his integrity and worth as a private individual; but the noble lord now stood before them as a public man, and in that character he could not give him any approbation. He had never seen in him any regard for liberty; he had never witnessed in that noble lord any veneration or respect for the good sound principles of our recorded constitution. When he considered the manner in which the noble lord had suspended the Habeas Corpus act; when he reflected on his refusal to hear the petitions of the unfortunate persons who had been imprisoned under that suspension; when he remembered, that, after all, he had sought to cover the acts of himself and his colleagues by a bill of indemnity, founded on the report of a secret committee chosen by themselves, and furnished only with such evidence as they chose to adduce, there was no man in whose hands he should be more unwilling to intrust the exercise of the powers of the alien bill. Let the House, too, remember, that his majesty's ministers had on all occasions refused an inquiry into the manner in which those powers had been exercised. This was a most fatal blow to the character of this country; and, he could not but reflect, that when we should have lost all our liberties, we should not even have the compassion of any nation in the world, because it would be said, that a people who were so regardless of the liberties of others did not deserve to enjoy their own. [Loud cheering.]

said, he could not allow this question to go to the vote without offering a few observations upon it, as he considered it one of great importance to the country. In taking the subject be- fore them into consideration, they should inquire whether the Alien bill was an infringement of the domestic policy of the country? or whether, by its adoption, they would depart from the constitution of their ancestors? For this purpose, it would also be necessary to see what the consequences of not carrying the bill might be. It was stated, that a power of sending foreigners out of the country was one which ought not to be allowed to rest in the government. If this was to be the case, then there was no power by which an influx of foreigners, however great that influx might be, could be prevented. Then the question arose as to what was likely to be the consequence of not passing this bill, and what description of persons were likely to be introduced into the country in its absence? He wished to meet the question fairly and broadly, and should state, that by rejecting such a measure, they opened a door by which all persons who might be exiled from the continent, either for the infamy of their conduct, or the dangerous tendency of their politics, were to be admitted into this country—and this was to be done without giving government any power by which the admission of such persons could be regulated, or their evil practices put an end to. Let the House examine, for a moment, what sort of persons they were about to admit if they rejected the bill. They were about to harbour in this country a set of persons from the continent, who were educated in, and who had supported, all the horrors of the French revolution; persons, who were likely to extend in this country that inflamed and turbulent spirit by which they themselves were actuated; persons who did not possess either morality or principle, and who could not be expected to respect those qualities in this country [Hear! from the opposition]. He was expressing the opinions which he felt on the question, and was aware that those opinions were not acceptable to some hon. members on the other side of the House—[loud cries of Hear, hear! from all sides]. He should repeat, that he expressed himself as he felt on the subject; and in doing so, he should not be disturbed by any clamour which might be raised on the other side of the House, as there was not one who knew him but was aware, that the observations which he made were the result of his conviction as to the line of conduct which ought to be pursued on the present occasion. If no Alien bill existed, there might, and probably would, be an influx into this country of that class of persons to which he alluded. He knew that the great mass of the English population were well affected to the laws and the constitution of the country; but the House was aware—and if not, their eyes must be shut—that there still existed in England a sufficient number of disaffected persons to disturb its quiet; a set of persons who, possessing the will to disturb the public peace, might, by such a junction as that of a set of disaffected foreigners, be stimulated to acts of outrage and disturbance. It was known that those disaffected persons, most likely to seek shelter here, were men who had a natural aversion to England; persons who, from their earliest age, were impressed with a wish to overpower this country; and he was not so hazardous a politician as to throw a quantity of combustible matter into the Country, in order to see how much we could bear without exploding. He did not wish to make the experiment as to the quantity of poison which the body could inhale without destroying the constitution. It was imperative on this country to be cautious how they made themselves the theatre of action, by which other states might be injured, and by which the constitution itself might be finally overturned. It had been found necessary to guard the internal peace of the country against disturbances—why not the external also? If foreigners were to have free egress into England, without vesting government with a power to remove them, they would be sanctioning attacks on other states, and embroiling themselves in quarrels, in which they had no right to interfere. It had been said, that there was no cause which made such a bill necessary, and that the fears entertained on the subject were chimerical and absurd; but it was impossible not to recollect, that the same language had been used on the other side of the House in 1816; and notwithstanding that, they saw what had happened since that period. It was so fully in their recollection, that he did not feel it necessary to repeat it; indeed, he should not have alluded to it at all, were it not to show that the prophecies of the hon. members who now, as well as in 1816, opposed the bill, were not to be relied on implicitly. In 1793, similar arguments had been used; but the country, by not acting on those arguments, had avoided all the horrors into which they would otherwise have been plunged, as a neighbouring country had been. An observation had been made which he felt it necessary to notice; namely, that the adoption of the present measure would be a departure from the ancient principles of the constitution. On this subject he should say a few words, and he should state, that the arguments on this point had been pressed with an ingenuity and talent calculated to make a Strong impression in its favour at first view, but which could not be maintained on a cool inquiry into the subject. It had been said that the measure had a tendency to contravene the law, and that it had its rise in a wish to accord with the policy of other countries. It had been found necessary, to the peace and well-being of this country, to arm the executive with such a power, and it was necessary, to the fulfilment of its treaties, that it should be acted upon. But it was found, that sufficient power had not been given to government; and in 1802 a clause was added, granting a farther power, by which government could arrest foreigners, and send them to their own countries, How then could it be said, that the bill contravened the law? It had been said, that if the Crown had formerly possessed such a power, there would be instances found of its having been exercised, and that James 2nd would, if such power existed, have availed himself of it at the time of the revocation of the edict of Nantes, in order to prevent the crowds of Protestants from landing on these shores. But it should be recollected, that it was good policy of that monarch not to do so, though the power was vested in him; any argument on that point could not, therefore, avail. In the time of Henry 4th, there was an instance of an order having been issued, commanding the passage-keepers, as they were called, not to allow the landing of aliens in the country, until examined. In queen Elizabeth's reign also a similar power was exercised. In 1571, this power was exercised at the time of Norfolk's conspiracy. In 1574 and 1575, it appeared that foreigners had been sent from the country. This was matter of fact, proved against assertion on the other side of the House. As far as he had heard the arguments on both sides, it was generally allowed, that the power vested in the legislature. The question then was, with what part of the legislature did it vest? It appeared clear, that it must be in the executive, as there only could it be regu- larly exercised. It was, in fact, analogous to different other branches of the prerogative. If a safe conduct was required, it vested with the Crown; if a licence of residence was to be given, the Crown had the power of granting it; the bill before them then being similar, ought to be vested in the same hands. The Alien bill was not introduced for the purpose of vesting the Crown with any new authority; it only went to regulate a power already possessed, and to give effect to a branch of the prerogative, the existence of which was not disputed. And let the House reflect for a moment, what operation the present bill was likely to have. By that bill the alien was called upon to sign a certificate which no honest man could refuse to do, and then he was undisturbed. But the House was aware that the Crown had the power, previous to the bill being enacted, of sending aliens out of the country, which might be done by a common law proceeding; therefore no new power was sought for. Another objection was, that the bill might operate to the injury of persons not aliens; but if this argument had any force in this instance, it would make against every existing law, as there was none by which it was not possible that innocent persons might be injured. If, however, a person not an alien was brought within the operation of this bill, such person might easily obtain redress by making affidavit, and by obtaining a writ of Habeas Corpus. The arguments used on the other side of the House, were, he believed, the best which the question admitted of; but they were such as, when canvassed, would be found not to contain any solidity. This was his view of the question. The Crown having, as he before observed, the power, and the bill being only to regulate that power, he should certainly support it, unless it was proved, that such a measure was not necessary, and that he conceived had not yet been done.

, although pleased by the manner, and gratified by the display of talents so promising on the part of the hon. and learned gentleman, must nevertheless enter his solemn protest against the doctrines and principles promulgated by the hon. and learned member that evening. Those who opposed the bill did not wish to deprive the Crown of any of its ancient prerogatives, but those who supported it wished to extend them; an extension which he, and those who thought with him, said was not called for by the circumstances of the times. The hon. and learned gentleman had been compelled, in support of his argument, to resort to cases that had occurred four hundred years ago, when the Crown assumed the right of pressing men on land for the army, when a system of villainage and the writ de heretico comburendo existed. Such was the argument which the hon. and learned gentleman had, in the nineteenth century, adduced to the House of Commons. As to the cases dug out of the State Paper- office since the time of Elizabeth, they amounted to nothing. It should be recollected, that Scotland was at that time divided on the disputes between queen Mary and her son James, and the law which sent foreigners from the country was enacted because they were supposed to be friendly to Mary queen of Scots, whom they considered the lawful queen of this country. He denied that the power of the Crown to banish aliens by proclamation was legal; and the best proof that it was not so, was that no one had been prosecuted for refusing obedience to it. The hon. and learned gentleman asserted, that a power existed in the supreme authority of the state to banish aliens. Yes—and the hon, and learned gentleman might have said with equal justice, that a power existed in the supreme authority of the state to banish natives. But when the hon. and learned gentleman proceeded to argue, that therefore the power must be vested in the sovereign, his position was Untenable. The power sometimes assumed by the monarch of issuing proclamations having the force of laws had been repeatedly called in question. Every body recollected that lord Mansfield, when a proclamation was issued by the Crown forbidding the exportation of grain, called the period during which that proclamation existed, "a forty days tyranny," and on that occasion exhibited the single instance in his life in which he was the friend of liberal and constitutional principles, while, on the same occasion, lord Chatham exhibited the single instance in his life in which he was their enemy. The constitution had provided the means of creating that declaratory power whenever necessary, without any such assumption of it by the Crown. The hon. and learned gentleman had spoken of the consistency which honourable gentlemen on his (sir J. Mackintosh's) side of the House had manifested on the subject. But that compliment, or that sneer, might have been spared; for he did not believe that a single honourable gentleman had taken a part in the discussions on the present bill, who was a member of the House in 1793. At the same time he could assure the hon. and learned gentleman, that he, for one, would never be ashamed to adopt the principles, or revere the memory, of those who opposed the Alien bill in 1793. Whatever posterity might think of the various events of those times and the present, he was sure they would not say that too much had been done in the way of resistance to the power of the Crown—that the prerogative of the Crown was too small, or that it had been weakened by what had passed in the course of the last five and twenty years. He was perfectly at a loss to know to what events the hon and learned gentleman alluded, as having occurred since the year 1816, and as having falsified the predictions of those who opposed the bill of that day. What danger or alarm had since arisen from aliens? What had occurred to induce us again to suspend that asylum which ought always to exist interchangeably among the nations of Europe for a vanquished political party, and which it was formerly the pride and the glory of England to hold out to the world? One of the most extraordinary positions that had been advanced in the course of the discussions on this subject, and one than which be could not conceive any thing more pregnant with danger to the tranquillity of the country, was, that we ought to be satisfied of the moral character of those who were exiles from other countries on political grounds. The consequence of such a principle would be, that when we received any exiles from a foreign country, we should, in the approbation of their morality, involve a condemnation of their own, government. But he confessed that he felt ashamed at witnessing the indifference with which the House seemed to regard the fate of these unprotected individuals. That fate was viewed with ease, and even with gaiety. Nor was he less ashamed at witnessing the indifference with which the House listened to these and to all similar arguments. For the honour of parliament, he would no longer expose arguments that had for their object the support of liberal principles to the contempt and derision with which it seemed the wish of the majority of that House to load them. But he would intreat the House to reflect on what might be the consequences of the present measure. Here was a bill to exclude from this great empire three newspapers (amongst others, the Yellow Dwarf), and thirty-eight exiles. Suppose at a future period some horrible tyrant should arise on the continent, from whose barbarity hundreds and thousands of human beings took refuge in this country; and suppose he were to require that we should give them up; what answer could our minister for foreign affairs (if it was desirable, as it might be, to preserve peace), make to such a demand? He could not, as lord Liverpool had said to M. Otto, or M. Andreossi, when the French government made a similar request with regard to Mr. Peltier, say, and say with pride, that the British government had not the power to comply with it; for the answer would be, that if an alien bill were passed in 1818 to exclude three newspapers and 38 exiles, surely one could be passed for the more extensive purpose then required. Suppose the contest in South America should end unfavourably for the people (which God forbid!) and the yoke of superstition and tyranny should again be imposed on them; and suppose, after the expiration of the present bill, a few of the unfortunate men who had been in vain contending for the liberties of their country, were to take refuge in this country, would not Spain, if she applied to have them given up, have a right to say, in the event of our refusal, that we did not treat her as we had treated other powers? Suppose those unfortunate gentlemen, the leaders of the first Cortes of Spain, who had been in dungeons for the last two years, and whose fate had not been touched upon in the House during that period, because the noble lord said that it might possibly render it more severe, were to escape from those dungeons, and Spain should claim them—we must choose between the risk of occasioning at least a coolness on the part of the Spanish government, and the horrible step of expelling those excellent persons from our shores. It was extraordinary to reflect, that in the year 1811 the Cortes was recognized by treaty as the constitutional government of Spain. By Russia it was so recognized, and the Spanish Cortes actually ordered Te Deum to be sung for that expulsion of Buonaparté from Russia, which was to be the cause of plunging its best members into hopeless captivity. Should they now escape, and should they, knowing the traditional character of England as a model of liberty, and an asylum for the persecuted, come over hither, they would here meet with the Alien bill, and they would find that they were released from their dungeons only to become, in all probability, the subjects of a quarrel between Spain and Great Britain. In Russia they might obtain a secure asylum. Of all the prodigious occurrences of the present age, one not the least extraordinary was, that Muscovy should be thus at the head of just and liberal principles, and England at the head of prejudice and intolerance [Hear, hear!]. The hon. and learned gentleman concluded his very eloquent speech by declaring his principles to be in decided opposition to the present bill.

contended, that the bill had merely for its object to grant the King that authority to send individual aliens out of the kingdom without proclamation, which he possessed by common law to send all individuals out of the kingdom by proclamation. With out an alien act, the Crown had no influence over individual aliens, whatever were their principles, designs, or conduct; but by the common law the prerogative gave the King a power to order them all out of the country. He was surprised to hear this principle disputed, as even Magna Charta recognized the right of the King over aliens, by enacting that alien merchants might reside in the kingdom without molestation, "nisi antea prohibiti fuerint," a phrase which plainly implied that they might be prevented from entering the kingdom, or ordered out of it by royal authority. When subjects left the kingdom it belonged to the sovereign to call them back by proclamation; and, by analogy, the same power extended over foreigners to order them away. The King had no power in the latter case to take up aliens, and send them away—a power which was proposed to be given by this bill. He was obliged to follow the more circuitous plan of issuing a proclamation, and if it was not obeyed, to prosecute the persons who neglected it, for disobedience. The hon. gentlemen who opposed this bill had misrepresented its nature, by calling it an act directed against foreigners, and intended to render their residence here less secure: it enacted nothing against aliens; it conferred nothing on the Crown but the proper exercise of its acknowledged prerogative. The question was therefore reduced to one of expediency; and he would ask, would it be safe, would it be politic, after the events of the last twenty-five years, to return immediately to the state of law on this subject that existed before 1793? The House had heard much from an hon. and learned gentleman on the debates which took place when the alien bill of that period was discussed; but, in opposition to the tendency of the hon. and learned gentleman's argument, he would say, that the opponents of the measure at that time did not, like its opponents now, deny the King's right by proclamation to order foreigners to depart the realm. The same line of reasoning was then followed as on the present occasion with regard to the expediency or the policy of the bill, but all concurred in the principle of the royal prerogative on which it was founded. Those even who had then opposed the act on the only proper ground—its expediency and necessity—he was sure, on an impartial view of subsequent events, would now acknowledge that, however inconsistent it had appeared with their views or principles at the time, it had afterwards proved itself to be one of the wisest and most beneficial acts that had ever passed the legislature, by saving us from those revolutionary horrors to which other nations had been subject. The powers then granted had been exercised with impartiality, and had not, as had been stated by an hon. and learned gentleman on a former night, been directed more against one class of Frenchmen than another. The bill now before the House would be used with the same impartiality, as it was justified on the same grounds of expediency. It violated no principle of law, of hospitality, or of humanity. It could not be viewed with an hostile eye by foreigners as any injury to their rights. It was merely intended for self-protection; and if it was not passed, our character would not be raised, while our humanity might be despised and our policy derided by foreigners.

The question being put, "That the Speaker do leave the chair," the House divided:

The House then went into the committee, when Mr. Barham moved, that the blank respecting the duration of the bill be filled up with one year instead of two. A division took place on the original question. Ayes, 90; Noes, 24; Majority for two years, 66. Mr. J. P. Grant proposed a clause, giving the power to an alien, who was ordered to leave the country, to specify within a week the port to which he wished to go, and to be transported thither in any vessel that may sail to that port within a month, he remaining in the interim in safe custody. Sir S. Romilly proposed to add to the clause in which the duration of the bill was fixed for two years, the following words, "except as far as relates to foreigners who have been resident in this country since the 1st January, 1814." Mr. Brogden the chairman, and the Speaker, expressed it to be their opinion, that as the bill was merely to continue an existing act, and as no instructions had been given by the House to the committee to receive such clauses or amendments, they could not be received in that stage of the proceeding, although they might be introduced on the report, or on the third reading. Mr. J. P. Grant and Sir S. Romilly acquiesced in this decision, and intimated their intention of proposing their respective amendments in a future stage of the bill. The House then resumed.