rose to say, that the resolutions of the committee had been carried by very small majorities, and that he had entirely disagreed with the majorities. The first resolution had been carried by a majority only of one, he last by the casting vote of the chairman.

said, that as one of the committee, be would willingly bear testimony, that the hon. member for Cambridge was not in the least remiss in the discharge of the duty, which he considered himself to owe to his constituents, by resisting the resolutions. The hon. gentleman might have, whenever he pleased, the benefit of his testimony to this point. It was true the resolutions in the committee were only, carried by a majority of six to five, but of the minority of five, four were the representatives for Oxford and Cambridge. For all of them he felt the highest respect, and they filled in that House nearly as respectable a station as it was possible fir a representative to hold. But their dissent from these resolutions could not have much authority, considering the interests of their constituents in the question—interests which for many reasons, and for one of considerable force at this time, which he would not mention they would pay great attention to. The authority of the four members would have great weight where their judgments could be impartially exercised, but in the present case it could not be so. The resolutions were, in a technical and parliamentary sense, the resolutions of the committee. Their weight and authority must depend on the reasons which supported them. Neither their justice nor their merits could be decided by the numbers who had dissented from them. Their fate would be determined in the House upon their own merits.

and Mr. Peel hastily rose at once to reply, which occasioned a laugh. The latter gentleman gate way, and the former said he treated the insinuation that he had not acted with candour and fairness with the contempt which every charge upon the candour and impartiality of a member deserved. The resolutions had certainly been carried by very small majorities.

said, he must express his sentiments, notwithstanding the laugh occasioned by his having risen at the same time with the noble ford. He was sorry that the representatives of large and respectable places, should be laughed at for defending what they conceived to be the interests of their constituents. He regretted that there was not time this session for some legislative measure on the subject. Great misconception existed. It had been clearly proved that the Universities had acted with the utmost liberality, and that those very authors who had complained of it as a grievance, had derived the greatest benefit from the act.

thought it rather an unusual course to bring before the House the state of divisions on a select committee. If it was alleged that some of the resolutions in the committee had been carried only by a casting voice, it should have been also said, that the resolution restricting the copies given to five had been carried with only one opponent, if a person expressing a doubt might be considered an opponent.

in explanation, said, that his observations had been greatly mistaken if he had been understood to impute any improper motives to any one. As to the remark made by a noble lord that he treated his (sir J. M.'s) insinuations with the contempt they deserved, he begged leave to say that he did not consider any member who applied such language on such an occasion, as qualified to give him lessons as to his conduct in the House, or in a committee. He had only imputed a partiality which he considered creditable, and which the right hon. gentleman had contended for as his right to exercise. He went farther, and said that he considered partialities, counteracted by opposite partialities, as the cause of that happy collision of opinions which made that House the most excellent representative assembly that ever conducted the affairs of a nation.

expressed his regret that he had misconceived the hon. and learned gentleman's meaning.

Mr. Gurney said a few words in justification of the resolutions; after which the report was ordered to be printed.

, on bringing up the Report of the Police Committee, drew the attention of the House to the great evils that were experienced in consequence of the want of a classification of prisoners in the different gaols of the country. The House would probably be surprised to hear that this evil was not confined to the metropolis. It was not merely in this city that these places of confinement, which went by the name of Houses of Industry and Correction, were in reality nurseries of idleness and vice. The system of labour, which even their appellations seemed to imply, and to which in principle they ought to be directed, was altogether overlooked. Even in Cold Bath-fields prison, the average of the produce of the labour imposed upon each individual, did not amount to so much as one farthing per day. The great evil arising from this neglect of classification was, that persons who had committed crime for the first time, were thrown amongst those, who, by the frequent commission of enormities, were more hardened in the course of guilt, and consequently were disposed to encourage and increase the enormities of less experienced and hardened offenders. The House would also be surprised to hear, that it was proved, on the evidence of the governor of Cold Bath-fields prison, a person who supported the most respectable character in his situation, that he had conducted the affairs of the prison without a single rule or order from the magistrates for the space of seven years. He trusted that the extraordinary increase of prisoners, a circumstance disgraceful in itself, would be regarded from the evidence of this Report, as a misfortune growing partly out of the poverty of the times, and partly out of the extreme neglect which was manifested in the want of proper regulation in those establishments. That it was in a great measure a disease arising out of poverty and wretchedness, could not be denied by those who had observed the condition of society for the last few years. No one could look abroad without witnessing cases of extreme calamity; no one could exercise his observation without seeing numbers of unfortunate people wanting a home, and stretched upon the grass in a state of wretchedness, which could only be compared to that of the Lazaroni of Naples. The most afflicting reflection upon this survey of extensive misery in this country, was, that it arose, not from the want of a disposition to be industrious, but from a want of employment, from a want of the means of exercising that industry which they were disposed to undertake. Another melancholy fact was to be derived from a reference to the condition in which many persons were dismissed from the prisons. No one could have attended to this subject without knowing that dozens upon dozens had been dismissed, many of them after the commission of a first offence, without a shilling in their pockets, or without any other means of procuring subsistence than by a return to the practice of those vices for which they were originally committed. It was true that some asylum was afforded by the charitable institution of the Refuge for the Destitute; it was true that hundreds had been saved by that humane establishment, but it was lamentable to reflect upon the small proportion on which its benefits could operate, when compared with the whole amount of the individuals thrown without provision upon society. The number of transportations and capital convictions which had grown up under this system was immense. The House was probably not aware that, from the year 1816 to 1818, no less than 3,600 had been sent to Botany Bay, and that from the year 1798 it had cost the country no less than four millions to defray the expenses of transportation alone. It was extraordinary to think yet not less extraordinary than true, that the more every part of the system of government was inquired into upon these subjects, the more it would be found to be defective and rotten. But the most surprising consideration of all was, upon what principle of life a machine so defective in itself could have been so long kept together. It was extraordinary that the first step in the police department should be executed by deputy—he alluded to the office of constable; but still he was disposed to attribute the want of a goad police not to the neglect of those in the higher situations, but to the conduct of those in the inferior. He next alluded to the plan adopted in the licensing of public houses, according to which, acting upon the vulgar prejudice that porter was the natural beverage of the people of this country, they were obliged to keep tap rooms, in order to avoid the refusal of their licences as gin-shops. These ale-houses were known to be the haunts of profligacy; yet they would not only exist in an undiminished number, but go on progressively increasing until the law was altered on that subject. He concluded with expressing a hope that the result of this inquiry would be to alter the present system in the management of gaols, which, instead of contributing to the reformation of offenders, operated to their farther corruption and degradation, by compelling the association of new offenders with the oldest and most hardened in crime.

complimented the hon. gentleman on his attention to this important subject, and expressed his opinion in favour of the intended review of the police of the metropolis.

The report was ordered to be printed.

presented a Petition from certain individuals against the clause introduced into the Alien Bill, depriving them of the privilege they had acquired as naturalized subjects, by the purchase of stock in the Bank of Scotland. He described the petition as relating to the most important subject, a subject which involved the greatest breach of faith that was ever proposed to a British parliament. It alluded to the amendment adopted in the Alien bill by the House of Lords, which went to deprive persons of their rights who were naturalized in that mode since the 28th of April. In consequence of an act which had passed in the parliament of Scotland in 1695, the purchasers of stock in the Bank of Scotland to a certain amount was naturalized. The same had been since confirmed by five acts of parliament in the reign of his present majesty. The present petitioners had been long resident in this country; they were many of them merchants, and had children who were natural born subjects. The petition went on to certify the loyalty of their conduct, and to challenge inquiry into every part of their character as men and as citizens. It added, that they had purchased, stock in full and entire faith in the law as it now stood. After dwelling with much force on the injustice of retrospective acts, he concluded with moving that the petition do lie on the table.

The Petition was then read. It purported to be the petition of George Oppenheimer, &c., proprietors of stock in the Bank of Scotland, and naturalized subjects of the United Kindom of Great Britain and Ireland; and sat forth, "That the petitioners are informed that a bill is now pending in parliament, intituled, 'An Act to continue for the term of two years, and until the end of the session of parliament in which that term shall expire, if Parliament be then sittting, an Act of the 56th year of his present Majesty, for establishing regulations respecting Aliens arriving in or resident in this kingdom in certain cases;' and that a clause has been introduced into the said bill by the House of Lords, enacting, that such persons as may have been naturalized, or claim to have become naturalized, since the 28th of April last, by the effect of any act of the parliament of Scotland heretofore passed, relative to the Bank of Scotland, or who may claim to be naturalized by becoming partners of the Bank of Scotland after the passing of this act, shall be deemed and taken to be aliens, notwithstanding the provisions of any act of the parliament of Scotland, whilst the provisions of this act relative to aliens shall remain in force; that the petitioners have severally become purchasers of stock in the Bank of Scotland since the 28th day of April last, upon information given to them, that by the act of the Scots parliament in 1695, establishing the Bank of Scotland, which act has been confirmed by five acts of parliament in the reign of his present majesty, they should thereby acquire the rights and privileges of British subjects; that the petitioners have been long resident and domiciled in this country, carrying on business as merchants, and most of them have children natural-born subjects of his majesty; and they can obtain the most unquestionable testimonies to their loyalty, general character, and mercantile credit; that the petitioners are willing to conform to all regulations prescribed in the case of foreigners who become; naturalized by act of parliament, and having purchased stock at the Bank of Scotland, upon full and entire faith in the law as it stood when they became proprietors of such stock, and having a confident belief that no person in this country was ever deprived of his rights by a retrospective law, the petitioners most humbly pray, that the bill now before parliament may not extend to disfranchise them of their just rights legally acquired since the 28th day of April last,"

considered the best mode of proceeding would be, to refer the matters submitted in the petition to a committee of the House to report thereon. He, in fact, knew nothing, nor did he think the House knew much more, of the Scotch act said to be in existence. With the view, therefore of obtaining more accurate information on the subject, he would move, "That the said Petition be referred to a committee to examine and report the matter thereof to the House.

rose for the purpose of opposing the motion. Nothing could be more obvious than the design of the petitioners in their conduct, with respect to the purchases they had made of stock of the Bank of Scotland; their obvious intention was, to defeat the provisions of a bill then in its progress through parliament, which was intended to apply precisely to the case. It was not the wish of that House, he imagined, to lend its aid to parties harbouring such intentions. The amendment of their lordships to this bill had originated in the information received by his majesty's government, that the intention of the persons then purchasing into the Bank of Scotland was, to defeat the object of all the regulations and arrangements which had been or were making, with respect to this most delicate of all subjects connected with the internal policy of this country with respect to aliens. The facts of the case had been admitted. Of these purchases, or their proposed object, there could not be, a doubt; and under these circumstances, certainly the House would never consent that forty-nine persons should take advantage of this opportunity to defeat the intention of that House, and entitle themselves to naturalization, in despight of the barriers opposed to their intention by this act, more particularly when it was an undoubted fact that seventeen or eighteen of these very persons had been seeking to become naturalized in the ordinary way prescribed by law, and were not able to show themselves entitled to such privilege, in consequence of which their application had altogether failed. Of the existence of this obsolete Scotch act, the House was not apprized when it passed the Alien bill of this year, or it would doubtless have provided by this or a similar clause, some mode of abrogating the provisions claimed under the provisions of this act. The possession or purchase of 80l. worth of Scotch bank stock entitled the alien to be considered a naturalized subject of Scotland by the act of 1695, and by the act of Union, the naturalized subjects of Scotland became entitled to all the privileges of naturalized subjects of Great Britain generally. Thus this 80l. worth of stock placed this individual in precisely the same situation as if he had applied to parliament directly, and obtained an act of parliament, admitting him to the full participation of the privileges of British born subjects. But this portion of Scotch bank stock need not remain even in the possession of this person so naturalized any length of time so as to procure for him any native character, or promote his residence in the country, or afford any security for his good conduct. The next moment after it had served the purpose of his naturalization, he might tranfer it or dispose of it to any other foreigner, who might have occasion to want a similar exemption from the operation of the laws respecting aliens, and who in his turn might dispose of it to whom he pleased, let him be ever so notorious a delinquent, or so determined an enemy to the repose of this country. Thus this portion of stock might be made to traverse the continent, effecting the naturalization of numbers of persons into whose hands it might fall, by purchase or otherwise. This indeed, would be to give the utmost possible facility to all the disaffected, to evade those provisions, wisely interposed by the laws of the land, which looked with national and scrupulous jealousy upon foreigners, who were candidates for this distinguished favour. This was the character of our constitution, so distinguished from that of other countries; for instance, the American states, whose policy it appeared to be, to have as many foreign citizens as possible, with a view to increase her population and commercial intercourse throughout the world. England was not jealous of the residence of foreigners here, or their commercial intercourse with this country, but of their being admitted to a full and complete participation with British born subjects in all their privileges. This he elucidated by stating, that parliament had been obliged, in the case of prince Leopold of Saxe Cobourg, to pass a specific act to evade the 1st of George 1st, which provided that no naturalized person should be entitled to sit in parliament. A simi- larly jealous precaution had been adopted by another legislative provision, that no naturalization bill should be permitted to include within it a provision entitling the alien to obtain the the privileges of British subjects abroad. But now, by the revival of the obsolete Scotch act of 1695, all the operose provisions of the system for regulating the privileges of aliens, were to be defeated and rendered null and void, without even demanding of the alien any of the oaths or tests prescribed by law. These persons had obtained their rights by fraud of an act of parliament [Hear, hear!]. He repeated, that it was by fraud of an act of parliament. For the old law had been virtually repealed, both by the Scotch act, and by the act of Geo. 1st, and the 13th and 14th of Geo 3rd respecting the naturalization of aliens. It would be monstrous to sacrifice the public interest and safety to a technicality of law—and that having framed a bill to guard against and regulate aliens, the legislature should be defeated in its object by an obsolete act of the parliament of Scotland, by which all purchasers of the stock of the bank of Scotland took themselves out of the class of aliens, and of course freed themselves from the operation of the bill. The retrospective nature of the clause had been complained of. This was a quality, however, very usually to be found in acts of parliament. Nothing was so common as in a bill augmenting the tax on a particular commodity, to make it operate back to the period at which it was introduced. When the bill for regulating the residence of the clergy was passed, it had also a retrospective effect: and there were various other precedents of the determination of parliament, when it thought any particular object desirable, not to be arrested by any consideration that a retrospective operation in a bill was unfitting. On these grounds he opposed the referrence of the petition to a committee. It was not a question of the merits or the demerits of the individuals. It was—whether an obsolete statute should be allowed to defeat the object of the present bill, and virtually to repeal all the naturalization laws—whether the legislature would sanction this short cut by which all the inhabitants of the continent, if they if they chose it, might become entitled to the privileges of natural born subjects of Great Britain? As to the Scotch statute what the legislature might eventually do with it he knew not. Its final fate was not however at issue. What the House had to determine was, whether or not it should be suspended during the continuance of the Alien bill.

rose, for the purpose of strongly supporting the petition. He could not conceive it possible that the House, if it had the least regard to principle, if it was not determined to act in violation of all law and all justice, would not consent to appoint a committee for the investigation of the subject. Since he had had a seat in that House, he had never seen a petition of greater importance, considering the nature of it in itself, and considering the extraordinary doctrines which had been just advanced by the noble secretary of state. The noble lord had said, that there was no occasion to refer the petition to a committee, because the House knew all the facts of the case. The House did not know the facts of the case. The noble lord himself did not know the facts of the case. The noble lord had asserted, that if an alien bought and held stock of the bank of Scotland for twenty-four hours, he became entitled to all the privileges of a natural born subject. How did the noble lord know that? Had the noble lord the act? If the noble lord was in possession of the act, it was a trick upon the House not to declare it, but the noble lord was quite mistaken, if he thought the repeal of only one act necessary. It would be necessary to repeal no less than five acts of parliament. It was a mistake to suppose that the individuals in question were entitled to their claims by the Scotch act merely. They were entitled to them by acts of parliament passed by the English parliament. By an act of the Scotch parliament in 1695, the bank of Scotland was created with a capital of 100,00l. The exact terms of that act it was not in his power to state, for it was impossible, such was the haste of the advocates of the present measure to procure it. In 1774, however, it being thought proper to increase the capital of the bank of Scotland, an act was passed by the English parliament—the parliament of the United Kingdom of England and Scotland—the act of the 14th of Geo. 3rd, c. 32, increasing that capital to 200,000l.; and in the 17th section of that act, it was declared that the act of the Scotch parliament in 1695 should remain in full force as to every particular, except so far as the same was altered by the act then passed, and that the provisions of that act of 1695 should operate with regard to the new stock, as they had operated with regard to the old;—in other words, that all purchasers of the new stock of the Bank of Scotland as of the old stock, chould become naturalized subjects. This was done five several times. In the 32d of Geo. 3rd, another act was passed, farther increasing the capital of the Bank of Scotland, and in the 34th of Geo. 3rd, another; both declaring that the act of 1695 should remain in full force in the particulars which he had already described. And yet, in the teeth of these repeated acts of parliament, the noble lord had asserted that the individuals in question had obtained their rights by fraud of an act of parliament? A most monstrous assertion! Did the noble lord—a minister of the Crown, high in the confidence of the Prince Regent,—mean to assert, that it was not perfectly justifiable in those persons to purchase the stock in question, in order to become naturalized? Why, it was the advantage held out in, order to induce aliens to become proprietors of the Bank of Scotland stock. When the bank of Scotland, was established which was a year before the establishment by charter of the Bank of England, it was a boon offered to aliens to tempt them to become proprietors. This boon the individuals in question had accepted, and now the noble lord called that acceptance a fraud on an act of parliament! To take it away would be a fraud on the part of parliament [Hear, hear!] Parliament had offered certain conditions to aliens; and when, relying on the faith of parliament, they accepted them, parliament withdrew its part of the consideration, and put the alien purchaser in the situation of being compelled to sell the stock which he had purchased for a particular purpose, at the reduced price to which it must necessarily be lowered. The noble lord had appealed to precedents and to past times; and especially to the reign of queen Anne. Did the House recollect what was done in that reign? In the seventh of Anne it was enacted, that all Protestants were on landing in this country to become naturalized [Hear! from lord C.] He knew the meaning of the noble lord's cheer. The act of the 7th of Anne was thought inconvenient, and so it was repealed. But how was it repealed? Did the statesmen of that day dare to take away the privileges which had already been conferred? No. The bill was prospective in its enactments. I Its operation was not to commence until after the passing of the act. Three months were allowed to foreign Protestants to come and take benefit or the law, by rendering themselves entitled to the privileges of natural born subjects. A thing so extravagant, so contrary to all law, so completely in in violation of all justice, was never thought of before the time of the noble lord and his colleagues. And what was worse was, that it emanated from that branch of the legislature which was the supreme court of justice in the country [Hear, hear!]—that it proceeded from men who filled the highest judicial offices—who took an oath to administer justice with impartiality [Hear, hear!]. Those persons took indeed "a short cut," as the noble lord called it. They did not even venture to introduce the proposition in a bill, where it would be repeatedly discussed, but took care that there should be only one question upon it, by making it an addition to a bill already discussed. Much stress was frequently laid on the forms of parliament. Here all forms had been violated. The House of Commons sent to the House of Lords a bill continuing an existing law; the House of Lords returned it with the repeal of an existing law [Hear, hear!]. And this the called an addition to the bill! By this proceeding they told the House of Commons, "either the bill to which you have, agreed, shall not pass into a law at all, or it shall be accompanied by an amendment which we have added to it, and which is wholly alien to its original object." And this was done on the presumption, that the hurry at the close of a session, would prevent, the House of Commons from having any alternative. A monstrous proceeding [Hear, hear!]. There was another view of the case which was most important. He did not profess to be very learned in the law of parliament, but unless he utterly mistook that law, he conceived that the House of Commons could not consistently with its privileges, agree to this amendment. For observe what was its effect. To subject a large description of persons to the alien duties. This was one part of its injustice. Another was the forfeiture of estates. Suppose among the forty-nine persons who had availed themselves of the act, there were some who had done so for the purpose of purchasing estates. Was the House aware, that the effect of this clause would be to make those persons forfeit the estates so purchased? If aware, would it be so regardless of every principle of law and justice as to consent to the proposition? Reverting, however, to the law of parliament, he observed, that he had been looking into authorities to see how that law stood with respect to the circumstance to which he had recently adverted; and be found that the House of Commons had rejected amendments made by the House of Lords, that were much more remotely connected with the privileges of the Commons with respect to money regulations than this clause by which alien duties were imposed. The last precedent in Mr. Hatsell's work, was in 1791, when the House of Commons threw out a bill returned to them by the House of Lords, for regulating the distribution of rewards in cases of felony, be the House of Lords had diminished one of the rewards of 40l. The House of Commons rejected this as an interference with their privileges. But how inferior an interference was it to the present, in which the House of Lords proposed to tax individuals ? In 1787 the House of Lords made an amendment to a bill sent up to them from the House of Commons respecting Horsham gaol, which amendment was to the effect, that Horsham gaol should be repaired in the same manner as other gaols. On this, the bill was thrown out by the House of Commons, because the amendment imposed on individuals the payment of money. It was one of the most important privileges of the House of Commons, and one which ought, to be vigilantly guarded, to originate money bills, and he did conceive that the present was a case in which that privilege ought to be strongly asserted—The act respecting the stock of the Bank of Scotland, was only one of many acts in which parliament had held out to aliens the advantage of becoming naturalized. Service by aliens in the fleet and the army, residence of aliens in the colonies at various, periods, were by acts of parliament rewarded by conferring on them the privileges of natural born subjects. The noble lord, in justification of the retrospective character of the clause, had referred to the act by which actions against the clergy for non-residence were suspended. He (Sir S. R.) did not conceive that that act was altogether justifiable, although there were circumstances which lessened the objections to it; but at any rate it ought to be remembered that it was not passed without hearing the individual who was to be affected by it. He was sure that it little occurred to many hon. members, who agreed to that act, that it would be adduced as a precedent in a case like the present. Thus it was, that availing themselves of precedent after precedent, the noble lord and his colleagues proceeded step by step to invade and destroy the liberties of the people [Hear, hear!]. I do not know (said Sir Samuel) what course the House is about to take on this subject, although I cannot help suspecting what that course will be—a course utterly unwarrantable to the individuals more immediately concerned, and utterly repugnant to the spirit of all parliamentary proceeding. Deeply involved as our privileges are in this question, yet as this parliament will in all probability be dissolved in a very short period, I fear its last act will be an act of signal injustice. Such, Sir, will be a fit close for the greater part of our proceedings. Apprehending that we are within a very few hours of the termination of our political existence, before the moment of dissolution arrives, let us recollect for what deeds we have to account. Let us recollect that we are the parliament which, for the first time in the history of this country, twice suspended the Habeas Corpus act in a period of profound peace. Let us recollect that we are the confiding parliament which intrusted his majesty's ministers with the authority emanating from that suspension, in expectation that when it was no longer wanted, they would call parliament together to surrender it into their hands—which those ministers did not do, although they subsequently acknowledged that the necessity for retaining that power had long ceased to exist. Let us recollect that we are the same parliament which consented to indemnify his majesty's ministers for the abuses and violations of the law of which they had been guilty, in the exercise of the authority vested in them. Let us recollect that we are the same parliament which refused to inquire into the grievances stated in the numerous petitions and memorials with which our table groaned—that we turned a deaf ear to the complaints of the oppressed—that we even amused ourselves with their sufferings. Let us recollect that we are the same parliament which sanctioned the use of spies and informers by the British government—debasing that government, once so celebrated for good faith and honour, into a condition lower in character than that of the antient French police. Let us recollect that we are the same parliament which sanctioned the issuing of a Circular letter to the magistracy of the country, by a secretary of state, urging them to hold persons to bail for libel before an indictment was found. Let us recollect that we are the same parliament which sanctioned the sending out of the opinion of the king's attorney-general and the king's solicitor-general, as the law of the land. Let us recollect that we are the same parliament which sanctioned the shutting of the ports of this once hospitable nation to unfortunate foreigners flying from persecution in their own country. This, Sir, is what we have done; and we are about to crown all by the present most violent and most unjustifiable act. Who our successors may be I know not; but God grant that this country may never see another parliament as regardless of the liberties and rights of the people, and of the principles of general justice, as this parliament has been [Loud cries of Hear, hear!].

denied the position of the hon. and learned gentleman, that because the capital of the Bank of Scotland had at various times been increased by acts of the English parliament, aliens derived the rights in question from the English acts and not from the Scotch act. They derived those rights entirely from the original act of the Scotch parliament: on the Scotch law, and on the Scotch law alone the right stood. Now, with respect to the law itself, the Scotch act of 1695 was contrary in its regulations to the general principle Of all naturalization bills adopted in this country; for it was without any restriction with reference either to religion, to country, or to any other circumstance. The naturalization acts for aliens serving for certain periods in our fleets and armies, residing in our infant colonies, &c. all required, first, that those aliens should be Protestants; secondly, that they should undergo certain ceremonies. That respecting aliens in the colonies, required a previous residence of seven years, and the taking of the oath of allegiance. Not so the Scotch act. Any foreigner, of whatever religion, from whatever quarter of the world he might come, might, by the purchase of a certain quantity of Bank of Scotland stock become naturalized. In the seven years war an act of parliament passed to naturalize aliens who had served three years on board his majesty's ships, but a special proclamation from the king was necessary for that purpose. Even the statute of queen Anne required certain qualifications. Let the House look at the preamble of the statute by which that statute was repealed, and they would see the acknowledgment of the mistake into which the legislature found they had been betrayed by their liberality. By the 7th of Anne, c. 5, it was enacted that all foreigners taking certain oaths should be deemed natural born subjects, they consenting to receive the sacrament of the Protestant church. In so short a period as three years after, another act was passed repealing the act of the 7th of Anne, the preamble of which recited the mischiefs and inconveniencies of the latter. It was true that this repealing act was not retrospective, nor was it to operate immediately on the passing of the bill. But why? Because the 7th of Anne was an invitation to certain persons to come to this country, who had immediately come in consequence, and taken the advantage of the act [Hear, hear!]. Did the gentlemen opposite mean to say, that any thing like this was the case in the present instance? The Scotch act was absolutely found out for the purpose of making that use of it which had been made. From the period of passing the first alien bill in 1793, down to this present 1818, he would ask those gentlemen if they ever heard of this Scotch act? Nobody would state that it was ever thought of until recently. It was almost obsolete. There was nothing therefore, in the present case similar to that cited by the hon. and learned gentleman in the reign of queen Anne. Why should the petition be referred to a committee? The facts which were stated in it were not controverted. What would the committee have to inquire into? To the appointment of such a committee he should therefore object. As to the merit of the clause, that was a different question, on which he had formed his opinion, but with which opinion he would forbear troubling the House at that time, reserving himself for the time when that question should be distinctly before them.

apprehended, that the great argument against the injustice of the clause rested on its ex post facto nature. There was no doubt that the petitioners had acquired the privilege held out to them by the act. That privilege empowered them to import goods into this country at a lower duty than in their prior character of aliens. To deprive them of this right appeared on the face of it to be a gross violation of justice, and an equally gross cession of the privileges of that House in money matters. Such an act could be justified only by necessity, and a committee was the place to inquire into the extent of that necessity. If it could be proved that the forty-nine persons in question were the greatest traitors in the world, and that the rights they had gained were calculated to produce inconvenience so serious, that it would be better to violate the privileges of that House, and the dictates of common justice, than to allow them to retain those rights, let it be so; but the committee was the only place in which the inquiry could be carried on.

did not perceive that the introduction of the clause by the House of Lords was any infringement of the privileges of the House of Commons, with reference to money matters. He wished the hon. and learned gentleman would point out what were the alien duties which, in his opinion, gave to the clause that character.

replied, that the right hon. gentleman had imposed a singular task on him, and one which he had not the means of executing—to point out the particular duties he alluded to. It was notorious that it was a great object with foreign merchants in this country to obtain exemption from those duties. Would the right hon. gentleman pledge himself that there were no alien duties in existence.

said he would not take upon himself positively to assert that there might not be alien duties. What he had said was, that he was not aware of the existence of any.

wished to make one observation. It appeared, between his hon. and learned friend and the right hon. gentleman, to be perfectly uncertain whether there were alien duties or not. In this uncertainty how could the House conclude against the motion for inquiry?

observed, that the right hon. gentleman would not undertake to affirm that such things as alien duties, existed. There were some hon. gentlemen near him (Sir A. Piggott) who were perfectly ready to state that they did. Were a public purpose only at issue, this point ought to be ascertained by inquiry; how much more so when the rights of individuals were about to be operated upon! Were there no alien duties in the city of London? Would the attorney-general deny that there were? Would the hon. and learned gentleman deny also that if an alien purchased land he could not hold it? If a natural born subject purchased land it was his own. If an alien purchased land he was only a trustee for the king, and might be dispossessed at any time. Now, when the situation of individuals was thus changing, and their property was subjecting to forfeiture, was it the House of Commons in which it was stated that this violation of right should be allowed without inquiry, and that by the same deed those privileges should be abandoned, of which they had hitherto been tenacious even to pedantry—which they had watched and guarded with a vigilance proportionate to their sense of their value? In addition to the instances quoted by his hon. and learned friend of the jealousy evinced by the House of Commons of any interference on the part of the other House of Parliament with money matters, he would mention a case which occurred in 1807, when an act passed by the House of Lords merely to relieve an Irish Catholic officer from the penalties of the Test act, which attached to him in this country, although they did not attach to him in Ireland, was rejected by the House of Commons as an encroachment on their privileges. Were there no other objections than these, it would appear to him astonishing that the House could entertain the clause sent down to them. But what was the bill? He knew not. He had never before seen a bill purporting to repeal an act of parliament, in which the act which it was intended to repeal had not been stated. He would ask the hon. gentlemen opposite, whether in the whole of their parliamentary experience they had ever heard of such a thing? such had never been the case even when the original object of a bill was the repeal of an act; but the extraordinary provision under the consideration of the House, was attached to a bill which existed for 25 years, without the occurrence of any inconvenience from the want of that provision. The other branch of the legislature, however, was in such a hurry, that it could no longer tolerate the act or acts (for it knew not which) in question. It was so intolerant of that, of the nature of which it was ignorant, that it could not pass the bill without adding to it this celebrated clause. And what was this clause? Did any man know what it was? It stated, that any man naturalized or who might claim to be naturalized (two very different propositions), since the 28th of April last, should be subject to such and such disabilities. And why since the 28th of April last? He knew not. Why not since the 27th, or since the 21st, or since the 1st? What right had he, silting there in utter ignorance of any ground for the proceeding, to consent to deprive any persons of property, to which they had as good a claim as he had to his own? What right had he to visit another with a law destructive of his interest, while he did not fail to take care of his own? The attorney-general had cited several Alien acts. He had alluded particularly to one passed in the reign of queen Anne, and repealed three years afterwards. But though repealed in three years, it had been enjoyed for three years. It had been enjoyed until the legislature thought fit on adequate grounds to repeal it. In the acts respecting aliens settling in our colonies, the legislature acted with due deliberation. As to the number of persons concerned, of what importance was it to tell him that there were only forty-nine? Were there but one, his rights ought to be sacredly respected. The law about to be abrogated, had existed so long without inconvenience—The constitution had not been endangered, no conspiracy had been proved against these individuals. Why, then, were they to be deprived of their rights? He utterly denied the assertion of the hon. and learned gentleman, that the right stood on the Scotch act of parliament. Five acts of the English parliament had given to the subscribers to the Bank of Scotland, as that bank increased in capital, all the privileges to which the subscribers to the Bank, when it was originally instituted, with a capital of 100,000l., were entitled. If it were only for this clause, he should object most decidedly to this act; but he objected to it altogether. The House will however remember, that they had the power in their own hands of rejecting the clause: it was, as it seemed to him, an interference with the privileges of that House in money matters, and therefore he must protest against it, and propose to the House to reject this amendment.

said, he did not intend to follow the hon. and learned gentleman through the whole of his speech. It appeared to him that, in the latter part of it, he had stated a proposition which, if true, would entirely settle the question at issue. If the clause which the other House had introduced into the bill would expose those persons to higher penalties than were intended, then it would affect the privileges of this House. He had recently taken a part in a debate in which he had endeavoured to justify the proceedings of the other House, but he would never lose sight of the privileges of the House of which he had the honour to be a member. He should, therefore, now appeal to the chair; and if the speaker should declare, that there were privileges of that House with which the other House ought not to interfere, but which had been interfered with on the present occasion, he should concur in opinion that this House ought not to agree to the clause, He wished, therefore, before the debate proceeded any farther, to hear the opinion of the Chair.

said, that being so called on, he felt himself bound to state the light in which he viewed this question. It was an important rule of that House, not only not to permit any interference of the other House either in imposing duties or taxes, or in enacting of penalties or forfeitures, but also not to permit the meddling in any other way than the correction of literal errors, with the bills on these subjects, sent up to them from this House. As far as he could collect, there were certain duties attached to aliens in this country, as traders, and a forfeiture by the existing law, in case aliens should acquire any real property in this country. On becoming subjects of this country they were entitled to exemption from those duties on alien traders, and a remission of the penalty in the way of forfeiture. It appeared, then, that the amendments of the other House might in this way be considered as interfering with what was the peculiar privilege of that House. But there was one point which excited a doubt in his mind, and that was, that having stated that aliens, on becoming subjects, were entitled to relief from certain duties, as well as to relief from the imposition of a penalty or forfeiture on the acquisition of property, the natural course of naturalization bills was their originating in the House of Lords; and so far they might be considered as giving a relief from penalty, and remission of duties. At the same time he did not state this as sufficient to counterbalance the arguments urged on the other side. He had to say, that, but for this difficulty of naturalization bills originating in the House of Lords, it appeared to him, that the amendment of this bill regarded subjects which fell within the description of those which the House considered as belonging peculiarly to themselves.

considered that the circumstance of naturalization bills originating in the House of Lords did not affect the decision of the present question. A naturalization bill enabled a person to acquire property in this country, but by the present clause persons who had acquired property under the existing law in this country, would be deprived of that property. It seemed clear, that the clause was of such a nature as fell within the description of an interference with the privileges of the House.

said, that on considering the opinion which had been pronounced by the chair, and the information given by the hon. member who spoke last, he felt there was but one course for him to pursue, namely, not to press the amendments introduced into the bill by the Lords [Hear, hear!].

said, that nothing could be more gratifying to the House, than to hear the noble lord state so candidly his sentiments on this subject.

wished to suggest to his right hon. friend to withdraw his motion.

My. Tierney then withdrew his motion, and lord Castlereagh moved that the Lords Amendments to the Alien bill be taken into consideration.

said, that the Lords had introduced a clause into this bill, which, it appeared to him, the House would feel themselves bound to reject. He believed that, in all cases where the House of Lords had introduced a clause into a money bill, it had been the practice of that House to throw out the bill. He had paid some attention to this point in the course of the morning, and had found several cases to this effect. He quoted three precedents. The first, of a clause added to a corn bill, the second, extending the penalties provided in a game bill, and the third directing the repairs of a gaol to be carried on in the usual way.

observed, that when a bill was introduced into this House, which was in any respect a money bill, then if the Lords made any amendment, the Commons rejected the bill altogether. But it was doubtful to him, whether the Lords had not power to make an amendment in a bill which had passed that House, and which was not strictly a money bill. It would be for the House to determine whether the bill now before them came within the description of a money bill.

saw no occasion to throw out the bill altogether; it would be enough to get rid of the amendment which involved penalties and forfeitures.

said, that as there seemed to be some difficulty in this matter, as far as regarded the privileges of the House, and the property of individuals, and different opinions had been given, they should not proceed too hastily. There could be no inconvenience in deferring the subject till to-morrow, and in the mean time a committee might be appointed to search for precedents.

said, there appeared to be no serious doubt as to the clause being an inroad on their privileges, and postponement might lead to the supposition that doubt did exist. When the bill was sent up to the Lords, it was not a money bill; the Lords had added a clause to it, imposing penalties on the subject; the Commons dissented from the clause, but that furnished no reason for destroying the whole bill. The objectionable part might be removed by a conference.

, conceived that they were bound to adhere to the established law and usage of parliament. But were there no precedents directly applicable to the present case, he should, on the ground of general reason, think there were stronger grounds for rejecting the present bill than one which came within the description of a money bill. It appeared to him that this was a much more dangerous encroachment on their privileges. If a design really were entertained by the other House to infringe on their privileges, what would be the course they would pursue? Why, surely, by the insertion of grants of money in a place where it would not be suspected.

said, that nothing was better established than the distinction between money bills, and bills with money clauses. In the former, any the slightest amendment by the Lords, excepting the correction of an error in the printing, was fatal; but it was not so in the latter, unless the amendment was made in the money clauses. If such a bill did come down, with the clauses amended, the course was to reject the amendment, but not the bill sent up. He begged leave to call the attention of the House to one case among the others that bore on the present. A militia bill was sent up to the other House in 1813, containing, among other amendments, the insertion of an entire clause, which was on the second reading here rejected. A conference was held—the reason of rejection was clear, namely, that the Commons could not agree to an alteration in a money bill; but in the explanation, at the conference, the clause was said to be inadmissible—first, as being unnecessary—and the managers added, the Commons decline offering any other reasons at present. He apprehended such was the usual course.

The Lord's Amendments were then disagreed to nem. con. and, on the motion of lord Castlereagh, a Committee was appointed to draw up Reasons. The said Reasons were afterwards reported and agreed to; and Mr. Bathurst was directed to desire a Conference with the Lords.