brought up a Report from the Committee appointed to inquire into the Abuses of Charitable Institutions for the Education of the Poor. On moving that it be printed he was desirous to offer a few observations respecting a circumstance which had very recently come to the knowledge of the committee, and which, had it not so recently been communicated to them as to render it impractible to do so, he should certainly have mentioned in the statement which he had on a former occasion made to the House, as one of the strongest cases that could be adduced in support of the necessity of strict investigation. This circumstance was, the abuse of a charitable fund in the county of Huntingdon. The House would hear with surprise, that the whole of that which gave the patronage of a borough in the county he had mentioned which returned two members, and which had never been disputed, was the gross and wilful abuse of a great charitable estate, intended strictly for the education of the poor. Land had been bequeathed in the reign of Edw. 2nd for the purpose of a school, which was then of the estimated value of 35l. It consisted of 145 acres, in the neighbourhood of a large and populous town. This land had risen greatly in value, both from its position and from its fertility. Its present rent however was only 160l. although its valne according to the low-lowest estimate, was within a trifle of 900l. a year. Who were the lessors of this estate? The mayor and twelve aldermen of the borough, Who were the trustees of the estate? The mayor and twelve aldermen of the borough. Who were the lessees, who derived the benefit of possessing the land at a rent so diminished? Certain inhabitants of the town to whose property the land was contiguous, and whose support it was desirable to secure. Who were they? The mayor and twelve aldermen of the borough. Those gentlemen were the lessors, the trustees, and the lessees of this estate, all in one. They let these lands to themselves, at such rents as were convenient, and accommodated themselves in every possible manner out of this, which was the property of the poor. In this borough the right of voting was in the burgesses. The burgesses were chosen by the mayor and aldermen. Now, under whatever circumstances a burgess might be chosen, when he became a burgess he remained so. "Once a burgess, always a burgess." It could not be expected, therefore, that these voters would always vote the right way, unless there were means for keeping them in order. Those means were simple. It was necessary for the convenience of these voters, that they should be in possession of some of the lands he had alluded to, and the mayor and aldermen gave to each of them such a portion as was deemed expedient. Of course there was never such a thing as a contested election in that borough. The question was put to the individuals concerned, "have you ever that which is not considered very agreeable, either in the House of Commons, or among those who are candidates for that House—an opposition?" The answer was, "Never; ours is what is called a maiden borough." And this for the most obvious reason—that those burgesses who did not vote for the candidates set up by the mayor and aldermen, would be deprived of the possession of the land held by them. "But," it might be asked, "does all this pass without notice or control?" It was marvellous that this, the worst and grossest of all the cases of robbing the poor which had come to the knowledge of the committee, was exempted from the control of the commission appointed by the bill, in consequence of that most fatal clause that had been introduced, exempting from the visit of that commission charities for the inspection of which a special visitor was appointed. (It really looked as if the present case had been sent to the committee to fill up the vacuities which might be supposed to exist in their former statement.) And who were the visitors in this instance? The mayor and twelve aldermen of the borough! The lessors, the trustees, and the lessees! The men who in all their various capacities, abused, defrauded, and robbed the poor! If, after this statement, any man pretended to doubt that the bill for remedying these abuses, if not entirely nullified, had been grievously spoiled and crippled by the ill fated alterations which it had undergone, and if any man pretended to doubt that that House ought not to rest and slumber until a bill was brought in early in the next session, to supply the deficiences which those alterations had occasioned, he could not conjecture by what motive such a man could possibly be influenced, unless by an abstract love of doubt.

The Report was ordered to be printed.

observed, that the House had that evening received a message from the House of Lords, stating that their lordships did not insist on the amendments made by them in the Alien bill. Under these circumstances, he felt himself under the necessity of Calling the attention of the House to the existing law, which, he was confident they would unanimously agree with him, ought not to be left in its present state. With respect to the clause which had been added to the bill by the Lords, the objections to it were not founded on any hostility to the general scope of the measure, but on its being an invasion of the privileges of the House of Commons, and on its containing a provision of a retrospective nature, which it was not now intended to introduce. He really could not anticipate any opposition to the bill, for which he was about to move. For whatever difference of opinion might exist with respect to any particular branch of the question, no person would maintain that it was desirable to allow foreigners to obtain all the privileges of naturalization, merely by the purchase of the stock of a banking company. The House must be aware that whatever disposition might exist to receive foreigners on the most enlarged and liberal terms, and whatever anxiety there might be to push that principle to its farthest extent, it never could have been in the contemplation of the legislature, that all foreigners without distinction should have the power of obtaining naturalization by such means. In truth, the law on this subject was so guarded, that parliament had imposed a restraint on itself. As the law now stood, no bill to naturalize an alien could be proposed without a clause denying the alien the power of sitting and voting in parliament. In order, therefore, to give an alien the full rights enjoyed by a natural-born subject, parliament must specially repeal that regulation. It never could be supposed, that it was the intention of the legislature to give a trading company a power so paramount to that possessed by parliament. The Crown could not grant a military commission to an alien, without the special sanction of parliament in a positive law. But here, by a clause in an ancient Scotch act, the Crown might employ as many foreigners in the army, as had acquired a portion of the stock of the bank of Scotland, by means independent of the control of parliament, or of the bank of Scotland itself—for the Bank had no jurisdiction, they could not say whom they would admit, or whom they would exclude as proprietors. By obtaining the smallest portion possible of the stock, without taking any oath, or performing any public service, those aliens became entitled to all the privileges of natural-born subjects; and might have military commissions granted to them by the Crown. Under the existing law, therefore, the Grown might employ foreigners in its military service to any extent. Without any farther statement, he was persuaded he might assume, that it would be the universal opinion of the House, that that was not a state of the law which should be allowed to exist any longer in this country. It would certainly have been his duty to propose a permanent arrangement of this dangerous and anomalous state of the law, if the session had not been so near a close, and if the subject had not been one which required a good deal of consideration. It appeared, that besides the privileges conferred on the alien purchasers of the Bank of Scot land stock, there were some corporations in the United Kingdom, which had the faculty not of absolutely naturalizing foreigners who became members of them, but of making them denizens, without the consent of the Crown. It never could have been intended by the legislature, for a small sum thus paid by aliens, to these corporations, to incorporate them into the constitution without regard to their number or qualifications. He apprehended, therefore, that it would be necessary for parliament to take the subject up at an early period of the next session, to look deliberately through the whole frame of the laws respecting it, and to adopt measures which should prevent such high privileges from being obtained by means wholly incommensurate to them. With respect to the suggestion thrown out, that the bill ought to contain a specification of the particular acts against which it was directed; if it were a permanent act, that would be very fitting; but, as the object was merely to keep the question in the view of parliament, and to prevent gross abuses, until there was leisure for more deliberate legislation; and, as there was reason to believe, that there existed in other corporations powers of a similar, though of a less degree, it was not desirable to place the legislature in the unnecessary embarrassment of being obliged to point out all the laws connected with the subject. It would be most prudent to provide generally at present against the evil, and to reserve the recitation of particular acts for the permanent measure. Another doubt had been thrown in the way of passing the bill through all its stages with the least practicable delay, which was, that, as it touched the rights of a corporation, they would not have sufficient notice of the measure. No notice, however, appeared to him to be so satisfactory as passing a short bill. For, even if the House proceeded to legislate on the subject in the ordinary course, passing the various stages from day to day, the Bank of Scotland, as well as the other corporate bodies who were affected by it, would probably, on the spur of the moment, not be aware of what it might be immediately necessary for them to offer in opposition to it. The House, too, would, he was sure, feel the impassibility of giving a notice of such an extent as to admit an opportunity for the greatest possible political mischief. He, therefore, apprehended that the most satisfactory course would be, to suspend the law for a short and limited period, and then every thing that the parties interested might have to submit to parliament, might be considered more fairly than if we were now to legislate upon it. On these grounds he trusted that the House would consent to pass the hill through all its stages on that day. There were a number of precedents for such a proceeding where the case was clear. He had omitted to mention, that the Bank of Scotland had written a letter to the governor of the bank of England, to call its attention to the very great number of foreigners who, since the introduction of the Alien bill into parliament, had proceeded to acquire stock in the bank of Scotland. The noble lord concluded by moving for leave to bring in a bill "to prevent aliens, for a time to be limited, from becoming naturalized, or from being made, or becoming denizens, except in certain cases."

rose by no means to oppose the motion. The sting of the clause on which it was founded was the retrospective part of it, that most outrageous, that most violent attack on justice, public faith, and private property. Such was his opinion when it first came under his consideration, and subsequent deliberation had only confirmed it. As that most objectionable and abominable part of the measure had been withdrawn, he was ready to acknowledge that it was necessary to do something on the subject. He was by no means disposed to say, that the mode of naturalizing aliens in question was the most convenient and reasonable. On the contrary, he would frankly declare, that he thought it very inconvenient and unreasonable. He had no objection, therefore, to consent to any well considered measure for the removal of that which involved so much absurdity. But although he had no objection to a deliberate measure, he should be very scrupulous in adopting any hasty step, especially after what had been developed within the last fourteen days. What a series of discoveries had been made by the ministers of the Crown during those fourteen days! Before the Alien bill passed the House of Commons, they were not aware of the existence of the Scotch act. That was the first discovery. When the bill came from the House of Lords they were not aware that the clause which had been added to it was a money clause. That was the second discovery. They had since ascertained that there were other corporate bodies in the United Kingdom, a share of whose stock gave to aliens the whole or a part of the privileges which they derived from becoming possessed of a share of the stock of the Bank of Scotland. That was the third discovery. The inference was, that the House ought to be very cautious in adopting any measure recommended to them by a government which was compelled to plead guilty to a series of gross blunders and mistakes—a government which had been so discreditably negligent in informing itself with respect to an important proposition that it had Submitted to parliament. If parliament had blindly confided in the representations of his majesty's ministers, it would have been betrayed into the adoption of a measure which it was agreed on all hands would not have effected its purposes, and which he should have considered as the greatest blot that had ever defaced the Statute book. But he would tell the noble lord and his friends, that they had still farther discoveries to make. If ever there was an instance of discreditable negligence on the part of a government, informing itself with respect to any proposition to be submitted to parliament, the fact that he was about to mention would prove that the present was one. It was argued in the other House by the highest legal authorities, and the argument was repeated in the House of Commons, that the purchase of Bank of Scotland stock by an alien, abrogated the provision of the act of Settlement, which prohibited an alien from sitting and voting in the House of Commons. The ministers and law-officers of the Crown represented this as a great motive for adopting the clause brought from the House of Lords. Strange to tell! all their arguments were in the face of a clause in a statute not obscure or superannuated—astatute passed the year after the Union for the purpose of completing it—he meant the statute of the 6th of Anne, chap. 7, section SO; in which were the following words:—"Be it further enacted, that every person disabled from being elected and sitting and voting in the Parliament of England, shall be also disabled in the Parliament of Great Britain." Thus the disabilities created in England by the act of Settlement, were by this statute extended to the inhabitants of Scotland; making it impossible, that an alien, however he might have obtained his naturalization, could sit and vote in parliament. The noble lord opposite ought to have known of this statute. He did not mean to say, that it was incumbent on the noble lord himself to have found it out; but it ought to have been supplied to him. He did not believe that the noble lord could wish to pass the proposed bill in the extremely general and vague terms in which it was then before the House, and he trusted the noble lord would have no objection to insert the names of the corporate bodies which it affected, not in the preamble but in the enactments of the bill, which it was of the highest importance to do. If the noble lord disliked naming those bodies, at least let them be designated by description; and let not the words of the bill remain so loose as to lead to the conclusion that the noble lord was so uninformed of the state of the law, that he was afraid he should not describe all the cases which it was desirable to comprehend in the bill, and therefore described none of them. He should certainly move in the committee an amendment, to remove from the statute the disgrace which this circumstance at present attached to it.

remarked, that considerable doubts existed in the minds of many persons as to the operation of the statute of the 6th of Anne, in preventing aliens who had been naturalized by the purchase of Bank of Scotland stock from sitting and voting in parliament. The hon. and learned gentleman had adduced the want of reference on the part of his majesty's ministers and their legal advisers to the Scotch act of 1695, as a reproach. If it was a reproach, it was a reproach which they shared with four different parliaments, which had passed acts for giving further effect to that Scotch act. The 14th, the 23rd, the 32nd, the 34th, and the 44th of Geo. 3rd were all confirmatory of that act, and were all contrary to the standing law of the country, which provided that no act should be brought in for the naturalization of aliens, without a clause prescribed by the act of the 1st of George 1st, that such aliens should not have seats or votes in the House of Commons. Either the framers of the acts to which he alluded were ignorant of the peculiar operation of the Scotch act, or they ought to have introduced in their acts the clause which he had described. The fact was, however, that it was only very lately that this provision in the old Scotch statute had been discovered. With respect to the provisions of the bill, he would not anticipate any discussion upon them. He would, however, just beg leave to observe, that the acquisition of the privilege of denizenship by aliens, was not confined to the purchase of the stock of certain corporate bodies. Certain act of the parliament of Ireland gave right almost as extensive as those given by the Scotch act. They gave aliens the right of going and purchasing the freedom of companies in certain corporations; such as that of Dublin, that of Drogheda and others. These aliens, therefore, became denizens by their own voluntary act without the consent of the Crown, by paying a small sum to one of those corporate bodies. This was one of the case contemplated in the bill. The question for the House to determine was, as then was no time in the present session for looking through the various acts of parliament for that which might or might no be discovered, whether it would not be wise to pass a law suspending the operation of these rights for a limited time, and to leave it for a future parliament to consider if they should be abrogated, altered or how otherwise dealt with.

said, he had decidedly reprobated the clause introduced into the Alien bill by the House of Lords. The proposed measure, he was happy to say had his entire concurrence.

said, he had also objected to the clause not only because it was an encroachment on the privileges of the House of Commons, but also because it was a measure of confiscation repugnant to every principle of law and justice. To the present proposition he had no objection whatever. It was perfectly proper, if such powers existed as those to which it referred, that they should be suspended until the legislature could at leisure consider them. The clause which had been adverted to in the act of Settlement, was there inserted, in consequence of the jealousy entertained by parliament of the liberality with which king William rewarded the foreigners who were attached to his person and interests. They feared that this liberality might be carried to an extent dangerous to the constitution. Two acts had since been passed, by which all foreign Protestants were allowed to be naturalized in this country, on the single condition of taking the oath of allegiance; and there was an act of the Irish parliament, by which the same privilege was conferred with the licence of the lord lieutenant.

considered, the present proposition as most expedient.

expressed his approbation of the bill, as all retrospect was abandoned in it. He had, however, to propose one proposition which was necessary to make the measure bonâ fide prospective; and that was, instead of enacting that the provisions of the bill should become operative, "immediately after the passing of the act," to specify a particular day-say Thursday or Friday. It should be recollected that the place where the purchases of stock were to be made was 400 miles from this metropolis. Suppose on Wednesday morning next an alien in Edinburgh, who could not by possibility have heard what were the provisions of the present bill, purchased Bank of Scotland stock, became in consequence naturalized, and bought an estate—the consequence of enacting that the operation of this bill should commence immediately after the passing of the act, would be, that although the bill did not profess to be retrospective but only prospective, such an alien would incur the forfeiture of his land. Under those circumstances he should have no objection to the suspension of the standing orders, and to allowing the bill to pass through all its stages on that day. The standing orders were a great protection to the subject, and ought not to be waved on slight grounds. But the peculiar nature of the present emergency induced him to consent to their suspension.

said, he had been in the city that day, and had heard orders given within the last two hours by aliens at the Bank of England, for the purchase of stock in the Bank of Scotland, no doubt with a view of defeating the present bill.

The bill was brought in, and read a first time. On the motion for the second reading,

said, he apprehended all parties would allow that parliament was under the necessity of adopting some measure, with a view to put a stop to the effect which resulted from depositing money in the Bank of Scotland. Now though it might be proper that persons making bonâ fide purchases under the existing law, should not be deprived of the rights which such purchases gave them, yet from the moment that from parliament's deliberating on the subject, it appeared that the provision of the Scots act would defeat all the ends of the Alien bill, and that it was impossible to suppose parliament would allow the operation of that bill to be so defeated—from that mo- ment every person who made purchases of Bank of Scotland stock, made such purchases with a full knowledge that the legislature would not consent to their being attended with the advantages given by the Scots act. If parliament were to adopt the suggestion of the hon. and learned gentleman, a great number of most obnoxious individuals, who ought not to be allowed the privilege of British subjects, would, in the interval, obtain the object they had in view, and be placed beyond the reach of parliament. An hon. and gallant general had just stated of his personal knowledge, that several purchases had lately been ordered by foreigners, with a view to defeat the object which parliament had in view by legislating on the subject. He would ask the House, if they meant this measure to have any effect? If they did so, by agreeing to the suggestion of the hon. and learned gentleman, they would be completely preventing it from having any effect. The period, after which no orders for purchase could be considered as bonâ fide, ought at least to be carried back to the notice which he gave on Saturday. But he would even contend, that the proposing the clause in the Lords was a complete notice to all parties who wished to purchase Bank of Scotland stock, that if they did so, they did it at their peril. He contended, therefore, that sufficient notice had been given to all parties concerned.

begged leave to protest against the noble lord's doctrine of notices. Said the noble lord, "Did I not give notice in my place on Saturday?"—Why, what if he did so? What is his notice more than mine, or more than the notice of any other member in the House? This was giving that retrospective effect to the measure, which it had been understood by all was not to be given to it. It was true, indeed, that the retrospective operation did not extend to a whole month, as formerly, but only to 48 hours; but the one was as dangerous in principle as the other. But the noble lord had laid ft down as a principle, that from the moment the attention of parliament was called to a subject, from that moment the rights of individuals might be affected by the acts of the legislature. In this shore hand way, suspending the standing orders of the House, letting a bill pass through all its stages in one day, and allowing it to have a retrospective effect from the moment the attention of the House was first called to the subject, there war no security for property. This measure was neither more nor less than a violation of the act of Union. By the 18th article of that act, it was provided that no alteration of the public rights of Scotland should take place, except the alteration was for the benefit of the whole realm, and that the private rights of individuals should not be altered, except for the benefit of those individuals. Surely, after such a provision, if the rights of individuals were to be taken sway, they ought, at least, to be taken away by a prospective operation. Now, with respect to the present measure, he would suppose the act to take effect from to-morrow. Suppose yesterday a person to have been dispatched in quest of stock of the Bank of Scotland. On Wednesday morning he would be able to arrive at Edinburgh, and might make purchases. In doing so he would be acting bonâ fide; for he had no right to consider the bill to be brought in retrospective. Having seen a retrospective clause rejected, the inference must have been, that the new act would be prospective; and purchasers had therefore no reason to think that their purchases would be brought within the operation of the act; and that the stock purchased on Wednesday, on the supposition that the act would not be retrospective, would not entitle them to all the advantages of the existing law. That stock would not only become of a different value; but if any landed estates were purchased on the faith of the existing law, these estates would be forfeited to the Crown.

agreed with the hon. and learned gentleman, that up to the period of the notice given by his noble friend, purchases might be made bonâ fide, and that if such purchases were to be affected by the bill, the operation of it would be retrospective. After the abandonment of the clause of the Lords, and in the interval between such abandonment and the notice given by his noble friend, persons might take advantage of the Scotch act, under the notion that ministers had abandoned all intention of suspending its operation, and that their purchases would be safe. But he could not agree with him, that the clause of the Lords was given up on Friday night; because its effect was retrospective. The hon. and learned gentleman must have singularly mistaken all that took place in the House that night, if he thought that this was the cause of its rejection. The amendments of the Lords were rejected solely on the ground of interfering with the privileges of the House. That amendment which the hon. and learned gentleman had proposed was not at all necessary to the abolition of the retrospective effect of the measure. It was not contended by his noble friend that a notice of a motion should be considered as binding on the subjects of this country; but when the object of that motion was one respecting which there was and could be no difference of opinion—no person could conceive that the measure respecting which such notice was given would not be adopted by the House. All persons possessed of a semblance of prudence, must have known, that after this notice no purchases could be made with the least prospect of enjoying the advantages conferred by the Scots act. With respect to private rights, the hon. an learned gentleman had gone too far. In proportion as the privileges of a British subject were valuable, they ought not to be communicated in the manner they would be under this absurd law. Well, then, they were legislating for a great public object, and to do so with effect they ought to do so as expeditiously as possible. What were the arguments used by the opponents of the abolition in all the debates on the Slave trade? He knew no argument on which so much stress was laid as this, that to affect private rights would be a stain on the legislation of the country—rights secured by a series of laws for more than a century. What was the argument of the abolitionists in answer to this? That in passing a law for a great national object they should not be deterred by the circumstance of its affecting the interests of individuals, but let the individuals aggrieved come forward with a claim for indemnification. Well, then, let the individuals who might consider themselves to have suffered from the present measure, come forward next session and state the case to the House, and after hearing their statement parliament would determine whether any compensation should be made to them for the injury done them in carrying into effect a great national object.

said, that the conduct of ministers exhibited on this occasion the same inconsistency which had marked it throughout the whole of the last and present sessions. They now said it was necessary to the security of the country that this measure should pass in an unpre- cedented manner. One of them had lately argued, in a very elaborate manner; that it was necessary it should have a retrospective effect. How could the House and the country confide in those who argued, three days ago, that it was necessary for the measure to have a retrospective effect, when they saw them come down now and propose it without that which was said to be essential to it?

said, he hoped if purchases of Bank of Scotland stock gave foreigners a right to sit in that House, that ministers would make the measure so far retrospective as to deprive them of that right.

The bill was then read a second time, committed, the report received, and the bill read a third time and passed.