Commons Sitting of 14 June 1822

KENT PETITION—REFORM OF PARLIAMENT, AND REDUCTION OF THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC DEBT.
Mr. Honywoodrose to present a petition from the county of Kent, complaining of Agricultural Distress, and praying for Parliamentary Reform. There was a concluding paragraph tacked to it, the introduction of which no man regretted more sincerely than himself; he meant that rider which called upon parliament to make a reduction in the interest of the national debt, as soon as that House should have reformed itself. Had government, two years ago, adopted that economy and retrenchment so loudly called for by the distresses of the country, they would never have heard such a sentiment from the freeholders of Kent.
Sir E. Knatchbulladmitted, that the meeting was numerous and highly respectable. The meeting was convened for the purpose of considering the distressed state of the country, and the expediency of parliamentary reform. The meeting took place, and very little was said about agricultural distress, but a great deal about reform. Every thing went on peaceably, until a gentleman (he supposed he must call him so, for he said he was a freeholder) thought fit to propose the rider alluded to. In his opinion, it was the lamest rider a Whig horse ever had to carry. When the clause was proposed to the meeting, a considerable pause, as if of astonishment, ensued. Sadie time elapsed before any body had the confidence to second the motion. At last an individual seconded it. During the whole of the time, the great Whig leaders who had called the meeting were silent land expressed no opinion with respect to the clause. A noble lord (Darnley) opposed the rider, as recommending a breach of public faith, and no doubt With a feeling of strong repugnance at seeing the aristocracy of the county dictated to by such a character as Cobbett. Had his honourable colleague and the noble lord called upon the meeting to oppose that rider, they would have vindicated the high, character and unblemished honour which the county of Kent had ever maintained. The person who moved the rider had stated, that the main object of parliamentary reform was, a reduction of the interest of the national debt. If that was so, his objections to parliamentary reform were strengthened and confirmed. He was perfectly persuaded that this disgraceful rider would never have been adopted, if the Whig-
1080
leaders had expressed their dislike to it as strongly as his hon. colleague had now done. He protested against this amendment being considered as the expression of the opinion of the freeholders. Whatever might be their opinion with respect to parliamentary reform, nine-tenths of them would have rejected a proposition for breaking faith with the public creditor. He protested, therefore, against this part of the petition in the name of his constituents, and he had the authority of his hon. colleague for protesting against it on behalf of the Whig leaders of the county.
Mr. Honywoodsaid, that this petition did not emanate merely from the Whig leaders. The requisition had been signed by a number of persons who had never called themselves Whigs, and who were once the enemies of reform. With respect to the rider, be had opposed it at the time, and he utterly disavowed the sentiment it contained.
Lord J. Russellcould not help expressing his surprise, that if, as the hon. baronet stated, so large a majority of the meeting were opposed to this proposition, he had not himself brought forward some counter resolution. The truth was, and it was, a melancholy truth, that persons not of the lowest order, nor seditiously inclined, but possessing considerable property in the county, found themselves in a state or approaching ruin, and in the wreck of their fortunes, upon hearing any proposition which bore the appearance of relief, they caught at it, as drowning men catch at straws, without any intention of injuring the government or the constitution of the country. With regard to parliamentary reform, he had been applied to by several of his friends to know whether it was his intention to renew the motion which he had lately made, and he now begged to state, that upon the first favourable opportunity he would renew his attempt to effect a just, necessary, and constitutional reform. With respect to the part of this petition, which prayed for a just reduction of the interest of the public debt, he knew of no such as a just reduction of that interest, and considered parliamentary reform wholly unconnected, with the public debt. Even if he were disposed to say that late war was entered into, and persisted in against the will of the great majority of the people—a proposition which he was by no means ready to admit,—he should still contend, that that House was the legal representa-

1081
tive of the people, and that if any debts were contracted by it, future governments were bound to discharge them. The Cortes of Spain might furnish an example in this respect; for though they succeeded to one of the most vicious and detestable despotisms by which a nation had ever been oppressed, they still considered themselves bound to discharge the debts contracted by the former government. To such a measure as that recommended in this petition he would never consent, except in a case of overwhelming necessity—not a necessity wantonly assumed, or gratuitously suggested, but such a necessity as would be felt by all parties in that House, and which, if it ever arrived, ministers would probably be more quick-sighted in perceiving than any other party in that House. Did such a necessity exist at present? Far from it. Not only were we paying the interest of the debt, but we were reducing taxes which had hitherto been paid. Ever since the time of William 3rd, we had been contracting this debt. We had begun it in our struggles to preserve on the throne the king of our choice, in opposition to a rejected family whom foreign despots wanted to force back upon us. If we were the first to create a public debt and for so great a purpose, surely we could never be the first to violate faith with the public creditor [Hear, hear!].
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, he was not in the House when the petition was read, but he hoped that no objection would be made to its reception. However strongly he might reprobate the particular paragraph in question, he did not apprehend that it formed any objection to the petition being received. On the contrary, he thought it would be highly useful that this petition of the county of Kent should remain on the records of parliament, to warn other counties against being betrayed into the avowal of principles so disgraceful to themselves, and so calculated to bring ruin or the country. It was not with any surprise that he had heard the noble lord opposite disclaim a doctrine so unjust, so flagitious, and so pregnant with ruin and degradation to the country; but the noble lord must forgive him for saying, that he had heard part of his observations with great pain. The noble lord said, that he could never consent to such a measure, except in a case of overwhelming necessity. BY what process of reasoning could the noble lord couple the word
1082
consent with overwhelming necessity? When such a state of things as the noble lord contemplated, had thrown down all the barriers of restraint, and dissolved all the tics of morality, what room was there for consent? He protested against this mode of expression, because it was calculated to give too much countenance to the notion of that convenient sort of necessity, which might tempt gentlemen to give their consent to the spoliation of property which belonged as justly to the public creditor, as the lands of the house of Bedford did to the noble lord's family. He considered the right of the public creditor to the interest of the debt as sacred as that of the duke of Bedford to the manors to which he was legally entitled. He hoped the word "consent" would never again be mixed up with a transaction, which could only be one of pure violence; and he doubted not, that whenever he again introduced it, he would discuss the question in the same, temperate and enlightened manner; that the language of this petition would operate as a caution to parliamentary reformers, and induce them to pause before they attempted to break down the existing forms of the representation of the country, and place it in a state in which meetings like that of the county of Kent, might send mandates to that House, so inconsistent with all the principle of justice and sound policy.
Lord J. Russellsaid, he had studiously qualified his expressions, by stating that he meant not a gratuitous necessity, but such a necessity, as would be felt alike by all parties in that House. He meant to put the strongest possible case of necessity; such a case, for instance, as when we were utterly unable to pay the interest of the debt, or when the presence of a foreign enemy at our gates rendered the independence and safety of the country paramount to every other consideration.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, he was happy to hear the anxiety of the noble lord to explain his expressions, but the case put by the noble lord could only justify the nation in postponing the performance of its engagements, and not in consenting to the violation of them. He exceedingly lamented, that the leaders of that meeting, for the sake of their station and character in the country, had not rescued themselves froth the disgrace of having such a proposition carried.
Lord J. Russellsaid, he was ready to retract the word "consent" if the noble marquis wished it, but he really was not aware that the noble marquis was such a critic in language. He thought that the Whigs had been carried away by the feeling of the whole meeting, which feeling had been mainly produced by the measures of the noble lord opposite.
Mr. Calcraftsaid, that if the two representatives of the county had made the statements to the meeting which they had made this evening, there would not have been fifty voices for the amendment. He lamented that they had not made known their indignation against such a proposition. The meeting had agreed to it from utter ignorance on the part of many, and many, from not having heard it at all. Those who called the meeting ought to have stood till this time, combating the amendment, rather than have allowed it to be attached to their petition. If they had acted so, the person who had proposed it, and who was not known as a freeholder, would soon have been obliged to take his horse and ride away. He disclaimed the amendment as not expressing the sentiments of the meeting, and had he not been engaged in duties which he conceived to be more important in that House, he could have successfully exposed the weakness and fallacy of the proposition. It was said I that gentlemen were taken by surprise; but when men undertook to manage public meetings, they ought to be prepared for emergencies of this sort. He had reason to know that the individual who proposed this rider had not the slightest expectation of seeing it adopted.
Sir E. Knatchbullsaid, that if his hon. colleague had joined him in opposing the proposition, or met him half way, Cobbett and his amendment would have been consigned to merited disgrace.
Mr. J. Smithwas convinced, that the great body of the freeholders of the county were incapable of supporting so flagitious a proposition. It was a severe mortification to him to find that the county of Kent was the first to come forward to petition parliament to break faith with the public creditor.
Mr. Broughamsaid, that two objects seemed to be in the view of the noble lord opposite, and the worthy baronet, one to cast blame on the leaders of the Whig aristocracy; the other, to attack all public county meetings through the sides of the Kent meeting. And well they might
1084
come to this conclusion, if there were any foundation for their premises; for, if the freeholders of Kent were not to be trusted, either as to the purity of their motives, or the sagacity of their, views, he knew not where in all England, a county was to be found in whose probity or intelligence they could rely. He rose, therefore, for the purpose of vindicating both these parties, on the showing of the assailants themselves. If the meeting were to blame, then the Whig leaders must be exculpated; if the Whig leaders were to blame, then it was impossible to cast any imputation on the meeting. The hon. baronet had asked, why the Whig leaders had not come forward to open the eyes of the meeting, and resist the proposition? Why then, it followed of course, according to this view of the case, that if the Whig leaders had come forward, they would have been successful, and it was their own fault that they had not enlightened, the meeting. They might have resisted the proposition—it was their non-resistance to which the proposition owed its success. But what followed from this branch of the dilemma? If the Whig leaders were in fault, the meeting must escape from all blame; for it was to be presumed, that the real sense of the meeting was not in favour of this odious proposition, and that it would not have been agreed to if the Whig leaders had done their duty. The worthy baronet had, however, exculpated the Whig leaders, when he had stated, that one noble lord (Darnley) did come forward and oppose it. The worthy baronet did not deny that many of the Whig leaders gave their votes against the proposition—[Sir E. Knatchbull said, "some few of them."] And he (Mr. B.) had the assurance of those noble persons themselves, that they did vote against the obnoxious proposition. Yet the worthy baronet had most inconsistently blamed the Whig aristocracy for not opposing what, upon his own showing, it appeared they had opposed, and he had blamed the meeting for having been the dupes of that proposition. He was really at a loss to conceive what the worthy baronet of his hon. friend (Mr. Calcraft) would have wished the Whig leaders to do more than it was admitted they had done. He could assure the House, that it was the fixed and clear opinion of many gentlemen who were present, that the meeting were decidedly in favour of the proposal, and that all resistance on their part would have

1085
been unavailing. He was inclined to think that if a farther explanation of the nature and consequences of the proposition had been given, it might have been rejected. He protested, however, against the doctrine, that this addition to the petition, ought to diminish the weight and authority which belonged to the rest of it. The meeting was emphatically a meeting of the county of Kent: it was crowded with men of all parties, many of whom were friends of the worthy baronet. No man could deny, that with respect to their complaint of grievances, and the question of parliamentary reform, the petition spoke the deliberate sense of the meeting; and it was too much to contend that the addition of an obnoxious paragraph, which had been embodied into it from accidental circumstances, ought to diminish the weight to which the petition was entitled. He trusted the people of England would never be deterred from exercising the right which they had in this instance exercised, and that they would continue to show their clear and deliberate sense of the distresses under which they were labouring, and the causes of those distresses, in petitions to parliament while the session lasted, and to the Throne during the recess. The less such representations were attempted to be stifled—the more fully and freely they were discussed—the more securely would public credit be placed on a basis which nothing could shake but that overwhelming necessity which was paramount to all argument, and which, as the noble marquis had justly observed, put all consent entirely out of the question. Such a proposition ought never to be entertained but in circumstances of the greatest extremity; least of all ought it to be brought forward in the crude, hasty, ill-considered, and not at all digested form in which the last paragraph of the petition embodied a sentiment which would never have been adopted by the meeting, had it been thoroughly canvassed, and which he hoped never to see introduced into a petition again.
Mr. Honywoodsaid, that a noble friend of his would also have explained to the meeting the fatal consequence of the proposition, had it not been that he was fatigued by being squeezed up waggon.
The Marquis of Londonderrydenied having said a word against county meetings generally. All he had said was this,
1086
that as these petitioners had consigned to a reformed parliament the task of committing a spoliation upon the public creditor, he thought that the country should guard itself against any system of representation which might be likely to entertain such crude and sweeping suggestions.
Mr. Broughamsaid, that however objectionable or unjust the proposition of the petitioners might be, it was not more so than the conduct of the noble marquis respecting the restriction, and the subsequent resumption of cash payments.
Lord Cliftonsaid, it might seem odd for a man to accuse himself; but he did think that the Whig leaders had wanted spirit at the meeting. How Mr. Cobbett had got possession of the meeting he could hardly conceive, unless from the circumstance of his having spoken towards the close of the meeting, and amidst that confusion which generally attended the breaking up of such bodies. But, notwithstanding the objectionable character of the rider, he believed the sentiments expressed in the petition to be the sentiments of a great proportion of the freeholders of Kent; and he hoped that future meetings would take warning how they annexed to their petitions sentiments and. principles of a revolutionary nature.
Mr. Secretary Peelthought, that the manly and becoming confession of the noble lord had done ten times more towards setting his party right with the people of England, than the defence which had been made for them by the hon. and learned member. But, when the noble lord expressed his astonishment how Mr. Cobbett could have influenced the meeting, he put a query which, in fact, he himself had answered. Mr. Cobbett had succeeded in influencing the meeting, simply because he had not been manfully resisted. What was the charge against the meeting in question? Was it blamed for having met to petition parliament for retrenchment? No; it was blamed for having proposed an unjust and iniquitous measure. The more decided the opposition of the Whig leaders to Mr. Cobbett's proposition, the greater had been their blame that they had not stood forward, and explained to the men of Kent the impropriety of the course they were following. If the being squeezed in a waggon was an excuse for one individual, it could not be an excuse for all. After all, he preferred the manly proposal, for a downright reduction of the interest of the debt,

1087
to the mysterious insinuations of the learned member for Winchelsea; nor could he think that that learned member had much palliated the iniquity of the present suggestion, by attempting to show that parliament had sanctioned measures still more iniquitous.
Mr. Bennetsaid, he was not surprised that the right hon. secretary was desirous to do away the disgrace which attached to the pillage in the first instance of the public creditor, and the pillage afterwards of the public debtor, which had been committed by the government. These profligate and abandoned examples had corrupted the moral, feelings of the country; though, after all, he did not believe that the objectionable proposal could be considered as the act of a discussing body.
Mr. Westernwas astonished at the consummate assurance [Hear, hear!] with which the right hon. gentleman had denounced the men of Kent, for an expression wrung from them in a moment of irritation. Why had not the friends of the right hon. secretary come forward to face and to instruct the meeting? If only one-tenth of the county was favourable to the rider, why had not the other nine-tenths come forward to oppose it? It was too much for gentlemen to suppose, that public justice was due to no one but to the public creditor. Why was it not equally to be measured to the public debtor?
Mr. Humecontended, that the words of the petition could, in fairness, be construed to mean no more than a similar reduction in the interest of the debt to that lately made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. gentleman had reduced the interest of the 5 per cents to 4 per cent, and had hinted that then per cents might ultimately be reduced to 3. Now, there was no reason to suppose that the petitioners did not mean such a reduction. When ministers had plunged the country into a state in which those who not long ago were in a state of comparative comfort, had no prospect before them but a gaol or a poor-house, they ought not to be over critical about the terms of a petition.
Sir F. Burdettthought it was hard that, his hon. friend, the member for Kent, should be fallen upon in the way the he had been by both sides of the House, inconsequence of his omission to do what few of the most experienced public men would have had presence of mind to do in his
1088
situation. It was plain that his hon. friend was overwhelmed by a sudden ebullition of popular feeling. But least of all, did he think hon. friend's colleague, had any right to censure him, when he, the Tory member for the county, and known to be hostile to the proposition altogether, did not manfully step forward to combat its adoption by the meeting. The scheme proposed in the rider, was, called, on the other side, a robbery; but difference of opinion might exist as to that fact. If any thing like an absolute fraud had been recommended, gentlemen would have been bound to resist it; but there were many who viewed the suggestion in a different light. The men of Kent did not say, that the public creditor should not have 20 s. to his pound; but it was the opinion of many most able men, that in consequence of the measures of the right hon, gentleman opposite, the public creditor was likely to get 30 s. in the pound. If that opinion, was well, founded, what man could be expected to submit, in the present condition of the country, to be stripped of his property in furtherance of such a system? And he (sir F. Burdett) did conscientiously believe, that not only the agricultural interest, but the whole productive labour and capital of the country, was at the present moment paying the public creditor 30 s. in the pound. After all, then, what was there so very objectionable in the scheme which had been proposed? He did not regret that it had been proposed. The proposition had brought the subject matter into discussion; and such discussion was absolutely necessary to the safety of the country. Let the right hon. secretary make that clear to the country which was so very clear to himself; namely, that the proposition was a dishonest proposition; and not apply abuse to every suggestion thrown out upon political economy. The right hon. secretary said, that he liked the plain dealing of Cobbett better than the mysterious insinuations of the learned member for Winchelsea. Now, he was glad that plain dealing was gratifying to him, because the right hon. secretary was in a fair way to have a great deal of it. Let not the noble lord opposite seek to engage the House in a warfare with the people. The noble lord would find the country disposed to make every necessary sacrifice, although not inclined to be the dupe of sophistry, which almost every idiot could see through, or of mock plans

1089
of retrenchment, which ended in the imposition of additional burthens upon the people. He was glad that the petition was not to be rejected, and thought there was no pretence for branding any individual concerned in it with dishonesty.
Mr. Monckwould go as far as any man for the payment of debts public or private, and would live on bread and water to discharge them; but the public faith had been first broken in the year 1797, when paper had been substituted for the metallic currency. The contracting of 800,000,000 l. of debt was a species of dishonesty, for ministers never could have hoped to discharge it. He thought there was a broad distinction betwixt the public creditor who lent his money in gold before the year 1797, and those who lent it since that time in a depreciated paper, convertible neither into gold, silver, nor copper. He thought it was their duty to do what the French had done with their assignats, treating all debts contracted in that species of money as in a depreciated currency, and legalizing their liquidation in the present currency with reference to that depreciation.
Mr. Wilsoncould not agree, that there was any analogy between the English Bank-note and the French assignats. Were they to attempt to treat contracts in the way proposed, they would plunge the country into inevitable ruin. He did not see how the gentlemen opposite could blame the resumption of cash payments. He was sure that until they had found that some of the consequences of that measure were ruinous, a great majority of them were in favour of it.
Mr. Philipsattributed all the evils which the country was suffering to the suspension of cash payments in 1797, and trusted that the country would never again be agitated by a return to that system.
Mr. Lockhartsaid, that whatever might be urged against a paper currency, this country would never have been able to carry on the war to the extent it had done, without its aid. Like Oliver Cromwell, who, finding that he could not purchase provisions for his forces, voted a general fast, the chancellor of the exchequer, finding that he had not a sufficient quantity of gold, voted that paper was equal to it in value; and it became so much so, as to answer his purpose. This, however, was no reason why the argument should be turned against those, who, feeling the evils brought upon them by the system,
1090
prayed for some reduction of the interest of the national debt. He did not justify such a measure, but we ought not to condemn those who called for it as dishonest; for he was satisfied that no portion of the British public would think of such a plan, unless they were driven to it by the most pressing necessity. He trusted that parliament, after the reduction of taxation, as far as possible, would in the next session inquire how for the different kinds of property might be brought to bear their fair portion of the public burthens.
Mr. J. Martinthought that nothing could be more insulting to parliament, than to call upon them to do that which those who made honest. As he believed that a great majority of the petitioners were ignorant of the effect of what they asked, he would consent that it should be received. Feeling, however, that the demand was in its nature unjust, he trusted that parliament would not separate without expressing their opinion upon it. They had, the other evening, declared that they would not debase the coin of the country: let them now agree to a declaration, that, they would not defraud the public creditor.
On the motion for printing the petition,
Mr. Broughamobserved, that when the men of Kent were blamed for calling for a reduction of the interest of the debt, we should recollect what had been done by parliament on former occasions. With respect to the prayer of the petition he could not agree to it. He thought that, in justice and good policy, we were bound not to touch the principal, and to pay the interest as long as we could; and he doubted not that if economy were practised, we should be able fully to satisfy the public creditor, without severely pressing upon the people. But if this economy and reduction did not take place, then would come that necessity which would prevent the possibility of his being paid. The right hon. secretary had praised the manner in which the petitioners had made the request, and had said, that it was more manly than any round-about and insidious attempts at the same object. If the right hon. gentleman meant to allude to the intentions of gentlemen on his (Mr. B's.) side, he must tell him that he was wholly mistaken; but if he wished to apply them where they were so well deserved, let him look around and he would there find the abettors and supporters of a fraud carried on by insidious,

1091
unmanly, base, treacherous, and violent measures—measures from the effects of which the country was not likely to recover, under the, present system of management.
Mr. Peelsaid, he never did deal in underhand insinuations. He had adverted to propositions made in that House, both by the learned gentleman, and by the hon. member for Shrewsbury, founded on a supposed necessity, when the public faith could not be preserved. Such anticipations were calculated to produce that necessity, which never should be contemplated in that House, any more than in private life it should be contemplated, that a case of highway robbery might be justifiable.
Mr. H. G. Bennetsaid, he would repeat, that the public had no right to pay more than they had borrowed, and that if they borrowed 20 s., they ought not to be called upon to pay 30 s. By the measures of government both the public creditor and debtor had been defrauded—the former in 1797, the latter in 1819. Ministers had acted upon a system, the ruinous effects of which uniformly would exist when their names should be buried in oblivion, or if remembered, only as the authors of incalculable mischief to their country.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, that if the hon. member chose to become the advocate of revolutionary measures, he must find some better pretext than the reasoning which be had put forth. His argument about not paying 30 s. where we had borrowed only 20 s., was just as reasonable as if he should object to paying at par that which we had borrowed at 60 s. The bargain was made upon clear and intelligible principles, and they ought honestly to perform their part of the contract.
Mr. Bennetsaid, that no vote of his had ever gone to defraud the public creditor or debtor. Let the noble marquis mark that!
Mr. Ricardowas clear, that if the public creditor had at one time received 30 s. in place of 20 s., he had at other times received 20 s. in place of 30 s. So that, in the whole of these transactions, be had great doubts whether the public creditor had been benefitted.
Mr. Humewas sorry that such opinions with respect to the payment of the public creditor should be held by his hon. friends; but, though he differed from them, he could not shut his eyes to the fact, that
1092
they were opinions held by some of the best informed persons in the country. The noble lord would do well to look to his own conduct in the sister country, before he charged his hon. friend with a disposition to favour revolutionary measures. These, however, were threats which the noble lord had held out on every occasion where economy and retrenchment were recommended; but, like the boy in the fable, the cry so often repeated, was, no longer attended to. He differed from his hon. friends in the opinion that any necessity could ever arise for reducing the interest to the public creditor. He thought no circumstance could arise in this country for any measure being enforced against the fundholder which was not also applicable to be landholder. The country was rich in resources. All that was wanted was, a just and economical administration of them.
Mr. Honywoodsaid, that there was not one person in the county who was aware of the intention to introduce the obnoxious clause into the petition.
Ordered to be printed.

ALIENS REGULATION BILL.
On the order of the day for the second reading of this bill,
Sir James Mackintoshsaid, that no man who consulted his own personal satisfaction would think of addressing the House at any length, with such a thin attendance of members, and particularly after its patience had been nearly exhausted by the alarming nature of the subject which had engaged its attention for the greater part of the evening. They had been occupied in considering one of those unhappy contests between different classes of the same community, some of whom were endeavouring to shift the burthen from their own shoulders, on those of their neighbours. Such attempts, how, ever unwise in their nature, nevertheless went to prove the extent of that misery, which could so far goad men's minds as to make them assent to propositions which a little calm consideration would induce them to reject. Such subjects were calculated to excite the anxious attention of parliament; but that upon which he now, rose to address them possessed no such attraction; particularly as it had been so frequently discussed within a few years. Still, however, Alien bills had never been brought to their present stage, and the grounds upon which they were

1093
introduced and defended were so new and so various, that several of the former principles on which they had been supported and opposed would no longer apply. We had had systems of biennial Alien bills since the peace. In 1814, we were told that we must not, upon a transition from war to peace, make too sudden a jump from vigilance to perfect security. In 1816, an Alien bill was defended on the ground that France, with 160,000 troops, was still in an unsettled state. In 1818, we were told that such a number of journalists and other emigrants were in the country, as made it dangerous unless government possessed the power of sending them off at pleasure. But it happened singularly enough, that the government of France within a few months of that period, as if to refute the statements made by their allies in that House, recalled all those emigrants to France, for the purpose it would seem, of allowing them to carry on their schemes of conspiracy in the very metropolis of that country. In 1820, the measure was again renewed on the very reasonable apprehension, that the Calabrians might assist in exciting dissatisfaction at Manchester, and the Parguinotes in disseminating sedition at Birmingham. But, after that year, the government of England determined to have done with these temporary pretexts—pretexts which were so frivolous that, on looking back at them with the retrospective eye of history, no one could help smiling at the willing simplicity of those who appeared to have been deceived by them. These pretexts had, however, one merit in them—they recognized the temporary nature of the bill, and acknowledged that it was a departure from the ancient policy of the country, which required to be justified by some statement of apparent danger. A new condition of things had now, however, arisen. The bill, though it was still enacted as a temporary, was now introduced as a permanent measure, and being so introduced, he would contend that it was now in its principle perpetual. The question, therefore, on which the House was called to decide, was this—whether they would allow that to be one grafted on the constitution as a principled which the folly of their ancestors had never deemed it necessary to enact, buts which the wisdom of the present age thought it prudent and expedient to adopt? Though he intended to say little upon the
1094
general objections to the bill, he should still take the opportunity of calmly and dispassionately recapitulating them. The first objection to the bill was, that it reduced to a complete state of slavery about 25,000 foreigners, now resident in the British dominions. In the second place, it accustomed the subjects of a free state to the spectacle of slavery, and by inuring them to the sight of rights infringed and injuries unredressed gave a dangerous example of slavish suffering, and lessened the habit and love of freedom. Thus it was one of the last powers which a wise minister could desire, or a free constitution ought to establish. The third objection was, that this bill went to legalize an arbitrary power which might be exercised in a manner ruinous to the individuals, and mischievous to the country, by driving away our artisans and merchants, who enriched and adorned it, to a foreign land. In the fourth place, he objected, because the measure was not aided or connected by any of the legal and instituted means of detecting malice and falsehood. The fifth objection was, that with respect to humble and obscure persons coming under the provisions of this bill, who had no representatives in the legislature, no protectors in any of the institutions of the country the abuse of the power was not only possible, buy inevitable. Under the operation of this measure, poor and friendless foreigners, who were ignorant of the language, and the usages of the country, might be silently withdrawn—might be seized and exiled—without producing any chasm in society, any alarm in public opinion. They might be swept away from our shore, while their friends, apprehensive of the same fate, would silence their tongues and hide their trembling heads. In short, there was no security against the commission of wrong, and no responsibility when it was committed. But the evil extended much farther. It did not merely confer but diffuse the principle of tyranny; it scattered an odious power over the whole of society: it gave not to one or two only, but to a multitude of persons in the state, a vexatious and tyrannous authority over the comfort and security of others. All this evil, besides, arose not from the abuse but the very existence of the power, which must in its nature be injurious to the security of individuals, the integrity of testimony, and the decisions of justice. This was not all. Whether the power was abused or not, the knowledge

1095
of its existence would deter many illustrious fugitives, whom the fiercest oppression drove from their native shores, from seeking an asylum in the hospitality of this land. Such persons would not trust to men but laws; not to will but principle; they could know little of the character of the persons who wielded the chief authority here; but, hearing of such a law as this, they could not confide in the humanity of the country: and if such persons did trust to our faith, and throw themselves on our protection they came with a brand on their forehead, the mark and distinction of a cruel and barbarous ingenuity to insult and degrade them. It was also to be taken into the account, that the bill, as now proposed to be renewed, arose out of the calamities which had befallen the fairest portion of Europe—the oppression, domestic and foreign, which, had desolated Italy, and driven her patriotic youth, notwithstanding the existence of the Alien bill, to seek a hospitable asylum on our shore, relying on the former character of England—trusting to her ancient fame, and the very reputation of her soil, which offered of old, emancipation to the slave and security to the fugitive. But, instead of this generous policy, we were now planting menacing sentinels at the gates of this country, to deter the victims of foreign oppression, and drive them back from our land of freedom upon the mercy of their tyrants. It had been said with exultation, that the Alice bill was a popular bill. He did not believe it to be so; but if it were a popular measure, and founded upon any popular prejudice—such, for instance, as a cry of "No Popery," or "Down with foreigners," he would struggle against it with all his ability. Even if the mighty master of moral eloquence had said, that foreigners were not entitled to that protection which the law extended to those burn within its immediate jurisdiction, he would deny the doctrine; but no such monstrous principle had ever obtained a dwelling his capacious mind. On the contrary, he had said in his own nervous and energetic language, "Qui autem civium rationem habendam esse dicunt, externorum negant, hi dirimunt humani generis societatem; qua sublata bonitas, liberalitas, humanitas, justitia, funditas tollitur." It was said, that it was necessary to pass the Alien bill, because the age we lived in was an age of revolution. He could scarcely have expected that
1096
such a reason would be urged for the continuance of so abominable a measure: he should rather have expected to have heard the argument pressed the other way. He should have thought advisable to leave one country at least open to the vanquished party, as a place of refuge from injury and oppression: he: should have thought it expedient to establish such an asylum, if not to prevent them from being driven to despair, at least to give time to the victor to sooth his rage and soften his animosity. He should have thought that to enclose the victor and the vanquished in the same country was a measure so abhorrent from every principle of humanity, that no civilized nation would sanction it. To permit the victorious party to wreak the whole force of his vengeance upon, the defeated party, was sure to lead to the most disgusting scenes of rapine and bloodshed—to deprive the vanquished party of every place in which they could be protected from the severity of their opponents, was to compel them to look for safety in interminable warfare to tell them, that their only chance of safety was despair—"Una salus victis, nullam sperare salutem." The hon. and learned member then alluded to the provisions of Magna Charta in behalf of foreigners, and said, that from the earliest times down to the present they had been the subject, of many a proud eulogy on this country in the volumes of foreign jurists. It was no recommendation of the modern policy of this country, to find that the tendency of one of its principal measures had been, to deprive the policy of our ancestors of that praise which foreign nations had so universally conceded to it. It was no recommendation of our present ministers to discover that they, the enemies of innovation as they styled themselves, had been reduced to the necessity of stripping their country, of its ancient privilege of giving emancipation to every slave, and protection to every fugitive, that came within its shores; and that they had desecrated that soil which had bean consecrated by the foot-steps of so many martyrs in the cause of faith and freedom. The whole policy, of our antient laws tended to encourage aliens to settle among us; and the restoration of the law, giving them in all cases a jury de medietate linguœ, after it had been abrogated more than a century, proved how anxious our ancestors were that their interests should suffer no detriment. That

1097
bill, however, instead of providing that in all trials they should have a fair and partial jury, sent them out of the country without a trial by jury, and indeed without any trial at all. From the state of our ancient laws, he argued that our ancestors, barbarians as some persons thought proper to style them, had nothing barbarous in their legislation on this subject. Those who wished to alter what they had enacted, at the same time that they were not improving the system of our laws, were depriving themselves of the power of raising the cry of innovation against others by becoming the greatest of all innovators themselves. Stare super vias antiquas, which had been their motto and their maxim, was now abandoned; and they who had so long declaimed upon the wisdom of our ancestors, were now among the first to abjure and abandon it.—He would now proceed to consider this bill in relation to the present circumstances of Europe, and the policy of the English cabinet. He took the ground of the bill to be this—the minister says, that unless a power be vested in the Crown to remove foreigners at pleasure, conspiracies will be entered into against the peace and happiness of foreign kingdoms. No facts, however, had been offered in support of this allegation, which rested solely on the responsibility of the minister who made it. Now, there were several things assumed in it which required explanation. He wished to ask gentlemen on the other side of the House, whether the prevention of conspiracy, against foreign governments was a duty which, according to the law of nations, one friendly country was obliged to perform to another, and whether the neglect of that duty was a legitimate cause or complaint? If they replied, that it was our duty to prevent such conspiracies, then the maintained that it was likewise our duty to use means to detect them; or, in other words, to have a regular establishment silent of spies for that purpose. We must have a department of spies for the French government, another for the Russian, a third for the Austrian, a fourth for the Prussian, and a fifth for any other arbitrary and despotic government that might exist—indeed, we must have for the Turkish department more than for any other—for that most sacred and legitimate government seemed more endangered at present than all the rest—a battalion of spies regularly arrayed, organized, pensioned, and rewarded. No man would
1098
deny that if we were bound to accomplish the end, we were also bound to use the necessary means. But he denied that we were bound to accomplish this end: he defied the gentlemen on the other side to find a single word in any writer on the law of nations warranting such a conclusion. If we were bound to be thus subservient to the government of foreign nations, we were bound also to go much farther: we were bound to expel from our shores any foreigner whom they thought proper to designate as a person dangerous to the tranquillity of their states. But, in 1803, when Buonaparte made such a demand of us, and made it because we had then an Alien bill in existence, we manfully resisted it and would not consent to banish the Bourbons from England, though their residence in it was, no doubt, a just cause of alarm to that extraordinary character. Indeed, if such a principle were once adopted, a power of proscription would be given to every foreign government over its subjects resident in this country, which, if ever denied, would afford just grounds of hostility to the party refused. In the foreign enlistment bill, we had given the minister authority to prevent any armaments being publickly arrayed in this nation against any foreign power; by the present bill we gave him to still further powers, and authorized him to prevent any secret consultations against them. He had three objections to the practice which it was now attempted to establish; first that it had no foundation in the law of nations: secondly, that it was not warranted by ancient practice; and thirdly, that it was a surrender of the sovereignty of the nation. But it was said, that this law was directed against conspiracies. Conspiracies against what, and by whom? And first, what was the nature of the law itself? It was a law entirely in favour of the party that was powerful, and entirely fatal to the patty that was weak. It was law framed for the use of all governments, however despotic and absolute, and against all nations, however injured and oppressed. It was a law for the support of all who were prepared to carry the monarchical principle of government with fire and sword, and sword, and dungeon, against the groans and struggles of every suffering people. It was a law to uphold those who would remorselessly lay waste the world, and against the extension of either sympathy or pity to generous and innocent subjects. What, too, were to be the

1099
qualifications of the parties who were to be exposed to its penalties? Were they those against whom the heaviest engine of arbitrary law ought to be pointed? No: they were the expelled, the fallen, the miserable. The strong could not feel it, for, if successful, they defied its power; the triumphant laughed at the edict: it could only, then, fall upon those whose fate it was to fly from a tyranny which they were unable to resist, and who were then to be thrown back, hopeless and helpless, upon the shores of the barbarous tyrants from whose fangs they vainly thought they had escaped. And by what country were they to be so cast away? By England, a nation once famed for its generous hospitality, and always renowned for its noble spirit of liberty. This law was not only adverse to the whole spirit of British jurisprudence, but contrary to the whole tenour and spirit of their legislation. Under what circumstances was it called for? Look at the merits and demerits of the parties for and against whom, it was to be made. Let them weigh the value of the neutrality of those powers who wanted an Alien bill, with the sufferings which its enactment would inflict upon an oppressed and degraded people. Let the momentous question of the public honour of the Allies be estimated by their neutral faith: by that test let us try the merits of the whole Holy Alliance; let it be tried by an invaluable document published last year, and which ought never to be forgotten—he meant the first general epistle of the noble marquis opposite to the faithful. That epistle threw a light upon those suffering members of the Holy Alliance who now claimed the aid of a British act of parliament. To the demand then made of co-operation and participation on the part of England, the noble marquis replied—"If we accede to your request, it will be a fundamental breach of the laws of the land." That was telling the Holy Alliance—"We cannot let you pour foreign armies into England under the pretence of arresting foreign enemies: we cannot permit Siberian and Croatian hordes to infest this land, in order to exterminate the victims of your rapacity. [Cheers.] Non meus hic sermo; the language was the noble lord's. Was not the very proposition enough to startle any man imbued with the spirit of freedom? The mere offer to introduce armies of foreign barbarians upon the shores of his native land, independent of their direful purpose, was enough to melee the blood
1100
of every Englishman boil in his veins. This Holy Alliance thought it quite legitimate to propose a new code of laws to the nations of Europe—to remodels and unsettle at pleasure all the long established international usages, all the rules of right and wrong prescriptively acknowledged and acquiesced in by independent states. The noble marquis, in his memorable letter, also said, that the principles propounded by the Holy Alliance in their specific application to England at the time, would destroy the independence of all nations, and, the right of all subjects; and yet, after such a declaration if views, he called for this bill to enable them the better to execute their detestable purpose. Against which of theirs own subjects do these despots want protection—against the unhappy and oppressed people of Italy, he most afflicted specimen, now in Europe, of relentless cruelty and suffering? These unhappy men were seized by the their oppressors, and, as if no prisons in Italy were severe enough for their entombment, they were sent to Hungarian fortresses, sunk in the midst of surrounding marshes, to linger out, amid incidental disease, a wretched existence—"to die so slowly that none can call it murder." He knew the fact of a Roman nobleman, residing within the ecclesiastical states, who was seized and dragged from that neutral territory by Austrian troops: he was hurried to Venice, there tried by a secret tribunal, and condemned to death by their award. This sentence, by a pretended mercy, was commuted—commuted did he say?—to 20 years imprisonment in a Venetian dungeon, covered with water: the imprisonment was to be solitary: only half an hour a day was to be allowed for exercise, stand death in pity should come to the rescue of the sufferer! Ask any English gentleman who had lately travelled in Italy, whether he had not seen men of education and talents, working in chains on the highways and public works of Lombardy and Piedmont, for alleged political offences. He could name the cases, and particularize his sources of information, were it not dangerous to expose the yet unimmolated parties to that system of espionage, which reigned through out Europe. He used a foreign word with repugnance in an English speech; but on this occasion, he rejoiced that the ancient language of freemen contained no Word to express that odious system: its

1101
plain and manly structure required not the use of a phrase, which the habits of its people scorned to employ. He had promised to show how far the faith of neutrality was recognized by these high contracting powers. He would show it by a reference to their most solemn acts Let the House refer to the allied treaties signed on the 20th November, 1815. At that date several acts were executed in Paris, in pursuance of other great treaties which had been framed and adopted in the course of that year, and among them was a remarkable declaration respecting the integrity and neutrality of Switzerland, which was framed and executed by the powers engaged in the previous congress at Vienna. He would quote this declaration to skew the good faith which marked the conduct of these great league breakers—these shameless violators of their most formal and deliberate pledges. The powers who signed the declaration recognized, in the most full and solemn manner, the perpetual neutrality of Switzerland, and guaranteed the integrity and inviolability of its territory. This was signed by the ministers of Russia, France, Prussia, England, and subsequently ratified and confirmed by prince Metternich on the part of Austria, in a sentence of barbarous Latin, written in the true style of the German chancery. How had that solemnly acknowledged neutrality been permitted to rest? The Cantons of Switzerland had been, by prescriptive usage, the admitted asylum of the persecuted. Those who fled on the revocation of the edict of Nantes were not disturbed in their retreat by the tyrant from whom they fled, and who was at that moment upon the most intoxicated elevation of his power. Not so was the fate of those who sought refuge from the flings of the Holy Alliance—not so was the forbearance of those who had signed the treaty of the Holy Alliance. Austria, the same Austria for which prince Metternich had signed the integrity and inviolability of Switzerland, called for the extra-tradition (that was the phrase) from Switzerland of some Italians who had sought an asylum there from the persecution of the Austrian authorities. Upon that requisition, some of the states of Switzerland behaved with pusillanimity towards these unfortunate refugees. But let justice be done these smaller states. Which more deserved indignation for the act—the feeble government acted on by fear, and doomed from necessity to consent;
1102
or the powerful state who compelled thence by the threat of overawing force? Amid this compulsory yielding to power, the canton of Geneva set an honourable exception. They rejected this demand to sacrifice their honour. What was the consequence? Three Austrian commissaries returned to Geneva and informed the magistracy, that if they did not expel these Italian refugees at a moment's notice, they must prepare to incur the responsibility of refusing the demand of Austria, and risk the consequences. This was the threat of war from the treat power bound to respect the smaller. Was not this a daring infraction of the sacred faith of treaties? Where, then, was the remonstrance of Great Britain, a party to that treaty what did her minister, who now called for this Alien bill, say to the Austrian maker and breaker of guarantee? Where was the indication of dissent from so faithless an infraction of a treaty binding upon all? Was it to be found in the passing of this Alien bill, which in effect went to pass one undistinguishing censure upon the struggles of the oppressed, to shake off the grinding chain of their oppressors, and to record one approving and assenting voice to the acts of the Holy Alliance? Geneva had saved its honour; but the Italian refugees were compelled to fly to Mount Jura. Whither they turned their steps afterwards he could not says: towards Italy they dared not look, for Austria was their persecutor! If they turned towards France, a warning voice might meet them, exclaiming, in a hollow sepulchral tone, "fuge crudeles terras." [Hear, hear.]—He felt he was exhausting the patience of the House. He could see, from the smiles and contemptuous expressions of the gentlemen opposite, that he was improperly detaining them from enacting a bill which they were determined must pass. He felt he was discharging a very painful duty. [Cheers from both sides of the House.] He did not wish to misinterpret the feelings of those gentlemen, but he thought himself entitled to express his astonishment at the course they had pursued. They had challenged those who concurred with him in hostility to this bill to argue against the propriety of its enactment—as if such a bill required no apology for its introduction, no justification of its necessity, as a departure from the laws and usages of this country and the world—as if the burthen of negative proof lay upon the opposers

1103
of a measure at once violating established law and uniform policy, and as if no previous ground-work ought to be laid for the admission of such a principle as this law involved into the jurisprudence of such a country as England. Ought not, in fair sense and reasoning, the introducers of such a measure to explain its necessity? Was it because despotic principles were suffered to scourge mankind in other parts of Europe, that in England they should be introduced as a matter of course? Suppose, for instance, the great emperor of all the Russias, whose mouth was always full of pious ejaculations, and whose ear was always open to the liberalization of mankind, was to suspect the allegiance and fidelity of Poland; and to imagine that the Poles, unmindful of the good faith, the humanity and justice which attached to every act of their conquest, were even to go so far as to question the liberality, and to doubt the performance of the promise of his humane and pious grandmother of glorious and blessed memory, [A laugh,] were even to go so far as ungratefully to become refugees, and traitorously to conspire for the restoration of their ancient monarchy—a monarchy recognized by the civilized world before Muscovy had emerged from the lowest barbarism, whose Czar was tributary to the Polish monarchy in other times—suppose such a struggle were made by these Poles against their oppressors and betrayers—was there a single Englishman, who, whatever might be his political attachments, would not exclaim—"May God bless the Poles, and give them success in their struggle to regain their station in the world—may justice, though late, overtake their murderous and atrocious spoliators!" The passing of this bill was, however, not only a denunciation against the struggles of the oppressed upon the continent, but a general declaration of war against the principle of revolution all over the world—a declaration which went to stigmatize, not only the laws of their country, but the memory of their ancestors. Were they to arraign their forefathers as traitors and rebels for extorting Magna Charta, by resistance to a tyrannical king? What established the British constitution but open resistance? Not only was its establishment founded upon resistance, but to that principle it owed its successive improvement. What established the last revolution which England had achieved?
1104
Resistance to tyrannical power. What enthroned the present reigning family? Resistance to a despot. What else arrayed the people in every revolution however just, against every government however tyrannical? There was a consolation in this description of their efforts of which no tyrant could deprive the sufferer. A modern poet of great celebrity had so indulged his fancy, when speaking of the Holy Alliance of his time, and the inroads made upon national liberty—
"while European freedom still withstands
The encroaching flood which drowns her lessening lauds,
She sees fir off, with an indignant groan,
Her native plains and empires once her own."
He had only one subject more to glance at, namely, the treatment of the Ionian Islands, and the connexion of that topic with the present question. The only justifiable motive for England assuming the protectorship of those states must have been to separate them from Russia, and to exercise over them an influence useful to the Ionians and honourable to Great Britain. Had that only legitimate motive been preserved, or was not the policy pursued towards those states the reverse of justice, and in open violation of the feelings of those who ought to have been the objects of British protection? It was impossible to prevent the people of the Ionian Islands from assisting their fellow countrymen, unless by the adoption of tyrannical measures; and therefore he was of opinion that the lord high commissioner must have acted tyrannically, if he had endeavoured to carry into effect the neutrality which had been spoken of. He did not mean to say that this country ought to involve itself in war on account of the Greeks; but he opposed the because it rendered us liable to complaints on the part of foreign powers which might lead to hostilities at a future time. He knew nothing of the plans or expectations of the Greeks. Whether Russia, who during the last twelve months had, by a very practical demonstration, encouraged the revolt of the Greeks, would, for the second time, desert them, and expose that unhappy people to the massacres and horrors to which her cruel perfidy had subjected them in 1770—whether Russia would be persuaded by the Holy Alliance thus to abandon the Christian Greeks for the Mohammedan Turks; and whether the Greeks possessed any means of making a stand against their barbarous oppressors—as he trusted in God they did—these were questions upon which his feelings were

1105
strong, but his information was imperfect. He trusted that the generous people of this country would not allow their government to join in the oppression of a renowned race, though now "fallen from their high estate," who called upon them for compassion in the language of Socrates, and implored their assistance by the sign of the Cross. The hon. and learned gentleman concluded with moving as an amendment, "that the bill be read a second time on this day six months."
Mr. Plunkettsaid, it was impossible for his hon. and learned friend to address any assembly without deeply riveting its attention. His hon. and learned friend possessed powers which enabled him to give an interest to any circumstance which he thought was connected with the subject of debate, and to press into his service arguments and matters, which, in the hand of any other person, would be deemed foolish and irrelevant. The truth of this had perhaps, never been more strikingly exemplified, than by the uninterrupted attention with which the speech of his hon. and learned friend had been listened to on the present occasion. It would be his (Mr. P's) task to draw back the attention of the House to the question before them, from the consideration of which they had been diverted by the speech just delivered. The House would excuse him if he did not attempt to follow his hon. and learned friend, supposing he had the ability to do so, through the unexpected range which he had taken. The question was not with respect to the actual relations of this country with Russia, Austria, Italy, Turkey or Greece, or the relations which we might hereafter have with Russia, in the event of a revolution taking place in Poland; the question was not what was or what might be the state of Europe, but whether the Alien bill should be allowed to continue in force for two years longer. He felt that a considerable difficulty was imposed on him in presuming to offer his opinion upon a subject involving so many constitutional questions. The difficulty of his situation was not a little augmented, by the tone which had prevailed in the debate of a former night, as well as upon the present occasion, which was of such a nature as almost to render it necessary for any person who proposed to sustain the measure, to enter on a defence of himself. [Much cheering from the Opposition.] And he was compelled to do this, too, the House would give him leave to say, under
1106
circumstances very discouraging [Cheers from the Opposition] since they warranted him in supposing that he would not receive an impartial hearing. If the hon. members opposite thought they were adding to the strength of their side of the question, or that they could put him off his guard by their unmeasured cheering, they were much mistaken. He would not be put down by applause;—he would proceed with an unruffled temper, equally indifferent to the applauses or the censure which might be more directly applied to his observations. He should feel a little apprehensive in measuring his strength with that of his hon. and learned friend, if he were not backed by authority far greater than any weight which could attach to him individually. The Alien bill had been passed in four successive parliaments, and had received the approbation of some of the wisest men this country could boast. During the whole progress of the measure, not one complaint against it had proceeded from the people of England, except a solitary petition from Westminster. When he considered these things, some of the apprehensions which he felt at having his hon. and learned friend for an antagonist were removed, and, with the parliament and the people of England at his back, he was no longer afraid to meet him. It had been said, that the people of England exhibited apathy upon every question in which their own interests were not concerned. If his hon. and learned friend was no better acquainted with the affairs of foreign countries than he appeared to be with the temper and genius of the people of England, he (Mr. P.) could not attach much credit to his authority. It was not the character of the people of England to display apathy upon any question which concerned the liberties of mankind. If the bill before the House were a measure the object of which was, as his hon. and learned friend stated, to put out of the pale of the law 25,000 British subjects or even one of that number, the country, from one end to the other would ring with complaints against it. The acquiescence of the people of England in the propriety of the bill did not originate in any selfish or vulgar prejudice; it did not proceed from a "No popery" feeling, from any hostility towards religion or country; but it was the result of the solid good sense by which the English nation were characterized. He

1107
would attempt to set the bill right in the judgment of the House, by stating, not what it had done, but, what it had not done. His hon. and learned friend had talked of the bill putting out of the pale of the law 25,000 British subjects. He had described it as being unfit for any civilized society, and as constituting the trifling difference between liberty and slavery—between Middlesex and Morocco. Now, he would contend, that the bill did not touch on any one of the rights to which aliens at any period of our history had been entitled; but it left them, whilst they remained in. the country, in the full possession of all, the privileges to which they at any time bed been entitled. One would imagine from the terms which had been applied to the bill, that it proposed, to take away the trial by jury, the writ habeas corpus, in short to have the country in a state if complete slavery. But was this the fact? Certainly not, Notwithstanding the provision of the bill, aliens possession of every privilege given by the constitution to the subjects of Great Britain. If his hon. and learned friend, in the variety of the information which he appeared to possess with respect to foreign countries, gild which he was he was in the habit of stating for the benefit of the House, could declare, that the people of Morocco were in possession of similar privileges, then he (Mr. P.) would confess, that the bill only made the difference between Middlesex and Morocco. The power of removing aliens from the country had been known to the constitution as far back as any as any traces of the constitution as far back as any traces of the civil history could be founds. The right of removing aliens from the soil was possessed by every nation Europe. It formed a part of the law of nations. It was a right exercised by every government of Europe, whether free or despotic—whether free or monarchy or a republic. Under these circumstances, it was rather hard to say, that the measure was now for the first time introduced into this country. The measure was not one of novelty but was founded on ancient practice, and was intended to regulate, that practice according to the circumstances of the present times. Of the existence of a power to send aliens out if the country there could be no doubt. The next question then was, in what part of the state did this power reside? If the existence of the power were admitted, he thought it must be admitted that its exercise rest-
1108
ed with the executive part of the government. The powers of the Crown, in analogous cases, were so distinct and, clear, that they could not fail to satisfy any person who directed his mind to an investigation of the subject. The allegiance which an alien proffered to the supreme power in this country was conditional and temporary; and in this respect it differed, from that of the native born, which was permanent. The allegiance of the alien might be withdrawn when he himself pleased to quit the country, or when his sovereign should compel him to do so. Exactly, therefore, in proportion as the allegiance of the alien was limited, was the protection afforded him by the Crown circumscribed. The terms were reciprocal. If the alien thought our government was a hard, task-master, he might withdraw himself from its power; and if, on the other hand, the government considered the, alien a dangerous subject, it might compel him to depart from the country. It was the undoubted prerogative of the Crown to prevent its subjects from leaving the country, which was done by a writ of ne exeat regno. The Crown could also compel subjects resident abroad to return hither; and it was also the prerogative of the Crown to prevent foreigners from entering the country without a safe conduct. From the existence of these prerogatives, it might reasonably be inferred, that the power of sending foreigners out of the country was also vested, in the Crown. The exercise of the power of sending aliens out of the country properly belonged to the Crown, on many accounts. The Crown was the only representative of the country with foreign powers. If a subject of this country gave offence to a foreign court, complaint would be made to the Crown. If the offence should ultimately lead to hostilities, the Crown would have to declare war. His hon. and learned friend had declared himself unsatisfied with the existence of the prerogative. He would not allow it to have existed unless it could be proved by ancient, uninterrupted usage, or by legislative enactments, or by decisions in Westminster-hall. He thought that some answer had been given to the hon. and learned gentleman upon this point on a former evening, when it was shown that five instances of the exercise of this prerogative had occurred in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. His hon. and learned friend, however, said that those instances

1109
were too remote, and he required a modern example. It was not fair in the hon. and learned gentleman thus to take sanctuary in antiquity when it served his purpose, and to turn it away from him when he could no longer profit by adhering to it. He did not think it was probable that any decision could be found in Westminster-hall applicable to the question; for if, as he contended, the prerogative were clear, it was not likely that it would have been made the subject of a contest in Westminster-hall. He had never met with any such decision, and none such had been cited during the debate. He was convinced that if the same test were applied to try the prerogative of the Crown in dealing with alien enemies; as was applied to try that which concerned alien friends, it would be found equally vulnerable. He would admit that the prerogative was liable to be controlled by the legislature, and he did not mean to assert that it was not of a nature which rendered it necessary that it should be very cautiously exercised. It had been asked, how the power which was now contended for, if it were so essential, had been allowed to lie dormant, from the period of the revolution, until almost the present time? He would answer that from the revolution down to the years 1793, when the Alien bill was first passed, the danger which the country had to deal with did not arise from alien enemies. A new succession was on the throne, and its enemies were chiefly its own subjects residing abroad. This country, then, had to contend with foreign armies, foreign treasuries, and foreign councils; and it opposed them with armies in the field, and not with Alien laws. This was a war, not against the constitution, but the throne. It was not a war of principles, but of passions. But in 1793, a recurrence to the old prerogative became necessary, because at that time a war of principles was raging. Attempts were made to sap the foundations of the government, and foreign emissaries were employed in corrupting the morals of the people of this country. [Cheers.] Was this not the case? He knew that in 1793 it was declared, that it was not, in the same high tone which had been assumed during the present debate; but the bitter fruit of experience, which had been chewed by every person in this country, showed that it was. He asked whether the measures resorted to in 1793 were not necessary? He heard no loud
1110
cheering from gentlemen opposite when he referred to that period. It was then that a revolutionary devil had taken possession of the throne and the public mind of France. The people of that country had been freed from slavery; but they were not yet prepared for liberty; and their governers had formed a scheme for spreading the poison which was engendered on their own soil over the rest of the world. The measures adopted in 1793 had been scouted and ridiculed by some persons at that time; but he believed there was not one of those individuals now alive who would not acknowledge that he had acted unwisely. To the measures adopted at that period, the country was indebted for its existence. [Hear, hear, from the Opposition.] If those measures had not been resorted to, the House would not now have been debating. Could any man doubt, that if the government had not acted as it did in 1793, this country would have fallen a victim to the spirit of domination which was then abroad?—With respect to the present bill, did it close the door against aliens? Did it prevent their arrival in this country. He would desire to be shown the part of the bill that would go that extent. He would inform the House how the bill dealt with foreigners coming to this country. Let members hear it with Christian ears, and refrain from tears if they could! Aliens, upon arriving in this country, were placed under the hard, the iron necessity of giving ill their names and receiving a certificate; and then they were at liberty to go to any part of the kingdom they liked best. He admitted that this regulation might be inconvenient to foreigners, but it was not that grievance which his hon. and learned friend had represented it. In his opinion, the bill was the kindest and mildest measure that could be resorted to. It left the people of this country at liberty to exercise that hospitality for which they had always been celebrated; and England, under its operation, might still be an asylum for the oppressed and persecuted of all nations. If the act had not been resorted to, a system of police more severe than had every yet been known in England must have been adopted, and the treatment of individuals would have been much more rigorous than at present. His hon. and learned friend had argued upon the hardship of denying the accused the benefit of counsel, and of refusing to suffer him to meet his accusers

1111
face to face. Now, he appealed to the candour, to the good sense of the House, whether, in the nature of things, those privileges could be conceded? The Alien act did not require that a person should be accused of a precise and definite crime. Its object and policy was, to provide, that the government of the country, if it found that the residence of foreigners was dangerous to the peace and tranquility of the country, might be empowered to removed them, although they might not be charged with the commission of any specific crime. The prerogative of the Crown in this country, and in every other, had, he apprehended always exercised that power.—But he now came to that part of the subject upon which discussion might be exercised with most advantage; namely, whether it was now expedient to continue those measure, which, from the conclusion of the peace in 1814, it had been found necessary to resort to? That question was liable to be considered in one or two points of view. It might be viewed in the first place, with reference to the condition of British subjects; and in the second, with reference to the relations existing between this and other powers. On the first part of the question he felt that he was more fitted to received information than to receive information than to offer it to the House. He would, however, state his opinions on the subject, and leave it to the House to judge of their correctness. If he were now asked whether he thought that the same revolutionary spirit existed in this country which existed when the act was first resorted to in 1793, he was perfectly ready to answer that he did not. The higher classes had taken a lesson from bitter experience, and were now free from the revolutionary mania. The lower classes, also, were in a great measure cured of the folly which once possessed them, partly by wise and salutary laws which it had been found necessary to enact, and still more by the freedom and vigour of the institutions of the country. It was chiefly owing to the unparalleled freedom which prevailed in this country, that the idol flag of France revolution had been put down. The hollow phantoms which had been dressed up by the anarchists of France in the semblance of liberty, had been rebuked by the free and noble spirit of the people of this country, and for the most part put down; and if any still existed, they were only to be found flitting and hovering in obscurity. He did not be-
1112
lieve that any prospect of a rebellion existed in this country; and he thought that the adoption of a proper system of police would be adequate to put down any improper spirit in Ireland. But it would be allowed, that though no rebellion was to be feared, yet all classes of the community had a right to except protection from an indiscriminate influx of foreigners. With respect to our domestic arrangements, therefore, no further observations were necessary. He would hasten to the more material point of observation; namely, the relation between this and other countries. He believed that about 25,000 foreigners were now in the country. It was known, that in the countries from whence many of them came revolution was at work. Of the 25,000 foreigners to whom he had alluded, the greatest part purpose; he considered many of them as useful acquisitions to any country, and others as flying here as to a place of refuge and security. But on the other hand, he believed that many of those foreigners entertained dangerous and revolutionary principles; and against this class the people of England had a right to be protected.—His hon. and learned friend had dwelt at some length on the question how far persons flying to this country from the punishment due to crimes committed in another country had a claim to our protection. But let that question be decided as it might, he thought it would be conceded that the government of this country had a right to secure itself from being involved by those persons in transaction which might break in upon our engagements with other nations. This was not giving up the constitution, or giving up freedom, for the same constitution that had given us liberty had given us the power of preserving it. The more free our constitution was, the more unrivalled were our privileges, so much the more necessary it was to guard and protect them. It was true that the moment a foreign slave landed in England, from that moment he was free; he was under the protection of British laws and entitled to the security of a British subject. But he would say, that if those privileges were unalienable, they ought to be preserved from being shared with persons cast out of other nations by their crimes, and resorting to this country not merely to avoid the punishment due to those crimes, but to make it the theatre of their future operations. Such a power had been ex-

1113
ercised by every country in the world. If it were shewn to be inconsistent with the British constitution, then he was prepared to give it up; but he contended, that no such inconsistency could be found, and that the hon. and learned member who had assumed it had done so without argument, and without authority.—If he had not already fatigued the House he would advert to another point which had been much dwelt on in the course of the hon. and learned gentleman's speech, and that was, how far one country had a right to punish the subject of another country when residing in the former, and there committing crimes against the latter? His right hon. friend had, on a former evening, laid down the distinction which ought to exist between persons flying to this country as a refuge to avoid punishment for former crimes, and those who resorted hither merely for the purpose of committing new crimes against their own country. He would not say that cases might not be found in which persons flying to this country for refuge had not been refused; but he locked upon those cases as exceptions rather than interferences with the rule; and he was disposed, in the present argument, to take the case as though a distinct line had been drawn between the two situations to which he had alluded. For his own part, he was not aware it had been decided that the subject of a foreign country could be punished here for crimes committed against that country. The case of Peltier had been cited as a case in point: but that was a case of libel against a single individual, in which the individual libelled sought personal redress. The case, therefore, was different from that of an individual committing crimes against his own government. The case of the emperor of Russia, was also a case of libel, and therefore not applicable to the present of the subject. But whether that were or were not, the law, would it be politic to enforce such a law if it existed? In his own opinion it would be exceedingly unwise, because, in the first place, those crimes which amounted to treason against the other states would only be punished as misdemeanors in this, and the punishment here would be unsuitable and inadequate to the crime, while the trial of the individual in this country might operate to his prejudice, if brought to trial in that country against which the crime had been committed. But it was chiefly objectionable
1114
in his opinion, because it compelled us to become parties to the politics of other states. What then was the alternative if no such law existed, or if existing, it was impolitic to act under it? How were our relations with other nations to be tabled? What alternative could exist, but that of sending out of the country the persons likely to interrupt those relations? The government of England said to those persons, "we are not your judges, we know nothing of your disputes with your own government; but this country shall not become the theatre of conspiracy, and you shall not abuse the privilege which our constitution give you." He might be told that extreme cases might arise out of this system, and that individual might be sent from this to other countries to endure the severest tortures. He knew no cases which were not liable to abuse; but the hon. and learned member had argued the entire case. He had first argued as if this country were intended for the convenience of aliens alone without once recollecting that there were such persons as British subjects in existence. That was one trifling mistake. Another mistake into which he had fallen was that he had stated imaginable mischiefs, which might arise from extreme cases, and had argued upon these imaginable mischiefs as though they had been the end and object of the act. He must say, that he knew no responsibility more delicate than that cast upon government in regulating the intercourse between this and foreign nations. A case had been put of giving up persons residing in this country to every demand of the country to which they belonged. Now, he would say, that if no other motive existed, it would be impossible for the government to be so dead to a sense of its own interest as to act so anomalously. It was what had never been done, and what he never could suspect ministers to be capable of doing. He should place confidence in government until their measures demonstrated that that confidence was misplaced. In a state of affairs of great delicacy and difficulty they had for a period of seven years preserved this country at peace with the continent; and he had yet to learn, that in the preservation of that peace they had compromised one particle of British honour, or sacrificed one particle of British freedom. The hon. and learned member would excuse him if he did, that he had felt more admiration while listening

1115
to him, for the brilliancy of his eloquence, and the intenseness of his zeal than for the accuracy of his information or the soundness of his judgment. He had not yet seen any thing to prove to him that the government of this country would not abandon the interests of the country if they departed from the line of policy that they were now pursuing.—The hon. and learned member had imagined that the government of this country had contradicted its own circular in not resisting the interference of Austria with Italy. He wished to set the hon. and learned member right on that point. This country had never expressed an opinion that Austria had no right to interfere with Italy. We felt that our interests were not involved, In the same manner Austria had had no right as long as Italy confined itself to its internal management alone. But when the proceedings of Italy became of such a character as to affect the interest of Austria, then Austria had a right to interfere. That was the principle on which this country had continually acted with reference to the continent, and by adhering to it the revolutionary war had been gloriously terminated by the battle, of Waterloor. For the same argument had been used throughout that war. It had then been argued, "What right have you to interfere with Bonaparte?" True; we had no right to interfere with him until his proceedings had invaded our own relations with the continent. That was the principle upon which they had acted, and he rejoiced that it had been preferred to the refined abstractions of the hon. and learned gentleman. Respecting Switzerland, he claimed the right of saying, that if that country had given up any refugees who had fled thither, as a matter of favour, to the state requiring them, it had not violated-the independence guaranteed to its own states, But he believed that no person had been given up. Whether it had arisen from the precaution of the refugees, or from the connivance of government, he knew not, but he believed that in every instance the persons required to be delivered up had made their escape.—He was sure the House would not excuse him if he attempted to follow his hon. and learned friend through the extensive range which he had taken, with the map of Europe before him, through the states of Turkey, Russia, and Greece. He thought, however, it would be easy to
1116
shew that some of his positions were not consistent with each other. If all the alliances which the hon. and learned gentleman had recommended were to be entered into, they would not be found to be greatly in unison with each other. Did the hon. and learned gentleman mean that this country would be justified in going to war with the countries he had mentioned, in case its remonstrances were neglected? If there were no grounds for going to war, then how were our remonstrances to be followed up? Did he wish the matter to end in a general scolding match between the countries. This country held, a station Europe higher than she had ever held before. That station she had owed, in the first place, to the part she had acted in rallying Europe round the standards of justice and freedom. [Cheers from the Opposition.] What! should he have said—against the patriotism of Buonaparte and to counteract his benevolent measures? He would repeat, that then high station of this country was owing to her conduct in rallying Europe round the standards of justice and freedom, against the unprincipled aggression of military despotism. Still more was this station obtained by the disinterested part she had acted since the conclusion of the war. Her station was, in the third place, indebted to the vigour and liberality of her free institutions. Those three causes had raised this country higher than all other countries, and higher than she had ever been herself before. As freedom, truth, and the interests of mankind were promoted by that preeminence, it was important to Europe and the world, that it should be maintained. He anticipated infinite good from the free discussions which now took place in every part of the world, and from the light which had been thrown on all countries. But nothing contributed more to this result than perfect neutrality on the part of this country. There was not at the bottom of this law any favouritism for any one country. It was directed against revolutionary movements in this country, whether directed against France, Austria, Russia or the more favoured governments of Spain or Portugal. Our object was, to afford protection to every man when he did not endanger the safety of the country: but England ought not to be made the theatre of every revolutionary project.
Mr. Scarlettwas surprised, that his right hon. and learned friend should have ar-

1117
gued, that they who were opposed to the measure were bound to prove the non-existence of the prerogative. He differed toto cœlo from his right hon. friend, in his assertion, that the law of nations gave power to a particular nation to exclude aliens. If a particular nation passed a law of against aliens, the law of nations did not interfere with that nation; but if no such law was enacted by that nation, the law of nations said nothing on the subject. The law of nations was thus entirely out of the question. The next position of his right hon. and learned friend was, that the king of England must possess the power of sending aliens out of the country, for that he could prevent his subjects from leaving the kingdom. He would venture to deny the position. There was no example of a writ of ne exeat regno but by a court of justice. Where was the instance of a secretary of state issuing such a writ? Where of a privy council? It might as well be said that the king possessed the power of sending whom he pleased to prison, because the writ of capias ran in his name. The king had, indeed, a right to call back his subjects in time of war, but this was a belligerent right. If his right hon. friend contended only for the power of detaining subjects in the kingdom, or recalling them from other countries when their aid was required in time of war, then he went along with him; but such an argument had no application to the present question. From his right hon. friend he should have expected authorities since the revolution, and not references to the acts of the Edwards and the Henries of our history. Examples could be traced down for several centuries of the most absurd and cruel practices. He could cite cases of particular persons holding the exclusive privilege of measuring the cloth which aliens sold. The practice was continued down to the reign of Henry 4th, when a court of justice declared that the king had no right to give such it privilege. Lord Coke, whew a member of that House, had contended for the right of the king to send to prison on the sign manual, without allowing the benefit of the habeas corpus. Examples innumerable had then been quoted, in support of such a doctrine. But if the king had a right to send aliens out of the country, this act was unnecessary. If the right existed, it might be expedient to regulate its exercise; but it would be unnecessary to give it by an act of this
1118
sort. The hon. and learned gentleman here referred to the 3rd of Henry 5th, and read passages of it to show that such a power had been then granted by the parliament, If the king had a right to prevent aliens coming to this kingdom, he had a right to direct them to come to a, particular part of the kingdom. But such a right was denied by a court of justice. Southampton had been appointed as the only place where foreign wines could be landed. In the rein of Philip and Mary this privilege was contested in the court of Exchequer, and it was found that the Crown had no such right. What occasion could there be for the statute which provides that half the jury on an alien should be foreigners, if the king could send him away at once? His right hon. friend ought to have found a solemn, regular, judicial decision, in support of his doctrine. Instead of that, he called on his opponents to produce a decision against him. This bill was not, therefore, designed for what was professed to be its object. If it were for such purposes as had been stated, why were not those purposes specified in the bill? He could conceive a measure or that kind which would call forth no objections. The present bill, which gave the secretary of state the absolute power, without responsibility, of sending aliens where he pleased, was a measure destitute of every character and feature of justice; and founded upon a spirit of despotism unknown to the law and constitution of the country. The power given by thin bill was the purest tyranny that could possibly be placed in the hands of a minister of the Crown, and as an Englishman he naturally felt the strongest objection to enabling any minister to exercise such a power over the meanest or most unfortunate of mankind; for the power which he could not exercise over the greatest, he ought not to exercise over the humblest of human beings. This bill had already too long deformed, the Statute book in time of peace, and he should therefore most cordially support the amendment.
Mr. Hume now moved "that the debate be adjourned till Monday." Upon this the House divided: Ayes, 16; Noes, 166. The question that the bill be now read a second time, being then put, the House again divided: When there appeared: Ayes, 108; Noes, 72: Majority for the second reading, 36.

List of the Minority.

Abercromby, J.

Lambton. J. G.

Allen, J. H.

Lennard, J. B.

Anson, hon. G.

Mackintosh, sir J.

Baring, H.

Martin, J.

Barrett, S. M.

Milbank, M.

Bennet, hon. H. G.

Monck, J. B.

Brougham, H.

Moore, P.

Browne, D.

Newport, sir J.

Byng, G.

Nugent, lord

Calcraft, J.

Normanby, visc.

Calcraft, J. H.

Ord, W.

Cavendish, C.

Osborne, lord F.

Clifton, lord

Palmer, col.

Coffin, sir I.

Palmer, C. F.

Colbourne, N. R.

Pares, T.

Crompton, S.

Philips, G. jun.

Creevey, T.

Power, R.

Denison, W. J.

Powell, hon. W.

Dundas, hon. T.

Robinson, sir G.

Duncannon, visc.

Rice, T. S.

Ebrington, visc.

Robarts, A.

Fergusson, sir R. C.

Robarts, G.

Fitzroy, lord C.

Rumbold, C.

Folkestone, visc.

Scarlett, J.

Forbes, C.

Smith, W.

Graham, S.

Stanley, lord

Grattan, J.

Stewart, W. (Ty.)

Griffiths, J. W.

Tavistock, marq.

Guise, sir W.

Tierney, rt. hon. G.

Gurney, R.

Warre, J. A.

Gaskell, B.

Western, C. C.

Haldimand, W.

Williams, W.

Hobhouse, J. C.

Williams, John

Hollywood, W. P.

Wilson, sir R.

Hume, J.

Wood, alderman

Hutchinson, C. H.

TELLERS.

Jervoise, J. P.

Althorp, visc.

Kennedy, T. F.

Denman, T.