Lords Sitting of 11 May 1824

ALIEN BILL.
Lord Hollandsaid, he had a petition to present, from the corporation of the city of London, praying that the Alien Bill might not puss into a law. The petitioners apprehended greater danger from passing this bill now than at any former period; for they were of opinion, that it was proposed on grounds likely to involve this country in war. They further objected to it, that it countenanced the charge, that the government of this country was a party in the general conspiracy of the continental despots against freedom.
The Earl of Liverpool,on the order of the day for the second reading of the Alien bill, rose to address their lordships on that measure. He observed, that the subject

629
was one which had often been under their lordships' consideration, and that it could not be necessary now to enter at length into the topics connected with the bill, all the arguments for it having already been repeatedly urged by himself and others. He was, however, so far from agreeing with the petitioners, that the change of circumstances rendered the bill unnecessary, that he saw in that very change circumstances which afforded an additional argument for continuing it. On former occasions, when this bill had been before the House, a great deal had been said concerning the right possessed at common law by the Crown, to remove aliens out of the country. In his judgment he had never met with any argument which refuted that in favour of the common law right of the Crown. He therefore remained convinced that the Crown possessed the right of sending, not only alien enemies, but all other aliens at any time out of the country. This, however, could only be done in a very clumsy way, if left to the exercise of the prerogative. If it was to be done by indictment, or any other circuitous mode, the requisite promptitude could not be obtained. Hence a legislative manœuvre was necessary to regulate the manner of exercising the right which was vested in the Crown. It was on this ground that the original Alien bill was passed in 1792. It was introduced, not in a time of war, but during peace, and when there prevailed an anxious desire for the preservation of peace. He was, however, ready to admit that there existed then special circumstances which did not exist at present and which might be thought to afford some additional argument in its favour: but, in the main point, the cases were alike. The original bill was introduced to prevent the mischief apprehended from revolutionary principles. The object then was, to prevent the same evil which was intended to be guarded against by the present bill. It was continued after France, the country against which the measure was principally directed, declared war against England, when it might be said to have been less necessary; because, whether the Crown had or had not the right of removing aliens generally, it certainly possessed that of expelling alien enemies, or of making them prisoners of war, if the latter course should be preferred. Having said thus much on the origin of the measure, the sole question
630
which remained was, whether there existed sufficient reason for renewing the bill in 1824? And he was perfectly willing to allow, that if he could not show that it was of importance to the public interest that the measure should be continued, it ought not to pass. The bill, he could assure their lordships, was not introduced, as had been asserted, for the purpose of conciliating foreign powers. It was introduced solely for British objects and British interests. If he did not fully establish this, he felt that he should not lay a sufficient ground for adopting the measure. Their lordships had lived and still did live in a time when there prevailed a great desire for political experiments. They existed in an age of revolutions, when every country around them had been more or less convulsed, and when those convulsions had grown out of opinions propagated within their own memories, and which extended into countries where no revolution had been experienced. It was surely the duty of government to guard against the danger arising from such opinions; and the nature of the danger to be apprehended by certain states had been fully admitted by a noble baron, who had described the contest for political reform now going on, to be similar to that, which two centuries ago took place for a religious reformation. If, after having witnessed all the convulsions which the propagation of revolutionary opinions had produced in Europe; if, alter having seen the country engaged for twenty-one years in a most arduous war, in consequence of those opinions; and if, after looking back at all the dangers through which the country had passed, he were one of those who still feared the effects of such doctrines, he confessed he should not feel particularly ashamed on that account. Such a feeling was one which would prevail among men from an anxious wish for the preservation of the peace of the country, and the security of their families. On the advantage of preserving the peace of the country there could be no difference of opinion. Upon that subject he might quote not only the opinions of the friends of high monarchical doctrines, but of those who were quoted as the advocates of popular principles and vindicators of the rights of mankind. He remembered a right hon. gentleman, whose opinion the noble baron opposite would respect, having, on the question of peace, made a very remarkable quotation

631
—a quotation which he repeated on more than one occasion. It was "iniquissimam pacem, justissimo bello antefero." For his own part, he was not disposed to go quite so far, though he would make great sacrifices for the preservation of peace, and not less to guard against those revolutionary principles which had been productive of so much evil. With respect to the interference of foreign powers in the affairs of any state no person more condemned it than he did. But, why did he so condemn it? Upon the same ground on which he had condemned the pretensions of the convention of France. His disapprobation was founded on the general principle, that every country was the sole judge of its own concerns; but it did not follow that governments were not to take precautions against the dangers they might have to apprehend from the influence of opinions, or other circumstances. With these feelings, and considering that their lordships lived in times in which, from what had passed, they might expect to see attempts at revolution made in other countries, whether with success or not, he could not think that he was wrong in urging the adoption of a measure tending to secure both external and internal peace. There had been no instance, since 1792 to the present moment, of any revolutionary convulsion, in which the unsuccessful party did not look to this country as a place of refuge; and sorry should he be to see that refuge refused. But their lordships must be aware that, in consequence of maintaining this principle of hospitality, a pretext was afforded for applications from foreign powers. An instance of this kind occurred in 1802, when a sweeping demand was made by a foreign government, which was resisted as all such demands ought to be. There was, then, nothing in the present measure which could induce persons desirous of taking refuge in this country to suppose that the rights of hospitality would be denied them; but at the same time it was necessary to take care that those individuals should not be permitted to make this country a focus of conspiracy and revolt against foreign governments. The aliens well knew the situation in which the government of this country stood: they were aware, that from the control which public opinion exercised in this country, they were in no danger of being vexatiously arrested, or in any way unjustly dealt with; but if they persisted
632
in making this country the seat of conspiracies, it was fit that the government should have the power of removing them—it was fit that means should be afforded to prevent the acts of individuals from compromising the peace of the country. The fair question for every man to put on the bill was, whether there was any danger of the power it granted being abused? or whether the advantages of the measure were not more than equivalent to that danger? There the whole question stood; and there he was disposed to leave it. The argument for the bill was, in his mind, very much fortified by what had passed elsewhere and occurrences which had taken place with respect to matters not remotely connected with the objects of this measure. He never would say that in this country every person was not entitled to hold his own opinion as to what was going on in other parts of the world; but, at the same time, he was not one of those who when the government of this country was neutral, thought it allowable for any portion of the people of this country to take a hostile part against one of the contending parties; or that it was justifiable for any persons in this country to assist a party in another against its government. If, however, any thing of this kind had taken place, that circumstance afforded an additional reason for adopting the present measure. It was surely desirable that the government should not be placed in such a situation with respect to other powers, not only on account of its own subjects, but on account of the subjects of other states. He called for the assent of their lordships to the bill, solely on the grounds of British interests and British security; among which the preservation of peace, and the maintenance of good faith with other powers, were the most important. But, how was peace and good faith to be maintained, if the government did not possess the means of putting down the machinations carried on by aliens against foreign states? Ministers had been accused of wishing to possess an arbitrary authority; but they had no desire to exercise a power which could not fail to embarrass them. If they consulted their own feeling and their own convenience, they would rather be without it; but they could not, consistency with their duty, deprive themselves of the power of checking the machinations and conspiracies which might be carried on by aliens in this

633
country. This was all that was asked; and the power necessary for this purpose, he conceived, had, by the constitution, belonged to the Crown in all times; but if it had not, it ought. The only solid objection which had ever been urged against the measure would be done away by the present bill. Many aliens who had come to this country had settled in business, or lived for so long a time in it, that they deserved in some measure to be treated as subjects. It was therefore intended, that the bill should not apply to any person who had lived seven years in the united kingdom. Thus, the only reasonable objection to which the bill was liable no longer existed. The noble lord concluded by moving, "that the bill be now read a second time."
Earl Grosvenoropposed the motion, on the ground, that to make aliens subject to any other laws than those which applied to natural-born subjects was unjust. He concurred with the Lord Mayor and Common Council in thinking the bill highly unconstitutional. Enormous as the power given by the bill was, he did not much apprehend that it would be abused; but, however mildly it might be exercised, it ought not to be granted. What he above all objected to was, the motive for introducing the bill. It could not be doubted, that it was brought forward in consequence of an understanding between his majesty's ministers and certain foreign governments. He had, on some former occasions, supported an alien bill, because he conceived, that the peace of Europe could not be consolidated without some measure of the kind. His opinion had been altered with the altered circumstances. The dangers that were now to be apprehended were dangers not to sovereigns but to their subjects. The conspiracies which were now formed were not conspiracies against legitimate government, but against civil freedom. Seeing this, he could not support the present bill. In compliance with the policy of foreign powers, we had, eighteen months ago, gone the length of advising the Spaniards to make a change in their constitution—advice which, if it had been followed, would have involved the persons at the head of the Spanish government in irretrievable ruin and disgrace. He He was against the interference of this government with that of any other state; and, for the same reason he would resist the claims of foreign powers to interfere
634
with us. It had indeed been in defence of the measure, and as a means of disarming the repugnance of their lordships to its enactment, that the powers which it had given to ministers had never been abused. But, its very existence was a general abuse, and, therefore, he would oppose the bill by every means in his power.
The Earl of Darnleysaid, that he had on former occasions supported an alien bill as a war measure, but he now gave it his decided reprobation. It was disgraceful to continue a measure of this kind one day beyond a clear and well-proved necessity. While it offered no security or protection to the country, it alarmed foreigners who might be attracted to our shores, and justified foreign governments in their injurious treatment of British subjects. He could name a foreigner who had friends and connexions in England, and who being invited to come to pay them a visit, replied, "I shall never see England so long as your alien act exists." He rose, however, not to oppose the bill by arguments, but to ask of ministers, whether a pledge would be given that it would not be renewed after the end of two years? There seemed to him to be no danger to the peace and tranquillity of Europe, from the most unrestricted admission of foreigners into this country. Suppose among their numbers there should exist some persons disposed to enter into conspiracies against the peace of the states they had left, could not ministers suppress their attempts without an alien bill? In such extreme cases, could not the government act on its own responsibility, and trust to parliament for an indemnity? Would it not be better to make such instances an exception to the general law, than to legislate for such exceptions, and on account of the possible arrival of a few turbulent foreigners, to establish the character of "Britannos hospitibus feros," by subjecting all foreigners indiscriminately to apprehension, inconvenience, and vexation. The noble earl concluded by stating, that he would oppose the bill.
Lord Calthorpesaid, he had opposed the Alien bill on former occasions. He did not do so because he was afraid that its powers would be vexatiously exercised but because he saw no ground for their exercise at all. In this country, every proceeding of the government was so open to public animadversion, and every prero-

635
gative of the Crown so controlled by public opinion, that no minister, however inclined to abuse his trust, could do it with impunity. The individuals to whom the powers of the bill had been intrusted, rendered it impossible for him to feel any apprehension from them on former occasions when he opposed it; but he opposed it, because there did appear then to exist such a degree of misunderstanding between this country and foreign states, that if an alien act was intrusted to ministers, we might embroil ourselves with the government of those states, if we refused to execute it in their favour, by declining to remove from England any individuals obnoxious to their displeasure. This objection with him would exist still, if the same principles presided in the direction of our policy. But, a great change had of late been produced in this department. Our foreign secretary had pursued British objects. Foreign powers had been made aware of this alteration, and were therefore not likely to require compliances from us which we might be bound to refuse, or that would disturb the harmony which prevailed between us and them. The powers of the bill might therefore be granted to government, as a means of enabling it to protect from disturbance the tranquillity of allied states, by checking conspiracies against them in this; while those states having been now made acquainted with the difference between our policy and theirs, could not be supposed to prefer claims that might lead to any misunderstanding. By allowing ministers to yield to foreign powers on friendly representations being made, we best consulted our own peace and the tranquillity of Europe. He therefore would vote for the bill; though he would not have done so if our foreign policy had not been changed.
The Earl of Carnarvonsaid, he was curious to know what could be the ground of the change in the noble lord's opinion. The noble lord seemed to begin his approbation of the measure, at the very time when ministers themselves proposed to abandon it. The noble lord had stated, that ministers had now become more liberal, and that they allowed no foreign power to interfere in our domestic policy; but when was a pretence of this kind wanting? on what former occasion, when the renewal of the Aien bill was proposed, were not the same statements made? If had been said, that the power given to
636
ministers by this bill would induce foreign powers to act better by their own subjects. If so, the measure should not only have his support now, but always. The noble earl opposite had stated, that principles of revolution were abroad. If so, could this bill check or eradicate them? Could the presence of foreigners give effect to revolutionary principles in this country? No. Those principles, so far as they actuated the people of this country, had a British origin. If there existed danger, therefore, from this source, an alien bill afforded no security. Ministers had taken credit to themselves, for mitigating the present measure, by excepting from its operation persons who had resided seven years in England; but the clause was so indefinite, that persons who had resided nearly all their lives here might still be subject to its operation, if they had been absent only a few days before the passing of the bill. Why fix upon seven years? Was an apprenticeship necessary to good order and peaceable conduct, as to the trade of making shoes? Why not give a settlement from marriage? Was a man after this to be liable to be torn from his wife and children who were British subjects, and who might remain in England while he was ordered out of it? The noble earl concluded by opposing the bill.
The Earl of Westmorlandexpressed his surprise that noble lords should call upon the government to pledge itself to dispense with a measure after the present period, when it was impossible that they could foresee the circumstances that might occur. He would support the measure before the House on three grounds; first, for the preservation of tranquillity at home; second, on account of our relations with foreign countries; and thirdly, to prevent those disturbances in other countries which ultimately, though not immediately might involve us in war. Me could not conceive how governments could be at peace, while their subjects were at war—how the Lord Mayor of London, could be at open hostility with the Grand Seignor, while government professed itself a friend and ally. The bill was necessary to enable the country to be, what he trusted it always would be, a refuge for all persons, whatever their opinions might be, who were driven out of their own country; and so far from the bill being injurious to foreigners, it was, in his opinion, their best protection.
Lord Hollandsaid, the noble mover had begun his speech by observing, that this law had been so often under discussion, that little could be said, either for or against it, that had not been repeatedly urged. It was, indeed, irksome to travel over ground so perfectly beaten; and therefore he should not trouble their lordships with the many objections that, in the course of twenty years had been urged against this bill. But, when he considered that the noble earl who had just sat down had laid down grounds, new, and at variance with the grounds on which the bill was originally introduced, he did think that it became him to call the attention of the House thereto. That there was such difference, the noble mover must be aware, as he had alluded to the origin of the measure. It was, indeed, not so old in our Statute-book; it ran not beyond the memory of man; it was in 1792 that the bill was brought in, and their lordships would mark the preamble of it; and observe, that even in those times of passion, it was stated, that there existed an imperious necessity; it stated that, in consequence of the great increase of aliens resorting hither, much danger might arise to the tranquillity of this country. Soon after the bill was passed, war took place, and the bill was continued. However, then came the peace which was signed by the noble lord opposite; and the bill was then continued on the grounds (judging from the speeches of the noble earl opposite) that it was necessary to possess the power of excluding aliens, in order to possess a summary mode of preventing their revolutionary operations from destroying the tranquillity of this country. But he had better authority for what he stated than any speech. There was then a considerable number of aliens in this country, who were hostile to the government of France, with which we were then at peace; but we were suspected by that government of being favourable to the principles of those persons. They were very active here, and published some pamphlets, which he believed every candid man would acknowledge contained instigations to assassination and murder. M. Otto remonstrated upon it, and the noble earl opposite answered as became a British minister—"You may prosecute them in the courts of law of this country." Much correspondence took place, and at last M. Otto said, "But you have an alien act, under which you may proceed more sum-
638
marrily;" and the moment he gave a hint of a foreign power going snacks in an act of parliament, the noble lord left his little nag, and instantly mounted his war-horse, and began prancing, and curvetting in the most furious manner possible; and yet the noble earl who spoke last talked of this bill as being necessary for the preservation of peace with foreign countries. He would first read the complaint of M. Otto, and afterwards the answer of the noble earl opposite:—"Whatever may be the protection which the English laws afford to native writers, and to other subjects of his majesty, the French government knows that foreigners do not here enjoy the same protection, and that the law, known by the title of the Alien act, gives the ministry of his Britannic Majesty an authority which it has often exercised against foreigners, whose residence was prejudicial to the interests of Great Britain. The first clause of this act states expressly, that any order in council which requires a foreigner to quit the kingdom shall be executed, under pain of imprisonment and transportation. There exists, therefore, in the ministry a legal and sufficient power to restrain foreigners, without having recourse to courts of law; and the French government, which offers, on this point, a perfect reciprocity, thinks it gives a new proof of its pacific intentions, by demanding, that those persons may be sent away, whose machinations uniformly tend to sow discord between the two people." To this the noble lord had answered, that "his Majesty's government never would, in consequence of any representation or any menance from a foreign power, make any concession which could in the smallest degree be dangerous to the liberty of the press, as secured by the constitution, and so justly dear to every British subject." The noble earl went on to state—"With respect to the distinction which appeared to be drawn in M. Otto's note, between the publications of British subjects and those of foreigners, and the power which his Majesty is supposed to have in consequence of the Alien act, of sending foreigners out of his dominions, it is important to observe, that the provisions of that act were made for the purpose of preventing the residence of foreigners, whose numbers and principles had a tendency to disturb the internal peace of his own dominions, and whom the safety of those dominions might require, in many instances, to be removed, even if

639
their actual conduct had not exposed them to punishment by law. It does not follow that it would be a warrantable application of such a law to exert its powers in the cases of individuals, such as those of whom complaint is now made, and particularly as they are liable to be prosecuted under the law of the land, in like manner as others have been in similar cases, at the instance and upon the complaint of foreign governments." The noble earl, the House would observe, spurned at the idea of making the law subservient to the purpose of sending foreigners out of the country, at the representation of a foreign minister However, another war broke tout, and the next Alien bill had such a meagre and slender preamble, that nothing scarcely could be gathered from it as to the grounds of enactment, and the noble viscount (Sidmouth), then secretary of state, was particularly cautious of giving any political grounds as a reason for the bill: indeed he disclaimed any thing of that sort. The bill was then, as now, for purposes purely British, and the making the bill an ancillary, or hand-maid, to foreign powers, was spoken of with becoming reprobation. He wished that sentiment were still felt, and he should then not despair of voting with those noble lords this night in a majority against the bill. The noble earl who spoke last, had stated three objects of this bill; but he could not follow him in his distinctions. One of the objects he had forgotten, but it appeared to him, that they all merged in this—namely, that it was a British object to preserve peace; and the only way to attain this British object was, it seemed, by sending persons out of the country. Now, as far as experience went, that was falsified; for, when was this infallible preventive of war first discovered? Why, this happy jewel was discovered in time of peace; it was passed in December, 1792; and in the following month commenced the most bloody, expensive, and longest war in which this country was ever engaged! This reminded him of the discovery made by the learned lord on the woolsack the other night; namely, that until the time of lord Hardwicke we had no law relating to marriage. So, according to the noble lord privy seal, this country was unable to maintain the relations of peace and amity until the discovery of this measure, just three weeks before the breaking out of the war of the French Revolution. The noble earl who spoke
640
last, had spoken of the noble lords on his (lord H.'s) side of the House, as being enemies of peace. To that he would only say, that he still thought, if another line had been taken on the occasion to which the noble earl alluded, the peace of Europe would have been more permanent and sure than it was at present. But, to return to this new-found preservative of peace. He would ask, what was the longest period of peace that this country had ever enjoyed? He believed it was in the time of James 1st. What was there remarkable with respect to foreigners at that time? Why, that at no time were foreigners so well received in this country, and at no time had so many British subjects employed themselves in taking part in foreign wars: yet, no alien act then existed. What he had stated, proved that the alien act had not preserved peace in this country, and that peace bad been preserved in this country without any alien act. Looking abroad, it would be seen, that Holland, Switzerland, the Papal government, and latterly the government of the United States of America, had been the most successful in the preservation of peace. By the by, it had been supposed, that legitimate governments were best qualified to preserve that blessing; and it was rather remarkable, that the three most illegitimate governments had been the most successful in so doing. Holland had, he believed, maintained peace for the longest period; she had enjoyed 70 years of tranquillity—from the treaty of Utrecht, to the period of the American war. Ay, but, said the noble earl, what trouble must they have had in excluding aliens during this period. No such thing; for sir W. Temple expressly said, that it had ever been the great principle of the States to make their country the common refuge of all the miserable of other countries, though, by the way, in that sir W. Temple was mistaken; they had not always maintained that policy, and he would notice the exception directly. The historians of France also noticed, that every person disgraced there, made their retreat into Holland, and that no representations of ambassadors of foreign powers could induce them to order these distressed persons away. This he thought proved, that an alien act was not necessary for preserving peace. The exception which he had alluded to, in the observance of their general principles of hospitality to strangers, was. one that was roost dis-

641
graceful to them, as it was made for the sake of currying favour with Charles 2nd, at whose instances they delivered up two of the regicides, who were actually executed. Switzerland had, from the earliest period of her political existence, been the refuge of all who were obliged to quit their own country; and in respect to the regicides, they formed a contrast with the government of Holland, for they had refused to give them up; but, whether by inclination or by necessity, they had of late been compelled to adopt a less generous policy.—The noble earl who spoke last said, that this bill was only to prevent the machinations of disaffected persons, and danger to other countries; and this, he said, was an object purely British, for which we were to act as the police-officer and spy of foreigners. The noble earl thought there ought to be means of preventing such injurious conduct on the part of individuals as would be likely to endanger the national peace, and he also said, he did not see how the subject could be at war, and the sovereign at peace. But, how did this apply here? It would be no answer to a foreign minister to say, that we had enforced this law against those who owed us no allegiance, and yet did not do it against the native. The noble earl must be prepared, for the sake of peace, to enforce the laws of coercion against the native also. For suppose the gentleman with the hard name to be discovered corresponding with one who states that so many men, and so much money would be here at such a time and for such and such purposes. Without communication with any foreign minister the man is sent out of the country. Then comes the gentleman with the easy name and does the same thing. The French ambassador discovers it, goes to Mr. Canning, and he refers him to the attorney-general, who, perhaps, refers him to the learned lord on the woolsack, and perhaps from him be gets something decisive (he was only stating the case hypothetically); however, hints are thrown out to him of the intractable nature of juries, and the danger of exposures. The ambassador to this might say, "I have nothing to do with your law; but this I have to do with,—that the other day a man did the same thing, and you sent him out of the country, in justice, I suppose, to me; for I do not suppose you would do it except as an act of justice; and yet here is a man who has done the same thing to whom you will do
642
nothing." What would the noble earl opposite say to this? Would he say as he did to M. Otto, that we passed the law for the preservation of our own internal tranquillity? Or as the noble earl who spoke last, said, we passed it for preserving national peace, and because we find we have no law to prevent people doing that which is a just cause of war to other countries?—It was because it was a measure, which, if carried into complete effect, would make the world one vast prison, that he thought it unwise and dangerous to pass it; and because it was more likely, instead of producing peace, to embroil this country with foreign powers. He had proved that the grounds of the measure now were directly contradictory to those laid down when it was originated; and he thought he had proved also that it was futile as a means of preserving peace, but rather, on the contrary, likely to raise questions with foreign ministers. He would not be so disingenuous as to say that he expected the bill would be thrown out that night, but he trusted it was the last time it would be renewed, and that we should be permitted to go back to the good old times of British hospitality, when, in the language of one who was a poet, politician, and orator, this country was characterised as
—by Heaven destgn'd
To be the common refuge of mankind."
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that if he had entertained any doubts before as to the expediency of this bill, the speech of the noble lord would have removed them. There was one point of considerable importance which had not been adverted to, and to which he wished to call their lordships' attention. If their lordships would take the trouble of comparing the provisions of the Alien bill for 1793 with those of the present, they would find that they differed entirely in character and extent. The provisions of the act of 1793 were proportioned to the danger which existed at that time; while the measures of 1816, 1818, 1820, and 1824, were proportioned to a less degree of danger, and consequently imposed a less degree of penalty and restriction. A noble lord had contended, that the sending Aliens out of the country was unconstitutional. He professed himself at a loss to understand this proposition; for he would re-assert what he had often before affirmed, that the right of sending Aliens out of the country was a part of the prerogatives

643
vested in the Crown; but, as it would be difficult for the Crown effectually to exercise this right, the aid of parliament was required, in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional powers of the Crown. If such a prerogative ought not to exist, let it be taken away; but as long as it did exist, parliament was bound to provide for its effectual exercise. Though the dangers which called for the measure of 1793 did not now exist, he was satisfied there was a sufficient degree of danger at the present moment, to justify, and indeed to render necessary, the continuance of the Alien act for a further period of three years.
The House divided: For the second reading: Contents, present 46; proxies 34–80. Not-Contents, present 17, proxies 18–35. Majority 45.

AUSTRIAN LOAN BILL.
On the order of the day for the third reading of this bill,
Lord Hollandrose to make a few observations on this measure. He said, he was certainly ready to acknowledge, and had already acknowledged, that though the sum received on this transaction was much less than the sum that was due, yet that it was much more than the country, or the humble individual now addressing their lordships, ever expected would be paid by the imperial debtor. He must therefore acknowledge, that much ability appeared to have been employed in bringing this transaction to its present conclusion. There was, probably, also much exercise of good temper in the manner of conducting the negotiation; for as it was to be presumed there was some good feeling in the imperial character, it was
872
doubtless thought advisable not to expose, in plain terms, the nature of the settlement, but to allow the debtor to take credit for some virtue, though he was at a loss what that virtue might be; it was not generosity, and it could hardly be called honesty. He was ready, however, to acquiesce in this bill, and to concur in carrying it into effect; but not in the statements and recital with which it had been passed by the Commons. He did not object so much to the language of the preamble on account of his own opinion, as to preserve the consistency and dignity of parliament. In negociating the convention on which the bill was founded, there might be some reason for concealing the sum due, and stating only that which was paid. He was aware that persons, moving in high situations must have a nice sense of honour, or at least were always supposed to have it; but whether they had it or not, from the modes of courts and the servility unfortunately too common in human nature, that quality was always attributed to them. It was therefore to be presumed, that those who managed this transaction did not choose to exhibit it to one of the parties in its true light; but thought it necessary, from motives of delicacy, to disguise, as far as possible, the nature of it from his imperial majesty; whose nice sensibility would doubtless have been greatly affected if he had been told, that he was compounding a debt, instead of honourably discharging it. This might be the excuse for not stating what was really due in the convention; but he saw no reason for the same delicacy in an act of parliament. Great talent must, however, have been displayed by the persons who managed this affair, in persuading his imperial majesty, that his large debt was paid. It was extremely difficult to discover how this persuasion could have been produced, and he had been puzzling himself with conjectures about it. Perhaps those who acted for his imperial majesty had been pursuing a study for which a gentleman on his (lord H's) entrance into life was greatly distinguished. That gentleman, the late Mr. Horne Tooke, had directed his attention to the origin and meaning of words, and to their various applications. In spite of the little that was to be got by the barren nature of the one study, and the sandy foundation of the other, he had carried his etymology into metaphysics, in order to account for the different shades

873
in the sense of words. Now, as it did not appear from the convention with Austria, that a word of doubt had been thrown out as to the sum mentioned being less than it ought to have been—as there was nowhere any specification of the amount due—he could not understand by what kind of logic the emperor had been convinced that the debt was paid. He had, consequently, been, like Mr. Home Tooke, driven to etymology, in order to discover the meaning which was attached in the imperial court to the verb "to pay." Perhaps the negotiators derived it from the word pagus, because it was from districts, or towns, or the people who inhabit them, that all payments come, according to the saying, "pagorum populi vectigalia premuntur"; and this was what all who were lavish of the public money, whether emperors or legislators, should well consider and bear in mind. Another word, however, was perhaps the origin of the idea conveyed in the convention. It might come from pacio or paciscor, because the imperial negotiator considered the matter done and settled, the bargain carried into effect, and completed by the payment. If this would not do, perhaps their lordships would allow that the derivation might be from pacare, to make tractable, and also to pacify, satisfy, and appease. Thus his imperial majesty might be taught to say, "It is true I do not pay my debts in full, but I shall give something to pacify and appease those members of the British parliament who have been talking so loudly and so freely of my affairs." Something had accordingly been done to pacify and appease their lordships. A sum, not amounting to one-seventh of what was fairly due, had been transmitted to this country.—He had thus gone through most of the words from which those persons who amused themselves with such studies were likely to account for this new conventional meaning of the word "pay." But he must not forget the word pecus; and that brought to his recollection the golden fleece, which had been transferred to his imperial majesty's family from the dukes of Burgundy, and according to which the House of Austria, with reference to this transaction, might still say "Pretium non vile laboris." As much ingenuity had doubtless been exercised by the learned men of Austria, in satisfying any imperial scruples which might have existed as to the meaning of paying one's debts, it was to be hoped
874
that their labours would more reconcile their emperor to learning. He had heard stories of a visit paid some years ago by his imperial majesty to Italy, in the course of which that sovereign was said to have exhibited no great desire to encourage any kind of study. From what was reported, it would appear that his imperial majesty wanted for subjects men who" never troubled themselves either with reading or thinking. He sincerely hoped that, the next time his imperial majesty should visit his loyal and learned university of Pavia, he would show that he entertained a grateful sense of the service which some clever scholars had rendered him by so ably glossing over the word "pay." Then, indeed, he might be expected to exclaim—
"How charming is divine philosophy!
Not harsh and crabbed, as dull fools suppose,
But musical as is Apollo's lute,
And a perpetual feast of nectar'd sweets,
Where no crude surfeit reigns."
But, let the court of Vienna explain the matter as it might, it was for their lordships to take care that they did not pass a bill which on the face of it, suppressed a fact and contained an absurdity. The preamble recited, that this country had granted two loans to the emperor of Austria, and it was afterwards stated that his imperial majesty would pay 2,500,000 l; in satisfaction of the debt thus contracted. Now, it might be convenient to give up claiming the full repayment, and to be satisfied and appeased with these 2,500,000 l.; but why was not the amount of the debt stated? Were their lordships aware of the amount of the sums which this country had expended on Austria? Besides subsidies, the debt in question arose from two loans contracted for, the one in the year 1795, the other in the year 1797. Two reasons were assigned for granting these loans. The first was, that the money afforded facilities for bringing Austria into the field; the second, that good security was given by that power for the repayment; indeed, it was boasted in that House, that the security was as solid as that of the Bank of England. It was triumphantly said, that we could sue the emperor for the money in his own courts. These reasons, and the great advantage of the co-operation of Austria to the common cause, were the grounds urged for this profuse expenditure of the public money. But, what was the result of this extravagance? Part of the money arising from

875
these loans was actually not paid to the emperor of Austria, until after he had made peace, and was in his turn paying money to the enemy of this country. After the treaty of Campo Formio was concluded, remittances of the instalments of these loans were made to Austria. The two loans amounted to more than six millions, and this country was bound for the payment both of principal and interest. Great Britain had guaranteed the payment of certain annuities for twenty-five years, which on the whole amounted to more than 5,000,000 l.; as to the interest, it appeared that his imperial majesty never paid it for more than one year. These annuities, added to the original debt made about 12,600,000 l. But we were still bound to pay for a time about 223,000 l., which, taken at the present rate of the money market, might be reckoned at other 5 millions. So that, with what was paid and what was lost, the bargain cost the courtry altogether about 17½ millions. This was the amount, without calculating compound interest, which he might fairly have done. For this vast sum all that was now paid was 2½ millions. Such being the nature of the transaction, he was not surprised that his imperial majesty did not choose to describe it; but he saw no reason why it should not have been fairly recorded by the framers of this bill. He had heard that this extraordinary settlement of an account had somewhere or other been considered as a "God-send." Such a description of the transaction certainly was not very decorous to the emperor of Austria; for it was a plain acknowledgment, that to pay his debts was the last thing expected by those who were the loudest in their approbation of his imperial majesty's sense of honour and justice. He should like to know what would be said of a similar case in the city of London. Were he to go within Temple-bar with a promissory-note for 10,000 l., and inquire the character of the person whose signature it bore, would it not be strange if, in answer to his inquiries, some one should launch out in praise of the acceptor, and say—"Oh, there's not an honester man in the world, nor one more able and willing to pay his debts"—and after all were to end with the observation, "if you get 1,000 l. from him, for your note, it will be a Godsend."—It had seemed necessary for him to say thus much, to dissipate the delusion which prevailed, and to make it be kept
876
in mind, that the money received was really nothing more than a small composition for a large debt. These 2,500,000 l. seemed, however, to be received by certain persons, as if a shower of gold had descended upon them. They seemed at a loss what to do with it, and looked anxiously about for objects to expend it upon. "How shall we lay it out? Does the Church want any thing? Does the Crown want any thing?" were the exclamations which this God-send excited. Now, if their lordships House, or the other House of parliament, thought fit to give the public money to the building of palaces or churches—and, by-the-by, it was remarkable that the church of England, which was one of the richest churches in Europe, was the only one he ever heard of that never did any thing for itself—he did not mean to say that such an application of money might not be right; that was a question for consideration; but certainly, the reason of its being right was not the receipt of this money from the emperor of Austria, though the whole manner in which the subject had been treated tended to impress that opinion on the public. The people of England, like the fleece of Gideon, received none of the dew which was falling around them. A commission had been appointed for regulating the repairs of Windsor Palace. To this he seriously objected. Whatever was thought necessary to be done in that way, ought to be done under the direction of the legal and official servants of the crown, on their responsibility. He said this solely from a just constitutional jealousy. Those who had promoted this measure—among whom were many persons whom he respected—would not suppose that he reflected on the appointment of this committee on any other ground, than that he considered it derogatory to the Crown. It was derogatory to the Crowns; because the constitution always supposed that it was left to the constitutional officers of the Crown to determine what money ought to be expended on such objects. It might be said, that the object of the commission was to take care that nothing unsuitable to the honour of the country should be done. That, however, was a reason which was not very complimentary to the Crown. But even viewed in that way, he could not look at the institution of a committee of taste as the best means of attaining such an object. In the affairs of government he was will-

877
ing to go as far as most people—indeed, many of his friends thought he went too far in support of the maxim that "in the multitude of counsellors there is wisdom." But, in affairs of taste as well as of war, he was convinced that the direction ought to be left to one individual; because, as the former required promptness of execution, so did the latter simplicity of design; and these advantages could only be obtained by trusting to individuals. He need not go far from their lordships' House to find many instances, which might prove that committees of taste, though composed of men of great eminence in various departments, never produced any thing that did honour to the country. It was not, however, on this ground that he objected to the commission, but because its appointment was an invasion of the constitution. If any thing more important than another had been gained to this country by the Revolution, it was the necessity under which the servants of the Crown were placed, of having the confidence of parliament. He was therefore against lessening their responsibility. It was necessary that they should always keep in mind, that the servants of the Crown must have the confidence of the Crown; but that could not be separated from the confidence of both Houses of Parliament. He did not mean to say, that the evil to which this measure tended was desired. It was not done, he believed, from design, but arose out of that convenience of the moment, upon which the noble earl the other night excused another measure. Their lordships ought, however, to be on their guard against the tendency of thus yielding to the convenience of the moment. He should therefore move, that this bill be re-committed, with the intention of altering the preamble.
The Earl of Liverpoolwas free to acknowledge, that the noble lord had been very entertaining in the first part of his speech. After attending, however, to it very closely, he could not clearly discover what the noble lord's object was. When the noble lord gave notice of his intention to call the consideration of the House to this bill, it appeared that he had in view to object to the phraseology of it, as not sufficiently describing what was meant to be enacted. Now no person could suppose that it would be proper to draw up such a bill as the present, in a very offensive manner to one of the parties. But, what more could be done
878
than to refer to the transaction as it took place? The fact was, that a loan had been granted to Austria, and this country had accepted a sum in lieu of the whole demand. The real object of the noble lord appeared to be lather to read the House a lecture on the Austrian government, than to make any amendment on the bill. Had this been done fairly, he should not have thought it objectionable; but the noble lord had acted like a counsel stating a case, and had brought forward every thing unfavourable to the side he opposed, carefully keeping in the back ground every thing tending to the honour of the Austrian government. The noble lord had argued, that this money had been granted to the emperor of Austria, without any necessity—as if ho wars had intervened, between the time at which it was advanced, and the time of payment; and as if no good reason could be assigned for letting it lie over for five-and-twenty years. He appealed to their lordships whether any person listening to the noble lord's speech would not consider this to be the nature of the transaction? The whole question, however, at the time the loan was granted, was, whether it would be better to give Austria six millions in that way or as a subsidy? Many persons thought it would have been better to have granted it as a subsidy than as a loan; and certainly at the time the transaction was carried into effect, there was no individual who voted for the loan who would not have voted for giving the money as a subsidy. It was true, as the noble lord said, that some of the instalments had been remitted after the peace of Campo Formio; but after that peace, Austria had been engaged in no less than four wars; namely, the war which terminated with the battles of Marengo and Hohenlinden; the war which terminated with the battle of Austerlitz; the war which terminated with the battle of Wagram; and the war which terminated with the battle which brought the affairs of Europe into the state in which they were now placed. He believed that no public man, who had examined the transactions of those times, could fail to be convinced, that Austria had in all those wars, fought to the last—that she had never yielded but from necessity, and was always ready to rise again, against the common enemy. Under such circumstances, it became this government to consider what was due to Austria. He

879
had already stated, that there had been four wars since the loan was granted. During those wars three subsidies had been granted to Austria; and, in granting those subsidies, not a word had been said on the subject of this loam When the friends of the noble lord were in office, they themselves offered a subsidy to Austria, if she would march and cooperate with Prussia. He certainly did not blame them for this; but he wished to remind the noble lord, that in making that offer, no idea of repayment of the loan was suggested. Austria did not march; but notwithstanding her refusal, Some charges which the Austrian government had incurred were paid by the noble lord's friends; and in liquidating those charges they never once reminded Austria of the existence of this loan. The present government, however, did call upon Austria to settle this transaction; but he certainly was not sanguine as to the amount which might be received. At the same time such was his sense of the policy which ought to be followed by the Austrian government, that he would have advised the payment of something. Many persons, well informed on the subject, were perfectly convinced that nothing had more tended to raise the credit of that government than this very measure, and he was convinced that Austria had gained more than she had lost by this payment. When all the circumstances were taken into consideration, any reasonable person Would rather be inclined to doubt whether we were justified in asking so much, than whether we ought to have demanded more. With regard to the personal character of the emperor of Austria he should be wanting in duty if he were not to say, that no sovereign ever sat on a throne who possessed nicer or more honourable feelings. He doubtless was desirous to bring the transaction to an adjustment; but whatever misconception might have gone abroad, he must also say, that the individual by whom his Imperial majesty was supposed to be chiefly advised, was also convinced of the necessity of making the arrangement. His noble friend had alluded to what had passed elsewhere on the subject of this loan, when a right hon. friend of his had stated the manner in which he proposed to provide for certain public services. In opening the state of the finances for the year, his right hon. friend had referred to the receipt of 2,500,000 l. from Aus-
880
tria, and had stated, that government would be enabled—not in consequence of that payment alone, but by it and the existence of a surplus revenue—to afford some relief to the country, and to apply a portion to certain other purposes. The objects to which the application was proposed to be made were those which appeared most necessary. He should say nothing about the 500,000 l. proposed to be granted for churches. After what had been said on a former occasion on that subject, it could not now be necessary to discuss it. The other appropriation which had been alluded to was equally unobjectionable. It was, for the preservation and the ornament of a structure which was venerated in this country, and had been admired by all foreigners who had had the opportunity of viewing it. The receipt of the money from Austria had given facility to the arrangements which the government had in view; but the specific sum which had been proposed to be applied to the building of churches, and to the repairs of Windsor Castle, would have been so applied, although the money had never been paid by Austria. He therefore could not think that the observations of his noble friend were at all warranted. It was not a new palace which was to be built, but certain necessary alterations to be made in a structure which was the object of general admiration. Funds must have been found for carrying on the works; for the repairs could not have been longer delayed. As to the bill, he saw no ambiguity in it; and with regard to the sum expressed in it, the country had received as much from Austria as it had any just reason to expect.
Lord Kingobjected strongly to the preamble of the bill, since it did not mention the sum received from Austria as being the payment of a debt. Without such an acknowledgment in direct terms, the clause in the preamble was unintelligible. Nobody could certainly deny, that we had advanced money to the government of Austria under a promise of repayment, and that this was our only return. What else was necessary to constitute a debt? It had been said, that our money had been expended in Wars; but, for whose advantage were those wars carried on? For the advantage of the emperor of Austria. It was true the emperor had not succeeded in those wars: but that was not our fault. It however showed, that the emperor had then made the same kind of

881
miscalculation respecting the difficulties of the contest and the probabilities of success, which he had since made respecting the amount of his obligations to this country and the sum necessary for fulfilling them. Had the transaction between the emperor and this country been placed on its proper footing, either in the preamble of the bill or in the statements of the minister, much of what was now said against the Austrian government might have been spared. People would not probably in that case have been so malicious as to have talked of those two millions and a half, as being a saving out of abankrupt's property, as a composition with an insolvent, as half-a-crown in the pound wrung from an unwilling or dishonest debtor: nor would the ministers have insulted the emperor, by pretending surprise, that he should pay his debts, and calling that payment a "God-send." In order to shew that the preamble might have been more precise, and have denominated this money as the payment of a debt, he begged to call the attention of their lordships to the transactions out of which the debt arose. The minister of the day, Mr. Pitt, had called upon parliament to lend this money to the government of Austria, on what he termed good security, the very best security. A regular contract was entered into, the deed was signed, sealed, and delivered. Mr. Pitt had boasted of the certainty which it gave us of recovering our due; he even went the length of saying, that if the emperor refused to pay us voluntarily, we could sue him, like a reluctant debtor, in his own courts. Now, here he would beg leave to ask, whether the minister had stated this last security from excess of caution, or for the purposes of delusion? This appeared to him a very proper question to be solved by the Pitt club, and he should expect to see it answered at its next meeting. Some persons were disposed to put the latter interpretation on the words of the minister; while others had considered the money transaction mentioned in the bill before the House as the result of a legal proceeding, or the proceeds arising out of the sale of a bankrupt's estate. God forbid that he should so consider it. God forbid that he should insinuate any thing against the honour of his Imperial majesty, or even hint a suspicion that the emperor had not paid his just debts! As our power to sue him in his own courts had been so broadly stated, he (lord K.) had a right to assume that
882
our rulers had done so, that the suit had been carried on for the last twenty years, and that, as it happened nearer home, a great part of the contested property had been swallowed up in fees of court and other law expenses [a laugh}. The great cause of "Rex v. Emperor," involving so vast an interest, must have been heard and re-heard—It must have been considered and re-considered—it must have been argued and re-argued, before the Austrian great judge of equity. The court must have taken home the papers; and then the court must have lost the papers; and then the court must have required to have its memory refreshed, and to be supplied with new papers; The lawyers also must have had refreshers. The court afterwards must have fixed a day for judgment, and that day having arrived, the court must not have given judgment; and then the court, under a solemn promise to give judgment, must have fixed upon another day; and when that other day came, the court must have had a doubt, and have postponed its decision to another day; and when that other day arrived, the court must have required again to be refreshed. At last, when the law and the lawyers had had their full swing, and twenty years had been spent in forwarding the cause, the court must have pronounced its decree, by which the emperor was ordered to pay the account of 2,500,000 l., while we paid by far the greater sum to the lawyers, and for the bill of costs [a laugh]. We had thus obtained only 2,500,000 l. out of six millions which was the original loan, and we had lost all the interest, which in the course of twenty years had swelled the debt to twenty millions; but we could not very much complain, when we considered what might have happened nearer home, namely, that we might have lost not only the original principal sum of six millions, but might have expended, in an attempt to recover it, the other two and a half millions, which we were now enabled to pocket. With the proceeds of this successful suit at Vienna, ministers would be enabled to repeal our law taxes—to give us law cheaper at home. Another consequence, probably, of this expensive litigation with the emperor was, a bill to diminish the expenses of law proceedings for the recovery of small debts. Government had found it so difficult to recover this debt from Austria, that it was willing to facilitate the recovery of other debts.

883
Then, from the experience of the evils of delay in our suit with the emperor, ministers had seen the propriety of instituting inquiry into the causes of delay in the court of chancery [a laugh]. All these beneficial consequences, he was glad to perceive, had resulted from the termination of this long-protracted suit at Vienna. Now, he thought ministers ought to have inserted a proper description of these transactions, and an avowal of the debt, in the preamble to the bill before the House.
The Earl of Aberdeensaid, that in rising to make a few observations on the question, he would refrain from noticing the speech of the noble lord who spoke last, which, was of too facetious a nature to require an answer. He was however prepared to defend the court of Vienna from any imputation of bad faith or dishonest feeling in the present transaction. The loan for which we were now paid the 2,500,000 l. was advanced to Austria for the accomplishment of objects particularly connected with the interests and policy of Great Britain. It was peculiarly a British object at that time to drive the French out of the Netherlands; and to enable Austria to effect this, an advance of money was necessary. Mr. Fox had said at the time, that, so little did he expect its repayment, he would have preferred a subsidy to a loan. It was so peculiarly destined to enable Austria to recover possession of the Netherlands, that its repayment, was fixed on the Belgic revenues. Had the enterprise succeeded, which this money was intended to promote, there could be little doubt that the loan would have been punctually paid. That it was rather intended as a subsidy than a loan, was evident from the fact, that we had thrice subsidized the Austrian government since, and had never alluded to this debt. In 1805, in 1809, and in 1813, when Austria received pecuniary aid from this country, no mention was made of any obligation under which she previously laid. Had the subject been mentioned, and had Austria, anticipating a future claim, requested at any of these epochs that this debt should be annulled, could any noble lord believe that the demand would have been resisted? Austria had therefore a right to be surprised at the renewal of this claim. In 1816, when, after having passed what was called two successive bankruptcies, the Austrian government determined to adopt a new financial system, it
884
published a list of all its debts, and property. In this list the debt to Great Britain did not appear. On seeing this list, we were bound to mention so important an omission, if we had meant to make a future claim. But we took no such step. What surprise must not Austria have felt, therefore, when after this she saw the claim revived. Much had been said about suing the emperor in his own courts, and if he had been so sued, probably his courts would have decided against him; but he much doubted, after twenty years silence, with so many opportunities of making the claim, whether our own courts would have given a decision against him. The amount of the sum advanced in lieu of all claims had been the subject of animadversion; but that amount was not so much a question of will, as of ability. Had Great Britain demanded more, she would have obtained nothing. Yet the sum, small as it was, compared with the nominal amount of the debt, was nearly as much as Austria had received. Though the loan was about six millions, yet, from the state of the exchanges, and the difficulties of transfer, not much more than three millions had reached the coffers of Austria. The money was so far advanced for British interests, that it was stipulated to be expended under the inspection of British officers. Officers had accordingly been appointed for the purpose, and there was no doubt that every farthing of it had been employed to forward operations which fell in with the policy of our own government. He was glad that his noble friend (the earl of Liverpool) had not only done justice to the character of the emperor of Austria, in this transaction, but to that of his minister prince Metternich. With regard to the emperor, he would say, that a more virtuous prince never sat on the throne of any country; but still he would add, that contrary to the advice of his chief minister, he would not have urged the repayment of this sum. The noble earl then expressed his approbation of the objects for which a part of this sum was to be employed; namely, the building of churches, the creation of a picture gallery, and the repairs of Windsor Castle.
Lord Clifdenobserved, that part of the money which we lent to the emperor of Austria had found its way into the pockets of Napoleon. The fashion seemed now to be to compliment the emperor of Austria; but if he was to credit the account

885
which Mr. Rose had given of the present state of Italy, a more detestable tyrant never existed than the emperor appeared to be in that part of his dominions. Yet this account had come from no jacobin or radical, but from a gentleman whose character gave weight to his testimony on such a subject. His government of Italy had been excessively cruel. He had ground down that unfortunate country to the very dust; and, as he had ruined it, it was not improbable that from Italy would ultimately proceed the destruction of himself and his race.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, he thought the emperor an absolute angel, compared with the rest of the Holy Alliance. He was the only member of that alliance on whom we could place confidence. Adverting to the commission to be appointed to superintend the expenditure of the money to be granted for public buildings, the noble lord asked if it was to be a parliamentary commission, or one appointed by the Crown?
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, that the duties of the commission might be settled by parliament, and the names be filled up by the Crown.
Lord Ellenboroughhoped the commissioners would be named by act of parliament. He was glad to see an increasing jealousy directed towards the expenditure of parliamentary grants.
The bill was read a third time, and passed.