Sitting of 7 July 1820

POSTPONEMENT OF THE CORONATION.
Mr. Beaumontrose to give notice of an address to his majesty, praying that the Royal Coronation might be suspended until the termination of the proceedings now pending against her Majesty.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, that the motion of which the hon. member had just given notice, was unnecessary, because his majesty had already signified his intention, that the ceremony of the coronation shall not take place on the day originally named, nor was any other day fixed for that purpose. He wished to be distinctly understood, that the postponement of the coronation was not in consequence of any proceedings respecting her majesty.
The notice was withdrawn.

SIR WILLIAM MANNERS.
The Speaker informed the House, that the messenger dispatched to arrest sir W. Manners, and another person of the name of Jervis, had gone down to the country to execute the warrant, but failed in his endeavours. The Speaker then suggested the propriety of having the messenger examined at the bar.
The messenger, Mr. Wright, informed the House, that he set off at one on Thursday morning, and arrived at Buckminster by half past four yesterday afternoon; that he went to the house of sir W. Manners, and was informed that he was not at home, and had left Buckminster the preceding evening at six; that it was not known whither he was gone, nor when he would return; the servant said, he was steward
292
to sir W. Manners, and he wrote the substance of his answer on the back of Mr. Speaker's warrant: that he afterwards inquired for Rd. Armston Jervis at his lodgings, and was informed that he had not slept there for two nights; that he delivered the orders for the attendance on Monday of Mr. H. Manners and W. Atterto the steward, who promised to convey the orders to them if he could.
Sir Robert Heronsaid, the House would recollect the report received on Wednesday last from the chairman of the Grantham election committee. In that report evidence was disclosed, satisfactorily showing that notice had been duly served on the individuals who refused to give their attendance. The notes of the short-hand writer had been read, and fully bore out the evidence so disclosed. He thought, therefore, that the subsequent conduct of the individuals alluded to could be regarded in no other light than as a gross violation and contempt of the authority of that House, and as an obstruction to the discharge of those duties which the House had imposed on its committee. As such, however averse he might generally be to measures of rigour, he thought that in furtherance of justice, and to provide against future obstructions of the same kind, the House was bound to animadvert severely upon it. He should therefore now move, "1. That it appears to this House, that sir W. Manners, bart. has absconded, in order to avoid being taken into custody, pursuant to an order of this House.—2. That an humble address be presented to his majesty, that he will be graciously pleased immediately to issue his Royal Proclamation, with such reward as his majesty shall think proper, for discovering, apprehending, and detaining the said sir William Manners."—Similar resolutions with regard to Mr. Jervis were put and carried.

ALIEN BILL.
On the order of the day for the second reading of this bill,
Mr. Bernalrose to enter his protest against the renewal of this measure. Doubtful as its policy was at any time, a strong case ought indeed to be made out, in order to show that it was expedient in the fifth or sixth year of a general peace. The first bill of this kind which parliament had ever sanctioned was the 33rd of the late king. That bill was passed in order to guard the country against the innovating principles and doctrines of the French

293
Revolution. The present was the first occasion on which it had been directed to provide against the machinations of foreigners with regard to their own governments. Foreigners were allowed, by all the ancient principles of our law, to settle and to acquire property in this country, and it was contrary to those principles to render them liable to be sent out of it at any time on the charge of some insidious accuser. The original principles of our law emanated from a spirit of universal toleration, and to adopt this arbitrary measure was to abandon those generous feelings which contributed so much to the glory and grandeur of our institutions. Our ancestors had acted in a very different spirit at the time when the edict of Nantes was revoked in France. It was no argument to say that a case of abuse ought to be made out; it was enough that the bill gave to government the power of committing abuse. If such a law could be justified at any time, it was in 1793, when the political horizon was overcast by the clouds of the French Revolution. He should conclude by expressing his conviction, that the measure was altogether useless and absurd, and with moving that it be read a second time that day six months.
Lord A. Hamiltonsaid, he wished to know whether it was to be considered as a permanent part of the system of laws of the country? It had been continued from year to year, almost as a matter of course, advantage being taken of the comparative indifference with which the House looked at what professed to be a temporary measure. In the same manner the act for the seizure of arms in Ireland had been continued for ten years by five distinct renewals. This Alien law also had been now continued five or six years since the peace, and was to be continued for two years longer, at the end of which time it was likely to be just as necessary as as it was now, for not a single argument had been now adduced in favour of it.
Colonel Daviessaid, it was now, as had been observed by his hon. friend, about twenty-seven years since parliament had first been asked for an extension of those powers that had been previously deemed sufficient for the welfare of the country and the safety of the constitution. When this odious measure was first heard of within the walls of that House, France was in a state of actual revolution—its monarch dethroned—its religion abjured,
294
and its agents in a state of successful activity in every part of Europe. The situation of Europe was now wholly changed; but new reasons were adduced for introducing this bill, and ministers went on, from statement to statement, endeavouring to throw a veil over its deformity. What the noble lord said a few evenings ago, about the existence of revolutionary sentiments in the country, which rendered the bill necessary, was stated in mere mockery, to see how far he could move the feelings of the House. Was a time like the present, when foreign powers, instead of allowing revolutionary doctrines to prevail, did every thing to repress the growth of rational freedom, the time to fear the introduction of a revolutionary spirit from abroad? Those powers were very free with promises of liberality; but their practice did not accord with their promises. Why, therefore, should ministers dread an influx of revolutionary opinions? When there was a large standing army in the country—when additional forces had been embodied—when measures were taken more befitting a period of war than of peace—was it at such a time, reasonable to apprehend danger from the influx of individuals from foreign states? He conceived it would be more reasonable if foreign states dreaded the influx of British subjects. Such a measure as this was not resorted to even in perilous times, when a Pretender sought to obtain the Crown, and a rebellion was raging in the country. The measure was contrary to the principles on which the constitution was founded, to the law of nations, and to the law of nature; and, therefore, ought not to be tolerated. The law of nations admitted one state to assist and protect another, as far as was consistent with the public safety; but against this principle the bill evidently operated. It was argued that the Crown possessed the prerogative of sending foreigners out of the country—a doctrine which he was much inclined to doubt. A great law authority (Mr. Justice Blackstone) had been quoted in support of it; but on that point it appeared he had fallen into an error. As had been said by an hon. member on a former night, though the whole legal armoury had been ransacked, yet but one rusty precedent had been found to be wielded in support of the measure, and that happened to be a bad one. Ministers said, that this bill only gave a greater facility to the working of a prerogative which

295
existed at present. In answer to this he would ask, if such a power did exist in the Crown, where was the necessity for a formal alien bill? The measure being, in every point of view, constitutional and political, most objectionable, he could not reconcile it to his duty if he did not vote against it.
The Hon. J. W. Wardsaid, that though it was unpleasant to continue a debate in which no arguments had been offered but on one side, the bill was, in his opinion, so discreditable to the ministers, so discreditable to the House, and so discreditable to the country, that he could not help saying a few words against it; and the more so, because he thought it was only by the earnestness, zeal, and perseverance of the opposition to it, that the country could ever be delivered from this measure, and that they had thus far to congratulate themselves, that it was on account of that opposition that they had not a perpetual instead of a two years Alien bill. It was a bill to deprive foreigners of that degree of favour, protection and countenance which they enjoyed in this country, he would not say in ancient times, for that might admit of dispute, but without question in that time of our history to which every man looked back with most satisfaction, and which might be most conveniently taken as an example. He really could not understand after all that had been said on the subject, on what reasons were offered to them, this bill, which might affect the interests, and which affected so directly the character of the country. Was it for the protection of our own government, or was it for the protection of foreign governments? When it was last proposed to them, four years ago, they were told that Europe was still over-run with Jacobins, some Republicans, some Napoleonists, all michievous in the extreme; they were told to look at the Netherlands, where, till an Alien bill had been introduced, the work of sedition had been carried on by wholesale, by these pestilent enemies of all established authority. After that, what had happened? In that very year, many of those exiles were recalled to France; and, in the next year, the king of France, the head of that government which we were professing to protect by that bill, said his wish was, to forgive and forget, and suffered almost all the others of these exiles to return to their country. The consequence was, that the Netherlands
296
were immediately cleared of those formidable persons. If machinations were to be practised against France, it was not in the Netherlands, it was not in this country, it was not under the protection of foreign powers, that they would be carried on—no, it would be in France itself—in the electoral colleges, and even in the chamber of deputies. The bill was intended to prevent Jacobins from coming here—to keep away those who did not want to come here—to discourage the visits of persons who could do their business much better in their own country; so that, if the bill operated at all, its penalties must fall on those who ought to be protected—on merchants, traders, and all those who came here to transact business. He was no alarmist, but he confessed he saw much in the state of the country to create some degree of apprehension. What! did he, en that account, entertain a dread of foreign Jacobins? No such thing. That was the commodity they had the least reason to fear. He would as soon expect a competition in their cotton and hardware manufactures as a competition in Jacobinism. Unfortunately, our own home-manufacture was in too flourishing a state—it wanted no assistance from abroad. Let a cargo of foreign Jacobins be imported, and they would be found to stand no chance with those which our native soil produced. Those who were formed in this country were more sturdy, more inveterate, more violent, than those who were manufactured abroad [Hear, and a laugh! J. They had so much good old English stuff about them, that no foreign Jacobins could stand in competition with them. No country in the world had so strong a dislike to the interference of foreigners in its internal concerns as England. This was exemplified by our history. Great changes had been made in the government of the country at different periods, but foreigners were not permitted to assist. When the English rebelled against their king, and murdered him, it was without the aid of foreigners: when they recalled his son, it was without the aid of foreigners; and when they dismissed his other son, still it was without the aid of foreigners. Our ancestors indeed displayed a sort of over-anxiety to get rid of foreigners when their assistance was offered in aid of any political design. If he were cursed with a disposition to effect any great change in the constitution of this country, he would not accept of the assistance of foreigners.

297
He would say to them—"I know you wish to lend us your friendly aid to dethrone the king, to put down the clergy, and to root out the aristocracy; but such is the perverse disposition of the people of this country, that the very best designs will be rendered abortive, will be disgraced, and contaminated, by your participation in them." No gentleman, for the last few months, could go through the streets without hearing the point mooted, whether particular facts could be believed on foreign evidence. Now, when the question was discussed, whether foreigners were to be believed on their oaths, it did appear to him that the place where such a question could be mooted was held had very little to fear from their influence [Hear, hear!]. The fact was, there was no danger of foreign influence where the higher classes were true to their allegiance. The higher classes, from their opportunities of intercourse with other nations, had their animosities rubbed down, but the lower classes, and the classes between the higher and the lower, were those which retained national prejudices in all their strength and sharpness. This country was, more than any other nation, separated from its neighbours by those prejudices; and accordingly amongst us, connexion with foreign enemies had always been an aristocratical offence. In the reigns of queen Elizabeth and James, the persons who leagued themselves with foreigners were nobles, and men of fortune; in the time of the Jacobite conspiracies, the persons concerned were all of a certain rank. But what was the character of the dissensions which now afflicted this country? They might be characterised as disputes between the higher and the lower orders. During the last few months the county had been harassed by plots and conspiracies, compared with the object of which any ordinary change in government, any change in religion that had ever, at any former time, been contemplated, such as a change from Catholic to Protestant, or from Episcopalian to Dissenting, was trifling. A destruction of all religion and all government had been aimed at, the most pernicious ends had been pursued by the foulest means—revolution through murder and assassination. But no foreign interference could be traced; yet they had now a bill proposed as if the provisional committee at Glasgow were Spanish Liberals, the Insurgents in Yorkshire German Students,
298
or the conspirators in Cato-street so many Napoleonists. Such a measure was not resorted to in times when more peril was expected from abroad, when not a foreigner came to this country that might not be supposed to carry the Pretender's commission in his pocket. The bill was a paltry measure—paltry, because it was founded on false assumptions—paltry because it was contrary to the generous feelings of the country—paltry, because it affected those who had not an opportunity of complaining. But it was said, that a sort of popularity attached to the measure; if it were so, that argument made against the bill. Surely it was not because the people were averse to foreigners, because they disliked them, that such a measure should be persisted in—that was a strong proof that there was no necessity for it. On all occasions he would give the government those powers that were necessary for the welfare of the state: he had done so; and, if called on, he would not shrink from doing so again: but he objected to unnecessary power; he objected to an authority, for the granting of which not a shadow of reason could be given; and he could not consent to grant an authority, the necessity for which those who demanded it would scarcely take the pains to explain.
Mr. Bathurstargued against the observations of the hon. member who had just spoken, contending, that experience and practice were opposed to the speculation and conjecture of that hon. member, when he maintained that English Jacobins, or by whatever other name those might be called who desired the overthrow of the government, had no disposition to seek assistance from congenial spirits in other nations; for it must be recollected, that when the enemies of our government were most anxious for the attainment of their object, they made an appeal for assistance to the National Assembly of France. But, if gentlemen would look to the general conduct, or rather to the uniform system of the disaffected of this country, they would find them resort to every quarter of the world where any symptom of a similar spirit appeared. It was, indeed, notorious, that every movement of insurrection or disaffection to established governments thoughout Europe, served as a motive, an example, and an encouragement to those who had the same views in this country. Could any one doubt, that if any disaffected persons in any nation

299
whatever were to come to this country, they would meet a gracious reception from those of the same description? Those, indeed, who thought that the sentiments propagated, and the effects produced by the French Revolution were quite removed, took a very narrow view of the subject; while those who contemplated the danger as it still continued, must feel the necessity of a measure of this nature, not with a view to secure the French government, as had been stated, from a dread of revolution, but in order to guard the country from commotion or disturbance. The feeling and example of the French Revolution were not yet done away, and while they continued to operate, government would be guilty of a dereliction of duty, if it neglected to provide due measures of precaution. As to the hon. member's assertion, that from the jealousy towards foreigners which prevailed among the populace of this country, no danger of foreign influence or aid could be apprehended, and that therefore the present measure was unnecessary, he could not concur in such an opinion; for men having a desperate purpose in view, could be easily persuaded to sacrifice their antipathy for the attainment of their object. He denied that this measure was unpopular among the higher and lower orders, as the hon. member had stated, while he was satis6ed that the sound and reflecting part of all orders acknowledged the necessity, and applauded the policy that urged its adoption. It was an error to suppose, that the Alien act had only served for the punishment of the innocent, as England was known, notwithstanding the existence of this law, to have afforded for years an asylum for a number of those fugitives from a certain country, who had returned to that country to enjoy the sort of revolution which had lately taken place there. While the seeds of disaffection were scattered throughout Europe, and especially in this country, a measure of this nature was indispensably necessary, as a guard against commotion.
Mr. Maxwellsaid, that having supported this bill on a former occasion, he thought it necessary to explain the reasons for which he was induced to oppose it on the third reading. On the former occasion, the queen had not arrived in this country, or, at least, no measures affecting her honour and character were fore this House, nor had those, en-
300
trusted with the discretionary powers vested in them by this bill, exhibited that barbarous indifference to the distresses of the manufacturing portion of their own countrymen, which their recent proceedings evince. He could not longer consent to give them the powers conferred by this bill, for he no longer possessed that confidence in their humanity, which would permit him to give them the means of obstructing witnesses from abroad, whose testimony might be beneficial to the cause of an illustrious person, whose faults or crimes were mainly attributable to the errors and guilt of others.
On the question, that the bill be read a second time, the House divided: Ayes, 113; Noes, 63: Majority, 50.

List of the Minority.

Althorp, visct.

Maule, hon. W.

Bennet, hon. H. G.

Marjoribanks, S.

Benyon, B.

Mackintosh, sir J.

Bernal, R.

Ossulston, lord

Birch, Jos.

O'Callaghan, J.

Bury, visct.

Ord, W.

Browne, Dom.

Palmer, C. F.

Beaumont, T. P.

Powlett, hon. W.

Calcraft, J. H.

Price, R.

Cavendish, Henry

Parnell, sir H.

Colborne, N. R.

Parnell, Wm.

Crespigny, sir W. De

Ricardo, D.

Duncannon, visct.

Ridley, sir M.

Denison, W. J.

Rice, T. S.

Ebrington, visc.

Robarts, A.

Ellice, Ed.

Robarts, G.

Fergusson, sir R. C.

Ramsay, sir A.

Folkestone, visc.

Sefton, earl of

Fleming, John

Scudamore, R.

Graham, J. R. G.

Smith, hon. R.

Grant, J. P.

Smith, Wm.

Gordon, Robert

Sykes, D.

Gaskell, B.

Townshend, lord C.

Hughes, W. L.

Tavistock, marq. of

Hobhouse, J. C.

Western, C.

Heron, sir R.

Ward, hon. J. W.

Hume, J.

Williams, W.

Harbord, hon. E.

Wellesley, R.

Heathcote, sir G.

Whitmore, W.

Lambton, J. G.

Wilberforce, W.

Milbank, Mark

TELLERS.

Maxwell, J.

Davies, R. H.

Monck, J. B.

Wilson, sir R.

UNION DUTIES BILL.
This bill being recommitted,
Mr. Humeexpressed his surprise and regret that sir H. Parnell had not succeeded in obtaining the appointment of the committee for which he had moved some time ago, as had that motion been agreed to, ample evidence would have been adduced to show that every impedi-

301
ment to a freedom of intercourse between the two countries ought to be effectually removed, and yet it was proposed, in the present bill, to continue for twenty years all those duties which formed the greatest impediment to that intercourse. He strongly protested against the renewal of such duties, contending, that at all events they ought to be reduced, with a view to diminish the evil which they served to produce.
Sir H. Parnellargued forcibly against the bill, the purport of which was, a general and indiscriminate renewal of all the duties upon all manufactures transmitted from one country to the other. When these duties were originally laid, they were for the avowed purpose of introducing and establishing manufactures in Ireland, and this, however erroneous it might be deemed, was a distinct and general object; but the right hon. gentleman, in proposing the further continuance of these duties said, he did so, in order to protect capital that was vested in their manufactures. This was certainly a very different motion from that which originally gave rise to those taxes. But the right hon. gentleman has not stated any distinct case to show where the capital was so invested as to require this protection, and this should be done before the continuance of such duties was agreed to. For where duties of this nature were not necessary for the protection of Ireland, they must operate as direct taxation upon that country. From the representation of the deputies of the Irish manufacturers who had communicated with the right hon. gentleman, it appeared that they could have no desire to continue the taxes, or what were called protecting duties, upon plated ware or pottery, for as these articles consumed in Ireland (there being no manufacture of them), were imported into Ireland from this country, the duty referred to only served to impose an additional tax upon the Irish consumers. Therefore it was desirable that pottery and plated ware should be wholly omitted from the schedule annexed to this bill. But there were other articles in this schedule to which he must request the attention of the committee, and upon the necessity of excepting which he could offer various arguments if time were allowed for due consideration. From the thin state of the committee he did not deem it proper to enter into the subject at any length, but he felt it his duty to state as briefly as
302
possible the points which appeared to him to deserve the peculiar attention of the chancellor of the exchequer. Of the tax upon the import of brass wrought into Ireland, the Irish manufacturers particularly complained, for the effect of that tax, instead of operating for their protection, which was its professed object, was nothing more or less than a tax of ten per cent upon British machinery going into Ireland. The objection of the Irish manufacturers to this tax was indeed so strong, and so obviously just, that the Custom-house officers were known to have received instructions to relax as much as was consistently possible upon the import of brass in machinery. The tax upon cottons was also much objected to in Ireland, as it was known to be very injurious in its operation, and the tax upon apparel was rather a subject of ridicule, as he never heard of any such import into Ireland, unless of old clothes from Liverpool and Bristol. If parliament were determined to legislate upon sound principles, it could not surely assent to the continuance of such taxes, especially under the pretence of protecting duties for Ireland. There were indeed only three or four articles in this schedule for whose interest it was at all necessary to continue the proposed duties. These articles were cottons, calicoes, silk, and glass. But the removal of the duties on these ought to take place, if the proper construction were given to the Act of Union. But upon what ground was the duty to be continued as to articles of cabinet-making? The expense of freight and carriage from this country afforded sufficient protection to the Irish cabinet-makers against any competition from this country; and it was known that those csbinet-makers were very desirous to have the ports of England open for their furniture, where they calculated, from their superior skill and workmanship, to obtain very profitable markets. The Irish coach-maker also objected very much to the tax upon the import of English cloth, of which they used so much, as well as to that upon other articles which they used as springs. The effect indeed of these taxes was, to add ten per cent to the price of Irish carriages. But the tax upon leather was peculiarly objectionable—for as it became impracticable, from the absurd regulations of the Irish excise, to manufacture good leather in Ireland, the Irish boot-makers and saddlers generally used English leather, and

303
thus this tax was an additional impost of ten per cent upon the Irish consumers. The taxes, therefore, which he had mentioned should be altogether repealed. They were, indeed, for the most part, originally imposed under that mistaken system of the Irish parliament, which sought to confine the demand for Irish manufactures to the poverty of Ireland, instead of endeavouring to open to them the rich market of England. The erroneousness of that policy was now as it had been long evident; for the Irish manufactures which had access to the English market were those which had most prospered, as appeared from the success of the butter and linen trade, of the distilleries, and of the agriculture of Ireland. After enforcing, by a variety of impressive observations, the several points to which he had adverted, the hon. baronet expressed his intention to move amendments as to those taxes, which, as he had argued, ought to be discontinued, and concluded with proposing, that instead of"1840,"as the period for the farther continuance of that part of the taxes to which he did not object, "1830" should be inserted.
After some discussion, the question, that the words proposed to be left out should stand part of the clause, was put and agreed to. The report was then brought up.

MILITARY IN THE CITY.
The Lord Mayor, in rising to offer an explanation on a subject to which the attention of the House had been called by the hon. member for Aberdeen, regretted that the hon. member was not present to hear his justification. He could assure the House that nothing had been farther from his mind than to call in the military for the purpose of overawing the livery or his fellow-citizens. His sole object in taking the precaution for which he had been blamed by some persons, was to preserve and protect the citizens of London; and for this purpose the military had been placed in the neighbourhood of the city—not within it, as had been erroneously stated. He had thought it prudent, on this occasion, to post soldiers in places contiguous to the city, lest any evil-disposed spirits should think fit to renew such outrages as had been committed in the mayoralty of alderman Wood, when shops were broken open, arms were stolen, and acts of violence and bloodshed were committed. With this example before him, he had
304
felt it his paramount duty to take every possible precaution for the preservation of the tranquillity of the city, especially at a time like the present, when speeches of an extraordinary kind were delivered, and when placards of a most inflammatory and atrocious nature were exhibited in every part of the town. He hoped, therefore, the House would give him credit for having done what his duty prescribed; and while he had the honour of being chief magistrate of London, he assured the House it was his determination to take every possible measure to preserve the public peace, and to afford protection to his fellow-citizens.