Sitting of 18 July 1820

COURT OF CHANCERY.
Mr. Calcraftrose to make his promised motion relative to the disposal of brokerage paid for the stock transactions of the accountant-general of the court of Chancery. He observed, that the duties of the accountant-general were paid for not only by salary, but by a division of the brokerage (paid on stock transactions) with the broker usually employed by the court. Whether the sum thus received were great or small, he considered the practice an objectionable one. The accountant-general ought not to be remunerated in that mixed manner; he should be paid directly by salary.

541
He should now move for an account of the emoluments received from this participation in the brokerage, to the production of which he could conceive no earthly objection. He then moved for "an Account of the Commission and Fees received by the broker employed by the High Court of Chancery, and the proportion divided between the said broker and the accountant-general; distinguishing the amount divided during the last ten years."
Mr. Courtenaydid not intend to make any opposition to a motion of this sort, which, so far as it could be complied with, was almost a motion of course; but he wished to show how utterly impossible it was to comply with the motion, in the terms in which it was now conceived. By the act of the 12th of George 1st, which created the office of accountant-general, that individual was directed to perform, from time to time, all those operations respecting the funds of the suitors of the court of Chancery that might be deemed necessary. It was unquestionably a part of his duty to make all sales that wore directed to be made by the court; and it was obvious that, in the exercise of that duty, he was obliged to observe the strictest accuracy and attention. It was necessary that lie should proceed with entire accuracy; for the east mistake might occasion the transfer or the payment of a considerable sum of money to a wrong person, by which great confusion would be created. These were the sort of duties that officer had to perform, and he received, in remuneration, a salary of 1,500 l. a-year. From the outset of the existence of this office, the accountant-general, in the performance of those duties, had, of course, been obliged to employ the agency of a broker; and it had been the practice of all successive accountants-general to pay the broker, not the full commission, but a portion of it, the rate of commission being precisely the same as was ordinarily charged; which, as the House would see, was paid by the individual who had the benefit of the transaction. An arrangement was usually made, by which the accountant-general paid to the broker a certain portion, instead of the whole amount of brokerage. The present accountant-general had been only six or eight months in office; and he would, therefore, find it very difficult to obey an order of the House founded on this motion It was certainly in his power to state all sums paid to him, and to give
542
an account of such transactions as he had been engaged in; and to that extent, doubtless, a proper return would be made. But the present motion called for a return of all commission and fees received by the accountant-general for the last ten years. To whom could such an order be directed? or who could make a return to it? He knew that there was no official record or document in the office that could give the information required; and it should be observed, that the broker was not an officer of the court or of the public. He submitted, therefore, that there would be very great difficulty in procuring a return to a motion of this description. It was true the person who now acted as broker had performed that duty for many years; but he doubted whether the House would call on him individually to make a return, since he was not an officer of the court or of the country. It would, however, be for the House to decide on that point. The hon. gentleman said the accountant-general ought to be paid entirely by salary. Certainly the accountant-general could have no objection to be so paid; but the question was, would it be wise to adopt that mode? What would be the effect of the alteration? It would be, that from some public fund this officer must be paid a remuneration nearly equivalent to that which for many years he had been in the habit of receiving as a fee. By whom, if the system were altered, must this equivalent be paid? By the public—a great proportion of whom had nothing to do with the duties performed by the accountant-general; while, as the salary was now paid, no person was burdened in any degree, except those who were benefitted by the transaction. Thus, if he had a large sum of money in chancery, which was laid out by the accountant-general to his advantage, he paid the ordinary brokerage charged on such transactions. Nothing, in his opinion, could be so little burdensome to the individual or the public as the mode at present adopted. He had no objection to the motion, as far as the accountant-general could answer for himself; but, beyond that, he could not conceive how information was to be acquired on the subject.
Mr. Abercrombythought there could be no difficulty in procuring the return called for. The present accountant-general could make a return as far as his experience went; and, as the same broker had been employed for many years past,

543
the accountant-general could find little difficulty in obtaining the preceding information from him. Whether it would be proper, hereafter, to pay the accountant-general entirely by way of salary, was a point for the consideration of the House. But he, in common with his learned friend, entertained great doubts as to the expediency of making the alteration. He was sure it was not intended, by bringing forward this motion, to cast the slightest imputation on the manner in which the duties of the office had been, or were at present, discharged. They were performed in a manner extremely service. able and convenient to the public.
Mr. Calcraftsaid, he founded his motion on information contained in the report relative to the office connected with the court of Chancery, and not on any private feeling. If he could not get such a return as that which he had moved for, he must, of course, be satisfied with whatever return the court was able to make. He was restrained, by motives of delicacy, from bringing forward this motion during the life of the late accountant-general, and he thought it was rather hard, when motives of that description had operated on his mind, to be told, as an answer to his motion, that the present accountant-general had been only six months in office.
The motion was agreed to.

BARRACK AGREEMENT BILL.
On the motion for the third reading of this bill,
Mr. Lockhartsaid, on the first introduction of this bill into the House, he was inclined to consider it favourably. But, comparing the calculations of the hon. member for London with the statements of the right hon. gentleman, and considering the expense of building a wall, including eight acres of land, as injuriously and unnecessarily enhancing the cost, he could not give the measure his support, but must strenuously oppose it. He had, however, various other reasons for opposing this bill. In the present dense state of the population, when the activity of the public mind was increased through the medium of the press, and when the extension of education had opened inlets to general knowledge, and the pressure of taxation had created discontent, he thought it was absolutely necessary for the safety of the metropolis, that an armed force of some kind should
544
be kept on foot. He did not, however, consider the army as the force to which they ought exclusively to look up for protection. When he found that this contract was for a period of 30 years, and after that when it was stated that the barracks would be held in perpetuity, he inferred that the system was to be perpetual, and that it was to be continued to the exclusion of all other systems. There were, however, other systems more constitutional in their nature, and more accordant with the rights and privileges of the people, than the keeping up of a large military force. When he spoke of the army, let him not be understood as wishing to underrate their merits: he held their character in the highest estimation, and he thought they deserved the gratitude of the country. They had received high honours and rewards, and he was sure, constituted as they now were, they would never raise their arms against the constitution; but when the army was composed of different men, as it must be long before the expiration of this contract, when it was formed of individuals who could only have a recollection of the glories that had been conferred on, and the victories that had been achieved by, their predecessors, would it not be a question whether such an army might not be dangerous to the monarchy and the liberties of the people? When the army was composed in this manner, it would be fit to employ another force for the defence of the metropolis. Armed bands of the inhabitants of cities and towns, comprising persons of honour, character, and property, ought then to be formed for the general protection. Though on many occasions he had approved of the use of a military force, he did not think that they should be employed in all cases: they ought not to be called in but upon urgent occasions, on the principle of nisi dignus vindice nodus. For what purpose were these eight acres of ground to be enclosed? It evidently must be for the purpose of concealing their exercises from the public. He was no friend to such seclusions, for he had always remarked that persons who thus lived apart from society were more irritable in their temper than others who enjoyed a free intercourse with their fellow-citizens. Those who were in favour of the employment of soldiers in the metropolis lost sight of the principle adopted in almost all other cases: there was not a republic or a city

545
abroad that had not its guard drawn from the inhabitants. He would not deal in the general invectives that had been levelled at the use of the military: he only objected to their exclusive employment. He would not, to show the danger of confiding too much in them, appeal to the experience of history; but he would call on the House to look to modern times, and they would see the destinies of one of the chief nations of Europe changed three times, either by the defection or active interference of the military. Kings could no more depend on them than the people: the whole of the recent revolution in Spain had been effected by the soldiery: and as the history of the past was the history of the future, they would do well to attend to it. Let not gentlemen suppose that the Moncks, La Fayettes, the Buonapartes, and Quirogas, of former days, were extinct in our own: they would see characters of the same description rise up again whenever circumstances of a similar nature occurred.
The House divided: Ayes, 80; Noes, 45. The bill was then read a third time and passed.

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN TRADE.
Mr. Wallacebrought up the report of the committee appointed to inquire into the state of our foreign trade. The hon. gentleman, in moving that the report be laid on the table, hoped the House would suffer him to make a few observations. He meant briefly to state the extent to which the committee had gone, and the objects to which they had chiefly directed their attention. Gentlemen would recollect that, in the former part of the session, many petitions were received from commercial districts, particularly one from a large and respectable body of merchants of the city of London, which had been presented by an hon. member (Mr. Baring), who usually sat on the other side of the House; and who, he was assured, would have been this day in his place, had he not been detained in the country by a very severe domestic calamity. Those petitions stated the general commercial distress which prevailed, without pointing out any immediate remedy for that distress. And, indeed, considering the state of our connexion with foreign countries, and the nature of the commercial system which had so long prevailed, it would be vain, he feared, to expect any immediate
546
remedy. With respect to the soundness of the principle contained in those petitions—with respect to the necessity of throwing open the channels of trade as widely as possible—no doubt could be entertained. No person could deny that commerce ought to be rendered as free and unshackled as circumstances would allow; but he regretted that this principle could not, from various causes, be acted on to the extent which many individuals desired. The committee had not been able to enter so fully into the subject as they could have wished, in consequence of the late period of the session at which it was referred to them. They had, therefore, chiefly selected those points which appeared to them not the most important, but the most general in their application to this great principle—namely,that all restriction on trade, of whatsoever nature, was an evil, only to be justified by some great political expediency; and, where such expediency was not clear and manifest, that the restriction ought to be removed, as far as it could be done, consistently with the good faith of the country, pledged by treaties with foreign states, or by compacts with its own subjects, or with reference to the protection due to different branches of trade that might have grown up under the existing system, and which protection could not be suddenly withdrawn without great injustice. Gentlemen knew that what were usually called the Navigation Laws contained the regulations by which the commerce of this country was governed, both in respect to Europe and the rest of the world. With respect to Africa and America, all goods, the produce of those climes, must be brought here directly and exclusively in British ships. With respect to Europe, its commodities might be introduced either in British vessels or in the vessels of those states in which the article was produced, with the exception of Germany and the Netherlands—certain articles, the produce of those countries, not being allowed to be imported under any circumstances whatever. These restrictions did not, however, appear to the committee to be founded on any just principle of expediency or necessity. The sum, therefore, of their recommendation on this head was, that the Navigation Laws should be so far relaxed as to permit all articles to be imported from all parts of the world, provided such importation took place in British ships. The next point to which

547
they turned their attention was the warehousing system. That system was at present limited to the admission of certain articles. If, however, this country were meant to be the great emporium and the great mart of the world, it was impossible, if such were the view of the legislature, that too wide an extent could be given to the system of warehousing. Their recommendation on this second head was, I that all goods, the produce of all countries, manufactured or unmanufactured, should be permitted to be freely imported and exported, except to our colonies, with as little inconvenience to the merchant as possible. There was, however, an exception of one article—he meant linen—which was so excepted from the general rule on account of a political rather than a commercial view of the subject. He would not now enter into the reasons that induced the committee to recommend those deviations from the existing system. When legislative measures, founded on the views of the question taken by the committee, were introduced, that would be the period to go into a minute detail, for the purpose of showing the reasons on which these recommendations are founded. One evil, which appeared to the committee to be of the greatest magnitude, and which required the serious attention of the House, was the extraordinary multiplication and complexity of the laws by which commerce was affected. Gentlemen would conceive the extent of this evil when he informed them, that he had seen it stated in a pamphlet published in 1815, that the number of laws relative to mercantile transactions amounted at that time to 1,500, of which 1,100 were in full and almost daily operation. To these, in the last five years, many additions had been made; and what the number was at present he could not take upon himself to say. When gentlemen considered that the slightest deviation from the law often subjected the ship and cargo to forfeiture, they would see the embarrassment which this evil created to the merchant, and the restraint under which it placed commercial enterprise. The committee were likewise of opinion, that the alterations which they had thought fit to suggest ought to be made gradually, with great caution, and a due regard to the interests which having grown up under the present system, were placed under the protection of the good faith of the country. It would be perhaps some time
548
before the benefits of those alterations would be perceived; but that was the price which the country was to pay for adhering so long to the present bad and defective system. The recommendations which the committee had suggested might appear to some individuals not to have gone far enough, nor to have embraced as many points as they had previously expected; but he would beg those gentlemen to consider that the recommendations which they had already made were of no slight or unimportant nature. The importance of them would be considerably enhanced, if hon. gentlemen would look upon them as the first and most material step of this country to a departure from the course of restrictive policy which its legislature had hitherto pursued, and to the establishment of a more enlarged and liberal policy towards foreign states than any which had yet prevailed. It had long been a reproach to us among foreign nations, that our mercantile system was so full of restrictions against them, that they were compelled, in self-defence, to impose similar restrictions against us. He trusted, however, that would be so no more, and if we should be still compelled to continue any of our present restrictions, either from the pressure of taxation, our compacts with foreign nations or with our own countrymen, or from any other cause whatsoever, it would be understood that we did so from a principle of justice—that it was a sacrifice to our sense of duty, that it was a matter not of option but necessity, and not caused by any ideas on our part of promoting our own commercial interests by it; and whatever might be the exclusion or restrictions which foreign states might think it expedient to put upon trade, they would no longer have the opportunity of justifying themselves by saying, "Such is the example, and such the conduct, of England." The hon. member then moved that this report be laid upon the table, and sat down amid considerable cheerings from both sides of the House.
Ordered to lie on the table.

SIR WILLIAM MANNERS.
Mr. Tennysonrose to offer an humble petition from an individual who had recently fallen under the displeasure of the House, and had for some days been suffering the punishment which it had inflicted upon him. The petitioner was sir William Manners. The House would recollect, that on the 5th

549
inst. it had ordered him to be taken into the custody of the serjeant at amis. On the 7th, that officer reported that sir William had quitted his residence in Leicestershire at six on the same evening on which the order was made; and on this report, the House after examining the messenger, thought fit to resolve that the petitioner had absconded in order to avoid being taken into custody pursuant to the order of the 5th instant. He (Mr. Tennyson) was not in the House when it came to this resolution, and he did not propose now to question or examine its propriety. It stood as a resolution of the House, and as such he should bow to its authority. But in consequence of this resolution, when on Monday se'nnight it appeared that sir William had surrendered himself to the serjeant at arms, the House ordered, that having so absconded, he should be committed to Newgate. Thus he had now lain a prisoner during eight days. He would have petitioned sooner, but feared that at an earlier period the House would not be disposed to listen to him, and he would not even now have presumed to approach it, if he had not understood that the House was about to separate for some time. He therefore threw himself upon that merciful indulgence which it had on similar occasions extended to others, and would now, he trusted, extend to him. The petitioner stated, that the moment he heard of the order, he came to London as expeditiously as his infirmities would permit, and surrendered himself into custody, giving notice to the Grantham Election committee that he was ready to give evidence if required, and the petitioner also expressed his extreme sorrow that he should have offended the House. He (Mr. Tennyson) deemed it right to inform the House, that after discharging his duty by moving that the petition should lie on the table, he should make no ulterior motion upon it, and would state his reasons. He understood, that when a person had been committed to Newgate for a breach of privilege, the precedented course was, that he should not be discharged without being first called to the bar and reprimanded. It therefore appeared to him, that in dealing with a case, such as the House had adjudged this to be, it might not deem it expedient to depart from that course, and in an ordinary case he should have felt that all he could have
550
done for the petitioner, consistently with his duty to the House, would have been to move that sir W. Manners be brought to the bar at a future day, in order to be reprimanded and discharged; but he found the circumstances of this case were such, that he could not justify such a motion to himself or to the House. He was informed that the petitioner was in such a state of health in all respects, and his frame and powers so disordered, that it was more than probable that he could not support the shock of a reprimand delivered in the impressive manner in which they were accustomed to hear it from the chair without risking the most serious, lamentable, and immediate consequences to the petitioner. This, he believed, was known to several members of the House; and he understood that a medical gentleman was at hand to satisfy it on the subject, if it thought fit to pursue the inquiry. While, under these circumstances, he could not take upon himself the heavy responsibility of making the usual motion on this occasion [Hear!] yet he should not presume to invite the House to depart from its wonted course, not being aware how far it might be disposed to participate in his feelings, or indeed, inexperienced as he was, how far even if it did, it could or ought to act upon them If it could so act, he trusted it would be inclined to spare to this unhappy individual, prostrate as he now lay before the House, as well as to itself, a most painful exhibition; and instead of adopting the harsher alternative of leaving him, after preferring this humble petition, to languish in gaol for several months, when they were about to separate to their enjoyments in the country, some course would be devised by which the ends of mercy as well as of justice, and the end of maintaining the privileges, authority, and dignity of the House, might be equally and effectually answered.
The petition was then brought up and read. It stated, amongst other things, that the petitioner could not move from his bed or chair without the support of two or three persons, and that his health was still further endangered by his remaining in Newgate.
Mr. Tennyson,on moving that the petition should he on the table, stated, that he had a certificate in his hand from the medical gentleman in attendance, which he would read, that the House might be apprised of what was to be expected from

551
his testimony. The hon. member then read the certificate, which corresponded with the evidence afterwards given.
The Marquis of Titchfieldthought the House would desire to hear the evidence of the medical gentleman alluded to, and therefore moved that Mr. William Hutchiuson Box, the surgeon of Newgate, be called in.
Mr. Box,surgeon of Newgate, was called in, and stated, that he had seen sir W. Manners this morning; that he was in a high state of mental irritation; that he had lost the use of his lower extremities, and of one of his arms, by a paralytic affection; and that he does not think he could be brought to the bar without great risk, on account of the general state of excitement and mental irritation under which he labours.
The Marquis of Titchfieldthought that after what had been stated to the House, it would not hesitate to take the only course which occurred to him as proper to adopt. He deemed it unnecessary to trouble the House by enlarging upon the grounds which had been so fully urged, persuaded that the feelings they must have excited were in unison with his own. He should, therefore, move that sir W. Manners be discharged from Newgate on paying his fees.
After a short conversation, the motion was agreed to.

CRIMINAL LAW.
The Marquis of Lansdown The Marquis of Lansdown moved the third reading of the Capital Felonies Repeal bill.
The Lord Chancellorobserved, that so far as he had been able to make himself master of the subject, the effect of the repeal of these statutes would be, that where the offences referred to were misdemeanors at common law, they might be so prosecuted, and where there were any previous statutes affecting them, those statutes would come into force. He repeated his objections to the repeal of the provisions of the 9th Geo. 1st, c. 22 (the

525
Black Act) respecting persons assembling with their faces blacked, &c. with reference to whom the punishment of death was enacted, on the express ground of the difficulty of convicting them. He therefore felt it his duty to move to omit the words referring to that statute.
The bill having been read a third time, the words objected to by the lord chancellor were struck out, and the bill thus amended was passed. The marquis of Lansdown then moved the third reading of the Capital Felonies Commutation of Punishment bill.
The Lord Chancellorrepeated his objection also in this case, to the taking away the punishment of death from certain offences enumerated in the 9th Geo. 1st, c. 22, such as cutting down trees, killing cattle, and cutting through the banks of rivers, or sea banks; for though the cutting down one tree, or the destroying one head of cattle might not be an offence which it would be fitting to visit with the punishment of death, yet the destroying a whole forest, or killing all the cattle on a farm to the ruin of the occupier, were offences of serious magnitude, and it should be observed, that in general maxims of law, the smaller crime could only be classed with the greater in the same genus of offence (if he might so express himself), leaving it to the discretion of judges to make the distinction in the punishment. He thought the better way would be to strike out these and some other parts of the bill, and to let that branch of the subject stand over till next session, when they might have the opinion of the judges as to the expediency of repealing these enactments.
The bill having been read a third time, the lord chancellor moved his first amendment, to leave out the words referring to the 9th Geo. 1st, c. 22.
The Marquis of Lansdovenwas willing to agree to the course proposed by the noble and learned lord with reference to this bill. He could not, however, quit the subject for the present without observing, that the number of convictions (so far as they had been ascertained) for the offences respecting which the learned lord objected to taking away the penalty of death, did not tend to show that the continuance of that punishment was at all efficacious. It appeared that there had been 25 commitments for these offences on the northern circuit, but only two
526
trials, and no conviction; it was evident, therefore, that through a feeling existing somewhere it was not thought fit to proceed to the extremity of the law; and this served to show that the extreme severity of the punishment defeated its own object. In cases of fraudulent bankruptcy the learned lord agreed to the repeal of the capital punishment, it being evident that the severe penalty of death defeated the whole object of the law by deterring persons from prosecuting. In the case of threatening letters it was not proposed to take away the punishment of death where the object of the threat was money, but only from the general and, in some respects, undefined term of threatening letter. It should be recollected however, that with respect to all the capital punishments sought to be repealed by the present bill, there was a clause at the end of the bill giving a discretionary power to the judges to transport the parties convicted, either for life, or for any term not less than seven years.
The Earl of Liverpoolobserved, that the great defect in our criminal legislation was the want of a secondary punishment, that might be substituted for the terror of death, and for which purpose transportation, as now managed, was of little or no avail. Several years ago, when transportation meant either to be transported to the worst and most noxious climate in the world, that of Africa, or to the British colonies in North America, where the parties transported became indented servants, and were in fact treated worse than the negro slaves, this punishment served to excite some degree of terror. Now, however, the system was entirely changed, and the colonial office was besieged with applications without end (many more than could be complied with), from persons wishing to have liberty to settle in the delightful country and under the fine climate of New South Wales. It was in vain, therefore, to talk of transportation as a punishment carrying with it any species of terror; the fact was, that to a number of offenders, who had become well known as notorious characters in this metropolis, transportation to New South Wales was precisely what they wished for. The terror, therefore, of the punishment of transportation for life just amounted to nothing at all, with reference to the class of offenders to whom, in general, it was to be applied. He highly respected the talents of the hon. and learned gentleman

527
who originated the inquiry in the other House from which these bills resulted, but his opinion was, that the inquiry had begun at the wrong end, and that they should first direct their attention to the discovery of some secondary punishment, the terror of which might serve in a number of cases as a substitute for the terror of death.
The Earl of Rosslynsaid, that all offenders in such cases knew even now, that when convictions could be obtained under the act, transportation was practically the punishment to which they had to look; so that the nominal penalty of death did not operate as a prevention of crime.
The Lord Chancelloradmitted, that where it was possible, the punishment of death should be dispensed with, but maintained the necessity of providing a better regulation of secondary punishment than mere transportation. He further added, that it was his intention to bring in a bill next session, containing the clauses now rejected, with a view to obtain the opinion of the judges upon them.
Lord Redesdalesaid, that the great obstacle to prosecutions was not the severity of the punishment that followed, but the expense of conducting them, and suggested the propriety of having such ex-pences paid in certain cases by the public.
Earl Bathurstdoubted whether transportation could ever be made a good secondary punishment. His majesty's ministers had already sent out a commission to New South Wales, in order to inquire whether some regulation might not be made in that colony, with a view to increase the punishment against great offenders, and to mitigate it towards those of smaller criminality. As it stood at present, it was far from operating as a punishment in many instances. Another objection to transportation was the great expence to which it put the country; and one of the objects with which the commission was charged, was that of estimating the expence of any system which they might think proper to recommend, the estimate of course to be laid before parliament when the subject should happen to be brought under their consideration.
The Marquis of Lansdownthought that the more the punishment of death was confined to cases in which violence was added to the crime, the less frequent would be the instances in which violence would take place.
528
The amendments proposed by the lord chancellor were then agreed to and the bill was passed.

STATE OF THE NAVY.
The Earl of Darnleysaid, he had submitted a motion some time ago to their lordships, in consequence of a disaster which had taken place during the late American war, and which appeared to him to have arisen in a great measure out of the inadequacy of our force. His attention to that subject was, he believed, attended with some good effects, and it was his wish to have brought the general administration of the navy more fully under the consideration of parliament in the present session, if the public mind had not been unfortunately too much occupied with another subject. He had moved for a return of all ships of the line ready for service, or ordered to be built, and of ships or frigates of two decks not carrying less than twenty-four-pouoders; and he found by the return, that the present amount was 57, and the amount of those ordered to be built 17. He had, however, to observe, that the few frigates ordered to be built were of too light a description to answer the purpose for which it might be necessary to use them in the event of a war, and that the Admiralty appeared to him not to have adopted a proper degree of efficiency and economy in their arrangements. It was his intention to have called upon the House to sanction a proposition recommending retrenchment in every branch of the public expenditure. He regretted to find that the naval estimate for the present year was greater than the last, instead of being less, as it ought to be, when once it was put in a state of efficiency. It was absolutely impossible that the country could go on with an increasing expenditure and diminishing income. He hoped, therefore, that ministers would not think it enough to lop off an unnecessary clerk in this or in that department, but that they would put their shoulders to the wheel, and try what could be done by the adoption of a general and compulsory system of retrenchment. The great department of the navy was that in which above all others profuseness might be admitted with least disadvantage; but as he could show that even in that some saving might be made without injury to the public service, it followed a fortiori that in the other departments much might be done to promote the great object of economy.
Lord Melvilleagreed with the noble lord, that as the navy increased in efficiency, the expense ought to diminish, and he hoped their lordships would find this to be the case in every succeeding year. It was not, after all, the number, but the durability of the ships, that should be considered; and the House would do well to recollect, that other powers built ships for temporary purposes, but the ships of the British navy were intended to go through a course of service which other navies never contemplated. It was certainly the duty of government to have ships ready to go to war; but their lordships had observed in the committee on foreign trade, that towards the conclusion of the late war, government was compelled to resort to the use of materials which introduced a more rapid decay among the ships than ever was known before. But care was now taken to prevent that in future. The noble lord had stated, that the ships now building were not of a proper class; but he ought to recollect, that we must build after the manner of those countries with whom it was possible that we might be engaged. Looking to America, it would appear that they only built large ships of 80 guns. As to the second class, the object of government was to repair those which were likely to be durable. The same observation applied to frigates of 40 guns. It was true that the United States built frigates as large as 60 gun ships, but the common size was 40 guns, and those of the different powers of Europe were of the same description. Great-Britain had some 60 gun frigates building; but her object was to have numbers as well as force, so as to be able to spread over as large a surface as possible to the annoyance of the enemy.
The Earl of Darnleyexpressed himself satisfied at the candid and satisfactory manner in which the noble lord had made his statement, and particularly at the prospect he had held out of decreasing expense in the general administration of the navy.

ALIEN BILL.
Lord Sidmouth,on moving the second reading of this bill, said, it was not his intention to enter at any length into an explanation of the principle of the bill, nor did he conceive that it would be necessary for him to discuss with minuteness the motives upon which he should submit that the second reading
530
should now take place. The measure was founded upon a right that was possessed by the Crown, and had ever been attached to the royal prerogative: it was that of sending out of the country, or prohibiting from entering it, such foreigners as it might be deemed proper to exclude from this kingdom. It was the less necessary for him to say much as to the matter of the present bill, because one of a similar nature had been passed in 1816 and in 1818. It was principally necessary therefore, for their lordships to consider, whether or no, contrasting the present situation of Europe, and its relations with this county, with its situation and relations in 1818, they could feel satisfied that such a favourable change of things had taken place as to render a measure which they had decided to be necessary then, unnecessary now. To himself this subject and this inquiry were matters of the deepest importance; and his majesty's ministers, from any information which they possessed, were not satisfied that such a favourable change had been effected. His lordship contended that a much stronger necessity for this measure existed at present than in 1818. Now, as to the principle of the bill, the inconvenience to which it subjected the alien upon his arrival in this country was this—that upon his landing he was required to give in his name, place of destination, and occupation. This description was to be given to the Custom-house officers, or to the collector of the customs, at the port in which he might land; and the officer or the collector was required to furnish the alien with a certificate of his compliance with these conditions. From that moment the alien was at liberty to go where he liked, and to fix his residence where he pleased. Upon leaving the country, all that was required of him was a similar return. He did not mean to deny or undervalue the extent of that power which would thus be lodged in the government; but it was one, he should contend, which it was competent for any executive government to exercise, in all cases where they might think it expedient. Whether it was a power which, in the hands of subordinate officers, had or had not been abused, he was not at liberty to say; but he could answer for the anxious solicitude of the government that those individuals who were empowered under the provisions of the bill should exercise it considerately and with propriety; and the pre-

531
sumption arising out of the great number of cases which had occurred, wherein its exercise had become necessary, was this— that it had not been abused. The noble lord concluded by moving the second reading.
The Earl of Darnleysaid, that he, for one, was not bound by the argument which was implied by the observation of the noble viscount—that those who had supported the bill formerly could not consistently oppose its renewal on the present occasion. Had he been present when this bill was passed in 1818 he should certainly have signed the protest against it which he found recorded on the Journals; for he considered it as impolitic and unconstitutional an act as had ever been framed. After six years of profound peace, and when no reasonable ground whatever could be alleged for the necessity of the measure, he conceived that nothing could be more disgraceful to the country than suffering such an act as this to exist. Was it possible to believe that the safety of this great nation could be affected by either allowing or prohibiting a few foreigners to reside in it? He could not help remarking, that a great part of the noble lord's argument was derived from his own feelings and disposition; but, at the same time that he was willing to give the noble lord every credit which his warmest friends could give him for mildness and moderation and discretion, he would not consent to arm him with such powers as this bill imparted.
Lord Hollandfelt it absolutely necessary to offer a few words, by way of protest, against the renewal of this bill. Having so frequently on former occasions stated to the House, and recorded his opinion on their lordships' Journals, that bills of this-sort were cruel, unjust, and impolitic, he could not help now making a few remarks on the manner in which this measure was introduced, although he felt the irksomenoss of addressing the House under circumstances which rendered it extremely difficult to obtain an attentive hearing, both on account of the late period of the session, and the interest and importance of other subjects which engrossed the attention of parliament and of the public. With regard to that subject to which attention seemed at present to be exclusively directed, he would say, that their lordships and the other House of Parliament stood in a situation similar to that described by a Mr. Eden, who
532
had written an account of his travels in Turkey. Mr. Eden, in visiting a town in Bulgaria, was introduced to the Greek governor of the place, and, on his introduction, he found, seated in the governor's apartment, a Turk of great distinction, who immediately ordered the head of Mr. Eden, and those of his twenty-six attendants, to be struck off. In pursuance of the order of this Turk of distinction, a person appeared with a bag —no doubt a green bag, as peculiarly suited to the purpose—and a quantity of sawdust: the bag was intended to receive the heads of Mr. Eden and his companions, and the sawdust to absorb the blood. It would naturally be supposed that Mr. Eden would be anxious to state the country to which he belonged, and to explain the object of his visit. For this purpose it was necessary to have recourse to his interpreter. The interpreter, however, had unfortunately caught a glimpse of the green bag under the arm of the executioner; and the only words that he was capable of uttering were, "quel sacco! quel' maladetto sacco!" Oh! that bag! that accursed bag! [a laugh.] Thus Mr. Eden and twenty-six other persons were in danger of losing their property and their lives in consequence of their interpreter having got a sight of this bag. Now he conceived that their lordships and the other House were nearly in the same situation, and that parliament, the lawful interpreter of the wishes of the country, allowed the nation's pockets to be picked, and its affairs to be neglected, because they could not lose sight of the green bag on the table. If the subject of the present bill were not one of importance, he should have been almost diverted by the manner in which it had been introduced by the noble viscount: it was indeed what might be called "cool and easy." Instead of stating any grounds to show the necessity of the measure, the noble viscount had asked, if any one saw reason for not doing in 1820, what had been done in 1818? The fact was, that this was a bill to deliver over twenty or thirty thousand people to the power of his majesty's government; for it should not be forgotten that, when parliament gave ministers a power over the persons of these individuals, it gave them necessarily a power over their property, and every thing that was valuable. He had heard the noble viscount, on other occasions, when he

533
introduced measures of restraint on liberty, eloquent in his eulogiums on the excellence of our constitution; but the bill which he now introduced was a satire on the laws of the land—a libel upon the constitution of Great Britain. Let their lordships advert to the principle of this bill. Aliens were talked of as Roman Catholics had been talked of and were represented—as a race of men against whom it was necessary to guard, in order to prevent the subversion of the laws and the destruction of the constitution. He would not deny that there might be bad men among aliens; but who would say that they were likely to subvert the government? Had we no laws at present? and what security did the country want against aliens but the ordinary laws of the country? Whatever might be the malignity of an alien, or how atrocious soever might be his motives, he could see no necessity for a new law to guard against his machinations any more than against those of a Thistlewood, or any other person who might harbour traitorous designs. The noble viscount had stated two arguments in favour of this bill; the first, that the power which it granted was already a prerogative of the Crown; and the other, the strong presumption that this power would not be abused. On the first of these arguments he should not say much; but he must observe, whatever civil writers might say upon the subject, that that prerogative could not be proper, the exercise of which was not for the benefit of the people. From the period of Magna Charta down to the time of queen Elizabeth there was no trace of the existence of any such prerogative, although during that time no fewer than twenty-seven acts had been passed relative to strangers and aliens. The noble lord then adverted to a well-known proclamation for sending all Scotchmen out of the country, and which, he observed, was authorized by an act of Henry 7th, which, together with other acts prejudicial to Scotland, had been repealed by James 1st. This fact showed that the prerogative in question did not then exist; because the exercise of that right required an act of parliament to sanction it. That the power of sending strangers out of the country existed in the executive government was not denied by any one who opposed the present bill; at least it was not denied by him; but, though that power was vested in the supreme government of the coun-
534
try, it by no means followed that it was a prerogative of the Crown. With regard to the other argument of the noble viscount, he would observe, that where there was no redress for an abuse of the law, there was, in fact, no law; and this was precisely the situation of those unfortunate aliens who were the subjects of the present bill. He certainly did not know that there had hitherto been no abuse of this power; but of this he was sure—that, whatever had been done beyond the powers of the late act, the individuals who had suffered had no power of complaining or of obtaining redress. He would not mention any names; but, as to one individual, whose papers had been seized, it was evident that, when once sent out of the country, that person had no means of ascertaining the fact whether the seizure was legal or illegal. He would not say how far that proceeding was sanctioned by law; but, at all events, the individual in question should have had an opportunity of knowing, before he was sent out of the country, whether his papers had been legally seized or not. He (lord Holland) had on that occasion offered to take out a power of attorney, but had been told that in such a case he could not act on that power. For obvious reasons, he declined mentioning the name of the party. Although in habits of friendship with the noble viscount, he could not pay him any compliments on account of his mildness and moderation; the noble viscount's conduct for the last five or six years had much altered his opinion upon that subject. The question, however, was not whether the noble viscount was disposed to abuse this power; but it was his (lord Holland's) duty, as a member of parliament, to bear in mind that, where arbitrary power was conferred, it was sure to be abused. That, he was confident, was a general principle, which could not be disputed. This bill placed abuse in the power of an individual; and the prostration and degradation of mind was the same to the person subjected to that power, whether it was exercised or not. Its existence was the evil complained of; and, while it existed there would be a constant apprehension that it might be used. It was this that constituted the difference between the power of will and the power of law. He had himself known instances in which advantage had been taken of individuals, by stating that such a power

535
as this existed, and might be called into exercise against them. He would not, for obvious reasons, mention names; but he would suppose a case, in which a foreigner had been addressed in the following words:—"You saw the bow and the gracious smile which I received from lord Sidmouth just now; if you claim payment of the debt which I owe you—if you do not give me six months more credit—I will go to the secretary of state's office, and report you as a Jacobin and an incendiary." Such was the use which he had known to have been made of this law—a Jaw of which, as it was not now in existence, he was at liberty to say, that it was one of the most atrocious engines of arbitrary power that ever had been devised. He had that morning had a conversation with a gentleman who possessed a great property in a neighbouring country to this; and who, because he had found it necessary to institute a certain proceeding, had been taken up, and twenty-four hours afterwards, sent off to this country. He would not mention this gentleman's name, because he was anxious to return, as soon as possible, to avert the consequences of the step which had already been taken respecting him. But if such a power as this had been exercised by the government of another country, before the Alien bill had been in existence, would not a representation have been made on the subject to this friendly power? How, however, if the English government should remonstrate, the answer would naturally and justly be, "Your mouths are shut: have you not exposed our subjects to cruel and arbitrary treatment? and, that being the case, can you complain of our arbitrary conduct to yours?" It might be said, in answer to the complaints of other nations, that it was an exaggeration to attach so much importance to the sending of nine persons out of the country; but still they would be entitled to reply, "You boast of your English law, but by this petty, insulting, unsocial, and inhospitable conduct, you shut us out from the benefit of those laws." He could not refrain from saying a few words on the impolicy of such a measure as this at the present moment. Under the sanction of this bill it would not be impossible for ministers to send out of the country any persons who might happen to be obnoxious to other governments; and the present political 6tate of some parts of Europe by no
536
means precluded the possibility of such persons being obliged to take refuge in Great Britain. He looked forward to the result of those events which had lately occurred in Spain with as much hope as any man; but he was not so sanguine, after the experience of so many revolutions, as to entertain no apprehensions whatever respecting the favourable result of those events. He would suppose that the nobility and clergy of Spain were to encounter the same persecution that those classes had experienced in the course of the French revolution, and that they were also to seek refuge in this country. If, in that event, the government of Spain should say, "Why do you foster our exiled king, or our rebel subjects?" we might reply, if there were no alien bill in existence, that our laws would not allow us to send them out of the country; but no such answer could be given if the Alien act were in force, for it would fetter the government in the exercise of that policy which humanity, as well as the best interests of the nation, dictated. This view of the subject might be illustrated by what had occurred in a neighbouring country in consequence of a measure which, though not similar to the present, had been apparently dictated by the same policy. It so happened, that, after the law relative to the regulation of the French press had been passed, the revolution broke out in Spain. The minister of Spain complained of paragraphs which appeared in the French papers on the subject of the Spanish revolution, and called on the French government to put their new laws in force, in order to prevent the publication of such articles. It was argued, that the toleration of such writings might have been very well six months before; but that, since France had then a law which empowered the government to suppress publications of that nature, Spain had a right to insist on their suppression. He had even been told that the Spanish minister had enforced his application to the French government by a threat which it had not been thought prudent to despise; and had said, "It is true we cannot cope in the field with the French army; but we can plant the tri-coloured flag on the Pyrenees, and that will set you at war among yourselves." But it was not sufficient that there was no abuse of such powers, there ought to be no dread of any such abuse. What might be the effect, or rather what might

537
not be the effect, of such an apprehension in a case which at the present moment occupied the whole attention of the country? Would there be no difference between the feelings of a foreigner coming to this country as a witness to support the prosecution instituted by government, and those of an individual whose evidence was to defend the party accused? He would put a case:—Suppose, for instance, a subject of Austria—and he would advert particularly to Austria, notwithstanding her immediate connexion with this country, because, in all times, and according to ail history, if ever any thing mean, oppressive, or treacherous was to be done, Austria was the party pushed forward to execute it—he would suppose a subject of Austria to have been placed in. some situation which would render his evidence highly advantageous to the queen; and he would suppose that same individual to have incurred, probably by some virtuous and meritorious act, the displeasure of his government, and to be resident in France, or in the Netherlands. Did the House think that such a person (not being acquainted with the virtues of the noble viscount) would, out of mere chivalrous gallantry, and in favour of a person of whom he knew nothing, come over to this country, and do any thing disagreeable to a power whose very nod could conduct him instantly to any port in Austria? The only argument in favour of the measure was, that it had not been abused; it was agreed that it might be abused—and what advantage, be wished to know, was to result from it? In the words of a most emphatic and eloquent writer, he would say to the House, and it should be the last observation with which he would trouble them upon the subject, "You contradict the spirit of our laws, you shake the very foundation of British jurisprudence, when you intrust a power over the lives, the properties, or the liberties of others to any man, or set of men, upon the mere presumption that that power will not be abused."
The Earl of Liverpoolthought that the only question for the consideration of the House was, whether the same reasons which had applied to the enactment of the law in question did not now call for its continuance during the additional period proposed? Unwilling, however, as he was, at that hour, to enter into the discussion of general principles, he felt it impossible to leave unnoticed the observa-
538
tions which had fallen from the noble lord opposite. It had been declared by the noble baron, as well as by the noble lord who had preceded him, that the bill in question was one which rendered us obnoxious to Europe at large. Upon what position this argument was grounded he found it difficult to discover, because every country in Europe but our own was armed with an act of similar powers. The great objection, however, was not, it appeared, to the power, but to the hands in which the power was vested. When it was admitted that the government did possess the power in question, he took that admission to mean that the power did exist practically somewhere; and where could it, he would ask, be vested, if not in the Crown—subject of course, to responsibility through the medium of its advisers, and subject to the regulation and modification of parliament? That the power of dealing with aliens was a power vested by the common law in the Crown, was evident from all the laws which had, from time to time, been passed in favour of such persons. The very condition contained in Magna Charta in favour of aliens was a proof of that fact. The grant there made by the sovereign for the benefit of the people, who derived advantage from the resort of foreigners to this country, was evidence that the power of prohibition was resident in the Crown. The noble lord would not deny that the king possessed the right of excluding alien enemies; and how many individuals of that order had, during the late war, been dwellers in this country, to whose situation all the arguments against this arbitary power as it was termed would be perfectly applicable? The question, after all, came to this—aliens possessed none of that right or interest in the soil which belonged to natural-born subjects, or even to denizens; and had not the common law and the common sense of mankind, in every time, and in every country, given practical power to existing governments to prevent such persons from entering their territory, or to drive them from that territory when their stay should seem unsafe? Upon the question as to the necessity of continuing this act, he would refer the House to the general state of Europe and of the world; and, in answer to the allusions which had been made to the very important proceeding now pending, he would ask of the noble lord himself, whether, even supposing ministers to be the most vindictive of

539
men—supposing their object in that great inquiry to be—what God forbid it should be—the perpetration of injustice—suppose them inclined to act ever so partially in the prosecution of that inquiry—could they take any course more likely to defeat their end than by an attempt to obstruct that evidence which the illustrious person concerned might think fit to adduce in her favour Sheer interest would prevent such an attempt. It must infallibly recoil upon themselves. What must be the conduct of the able counsel who would defend her majesty if any such attempt were made by government? And, with respect to any apprehension which such witnesses might entertain as to the dispositions and opinions of the people, he could only say he, personally, had much rather land at Dover as a witness for the queen than as a witness against her; and he believed that the same feeling would attend even his arrival in London. There was one more point upon which he would detain the House, but only for one moment. He alluded now to the manner in which the noble lord had stigmatized the conduct of the government of Austria—a government to which this country owed peculiar obligations—a government which to which, during a twenty years' war, had never submitted for a moment but from necessity; and which had always been foremost again to draw the sword for the recovery of her own rights, or in defence of the rights of others. That an attack so unwarrantable had been made upon that government he could not but regret. It was a government composed of various States, and of divided interests; but there were many provinces—of course he did not speak of all—under the dominion of that government than which none in the world could enjoy more practical liberty, or feel more attachment to their ruling authorities. Austria, he would repeat, had in all cases done her duty towards this country as an honest and faithful ally; and he should have felt himself wanting in duty and injustice if he had permitted the assertions of the noble baron opposite to pass without an answer.
Lord Holland,in explanation, said, he did not speak of the conduct of the Austrian government with respect to its own subjects; but he did say, and he would repeat it, that not merely from the examination of history—not merely from the consideration of modern events, but from his own personal observation—for he was
540
in Austria, though certainly he never was in any of those happy provinces which the noble lord had described—he did say that there never was a government, which, from its conduct towards individuals from the days of Charles 5th, to the present time, had uniformly displayed more meanness, more severity, and more injustice than the Austrian government. Any persons who had ever lived in any of the provinces dependent on that government, would justify him in that assertion. From what had fallen from the noble earl, he must suppose that government had last night received payment of the large sums due by Austria to Great Britain. He was inclined to think so from the very animated manner in which the noble lord bore testimony to the extraordinary honesty of that government [a laugh]. He would, however, again declare, that he never knew—that he never read—of a government that had been more uniformly mean and unjust than the government of Austria.
The Earl of Carnarvoncontended, that there was nothing in the state of Europe, and nothing in the affairs of this country, that went to justify a bill which he would call oppressive and tyrannical.
Lord Calthorpesaid, that whilst he would be willing to support government in meeting every dangerous emergency, he could not agree to a measure which he did not think called for by circumstances, and which, to strangers, ignorant of the language and manners of the country, was peculiarly severe.
The House then divided: Contents, 17; Non-Contents, 7. The bill was then read a second time.