Sitting of 1 June 1820

MANUFACTURING DISTRESS—PETITION FROM PAISLEY.
Mr. Maxwellrose to present a petition from the distressed mechanics of the town of Paisley, who prayed the House to afford them the means of emigration to one of the colonies. The petitioners preferred Canada. One observation suggested by the petitioners was well worthy of the attention of the House. They deprecated poor-rates as degrading to themselves, and an evil to their country. It was manifest that what was given to support the poor, who had no employment was taken from the capital of the country. If they were not employed, they consumed without re-producing, and were thus useless in the community. They increased, therefore, the proportion of population beyond the proportion of produce. He was sorry that his majesty's ministers had not applied to that House for means of giving effectual support to emigration. The distress of the petitioners, like that of many others, was not owing to variations of the market, but to the annihilation of their trade. When England had been the only country which afforded security for the employment of capital, and when the decrees of Milan and the orders in council had put an end to all neutral commerce, the natural consequence had been, that those who felt no security for capital, and found no scope for their industry and skill elsewhere, should come to this country, and employ here their capital and their skill; but when this state of things was entirely changed, those who had come to this country became unprovided for. They, therefore, set up or revived manufactures in their own country. When he heard particular cases of distress urged upon the attention of the House; when he heard the distresses of agriculturists discussed, as they had been last night, he thought some alleviation might be provided. But it was impossible to give

745
such relief to those whose trade was altogether gone. Their case was like that of I a man who had lost his arm; he could work no longer as he had done before. They who had fought and exposed their lives by sea and land for the institutions of the country naturally complained, that they could now obtain no assistance from those institutions. They saw, indeed, that I they had a House of Commons, but they must lament that it felt no interest for the distressed classes of society. He did think that something ought to be given by the wealthy portion of society, some part of the rents of proprietors, in order to provide the means of emigration to those whom failure of employment rendered destitute. He conceived it sound policy, as well as humanity, to take a small proportion from the great wealth of the nation for this purpose. This he considered a matter of justice, a measure of precaution, and an act of humanity becoming a Christian country, in order to prevent suffering and crime. He implored his majesty's ministers to use their exertions to give effect to the prayer of the petitioners. It was dreadful to see 400 persons in every square mile without any adequate means of subsistence. In making these observations, he was not influenced by any motives of interest. The petitioners had no political weight. He acted only from a feeling of humanity. Yet it was politically prudent as well as humane to pay attention to their distress. In their misery they might be operated upon to engage in plans of reform, and even risings to any extent. Ordered to lie on the table.

COURT OF JUDICATURE IN WALES.
Mr. Frederick Campbellrose, in pursuance of the notice which he had given of a motion relative to the situation of the Welsh Judges, and the regulation of the court of judicature in Wales. The subject, in his opinion, deserved the most serious consideration of the House, as it was an attempt to remedy some of the defects, as he must term them, of the court of judicature in Wales. The remedy which he should propose for those defects was not founded on any newfangled theory, but on the opinions of men who could only desire change, because in their consciences they believed change to be necessary. Indeed, one of them, lord Colchester, whilst practising as a barrister on the Chester circuit, had pointed out
746
the defects of this system most clearly, and had even gone so far as to propose a specific remedy for them. The evils of which he complained had arisen from the change of circumstances which had occurred in the lapse of years. The present system of Welsh judicature was first adopted at a period when a distinct line could be drawn between England and Wales, and when great animosity subsisted between the inhabitants of the two countries. At hat period it might be perfectly proper; and a court like the court of great session night have been absolutely necessary. Now, however, that the boundaries of England and Wales served for no other purpose than that of a geographical distinction, and that the interests of their inhabitants had become so closely inter woven that they could never again be easily separated, the case was completely altered, and the necessity for the existence of a separate court, like the court of great session, was materially diminished. A petition had been presented to the House from a number of most respectable individuals, stating that any alteration in the present system of Welsh judicature would be attended with injurious consequences, as the law was administered under it in Wales at a less expense than it could be administered under any other system. He had taken a former opportunity of stating, that, highly as he respected those petitioners, he did not agree in opinion with them; and he must now again state, that, if he thought that any of the alterations which he wished to be made in the present system were calculated to produce such effects as they anticipated, he should be the last man in the world to propose them. But how did the case really stand at present? Why, if an individual brought an action, the pleadings must be drawn, the witnesses must be collected, and the cause must be tried in one week. Could this be done with security? He thought not. If the individual did not choose to have his cause so hastily decided on, what was there left him to do? He must either refer his cause to arbitration after all the expenses necessary to enable him to go to trial had been incurred, or he must postpone it for six months, and wait till the next assizes. If he did not like this plan, he might try it in the next English county; but in that case he would beg leave to remind the petitioners, that they lost two of the advantages on which they principally rested—that of

747
trying the cause at home, and of trying it, as they stated, at a cheap rate. He thought that the statement which he had just made would show the disadvantages of the present system; but he would state another fact, which would show that it was not quite so cheap as the petitioners represented it to be. The fees to barristers were, he understood, quite as heavy in the Welsh court as in the English; and he understood, when barristers drew up pleadings, a greater fee was given to them for doing so than was given to special pleaders. Now, no special pleader had yet been found bold enough to go down into Wales in quest of business, and therefore the pleadings, which were drawn in England by special pleaders, were obliged to be drawn in Wales by barristers. This of course saddled the Welsh suitor with a greater expense than it did the English. "But then," said the petitioners, "if you abolish the present system of judicature, you will abolish also that kind of action called concedit solvere, which can be conducted at so very cheap a rate." To this objection, allowing it to be founded in truth, he would answer, that the kind of action alluded to could only be used to recover small debts; and, if it was so useful, he saw no reason why it might not be retained, when other parts of the system were altered or abolished. But an attorney in South Wales with whom he was acquainted, and to whom he had shown the minutes of evidence taken before the last committee—a gentleman who had practised in the Welsh courts for 35 years with the most unblemished reputation—had let him a little into the secret as to the cheapness of this kind of action, and had informed him, that the fees allowed to attornies for conducting it were pretty nearly the same as those allowed to them for conducting an action on a common capias in the Court of Common Pleas. Another objection to the present system of judicature was, the heavy rates at which fines and recoveries were effected in the Welsh courts. Lord Dynevor, in his evidence, had stated that they were eight or ten times heavier than they were in the courts at Westminster. There, too, they could be suffered four times; but in Wales they could only be suffered twice. Neither were they the same in all parts of Wales. In South Wales they were higher than they were in North Wales. The hon. gentleman then went on to point out several defects in the
748
administration of justice in Wales. Amongst others, he mentioned that in North Wales a writ of certiorari could not be moved, but in the South such writ might be obtained. He should also mention, as another and no unimportant defect, that a motion for a new trial must be made immediately after the first trial is concluded, and before the same judge on the ground of whose misdirection to the jury such motion might have been made. It was not generally to be expected, under such circumstances, that any judge should, without time for calm consideration, acknowledge himself to be wrong, and decide contrary to that which he had just before decided. The case was quite different in England, where, in a motion for a new trial, the judge who tried the case had the benefit of the assistance of the other judges, and where of course the same question could be put a second time for his sole decision. It also happened, in some of the equity cases, that where the two judges did not agree no decision whatever was given. This was not a mere problematical case, for it was one which sometimes had occurred, and it arose out of the ignorance (he spoke it with no disrespect to any particular quarter) of the judges and others connected with those courts in matters of equity. For this reason it appeared to him as most desirable that an equity court should be established; for, from the rapidity of the course of proceeding now pursued (to use the phrase of Mr. Burke), "the most authentic absurdity of form," that justice could not be done in many cases which their nature required. There were few indeed connected with those courts who were acquainted with equity proceedings: and it was not unusual for only one equity barrister to attend the northern circuit, and he need not describe how those must be circumstanced who could not get the benefit of his assistance. Indeed, equity proceedings seemed to be only of secondary consideration in those circuits. No fixed day was appointed for hearing them, and they were only brought on in some idle time, when the weight of other matter did not press. Besides the delay on this ground, there was another strong objection to their mode of proceedings, as they went upon a supposition that no such place as England existed; for the courts had no power to serve any process in England, or to enforce the attendance of any witness from thence; and in the

749
result of any civil action, the party may avoid any costs or penalties by escaping to England. With all these delays and disadvantages, the fees in those courts were as great as those in the court of chancery in England, and that too in matters of inferior moment. He could say a great deal more upon this subject, but he would not then take up the attention of the House. He would only observe, that from those circumstances many persons were prevented from applying for redress; and to those who did, there was no appeal from this miserable tribunal but to the House of Lords. He would pass over the obvious defect of the judges of those courts being allowed to practise as barristers in other courts, and the circumstance of one judge always going the same circuit; and he would come to the manner in which those judges were appointed. The appointment lay in the Treasury; and when a vacancy occurred, instead of looking about at the bar, for the most proper person to fill it, they looked at the House of Commons, of1 which they knew much more; and if a seat could be secured or a vote gained by it so much the better. They were not very nice in their selection, as the salary I was so small, and the situation itself so undignified, that few lawyers of respectability could bear to lose so much of interest and character as the acceptance of this situation might suppose. These circumstances created a feeling in many of the inhabitants of Wales, towards the I judges, the very reverse of that which ought to be held for persons acting in a judicial capacity. The hon. member then went on to contrast the situation and character of the English and Welsh judges. The character of an English judge was, "be observed, honourable, dignified, and independent. His situation had been made independent of the Crown by an act of his late majesty. It was one of the first, and might be considered as one of the best and most important, acts of his reign. The English judge held his situation free and independent of the Crown; he discharged the duties of his high office without dependence upon those by whom he was appointed. The situation of the Welsh judge was, on the contrary, dependent and obscure, the administration of justice vague and uncertain. Indeed, the inhabitants of Wales might well complain that they were deprived of those advantages of equal administration of justice,
750
which it was declared by several statutes in different reigns, that they should enjoy. They had now a system of judicature which seemed, as it were, but a mockery of their rights; and the more so, as a separate one for them was not necessary. It was impossible, under those circumstances, that they could look with that respect on their judges, which the situation of judges required. They saw the Welsh judge appointed by, and dependent on, the Crown; and at the close of his judicial career, looking to the Crown for a pension, or some other remuneration for his services. He wished to know why it was that eight judges should be considered necessary for V/ales, while only twelve were thought sufficient for England? He considered, that if there were only four judges, the business might be done as well or better, under particular regulations, than it now was. He had heard the noble lord (Castlereagh) state, on the discussion with respect to the appointment of a judge in the Scotch Exchequer Court, that his majesty's ministers would not forfeit their public duty by making such situations a subject of patronage. He was anxious to put this declaration to the test, by moving a resolution that the judges in Wales should be held incapable of holding seats in that House. He would not detain the House by pointing out the remedies which might be necessary for the evils he had detailed. They had been ably stated by lord Colchester in his remarks upon the Welsh courts. He had observed, that if the business of Wales were added to that which the English judges had already to discharge, which was in itself fully sufficient for their attention, it would be too great a weight upon them; but he thought that three judges in addition might be sufficient to answer the purpose—to assist at the Old Bailey, and also to go occasionally to the northern counties. The hon. gentleman then alluded to the changes which had been made in the number of the judges in some of our courts under different reigns, to show that the present number had not been invariably adhered to; and concluded by moving, "That a select committee be appointed to consider the state of the court of judicature in Wales; the propriety of abolishing the same; and the means by which Wales may be most readily included within the English circuits, and to report their opinions thereupon to the House."
Mr. Warren,chief justice of Chester, said, that in the violent tirade which the hon. gentleman had just delivered against Welsh judges, he had made no exception. Welsh judges in times past and time present, were equally denounced, and even Welsh judges in time to come were to be affected by the contagion of their example. With respect to those observations which applied to himself—
Mr. F. Campbelldenied having made any personal observations.
Mr. Warrenresumed. The hon. gentleman had certainly said that all were obscure and all were ignorant. The hon. gentleman, living in the part of the country in which he did, could not but know that there were persons who filled situations of as high honour and integrity, and as much professional knowledge as ever presided over any court of justice. One of them was a friend of the hon. gentleman, a most esteemed friend of the late Mr. Fox, and appointed by Mr. Fox to the situation. Nothing but the desire of sinking Welsh judges to the lowest abyss of infamy, could have induced the hon. gentleman to assert, not only that all who now existed, but that all who ever had existed, were corrupt. Did the hon. gentleman ever hear of sir William Grant? He thought not. Of lord Kenyon, of lord Redesdale, of sir Vicary Gibbs, of the present lord chief justice of the Common Pleas? He thought not. If the hon. gentleman had recollected that all these distinguished persons had, at one period of their lives, presided over the courts of Wales, he would scarcely have passed such a sweeping censure upon all Welsh judges. He did not know whether he was himself considered an obscure and ignorant person. Pie had once many friends on the opposite side of the House [Hear!]; and he hoped he still continued to retain their friendship, though he was aware that little dependence could be placed on the continuance of friendship where party considerations interfered. In looking round the House, he saw many gentlemen on both sides of the House who had done him the honour to employ him [Hear, hear!]. He would take that opportunity of alluding to some observations of a noble lord opposite, which he had seen in the public prints, and which evidently alluded to himself; they were in the same spirit as the tirade which had been just uttered by the hon. gentleman, and he begged to assure the noble lord
752
and the hon. gentleman, that he had too much respect for both of them to feel any thing like anger. He gave them credit for saying what they felt themselves bound to say, and he would take the same credit to himself.—He knew not whether the House would feel disposed to go into the inquiry proposed by the hon. gentleman, but for his part he certainly should not oppose it. He could not help observing, however, that the hon. gentleman had treated the subject as if no inquiry had ever been instituted by parliament. It would be in the recollection of many members, that in the year 1817, a committee was appointed to inquire into the mode of administering justice in Wales. The committee, after a full examination; of the subject in May, made their report in July, and had, in fact pointed out all the defects upon which the hon. gentleman had argued this evening. So far, however, from coming to the conclusion, that the courts ought to be abolished, they recommended them on account of the cheapness and expedition with which justice was administered. The hon. and learned gentleman observed, that it was his intention himself to bring forward a I bill to remedy the defects in the system of administering justice in Wales, but that I he thought proper to wait the result of the hon. mover's proposition. To that proposition he could not think it necessary to accede, because no information of any importance could be expected through any new committee, which was not already before the House, through the committee which sat upon the subject on a former occasion. Before that committee I no less than thirty-five very intelligent individuals were examined, among whom were barons Wood and Garrow, and that very respectable person Mr. Benyon. the attorney-general for Chester. Could the hon. mover then suppose that any further I review of this case was requisite, or that I any new committee was likely to reverse the decision of that to which he had alluded?—Here the hon. and learned gentleman adverted to a petition from a number of most respectable gentlemen in the county of Carnarvon, praying for the correction of the errors of the existing system, but deprecating the idea of totally abolishing the Welsh judicature. The bill prepared by Mr. Jones, which was in his possession, and which he meant to submit to the consideration of the House, was quite in accordance with this petition,

753
that bill being fully calculated to remedy all the defects pointed out in the report of the committee which before sat upon this subject. That bill, therefore, he thought would give satisfaction to the people of Wales, as well as promote the ends of justice.—The hon. and learned gentleman apologized for the length of his speech, and especially for those remarks which referred to himself, but such remarks he felt to be necessary, in consequence of the tirade against him, which had been uttered upon a former occasion by a noble lord opposite (lord J. Russell). But that tirade was unfounded in attributing to him a selfish motive for accepting the office which he at present held, as it was well known that were he to accept the Chiltern Hundreds he could, even from his practice before committees above stairs, soon contrive to earn enough to purchase a moiety of the fee simple of the salary. which that office afforded. The hon. and learned gentleman concluded with expressing his intention to decline voting upon this motion, as he was in some degree personally concerned.
Mr. Creeveydeclared, that he was not able to see upon what ground, while the English judges were excluded from seats in that House, the Welsh judges should be allowed to sit there. The object of the law which excluded the English judges obviously was, to preserve the bench from any taint of political or party bias, and with the same view those judges were rendered independent of the Crown. If, then, it was deemed proper to keep the judges from among those who were within the sphere of political action or influence, why should the Welsh judges be allowed to sit in that House? The conduct, indeed, of the learned gentleman himself, who had just sat down, furnished a strong argument, if any were wanted, to show that the judges should not be allowed to have seats in that House.—He had known his learned friend, if he would allow him now so to call him, for above twenty years, during which he could not say that he agreed with the learned gentleman in political opinion, as that learned gentleman went generally much farther than he could [Hear, hear!]. The learned gentleman, indeed, usually concurred with the hon. baronet, the member for Westminster, who was uniformly the subject of his most fervent panegyric. What, then, was the inference from the extraordinary change which had taken place
754
in the learned gentleman's politics (a change, by-the-by, which justified the old adage, as to the proximity of extremes), but that his new judgeship was connected with his new opinions [Hear, hear!]? But the sudden change of the learned gentleman's sentiments, of which he had never heard until the learned gentleman became a judge, was not more remarkable than the ardent zeal which he displayed for his new adherents. This zeal, was, however, very possibly the effect of that apprehension which generally haunted inconsistent politicians, that to appear more ardent than others, was somewhat necessary to avert the suspicion of a disposition to relapse. The hon. gentleman concluded with repeating it to be his opinion, that the learned gentleman's own conduct afforded ample reason to convince the House and the country, that a Welsh judge or a chief justice of Chester should not be allowed to sit in that House.
Lord John Russelldisclaimed the tirade attributed to him by the hon. and learned gentleman. He indeed recollected to have seen such a tirade ascribed to him, in what purported to be a report of his speech, in one of the newspapers usually devoted to the service of administration, namely, that the hon. and learned gentleman was always ready to support the unconstitutional measures of his majesty's ministers. What could induce the reporter to ascribe these words to him, or the learned gentleman to conclude that he uttered them, he could not pretend to say. But he certainly had never said any thing of the kind. What he really had said on the occasion alluded to was this, that the judgeship which the learned gentleman occupied was usually granted as a reward or retainer for the support of ministerial measures, while that judgeship was generally a step towards other offices, the holders of which were always the supporters of the minister of the day—that is, that the chief justice ship of Chester was usually a step towards the offices of either attorney or solicitor general, which was an observation fully justified by experience. It was well known that the act which rendered the English judges independent of the Crown had given universal satisfaction; and looking to the principle and purpose of that act, he was at a loss to imagine any defence that could be framed for placing the Welsh judges in a dif-

755
ferent situation from that of the judges of England, or how it could be supposed that human nature was likely to be so different in different places, that when a lawyer was appointed to an office in Wales he was not as liable to be influenced by those motives which usually operated upon mankind as when he held a similar office in England. Under those impressions he supported the argument of his hon. friend, that Welsh judges should not be allowed to sit in that House, and would vote for the motion. The hon. and learned gentleman had that day endeavoured to make an extraordinary display of his purity and disinterestedness, by alleging that he took his present office without any view to emolument, and that if he had vacated his seat, which he had scarcely occupied when he became a judge, he would have an opportunity of earning much more money by attending as a barrister before the committees above stairs than the salary of that judgeship afforded. Therefore as the learned gentleman maintained, that in taking office he had no view whatever to profit, it must be supposed that he regarded that office as an accession to his character; which he perhaps concluded would be more elevated by the connexions which he had lately formed, and the opinions which he had lately adopted, than by those connexions and opinions which he happened to maintain while he associated with his hon. friend who had last addressed the House and others holding the same political sentiments. If this were really the learned gentleman's impression, and he actually thought his character stood higher in the country in consequence of his recent change, he should only say, that he wished the learned gentleman joy upon his taste and judgment.
Mr. Wynnregretted the personalities that had been indulged in. When the former report was made, the present chief justice of Chester was not a member of that House. The committee of 1817 did much; but in the absence of so many members, they did not give any positive opinion as to the Welsh judges. With respect to the motion, he felt some difficulty. His own opinion always was, that the abolition of the present system of Welsh judicature could not all at once be effected, or effected with immediate advantage. At the same time, he
756
or to those alterations that were at variance with long established practice.—But still he considered that Welsh judges should not be allowed to act as barristers for many obvious reasons. He should be glad, under all the circumstances, when the committee was revived, that the former evidence should be referred to them, as in consequence of the lamented death of Mr. Ponsonby, the chairman of the committee, together with other circumstances, the effect and bearing of the evidence taken before it had never been fully discussed.
Colonel Wood,who had also been a member of that committee, said, that the opinion of Mr. Ponsonby, whose name would always be looked up to with respect, had at one time been strongly in favour of abolishing the Welsh system of judicature altogether; and it was but fair to state the manly and candid manner in which that lamented individual acted as chairman. He did distinctly understand Mr. Ponsonby's opinion to have been completely changed by the evidence laid before the committee, and that he thought, on examination into the subject, that the Welsh judicature: possessed many advantages, and should not be done away with altogether.—Among all the witnesses examined before; the committee, there was only one, a; Mr. Owen, who wished the system to be abolished. No question had been put to any of the witnesses, as to the propriety of these judges sitting in that House; nor was there any occasion for hearing evidence on that point before a committee, because it was a question on which the House was able to judge without any such inquiry. One ground of complaint had been, that in consequence of the ambulatory habits of the equity barristers who attended the circuits, the suitors in the courts of equity; in Wales could not sometimes get their causes heard for six months. This he I thought a less hardship than it had been represented; for he believed that many; of the suitors in the equity courts of England would be very well satisfied if they could obtain a hearing in six years. The hon. gentleman proceeded to state various arguments against; the abolition of the present system. One: reason for not including Wales in the circuits was, that many of the witnesses I could not speak a word of English. But

757
he would suggest, that the most serious inconvenience would arise, if the present chief justice, for instance, of the King's-bench, or any other of the bench of judges, were to be required to travel the Welsh circuit. The state of the roads would go far to make their arrival at their destination a very questionable matter. And, in proof of this, he well remembered the unfortunate adventure of Mr. Justice Harding, who was proceeding upon the circuit in that country, when his horse fell down and broke his leg,; so that, if it had not been for the friendly assistance of a brother judge, Mr. Justice Harding, would not have been enabled to arrive in time for the opening of the session. He wished hon. gentlemen would view the thing dispassionately, and getting rid of all party feeling, only consider the claims of Welshmen, They were certainly in a state of gradual improvement, which was manifested more and more every year; and were rapidly getting rid of the use of the Welsh language. But he was sure that they would be much dissatisfied if their judicature was ever altered. He thought that the effect of the present motion, so far from giving to the Welsh any advantages beyond what they at present possessed, would rather be to excite dissatisfaction throughout the principality. He could see no good that was likely to result from the revival of the committee: all the evidence which could be procured, through the labours of a committee, had been already laid before the former.
Mr. Wrottesleythought it his duty as the evidence which had been brought before the committee which was formerly appointed by the House to inquire into this subject had been so frequently alluded to this night to say, that as much of it was procured as every member of the committee thought necessary. And it was but justice to say, that every possible I diligence was used by the late right hon. gentleman who was the chairman, to enable them to come to a proper and final determination upon the question submitted to them. It had been determined to meet, for the purpose of making a full report, when, in the mean time, that deplorable event which all the country sincerely regretted took place. Consequently the committee never did meet again; but it was thought necessary that a report of some kind should be agreed upon; and,
758
accordingly, those members of the committee win were in town concurred in thinking that it was proper to call the attention of the House to such parts of the judicature as they considered to require alteration. The impression on Mr. Ponsonby's mind was clearly and decidedly this—that, on the whole it would not be a good thing to abolish the system of judicature entirely. The reason of that impression he believed to have been founded upon the general feeling of the country, and upon the opinion of Mr. Serjeant Heywood on the subject.
Mr. Chetwyndthought what had passed in the House that night quite a sufficient reason for a change of system with regard to the Welsh judges. For to see a gentleman who wore the robe of a judge, standing in that House to plead and at liberty to decide in a cause in which he was personally interested, appeared to him a very great anomaly. He really thought that ministers would do well to give up the source of patronage which they possessed, from having Welsh judges sitting in that House. He had no doubt, indeed, that such a surrender would serve very considerably to advance the character of his majesty's ministers, and he was as anxious as any man that that character should stand high in public estimation. At an early period of the reign of Geo. 2nd, it was enacted that the Scotch baron should not be allowed to sit in that House, and the English judges were also excluded. The judges then both of England and Scotland being prohibited from sitting in that House, he could not see upon what ground the Welsh judges should be allowed to sit there. Another objection to the present system of the Welsh judges was, that they were allowed to practise as barristers in this part of the kingdom; and thus a suitor on the Chester circuit had an opportunity of ascertaining, perhaps of prepossessing the mind of the judge who was to try he cause. On these grounds he should support the motion.
Mr. Allensaid, that the hon. colonel, who was not, he believed, a Welshman, although he represented a Welsh county, had given a representation of the opinions of his constituents and neighbours upon this question very different from that which lie (Mr. Allen) should give of those entertained in that part of the country with which he was himself connected. With respect to the petition which had been presented recently from Carmarthen,

759
and which had been alluded to that night, he was disposed to believe that it was, in a great measure a party petition. He did not by any means intend to attribute such paltry motives to the hon. member for Carmarthen, but he did think that it originated in a spirit of party. As to the question before the House the only merits he had heard ascribed to the system of Welsh judicature were its superior cheapness and dispatch. If he should be able to prove however that this cheapness and des-patch were counterbalanced by very great and serious evils, he presumed he should remove the sole argument which the advocates of that judicature had yet brought in its support. Now, upon the point of cheapness, it might indeed be said that the items, the details of legal expanses, were cheap; but if they would take any town or district of Wales, they would find that the total sum expended there in litigation would far exceed that of any town or district of the same extent in England—a circumstance which arose, no doubt, from the tendency which the cheapness of laws had to excite litigation. With respect to all this cheapness and despatch of judicial proceedings, however, although he certainly would not attempt to dispute the advantages they yielded, yet, if they were outweighed by more than tantamount evils, he must consider the principle a pernicious one. So it might be said that the English system of judicature was the dearest, and the Turkish the cheapest in the world. The advantage of superior cheapness of litigation was to he estimated by the feeling of security which it threw round the subject, and by the confidence with which it inspired him of the protection and safety of his property. It was as a member of this principality that he now claimed for his countrymen that they should be admitted to all the advantages of the British constitution—advantages which they could not be said to possess while they had inferior judges, an inferior bar, and inferior attornies. He would here beg to guard himself from any imputation of wishing to speak with the least disrespect of those individuals who now administered the law in their judicial capacities to the principality of Wales; and indeed, so far as he was connected with them, he had pleasure in saying that the judges of the Carmarthen circuit stood very high in every point of legal and moral character, and well deserved any office which it was in the power of his
760
majesty to bestow upon them. But it was to the principle of their appointment that he objected. No man would say, that to choose judges from political motives and opinions was not an evil, the nature and extent of which were incalculable. He remembered being struck with the observation which was made in the other House of Parliament by an eminent prelate upon a very different kind of debate—namely, the admission of the clergy to seats in the House of Commons. Bishop Horsley, upon that occasion, expressed himself to this effect—"I am adverse to the admission of clergymen to seats in the House of Commons; not that I suppose any one will say, at this time of day, that the habits of the clergy render them unqualified to undertake the duties of legislation: I admit the advantages of their education and pursuits; but it is because I believe that the arts which are made use of to obtain seats render it improper that they should fill them."* He would beg leave to apply this argument to the present question, by saying that the arts by which these judges might be appointed to their situations were not such as the friends of the principality could wish. Another objection to the present judicature was, that the celerity of proceedings became the favourer of litigation. The number of attornies in the principality exceeded, unfortunately, that in any other district of the kingdom. The number in the town represented by his hon. friend, alone, was no less than thirty, and every other town was overstocked in proportion. It was hardly possible to calculate how much the spirit of litigation was encouraged by such multitudes of attornies; and whatever had been objected to the tendency of the popular disposition to litigate, there was a much greater tendency to it in the system of Welsh judicature. The hon. member for Brecknock had related the misadventures of the judges in going the circuits, which he seemed to attribute to the state of the roads in Wales; but he could assure them that the roads, at any rate in his part of the principality, were as good as those of England, and no difficulty would be experienced in travelling those circuits. Another objection which had been urged was, that the Welsh business could not command a sufficiently respectable bar; and the question would be
* Parliamentary History, vol. 35, p. 1546.

761
found upon the papers before the House, whether, if the two circuits were joined together, there would not be sufficient inducement to respectable practitioners? Now, suppose they took the three counties of Oxford, Gloucester and Monmouth, and joined them to the southern circuit, would not there then be sufficient business, he would ask, to procure them at least as respectable a bar as any other circuit? The spirit of litigation was best evinced by the number of actions entered in the county courts. Such an excess of suits must have a tendency to increase the number of attornies to a very great amount. But he would beg hon. gentlemen to look at their sheriff-courts, which formed the greatest curse under which the principality laboured, and which could only be remedied by the abolition of the present system of judicature. It had been asked, why it had happened, if this evil were really felt in Wales, that no petitions had been before presented to the House upon the subject? He would answer, that this circumstance resulted from one or two causes, and principally because, he supposed, the gentlemen of the principality had a worse opinion of his majesty's ministers than he had; for those of them with whom he had conversed upon the subject had said, "Oh, ministers will never part with the patronage; they will never give up the appointments." Now, he did think that ministers would readily part with that patronage, whenever they were convinced it was proper and advisable to do so. In conclusion, the hon. gentleman declared he saw nothing at present which should prevent his majesty's ministers from going into the committee.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, that the hon. gentleman who had just spoken had done no more than justice to his majesty's ministers in supposing that they neither had nor could have any other object, upon this question, than that that should be done which was best calculated to render justice to so large a class of his majesty's subjects. For himself he had no difficulty in saying, that he had come into that House under this general impression upon the subject—that it had already undergone, the most elaborate examination—that every possible inquiry had been made, and every possible evidence obtained from the most able and intelligent persons; and therefore he had conceived that all topics which could now be proposed to be submitted to a com-
762
mittee had been so entirely exhausted, that it would be the more natural and proper course for the House to urge some gentleman to propose a remedial measure, either altering or remodelling the judicature of Wales, rather than that they should again go into a committee. He had no hesitation, however, in acknowledging, that observations had been made in the course of the debate, and particularly by an hon. friend of his, which led him to rather a different conclusion. They led him to consider, that the labours of that former committee had terminated under circumstances less satisfactory, certainly, than they would have been, if after hearing all the evidence to be brought on the subject, and that with the additional advantage of hearing the manner in which it was given, they had gone on to make a report which should have been of that clear and ample nature which generally resulted from the labour of a committee. It was therefore, what had fallen in the course of the debate that had induced him to suppose that their information upon the question was less perfect and satisfactory than he had imagined it to be when he came into the House. But he was sure, that if the House should concur in thinking some further proceeding advisable, it would yet be quite impossible for them to adopt the motion of the hon. gentleman, as it was at present worded. He had carefully looked at that wording and though it did not pledge the House exactly to the abolition of the Welsh judicature, yet it was so framed, as to do so by implication, and to convey a charge against it, by supposing that abolition necessary, for it concluded with a charge to such committee, "to consider the propriety of abolishing the Welsh judicature, and the best means by which the same could be effected." The hon. gentleman would allow him to observe, that this was to ask them to abolish a judicature, not only in direct defiance of the opinions expressed by members of the former committee, but before they had suggested any means of substituting another system. The noble lord went on to observe, that without disparagement to the opinions of any of the individuals who had given before the committee their opinions upon the case, or to the opinions of the hon. gentleman, he did not see how one authority or so, was to weigh against that of 24 others, among whom he found the names of sir William Grant, Mr. Leyces-

763
ter, sir James Mansfield, and many others of the highest authority. He had no objection, however, if the House felt so disposed, to have the question farther investigated; but he should wish that to be done without prejudice to the existing judges, who were distinguished by every quality that was honourable in society,—a judicature to which, if he might believe the greater part of the evidence which had been offered on the subject, that part of the country was most warmly attached. And although, with that partiality with which every man viewed his own national institutions, he might prefer our own, he did think that it must require some time to prove the advantage of substituting our system for theirs. He could not by any means jump to the conclusion, that that which was good for one part of the kingdom must necessarily be good for the other; for, if our system were intended to operate at all, it must take some time before it could do so with all that facility of action which it was found to do in England. He should have no objection to a committee moved for in the same terms it was originally moved for. He could easily suppose that those members who on a former occasion had heard the evidence, were much better calculated to extract the proper inferences from it than the House itself; but he did not know why the new committee should be more competent to judge upon it than the House itself; and therefore he begged to be understood that he would not wish such committee to be precluded from asking for further information. To the hon. gentleman's motion, therefore, if this amendment were substituted, he saw no objection. He would suggest the words of the original motion for a committee, instead—"to inquire into, and report to the House, their observations touching the laws relating to the administration of justice in Wales." And in the propriety of not limiting a committee to the former evidence, the House would the more readily concur when they knew that the late Mr. Ponsonby (no mean authority) went into the former committee, with a persuasion of the necessity of abolishing the judicature of Wales altogether, and carrying into the principality the laws of England, but, with the candour of a legal mind, his expressed opinion subsequently, so far as it could be traced, was of a different character; he abandoned his first idea, and considered that they should best
764
consult the interests and feelings of that part of the population of the united kingdom by leaving to them their ancient institutions as they then existed. He could not sit down without expressing his sorrow that any hon. gentleman, whatever were his opinions upon the subject should have indulged in any observations upon the respectable individuals who filled the offices in question. Appealing to the feelings and observation of individuals, it was only necessary to look over the list of distinguished persons who had filled the offices in question, to be convinced that they did not deserve the severity of remark that had been applied to them. He protested against the mode in which some hon. gentlemen had argued the question; professional merit only had been the guiding principle of choice whenever a vacancy had occurred, nor had the reward been conferred from any other motive. With regard to the charge against his hon. and learned friend, he would only ask, whether it was to be presumed, because he had public duty to perform in parliament, that he would carry the feelings of party into his judicial situation? There was a refinement in this mode of reasoning and accusation beyond what was fair, and it would be quite as reasonable to charge hon. members who acted as magistrates at quarter sessions, judges in civil and criminal matters, with being influenced there by the part they took in the political measures of the day. Looking back to the history of these appointments, he could not perceive any of that strong desire to choose the Welsh judges from members of the House; at present the only individual filling an office of the kind, and a member of the House, was his learned friend. Whatever disposition any hon. gentleman might feel to point remarks against that learned individual, because he sat on one side of the House rather than on the other, he could only reply, that if the opinion of the profession were taken upon the conduct and character of the present chief justice of Chester, it would be found to imply a severe censure upon the imprudence and inaccuracy (to say the least of it) of those who had thought fit to indulge in such unmerited aspersions. His lordship had ever held those men in greatest respect in this country who knew how to look at political events as they were passing, and to mould their opinions accordingly. It had been stated by an hon. gentleman, that the

765
chief justice of Chester had abandoned opinions he formerly held; and supposing this were the ease, he was not aware that it had lowered the learned chief justice in the estimation of his friends even on the opposition side of the House; he could not name an individual who, either as a lawyer or a man, was entitled to higher respect or greater regard: he had always thought so; but this sentiment was confirmed by the opportunity he had lately enjoyed of judging of his character. His lordship concluded by moving as an amendment, to leave out all the words after "appointed" for the purpose of inserting the following: "to inquire into and report to the House their observations, touching the laws relating to the administration of justice in Wales."
Mr. Barham,as a member of the committee to which this subject had been formerly referred, said, that the last time he asked his lamented friend Mr. Ponsonby, what he thought would be the result of the investigation, respecting the system of Welsh judicature, his answer was in the singular terms, "that he thought it would be the best way to get it into the great boat." He had heard his right hon. friend express the most decided opinion, that the system of the appointment of the Welsh judges was most corrupt. He used to say that it was generally a job. Certainly the hon. mover had never declared any thing so preposterous as that every Welsh judge who had been appointed was ignorant and corrupt. But he said that they were not appointed as the English judges were, on whose appointment no suspicion ever rested; as they were obviously selected for their character and learning. If he were asked if he had not heard of sir William Grant, and other eminent men who had been Welsh judges, he would reply, yes; but he would ask, in return, if his interrogator had never heard of a Welsh judge who was appointed after having relinquished his profession for ten years, and who was the clerk of the king's kitchen at the time; and whether he would lay his hand on his breast, and say that he did not believe the appointment of that individual grew out of some transactions in a borough in the county of Surrey? There had been several other Welsh Judges; among the rest two of the names of Lloyd and Popham, who were by no means fit for that situation. In proof of the evils arising from allowing any man to hold a judicial situation, who
766
might be consulted elsewhere as a counsel he instanced the case of an attorney of the name of Matthews, who having obtained the written opinion, as a counsel, of the Welsh judge Lloyd, on a case that was to be tried before him, when Lloyd charged the jury in contradiction to that opinion, held up the paper in his face, and exclaimed, "how could you take three guineas of me for giving one opinion, and then take the king's money for giving another? It had been said, that the abolition of the present system of Welsh judicature would cause great dissatisfaction. He was of a different opinion. He believed that, in South Wales especially, if there was any one thing in which the people were unanimous, it was in their wish for the introduction of the English system of judicature. The hon. member proceeded to state a variety of arguments in favour of his opinion; but concluded by saying that he was satisfied with the noble lord's proposition.
Mr. Bathurstdefended the character of the Welsh judges from the imputations which he conceived had been unjustly thrown upon them. It was true that A or B might have received an opinion from one of those judges in his capacity of barrister, but was that judge to be taunted with having held a different opinion on a subsequent occasion on the bench? It was known that the great lord Mansfield had, when a barrister, held opinions which he had subsequently found it necessary to change. But surely that learned judge did not deserve to have this alteration of opinion held up as a reproach against him. He supported the amendment of his noble friend.
Mr. Barhamwished to take the earliest opportunity of rectifying a mistake into which he had unintentionally fallen. In speaking or Mr. Justice Lloyd, he had imputed to that gentleman certain matters which'he believed were chargeable not against him, but another individual.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that his early recollections impelled him to do justice to the Welsh bar and bench. Unless a great change had taken place in the judicature of that part of the country within the last twenty years, which he believed was not the case, both the bench and bar were entitled to the greatest respect. He recollected when he had the honour of practising at the Welsh bar that the bench was filled by men of the highest respectability and talent. Mr. Lloyd,

767
whose name had been so often alluded to, was selected from his great ability at the Chancery bar to fill the office of judge. That appointment was wholly unconnected with any political or party feeling. He could also mention the names of sir William Jones, lord Redesdale, lord Manners, sir W. Grant, and several other eminent men who had held similar situations. These were enough to show the respectability of the Welsh bench. He concluded by giving his support to the amendment.
Mr. W. Parnellhad heard with the utmost pain the observations upon his learned friend the present chief justice of Chester. It was impossible for his learned friend to have accepted the situation from any base or unworthy motive; he took it probably from an honourable love of influence and power, that he might enjoy more extensive means of doing good, and contributing to the welfare of his country.
Mr. R. Martinregretted extremely to have heard so many pointed allusions hurled at his hon. and learned friend, from the opposite side of the House, where his hon. and learned friend had long sat, although he was now transferred to his side. But he did not learn that he had belied any principle on one side, which he had professed on the other. He remembered an expression of the late Mr. Ponsonby, who had long been considered by the gentlemen opposite as a staunch patriot and an ornament to their ranks, an expression worthy of being recorded. It was, that a man who had been a patriot out of office, might be doubly a patriot in office; and he hoped that maxim would be repeated now with some advantage to the country, and be favourably received by the gentlemen opposite, and induce some of them to come over to his side, and display their patriotism with so much more advantage to their country. The imputation suggested against his hon. and learned friend, of delivering opinions as a judge different from those he had professed as a barrister, might with equal justice be applied to every judge on the bench. It was in the very nature of things, that a gentleman of the bar, feed to support one side of a cause, and bound to use his best exertions for his client, should urge arguments, and profess opinions which, as a judge, calmly viewing both sides of the case, he would not avow from the bench; and on
768
this ground he would venture to appeal to her majesty's solicitor-general, and ask him, if, by any train of fortuitive events, he should, at some future period, find himself elevated to the bench of this country (and as all things were in the hands of Providence, such an event was by no means unlikely), how he would like to have hurled against his judicial dignity any former opinions which he might have professed in that House or elsewhere?
Mr. Denman,in answer to the question put to him by the hon. member, hoped he should never have cause to be ashamed of any opinion he had ever delivered in that House, or elsewhere; nor did he fear that any opinion he had delivered or should deliver in that House or any where else would ever rise in judgment against him; nor should he desert those opinions in any situation in which he might be placed.
Mr. Scarlettsaid, that the anecdote about the Welsh judge acting as counsel, and delivering an opinion in the one capacity which he reversed in the other, was certainly possible, and as such it was a good illustration of the inconvenience of uniting the two characters.
Mr. Campbelladdressed the House in reply. After some allusions to the salaries of Welsh judges, and to the opinion given by lord Bulkeley before the last committee, he observed, that he had no personal enmity to any of those gentlemen; on the contrary, he had the highest respect for many of them. There was one for instance, Mr. Heywood, for whom he had the highest esteem and friendship. There was no man more respectable in his profession—there was no man whose character was more strikingly contrasted with that of another individual spoken of that evening. He had accepted his situation without any compromise of principle; he had never held a seat in that House. He had no objection to accede to the amendment of the noble lord.
The amendment was then agreed to, and a committee appointed.

LABOURERS WAGES BILL.
Mr. Littletonnow rose to bring forward his motion, for leave to bring in a bill, to amend the laws in existence, for obliging the persons who employ labourers and workmen to pay their wages in money, and not in goods or other equivalents. The hon. member shortly explained the object of his intended bill; namely, to

769
relieve the labouring poor in manufacturing districts from being obliged by their employers to take their wages not in money but in groceries and other articles of consumption, upon which the employer had a profit, and whereby the labouring man was deprived of his option in disposing of his earnings to what he conceived the best advantage for his family. The oppressive effects of this system were felt by vast numbers of the working classes in various manufacturing and mining districts, as a heavy grievance which ought to be removed. He was aware that there were already statutes in force imposing heavy penalties upon employers who should thus deal with their workmen. But how was the poor labouring man to appeal for relief? If he resorted to a magistrate for redress against his employer, an appeal was immediately had from the decision of the magistrate to the quarter sessions. But how was a poor labouring man to afford a journey of 30, 40, and sometimes 60 miles to the quarter sessions of his county, bringing with him his attorney and his witnesses in support of his claims? The thing was impossible, and so long as the law was in its present state the grievance, which was a very heavy one, must remain unredressed. The hon. member was aware that his bill, in endeavouring to effect much and general good, might be attended by some partial evil. Hp understood there were many respectable employers of the poor in extensive mines and manufactures, who, so far from wishing to derive any profit or take any advantage, by paying their labourers in goods instead of money, did for their advantage lay out large sums; in purchasing by wholesale quantities of flour, groceries, and other articles of constant consumption, in order to dispose of them to their labourers at the lowest price, and never to force on them such commodities in payment for their labour, but at their own option; but the general grievance of which he complained was so severely felt, and so many affecting statements had reached him from various parts of the country, since he had given notice of his intention to propose his bill, descriptive of circumstances so extremely oppressive, that he felt it his duty to bring forward the measure, even at the risk of some partial evil, with a view to remedy so general a hardship. He concluded by moving, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to render more effectual the
770
Laws for securing to Labourers the due Payment of their Wages."
Sir J. Mackintoshwould not object to the introduction of the bill, though he thought the hon. gentleman would effect a more beneficial object by moving for a repeal of all former enactments that interfered between master and workmen. He was convinced that the best remedy for the evils complained of would be, to abolish all restrictions. He reserved to himself the right of opposing this bill in its future stages.
Mr. Robinsonentertained great doubts as to the beneficial tendency or good policy of legislative interference in the agreements between master and workmen. Restrictions of the kind now proposed had existed for a long time, and it might be a delicate question, whether they ought immediately to be abolished; but he had no difficulty in saying that if we had to begin again, he would not countenance such a policy. He would not oppose the introduction of the bill, but neither would he pledge himself to its future support.
Mr. Wrottesleyexpressed his satisfaction that the attention of the eminent individuals who had just spoken had been called to the subject.
Colonel Woodhoped that time would be allowed to spread the knowledge of the measure throughout the country before the bill passed into a law, as he had received notice from Wales that there would be petitions against it from those connected with the iron-works in that quarter.
Mr. Humesaid, the present law was evaded, but he would rather that the fifteen restrictive acts should be repealed, and a perfect freedom of making agreements allowed between master and workman, than that new enactments should be made which would likewise be evaded. He strongly objected to the continuance of the combination laws, the repeal of which would go far to satisfy the bulk of the labouring poor.
Mr. Baringregretted that such a motion should have been made. He was aware of the good intentions of the hon. mover, but he thought the question of such importance, that a committee ought to be appointed upon it. He hoped the hon. mover would see the propriety of altering his motion to that effect.
Mr. Littletoncould not help feeling some doubt on the subject, after the opi-

771
nions which he had heard. He thought, however, that he had better persevere in his motion at present. As long as the existing laws remained it was necessary that they should be rendered effective. He had no objection, at a future stage, to move for a committee to inquire into the expediency of repealing those laws altogether.
Mr. W. Smithagreed with the general principle of leaving trade free, although the practice was against that doctrine. He thought a motion for a committee would have been better; because, if the allegations were proved, that would support the necessity for the bill. If not, there would have been good grounds for repealing the acts altogether. At any rate, he could not agree to a denial of a consideration of the subject.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.

LINEN BOUNTIES.
Mr. Maberlyrose, pursuant to notice, to bring under the consideration of the House the propriety of continuing the Bounties on the Exportation of British and Irish Linens, and with this view, he moved, that the 29 Geo. 2nd, c. 15, the 3 Geo. 3rd, c. 12, the 23 Geo. 3rd. c. 14, the 46 Geo. 3rd, c. 29, and the 51 Geo. 3rd, c. 14, be read. The said acts being accordingly entered as read, the hon. member moved,—"That this House will to-morrow resolve itself into a committee of the whole House, to consider of the said acts."
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas of opinion that it would be better if this question were brought forward by some member of the executive government, but, at all events, it was not necessary to introduce it now, because the acts providing for those bounties would not expire till next year. The intermediate period would allow the executive government to determine whether they would or would not continue them. He was anxious that the different parts of the United Kingdom should be placed as nearly as possible on the same level with respect to trade, but he was the more ready to put off the consideration of this question, because he thought the whole subject of the encouragement of trade was likely at an early period to come under the consideration of parliament. He would therefore take the liberty of moving the previous question.
Mr. Maberlyexpressed great surprise at the manner in which his motion had been treated. After he was given to un-
772
derstand that no opposition would be offered to him, the right hon. gentleman came forward and moved the previous question. He had a right to complain of this as a breach of faith, and he would now therefore enter into the grounds of his motion. Bounties were given on the exportation of Irish linen, and by the act of union the different parts of the United Kingdom were placed on the same footing with regard to bounties. The Scotch linen trade, therefore, ought to have the same encouragement as the Irish. He did not wish at present to agitate the question of the policy of bounties, but; while they existed, they should be extended to all parts of the united empire alike. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Robinson) bad agreed to this in a former debate; but by a strange breach of faith, which had no parallel, the chancellor of the exchequer moved the previous question on a proposition for carrying it into effect.
Mr. Robinsonexpressed regret at any misunderstanding to which he unintentionally had given rise. He certainly stated, in answer to a noble lord opposite (Milton), that it was but just and expedient that the bounty enjoyed by the Irish manufacturer should be extended to the Scotch and the English, but he did not pledge himself to any continuance of the bounty. Scotland and England had the same right to bounty for the exportation, of linen as Ireland; but as the act would expire in 1821, none of the three kingdoms could claim its continuance beyond that time. He had, in fact, declined giving any assurance to the hon. gentleman on the subject till the period when the bounties should expire, which would be in March 1821. When the hon. gentleman stated his determination to bring it forward immediately, he had replied, that the hon. gentleman was master of his own-conduct, and would of course exercise his own discretion; but he was not surprised that his right hon. friend should deem the motion premature. He was no great authority on the construction of acts of parliament, but it was well understood, that when a law was passed for continuing a former law, its operation reverted to the period when the former law ceased to exist. He certainly had, upon communication with the parties, admitted that, in fairness and justice, they were entitled to the same advantage as the manufacturers of Ireland. Although he thought the mo-

773
tion premature, he could not therefore consistently oppose it, if limited to the extent which he had specified.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerexpressed his regret at having misconceived the understanding which it now appeared had been come to between the hon. gentleman and his right hon. friend. With the permission of the House, he would withdraw, under these circumstances, his motion for the previous question.
Mr. Maberlyobserved, that nothing could be more distinct than the communication which had passed between Mr. Robinson and himself. He had shown to the right hon. gentleman the paper, which he intended to submit to the committee, nor had the slightest intention of apposing the bill which he was desirous of introducing, been signified. Pie thought himself therefore warranted in the observations which he had made, and he hoped he should not be excluded from resuming those observations as far as they related to the act of union.
The Speakerreminded the hon. gentleman that the question originally was, that certain acts be entered as read, and that the House do resolve itself into a committee on the following day, to consider of them. Upon this the chancellor of the exchequer had moved the previous question; but, after an explanation of something which had passed between the hon. mover and a right hon. gentleman permission had been asked of the House to withdraw it. The only question now was, that the House should resolve itself into a committee of the whole House to-morrow, to take the subject into consideration.
The question on this motion was then put and agreed to. Mr. Maberly then moved, "that it be an instruction to the said committee to consider of charging a duty on the importation of foreign linen yarn."
Lord Miltonapprehended that the House would be travelling rather too fast in immediately assenting to this new proposition without any discussion. It seemed to him that it would be early enough to bring forward this question on the following day.
Mr. Robinsonthought it would be an extraordinary proceeding to send such an instruction as this to a committee of the whole House. It was the addition of a matter that had no connexion with the subject into which the committee was appointed to inquire. The first object that
774
was to engage the attention of the committee was the continuance of certain bounties; but to this the hon. gentleman was desirous of superadding an entirely new law. He doubted whether this was consistent with the forms of the House; but, at all events, he was not pledged to support more than the hon. gentleman's first proposition.
Mr. Tierneywas of opinion that his hon. friend had adopted the proper course, and made his motion at the right time. It was not to pass without discussion, but the discussion would regularly take place when the committee should be appointed.
Mr. Bankes,conceived that the terms of the instruction being in some degree imperative, brought the whole question now before the House.
Sir John Newportremarked, that the subject matter of the instruction was. altogether extraneous to the question which the committee would have to consider.
The Speakersaid, that, without reference to the arguments adduced on either side, it must be the wish of the House that its forms should be complied with. It was clear that, if the terms of the motion were imperative, it was no instruction at all; and that it must be brought forward in another shape in the committee, and make part of its report with a view to a future bill. But in this case the instruction was not imperative, and the real difficulty which he felt, arose from a doubt whether it was competent to make such an instruction referring to matters which, without it, the committee could not consider on any day but that on which the committee was appointed. It was, however, substantially inconsistent with their forms to take any step, or express any opinion, prior to the time of discussion.
Mr. Maberlydeclared himself quite willing to defer to the sense of the House, or the opinion of the Chair.
The question as to the instruction was then withdrawn.

ALIEN BILL.
Lord Castlereaghrose, pursuant to the notice he had given, to move for leave to bring in a Bill to continue the Alien act, and to abolish naturalization, arising from the purchase of stock in Scotland. The bill intended to continue the act for the same period during which it had been lately in force namely, two years. This was the fifth time which this question had been brought under the consideration of parliament.

775
In calling the attention of the House to a subject with which it must be perfectly familiar, after the repeated discussions which it had undergone since the conclusion of peace, he did not consider it necessary to go into any wide extent of observation. He should confine himself within a narrow range, and, in truth; had intended to preface his motion with a few sentences only, till he understood that an hon. and gallant general, and some other hon. members near him, had intimated a determination to oppose at this early stage the measure which he had in contemplation. He did not mean to complain of this proceeding on their part; it was quite open to them to act in this manner with reference to a subject the nature and tenour of which they so thoroughly understood. The proposed measure was regarded on the other side of the House with a great deal of constitutional jealousy: it was imagined that it went to alter the established habits of the country as respected foreigners, and the avowed intention to oppose if on this principle made it his duty to state the grounds on which parliament was again called upon to renew it. It was not probable that it would be contended either that any disposition to abuse the powers which the Alien act vested in his majesty's government had been indicated, or that any actual abuses had been committed. He was confident that, when the returns were produced, the small number of persons sent out of the country would raise not the argument of abuse, but rather an argument that there was no adequate necessity for continuing the law. But the House would allow him to remark, that the paucity of such cases did not prove that the measure might be dispensed with, or that its existence was not conducive to the public safety. It was no evidence that great danger would not arise if the government had not this preventive power in its hands. Many foreigners might be tempted to come over here with improper views, were it not for their knowledge that government had the power to send them forth. The number at present in this country was 25,000, being a considerable increase on the number in 1818; and of these very few comparatively were here for commercial purposes. He was aware that foreign merchants were peculiarly favoured by Magna Charta, and some of our older statutes; but the practical question was, whether, in the present
776
circumstances of Europe, and of this country, so large a number of foreigners ought to be left exempt from all control on the part of government. No one more than himself respected that free and generous spirit of the country, which afforded a sanctuary for distressed foreigners, which extended to them the protection of the laws, and did not hold them accountable for acts done in other countries. But they could not, in his opinion, safely carry the principle so far as to admit a multitude of foreigners who might come for purposes hostile to our own domestic peace, or in order to carry on their machinations against foreign states. The measure was to be justified, therefore, with reference to British objects and British security: its tendency was not to refuse protection, but to guard our internal repose, and to prevent any compromise of our amicable relations with other powers. As to the necessity of such a measure having ceased with the war, he begged leave to say that parliament had more than once overruled that proposition. There was also a material difference between the principle of the war Alien act, and the provisions of the measure now under consideration, and as it had been framed since the establishment of peace. 'During the continuance of the war, every foreigner who visited this country was presumed to come with inimical feelings, and he was placed under the inspection of the police. He was constrained to reside in a particular district, and treated in every point of view as a suspected person. He might be sent forth either for special reasons or on: violating the regulations which had been prescribed for his observance. The law underwent a material change on the arrival of peace. There was now no presumption against the foreigner: he was permitted to reside where, and to change his residence as often as, he pleased. All that was required of him was, to deliver; his name at the port where he landed, and to sign it before a peace-officer. Every facility of access was then granted, and he was at liberty to enjoy in its full latitude the hospitality of this country. It was only when supposed to be engaged in schemes dangerous to the state that a power was reserved of sending him forth as in time of war. If this policy were wise on the return of peace, he did not think that what had subsequently occurred afforded any reason for leaving the

777
executive government more helpless than at that period. It was very true, indeed, that the foreign war had ceased, but it was equally true that a species of internal war might exist within the country—a species of war more dangerous to its peace, and more embarrassing for the executive government to contend with in support of the public safety, than that open and undisguised warfare which might be waged by a declared enemy. He thought that the events which had passed within their own country of late years, must convince gentlemen, that, as far as internal danger had existed, it was more malignant, it was of a more decided and extensive character, and aimed more directly at the subversion of the constitution, than any which could have been supposed likely to menace their safety at the time when the Alien law passed. The House might ask, "What have the treasons in this country, which have been proved to exist, in due course of law—what have they to do with the non-admission of aliens?" If gentlemen could persuade themselves that foreigners never did, and never could, and never would lend their assistance to the disaffected—if it could be supposed that, under all circumstances, no foreigners could be found to assist in combining the treason that might exist in this country with their own views against the state—if those treasons could never be used in furtherance of the hostile efforts of other states, then indeed the argument would have some weight. But this was by no means a fair presumption, and, if not, the argument was fallacious. Though they had receded from the French revolution, yet it could not be said that those "gentlemen" who now advocated the principles which were admired at that period had at all degenerated from the feelings or violence of their predecessors. He believed there were traitors in this day who were ready, in the accomplishment of their schemes, to set at defiance every principle of humanity, every sentiment that was worthy of man in civilized society, or that was consonant with the character of beings in a human shape. If a fanatical spirit were abroad, which induced men to think that they had a right to do acts even of murder, that they might advance their projects—if that fanaticism were to be found on the continent as well as here, might not the kindred feelings which inspired it, induce indivi-
778
duals, labouring under its influence, to assist each other in attaining their objects, as far as their means and opportunity permitted them? He therefore conceived that he did not call on the House to adopt an indefensible measure when he asked them to agree to this bill. When bad principles disclosed themselves—principles which must operate more against the internal peace of the country, its character, and safety, than any others which could be imagined—and when those dangerous principles seemed to be in unison with others that were disseminated abroad, it was surely right to provide for the security of the state. Besides, he thought the measure was necessary in order to secure that peace which this country had conquered—to prevent our character being compromised with foreign states, which assuredly must be the case if we received and retained on our shores those who had been sent away from other countries, or who had fled from punishment. By doing so we might be looked upon as participating in their designs. Such was the nature of the necessity which, he conceived, demanded the present measure. With respect to the measure itself, although he admitted that a law of this description was but of modern introduction into the country, yet, as far as the principle was concerned, he could hardly imagine any state in which it was not found to exist. There was, he conceived, no country, in which it was not competent for the civil power to send away foreigners, who, abusing the confidence reposed in them, to the extent of shaking the peace and overturning the constitution of the state, were no longer fit to be sheltered within it. He thought it was too much to say, that foreigners should come into a state, and, if they could keep themselves within the law of that state, or the technicalities of the law, they should be safe, and the civil power should have no opportunity of removing them, however dangerous their presence might be to the safety of that state, in various points of view. If this power were allowed in every country—and he knew no state in which it was not incidental to the sovereign power—where, he would ask, could it be placed, under this constitution, but in the executive government, appointed by the Crown, by whom other great powers were also exercised? With respect to the question, whether or not was a power that really

779
belonged to the executive authority of this country—as a power, not exercised under a law of this description, but as a portion of authority recognized by the present law, as existing in the sovereign the House was aware that on this question the highest Jaw authorities had given a distinct opinion. Blackstone stated that it was competent for the Crown to send all foreigners out of the country. The late chief-justice of the King's Bench, lord Ellenborough, laid down the same doctrine, distinctly, in the discussions that had taken place elsewhere on this subject. The present lord chancellor considered it a power, which, by the frame of the constitution, necessarily resided in the Crown, and which had been acted on in different periods of our history. No doubt the power, which by the constitution was vested in the Crown, would be very little applicable to the present time, if it were exercised as it had formerly been. If he understood the system properly, the alien, in former times, in case of his refusal when ordered to go forth, was subjected to the ordinary course of law, and was prosecuted for his disobedience. Therefore, this power of the Crown was of such a description, that if it were to be exercised in this manner in the days in which they lived, it would not be found sufficient for the accomplishment of its own object. The consequence was, that this defect gave rise to the course of legislation by which the present bill had been produced—which was a modification, a due application, and a proper regulation of that power which actually resided in the Crown, but which, until thus regulated, was slow and inconvenient in its operation. If they lived in times when there was a complete state of peace in the world—when there was an absence of any danger that might threaten to disturb the general tranquillity of all states—he should feel that it would be a very natural disposition for all ranks to entertain a desire that this country should be allowed to proceed on its ancient system of law, and that our shores should be left completely open to the ingress of foreigners. They might then be guided by the necessity of any case that should happen to arise, instead of having a specific law on the subject. But they did not live at such a period, and therefore the law became necessary. Having stated to the House, without exaggeration, what
780
he conceived to be the character of the present moment, he would submit to gentlemen whether it would not be trifling with the peace of the country, exposing its best interests to danger, and, with its interests, the best interests of mankind, if they did not give to the Crown the effectual means of checking the evil he had described, if those means which formerly existed were insufficient for that purpose. He must again call on the House to say, whether there had been any disposition on the part of government to ask for those powers, connected with any other feeling but a desire for the public safety; and, having obtained them, whether they had been exercised in a way that savoured of oppression, or with a disposition that rendered the hospitality of this country less grateful to foreigners than it hitherto had been? If they had not been improperly asked for—and if, when granted, they had not been abused—he trusted the House would act on the side of public safety, and not deprive government of this engine of preservation, which, in his conscience, he believed, had only been put in operation against individuals who came to this country under improper circumstances, and whose conduct might have created a scene of faction dangerous to our tranquillity. He did not mean to place this measure on a permanent principle; although much of what he had stated, and much that could be advanced, with respect to the necessity of protecting the state against the acts of foreigners, would war ant a permanent arrangement. He would not, however, propose a measure of a general nature, or one that would permanently alter their system of police. He introduced this measure rather as an exception to the general rule, than as the rule itself; and he would therefore move;—"That leave be given to bring in a bill for further continuing the act of the 56th of Geo. 3rd, for establishing regulations respecting Aliens arriving in, or resident in, this kingdom, in certain cases."
Sir Robert Wilsonwas aware that it was rather unusual to debate a question on the motion for leave to bringin a bill; but the present question was of such a nature as to justify him in coming forward thus early to resist its introduction, and he had the satisfaction to know that many members approved of the course

781
he was about to pursue. An hon. friend of his had intended, in the course of last session, to move for the abolition of the existing act, and he was one of those who advised him against it, under a belief that the government could not think of proposing it to parliament for the fourth time in a period of profound peace. He denied that this measure was introduced to serve British interest and objects; and he believed, that 99 out of 100 of those who thought on the subject were of opinion that it was one of those arrangements made at Vienna, or during the proceedings of one of those ambulatory congresses of sovereigns at which the noble lord had attended, and from which he now found it impossible to recede. It was generally felt that this bill was one of the measures designed to promote an uniform system of police throughout Europe; so that any individual who happened to offend a member of that confederacy which had been denominated "Holy," but which he should always consider most "Unholy," would be unable to escape from prosecution by taking refuge in any other part of Europe.—The noble lord had talked of this as "a preventive measure." Laws, he conceived, were good, as preventives; but those laws never could be good that required them to suspend their constitution. What a contrast did England present, after passing a measure of this kind, when placed in opposition to her former situation and character ! It was formerly her glory that she was the asylum of the unfortunate, the refuge of the destitute. It was her boast that she administered the same law to the stranger and to the native. Their rights, and liberties, and interests, were identified with her own—those rights, and liberties, and interests, were recognized in the great, but he was sorry he could no longer say, respected, charter of this country. He knew that the opinion of judge Black-stone and lord Ellenborough supported the doctrine of the noble lord. But he would appeal to a much greater authority—that of lord Coke, who, speaking of that clause in the great charter, in which the rights of aliens were mentioned, where it was declared that they could not be removed "nisi publice prohibit sint," observed on this passage, "This does not imply that the king has not the prerogative, but that the right of making representation resides in the great council of
782
the nation, the Parliament of England." Let the House look to the conduct of France at the present moment. Instead of enacting laws for driving foreigners from her territory, she had passed a law enabling them to become French citizens, and giving them a full participation in the rights, liberties, and immunities of the French people. As long as the Charter of France was respected, the power of sending aliens out of that country could not be exercised by the sovereign—a fact of which he was assured by the first French lawyers. The course pursued under the Alien act in this country was revolting to manly feeling. Did the House recollect the case of general Gourgaud? Did they remember with what illegality, with what violence, and with what brutal, he would say with what cowardly ferocity he was treated by a person of the name of Capper, on being seized and sent out of the country?—Did they not call to mind how his person was assaulted, and his papers detained, in defiance of law? It was said he made no appeal, but it was a well-known fact that he did make one. When this was stated, what was the answer of the hon. under secretary of state? "Oh," said he, "general Gourgaud demaned to be taken before a magistrate, not before the privy council." What a total perversion was here shown of the law under which that appeal was made He would now cite a case, which proved what a degree of reproach attached to this country in consequence of the way in which the law was carried into execution. A lady of high rank, of most amiable character, and of irreproachable conduct, devotedly attached to her husband, had followed: him to a foreign country, and employed herself in the performance of those duties which were most honourable to her sex. She was at length obliged to leave that country in consequence of the advice of two physicians, who, in their certificate, stated that it was expedient that she should proceed to Europe, and even to England, in order to take the benefit of the Cheltenham waters. This lady was the countess of Montholon. She embarked with her child, who was also in. an ill state of health; and arrived on the 5th of September off Margate, in a vessel named the Lady Campbell, commanded by captain Walsh. The ship had no sooner anchored than a galliot came alongside, and it was announced

783
that she conveyed an order from the Alien Office, forbidding the countess to land. Captain Walsh remonstrated, and particularly adverted to the severe sickness of the countess's child. The countess was, however, obliged to proceed to Gravesend, and was ordered immediately on board an old gun-brig that had been given up to the Alien Office. She was ultimately placed on board the Flying Fish sloop, which proceeded to Ostend. Prior to this, Mr. Capper—that gentleman who made so conspicuous a figure in the Police Report—that gentleman who had committed an offence for which he ought to have been sent to prison, on a charge of felony—had been allowed to go to the countess Montholon, whom he also treated with much disrespect. It was a reproach to the Alien-office, after what had appeared in the police report, and after his cruel treatment of general Gourgaud, to allow this individual to remain in the department. The countess of Montholon proceeded in the Flying Fish to Ostend, where she was obliged to land, her child being in a dying state. What was her reception there? It was most kind and humane, as would appear from an extract of a letter, not indeed directed to him, but which mentioned the circumstance? "She was was immediately permitted," said the writer, "to land, and, by the direction of the king, was received with all the attention and regard due to her sex, and to the state in which she was." What a contrast did this present to her treatment here! He blushed for the opinion she must have formed of the character of England, when she compared the hospitable reception she had found on the continent with the cruelty which was exercised towards her here. Did the matter end here? No such thing. He wished it had. The child, which was not allowed to be landed here, died immediately after its arrival at Ostend. He would now quote another case, not as an instance of abuse, for the noble lord had acted with great kindness and humanity on the occasion, but to show what consequences might have resulted under a more rigorous enforcement of the law. A nobleman of high rank, who had held a conspicuous situation under the late government of France, and against whom sentence of death had been passed by the present government, for a political offence, quitted that country with his former sovereign. He was not,
784
however suffered to remain with him, but was sent to Malta, and from thence he went to Smyrna. He afterwards came to this country, being properly provided with a passport. He was told, on his arrival, that he must depart immediately for the distant country whence he came. He happened to have a number of friends in this kingdom, to whom he stated his case. They mediated for him, and the noble lord procured leave for him to reside: here for a month. When that period had elapsed, farther term was allowed him; and thus the indulgence was granted for the space of three or four months, till he was enabled, with some premature hazard, to return to his own country, where he vindicated himself from the charges which had been brought against him, and obtained the reversion of that sentence by which he had been condemned to death.; But, if this individual had happened to be friendless, he would have been sent out of this country, subject to the greatest hazards as a miserable exile. In this case, too, Mr. Capper made his appearance. He went to the House where this individual resided—to the house of Mr. Wilkinson, one of the most respectable merchants in London, and insisted on going into his bedroom, and overlooking his papers, which he did in a manner the least conciliating or decorous. Such was the impropriety of his conduct, that Mr. Wilkinson sent to the office, declaring that, if it were repeated, he would take forcible steps on the subject. He would again ask, was: such a man as this fit to be kept in his situation? Persons were removed, under this act, who had committed no offence I against the constitution of England, and who could commit none. He believed there was a case in which foreign interference had caused an individual to be sent out of this country for a libel on a foreign prince. A law of this nature might find some excuse in the military government of Prussia, and still more so in that of Russia, but in England it could have no such apology. And how was it carried into effect? The form of notice when a foreigner arrived in this country was extraordinary. It ran thus:—"You are to present yourself at the Alien-office within a week, to answer certain questions, a neglect of which notice renders you liable to imprisonment for one month," This notice was given not only to men, but to ladies, and even to children of 15

785
years old so that a lady came to this country with the dangers of imprisonment before her eyes. The government of the Netherlands now refused to permit any Englishman to land without a pass from the British government; for that lie must go to the noble lord's office, where he paid 2l. 17 s. 6d. for it. A friend of his, after he got his pass, complained to the Dutch consul; the answer was, that the Alien-laws were vexatious to foreigners by their regulations, which impeded and delayed mutual intercourse, and therefore similar impediments might be expected in return. The noble lord had stated that there were 25,000 foreigners in this country. This body was by the proposed bill to remain entirely subjected to an arbitrary power. He hoped that no Englishman would think, because they were foreigners, that the exertion of an arbitrary power over them did not signify any thing, because he was sure that those who looked lightly to the operation of an oppressive system with respect to others, would ultimately be sacrificed to a similar system themselves. The noble lord said, that the presence of those 25,000 individuals called for this bill; but the revocation of the edict of Nantes introduced a greater number, and yet there was no Alien-bill then. Indeed they never had such a measure until the late war, and until the present time they had not heard of what was called a peace Alien-bill. Foreigners looked upon it as a measure directed against the independent sentiments of a free people; but the victors to-day might be the vanquished tomorrow, and were they prepared to meet the exertions that might be made against our manufactures and commerce by those whose feelings were outraged by this measure? The people of the continent no longer looked on England as a place of refuge, but Spain had gloriously elevated herself by affording an asylum to the persecuted. Though he had no hope of succeeding, he would certainly take the sense of the House on the question. He did not care what the numbers might be, but he would do so with a view to show that he considered this not only as an unconstitutional and anti-British, but as an anti-European measure.
Mr. C. B. Wallsaid, that in the year 1715 aliens were protected by a commercial treaty. It had been observed, that there had been no abuse of the powers conferred by this measure, and it
786
had been replied from the other side that there had been abuses committed. But, conscientiously acting, he must vote on the merits of any question, not upon the character and conduct of an administration. Such a power must at all times have the effect of bringing odium and responsibility on ministers. Under such an act ministers must often interfere, when, perhaps, they would rather remain quiet. Perhaps their interference would often arise from the ever-zealous conduct of their own officers towards foreigners. He would not enter into any argument on the law of the question, nor would he discuss at length the general policy of it; but he would ask the House to consider what was the general opinion of foreigners respecting the Alien-act. He did not allude to opinions received from the diplomatic corps, or from attendants en foreign courts, but he appealed to all gentlemen travelling through foreign countries, whether foreigners ever mentioned the British government and the British constitution, without expressing astonishment, that such a measure as this could be proposed by a British ministry, and sanctioned by a British parliament. The noble lord had stated that there were 25,000 foreigners in this country. He begged the House to recollect the situation in which all those persons were placed by this bill; he begged them to recollect with what feelings they must look around them upon a nation, free, and jealous of freedom, yet subjecting them to such a law. In the land of liberty and law, they found that the people with whom they lived would not impart to them what they themselves enjoyed. He combatted the apprehension, that foreigners might become spies and informers, by the fact that Buonaparté had always employed disaffected natives, and that every government inclined to watch our movements, must have recourse to the same means. Ministers, in proposing this bill, introduced a principle unknown to the British constitution. It was absurd to establish such a power in a free country: in a despotic government it might be intelligible and useful; but in a free country, no sooner was any project started than it was discussed, and therefore such secret and summary steps were never necessary. If such a measure as this had been in any view called for at a former period, the year 1820 was favourable for discontinuing it, and for reverting to the just principles of our constitution.
The Solicitor Generalsaid, he should rot have risen upon the present occasion were ft not for some observations that had fallen from the gallant general, and the statement made by him with respect to the abuse of the law. Had it been abused, as the gallant general said, there would certainly be a strong ground for opposing the motion; but the charges brought forward had not the slightest foundation in truth. With respect to the case of general Gourgaud, it was, on a former occasion, brought before the House in the shape of a petition. All the statements now made by the gallant officer were then advanced, and they were every one contradicted. No answer was given to that contradiction. If the charges could have been made out, it was the duty of those who brought them forward to appoint a day for taking the allegations of the petition into consideration. That not being done, was sufficient evidence that those allegations could not be supported by proof. The gallant officer himself, took great pains to ascertain the truth. He wrote to a person at Harwich, and put various questions a3 to the treatment of general Gourgaud. These questions were all answered, but the answers were never brought under the consideration of the House. General Gourgaud was allowed to go before a magistrate at Harwich. Gentlemen were permitted to visit him while there; and if he had any ground for complaint, he had full opportunity of proving it.—It was not true that he paid the expenses of the officers who attended him: he paid his own expenses, but he insisted on doing so; and he had instituted no complaint of improper conduct on the part of the officers. Yet, when the case was before the House, the gallant general had not had the candour to state what he had done, or what had resulted from his inquiries. Had the charges in the petition been brought forward, they could have been most triumphantly refuted. He would undertake to say, that every statement in the petition was a falsehood. When Mr. Capper, with his assistants, entered the general's lodgings, and was proceeding to the performance of his duty with propriety, he perceived him endeavouring, to get hold of a case of pitols on his chimney-piece. Some force then became necessary. He insisted upon having his papers. They were given to him, and he put his seal on
788
them. He then refused to go with the officers, and threw up the window, calling out "Murder, thieves!" Under such circumstances, some force, of course, became necessary, but no more was used than was indispensable for securing his person and preventing mischief. All this would have been proved if the allegations of the petition had been gone into. Was the House now to believe them on the mere assertion of the gallant general? As to the other cases alluded to, they were never before the House in any shape, but he would take upon him to say, whatever reports might have gone abroad, that the countess Montholon was treated kindly, and that if the case were brought forward, every charge made by the gallant general could be satisfactorily answered. The gallant general had insinuated that the present bill was proposed as part of the measures agreed upon by the Holy Alliance. He would beg of the House to mark the inconsistency of his reasoning. England was mo party to the Holy Alliance, and yet, according to him, this bill was to be attributed to it, while France, which was a party to that alliance, adopted no such measure. He would contend that such was the natural inference from the gallant general's reasoning, and such the contradiction that necessarily arose from it. He denied that this question was not to be considered with reference to law. He must contend, and he would now assert without fear of contradiction, that the power of sending foreigners oat of the country was the undoubted right of the Crown. If such was the case this could not be called a new law, but mere matter of regulation. How was this assertion to be supported? He was not prepared to go fully into the proof, as he did not expect the discussion would so soon take place, but he recollected sufficient to know that for 200 years back this power was exercised by, and admitted to reside in the Crown. It was acted upon in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and also in that for King William, a time of profound peace. He heard it said, indeed, that they were now too much in the habit of recurring to ancient precedents for the present law. This he would contend was a legitimate course of argument; but were there no novel authorities upon this subject? What did that great lawyer sir William Blackstone say? He laid it

789
down in the broadest and most unequivocal terms, that the king had the power of sending foreigners out of the country in time of peace. How then did the case stand? He (the solicitor general), had ancient usage, law, and authority on his side. He had the authority of that distinguished person sir William Black-stone, the authority also of lord Ellen-borough. The gallant general argued this question a lawyer; and said, that he had the authority of Magna Charta. The passage, however, alluded to, was not properly stated. It had no reference to such aliens as those contemplated by the present bill. In the time that Magna Charta was drawn up, foreign merchants were allowed to remain only a short time in the country. With respect to ingress and egress, they were treated in a most arbitrary way, and subject to heavy exactions. Their case alone was that referred to in the passage quoted, and it was intended for their protection. He did not assert this rashly. The question was not new. It had been argued over and over again. In the very same page where sir William Blackstone set out this passage from Magna Charta, he asserted also the power of the Crown to send foreigners out of the country. This showed to demonstration that he did not interpret it in the same sense as the gallant general. So far as to the law of England. Now, what was the general law of all countries with respect to this point? Puffendorf, Vatel, and every other writer on the law of nations, that be had looked into, admitted that, in every state, a right of sending foreigners out of the country resided in the sovereign power; and on that part of the subject he appealed with confidence to his hon. and learned friend opposite, who was eminently acquainted with questions of this nature. Every one of those writers vested this right in the sovereign power. That power in this country was in the legislature. But it was vested, for the sake of convenience, propriety, and necessity, in the executive; otherwise the power would be inoperative for six months every year. He would take an analogous case. Who granted letters of licence or safe conduct? The sovereign power of the state. If such was the case in every country, it was a matter of course, that in this, such powers should be vested in the executive. The present bill was only a provisional regulation and he
790
would ask, if the authority to be conferred under it, could be 'more mildly exercised than it had been? It was objected that such measures tended to injure our character with foreigners. In opposition to this, he would venture to say, if the cases were all examined, that out of the 25,000 aliens now in this country at least two-thirds of them—he was told all—came here under the operation and faith of this bill. Only nine had been sent away since the passing of the 3ct now proposed to be revived. It might be said, that this proved the measure not to be now necessary. In that conclusion he could not acquiesce, even though the number had been smaller. If those nine cases were fully stated to the House, he felt confident that there was not one, to the propriety of which they would not immediately assent.—There never was a period, in the history of this country, when foreigners were treated with more generous and attentive benevolence, or with more enlarged humanity; never a period when their rights were held more sacred, or when they enjoyed more liberty than since the passing of the Alien bill. He would conclude by again asserting, that it was the ancient prerogative of the Crown to send aliens out of the country. He would not now trespass further on the House, but he had no doubt that he should on a future day be able to bring precedents to justify the opinions he had advanced.
Sir James Mackintoshsaid, that at so late an hour of the night, and so much exhausted as he felt himself, he should have been unwilling to say any thing on a subject on which at former times, and at great length, he had felt it necessary to trespass on the indulgence of the House, had not his opinion been specially called for by his hon. and learned friend in a manner for which he was certainly very grateful. As that had been done, he should now on the first stage trouble the House with a few words on a measure, to every stage of which he should offer his most decided opposition, reserving for a future occasion a more detailed statement of his reasons. In making these observations it was not his intention to enter into a controversy as, to particular facts, arising from the. cases which had been mentioned by his gallant friend; in the first place, because he was not acquainted-with the circumstances of those cases, and must, therefore, leave

791
it to those who were; and in the next place, because the discussion of particular instances of abuse might tend in some degree, to weaken the argument against the measure. In his opinion, the mischief and malignity of this measure was, that it necessarily was the instrument of injustice in the hands even of those who least intended to abuse it. The most conscientious ministers of such a power must necessarily, at times, be made the dupes of misinformation, and the tools of private malice. It is thus put in the power of accident or individual hostility to inflict the utmost injury and oppression. He had viewed the measure since the peace not merely with jealousy;—he had viewed it with abhorrence. He had viewed it as one of the most odious deviations from the ancient and liberal system of our laws that formed a part of our under legislation. It was (as had been well expressed by an hon. gentleman who had spoken that night for the first time with such credit to himself—who had shown the force of principle getting the better of political partiality on a particular subject, while be retained his general attachment to the persons with whom he had been accustomed to act) a measure for reducing to slavery 25,000 of the inhabitants of this island—a measure for depriving 25,000 persons of all the benefits of our free constitution. This, with the noble lord, was an argument in its favour. He stated the number of the persons to be outlawed as an argument in favour of the outlawry—he stated the number of the victims as an argument for the oppression; but as to this numerical argument, this argument, in which the feelings of our ancestors, who would have gloried in the number of fugitives which our laws and manners had attracted, were reversed and made reasons for oppression,—was the noble lord aware what the average number of aliens in this country during the last 80 years had been? Not less than 23 or 24,000. It was then the accidental presence of two or 3,000 foreigners beyond the average in one half year, to be diminished again after the passing of this bill, that was to justify the measure. His learned and hon. friend had said that the power of expelling alien friends must belong to the supreme power of a state. He (sir J. M.) most fully admitted that the power of expelling foreigners must belong to the supreme power of every state, savage or
792
civilized. Nay, he would go farther, and admit that it was impossible to conceive a sovereign power which had not the power of banishing even its own subjects. His hon. and learned friend therefore seeded not to have made all his parade of jurists to prove that a supreme power must be supreme over foreigners in its dominions. His hon. and learned friend had quoted; from sir. Blackstone the only part of the valuable work of that learned person, into two of three lines of which falsehood; and absurdity were crowded. Blackstone in that passage began with quoting Paffendorff—a German jurist—a writher under a despotic government—as an authority as to the prerogative of the Crown of England and his Hon; and learned friend had not been ashamed to adduce that, for the twentieth time, exposed and exploded passage. But his horn and learned friend had forgotten to state, that in the passage in question, sir W, Blackstone asserted not only that the king had a power to send aliens out of the kingdom, but to send them back to their respective countries. Was there a general right of this kind? Was there any authority or pretext of an authority for stating that there was any right, not only to eject aliens from our own country but to prolong the exercise of sovereignty over them when they were out of this country, to send them back to any country, however distant, and to throw them into the jaws of the persecutors from whom they had sought refuge i His hon. and learned friend had also talked of the great authorities of the present day. Those great authorities, however, were all parties to the system of the Alien laws, and they certainly had rested on so rotten a foundation, in part, at least, that a great portion of their superstructure must necessarily fall to the ground. The only precedents which could be found by those great authorities were in the reign of queen Elizabeth, and they were dug out of the Paper Office so late as 1816. The bill bad gone through the Commons before those precedents were thought of, and in the other House the question was argued with as much learning and eloquence as had ever been displayed on any subject; so that towards the end of its stages these great authorities found it necessary to set their agents at work, and these precedents were found. They were two proclamations; issued in the reign of

793
queen Elizabeth, commanding Scotsmen, who were then aliens, to quit the realm. If Scotsmen were still in the same condition, and were liable to exile, the House might be content to accept the bill, in consideration of the persons on whom it was to be exercised; but that at least could not now be done, and whatever measures they might take as to aliens, they must be content lo endure the presence of Scotsmen. Two years after 1818, these proclamations were quoted in that House, and he (sir J. M.) had given what he conceived a sufficient answers But since that period lie had found one still more decisive. There was a certain statute of the 7th of Henry 7th, authorizing the Crown to expel Scotsmen by proclamation, and imposing on those who did not obey the proclamation, in forty days, forfeiture of their goods; a penalty which would not be thought a heavy one in the case of Scotsmen, though it might be too, after they had sojourned some time in England. This statute was repealed on the accession of James 1st, together with all the statutes hostile to Scotland. In the reign of Elizabeth, however, it was in full force and observance, so that those proclamations, instead of being a proof that the Crown could exercise such a power without, the authority of an act of parliament, were a proof of directly the contrary fact. This doctrine then, of the power of the Crown over aliens, which was now brought forward amidst the light and liberality of the 18th century, was not breathed under the most despotic of the Tudors, and the subservient lawyers and statesmen of Henry 7th had not ventured to assert what the lawyers and statesmen of George 4th now asserted. It was sometimes made a matter of complaint that we did not look with sufficient reverence to our ancestors; he wished modern politicians, by the contrast of their propositions, would not force them so often to look back to the acts of our ancestors with regret. In this act, even of the time of Henry 7th, was contained not only a recognition that the Crown possessed no such power, but 4th days were allowed to the foreigners to leave the kingdom. What would be said now in favour of the summary power of the present bill, by which a woman was dragged from her bed, by which foreigners were forbidden to land, when even the statesmen of Henry 7th allowed so long a
794
time? He conceived no answer could possibly be given to the citation of this statute. If the royal proclamations were issued, the Scotsmen who remained in defiance of the proclamation were punishable under that statute, but not otherwise; so that there was not an idea that the king at common law had the right to issue the proclamation, or that it was a common law offence to disobey it. It was stated, that the reason for the present law was, that the king's proclamation might not be disobeyed. What was that but an admission that we were to legislate more sternly, more severely, and more suspiciously than Henry 7th, the Tiberius of our history, yet whose politics never made it necessary to have recourse to such summary proceedings? His hon. and learned friend had argued that the doctrine advanced against the bill was inconsistent with itself. He would retort a challenge on the challenger. If the king had the power by proclamation to expel aliens from the country in time of peace, the disobedience of that proclamation would necessarily be at common law indictable. Where, he asked, in 500 years, from the first volume of the year books to the present time, was there an instance of any indictment for such an offence? This was the touchstone of the assumed power, and by this criterion it would be found wanting. He denied that the supreme power of this state was in the King alone, but in the King, Lords, and Commons. In them was the general exercise of the sovereign power; the king only possessed such branches of it as by immemorial usage had been proved and allowed to be vested in him. The king in parliament was the sovereign power. This was a proposition which he was almost ashamed of stating, for it was only as much as saying, that we lived under a free government, under a limited monarchy. His hon. and learned friend had, however, maintained that by the constitution it was left to the king to conduct all matters with respect to foreigners. This proposition was incorrectly stated. It was left to the king to conduct all the relations of the country with foreign states. But individual foreigners while in this country had a definite right. They were entitled to trial by jury. The law, till this accursed system of alien acts was introduced, regulated the conduct of the country towards resident foreigners. Alien friends were temporarily subjects of

795
the king; they owed temporary allegiance, and were entitled to temporary protection. Although it was true that the right of making peace and war, and entering into other regulations with foreign states, rested in the Crown; the same right did not extend to its relation with foreigners residing in England. The analogy entirely failed; the whole argument founded upon it consisted of a play upon the word "foreigner," arid the conclusion attempted to be drawn was one decidedly hostile to the best principles of our constitution. As to those aliens who had come into this country during the war alien acts, who were thus said to have a clear foresight of the laws to which they were subjecting themselves, he wished to ask whether any one in 1814 would not have considered as a libel upon the country, a prophecy that those laws would be continued in time of peace? They had been declared to be laws justified by extreme danger, and intended to cease with that danger. His hon. and learned friend had borrowed from an eloquent speech of a right hon. friend of his, in 1818, an eulogium on the liberality and generosity of the nation towards foreigners. He (sir J. M.) was happy to say that the new-fashioned principles of the government had not tainted the generosity of the people, that they were liberal and hospitable in spite of the bad example which had been set them. In this it might be said that the people were more wise than the laws—he would, however, say only a part of those laws—for the general system was as good as a nation could possibly enjoy. The people, however, certainiy now showed themselves to possess more liberality than their rulers, and more of the spirit of humanity of the age than was to be found in the measures of parliament. How little value soever his hon. and learned friend might set on the character of this country among the other nations of Europe, or how much soever he might deride their distrust of our policy, repugnance to this measure was undoubtedly universal among the disinterested nations of Europe, and distrust of our policy existed and was spreading to a mischievous extent. For the reasons he had urged, he never gave a vote with the more hearty approbation of his conscience, or a more perfect concurrence of all the feelings of his nature, than he should now give his vote against the proposition of the noble lord in this the very
796
first stage of a bill, which, lie agreed with his gallant friend, if now passed, would be continued for ever; for, he put it to the House, whether, if they consented to the bill as now proposed, it would not be continued from time to time, until the arrival of that period of general and profound peace which existed only in the dreams of poets, and which had been well ridiculed by a German philosopher, who placed the motto "Pax perpetua" on a tomb-stone.
Mr. Lambtondid not intend to occupy much of the time of the House. He only rose for the purpose of remarking on some observations which had fallen from the hon. and learned solicitor-general. He did not remember whether that hon. and learned gentleman was in the House at the period of his (Mr. Lambton's) presenting a petition to which he had alluded. If he were he must have grossly misunderstood what he had said on the occasion; or if he had not, he must have received a most erroneous account of what had occurred. At the time when he presented the petition from general Gourgaud, in 1818, he had asked the noble lord to consent to a committee, in which he would pledge himself to bring proof of the facts stated. The noble lord refused that committee; and he (Mr. Lambton) did not attempt to bring the matter again forward, because he knew it would be of no avail without the committee, and, aware of the manner in which the House was constituted, he well knew that it was hopeless to expect that when the noble lord had refused his consent. As to the statements now made, they rested on the credit of the petition, or on that of the hon. and learned gentlemen—which of them the House might believe, he would not pretend to say, but he thought the one entitled to as much respect as the other. The hon. and learned gentleman had stated, that general Gourgaud had seized his pistols when the officers approached to arrest him;—that might be true—but was it not natural for a man of his rank, to attempt to defend himself when he had been so intruded upon by strangers? It was also true that the general was allowed to seal his paper—but it was likewise a fact, which had been ascertained on the authority of the consul at Hamburgh, that that seal had been broken, and the portfolio returned the general opened. As to the questions of which the hon. and learned gentleman had

797
talked so much, he believed that some questions were put concerning the treatment of general Gourgaud, but he did not think to the extent that had been described. It was true, notwithstanding the boasted indulgence which had been shown to the general, that he had not been allowed to see his friends. He stated thus much to show his reason for not having followed up the subject after its first introduction, and he trusted that it would not be imagined that he was one who would withdraw from any object connected with his duty in that House, while he could follow it up with effect. As to the question now before the House, he maintained that it was a departure from the principles of the constitution—that it was one of the results of that holy alliance—and that the government considered itself bound by it to surrender up to foreign governments those of its subjects who might have taken refuge amongst us, as the instance of a gentleman who had been sent out of the country at the request of the government of the Netherlands, respecting whose case he had moved for papers which had been refused. Even the despotic James 2nd afforded protection to aliens, but the noble lord acted in this way to secure for himself a high character in foreign countries. He should certainly vote against the motion, as he conceived the bill incompatible with the dignity of this country.
The Solicitor Generalbegged leave to say, that Mr. Capper apprized general Gourgaud of the nature of his business before he arrested him.
Lord Castlereagh,in reply, said, that he did not recollect the case with the government of the Netherlands to which the hon. member for Durham alluded. When Las Casas was sent out of this country, it was not with any view that he was to be taken into custody on his arrival in the Netherlands. As to the Holy Alliance, he denied that this country was a party to it in any diplomatic sense of the word. There was no understanding connected with it by which we were to send obnoxious foreigners out of the country. On the contrary, he thought that other countries had a right to complain of the indulgence shown to foreigners, considering the powers which this law placed in our hands. He never heard any government complain of the act, or adopt any measures hostile to the passages of Englishmen through their kingdom in consequence of it. Cer-
798
tain regulations had been made as to the passports of Englishmen by the government of Sweden and the Netherlands; but it arose from the internal situation of this country at the time; and on the earliest representation which he had made of the inconvenience which was thus occasioned to English travellers, it was done away with in Sweden, and was not now acted upon by the government of the Netherlands. He could assure the House that this did not arise from a spirit of retaliation, for any measure which we had adopted.
Mr. Lambtonstated, that he had, in 1818, moved for the papers respecting an alien sent out of the country at the request of the government of the Netherlands.
The House divided: Ayes, 149; Noes, 63.

List of the Minority.

Althorp, viscount

Maberly, John.

Baring, Alex.

Maberly,W. L.

Barnard, viscount

Mackintosh, sir J.

Barrett, S. M.

Milton, viscount

Beaumont, T. W.

Monck, J. B.

Becher, W. W.

Newport, sir J.

Baillie, colonel

Osborne, lord F.

Calcraft, John

Ossulston, lord

Caulfield, hon. H.

O'Grady, S.

Creevey, Thomas

Palmer, C. F.

Clifton, viscount

Pares, Thos.

Colburne, N.R.

Parnell, Wm.

Denison, Wm.

Philips, George

Denman, Thos.

Price, Rt.

Dundas, Thos.

Ramsden, J. C.

Duncannon, vise.

Ricardo, David

Ebrington, viscount

Robinson, sir G.

Fergusson, sir R. C.

Robarts, George

Fitzgerald, lord W.

Russell, lord John

Fitzroy, lord C.

Scarlett, James

Folkestone, visce

Scott, John

Graham, J. R. G.

Sefton, earl of

Graham, Sandford

Smith Robert

Harbord, hon. E.

Stuart, lord J.

Heron, sir R.

Sykes, D.

Hughes, W, L.

Spurrier, C.

Hughes, col.

Tierney, G.

Hume, J.

Wall, T. B.

Hutchinson, hon. C. H.

Ward, hon. J.W.

Jervoise, G. P.

TELLERS.

Lamb hon. W.

Lambton, J. G.

Lloyd, sir Ed.

Wilson, sir Robt.

Lushington, Dr.

SMALL DEBTS RECOVERY BILL.
Lord Redesdalerose to introduce a bill for the recovery of small debts. In the last parliament a great number of petitions had been presented on this subject, and it was generally expected that some measure would be founded upon them. This expectation, he thought, ought to be realized as soon as possible. A good many years ago it had occurred to him to introduce a bill for the purpose of facilitating the recovery of small debts; but, from certain circumstances, no progress was then made in the measure. In framing the bill he was about to submit to their lordships, he had considered it advantageous that the persons performing the duties of judges and juries should not be confounded; that the juries should be of a limited number; and that the process of recovery should be plain and simple, and accompanied with as little expense as possible. The sum recoverable at present in the county courts did not exceed 40 s., and this he proposed to extend considerably. The judge might be appointed in the same way as the clerk of the county court, and approved by the chancellor, or two of the judges in Westminster-hall. But what struck him as most important was, that the duties of the judge and jurors should be completely separated, and that there should be no opportunity for the persons being at the same time suitors, judges, and jurors. The principle on which he wished to constitute the courts was, therefore, different from that

743
of the Middlesex county court. After a I good deal of consideration, he had new-modelled the bill he formerly brought in, and the qualifications he now proposed for the jurymen was, that they should be I freeholders of 5l. a-year, copyholders of 10 l., or copyholders and freeholders together of 10 l.; or, if their lordships thought fit, also leaseholders renting to the amount of 50 l. a-year, who were frequently more respectable persons than freeholders or copyholders of small amount. With respect to the number of jurors, he would propose that four should be a quorum. The difference of counties in extent and population would render it difficult to make at first all the provisions in the bill which might be thought necessary, and much might properly be left respecting the periods and places for the sittings of the court to the local authorities. He proposed to extend the jurisdiction of the county courts to the recovery of 10 l., and to limit the proceedings and reduce the fees as low as possible. He had selected the previsions he had introduced from different acts of parliament, and particularly from that for regulating the county-court for Middlesex. In offering the bill, he rather wished to throw it on the table for their lordships consideration, than with any desire that it should be at present passed into a law, so far as that House was capable of passing it. But, in the mean time, it might have the effect of calling the attention of their lordships and the country to the establishment of courts for the recovery of small debts in every part of the kingdom, and to the means of assimilating these courts as much as possible to the courts in Westminster-hall, particularly with regard to the keeping separate the functions of judges and juries. On these grounds he would now move the first reading of a bill for the more convenient recovery of small debts in England and Wales. If their lordships agreed to this motion, he should then move the printing of the bill, and there he would rest the proceeding for the present. Their lordships would have time to consider the provisions, and to form an opinion as to how far it was practicable to accomplish the purpose of the bill, by establishing courts in the different counties of the kingdom. The number of the jury being reduced to four, and copyholders and leaseholders being qualified as well as. freeholders, would render the burthen of attendance on the
§
744
courts very light. By giving the justices at the quarter-sessions the power of appointing the time and place for the sitting of the court, the difficulty which might arise in consequence of jurymen being called from distant parts of the country would be obviated.
The bill was read a first time.