Sitting of 12 April 1824

ALIEN BILL.
On the order of the day for the third reading of this bill,
Lord Normanbyrose to express his decided aversion to the measure. He said, he felt pleasure in hearing—not having been present on the former evenings of debate—that this was the last occasion on which the question would have to be agitated in that House; but he nevertheless felt it his duty to oppose it, even for the limited period to which ministers were desirous that it should be continued. It was a bill hostile to the principles of the British constitution, and in its operation outraged all those feelings with which, as Englishmen, we were bound to sympathise. Such a measure had never been resorted to by our ancestors, even when a Popish pretender resided at a foreign court, and was endeavouring, by his intrigues with foreigners, to overturn the government of this country. Having consolidated our own liberties, we exhibited too much indifference to the liberties of others. This Alien bill was evidently a connivance on the part of the British government with the members of the Holy Alliance. He readily allowed the mildness with which its provisions had been enforced by the right hon. gentleman opposite. But it was a question of feeling: and what must be the feelings of those gallant and honourable individuals who, having sacrificed their friends and their country rather than hold their liberties at the nod of a despot, and hoping to find security in a free country, were told, that it was a blessing on which they could not securely calculate, for that which we prized so highly ourselves we denied to others. Feeling the greatest objection to the bill, he would move, as an amendment, "That it be read a third time that day six months."
Mr. Leycesterobserved, that as it was generally understood that the bill would expire at the end of two years, it could be continued at the present time only from habit; but it was a bad habit, and
362
the sooner a bad habit was got rid of the better. What was the argument for its continuance, even for a single day? That there might be a conspiracy in this country against some of the members of the holy alliance. So much the better! Such a conspiracy would be not a crime, but a virtue; and whenever it occurred, he trusted that it would be attended by the blessing and favour of Providence. The fact was, that the present measure was proposed for the purpose of supporting Ferdinand on the throne of Spain: and it converted the ministers of George the 4th into the conservators of Ferdinand and of the Inquisition.
Colonel Palmerstated, that, being one of the half dozen individuals mentioned in a late speech, as opposing the general voice of the House and nation in praise of the measures of the government, he rose to defend his opinion, and declare his objection to this bill, considering it to be only a further measure of that weak and dishonourable policy, which aggravated the danger of the country. For what was the object of the ministers? It was not the security of their own government but those of the allied powers, and to conciliate those whose conduct they had reprobated in the strongest terms of indignation in the last session, but whom, in the present, they had not only flattered by their praises, but had actually invited to keep possession of the country of which they had so basely and treacherously made themselves masters. But, putting all honour, truth, or consistency out of the question, the effect of the measure totally defeated its intention; for the indignant, but honest language provoked by the discussion, and circulated throughout Europe by means of a free press, must goad the hostility of the allies, their hatred to England, and their efforts to destroy that liberty, incompatible with the principles they had established on the continent, and had pledged themselves to maintain The ministers, in the face of reason, common sense, and all the acts and declarations of both parties, still boasted of the good understanding betwixt them; but how was it possible these despotic powers could, be actuated by any more favourable sentiment than contempt for a government which, whatever might be its own feeling, was unable to control the feelings of the nation? For these reasons, and from a conviction of the hourly increasing danger of the country in this cause, which ad-

363
mitted of no compromise, and wherein the ministers, from whatever motives, were aiding and abetting by their conduct the avowed object of France and the holy alliance, the honourable member once more ventured to address the House upon the subject.
And first, he must return his sincere thanks to his right hon. friend below him for his answer to the speech of the right hon. gentleman; for it was the weight of his judgment and opinion of the state of Europe, the conduct of the Allied Powers, and their designs against the liberties of England, which had encouraged him again to stand up in their defence, and and would, he trusted, justify every sentiment he might utter before he resumed his seat. But, the question of foreign policy was so involved in the system of the government at home, that he must necessarily refer to both in support of his argument, and would begin by answering an observation of the noble lord, who, in the late debate upon a partial question of reform, had so pointedly alluded to the case of the city which he (the hon. member) represented, and to whom he must declare, that, for the same reason which had influenced his vote in the case of the city of Edinburgh, he would have voted for the destruction of every close and rotten borough represented in that House. For he considered all half measures, whether of foreign or domestic policy, not only to be useless, but dangerous and deceitful; and so far agreed with the right hon. gentleman, who, as the determined enemy to all change of the existing system, had openly declared he would consent to no compromise whatever betwixt the present state of the representation of the people and a complete and radical reform. Upon this issue, the hon. member said, he would enter the lists with the right hon. gentleman whenever that question might be renewed; and, in the mean time, hoped that his hon. friends would make up their minds to a measure, which, if their own picture of the danger of the country was true, was the only remedy for the evil. For what could their eloquence avail, unless they would act as well as speak? Why moot these Spanish questions, and complain of loss of honour, or danger to their liberties, unless they could redeem the one and save the other? Why talk of their recognizance to keep the peace, unless they could suggest the means to pay it off? Why vent them-
364
selves in impotent abuse, insulting and provoking those who could not call them to account, but might their country? Or why turn Job's comforters, and remind the nation of her danger, instead of setting their shoulders to the wheel to help her out of it? For what prevented them? What infatuation, what lethargy had seized them? What most stood in their way? What night-mare sat upon their breasts, and, in spite of all their efforts, pinned them down? For himself, he saw nothing but the danger of his country, and could look to nothing but the means to save her. In her cause there was no sacrifice but he would make, no hazard but he would encounter; and all the reward he sought was, the glory of her service. In her cause, he would say with Hotspur—
"By Heaven, me thinks it were an easy leap
To pluck bright honour from the pale-faced moon;
Or dive into the bottom of the deep,
Where fathom-line could never touch the ground,
And pluck up drowned honour by the locks.
But out upon this half-faced fellowship:"
For unless his honourable friends would go all lengths, and make all sacrifices of private interest for the public good, there was no salvation for their country. "Virtus sola nobilitas" was the motto of his heart, and, he hoped, too deeply written down to be erased by any temptation which the vanity of this world could offer it; and it was there alone, and not to the mottoes on their shields, that true nobility, and a high-minded aristocracy would refer those who once looked up to them, and who did so still, whenever their conduct and example deserved it.
The hon. member was convinced that he appealed to those who were influenced by the same feelings with himself, and as individuals would make those sacrifices which they deprecated or despaired of as a body. He was convinced for instance that the noble patron whom his hon. and learned friend had represented, and not the people, in his late motion for reform, would readily sacrifice his private interest for the public good. Nor did the hon. member say it from his personal esteem of the individual, but because the whole tenour of his public and private life gave the assurance. So, too, would a host of others, the flower of the aristocracy of the nation, and who in thus coming forward, would carry the whole country with them. Not that he claimed the monopoly of his feelings, nor any merit but that of treading in the steps of those who had set the example, and

365
above all, that individual who, upon the question of reform, and all others involving the honour and interest of his country, had ever stood forward, whether in or out of that House, the firmest, warmest, and most consistent friend, both to the Crown and people. But, to return to his noble friend and others, who could not agree with them upon this subject of reform. What was the difference of their feelings, unless that they were conscious of their own worth, but had a bad opinion of the world; whilst the hon. member and his friends thought better of mankind, and that others might be as honest as themselves? For they believed that God had implanted the same feelings in every human breast, and that education only made the difference. Not the education of colleges or schools, nor even writing or reading, but simply the education of example and good government. They contended, that the government of a nation was like that of any smaller body: nor could a better parallel be found than in his own profession. Suppose, then, a nation and a regiment, and the moral character and conduct of each to be equally good and unexceptionable: only put a fool at the head of either, and it must fall to pieces. Let the system of each, be perfection itself "of one entire and perfect chrysolite;" again, he would say, put but a fool at the head of either, its honour, pride, feeling, name—
"Yea, all that it inherit shall dissolve,
And like the baseless fabric of a vision,
Leave not a wreck behind."
A knave, in such a case, was infinitely preferable; for, without a heart, if he had judgment, he would learn that honesty was the better policy, and might at last discover, that honour, chivalry, and a straight course was the best road to his ambition. But a fool had neither heart nor head; he neither saw nor felt beyond the circle of his own contracted mind; and with the vanity of the knave without his sense—give him only the power, he never failed to abuse it.
The hon. member hoped that in that House he had been no egotist; and that the silent votes, which, during sixteen years, he had given in almost every instance upon public questions, might protect him from the charge, if in support of his argument upon this important subject he referred to his own experience for the fact. The case he would quote was that of the regiment to which he once belong-
366
ed; and which from the worst possible state of drunkenness and neglect of duty, was, in the course of only a few weeks, brought to the highest degree of discipline and good order. And, how was this effected? Simply by justice, firmness, humanity and common sense. Governed by these principles, this regiment (as stated in evidence before a court) was considered as a pattern to the service: and so continued as long as such system lasted. But the system being again changed, the same corps, which had been the admiration of the army, became its reproach and the object of the severest censure of its leader. And so it had been with this country; for she was once, in every sense of the expression, the greatest nation in the world; but, alas, how changed! She now stood degraded insulted, despised; a bankrupt in character and fortune, and what was worse, lost even to the sense of her own dishonour. Nor was it his own opinion that he urged, but that of Europe and the world, and especially that government whose strength and resources were the main spring of those combined powers, which, without a change of system, must work the ruin of the country. Let the House look to the policy and intentions of the French government, and their opinions and criticisms on the speeches of ministers upon the Spanish and South American questions, and it would find, whatever the case betwixt the governments and the people, that betwixt the governments themselves—viz., France, Spain, and the Holy Alliance on one hand, and England on the other—that England, neither in justice, honour, nor consistency, had an inch of ground to stand on.
But, to return to the present system. It was supposed to be the law of nature, that all nations which rise and flourish, must in their turn decay. But the hon. member contended, that nations might always flourish, but for the moral causes of their ruin: for governments were moral structures, easily damaged or destroyed; but might always be repaired or rebuilt, as long as the materials existed. See Spain, for instance! Was ever a noble edifice in such a state of ruin? For look at what she was and what she is. But still the materials existed;' for it was the same country and the same people—nay, a better; for it had been the education and improvement of the people struggling not only against the ignorance and barbarity of their ruler, but the open hostility

367
of the combined powers, and the basest treachery on the part of England, which had produced the present chaos of horror and confusion in that devoted country: for it was base to insult even an enemy when fallen, and how much more base, not only to betray a friend, but to blacken his character, to excuse your own conduct—not only to tear him from his country friends, children, wife, and all that is dear to his affections, but even to deprive him of the only consolation in his misfortune.
"Who steals my purse, steals trash; his something, nothing;
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed."
So the poor Spaniard, after bravely fighting in his country's cause, until his last hope forsook him, was now called by those who prayed for his success a coward and a fool. Nay, worse—an idiot: for who but idiots, in spite of all they had seen, and was still before their eyes, could prefer absolute monarchy and king Ferdinand, to the blessing of Constitutional liberty? But, was ever assertion so utterly false and unfounded; so revolting against reason and common sense; or so foul a libel upon the wisdom and justice of the Almighty? for, if true, it at once reduced human nature below the level of the brute creation. And, who was the author of this libel? Where had he formed this opinion? Where had he imbibed his knowledge of mankind, and of the Spanish character? In the senate, conventicle, or public feast? In the Bible society, or Caledonian meeting? But, wherever it might have been, or whoever he might be, the hon. member would repeat it to be false, and state the evidence to prove it. Look at General Mina: was not he a Spaniard? Look at his brave army; were not they all Spaniards? And were there no other Mina's in Spain? Were there not thousands of his countrymen, to whom God had given the same heart and understanding, and who, in Mina's place, would have acted as he had done throughout? But they could not all be leaders; and amongst those who had been, what country bore the bell? He would answer, Spain! For of all the heroes of the present day, in his opinion, and he believed in the eye of God, there was not so great and good a man as Mina. But be that as it might, he was at least an honest man; and of all others the most
368
competent to speak to the character of his nation. What, then, said Mina, and every Englishman, Frenchman, and others who had been upon the spot, and with whom the hon. member had conversed upon the subject? One and all declared, that with the exception of the priesthood, there was not a man, or rather a mind in Spain, but hailed, not hated, the constitution. Mina, too, declared (as the hon. member had contended), that if ministers had sent but half their ships to Cadiz, and by repealing the foreign enlistment bill, had only unlocked the gate to let out British hearts to the cause of injured Spain, the flag of constitutional liberty would now have been flying upon every fortress of the kingdom. This, too, Mina declared was all they stood in need of; for as to sending troops to Spain, he was convinced, with the hon. member, it Would have been better for both countries that a British soldier had never entered it: and ministers had confirmed this opinion by their own arguments; for who, in a late debate, had reminded the House of former jealousies betwixt them, as a warning for the future? The proverb said, "liars should have good memories;" and so should politicians, who could make use of the very arguments urged against themselves, when doing that which they now pretended to be the wish of their opponents; for when they sent troops to Spain, their opponents said to them, "If England were invaded, would British soldiers stomach that Spaniards should defend her? Then why, in the case of Spain, should the proud Spaniards be less jealous than themselves?" Such were the arguments of common sense, which, if the ministers had then consulted, would have saved Spain from France, and millions upon millions to their own country. So much for their judgment of the Spanish character! and what did they say of France? They prophesied and prayed in the last session, that the folly and madness of the Bourbon government should recoil upon its own head. But if they had really believed and wished it, why not have made assurance doubly sure by casting their trident and thunder (as they had called them) into the scale of Spain? For the fact was, they dared not, as France knew but too well; her ministers were neither the madmen nor fools they had been called, nor like these modern Machiavels, who had inherited the feeling of their prototype without his brains. The

369
French ministers, on the contrary, in the conduct of their wicked policy, to which they-had been driven by the English government and the holy alliance, had acted throughout with ability and caution; feeling at every step the pulse of the British nation, whilst her own ministers were lying on their backs, bound hand and foot. For how stood the fact? Had God listened to their prayers by delivering Spain from her enemies, and their predictions of the downfal of the Bourbons been fulfilled, the same ruin must have fallen on themselves; for how were they to have commenced another revolutionary war, with their recognizances of 800 millions to keep the peace? It was utterly impossible What, then, was to be done? Honest ministers would have seen at once, that reform was the only remedy; but those who had looked only to themselves had sold the reversion of the liberties of their country for annuities upon their own lives. For by this last act of their wretched policy, they had so strengthened and secured the power of the French government, that nothing but reform or revolution could enable England much longer to defend herself, as France at the present moment wielded all the force of military despotism under the mask of civil liberty. For what with her elections, septennial parliaments and other imitations of the same precious system, she had just finished a fac simile of the mock English constitution.
As to England, the hon. member had only to hope, that the nation, before it was too late, would open its eyes to the conduct of ministers, and the real danger of the country; for at present he must confess, that of all the dupes upon earth, he considered John Bull to be the greatest; and could find no better parallel to his character, conduct, and present situation, looking to the state of Europe, than that which he should conclude with stating. The ministers, as all knew, had an unlimited power over the purse of the people, but not their liberty of speech. As to the first, to do the ministers justice, no gentlemen of their vocation could be more active, or understand their business better; and if, in picking John Bull's pocket, they could only stop his mouth, all might go on smoothly. But here Jay the rub: for John resembled a certain animal in the act of being killed, whose only defence was, to set up a cry which disturbed the whole neighbourhood, whilst
370
all he got for his pains was the hearty wish of those within reach of his voice, that means had been found to stop it. And thus it was with Mr. Bull; for whilst the ministers were bleeding him to death, he, too, set up a cry, which was heard throughout Europe, and naturally alarmed the combined powers; who said to the English government, "Use him as you please, for that is your affair; but stop his mouth, as that his ours; and, unless you can do this, by the Holy God we must do it for you!"
Mr Denmansaid, that he had opposed the Alien act ever since he had had the honour of sitting in that House, and the present circumstances under which it was introduced, as it seemed to him, strengthened every argument against it. He could have wished that his majesty's ministers, by giving up at once that which they confessed it would be proper to give up two years hence, had spared to themselves and the House the trouble of a long debate. The system of long debates, however, did sometimes extort from the right hon. gentlemen opposite concessions which could not be attained in any other way; and it was some consolation to those who had resisted the present bill from its first introduction, to discover that there no longer existed any pretence for finding the powers which it gave inherent in the Crown. He believed there no longer was any one in the House who could oppose the opinion pronounced by the hon. and learned solicitor-general, two years ago—that Blackstone was wrong, and that there existed no where any authority which vested the right of dealing with aliens as a circumstance of prerogative in the Crown; and that opinion, if it could need corroboration, would be corroborated past all question by the fact, that even in the 22nd of Henry 8th an act of parliament had been distinctly passed to deal with the persons called Egyptians, or Gipsies, who had "introduced themselves into the realm contrary to law," by way of banishment—not leaving even these people, who were the vilest of the vile, to the prerogative of the Crown, but distinctly giving the Crown a power by proclamation, to proceed against them. The right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Peel) said, that the sovereign authority of the state held the power, by right, to dispose of aliens. Why, no doubt; and the sovereign authority of the state had the power to dispose of all the subjects of the

371
kingdom. All persons were subject to the sovereign authority of the state, and were to be dealt with, no doubt, as that authority might think best; but then they were to be dealt with according to laws framed, and to be framed, and not by passing an act which put their persons and their property at the mercy (whatever that might be) of the three secretaries of state. The clause which had been introduced, in the downfal of this odious measure, in favour of aliens who had been more than seven years resident in England, formed no answer to the objection which he and his friends took to its principle. They called upon this country to afford its ancient and honourable protection to all (so long as its laws were respected by them) whom tyranny or political change made exiles from their own They asked protection for the Spaniards and the Neapolitans; for the Sardinians, and all others whose love of liberty or vain efforts to obtain it, had drawn or were likely to draw upon them persecution. Those were the persons who were entitled to claim the exercise of her ancient hospitality from England; and those were the persons whom this Alien act was to throw back into the power of their oppressors. It was impossible, looking at this bill with a due regard to the arbitrary power which it was to bestow, not to give some consideration to the characters of those in whose hands such power was to be placed—namely, the three secretaries; or to hide from themselves another consideration, as to the possibility of their exercising that power justly and fairly, or the contrary. Looking, therefore, as they were bound to do, to the general characters and opinions of those right honourable personages, he must declare, that he could not witness their investiture with that power without the greatest distrust and reluctance. How feel otherwise, in the first place, with respect to the noble secretary for the colonial department? When he looked at what had been the treatment, by that noble person, Napoleon, during the last five years of his life—when he considered what treatment had been shown to generals Gourgaud and Montholon, and to Las Cases, each of whom had not only been driven away on their approach to our shores under circum stances almost revolting—and when there was no room left to doubt but that the noble secretary still entertained the same views, he saw evident reasons for
372
not trusting to him for the just exercise of a power which might be used to the greatest abuse of the government, and the greatest excesses in regard to the preservation of those who might happen to become the victims. For in the cases to which he had just referred, who were the objects to suffer? Those who had followed the fortunes of Napoleon in their lowest declination—the few whom gratitude had bound to his fate even in its worst degradation—men who from their conduct and fidelity should have been the objects rather of a generous commiseration than the victims of ministerial persecution The refusal to let them land might have been politic and even justifiable; but the wrongs which they suffered were not limited to that; their papers were seized, the grossest abase which could be made of this power. What, if this should ever happen, under the present bill, to persons of the commercial rank?—and there was nothing to exclude the probability of the case—there would be, perhaps, absolute ruin brought upon individuals, which it could not be pretended that any power could warrant. And this was the character and tendency of the bill throughout its whole period of existence. It went to multiply acts, like those of the noble lord in his treatment of Napoleon's followers, which could only be characterized as acts of oppression and abuse, committed in violation of the better sense and meaning of law. In the next place, what had they to expect from the right hon. secretary who introduced the present bill. What qualifications could they suppose, which would make it safe to trust power in his hands, which they must always reckon it dangerous to trust in the hands of any man? It was very true that the right hon. gentleman, was known to pay considerable attention to the cases which came before him from the different parts of the kingdom, with a view to discovering what considerations he could offer to the Crown in regard to the mitigation of the various punishments assigned by the laws to the offenders; but here the House had the whole subject in view; they knew what was the nature of the considerations which the right hon. gentleman had to offer, and the views which he must entertain upon the several cases. But they knew nothing of the considerations which might influence the exercise of this arbitrary power. There was nothing to guide them, except that which led to suspicion

373
and distrust. In the absence of any satisfactory information, he could only look to the temper in which this power was claimed—the assumptions of right upon which it was demanded. If he saw that it was asked as something which ought to be given as matter of course—if it were asked as if the minister who sought it did not feel that it was a power of exorbitant weight and importance, the possession of which he ought to wish to avoid—that with him would be a good reason for believing that the power could not be safely trusted to the hands of him, who could in this temper and tone of argument demand it. He remembered well, that last year he had made this very objection to the behaviour of ministers upon the passing of this bill. It then had appeared to him, that there was too much levity in the manner of requiring it; that there was a want of that proper feeling of responsibility which must belong to ministers who would prefer governing by the constitution and the general laws of the country. As to the right hon. gentleman who held the chief office in the foreign department—with every possible feeling of respect for the liberal opinions which he had so honourably to himself undertaken to defend since his accession, both in his communications with foreign governments and in his deportment in parliament—with every wish that the right hon. gentleman should long continue in office, and at any rate quite as long as any of his present colleagues—hoping also, as he did, that the liberal feelings and opinions expressed by the right hon. gentleman would more and more gain ground, and at length predominate in the measures of that cabinet of which he was now the brightest ornament, but withal, there being no guarantee either for the unquestionably just exercise of tin's power during its continuance, or for its absolute extinction and determination at the end of the two years now proposed, he must be allowed to say, that he saw nothing in the past conduct and opinions of that right hon. gentleman which would make him (Mr. D.) more ready to trust him with extraordinary and arbitrary power, or that would, on account of his presence in the councils of the king make him at all the less anxious to withhold those powers from the government.—He would not advert to the affairs of Spain; a story too long and sad and dismal to be touched upon with any other feelings than those of grief or indignation.
374
He would say nothing now of the unprovoked invasion, nor of the unprincipled origin of the war, nor of the establishment of the principles at the congress of Verona, upon which the authors of that war professed to have acted; which principles, as they were hostile to the national spirit, interests, and constitution of England, demanded the firmest opposition from the ministers of England; and yet those ministers had confined their share of the transaction to what they called a neutral declaration—that they would take no part in the quarrel either on one side or the other. Independently of these considerations, he thought he saw in some recent transactions in which the right hon. gentleman was more immediately concerned, reasons for not trusting him with this power. They all knew what had been the conduct of the right hon. gentleman in the case of Mr. Bow-ring, who was taken up at Calais and conveyed to Bologne by the officers of the French government, for an alleged piece of misconduct. The question put to the French lawyers, at the direction of the right hon. gentleman was, what would have been the conduct of the French government towards any of its own subjects in the like case? The answer given was, that Mr. Bowring would be treated in the same manner as if he had been a native of France. But, suppose the answer had been the other way—that the French government could not consider Mr. Bowring who was an Englishman, in the light of one entitled to the rights and immunities of a French citizen, what could the right hon. gentleman have opposed to this proposition? Or, if he could have remonstrated, how easy would it have been to answer him? The French government might have said, "We, as well as you, have rights of our own to defend, and we do not choose to be without that power which you assume in your Alien bill, of dealing with foreigners in a manner different from subjects of the French government. As Mr. Bowring is a foreigner, you can have no right to demand what would be our treatment of a subject offending in the same manner, because we have a right to deal with him summarily," Another subject of distrust as to the possession of this power furnished by the conduct of the right hon. secretary, was to be found in the case of his gallant friend, the member for Southwark. He would, however, tell the right hon. gentleman, in

375
passing, that of all the liberal views and enlightened sentiments which he had yet avowed, there was none which had made him so entirely popular throughout the land as the treatment of his gallant friend in the language which he had uttered within those walls, so honourable to the object to which he applied it—so much more honourable to himself. He trusted that the members of the holy alliance would extract a lesson from it, which would be useful to themselves and beneficial to the nations of Europe, when they saw, that by stripping him of those honours with which they had once eagerly loaded him, they could not strip him of any part of that regard which was felt for him by the people of England. He thanked the right hon. gentleman for so timely a censure, so just and severe a rebuke of those wretched, base, and groveling assailants, who were ready to fall upon his gallant friend with every weapon which meanness and malice could supply, because they thought that, as he was already beaten down by power, he must continue prostrate on the earth. Still the conduct of the right hon. gentleman, with every proper feeling of respect and attachment to him on account of his sentiments and professions, had not been such as he ought to have pursued towards one situated as his gallant friend then was. He had learned with astonishment, that the right hon. gentleman had confessed that, at the departure of his gallant friend for Spain, he had given information of it to the French government, and that no explanation had been demanded of him in consequence of that communication. But surely this was a strange way of proceeding. The right hon. gentleman might have safely stayed until there had been a crime committed—until it had been charged and proved, and urged as matter of complaint by the French government. There was one position which the right hon. gentleman might, in any case, have taken up, if the court of France had dared to call in question the conduct of English subjects assisting the Spaniards in the war; and that would have been to have put the onus of proving the fact entirely on the French government. Instead of which, the right hon. gentleman had bespoken the clemency of the French government, in case his gallant friend should fall into their hands, because according to some notions which were to be found in Grotius or Vattel, it would appear that the crime was not of so guilty
376
a nature, as to the subjects of a neutral power assisting either of the belligerents in a war. Surely this was a hint which might have been spared! It appeared to him, that the right hon. gentleman had introduced into his communication one of the strangest pieces of frankness ever known to have taken place between two governments. What had France to do with Vattel, or Grotius, or the law of nations? If they had entertained the least regard for the rights which the writings of those jurists went to inculcate, they would never have entered Spain as they had done, under the pretence that she had violated the anti-monarchical principles to which the members of the holy alliance were pledged—they would never have invaded Spain as they had done, under the most base, hypocritical, and atrociously false pretences. He was of opinion that the politeness of the right hon. gentleman might have been spared, and that the French government was by no means deserving of it. He knew it was thought incorrect to express himself with this degree of freedom upon the conduct of foreign governments. Lectures had been read of late to some of his honoured friends upon diplomatic etiquette, and political decorum in debate. If it were only to speak of those foreign powers as of kings and emperors ruling within their own states, and administering the affairs of their own governments, he would be the last man to countenance, or in any way pander to the base and vulgar spirit of detraction, which was only opposed to those of high station, on account of the advantages to be derived from it. But, it was a question of interference with other states—with the rights of all other people, as well as those of their own states: and this was the only place where the conduct of those princes could be called in question. This was almost the only assembly in which the aggressions, and bloodshed, and violence, and injustice of the invaders of Spain could be safely denounced. And how could mankind be the better, supposing those who objected to the strictures of the British parliament could succeed in silencing them? It was a beautiful and a just remark, which Mr. Fox had made in his history, when objecting to the injustice of Hume in violating the spirit of history by qualifying the vices of princes, by softening the colour of their abuses and oppressions, and setting up apologetical and sophistical language in defence of

377
one prince in particular, that he was thereby removing almost the only check which mankind could possess upon the conduct of despots; for sovereigns, desirous of standing well with posterity, would do much in the way of thwarting their own inclinations, to secure some portion of that distinction—an ambition which could not be hoped from them, if once they were taught to expect that their faults would be varnished over, and that their crimes would go down to remote ages with a gloss upon them, which would preserve their memories from dishonour. For the interests of truth, therefore, they should not abate the force of their expressions; especially as they must feel certain, that the House of Commons was the only assembly in which the truth could be openly and safely declared.—One argument for the bill was, that it would expire in two years; and, if that argument rested on principle, he did not see why they should keep it alive so long. This appeared to him to be the strangest reason of all for its continuance. What was there in the principle, which was not as objectionable now, as it could be then? Why, in short, should the government want a power to deal with aliens otherwise than with native subjects? And, if rights there really were, by which foreign governments could call for interference as to the treatment of aliens resident, and if, as a matter of consequence, our own government must have a corresponding power, why was this power not to be denned by law as well as the other powers of the state? Why should the extent and exercise of it be left in the breast of the executive government, contrary to the appropriation of all other powers?—As to the three secretaries of state, there was nothing in their opinions of foreign affairs to prove them particularly trust-worthy, as to the possession of this power; though it had been put forward, as if it were not the principle but the persons who were to have the use of it, which the House had to consider, and as if they themselves were not so much at variance as to make it impossible to say to which side their opinions would incline upon any given subject. The right hon. secretary for home affairs, for example, thought that the aggression of Austria was a justifiable proceeding. That, he believed, was not the opinion of either of the other two secretaries. But, the mischief of it was, that
378
this variance of opinion would do nothing for the liberal part of the argument. Each of them might, perhaps, choose a different class of subjects for the operation of this law; and thus the poor aliens might find themselves in the condition of the man with two wives, whose head was party-colourcd—one pulling out all the white hairs, and the other all the black, until he was left with a bare scalp.—Upon another part of the subject, he could not hinder himself from venturing a remark or two, as to what had been advanced respecting the opinion of Mr. Serjeant Hill, with which it was asserted that Mr. Pitt found himself supported, on introducing this bill for the first time. Since the discussion a few nights ago a learned friend of his had, by indefatigable research, recovered that opinion from among the papers of that eminent lawyer, and though it had been asserted, over and over again, that the opinion was in favour of the powers given by the bill, the fact was otherwise.—There was another consideration belonging to this subject, which did not attract sufficient attention. Mr. Serjeant Hill, though admitted to have been one of the greatest lawyers of his time, was generally supposed to be ignorant on worldly affairs. He did not, however, show himself altogether ignorant of the nature of a majority in that House, though he never had a seat in it. The Alien bill was not the only subject upon which Mr. Pitt had found it convenient to consult him. His opinion had been asked by the same minister upon a doubtful legal point in the regency bill. The answer of serjeant Hill had been tolerably well preserved; the legal point was now not known. It was reported that the following conversation took place between Mr. Pitt's agent and serjeant Hill:—"Pray is Mr. Pitt tolerably sure of a majority voting for this bill in the House of Lords?" Answer.—"He has pretty good reason to believe, that he is there sure of a majority." Question.—,"And has he as good reason to expect a majority in his favour in the House of Commons?" Answer.—"He has no doubt whatever of a majority in the lower House." "Then what can it signify to you how the law stands, seeing that the majority will be with you, propose whatever you will?" So that the learned serjeant knew pretty well of what materials that House was composed, without having enjoyed the honour of a seat in it—with-

379
out being a member of that parliament which violated the principles of common arithmetic, by declaring that a piece of paper worth 15 s. was actually worth 20 s., and immediately afterwards passed another law to punish those who refused to acknowledge that it was worth 20 s. Nor was the learned Serjeant a member of that parliament which, when called upon to inquire into the conduct of the war, voted, without investigation of facts and circumstances, without reference to witness or testimony of any kind, that the conduct of ministers in prosecuting the war deserved the approbation of the Crown and the parliament, and the confidence and gratitude of the country. No wonder that the censorious, and that portion of the people who were suspiciously inclined, should, after transactions such as these, be too apt to consider the power of the House of Commons as a fanciful ornament—a sort of useful tail to the high flying kite of prerogative! They were Constantly told of the dangers of innovation—of the excellence of that which had existed for so long a period—of the perils of alteration. Upon this principle, every thing was found defensible. The usury laws were not to be altered, because the country had flourished and grown up to a state of unparalleled prosperity under them. The game laws must not be touched, because they too had contributed towards the prosperity of the country. The poor-laws were by no means to be altered. "What! take away the comforts of the poor?" Even the abolition of that infamous traffic in human flesh, the slave trade, had been resisted on the ground of settled laws, under which the country had risen to the highest station of political glory and commercial greatness. The argument was, to say the least of it, as applicable to the principle of this bill, which was strange in the practice of the constitution. He could not but recal to their minds the words of an eloquent person, who, though he was in his time the greatest of all renegades from the principles of his early life, was glad to seek shelter from the storm of political adversity which buffetted him towards the close of his career. Lord Strafford, on finding that he was, in his turn, to become the victim of those plots and designs, in the invention of which he had assisted, by doing all in his power to raise up and strengthen the principle of constructive and accumulative treasons, did not hesitate to appeal to those bet-
380
ter principles from which his life had been a continued deviation. "We have lived, my lords, happily to ourselves at home: we have lived gloriously abroad to the world: let us be content with what our fathers have left us: let not our ambition carry us to be more learned than they were, in these killing and destructive arts. Great wisdom it will be in your lordships, and just providence, for yourselves, for your posterities, for the whole kingdom, to cast from you, into the fire, these bloody and mysterious volumes of arbitrary and constructive treasons, as the primitive Christians did their books of curious arts, and betake yourselves to the plain letter of the statute, which tells you where the crime is, and points out to you the path by which you may avoid it." So would he now say of the Alien bill. That without which the country had done from 1688 down to the time of Mr. Pitt, and done safely, could not be absolutely necessary to preserve the state now.
He thought that the bill must impose difficulties on the government itself. Suppose the Russian minister were to inform the right hon. gentleman that certain subjects of the Autocrat of all the Russias were plotting and carrying into effect designs against the government of Russia, and was to require them to be sent away accordingly. If there were no Alien bill, the answer to such a proposal would be clear—"We do not possess the power: you must first show that these people are offending against our laws." But, while the Alien bill existed, the claim of the Russian minister would be reasonable and just. He might say, after producing the most unquestionable proofs of the truth of his statement—"For what purpose have you the power of the Alien bill in your hands, if you cannot apply it in this case?" He might even go further than this. The Russian minister would be at liberty, according to reason and justice, to withhold the proofs if they were demanded, and compliance could not in reason be refused; because the act was good for nothing whatever, if it could not allow ministers to accommodate thus far those governments which were in alliance with our own. Surely this was a dilemma in which a government ought not to be placed. Suppose, further, that a refusal were given to the request of the Russian minister: perhaps angry language I might occur—perhaps the case would be

381
such, that our good friends the French might find it necessary to offer their mediation. They would hear the merits of it from each side, and then they would, in all probability, advise the British government," Oh, you had better give him up—it is only one man, an obstinate man, a wrong-headed man"—(for this was sure to be the character of any man who be-came obnoxious to arbitrary power)—"let him go, he'll only cause you trouble; send him to Russia, and be rid of him; a refusal may involve you in war; and then think of your 800 millions of debt—your House of Commons won't support you in any more war expenses." Were the government to be so placed, and were France so to mediate, and it came to the question of what choice should be made between war on the one hand, and baseness on the other? he trusted that there would be no hesitation between those alternatives. But, war was an evil to be deplored; and the best way to avoid it was not to preserve in existence those powers, the exercise of which could only compromise our safety.
His honourable friends had been taunted as to their views and motives in their opposition to this bill. For his own part, he could conscientiously say, that he had nothing at heart in it but the honour and interests of England. It appeared to him, that this was a power which it was not necessary for the government to possess, which it had not hitherto possessed, from the very want of which the country had grown and flourished beyond any other; a power which no great statesman would ever wish to have, but would be rather glad to get rid of, not at the expiration of two years, but as soon as the House of Commons would allow him to depose it, as a weight of grievous and inconvenient responsibility.
But, it seemed that the bill was not to have been renewed, even for two years, had it not been for a plot which was discovered just a fortnight before it was about to expire. What a most seasonable and opportune plot! It would delight him to be let into the whole of the secrets and mysteries of it. What did the parliament know about it? These plots were brought to light with surprising convenience; but then they had generally tended to injure the public liberties—to the suspending of the Habeas Corpus act, and placing life and personal freedom at the disposal of ministers. Really, to
382
consider the use that was made of these plots, and the measures which followed upon them, was enough to destroy all belief in them. One might almost imagine, for instance, that the inventor of this last plot was some miserable tool of the French police—some needy, mercenary wretch, who had been hired to invent the crime of which he was afterwards to have himself accused, in order to the passing of this act once more. This method of leading the country on by plots, at one time to the detriment of natives in the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, at another to the injury of foreigners under the Alien bill, made the two right hon. secretaries for home and foreign affairs seem very like the two kings of Brentford, who were described in the play as smelling at the same nosegay. At last, the parliament would believe nothing about plots—as the country did already—except that they were plausible pretexts for passing measures which no minister would venture upon without one. Not that he believed that ministers went the lengths of baseness and iniquity, or that they countenanced them, to the degree practised by their own agents. It was impossible to believe, for example, that lord Sidmouth had commissioned Oliver to go into the northern counties, and foment disturbances, of which no part existed before, just a week before the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act was to expire. He was convinced, however, that this bill was not the best method of governing the country, in regard to those objects which it professed to comprise. If the power itself were necessary to the carrying on of the government, it ought, in the course of the eight years during which the bill had been in operation, to have been moulded into a more constitutional shape. It was said, that it was not much for them to wait a year for the expiration of this bill: but, if this was all that could be urged, it was not much for government to give up the bill a year before the time in which, on account of the worthlessness of its principle, they were induced to let it expire. He would, therefore, support the amendment for reading it a third time that day six months. The right hon. gentleman had advised his noble friend (lord Althorp) to try his hand at an alien bill with less objectionable modifications than this. But, why should his noble friend be called on to do the work of government? As well might his noble

383
friend say, with respect to the County-courts bill, that he would leave the evil where it was, and each man should be allowed still to grasp what he could of his neighbour's goods without fear of being made responsible to equal laws. It was the advantage of a constitutional system of government, that the measures were suitable to the necessities of the times. That would be the ambition of a constitutional administration, who ought never to have recourse to these clumsy expedients, nor subject themselves to the accusation, that, while observant of the lesser attributes, they were forgetful of the great things of the law, mercy and judgment. He could not give his sanction to a bill which interfered with the security, the freedom, and the happiness of foreigners who came to this country, trusting to its hospitality, and not apprehending that they would be made the victims of arbitrary power.
Lord John Russellsaid, that no man would venture to say that the government should be exposed to the demands from foreign powers to which this bill subjected them. The ground of a supposed conspiracy, against a foreign state, was a fallacy to terms. In a conspiracy there must be not only actors, but a subject to act against. In a conspiracy set on foot in England against a foreign state, there was only one of those ingredients. The conspirators, while they observed the laws of the country, transacted nothing; it was only conversation—it was the shadow of a conspiracy, without the substance. Government could have no right to inquire into a conversation between particular persons, merely because they happened to bear a particular national character. If so, what conversation would be safe? Every man might be made responsible, in turn, to some aggrieved foreign government. If a man were to speak ill of the supremacy of the Pope, he would be objected against by a government which maintained the Pope's supremacy. Government could have no other fair method of treating aliens than by the laws which subjected its own people. Foreigners must have the same liberty of speech as natives. It was only acts of hostility against a foreign government which could be properly resented—such as the marching of troops against them, and the preparing of armaments. This might and did happen in the invasion of Spain. But, it could never be charged against any
384
one residing in England. There could be no levying of troops or preparation of arms, without bringing them to the open ports of the kingdom; and then, indeed, and not before, the responsibility of this government, to others at peace with it, would commence. So far there was ground for just and reasonable precaution; but certainly none was needed as to foreigners residing in the interior of the country; such foreigners could only be bound by the laws which bound the natives. He rose merely to express his hope, that as this bill was not needed for the good government of the country, it was the last time he should ever have an opportunity of addressing the House upon the subject, convinced as he was, that after the expiration of it, they would look back to it as a measure which ought never to have been sanctioned.
The House divided: For the third reading 93; For the amendment 43; Majority 50.

List of the Minority.

Abercromby, hon. J.

Leader, W. L.

Allan, J. H.

Lennard, T. B.

Althorpe, visc.

Leycester, R.

Baillie, col. J.

Maberly, W. L.

Baring, sir T.

Mackintosh, sir J.

Benyon, B.

Martin, John

Bernal, R.

Monck, J. B.

Calcraft, J. H.

Moore, P.

Calvert, C.

Normanby, visc.

Calvert, N.

Nugent, lord

Carter, John

Palmer, col.

Clifton, viscount

Pelham, J. C.

Curwen, J.

Philips, G.

Davies, T.

Rice, T. S.

Ebrington, visc.

Rickford, W.

Evans, W.

Smith, W.

Fergusson, sir R.

Stanley, hon. E. C

Gaskell, B.

Warre, J.

Grattan, J.

Williams, W.

Gordon, R.

Whitmore, W. W.

Hobhouse, J. C.

Tellers.

Hume, J.

Denman, T.

Kemp, T.

Russell, lord J.

Mr. Denmanthen proposed as an amendment in the body of the bill, that the words "two years" should be struck out, and the words "one year" inserted in their stead. The House divided on the question—"that the words proposed to be struck out stand part of the bill:" the numbers were, Ayes 111; Noes47; Majority 64.
The bill was then passed.

BUILDING OF NEW CHURCHES.
On the motion of the Chancellor of the Ex-

385
chequer, the order of the day for bringing up the report of the committee of supply on the grant for building new churches was read. On the question, "that the report be now received,"
Mr. Humesaid, be could not allow the report to be brought up, being, as he was, so little satisfied with the reasons which had been given in the committee in support of the grant. He had already stated his opinion, that the money should not be voted, and after the length at which he had explained the grounds of that opinion, he felt it only necessary to say that he should now oppose the motion. First, because it was admitted by ministers themselves, that the money would not be wanted for three years to come. There had been no instance, he believed, in which the House had granted money, unless it was to be applied to the service of the year. It might have happened, that money had not been applied within that time; but that had arisen from some accidental circumstances, and had never been avowed by the ministers on their asking for the money. Secondly, he objected to the grant, because he thought the money required might be raised without the aid of parliament. He considered that the only object of the vote was, to increase the church patronage and church influence, already too extensive. He thought, too, that there were churches enough; and he did not believe that the number of persons who frequented them was increasing; but, on the contrary, that the zeal and ability of the dissenters were rapidly reducing the numbers of those who belonged to the church establishment. Thirdly, he thought the money, if granted at all, might be applied to better purposes; and for these reasons he moved, "that the report be received this day six months."
Mr. Warrehad no hesitation in expressing his intention to support the vote. His hon. friend had spoken of a falling-off from the church; but had it never occurred to him, that this might proceed as well from the insufficiency of the churches, as from those qualities for which he gave the dissenters credit? He had reason to believe that there were many populous towns in which the people would eagerly attend the churches, if they had them, and if the duty were well done [hear!]. He said, "if the duty were well done," because he would not be understood to advocate the building of. churches, unless the pul-
386
pits of those churches were to be ably filled. He was anxious, upon this part of the subject, that, when the bill should go into a committee, some mode might be devised, with respect to the nomination of the incumbents, that would give general satisfaction. With respect to the dissenters, nothing that he had ever said could be construed to imply, that he was not willing to extend, to them, not only toleration but the utmost indulgence. He was as desirous as any man could be, that every avenue to their civil and religious rights should be open to them. It was not in hostility to them, but in reverence to the church in which he was bred, that he wished. to see it supported as became its dignity and the interests of the people. The dissenters used every means in their power by building chapels, to establish and to diffuse their principles. The question, then, was, whether, upon the case which had been made out, and after an experiment had been tried, which had been perfectly successful as far as it had gone, the House should now refuse to grant an additional sum, to accomplish a purpose so important and so necessary to the established church. The hon. member concluded by saying, that he had been induced to address these observations to the House, because he was not willing to give a silent vote upon an occasion in which he was compelled to differ from those with whom he usually acted, and for whose judgment he had the highest respect.
Mr. W. Smithsaid, the fact of the number of dissenters having so extensively multiplied, had been, he thought, too hastily assumed. He had known a parish; where there was no dissenting chapel, but where the church had been abandoned because it was badly served. In the city which he had the honour to represent, there were 37 churches, and yet there was no place in which there were so many dissenting chapels, and so well filled. This he believed, arose from no insufficiency, nor want of activity, in the clergymen of that city, who were in every way highly respectable; but he thought that, in this, as in every other case, it was caused by accidental circumstances, which applied to particular places. With respect to what had been said of the mode of appointing clergymen by election, he must observe, that he saw nothing objectionable in that mode. It had been said, that it was derogatory to the dignity of the

387
church to submit to canvassing. Among the dissenters no such canvassing was practised; and as to the dignity, he thought the true dignity was in their utility. Almost the only objection. He had to this vote, was, that no pains had been taken to ascertain whether the money which was required could not be supplied from some other source. When the church emoluments should be inquired into, and it should be found that no portion of them could be better applied than they were at present, he would willingly vote for this, or for any other sum; but until then, he must be excused for withholding his assent to the vote.
Sir R. Fergussondeclared, that the grant proposed was a most useless application of the public money. He knew, of his own knowledge, that in a parish of Edinburgh, where the population had rapidly increased, two new churches and a chapel of ease had been built by public subscription within these few years. The principle observed in these churches was, to admit mere paupers free of any expense, and to charge mechanics, and persons in decent employ, a shilling a year for a seat. He much wished that the parliamentary grant were let alone, and had no doubt of soon finding places of worship, wherever a real necessity existed for them.
Sir Isaac Coffin, as an orthodox churchman, would vote for this grant. During the latter part of his life, he had found by experience, that there was a lamentable increase of those devil-killers, called methodists—such an increase as, he was sure must eventually undermine the church of England. These methodists were such rooting fellows, that let them once get into your house, they would soon get into the kitchen, from the kitchen they would get into the cellar—and the inevitable con-sequences among servants, were, prostitution and dishonesty [A laugh and cries of hear.]
Mr. Butterworthsaid, he should vote for the grant, not on account of the increase of dissenters, but on account of the increase of infidelity. He was sorry to have heard, the other night, a most respectable society, he meant the Home Missionary society, spoken of in a harsh way by an hon. and learned gentleman (Dr. Lushington), whom he did not then see present. He knew that society to be a most useful and meritorious body. He knew that it sent missionaries to instruct
388
the people, into hamlets where there were no church of England, nor any other ministers. He was most sorry to hear the ridicule with which religious subjects had been treated. If the bible were true—and if it was false, all they were doing was a farce—nothing connected with it should be treated with ridicule; for such a tone taken by persons of weight and character, in that House, did more harm than the publications of Carlile, Hone, and people of that description. He should support the vote, on account of the increasing population of the country, and because he approved of the Liturgy of the church of England, which was founded on the doctrines of the bible. He thought, however, much more good might be done if they gave the subscribers to the erection of churches some share in the nomination of the ministers. He knew a friend of his, who had subscribed 1000 l. to the erection of a chapel, and was now unable to enter it, because the character of the minister was not what that of a church of England clergyman should be. The hon. member for Medhurst had said, that the money would be better applied to increase the number of schools than that of churches. He was as zealous a friend to schools as the hon. member could be; but he thought that nothing would more conduce to the increase of schools, than adding to the number of places of worship. He was sorry to observe in the course of the debate on this subject, that some gentlemen seemed to think that they could not sup-port the church without casting reflections on the dissenters. Though attached to the church, he knew many dissenters who were as useful members of society, and as loyal and meritorious, as any men in the kingdom.
Mr. T. Wilsonthought the question was not, whether the existing churches were large or handsome enough, but whether they were adapted to the congregations they ought to hold. Any one who looked at the churches of our ancestors must be satisfied that they were built for the rich, and not for the poor. For the latter there was generally a solitary bench; while the former never experienced any. difficulty in obtaining seats and accommodation because they could afford to pay for them. The proposed system alone provided for the spiritual comfort of those who had been hitherto almost forgotten.
The House divided; For the original motion 144. For the amendment 34.

List of the Minority.

Althorp, visc,

Maberly, J.

Baillie, col. J.

Maberly W. L.

Bernal, R.

Martin, J.

Birch, J.

Monck, J. B.

Bright, H.

Normanby, visc.

Calcraft, J. H.

Nugent, lord

Cavendish, C. C.

Pelham, J. C.

Colborne, N. W. R.

Philips, G.

Cradock, S.

Rice, T. S.

Davies, T.

Rickford, W.

Denman, T.

Robatts, A. W.

Duncannon, visc.

Sefton, earl of

Grattan, J.

Smith, W.

Hobhouse, J. C.

Wharton, J.

James, W.

Whitbread, S. C

Ingilby, sir W.

Tellers.

Kennedy, T. F.

Lambton, J. G.

Fergusson, sir R.

Leycester, R.

Hume, J.

GAME LAWS AMENDMENT BILL.
The House having resolved itself into a committee on this bill,
Mr. S. Worthy, upon the clause providing for the punishment of night poachers and persons found with guns by night, moved, that after the word" game," the word "rabbits" be inserted; which amendment was agreed to.
Mr. Mundyobserved, that in the case of the trial of these poachers, there was a prejudice, that the justices of the peace, being themselves sportsmen and game preservers, would strain the law in order to punish poachers. He therefore wished to take away a suspicion so injurious to the administration of justice. He had intended to transfer the jurisdiction, in all trials for the third offence (which subjected the poacher to transportation), to the justices of assize and gaol delivery, instead of the quarter-sessions. It had been objected, that many prisoners would rather be tried at once by the quarter-sessions, than lie in gaol till the assizes. He should, therefore, give them the option and would move an amendment to the following effect:—"Provided, that any person to be tried for such offence, shall, at the choice or option of such person, be bound over to be tried either at the general quarter-sessions of the peace, or before the justices of assize and gaol delivery."
Mr. S. Wortleyappreciated the object of the amendment, and thought that, if any impression of a want of justice on the part of the magistrates existed, it would be well to remove it by transferring the jurisdiction to the judges of the land; confident, as he was, that the latter
390
would see the necessity of repressing those who made a habit of preying nightly on their neighbours' property.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. S. Wortleysaid, that as the law stood at present, no person was allowed to appoint a gamekeeper but the lord of the manor. Now, he thought every proprietor who had land enough to make it worth his while to do so, ought to have this privilege. The quantity of land so to entitle him, he would fix at 500 acres; a quantity for which he found a precedent in an act that passed some time since, permitting the nomination of gamekeepers under certain circumstances, in Wales. The hon. gentleman then moved a clause to that effect.
Colonel Woodwas sorry to hear his hon. friend propose this clause, which, like some others in the bill, had thrown round it a great deal of unpopularity. It might now be fairly objected, that there would be ten lords of the manor for one. As to his hon. friend's precedent, the fact was, that in Wales there were large tracts of land that were not included in any manor whatever, and it became necessary to take care, by the appointment of gamekeepers, of the game upon them. For his own part, he believed, that at present there were no greater poachers than the gamekeepers themselves, and that so far from preventing poaching, they supplied half the game that was sold in London. The consequence of this clause would be, that every farmer of 500 acres, would nominate his own son his gamekeeper, and thus spoil a good farmer, and perhaps make a determined poacher. He saw no necessity for the clause.
Mr J. Whartonthought the objections of the last speaker totally unfounded.
Mr. Monckthought, that if the committee were aware of the extensive powers that were vested in gamekeepers, they would decidedly oppose this clause. The 5th of Anne had very properly confined the power of nominating these keepers to the lords of manors. The statute of Charles enabled them to seize guns and dogs, and search houses; but after that act, came the 4thand5th William 3rd, by which gamekeepers were expressly authorised to resist all nightly offenders, in the same manner as if the offence had been committed in an ancient forest. Now, that enactment expressly referred to the oppressive law, 21 Edward 1st, by which it was declared, that if a tres-

391
passer in a forest did not stop when desired by the gamekeeper, he might be killed, and the gamekeeper should not be troubled. And this act, be it remembered, was still in force. He himself knew of a case in which, under very similar circumstances, a gamekeeper had fired at a mere trespasser, and so wounded him as to make him a cripple for life.
Mr. Peelsaid, his impression was very strongly in favour of the omission of the clause. He thought that, as it stood, it was likely to be productive of considerable litigation. As the general voice seemed to be so strong against it, he would request his hon. friend to withdraw it.
Mr. S. Wortleyobserved, that the power of the gamekeeper was limited by the first clause of the bill, yet he had no objection to withdraw the clause, as it seemed to be the wish of the committee.
The next clause was, that no person except gamekeepers should set snares for game.
Colonel Daviesobjected to the clause, as it was at present worded. It would give the owners of small parcels of land contiguous to large estates, an opportunity of killing the game of their neighbours. He would propose, that the privilege of setting snares should be limited to persons possessing 100 acres, or entitled to the game on that quantity of land.
Mr. S. Worthysaid, that at the end of the clause there was an exception in favour of persons using snares on their own land. The clause only went to prevent the use of such snares on lands not belonging to the parties, they not being appointed as gamekeepers on such lands, and to empower parties to seize any such snares, except they were set by the owners of the land, or by his or their permission,
Colonel Daviesthought the clause still objectionable.
Mr. S. Wortleysaid, the principle of the bill was, to make game property, and that being the case, it was but natural that the owner of the land should have the power of destroying the game on his own grounds. In some cases, this would no doubt be productive of inconvenience, but it was but just that the poor man, whose small parcel of land was contiguous to a great preserve, should have some means of remunerating himself for the injury done to his land by the game of his neighbour.
Sir J. Shelleysaid, he had objected to the principle of the bill, because he thought its effect would be to destroy all the game in the country; but the privilege of setting snares would precipitate that destruction, and was therefore peculiarly objectionable.
Sir J. Sebrightdenied that farmers were always remunerated by lower rents for the destruction caused by game. He wished those who fed the game, to have the property of it, and therefore hoped the clause would not be given up.
Mr. Peelthought it erroneous to suppose that game would be destroyed by the effect of this clause. He had no doubt, that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, the effect of it would be, a composition between the rich preserver of game and his poor neighbour, by which the former would give something for the injury done to the latter, and for the right of following and killing game on his land.
The proposition of colonel Davies was negatived, and the clause was agreed to, with some verbal amendments. Several other clauses were then agreed to without discussion, and the House being resumed, the report was ordered to be received on Wednesday.