Sitting of 1 May 1848

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Borough Elections. 2° Removal of Aliens; Collectors of Cess (Ireland); Evicted Destitute Poor (Ireland).
Reported.—Insolvent Debtors (India).
3° and passed:—Indemnity.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Sir R. H. Inglis, from Berkshire, against, and by Mr. Disraeli, from Chipping Norton and Brill (Buckinghamshire), in favour of the Jews Disabilities Bill.—By Mr. G. S. Duff, from Elgin and Banff, for the Better Observance of the Lord's Day.—By Viscount Bernard, from Inhabitants of the District of Glanmire, complaining of the Conduct of the Roman Catholic Clergy (Ireland).—By Lord Rendlesham, from Halesworth, against Concessions to the Roman Catholics.—By Lord Ashley, from Bath, against the present Scheme of African Emigration.—By Mr. Disraeli, from Inhabitants of the Parish of St. Elizabeth, in the Island of Jamaica, for Consideration of the West India Colonies; and from Oxford and Eaton, against the Property Tax Bill.—By Sir De Lacy Evans, from Samuel Brandon, of 163, Strand, London, for Amendment of the Games and Wagers Act.

TOBAGO RELIEF BILL.
House in Committee on the Tobago Relief Bill.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, he doubted not that the circumstances which had rendered the present measure necessary must be well known to the greater number of Members then pre-

539
sent, inasmuch as papers containing full information on the subject had for some time been before them. They were, of course, aware that that colony had been desolated. It was not, however, his intention then to propose for their consideration the extent to which property had been destroyed, but it was necessary for him to remind the House that upon similar occasions it had been the almost invariable practice of Parliament, when a colony suffered from unforeseen and unavoidable calamity, to render the species of assistance which it would be his duty on that occasion to propose to the House. When the first intelligence of that painful occurrence reached this country, Her Majesty's
Government thought it their duty to make an advance for the purpose of affording immediate relief to the extent of 5,000 l. Great numbers of persons were at that moment in a state of utter destitution, and it was absolutely necessary to afford them at least temporary relief. It now became necessary to propose to Parliament that they should sanction the aid thus afforded to a portion of our fellow-subjects, whose interests had been affected to a vast and distressing extent. It would be his duty to propose two votes; but the first of these would be for the sum of 5,000 l. granted under the circumstances and upon the grounds that he had just stated. He had said that upon other occasions of a similar kind aid of a like description had been afforded; and he now held in his hand a list of the colonies to which, under the same circumstances, relief had been supplied; amongst the number he might mention St. Vincent's, Barbadoes, Jamaica, Dominica, and Montserrat. He should not, upon the present occasion, detain the House longer than to add that the papers before them contained abundant evidence to show the necessity and the justice of the proposed vote, and he should therefore, without further preface, conclude by moving—
"That the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland be authorised to direct the issue, out of the Consolidated Fund of the said United Kingdom, of any sum not exceeding 5,000 l., for the relief of certain of Her Majesty's subjects in the Island of Tobago, who have suffered losses in consequence of a hurricane in that Island in October last."
Resolution agreed to.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved the following Resolution:—
"That the said Commissioners of Her Majes-
540
ty's Treasury be authorised to direct advances to be made, to an amount not exceeding 50,000 l., out of the said Consolidated Fund, or by the issue of Exchequer Bills, under certain regulations and restrictions, and upon due security being given for the repayment thereof, for the relief of persons connected with the Island of Tobago, in consideration of losses sustained by them, in consequence of a hurricane in that Island in October last."
MR. HUME feared the present proposition was only the first of many others which it would be necessary to make on behalf of our West India colonies. Now, he wanted to know the principle and the grounds upon which the House were called upon to pass such a vote as the present, especially when there was every reason to believe that there existed in the colonies a strong disposition to resist altogether the collection of taxes, and a decided unwillingness on the part of the inhabitants of those islands to incur any such responsibility as was now propose d to be fixed on them? He wanted to know what security the Government could have for the repayment of this money?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, that the sum of 50,000 l. had not been advanced, nor was there any intention of advancing it until sufficient security for its repayment could be obtained. He begged hon. Members to remember that the course which the Government now proposed to the House to pursue was in strict conformity with what had been adopted upon other and similar occasions. In the present instance the loan had been solicited, security had been offered, and the whole was a bonâ fide transaction.
Resolution agreed to.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER had a third resolution to propose, which might require larger explanation than the preceding propositions. It might perhaps be thought, that under the notice as it stood on the Paper of Saturday, the 22nd of April (the last day on which the House sat), he was scarcely entitled to bring under their notice a proposition regarding the immigration of free labourers; but he begged to remind hon. Gentlemen that the latter part of the notice was in these words:—
"And of authorising advances out of the Consolidated Fund, or by the issue of Exchequer Bills, for promoting the immigration of free labourers into the colonies of British Guiana and Trinidad.
Of course, hon. Members were well acquainted with the great importance of fa-

541
cilitating and encouraging the immigration of free labourers into our West India colonies; he meant free labourers who might proceed thither from the East Indies or from the coast of Africa. In the year 1844 application had been made upon the subject to Lord Stanley, who then held the seals of the Colonial Department. The object of that application was to induce him to authorise the immigration of Coolies, and it was well known that that noble Lord looked upon the proposition with some degree of hesitation; at length, however, he was induced to authorise the colonies of Guiana, Trinidad, and Jamaica, to raise money for that purpose by way of loan. By the two former of those colonies money was borrowed for this purpose, and Lord Stanley sent to the agents at Calcutta and Madras directing them to send 5,000 Coolies to Guiana. It appeared that 4,500 were in the first instance sent, and subsequently 5,500, making in the whole 10,000 free labourers for that colony, at an expense of 75,000 l. The Land Commissioners proposed to raise a sum of 100,000 l., but it, appeared that some legal or technical difficulties stood in the way of that proceeding, and they were not in 1846 able to raise the money; but in the course of the last year those difficulties were removed, and under these circumstances Her Majesty's Government thought that they could advantageously interfere and assist in the object in view. He should observe that since then 3,778 Coolies had been sent to the colony of Guiana, 4,276 to Trinidad, and in both cases those colonies had agreed to pay interest on the loans. He had, therefore, now to propose—
"That the said Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury be authorised to direct advances to be made, to an amount not exceeding 170,000 l. on account, out of the said Consolidated Fund, or by the issue of Exchequer Bills, under certain regulations and restrictions, and upon due security being given for the repayment thereof, in aid of Loans authorised by the Legislatures of British Guiana and Trinidad, for promoting immigration of free labourers into those colonies."
MR. BARKLY did not think that a proposition of this kind could have any appreciable effect in enabling the British sugar colonies to make anything like a successful stand against those who produced sugar by slave labour. He knew that, according to the old adage, he ought not to look a gift horse in the mouth, and that the colonies ought gratefully to accept whatever they could get; still, looking at the cir-
542
cumstances of the British West India colonies, he thought there was no ground for indulging any great hope from the proposition now before the House; at the same time, he was quite ready to admit they ought not now to anticipate the general debate upon the state of the West Indies. He was not disposed to disparage the benefit intended to the West Indies by the present loan; but he was suprised to find the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer confining the application of the money to past expenditure on account of Coolie immigration; for, on referring to a pamphlet which embodied the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman to the House on a former occasion, he could not find anything which would lead the House to suppose that the application of the money would be so limited. He did not mean to say that the right hon. Gentleman wished to state anything calculated to induce the House to believe that a greater boon was intended to be conferred on the West India interest than now appeared to be the case; but it was the universal feeling among the colonists themselves that they would be assisted by the Government to get free African labourers, in order to enable them the better to compete with the slave labourers. It was unfortunate that such a mistake should have arisen, and the disappointment would be bitter when the object of the loan became known. He asked the House why these colonies should be in such a position that they could not raise money on their own security at 5 per cent, when the current rate of interest was not above 4 per cent? This was a strong proof of the hopeless state in which these colonies were. The colonies were too poor and distressed to reject any expression of sympathy; but he did not wish the House to suppose that, in voting the money, it was about to perform any magnificent act of generosity.
MR. HUME would not deny any one of the hon. Member's statements of the difficulties under which the colonies laboured, from Government management—indeed he believed the hon. Member had greatly understated those difficulties; but his objection to the present grant was founded on totally different grounds, and he should divide the House on the point. By the rules of the House no money should be spent by the Government without the consent of the House, except in cases of extreme emergency, like that for which the 5,000 1. was voted; but since 1844, the

543
Colonial Office had entered into negotiations with the colonies, by which the House had been pledged to vote large sums of money for their use. For instance, when the Court of Policy of Trinidad desired to raise a loan, and could not do so, the Colonial Office stepped in to their aid, and pledged the House to indemnify them. It was utterly fallacious—it was a perfect delusion—to suppose that, as these colonies were situated at present, they would ever be enabled to repay one shilling of any sum that might be lent to them. There was a time when they could have done so; but their credit was now gone, and such was the deplorable financial condition of the colony, that the Government had been compelled to curtail their expenses, by reducing the emoluments of their servants. Therefore, if they advanced the money, they might as well do so as a grant, for none of it would ever be repaid. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) was not less culpable than any of his predecessors, for he sanctioned the emigration of Coolies, at an expense which he pledged this country to pay by loan. He objected to the principle of the Colonial Office advancing public money, and making the House responsible for these grants. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: This is a loan.] His objection was not done away with on that account. If the House granted the money, it should only in the way of gift; but, at all events, the system adopted in the Colonial Department ought to be wholly changed. He protested against the existing colonial system. If our colonies were to be kept up, let the colonies themselves manage their own affairs. Do away with the Colonial Office and the interference of a Colonial Minister, and allow the colonies to appoint their own officers, and expend their own money in their own way. Let this system be tried, and then we should see how the colonies would be able to manage their own affairs. If the present loan was granted, it must be considered in the nature of a gift, for he was certain that, owing to the state of the colonies, it would never be repaid to this country. He proposed that the report of the Committee now sitting on colonial affairs be first prepared and laid on the table, and then we could take into consideration what was most fitting to be done —either to maintain the colonies, or to leave them to their fate.
MR. GLADSTONE agreed in the impolicy of advancing money to the colonies,
544
and in the policy of leaving the colonists to settle colonial questions themselves. He, however, conceived there was some mistake about this particular loan. He was afraid the colonists had been unfortunately advised in this matter. Many demands had been made, which, if proper to have been complied with, ought to have been granted long ago. The hon. Gentleman had stated that whatever gratitude was due for this vote, ought to be paid to the late Government. Now, he begged to say that no part of the responsibility of asking for money belonged to the late Government. The late Government had nothing to do with the matter, beyond undertaking what he would call the mechanical part of the business—the raisin of a loan on the credit of Government. Beyond this, Government were in no way concerned, and were not responsible for anything further. For the subsequent history of the transaction the late Government were not responsible. He did not know why the delay in getting the money had occurred. There was nothing in 1846 to prevent the colonists from raising the money on their own resources. The explanation of the delay was only to be got from the present Government; and it was a mistake to say that the late Government were at all responsible for the matter.
The CHANCELLOR OF TILE EXCHEQUER said, the right hon. Gentleman was correct in saying that the present application was not one that was sanctioned by the late Government; but he did not say the reason was because circumstances had not then occurred to make the grant advisable. The right hon. Gentleman, and his predecessor, Lord Stanley, did sanction the measure for promoting the immigration of Coolies into the West Indies; they did undertake what the right bon. Gentleman had described as the mechanical part of the business; and they had sent out orders to the East Indies on the subject, by which expenses had been incurred. The colonists were to raise loans as they could; and it was quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman sanctioned the expenditure which had taken place. There was a delay in issuing the ordinances; and had that delay not occurred, there was no doubt the colonists would have been enabled to raise money on their own security. The unfortunate circumstance connected with the detention of these ordinances was, that the money market was in such a state of confusion when they reached this country, that it

545
was impossible to obtain the money. It was on failure to obtain the money in 1846 that it was proposed by Government to lend the colony the money. But when hon. Gentlemen said that the liability of this advance was on Government, he begged to correct the mistake, and to say that the liability was on the colony. Bills were drawn on the colony, and the colony was liable for the amount; Government only lent their name to sanction the li bilities which the colony incurred, and which it was bound to discharge. The liability was, therefore, on the colony, and not on the Government. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Barkly) had stated that he had misled the House, and had led the colony to suppose that the 200,000 l. was for further promoting immigration from Africa to the extent of that sum. If the hon. Gentleman would read the pamphlet through, which he had quoted, he would find it clearly and fully stated that immigration bad been sanctioned by Lord Stanley, and that his noble Friend (Earl Grey) bad not attempted to interfere with arrangements which he found in existence when he came into office. The hon. Gentleman would find that immigration was then in progress, and that the colony was unable to get money in consequence of the pressure on the money market. Under existing circumstances he thought it right to sanction a loan of 200,000 l. to the colony, stating that the amount was to cover liabilities already incurred of 166,000 l.
SIR R. H. INGLIS said, the two right hon. Gentlemen appeared to think there was no difference between their explanations; but he saw considerable difference. Both admitted their responsibility, but each differed about their share in it. With reference to some remarks which had fallen from the hon. Member for Montrose, he must say, though he seldom agreed with that hon. Gentleman, yet in those remarks he did agree with the hon. Member, though perhaps not in that part to which the hon. Member would desire to see attention very closely directed. He agreed with the hon. Member in saying that the colonies bad been ruined by recent legislation and by colonial management. What had been the management? The equalisation of the sugar duties by the Legislature, whatever might have been intended, had affected in a serious degree the interests of the West India colonies. No person could deny the fact, though
546
they might be averse from submitting to the censure implied in it. He conceived the colonies were entitled to the protection of the Legislature. He was satisfied they entertained a warm and grateful feeling in favour of the welfare of the mother country, and he thought, therefore, that the House ought to express a sympathy with propositions to relieve such colonial distresses as money could relieve. The hon. Member for Leominster said that there had been times when this money could have been raised on better terms; but the question was on what terms it could be raised at present. The question was one affecting the year 1848. There was a sum of 162,000 l. for which the credit of the country was pledged, and the Government now asked for a small addition to that sum, which he hoped would not be refused. He would not encourage individuals to rely on any exertions but their own; but if the colonies were made to sustain the whole of their own expenditure, and were made responsible for such payment, they would cease to regard this country in a parental relation, which it was the happiness of this country to encourage. He should give Ids support to the proposition now before the House, and, in the event of a division, the Government should have his vote.
MR. ROBINSON said, that there was a Committee now sitting to which this whole subject was referred; and, in ignorance of what the decision of that Committee would be, he had a right to assume that it might report altogether against the principle of immigration, and concur in the opinions which he held, that immigration would not suffice to sustain the colonies against the disadvantage of an equality of duties, and the admission of slave-grown sugar into this country. In that case let the House of Commons consider whether they were not throwing away 200,000 l. in encouraging the principle of immigration. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that the responsibility for the repayment of this money was to rest altogether on the colonies; but he took it for granted that if the colonies should be unable to pay, the money would go out of the Exchequer, and out of the pockets of the people of this country. An hon. Member had said that we had disqualified the colonies from the means and ability of paying these loans. It was by a mischievous system of legislation that the means of paying this money

547
had been taken away from them; and he warned the Government, and advised them to reflect that with the best intentions on their part, and on the part of the Legislature generally, they might do infinite Mischief, by adopting Lord Grey's system of immigration as a panacea for those evils which then afflicted our colonies. If that system should fail, what would be the effect of sending a largely increased population to the West Indies? What would be the condition of a large proportion of those unfortunate emigrants whom they had sent there? for unless something should occur to restore prosperity, they would have to give sums of money for the relief of the population of free negroes, which they themselves had created. He would protest against any system causing an immigration of free labour into the West Indies; for if they wished to restore the colonies to a state of prosperity and responsibility, they could not effect it by anything but the restoration of a system of reasonable protection, and a total prohibition of slave-grown sugar in this country.
MR. HUME said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated, that they were not responsible for this money; and if they were not responsible, why should they pay it? With an excess of expenditure of 3,092,000 l., the public credit required that much caution should be exercised before advancing such a sum as 50,000 l. No more money should be thus voted until the House knew from Her Majesty's Government how they intended to make up the large deficiency which existed. Last year the excess of expenditure over income was 2,900,000 l.; but up to the last quarter it was 3,092,000 l. And was it fair that the country should be now called upon to give away 200,000 l. more to the people of another country, when they did not know how to make up their own deficiency? He did not hear of any reduction in the general expenditure, and therefore he called on the Government to come forward and inform them how this money was to be raised. He asked the House to support him in postponing this grant, even for a week. Let it be postponed even for a few days, until further and better consideration could be given to it. With regard to the responsibility, what he had said was, that if the Government allowed the colonies to get labour where they could, and pay for it as they pleased, without any interference on their
548
part, the colonies would of course be alone responsible, and they would be in a condition to bear that responsibility. The noble Lord characterised the interference of the Government as merely a mechanical one; but it appeared that this mechanical interference was nothing less than incurring and paying the debt. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to postpone this question until the report of the West India Committee was received, and when the House would be in a position to judge better on this question. If the system should turn out a failure, let the Government take the whole debt at once rather than go through the farce of advancing the money to pay it as a loan. If the report of the Committee was what he anticipated, it would be at once incumbent on that House to change at once the whole colonial system. The United States—the seven provinces—had never asked this country for money when they were a colony of ours. They had paid all demands on them; and why should not the existing colonies do so? They would do so if the present system were altered; and he for one should oppose the present demand, which merely went to keep up an old and useless plan.
MR. JAMES WILSON said, that hon. Members seemed to anticipate that the report of the Committee would be prepared in a few days. There was very little chance of the report of that Committee being placed on the table of that House for several weeks to come. No report had as yet been agreed upon, though he believed that there was one in progress of preparation by the chairman. It was impossible to say how long the preparation of that report would take; but there certainly was no probability of its being ready in the course of the present week or the next.
MR. HERRIES would not enter into the question of how the responsibility was incurred; and if any sum were to be voted at all, it was hardly worth the while of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of the Colonies to a former Administration to enter into the question of how the liability was incurred. Had it not been for informal documents arriving in this country, measures would have arriving taken by a former Secretary for the Colonies for making loans, whereby these expenses would have been fastened on the colonies themselves. He understood that there was no doubt that this money would ultimately be paid; but it was to cover the expenses already in-

549
curred, and to enable the colonies to continue to a certain extent the system of immigration which the present Government was disposed to encourage. The proposition of the hon. Member for Montrose was, that pending the report of the Committee specially appointed to inquire into these affairs, this question should be deferred. It would be part of the duty of that Committee to consider the different modes in which assistance could be given by this country, and specially to report whether this mode of assistance were or were not efficacious. If, therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would confine the present vote to the liabilities already incurred, viz., 166,000 l., leaving out the prospective portion of the grant, he should be quite prepared to agree with him; but if he insisted upon the whole of this 200,000 l., then the argument of the hon. Member for Montrose was clear and conclusive against him, and he (Mr. Herries) should be disposed to vote for the postponement of so much of the measure as related to the prospective grant. An hon. Member had said, that the House could riot expect the report of the Committee for two or thee weeks, and the present question was one which could very well bear a delay. With these opinions, he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take a vote for 166,000 l., and postpone the rest.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER had not the least wish to make any advance for future immigration; but he objected to confine the vote to 166,000 l. to pay the expenses of the whole immigration from the East Indies. The Government could not tell the precise amount of the liabilities, for if the agents in Calcutta, acting on their instructions, were to send 15,000 Coolies, the cost would exceed 166,000 l. in amount; and he might have to come down to the House to ask for a further grant of 10,000 l. or 12,000 l., to meet a demand for which money had already been voted. He would take the vote in the usual form as "not to exceed 200,000 l.;" or he was willing to pledge himself not to spend more than 166,000 l. until the House had considered the matter. He did not care whether it were 200,000 l. or a less sum; bat some margin must be left to cover unforeseen excess of expenditure.
DR. BOWRING said, the large expenditure which this vote was designed to meet ought not to have been incurred until the immigration scheme had received the sane-
550
tion of Parliament; and he considered that, in the present state of our finances, this country ought not to be saddled with the payment of so large a sum.
MR. HAWES observed that, in 1844, Lord Stanley assented to Coolie immigration to the West Indies; and, in order to meet the wishes of the colonists promptly, the noble Lord gave orders that a number of Coolies should at once be sent to the colonies. The parties who urged that step gave Lord Stanley an assurance that the colonies would make good the expense incurred; and, relying upon that promise, he immediately authorised the shipment of 5,000 Coolies. The right hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone), when he was Secretary for the Colonies, also yielded to the request of the West India proprietors, and again sanctioned immigration to a considerable extent, on the assurance that the colonies would bear the expense. Subsequently emigration ordinances were passed, both in British Guiana and in Trinidad, but those ordinances were very defective. They limited the rate of interest at which money was to be raised, and it was impossible to raise any money upon them in London. It followed either that the immigration must be stopped, or that we must have again relied upon the pledge we still had, that the colonies would provide the necessary funds. British Guiana did raise 100,000 l., which was expended in discharging liabilities, and Trinidad raised somewhere nearly 50,000 l. Thus had arisen the existing liabilities. Earl Grey, in the course of last year, gave his sanction to the policy previously adopted, and liabilities were incurred by the colonies to the amount of about 166,000 l., so far as we knew; but, though the amount actually known to he incurred was only that sum, the probability was that there had been some excess above it—it was impossible to state exactly what, whether 10,000 l. or 20,000 l.; in order, however, to guard against any further liability, or unwise expenditure on the part of the colonies, the whole sum proposed by Lord Grey was limited to 200,000 l., not to be exceeded under any circumstances. If this vote should be postponed, an instant stop would be put to immigration. No Secretary of State hitherto had looked upon the Coolie immigration with any great favour; he thought it had failed, and would come to a natural termination; but the refusal of this vote would be very unfair. African immi-

551
gration, for which all the colonies were pressing, must immediately cease. A considerable number of liberated Africans had been conveyed to the British colonies, and, though no steamer was now employed in that service, sailing vessels were resorted to, and ten had been already employed in landing such persons in the West Indies, instead of Sierra Leone, and the other places where it had been usual to land them. On the whole, then, the House would observe how the policy had been sanctioned under which these Coolies had been shipped; and the House would see that the Government was not proposing to go to any unnecessary extent. It was but a loan that was proposed—a loan to the extent of existing contracts; it was not proposed to enter into any further contract, but, at the same time, it would be extremely difficult to fix the precise sum required.
MR. CARDWELL considered that there were two distinct subjects involved in this debate—the question of Coolie immigration under a policy which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hawes) truly stated to have been sanctioned by successive Secretaries of State; and the question whether the credit of Great Britain should be advanced to sustain the credit of the colonies; but the hon. Gentleman had not shown that this latter policy had been sanctioned by successive Secretaries of State. Immigration, on the credit of the colony, was sanctioned by Lord Stanley in 1844, and by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) in 1846; last year, as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hawes) was understood to say, it was sanctioned on the credit of the colony ultimately, but with a pledge that there should be the guarantee of this country. [" No!"] No? Then was this the first moment when we were to begin to consider whether we should for this purpose pledge the credit of the empire to guarantee the credit of the colony? If so, it was impossible to over-estimate the importance of the question. A Committee, as the House had heard, was sitting at this moment, which had presented, in six successive reports, the evidence taken before it, and which was now about to deliberate upon its final report; if that Committee should state that the West Indies were so distressed that Parliament ought to come forward with the guarantee of the country for the purpose of relieving them from embarrassment, Parliament would then consider that question; if they should
552
decide in favour of it, let it not be imagined that they were taking a slight step; the credit of the country was the property of the country, and the House ought to be as careful of pledging its credit as of expending its money. But so important a step ought not to be taken in a hurry, and in the absence of the report of the West India Committee. The hon. Gentleman had stated that these colonies would be embarrassed if the sum which was known to have been already expended should not be voted; then let there be a vote of that 166,000 l. on account, and let the consideration of the more important question be deferred till the Committee should have reported.
MR. T. BARING would ask whether there had not been some hope, if not assurance, held out to the colonies that money should be applied to African immigration, and whether the Horse was not virtually responsible for more than 166,000 l., at least, unless they passed a vote of censure upon the Government. As to a certain sum, the Government had chartered vessels, and made themselves responsible for the expense, taking the guarantee of the colonies. But then came the question as to some 30,000 l. or 40,000 l.; and up got an hon. Member to say, "I am for voting what has been already spent, but nothing more till we hear what the state of The colonies is;" and the Chancellor of the Exchequer also took the same view, though quite contrary to the tenor of his speech on the appointment of the Committee, and would not pledge himself to one penny of additional expense. The proposal which he then made as something beneficial to the West India colonies now turned out to be nothing more than a consent to pay the debts for which the Government were responsible. An hon. Member (Mr. Cardwell) urged that the House would be involving itself in a novel system of giving its credit to the colonies; why, that system had already been sanctioned by what was done with regard to Canada, when it was in nothing like the distress of the West India colonies. If the Government adopted the course indicated, it would be a complete violation of the promises made to the colonies.
MR. R. C. HILDYARD apprehended that as to the 166,000 l. we were doing no more than voting money to meet an expenditure which we had incurred under the belief that the colonies would be able to meet it; if they were not able to meet it,

553
it would be simply a bad debt incurred by the Imperial Government. But as to the other sum of 34,000 l., that involved a principle which ought to be brought on in much more solemn form; and, therefore, as to that sum, he could not support the vote on this occasion.
LORD J. RUSSELL: There have been several opinion with respect to loans to the West Indies for immigration. When I was Secretary for the Colonies, I always advised the Crown to refuse any sanction to such loans. I did it not on any imperial grounds so much as on colonial grounds, thinking that it was very unadvisable for the colonies to mortgage their revenues, and to incur debts thereby. Afterwards, when Lord Stanley and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) were Secretaries for the Colonies, they sanctioned loans for immigration, but entirely to be raised by the colonies, and the interest and repayment of the loans to be defrayed by the colonies. As I understand, they did not anticipate that either the credit or the resources of this country would, be required for this purpose. But, as the House has heard, after loans were sanctioned by the colonial legislatures and by the Crown, after very great expense incurred, and after orders sent out for bringing Coolies to the West Indies, the West Indies themselves became in such a state of distress that it was difficult for them to raise loans in the money market of this country in the condition in which the money market was. Then it came to be a question fir the present Government whether they should not undertake to aid colonies in that distress, and enable them to pay the liabilities which had been incurred. Now, undoubtedly it is competent for Parliament to say that they will reject altogether any such proposal; but I think such a rejection would not be fair to the colonies, and would not be consistent with the usual manner in which Parliament has acted, after the Ministers of the Crown had declared that they thought the credit of this country ought to be employed for the purpose of assisting the colonies in raising these sums. Of course, pledging the credit of the country is of great importance; and I think, in principle, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herries) took a perfectly fair distinction, and, if that distinction could be wade in the vote, I certainly should see no objection to our carrying the proposal into effect. He said, that which has been already incurred—incurred in a
554
different state of circumstances—and which is brought upon us by engagements that we cannot well avoid, let the House vote; but that which is to be a new proceeding, and to sanction a new principle, should be deferred till we have the report of the Committee which is sitting on the case of the West Indies. I think that principle perfectly fair. I do not believe we can say that 166,000 l. is exactly the sum required for the purpose in question; but, I own, it does not seem to me of any great importance whether we take a sum rather beyond what we require, and there remains a surplus, or whether we take a sum rather under what is needed, and come to Parliament afterwards for the balance; I am quite indifferent as to that, and should be ready to agree to any course which this Committee may think best. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Baring) has, I think, mistaken my right hon. Friend when he says, that because we are not ready to incur new liabilities, or to proceed according to the plan stated by my right hon. Friend in the early part of the Session, and by Lord Grey in his despatch, therefore we are prepared to abandon at once a scheme which may be advantageous to the West Indian colonies. I do not think my right hon. Friend meant to convey any such impression; certainly such was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government. What I think my right hon. Friend did intend—and what was perfectly fair —was, that he would agree to the postponement of the subject urged by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herries), and that the House should have before it any further light which may be thrown upon the matter by the report of the Committee, which will very shortly be on the table. The Government, however, have already made up their minds; they would propose the votes in the manner they have now done; but it is certainly not unreasonable that the House should have all possible information in its possession before they deal with the question. I think there is no difference in principle between us and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herries), and that we understand one another.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER reminded the Committee that the case stood thus—certain liabilities had been incurred by the emigration agents, acting under the direction of the Secretary of State; for the payment of those sums the colonies were liable, and they proposed, with the sanction of the Home Government,

555
to raise the money on loan; but, owing to the state of the money market, the loans could not be raised, and we purposed to lend the colonies the money which they could not borrow elsewhere. He contended that nothing which he had uttered that evening was, as the hon. Member for Huntingdon had stated, in contradiction with that which he had stated at the commencement of the Session.
MR. HUDSON would not consent to vote more money than had actually been expended, and he hoped that the right hon. Member for Stamford would divide the Committee upon that point.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, that after what had passed, he would limit the vote to 170,000 l.
MR. HUME said, that the concession which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been compelled to make did not satisfy him. He protested against the Imperial Treasury being called upon to become responsible for the debts of the colonies. It must be very difficult for any person who had attended to the debate to know what the facts of the case really were. One right hon. Gentleman after another rose and repudiated the responsibility of having sanctioned the loan, and yet the country was called upon to pay the money. As far as he could make out the facts of the case, they were these:—In 1844 Lord Stanley authorised the chartering of certain ships to convey Coolies to the West Indies, the expenses attending which was to be defrayed by bills drawn upon the colonies; those bills had not been paid by the colonies; and now this country was called upon to pay them. It was necessary that the House should have Lord Stanley's orders before it, in order that it might know to what extent this country was liable. For aught that had been stated, the importation of Coolies might still be going on. [Mr. HAWES: It has been stopped.] Well, it was not the less necessary that the House should be in possession of the whole of the correspondence. It appeared from a paper which he held in his hand, that, on the 16th of February, Lord Grey wrote to the Governors of Guiana and Trinidad that the Government were determined to advance 200,000 l. in aid of immigration to the colonies, and informing them that, if any difficulty should be experienced in paying the expense of the immigration on the spot, they (the Governors) were at liberty to draw upon the Commissioners of Colonial
556
Lands and Emigration. What right had the Colonial Secretary to write such a letter as that? These proceedings were carried on in the dark: the credit of the country was pledged, and the first intimation the House received on the subject was, when it was called upon to pay the money. The House ought to have before it all papers bearing upon the subject. If it should appear that the honour of the country was pledged for the payment of the money, it must be paid; but then it would become the House to pass a resolution warning a Minister at his peril not to pledge the faith of the country in a similar manner again. He moved that the Chairman should report progress and ask leave to sit again, in order to afford an opportunity of obtaining all the correspondence which touched upon the question. It was not his wish to appear to bear hard upon the colonies; but the conduct of Ministers rendered it necessary that the House should make a stand on this occasion.
The Committee divided on the question, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question:—Ayes 76; Noes 21: Majority 55.

List of the AYES.

Abdy, T. N.

Horsman, E.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Hudson, G.

Armstrong, R. B.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Arundel and Surrey,

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Earl of

Langston, J. H.

Barkly, H.

Lewis, G. C.

Baring, T.

Lincoln, Earl of

Bellew, R. M.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Mahon, The O'Gorman

Busfeild, W.

Martin, C. W.

Campbell, hon. W. F.

Miles, P. W. S.

Cardwell, E.

Monsell, W.

Charteris, hon. F.

Morison, Gen.

Christy, S.

Newdegate, C. N.

Clerk, right hon. Sir G.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Craig, W. G.

O'Connell, M. J.

Cripps, W.

Paget, Lord A.

Dalrymple, Capt.

Palmerston, Visct.

Deedes, W.

Parker, J.

Denison, W. J.

Pinney, W.

Denison, J. E.

Power, N.

Disraeli, B.

Raphael, A.

Divett, E.

Repton, G. W. J.

Evans, J.

Rich, H.

Evans, W.

Richards, R.

Filmer, Sir E.

Romilly, J.

Goddard, A. L.

Russell, Lord J.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Seymer, H. K.

Grey, R. W.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Shelburne, Earl of

Harris, hon. Capt.

Somerville,rt.hn.Sir W.

Hawes, B.

Spooner, R.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Stafford, A.

Hildyard, R. C.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Hindley, C.

Towneley, C.

Hope, H. T.

Townshend, Capt.

557

Urquhart, D.

Yorke, H. G. R.

Wilson, J.

TELLERS.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Tufnell, H.

Wyvill, M.

Hill, Lord M.

List of the NOES.

Bright, J.

Moore, G. H.

Brotherton, J.

Mowatt, F.

Brown, W.

Sidney, Ald.

Clifford, H. M.

Tancred, H. W.

Cobden, R.

Thompson, Col.

Duncan, G.

Thornely, T.

Ewart, W.

Turner, E.

Fox, W. J.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Humphery, Ald.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Kershaw, J.

TELLERS.

Lushington, C.

Hume, J.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Bowring, Dr.

Resolution agreed to.
MR. HUME said, that, although the Committee had decided in favour of the principle of the transaction, he would take an early opportunity of moving for the production of all papers connected with the subject.
The EARL of LINCOLN felt it necessary, after what had just fallen from the hon. Member for Montrose, to guard against having it supposed that he had voted in favour of the principle of the proceeding which had been called into question. All he had done by the vote which he had just given was to provide the means of making good payments which, he understood, had already been made by the Government; but he held himself at liberty to question the policy of the proceeding, and he entirely disapproved of Lord Grey's letter which had been referred to—a letter written when Parliament was sitting, and when the subject ought to have been brought under the consideration of the House of Commons.
House resumed, and the report of the Committee was ordered to be brought up to-morrow.

PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND).
House in Committee on Public Works (Ireland).
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved the following resolution:—
"That the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury be authorised to direct the issue, during the term of three years next after the 5th day of April, 1848, out of the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain and Ireland, of any sum or sums, not exceeding in the whole 945,000 l., to be applied by the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland for making Loans for the purpose of completing any of the Public Works commenced under the Acts 9 Victoria, cap. 1, and 9 and 10 Victoria, cap. 107, or of carrying on other Works of public utility in Ireland; provided the total sum so to be
558
issued from the Consolidated Fund shall not at any time exceed the amount which shall have been paid into the Exchequer in repayment of the advances for Works carried on in Ireland for the relief of Distress under the said Acts."
The right hon. Gentleman said, he need hardly remind the House that the public works which, for two years previously and up to last summer, were carried on in Ireland for the purpose of relieving the distress prevailing in that country, were so carried on to a very considerable extent. Last year provision was made for the repayment of that portion of the public money advanced on account of those works which was not included in the Parliamentary grant. The repayments were to be made by twenty half-yearly instalments. The works, the House would remember, were undertaken not for the sake of the works themselves, but for the sake of affording relief to the people. In preceding years that system had been adopted to a certain extent and within limited bounds, and had been found to answer the purpose intended. But early in 1846, it was announced by the Government that the works would not be carried on beyond a certain period, and only for the purpose of relieving the destitute poor of Ireland. The consequence was, that a certain portion of the works was stopped. Great complaints had been made on that score; and also on the ground that the works which had been performed were not in themselves those which would have been the most beneficial to Ireland. But he had already answered that objection by reminding the House that the primary object was to relieve the people, and not to promote any particular description of public works. To accomplish that object it was desirable to bring the work as near as possible to the doors of the persons wanting relief. Other works might, perhaps, have been undertaken; but then it would have required those who performed them to have gone many miles for the purpose. The utility of the works was considered to a great extent, and he believed, in the wilder parts of Ireland, the works had proved very beneficial. No doubt the benefit might have been extended; but if the question were asked, how far had the system succeeded in affording relief to the people, he thought the answer would be, that upon the whole it had produced a satisfactory result. It could not be denied that many persons were placed upon the works who ought not to have been employed; while others were omitted who

559
were entitled to be on the lists; yet it must be admitted that by means of the expenditure of the public money on those works, the lives of many thousands of persons were preserved in Ireland. By a statement before him, it appeared that the largest proportion of expenditure was in the county of Clare. Upon an average of the whole expenditure in that county, from November, 1846, to June, 1847, the pay was about one shilling a day for each person's relief. Now, considering the price of provisions, he did not believe that it was possible to support a person upon a less sum. The amount, therefore, of the charge which would devolve on the country on account of the relief works carried on in the county of Clare would not exceed sixpence a head per day for the persons so relieved, being one half only of the expense; the other half having to be repaid by half-yearly instalments. The question which had been since raised was, how were the works to be completed? A Bill had already been introduced by private gentlemen belonging to Ireland to enable them to proceed with the completion of such of the works as they might think proper; and it had received the Royal assent; but some delay had taken place in certain parts of Ireland in carrying out that measure. He had recently communicated with a deputation of Irish Members who had requested that the powers given by that Bill might be extended, especially with regard to the period for making presentments for new works at the sessions; and it was also proposed that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) should readvance for a certain time the sums that might from time to time be repaid on account of the monies which had already been lent for the public works in Ireland, in order that those works commenced in 1846 and 1847 might be completed, and that Ireland might have the full benefit of them, at the same time that the people of that country might be employed during the ensuing autumn and winter. Her Majesty's Government had taken the subject into consideration; and what he now had to propose was, that the Government should have the power, for three years, to readvance such sums as should in that time be repaid on account of the money already advanced for the relief works in Ireland, giving a preference to those counties, in the readvancements, which should have made or should make any such repayments.
Resolution agreed to. House resumed.

REMOVAL OF ALIENS BILL.
SIR G. GREY: I rise to move the Second Reading of the Removal of Aliens Bill; and, in doing so, I will very shortly state the reasons which have induced Her Majesty's Government to propose it, and at the same time explain the main provisions of the Bill itself. In proposing this measure I wish distinctly to state that Her Majesty's Government entertain no doubt of the justice or expediency of the policy which has of recent years been adopted in our legislation as to the admission and residence of foreigners in this country. It has long been the boast of England—and a just cause of boast it is—that she has been the protectress of constitutional liberty throughout Europe, and has at all times afforded an asylum to those individuals who have been oppressed in, and exiled from, their own countries on account of the political opinions they entertained. The Bill which I now propose to read a second time contains nothing at variance with that principle and spirit. The grounds on which it is proposed are singly those which this country has always hitherto maintained, and has every right to maintain, namely, those of self-protection The advantages which have been derived from the free admission of foreigners into this country are too well known to call upon me to detain the House by particularising them; and I hope nothing will take place at any time, either in the legislation of this country or in the practice of the Government, that will forfeit those advantages, on the one hand, or deprive foreigners of the benefits which they derive from a residence in this country on the other. It is, however, obvious, owing to the circumstances now occurring abroad, that the present is no ordinary period—that it is a time requiring especial vigilance—and a time when it may be necessary, without interfering with the general course of our legislation, or departing from our general policy, to institute precautionary measures. It cannot be denied that a great impulse has been given to republican principles. With regard to those principles, I wish now to say nothing, except this—that we have a right to protect ourselves against foreigners —to prevent foreigners interfering with us—taking upon themselves to be the apostles of those principles, and coming to us as propagandists, as they have done in other counties. There can

561
be no doubt that an influence has been extended beyond the country where these republican principles have, it may now be presumed, been fairly adopted; and that emissaries have gone forth, desirous to propagate their own opinions among the people of other nations. And it is well known that, while so advocating their principles, they have sometimes pursued a course of conduct in other countries not justifiable in foreigners. I must, however, say, that there exists no ground of complaint against any foreign Government. There has been nothing done by any other Government that could give this country the slightest cause of complaint; nay, my belief is, that where persons have come from abroad into this country for the purpose of advocating certain political opinions, they have done so merely as individuals, and not as the accredited exponents of the wishes of their own country; on the contrary, they have done it against the will of the Government of the country from which they came, and which Government, if it had had the power, would, I am convinced, have prevented them from coming at all. The Bill is limited to the object stated in the preamble, of preserving the peace and tranquillity of this kingdom, and it is not intended to be used at the instance of any representation of a foreign Government. We think that the present are extraordinary times, and that they are such as to justify exceptional legislation, with a view to prevent the accomplishment of the designs of that class of foreigners to which I have already alluded, who have availed themselves of their residence in this country, or who have come to it for the purpose of intriguing against its institutions. The Bill purposes to arm the Government with a power similar to that which it exercised under the former Alien Act, subject to the important qualification that the information given to the Secretary of State must be in writing, and that it must show sufficient grounds to make it appear that the foreigner against whom the information is laid is likely to endanger the public tranquillity. My noble Friend the Member for Marylebone has given notice of his intention to move some amendments in the Committee, which I will not therefore discuss now. The Bill is limited, as I have already observed, to those foreigners who have not resided a certain time in this country; and I will only call attention to one point in connexion with this part of the subject.
562
From the facility of obtaining letters of naturalisation, under the Act brought in by the hon. Member for Gateshead in 1844, foreigners coming here with the bonâ fide intention of residing here can easily obtain certificates of naturalisation; and all who do so will be excluded from the operation of this Bill. Before that Act passed, many persons who wished to make this country their domicile were deterred from doing so by the expense of obtaining letters of naturalisation; but that expense is very trifling now, and I find that 789 certificates of naturalisation have been granted by the Secretary of State to foreigners since the passing of the Act. I do not know that any opposition will be offered to the Bill; but, at all events, I hope that the House will assent to its principle, and allow the Bill to be now read a second time, concurring in the very moderate powers which it will confer upon the Government.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH said, the right hon. Baronet had assigned no valid reason for this Bill. The right hon. Baronet had said that there was an immediate necessity for this measure, but he had produced no proof whatever of the existence of that necessity. The right hon. Gentleman had called upon the House to place implicit confidence in Her Majesty's Ministers, and to give the Executive Government the powers contained in this Bill. Now it appeared to him that there were two questions for the consideration of the House: firstly, whether there was any necessity for such a Bill as this; and, secondly, whether Parliament ought to entrust such power as this Bill contained to a Government? He would ask the House carefully to consider what was the object and what was the nature of this measure. The object of this Bill was to invest the Executive Government with an arbitrary power of removing from this country aliens of whose conduct the Government entertained either distrust or apprehension. It would punish an alien, not for having committed an offence against the peace and tranquillity of the nation, but for being supposed by a Secretary of State to be a person capable of committing such an offence. Therefore, as far as aliens were concerned, it would be a law analogous in principle to the famous law of suspected persons of the 17th of September, 1793, one of the most accursed laws of the reign of terror. It was identical in principle with the Alien Act of 1793, which Act

563
had in every form, for 33 years, been consistently and strenuously opposed by every man of any eminence who belonged to the Whig or Liberal party. In fact, this Bill was merely a repetition, almost word for word, of the 15th, 16th, and 17th clauses of that Act. Now, those three clauses had constituted the essence of the original Alien Act of 1793, and of every subsequent Alien Act; for, by those clauses, the Executive Government had been invested with the power of ordering aliens to quit the country, and by those clauses, in the event of disobedience, such aliens had been made liable to be punished and to be removed out of the country by force. Therefore, this Bill was essentially the Act of 1793, minus certain other clauses. The clauses that had been omitted were subsidiary ones, which had been enacted for the purpose of enabling the Government to ascertain the number and character of the aliens entering the country, and their places of residence: those clauses had been of the most oppressive description; in his opinion they had been unnecessary for the object of the original Alien Act. Some of them had been omitted in 1802, others in 1816, and in 1818 the Alien Act had been reduced to a form little different from the present Bill. Though, by the omission of those clauses, the present Bill was far less oppressive in its details than any previous Alien Act, yet the principle of the Bill was nevertheless the same as that of the Alien Act of 1793, for it still bestowed upon the Executive Government precisely the same power of sending aliens out of the country. Now, some stress had been laid upon the fact that this Bill was to be a temporary one, to continue only for one year, and from thence to the end of the then next Session of Parliament. But the original Alien Act of 1793 had likewise been a temporary measure, to continue for one year, and from thence to the end of the then next Session of Parliament. It had, however, been renewed over and over again, and had continued for three-and-thirty years. During the whole of that period it had been opposed on principle, without reference to its details or its period of duration, by every man of any note connected with the Liberal party, by two generations of statesmen, who had so utterly repudiated the principle of the measure, that they never would consent to consider its details; and Lord Castlereagh, with perfect truth, had complained that whenever
564
the Alien Bill "in any of its shapes was under consideration, persons of great authority on the other side of the House were anxiously prepared to contend against its policy and propriety, and against the existence of an adequate necessity for its adoption." Those "persons of great authority" were, first, in 1793, Lord Lansdowne (the father of the present noble Lord), Lord Grey (then Mr. Grey), and Mr. Fox. Subsequently the opposition to the Alien Act had been continued by Mr. Abercrombie (now Lord Dunfermline), by Mr. Whitbread, by the noble Lord the Member for the city of London, who, he believed, had commenced his political career and had made his maiden speech against the Alien Act of 1814. The most vigorous opposition had been offered to the Alien Act of 1816 by Sir Samuel Romilly, Mr. Horner, Mr. J. P. Grant, Sir James Mackintosh, Mr. C. Wynn, Lord Milton (now Lord Fitzwilliam), Lord Althorp, Mr. Baring (now Lord Ashburton), Mr. Lamb (now Lord Melbourne), and Mr. Brougham, all of whom had spoken earnestly against the principle of such a measure. The same course had been pursued in the House of Lords by Lord Auckland, the Duke of Sussex, Lord King, Lord Lansdowne, the late Lord Grey, and the late Lord Holland. In 1818, Mr. Lamb-ton (the late Lord Durham) distinguished himself in opposition to the Alien Bill of that year. In 1820 and 1822, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Harwich likewise distinguished him: elf by the violence of his invective against and the vehemence of his opposition to the Bills of those years. And, lastly, in 1824, Mr. Denman and Lord John Russell were tellers against the last reading of the last Alien Bill. And the noble Lord, in his concluding speech—
"expressed his hope that 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 the Act they would look back to it as a measure which ought never to have been sanctioned."
Alas for human forethought and sagacity, that it should have been the lot of the noble Lord to be at the head of a Government which has proposed the next Alien Bill to the House of Commons! He should oppose that Bill for reasons with which the noble Lord must have been familiar from his cradle, for they were the reasons on account of which Mr. Fox and Lord Grey had opposed the Act of 1793. He objected

565
to an Alien Bill as contrary to the practice of our ancestors, to the spirit of the constitution, and to the tenor of the laws of the country prior to the year 1793. It must, however, be acknowledged that Lord Grenville, Lord Sidmouth, and Lord Castlereagh had maintained that the Crown had, in virtue of its prerogative, the power, by proclamation, to forbid the entrance, and to order the departure of any alien; and that if any such alien were to disobey any such proclamation, he might be indicted for a misdemeanour, and subjected to fine and imprisonment; and those noble Lords contended that an Alien Bill was required, not in order to give any new power to the Executive Government, but merely to facilitate the exercise of a power already in existence. They had quoted Vattel and Puffendorf to prove the indisputable position that the sovereign power of a State was entitled to order aliens out of its dominions: they had quoted a loose dictum of Blackstone, and the not high authority of Sir William Northey, to show that the power to banish aliens was a portion of the prerogative of the Crown; and they had cited cases in which the Star Chamber had exercised that power in the reign of Charles I. But that doctrine of the prerogative of the Crown to send aliens out of the country had been strenuously denied by Mr. Fox, Lord Grey, the present Lord Lansdowne, Sir Samuel Romilly, and others. Those noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen had contended that an Alien Bill was contrary to the practice and principles of our ancestors. Sir Samuel Romilly had said that—
"Every writer on the British constitution had expatiated on the liberality with which the British laws treated foreigners. In the dark ages of our history this policy was prevalent;"
—and, in prod of it, Sir S. Romilly quoted Magna Charta and a Statute of the 27th Edward III., by which merchant strangers and others were liberally encouraged to visit this country. The present Lord Lansdowne, in an able and eloquent speech, asserted that—
"Even in the most dangerous periods of our history our ancestors had withheld from the Crown those powers which were now called for. He would refer to the long wars and agitations of public opinion which took place after the Reformation, when the genius of Popery did create in the bosom of every Protestant country a party most dangerous, inveterate, and powerful. In the history of Queen Elizabeth would be found the most distinct evidence of plots carried on against her at Rome and at Rheims—of plots carried on by Papists; but did Secretary Bur-
566
leigh ever come down to Parliament and apply for new powers to counteract those plots? No. Queen Elizabeth's Government, relying on the affections of the people, brought the detected foreigners to public trial for their offences."
He asked the noble Lord, could not Queen Victoria's Government likewise rely on the affections of the people, and dispense with these new powers? He must take the liberty of reading one other very wise passage from the speech of the noble Lord, to which he prayed the attention of the House. The noble Lord, in concluding his speech against the Alien Bill of 1816, had said—
"It was evident that the only wise mode of proceeding with regard to foreigners, was to leave them under the administration of existing laws, and to the mild but certain influence of manners."
In this statement he begged leave cordially to concur, and he would remind the House that the Act which they had lately passed for the better security of the Crown and Government of the country had greatly increased the power of the law to punish any one who, by writing, speaking, or other overt act or deed, should intend to levy war against the institutions of the country. He would not further trespass upon the patience of the House by showing, on the authority of Mr. C. Wynn and the late Lord Grey, that neither Charles II., nor James II., nor William III., had ever dreamt either of claiming or asking for power to send aliens out of the country, though they must have oftentimes longed to possess such power. On the contrary, in the reign of Anne an Act was passed, 7th Anne, c. 5 (though, unfortunately, not of long duration), which naturalised all Protestant foreigners. And even the Georges had maintained themselves on the throne of Great Britain, despite the efforts of the exiled Stuarts, who were supported by foreign Powers, and aided by numbers at home, in times of imminent peril, without the assistance of an Alien Act. Therefore an Alien Act was contrary to the practice of our ancestors—contrary to the spirit of our constitution— contrary to the tenor of our laws prior to the year 1793—contrary to the recorded opinions of every high authority on this side of the House since the year 1793. But he would suppose (in direct opposition to the opinions of Mr. Fox and Lord Grey) that there had been a necessity for an Alien Act in 1793. Did any similar necessity exist at the present moment? The state of France in 1792 had been the reason assigned by Mr. Pitt for proposing, and by Mr. Burke for

567
consenting to invest the Executive Government with a power which Mr. Burke had said "would be too great for the liberty of the people were it possessed in times of peace." Mr. Burke's object in voting for the Alien Bill of 1793 had been, to use his own words, "to keep out of the country those French murderers and atheists." And with frenzied declamation, hurling a dagger upon the floor of the House, Mr. Burke had reminded the House of the hateful days of the 10th of August and the 2nd of September, 1792—days as abhorrent to the present generation of France as they had been to our fathers and grandfathers—days, the horrid details of which were so vividly impressed upon the minds of every Frenchman, as to render the recurrence of such scenes impossible. In 1792, within France massacre and terror had prevailed; without France there had been fierce and bigoted propagandism. Now, in Paris there was an amount of order and tranquillity amazing, astonishing to behold; accompanied by a wise determination not to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. Each day—each hour—was increasing the probability of a successful issue to this great experiment of the French people. That every success might attend them was his earnest hope and wish; and he objected to any measure which should indicate on the part of this country any doubt of that success—any mistrust of the good faith or good intentions of the French people towards this country. He looked upon this measure, directed as it was specifically against Frenchmen, to be a most offensive and impolitic measure with regard to France. He again asked, where was the necessity for an Alien Act? He knew that it had been rumoured about that sonic score or so of desperate characters, who had taken an active part in the late French Revolution, had come over to this country, and had been recognised in the streets of the metropolis. And it was said, that the object of tins Bill was to guard against the machinations of such persons, and against their disseminating opinions subversive of order and of the rights of property. To apprehend any danger from such persons, he thought was paying a very poor compliment to the institutions of the country and to the feelings of the people. Such persons had been dangerous in France, for the monarch had been self-seeking and hated—the Minister corrupt, or the instrument of corruption—the upper classes profligate
568
and despised—and the middle classes indifferent to the institutions of the country. These elements of revolutions did not exist in this country. Then, what danger was to be apprehended from the machinations of such foreigners, or indeed of any foreigners? He would read to the House a very sensible opinion which had been expressed on the subject by the present Lord Auckland, in a speech which the noble Lord had delivered against the second reading of the Alien Bill of 1816. The noble Lord had said—
"To this country no danger whatever could be apprehended from the machinations of foreigners resident in it. Against such a danger, the dislike of the people to the manners and language of foreigners was a sufficient safeguard. The first word that a foreigner would have to utter in which the letters 'th' or 'w' occurred, would overthrow any attempt he might be disposed to make inimical to the public peace."
And Mr. Fox made a similar remark when he opposed the Act of 1793. And he would again remind the House, that at present, if any person evinced any intention to make any attempt inimical to the public peace, whether by writing, speaking, or other overt act or deed, he might at once be imprisoned, tried for felony, transported if convicted; and woe unto any foreigner who should be tried for such an offence by a middle-class jury of Englishmen. But it was said the danger was in Ireland. Why, then, was the measure to be extended to England? He acknowledged that there was a difference between England and Ireland. He was afraid there was a deep-seated and gnawing conviction among the people of Ireland, that the Imperial Parliament was both incompetent and unwilling to govern Ireland as it ought to be governed, and likewise ignorant how Ireland ought to be governed. They argued our incompetency from the fact that our remedial measures were coercion and Alien Bills; they argued our unwillingness from the fact of the continued existence of a dominant Protestant Church in their most Catholic country—an abuse so great that every intelligent man out of England with one voice cried shame on us on account of it. If the people of Ireland were traitors at heart, then, if every alien were removed out of the country, they would still continue to be traitors. On the other hand, if the majority of them were loyal, a few foreigners would not convert them into traitors. In either case an Alien Act would be useless. In the one case the people could only be kept down by bayo-

569
nets; in the other case the existing laws were sufficient to punish as felons any persons attempting to disturb the public peace. It was said that numerous bands of armed Frenchmen would come over to levy war upon us in Ireland, whilst we were at peace with France. A more absurd idea had never been conceived by a panic-stricken imagination. Who would pay the expense of their journey from France, or from Paris? Such gentlemen do not generally belong to the wealthier classes of society. They might reach the seaports on foot; but would the steam-packets take them to Dublin for nothing? And when arrived there, if either before or after arrival they were to give any hint of their intentions, under the old laws they would have been traitors—under the existing law they might at once be imprisoned and punished as felons. Lastly, it had been argued that we should place confidence in the good intentions of Her Majesty's Ministers, that they would not abuse the powers contained in this Bill. This was a very old argument in favour of an Alien Bill. It had been refuted at great length by Lord Grey in 1793; and he might be permitted to express his belief, without any disrespect to Her Majesty's Ministers, that Mr. Pitt had as good intentions in asking for an Alien Bill, and had been as incapable of abusing any power entrusted to him, as any one of her Majesty's present Ministers. But Mr. Fox and Lord Grey had denied the validity of this argument in 1793—à fortiori would they have denied it if they had been in existence in 1848? He contended that there was no more dangerous fallacy than that which made confidence in a Minister a sufficient season for supporting a bad measure. Every measure should be judged of by its own intrinsic merits or demerits. He could not, because he sat on that side of the House, and because he had confidence in Her Majesty's Ministers, consent to invest them with powers, which he, for one, should certainly have refused, and which he believed every Member of that side of the House would have unanimously refused, to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, if, being in office, the right hon. Baronet had asked for such a measure. For the powers which it contained were at the present moment unneeded; they never had been needed, and ought never to have been granted even in the most dangerous periods of our history. And he would conclude with the words of Lord Grey in 1816, that, "as to
570
the expediency of the measure, he thought it exceptionable in every point of view, either with regard to public policy or constitutional principle "—" therefore he never gave a vote with more satisfaction than that which he should give against the adoption of such a measure," and by moving that this Bill be read a second time that day six months.
LORD D. STUART felt considerable pain at being again obliged to oppose a measure brought forward by Her Majesty's Government; and could not help expressing surprise that an Alien Bill should have been introduced by them without any proof of its necessity being laid before the House. The more he had studied this measure, the more he had seen cause to oppose it. It vested powers in the hands of the Government which ought not, he contended, to be possessed by any class of men whatever. If the Bill passed into a law, it would be in the power of the Secretary of State, upon suspicion only, to turn any foreigners he pleased out of the kingdom. It would not even be necessary that he should in certain cases have information against a foreigner, for, by the third clause, if he "apprehended" that any alien would not pay attention to any orders issued by him, he could order his seizure, and have him forthwith turned out of the country. He certainly did not expect, judging from the fate of the opposition to certain measures lately introduced, that the efforts of those opposed to this Bill would be successful; but he would, nevertheless, in Committee propose certain amendments to neutralise its worst features. The noble Lord read the protest entered on the records of the House of Lords by Lord Holland against the Alien Bill of 1822, and observed that the greater part of the objections taken in that protest to the Bill of that day was applicable to the present measure, On one point of very considerable importance the right hon. Baronet had given the House no information whatever. He had not stated what course was to be adopted with reference to aliens sent out of this country—whether they were to be sent back to their own country, where they might be exposed, as stated by Lord Holland in 1822, to torture, imprisonment, or death, or whether they were to have the option of going to America or any other country they thought proper to select. A foreigner might by this rule be imprisoned, as there was no provision for bringing him to trial, within

571
a particular period, so that he might be kept in prison as long as the Government chose. If such powers were to be intrusted to any men, he knew none to whom he would so readily confide them as to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, or the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. But he contended that they ought not to be given to any man or set of men whatever. He recollected the case of a Polish nobleman who was arrested a few years ago, when the Emperor of Russia was on a visit to this country, not by his right hon. Friend who was now Home Secretary, but by the Government that preceded the present; and while he said so, he was sorry to see that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham), who was then Secretary of State for the Home Department, was not in his place. He had no opportunity of bringing the case forward at the time. But the privacy of the nobleman to whom he had referred was suddenly invaded—he was seized without any warrant, and carried off to prison, and his papers taken from him, some of which had never been restored. He only mentioned this to show the danger of giving such powers to any Ministry, and to what an extent foreigners might be unnecessarily interfered with. He must say he was surprised at the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Harwich (Sir J. Hobhouse) on the present occasion; and, remembering the sentiments formerly expressed by that right hon. Gentleman, be might also express his surprise at the title of the present Bill. The eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman was exceedingly fervid against former Alien Bills, one of which he stated ought to be resisted even by force; and, therefore, he thought it was the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to be in his place on the present occasion. In 1822 the right hon. Gentleman made a most determined resistance to the Alien Bill then before the House, and actually proposed the following Motion for an alteration in the title of the Bill:—
"That the title of the Bill should be—'A Bill to repeal so much of the great charter of England as relates to the free ingress and free residence of foreign merchants in these islands, and to assimilate in that respect the Executive Government of Great Britain to the despotic Governments of the Continent."
This Motion was not made in joke, or merely to create merriment in the House; for the right hon. Gentleman divided upon it, and received in its support the votes of twenty Members. He was ready to admit
572
that there was a difference betwixt this and former Alien Bills, inasmuch as formerly the object of these Bills was to prevent foreigners coming here to plot against foreign Governments; whereas the object of the present Bill was a more legitimate one, namely, to prevent foreigners from plotting against the well-being of this country. But still, he complained that no proof was given that foreigners had come to this country to plot against its welfare. As there were people who thought every poor man a Chartist, and every Chartist a rebel, so were there people who thought every foreigner an enemy. Conceiving the Bill to be, in the words of Lord Holland's protest, cruel, unjust, and unconstitutional, he considered it his duty to give it his opposition.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL was unwilling to prolong the discussion, but after what had fallen from the hon. Baronet the Member for Southwark and the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone, he was induced to attempt to remove a misconception under which they laboured with respect to the object of the Bill. Though the noble Lord had argued against the principle of the Bill, as if it were identical with that of anterior measures, yet he had admitted that the Bill was different from former Alien Bills, and he had, in truth, answered all his own arguments. The hon. Baronet the Member for Southwark relied on no objections to the Bill except such as were the repetition of objections stated to former Alien Bills; and because the Bills of 1793 and 1814 were opposed by men of great note and distinction he contended that therefore a different Bill, directed to a different object, and proposed under different circumstances, ought not to have been introduced by the Members of the present Government. The circumstances were different. The object was entirely different; for whereas in 1793 and 1814 foreigners had to meet insuperable obstacles in the way of their obtaining letters of naturalisation, they might now obtain them without difficulty. If they came to this country to reside and carry on business, and had no design against the peace of the country, they might obtain letters of naturalisation with the greatest possible facility, and at no expense whatever. On the production of a certificate of character, and on proof of their intuition to reside here for purposes of business, they obtained letters of naturalisation, which would put them beyond the scope of this Bill al-

573
together. The present Bill was totally different from former Bills; it was assailable on none of the grounds on which the protests against former Bills proceeded, except those disputed grounds of impolicy or injustice which were open to discussion on the facts of the case. It had been argued that, even if not perverted to improper purposes, the effect of the Bill might be to deter the friends of civil and religious liberty from other countries from seeking refuge and protection under the laws of this country. The Acts of 1793 and 1814 authorised Her Majesty and the Privy Council, with no reason assigned, and no responsibility which could be specifically attached to any Minister, to proclaim an alien and deport him at once. Under this Bill the Government could not act except on Information that there was reason to believe the person to whom it related had designs against the public peace. The Secretary of State would be bound to produce that information; he would be bound to show that he had received that information that the party was obnoxious to the charges made against him. But the hon. Baronet further described the Bill as unjust, supposing that resident aliens might be subjected to actual punishment without trial. Such was not the case. An alien residing here might obtain letters of naturalisation. Every person settling in this country, and not harbouring designs against the peace, was entitled to obtain such letters; and there could now be no such argument as there was when Lord Holland entered his protest. But, in the third place, it was argued that the Bill was unconstitutional. Those grounds of objection were applicable to former measures, but not to the present. The hon. Baronet said, the Government offered no proof that the measure was required under existing circumstances. But so far the measure depended on the confidence which the House had in the Government. No Government could be expected to come here and state all the details with respect to the grounds on which such a measure was demanded. It was because the Government thought there was reason to apprehend that improper designs were entertained by parties now in the country coming from abroad. If there were no such parties, then the Bill would be harmless, at all events. The measure might be called into operation; but could not be made an instrument in the hands of a foreign Government. The measure could be applied
574
only in cases where there were circumstances which justified the belief of the Government that the party against whom information was lodged entertained designs against the peace and Government of this realm. In that, he believed, consisted the main distinction between this and former Acts. Upon these grounds, he held that this measure might be defended in perfect consistency with the admission that the objections taken to the former measures which had been mentioned were well-founded.
MR. W. J. FOX said, he had listened with great attention to the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, and the hon. and learned Attorney General, for some more distinct grounds than he had yet heard alleged in favour of a law which seemed to him to call for them, because it was a measure of timidity and apprehension. It showed a want of confidence in the British people, who had so lately evinced in the most illustrious manner their determination to support peace and order, and it showed also a want of confidence in the Government and people of France, who, under very trying circumstances, had as yet done nothing whatever to excite suspicion or hostile feeling upon our part. He thought a different sort of legislation would become the Government of such an empire as this; he thought, convulsed as the world was, there could be no better time to show our reliance on those institutions which had stood the test of so many ages, and supported so eminently the character, not only of durability, but of that elasticity which accommodated itself to the spirit of the age, and enabled us, by enlarging the sphere of privilege, and the conditions of political power, to give them greater extension when the state of society required it, without any of those convulsions by which other countries were torn. He could not see that any case of necessity had been made out for the grant of powers which, to say the least of them, were capable of a very invidious and cruel application—which put the liberty, property, and prospects of individuals at the mercy of the Minister for the time being—and exposed a man to that sort of attack against which it was so difficult to defend oneself—anonymous writings, perhaps, addressed to a Secretary of State, who, it seemed, might be brought in contact with a class of persons whom a Member of the English Government ought to

575
avoid consorting with. His office would have a back door for the receipt of accusations and calumnies, which, under the plausible pretext of the public safety, might be only the ebullition of individual spite, or the gratification of personal vindictiveness; which might be used offensively against man or woman. For it could not be forgotten that the first person deported under the law of '93, from which this measure was taken, was a woman, who could hardly have been supposed the source of material danger to this country or its institutions; the widow of Lord Edward Fitzgerald, whose name had since been raised to so different a position in connexion with the finest feelings and associations of humanity by writers of the sister country. Ministers had been charged with inconsistency in introducing this Bill. However truly that might apply with reference to their conduct in past years, he was free to admit that the objection had less force with him than others which had been adduced; because, if he looked to the last measure they had brought into the House, he thought this might be held to be a very consistent and appropriate supplement to the Act just passed for the better security of the Crown and Government of these realms. The one belonged to the other; they dovetailed admirably—
"Sure such a pair was never seen,
So justly formed to meet by nature:"
This Bill completed that conversion of Ministers from the policy of the old Whigs of this country to that of Pitt, Castlereagh, and Sidmouth, which began with the first of these measures, and might be considered as continued by the second. It showed that the expression used by Pitt in the discussions on the Regency question, that he would "un-Whig the Gentleman for the rest of his life," could no longer be used against them, for they had in truth most effectually un-Whigged themselves. The only thing said by the right hon. Baronet to show the necessity for this Bill, was, that he was afraid of republican missionaries. Now, the danger from republicanism in England at this time was surely at its very lowest point. The power of "open and advised speaking" to this end which any Frenchman could exert amongst us, was surely of a very limited nature. Had it been forgotten that the most accomplished of French tragic actors, the celebrated Talma, was never allowed to carry out his wish of acting Hamlet on the English stage, because it was felt by the managers that the very
576
first sentence he should utter might set the audience in a roar? Vain were fears then of speeches to be made by foreigners for the purpose of stirring up sedition amongst our population. If we wished to extinguish desires which might be entertained by any portion of them for changes in governments and institutions, it would be necessary rather to seek to be invested with a power of punishment, or suppression over the writings of the illustrious dead of our own country, than over the machinations of the living missionaries of other lands. The great republican teachers, if Englishmen could now be practically republicanized, would be found on the shelves of our libraries, in the pages of the Miltons, Sidneys, Harringtons, Mores, and others of later date. If such men, speaking to us in our native language, with a style fraught with the harmonies of the olden time—appealing to our hearts by rich trains of glorious associations, commanding almost the idolatry of the student—if these failed to make us republican, where could be the power of Frenchmen, Germans, or the natives of any other region, to seduce the inhabitants of these realms from their plighted allegiance to their Queen? He apprehended that the free inhabitants of this country had at least as much affinity with the republicanism of others as with their despotism. But if it were said that it was not abstract republicanism, but the doctrines of socialism and communism we were to be afraid of, let us take example from the noble-minded man who was now at the head of the French people. Those doctrines had been the rock a-head of the French Government during all the dangerous period that had elapsed since the days of February; our own socialist and communist leaders had been in Paris during all that interval, fraternising with those who shared their opinions, presenting addresses, and making themselves conspicuous; yet the eminent man to whom he referred had not deported one of them. Let us then rather imitate that example, fortified especially as we were by so many reasons of confidence in the loyalty of our people, and the security of our institutions. Such measures as the present afforded no reliable guarantee; they were as worthless to the real peace and security of the institutions of these realms, as the parchment on which they were written would be worthless by way of buttress to that venerable edifice under whose shadow they were now deliberating, which had stood the storms of

577
ages past, and would stand the storms of ages yet to come. He could not agree with the Attorney General that such measures, if not enforced, would do no harm. They did this harm: they falsified the character of this country; they put us in an untrue position as to the public opinion of Europe and the world; they declared apprehensions which did not really exist, or had no real grounds of existence; they imputed a fickleness, an untrustworthiness, a proneness to be led into violence, which were not the character of the people of this country, never had been, and never would be; and they put us in this false position, that they were likely to affect most injuriously our relations with other States. They might breed misunderstandings which would plunge us into war, that worst of all calamities; they showed a suspicion of what was going on in Europe; they showed that we did not rely on the events that were now taking place, being so over-ruled as to guide the world to the possession of freedom and the enjoyment of happiness; they proclaimed ourselves to be at variance with our surrounding neighbours, to be looking on fearfully, jealously, and suspiciously, and by so doing, they put us on the wrong side, allying us with those who sought to uphold a past that could not be prolonged, and obstruct a future that must and would be realised. They made us the enemies of rising constitutional Governments, and the friends of despotisms everywhere deservedly crumbling into oblivion.
MR. HENRY DRUMMOND could fully subscribe to every word of the eloquent speech which the House had now heard with respect to the confidence to be reposed in the constitution. The noble Lord (Lord D. Stuart) said the measure was contrary to Magna Charta, which provided for a settlement in this country of foreign merchants. He (Mr. Drummond) had read the Bill several times. He had perceived it was directed against the residence of foreign traitors; but he found not one word against foreign merchants. Hon. Gentlemen had expressed surprise that the right hon. Gentleman who had introduced the Bill had said nothing as to its necessity. Did they know nothing of what was going on in Europe? The hon. Baronet had told the House that a similar measure had been objected to in former times by many great authorities; but perhaps he was not aware that sitting on the same benches with them in those times were Members of a "Correspond-
578
ing Society" sworn to promulgate their doctrines all over Europe. How far these eminent persons were tainted by such opinions, it were hard to say; and certainly he (Mr. Drummond) was not now going to vindicate the sayings and doings of any Whigs on the subject since the beginning of the French Revolution. A poet had given a description of this city as—
"London, the needy villain's general home, The common sewer of Paris and of Rome, Condemned by fortune and resistless fate, Sucks in the dregs of each corrupted State."
The hon. Baronet seemed anxious that London should still exhibit that character. He said this was a new measure. The other day the Government were charged with bringing into operation an old law of Charles II. If the plague were now to break out, physicians would not recur to Thucydides to see bow it was treated in Athens, nor would they look at the old authorities which recorded how the disease was dealt with during its ravages in London. In the good old times, an Earl of Westmoreland marched up to London, and made palpable open war: but now there was peaceable agitation carried on till people were prepared to rise, till arms were procured, till people were trained in their use; and then resistance was said to be a sacred duty. He was much surprised to hear it said by more than one hon. Gentleman opposite that there was no reason to apprehend propagandism. A remarkable circumstance attending the former French Revolution was, that people began by propagandism before they began with reformation of abuses in the respective countries to which they belonged. So long back as in 1773, Voltaire settled himself on the borders of Switzerland, and promulgated the doctrines which a few years afterwards he propagated in his own country. It was said there was no propagandism now. Only yesterday he had read a letter sent by Count de Montalembert to the Tablet, in which letter it was said to the Irish in so many words, "Don't make war with England; but I will tell you what we will do—we will make war for Poland." What business had he to go to Poland for this war more than to this country? It had been asked why should the country not rely now on their institutions as in the time of Queen Elizabeth, since she never applied for an Alien Act? If they gave Her Majesty's Ministers a Star Chamber, they were not likely to apply for an Alien Bill. If they distrusted the opinions of modern British

579
writers with respect to those who distinguished themselves by their advocacy of propagandism, he would take leave to refer to the opinions of the French Minister, recorded so far back as the year 1839. The writer in question says—
"Yes, it is a sad and extraordinary spectacle that this hierarchy presents—organised for pillage and crime. The assassination of kings in general and of him whom the Revolution of July placed on the throne of July in particular, is preached as the most holy of duties; but this is not all—the revolution which they desire to effect is at once political and social. It is not only royalty that they wish to extirpate from the soil, but it is above all the aristocracy, and aristocrats, and the list of aristocrats is long. The landed proprietor is chief aristocrat; the capitalist, the manufacturer, and whoever is convicted of possessing an acre of land, or a hundred crowns of rent. They will carry the hatchet and the torch against these monstrous inequalities. They will level by the same blow, heads, ranks, and fortunes. The double reform which they wish to found on the ruin of the monarchy and of society, is in politics the sovereignty of the people modified by the scaffold; in the revenue, equality of fortunes and community of goods. Such is their end, and such are their means."
Such was the light in which the proceedings of the revolutionist party in France were viewed by a French Minister in 1839. He did not mean to express any wish one way or another with respect to the great events which had recently occurred in other countries; but as one hon. Member had expressed in that House his enthusiastic admiration of the revolutionary doctrines, and his anxious desire for their success, it was at least open for him to declare his determined detestation of them, and his conviction that they could end in nothing but universal slaughter and civil war. [Laughter.] It might be all very well for hon. Members to laugh at these things; but he should like to know what they would do with a people to whom they had deliberately made promises which it was wholly out of their power to realise? And he would take the liberty of hinting—for he had not time or opportunity to do more—that the greater part of the discontent at present prevailing in the country was to be attributed to the fact, that promises had been made to the people which could never be accomplished.
MR. URQUHART objected to any difference of legislation for foreigners, and was at a loss to conceive why the Crown and Government Security Bill was not a sufficient protection against the machinations of foreigners in this country. It had
580
been the privilege of England in all time to afford unstinted hospitality to the unfortunate of all countries in the world, and that not only by law, but from the natural impulse of the national mind and character; and he objected to the Bill also as a falsification of that character. He considered it utterly inconsistent with the measure which they had lately been debating—that of the admission of Jews into Parliament; and it was remarkable, that in the Old Testament it was laid down in a most precise manner that there should be no difference in the law or in the manner for the native and for the alien. He ridiculed the idea of propagandism in these days, in which there were no secret societies or conspiracies, but in which movements were produced by public opinion, and the press was the vehicle of the contagion. With regard to the security said to be given in this Bill by means of written informations which might be called for in that House, he thought that quite fallacious. He reminded the House of what had passed with reference to opening letters. A Committee had been appointed on the subject, which hi d inquired into everything but the point at issue, and had reported upon all the letters opened by warrant, while it passed over in silence all that had been opened with out warrant. If an inquiry in that House could thus be shelved, in a home affair of importance, there was not much security against the abuse of this power in the case of a few poor foreigners. He feared also that it would bring us into collision with foreign Powers; and, though he would say nothing about the present Government, the powers might be used in the hands of some Ministers as an instrument of tyranny by foreign despots; in the same way that the police of London had been made subservient to such a purpose in the case of a Polish nobleman alluded to by the noble Lord (Lord D. Stuart). He considered it would be far better to let the Government act on its own responsibility with respect to the removal of foreigners whose presence they deemed objectionable, and afterwards come to Parliament for a Bill of Indemnity. The granting to Government a power as affecting the removal of aliens, was, moreover, a question touching our internal liberty. The measure was also objectionable, because it gave a judicial appeal to the Privy Council. The grounds of removal must then be judicial; and, as this was the case, what necessity was

581
there for removing them from a court of justice competent to try them? If there were grounds for making a court decide that an alien should be removed, there would be something to justify his being proceeded against in the ordinary courts of law. To take that power out of the hands of the law, and invest it in a Secretary of State, would, he feared, be opening the door to the exercise of arbitrary and irresponsible power. Holding these opinions, he would have great satisfaction in voting against the Bill. When the Government, upon a recent occasion, asked for additional power to preserve the peace of the empire, he readily gave them his support; and for that very reason he would now resist, by every possible means, those exceptionable powers which they wished to obtain, not against the nation, but the alien friend.
The EARL OF ARUNDEL and SURREY said, that it seemed to him that the several speakers against the Bill had so lost themselves in their own eloquence as not to have touched the point in question. There could, he thought, be little doubt of the fact that there was a considerable number of Germans and Frenchmen—it did not signify what nation they belonged to—but there wee e foreigners, he believed, in this country who entertained wild and anti-social opinions, and who were ready to upset not only the Government of their own country, but the Government of any other nation they could manage to operate upon. That being the fact, they all knew, from what had lately occurred on the Continent, how easily a small number of men might produce great confusion and bloodshed, and damage to life and property, if so disposed; and he must say, that under such circumstances, it was the bounden duty of Government to take such means as they might find to be necessary to prevent such persons creating disorder among the people over whom they (the Government) had been called to rule.
MR. HUME was not surprised that no hon. Member should have taken the same view of the question as that adopted by the noble Lord, for assuredly there was no sane man inside or outside of that House who could seriously participate in the apprehensions of the noble Lord. Was it possible that any sane man could believe that if a Frenchman or a German were to stand up in a meeting of Englishmen, Scotchmen, or Irishmen, and to advocate revolution and the overthrow of the British
582
constitution, he would receive anything else for his trouble but hissings and hootings? It was really preposterous to entertain such apprehensions. To talk about Frenchmen or Germans, or any foreigners, coming over to England to excite the British population to rebellion, was about as rational as to suppose that a bevy of ourangoutangs should visit the country on a like mission. The fact was, the noble Lord was panic-stricken. He must have been a special constable on a recent memorable occasion, and must have witnessed while on duty some terrible spectacle or other, or else have received some terrible revelation or other which had excited his alarm beyond all reasonable limits. Where were these French and German cut-throats who had frightened the noble Lord from his propriety? It was really monstrous that that House should, through fear of some unintelligible phantom, give its sanction to principles which had long been odious to every friend of free government. There was no man who for the last sixty years had professed to hold liberal opinions in the least estimation, who had not repeatedly expressed his detestation of such measures as the present. It was subversive of every principle to which the English people had heretofore declared their attachment, that a law should be passed depriving the accused man of the privileges of being confronted openly with his accuser, and getting a public and impartial trial. Great cruelty and great injustice must inevitably characterise the operation of such a law. It was wholly unnecessary. He had too much confidence in the good sense and the loyalty of the British population to suppose that it was in the power of any body of foreigners to seduce them from their allegiance. To affirm the contrary, was to slander the character of the country. When a similar measure to the present was brought forward, in 1822, by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, it had to encounter a fierce opposition; and he (Mr. Hume) was proud to say he voted against it in every stage. Sir James Mackintosh declared that it was a melancholy thing that the House should be called upon to give its sanction to so un-English a proceeding; Lord Denman expressed his determination to give it an "unqualified opposition;" and as for the right hon. Baronet the Member for Harwich (Sir John C. Hobhouse), he could find no language sufficiently powerful adequately to convey his

583
disgust and indignation at it. He was at a loss to think what dream could have come over the last-named Gentleman, or what wild infatuation could have wrought so wonderful a revolution in his principles and those of his Colleagues. He, however, had not changed. It would afford him pride and pleasure to record his vote against the Bill in all its stages.
DR. BOWRING could not allow the Bill to be read a second time, without protesting against it as a most arbitrary and unconstitutional measure. Under our ordinary forms of law a man who was accused of crime was allowed to see his judge, and confront his accuses; but under the present Bill the Secretary of State, upon any information, no doubt written, but emanating, it might be, from individual hostility or malignity, or perhaps from a despotic and tyrannical Government, had the power to banish any foreigner from the land. It was said, that all who chose might apply for letters of naturalisation; but there were thousands and tens of thousands who came to this country as merchants and travellers, or for the purpose of receiving instruction, who did not intend to naturalise themselves. He had no apprehension; he thought that all institutions that were deserving of being preserved would be preserved by the good opinion of those who were interested in their preservation. We were, in fact, all propagandists as far as we were able; and he was very glad to see propagandism of liberal opinions and popular Governments spreading throughout the country; for he believed that such opinions were associated with the development of human intellect and the future happiness of man.
CAPTAIN HARRIS thought the Government entitled to the thanks of the country for their promptness in bringing forward this measure of safety. The conduct of many foreigners upon a recent occasion, showed the necessity of some measure of this sort, for it was notorious that they mingled with the crowd in Trafalgar-square, and endeavoured to incite them to violence. The respectable and well-disposed foreigners resident in this country would hail the Bill with satisfaction. He would give it his cordial support.
MR. EWARThad listened with attention for some sound reasons in support of the Bill, but he could not detect any. He believed that a measure of this sort was altogether unnecessary, as the conduct of the people on the 10th of last month,
584
showed that they were determined to preserve order and maintain peace under all circumstances. The Government had less justification for going on with the Bill now than they had when they first introduced it, and this would be an additional reason for inducing him to vote against it.
The House divided on he question that the word "now" stand past of the question:—Ayes 141; Noes 22: Majority 119.

List of the AYES.

Arkwright, G.

Grenfell, C. P.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Armstrong, R. B.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Arundel and Surrey,

Hanmer, Sir J.

Earl of

Harris, hon. Capt.

Bagshaw, J.

Hawes, B.

Baines, M. T.

Hay, Lord J.

Barkly, H.

Hayes, Sir E.

Baring, T.

Heathcoat, G. J.

Bellew, R. M.

Heneage, E.

Benbow, J.

Herbert, H. A.

Berkeley, hon. G. F.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C

Bernard, Visct.

Hildyard, R. C.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Hildyard, T. B. T.

Bowles, Adm.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Bremridge, R.

Hodges, T. L.

Broadley, H.

Hope, H. T.

Brockman, E. D.

Hotham, Lord

Brotherton, J.

Hudson, G.

Brown, W.

Jervis, Sir J.

Browne, R. D.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Buxton, Sir E. N.

Keppel, hon. G. T.

Campbell, hon. W. F.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Cardwell, E.

Langston, J. H.

Christy, S.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Law, hon. C. E.

Cobbold, J. C.

Lewis, G. C.

Cocks, T. S.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Littleton, hon. E. R.

Craig, W. G.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Dalrymple, Capt.

Macnamara, Maj.

Dashwood, G. H.

Martin, C. W.

Deedes, W.

Matheson, Col.

Denison, W. J.

Mitchell, T. A.

Denison, J. E.

Monsell, W.

Disraeli, B.

Morison, Gen.

Divett, E.

Morris, D.

Dodd, G.

Newdegate, C. N.

Drumlanrig, Visct.

O'Brien, Sir L.

Drummond, H.

O'Connell, M. J.

Duncan, G.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Dundas, Sir D.

Ord, W.

Ebrington, Visct.

Paget, Lord A.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Palmer, R.

Euston, Earl of

Palmerston, Visct.

Evans, J.

Parker, J.

Evans, W.

Perfect, R.

Fitzwilliam, hon. G. W.

Philips, Sir G. R.

Foley, J. H. H.

Pinney, W.

Fortescue, hon. J. W.

Power, N.

Frewen, C. H.

Prime, R.

Fuller, A. E.

Pugh, D.

Gaskell, J. M.

Rawdon, Col.

Glyn, G. C.

Repton, G. W. J.

Goddard, A. L.

Ricardo, J. L.

Godson, R.

Ricardo, O.

Gordon, Adm.

Rice, E. R.

Granger, T. C.

Rich, H.

585

Romilly, J.

Thornely, T.

Russell, Lord J.

Towneley, C.

Russell, F. C. H.

Townshend, Capt

Seymer, H. K.

Turner, G. J.

Seymour, Lord

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Shelburne, Earl of

Simeon, J.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Somerton, Visct.

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

Yorke, H. G. R.

Spooner, R.

TELLERS.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Hill, Lord M.

Stuart, H.

Tufnell, H.

List of the NOES.

Bowring, Dr.

Smith, J. B.

Bright, J.

Smythe, hon G.

Clay, J.

Stuart, Lord D.

Cobden, R.

Tancred, H. W.

Ewart, W.

Thompson, Col.

Forster, M.

Fox, W. J.

Kershaw, J.

Wakley, T.

Lushington, C.

Walmsley, Sir J.

M'Gregor, J.

Mowatt, F.

TELLERS.

Raphael, A.

Hume, J.

Sidney, Ald.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Bill read a second time.

ELECTIVE FRANCHISE—IRELAND.
SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLE, in rising to move for leave to bring in a Bill to regulate the Elective Franchise, and for the Registration of Parliamentary Electors in Ireland, hoped he might ask the attention of the House for a few moments while he proceeded briefly to state the nature of the Bill which it was his duty to propose. He felt it was quite unnecessary for him to dilate on the great importance of this question; it had been recognised by successive Governments and by successive Parliaments, and yet the evils of the system remained to the present day unredressed and in full operation. Those evils, as they at present exist, he took to be threefold: first of all, the nature of the franchise as it exists in Ireland; secondly, the insufficiency of the constituencies dependent upon the nature of that franchise; and, thirdly, the system of registration, which is most imperfect, giving rise, as had been justly said, to many and grave abuses. First of all, he would call the attention of the House for a very few moments to the nature of the franchise as it exists in Ireland; and, perhaps, he need not go further in calling the attention of the House to this point, than simply to say that the franchise, as it at present exists in Ireland, is ambiguous. There might be some persons who objected to a high franchise; there might be seine who objected
586
to a low franchise; but he believed that of all the curses that ever was inflicted upon a country—and particularly a country situated like Ireland—an ambiguous franchise was the worst. They had heard in that House, over and over again, in the course of debates on this question, the opinions of hon. Members on what is called the solvent-tenant test, and the beneficial-interest test. They knew that the Judges of the land differed in their construction of the Act of Parliament. They knew, also, that the assistant barristers in Ireland differed in their construction of the Act of Parliament; and he believed that even those who had framed the Reform Bill—or, at least, many of those who took part in the debates on the Reform Bill—differed in the construction of the Act of Parliament. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House, in discussing the question, had been unable to come to a correct decision on the subject; and such being the case, it could be hardly supposed that the peasantry coming forward to register their votes could form a correct opinion on the subject. Then let them see the great evil that was caused by this state of the franchise. An assistant barrister might register in one way; but whether or got it was to be finally allowed depended upon the going Judge of assize, and the construction he might put upon the Act. It appeared that neither Judges nor assistant barristers could agree in their construction of the Act of Parliament; and having said that, he conceived he said enough to show that, in this respect at all events, a change was desirable. What was the next evil he complained of? It was the insufficiency of the franchise in Ireland. He would not weary the House by going into detail, or by alluding to figures; but documents were at the command of every hon. Member of the House to show that the constituencies of Ireland were dwindling away, and yearly becoming less; and except the House stepped in and legislated on the subject, the representative system in Ireland would become nothing more nor less than a nullity. The numbers of the constituencies were to be found in documents on the table of the House; but let not hon. Gentlemen suppose that those documents gave a correct idea of the number of the voters in Ireland. When they saw the number of voters registered, did they consider how many of those voters were brought to the poll? Not at all; but if they looked to elections in Ireland, and to contests that

587
had lately occurred, and compared the number of voters registered with the numbers which, even in the most severe contests, were brought to the poll, it would be found that the numbers brought to the poll were considerably less than the very small number which appeared on the face of the documents as returned to the House. He had now stated two of the evils connected with the franchise in Ireland: first of all, the nature of the franchise; and, secondly, the insufficient number of electors, caused by the state of the franchise. There was a third evil, to which he now begged to call attention, namely, the present registration system, which, as he had stated before, is liable to great abuse, and calls loudly for redress. He would now state to the House what it was proposed to do by the Bill which he desired to introduce; and first of all what remedy they intended to adopt in reference to the first of the evils to which he had called attention. Hon. Members were aware that the franchise in Ireland was, he might say, of two descriptions—one a franchise connected with occupation, the other a franchise which does not require occupation. The franchise connected with occupation was generally possessed by that which is called the poorer classes, and that occupation franchise is connected with a tenure. His opinion was that first of all it was necessary strictly to define the franchise. It was desirable that it should not be left, as a question of value, to be sworn to by the occupier himself at the time he came forward to register, and that they should adopt some fixed scale, which would do away altogether with the necessity for an oath. He knew of no plan that could be better adopted than that of falling back upon a rating. That was defined and precise, and was not liable to abuse, and a voter might be registered without being called upon to give his own deposition, or to swear to a beneficial interest, or to take the solvent-tenant test, which is now unfortunately necessary. He proposed, that the franchise should be placed on a rating. He proposed, first of all, that all the existing franchises requiring occupation should be at once abolished, and in lieu thereof a simple rating to the poor-law should be substituted, at a net annual value of and upwards. The franchise he proposed should be totally unconnected with any tenure, but based on the simple rating to the annual value of 8l. This he proposed as the occupier's test. He did not propose
588
that any change should tale place in those franchises which did not require occupancy, but would allow them to remain as they are. He also proposed to extend the 8l. franchise to joint occupiers, provided each joint occupier's quota, when the whole sum was divided, amounted to 8l. annual value. The Bill also proposed to confer the elective franchise on persons having land in fee or in tail to the rated annual value of 5l. These alterations would give a very large increase in the constituent body; and if permitted to introduce this Bill, he would be prepared to show that that increase would not be unfair, as compared with England, Scotland, or Wales, or in any manner disproportionate; but that, considering the state of the country, and the condition of society, it was a just, fair, and liberal adjustment. He would now briefly state the plan he proposed with regard to the registration of the franchise. He proposed that the clerks of the different poor-law unions in Ireland should transmit to the clerks of the peace the list of persons rated as occupying lands and tenements, setting forth the amounts at which they were rated. These lists should be transmitted to the clerks of the peace, who would then make the list of voters otherwise qualified than by occupation, and afterwards add the occupiers to the lists. He also proposed that there should be a proviso that the occupier must have been in occupation six months, and must produce, before voting, a receipt for the payment of the last rate made for the poor. Then, with regard to the franchise of the towns, he did not propose chat any change should take place in the qualification; but great complaints having been made in Ireland as to the payment of municipal taxes, the plan now proposed would require no other payment from the voter but that of the poor-rate to entitle him to vote. Such was the measure he had to submit to the House. The registration part of the question was exceedingly complicated; and he preferred laying the Bill upon the table, in order to afford the House an opportunity of examining its provisions and when they came to the second reading he should be prepared to go into the whole matter, and, he hoped, to justify the nature of the measure to the House. His reason for introducing it might be principally, but not altogether, political. He believed it was the most desirable thing that leases should be granted to tenants in Ireland; and he knew of nothing which would more tend to induce

589
the landlords to give leases to their tenantry than the system contemplated by the Bill of disconnecting the franchise from the lease. In its social effects also the measure would be most beneficial; but he would now refrain from entering into the subject further; and would simply move for leave to introduce the Bill.
MR. HUME said, if by any mistake or other accidental circumstance the arrears were left unpaid, that ought not to disqualify a voter. He thought the rating of itself a sufficient qualification for the franchise, without any reference to their payment of the rates, which could easily be enforced by the ordinary law. He found that, according to the returns of 1835, the number of voters in Ireland was 90,000. He wished to know the right hon. Baronet's (Sir W. Somerville's) estimate of the increase in the constituency likely to ensue from his Bill.
SIR W. SOMERVILLE calculated the number of voters in Ireland would be quadrupled by the proposed measure.
SIR D. NORRIS thought the Bill would effectually remove many of the present discouragements to the granting of leases, and making the tenant independent would be the best species of tenant-right which could be given in Ireland. All other kinds of tenant-right besides that were vague and visionary. He did not think it possible for him to make the House understand the great extent of the disgusting perjury prevalent at the session courts in Ireland, owing to the franchise being left to depend solely upon the oath of the party applying to have his name enrolled as a voter. But the present measure would leave the evils connected with the registration in the towns altogether untouched. Was the right hon. Baronet (Sir W. Somerville) aware that certain judges and revising barristers in Ireland allowed rent-charges the franchise, while other judges and barristers withheld it from them? Let them have one entire system of franchise: let it be known what they were to register, and then, with a proper mode of registering, all the difficulties which beset the question would vanish.
Leave given.
House adjourned at a quarter past Eleven o'clock.