In down in the broadest and most unequi- I would ask, if the authority to be convocal terms, that the king had the power ferred under it, could be more mildly of sending foreigners out of the country exercised than it had been? It was obin time of peace. How then did the jected that such measures tended to incase stand? He (the solicitor general), jure our character with foreigners. In had ancient usage, law, and authority on opposition to this, he would venture to his side. He had the authority of that say, if the cases were all examined, that distinguished person sir William Black- out of the 25,000 aliens now in this stone, the authority also of lord Ellen- country, at least two-thirds of them-he borough. The gallant general argued was told all-came here under the operathis question as a lawyer; and said, that tion and faith of this bill. Only nine he had the authority of Magna Charta. had been sent away since the passing The passage, however, alluded to, was of the act now proposed to be revived. not properly stated. It had no reference It might be said, that this proved the to such aliens as those contemplated by measure not to be now necessary. the present bill. In the time that Magna that conclusion he could not acquiesce, Charta was drawn up, foreign merchants even though the number had been smaller. were allowed to remain only a short time If those nine cases were fully stated to in the country. With respect to ingress the House, he felt confident that there and egress, they were treated in a most was not one, to the propriety of which arbitrary way, and subject to heavy ex- they would not immediately assent.actions. Their case alone was that re- There never was a period, in the history ferred to in the passage quoted, and it of this country, when foreigners were was intended for their protection. He treated with more generous and attentive did not assert this rashly. The question benevolence, or with more enlarged huwas not new. It had been argued over manity; never a period when their rights and over again. In the very same page were held more sacred, or when they where sir William Blackstone set out enjoyed more liberty than since the pasthis passage from Magna Charta, he as- sing of the Alien bill. He would conserted also the power of the Crown to clude by again asserting, that it was the send foreigners out of the country. This ancient prerogative of the Crown to send showed to demonstration that he did not aliens out of the country. He would interpret it in the same sense as the gal- not now trespass further on the House, lant general. So far as to the law of but he had no doubt that he should on England. Now, what was the general a future day be able to bring precedents law of all countries with respect to this to justify the opinions he had advanced, point? Puffendorf, Vatel, and every other writer on the law of nations, that he had looked into, admitted that, in every state, a right of sending foreigners out of the country resided in the sovereign power; and on that part of the subject he appealed with confidence to his hon. and learned friend opposite, who was eminently acquainted with questions of this nature. Every one of those writers vested this right in the sovereign power. That power in this country was in the legislature. But it was vested, for the sake of convenience, propriety, and necessity, in the executive; otherwise the power would be inoperative for six months every year. He would take an analogous case. Who granted letters of licence or safe conduct? The sovereign power of the state. If such was the case in every country, it was a matter of course, that in this, such powers should be vested in the executive. The present bill was only a provisional regulation, and he Sir James Mackintosh said, that at so late an hour of the night, and so much exhausted as he felt himself, he should have been unwilling to say any thing on a subject on which at former times, and at great length, he had felt it necessary to trespass on the indulgence of the House, had not his opinion been specially called for by his hon. and learned friend in a manner for which he was certainly very grateful. As that had been done, he should now on the first stage trouble the House with a few words on a measure, to every stage of which he should offer his most decided opposition, reserving for a future occasion a more detailed statement of his reasons. making these observations it was not his intention to enter into a controversy as to particular facts, arising from the cases which had been mentioned by his gal lant friend; in the first place, because he was not acquainted with the circumstances of those cases, and must, therefore, leave In it to those who were; and in the next place, because the discussion of particular instances of abuse might tend in some degree to weaken the argument against the measure. In his opinion, the mischief and malignity of this measure was, that it necessarily was the instrument of injustice in the hands even of those who least intended to abuse it. The most conscientious ministers of such a power must necessarily, at times, be made the dupes of misinformation, and the tools of private malice. It is thus put in the power of accident or individual hostility to inflict the utmost injury and oppression. He had viewed the measure since the peace not merely with jealousy ;-he had viewed it with abhorrence. He had view ed it as one of the most odious deviations from the ancient and liberal system of our laws that formed a part of our modern legislation. It was (as had been well expressed by an hon. gentleman who had spoken that night for the first time with such credit to himself-who had shown the force of principle getting the better of political partiality on a particular subject, while he retained his general attachment to the persons with whom he had been accustomed to act) a measure for reducing to slavery 25,000 of the inhabitants of this island-a measure for depriving 25,000 persons of all the benefits of our free constitution. This, with the noble lord, was an argument in its favour. He stated the number of the persons to be outlawed as an argument in favour of the outlawry--he stated the number of the victims as an argument for the oppression; but as to this numerical argument, this argument, in which the feelings of our ancestors, who would have gloried in the number of fugitives which our laws and manners had attracted, were reversed and made reasons for oppression, --was the noble lord aware what the average number of aliens in this country during the last 30 years had been? Not less than 23 or 24,000. It was then the accidental presence of two or 3,000 foreigners beyond the average in one half year, to be diminished again after the passing of this bill, that was to justify the measure. His learned and hon. friend had said that the power of expelling alien friends must belong to the supreme power He (sir J. M.) most fully admitted that the power of expelling foreigners must belong to the supreme power of every state, savage or of a state. civilized. Nay, he would go farther, and admit that it was impossible to conceive a sovereign power which had not the power of banishing even its own subjects. His hon. and learned friend therefore needed not to have made all his parade of jurists to prove that a supreme power must be supreme over foreigners in its dominions. His hon. and learned friend had quoted from sir W. Blackstone the only part of the valuable work of that learned person, into two or three lines of which, falsehood and absurdity were crowded. Sir W. Blackstone in that passage began with quoting Puffendorff a German jurist-a writer under a despotic government as an authority as to the prerogative of the Crown of England, and his hon. and learned friend had not been ashamed to adduce that, for the twentieth time, exposed and exploded passage. But his hon. and learned friend had forgotten to state, that in the passage in question, sir W. Blackstone asserted not only that the king had a power to send aliens out of the kingdom, but to send them back to their respective coun tries. Was there a general right of this kind? Was there any authority or pretext of an authority for stating that there was any right, not only to eject aliens from our own country, but to prolong the exercise of sovereignty over them when they were out of this country, to send them back to any country, however distant, and to throw them into the jaws of the persecutors from whom they had sought refuge? His hon. and learned friend had also talked of the great authorities of the present day. Those great authorities, however, were all parties to the system of the Alien laws, and they certainly had rested on so rotten a foundation, in part, at least, that a great portion of their superstructure must necessarily fall to the ground. The only precedents which could be found by those great authorities were in the reign of queen Elizabeth, and they were dug out of the Paper Office so late as 1816. The bill had gone through the Commons before those precedents were thought of, and in the other House the question was argued with as much learning and eloquence as had ever been displayed on any subject; so that towards the end of its stages these great authorities found it necessary to set their agents at work, and these precedents were found. They were two proclamations issued in the reign of time? He conceived no answer could possibly be given to the citation of this statute. If the royal proclamations were issued, the Scotsmen who remained in defiance of the proclamation were punishable under that statute, but not otherwise; so that there was not an idea that the king at common law had the right to issue the proclamation, or that it was a common law offence to disobey it. It was stated, that the reason for the present law was, that the king's proclamation might not be disobeyed. What was that but an admission that we were to legislate more sternly, more severely, and more suspiciously than Henry 7th, the Tiberius of our history, yet whose politics never made it necessary to have recourse to such summary proceedings? His hon. and learned friend had argued that the doctrine advanced against the bill was inconsistent with itself. He would retort a challenge on the challenger. If the king had the power by proclamation to expel aliens from the country in time of peace, the disobedience of that proclamation would necessarily be at common law indictable. Where, he asked, in 500 years, from the first volume of the year queen Elizabeth, commanding Scotsmen, who were then aliens, to quit the realm. If Scotsmen were still in the same condition, and were liable to exile, the House might be content to accept the bill, in consideration of the persons on whom it was to be exercised; but that at least could not now be done, and whatever measures they might take as to aliens, they must be content to endure the presence of Scotsmen. Two years after 1818, these proclamations were quoted in that House, and he (sir J. M.) had given what he conceived a sufficient answer. But since that period he had found one still more decisive. There was a certain statute of the 7th of Henry 7th, authorizing the Crown to expel Scotsmen by proclamation, and imposing on those who did not obey the proclamation in forty days, forfeiture of their goods; a penalty which would not be thought a heavy one in the case of Scotsmen, though it might be too, after they had sojourned some time in England. This statute was repealed on the accession of James 1st, together with all the statutes hostile to Scotland. In the reign of Elizabeth, however, it was in full force and observance, so that those proclama-books to the present time, was there an tions, instead of being a proof that the Crown could exercise such a power without the authority of an act of parliament, were a proof of directly the contrary fact. This doctrine then, of the power of the Crown over aliens, which was now brought forward amidst the light and liberality of the 18th century, was not breathed under the most despotic of the Tudors, and the subservient lawyers and statesmen of Henry 7th had not ventured to assert what the lawyers and statesmen of George 4th now asserted. It was sometimes made a matter of complaint that we did not look with sufficient reverence to our ancestors; he wished modern politicians, by the contrast of their propositions, would not force them so often to look back to the acts of our ancestors with regret. In this act, even of the time of Henry 7th, was contained not only a recognition that the Crown possessed no such power, but 40 days were allowed to the foreigners to leave the kingdom. What would be said now in favour of the summary power of the present bill, by which a woman was dragged from her bed, by which foreigners were forbidden to land, when even the statesmen of Henry 7th allowed so long a instance of any indictment for such an offence? This was the touchstone of the assumed power, and by this criterion it would be found wanting. He denied that the supreme power of this state was in the King alone, but in the King, Lords, and Commons. In them was the general exercise of the sovereign power; the king only possessed such branches of it as by immemorial usage had been proved and allowed to be vested in him. The king in parliament was the sovereign power. This was a proposition which be was almost ashamed of stating, for it was only as much as saying, that we lived under a free government, under a limited monarchy. His hon. and learned friend had, however, maintained that by the constitution it was left to the king to conduct all matters with respect to foreigners. This proposition was incorrectly stated. It was left to the king to conduct all the relations of the country with foreign states. But individual foreigners while in this country had a definite right. They were entitled to trial by jury. The law, till this accursed system of alien acts was introduced, regulated the conduct of the country towards resident foreigners. Alien friends were temporarily subjects of the king; they owed temporary allegi- | first stage of a bill, which, he agreed with ance, and were entitled to temporary his gallant friend, if now passed, would protection. Although it was true that be continued for ever; for, he put it to the right of making peace and war, and the House, whether, if they consented to entering into other regulations with fo- the bill as now proposed, it would not be reign states, rested in the Crown; the continued from time to time, until the same right did not extend to its relation arrival of that period of general and prowith foreigners residing in England. The found peace which existed only in the analogy entirely failed; the whole argu- dreams of poets, and which had been well ment founded upon it consisted of a play ridiculed by a German philosopher, who upon the word "foreigner," and the con- placed the motto "Pax perpetua" on a clusion attempted to be drawn was one tomb-stone. decidedly hostile to the best principles of Mr. Lambton did not intend to occupy our constitution. As to those aliens who much of the time of the House. He only had come into this country during the rose for the purpose of remarking on some war alien acts, who were thus said to observations which had fallen from the have a clear foresight of the laws to which hon. and learned solicitor-general. He they were subjecting themselves, he wish- did not remember whether that hon. and ed to ask whether any one in 1814 would not learned gentleman was in the House at have considered as a libel upon the coun- the period of his (Mr. Lambton's) pretry, a prophecy that those laws would be senting a petition to which he had alludcontinued in time of peace? They had ed. If he were he must have grossly mise been declared to be laws justified by ex- understood what he had said on the occatreme danger, and intended to cease with sion; or if he had not, he must have rethat danger. His hon. and learned friend ceived a most erroneous account of what had borrowed from an eloquent speech of had occurred. At the time when he a right hon. friend of his, in 1818, an presented the petition from general Gour eulogium on the liberality and generosity gaud, in 1818, he had asked the noble lord of the nation towards foreigners. He (sir to consent to a committee, in which he J. M.) was happy to say that the new- would pledge himself to bring proof of the fashioned principles of the government facts stated. The noble lord refused that had not tainted the generosity of the committee; and he (Mr. Lambton) did people, that they were liberal and hospi- not attempt to bring the matter again fortable in spite of the bad example which ward, because he knew it would be of no had been set them. In this it might be avail without the committee, and, aware said that the people were more wise than of the manner in which the House was the laws-he would, however, say only a constituted, he well knew that it was part of those laws-for the general sys- hopeless to expect that when the noble tem was as good as a nation could possibly lord had refused his consent. As to the enjoy. The people, however, certainiy statements now made, they rested on the now showed themselves to possess more credit of the petition, or on that of the liberality than their rulers, and more of hon. and learned gentlemen-which of the spirit of humanity of the age than them the House might believe, he would was to be found in the measures of par- not pretend to say, but he thought the liament. How little value soever his hon. one entitled to as much respect as the and learned friend might set on the cha- other. The hon. and learned gentleman racter of this country among the other had stated, that general Gourgaud had nations of Europe, or how much soever seized his pistols when the officers aphe might deride their distrust of our po- proached to arrest him;-that might be licy, repugnance to this measure was un- true-but was it not natural for a man of doubtedly universal among the disinte- his rank, to attempt to defend himself rested nations of Europe, and distrust of when he had been so intruded upon by our policy existed and was spreading to strangers? It was also true that the gea mischievous extent. For the reasons neral was allowed to seal his paper-but he had urged, he never gave a vote with it was likewise a fact, which had been asthe more hearty approbation of his con- certained on the authority of the consul science, or a more perfect concurrence at Hamburgh, that that seal had been of all the feelings of his nature, than he broken, and the portfolio returned the geshould now give his vote against the pro-neral opened. As to the questions of position of the noble lord in this the very which the hon. and learned gentleman had country at the time; and on the earliest representation which he had made of the inconvenience which was thus occasioned to English travellers, it was done away with in Sweden, and was not now acted upon by the government of the Netherlands. He could assure the House that this did not arise from a spirit of retaliation, for any measure which we had adopted. Mr. Lambton stated, that he had, in 1818, moved for the papers respecting an alien sent out of the country at the request of the government of the Netherlands. talked so much, he believed that some tain regulations had been made as to the questions were put concerning the treat- passports of Englishmen by the government of general Gourgaud, but he did not ment of Sweden and the Netherlands; but think to the extent that had been de-it arose from the internal situation of this scribed. It was true, notwithstanding the boasted indulgence which had been shown to the general, that he had not been allowed to see his friends. He stated thus much to show his reason for not having followed up the subject after its first introduction, and he trusted that it would not be imagined that he was one who would withdraw from any object connected with his duty in that House, while he could follow it up with effect. As to the question now before the House, he maintained that it was a departure from the principles of the constitution-that it was one of the results of that holy allianceand that the government considered itself bound by it to surrender up to foreign governments those of its subjects who might have taken refuge amongst us, as the instance of a gentleman who had been sent out of the country at the request of the government of the Netherlands, respecting whose case he had moved for papers which had been refused. Even the despotic James 2nd afforded protection to aliens, but the noble lord acted in this way to secure for himself a high character in foreign countries. He should certainly vote against the motion, as he conceived the bill incompatible with the dignity of this country. The Solicitor General begged leave to say, that Mr. Capper apprized general Gourgaud of the nature of his business before he arrested him. Lord Castlereagh, in reply, said, that he did not recollect the case with the government of the Netherlands to which the hon. member for Durham alluded. When Las Casas was sent out of this country, it was not with any view that he was to be taken into custody on his arrival in the Netherlands. As to the Holy Alliance, he denied that this country was a party to it in any diplomatic sense of the word. There was no understanding connected with it by which we were to send obnoxious foreigners out of the country. On the contrary, he thought that other countries had a right to complain of the indulgence shown to foreigners, considering the powers which this law placed in our hands. He never heard any government complain of the act, or adopt any measures hostile to the passages of Englishmen through their kingdom in consequence of it. Cer 63. The House divided: Ayes, 149; Noes, List of the Minority. Althorp, viscount Maberly, John. Newport, sir J. O'Grady, S. Sefton, earl of Spurrier, C. TELLERS. Lambton, J. G. HOUSE OF LORDS. Friday, June 2. FAILURE OF BANKS IN THE SOUTH oF IRELAND.] The Marquis of Lansdowne wished to ask the noble lord opposite whether his majesty's government had |