The Express.
London, England, 1848-05-02 00:00:00

that thou renew who had come for the purpose of so in-
terfering with the institutions of natio= to which they did
not belong, had dope no against the wishes and the will
of the government of their own country (Hear, hear.)
The bill wu restricted to the object stated in the preamble—
of preserving the peat" and tranquillity off e kingdom, and
at
would be limited to • certain period. Ile considered th
the time, in which we lived justified some additional precau-
tions on the part of the government, la order to meet the de-
signs of that clue of foreigners to whom he had alluded,
against the institutions of the country. It was proposed,
merely to arm the government with powers similar to thou
Nivea under former alien acts. With the amendments given
notece of by the noble lord the member for Matylebone,
he would deal in committee, and he had, therefore, now
only to add, that if foreigners disregarded the notice given
them under the hill,
Theo would be subject to the penalties
therein described. estion of time wee one eultudvtly
for committee. But ho wished to observe that those who by
the imp irtant change in the mode of obtaining a certificate
of naturalisation, which took place in 1844, had been since
enabled, for a few shilings, to obtain such to the number of
789, would ho excluded from the operation of the bill.
Sir W. MOLESWORTH contended that the right hon.
baronet had not assigned any clear or distinct reason for this
measure, nor given any prod of its necessity while he called
upon the twine to grant the powers it contained on the
ground of its confidence in the government. The object
of the bill was to insect the executive government with the
arbitrary power of removing from this country certain aliens
of 'whose conduct the Secretary of State might entertair.
mistrust or suspicion. It proposed, therefore, to punish aliens
not for any offence against the peace and tranquillity of the
kingdom, 'hut fur being suspected by the Secretary of State.
It was identical in principle with the Alien Act of 1793, and
only iliffered from it by the eminent of certain subsidiary
clauses, and y e t that original act, which wee also only preponed
for one year, but which was renewed over and over again,
and continued for 33 year", had been consistently and strenu-
ously opposed throughout that period by every man of note
or authority in the state—including Mr. Abercrombie,
Mr. Whitbread, Lord Grey, Mr. Burke, Mr. Fox,
Sir S. Hominy, Sir J. Mackintosh, Lord Fitswilliam Lord
Ashburton, Lord Melbourne, Lord Brougham, Lord'Auck-
land, Lord Lansdowne, Lord Holland, Lord Durham, Lord
Denman, Sir .1. C. Hobhouse, aid Lord J. Russell. He be-
lieved that the noble lord the member for the City of London
made his maiden epeech in that house against the Alien
Bill of 1813; and when the last Alien Bill was brought for-
! ward that noble lord expressed a hope that it was the last
occasion he should ever again have of addressing the house
upon such a eubject, convinced ea he was that, after the ex-
piration of that act, they would look back to it as • mea-
sure that ought never t., have been enacted. (Hear, bear.)
Alas for human foresight !--that the very next bill should be
propesed by the noble lord himselflle (Sir W. Mules-
worth) objected to the bill upon the same grounds that the
noble lord objected to former bills—as contrary to the
practice and principles of our ancestors, the spirit
of our constitution, and the tenor of our laws prier
to 1793. Lords Granville, Castlereagh, and Siettnnuth,
then contended that the crown had the power
by proclamation to send an alien out of the country, and
that en alien act would only have the effect of enforcing an
existing power. But surely, in these days, the Queen might
rely upon the affections of her subjects, and trust to them to
bring foreigners to justice under the existing laws, if they in-
fringed those laws. Lord Lansdowne of that day 'mid that
the only wise mode of dealing with them was to leave them
to the administration of the existing laws, and he (Sir W.
Molesworth) cordially concurred in that opinion, more parte
elderly u they had just pawed a bill for the better security
of the crown and government against any one who
should compass er imagine the levying of war loping
the institutions of the country. (Hear, hear.) The
state of Franco was the necessity alleged for an
alien act in 1793, but no such necessity could be pleaded
now. In 1792, murices. massacres, and honors prevailed in
Paris; but now that cape al was distinguished by order and
tranquillity, accompanied by • wise determination nut to in-
terfere in the internal affairs of other countries. And yet
this measure was directed especially against Frenchmen.
(No.) It was rumoured abroad that it was directed against
the machinations of a store or two of men who took part in
the late French revolution, and who had been seen m the
streets of London. Such men might be dangerous in Fiance,
where there had been an obstinate monarch, a minis-
try that was corrupt, a profligate and despised aria
tocracy, with an indifference on the part of the other
classes to the institutions of the country. But those
elements of revolution did not exist in England. and he
thought it was paying but • poor compliment to
the English people, and to the institutions under which
they lived, to say that danger was to be apprehended from
the machinations of such individuals. In 1816 Lord Auck-
land declared that no danger could be apprehended from
the machinations of foreigners resident in England. With
regard to Ireland, he thought the measure equally uncalled
for and useless, for if they removed from that country every
foreigner in it, they would not diminish in the trust the
deep-rooted conviction of the Irish people that England
had proved herself incompetent to legislate for Ireland with
success, or their just discontent at the existence of a domi-
nant protestant church in a catholic country—an injustice
and an evil at which every intelligent man out of England
tried " Shame." This bill was, therefore, 'dimly worth
lea' en regarded Ireland. As for an expedition from
France to Ireland, he looked upon it as merely
chimerical: for who was to pay the expense of such
a proceeding, if it were thought oft The last reason
given for this bill was that the government would not abuse
the powers given under it. That was the old argument used
in favour of the hill of 1793. which was so strongly opposed,
although Mr. Pitt was then just as deserving of confidence
as any one of her Majesty's present ministers. Both Mr. Fox
and Lord Grey denied the validity of that argument in 1793,
and, a „fortiori, if they were now in existence they would
deny the validity of it in 1848. Ile (Sir W. Molesworth)
considered that every measureshould be judge(' of on ice own
merits, and those alone; and he certainly would not consent
to invest a government with powers which he believed every
gentleman on that side of the house would refuse to the right
lion. baronet the member for Taraworth, were he now in
office and seeking to obtain them. ( Hear, hear.) They
were powers which were not needed, and which had
not been needed in the most dangerous period of our history,
and which, in the words of the late Lord Grey, were excep-
tional in every point of view. Ile, therefore, moved that
the bill be read • second time that day six months.
Lord 1). STUART concurred in the sentiment. uttered by
the hon. but:, and expressed his surprise that such a bill
could ever have been brought forward by a liberal govern.
ment, empowering, as it did, a secretary of state, without any '
positive information, and on mere suspicion, to imprison an
alien as long as he liked, or to send him out of the country.
In that respect the bill required explanation, as it did not
state where he was to be sent, or how long he might
be retained in prison. Under no circumstances should
such a power be placed in the hands of any
government. He was more than all surprised at
the absence on the present occasion of the honourable
baronet, the member for Harwich (Sir J. C. Hobhouse) who
eloquently opposed the alien bill of 18113, eeclartd that it
ought to be resisted by physical force, and after an unsuc-
cessful opposition to it, moved that the title of it should be,
" A bill to repeal so much of the great Charter of England
as related to the free ingress and residence of foreign mer-
chants in these realms, and to assimilate the executive of
this government to the despotic governments of the conti-
nent." Ho (Lord D. Stuart) contended that no tolerable or
decent ground bed been shown for this :measure, and if per-
sisted in, the government ought at least to produce their in -
formatien, so that the house should not be legislating in the
dark. They had not even shown that' any:foreigners were
plottino to overthrow this government. It was true some
people saw in every poor man • chartist, in every chartist
a traitor, and in every foreigner • rectal. (Hear.) He
entertained no such views, and should, therefore, oppose:this
meuure.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the noble lord bad
answered himself, by admitting in the close of his speech
that this bill had very different objects from that of 1822,
and that the circumstances were altogetherMifferent: In 1797
' and 1814 foreigners had great difficulties in obtaining letters
of naturalisation; now they might do so with the greatest
facility and without expense, if they came without any hostile
dc,igns against the government, and with the Loral, ule inten-
tion of residing and carrying on business here. They had eel,'
to show this, to exempt them from the operation of the bill.
The charge of cruelty had been brought against this mea-
sure ; but it was much less so than the former alien acts ;1
far the Secretary
.of State could not expel an alien from the,
.
country without information writing sufficient to warrant
his pursuing such course. Then it was said the bill was un-
just, and that foreigners might be kept in prison without
trial. This was not so ; for if they had no hostile designs,
there was nothing to prevent them obtainintt letters of
naturalisation, and so avoiding the operation of the bill. As
to the bill being impolitic and unconstitutional, that de-
pended en its necessity. It was said no proof of th s had
been offered, but it could not be expected that the govern-1
ment should come down with ell the details in melt a
matter. If they suspected a conspiracy by foreigners
another course was to be pursued; if none such existed, the
bill would not operate. Then! were the main grime& which
diitinguished the bill from the former acts on this subject.
Mr. W. J. FOX said he had been unable hi discover in
the speech of the right hon. baronet who had moved the
second reeding of this bill "ftnything which could wove the
nee:utility of the measure. it was a measure of timidity and
distrust—one that showed a want of confidence in the
British people, and a want of confidence in the people of
France, who, under the most trying circumstances, had
done nothing whatever to excite hostile feclines on our part.
(Hear, hear.) A different sort of legislcti [I became the
government of such an empire as this. Convulsed es the
wend now was, there could not be a better time in
which to !how our own reliance on those institu-
tions which hail ...end the test of so many ewes, and pos-
sessed no eminently the character, net only cal dur4l.ilit.! but
also of elasticity, which accommodated them to the si frit of
the age, and enabled them to expand themselves so as to
giro larger privileges and to comprehend larger numbers
when the changing state of society required it, without any
of these commotion or convulsions to which other countries
had been exposed. (Hear, hear.) Nn necessity whatever
had been shown for the bestowment of powers, which, to
say the least, were capable of obnoxious and cruel applica-
tion, which placed the convenience, the property, sod the
liberty of individuals at the mercy of the ministry for the
time being—which exposed • man to that sort of attack,
ageinst woich it was to difficult to defend himself—toot of
anonymous writing addressed to the Secretary of State.
That With functionary seemed thus to be brought into
contact with a class of people with whom an English govern-
ment never need have anything to do ; his office; was to
have a back door for the receipt of calumny and impute-
tem, under the plausible pretext of public safety, which
might after all be only the emanation of individual spite,
and the desire of gratifying individual vindictiveness.
(Hear, hoar.) Thee° powers might be used offensively to-
words melt or woman ; for it rout,/ not be forgotten that tho
brat emu deported under the law of 179,3, MIA which in