The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1818-06-08 00:00:00

present Aill would go to eeneett foreigner* so pres-
. mewled of 'poverty tom mere trustees for the Cream.
The Noble 11. it ilLiverporsl),said he was quite im-
minent, muter ilw ext.tesiee of • low, the effete or
which was, if acted upon. to Rive the rights of
free-liorn subjects to any foreigner, without'being
compelled to take en oath of allegiance, or without
lot obligation to perform any of the dutira of a soh-
loci. He was before anxious for its repeal, not only
prospectively, but retrospectively. Now, however,
he seemed willing to tots a little water with his
wine—/A 1 degh )—ttnd to make it merely a pro-
spective measure. On these ground' he would sup-
port tlw matins, of his Noble Friend (Earl Grey
The Marquis of Laxsooive said, that, upon a
former occasion, he admitted that the facility al-
lowed to foreigners by this Act of the Scotch Par-
liament should not be allowed to exist. lie was
still of the mine opinion, but lie ever thought that,
hn justice, the repeal of it should be prospective, not
retroopective. It would lie a great injustice, a com-
plete spoliation of rights, to deprive foreigners of
the advantages they reified under an Act passed
for many year*, recognised by the British Parlia-
ment, and under which they had acquired property.
Foreigers became possessed of rights under this Act,
iii the same way as all other rights were obtained,
by law. It was attempted to justify the repeal of
this Act, upon the ground that it had fairest into
disuse, and was quite unknown. Such was not the
case. The existence of the law was well known—
snd though permit+ not immediately interested is, it
might not have been -swam of its existence, it
was f. liar to many, as well to those who Itit ac-
(pared property wider it as to others. The best
mode, in his opinion, would be to adjourn the con-
sideration of this question to a further period. By
that means they would give time fur the introduc-
tion of a new Bill, which might be carried regularly
through all the stages in both Houses.
The Earl of IiAnnOWBY supported the proposi-
tion of his Noble Friend (she Earl of Liverpool).
Such au Act should not be allowed to continue in
molesters. It was now brought under their Lord-
ships' notice for a ',atilt ular porpoise. after having
for a long time remained forgotten. ansl almost
completely unknown. He did not blame thous who
mask the diacovery otter Acts upon which the objec-
tion to their Lordaliiise ametithneuts were founded.
The law, however, which afforded such facilities to
frinigeters, ahisulri no longer be allowed to continue
its existence. When the Art of 1771 plowed, it
must have bees, that the tendency of this law was
unobserved, or else the British Parliaweist would
never have given their sanction to it.
Lord lIOLLAND could not believe that the Bri-
tish Parliament were ignoraut of what they were
doing alien the A t of 1771 passed both Houses.
The Earl of LAUDERDALIC said, that he should
not have troubled their Lordships with any observa-
tions, were it not firr some ideas that were thrown
sow, which he could not allow to paw in silence...—.
The Noble Eat! (Liverpool) defied any person to
say, that he knew this to be the law of the land in
April last. He could assure that Noble Earl. that
he was well aware of the existence of such a law.
A Noble Lord, s friend of his, knew thst he (Lord
Lauderdale) had staled to him many months hack
that such was the law. There was not a single
Director of the Bank of Scotland, or an eminent
Lawyer counected with that Back, who was not
aware of it. It was not a mere dormant Act, or
one merely emanating from the Parliament of Scot-
land ; it was recognised and confirmed by various
Acts of the Brinell Pailiament. It was said to be
a private Act : it was no such thing ; it had been
tong acted upon. Many foreigners had purchmed
property upon the faith of it, and it would be most
unjust to deprive them retrospectively of its benefit..
It was as puhlic'as any Act upon the Statute Book,
but, like many others in which persons were not im-
mediately interested, it had not been adverted to.
The Nolde Earl (Liverpool) should not conclude
from his own ignorance of it, that others were in
the same predicament. Fur hie own part, lie was
well scare that a law of the kind existed, but he
did not consider lams! If called upon to commu-
nicate the circumstance, and he was not sorry that he
had given an opportuisity tar proposing the amend-
ment which was rejected by the other House.
The House then divided upon Earl Gary's
atueudnieist as follows:
Ayes
Nees 3l
Majority lt
Mier which the House adjourned