The Sun.
London, England, 1822-07-30 00:00:00

ALIEN

Lord HOLLAND presented a Petition from someof the
Inhabitants of Ipswich against this bill.—urdered to lie on
the table.

The Earl of LI VEReOOL then' moved the third reading
of: the Bill. .He considered the principle of the Bill as sound,
and as forming a part of the Constitution of England. It was-
impossible for those who owed to this country only a tempo-
rary allegiance, not at times to have conflicting duties inter-
fering with that temporary allegiance. The protection given
by the g.reat .Charter to Alien :Merchants, and which had been
so much. relied on, iipopoositiOn to the Bill, was intended for
the benefit of the English community, by 'encouraging traffic
with foreign' merchants.. It certainly could be rlo • are-at:tient
' against the Bill, as far as regarded the question•Of the King's
prerogative ; because it was intended to restrain the-general
prerogative. The Bill itself was, he contended, conformable,-
in :principle, to national justice; and with respect to its
powers was nothing but an enforcement of the King's pre-
rogative. This was clearly to be deduced from many cases
in our constitutional history: but especially, in a case which
occurred in the
,reign of Queen Elizabeth. In the reign'
of that Sovereign a foreigner was-ttpprehen,cied. on a eitarge.
of sedition, and examined before the Prify Council. -The
Council declared that had the offence been committed in
England, the accused would haVe been anienable to • the
laws of this country ; but it being committed abroad, the
Queen could only, in virtue of her prerogative, send hint
out of the kingdom. Indeed the present legislative provision
did nothing more than., assist zthe. exercise. of the prerogative,
•by giving a summary pow6i to the Privy Council, instead of
the more dilatory proceeding by proclamation. The sole ques-
tion, therefore, , for their Lordships' consideration was, whe-
ther, in the present state of Europe, this power ought to be
withheld from the Executive, after it had been entrusted with it
since 1792 ? It was likely to be' the means of preventing this
countryfrom being embroiled in disputes with Foreign powers,
but it was not on this account that he asked for their Lordships'
concurrence with- the Bill ; for he' wished it to be considered
solely on English grounds. He would ask their Lordships to
consider the revolutions which had- recently taken place, and
were now apparently in prospect on the Continent. He did
not mean to give an opinion on the quekion who was right or
who-was wrong; whether liberty had been indulged to excess,
or whether Monarchy had grown into despotism. In either
case, ittwas equally just that a power should be given to the
Executive of this country to prevent Foreigners from coming
here and plotting against the Governments of their own coun-
try ; no matter whether those Governments were. fre'e or
arbitrary(' He might. 'here remind their Lordships of what
took place shortly atter the peace of Antiens. The then Ruler
of France had made a demand of this country for the expul-
sion of the French princes.—The government of this country
refused the demand from a regard-to the principles of national
hospitality; but it, at the sante time, took means to preterit
the individuals in question from plotting against the existing
-Government' of France.. He mentioned this, not only to illus.
trate the principle upon which Government had acted under
the. Bill ; but to shew also the moderation with which its powers
had been exercised. In fact, there had never been any.dispo- '
sition to abuse. those powers. Since the peace only 15 indivi,
duals had been affected by it ; and of these, only four during
the last. two years. . On the whole, he.submitted that the Bill
was a fair and Constitutional measure, forming a part of the.'
security of the country. lie was well aware that those who.
asked for discretionary power should be vigilantly watched,
and that the pewer itself' -ought not to be, granted but for rea-
sons the most solid:and well defined. In the belief, however, 1
'that their Lordships would consider the presen't measure able
to bear this examination, he begged to move the third reading !
of the Bill. .

The-Earl of DARNLEY said, he should give every pos-
sible opposition to the Bill. It would, he said, . disgrace the
country in the eyes of foreign nations ; and in entering his pro-
test against it, he could not but express his hope that this was
the last time he should have occasion to do so.

Lord HOLLAND said he had hoped this odious measure,
this monster inlegislation, would be allowed_ to die a natural
death. It had been called a Bill tending to secure peace ; but
since its first adoption in the'year 17:12, this country had been
involvedin- war which was unparalleled in extent and dura-
tion. 'He begged their Lord Ships to recollect the conduct' of
the States of Holland, when they were applied to by King
William to send the great Mr. Bayle out of their country.—
They answered, that they disapproved of his writings, and
regretted the part he had taken in politics, but they neither
would nor could violate their national hospitality, by fordng
him away. He (Lord H.) denied that there had been no abuse
of the power given by the present law. The seizure and treat-'
ment of Mr. Las Casas at St. Helena was an instance of gross
and shameful abuse. His papers were seized- in a. manner
which made the transaction a downright robbery. The pa-
pers, it was true, were afterwards returned, but this did not
alter the .nature of the injury. The existence of Napoleon
had, on a former occasion, been made a pretext for the thin-
titmance of this' power, but that pretext was to be urged no
longer ; and , now the power was asked on account of the
situation of Europe. In this view of the subject he should
like to ask the Noble Earl opposite, whether he would en-
force the provisions of the Bill against any natives of Greece
in this country who might be enaged in the dissemina-
tion of 'principles calculated to deliver- their country from
the tyranny of, the Turkish Government? This would bring
that part of the argument to the test, and the answer would
probably have seine influence in the decision of their Lordships.
But his own objections to the Bill were general and perma-
nent ; and not confined to any time, or any particular
country. • It was considered by the people of the Continent as
a proof that our Government was connected with ,that system
of depredation, which was how carrying on in every corner of
Europe.
Earl BATHURST denied that there had been any severity
in the treatment of 'Mr. Las Casas. -His papers had been re-
turned to Mint, as soon as they could be with propriety. The
Noble Earl then proceeded to support the Bill, which he
contended was necessary to enfbrce the King's prerogative.' The
principle of it, he contended, was to be found in many of our
treaties with foreign countries. We had often called for the
expulsion by them of English traitors who had taken range
among them ; but our demands had been invariably refused,
except on the condition of our admitting the principle of re-
ciprocity ; and this, as he before observed, we had frequently
done by treaty.
Lord GAGE begged to submit a clause to their Lordships,
which he had offered On a former occasion. He then moved
the clause, but, from the noise which prevailed at the mo-
ment, it could not be heard below the bar. It was negatived
without a division. '
Lord HOLLAND had two clauses which he wished to
move. One went to enact that the name and description of
any alien ordered to be removed should be laid before both
Houses of Parliament within one month after the said removal,
if Parliament shbuld be sitting, and if not, within one month
after the next meeting of ParliaMent. The second went to
provide that the charge on which an alien was to be removed
shculd be made known to him at least twenty-four hours before
such removal should take place. The Noble Lord took occa-
sion to say that he had not complained merely of the seizure of
the papers of M. Las Casas, but of the circumstances under
which his effects were detained. These, thOugh not authorised
by the Bill, gave an argument against it, as they pioved, that
under this Bill an alien, sustaining such a wrong,was left with-
out a remedy.
The two clauses were then negatived without a division.
On the question that the Bill should pass, the !louse di-
vided, when the numbers were—

Contents -
Not Contents -
Majority - -
The Bill accordingly passed —Adjourned.

- - - - 22
- - - 6
- - -16

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The House were summoned to the Lords to hear the Royal
Assent given by Commission to several Bills (for which see
Lords' Report).
The Brimstone Drawback Bill, the Exportation of Spirits
(ScOdand) Bill, and the East India Sugar Bill, were severally
read third time and passed.
The Irish .tamp Duties' Reduction Bill went through a
Committee. Report to-morroi.
THE SUPERANNUATION BILL.
The CHANCELLOR 'of the EXCHEQUER moved the
third reading of this Bill.
Mr. CALCRAFT said, that his, objections to the Bill re-
mained as strong as ever. The Hotaimrable Gentleman, after

Sir F. 011111IANNEY warmly opposed the Bill. •
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then moved
the following clauses as riders to the • • • .
The first Clause stated, that no-person who should be super-
annuated under the terms of the Act, Should'. be entitled to

claim any benefit for any period of service after the sth OfJuly,
.1822, except for such period as he had contributed to the fend,
save that the Salary of suchperson was of an, amount that did
not subject lihn'to such contribution. •
The second Clause stated, that accounts shoUldbe made up to
the sth of January in each year, stating the amount of the su-
perannuation—the allowance payable under the Act—the names
of such superannuated persons as -might die since the sth of
January preceding—and the amount paid to such persons—the
namekof persons to whoth superannuation allowance 'might be
granted, and the amount of alloycance granted to such persons.
The third Clause stated, th'it if any persons should hold trio
or more offices, and who might be entitled to make a claim for
superannuation allowanee-:....the amount of the .contribution of
such pers;ms should be calculated according to 'the amount of
stnns.received forlioth offices':

:11r. A BERCROM BY complained of the Obsciire manner-
-1 in which the first Clause was-worded.

Mr. CANNING said, that his strongest objection to the Bill
remained unaltered. .He trusted 'that it would be 'revised and
amended in another place.. •
the clauses were agreed to, and Bill was read at third time,
an& passed. .‘
PETITION OF TIM CALCUTTA BANKERS.,
Mr. B. BATHURST brought up the Report of the ,
Com-
mittee on this Petition.'

On the motion that the Report do lie on the table, •
Mr. CANNING rose, and said he would take the opportu-
nity which this motion presented him with of offering a few ob-
servations on-a matter Mainly connected with the subject of the
Report. He was anxious not toisay any thing which might pre.
judice the Committee in their consideration of the case, fen. the
Report was not final; but subject to the judgment of the

House. Ile had abstained from attending the House when-the
case was under discussion, for two reasons ; first, because the
case was unler his consideration some years ago in his official ca-
pacity, and the result of his deliberations was, that it was not a
case which he ought to bring before that 'Lime. What might be
his opinion of the case now that it was brought forward dpon
firent grounds, he was not able to state. The-second reason
was, that, in-the event of the opinion of the House being fa-
vourable to the claimants, he might by possibility be the
person that would have to carry that decision . into effect--
a thing painful to him in -the extreme,—,should he have pre-
viously expressed an., opinion Unfavourable Tr) the claims.—
He kneW not what. were the opinions of the Committee;
but it was • obvious that the Report must be considered in.
another Session—so. that,_ by ordinary calculation, it would
'take a year to decide the claims, and another year must
elapse before the final decisions could. be known in India. The
House ought well to consider that there was a mural dffect to
be produced in India by their decisions upon questions of this
nature, which would go a great way in weakening or strength-
citing the power of those who were to adminiSter the- Goyern-
ment of that country. It had been always observed. that that
House had exercised greatjedousy about loans.of British Sub-
jects to native Princes. He did not mean to say that there Was
not in the.case before the House enough to take it out of the
ordinary cases, with respect ,to which the vigilance of the
House had been at all tunes. so properly exerted. But then
the misfortune was,
.that a multitinie 'of those who were inte-
rested in their decision would not make any distinction, and it
was now clear-that all that was to be known in India. for the
next two years was, that the ,House of Commons had thought
so favourably of this loan, that they sent it to a Committee of
their House for inquiry. Ile knew it of bit own knowledge,
that there were other claimants who might think that their
claims were as just as those of,the present petitioners, who
would derive animation from the success of these persons, and,
no doubt, would take the speediest opportunity to press their
claims on the Government there, in defiance of those old prin-
ciples which for time past has been acted on.. He for one was
friendly to tho'se old principles ; his gen.al feeling and ge-
neral rule would'be'to discountenance such-claims.—(Hear.)—
He was the More anxious to state thus much upon this occasion,
because he was aware that the result of the aplications of
these Claimants would be to raise hopes which he already
had the painful duty of repressing ; and he was-sure that he
would have to meet various claims • in another capacity, which
for five years he had with difficulty suppressed. Ile had
turned to the law on this subject. In 1773', the first law
respecting the -rate of interest in- India passed. It ,was pro-
hibited by that law for any one to take more than 12 per cent.,
under a penalty-of forfeiting principal and interest. As doubt
had arisen whether .or not this law was to have opera.:
tion with respect to loans made to persons not in the Company's
territories; and he would submit to his Right Hon. Friend,.
the Presient of the Board of Controul, that it would be right
to have a declaratory Act introduced with A view of settling
this doubt. In 1797, an Act was passed rendering it criminal
for British subjects to niake loans-, to native Princes' - except
where there was a
.written permission granted by .the Govern-
merit at home or in India, thereby implying that it was only in
cases of political emergency that it. would be prudent to allow
loans to take place 'from British subjects to native Princes. A ,
case he knew to have occurred, in which the Government of
India raised money without -difficulty at 6 per cent., When a
native Prince could not obtain it under, 30 per cent.' The in-
ference then would be, that it would be the best course, in all
cases where a native Prince wanted to borrow, that the Govern-
ment should raise it for him.. But unfortunately it was now
decided that the Government could. 'not by law pursue that
course. Ile ventured to diflin. from -that construction of the
Act, and thought that thei Government might act as the agent
in that behalf for the native Prince. However, he, only
alluded to the' state of -the law on ihese • two points, with the
view of suggesting that it would be proper to have two deelara,
tory Acts introduced, which would settle the existing doithts.
WYNN said, that it had been determined that the
doubts to which his Right Hon. Friend alluded should be sub-
mitted to the Attorney and Solicitor General, and the standing
Counsel of the Company, for their opinions, and this opinion
being sent to India, he apprehended would ,render a declara-
tory Act unnecessary. However, he could assure his Right
Hon. Friend, that neither of these doubts had the remotest con-
nexion with the claims of the petitioners whose case was now
before the House.

Mr. FORBES expressed his astonishment at the doctrine
laid down by the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Canning). lie
was satisfied the case of the petitioners was entitled to the
consideration of Parliament, as well as if they were British
subjects.
Mr. HUME said that he entirely apprOved of what was said
by the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Canning). 'When the
petition was fiist" presented, he (Mr. home) was the first to
caution the House against the entertaining of such claims. He
then pronounced the same opinion as wag given that night to
the House by the late President of the Board of Controul—
namely, that the present case, of attended to, would be fol-
lowed by innumerable other demands, front such persons as
had, or pretended to have, similar claims. He would not dis-
pute the justness of the debt, but he contended thy the House
ought not to entertain it,.and he thought it wrong m the Board
of Controul to sanction the claim in that House.

Mr. CANNING explained.
Mr. PRENDERGAST strongly supported the claim, and
said, in allusion to what had been said on a former night by
the Hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. P. Moore), that he was
surprised at the particular opposition which that lion. Member
had given to the claim on account of vague reports, as there
was no Gentleman respecting whose rapid acquisition of a for-
ture there were more reports in India tnan that Gentleman.
Lord LONDONDERRY rose to order, _and observed, that
the Hon. Member was wandering from the point really in
discussion.

Mr. P. MOORE said, he was sorry if what he had said on
a former night gave the Hon. Member (Mr. Prendergast) any
pain. What he had then said was, that several persons were
recalled from, India for similar practices. He, however, op-
posed this measure.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY again rose,, and de-
precated any further discussion.
Mr. HUME begged leave to say one word in explanation.

•
In what he had said on that and a former night, he did not
mean to throw out any reflections on any person.
The Report was then ordered to lie on the table.
• The Marquis of LONDONDERRY- presented _certain Pa.
,pens relating to the Appointment of Consuls in the Brazils.
The East India Sugar Bill was read a dial time and pass=
ed ; as was also the Spirits Exportation (Scotland) Bill.