The Sun.
London, England, 1824-05-12 00:00:00

PORT OF LONDON SOCIETY.

On Monday a very numerous and highly respectable Meet,
ing was held at the City of London Tavern, of the supporters of
the Society for Promoting Religious Instruction to te Seamen
of the Port of London, Lord Gastniun, was in the Chair.' His
Lordship stated the objects of the Meeting, and after an aPpro-
priateTrayer the Report of the Committee was read, in which
contained many interesting details of the good effects produced
upon Seamen by the Floating Chapel in the Thames—by the
distribution of Religious Books and Tracts among Sailors—
and by other means adopted by the Society.—The Report was
received with universal aprrobation. Several Gentlemen ad-
dressed the Meeting in at 'speeches, and- appropriate
Resolutions were agreed to, •

The Earl- of LIVERPOOL, rose to move the Order of the
beenny f,oorotfht
eensecond r readingihciri,oord hf
the Alien Bill. The subject had
ps consideration,. that it-would
be hardly necessary for him to enter into any details. He must
say, however; that far from agreeing with the . individuals
petition haLjaussu trbeeien
lLteenivoctlri,gtilniaaitiy introduced werethe circumstances
''h°snudese which
necessity. Whenb out thett
the
subject
right had
the )
so changed that it was no longer requisite; the circumstances.
of
under which its continuance wits proposed convinced him of its
before,
the
commonmuc h
hadbeen said a
law to remove aliens from the country, but he had never heard
any arguments which in his judgmelit established that right
uF.der the common-law in a satisfactory manner. For although
been
Crown discussed
under
the right existed in the Crown,. it could not be exercised, except
in such a cumbrous and circuitous way as rendered it nearly in-
effeetnal.—lt could only be done by an order to the alien to
leave the country, followed up by an indictment if he.should
refuse to obey the order. It was on account of. the cir-
cuitous nature of the proceedings that the Alien Bill lisd been
introduced in 1792. It had been introduced, he .must re-
mark, not -in time of war but of peace, and when an .anxious
desire existed in the Government of the country to avoid a war
if possible. It had been intended- by the measure- to, guard
against the admission and danger of revolutionary principlea,
and the Bill had been continued after France had engaged in
the war against this country, for that purpose. For it was not -
I necessary against the subjects of France, as, he contended,
that in time of war the Crown possessed the power not only
to send away, but to make prisoners of alien enemies.' The
question however, was not now whether Parliament had done
right to adopt the Bill in 1702, but whether it would do right
to adoptit in 1924, and lie admitted that if he did not give
sufficient reasons to prove that it would be right, their
Lordships would be fully justified in rejecting it. He
should ccPimence by declaring that the measure had not beep
introduced Out of any desire • to conciliate the favour of
any Foreign Power. It was a wholly British measure, for
British objects; and for British interests. We had lived and
were still living in times when there existed a great rage
for political experiments of all kinds. We had seen revo-
lutions taking place in all countries around us, and growing
out of the opinions whiCli had been propagated throughout the
world within our own memory, and which had a tendency to
affect' even those countries where there had been no revolu-
tions. Indeed; it had been admitted by a Noble Friend of his,
the Noble Baron opposite (Lord Holland), that there was at
present a contest for Political Reform similar to that which
had occured 200 years ago for Religious Reform, and that
Noble Lord had wished that we should place ourselves at the
head of the-one as we had done at the head of the other. If;
after a war of 21 years, and all the dangers arising from revo-
lutions, he .wag one of those who thought it a duty to protect the
peace of his Country, he was not ashamed of such sentiments.
He might quote on that subject the opinion, not of the suppos-
ed advodates of : Ultra doctrines, but of the supporter; of the
most liberal principles themselYes. Ile remembered well a Rt.
'Hon. Gentleman-to whom the Noble Lord opposite would pay
due respect, making this remarkable quotation more than once
when speaking of the revolutionary movement taking place :
inquis:tim am pacem justi into beilo reim He woul not
however, deny that if revolutions were p
prOdluctive of evils, bad
Governments might be still worse than revolutions. He de-
precated all interference in the national concerns of others; and.
he had no hesitation in saying, that no one was more dis-
posed than lie, to COndenin the measures adopted by Foreign!
Powers, because. they rested on general principles, which might
be made to tell equally for opposite Sides. When -a ge-
neral principle was laid down, be it on the side of freedom,
or 'On that of despotism, it . was equally dangerous to the
peace of mankind, There was no safety in those .general
. principles. Every country most
.fudge of its own government,
and its justification must rest on the special case, and not
on general principles. i,Ve lived in times in which we• saw
many experiments made for revolutions in other countries ;.in
come cifses they might be right, in others they might be wrong,
but our duty was to look at our own internal peace. In
every instance in which revolutions had taken place since
1792, the conquered party had sought refuge in this coun-
try. He should be the last to deny such fugitives the
rights arhospitality, arid he would. say that no demand had
never been 'made by any Foreign Government to that effect,
except in' 1802, when it was directed against the French
Royalists. He was convinced that Spaniard,, Frenchman,

abuse.
Earl DARNLEY considered the continuance of such a
measure under present circumstances disgraceful to the
,coun-
try. - If he had not been misinformed, it was not the intention
of his Majesty's Ministers to propose its farther renewal after
the present should have expired. He trusted the-Noble Earl
opposite would give some explanation on the subject. Might
not he and his Colleagues take upon themselves the responsi-
bility-of removing a few dangerous fellows (if such were lbs.
covered in this country) without having recourse to a 8111
which verified the charge of the Roman Po-et :—" Britt:mum
hospitlbusfrros"
Lord CA LTHORPE consented to support the measure, in
consequence of the liberal policy which, had latterly been'
adopted by his Majesty's Ministers, and of the publis, declara-
tion made by the Right Hon.. Secretary for Foreign Affairs
six months ago, that it was the determination of this country
to pursue British objects independently, and without any re-
gard to the wishes of other Powers.
The EarPof CA RNARVON had expected to hear from the
Noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Treasury, that the
grounds on which the Bill wus founded were so reduced by cir-
cumstances that it would probably be the last time that it should
be proposed; he had therefore been much surprised-to find that
those grounds were stronger fbr it now than before. There was
something in the present Bill which sayoured mere of com-
promise than of a well digested measure. Much stress was
laid on the exemption from its operations of aliens who had
resided continually seven years in this country, but if they had
spent a few days of those seven -years on- the Continent, how
would they be affected by the 'Bill ? If they were to gain a
settlement by marriage, why should they not by time ? and
why should an alien woman be left exposied to the danger of
being torn,-from her husband and children if she could not
prove a .seven years' residence? Ile trusted that his Majasty'a
Ministers would not suffer thes oueatioh to pass away without
producing stronger grounds than they had done to justify their
proposition. . .
The Earl of WESTMORELAND thought the Bill before
the House peculiarly necessary at the present time, and he
`though it so on purely British grounds. He did not support
the-measure with reference to the policy of other countries, but
because the interests,and the peac,e of England required it.—
Government, in his opinion, was responsible to other nations
for the conduct of individuals who resided here, for he never
could imagine how it wits possible for the Sovereign to be at
peace and his subjects to lie at war with foreign States. It was
necessary that Government should have the power of removing
aliens for the purpose of preserving neutrality ; and as he
wished England to be at all times a refuge fir foreigners, he
considered the existence of the present law conducive to that
result, by the check it imposed on their conduct. There had
generally been about 20,000 aliens here, few or none of whom
had offended—a result which might be in great part attributed
to the silent operation of this law, and lie therethre thought,
what proved productive of so ninth benefit ought not to be
hastily abandoned.
Lord HOLLAND entirely agreed with the Noble -Earl op-
posite (Lord Liverpool), that as the subject of the present Bill
had been so frequently before their Lordship's, it was unneces-:
sary to repeat the arguments which had so often been used
in discussing it. He should not therefore trouble the House
with the 'objections which he had for twenty years past
been accustomed to urge against the measure. But when he
considered the different grounds on which the Bill was now
supported from those formerly employed in its defence, he
could 'not help noticing the discrepancy in brief terms. - The
origin of this Bill was in 1792 ; and let their Lordships look to
the preamble of the Act then passed, and they would see the
care that was taken to show the, necessity of the measure. It
was that " Whereas a great and unusual number of Aliens
had come into this country, and caused much danger to the public
tranquility.'? How he would ask does much danger to the public
tranquillity exist at the present from Aliens ? and the preamble
he referred to proved that slight danger would not justify such
an act of the Legislature. War afterwards took place, and
the Bill continued, becauSc,las the Noble Earl said, though the
Crown had the power to send away Alien enemies, its exer-
cise was cumbrous without the aid of this law. War again
ceased in 1801, and the Bill still continued, but with a very
altered and meager ,preamble. That period, however, was
very different from the present. There were then many aliens
'here known to be hostile to the Government of France, which
'Government thought this country had too great a predeliction
for their opinions. Writings too were published here by those
aliens, recorrimenclima in no ambiguous terms, the assassination
of the head of the }drench Republic. M. Otto, the represen-
tative of that Government, in consequence applied to the
Noble Earl opposite on the subject, and received from him
an answer worthy of an English Minister. He was told that
the tribunals of the country were open to him, and he might
prosecute the parties complained of if he pleased. The
French Minister, however, not satisfied with this reply, ad-
verted to the Alien Bill, and required it to be enforced against
'the individuals he pointed out. But what did the:Noble Earl?
Ile that moment, became as hostile as the most warlike of his
colleagues, and rejected the proposals with indignation. His
Lordship here read Mr. Otto'S• note to the Earl-of
,Liverpool;
and-an extract from the Noble Earl's reply. The latter stated.
that nis Majesty never could nor would consent to shackle the
liberty of the Press to suit the taste of Foreign Powers—and
that with respect to the Alien Bill, the object of that law Was
solely to prevent aliens from disturbing the public tranquillity
of this country.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL asked across the table if Lord
Holland had the whole of the papers with him, whiCh referred
to that transaction ?
Lord HOLLAND replied in the negative., His Lordship
then proceeded to say that upon the occasion•in question,
the Noble Earl, .and .also a -Noble. Viscount then a. Secretary
of State (Lord Sidniouth) showed -in a true British spirit,
that this country was, not to be made (to use a phrase
lgtely adopted), auxiliary to. Foreign, States, and he wished
the .Noble Viscount would still, show the same diaposition with
respect to the present Bill. The Noble Lord next adverted- to
the argument' of. the Noble Privy Seal (Earl Westmorland),
that the tendency of. the Alien Billawas to preserve peace with
other Powers; and argued at some length to hew that history
did not support the assertion. The longest peace the country
ever enjoyed was in the reign' of James the First, and at no
period were Foreigners better received in England, or The
i,F3:!
more Englishmen on the Continent than at that time. Tfiee,
three States of Europe, too, that had been longest at peone
were Sv;itaerland, Holland,.-and the Papal See, and Yet

Lord NEWRY obtained leave to bring in a Bill atifiibrising
the Commissioners of Inland Navigation in Ireland, to raise
money by mortgage upon the Tolls of the Neivry g3anal; for the
purpose of carrying on the improvements in that work:'
BEER DUTIES BILL.
Petitions were presented against the above Bilrfrom thc-
Innholders and Licenced Victuallers of Sandwich, 'Leicester,
Cheltenham, hlaCclesfielcl, illillerwhite, Ludlow, ilia other
'places:L-Laid on the table.
•
Sir W. RO WLEY presented a petition from Ipswich against
Negro Slavery.—Laid on the table. • .
Lord NEWRY. presented a petition from certain ;Farmers
and others in the North of Ireland, against' the Bonded Wheat
Bill.—Laid on the table.
A petition was presented from Inverness against the altera-
tion in the Woollen Duties. -
Colonel LESLEY presented petitions from different bodies
of, Freemasonsin Ireland, praying to be -placed tipon the same
footing with their brethren in England..i .
Sir H. MAXWELL presented a petition from certain other
' parties of the same description, to the same effect. —Laid on.the
table.
Mr. WYVILL presented a petition 'from the Farmers of
York against the Hides and Skih's Bill.—Laid on the table.
.31r. LITTLETON presented a petition from the ;Butchers
of Walsall, in Staffordshire, in favour of the same Bill.—Laid
on the table. •
_ _

Mr. TALBOT presented a petition from. the Grand Jury
of Dublin against the Bill relating to the Local Taxation of
Dublin.

CASE OF JOSEPH SWAN.

Mr.•J. WILLIAMS rose to present a petition,wbich he
thought dtserved the attention of the House, and particularly
of of the Right .Hon. Secretary of State for the 11_0. e.l who
mint. It came from an individual named JosephSwan,t
1819,
:' n°
n one
,the hi e2i till g-'►fits.,
selling l 82
oa,
lineishcazdts.ebeieuntoc. oconutinsiedderiraltion. ,
lie,
(iu
that the House
the prosecutions
found that it had fallen to his kit to 'conductor
-t. forgotten' it. The
under peculiar circumstances, andPri;r°.ini:dince_hr.c.i.Yve,jani,ans)
against. the.prisoner, :although he had nowanoactur ~
er but that
Petitioner stated that he was formerly
swtaouteidd
I,lcthe requisition for call-
a inclopipefied,ibin to turn
thief he
vender of pamphle& and books;
. .
the distreas of the times ruined• him,
libel, the other attending fora
aert. 1
which he never uttered' 4 single
ins wiiielt he had signed, and at and others were clizirged with
word. But he stated thatu st
~ ~y. a ver.soo
of
the
name
of
he Was tried Upon two indictments, ';
-sedition for the languagocne e ' "
very extraordinary cireiimskance
1 Buckley. • There was which was, that whilst the Petitioner
ed, all d were suffering, for the inlianima-
and others-bad sorra
dby this Man Buckle 'he had never been
use -
tory language iat an. He who was the head and front of the
brought to trill
1 t dareseaped, while all the rest were brought
offending al .13
•6t The Hori. Member insisted that I. '
,01.. , his laying
to Pun's- the prosecution did not in any way implicate Mal hi
to conduct
dings or in the nature of the punishment He agreed
connected with the case,
. He thought too that:6e change of time and cir-
tbe Pr()cee etstiuuer, that • lie had. suffered an imprisonment ex-
-di the
that w' that of any other individual in modern times for h.po-
tancs which had since intervened rendered it imperative
upon the Government to releaSe him from all further penalties.
Every Gentleman knew that at the time- when the petitioner
received this heavy sentence there existed a pressure of dis-
tress and,consequent disorder, which required measures appli-
cable to the time. But all this had passed away, and nothing
remained to remind them of it but the remnant of this man's
punishment. • In the Chancellor of the Exchequer's expofit'en
leiutinaraisbtalice.

•
'l4 the state the country -he represented the people as being
,fistesal for the happiness they now enjoyed, and as having
returned to tobstitutionaiga wholelorne opinions. He sup-
posed the Right Hon. Secietaty shared those sentiments ; and
be would tisk whafadvantage was to be derived from continu-
ing the punishment of this man ender-the. pisting circum-
*pees ? He had been willing to believe in the sincerity of the
mild and temperate language they had heard, but he wanted to
see it illustrated by acts.
Mr. JAMES said this was the last case 'of Mitgistrriel op-
Passion arising out of the period at which the petitioner had
been made the victim of politicaffeeling. The petition did not
iiraY for a remission Of the sentence, and, in fact, the prisoner
had refused to petition the Cron for that purpose, when he
had been advised Ida° -st. by -those who were ashamed of the
pres.sion which he endured. The petitioner only asked the
"louse to consider his case, and preferred being a martyr in the
cause of truth and justice. . . _

111 r. Secretary PEEL, saki that the objects of the petition
were two-fold. The onerelated to his conduct previous to Ms
.1) Tosectition and trial, the other -to the punishment which fol-
*wed it. Respecting the first; lie Must appeal to the Hon.
and Learned Member for the fact of his not having been made
acquainted with the petition until yesterday. The time to
which it related was four years ago, two years before he had
any connection with his leiajesty's Government. The facts,
'consequently, had never come under his official knowledge, nor
had he the means of communicating with the -Magistrates' to
whom they related, in the shOrt space of time which had inter.
versed. He must observe that it was very extraordinary for
the complaints of the petitioner to come forward now after
haying slept for four years, and that his mere allegations ought
-to be taken with some dedectiOns and allowances for exaggera-
tion. Upon the second part of the petition, he must say that he
regretted to see such applications made through Parliament re-
specting the prerogative of mercy. But as the Judgment of the
Secretary of State for the Home Department was necessarily
questioned by such applications, he was not the proper person
to say much-upon that part of the question. Ile would only
mate that he had-net recommended this man as a fit object for
the Royal clemency, and that it was not his intention to do so.
The prisoner was tried upon five indictments""; the first was
for Blasphemy ; the two nett for Seditious Libels ; the next.
for a Seditious Conspiracy, and the other for a Blasphemous
Libel also. Upon three of these lie was convicted, and the other
two were not proceeded with. He was convicted of blasphe-
mous libel, seditious libel, and sedition ;- and for these three
grimes he had received a sentence of imprisonment for four
. years and a hill. He was not proceeded against without due
notice, and in defiance of all warning he continued the sale -of.
the libellous works. He and his father were engaged in the
infamous practice of selling blasphemous publications. The.
• father lived at Stodkport, and the son was sent to Macclesfield
for the purpose of carrying, on the same trade. His wife Was
apprehended for the same
.affence, but she was liberated Again
upon finding that he'had 'forced her to commit it.- He readily
exonerated the lion. 'anti Learned Gentleman from any incon-
sietency in
_presenting the petition, after conducting the prosecu-
tion. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman did conduct the prose-
cution but' ith not less ability than temperance. He had looked
'at the report of the trial, and he would read a part of the con-
'elusion of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's Address to the
Jury. " But, Gentlemen; after what I have stated, it will be
for you to decide (for you are the only Judges here) 'whether
the defendants met for any other- purp,-,e than that of stirring
up insurrection against the Government." The Right Hon.
Secretary then remarked, that the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man had previously delivered his sentiments to the Jury as to
the right of free discussion, and read the following conclusion
of the speech :—" I have now stated the ease fully and fairly,
for I never will hold langeage different from that you have
heard as to the right of free discussion in the people." The
conduct of the prisoner upon his trial was alio most indecent.
After his sentence was passed he insulted the Court by hold-
ing up his hat, and making some very indecorous remark to
this effect :—" Well, I'm pretty well satisfied, for I thought
you'd hang me." He did trot mean to say that these things
would justify an aggravation of punishment, but they were
deserving of consideration hi reference to the question of ex-
tending mercy. to the party. When, therefore, he considered
the circumstances under which the petitioner had been con-
victed, and the nature of his conduct upon and after his
trial, he should be content with stating that he had not felt
himself warranted in recommending the remission of any
part of his sentence, and further, that it was not his intention
to do in.
Mr. HUME was sorry to- hear the opinion which the Right
Hen. Gentleman entertained upon the case of the petitioner.
The. first charge upon which he was convicted was a blasphe-
mous libel. Why, what was a blasphemous libel ? The
petitioner did not know the contents of the book, or its title.
lie always should object to such persecutions for matters of 1
opinion, and hoped the time was not far distant when they
would be discontinued.
Mr. SYKES was of opinion, notwithstanding what had
fallen from the Right lion. Gentleman, that the case of the
petitioner deserved consideration, and that the remainder of
ete-e-ia-ee renamed. ,
Mr. Secretary PEEL explained. Ine Petition was then

read.
;Zr. J. WILLIAMS, in moving that it be ordered to lie on
the table, said that he had confined himself in his statement to
the sentence passed on the petition, and had not gone into the
circumstances anterior to the trial. lie thought it was a case
for mercy. •
The petition, after a few words from Mr. Secretary PEEL,
wita.ordered to be printed.
i Tilecsage.from the Lords here announced their Lordships'
assent to several Bills.
lord sT A Y presented a petition.. from 'Warrington
against the Beer Regulations ; and a similar petition from
Charley:
. _

Air. tit-ATER presented a similar petition from Portsea.
Mr. L. FOSTER presented a petition from several Attor.
nits of Ireland complaining of the duty upon their annual
liv?n max.
Mr.. 1.. 17-OSTR. also presented a petition from Ardee,
against the bonding of Wheat.
.Lord G. LENNOX presented a Petition from Chichester,

against the 'Hides and Skins Bill.
W. DUNDAS presented .3 petition from Edinburgh,
against the Assessed Taxes; and several Petitions from Edin-
burgh against the Scotch Poor Bill.
Uir. H. K. WlLSON.presented a Petition froni St. Alban's,
against the Ber Regulations.