The Sun.
London, England, 1818-06-06 00:00:00

PETITION OF ALIENS.

Sir J. 111Acm NTOSH held a petition relative
to a measure which was corning on to-night.
and which involved one of the most flagrant
breaches of ptihiic faith that could be committed.
'J.'he petitiou was from ,persons who onglit to be

`considered as Lis Majesty's natural-horn subjects,'
having purchased Stock in the Bank of Scotland,
and 'con,equently been naturalized by an Act
passed by the Pat bament of Scotland, and passed
in 1693. They prayed that the [louse would not
agree.to the amendment made by the Lords to the
Alien Bill. They stated that the Scotch Act had
been confirmed in that particular provision by five
Acts of Parliament in the present reign; that they
had been long resident and domiciled in this coun-
try., in which their children were bore; that they
were ready to produce certificates of their loyalty
and good conduct ; and that they had putelkased
Stock in the Ba►tk of Scotland on a full anti en-
tire faith in the hwas it now stood. 'They com-
plained of being deprived of their rights by a re-
trospective regulation, and prayed that they migkt
not be so disfranchised and denaiionalised.

The petition having been read and laid on the
table,
Mr. TIERNEY moved that it be referred to a
Committee, with po.ser to report thereon.
Lord CAsTLEREAGH opposed the motion as use-
less, sit.ce it was not inteedcd to deity any of the
facts sta•ed io the postilion. He was sure that
, there could be but one opinion in the House
respecting the abatodity of the measure, which
arose on the admitted fees in the present case.
The question was, therefote, not one of facts, but
of the argument on New, whether or no it was
competent for Parliament to legislate on the Law
of Scotland:anti suspend one of its ohselete en-
actments during the existence of tee prevent Bill.
Not wily the House, but the individuals who had
petitioned must have been tsken by surprise at
the existence of such a law. That till very lately
the y knew nothing of it was proved by the fact,
that seventeen or eighteen out of the forty-nine
who bad signed the petition, had been soliciting
in vain through,the regular channel to obtain a
Bill of Naturalization. The obsolete Scotch Act
now thus reei‘ed, granted the rights of naturali-
zatiou to every individual who purchased a small
share, about 801. 'of our currency, but did not
provide that by selling that share he should lose
those rights, so that he might «mister it the very
next day to another foreigner, anti both would
find themselves naturalized fur the same sum.
The 801. might thus travel round aed naturalize
the whole Continent. Was this a state of the
law which it would be wise to stiffer permanently
to exist in the country, and should the Batik
of Scotland retain the piikilege of thus abro-
gating all the Statotei passed by our ances-
tors to regulate the naturalization of foreigners ?
lle then mentioned the different guards which
had been created to.prevent foreigners, even when
naturalized, enjoying all the privileges of British
subjects—guards which it had been found neces-
sary to suspend by a separate Bill when Prince
Leopold had been naturalized. For by an Act of
George!. it was ordered that no Bill of Naturali-
zation should ever pass, unless it contained clauses
to prevent foreigners from voting, or siding in
Parliament, and front enjoying -abroad the privi-
leges of British subjects. Were, then, all these
precautioes to be rendered nugatory by au obso-
lete provision ? By the regular laws of the cortn-
try, no individual coeld be naturalized without
taking the oath of allegiance; but by this regula-
tion, all the rights of a natural-born subject,
might at once be obtained by the simple process
of purchasing stock to the amount of SO/. Could
this be allowed to exist -? Aud ought not the Go-
vernment in some measure to apologize for not
having introduced a Bill to repeal such a regula-
tion, instead of being blamed for proposing a
clause to abrogate rights by fraud obtained
(Hear, hear, front the Opposition.)-e-As to die
retrospective operation of the clause, precedents
were to be found in justification of it, both in
Tax Bills, and in that relative to the residence of
the Clergy.
Sir S. Ito:mu-Le thought to deny an .inquiry
into the merits of the peti.ion would be an act
of the greatest injustice. The Noble Lord had
said, die House knew the whole matter of die
petition, and the entice nature of the Act on which
the question turned. Now,he would be bold to say,
that the Noble Lord did not know what the Act
Was, and that he. could not read it if he had it.
Did he know that the clause introduced by the
other House went to the "coral -of five Acts of
Parliament and he would maintain, that the
foreigners who purchased this ,Stock were natu-
ralized, not by the Scotch Act of 1695, but by
Acts of the English Parliament passed since that
period. He then quoted an Act, passed in 1774,
to increase the capital of the Batik from 100,0001.
to 200,0001., and four other Acts passed subse-
quently for a similar purpose ; in all of which it
was enacted, that the holders of the new Stock.
should have the sante rights and privileges as the
original subscribers. lie was surprised to hear
the Noble Lord say their rights had been ob•
rained frandulerstlY, when they had been held
out as inducements to foreigners to vest their
capital in that kind of Stock. It was on the
faith of these privileges -being secured to them
that they had become subscribers ; and if Alley
were now taken away, it would be the Bri-
tish Parliament that was committing a fraud.—
He was surprised, too, that the Noble Lord should
appeal to 'die time of Queen Anne in support of
his doctrine, when the fact was, that by the 7th of
that reign, all Protestants, coming to this country,
were endowed with all the rights of naturalization.
It was true, that by the 10th that law, was repeal-
ed, but the Act bad not a restrospecdve operation;
that gross injustice was never attempted but by
the present Members ; and what astouisheditim
most was, that it should have originated in the
other house,. the supreme Court of Judicature in
the nation, where it might have been thought a
greater respect for established law would haee exist-
ed. 1 defianceof the usual forms they had done this;
and looking to the privilegei,of- that House, he
thought the Lords amendment could not be re-.
ceived ; .for if any of these 49 persons bad ptir-
Chased lands,- they might be confiscated ; or re-
ceived goods from abroad since the 29th of April
last (and some of them had done so), they would
have to pay the Alien.duties, which were higher
than those imposed on natural born subjects. The
clause then imposed a tax—it was a money clause,
and, according to the privileges of that House,
the Lords had not the right to originate a tax or
a money clause. He then quoted a number of
precedents in support of his argument, and called

upon 'the 'Home to protect its privileges, aria
rescue itselt from this added disgrace. They had
bern the Parliament which had twice suspended
the Habeas Corpus Act ; sanctioned spies and in-
formers, and made themselves the degraded po-
lice' of France. They were the Parliament uho
had approved the sending forth the opinion of the
crown lawyers as the law Of the land. Who
might be their successors he did not know ; but
(exelairned the Honourable and Learned Gentle-
in.an) GOD grant that we may never see Parlia-
ment again so regardless Of the liberties and
of rights the people as this has been.
Lord CASTLEREAGH explained.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL argued that the tights
were derived entirely under the Scotch Act ; and
if this clause had been left out, fifty would have
had their right by the said Act, thereby makimg
thew naturalized subjects of the United King-
dom. Atter quoting many Statutes and authori-
ties in support of his opinions the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman - concluded with saying that
he saw no reason why tie Petition should be re-
ferred to a Committee.

A &stilt°, y conversation ensned, which Mr.
W. SMITH conteoded that the petition %VHS a pro-
per subject for inquiry.
The CHANCELLOR of the ExcHEQUErt said, he
slid not know that there nere any Alien polies of
the nature described.

Sir A. Picorr showed that as the Act stood, it
an Alien purchased land, it might be seized by the
Crown. The fixing the time from the 28th of
April last was an absurdity, as there was no rea-
son shewn for it. lie denied the correctness of
the Attorney• General's position respecting the
operation of the Scotch Act.
Mr. CANNING thought it best to ask for the opi-
nion of the Chair, before proceeding in the de-
bate.

' The SPEAKER said, it was unquestionably the
rule of the House not to permit any interference
of the Other House, either in imposing duties or
taxes. In this clause, if he had collected right,
there were duties that were attached to Aliens as
traders, and forfeitures in case of their making
certain kinds of purchases. Therefore the case did
seem to be made out that there was some interfer-
ence of which the House was usually jealous. One
point, however, excited some doubt in his mind.
It must he known to every body that it was
usual fo'r Naturalization Bills to originate in the
other House, and but for thiS difference of Bills
of Naturalization so originating this case would
seem to fall distinctly within what were deemed
the privileges of the House.
Alter a c.mversation between Mr. 8.-• Bathurst,
Mr. Wynne, Lord Castlereaeh (who intimated,
that even if the qtreStion had been more doubthil
he would not wish to press the.amendment made
.by the Lords), Mr. Brougham and. Sir J. Mackin-
tosh, an understanding was come to, that if the
Right Hon. Gentleman would wi:hdraw his mo-
tion, the amendments would be rejected, and
thus the Bill would, in all probabiluv,•be lost.—
This, suggestion being adored, and the motion
being ‘vit hdrawn, _ .

• - Laid CASTLZREAGR moved the Order of t!te
Day fo:- the consideraTion of the Lords' Ametid.
mentt to the Alien. BM.

A convetsation ensue►! between Sir S. Romilly,
Mr. IVynne, Mr. B. Bathurst, Mr. Brougham,
Lot d Castlereagh, Sir J. M►ckintosh, and the
Speaker, which consisted entirely of the same,
opinions as had been previously advanced respect-
ing the privileges of the House, and the question was
put, " That the House do agree with the Amend-
ments made by the Lordi," and unanimously
negatived.
Lord CASTLEREAGH then moved that a Com"-
mittee be appointed to draw up the reasons to he
offered to the Lords for disagreeing with their
Amendtnents.—Agreed to.
It was then ordered that a Message be sent to
the Peers, requiring a conferences on the subject.