Star.
London, England, 1822-07-20 00:00:00

•
Barthckftw, ieveral who had escaped die Mame
b°ok /Asp in Eegland, whoni the Nana Artsbns-
sador demanded to be given up. The anuses* of Lord
I.l3arleiph was, that the Queen had. a
right to receive
what foreigners she pleased into the country, and to
send them away if they behaved amiss. The answer
had not been that these foreigners had a right to come
if they chose; and this case plainly sheaved the opi-
nion of Lord Burleigh, as to the existence of this
power in the Crown. The undoubted power of the
Crown over its own subjects would be wholly nuga-
tory, if a similar power did not erist in the Cabe Of fo-
reigners. Mr. Justice Blackstone, the Lord Chan-
cellor, Lord Rosslyn, and the late Marquis. oftsalls-
down, had all held the same opinion as the individual
who then addressed the House. The test for sending
an alien out of the country was, whether his conduct
had been prejudicial to this country ? If five or six
individuals had a right to live here,' then the same
right belonged to the State of which they were sub-
jects. The monstrous consequences which would flow
from such a proposition it was needless to point out.
The power of the executive was only confirmed, and
not created, by the present Bill ; and wac, in fact,
considerably mitigated by it ; neither had any appeal
ever been permitted from this power of the Crown.
He gave his vote most cordially for the Bill.
Mr. DENMAN said, he felt it very difficult to ad-1
dress the House after the two Hon. Gentlemen who
had last addressed them. His lion. Friend the Mem-
ber for Rochester had exhausted the arguments against
the Bill; and his Hon. and Learned Friend who had
just sat down had, by his ingenuity and repetitions of
legal inferences, exhausted the attention of the House.
He was not sanguine in his hopes of success in resist-
ing the Bill at this time, but he hoped when the eco-
nomical reJuctions which would be necessary should
come under consideration next year, that the discus-
sions upon this subject would be reverted to, and the
establishments under this Act abolished. His Hon.
and Learned Friend's feelings were with the oppo-
nents of the Bill. They did him more credit than all
his ingenuity and diligence, both as an English gen-
tleman and as an English lawyer-Wear, hear).—The
mode of argument adopted by his Hon. and Learned
Friend was not immaterial, though far from deciding
the question. But it was not immaterial to ascertain
whether the poweigiven by this Bill had always existed,
and was now modified, or whether it had been intro-
duced within the last thirty years: tut it was rather
a question of curious and antiquarian research, and
could not afford sufficient ground for this Bill. His
Hon. and Learned Friend had admitted that no his-
torian, lawyer, or compiler, had stated this preroga-
tive as part of the law. His candour had extorted
this admission in the midst of his zeal. This was
itself demonstration against the existence of such a
prerogative. His Hon. and Learned Friend had con-
tended that it was the same with the writ ne mat
regno. This he (Mr. Denman) was prepared to deny.
Here he begged to say, that his Learned Friend the
Member for Peterborough (Mr. Scarktt), and his
Learned Friend the MemberforLincoln (Mr. Williams),
had argued not so much against the prerogative itself,
as against the prudence of its exercise. Was there
one abridgment of the law in which the writ of ne
exeat regno was not to be found ?—(Hear, hear).—
A negative was not surely to be proved by them who
denied the existence of the power to send Aliens out
of the country. One of the most important books of
authority in the law, Chief Justice Comyn's Digest,
contained the head of restraining natives from going
abroad, and compelling their return—ne exeat regno
and revertatur—but not one mention of any power
to send Aliens away.—(Hear,hear).—Bacon's Abridg-
ment enumerated the 64 disadvantages of Aliens,"
but never mentioned among them that they were
expellable at the caprice—ex arbitrio—(Cheers.)—
If his Hon. Friend, the Member for Westminster,
represented Sir W. Blackstone to be a blunderer, his
Hon. and Learned Friend represented Lord Coke to
be a blunderer. So there was one blunderer set off
against another. It was not the statements or opi-
nions of political judges on the Woolsack, but their
solemn decisions in Courts of Justice, which could
have authority en this question—(Hear).—Aliens
might have property in this country. Could they
be sent away from their legal property? The dis-
tinction between an Alien friend and an Alien enemy
ought never to be forgotten. An Alien friend might
at once become an enemy, and when hostilities were
likely to break out, nothing could be more fit than
to warn Alien friends to leave the realm. The house
of an Alien merchant fell to the King : was the King
I invested with the power to send away one whose pro-
perty would fall to himself? The Right Hon. Gen-
tleman (Mr. Wynn) was not present, who had unan-
swerably answered the argument respecting this
sovereign power being in the Crown. Another Right
Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Canning), to hear whom on
any subject was the greatest intellectual delight, but
whose eloquence exerted in the cause of the stranger
and friendless would indeed be gratifying, was also
absent. From the abser.ce of those Right Hon. Gen-
tlemen he augured the fate of this Bill.—(Hoar, hear).
Mr. Fox had denied the prerogative when the horror
of French principles supplied a case which was now
entirely wanting. Mr. Pitt never asserted it. Mr.
Burke said it could be justified only by extreme ne-
cessity. Neither the Act before the breaking out of
the war, nor any of the continuing Acts, alleged the
existence of the prerogative. War ought not to be
directed against families, but against Governments.
In the case of Calvin it had been expressly laid down,
that any subject in league with England might come
into her realms without license. This was the dictum
of Lord Coke. Surely, then, if a man might come
into the realm without license, he might remain in it
without license. The Proclamations which the sup-
porters of the Bill relied upon were treated by Lord
Coke as contrary to law. He (Mr. Denman) said
that the right of aliens to come into the country did
not rest upon the provisions of Magna Charta, it
rested upon the common law of the laud. The clause
in Magna Charta certainly strengthened the right,
because it distinctly gave it to aliens who were " mer-
chants;' but who was to say of au alien standing in
England, whether he was a merchant or not? And,
besides, the present Bill was-contrary to Magna
Charta, for it made no provision for the. safety of
" merchants" any mote than for that of other persons.
He was astonished to hear the measure at:empted to
be justified, by comparing it whh the power of a writ
of ne mat .regno. The two powers had not the most
distant analogy to each other. And Gentlemen talked
of the impossibility of supposing any abuse in the