Star.
London, England, 1824-05-12 00:00:00

foreigners exiled from their native lands ; and so far
from being an oppressive measure, it would be a pro-
tection to them. As a measure of neutrality, too, it
was, in his opinion, the duty of the house to pass this
Bill. It did not seem to have terrified many foreigners
away, considering the numbers of them that flocked to
our shores ; neither were Englishmen afraid to travel on
the Continent; where they were exposed to much
harsher laws than this.
Lord HOLLAND would not trouble the House with
a recapitulation of the many objections which for the
last twenty years he had urged in that House against
this Bill, nor the grounds on which this measure was
now required to be renewed. When this Bill was first
brought in (in 1792), the preamble said, that from the
great number of foreigners resorting to this country,
much danger was apprehended to the tranquillity of the
State. Mark how carefully it was guarded; but would
the Noble Lord say that such was the case now? Then
it was defended on account of the war; but when the
war ceased this Bill did not cease also. The French
emigrants did avail themselves as much as possible of
the freedom of this country, for they actually published
recommendations to assassinate the then Ruler of France.
Nl.Otto applied to the Noble Earl opposite on the subject,
and was told by him that we had laws, and he might pro-
secute
them. M. Otto at last hinted to the Noble Earl that
we had an Alien Bill, and might send them out of the coun-
try. The moment the Noble Earl heard that, he slapped
the door in M. Otto's face. The Noble Earl, who was then
supposed to be inclined too much to peace, quitted the
quiet little nag he was so fond of bestriding, and imme-
diately mounting his great war horse, he kicked, and he
pranced, and he cur vetted at M. Otto.--[Here Lord
Holland read the correspondence between Lord Liver-
pool and M. Otto on the subject.]—lt had been said
that this Bill was intended to preserve peace: but
where was this amulet of tranquillity ? it was raked
up in December, 1792, from a dunghill of bad mea-
sures, by rather a pugnacious personage, a sort of a
fighting-cock, Mr. Pitt. And what was the consequence
of this pacific measure? Why, that in January, 1793,
the war began, the longest, the bloodiest, and the most
expensive that this country had ever been engaged in.
But the Noble Earl was unwilling to interfere in the in-
ternal affairs of other countries—the Noble Earl, who
h.td shared in all the wicked and disgraceful measures
of interference with France, which led to that dreadful
war from which this country still bled, and pined Ind
groaned. Holland preserved peace upwafds of seveiny
years, and yet she had no Alien Bill, although machi-
nations were entered into by foreigners, many of whom
had taken refuge in that country. They did, however,
deliver two of the regicides to Charles 11. who were exe-
cuted. They did this to curry favour with that ungrate-
ful King, who was the only King of England who ever
entered into a Holy Alliance against the existence of
that Republic. This was what they got by their un-
worthy
conduct, with a view to obtain peace. A Noble
Earl had said, that a subject could not be at war with a
State with which his Government was at peace; but
there were plenty of laws of coercion against our own
subjects, as well as foreigners, for entering into undue
machinations. The Noble Earl had said, this kind mea-
sure was all done for the sake of foreigners. The Noble
Earl seemed to have taken a leaf out of the book of the
Noble Lord on the Woolsack, who said he brought out
all his toleration the other day for the good of the Dis-
senters. Good people, the foreigners—site si bona 'mint.'
This measure spewed rather the mains animus against
the poor foreigners ; but, qui fecit peralium feel; per se;
and as he thought this Bill was likely to involve this
country in foreign wars, by embroiling us with foreign
Potentates and Ambassadors,, he hoped this measure
would not be suffered to pass ; for, as a great Poet and
politician had said—
" This country was design'd
To be the common refuge of mankind."
The Earl of LIVERPOOL explained, and contended
that he had always supported this measure on the same'
grounds as now. M. Otto applied to have foreigners
sent out of the country for publications, as every Govern-
ment, he hoped, would do. They refused, saying, the
Courts of Law were open for their prosecution. After
this, M. Otto required some foreigners to be sent away,
on account of machinations against his Government,
founding his application on that of this country, for the
Iremoval of the Pretender from France; and the answer
was, that he was removed in consequence of a specific
clause in a Treaty. As to the Bishop of Arras, and
others, accused of distributing papers in France exciting
the people against the new relig►on, the answer was,
that if it could be proved against them, his Majesty
would deem it proper to take every measure in his power
to get them to quit the country; and this answer was
generally approved of by men of all parties at the time.
The LORD CHANCELLOR could not have any
doubt as to the propriety of passing this Bill, which had
been often sanctioned since 1793. That first measure
contained pains and penalties which none of the latter
Acts had in them ; former Bills being suited to the
greater danger of the times. He contended that it was
not unconstitutional for his Majesty to send Aliens out
of the country. It was part of his prerogative, and might
be unwise or inexpedient, but could not be called uncon-
stitutional. He called on them to consider whether the
same state of things that existed in 1816 did not continue
still to require the enactment of this measure again ?
Their Lordships then divided, when the numbers were—
For the motion—Contents 46, Proxies 34 80
Against it—Non Contents 17, Proxies 18 35
Majority in favour of the Motion... —4s
The Bill was then read a second time.—Adjourned at Nine.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Several Petitions were presented for and against the St. Katha-
ritpl's Dock Bill; against the New Commercial-road Bill; against
Negro Slavery; against the License Duty Bill ; against the Bonded
Wheat Bill; against the Dublin Tax Bill; for and against the Sale
of Beer Bill; against the Corn Laws; against the Irish Tythes
Bill ; against the Window and House Tax ; and against the Hides
and Skins Bill.

Lord NEWItY brought in a Bill to authorise the Commissioners
of Inland Navigation in Ireland to raise money, by way of mort-
gage, on the Tolls of the Newry Canal, for the purpose of carry-
ing on the improvements now going on upon that work.—The Bill
was read a first time.

Mr. HUME presented a Petition from the Synod of Angus and
.!earns, praying that Religious Instruction might be extended to
the Negroes in the West Indite.

Air. S. WOR!LEY gave notice, that on Thursday he should
present a Petition against the Superannuation Act.
Mr. Wo DUN DAS presented a Petition from Edinburgh, against
the Assessed Tazei; and several Petitions from Edinburgh, against
the Scotch Pour Bill. - _

Lord BINNING presented a Petition from several Officers of
the Co►►rt of Session in Scotland, against the Stamp Duties.
Coionel LESLIE preiented Petitions from different Bodies of
Freemasons in Ireland, praying to be placed upon the same footing
with their brethren in E►►gland.
Petitions were presented against the Beer Duties Bill, from the
Itinholders and Licensed Victuallers of Sandwich, Leicester, Chel-
tenham, :Macclesfield, hlillerwbite, -Ludlow, and other places.—
Lad on the table.

CASE OF JOSEPH SWAN.
Mr. J. WILLIAMS said, he held in his hand a Peti-
tion from Joseph Swan, who had been a pri4oner