Star.
London, England, 1820-07-19 00:00:00

forihe Censorship of Press had &sad, the Spit.
nish Ambassador called -on the French Government
to restrain some remarks which appeared in the pub-
lic papers, on the affairs of Spain. He told the French
Government, that by the law for the Censorship of
the Press, the Press became a concern of the Govern-
ment; and that though Spain had no army to enforce
its demands, it could hoist the tri-coloured flag on the
Pyrennees. He did not admire the conduct of the
Spanish Government on this occasion, buthe adduced
it to illustrate the course of argument which might
be taken. There was a view of the question, which,
as connected with the Green Bag, might receive some
attention. He had presented, the other day, a Peti-
tion, which stated among other things, as he thought
correctlyAhat while this law existed, the evidence of
foreigners, in the inquiry that was about tp take
Ile.
would be unworthy of credit—Wear, •hear!)
Ile.. as a Member of a judicatory, should treat
'with scorn the assertion, that such a power pos-
sessed by one party over the witnesses would not be
'aly.,sel It was not only necessary that the power
should not be abused, but that the people should be
satisfied that it would not be abused, and that the
witnesses themselves should know that it would not
he exerted. What equality, while such a law existed,
would there be between the two parties in the in-
quiry ? There was no compulsory process on the
witnesses on either side, and he would not now hint
at the indirect compulsion which one party might
resort to, but he would Flit a case, in the entire igno-
rance of the real facts, in which ignorance he should
be glad to see a prospect that he should die. Sup-
pose a subject of the Austrian Government should
have it in his power to give evidence in favour of the
Queen. He mentioned the Austrian Government
merely because, if anything mean was to he done
towards an individual, the probability was that it
would be done by that Government. Suppose him
to have incurred the displeasure of that Government,
probably for some meritorious act, -for under that
Government virtue was often a crime, and to have
taken refuge in France or the Netherlands, would he,
on the me: e chivalrous desire to bear testimony to
the innoce:,ce of a persecuted Princess, who could
never do him any service, come to this country, the
irritated Government of which might send hi:n to a
port of Austria ? The Noble Lord concluded by
strongly protesting against the Bill, as the mere fact
of its being passed in ISIS did not reconcile him to
its adopzion now.
The Lail of LIVER POOL said, that the opponents
of the Bill allots ed that there was a power in the
country to excliide or to expel aliens. If so, it must
be a practical power, and where could a practical
power reside but in the Crown, subject of course to
the superintendence and revision bf Parliament?—
By the common law, a power unquestionably existed
the Crown—not such a power as that given by the
Bill, but a power to carry into effect the purposes of
Cie Bill by • Proclamation. In support of this posi.
tion, the Noble Earl quoted Magna 'Charm and va-
rious precedents, more especially one in the reign of
Elizabeth. No one doubted the right of the Crown
to send an alien enemy out of the country. To that
right, however, all the arguments grounded on the
evils of arbitrary power, were quite as applicable as
to the right conferred by the present Bill. It was
essential to the very existence of society, that every
State should possess the means of preventing from
coming in, and, on the same principle, of sending out
any persons not being members of that State, and of
course notianving the same rights and interests, pro-
vided their residence was dangerous to the public
safety and tranquillity. This was a right which
die common law gave the Crown, to be exercised
by Proclamation; and if that Proclamation should
to disobeyed, by process in the Courts—(Hear).—
The delay and inconvenience of this course were re-
medied by the Bill before their Lordships. If this
rower were allowed to have been formerly neces-
sary, lie wished to know what there was in the state
of this country, in the state of Europe, or in the state
of the world, which should induce Parliament to ab-
stain front continuing to the Executive Government
the possession of the same discretionary authority?
He submitted that the consideration, whether or not
it was likely that the power would not be abused,
ought tcs form no part of the argument. The rea-
sons which, in his opinion, ought to induce their
Lordships to re-enact this measure, were of a much
more satisfactory and convincing nature. With re-
spect to the argument, that the Bill put into the hands
of Government the power of sending out of the coun-
try witnesses that might be necessary for the defence
of her Majesty on the approaching trial, to this he
would say, even if the object of Government were to
act towards the Queen in the most harsh and unjust
manner, and Gen forbid that such should be the in-
tention of Government, they could not possibly take a
coarse more likely to defeat that object than by enact-
ing a measure which would throw an obstruction in the
v..ty of testimony for the defence of her Majesty.—
TLit Illustrious Individual, no doubt, will have able
Counsel at their Lordships' Bar to state her defence,
to avail themselves of every point, and to dwell on
every grievance. He irould ask their Lordships,
could they suppose any Government that would—
not indeed obstruct—but could they suppose any Go-
-1%.-rumetit that would not, for its own sake, give
every facility to witnesses for the defence to an accu-
sation of such a nature as was preferred against the
(, ueen? As to what a Noble Lord said respecting
individuals who had landed at Dover, he might ask
that Noble Lord whether he would not, at such a
}lace, have been more anxious to appear as a witness
4.7:linst the Queen than for her--(A laugh).—He
!Lord Liverpool) could not but consider that treat-
mmt of these individuals as very shameful. The
Noble Lord (Holland) had thought right to bring
tnarges of harshness and meanness against the Aus-
trian Government. He thought right to stiAmatine
that Government in a manner which it by no means,
merited—a Government, he hesitated not to say,
which, in all its reltitions,wis peculiarly honourable—
eGovernment to which we owed peculiar obliga-
tions. The Austrian Goiernment, during 20 years
of war, reflected nothing buthonour urn that country.
It never submitted but through necessity, and it was
always ready to take up the sword for the vindica-
tion of its own rights, and the rights of others; id-
deed, he might here be permitted to refer to a Noble
Baron who, for a certain part of that war, was Secre-
tary of State, and who moved an Address, the first
Paragraph of which was in' commendation of the
atastriau Government. The Austrian Empire was