Star.
London, England, 1818-06-06 00:00:00

and they would see the acknowkdr i
"en t Of the mistake into which the Legislature
tri-:.r.d they had been betrayed by their
liberality. I
B; the 7th of Anne, cap. 5, it was enacted that all
foreigners taking certain oaths should be deemed
Litt:nil-born subjects, they consenting to receive
de Sacrament of the Protestant Church. In I
so,bort a period as three years after, in the 10th
dune, another Act was passed repealing the Act
of he 7th of Anne, the preamble of which recited
Gte tnischiefs and inconveniencies of the latter% It
ass true (as had been• asserted by. the • Htinourable
and Learned Gentleman) that the repealing Act was
oct retrospective, nor was it to operate immediately on
the passing of the Bill. But why ? Because the 7th
of Anne was an invitation to certain persons to come
tc this country, who had immediately come in •con-
serinence, and taken the advantage of the Act.—
Wear, hear.)—Did the Gentlemen opposite mean, to
sir, that any thing like this was the case in the pre-
sent instance ? The Scotch Act was absolutely found
cut for the purpose of making that use of it which
had been made. From the period of passing the first
;hen Bill, 1793, down to the present, 1818, re would
2-k those Gentlemen if they ever heard of this Scotch
Act ? liohodx would state that it was ever thought
c.; until recently. It was almost obsolete. There was
nothing, therefore, in the present case similar to that
cited by the Honourable and-Learned Gentle :r.an in
the reign or Qacen Anne. Why should the petition
be referred zo a Committee ? The facts which were
stated in it were not controverted. What would the
Committee have to inquire into ? To the appoint-
ment of such a Committee he should, therefore, ob-
ject. As to the merit of the clause, that was a diffe-
rnt question, on which he had formed his opinion,
T *‘iiir such opinion he would forbear from trou-
-1 'he House at that time, reserving himself (if he
rind it at all necessary to address the House on
il;o %iibyvt) for the time when that question should
b:di,tinctly before them.
'!r. IV. SMITH would speak merely to the last
r ;i:it of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman's
'lice Honourable and Learned Gentleman
asked why the Petition should be referred to a
ommittee. his Honourable Friend moved its.re-
• -ease to a Committee for the purpose of having the
t. ir..itiired into. He apprehended that the great
ilyaineat against the injustice of the clause rested
ca its et postfacto nature. There was no doubt that
Pet:rioners had acquired the privilege held out
to them by the Act. That privilege empowered them
imp or. goods into this country at a lower duty
:.:an in their prior character of Aliens. To deprive
r.iera of this right appeared on the face of it to be a
Fr i violation of justice, and an equally gross cession
tae pririleges of that House in money ,matters.—
..:cll an Act could be justified only by necessity, and
a Committee was the place to inquire into the extent
c:thu nezestitv: If it could be proved that the 49
Tzrsons in question were the greatest traitors in the
Icirld. and that the rights they had gained were cal-
, dated to produce inconvenience sers serious, that it
%mid be better to violate the privileges of that
House, and the dictates of common justice, than to
:hem to retain those rights, let it be so. But
Committee was the only place in which the in-
tuiry could be car tied on.
TA: CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did.
irst perceive that the introduction of the clause by
the limns: of Lords was any infringement of the pri-
vileges of the House of Commons, with reference to
Money mattes s. He wished the Honourable and
Learned Gentleman would point out what were the
Alien Duties which, in his opinion, gave to the clause
that character.

Right
Sir SAMUEL RO3IILLY replie‘ that the
Honourable Gentleman had imposed a singular task
on him, and one which he had not' the means of eze-
cating—to point out the particular duties he alluded
to. It was notorious that it was a great object with
foreign merchants in this country to obtain exemp.
lion tram those duties. Would the Right Honourable
Gentleman pledge himself that these were no Alien
Daties in existence?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
is would not take upon himself positively to assert
that thpre might not be Alien Duties. What he had
slid was, that he was not aware of the existence of any.
Mr. F. DOUGLAS wished to make one observa-
tion. It appeared, between his Hon. and Learned
::lend and the Right Honourable Gentleman, to be
pr ilttly uncertain whether there were Alien Duties
aOL In this uncertainty how could the House
te:.clade against the Motion of his Right Honourable
r,;md for inquiry?
Sir A. PIGGOTT observed, that the Right Hon.
Geatleman would not undertake to affirm that such
nings as Alien Duties existed. There were some
Honourable Gentlemen near him (Sir A. Piggott)
tha were perfectly ready to state that they did. Were
public purpose only at issue this point ought to be
ty inquiry ; how mt!ch more so when the
of individuals •_: ere about to be operated upon?
le, hear, hsar.)—Were there no Alien Duties in
City of London? Would the Honourable and
‘3; ned Attorney-General deny that there were ?
..1d the Honourable and Learned Gentleman deny
1 that if an Aliea purchased land he could not
If a natural barn subtect purchased land it
iLis own. If an Alien ptachased land he was
a trustee for the Kiag, and might be dispossessed
time. Now, "'hen the sltuation of individuals,
changing, and their property was subject-
f irlitire, 'vas it the House of Commons in
vas stated thin this violation of right should
witt:lat iticairy, and that by the same
:" priYileo-es sr.auld be alaandoned, of which
sa:l hitherto been tenacious even to pedantry—
^y hal wan hed and guarded with a vigilance
ta their sense of their value? (hear, Gear.)
- in o instances ottotesi by his Honour-
:, :11 Learned Friend of the jealousy evinced by
''•."o el CorinnOnS of any interference on the
ntl..er Ileum of Parliiunent with money
.:e woull me.:r.lon a case Which occurred in
an ' ct parsed by House of Lords,
• relieve an Irish Catholic Officer front the
of the Test Act. which arathed to hial is
a:thong:: they did not attrcn to hi.r.is
was rejected by the House of Corar.:Gr,,:,
~..e7.7:tohttinat on their privileges. Were there no
• ."tetions than these. it would appear to hill-
'34lling that the Houcould • '
• 4 se entertain me cause
us them. But what was the Bill ? He
Ile had trTer before seen a Bill purport.

ing to repeal an Act of Piriiinte— ni, in which the Act,
which it was intended to repeal had not been stated
(hear, hear, hear.) He would ask the Honourable
Gentlemen opposite, whether, in the whole of their
Parliamentary experience, they had ever heard of
such a thing?—,(Hear, hear, hear.) Such had never
been the case, even when the original object of a Bill
was the repeal of an Act; hut the extraordinary pro-

. .
vision under the consideration of the House, was at-
tached to a Bill which had existed for twenty,-five

years, without the occurrence of any inconvenience
from the want of that provision. The other branch
of the Legislator!, however, was in such a hurry,
was so impatient, that it could no tonger tolerate
the Act or Acts (for it knew not which) in question.
It was so intolerant of that, of the nature of which
it was iperant, that it could not pass the Bill with-
out adding to it this celebrated dowse. And what
was this clatise? Did any man know what it was?
It stated, " that any man naturalized, or who might
claim to be naturalized (two very different proposi-
tions), since the 28th of April last," should be sub-
ject to •such and such disabilities. And why since
the 28th of April last? He knew not. Why not
since the 27th, or since the 21st, or since the lst?—

What right had he, sitting there in utter ignorance
of any ground for the proceeding, to consent to de-
prive any persons of propert7, to which they had as
a claim as he had to his own?—(hear, hear)—
good
right had he to visit another with a law de-
structive of his interest,while he failed not to take care
of his own? The Attorney-General had cited several
Alien Acts. He had alluded particularly to one
passed in the reign of Queen Anne, and repealed
three years afterwards. But though repealed in three
years, it had been enjoyed for three years. It had
been enjoyed until the Legislature thought fit on
adequate grounds to repeal it. In the Acts respect-
ing Aliens settling in our Colonies, the Legislature
acted with due deliberation. As to the number of
persons concerned, of what importance was it to tell
him that there were only forty-nine ? Were there but
one, hit rightsat ought to be sacredly respected.—
The law to be abrogated had existed so long
without inconvenience—the Constitution had not been
endangered, no conspiracy had been proved against
these individuals. Why then were they to be deprived
of their rights? He utterly denied the assertion of
the Honourable 'and Learned Gentleman, that the
right stood on the Scotch Act of Parliament. Five
Acts of the English Act of Parliament had given to
the subscribers to the Bank of Scotland, as that Bank
increased in capital, all the privileges to which the
subscribers to the Bank, when it was originally insti-
tuted, with a capital of 100,0001. were intitled.
Mr. CANNING said, that he rose to address him-
self solely to the last argument made use of by the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman (Sir Samuel Romilly),
not that the whole of his speech was not highly
worthy of the consideration of the House, but be-
cause a decision on that point in one way or another,
would entirely settle the question. It had been con-
tended by the Honourable and Learned Gentleman,
that the agreeing to the amendment made, by the
Lords in 'the Alien Bill, would be interfering with
the Privileges of the House. On a .point Kt-distinctly
established as was that of the Privileges of the House,
he certainly wished to give such a vote as should not
interfere with them ; and if he found that the amend-
ments of the Lords really interfered with these privi-
leges, that circumstance should govern his vote on
the present question. As the opinion of the Speaker
from the Chair would put an end to the whole de-
bate, he was anxious to hear that opinion.

Mr. SPEAKER said—" As this question is now
prat to me very unexpectedly, and I have not had
time to direct my attention to the particular matter in
issue, I must beg the House to favour me with their
indulgence, while I state my general view of this
subject (hear, hear.)—l take the, unquestionable rule
of this House to have been, not to permit the other
House of Parliament to impose any duties on the
people; and not only this, but that they will prevent
them from meddling •in any way with Bills that are
generally called money Bills. As I recollect, there
are duties which attach to aliens as traders ; and if

that be so, it would seem that the clause offered by
the Lords is to re-impose a penalty in the way of for-
feiture. In that way; I confess that th 3 clause does
seem to me to affect that jealous regard which has
been always entertained for the rights and privileges
of this House. At the same time I mug state, that it

is a very ordinary course for the other "louse to on
Bills for naturalization. Ido not, however,
mean to state that, to counterbalAce the argument
on the other side ; but I should say, that but for that
difficulty of originating naturalization Bills in the
Lords, this clause would fall within the general rule,
and would therefore be liable to objection.

Mr. C. W. WYNNE considered that the circum-
stance of Naturalization Bills originating in the
House of Lords, did not affect the decision of the
present question. A Naturalization Bill enabled a
person to acquire property in this country, but by the
present clause persons who had acquired property
under the existing law in this country, would be de•
prived of that property. A case had been mentioned,
of land in Essex pirchased bran Alien, having been
claimed by the Crown. It seemed clear, that the
clause was of such a nature as fell within the descrip-
tion of an interference with the privileges of the House.
Lord CASTLEREAGH said, on considering the
opinion which had been pronounced by the Chair,
and the information given by the Honourable Mem-
ber who spoke last, he felt there was but one course
for him to pursue, namely, not to press the amend-
ments introduced into the Bill by the Lords— (hear).
Mr. BROUGHAM said, nothing could be more
gratifying to the House, than to bear the Noble Lord
sate so c aididly his sentiments on this subject.
Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH wished to suggest
to his Right Honourable Friend (Mr. Tierney) to
withdraw his motion.
Mr. TIERNEY then begged leave to withdraw
ali n...aion, and the motion was withdrawn.
Lord CASTLEREAGH moved the Order of the
Day for taking int) consideration the amendments
ma is by the Lords in the Alien Bill.
Sir 3.4%.".AUEL RONIILIN believed, that in all
eases when the House of Lords had interfered with
cnoacy matters, the invariable practice of the House
was, to throw out the Bill, and to bring in another
lie spoke with great deference on the subject.
Here the Honourable and Learned Gentleman allud-
ed to various precedents, in which the Houle rejected

whole Sills on itectiiiii itilentithents made in them
by the Lords. . .
Mr. C: W: hid some doubt how fir a Bill,
Which had already passed the House, and irbich was
in no respects a Money Bill, but for the amendment
introduced by the Lords, which brought it Within
that description, ought to be rejected.
Mr. B. BATHURST contended, that a regard to
their privileges called on than to do nothing more
than reject the amendments of the Lords.
Mr. BROUGHAM said, as this was a difficult
matter, it would be advisable to appoint a Committee
to search for precedents.
Lord CASTLEREAGH opposed the appointment
of such a Committee.

Sir J. MACKINTOSH conceived that they were
bound to adhere to the established law and usage of
Parliament. But were there no precedents directly
applicable to the present case, he should on the ground
of general reason, think there were stronger grounds
for rejecting the present Bill than one which came
within the description of a money Bill. It appeared
to him that this was a much more dangerous en-
croachrnent on their privileges. If a design rcally
were entertained by the other House to infringe on
their privileges, what would be the course they would
pursue ? Why, surely, by the insertion of grants of
money in a place where it would not be suspected.
He understood there was a case in point in 1813. A
Militia Bill was sent up to the Lords, where it un-
derwent several amendments, and among others an
entire clause was inserted, which was considered a
money clause by the House, and the Bill was rejected.
After a few words from Mr. C. W. W] NN and Mr.
B. BATHCRST, the Athendments of the Lords were
taken into consideration, and rejected.
Lord CASTLEREAGH then moved a Committee
to draw up reasons, to be offered to the Lords in a
conference for their disagreeing with the Amend-
ments made by them in the Alien Bill.
The Committee was named, and ordered to meet
forthwith in the Speaker's Chamber.
The Report of the Committee was shortly after-
wards presented, and certain Members were appointed
to carry on the conf,:rence with the Lords.

MISREPRESENTATION.

Mr. PROTHEROE complained of the way in which
lists of the majority and minority had been printed,
in some of the Papers, on the division on the late mo-
tion of Mr. Brougham, for an Address to the Crown.
The majority, of which he was one, were represented
as the persons who had voted against any inquiry
into the abuses in Charitable Institutions for the Edu-
cation of the Poor. This was a malicious misrepre-
sentation, as was evident from the nature of the mo-
tion. 'He could assure the Honourable and Learned
Gentleman (Mr. Brougham) that he was as ardently
desirous of seeing a full inquiry take place into those
abuses as any man; and the reason why he voted
against his motion was, that he thought it likely to
impede or injure the great object Ile had in view.—
, He did not mean to take any further notice of the

BROUGHAM expressed much satisfaction at
the humanity and candour of he Honourable Gen-
tleman, in not having made any motion on the sub-
ject. He must at the same time confirm the Ho-
nourable Member's statement. The majority had not
voted against inquiry ; but what he conceived to have
given rice to the mistake was, that althouvli the mo-
tion was for an Address; to inquire into die state of
Education, the debate was chiefly upon the subject of

inquiry into all the Charities ; and it was understood,
that the same majority would have voted against his
second motion for inquiry into all Charities, if he had,
pressed it to a division. it lie could have hoped that
a majority would have supported that motion, be
would have divided the 'louse. The motives for op-
posing his motions, he knew, were prudential, *or,
hear), and he hoped the whole House would be dis-
posed to go along with him next Session.

Lie •
2 COM:
eilru
;arson
o-ld.
(elate,
votild
House
!itr.v
the Cc
Spiry
Tu.
!Inc
the 1,
ileac
Leant
Alien
i that
Sir
How
en Lin
catini
to. I
foteig
lion 11
Gentl
Dole
Th
• he n 7
tat
aU
tr
tau
Si
Geal
a tainl
c Hen
n, tla
h. 27J
ze:
rg.
•e
e
a
I. a
.)
(
IV •
IN
ri
.1,
u . •
Q.
ti.
I
St
It
(31
,'h
of
.•
b
ssa•
.111
lc' •
atu