Star.
London, England, 1818-05-20 00:00:00

had been settled that ourAnsbassadors abroad should
give no passports to individuals who had not first ob-
tained one from their own -Governments. If those
regulations still existed, he did not wonder that few
persons had been sent out of the country. He under
sfood that it was customary for many foreigners to
apply to this Government to kilt'st whether they
should be allowed to reside' amongst us if, they came.
over? He wished to know with whomAt stand so di-
cide who were proper persons to be admitted ? If it:
was with the Noble Lord at the head of the Foreign
Department, he had no difficulty in stating that he
was the most improper person to form such a deci-
sion, for that Noble Lord was the greatest dupe in
existence, and if he were not satisfied with the appel-
lation of dupe, be must rest contented whh a harsher

term. The House were told that the same reasons
which had originally led to the passing of the Bill
still existed ; but was there any comparison between
the stormy period of the French Revolution and the
present ? He lamented the degradation of character
which such a measure would inflict on the country.

He thought that it was stipulated in the Treaty Of
the Holy Aliance, that our Police should be submit-
ted to the police of the arbitrary Governments of
Europe, and he bad no doubt that it was in the
power of the French, Spanish, or 4ussian Ministers
to come to the Fogign Office, and claim as a part,
the continuation oracle Alien He then alluded
to the case of Mr. Befort, who had been sent out of
the country as one of peculiar hardship, and conclu.!
ded by opposing the motion. •
Mr. ELLISON defended the Noble Lord 'at the
head of the Foreign Department, who was entitled
to pstblic gratitude for his great services, and for
having 'terminated the most tremendous contest, in
which this country had been engaged, by a glorious
and advantagequs peace. He considered Ministers
justified, from iheirtOnduct„.in being again entrusted
with the pOsters of the propeird measure.
Mr. BATHURST contended, that the causes
which induced the House to pass this Bill since the
war, continued to exist. It was . very different to
receive incendiaries who were still forming new in-
trigues to disturb the world; or to welcome peaceful
artisans, driven, as in a former age, from their homes
by religious persecution. Unless the House were
convinced that none of the former dangerous men
remained, there were sufficient grounds to renew the
Bill, which would not be exercised against the known
hospitality of this country, except in cases of neces-
sky. As to the objection of the Hon. Gentleman
that the measure had prevented many persons from
coming to this country, that was the very object of
.the Bill. It was intended to deter the mischievous,
and to shew that none but the peaceful and the in-
dustrious would be welcome. As to Mr. Befort, he
had first come to this country as a picture dealer.—
Having been found guilty Of practices which endan-
gered the security of ,the country, a passport had
given him at his awl request, on condition that
he should never =min to.ehia country. He had since
returned several thigh' and had- at last,-been sent
away under" the provlsieris of the Alien Bill. The
Right Hon. Gentleman then stated positively, that
the introduction of the measure had not been under-
taken at the suggestion of any Foreign Minister.
But until the effect of the late revolutions had com-
pletely ceased, it would not be proper to suffer French
Refugees to settle-here, without giving to Govern-
ment some controul over them.
Mr. LYTTLETON defended the conduct of Mr.
Befort. He did not mean to deny that Government
had the right of sending him away, but they ought
to have given him more time. As to the present
Bill, no reason could be given in its favour that
could bear scrutiny. It injured the character and
the interests of the nation, because it not only con-
ferred a despotic power, but one into the exercise of
which no inquiry could be instituted. It was a disci-
pline of slavery to which no freeman ought to submit.
Mr. BATHURST explained.
Sir S. ROMILLY conceived that nothing had been
said since he had expressed his opinion on this Bill,
to induce him to alter.it. Re was not surprised at
the silence of the Gentlemen opposite, for they knee(
that their strength lay in votes, .and not in argu-
ments—(hear, hear.) In the little they had said,
however, they had disclaimed having listened to the
representations of foreign Governments ; but when
they came to explain, it was evident they must have
done so, for what was the object of their Bill?'
Not to protect this country, but to protect foreign
Governments, by refusing an asylum to those who
might be represented as being hostile to them. It
was said that the measure would only be directed
against bad Men; so it might be if Ministers could
know the truth of the case ; but how were they to
ascertain it? Must they not act on secret informa-
tion, which could receive no proof? As to the in-
dividuals who had escaped from the barbarities of I
Louis the XlVth, was it of Charles the Second, or
James the Second, that they had asked an asylam.?
No, they had sought it in the British Constitution and
what they knew to be the law of this country; and could
there be doubted that if the Ministers of those Monarchs
had been armed with the powers of an Alien Bill,
crowds of French Protestants would have been suf-
fered to find a refuge on our shores ? With respect
'to the protection granted to French Priests and Emi-
grants during the last twenty-five years, it was only
granted to one party and nothing more. For it had
not been extended to those who, after having em-
braced popular opinions, had been driven from their
country by as cruel a persecution as that which bad
been directed against the Royalists. There was a
class which the Bill would affect with the greatest
severity and injustice. He meant the foreigners
who for many years had been settled in this country,
who had assisted in carrying on the war, and con-
tributed to the Property-Tax and all other public
burdens. What crime had they committed to be
thus put at once out of the protection of the law?—
It was said, that if these powers were to be granted,
they could not be in better hands than in those of the
Noble Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Lord Sidmouth.) He (Sir Samuel Romilly) was
against tyranny in any hands. It was not his busi-
ness to pay compliments to any man, and therefore
he said that he thought these powers in very bad
hands—(hear, hear). He respected the private cha-
racter of that Noble Lord, he was ready to acknow-
ledge his integrity and worth as a private individual ;
but the Noble Lord now stood before them as a pub-
lic man, and in that character he (Sir S. itomilly)
could not.give him any approbation. He had neva