Star.
London, England, 1821-06-30 00:00:00

•

dividuals, who had been oppressed by proiiodings
under the Alien Act ; he particularly alluded to the
case of Madame Montholon and her child, the latter
of whom died, in consequence of not being allowed
to land; and concluded by proposing to negative the
grant altogether.
Mr. HOBHOUSE agreed entirely in what had
been said by his Hon. Friend. He was sorry a Ses-
sion of Parliament should have been suffered to pass
without some attempts being made to pt rid of this
system, which was productive of an impression so
much to our disadvantage abroad, as the Alien Bill
was. He would relate only one instance on this
subject, which came under his own knowledge. He
was at Milan some time since, and, accompanied by
another Englishman, went to the Theatre. Whilst
there, the hat of an Officer of Grenadiers, who sat-
before them, impeded their view of the stage. His
friend requested the Officer to take of his hat. He
was answered with rudeness. An altercation followed,
and the Officer beckoned the Englishman out of the
Theatre. Every one conjectured that a tencontre was
about to take place. How great was their surprise,
then, to see the Englishman in a minute handed over
to a guard, by whom he was kept in custody till the
next morning, and then ordered to quit the Milanese
territories immediately. He (Mr. Hobhouse) having
some knowledge of the Minister, waited on him, and
attempted to intercede for his friend, and represented
the hardship of ordering an individual to quit the
country thus at a moment's notice, only for desiring
a Grenadier Officer to take off his hat. Remon-
strance was in vain; the reply was—" You have the
same power. Lord Castlereagh would order a man
out of England for the same thing under the Alien
Bill."—( Laughter ).—He assured his Excellency that
Lord Castlereagh would do no such thing; but the
impression on his mind was strongly fixed, and not
to be removed, and his (Mr. Hobhouse's) unfortunate
friend was obliged to submit. The Hon. Member
concluded his observations by strongly urging the
repeal of this measure.
Mr. CLIVE, in allusion to the case of Madame
Montholon, said, that the medical man who attended
Madame Montholon's child, gave it as his opinion,
that the disorder with which it was affected was
common to all children, upon which removal would
not have any effect, and, in fact, the child did not
die for two or three months afterwards.
Mr. BERN AL argued strongly against the measure.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY could not be-
lieve the gallant General was serious in his opposi-
tion to-night to this measure. if the gallant Gene-
ral really was serious, why had he not proposed the
repeal of the Bill in an early part of the Session;
and not now come and oppose a grant of money
which was to pay the Officers of the Alien-office for
their labour for the year? An Honourable Member
had inquired whether the Allies had issued any docu-
ment relative to Turkey ? lie could only say, he
had heard of no such document, and he had no dis-
position, either from ambitious views,or otherwise, to
interfere unnecessarily with the affairs of that country.
With respect to the Alien Act, he denied that it had
ever been abused.
Sir J. MACKINTOSH condemned the Alien Act
altogether as unconstitutional and impolitic.
Mr. G. BENNETT wished to know %hat had
been done with respect to a Neapolitan Officer, who
had a command in the Neapolitan Army, and escaped
on board of a vessel on the approach of the Aus-
trians? He applied to Sir William A'Court, who
advised him to come ashore with his son, aged 18,
and that he should be protected. He did so, and he
and his son had been thrown into prison. This Of-
ficer was a member of the illustrious family of Ca-
raffa. This was the treatment which the King of
the Lazzaroni bestowed on his subjects.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said, we could
not interfere with foreign Governments in their in-
t.2rnal regulations. If the King of Naples was called
the King of the Lazzaroni, he was the delight of that
portion of his subjects. He was sure Sir William
A'Court would not have lent himself to such a trans-
action; but he knew nothing of the circumstance.
Lord MILTON said he would say nothing of the
Government of the King of the Lazzaroni, but that
was the worst in the world..
Mr. C. HUTCHINSON would repeat it, that there
was a system of tyranny and oppression on the part
of Russia, Austria, and Prussia, which we ought to
endeavour to counteract. He blamed the conduct
of Government in not allowing the Priest, Bonavita,
%ho attended on Bonaparte, to land in this country,
as hen he came home from age and ill health.
The House then divided—
For the Resolution - 44
Against it
hlsiority - - - - —l7
THE QUERN'S ABSENCE PROM THE CORONATION.
• The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER hav-
ing moved the Order of the Day for the House re-
solving itself into a Committee upon the Duke of Cla-
reace's Grant Bill.
Mr. CREEVEY rose to protest against the whole
of this Bill—(Hear).—He would leave it to such of
his friends as were disposed to give the annuity with-
out the arrears to the Royal Duke, to state their opi-
nions in the Committee; for his part, he would not
give a shilling; and, therefore, in order to defeat the
ends of the Bill, he would move that the House go
into a Committee this day six months. His objec-
tions to this grant were manifold. First, it was not
called for at a proper time, not having been asked
till the end of the Session ; and secondly, the man-
ner in which it was called for, was, in his mind, most
unconstitutional, and if not against the law, was most
certainly against the usage of Parliament—(Hear)
This attempt to annex a proceeding to something
which took place two Parliaments ago, was highly
preposterous, and against all rules of Parliament.—
The Duke of Clarence, as coming to this House to
ask a money-grant, stood on the same footing as any
other.individual; and there was no reason.why the
usages of Parliament should be strained in his in-
stance. The only thing to be said for him was, that
if this House was foolish enough to give away the
public money, the Crown would sanction the grant.
But was this a satisfactory mode of proceeding?—
Whir did not the Crown send a Message to the House
to that effect? It was a compliment which the House
had a right to expect. There ought to have been a
Message ; but this House should never be made the
instrument of favouritism to any branches of the
Royal Family—( Hear, hear).—Ministers, thus pro.-
dtal of the public money to one member of the

Royal Family, had beets guilty of a breach of faith
with another. Had they not promised the Queen
that, like others of her station, she should have an
outfit, and bad they not broken their words with her?
It was the duty of thr House to see that even justice
was done to all parties ; for if the Duke of Clarence
had a claim upon the House, so had the Queen, they
being both branches of the Royal Family. The
House should see the promise made the Queen foi-
-1 filled, before they sanctioned the grant to the Royal
Duke—(Hear, hear).—He challenged the Noble Lord
to produce an instance of any branch of the Royal
Family giving up what had been voted them by this
House, but that of the Queen. Her Majesty had,
with a magnanimity which did her great honour, re-
fused to accept more than £35,000 a-year, though
£50,000 was offered to her. This was seven years
ago, and her Majesty had just as good a right to
apply for her arrears, which would amount to nearly
£105,000, as the Duke of Clarence had for his. It
is true that the Duke of Clarence had refused the sum
0(4'6000 a-year, but he did so from motives very
different from those by which her Majesty was ac-
tuated. He would certainly oppose all favour to one
branch of the Royal Family, while another branch
was not only neglected but defrauded. It was a little
hard that the people should be called upon to make
provision for the Duke of Clarence, while her Ma-
jesty was neglected. In saying this, he did not wish
to insinuate that her Majesty asked for anything.—
He was not aware that she did. Was it right to call
on the people to give this money to the Duke of Cla-
rence, after having taken a large sum to defray the
expenses of the trial of her Majesty—a trial_ to which
the people objected—a trial which they considered
unjust and iniquitous?--(hear, hear).—lt was too
hard, after that expense, to ask a large sum of money
for that Royal Personage, who (he might say it in a
Parliamentary manner) had acted so conspicuous a
part in that fatal measure, which had so much in-
jured the character both of the Crown and its ad-
visers—(Hear, hear).—He wished the House to re-
collect the word; of a Noble Marquis (the Marquis
of Tichfield), when speaking of that trial on a former
evening. Those words ought to be engraved in let-
ters of gold, for the purpose of sheaving the Royal
Family how much they degraded and disgraced
themselves by such public prosecutions—(Hear).—
He (Mr. Creevey) was an eye-witness of what took
place on that fatal and most disgraceful vial, and he
never should forget the ferocious manner in which the
Royal Personage who came now to—(Order, order).
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY put it to the
Chair, whether the words " ferocious manner" ought
to be used in speaking of the Royal Family?—(Year.)
The SPEAKER said, lie was sure the lion. Mem-
ber would himself see the impropriety of using such
expressions. •
Mr. CREEVEY said, he spoke of his Royal High-
ness merely in one capacity—that of a suitor to that
House for money.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER sub-
mine I to the House, that it was out of order to al-
lude to what was supposed to have passed in another
House of Parliament, and to make that the ground
of opposition to certain provisions submitted to the
consideration of the House of Commons.
Mr. CREEVEY contended that the proceedings
of the other House w ere public property a great part
of them being contained in what were called the Pro-
tests which were published by certain of their Lord-
ships. He was, therefore, inclined to think that he
had a right to use these documents. But he himself
had been present at their proceedings, and he had
heard the Royal Duke, acting as a Judge, pronounce
" content," accompanied with reasons the most in-
sulting to one who was, in every respect, entitled to
his esteem as his cousin, his sister-in-law, and as a
Princess of Brunswick—( Cries of Order).—lt would
seem that he was not at liberty to allude to the con-
duct of the Royal Duke, though he was now a claim-
ant on the bounty of this House • but he could not
conceal that the impression made upon his (Mr.
Creevey's) mind by the Royal Duke, would never be
forgotten, not having heard of such a thing before
in civilised society—(Hear).
The SPEAKER said he felt himself again called
upon to interfere. He was by no means anxious to
trench upon the freedom of debate ; but he would put
it to the House whether, if any one commented upon
what happened in this House, they would not be in-
clined to treat it as a breach of their privileges?—
(Hear, hear).—That liberty of debate which they
exacted for themselves, they should allciat to others.
In making these remarks, however, he wished not to
be understood as giving any opinion upon the facts
alluded to—these facts were before the Public, and
the Public would draw their own conclusions from
them. His only object in interfering was to secure
the privileges of this House, by reminding Hon.
Members, that if they claimed exemption born re-
marks on what they said here, they should, in con-
sistency, refrain from commenting upon what occur-
red elsewhere—( Hear, hear).
11Ir. CREEVEY said, that after what had fallen
from the Chair, he should not again allude to the
subject, either directly or indirectly. He apologized
for using objectionable words in the warmth of debate,
and declared that he would now dismiss that part of
the subject with a single remark—that as the People
condemned the proceeding against the Queen, if there
was an opportunity of consulting them, or if their
sentiments were spoken in this House, they would
not vote a single shilling to the man who had been
her principal persecutor—(Hear, hear).—ln this view
of the subject he would accuse himself of desertion
of duty, as one of the People's Representatives, if he
voted for this grant—(Hear).—Having then done
with the expense of the Queen's trial, he had to state
that there was another subject upon which equal dis-
gust was felt by the People—namely, the Coronation.
This idle pageant was condemned in the most unqua-
lified manner, as an expensive and unnetessary waste
of public money—(Hear).—lt might be true that in
theory, perhaps, this exhibition might be useful, as
being the occasion when, as was said by the Noble
Marquis, the King entered into a solemn compact
with his People ; but it was not considered in that
light by the Peoples He asserted that there was no
national sympathy in this expensive celebration, and
what strongly proved his assertion was the fact, that
up to this day, now within three weeks of the Coro-
nation, every one who met his friend asked; would it
really take place? naturally supposing that it ought
not at this season of general distress--(Hear, hear)
—He observed Gentlemen smile on the other side ;