He had already pledged himself to produce papers; and was ready to give every facility to the full elucidation of the subject. Mr. Hume said, he had full confidence in the sincerity of the hon. gentleman, and would agree to withdraw his amendment. The address was then agreed to. HOUSE OF LORDS. might be asked, then, why any special measure was necessary? He answered, that it arose, out of the difficulty of exercising the common law right. The alien bill had not originated in time of war, though war was then thought highly probable in the end of 1792. It had originated in the state of France, and the number of foreigners who flocked to this country. The question was whether, in the present state of the world, it was fitting that this power should be withheld from the executive government ? He thought that one of its strongest recommendations was, that it was likely to prevent disputes with foreign powers. It was a right to be vested generally in the Crown, and it was not directed against any particular state. Looking to the condition of the world in general, to the re at all considering which party was right or which was wrong, it was equally proper that a power should be enjoyed by the executive to prevent this kingdom from being the general receptacle of the discontented. Buonaparte had once claimed that the British government should send away the French princes. The demand was refused; but it was added, that though they would be entertained on the ground of hospitality, they would not be allowed to make this country the theatre of plots and machinations. His conviction was, that as far as the public securities were concerned, foreigners would be disposed to invest their property in our funds, in proportion to the means taken to promote the general tranquillity. The fair question was, whether for the sake of the internal and external peace of the country, this bill ought not to be adopted. Monday, July 29. ALIENS REGULATION BILL.] The Earl of Liverpool, on moving the order of the day for the third reading of this bill, begged to state as shortly as possible, the reasons which induced ministers to propose a coninuance of this measure. He held it as a maxim, that a strong distinction should be drawn between those who owed a natural alle-volutions pending and completed, without giance to the country, and those persons whose allegiance here was temporary, and who owed a natural and permanent allegiance elsewhere. He was aware that the great charter of our liberties provided for the protection of alien merchants trading to this country. But this was a protection granted, not for the benefit of such alien merchants, but for the benefit of this country. And why? Because this country derived great advantage from the trading of those alien merchants, and unless such special protection was granted to them, the king, by his prerogative, might send them out of the country. But if it was the right of an alien not to be sent out of the country against his will, what need of such a provision in the great charter? The exception in this case established the principle upon which this bill was founded. It was a measure in perfect conformity with law and justice, and there was nothing in the Statute book against it. It might be said that this was a prerogative of the Crown, and that there were not many instances of its having been exercised. There was, however, an instance in the reign of queen Elizabeth. The case was that of a foreigner who had been accused of uttering defamatory language of the government. A doubt arose as to whether the language had been used in this country or abroad; the matter was referred to the privy council, who decided, that if the language was used in this country, the party ought to be proceeded against according to law; but if the words were used abroad, then · he should be sent out of this country. It The Earl of Darnley opposed the bill, which he characterized as a most disgraceful and useless measure. Lord Holland could not retire from the House with satisfaction at the close of an anxious session, if he did not do all in his power to resist a bill which, in all points of view, was objectionable: "monstrum nulla virtute redemptum." He had trusted that the new secretary of state for the home department, after he was once warm in his seat, would have felt himself and the country sufficiently secure to have allowed a law so odious to expire. The very terms of preceding alien bills showed that they were grounded solely upon peculiar circumstances, and the ministers who had brought them forward had rested them upon temporary expediency and necessity. The preambles of former bills represented that they were called for by the number of individuals daily arriving in this country; but, at this moment, every day produced a new moan, that the king's subjects were abandoning it in shoals. The noble earl had contended, that the measure was likely to promote peace; yet it was a singular fact that we had been at war during nearly the whole existence of alien bills. He had also noticed, in reference to the present reigning family of France, the use which he had made of the alien bill at the peace of Amiens; but if it had not been upon our Statute-book, the noble earl could have given a much better answer to the then first consul. Buonaparte had complained also of the libellous publications against him in this country; and the noble earl, in this instance, had been able to reply that the publishers only could be punished through the intervention of a jury. Until this inhospitable measure was first adopted in 1792, Great Britain had been able to assert that she was free, and that she opened her arms to all foreigners. Such had once been the reply of the states of Holland, when king William required that Bayle should be banished. Either the prerogative did or did not exist in the Crown: if it did, this bill was needless, and if it did not, it was not to be denied that until 1792 the country had thriven without it. He doubted the applicability of the case referred to by the noble earl in the reign of Elizabeth. If the king were to exercise this prerogative, the proceeding could not be so summary, as by the bill: an interval would be allowed for explanation: the person accused would enjoy the right of making his case known, and appealing to a jury consisting of half foreigners and half Englishmen. In the range of his acquaintance, he had known many who had refused to take up their abode in England, because they dreaded the exercise of the odious powers given by this measure. The case of M. Las Cases was one of foul abuse. Supposing the right to seize in St. Helena on the slightest suspicion, still the subsequent proceedings had been unjustifiable. Being sent 500 miles up the country at the Cape of Good Hope, he had been able, from memory, to write the history of his life, and to record much of what had been taken from him; and above all, the conversations of that great man whom he had long served, and whose conversations would live ages beyond the date when such arguments as those of the noble earl were utterly forgotten. When he reached our shores, not only was he not permitted to land, but his papers were seized in a manner that was little short of downright robbery. True, they had been afterwards restored to him; but in the first instance there existed no more right to take possession of them than to take possession of any British subject's private memoranda. He (lord H.) had not thought it for the advantage of M. Las Cases to have the subject mentioned in parliament at the time. To him it appeared wiser that Las Cases should wait to see whether government would restore to him his papers; which they had since done, and in the handsomest manner. On the last occasion upon which the necessity of such a measure had been insisted on, the ground taken was, that it was required by the then situation of the world. But that situation was acknowledged to have become entirely changed. The noble lord said that this was a measure of protection. If ours were an arbitrary government, there might be some use and some consistency in talking about protection. But he knew of no other protection which ministers ever could have contemplated, unless it were, that after that great and extraordinary man with whom they had so long contended, was sent over a vast expanse of ocean into solitary and unhealthy confinement, it was found necessary to guard against him, in exile and imprisonment, by a suspension of the British constitution-by assuming a power of this extraordinary nature as a security against that great man, of whom he (lord H.) had heard those who loved him least but knew him best, declare, that he was the most extraordinary character who had appeared in the world during the last thousand years. For his own part, he would not hesitate to say, that he parti cipated in that general sentiment of grief and regret with which the intelligence of his death had been received by every admirer of fallen greatness all over Europe. But when he considered the lingering kind of death to which that mighty individual had been condemned (if not by his majesty's ministers, at least by those acting under them), that sentiment of sorrow and compassion was changed into one of a very different character. It was some consolation at least to recollect that they who, either by permission or by One of the greatest writers which this omissions, had contributed to cast this country had ever produced, and who was indelible stain upon the fair fame and a secretary of state also-he meant Mr. honour of the country, would have a Addison-had said, that to conceive that better foretaste in the general abhorrence the existence of the Turkish power in and execration with which the treatment Europe was necessary, directly or indiof that departed and extraordinary person rectly, to our greatness, or that England had been viewed and remarked upon, as was not absolutely interested in the downsoon as the intelligence of his death had fal of that power, was the ne plus ultra been made known of the manner in of absurdity. One of the greatest objec which their conduct would be transmitted tions which he had to the bill was, that it to the latest posterity. This language gave countenance to, if it did not acmight not be very philosophical; but on tually aid and abet the objects of the such an occasion it was impossible to re- holy alliance. He really had hoped that press his feelings. But, this distinguished government would not again call upon a individual was now gone: this "gun- British parliament to pass this bill. Whepowder Percy" was no more; and surely ther we viewed Europe as politicians or the noble earl would not contend that it as philosophers, it was evident that a great was necessary to protect us against his contest was going on between the friends ghost. Of what, then, were they appre- and the enemies of improvement. Through hensive? The noble earl said, the adop- peace and war this contest had for some tion of the bill was the way to preserve years been going on. The advocates for peace. How? was it by exerting great improvement had succeeded in one great activity in order to discover if any French-division of Europe. Under such circumman, while he was walking the streets of stances, it would have become British London, was plotting to deprive France statesmen to adopt and pursue some of the great blessing conferred upon her by placing Louis 18th on the throne? That could not be accomplished without previous communications with the French government, to ascertain who were the individuals suspected-But, let their lordships look at the practical effect of the measure in another direction. Let them consider the present condition of the Greeks. Did the noble earl mean to say, that any Greek who fled to England from the misery inflicted by the Turks on his unhappy countrymen, and who was suspected of being active in the dissemination of principles calculated to rescue his native land from despotism, would be a fit object for the powers granted by this bill? If so, he would declare that such a principle was repugnant, not only to the principles of humanity and justice, but to the immediate interests of this country. He would not enter into the extensive field of discussion which the mention of this subject opened; but he would say, that however inclined he was to the maintenance of peace and neutrality, no man would exult more than himself, at the rescue of those beautiful provinces from the arbitrary power under which they had for 300 years groaned. It had been the uniform opinion of all our great statesmen, that no country was more interested than England in the expulsion of the Turks from Europe. settled plan of honourable policy, suited to so peculiar a state of things. But of all possible courses, that of giving assistance, or, indeed, mere countenance to those governments who set their faces determinately against every kind of improvement, was the most disastrous, the most foolish, and the most wicked. Such a line of conduct would, indeed, confirm the belief entertained by the people of the continent, that the British government was one of the links of that great chain which bound down the liberties of Europe from one end of it to the other. Whether that was so or not, if the effect of the present measure was to produce the belief in men's minds, it was deeply to be deplored, and parliament was called upon to counteract it. Much as he deprecated and detested the various oppressions to which this measure might lead, his greatest objection to it was, that it seemed to form a part of that system to which he had already alluded. He called upon their lordships not to give their sanction, by passing such a measure, to the laying of one stone upon that guilty fabrick which foreign despots were attempting to erect upon the ruins of the rights and liberties of their subjects. The question being then put, that the. bill do pass, the House divided. Contents 22. Not-Contents 6. Majority 16. PROTESTS AGAINST THE ALIENS REGULATION BILL.] The following protests were entered on the Journals: "Dissentient: 1. Because the bill is cruel; for even when not perverted to any improper purposes, it may deter the victims of civil or religious persecution abroad, from seeking refuge under the laws of a free country. 2. "Because the bill is unjust. It exposes all resident Aliens (such even as may have settled here in consequence of no such law existing at the time) to actual punishment without trial; and it condemns even the most unsuspected among them to an evil, greater than most punishments, a dependance on the arbitrary will of one man. 3. "Because the Bill is unnecessary, there being no unusual resort of strangers to this kingdom, and no apprehension, real or pretended, that individual foreigners either possess the means or harbour the design of disturbing our internal tranquillity. 4. Because the Bill is unconstitutional. It creates a power liable to abuse, and unknown to our laws; and arbitrary authority has always been thought to degrade those who are the objects of it, and to corrupt those who possess it, and thereby to lead to tyrannical maxims and practices incompatible with the safety of a free people. Englishman should), and failing, had escaped to America, to have been sent back to London, to be shot or hanged, drawn and quartered, for my patriotism. GAGE. "Dissentient: Because the Bill confers an arbitrary power, which may be employed to promote the views and secure the authority of foreign and tyrannical governments, and even if not so employed, may yet be considered by them as intended to serve such purposes. In either case the measure appears to us injurious to the character and interests of Great Britain, and hostile to the liberties and welfare of mankind. ROSSLYN. VASSALL HOLLAND. HOUSE OF COMMONS. BRITISH COMMERCE-PIRATES IN THE WEST INDIES.] Mr. Marryat rose to present a petition from certain ship-owners of London, complaining that British shipping was not sufficiently protected in the South Sea. It appeared that the governments of Chili and Peru were at present at variance, and each had declared the coast of its enemy in a state of blockade. The vessels of Great Britain were thus placed between two fires; and the consequence was, that many of them had been captured by each of the hostile parties. The books at Lloyd's exhibited numerous 5. Because the Bill is impolitic. It discourages the employment of foreign capital, and the exercise of foreign inge-proofs of the depredations committed upon nuity in our country, and obviously tends to embroil us, with other Courts of Europe, by rendering the residence of any obnoxious individuals among us, an act of the State, and no longer a consequence of the hospitable spirit of our municipal laws. VASSALL HOLLAND. ROSSLYN. THANET. "Dissentient : Because, by this Bill, the Secretary of State is authorized to convey an Alien to any foreign port, and there to deliver such alien into the hands of his mortal enemies-to subject him to perpetual imprisonment, to corporal punishment, to torture, or to death. GAGE. VASSALL HOLLAND. "Dissentient : Because I should have thought it exceedingly hard, had I done my duty, and opposed the invasion of revolutionary France to the utmost of my power (as I have always understood an VOL. VII. British commerce. The Lord Collingwood vessel had been captured and condemned at Porto Rico. The causes assigned for this proceeding were, that the vessel was trading in the South Seas without a license from the government of Spain, and moreover that it was carrying on trade with the enemies of that government. Another great source of injury to British commerce was, the pirates who infested the West Indies. The hon. member read a description of the treatment which a British vessel had received from a piratical cruiser. After stripping the vessel of every thing valuable, and making the captain deliver all his money, the pirate cut and destroyed all the rigging and left her. The pirate, however, afterwards returned and demanded more money from the captain, who not being able to furnish them with it, was dreadfully wounded by their cutlasses, and afterwards hung up to a part of the rigging by a rope tied round his 6 C If our vessels had the same opportunities as the Americans, they would be found equally active in putting down the pirates. Government had made every exertion to protect our shipping. Instructions had been sent out to our commanders, authorizing them to go even beyond the limits which the civil courts would warrant. With respect to convoys, government felt a difficulty in ordering our vessels to give convoy, because it might involve us in wars. This country was only restrained from taking what the hon. member seemed to consider effectual means of protecting our shipping, by a desire not to infringe the rights of other nations, as well as to preserve our own inviolate. With respect neck; but his hands being left at liberty, be contrived to slip the knot under his chin, and thus saved his life. Others of the British crew experienced similar barbarity. He was sorry to say that he understood no attempt was made by the British vessels of war to destroy these pirates in their strong holds, which were perfectly well known to our cruisers. The Americans only showed a disposition to put down the pirates. In many instances the Americans had captured British vessels which had been previously taken by pirates, and restored them to their owners. It would seem, however, that this country was actuated by a different policy. The English schooner Despatch having been captured by a pirate, and afterwards re-to the blockades which had been declared taken by a Spanish vessel, application was made to rear-admiral Brown to have the schooner restored to its original owners: In answer to this application admiral Rowley stated, that he could not interfere to obtain restitution of vessels (although originally British) which had been captured whilst sailing under a piratical flag. This was in direct opposition to the policy pursued by America, who acted upon the principle that piracy and murder could give no title to property. The doctrine of rear-admiral Rowley appeared to be this that vessels captured under a piratical flag became the property of those by whom they were taken. But how would this apply to the case of British vessels captured by pirates, and retaken by admiral Rowley himself? Was it meant to be contended, that vessels taken under these circumstances should belong to admiral Rowley? Which was the legal principal he would not attempt to decide; but no doubt could be entertained which was the most disinterested and liberal. In this case, all nations ought to make common cause, and give protection to each other against the common enemies of mankind. Sir G. Cockburn said, that in the instances in which America had restored vessels, they had just before been taken by the pirates. The schooner Despatch had been acting as a pirate before it was captured by the Spanish ship. Our admiral had no right to interfere. Most of the vessels which came under the description of pirates were prepared with regular commissions from recognized belligerent powers. It was said that the American vessels pursued the pirates into their strong holds. The reason of this was, that the keys lay on the American coast. in consequence of the quarrels which had arisen among the rising states of South America, this country had no right to interfere. Every thing, however, had been done by our navy on the coasts of Peru and Chili for the protection of British vessels. By negotiation alone, government had obtained the release of all British vessels which had been seized, and he would say justly seized, upon those coasts. But the hon. gentleman wished us to imitate the conduct of America. Now, what had been the result of the course pursued by America? It appeared by the last despatches that American vessels had been forbidden to enter Lima. What would have been said if this country had adopted a line of policy which would have involved us in a quarrel with those rising states, the result of which would have been to render them an easy conquest to their old masters? If government had acted in this manner, their conduct would have been scouted. The petitioners appeared to consult their own interests, rather than those of the country in general. The Marquis of Londonderry said, that unless the petitioners suspected the government of supineness, and believed, the admiralty to be their enemies, he thought the best course they could adopt, would be to endeavour to open the eyes of the Admiralty upon the subject. He deprecated the discussions which arose upon such petitions, as tending to expose British shipping to greater risks than they at present ran. The hon. member who presented the petition desired that British cruisers should be converted into a kind of roving court of Admiralty, to adjudicate in all cases where vessels were retaken from pirates. It was said, that this |