that individual was immediately enabled to take undue advantages over any unfortunate alien with whom he might be engaged in any transaction. Would the noble viscount say that he was not himself liable to be deceived? Suppose, while he was walking home that night, he should meet or speak kindly to any indi vidual who owed an alien money, that very circumstance might perhaps afford a ground for ill usage. Such an individual, relying perhaps on the noble viscount's good opinion of him, might whisper insi nuations to the prejudice of the alien. If there were no alien act, the foreigner might set such wickedness at defiance. Conscious of his own integrity, he might boldly meet his debtor, and rely on the laws of the country. But, at present, insinuations of the slightest nature might intimidate the alien to submit to any injustice. When it was urged that these were imaginary cases, he did not like to mention names, but he knew that such things had happened. The late M. De Boffe had expended large sums on an importation of foreign books; one of them was considered to contain matters not exactly agreeable to certain persons in this country. A hint was given to M. De Boffe, that he should take care what works he sold; this alarmed him so much that he sent back the whole parcel, and suffered a great loss by the undertaking. Now, if he who had resided so long in this country, who had friends and legal advi out a case which showed the fallacy of taking the exclusion of individuals by foreign governments as a criterion of character. Could their lordships be induced to place any reliance, either on the decisions of foreign courts of justice, or the acts of foreign governments, in such cases? Were such decisions or acts ever regarded by their ancestors? Louis 14th, or any other despot of former times, found no difficulty in saying, that the unfortunate individuals they persecuted and drove into exile were persons of bad character; but that did not prevent them from obtaining an asylum in England. Their lordships could not, therefore, refer to experience to show that the power given to ministers had not been unduly exercised; for it was a power of that nature which could not be exercised without abuse.But it was not merely on account of the cruel situation in which this bill placed foreigners, by cutting them off from every refuse, it was the principle of the bill itself that excited his most decided hostility. The principle laid down by the noble viscount was subversive of every maxim of this government, namely, that arbitrary power was better than a limited government, provided no actual charge was made out against those who were in power. He had also contended that this bill did not effect any denial of protection to aliens in general; but it did in effect deny them all right and all protection; and when the noble viscount said that the bill had only desperate and abandoned chasers, and knew its custom so well, was put racters for its object, he forgot that the innocent as well as the guilty were equally subject to its operation; he forgot the prejudice it must excite against every alien who came into the country, and how entirely dependent it must render him on the will of every man with whom he had to deal. The noble viscount, too, had laid great stress on the argument, that no abuse had yet been committed. Let us look into this boasted assertion a little. He (lord Holland) held that there was no arbitrary power that was unattended with abuse. The persons invested with such power might have the clemency of a Titus or a Vespasian; they might be endued with the deepest penetration, and the highest qualities of intellectual wisdom, and still the knowledge that they were in possession of arbitrary power might enable others to abuse it. Did not the noble viscount know that to whatever individual he might show countenance or favour, to all this loss and inconvenience, how much worse must the case be with an unprotected stranger! It would be insulting to the House to dwell on all the various possibilities in which such things might happen; but he should relate one instance of the late Mr. Pitt, a man of all others the least disposed to make any ungenerous use of arbitrary power. At the commencement of the late contest, a man waited on Mr. Pitt, saying that he had a fact of importance to communicate, and begged to speak without witnesses; but Mr. Pitt insisted on having witnesses. The man then stated that the government of France had hired a person to assassinate him, and added so many circum stances of the notes by which the assassin was to be paid having been transmitted through Ghent, Bruges, and a variety of other towns, that Mr. Pitt was in the end induced to believe the account. He wrote to foreign ministers, and they, under the operation of an alien act then existing in Flanders, traced the individuals connected with these notes in the establishments of the Flemish bankers. Two individuals were there thrown into prison, where they remained for five years, to the utter ruin of themselves and their families. At the peace, it was discovered that these unfortunate individuals, so unluckily connected with the notes in question, were coming to England to discharge a private debt with the very money in question, and to recover a demand which they had against Mr. Pitt's informant. These were circumstances, these were facts, that called on their lordships to pause before they subjected aliens to the effect of a mere insinuation made against them. He did not blame Mr. Pitt; but he mentioned the fact, to show the mischiefs unavoidable in the exercise of arbitrary power. He knew that the present bill contained a provision enabling aliens to appeal to the privy council; but how could a man appeal after he was sent out of the country?His lordship then referred to the case of Las Cases; who, whether he had offended against the regulations of St. Helena or not, was unnecessarily deprived of his papers when he arrived in this country. The Alien act, gave no powers for the seizure of papers, and he believed such seizure illegal. The papers were afterwards restored; but the loss of them for six or seven months might be ruinous to a literary man, whose subsistence might depend on the observance of his engagements with a bookseller. There was no intention, perhaps, to injure the man, but if he was ill used redress was impossible. -As to the prerogative that had been so much insisted on, and the necessity that there must be a power somewhere of sending aliens out of the country, there must be also a power to hang, but the question was, whether a discretionary power should be vested in the ministers of the Crown. He thought the prerogative did not exist; the general principles and habits of our government were against any such arbitrary power; but the noble viscount had shown sufficiently the spirit with which he was actuated, and had set out by ridiculing all laws that opposed the powers he required, though those laws had existed before, and were sanctioned by, the Union. These laws the noble viscount (who set himself to teach mankind how to legislate on new and sweeping principles) was to repeal, without alleging the slightest abuse or inconvenience aris- "To be the common refuge of mankind," were the words of Waller, the founder of our parliamentary eloquence, and a man well versed in the knowledge of our best interests. He, it seems, was in a mistake, and this country was no longer a refuge for the oppressed, but what Gibbon called one of the cells of the great state prisons of Europe, and completely subservient to other states. What was it that had been accomplished by all the measures and system of the war which the noble viscount so highly extolled? If that system had been so successful as he represented it, where was the danger, or the demand for an alien bill? The noble viscount must either say, that after all the efforts of this vaunted system, after all the blood and treasure that had been expended, things remained just where they were, and the same measures must still be returned to; or, that he had put down all the revolutionary spirit of Europe, but was still so fond of power, that he could not part with it. It was not to abuses that might be committed against foreigners, that the unconstitutional nature of this measure was confined; the effect of arbitrary power was not confined to those upon whom, but extended to those by whom it was exercised. Was there any man whose disposition remained the same after he had been accustomed to the exercise of arbitrary power? After sending out aliens with such facility, the noble viscount could not help wishing for the convenience of the same power whenever he was thwarted, with whatever justice, in any other quarter. The constitutional doctrine was, to consider the evils arising out of arbitrary power in general, rather than instances of special abuses. He should allude to the case of the Spaniards who had escaped into Gibraltar, and who (as he hoped by mistake) were sent back into Spain, where two of them were condemned to death, and one to twelve years in the gallies. The gallant officer who had returned them into Spain received an account that one of them, Don Diego Correia, had written against the English; it turned out, however, that this was not true, and that a mistake had been made in the name; but the result of this mistake was, the loss of the unfortunate Spaniard's property. This showed how any secretary of state might, with the best intentions, be entirely misled. But the greatest objection was, the gross impolicy of the measure. We, whose great object had always been to prevent universal monarchy, were now most unwisely lending ourselves to such a system. It was not an imaginary but a real evil, that all Europe should be governed by one will; and if, instead of one, we had five or six, all agreeing together, the effect of this oligarchy of a club of sovereigns would be just the same. Russia would proscribe one man, France another, Austria a third, and no where would any refuge be found from the power of a despot. The effect of such a system, under the Roman empire, had been well pointed out by Gibbon: The division of Europe into a number of independent states, connected however with each other, by the general resemblance of religion, language and manners, is productive of the most beneficial consequences to the liberty of mankind. A modern tyrant, who should find no resistance either in his own breast or in his people, would soon experience a gentle restraint from the example of his equals, the dread of present censure, the advice of his allies, and the apprehension of his enemies. The object of his displeasure escaping from the narrow limits of his dominions, would easily obtain in a happier climate a secure refuge, a new fortune adequate to his merit, the freedom of complaint, and perhaps the means of revenge. But the empire of the Romans filled the world, and when that empire fell into the hands of a single person, the world became a safe and dreary prison for his enemies. The slave of imperial despotism, whether he was condemned to drag his gilded chain in Rome and the senate, or to wear out a life of exile on the barren rock of Seriphus, or the frozen banks of the Danube, expected (VOL. XXXVIII.) his fate in silent despair. To resist was fatal, and it was impossible to fly. On every side he was encompassed with a vast extent of sea and land, which he could never hope to traverse without being discovered, seized, and restored to his irritated master. Beyond the frontier his anxious view could discover nothing but the ocean, inhospitable deserts, hostile tribes of barbarians, of fierce manners and unknown language, or dependent kings, who would gladly purchase the emperor's protection by the sacrifice of an obnoxious fugitive." Ubicunque esse," said Cicero to Marcellus, "cogitare deberes te fore in ejus ipsius quem fugeres potestate." If we followed this example, we should make the world one vast prison, and be perpetually embroiled with foreign powers. Hitherto we had refused to give up to the vengeance of foreign powers those who fled from their injustice; and at what time was it that we took on ourselves to become police officers to the rest of Europe? When it was clear from the state of things that there must be shortly alterations and convulsions in the state of Spain, were we to espouse the cause of either party? When it was avowed that this bill was to prevent convulsions in France, how were we to say to the king of Spain that we would not do as much for him? He would reply, "Then you espouse the cause of my enemies; you support the standard of revolt against a legitimate sovereign." It was by laws and policy counteracted by the present bill, that England arrived at the pre-eminence she had now attained, and we ought not to violate that policy or trample on those laws. The operation of the present bill would effect a sacrifice of all the advantages we had enjoyed. It would involve us in perpetual difficulties with foreign states, and in a constitutional view, be highly dangerous to the liberties of the country. For these reasons he never voted against any bill with so much determinate hostility as he should do against the present. The Earl of Westmorland said, that if their lordships took a correct and comprehensive view of the present bill, it would be found, that instead of granting fresh powers to the executive, it did nothing more than provide for the effectual discharge of those granted by the constitution to the Crown. There were three aspects, or rather two, since the third was included in the two first, under which it (3 U) was proposed to regard the present bill. First, as it regarded our internal peace; secondly, as it enabled us to preserve the relations of amity with foreign states; and thirdly, as preventing both natives and others, while resident here, from intermeddling with that repose which was the object of the peace. Any one of these considerations would be sufficient to induce him to support an Alien bill, but their combined force he conceived quite sufficient to overpower all the objections which were urged by the opposite side. The great argument in favour of the power of the Crown connected with its prerogative, was to be found in the thirtieth chapter of Magna Charta, which, though meant to curtail the strength of the Crown, was, in his opinion, most clearly in its favour. The history of the country gave repeated instances of the exercise of this power by the Crown. So necessary was this power to the well-being of the state, that if the Crown was not already possessed of it, he should consider the latter fact as an argument in favour of the present bill. Without such an authority we could not long maintain our relations with neighbouring states; for nothing could be more monstrous than to suppose that foreign states could remain in peace with this country while their subjects were allowed to carry on schemes of mischief here against our allies. This principle was an ancient and acknowledged one: all the hostilities of Greece originated in reproaches for harbouring the enemies of the respective states; the war of the succession was occasioned by similar means; and, not to dwell on remote facts, their lordships could not have forgotten the complaints made by the revolutionary governments of France respecting the asylum which emigrants from that country were permitted to receive here. Power, he would allow, was liable to abuse. But what was the fact as to this law? Because three or four persons had been ordered from our shores among more than as many hundreds, who had found shelter, was the character of the country to be impeached, its hospitality decried, and foreigners told it was unsafe to fly here for protection from undeserved hardships? The merit of the measure was, that it operated on the conduct of all: if fo. reigners who came here acted well, they knew beforehand they would remain safe; they acted badly, or intended so to act, they were aware they would be removed. It was said, that the bill would prevent fo reigners from settling among us, and thereby contributing to our population, our arts, and our wealth. Although he was not much afraid of that excess of population which some politicians and writers had dreaded; yet there were certain means of augmenting it which he was not anxious to adopt. He did not wish to make this country the receptacle for every rogue, vagabond, or incendiary, who might think it expedient to resort here from foreign parts. But it was observed, that there was no necessity for the present bill in a period of peace. While he thanked noble lords for the compliment they paid to the peace which his colleagues had made, and which they were assured was likely now to last, he should, at the same time, be glad to be informed when the sudden light broke in upon those noble lords which had enabled them to discover that all was calm, that no apprehensions were to be felt, and no security to be taken, in order to consolidate a peace so recently concluded. Other states, it should be considered, had the power to send away their suspected characters, which rendered the same power necessary here, as otherwise, the exercise of it elsewhere would have the effect of driving the refuse herd of foreigners to this country. These were the grounds upon which he should support the bill. Liberality was a favourite word with noble lords on the other side, and he could not help advert ing to a most benevolent act which characterised their administration in 1806. It would be recollected that a person came over to this country to propose the assassination of Buonaparté to Mr. Fox, when that minister not only at once rejected the proposal with becoming scorn, but caused the first Consul to be written to upon the affair, which occasioned such loving letters, that a negotiation was begun for a peace. Instead of sending the assassin off, as very properly was done, suppose a complaint had been transmitted by the French government, with a request to dismiss him, what would have been thought of an answer like this "We cannot send away the wretch, but we have proceeded to prosecute him, and after two or three terms we expect to get rid of him." Would noble lords contend that a power which had been exerted for the safety of the person with whom we were at open war at that time, should not be exercised in peace, and for the protection of the go vernments of our friends? The Marquis of Lansdowne observed, that the introduction of the present measure was a proof of the mischievous effects of legislating upon apprehensions. When the people became familiarised, and the government accustomed to the acts thus hastily introduced, parliament proceeded easily from one step to another, on weaker and weaker grounds; and it was impossible but that, sooner or later, abuses must creep into the system. The bill before the House had been introduced three or four different times, each time with less necessity, until now, when it was defended upon grounds of general expediency which were totally inconsistent with the nature of the bill itself. It ought to be made perpetual, consistently with the arguments by which it was attempted to be justified. All the arguments of temporary expediency were found to be so weak, that even the supporters of them were obliged to have recourse to the more extensive ground in the end. The noble viscount could not pretend that the danger was imminent; he could show no design which it was necessary to defeat, but confined himself to calling for the measure, in order to meet a vague apprehension entertained with respect to persons on the continent, who had imbibed opinions not consistent with those embraced by the noble viscount, or by a large majority of the people of this country. Such was the only ground advanced in order to justify this great alteration in the constitution of the country. Such were the persons they were advised to exclude, not by the regular institutions of the country, but by an infringement of the principles, and a departure from the practice of the best times. The noble lord had not attempted to inform them, that there were no periods in our history when we were more exposed to the machinations of foreigners. He had quoted Magna Charta to prove the prerogative of the Crown; but it was Magna Charta accompanied with his own explanation. He seemed to have forgotten that sir Edward Coke, the great law authority upon all the ancient statutes, had given an opinion directly the reverse of his, and maintained that the words "nisi publicè prohibiti" applied only to an act of parliament, and consequently that foreigners could only be prohibited by an act of the legislature. But what would they find to be the case on looking to the practice of England? They would find that from the accession of the House of Stuart down to the period when this bill was first introduced, it was not found necessary to have recourse to a measure of such severity. Were not the Jesuits a body against whose machinations it might be thought proper to provide? Yet in the good times of the constitution, no one thought of such a measure. Soon after the period of the Reformation, another society arose, the Anabaptists of Germany, who from their connection with this country were particularly dangerous: yet no one came down to parliament to require that they should be excluded. Even after the exile of the house of Stuart, while there still existed a large party called Jacobites, whose machinations were not without danger to England, the measure was not resorted to. Yet England had not at that time attained to that height of wealth and power of which she was now possessed-she did not even rank in the first class of European powers her rivals were, in general, more powerful than she was, and even under all these disadvantages she relied for her security on the laws of the country. His noble friend (lord Holland) had alluded on a former occasion to an opinion of sir William Temple. liam Temple. That great scholar and statesman, surveying the constitution of the United States of Holland, had said, that one of the subjects which he most admired in it, was the asylum it afforded to fugitives from other countries, and particularly to fugitives from France. It was impossible to suspect him of partiality to the enemies of Henry 4th, on the contrary, his predilections, if any, were on the side of that great monarch. He approved of the general principle of affording protec tion to civil offenders of every denomination. The noble lord who spoke last, had said, that the bill was necessary to preserve our relations of peace and amity with other countries; but we had succeeded in preserving these relations before without its assistance. Besides, he would ask, which of the nations of the world had suffered most from foreign influence? Was it England? Was it Holland? Was it the United States of America? those places in which the principle was most liberally applied, were those which had suffered least. As for America, he rejoiced in her prosperity; but if there was any one any one thing for which he was disposed to envy her, it was the practice of affording shelter to those who fled from political persecution. It had been said, that government had never abused the power No: |