was introduced into this House, which | fatal; but it was not so in the latter, unwas in any respect a money bill, then if less the amendment was made in the mothe Lords made any amendment, the Com-ney clauses. If such a bill did come down, mons rejected the bill altogether. But it was doubtful to him, whether the Lords had not power to make an amendment in a bill which had passed that House, and which was not strictly a money bill. It would be for the House to determine whether the bill now before them came within the description of a money bill. Mr. Bathurst saw no occasion to throw out the bill altogether; it would be enough to getrid of the amendment which involved penalties and forfeitures. with the clauses amended, the course was to reject the amendment, but not the bill sent up. He begged leave to call the attention of the House to one case among the others that bore on the present. A militia bill was sent up to the other House in 1813, containing, among other amendments, the insertion of an entire clause, which was on the second reading here rejected. A conference was held-the reason of rejection was clear, namely, that the Commons could not agree to an alter tion, at the conference, the clause was said to be inadmissible-first, as being unnecessary-and the managers added, the Commons decline offering any other reasons at present. He apprehended such was the usual course. Mr. Brougham said, that as there seem-ation in a money bill; but in the explanaed to be some difficulty in this matter, as far as regarded the privileges of the House, and the property of individuals, and different opinions had been given, they should not proceed too hastily. There could be no inconvenience in deferring the subject till to-morrow, and in the mean time a committee might be appointed to search for precedents. The Lord's Amendments were then disagreed to nem. con. and, on the motion of lord Castlereagh, a Committee was apLord Castlereagh said, there appeared pointed to draw up Reasons. The said to be no serious doubt as to the clause Reasons were afterwards reported and being an inroad on their privileges, and agreed to; and Mr. Bathurst was directed postponement might lead to the supposito desire a Conference with the Lords. tion that doubt did exist. When the bill was sent up to the Lords, it was not a money bill; the Lords had added a clause to it, imposing penalties on the subject; the Commons dissented from the clause, but that furnished no reason for destroying the whole bill. The objectionable part might be removed by a conference. 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 encroachment on their privileges. If a design really 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. The Speaker said, that nothing was better established than the distinction between money bills, and bills with money clauses. In the former, any the slightest amendment by the Lords, excepting the correction of an error in the printing, was HOUSE OF LORDS. Saturday, June 6. ALIEN BILL.] The Marquis of Lansdowne reported that the managers of the Lords had attended the managers of the Commons, and that lord Binning, on the part of the managers of the Commons, had delivered to them the Alien bill, and had stated at the same time, that the Commons disagreed to an amendment made by their lordships to that bill. The Commons declined giving any reason for that disagreement, except that they considered their lordships amendment was inexpedient. Upon this report being read, the earl of Liverpool moved, that "This House do not insist upon its amendment." Earl Grey expressed his surprise at the manner in which the report had been received. The bill in question had been sent down from that House to the Commons, with a clause which had been introduced, with an express allegation that it was indispensable to give the bill effect, and their lordships were called upon, so important was the clause considered, to dispense with their usual forms in order that it might be passed with the greater celerity. Notwithstanding this proceed ing, however, now that the Commons had thought proper to reject the clause, they were called upon, without any explanation, to subscribe to a resolution which militated entirely against their former opinions. For his own part, he thought the bill was much improved by the omission of this clause; for he could not help coming to the conclusion, that it was not only impolitic, but unjust. He thought, in fact, that every thing which went to render the bill inefficient would be productive of public advantage. But when he recollected that a majority of that House had agreed to the bill in its amended form, he considered that the preservation of their dignity, as a branch of the legislature, demanded some other course than that which had been taken. The House of Commons had not condescended to give any reason for the rejection of their amendment, and yet they were called upon, without explanation, to abandon that, without which it had been strongly urged the bill would be totally ineffective. The noble earl then proceeded to comment upon the impropriety of coming to this determination in the absence of those who had supported the amendment, and who, to maintain their own consistency, ought at least to have an opportunity of explaining the grounds upon which they might be inclined to accede to this new proposition. With these feelings, and with a view that the House should take the subject deliberately into their consideration, he would move as an amendment, "That the farther consideration of this report be deferred to Monday next, and that the Lords be summoned." The Earl of Liverpool said, that he was not prepared to retract one word of the opinion he had given upon the importance of this clause. Both in point of policy and justice, he considered it necessary to the protection of the natural rights of British subjects. For if it were possible by a trick, such as this clause was meant to guard against, to enable a foreigner to obtain all the rights of a natural-born subject, there would be an end of all their labours for a century past for the maintenance of those rights. There might be different opinions respecting the policy to be adopted in the admission of foreigners to the rights of natural-born subjects: some might be for excluding them altogether; others for admitting them under regulations more or less rigid; a third opinion might be that they should be ad mitted without any limitation. He was not now going to discuss which of these opinions was the most proper for a country to adopt; for whatever course might be thought preferable with respect to aliens, all would agree that the legislation respecting them ought to be consistent, and that one law ought not to be allowed to counteract all the legislative regulations adopted on the subject of naturalization, so long as it was thought fit that these regulations should be continued. Indeed, when the clause was discussed by their lordships, no one objected to it as a prospective measure; it was only its retrospective operation that had caused a difference of opinion. He could scarcely believe any individual existed who would say that a law should be suffered to remain in force, by which any foreigner, however rancorously disposed towards this country, might at the expense of 801. obtain all the rights of a natural-born subject, without taking the oath of allegiance, or submitting to any of the regulations which the legislature thought proper to adopt in passing naturalization bills. This extraordinary act was not known until April last. He would ask their lordships whether any of them supposed the existence of a measure by which a foreigner who had purchased stock to the extent of 80%. one day, might sell it the next to another, and naturalize him also, and thus make the rapid process of naturalization go on without limitation? He was too well convinced of the loyalty and patriotism of the other House of parliament to suppose that they would not apply a remedy to such a state of things. The reason assigned at the conference, that the Commons considered the amendment in the bill inexpedient, warranted the supposition he had made. This expression of their sentiments supported the opinion, that they would have no objection to accomplish the same object in another way. He had no doubt that the objection of the Commons did not apply to the clause substantially, but to its introduction into this particular bill. He therefore thought that a distinct measure, having the same object, would be approved both by their lordships and elsewhere. On that ground he had recommended to their lordships not to insist upon their amendments. Lord Holland, were it not for the state of humiliation in which the House was placed, would have been disposed to consider the whole proceedings relative ta the clause in question, rather as a subject | knew any thing of the act, that would be was said, that the clause could not be looked upon as tending to an infraction of the rights of property; that the law being long unknown and dormant, the repeal of it could produce no injury to individuals. This, however, was all gratuitous assumption. It had never been proved that the law was unknown; but, admitting this assertion to be true, that was not a sufficient reason for the clause their lordships had been induced to adopt. Ignorance of the law did not protect unfortunate men for breaking it, and he did not understand why legislators, who did not know the law which it was their duty to know, should make their ignorance an excuse for depriving other men of their rights. The aliens who had purchased shares in the Bank of Scotland, held that property by the same title that their lordships held their estates, namely, the sanction of law. The measure which the noble earl had supported rendered foreigners mere trustees at the will of the Crown, and liable to the forfeiture of any land they may have become possessed of. When the noble earl was formerly urging their lordships to adopt the clause, he declared he was quite impatient under the existence of a law, the effect of which was, if acted upon, to give the rights of free-born subjects to any foreigners, without being compelled to take an oath of allegiance, or without an obligation to perform any of the duties of a subject. He was before anxious for its repeal, not only prospectively, but retrospectively; and nothing would satisfy him short of the disfranchisement of all the individuals who had obtained legal rights under the Scotch act, since the 28th of April. Now, however, he was more moderate, he was content to mix a little water with his wine. The retrospective part of the clause, which he now spoke of as a little matter by-the-by, was to be omitted. In fact, the only consistent part of the noble earl's conduct was, his precipitation and impatience. He had been all impatience to get the clause passed, and he was now in an equal hurry to get it rejected. If, however, their lordships must stand in a white sheet on this occasion, he thought it becoming that they should go through the work of repentance with due deliberation and solemnity, and would therefore support his noble friend's motion, for the farther consideration of the subject on Monday. The Marquis of Lansdowne said, that upon a former occasion he admitted that the facility afforded to foreigners by this act of the Scotch parliament should not be allowed to exist. He was still of the same opinion; but he ever thought that, in justice, the repeal of it should be prospective, not retrospective. It would be a great injustice, to deprive foreigners of the advantages they enjoyed under an act passed for many years, recognized by the British parliament, and under which they had acquired property. Foreigners became possessed of rights under this act, in the same way as all other rights were obtained-by law. It was attempted to justify the repeal of this act, upon the ground that it had fallen into disuse, and was quite unknown. But such was not the case. The existence of the law was well known, and though persons not immediately interested in it might not have been aware of its existence, it was familiar to many. The best mode, in his opi- | nion, would be, to adjourn the consideration of this question to a farther period. By that means they would give time for the introduction of a new bill, which might be carried regularly through all the stages in both Houses. What had occurred on this occasion was an addition to the many proofs that the privileges of the two Houses tended greatly to public utility, though their exercise might occasionally be attended with some inconvenience. The Earl of Harrowby saw no injustice in the measure which had been adopted by the House. A law allowing such facilities to foreigners as the Scotch act of parliament did, should not be allowed. to exist. It was nothing more than a private act, passed more than 120 years ago for a local object. It was now brought under their lordships notice for a particular purpose, after having for a long time remained forgotten, and almost completely unknown. He did not blame those who made the discovery of the act upon which the objection to their lordships amendments was founded; but the conduct of the noble lord opposite was most singular; for, after resisting the clause proposed, he now objected to their lordships rescinding it. With regard to what had been said on the subject of the act of 1794, he was persuaded that when that act passed, the tendency of the act of the Scotch parliament must have escaped observation. The Earl of Lauderdale said, that a noble earl had defied any person to say, that he knew this to be the law of the land in April last. He could assure that noble earl that he was well aware of the existence of such a law. A noble friend of his, knew that he had stated to him many months back that such was the law. There was not a single director of the Bank of Scotland, or an eminent lawyer connected with that Bank, who was not aware of it. It was not a mere dormant act, or one merely emanating from the parliament of Scotland. It was recognized and confirmed by various acts of the British parliament. It was so recognized in the 14th, the 28th, and 34th of the king. It was said to be a private act; it was no such thing. It had been long acted upon. Many foreigners had purchased property upon the faith of it, and it would be most unjust to deprive them retrospectively of its benefits. It was as public as any act upon the statute book, but like many others in which persons were not immediately interested, it had not been adverted to. He was well aware that a law of the kind existed, but he did not consider himself called upon to communicate the circumstance, and he was not sorry that he had given an opportunity for proposing the amendment, which was rejected by the other House. The House then divided upon earl Grey's amendment, Contents, 21: Notcontents, 32. The original motion was then carried. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Saturday, June 6. ALIEN BILL.] On the return of the committee appointed to manage the conference with the Lords, lord Binning, on the part of the managers, stated, that the managers on the part of the Lords had received the reasons assigned by the Com mons for rejecting their lordships amend ment to the Alien bill. express clause in the Alien bill, to be set aside: but it was last night discovered and argued in the Commons, that such a clause, having relation to money concerns to the money concerns of the subjectcould only originate in that House. A debate ensued, in which Mr. Canning Mr. Canning rose to call the attention of the House to the circumstance of a misrepresentation, which he might say was unprecedented since he had had the honour of a seat in parliament. This misrepresentation occurred in a statement pur-treated the idea then first started, as abporting to be an account of what took place in the House last night, in that part of the debate on the consideration of the Lords amendments to the Alien bill, where, after an hon. and learned gentleman had objected to those amendments, as affecting the privileges of the House, he (Mr. Canning) appealed to the Chair for an opinion on the question. In a newspaper of this morning there was not only a report of what then occurred, but a comment of a nature which, as it affected a particular member, or the privileges of the House in general, was most offensive, far exceeded the usual latitude allowed in such cases, and could never be tolerated. It would be in the recollection of the House, that when this point of form arose, he, after making a few observations, put a question to the Chair, saying, he was willing to rest the issue on its decision; and it was in the description of the tone and manner in which it was said to have delivered his sentiments on that occasion, and made this appeal, that he thought the House implicated, and he, individually, had reason to complain. In the report itself there was no unfairness or misrepresentation. It stated the substance of what he said, and gave the view that he took as correctly as such reports were generally given; but nothing could be more unfair than the comment which followed, and which described him as treating the objection of the hon. and learned gentleman as absurd, and confidently and triumphantly appealing to the Chair for a confirmation of his opinion, and in expectation of a different answer from that which he received. The words to which he alluded, and of which he complained were these:-" It will be recollected that a clause was introduced into it by the Lords, invalidating the effect of a law, derived originally from Scotland, whereby it was first enacted, that the purchasers of stock in the bank of that country should be deemed naturalized; and afterwards, by the act of Union, the naturalized subjects of one country were in future to be admitted to equal rights in the other. This law, we say, was, by an surd; triumphantly and confidently declaring, that he should be content to put the question to the Speaker, and to be decided by him (being, as he is, the constitutional watchman of the Commons' rights), whether the present was a money transaction at all, within the purview of that law which makes it necessary to originate all such in the Commons. There is such a thing as "reckoning without your host;" and here it appears that Mr. Canning did so reckon; for the Speaker, thus appealed to, declared his opinion that the clause in question was of such a nature as to render its origination in the Lords irregular and illegal." Now, Sir, (said Mr. Canning) what passed on the occasion alluded to, passed in a House as full as at present, and I can confidently put it to your recollection, and to that of the members who then attended, whether the manner in which I stated my sentiments, the expressions which I used, and the tone in which I made the appeal, were not the very reverse of those here described: and whether any man who heard me could, without doing it falsely, perversely, and malignantly convey to the public the representation which I have read. I can not only rest the matter on the impression of the House, but I can appeal to you whether, from previous communication on the point at issue, I had not good reason, at the time when I put the question, for believing what was your opinion; and whether so far from entertaining a confident hope of eliciting from the Chair an answer contrary to what was given, I had not a perfect anticipation of what that answer would be. It is not my intention to found any proceeding upon this subject. I think it enough to have pointed out the misrepresentation, in order to induce greater caution in future. I am of opinion, that great good must and does result from the publication of the proceedings of this House; but it is not too much to require in those who communicate them to the public, a respect for truth, and an attention to correctness; and it is not to be tolerated, that they should impute motives or represent con |