- considered essential objects of British policy by the noble lord; but would the House sanction or approve them? Would they, by passing this Bill, give to the crown the power of banishing from our shores the foreign merchant, mechanic, or artist, whose exertions and industry contribute so much to our commercial wealth and national splendour? Would it invest the noble lord with a power, which he might, in order to protect the policy of Russia, Austria, France, or Spain, exert in sending such persons to the wilds of Siberia, or the dungeons of Centa? He trusted, that before they gave such a power, they would seriously consider the grounds on which it had been conferred in 1793. In the act which was then passed, what was the cause stated? Was it the undefined term "to protect the essential objects of British policy?" No, but to guard against internal danger, not from some supposed extreme cause, but from danger, — actually existing danger. [Here Mr. Horner read the preamble to the Alien Bill of 1793, which stated, that "whereas an unusual number of persons, not natural-born subjects of his Majesty, resided in the kingdom; and whereas danger may arise," &c. &c.] (Hear, hear, from Lord Castlereagh.) The noble lord may cheer (continued Mr. Horner,) but would he contend that any danger to this country was to be dreaded from the foreigners who were now in it? He (Mr. H.) did not call on the noble lord to show that danger might not exist; but if it did, it might be to the Bourbons, not to this country. Then as to the statement of the solicitorgeneral, that the crown possessed the power of sending aliens out of the country, he contended that such an opinion was erroneous, and that the loose opinion of Blackstone on the subject was no authority, unsupported as it was by an express act or by precedent. If such a prerogative of the crown was to be proved, it should be proved positively and not negatively. In 1794, when such great research was used in order to prove that this prerogative was vested in the crown, the only instance of its ever having been exercised was found to have occurred in the reign of Henry the Fourth. It had been said that though the king had not the power to deport an alien, he had a right to order him out of the country by proclamation, and the person refusing to obey such proclamation was liable to punishment. But what was the punishment prescribed in this case? a month's imprisonment, and to be sent out of the country. Undoubtedly obedience should be paid to the lawful proclamation of the king, but in this case the legality of such proclamation might be objected to, and it would not be proved by the punishment of the offender against the proclamation itself. The opinion of Sir Edward Northey in support of this right, he considered in the same light as that of judge Blackstone; it was not supported by authority. [Mr. Horner then contrasted the object of the war alien bill with that of the one now proposed.] The former, he observed, was to preserve the external tranquillity of the country, but the latter was intended to support foreign tyranny. It was in this view the noble lord viewed it, and it was for this purpose he wished the House to sanction it. It was an absurd argument in its favour, to say that it was not likely to be abused, because, unless a strong case of its necessity were made, such argument would go for nothing. But he contended it might be abused, and he would suppose three cases where such abuse might happen. Suppose, in the first place, envoys were to arrive from Holland to sue the Russian ambassador for the debt due from his government; that ambassador might find it convenient to apply to the noble lord to prevent this demand, and the noble lord might discover that it was an essential principle of British policy, to send the unlucky Dutchmen out of the country by means of this Alien Bill. Suppose, in the second place, a body of merchants, the subjects of Ferdinand the Beloved, resident in England, should be desirous of proceeding upon business to South America ; the Spanish ambassador might give a hint that they were friendly to the revolutionary party in New Spain, and the noble lord might politely take the hint, and send these unof fending traders to Spain, to be dealt with according to the tender mercy of the monarch of that country. rence was not impossible, though he did not that it would occur, or that there would be any foundation for his third case; which supposed that some of the persecuted Protestants of Nismes should seek refuge in Great Britain, Such an occurmean to assert with a clergyman, who had formerly belonged to the constituent body at their head: the Catholic French ambassador, perhaps of the Angouleme party, might apply to have them instantly sent abroad again, and the noble lord would have no power of refusal, since, by the passing of this Bill, he would deprive himself of the answer, that the laws of the country gave him no such authority; in such a case, even the noble lord must lament that he had been armed with a measure which precluded him from giving protection, which his own heart would yearn to afford. He (Mr. Horner) said, he would not enter into the question, either economically or commercially, but he protested in the strongest terms against inflicting upon the national character of the empire a lasting reproach by the passing of this peace alien bill. He cared not for the opinions of foreign courts, who might with reason rejoice at the measure, since it was for their benefit it was passed: in truth, the noble lord was lending himself as an instrument to foreign powers in the persecution of their subjects, and in hunting them from one end of Europe to the other. It was not difficult to understand why ministers of a certain character could not vary their measures with the varying circumstances of the times. In 1793, the House gave extraordinary powers to an extraordinary man; and because the present government found the Alien Bill upon the statute book, and learnt that it was about to expire, its revival was immediately determined upon; ministers were determined to follow the steps of Mr. Pitt, and the discontinuance of the act would be an innovation upon their system. What he required was, that the House should no longer allow this innovation upon the constitution; for until the French Revolution no such law was ever passed: he trusted that the good sense of parliament would prevail over this attempt to substitute an arbitrary statute for the common law of the land. [The Bill was read a third time and passed on the 31st of May. On that occasion Sir Samuel Romilly moved that the continuance of the Act be limited to one year instead of two, and after he had spoken,] Mr. HORNER said, he trusted that the supporters of the measure would see the propriety of acquiescing in this amend ment; as he could not suppose they acted from a blind confi dence in the ministers of the crown. He had patiently waited, but in vain, for some explanation from the noble lord, of a law which was a reproach and a stain on the character of the country. Nothing, however, was advanced beyond this, that from mere confidence in the noble lord, such as they knew him to be, they were to depart from the ancient law and policy of the country, and withdraw from strangers that hospitable and generous reception which it had been the pride of our ancestors to afford them. The Bill was a disgrace to the character of the country, and the manner of passing it a disgrace to the character of that House. The House divided on this amendment, when 29 voted in favour of it, and 79 against it. IX. BANK OF ENGLAND. 24th of APRIL, and 1st of May. MR. HORNER gave notice that, on the 1st of May he should move for the appointment of a committee to inquire into the expediency, on the part of the Bank of England, of renewing their Cash payments, and into the means best calculated for effecting that object. He then moved, "that there be laid before the House an account of the nett weekly amount of the Bank of England notes in circulation, from the 9th of February, 1815, to the latest period to which the same could be made out, distinguishing post bills from notes, and distinguishing those under the value of 5." On the 1st of May he brought forward his promised motion, and said, It was a matter of great convenience that he had been enabled to bring forward the proposition which he had then to submit to the House before the bill for continuing the restriction act came under discussion, because it was his opinion, as it had been that of many gentlemen in the House, that when it was proposed to renew the restriction on the bank payments for two years, their attention should be called in detail, and on a specific motion, to the reasons why this restriction should be continued under the present circumstances; and on what principles, or under what motives, it was adopted as a permanent part of our peace system of finance. The surprise which he had felt when he heard of the proposition to renew the restriction on cash payments in time of peace, had been generally felt throughout the House and the country; because if any thing could be collected from the former declarations of ministers, and from the enactments themselves, it was this -that at the end of the war the system adopted in time of war should be abandoned, and that we should revert to that |