against the extension of either sympathy or pity to generous and innocent subjects. What, too, were to be the qualifications of the parties who were to be exposed to its penalties? Were they those against whom the heaviest engine of arbitrary law ought to be pointed? No: they were the expelled, the fallen, the miserable. The strong could not feel it, for, if successful, they defied its power: the triumphant laughed at the edict it could then, fall only upon those, whose fate it was, to fly from a tyranny which they were unable to resist, and who were then to be thrown back, hopeless and helpless, upon the shores of the barbarous tyrants, from whose fangs they vainly thought they had escaped. And by what country were they to be so cast away? By England, a nation once famed for its generous hospitality, and always renowned for its noble spirit of liberty." Mr. Plunkett's answer to the eloquent declamation of sir J. Mackintosh was in a much less fervent strain. "The measure, he contended, was not one of novelty, but was founded on ancient practice, and was in tended to regulate that practice according to the circumstances of the present times. Of the existence of a power to send aliens out of the country there could be no doubt. The next question then was, in what part of the state did this power reside? If the existence of the power were admitted, he thought it must be admitted that its exercise rested with the executive part of the government. The powers of the crown, in analogous cases, were so distinct and clear, that they could not fail to satisfy any person who directed his mind to an investigation of the subject. The allegiance, which an alien proffered to the supreme power in this country, was conditional and temporary; and in this respect it differed from that of the native born, which was permanent. The allegiance of the alien might be withdrawn when he himself chose to quit the country, or when his sovereign should compel him to do so. Exactly, therefore, in proportion as the allegiance of the alien was limited, was the protection afforded him by the crown circumscribed. The terms were reciprocal. If the alien thought our government was a hard task-master, he might withdraw himself from its power; and if, on the other hand, the government considered the alien a dangerous subject, it might compel him to depart from the country. It was the undoubted prerogative of the crown to prevent its subjects from leaving the country, which was done by a writ of ne exeat regno. The crown could also compel subjects resident abroad to return hither; and it was also the prerogative of the crown to prevent foreigners from entering the country without a safe conduct. From the existence of these prerogatives, it might reasonably be inferred, that the power of sending foreigners out of the country was also vested, in the crown. The exercise of the power of sending aliens out of the country properly belonged to the crown, on many accounts. The crown was the only representative of the country with foreign powers. If a subject of this country gave offence to a foreign court, complaint would be made to the crown. If the offence should ultimately lead to hostilities, the crown would have to declare war. His hon. and learned friend had declared himself unsatisfied with the existence of the prerogative. He would not allow it to have existed unless it could be proved by ancient, uninterrupted usage, or by legislative enactments, or by decisions in Westminster-hall. He thought that some answer had been given to the hon. and learned gentleman upon this point on a former evening, when it was shown that five instances of the exercise of this prerogative had occurred in the reign of queen Elizabeth. His If hear it with Christian ears, and refrain from tears if they could! Aliens, upon arriving in this country, were placed under the hard, the iron necessity of giving in their names and receiving a certificate; and then they were at liberty to go to any part of the kingdom they liked best. He admitted that this regulation might be inconvenient to foreigners, but it was not the enormous grievance which it had been represented to be. In his opinion, the bill was the kindest and mildest meahon. and learned friend, however, sure that could be resorted to. It said, that those instances were too left the people of this country at remote, and he required a modern liberty to exercise that hospitality, example. It was not fair in the for which they had always been hon. and learned gentleman thus celebrated; and England, under to take sanctuary in antiquity when its operation, might still be an it served his purpose, and to turn asylum for the oppressed and it away from him when he could persecuted of all nations. no longer profit by adhering to it. the act had not been resorted to, He did not think it was probable, a system of police more severe that any decision could be found than had ever yet been known in in Westminster-hall applicable to England must have been adopted, the question; for if, as he con- and the treatment of individuals tended, the prerogative were clear, would have been much more riit was not likely that it would gorous than at present. His hon. have been made the subject of a and learned friend had argued contest in Westminster-hall. He upon the hardship of denying the had never met with any such de- accused the benefit of counsel, cision, and none such had been and of refusing to suffer him to cited during the debate. He was meet his accusers face to face. Now convinced, that if the same test he appealed to the candour, to were applied to try the prerogative the good sense of the House, wheof the crown in dealing with alien ther, in the nature of things, enemies, as was applied to try that those privileges could be conceded? which concerned alien friends, it The Alien act did not require, that would be found equally vulnerable. a person should be accused of a With respect to the present bill, precise and definite crime. did it close the door against aliens? object and policy was, to provide, Did it prevent their arrival in this that the government of the councountry? He would desire to be try, if it found that the residence shown the part of the bill that of foreigners was dangerous to the would go to that extent. He peace and tranquillity of the counwould inform the House, how the try, might be empowered to rebill dealt with foreigners coming move them, although they might to this country. Let members not be charged with the commis Its sion of any specific crime. About 25,000 foreigners were now in the country. It was known, that in the countries, whence many of them came, revolution was at work. Of the 25,000 foreigners to whom he had alluded, the greatest part, he believed, had come here for the best purpose; he considered many of them as useful acquisitions to any country, and others as flying here as to a place of refuge and security. But on the other hand, he believed that many of those foreigners entertained dangerous and revolutionary principles; and against this class the people of England had a right to be protected. His hon. and learned friend had dwelt at some length on the question how far persons flying to this country from the punishment due to crimes committed in another country had a claim to our protection. But let that question be decided as it might, he thought it would be conceded, that the government of this country had a right to secure itself from being involved by those persons in transactions, which might break in upon our engagements with other nations. This was not giving up the constitution, or giving up freedom, for the same constitution, that had given us liberty, had given us the power of preserving it. The more free our constitution was, the more unrivalled were our privileges, so much the more necessary it was to guard and protect them. It was true, that the moment a foreign slave landed in England, from that moment he was free; he was under the protection of British laws, and entitled to the security of a British subject. But he would say, that, if those privileges were unalienable, they ought to be pre served from being shared with persons cast out of other nations by their crimes, and resorting to this country not merely to avoid the punishment due to those crimes, but to make it the theatre of their future operations. Such a power had been exercised by every country in the world. If it were shown to be inconsistent with the British constitution, then he was prepared to give it up; but he contended, that no such inconsistency could be found, and that the hon. and learned member, who had assumed it, had done so without argument, and without authority. The second reading was carried by 108 Ayes, to 72 Noes. On the third reading, the Ayes were 75, the Noes, 32. It excited little discussion in the House of Peers; but lords Rosslyn, Thanet, Holland, and Gage, entered their protests against it. The relations between England and her foreign dependencies, continued unaltered during the present year. The administration of the Ionian islands, which had always been assailed with much unfounded calumny, was now more than ever the object of dislike to those who had been in the habit of condemning it, without knowing why. The measures which had been adopted, in order to restrain the inhabitants of those islands from taking part in the war between the Turks and the Greeks, were, in the eyes of the hypocritical zealots of freedom, so many crimes of the deepest dye; nor could these sagacious reasoners be made to see, that, so long as England was herself neutral, she could not permit any of her dependencies to side with either of the belligerents. On the 14th of May, Mr. Hume repeated to the House the state ments which he had made, and which had been refuted in the preceding year; diversified with additional complaints of the great expenses of sir Thomas Maitland's administration, and with two or three fresh charges of acts of wanton despotism. This speech was the preface to the four following resolutions. 1. "That it appears by documents upon the table of this House, that the Ionian Islands were, by a treaty signed at Paris on the 5th November, 1815, between the courts of Vienna, St. Petersburgh, London, and Berlin, declared to be a single, free, and independent state,' and were placed under the immediate and exclusive protection of the king of Great Britain; and that, by article 6 of the said treaty, his Britannic majesty consents that a particular convention with the government of the said United states shall settle, according to the state revenues, all matters relative to the maintenance of the fortresses now existing, as well as to the support and pay of the British garrisons, and to the number of men who are to compose them in time of peace. The said convention shall also establish the relations which are to take place between the armed force and the Ionian government.' That by article 12, of the second section of the 7th chapter of the constitutional chart of the United states of the Ionian Islands, agreed to by the legislative assembly on the 2nd May, 1817, and sanctioned by his majesty the king of Great Britain, it is settled, that all expense of quartering the regular troops of his majesty, the protecting sovereign, and generally speaking, all military expense of every kind to be incurred by the states (as far as relates to the 3,000 men therein named) shall be paid out of the general treasury of the same.' 2. "That it appears by returns on the table of this House, that the expenditure of Great Britain for the military establishments in the Ionian Islands, amounted to the sum of 145,023l. in the year 1817; and to 120,045l. in 1818, exclusive of the expense for transports, relief of troops, passage money, and other charges which have not been laid before the House. 3. "That it is expedient, in the present state of the finances of the United kingdom, that the military expense incurred for the Ionian Islands, should be paid from the revenues of those Islands, and re gulated agreeably to the, stipula lations of the treaty of Paris, 5th November 1815, and the convention of the United Ionian states, agreed to on the 2nd May, 1817 and sanctioned by his majesty. 4. "That an humble address be presented to his majesty, that he would be graciously pleased to direct an inquiry into the state of the government of the Ionian Islands, the causes of the general disaffection, and of the numerous arrests and banishments which have taken place there, and for what reasons the inhabitants were disarmed, and martial law proclaimed." Mr. Wilmot proved satisfactorily, that the supposed facts, on which Mr. Hume relied, were complete misrepresentations. As the first two resolutions were mere assertions, he moved the previous question on them; the third was negatived without a division; on the fourth the House divided; when the Ayes were 67, and the Noes, 152. A bill was introduced by the ministers on the 20th of June, to regulate the trade and government of Canada. It consisted of three parts. One applied to Canada those principles of free trade, which, by an act already mentioned, were this year extended to our West Indian colonies. A second class of provisions related to the distribution and appropriation of certain duties between the two provinces of Lower and Upper Canada. The third and most important part of the bill new-modelled the constitution of the Canadas, as fixed by the act of 1791, and was intended to bring the two provinces into a closer union, by incorporating their legislatures, to promote the general prosperity by the abolition of the feudal tenures, and to diffuse the English language, and the spirit of the English constitution, more uniformly among all the classes of the population. This part of the measure was keenly opposed by sir James Mackintosh, and other members of Opposition. They founded their objections not on the intrinsic merits or demerits of the new arrangement, but on the period when it was brought forward; contending, that time ought to be allowed to the people of the Canadas to express their feelings and wishes on the subject. All the merchants of London, connected with the Canadas, petitioned in favour of the bill, and some of those, who usually resisted the government (Mr. Ellice for example, and sir F. Burdett), thought that its provisions were marked by a spirit of liberality highly honourable to those who had brought it forward, and that it ought to receive the sanction of the legislature with the least possible delay. Still sir James Mackintosh, and those who adopted his notions, per sisted in their metaphysical objec tions: so that the ministers found, that a measure, which had been brought forward with the purest and most patriotic views, could not be passed in the face of a most strenuous opposition, except under circumstances which might disturb or alienate the feelings of the Canadians. They were thus reduced to the necessity of separating the bill into two parts. That which contained the enactments concerning trade and the apportionment of duties, was passed: the other, which new-modelled the constitution, was postponed. Sir Francis Burdett expressed very earnestly his regret, that the theoretical nicety of a few of his friends, should have succeeded in preventing or delaying the enjoyment of the great practical benefits, which would have resulted from an union of Upper and Lower Canada, under one provincial legislature. This was not the only instance, in which ministers showed an anxious desire to improve the condition of our foreign dependencies. A commission was sent out to inquire into the state of the settlements of the Cape of Good Hope, the Mauritius, and Ceylon, and also into the administration of criminal justice in the Leeward Islands. Mr. Hume wished that the inquiry should be extended to Trinidad, with a view to the abolition of the Spanish jurisprudence in that island; but he finally desisted from pressing this proposition. During this session, the report of the Commissioners, who had been sent out to inquire into the state of the colony of New South Wales, was laid before parliament. It was drawn up by Mr. Bigg, |