blishment of the Bank of Scotland, having contained a clause by which all foreigners holding shares in that bank were naturalized in England, a discovery was made of its existence a short time ago, and in order to put a stop to this possibility, the Lord Chancellor moved the following clause:" And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that such persons as may have been naturalized, or claim to have become naturalized, since the 28th of April last, by the effect of any act of the parliament of Scotland heretofore passed relative to the Bank of Scotland, or who may claim to be naturalized by becoming partners of the Bank of Scotland after the passing of this act, shall be deemed and taken to be aliens, not withstanding the provisions of any act of the parliament of Scotland, whilst the provisions of this act relative to aliens shall remain in force." The House divided: For the lord chancellor's clause, 42; Against it, 20.

Lord Gage proposed a motion relative to aliens whom government desired to send out of the kingdom, in imitation of one of fered in the House of Commons, which was rejected by-Contents, 20; Not Contents, 42.

Lord Sidmouth moved that the standing order should be suspended in order that the report of the committee should be received, and the bill read a third time to-morrow. Several lords contended warmly on the opposite side, but the motion was at length agreed to.

On the second of June the Earl of Lauderdale presented a

petition from certain persons who had recently purchased shares in the Bank of Scotland, and who were now threatened to be unjustly divested of their rights by an ex post facto law. Their petition complaining of hardships, was read; and the earl moved that they be heard by their counsel against the bill.

Lord Sidmouth submitted to their lordships, whether, after the discussion the clause in question had undergone, it could be necessary to hear counsel on the part of the petitioners.

Earl Grey was astonished to hear the noble secretary of state, without assigning any good reason, recommend it to their lordships to pay no attention to the application which had been made to them. They complained of the violation of a public right, and asked to be heard in defence of their property and the rights belonging to it. Could their lordships be prevailed on to refuse to hear them?

The Earl of Liverpool said, that clause was introduced on public grounds, and for public objects, and in such a case the claims of individuals must yield to the public good. He could produce many precedents where, in cases of state necessity, it had been the duty of parliament to legislate, without any regard to partial claims. A proposition so monstrous, so unheard of, he believed had never before been made in that House; and if their lordships acceded to it, they would render of no effect a bill which he deemed of the most vital expediency to the interests and existence of Great Britain.

Lord

Lord Holland said, that the noble earl would find, if he examined the subject, that this clause in the Bank act did not creep in by the Union unnoticed, but that the framers of the Act of Settlement had it distinctly in view; for they, in speaking of the Act of Settlement on the question of Naturalization, included those already naturalized by any Scotch law. After several other considerations, the noble lord affirmed, that notwithstanding the pretence that had been set up about the balance of inconveniences, this was the principle, if any, on which their lordships ought to legislate. Say what they would, if they refused the prayer of these petitioners, they would sanction a great and flagrant injustice.

The House divided on the question, whether counsel should be heard, or not; when the numbers were-Contents, 12; Not Contents, 22.

On the same day, the Lord Chancellor moved the introduction of a clause by which aliens naturalized by the act of the Scotch parliament, by the purchase of a certain quantity of stock in the Royal Bank of Scotland since the 28th of April, were still to be considered as aliens, subject to the provisions of the act. The clause was admitted with an amendment of lord Lauderdale's, that the individuals in question should be considered as aliens only during the time that the provisions of the act should remain in force.

Lord Sidmouth then moved the suspension of the standing orders of the House, by which it is provided that no bill shall go through

more than one stage in one day, for the purpose that the alien bil might be read a third time and passed. The marquis of Lansdowne and the earl of Rosslyn both remonstrated against this proceeding; and the latter made a motion for an adjournment.

On a division there appeared for the adjournment- Present, 11; Proxies, 12-23: Against it, Present, 31; Proxies, 27-58: Majority, 35.

There were two other divisions respecting the question for the standing orders, in both of which they were carried for the ministers by a majority of 31.

The bill was then read a third time, and passed.

The addition of the clause proposed by the lord chancellor in the House of Lords, was the occasion of a difference between that House and the House of Commons, which we shall comprise in as few words as the case will admit.

Sir James Mackintosh, on June 5th, presented a petition from certain individuals against the clause introduced into the alien bill, depriving them of the privi lege they had acquired as na turalized subjects by the purchase of stock in the Bank of Scotland. This brought into the field seve ral principal speakers on both sides; and at length the Speaker of the House was applied to for the purpose of giving his opinion on the question. He said, that as far as he could collect, aliens on becoming subjects of this country, were entitled to exemp tion from the duties imposed on alien traders, and a remission of the penalty in the way of for

feiture.

feiture. It appeared, then, that the amendments of the other House might in this way be considered as interfering with what was the peculiar privilege of that House. But there was one point which excited a doubt in his mind; and that was, that having stated that aliens, on becoming subjects, were entitled to relief from certain duties, as well as to relief from the imposition of a penalty on the acquisition of property. The natural course of na turalization bills was, their originating in the House of Lords; and so far they might be considered as giving relief from penalty and remission of duties. At the same time he did not state this as sufficient to counterbalance the arguments urged on the other side. Lord Castlereagh, who had at first strongly supported the lord chancellor, now said that he felt there was but one course for him to pursue, namely, not to press the amendments introduced into the bill by the lords.

The lords amendments were then disagreed to nem. con. and a committee was appointed to draw up reasons.

On June 6th the report of the House of Commons being read in the House of Lords, the earl of Liverpool moved that "This House do not insist upon its amendment."

Earl Grey, desirous that the House should take the subject deliberately into their consideration, moved as an amendment, "That the farther consideration of this report be deferred to Monday next, and that the Lords be summoned."

VOL. LX.

The House divided upon the earl's amendment: Contents, 21; Not-contents, 32. The original motion was then carried.

Lord Castlereagh, on June 8th, said, that after the message from the House of Lords, that they did not insist on the amendments made by them in the Alien bill, he found himself under the necessity of calling the attention of the House to the existing law, not doubting that they would agree with him, that it ought not to be left in its present state. The session was now near a close; and considering the whole matter, he was of opinion that the most satisfactory course would be, to suspend the law for a short and limited period, and then every thing that the parties interested might have to submit to parliament might be discussed more fairly than if we were now to begin to legislate. The noble lord concluded by moving for leave to bring in a bill "to prevent aliens, for a time to be limited, from becoming naturalized, or for being made or becoming denizens, except in certain cases."

The measure was received with general concurrence; and the bill having been read a first and second time, committed, and read a third time, all in the same day, it was passed.

On June 9th Lord Sidmouth moved the first reading of the same bill; and though it was not received with the same unanimity which attended it in the House of Commons, it passed without opposition on the same day.

THE House of Commons hav

Ting resolved itself into a

committee on this bill, Sir William Scott objected to the clause which entitled twelve well-disposed persons to build a church and appoint a minister with the consent of the bishop, as tending to disturb the tranquillity of the church by the introduction of dogmatical sectaries, and by infringing on the rights of patrons. It was unworthy, too, in the church to depend upon private funds for its support. He further objected to the language of the clause; the expression "" well-disposed" was loose in the extreme, and bore no certain construction. Their being householders of the parish was no protection; for strangers who did not belong to the parish might join with them; and if the bishop refused his consent, he would be exposed to a degree of odium he might be unwilling to encounter. A clause of this kind could not fail to encounter opposition in another place, and might endanger the success of the bill altogether. He therefore moved its rejection.

The Chancellor of the Exche quer defended the clause, and ahought that the church should tvail itself of every source of as

sistance from private liberality.

This clause, he said, would not

endanger the bill in another place: those who were most interested had been consulted, and/ had expressed their satisfaction. The clause would not introduce sectarians; it mentioned only that twelve well disposed householders of the parish, and others, might build, and have two presentations. As the law stood already, nothing could prevent parties from building and preaching as long as they liked, doctrines the most opposite to those of the church. With respect to patrons, the clause did not interfere with their right of presentation. He could not therefore consent to abandon the clause.

Mr. Wrottesley opposed the clause, as being likely to make a serious inroad on the rights of the established church.

Mr. Bathurst was willing to give both clauses his support, because he did not wish to endanger the success of the bill, but he would consent to them only with some modification. These related chiefly to the possibility that the funds for building the church might be levied without the parish instead of within it; and that the nomination might fall into the hands of persons not connected

connected with the parish: to neither of which he could give his consent.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer observed, that there was not such a difference between himself and his right hon. friend as might at first sight appear. It was to be supposed that the majority of subscribers would be resident parishioners, and a discretion was allowed to the bishop to grant or withhold his consent, as he saw how the funds were raised. He would not object to the use of some words by which the evils apprehended might be prevented. Mr. Peel expressed his entire concurrence with every observation which fell from his right hon. and learned friend. The objectional clauses did not seem necessarily connected with the rest of the bill, and might easily be detached from it, to be made the subject of a separate discussion. The consent of the House ought not to be purchased to an objectionable measure by its union with what was desirable; nor ought the regulation of the latter to be hazarded by being coupled with the former. In the bill there was no description of the kind of fabrics to be raised, and no provision made for their repairs. They might only be of a kind to last so long as the original subscribers had an interest in the nomination of the clergyman.

Dr. Phillimore said, if there was a real want of churches, he had rather that churches were built by sectarists, than not built at all.

He was not for separating the measure from the bill.

Sir M. W. Ridley felt it his duty to object to the clause, and

doubted much if the bishops had a power to prevent the abuses of it.

Mr. V. Fitzgerald regretted that he was compelled to vote against the measure proposed by his right hon. friend; and feared that the bill would be endangered should the clause be introduced.

The House at length divided: For the clause, 22; Against it, 47: Majority against it, 25.

The chairman then reported progress, and asked leave to sit again.

On May 15, the Earl of Liverpool moved in the House of Lords the reading of that part of the Prince Regent's Speech which recommended an increase of the number of places of worship. This was accordingly done, when the same noble earl moved for the second reading of the above bill.

He said, that a measure which was the result of his own investigations, and of the deliberations of those whom he thought it his duty to consult, had come up from the other House, and was now to be decided upon by their lordships. He should briefly explain the grounds on which the measure had been proposed, referring to the returns on the table of the House in support of his statement. The measure now before their lordships, if it did not come up to the wishes of every man, would at least substantially effect what had been so long desired. It would, in its results, have the most beneficial effects on the religion, morality, and general instruction of the country. He then took into consideration the aggravated statements which some persons had [K 2]

made