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

hon. and learned friend, however, said, that those instances were too remote, and he required a modern example. It was not fair in the hon. and learned gentleman thus to take sanctuary in antiquity when it served his purpose, and to turn it away from him when he could no longer profit by adhering to it. He did not think it was probable, that any decision could be found in Westminster-hall applicable to the question; for if, as he contended, the prerogative were clear, it was not likely that it would have been made the subject of a contest in Westminster-hall. He had never met with any such decision, and none such had been cited during the debate. He was convinced, that if the same test were applied to try the prerogative of the crown in dealing with alien enemies, as was applied to try that which concerned alien friends, it would be found equally vulnerable. With respect to the present bill, did it close the door against aliens? Did it prevent their arrival in this country? He would desire to be shown the part of the bill that would go to that extent. He would inform the House, how the bill dealt with foreigners coming to this country. Let members

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 cer tificate; and then they were at liberty to go to any part of the kingdom they liked best. He ad mitted 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 measure that could be resorted to. It left the people of this country at liberty to exercise that hospitality, for which they had always been celebrated; and England, under its operation, might still be an asylum for the oppressed and persecuted of all nations. the act had not been resorted to, a system of police more severe than had ever yet been known in England must have been adopted, and the treatment of individuals would have been much more rigorous than at present. His hon. and learned friend had argued upon the hardship of denying the accused the benefit of counsel, and of refusing to suffer him to meet his accusers face to face. Now he appealed to the candour, to the good sense of the House, whether, in the nature of things, those privileges could be conceded? The Alien act did not require, that a person should be accused of a precise and definite crime. Its object and policy was, to provide, that the government of the country, if it found that the residence of foreigners was dangerous to the peace and tranquillity of the country, might be empowered to remove them, although they might not be charged with the commis

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 repcated 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 regulated agreeably to the stipulalations 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,

and filled two hundred folio pages. In it, the reporter accompanies the convicts from the shores of England on their passage out, to their landing in the region of their banishment. He then pursues them through their several employments in the public service, or in that of individuals, whether free settlers, or emancipated convicts. He describes the course and objects of their work-the superintendence and discipline to which they are subjected the inefficacy of both towards any sensible amelioration of their vicious and abandoned habits and after enlarging freely on what he conceives to be the errors and abuses of the local government in its treatment of this worse than barbarous population, he recommends the adoption of a series of wholesome, or at least plausible, changes in the future arrangements of the colony, and in the exercise of those extensive powers, which are unavoidably lodged with the governor of such a community, at such a distance from home.

The following are some of the most important results of Mr. Bigg's observations. It seems to be acknowledged, that the severe and stern control, which once distinguished the treatment of convicts, both by the officers of government and by the resident magistracy, has been of late years much relaxed. The increasing numbers, both of the criminal and the respectable population, have been assigned as the principal cause of this misfortune. As the free settlers have multiplied rapidly, even in proportion to the number of the convicts, the public sefety of the settlement is of course less endangered, than at an early period of its existence. Moreover, the convicts

now exceed ten times their original number; at least 4-5ths of them are of necessity permitted to go at large for several hours of each day, and those inhabiting the towns of the settlement, are allowed to congregate when they are not employed at work. It is plain, therefore, that the same degree of rigorous and constant superintendance would neither be supported by the same stimulus of natural alarm, nor could be applied, were it even thought necessary, with the same success as at first. Instead of being landed as formerly, on a desert coast, with only a detachment of soldiers and a band of constables to superintend them, each cargo of criminals now finds a large assortment of old colleagues in vice-a considerable town with all the resources of licentiousness to give play to their depraved and inveterate habits-and a body of free inhabitants fast rising into wealth, that their propensity to fraud or force may not want matter for indulgence. Thus, transportation to New South Wales has ceased to afford the means either of punishing crime, or of reforming the criminal. So large a body as nearly 4,500 convicts of both sexes were in September, 1820, inhabiting in or about Sydney alone; and to show what progress had been made towards a purification of their old practices, the magistrates were obliged to sentence and punish (exclusive of those who were tried by the superior courts) 1,317 of these, or rather more than two in seven!

It would appear that the most powerful motive to industry and sobriety in the convicts, viz. the hope of improving their condition through the practice of these