§
Page 5, line 26, leave out from the beginning of subsection (3) to the end of subsection (9) on page 6, and insert the following new subsections:—
(3) This section shall apply to any former enemy alien now in the United Kingdom (not being a former enemy alien exempted from internment or repatriation on the recommendation of any advisory committee appointed after the first day of January nineteen hundred and eighteen and before the passing of this Act) as to whom there shall be delivered to the Secretary of State, within two months after the passing of this Act, a statement in writing signed by any credible person to the effect that the continued residence in the United Kingdom of that alien is, for reasons relating to the alien, undesirable in the public interest, and giving particulars of the allegations upon which such reasons are based.
(4) The Secretary of State shall refer all such statements to the advisory committee to be constituted under this section, and the committee shall thereupon require each alien affected to make to the committee within one month, in a form prescribed by the committee, an application to be allowed to remain in the United Kingdom, stating the general grounds on which the application is based, and the answer of the alien to the allegations made in relation to him, and the committee shall examine into such allegations and in the result may—
(5) In granting a licence under this section, the Secretary of State may include in the licence the wife of an applicant and any child or children of his, and such inclusion shall, notwithstanding anything in this section, have the same effect as the grant of a licence.
(6) A list of the persons to whom such licence is granted shall, as soon as may be, after the granting of the licence, be published in the Gazette.
(7) Any licence so granted may be at any time revoked by the Secretary of State.
(8) If such licence is not granted, or if, having been granted, it, is revoked, the Secretary of State shall make an order (in this Act referred to as a deportation order) requiring the alien to leave the United Kingdom and thereafter to remain out of the United Kingdom so long as the order remains in force. The Secretary of State may by a deportation order require the alien to return to the country of which he is a subject or citizen.
(9) The provisions of this section shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other provisions of the principal Act or this Act or any Order in Council made thereunder.
§
The Commons disagree to this Amendment, but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof:—
(3) The committee may, unless satisfied by reports from the naval, military, air-force, or police authorities that there is good reason to the contrary, recommend the exemption from deportation of a former enemy alien on any one or more of the following grounds, namely:—
375
(4) In granting a licence under this section, the Secretary of State may include in the licence the wife of the applicant and any child or children of his under the age of eighteen and such inclusion shall, notwithstanding anything in this section, have the same effect as the grant of a licence.
(5) A list of the persons to whom such licence is granted shall, as soon as may be after the granting of the licence, be published in the Gazette.
(6) Any licence so granted may be at any time revoked by the Secretary of State.
(7) If such licence is not granted or if, having been granted, it is revoked, the Secretary of State shall make an order (in this Act referred to as a deportation order) requiring the alien to leave the United Kingdom and thereafter to remain out of the United Kingdom so long as the order remains in force. The Secretary of State may, by a deportation order, require the alien to return to the country of which he is a subject or citizen.
(8) The provisions of this section shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other provisions of the principal Act or this Act, or any Order in Council made thereunder, providing for the deportation of aliens."
§ Moved, That the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments be now considered.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOWMy Lords, I beg to move that your Lordships do not insist upon several of the Amendments which were made to this Bill by your Lordships, and which have come back from the House of Commons. The Lords Amendments were considered late last night in another place, and upon most of them agreement was arrived at. The only Amendments of importance to consider now are those in Clause 9. The Amendment which was proposed to this clause by Lord Newton received most careful consideration in another place last night, and after prolonged debate and a Division in which the Whips were taken off, it was rejected by a majority of 128 to 66 or nearly 2 to 1. But the House of Commons have not insisted on the restoration of the clause as it was originally presented to your Lordships. They have instead adopted the Amendments which were placed on the Paper during the Committee stage in this House by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Finlay.
The adoption of these Amendments, I think, is a very substantial concession to the opinion expressed by your Lordships. If your Lordships will allow me to take them seratim I would observe on paragraph 376 (a) "Old Age," that no limit is placed upon the age of the applicant and no limit is made as to the age at which exemption can be granted, the decision being left to the Advisory Committee. As to paragraph (b) "Permanent illness or infirmity," that, I think, requires no comment. Paragraph (c) reads—"Service during the present war (whether by the applicant or by any son of the applicant) in His Majesty's Forces or the Forces of any Allied or Associated Power." Therefore, service to any of the Allies during the war—that is to say, service to the Allied cause—will be a reason for exemption if the Committee so agree.
Then, as to paragraph (d)—"Residence in His Majesty's Dominions either from early youth or for a long period,"—I would point out that no definite limit is placed to such residence. It is left to the Committee to decide what they consider should give the applicant exemption. Paragraph (e) is similar to paragraph (c). It reads—"Valuable personal service to this country or any part of the British Dominions or to any Allied or Associated Power during the recent war." That would cover I think service of all kinds, and it would be for the Committee to decide what service would entitle the applicant to exemption. The next paragraph is (f)— "The possession of valuable technical or industrial skill." That is self-evident. Paragraph (g)—"Proved sympathy with the cause of the Allies"—is I think a very important provision. It will permit the Committee to exempt any person who has shown that he has been on our side during the war and it will prevent the possibility of any such person being sent back to his country of origin, to which he has been opposed during the war, and by which he might possibly be caused some hardship.
Then I come to paragraph (h) which is the most important provision in the Commons Amendment. It runs as follows —"The fact that deportation would involve either (1) serious hardship to the applicant or his wife, children, or dependants, or (2) injury to any British interest." I venture to think that no one who does not come under this clause can complain if a deportation order is made against him. Consider it this way. The deportation of any person to whom no serious hardship is caused either to himself, or his wife, or children, or dependants—dependants is a wide term— 377 or if no British interest is involved or injured in his deportation, cannot cause any injustice either to the person himself or to any British interest. Next we have paragraph (i), which is a narrow provision, but it does safeguard anybody who has a natural-born British mother and who wishes to remain in this country.
That is the state of affairs before your Lordships. The choice is different from what it was when the Bill was originally brought before your Lordships' house. The Amendment of my noble friend (Lord Newton) briefly was this. It placed upon the public, or the Government, to notify that any person should be brought before the Advisory Committee. That is to say, it was not necessary, under that Amendment, for the person to come before the Committee unless his case was notified by a credible person. By the Amendment of the noble and learned Viscount, however, all cases will have to come before the Committee, but it does not seem to me that any possible hardship can be caused, and I venture with great respect to think that the object of my noble friend in preventing any injustice being done will be attained by the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment, although I admit that possibly more trouble will be caused to applicants. Therefore, I move that your Lordships do not insist upon your Amendments.
§ Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the Amendment in Clause 9, page 5, line 11, nor upon the Amendment in page 5, line 23, and doth agree to the Amendment proposed by the House of Commons in lieu thereof.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
§ LORD NEWTONMy Lords, in common with many of your Lordships I have listened to my noble friend's statement with considerable regret—a regret all the greater because, as everybody knows, this clause to which we object never figured in the original Bill. It was put in as the result of a bargain—I do not say a corrupt bargain —which had to be driven with certain people in order to settle some obscure difficulty that had arisen with regard to the French pilots. I do not propose to discuss the clause, because it is so well known by this time, but I cannot help feeling a profound conviction in my own mind that His Majesty's Government, or at all events many of the noble Lords sitting on the Front Bench, are in their hearts just as much aware of the folly and absurdity of 378 this clause as its proposers, and I shall be glad to relieve them from the difficulties into which they have got.
I said I was not going to discuss the clause, but in case there is any one here who does not understand what it is I will give its purport in two or three words. Briefly it is this—that because certain atrocities were committed by the German military and naval authorities during the course of the war, an Austro-Hungarian governess is to be deported from this country and sent back to a country which probably is in a state of starvation at the present moment. It is not a performance on which this country or the Government can pride itself, and, that being so, it is not surprising that practically all the arguments in favour of the original clause have disappeared.
Now that all the arguments for the clause have disappeared we are asked to assent to it in virtue of a promise made during the General Election. Who made those promises? The Government did not make them. Such promises as the Government made have been carried out. The promises were made by a certain number of mistaken people who were sincerely, apparently, under the impression that this country was incurring a serious danger by retaining a number of women and waiters. They urged that these people should be turned out of the country. I ask, Is it seriously contended, because a certain number of candidates—numerous candidates—at an election made rash promises, that this country is to make an absurd exhibition of itself in the eyes of the civilised world?
Personally, nobody dislikes more than I do disputes with the other House of Parliament; and I can recall but few occasions on which I have recorded a vote against the other House. I have always borne in mind an observation made by Lord Lansdowne—whose absence I much deplore on the present occasion, as I know that his voice would have been heard on the side of sanity and reason—to the effect that if we are going to indulge in the luxury of fighting the House of Commons we ought to fight on favourable ground. The disputes which have taken place between us and the other House have usually been in connection with constitutional questions, or matters connected with property, and as a consequence this House has always been unjustly denounced as 379 the home of prejudice and reaction. I defy any one to argue that we are animated by any such feelings at the present moment. No personal question is involved in this at all. So far as I am concerned, I am not acquainted with a single solitary soul who will be affected by this Bill, and many noble Lords who are in favour of the Amendment that we inserted are in the same position.
The issue is perfectly plain and simple. It is an issue between what is right and what is wrong; between justice and injustice. So strong is our case that it has brought together the strangest and most irreconcilable elements. We have on our side—I am speaking of those who supported the Amendment—the Labour Party, and, so far as I know, the whole of the Bishops. We have every member of the Tribunals that were set up to consider this question, with the exception of one individual; and last night I had the astonishing experience of hearing the official Leader of the Liberal Party in the House of Commons deliberately and ostentatiously thanking God for the presence of the House of Lords—a thing which I never expected to live to hear.
There will be many people beside the official Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons who will, in all probability, thank Providence for our existence if we insist upon the attitude we have taken. I cannot imagine a fight upon a more favourable issue, and I implore noble Lords not to lose this priceless opportunity of demonstrating the real value and independent opinion of this House. I have not the slightest doubt that if we adhere to our position—I have every intention of adhering to it myself, and dividing upon the question—we shall have the support of every fair-minded man in the country.
§ LORD BUCKMASTERMy Lords, at no stage of the discussion of this Bill have the Government Whips been put on in favour of the view which the Government present. I trust that I am right in assuming that there is no intention to-day to put them on in this House. This House, therefore, is in a position to form an entirely independent and unfettered judgment upon this Bill, and I ask for consideration at your hands for a few moments while I lay before you the reasons why I beg you to stand firm to the resolution you have already formed.
380 In the first place, I think it is right to emphasise again the fact that nobody in connection with this measure has ever suggested that it was required in its present form for the purpose of National Defence. No one says that the present form of the Bill is necessary to protect us against the insidious action of hidden foes within our country. Nor has it ever been suggested that the form into which your Lordships changed the Bill would expose this country even to the possibility of peril. The fact that this has not been suggested is sufficient reason why your Lordships should rest assured that, as far as the matter of primary importance is concerned—the protection of this country from enemies within and without—the form into which your Lordships placed this Bill is abundant and adequate for the purpose.
This is also evidenced in a still stronger way by the fact that the Government, in whose hands there must be information of the most secret and intimate kind with regard to the action of aliens in this country, were so convinced that there was not the least need to interfere with them at all that when they first introduced this Bill they made no provision whatever for removing a single one. That is not an oversight, because no Government could possibly so neglect its duty as to omit to introduce into a Bill a provision which was necessary for national safety and upon which they had such an opportunity of private and secret knowledge. It could not have been an oversight, because the clause—not quite in the form in which it comes before your Lordships now, but in a form very closely allied to it (the only difference being that the noble Viscount, Lord Finlay, has lent his great assistance for the purpose of making more reasonable what I do not hesitate to say was a perfectly irrational and unreadable clause)—is the equivalent of the clause as it came from the House of Commons. It was introduced in Committee, so that the Government had their attention called to the fact that this proposal was made. If there could by any chance have been an oversight in the first instance there could be an oversight no longer. And they put down an Amendment in the name of a member of the Government to delete the clause. That was the then considered policy of the Government, and I do not wish to go by way of reproach into the reasons why that policy was changed. It is common knowledge, I believe, that owing to a misunder- 381 standing which occurred in the House of Commons there was a Resolution passed the adoption of which would have caused a breach of faith with one of our Allies. It surely only was wanted that somebody should come down to the House of Commons and explain that there had been this mistake. It is perfectly impossible to believe that any representative assembly in this country, with the knowledge that there had been such a mistake, would have insisted upon adhering to it.
That course was not adopted. The course which was adopted is one which, I think, is full of peril to legislation in this country. The group of people who had been responsible for the Amendment, which the Government quite rightly disliked, had a private interview with some members of the Government—I do not know with whom —at 10 or 9, Downing-street, with the result that the matter came back, the Resolution which had been passed was permitted to be rescinded, and the Government came down in favour of this clause. It is not unimportant or irrelevant to consider those facts when you form your mind upon the need for this clause. So far as the Government are concerned it is clear that they thought there was no need at all to interfere with the 20,000 people who during the war had remained in this country, and who had never had a word said or even whispered against their character.
In those circumstances the Bills came before your Lordships, and it was then pointed out that the clause really was one which both in detail and in principle was extraordinarily unjust. I will not refer to the details again, because it is unnecessary to repeat them, but in principle it was unjust for this reason, that it called upon a very large number of people, scattered all over the country, to make an application founded upon definite grounds which had to be established in order that they might be allowed to remain any longer in this country. People, some of them learned Judges, one at least a very distinguished member of your Lordships' House, and men carefully selected to form Committees, who examined these aliens in the earlier and later stages of the war, pointed out in the White Paper that they attempted when they began their work to arrange categories. They had not got the cast iron categories of an Act of Parliament, and were at liberty to form their own, and they 382 attempted to arrange them, and change them from time to time as circumstances arose, in order to facilitate their work by seeing whether these people could be grouped within definite lists or categories. They abandoned it because they found it was unworkable. They gave it up altogether and were compelled to resort to what, after all, is the only possible thing, and that is the exercise of a wise, and I might add kindly, discretion in such a matter.
When we come to these new clauses I do not want again to trouble your Lordships too much with detail, but just to show you that I am right in saying that you cannot frame a clause to meet all varying circumstances I would refer to this. Take "old age." There is no definition of "old age," and no one can say what it may be. At some time you will have to fix a limit, and then the difficulty begins. But although "old age" is a reason for exemption, "tender age'' is not. If there were children in this country of a German father who had died, those children would be compelled although they were quite children—am I wrong?
THE EARL OF ONSLOWI would refer the noble and learned Lord to the words "Residence in His Majesty's Dominions either from early youth or for a long period."
§ LORD BUCKMASTERYou think that is sufficient? I should hesitate greatly to say that it was. You have put down old age as a special category, but not tender age, and I should doubt whether the children of a father who had come over here, or children of an alien father born here, would be entitled to say that they were exempt because they have been resident "from early youth or for a long period." It is just one of those things which show how difficult the matter is. Another thing which shows the difficulty even better is this: I take the case here, that if an applicant can show that he has rendered service during the war, or had a son serving, he may be exempted. But suppose a woman can show that she has had a brother killed in the war? Is there any suggestion that she could get exemption? Or she may have had two brothers killed. Can she get exemption?
Or take the case of people who have come back here—an English woman who has 383 married an Austrian and comes back here with her children. She herself is outside the section, because she is a British subject, but the children—I don't know what their early youth may be—must satisfy the Court that their mother is a natural born British subject, or else they have got to go back. And remember in all these cases it is these people who have got to apply. In the case which the noble Earl suggested to me, that of residence since early youth, it is these children who have got to make application. Can your Lordships imagine such a thing? They have got to send in their application and establish these facts, and if they do not do it, owing it may be to the slightest oversight, within two months, no power in the world can keep them here. If by any accident the application is omitted, at the end of two months they must be taken away. There is no discretion left in the Secretary of State or any power in anybody to say they may remain. Go they must.
Then, finally, let me point out this. The noble Viscount on the last occasion suggested that the general clause found here with regard to serious hardship will cover all the difficult cases. Let us just see if it will. My Lords, I still think, in spite of what the noble Viscount has said, that when you proceed to consider serious hardship here the tribunal will consider it in relation to the cases of hardship already mentioned. Otherwise, they will say, what was the use of giving all these illustrations if it was intended that the clause should have this wide and liberal interpretation. But serious hardship must mean something more than normal or common hardship. It cannot be just the hardship of sending people back. If a person comes and says "It is very hard to send me back," that is no good. It must be more than that. I ask your Lordships to consider what that may mean. The numbers of the people still left here are given in varying figures from time to time, and no doubt are increased by the number who, having been originally interned, were examined by the 1919 Committee and certified to be perfectly fit to remain, although they were in a worse position than the people left here, because they were interned. There are some 3,000 of them and they are chiefly men. If you deduct those you have from 17,000 to 19,000 left, and 8,000 of those are Austrians. I mention the Austrians because, I state frankly, in considering the case in relation 384 to Austrians there is no fear of having our minds or our judgments distempered by any recollection of the horrors and the brutalities of the war. I doubt if there is a single member of your Lordships' House who has ever been in Austria who has not come back with the kindliest possible recollection of the courtesy and kindness that he met with from the inhabitants. I have never heard any one make a complaint about the general action and conduct of the Austrian people. If ever there was a case when an unhappy nation had to suffer for the sins of its rulers it is the case of the Austrian people. As between ourselves and the Austrians, speaking as a race, there was no racial hatred, there was no racial animosity, and there was not the most trifling cause of dispute. These people have had to suffer because their rulers went mad. 8,000 of these people are here, and it is a small computation to say that 4,000 of them are women.
What has happened? Has anything happened to cause your Lordships to change the opinion that you formed when the Bill was here before? There is only one incident relevant to the whole question that appears to me to have happened, and that is this. In this interval there has been an appeal issued in our papers over some of the most trusted names in the nation, and supported by a personal recommendation from the noble Earl the Leader of this House, urging people of their charity to help the people in Vienna who are dying for want of food. That is what has happened. If instead of considering these 4,000 Austrians individually you take them altogether, you cannot possibly say they are not to go back, but the Bill has said they are. It is said: "What is the serious hardship? It is only the common hardship of having to go to a country where there is no food."Let me ask your Lordships, what will these people say? They will come and say, "No one has made any charge against us. We have lived here five, six, seven years. We have done you no harm. No one says we have. In our own humble way we may have done you good. We beg of you, let us stay. The conditions in Austria are very hard, and in Vienna the very stones cry out for food. Let us stop." You say, "No, it is a general class of case. We are very sorry. We have great personal compassion for you, but there is the Act of Parliament and we have to administer it. We are sorry indeed that you must go." 385 That that must be the case any one who has sat upon the judgment seat cannot fail to know. Again and again when the judge, if it were possible for him to trust to his own feelings, would desire to do something other than that which the strict letter of the law compels, he is bound to repress every feeling of compassion, and all he can say is "I am nothing but an officer to execute the law. The law is this, and it must be obeyed." And so will it be for anybody who administers this Act of Parliament.
I cannot help thinking that your Lordships will consider that nothing has been done, nothing has happened, nothing can be said, to change the opinions which on similar considerations your Lordships deliberately affirmed before. After all there is sorrow and trouble enough for the world, sorrow that we cannot lighten, and trouble that we cannot take away, and there is no reason why we should by deliberate action add one single bit to the vast mountain of sorrow in the world.
I have only one word to say in conclusion. I am asking your Lordships to exercise your powers by adhering to the opinion that you formed, and to differ from the other House. I know quite well that in past times your Lordships have taken this step, and that there have been severe things said about the course that you took. I do not mention this in the least for the purpose of criticism, or of remonstrating with what was then done. I only mention it lest it may be thought that I am false to my own political history when I tell your Lordships that I criticised, and criticised severely, the action that you took. We may have been wrong in this matter but the reason was that given by the noble Lord, Lord Newton. It was said that your Lordships had looked too carefully to the interests of people who had influence and great position. I will not for a moment say a word upon the justice of the case, but I would ask your Lordships to consider what that case is now. These people have no friends, they have no protectors, there is nobody that can stand between them and the inevitable trouble that must come upon them except your Lordships' House. You are not being asked to-day to support people who are powerful, and people who are possessed of great means and great estates. I ask your Lordships for support on behalf of a people who are desolate and oppressed.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYMy Lords: I should not wish to do anything which would take away the effect of the last words of the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken, words which seem to me must carry absolute conviction to reasonable people as to the broad lines of policy we ought to pursue at such an hour as this. The one point that I wish to dwell upon for a moment is the one that was raised the other day when I was challenged, I think by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cave, whom I do not see here to-day. I then raised the point regarding the application of this proposal to the vast numbers of women who will find themselves under its provisions after having already been distracted by the sorrows and trouble that they have gone through. They will be called upon now to submit to another inquiry and to undergo another investigation. They must find out what they have to do, and they must act within two months.
We were told the other day that if we looked at the Bill we would see that these women were exempted, because they had been before former Commissions, and that they would not have to apply again. But I would point out to your Lordships that in the clause before us now by far the greater part of these women are deliberately and entirely excluded from the benefit of that exemption, because it was at an earlier date and not a later one that they made application to be allowed to remain in this country, and that their cases came before the Commission for decision. The only people exempted under this are those to whom exemption was given by the Committee appointed in January, 1918. I challenge criticism when I say that nearly all the women who received exemption after satisfying the Commission at that time that it would obviously be absurd to deport them will, if this passes, have to go all through this process afresh, because it was not subsequent to 1918 but prior to it that they received the exemption. That seems to me to show either carelessness in the way in which this clause has been drawn in the form in which it comes to us, or a deliberate desire to subject these people to what is really an intolerable hardship in a civilised country. For two years past they have had their position reassured. They have had an assurance that they might stop in this country and make an attempt to earn their livelihood 387 and to do their best, but now they are to be told: "It is quite true that you obtained exemption in 1915 or 1916, but that is no use to you now. You must begin all over again."
Are your Lordships going to take that line either as regards the detail or as regards the fundamental principle? I believe that you are able to fall back upon larger and wider principles than those, the principles which we endeavoured to embody in the Amendment which we carried the other day. Most earnestly do I hope that your Lordships will adhere to the Amendment which we sent down to the Lower House, and I am quite sure if we do so we shall hereafter earn the gratitude of a great many who at this moment, for one reason or the other, may happen to have voted the other way.
§ LORD PHILLIMOREMy Lords, when this matter was before the House in Committee an Amendment was moved by Lord Parmoor to provide that this clause should not affect anybody who had been exempted by any Committee. It was with regard to that that the noble Viscount, Lord Cave, spoke. He anticipated that the Amendment might be passed, and said he saw no harm in subjecting people who had not been before any Committee to the duty of applying now and making out their case. I think the noble Viscount forgot—wonderful it is, because he was Secretary of State at an earlier stage than that—that there were people even more to be pitied, people who had never been before a Committee because their cases had been sifted by the Home Secretary, and it had not been found necessary to put them before a Committee at all. Be that as it may, Lord Cave's speech and his apparent adhesion to the clause was founded, as he deliberately said, on the supposition that the Government and the House of Commons would accept Lord Parmoor's Amendment and exclude anybody who had been before any committee.
This clause, as it stands now, puts everybody, whether they have been before a Committee or not or were not thought necessary to be sent before a Committee— unless they have been before the later Committee—under the obligation of applying to be allowed to remain in this country. I have been accused in the public Press of being a sentimentalist. I almost wish that I could feel that the accusation was just.
388 But I propose to deal with this purely as a hard matter of business. We were told on the Second Reading, if I remember right, that there were 22,000 alien enemies left in this country. I daresay Lord Onslow will be good enough to correct me if I am wrong. I understood there were 5,000; Lord Buckmaster seems to understand that there were 3,000—it does not much matter—who had been before the last Committee. The balance, whether it is 17,000 or 19,000, are now deliberately put in the position of having to apply within the next two months. I will deal in a moment with the hardship of that, but I want to deal now with the business of it. Everybody will no doubt assume that those 17,000, or the greater number of them, will apply. Surely nobody is cynical enough to wish that they should not know and be excluded because through ignorance, or innocence, or illness, or youth, they do not think of applying. We must assume that they will apply, or that nine-tenths of them will. By what time are those 17,000 or, say, 15,000 cases to be dealt with? It will take years before they are completed.
I assume that there are some dangerous aliens in this country; otherwise there is no justification for this clause at all. Who is to know that their cases will be the first, or the second, the hundredth, or will come in the first or second thousand, or the last thousand? While the cases of a number of perfectly innocent and harmless people are being investigated by this Committee, the really dangerous people would be back in the fourteenth, fifteenth, or sixteenth thousand, and would be enjoying immunity.
The clause, as your Lordships sent it down to the House of Commons, put the thing in a perfectly business shape. Anybody against whom any credible person thought there was a case could be at once brought before a Committee, which would not be glutted but would be able to dispose of the case and get rid of that man at once. This clause as it stands, in order to make a kind of indictment against a nation and to justify a feeling of rancour, puts upon everybody the duty of applying, with the result that the real sinners will probably escape in the crowd or, at any rate, will not have their cases determined for years.
In two months they must apply. Therefore, if any cases of hardship arise Parliament will not be sitting and it will not be possible to remedy this. Some poor boy 389 or girl who has just reached the age of sixteen, who has forgotten or does not know, or is in a remote part of the country as a little servant perhaps to somebody, or an orphan, and makes no application in the two months, goes out, and no power can save them, not even Parliament, because Parliament will not be sitting. It is not the rogues who will be hit by this, nor the mischievous people. They will be alive, and will get their cases postponed for months. It is the simple, innocent people who were children, perhaps, when the war began and only attained the age of sixteen while the war was on, people in sick beds, I suppose even insane people, who will not make their applications and will be ousted under this provision.
Either there is a real distinction between our clause and the Commons clause or there is not. Either it is intended by the Commons clause to send away a great number of people whom our clause would retain, or it is not. Who are the people who would be sent away under the Commons clause, and who will not be sent away under ours? They are, first of all, these poor people who will not have applied in time and for whom there is no locus pœnitentiœ secondly, they are people who may be perfectly harmless but who cannot bring themselves within this clause; and, thirdly, people who will stay for months if not for years and may be the very people your Lordships, the Commons, and the whole nation want to get rid of.
§ VISCOUNT FINLAYMy Lords, there was no antagonism between the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Newton and that which stood in my name. My Amendment was designed to improve the Bill on the lines on which your Lordships had to deal with it. I have no sympathy with the desire for wholesale deportation. Personally, to speak with perfect frankness, I should have preferred that there should have been no such clause in the Bill. I will go further and say that when Lord Newton's Amendment was carried it was not at all unwelcome to me, for this reason—that I thought it provided a sort of euthanasia for the clause which has given rise to so much discussion.
But on looking at Lord Newton's Amendment, I confess that I am very much struck by the great evil which it might give rise to. Will your Lordships consider what is 390 the effect of the words? I am reading from the clause as amended on the Motion of my noble friend, Lord Newton—
This section shall apply to any former enemy alien now in the United Kingdom as to whom there shall be delivered to the Secretary of State within two months after the passing of this Act a statement in writing signed by any credible person to the effect that the continued residence of that alien is, for reasons relating to the alien, undesirable in the public interestand giving particulars. What a weapon that is for the blackmailer!—that with regard to any person in this country who, falls within the terms of the clause his residence here may be brought in peril by any credible person who takes this action.
§ LORD BUCKMASTERWithin two months—a short period.
§ VISCOUNT FINLAYYes, it would be notice to those who desired to prosecute that branch of activity to be quick about it. But I do say that surely it is almost unexampled, and likely to be attended with the most disastrous consequences, if an invitation is extended to any credible person to send in an information which may cause such very serious disquiet and discomfort. What a credible person is I do not know. It is so vague that I suppose that among those who desired for some improper reason to put forward a case of this kind there would be very few who could not get some person who would not pass muster as a credible person to send in the information. Surely, under these circumstances, one ought to be very cautious about putting on the Statute Book a provision which invites, indeed which encourages informations of this kind, and, which, I think, every one with any experience of the criminal law would say is liable to the most serious abuse. If it could be amended by providing that the information should be "fiated" by some responsible person it would be another matter.
§ THE EARL OF READINGIs not the effect of making the statement by the credible witness that there is an inquiry by the Committee?
§ LORD BUCKMASTERYes.
§ THE EARL OF READINGThen I do not quite follow what the effect of the blackmailer would be.
§ VISCOUNT FINLAYBeyond all question it is an inquiry, but if a man lets it be understood that he is going to set an inquiry in motion unless he receives blackmail, will not that be a most formidable weapon to anyone who wishes to cause annoyance in the hope of making something out of it? I think it is a very dangerous thing indeed, and I think it will be very desirable that it should be guarded by providing some guarantee for the bona fides of the person by a fiat from some public authority, or something of that kind. I have felt it my duty to call attention to that aspect of Lord Newton's Amendment which, in other respects, I was rather inclined to welcome when it was passed. My own Amendment was intended to put the Bill, on the lines on which we had to deal with it, rather in a better position, and I think the Commons, by adopting that, have shown that they realise that to some extent it would have that effect. I think that the noble and learned Lord Lord Buck-master is still a great deal inclined to undervalue the effect of the clause about serious hardship being occasioned to the person to be deported or to his family who are to be deported with him. The clause is one which would have, in my view, a very extensive operation. I think there is a great danger in the Amendment which was proposed and carried by Lord Newton, at the same time I recognise that it would to a very great extent, if that evil could be guarded against, prevent what might be unnecessary hardship to a great many people.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWEMy Lords, I am sure the whole House has listened with deep interest to the speech of the noble and learned Viscount. We really needed no assurance from him that he was not in favour of the wholesale deportation of these unfortunate people. Nobody who knows him could suppose that he would be. But a great many people are, and it is some of those who are at the back of those changes which have been made in the Bill as sent down to the House of Commons from your Lordships. On the special point raised by the noble and learned Viscount it will be, of course, for the House to consider whether the particular danger which he anticipated from the wording of the clause as moved by my noble friend Lord Newton is serious enough to make us desire to amend it further. By the rules of the House, as your Lordships know, it is open to us now to amend that 392 clause of ours, if we so desire. But I understood from the intervention of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, that the danger is not apparent to all those with the most highly trained legal minds. This provision for the intervention of the credible person was inserted, as your Lordships will remember, in order to reassure those who were afraid that, unless some such provision were made, dangerous people might slip through the net. So far as I am concerned I should have been quite content if only those had to be brought before the Advisory Committee who were considered by the Police to have a record which made that desirable. But the wider provision was, as I say, inserted in order to satisfy those who feared that some dangerous people might conceivably escape.
On the general question I merely wish to repeat that I trust your Lordships will insist upon the Bill in the form in which it left this House to go to another place. I have not been able, as it happened, to read the discussion which took place there, and I do not know in what spirit it was conducted or on what arguments the Commons' insistence upon the original form of the Bill was founded. We all have to judge of these matters for ourselves, and I am glad to know that His Majesty's Government take the view that every man in your Lordships' House must act on his own conscience in this matter without reference to the political Party to which he belongs. I can only say—and I hope I am not given to the use of excessive language in your Lordships' House—that during the thirty-five years that I have had a seat in this House I regard this as the most degrading proposition to which I have been asked to assent. And, that being so, the course that I have to take is perfectly clear.
Noble Lords no doubt may take an entirely different view quite conscientiously. But the proposed action, the effects of which have been so clearly described in moving terms by my noble and learned friend (Lord Buckmaster), appears to me to be so cowardly in itself and to bear with it the possibility of such needless cruelty to individuals, that I for one could never forgive myself if I did not record a vote against the proposition which has come to us from the other House. Like my noble and learned friend, I am not likely to be one of those who enjoy controversy with the House of Commons for its own sake—though I have seen your Lordships 393 engaged in it from time to time. But when you come to what is not merely a matter of taste but a matter of conscience and of profound belief, it appears to me that we have no choice whatever.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I desire to add only two sentences to what has been already so well said by many of your Lordships. I am almost in hopes that this decision may be a unanimous one of your Lordships' House. I say so for two reasons. I do not want to say anything in the least disrespectful of the other House of Parliament—I was a Member of it too long not to have a great affection for the House of Commons—but there are two reasons why I think we may properly insist on our Amendment. The first has appeared only during the course of the discussion which has taken place in your Lordships' House—I mean the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Finlay. It is clear that the House of Commons were very much impressed by my noble and learned friend's Amendment which he would have submitted to your Lordships when it was formally before us; so much that they themselves inserted his Amendment in the Bill. They may have thought—they do not know my noble and learned friend as well as we do—that he was one of those who were in favour of the kind of treatment which is suggested by Clause 9 as it left the House of Commons, only in a better form. My noble and learned friend is known to be a man of such sober judgement and of such influence amongst conservative-minded men, that this may have had a great deal of influence on the vote of the House of Commons. But we now know, and the House of Commons now know, that so far from this being the view of my noble and learned friend he takes precisely the contrary view and would go so far as to say that he would have been glad if Clause 9 had not appeared in the Bill at all. That seems to me to make a substantial change in the position.
The other reason is that there undoubtedly was at the time of the General Election, and there remained in the feelings of some Members of the House of Commons, a sentiment which is fast disappearing from public opinion outside. There was the feeling—very natural, perhaps, in the circumstances—at the end of the war, whilst all the acute sensation of it was still upon us, that something drastic of this kind ought to be done. But the 394 country has had time to consider since then. This country is not a vindictive country. Our people are merciful; they have no desire to attack these unfortunate women and to drive them to Austria to be starved. We are here to correct the effect of impulses which are not the permanent convictions of the people but only a passing phase of their opinion. That is one of our great functions. It is because in doing so we should perform that function that I would join my humble voice to those which have gone before in asking your Lordships to adhere to the Amendment.
§ On Question, Motion negatived.
§ Moved, That this House doth insist upon the Amendment in page 5, lines 11 and 23, and doth disagree with the Commons in their Amendment to the Lords Amendment. —(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ Moved, That this House doth also insist upon the Amendment in page 5, line 26, and doth disagree with the Commons in their Amendment to the Lords Amendment.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.