HL Deb 18 July 1820 vol 2 cc529-40
Lord Sidmouth,

on moving the second reading of this bill, said, it was not his intention to enter at any length into an explanation of the principle of the bill, nor did he conceive that it would be necessary for him to discuss with minuteness the motives upon which he should submit that the second reading should now take place. The measure was founded upon a right that was possessed by the Crown, and had ever been attached to the royal prerogative: it was that of sending out of the country, or prohibiting from entering it, such foreigners as it might be deemed proper to exclude from this kingdom. It was the less necessary for him to say much as to the matter of the present bill, because one of a similar nature had been passed in 1816 and in 1818. It was principally necessary therefore, for their lordships to consider, whether or no, contrasting the present situation of Europe, and its relations with this county, with its situation and relations in 1818, they could feel satisfied that such a favourable change of things had taken place as to render a measure which they had decided to be necessary then, unnecessary now. To himself this subject and this inquiry were matters of the deepest importance; and his majesty's ministers, from any information which they possessed, were not satisfied that such a favourable change had been effected. His lordship contended that a much stronger necessity for this measure existed at present than in 1818. Now, as to the principle of the bill, the inconvenience to which it subjected the alien upon his arrival in this country was this—that upon his landing he was required to give in his name, place of destination, and occupation. This description was to be given to the Custom-house officers, or to the collector of the customs, at the port in which he might land; and the officer or the collector was required to furnish the alien with a certificate of his compliance with these conditions. From that moment the alien was at liberty to go where he liked, and to fix his residence where he pleased. Upon leaving the country, all that was required of him was a similar return. He did not mean to deny or undervalue the extent of that power which would thus be lodged in the government; but it was one, he should contend, which it was competent for any executive government to exercise, in all cases where they might think it expedient. Whether it was a power which, in the hands of subordinate officers, had or had not been abused, he was not at liberty to say; but he could answer for the anxious solicitude of the government that those individuals who were empowered under the provisions of the bill should exercise it considerately and with propriety; and the pre- sumption arising out of the great number of cases which had occurred, wherein its exercise had become necessary, was this— that it had not been abused. The noble lord concluded by moving the second reading.

The Earl of Darnley

said, that he, for one, was not bound by the argument which was implied by the observation of the noble viscount—that those who had supported the bill formerly could not consistently oppose its renewal on the present occasion. Had he been present when this bill was passed in 1818 he should certainly have signed the protest against it which he found recorded on the Journals; for he considered it as impolitic and unconstitutional an act as had ever been framed. After six years of profound peace, and when no reasonable ground whatever could be alleged for the necessity of the measure, he conceived that nothing could be more disgraceful to the country than suffering such an act as this to exist. Was it possible to believe that the safety of this great nation could be affected by either allowing or prohibiting a few foreigners to reside in it? He could not help remarking, that a great part of the noble lord's argument was derived from his own feelings and disposition; but, at the same time that he was willing to give the noble lord every credit which his warmest friends could give him for mildness and moderation and discretion, he would not consent to arm him with such powers as this bill imparted.

Lord Holland

felt it absolutely necessary to offer a few words, by way of protest, against the renewal of this bill. Having so frequently on former occasions stated to the House, and recorded his opinion on their lordships' Journals, that bills of this-sort were cruel, unjust, and impolitic, he could not help now making a few remarks on the manner in which this measure was introduced, although he felt the irksomenoss of addressing the House under circumstances which rendered it extremely difficult to obtain an attentive hearing, both on account of the late period of the session, and the interest and importance of other subjects which engrossed the attention of parliament and of the public. With regard to that subject to which attention seemed at present to be exclusively directed, he would say, that their lordships and the other House of Parliament stood in a situation similar to that described by a Mr. Eden, who had written an account of his travels in Turkey. Mr. Eden, in visiting a town in Bulgaria, was introduced to the Greek governor of the place, and, on his introduction, he found, seated in the governor's apartment, a Turk of great distinction, who immediately ordered the head of Mr. Eden, and those of his twenty-six attendants, to be struck off. In pursuance of the order of this Turk of distinction, a person appeared with a bag —no doubt a green bag, as peculiarly suited to the purpose—and a quantity of sawdust: the bag was intended to receive the heads of Mr. Eden and his companions, and the sawdust to absorb the blood. It would naturally be supposed that Mr. Eden would be anxious to state the country to which he belonged, and to explain the object of his visit. For this purpose it was necessary to have recourse to his interpreter. The interpreter, however, had unfortunately caught a glimpse of the green bag under the arm of the executioner; and the only words that he was capable of uttering were, "quel sacco! quel' maladetto sacco!" Oh! that bag! that accursed bag! [a laugh.] Thus Mr. Eden and twenty-six other persons were in danger of losing their property and their lives in consequence of their interpreter having got a sight of this bag. Now he conceived that their lordships and the other House were nearly in the same situation, and that parliament, the lawful interpreter of the wishes of the country, allowed the nation's pockets to be picked, and its affairs to be neglected, because they could not lose sight of the green bag on the table. If the subject of the present bill were not one of importance, he should have been almost diverted by the manner in which it had been introduced by the noble viscount: it was indeed what might be called "cool and easy." Instead of stating any grounds to show the necessity of the measure, the noble viscount had asked, if any one saw reason for not doing in 1820, what had been done in 1818? The fact was, that this was a bill to deliver over twenty or thirty thousand people to the power of his majesty's government; for it should not be forgotten that, when parliament gave ministers a power over the persons of these individuals, it gave them necessarily a power over their property, and every thing that was valuable. He had heard the noble viscount, on other occasions, when he introduced measures of restraint on liberty, eloquent in his eulogiums on the excellence of our constitution; but the bill which he now introduced was a satire on the laws of the land—a libel upon the constitution of Great Britain. Let their lordships advert to the principle of this bill. Aliens were talked of as Roman Catholics had been talked of and were represented—as a race of men against whom it was necessary to guard, in order to prevent the subversion of the laws and the destruction of the constitution. He would not deny that there might be bad men among aliens; but who would say that they were likely to subvert the government? Had we no laws at present? and what security did the country want against aliens but the ordinary laws of the country? Whatever might be the malignity of an alien, or how atrocious soever might be his motives, he could see no necessity for a new law to guard against his machinations any more than against those of a Thistlewood, or any other person who might harbour traitorous designs. The noble viscount had stated two arguments in favour of this bill; the first, that the power which it granted was already a prerogative of the Crown; and the other, the strong presumption that this power would not be abused. On the first of these arguments he should not say much; but he must observe, whatever civil writers might say upon the subject, that that prerogative could not be proper, the exercise of which was not for the benefit of the people. From the period of Magna Charta down to the time of queen Elizabeth there was no trace of the existence of any such prerogative, although during that time no fewer than twenty-seven acts had been passed relative to strangers and aliens. The noble lord then adverted to a well-known proclamation for sending all Scotchmen out of the country, and which, he observed, was authorized by an act of Henry 7th, which, together with other acts prejudicial to Scotland, had been repealed by James 1st. This fact showed that the prerogative in question did not then exist; because the exercise of that right required an act of parliament to sanction it. That the power of sending strangers out of the country existed in the executive government was not denied by any one who opposed the present bill; at least it was not denied by him; but, though that power was vested in the supreme government of the coun- try, it by no means followed that it was a prerogative of the Crown. With regard to the other argument of the noble viscount, he would observe, that where there was no redress for an abuse of the law, there was, in fact, no law; and this was precisely the situation of those unfortunate aliens who were the subjects of the present bill. He certainly did not know that there had hitherto been no abuse of this power; but of this he was sure—that, whatever had been done beyond the powers of the late act, the individuals who had suffered had no power of complaining or of obtaining redress. He would not mention any names; but, as to one individual, whose papers had been seized, it was evident that, when once sent out of the country, that person had no means of ascertaining the fact whether the seizure was legal or illegal. He would not say how far that proceeding was sanctioned by law; but, at all events, the individual in question should have had an opportunity of knowing, before he was sent out of the country, whether his papers had been legally seized or not. He (lord Holland) had on that occasion offered to take out a power of attorney, but had been told that in such a case he could not act on that power. For obvious reasons, he declined mentioning the name of the party. Although in habits of friendship with the noble viscount, he could not pay him any compliments on account of his mildness and moderation; the noble viscount's conduct for the last five or six years had much altered his opinion upon that subject. The question, however, was not whether the noble viscount was disposed to abuse this power; but it was his (lord Holland's) duty, as a member of parliament, to bear in mind that, where arbitrary power was conferred, it was sure to be abused. That, he was confident, was a general principle, which could not be disputed. This bill placed abuse in the power of an individual; and the prostration and degradation of mind was the same to the person subjected to that power, whether it was exercised or not. Its existence was the evil complained of; and, while it existed there would be a constant apprehension that it might be used. It was this that constituted the difference between the power of will and the power of law. He had himself known instances in which advantage had been taken of individuals, by stating that such a power as this existed, and might be called into exercise against them. He would not, for obvious reasons, mention names; but he would suppose a case, in which a foreigner had been addressed in the following words:—"You saw the bow and the gracious smile which I received from lord Sidmouth just now; if you claim payment of the debt which I owe you—if you do not give me six months more credit—I will go to the secretary of state's office, and report you as a Jacobin and an incendiary." Such was the use which he had known to have been made of this law—a Jaw of which, as it was not now in existence, he was at liberty to say, that it was one of the most atrocious engines of arbitrary power that ever had been devised. He had that morning had a conversation with a gentleman who possessed a great property in a neighbouring country to this; and who, because he had found it necessary to institute a certain proceeding, had been taken up, and twenty-four hours afterwards, sent off to this country. He would not mention this gentleman's name, because he was anxious to return, as soon as possible, to avert the consequences of the step which had already been taken respecting him. But if such a power as this had been exercised by the government of another country, before the Alien bill had been in existence, would not a representation have been made on the subject to this friendly power? How, however, if the English government should remonstrate, the answer would naturally and justly be, "Your mouths are shut: have you not exposed our subjects to cruel and arbitrary treatment? and, that being the case, can you complain of our arbitrary conduct to yours?" It might be said, in answer to the complaints of other nations, that it was an exaggeration to attach so much importance to the sending of nine persons out of the country; but still they would be entitled to reply, "You boast of your English law, but by this petty, insulting, unsocial, and inhospitable conduct, you shut us out from the benefit of those laws." He could not refrain from saying a few words on the impolicy of such a measure as this at the present moment. Under the sanction of this bill it would not be impossible for ministers to send out of the country any persons who might happen to be obnoxious to other governments; and the present political 6tate of some parts of Europe by no means precluded the possibility of such persons being obliged to take refuge in Great Britain. He looked forward to the result of those events which had lately occurred in Spain with as much hope as any man; but he was not so sanguine, after the experience of so many revolutions, as to entertain no apprehensions whatever respecting the favourable result of those events. He would suppose that the nobility and clergy of Spain were to encounter the same persecution that those classes had experienced in the course of the French revolution, and that they were also to seek refuge in this country. If, in that event, the government of Spain should say, "Why do you foster our exiled king, or our rebel subjects?" we might reply, if there were no alien bill in existence, that our laws would not allow us to send them out of the country; but no such answer could be given if the Alien act were in force, for it would fetter the government in the exercise of that policy which humanity, as well as the best interests of the nation, dictated. This view of the subject might be illustrated by what had occurred in a neighbouring country in consequence of a measure which, though not similar to the present, had been apparently dictated by the same policy. It so happened, that, after the law relative to the regulation of the French press had been passed, the revolution broke out in Spain. The minister of Spain complained of paragraphs which appeared in the French papers on the subject of the Spanish revolution, and called on the French government to put their new laws in force, in order to prevent the publication of such articles. It was argued, that the toleration of such writings might have been very well six months before; but that, since France had then a law which empowered the government to suppress publications of that nature, Spain had a right to insist on their suppression. He had even been told that the Spanish minister had enforced his application to the French government by a threat which it had not been thought prudent to despise; and had said, "It is true we cannot cope in the field with the French army; but we can plant the tri-coloured flag on the Pyrenees, and that will set you at war among yourselves." But it was not sufficient that there was no abuse of such powers, there ought to be no dread of any such abuse. What might be the effect, or rather what might not be the effect, of such an apprehension in a case which at the present moment occupied the whole attention of the country? Would there be no difference between the feelings of a foreigner coming to this country as a witness to support the prosecution instituted by government, and those of an individual whose evidence was to defend the party accused? He would put a case:—Suppose, for instance, a subject of Austria—and he would advert particularly to Austria, notwithstanding her immediate connexion with this country, because, in all times, and according to ail history, if ever any thing mean, oppressive, or treacherous was to be done, Austria was the party pushed forward to execute it—he would suppose a subject of Austria to have been placed in. some situation which would render his evidence highly advantageous to the queen; and he would suppose that same individual to have incurred, probably by some virtuous and meritorious act, the displeasure of his government, and to be resident in France, or in the Netherlands. Did the House think that such a person (not being acquainted with the virtues of the noble viscount) would, out of mere chivalrous gallantry, and in favour of a person of whom he knew nothing, come over to this country, and do any thing disagreeable to a power whose very nod could conduct him instantly to any port in Austria? The only argument in favour of the measure was, that it had not been abused; it was agreed that it might be abused—and what advantage, be wished to know, was to result from it? In the words of a most emphatic and eloquent writer, he would say to the House, and it should be the last observation with which he would trouble them upon the subject, "You contradict the spirit of our laws, you shake the very foundation of British jurisprudence, when you intrust a power over the lives, the properties, or the liberties of others to any man, or set of men, upon the mere presumption that that power will not be abused."

The Earl of Liverpool

thought that the only question for the consideration of the House was, whether the same reasons which had applied to the enactment of the law in question did not now call for its continuance during the additional period proposed? Unwilling, however, as he was, at that hour, to enter into the discussion of general principles, he felt it impossible to leave unnoticed the observa- tions which had fallen from the noble lord opposite. It had been declared by the noble baron, as well as by the noble lord who had preceded him, that the bill in question was one which rendered us obnoxious to Europe at large. Upon what position this argument was grounded he found it difficult to discover, because every country in Europe but our own was armed with an act of similar powers. The great objection, however, was not, it appeared, to the power, but to the hands in which the power was vested. When it was admitted that the government did possess the power in question, he took that admission to mean that the power did exist practically somewhere; and where could it, he would ask, be vested, if not in the Crown—subject of course, to responsibility through the medium of its advisers, and subject to the regulation and modification of parliament? That the power of dealing with aliens was a power vested by the common law in the Crown, was evident from all the laws which had, from time to time, been passed in favour of such persons. The very condition contained in Magna Charta in favour of aliens was a proof of that fact. The grant there made by the sovereign for the benefit of the people, who derived advantage from the resort of foreigners to this country, was evidence that the power of prohibition was resident in the Crown. The noble lord would not deny that the king possessed the right of excluding alien enemies; and how many individuals of that order had, during the late war, been dwellers in this country, to whose situation all the arguments against this arbitary power as it was termed would be perfectly applicable? The question, after all, came to this—aliens possessed none of that right or interest in the soil which belonged to natural-born subjects, or even to denizens; and had not the common law and the common sense of mankind, in every time, and in every country, given practical power to existing governments to prevent such persons from entering their territory, or to drive them from that territory when their stay should seem unsafe? Upon the question as to the necessity of continuing this act, he would refer the House to the general state of Europe and of the world; and, in answer to the allusions which had been made to the very important proceeding now pending, he would ask of the noble lord himself, whether, even supposing ministers to be the most vindictive of men—supposing their object in that great inquiry to be—what God forbid it should be—the perpetration of injustice—suppose them inclined to act ever so partially in the prosecution of that inquiry—could they take any course more likely to defeat their end than by an attempt to obstruct that evidence which the illustrious person concerned might think fit to adduce in her favour Sheer interest would prevent such an attempt. It must infallibly recoil upon themselves. What must be the conduct of the able counsel who would defend her majesty if any such attempt were made by government? And, with respect to any apprehension which such witnesses might entertain as to the dispositions and opinions of the people, he could only say he, personally, had much rather land at Dover as a witness for the queen than as a witness against her; and he believed that the same feeling would attend even his arrival in London. There was one more point upon which he would detain the House, but only for one moment. He alluded now to the manner in which the noble lord had stigmatized the conduct of the government of Austria—a government to which this country owed peculiar obligations—a government which to which, during a twenty years' war, had never submitted for a moment but from necessity; and which had always been foremost again to draw the sword for the recovery of her own rights, or in defence of the rights of others. That an attack so unwarrantable had been made upon that government he could not but regret. It was a government composed of various States, and of divided interests; but there were many provinces—of course he did not speak of all—under the dominion of that government than which none in the world could enjoy more practical liberty, or feel more attachment to their ruling authorities. Austria, he would repeat, had in all cases done her duty towards this country as an honest and faithful ally; and he should have felt himself wanting in duty and injustice if he had permitted the assertions of the noble baron opposite to pass without an answer.

Lord Holland,

in explanation, said, he did not speak of the conduct of the Austrian government with respect to its own subjects; but he did say, and he would repeat it, that not merely from the examination of history—not merely from the consideration of modern events, but from his own personal observation—for he was in Austria, though certainly he never was in any of those happy provinces which the noble lord had described—he did say that there never was a government, which, from its conduct towards individuals from the days of Charles 5th, to the present time, had uniformly displayed more meanness, more severity, and more injustice than the Austrian government. Any persons who had ever lived in any of the provinces dependent on that government, would justify him in that assertion. From what had fallen from the noble earl, he must suppose that government had last night received payment of the large sums due by Austria to Great Britain. He was inclined to think so from the very animated manner in which the noble lord bore testimony to the extraordinary honesty of that government [a laugh]. He would, however, again declare, that he never knew—that he never read—of a government that had been more uniformly mean and unjust than the government of Austria.

The Earl of Carnarvon

contended, that there was nothing in the state of Europe, and nothing in the affairs of this country, that went to justify a bill which he would call oppressive and tyrannical.

Lord Calthorpe

said, that whilst he would be willing to support government in meeting every dangerous emergency, he could not agree to a measure which he did not think called for by circumstances, and which, to strangers, ignorant of the language and manners of the country, was peculiarly severe.

The House then divided: Contents, 17; Non-Contents, 7. The bill was then read a second time.