HL Deb 11 May 1824 vol 11 cc628-43
Lord Holland

said, he had a petition to present, from the corporation of the city of London, praying that the Alien Bill might not puss into a law. The petitioners apprehended greater danger from passing this bill now than at any former period; for they were of opinion, that it was proposed on grounds likely to involve this country in war. They further objected to it, that it countenanced the charge, that the government of this country was a party in the general conspiracy of the continental despots against freedom.

The Earl of Liverpool,

on the order of the day for the second reading of the Alien bill, rose to address their lordships on that measure. He observed, that the subject was one which had often been under their lordships' consideration, and that it could not be necessary now to enter at length into the topics connected with the bill, all the arguments for it having already been repeatedly urged by himself and others. He was, however, so far from agreeing with the petitioners, that the change of circumstances rendered the bill unnecessary, that he saw in that very change circumstances which afforded an additional argument for continuing it. On former occasions, when this bill had been before the House, a great deal had been said concerning the right possessed at common law by the Crown, to remove aliens out of the country. In his judgment he had never met with any argument which refuted that in favour of the common law right of the Crown. He therefore remained convinced that the Crown possessed the right of sending, not only alien enemies, but all other aliens at any time out of the country. This, however, could only be done in a very clumsy way, if left to the exercise of the prerogative. If it was to be done by indictment, or any other circuitous mode, the requisite promptitude could not be obtained. Hence a legislative manœuvre was necessary to regulate the manner of exercising the right which was vested in the Crown. It was on this ground that the original Alien bill was passed in 1792. It was introduced, not in a time of war, but during peace, and when there prevailed an anxious desire for the preservation of peace. He was, however, ready to admit that there existed then special circumstances which did not exist at present and which might be thought to afford some additional argument in its favour: but, in the main point, the cases were alike. The original bill was introduced to prevent the mischief apprehended from revolutionary principles. The object then was, to prevent the same evil which was intended to be guarded against by the present bill. It was continued after France, the country against which the measure was principally directed, declared war against England, when it might be said to have been less necessary; because, whether the Crown had or had not the right of removing aliens generally, it certainly possessed that of expelling alien enemies, or of making them prisoners of war, if the latter course should be preferred. Having said thus much on the origin of the measure, the sole question which remained was, whether there existed sufficient reason for renewing the bill in 1824? And he was perfectly willing to allow, that if he could not show that it was of importance to the public interest that the measure should be continued, it ought not to pass. The bill, he could assure their lordships, was not introduced, as had been asserted, for the purpose of conciliating foreign powers. It was introduced solely for British objects and British interests. If he did not fully establish this, he felt that he should not lay a sufficient ground for adopting the measure. Their lordships had lived and still did live in a time when there prevailed a great desire for political experiments. They existed in an age of revolutions, when every country around them had been more or less convulsed, and when those convulsions had grown out of opinions propagated within their own memories, and which extended into countries where no revolution had been experienced. It was surely the duty of government to guard against the danger arising from such opinions; and the nature of the danger to be apprehended by certain states had been fully admitted by a noble baron, who had described the contest for political reform now going on, to be similar to that, which two centuries ago took place for a religious reformation. If, after having witnessed all the convulsions which the propagation of revolutionary opinions had produced in Europe; if, alter having seen the country engaged for twenty-one years in a most arduous war, in consequence of those opinions; and if, after looking back at all the dangers through which the country had passed, he were one of those who still feared the effects of such doctrines, he confessed he should not feel particularly ashamed on that account. Such a feeling was one which would prevail among men from an anxious wish for the preservation of the peace of the country, and the security of their families. On the advantage of preserving the peace of the country there could be no difference of opinion. Upon that subject he might quote not only the opinions of the friends of high monarchical doctrines, but of those who were quoted as the advocates of popular principles and vindicators of the rights of mankind. He remembered a right hon. gentleman, whose opinion the noble baron opposite would respect, having, on the question of peace, made a very remarkable quotation —a quotation which he repeated on more than one occasion. It was "iniquissimam pacem, justissimo bello antefero." For his own part, he was not disposed to go quite so far, though he would make great sacrifices for the preservation of peace, and not less to guard against those revolutionary principles which had been productive of so much evil. With respect to the interference of foreign powers in the affairs of any state no person more condemned it than he did. But, why did he so condemn it? Upon the same ground on which he had condemned the pretensions of the convention of France. His disapprobation was founded on the general principle, that every country was the sole judge of its own concerns; but it did not follow that governments were not to take precautions against the dangers they might have to apprehend from the influence of opinions, or other circumstances. With these feelings, and considering that their lordships lived in times in which, from what had passed, they might expect to see attempts at revolution made in other countries, whether with success or not, he could not think that he was wrong in urging the adoption of a measure tending to secure both external and internal peace. There had been no instance, since 1792 to the present moment, of any revolutionary convulsion, in which the unsuccessful party did not look to this country as a place of refuge; and sorry should he be to see that refuge refused. But their lordships must be aware that, in consequence of maintaining this principle of hospitality, a pretext was afforded for applications from foreign powers. An instance of this kind occurred in 1802, when a sweeping demand was made by a foreign government, which was resisted as all such demands ought to be. There was, then, nothing in the present measure which could induce persons desirous of taking refuge in this country to suppose that the rights of hospitality would be denied them; but at the same time it was necessary to take care that those individuals should not be permitted to make this country a focus of conspiracy and revolt against foreign governments. The aliens well knew the situation in which the government of this country stood: they were aware, that from the control which public opinion exercised in this country, they were in no danger of being vexatiously arrested, or in any way unjustly dealt with; but if they persisted in making this country the seat of conspiracies, it was fit that the government should have the power of removing them—it was fit that means should be afforded to prevent the acts of individuals from compromising the peace of the country. The fair question for every man to put on the bill was, whether there was any danger of the power it granted being abused? or whether the advantages of the measure were not more than equivalent to that danger? There the whole question stood; and there he was disposed to leave it. The argument for the bill was, in his mind, very much fortified by what had passed elsewhere and occurrences which had taken place with respect to matters not remotely connected with the objects of this measure. He never would say that in this country every person was not entitled to hold his own opinion as to what was going on in other parts of the world; but, at the same time, he was not one of those who when the government of this country was neutral, thought it allowable for any portion of the people of this country to take a hostile part against one of the contending parties; or that it was justifiable for any persons in this country to assist a party in another against its government. If, however, any thing of this kind had taken place, that circumstance afforded an additional reason for adopting the present measure. It was surely desirable that the government should not be placed in such a situation with respect to other powers, not only on account of its own subjects, but on account of the subjects of other states. He called for the assent of their lordships to the bill, solely on the grounds of British interests and British security; among which the preservation of peace, and the maintenance of good faith with other powers, were the most important. But, how was peace and good faith to be maintained, if the government did not possess the means of putting down the machinations carried on by aliens against foreign states? Ministers had been accused of wishing to possess an arbitrary authority; but they had no desire to exercise a power which could not fail to embarrass them. If they consulted their own feeling and their own convenience, they would rather be without it; but they could not, consistency with their duty, deprive themselves of the power of checking the machinations and conspiracies which might be carried on by aliens in this country. This was all that was asked; and the power necessary for this purpose, he conceived, had, by the constitution, belonged to the Crown in all times; but if it had not, it ought. The only solid objection which had ever been urged against the measure would be done away by the present bill. Many aliens who had come to this country had settled in business, or lived for so long a time in it, that they deserved in some measure to be treated as subjects. It was therefore intended, that the bill should not apply to any person who had lived seven years in the united kingdom. Thus, the only reasonable objection to which the bill was liable no longer existed. The noble lord concluded by moving, "that the bill be now read a second time."

Earl Grosvenor

opposed the motion, on the ground, that to make aliens subject to any other laws than those which applied to natural-born subjects was unjust. He concurred with the Lord Mayor and Common Council in thinking the bill highly unconstitutional. Enormous as the power given by the bill was, he did not much apprehend that it would be abused; but, however mildly it might be exercised, it ought not to be granted. What he above all objected to was, the motive for introducing the bill. It could not be doubted, that it was brought forward in consequence of an understanding between his majesty's ministers and certain foreign governments. He had, on some former occasions, supported an alien bill, because he conceived, that the peace of Europe could not be consolidated without some measure of the kind. His opinion had been altered with the altered circumstances. The dangers that were now to be apprehended were dangers not to sovereigns but to their subjects. The conspiracies which were now formed were not conspiracies against legitimate government, but against civil freedom. Seeing this, he could not support the present bill. In compliance with the policy of foreign powers, we had, eighteen months ago, gone the length of advising the Spaniards to make a change in their constitution—advice which, if it had been followed, would have involved the persons at the head of the Spanish government in irretrievable ruin and disgrace. He He was against the interference of this government with that of any other state; and, for the same reason he would resist the claims of foreign powers to interfere with us. It had indeed been in defence of the measure, and as a means of disarming the repugnance of their lordships to its enactment, that the powers which it had given to ministers had never been abused. But, its very existence was a general abuse, and, therefore, he would oppose the bill by every means in his power.

The Earl of Darnley

said, that he had on former occasions supported an alien bill as a war measure, but he now gave it his decided reprobation. It was disgraceful to continue a measure of this kind one day beyond a clear and well-proved necessity. While it offered no security or protection to the country, it alarmed foreigners who might be attracted to our shores, and justified foreign governments in their injurious treatment of British subjects. He could name a foreigner who had friends and connexions in England, and who being invited to come to pay them a visit, replied, "I shall never see England so long as your alien act exists." He rose, however, not to oppose the bill by arguments, but to ask of ministers, whether a pledge would be given that it would not be renewed after the end of two years? There seemed to him to be no danger to the peace and tranquillity of Europe, from the most unrestricted admission of foreigners into this country. Suppose among their numbers there should exist some persons disposed to enter into conspiracies against the peace of the states they had left, could not ministers suppress their attempts without an alien bill? In such extreme cases, could not the government act on its own responsibility, and trust to parliament for an indemnity? Would it not be better to make such instances an exception to the general law, than to legislate for such exceptions, and on account of the possible arrival of a few turbulent foreigners, to establish the character of "Britannos hospitibus feros," by subjecting all foreigners indiscriminately to apprehension, inconvenience, and vexation. The noble earl concluded by stating, that he would oppose the bill.

Lord Calthorpe

said, he had opposed the Alien bill on former occasions. He did not do so because he was afraid that its powers would be vexatiously exercised but because he saw no ground for their exercise at all. In this country, every proceeding of the government was so open to public animadversion, and every prero- gative of the Crown so controlled by public opinion, that no minister, however inclined to abuse his trust, could do it with impunity. The individuals to whom the powers of the bill had been intrusted, rendered it impossible for him to feel any apprehension from them on former occasions when he opposed it; but he opposed it, because there did appear then to exist such a degree of misunderstanding between this country and foreign states, that if an alien act was intrusted to ministers, we might embroil ourselves with the government of those states, if we refused to execute it in their favour, by declining to remove from England any individuals obnoxious to their displeasure. This objection with him would exist still, if the same principles presided in the direction of our policy. But, a great change had of late been produced in this department. Our foreign secretary had pursued British objects. Foreign powers had been made aware of this alteration, and were therefore not likely to require compliances from us which we might be bound to refuse, or that would disturb the harmony which prevailed between us and them. The powers of the bill might therefore be granted to government, as a means of enabling it to protect from disturbance the tranquillity of allied states, by checking conspiracies against them in this; while those states having been now made acquainted with the difference between our policy and theirs, could not be supposed to prefer claims that might lead to any misunderstanding. By allowing ministers to yield to foreign powers on friendly representations being made, we best consulted our own peace and the tranquillity of Europe. He therefore would vote for the bill; though he would not have done so if our foreign policy had not been changed.

The Earl of Carnarvon

said, he was curious to know what could be the ground of the change in the noble lord's opinion. The noble lord seemed to begin his approbation of the measure, at the very time when ministers themselves proposed to abandon it. The noble lord had stated, that ministers had now become more liberal, and that they allowed no foreign power to interfere in our domestic policy; but when was a pretence of this kind wanting? on what former occasion, when the renewal of the Aien bill was proposed, were not the same statements made? If had been said, that the power given to ministers by this bill would induce foreign powers to act better by their own subjects. If so, the measure should not only have his support now, but always. The noble earl opposite had stated, that principles of revolution were abroad. If so, could this bill check or eradicate them? Could the presence of foreigners give effect to revolutionary principles in this country? No. Those principles, so far as they actuated the people of this country, had a British origin. If there existed danger, therefore, from this source, an alien bill afforded no security. Ministers had taken credit to themselves, for mitigating the present measure, by excepting from its operation persons who had resided seven years in England; but the clause was so indefinite, that persons who had resided nearly all their lives here might still be subject to its operation, if they had been absent only a few days before the passing of the bill. Why fix upon seven years? Was an apprenticeship necessary to good order and peaceable conduct, as to the trade of making shoes? Why not give a settlement from marriage? Was a man after this to be liable to be torn from his wife and children who were British subjects, and who might remain in England while he was ordered out of it? The noble earl concluded by opposing the bill.

The Earl of Westmorland

expressed his surprise that noble lords should call upon the government to pledge itself to dispense with a measure after the present period, when it was impossible that they could foresee the circumstances that might occur. He would support the measure before the House on three grounds; first, for the preservation of tranquillity at home; second, on account of our relations with foreign countries; and thirdly, to prevent those disturbances in other countries which ultimately, though not immediately might involve us in war. Me could not conceive how governments could be at peace, while their subjects were at war—how the Lord Mayor of London, could be at open hostility with the Grand Seignor, while government professed itself a friend and ally. The bill was necessary to enable the country to be, what he trusted it always would be, a refuge for all persons, whatever their opinions might be, who were driven out of their own country; and so far from the bill being injurious to foreigners, it was, in his opinion, their best protection.

Lord Holland

said, the noble mover had begun his speech by observing, that this law had been so often under discussion, that little could be said, either for or against it, that had not been repeatedly urged. It was, indeed, irksome to travel over ground so perfectly beaten; and therefore he should not trouble their lordships with the many objections that, in the course of twenty years had been urged against this bill. But, when he considered that the noble earl who had just sat down had laid down grounds, new, and at variance with the grounds on which the bill was originally introduced, he did think that it became him to call the attention of the House thereto. That there was such difference, the noble mover must be aware, as he had alluded to the origin of the measure. It was, indeed, not so old in our Statute-book; it ran not beyond the memory of man; it was in 1792 that the bill was brought in, and their lordships would mark the preamble of it; and observe, that even in those times of passion, it was stated, that there existed an imperious necessity; it stated that, in consequence of the great increase of aliens resorting hither, much danger might arise to the tranquillity of this country. Soon after the bill was passed, war took place, and the bill was continued. However, then came the peace which was signed by the noble lord opposite; and the bill was then continued on the grounds (judging from the speeches of the noble earl opposite) that it was necessary to possess the power of excluding aliens, in order to possess a summary mode of preventing their revolutionary operations from destroying the tranquillity of this country. But he had better authority for what he stated than any speech. There was then a considerable number of aliens in this country, who were hostile to the government of France, with which we were then at peace; but we were suspected by that government of being favourable to the principles of those persons. They were very active here, and published some pamphlets, which he believed every candid man would acknowledge contained instigations to assassination and murder. M. Otto remonstrated upon it, and the noble earl opposite answered as became a British minister—"You may prosecute them in the courts of law of this country." Much correspondence took place, and at last M. Otto said, "But you have an alien act, under which you may proceed more sum- marrily;" and the moment he gave a hint of a foreign power going snacks in an act of parliament, the noble lord left his little nag, and instantly mounted his war-horse, and began prancing, and curvetting in the most furious manner possible; and yet the noble earl who spoke last talked of this bill as being necessary for the preservation of peace with foreign countries. He would first read the complaint of M. Otto, and afterwards the answer of the noble earl opposite:—"Whatever may be the protection which the English laws afford to native writers, and to other subjects of his majesty, the French government knows that foreigners do not here enjoy the same protection, and that the law, known by the title of the Alien act, gives the ministry of his Britannic Majesty an authority which it has often exercised against foreigners, whose residence was prejudicial to the interests of Great Britain. The first clause of this act states expressly, that any order in council which requires a foreigner to quit the kingdom shall be executed, under pain of imprisonment and transportation. There exists, therefore, in the ministry a legal and sufficient power to restrain foreigners, without having recourse to courts of law; and the French government, which offers, on this point, a perfect reciprocity, thinks it gives a new proof of its pacific intentions, by demanding, that those persons may be sent away, whose machinations uniformly tend to sow discord between the two people." To this the noble lord had answered, that "his Majesty's government never would, in consequence of any representation or any menance from a foreign power, make any concession which could in the smallest degree be dangerous to the liberty of the press, as secured by the constitution, and so justly dear to every British subject." The noble earl went on to state—"With respect to the distinction which appeared to be drawn in M. Otto's note, between the publications of British subjects and those of foreigners, and the power which his Majesty is supposed to have in consequence of the Alien act, of sending foreigners out of his dominions, it is important to observe, that the provisions of that act were made for the purpose of preventing the residence of foreigners, whose numbers and principles had a tendency to disturb the internal peace of his own dominions, and whom the safety of those dominions might require, in many instances, to be removed, even if their actual conduct had not exposed them to punishment by law. It does not follow that it would be a warrantable application of such a law to exert its powers in the cases of individuals, such as those of whom complaint is now made, and particularly as they are liable to be prosecuted under the law of the land, in like manner as others have been in similar cases, at the instance and upon the complaint of foreign governments." The noble earl, the House would observe, spurned at the idea of making the law subservient to the purpose of sending foreigners out of the country, at the representation of a foreign minister However, another war broke tout, and the next Alien bill had such a meagre and slender preamble, that nothing scarcely could be gathered from it as to the grounds of enactment, and the noble viscount (Sidmouth), then secretary of state, was particularly cautious of giving any political grounds as a reason for the bill: indeed he disclaimed any thing of that sort. The bill was then, as now, for purposes purely British, and the making the bill an ancillary, or hand-maid, to foreign powers, was spoken of with becoming reprobation. He wished that sentiment were still felt, and he should then not despair of voting with those noble lords this night in a majority against the bill. The noble earl who spoke last, had stated three objects of this bill; but he could not follow him in his distinctions. One of the objects he had forgotten, but it appeared to him, that they all merged in this—namely, that it was a British object to preserve peace; and the only way to attain this British object was, it seemed, by sending persons out of the country. Now, as far as experience went, that was falsified; for, when was this infallible preventive of war first discovered? Why, this happy jewel was discovered in time of peace; it was passed in December, 1792; and in the following month commenced the most bloody, expensive, and longest war in which this country was ever engaged! This reminded him of the discovery made by the learned lord on the woolsack the other night; namely, that until the time of lord Hardwicke we had no law relating to marriage. So, according to the noble lord privy seal, this country was unable to maintain the relations of peace and amity until the discovery of this measure, just three weeks before the breaking out of the war of the French Revolution. The noble earl who spoke last, had spoken of the noble lords on his (lord H.'s) side of the House, as being enemies of peace. To that he would only say, that he still thought, if another line had been taken on the occasion to which the noble earl alluded, the peace of Europe would have been more permanent and sure than it was at present. But, to return to this new-found preservative of peace. He would ask, what was the longest period of peace that this country had ever enjoyed? He believed it was in the time of James 1st. What was there remarkable with respect to foreigners at that time? Why, that at no time were foreigners so well received in this country, and at no time had so many British subjects employed themselves in taking part in foreign wars: yet, no alien act then existed. What he had stated, proved that the alien act had not preserved peace in this country, and that peace bad been preserved in this country without any alien act. Looking abroad, it would be seen, that Holland, Switzerland, the Papal government, and latterly the government of the United States of America, had been the most successful in the preservation of peace. By the by, it had been supposed, that legitimate governments were best qualified to preserve that blessing; and it was rather remarkable, that the three most illegitimate governments had been the most successful in so doing. Holland had, he believed, maintained peace for the longest period; she had enjoyed 70 years of tranquillity—from the treaty of Utrecht, to the period of the American war. Ay, but, said the noble earl, what trouble must they have had in excluding aliens during this period. No such thing; for sir W. Temple expressly said, that it had ever been the great principle of the States to make their country the common refuge of all the miserable of other countries, though, by the way, in that sir W. Temple was mistaken; they had not always maintained that policy, and he would notice the exception directly. The historians of France also noticed, that every person disgraced there, made their retreat into Holland, and that no representations of ambassadors of foreign powers could induce them to order these distressed persons away. This he thought proved, that an alien act was not necessary for preserving peace. The exception which he had alluded to, in the observance of their general principles of hospitality to strangers, was. one that was roost dis- graceful to them, as it was made for the sake of currying favour with Charles 2nd, at whose instances they delivered up two of the regicides, who were actually executed. Switzerland had, from the earliest period of her political existence, been the refuge of all who were obliged to quit their own country; and in respect to the regicides, they formed a contrast with the government of Holland, for they had refused to give them up; but, whether by inclination or by necessity, they had of late been compelled to adopt a less generous policy.—The noble earl who spoke last said, that this bill was only to prevent the machinations of disaffected persons, and danger to other countries; and this, he said, was an object purely British, for which we were to act as the police-officer and spy of foreigners. The noble earl thought there ought to be means of preventing such injurious conduct on the part of individuals as would be likely to endanger the national peace, and he also said, he did not see how the subject could be at war, and the sovereign at peace. But, how did this apply here? It would be no answer to a foreign minister to say, that we had enforced this law against those who owed us no allegiance, and yet did not do it against the native. The noble earl must be prepared, for the sake of peace, to enforce the laws of coercion against the native also. For suppose the gentleman with the hard name to be discovered corresponding with one who states that so many men, and so much money would be here at such a time and for such and such purposes. Without communication with any foreign minister the man is sent out of the country. Then comes the gentleman with the easy name and does the same thing. The French ambassador discovers it, goes to Mr. Canning, and he refers him to the attorney-general, who, perhaps, refers him to the learned lord on the woolsack, and perhaps from him be gets something decisive (he was only stating the case hypothetically); however, hints are thrown out to him of the intractable nature of juries, and the danger of exposures. The ambassador to this might say, "I have nothing to do with your law; but this I have to do with,—that the other day a man did the same thing, and you sent him out of the country, in justice, I suppose, to me; for I do not suppose you would do it except as an act of justice; and yet here is a man who has done the same thing to whom you will do nothing." What would the noble earl opposite say to this? Would he say as he did to M. Otto, that we passed the law for the preservation of our own internal tranquillity? Or as the noble earl who spoke last, said, we passed it for preserving national peace, and because we find we have no law to prevent people doing that which is a just cause of war to other countries?—It was because it was a measure, which, if carried into complete effect, would make the world one vast prison, that he thought it unwise and dangerous to pass it; and because it was more likely, instead of producing peace, to embroil this country with foreign powers. He had proved that the grounds of the measure now were directly contradictory to those laid down when it was originated; and he thought he had proved also that it was futile as a means of preserving peace, but rather, on the contrary, likely to raise questions with foreign ministers. He would not be so disingenuous as to say that he expected the bill would be thrown out that night, but he trusted it was the last time it would be renewed, and that we should be permitted to go back to the good old times of British hospitality, when, in the language of one who was a poet, politician, and orator, this country was characterised as —by Heaven destgn'd To be the common refuge of mankind.

The Lord Chancellor

said, that if he had entertained any doubts before as to the expediency of this bill, the speech of the noble lord would have removed them. There was one point of considerable importance which had not been adverted to, and to which he wished to call their lordships' attention. If their lordships would take the trouble of comparing the provisions of the Alien bill for 1793 with those of the present, they would find that they differed entirely in character and extent. The provisions of the act of 1793 were proportioned to the danger which existed at that time; while the measures of 1816, 1818, 1820, and 1824, were proportioned to a less degree of danger, and consequently imposed a less degree of penalty and restriction. A noble lord had contended, that the sending Aliens out of the country was unconstitutional. He professed himself at a loss to understand this proposition; for he would re-assert what he had often before affirmed, that the right of sending Aliens out of the country was a part of the prerogatives vested in the Crown; but, as it would be difficult for the Crown effectually to exercise this right, the aid of parliament was required, in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional powers of the Crown. If such a prerogative ought not to exist, let it be taken away; but as long as it did exist, parliament was bound to provide for its effectual exercise. Though the dangers which called for the measure of 1793 did not now exist, he was satisfied there was a sufficient degree of danger at the present moment, to justify, and indeed to render necessary, the continuance of the Alien act for a further period of three years.

The House divided: For the second reading: Contents, present 46; proxies 34–80. Not-Contents, present 17, proxies 18–35. Majority 45.