that period, through civil wars and revolutions, a disputed no for succession, and treasonable plots against the state, eigners had been disturbed. If guilty of crimes, they were punished; but otherwise enjoyed the full protection of the law. Vien Act, 1798. It was not until 1793, that a departure from this generous policy was deemed necessary, in the interests of the state. The revolution in France had driven hosts of political refugees to our shores1 They were pitied, and would be welcome. But among the foreigners claiming our hospitality, Jacobin emissaries were suspected of conspiring with democratic associations in England, to overthrow the government. To guard against the machinations of such men, ministers sought extraordinary powers for the supervision of aliens, and, if necessary, for their removal from the realm. Whether this latter power might be exercised by the crown, or had fallen into desuetude, became a subject of controversy; but however that might be, the provisions of the Alien Bill, now proposed, far exceeded the limits of any ancient prerogative. An account was to be taken of all foreigners arriving at the several ports, who were to bring no arms or ammunition: they were not to travel without passports the secretary of state might remove any suspected alien out of the realm; and all aliens might be directed to reside in such districts as were deemed necessary for public security, where they would be registered, and required to give up their arms. Such restraints upon foreigners were novel, and wholly inconsistent with the free and liberal spirit with which they had been hitherto entertained. Marked with extreme jealousy and rigor, they could only be justified by the extraordinary exigency of the times. They were, indeed, equivalent to a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, and demanded proofs of public danger no less conclusive. In opposition to the measure, it was said that there In Dec., 1792, it appeared that 8000 had emigrated to England. — was no evidence of the presence of dangerous aliens: that discretionary power to be intrusted to the executive might be abused; and that it formed part of the policy of ministers to foment the public apprehensions. But the right of the state, on sufficient grounds, to take such precautions, could not be disputed. The bill was to continue in force for one year only, and was passed without difficulty. So urgent was deemed the danger of free intercourse with the continent at this period, that even British sub- Traitorous jects were made liable to unprecedented restraints, spondence by the Traitorous Correspondence Bill.8 Corre Bill, 1793. The Alien Bill was renewed from time to time; and throughout the war, foreigners continued under Alien Bill strict surveillance. When peace was at length re- renewed. stored, government relaxed the more stringent provisions of the war alien bills; and proposed measures better suited to a time of peace. This was done in 1802, and again in 1814. But, in 1816, when public tranquillity prevailed throughout Europe, the propriety of continuing such measures, even in a modified form, was strenuously contested.* 1818. Again, in 1818, opposition no less resolute was offered to the renewal of the Alien Bill. Ministers were Alien Bill, urged to revert to the liberal policy of former times; and not to insist further upon jealous restrictions and invidious powers. The hardships which foreigners might suffer from sudden banishment were especially dwelt upon. Men who had made England their home, bound to it by domestic ties and affections, and carrying on trade under pro ́tection of its laws, — were liable, without proof of crime, on secret information, and by a clandestine procedure, to one of the gravest punishments. This power, however, was rarely 1 Parl. Hist., xxx. 155-238. 2 33 Geo. III. c. 4. 8 Parl. Hist., xxx. 582, 928. 4 Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxxiv. 430, 617. 5 Ibid., xxxviii. 521, 735, 811, &c.; 58 Geo. III. c. 96. exercised, and in a few years was surrendered.1 During the political convulsions of the continent in 1848, the executive again received authority, for a limited time, to remove any foreigners who might be dangerous to the peace of the country; but it was not put in force in a single instance.' The law has still required the registration of aliens; but its execution has fallen more and more into disuse. The confidence of our policy, and the prodigious intercourse developed by facilities of communication and the demands of commerce, have practically restored to foreigners that entire freedom which they enjoyed before the French Revolution. The improved feeling of Parliament in regard to foreignNaturaliza- ers was marked in 1844 by Mr. Hutt's wise tion Act, 1844. and liberal measure for the naturalization of aliens. Confidence succeeded to jealousy; and the legislature, instead of devising impediments and restraints, offered welcome and citizenship. Right of asylum never impaired. While the law had provided for the removal of aliens, it was for the safety of England, not for the satisfaction of other states. The right of asylum was as inviolable as ever. It was not for foreign governments to dictate to England the conditions on which aliens under her protection should be treated. Of this principle, the events of 1802 offered a remarkable illustration. During the short peace succeeding the treaty of Amiens, Napoleon, First Consul of the French Republic, demanded that our government should "remove out of the British dominions all the French princes and their adherents, together with the bishops and other individuals, whose political principles and conduct must necessarily occasion great jealousy to the French Government."" Napoleon's demands in 1802. 1 In 1826: 5 Geo. IV. c. 37; Hans. Deb., 2d Ser., x. 1376. 2 11 & 12 Vict. c. 20. 8 Parl. Return, 1850 (688). 47 Geo. IV. c. 54; 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 11. 67 & 8 Vict. c. 66; 10 & 11 Vict. c. 83. 6 Mr. Merry to Lord Hawkesbury, June 4th, 1802; Parl. Hist., xxx To this demand Lord Hawkesbury replied, his Majesty "certainly expects that all foreigners who may re-ide within his dominions should not only hold a conduct conformable to the laws of the country, but should abstain from all acts which may be hostile to the government of any country, with which his Majesty may be at peace. As long, however, as they conduct themselves according to these principles, his Majesty would feel it inconsistent with his dignity, with his honor, and with the common laws of hospitality, to deprive them of that protection which individuals, resident in his dominions, can only forfeit by their own misconduct." 1 Still more decidedly were these demands reiterated. It was demanded, 1st. That more effectual measures should be adopted for the suppression of seditious publications. 2d. That certain persons named should be sent out of Jersey. 3d. "That the former bishops of Arras and St. Pol de Leon, and all those who, like them, under the pretext of religion, seek to raise disturbances in the interior of France, shall likewise be sent away." 4th. That Georges and his adherents shall be transported to Canada. 5th. That the princes of the House of Bourbon be recommended to repair to Warsaw, the residence of the head of their family. 6th. That French emigrants, wearing orders and decorations of the ancient government of France, should be required to leave England. These demands assumed to be based upon a construction of the recent treaty of Amiens; and effect was expected to be given to them, under the provisions of the Alien Act.2 These representations were frankly and boldly met. For he repression of seditious writings, our government would entertain no measure but an appeal to the English Reply of Government. the courts of law. To apply the Alien Act in aid of the law of libel, and to send foreign writers out of 1 Lord Hawkesbury to Mr. Merry, 10th June, 1802. 2 M. Otto to Lord Hawkesbury, Aug. 17th, 1802. See supra, p. 177. the country, because they were obnoxious, not to our own government, but to another, was not to be listened to. The removal of other French emigrants, and especially of the princes of the House of Bourbon, was refused, and every argument and precedent adduced in support of the demand refuted. The emigrants in Jersey had already removed of their own accord; and the bishops would be required to leave England, if it could be proved that they had been distributing papers on the coast of France, in order to disturb the gov ernment; but sufficient proof of this charge must be given. As regards M. Georges, who had been concerned in circulating papers hostile to the government in France, his Majesty agreed to remove him from our European dominions. The king refused to withdraw the rights of hospitality from the French princes, unless it could be proved that they were attempting to disturb the peace between the two countries. He also declined to adopt the harsh measure which had been demanded against refugees who continued to wear French decorations.2 on which The ground here taken has been since maintained. It is Principles not enough that the presence or acts of a foreigner foreigners are may be displeasing to a foreign power. If that protected. rule were accepted, where would be the right of asylum? The refugee would be followed by the vengeance of his own government, and driven forth from the home he had chosen in a free country. On this point, Englishmen have been chivalrously sensitive. Having undertaken to protect the stranger, they have resented any menace to him, as an insult to themselves. Disaffection to the rulers of his own country is natural to a refugee: his banishmen attests it. Poles hated Russia: Hungarians and Italians were hostile to Austria: French Royalists spurned the republic and the first empire: Charles X. and Louis Napoleon were disaffected to Louis Philippe, King of the French: le 1 Mr. Merry to Lord Hawkesbury, June 17th, 1802. |