CLASS VII. (Hansard, 13 March 1893)

MR. JAMES LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)
I am sorry to stand in the way of the important discussion to which the House has been so long anxiously looking forward—namely, the discussion of the Evicted Tenants Commission. If the forms of the Committee permitted, I should like to postpone the Amendment which I have given notice of so as to enable the Evicted Tenants Commission to be dealt with at once, but as I find there is some difficulty in the way of that course of proceeding, it will be for the convenience of the Committee that the matter of which I have given notice should be disposed of as far as circumstances permit in a very few words. If I were in order in bringing the subject on, on the Vote as a whole, I would adopt that course, but as I understand the invariable practice of the House it would be out of order for me to do so. If the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade gives me the information I desire it will enable us at once to proceed with the main business of the evening. I will be brief in my remarks, so as to allow the Committee to proceed with the main business of the evening. The point to which I desire to draw attention is to that of the Labour Commission. I may say, in passing, that that body was appointed with thorough impartiality; it consisted of able representatives of all sections and opinion, thereby affording a favourable contrast to some of the other Commissions with which this Vote deals. The Secretary of the 1870 Labour Commission was sent to the United States for the purpose of inquiring into the laws and customs and regulations prevailing in the United States with regard to the admission of alien immigrants. The inquiries of that Sub-Commissioner appear in a Blue Book which has been presented to the House by the Labour Commission—Volume I. of the Foreign Reports under the head of "United States." This Report, which I hold in my hand, appears to contain very full and complete information with regard to the customs and laws prevailing in the United States in relation to the admission of alien immigrants. The President of the Board of Trade said the other day, following up a statement made by the Prime Minister during the Debate on the Address, that he had appointed two Commissioners to proceed to the United States for the purpose of making inquiries with regard to the laws in force there against alien immigration. But if the right hon. Gentleman turns to page 38 of the Report in this Blue Book he will actually find all the information which he desires on the subject, information which goes to the very root of the question. It states the various Acts which are in force in regard to immigration in the States. Yet with this information in his possession the right hon. Gentleman thought it necessary to send other Commissioners to the United States. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Sub-Commissioners sent out by the Labour Commission had only touched the fringe of the subject. That is a very grave charge. My curiosity is evidently not so great as that of the right hon. Gentleman, for I think there is ample information to enable us to deal with this serious evil to which I drew the attention of the House on the Address. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how we are asked to vote considerable sums for the Labour Commission, amongst other things the expenditure incurred by the expedition to the United States of their own Secretary? If this gentleman's services are worthless why should we have to pay for them? If he only touched the fringe of the subject, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the House of Commons should not be asked to pay one shilling for his services. I, however, am not disposed to think that this Sub-Commissioner did otherwise than a very 1871 useful service. He draws attention in his Report to the laws and regulations in respect to alien immigration in force in the United States, and what else does the right hon. Gentleman want when he says it only touches the fringe of the subject? The right hon. Gentleman has made questionable selections—one of them, Herr Schloss, another Mr. Burnett, a gentleman connected with the Labour Department, had been sent up to review the work of the Sub-Commissioner sent out by the Labour Commission. I gave the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity of defending these appointments on another occasion, and he made personal references in which I will not follow him. I made no reference to the nationality of any person other than the persons to whom my question was directed. I must point out that a person cannot be competent to discharge impartial duties allotted to him if he holds preconceived opinions on the very subject on which he is called upon to hold an impartial inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman wanted to make my remarks on this occasion personal to himself. For years he has been occupied in public duties with honour to himself and advantage to the country, and the last reference I would make would be one calculated to give any personal offence to the right hon. Gentleman. If I were myself appointed to discharge these functions, I would have thought my appointment—unless counterbalanced by some one on the other side—a singularly bad appointment. Those who have committed themselves to strong opinions on any subject have a perfect right to hold these opinions, and to give expression to them, but they are not the right persons to be called upon to discharge quasi-judicial functions in respect of these subjects. I am told that the preconceived opinions of Herr Schloss on the subject he is called upon to investigate are notorious. I want, therefore, to ask the right hon. Gentleman why, with the Report of Mr. Drage before him, he thought it necessary to send out to the United States a gentleman whose impartiality on this question was certainly not above suspicion; also whether it is not the case that the right hon. Gentleman has been influenced in this selection by permanent officers whose bias on the subject is a matter of universal notoriety; and whether I can give the right hon. 1872 Gentleman himself credit for freedom from bias on this question, a charge to which I plead guilty myself on my own side?

§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,) Sheffield, Brightside
The right hon. Gentleman has raised a question upon the Royal Commission of Labour appointed by the late Government, and takes exception to an appointment I have made of gentlemen who are acting as Commissioners of the Labour Department. I do not see how that is in Order.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER
I must correct the right hon. Gentleman. My remarks were addressed to the Report of the Labour Commission which he now holds in his hands, and of which he said that it only touched the fringe of the subject.

§ MR. MUNDELLA
I said, certainly—this being a question of alien immigration—that the Report only touched the fringe of the subject; but I said nothing whatever in derogation of the great and distinguished ability of Mr. Drage, the Secretary of the Labour Commission, who prepared this Report. He has done his work well. The wonder is that in the short time at his disposal in the United States he was able to make such a Report as that, though it is gathered, not from personal observation, but from American Blue Books. I am the last person in the world to detract from the services of the able Secretary to the Labour Commission. The services he has rendered are admirable, and the whole work is well done. But I must take exception to the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has attempted to cast ridicule upon Mr. Schloss, who is English by birth and a distinguished Oxford man, and who has dealt with the labour question in a way in which scarcely a dozen other men could deal with it. The right hon. Gentleman speaks of him as of alien extraction and as a foreigner, and cannot even pronounce his name properly, for he called him "Hurr Schloss." It is only done for the purpose of casting ridicule on a distinguished man. Mr. Schloss and Mr. John Burnett have been appointed to make a thorough, exhaustive, and impartial investigation of this question of alien immigration in the States, and to lay the result of their investigations before 1873 the House betwixt this and the 1st July. Why does the right hon. Gentleman take exception to this? He complains that I am not content with the scattered references to the question at page 13 of this Blue Book. If the right hon. Gentleman knew anything at all about the subject, he would know that Mr. Drage's Report only touches the fringe of the subject, for it is not based upon personal observation, but is simply the result of what he was able to gather up from American Reports and Blue Books on the whole question of American labour. Mr. Drage himself would be the first to admit that. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman is rather afraid of the investigation and that he is not anxious to have an exhaustive statement on the whole matter. We have been actuated by the desire to furnish the House with full information, and I am sure the Reports of the gentlemen who are now in the United States will justify the action which we have taken. The action we have taken was not on the advice of partial and prejudiced persons, as the right hon. Gentleman said, but on the advice of those who are anxious that full and exhaustive information should be obtained. But there is no proposal before the House. The right hon. Gentleman has not moved a reduction in the Vote, for had he done so he would have censured the late Government who set up the Commission. No one knows better than I do the good work done by Mr. Drage. As Chairman of a section of the Labour Commission, I was constantly brought in contact with Mr. Drage for two years, and I could not say anything of that gentleman except in terms of the highest praise.

§ SIR JOHN GORST (Cambridge University)
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has withdrawn the censure which he passed upon Mr. Drage last week.

§ MR. MUNDELLA
I rise to Order. I am in the recollection of the House. I made no reflection of the kind. I said nothing in derogation of Mr. Drage. In fact, I said nothing about him except in his praise.

§ SIR J. GORST
I think the interruption of the right hon. Gentleman most disorderly. I say I am glad he has withdrawn his imputation.

§ MR. MUNDELLA
I never made any.

§ SIR J. GORST
Whether intentionally or not, the words used by the right hon. Gentleman the other day did convey an imputation both upon Mr. Drage and the Labour Commission. This sort of sneer came extremely badly from the right hon. Gentleman, who was a Member of the Commission, and had as much to do as anybody with the direction of its efforts. What the right hon. Gentleman stated the other day was that the inquiries made in America on the Labour Question, and on alien immigration in particular, only touched the fringe of the question.

§ MR. MUNDELLA
I did not say so.

§ SIR J. GORST
That description of the labours of Mr. Drage is most unjust and unfair. Mr. Drage went to America last year—his expenses are charged in this Vote—and made a most complete and exhaustive inquiry into the whole subject, and in the archives of the Labour Commission, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, there is now to be found the fullest information on every branch of the question. As I understand this is a mere conversation, and no long speeches are to be made on the subject, I will not enumerate to the House particulars of this information. I will content myself by saying that anyone who inquires at the offices of the Labour Commission will find complete information of the Statutes passed by the United States of America and by individual States upon the subject of alien immigration. He will also find there a Report by a Committee appointed by the United States on the subject of foreign contract labour, which gives a most complete account of the mode in which the Act regulating these contracts operate, the way in which they are attempted to be carried into execution, the difficulties met with in the United States in the practical administration of the law, and various proposals and suggestions which have been made by public men in America and by persons very well qualified to give expression to opinions for the amendment of that legislation. So far from the information collected by Mr. Drage being a mere collection of Reports and Statutes, he made a personal investigation into the matter and brought back a complete record of the opinions of all persons best 1875 qualified in America to give an opinion as to the best mode in which alien immigration could be dealt with and as to the various difficulties the United States suffer from in the way of deterring immigration from Europe and China. The right hon. Gentleman said that Mr. Drage would be the first to admit that his inquiries only touched the fringe of the subject. I would retort upon the right hon. Gentleman by saying that nobody can be more certain that no further information is necessary than the two gentlemen who have been sent out on a fool's errand to examine and inquire into a matter which has already been amply and sufficiently inquired into.

§ MR. MUNDELLA
In reference to that, I wish to say that the two gentlemen who have been sent out would certainly not have gone if they thought they were being sent on a fool's errand. No two gentlemen are more impressed with the importance of further examination and the necessity of bringing the whole facts before the Government.

§ COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT (Sheffield, Central)
I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the instructions given to Mr. Burnett and Mr. Schloss in relation to their mission to America will be laid on the Table?

§ MR. MUNDELLA
If the hon. Gentleman will ask at the Vote Office he will get them.

§ COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT
They have not got them there.

§ MR. MUNDELLA
I handed them to the Clerk at the Table more than a week ago with instructions that they were to be printed.