§ Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment [25th April] to Question [25th April], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Which Amendment was—
To leave out all the words after the word 'That, in order to add the words 'this House, holding that the evils of low-priced alien labour can best ho met by legislation to prevent sweating, desires to assure itself, before assenting to the Aliens Bill, that sufficient regard is had in the proposed measure to the retention of the principle of asylum for the victims of persecution.'"—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
§ Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ * MR. PEEL,
continuing his speech, said he wished to turn to another aspect of the controversy, and he did not think it would be seriously denied that a large amount of the competition of these aliens was in respect of the lower kinds of labour. That had been admitted by many of the witnesses who had given evidence before the Royal Commission, although a different story was told by a Mr. Lyons. Secretary 1132 to the Society of Garment Makers, who maintained that these aliens were mostly employed in what might be called the middle class of work, and not in the poorest and worst kind. The point was worth making, because it had been contended that we were undersold by these cheaper goods from abroad. Very often these goods were only cheaper in appearance, because they were made of inferior materials—in fact, they were shoddy. These goods were mostly made for export. But he thought there was in some foreign markets a reaction against shoddy goods sent to them, let him say from Germany; but British goods, by their excellence of manufacture and better stability, had been undoubtedly winning their way in foreign markets. The cheap and shoddy goods that were made by aliens and exported were not altogether a good thing for our name; it was not well that such goods should be associated with our exports. A great deal bad been said as to the horrible misery inflicted by sweating in connection with alien labour, and the way in which it had been increased by unrestricted entrance of foreign labour but that, after all, was only a contributory cause, and to restrict the immigration of these aliens was after all only one of the methods of dealing with the matter. He did not say that the question might not be dealt with by the increased stringency of factory legislation, but the idea of putting down home work was almost impossible of realisation. He pointed out the difficulties involved in the inspection of small factories run by aliens, and contended that even without aliens something of this sweating would go on, but the difficulty of dealing with it was enormously increased and enhanced by the continuous immigration of these aliens who, by their ignorance of our language, lack of skill, and want of knowledge of this country, were in more danger of being made the victims of sweating to a greater degree than the people of this country.
As to the trades unions, some figures had been quoted by the Member for the Forest of Dean, but if examined into it would be seen how almost impossible it would be to rely upon them. Mr. Llewellyn Smith had shown that even in cases where the wages in all the different sub-divisions of 1133 a trade had increased, it might happen that owing to a change in the proportion of skilled and unskilled labour, the total wages might have decreased. Moreover, the figures could not be gathered from trade unions and largo employers. The sweaters very naturally did not make any return. The hon. Member for Battersea would bear him out when he said the trades in which aliens were employed were little organised from a trade union point of view. That was a fact which he considered it very important to bear in mind in estimating the value of the figures quoted so confidently by the Member for the Forest of Dean. Those figures must, he held, be subject to many deductions. Alien immigration retarded the work of trade unions in raising the standard of living, and it also had a very serious effect in lowering wages and producing overcrowding, the evils of which had to be remedied at the cost of the ratepayer. A higher standard of life in the East End of London was rendered almost impossible owing to the continuous influx of these aliens. The Bill was not intended to exclude, but to sift alien immigrants. He sympathised with the feeling that we had established for our-selves a name and reputation for allowing everybody to come to this country, but that reputation should not be earned at the expense of our own people, and he thought it better to do something to promote the real happiness and prosperity of the poor than to maintain a tradition of unrestricted entry the price of which was the degradation of our towns.
§ MR. ATHERLEY-JONES (Durham, N.W.)
said the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had said he would not lightly violate the tradition of which this country was so justly proud, and his only reason for so doing was that the urgency had become so great that it was necessary to afford protection to our own people. But the speech of the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean, he considered, remained unanswered. He regretted that any vote on that aide of the House should be given against the most cherished tradition of the Liberal Party, and he hoped that, notwithstanding the opinions expressed in debate, the Liberal Party would be officially represented in the division. He 1134 had listened with considerable interest to what must be regarded as the principal speech which had yet been made from the Front Bench, and from what he gathered from the right hon. Gentleman the purpose of the Bill was confined to the exclusion of aliens who were undesirable persons in the sense in which that term was usually employed. If the Bill merely effected the exclusion of persons suffering from disease or addicted to crime, he would be prepared to support it, but this measure in its scope and power of action was capable of excluding aliens of whatever condition, however reputable and respectable they might be. The argument of the Tight hon. Gentleman was that there were a number of people who came to this country, especially from Germany, Russia and Poland, who were more or less associated with the criminal classes, or suffering more or less from disease, who were wasters and strays on the Continent. That was entirely in conflict with the Report of the Royal Commission. The Report of the Commission showed that 60 per cent, of the aliens who, under pressure, had immigrated into this country had a knowledge of skilled trades. According to the medical officer of the county of London, their health and physique were everything that could be desired.
The Bill was really aimed at the exclusion of these aliens from a trade union point of view. It was protective. But the effect of the introduction of alien immigrants employed in the cabinetmaking, tailoring and shoemaking trades had, the Royal Commission reported, been beneficial in indirectly giving employment to native industry. This country in former years had derived enormous advantages from the entry of alien skilled labour; especially was this the case in the pottery and textile industries, the improvement in which was largely due to the introduction of foreign skilled labour. The aliens in the Metropolis were mainly occupied in the tailoring trade. Formerly the slop tailoring of London had been done by an Irish colony in Soho, but these people had not been driven to destitution by the aliens; they had drifted into occupations more congenial to them. The Bill would destroy the right of asylum which had hitherto existed in this country. It 1135 would give the Homo Secretary power to require certificates of character, but from whom would such certificates be obtained? From the police authorities of the country whence the aliens came? If so, what chance was there of a political fugitive from justice ever again finding an asylum in this country? He knew no sentiment that more deeply moved the public feeling in this country than this sacred principle of asylum. The Bill, too, would introduce a most abominable system of espionage, for a foreigner coming into this country would be obliged to remain under police surveillance for two years. He did not deny that the importation of a considerable number of aliens into a narrow and congested area of London had had evil results, but he denied that this was the fons et origo of the mischief in regard to labour. The remedy was not to exclude aliens, but to insist on proper sanitary conditions being observed by the local authorities.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT
said if this was panic legislation, as the hon. Member for the Elland Division had suggested, it was a panic which had been a long time coming. It was now sixteen years ago since the Select Committee was appointed by the House to consider the matter, and their Report, although it did not recommend immediate legislation, contemplated the possibility of such legislation becoming necessary in the future. He thought the Government had been much too dilatory in introducing such legislation, but congratulated the Home Secretary on the completeness of the measure. The late Lord Salisbury took a very strong view on this matter and himself introduced a Bill in 1894 in the House of Lords. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean was not in the House when the hon. Member for Wolverhampton spoke; had he been, he did not think he would have persevered in the Amendment moved. There was considerable difficulty in arriving at exact figures on the question, and even the census returns were by no means satisfactory. But taking the census returns as the best that could be obtained, it appeared that in 1901 there were 1136 286,925 aliens in the country, of whom 95,245 were Russians or Poles, and of those 53,537 were resident in London, 42,033 being in the borough of Stepney alone. There were also 53,000 Germans, of whom 27,147 were resident in London. It was true the number was small when compared with the whole population, but the evil was that they were concentrated in particular districts and in particular trades, and when the condition of affairs in Stepney, Whitechapel, and Shoreditch was considered, it would surely be admitted that it was incumbent upon the Government to do something to remove the terrible congestion there existing All were proud of the fact that this country had afforded asylum to many men who had since risen to considerable distinction, and they were anxious that that right should not be interfered with. But this Bill had nothing to do with the right of asylum; it simply made provision with reference to the immigration of aliens, and gave to this country the right already possessed by every other country in the world, including our own self-governing colonies.
The evil was really a growth of the last twenty-five years. In 1903 the total number of aliens coming into the country was 82,572; 13,410 of these were sailors, and this introduction of foreign sailors to man the mercantile marine was one of the most serious factors of the situation. In 1902, 81,533, of whom 15,000 were sailors, came in, so that in the two years, after deducting sailors, 170,285 aliens landed in this country at the eastern ports. Some of these certainly proceeded subsequently to the United States, but no one had the least idea of how many did so, and it was, undoubtedly, the case that the worst remained here. What was the condition of the aliens arriving in this country? According to Dr. Williams, the medical officer for the Port of London, many of them were in a filthy, verminous condition. Surely it could not be contended that they were desirable immigrants? If the matter was impartially considered, there was not the slightest doubt that the introduction of persons such as those scheduled 1137 in the Bill was eminently undesirable. It was not fair to the ratepayers of this country, and the Metropolis especially, that they should be taxed to support destitute aliens. Surely it was incumbent upon the Government to take measures to remove this terrible congestion of aliens in the East End of London. The right of asylum, of which they were all proud, was unaffected by the Bill. The Bill simply proposed to make provisions with respect to the immigration of aliens, and not only every foreign country, but every self-governing British colony had passed legislation of a similar character. If an alien committed an offence in a foreign country he was expelled. But in this country in 1903 there were 1,300 aliens in provincial prisons, and 1.915 aliens in the Metropolitan prisons, who were maintained at a cost to the taxpayers of £30,000, and when their time was up were released to prey again upon the community. Traders, too, suffered to an enormous extent. British shopkeepers were driven out of a neighbourhood because the aliens would only deal with their co-religionists, and again, a large number of aliens went into bankruptcy with a large amount of unsecured liabilities. Not one single speech had shown that this Bill had anything to do with any anti-Semitic feeling whatever, nor was it directed against foreigners as a whole.
§ MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)
said the hon. Member who had last spoken had been the leader of the Government in this matter and deserved credit for the fact that the movement of which he had proved himself to be the stormy petrel had attained its present position after sixteen years of agitation. He had listened with some disappointment to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member as well as to other speeches. Ho could not see that they had made out that the existing evils were such as to justify the exceptional remedies which the House was asked to apply to them. He did not deny that a case might sometimes be made out for excluding aliens from this country; that it might be found that the entrance of the foreigner of a lower standard of life and social condition was undesirable because these people 1138 could not assimilate with the established population of the country. But he was bound to say he did not think that any case had been made out for interfering with the free movement of population from one part of the world to the other, such as the peoples of California and Australia had for excluding Chinese. The general practice of mankind had been to allow the free movement of population from one country to another, and the mixture of the races had generally been found to be a good thing for the country where the races had mixed and had proved themselves capable of forming a civilised community. What was the case against the alien immigrant here? In the first place, he was entirely confined to the East End of London, and almost entirely to the borough of Stepney. Now they were asked to make a new departure, to set up a new condition of administration for the whole country for the sake of a small number of people living in one borough in the East End of London! Was there not a disproportion between the evil and the remedy? No case had been made out showing that any harm had happened to any part of England except Stepney. He once had the honour of representing Stepney in that House and he received a great deal of kindness there, but, after all, Stepney was not England, and they could not legislate for all England merely for the sake of one borough.
It was said that the Russian Poles who came here were the off-scourings of Eastern Europe. What was it they were guilty of? It was not ill-health or that they introduced epidemic diseases. The Jewish population were less apt to be attacked with epidemics than any section of Europeans. In Rome in old days the Ghetto was comparatively immune from plague, and in more recent years the Jews were more immune from cholera than the Europeans among whom they lived. Was the complaint to be urged against them on account of poor relief? The evidence of the chairman of the White-chapel Union showed that the locality was put to no expense for poor relief owing to the action of the Jewish charitable agencies in looking after their own poor, and if the House would refer to the figures they would find the 1139 remarkable fact that the percentage of alien paupers to total alien population was2.4 while the percentage of paupers to the population generally was 7.9. Thus there was really no case at all as regarded poor relief. Nor was the case any stronger as to their influence on labour. The evidence showed that the development of the industries in which the alien had engaged had benefited in various ways, while the Commission said that there had been no proof forthcoming that there had been any serious displacement of English skilled labour. It was true that as a temporary measure, English labourers were undersold when the aliens had newly arrived and were in their transition stage; but after a few years they became capable of making better terms for themselves and did not permanently depress the labour market. The case really seemed to rest on the plea of overcrowding. He agreed that it was a serious evil, but it was not confined to Stepney. It was quite as bad in other parts of London and in other cities. The evil called for prompt and drastic treatment wherever it existed, but it could not be got rid of by relieving overcrowding in Stepney alone.
Then there was the case of crime. It was perfectly true that the aliens committed a greater proportion of crime than the rest of the population, but no attempt had been made to show that the crime attributable to aliens was due to the particular class against whom the Rill was directed. There was no evidence that it was, and there was a good deal of negative evidence to show that it was not. The criminals from whom we suffered did not come into the country in a destitute condition, and they would not be caught in this web of the Home Secretary's devising. He believed that the evil had been immensely exaggerated, and while the crime was confined to one particular part of London it was not an evil which needed the large general remedies proposed in the Bill. How were they going to deal with it. When he was at the Board of Trade nine years ago the matter had already been pressed on their attention with a view to devising some method by which at least the undesirable alien could be excluded, and at that time they were quite unable to find 1140 any effective method. Was this Bill calculated to secure that end? Was the remedy not likely to prove worse than the disease? Among the remedies suggested by the Bill was the need for better statistics. The House was agreed on that point. It would no doubt be a great advantage to know the facts more fully than they did. Next, that there should be a thorough medical examination of aliens entering the country. It would be a costly and troublesome business, but in principle no one would object to this. He did not think it would be found that these immigrants were responsible for the introduction of contagious diseases. The third proposal was that persons who had been convicted of a serious offence might have added to their sentence the direction that when they were liberated from confinement they should be deported to the country from whence they came. That proposition would meet with no criticism, for every one who had spoken had agreed that the power was a proper one to vest in Judges, and perhaps in inferior tribunals. Then there was a fourth proposition, which he did not find in the Bill, but which was made by the Royal Commission and upon which also he thought they would all agree. At any rate, the point was one in regard to which some amendment was required.
Another proposition of the Bill was to deal with overcrowding by declaring certain areas to be prohibited for the reception of aliens. The more that proposition was looked into the more would it be found to be absolutely unworkable. The Royal Commission did not say a single word about the practicability of it. They threw the remedy down without endeavouring to prove that it was capable of application, and several witnesses evidently did not think it was capable of application. Another argument was that overcrowding existed in other parts of London, in Glasgow, Manchester, and many of our great towns. But why did it exist there? Simply because overcrowding was a general evil, and it existed partly because the law was defective, but much more because the local authorities would not put the law into force. He ventured to appeal to 1141 the Home Office and to the Local Government Board to make a more serious effort than had yet been made to set the law put into force. If the local authorities could be kept up to the work, and if the minor amendments which might be needed to increase their powers were made, they could get rid of this evil altogether without all this moonshine about prohibited areas.
Then there was stoppage at the ports, the most important proposal of the Bill. Stop how? By inspectors acting under the Home Office, the ultimate decision resting with the Home Secretary. I respect the Government had departed from the recommendation of the Royal Commission, which proposed that no one should be debarred from entry except by sentence of a Court Summary Jurisdiction, given on tile production of something like evidence. That would be, at any rate, more consonant with the practice which had hitherto governed them in this country. But the Government threw that overboard altogether. They left the decision to the sole, unaided fiat of the Home Secretary, and, apparently, without any test of evidence. How were they to ascertain in any one of the classes to be excluded what was the character of the persons? He presumed it would be from the police of the country from which they came. He did not suggest that the Government had brought in the Bill with any intention of encroaching upon or destroying what an hon. friend of his called the sacred right of asylum, but he did think that they were putting into the hands of their detectives a very dangerous power, which, although they did not mean to abuse it, might, in other times, be capable of abuse, and which, at any rate, was a departure from one of the most sacred and cherished traditions of the British Constitution. Then, again, how was an inspector to know whether a man had visible means of support or not? He had got, at any rate, his arms and his brains, and many people who had got on best in this country had come in with nothing but their brains and their arms. There was no evidence in the Report of the Commission to justify the proposals of the Government. It seemed that the 1142 measure was intended as a sort of scarecrow to frighten alien immigrants, which was neither a sapient nor a dignified course for this country to adopt. Such measures had been shown to be ineffective in the United States, where less than 1 per cent, of the immigrants who presented themselves were now turned back, although among them there were many who had come under labour contracts, and were, therefore, of the very class against which more than any other the United States enactment was directed. A strong view as to the impracticability of stopping the criminal at the ports was held by four of the highest authorities on the subject—Sir Kenelm Digby, Sir Edward Bradford, Mr. Henry, and Mr. Albert de Rutzen. Was a plan which these authorities condemned likely to work?
There seemed to be a rather un-unreasonable prejudice against these aliens, who after a few years assimilated our civilisation and very often proved useful and capable members of society. He remembered when he was Member for the Tower Hamlets that one of the ablest men he had to deal with was a German Jew following the humble trade of a cigar-maker who spoke with a foreign accent, and was probably a pauper immigrant, but nevertheles he was an exceedingly able and honest man, and he at least made upon him the impression that amongst those people which they were apt to consider as an undesirable class there was often a great deal of talent. Upon one occasion at Sheffield ha saw a foreigner who had some difficulty about his ticket on the platform at the railway station, and he discovered that he had lost his ticket. He questioned him in his own language, and, after he had interceded, the officials allowed him to proceed on his journey. He turned out to be a shoemaker, and he had nothing but the little bundle he was carrying, but nevertheless he was an exceedingly bright fellow who was going to his brother in Manchester, and he felt perfectly certain that that man would be a valuable acquisition to the population of Manchester. The remedy proposed appeared to be not only utterly disproportionate to the evil which existed, but at variance with the beat, traditions 1143 of our legislation. This was really a sham Bill, and he strongly suspected that its authors knew it would not work, but had introduced it only to meet a popular cry. The President of the Board of Trade had said that there was a strong feeling upon the subject, but he might very well have used the same argument in regard to the action of the Roumanian Government who persecuted the Jews. He could not admit that the existence of this strong feeling was a sufficient reason why this House should legislate by bringing in a sham Bill to be placed upon the Statute-book.
§ * THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,) Kent, St. Augustine's
It is not my desire to take up an undue length of time in the discussion to-night, but I think there are certain questions which the House will expect me to answer, and which have been expressly directed to me in the course of the debate. Therefore, with the permission of the House, I will reply as shortly as I can to those criticisms, and then very briefly give the reason why I think this Bill should receive a Second Reading. The right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean has very courteously called attention to an obvious inaccuracy which I made in introducing the Bill, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for having given me the opportunity of admitting the inaccuracy. The figures I gave were quoted in the Alien Immigration Returns published by the Board of Trade under the heading "Aliens, not described as en route to places out of the United Kingdom." and were obviously far greater than the numbers which, according to the census returns, could be reckoned as having ever lived in this country. It has been suggested that at the bottom of the Bill there is an anti-Semitic feeling. Might I, on my own part and on the part of those who have introduced the Bill, deny emphatically that we are influenced by any racial or religious feeling? I entirely agree with the denunciations which have been made by the hon. Member for the Elland Division of the inhuman treatment which has been 1144 too often accorded to the Jews in Eastern Europe, and I would not be slow to make my acknowledgment of the advantages which in the past we have received from their presence in this country and the benefits which they have conferred upon it. I would like to add my meed of praise of the very excellent example which they set us in the way in which they look after their more distressed brethren. The hon. Member for the Elland Division and the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean suggested in the Amendment which they have brought forward upon the Second Reading of this Bill that the whole of the evils of which complaint was made might be met by a more stringent administration of the laws relating to sweating. I venture to say that however excellently these laws are administered, and even if they are amended to the extent which many hon. Members desire, they will in themselves be unequal to dealing with the problems which the House is called upon to face. The evils of unrestricted immigration are not confined to sweating. The Royal Commission in their Report state think that they think that—The greatest evils produced by the presence of alien immigrants here are the overcowding caused by them in certain districts in London and the consequent displacement of the native population.The whole of the figures have been gone into and they have been quoted on both sides of the House to-night. Of the 286,925 aliens resident in this country in 1901, there were in the borough of Stepney alone 54,310. My hon. friend the Member for Stepney has reminded the House that that does not include the whole case. To that number you have to add those who were born in this country of alien parents, who are naturally not included in the Return. In these figures you have a very good proof of the inconvenience not only of this great immigration of aliens, but of their congestion in one particular district. My hon. friend the Member for Bethnal Green alluded to the fact that within the last six years 107 streets in Stepney have passed wholly into the occupation of aliens.
§ * MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS
The figure are to be found in the Report. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to proceed without interrupting my argument. These 107 streets in the borough of Stepney have passed wholly into the occupation of aliens. What, therefore, is the condition of these streets and houses? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife asked the House to look carefully into the evidence as well as the Report of the Royal Commission. I am quite certain that if the House accept his advice and look carefully into the report of the evidence given before the Royal Commission they will see what is the condition of the streets and houses which have been entirely taken over by this alien population. There are rooms and cellars too often occupied by more than one family, used as workshops in the day and as sleeping places at night. The Commissioners gave an instance of ten houses of fifty-one rooms which were occupied by 254 people. The house owners, or house builders, often aliens themselves, buy up property after property in that district, and on account of the higher rents aliens offer to give, the landlords turn out the occupying tenants and, therefore, you have not only all the evils of overcrowding, but the worst state of those evils. I venture to think that this overcrowding, with all its concurrent evils, is a matter which has certainly a claim upon the attention of the Government. It not only leads to the displacement of the native population, but is becoming a very serious menace to the maintenance of law and order.
The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, and other speakers on the other side of the House, in the course of the debate have maintained that if this Bill should pass this country will no longer be the sanctuary for the victims of persecution. Well, there is certainly nothing which is further from the wish of the Government than to bring about any change of this character. This country has always 1146 been the asylum for the persecuted and the oppressed, and I venture to think that it would be a great breach of national hospitality if we were now, and for the first time, to close our doors against political refugees and against those who solely are the victims of political tyranny. I maintain that there is nothing in this Bill which can possibly by any stretch of imagination be said to keep out that class from this country. The right hon. Baronet said that he could give instances of cases in which this would be the effect. He said that under this Bill, as far as he understood it, men such as Dalou, Prince Peter Kropotkin, and the brothers Reclus would have been prevented from having a home in this country. To all these we were only too proud to give hospitality, and we should welcome men like them in the future. Nothing will be put in the regulations (which I may point out are to he laid before the House) which would prevent refugees of that character coming as freely to this country as they have ever done in its history. The Government fully realise the advantages which this country has received from refugees—refugees from France and other countries who brought with them a knowledge of art and trade which has greatly benefited our manufactures in the past. All we desire to do is to prevent aliens of the characters described in the schedule of the Bill from coming to this country and causing inconvenience and suffering to our own population. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fifeshire, for whose opinions and criticisms I have the highest regard, has carried on with great success the office which I have now the honour to hold. I am bound to lay the criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman very carefully to heart. He tells me that there are no precedents whatever for the action which it is proposed to take under this Bill. I am not going to rake up precedents, but I think he will remember that there have been Alien Acts in the last century in which the power that is now asked for has been exercised. Even greater powers were asked.
§ * MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS
No; more than temporary. If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to the debates on the Second Reading of an Aliens Bill in 1816, he will find that powers of a very stringent character were asked for and as a fact a drastic measure were, carried. It is not however the, precedent on which this Bill is based, nor, I confess, until the right hon. Gentleman raised the point was I aware of the fact that it existed. The right hon. Gentleman says that these powers are too great to be given to any individual. Well, I would point out that these powers are to be exercised under regulations, that these rules will come automatically under the provisions of the Publications Act, which provides that after having been published in draft they shall be laid before Parliament for forty days where they can be discussed and dealt with like any other rules that are laid before this House. Further than that, the Secretary of State, whoever he may be, will always be responsible in this House for any action he takes, and his conduct can always be criticised and, if necessary, his salary can be reduced on the Estimates which are yearly brought forward in the House. My hon. friend the Member for Fulham made. I think, with great force one criticism with regard to the carrying out of the provisions of the Bill. That is to say, he criticised the provisions of Sub-clause (3) of Clause 2, which gives the Secretary of State power to act in respect of aliens in this country who may have been here for not more than two years. I admit that there is a distinction to be drawn between the cases aimed at in this Subsection and those provided against in Sub-clause (1). If you are to deal with the latter you must deal at once, because if you do not take immediate action the alien will have landed, and the ship will have left, and it will be impossible to deport him in the same ship to the country from which he came. With regard to the other cases, when the alien is already here I think it is quite a question whether efficient steps could not be taken through the medium of a Court of Justice. The criticisms on Clause 4 were dealt with by my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board in connection with 1148 the Department for which he is responsible. I need only say that we shall be quite ready to accept any reasonable Amendment.
I am glad to find that there is one portion of the Bill which, I think, meets with the general approbation of the House of Commons, and that is the clause dealing with the deportation of aliens who have been convicted of crime in this country. I think there can be no doubt that the crime of this country would be very considerably reduced if a portion of the sentence passed on aliens in this country was that they should be obliged to leave the country or be dealt with under the Vagrancy Acts. From all the reports which I have received, not only from Judges, but from chairmen of quarter sessions and police magistrates, I am quite certain that if these provisions were carried out there would be a very large decrease in crime in London and in many of our big towns, and that they would effectively deal with a large amount of petty crime. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the crime committed by aliens is largely and chiefly larceny and small offences and not very serious crime; or, at all events, not murder or crime against the person. But it is to be remarked that judging from the number of their previous convictions there is probably a larger class of habitual criminals among aliens than among any other class of the population, and I think it is only fair to the citizens of this country that if aliens come up, as they sometimes do, eight, ten, or twelve times, that they should have in future as part of their sentence the sentence of deportation. I only now desire to point out that in addition to the arguments which have been used in favour of the Second Heading of this Bill, we think it is an anomaly that this country, almost if not quite alone among the civilised countries of the world, should have no power of excluding or expelling any class of alien or aliens, however injurious their presence may be in this country. It is that power—that power of expulsion—which is exercised by other civilised States, by our own Colonies, even by such a small dependency of this country 1149 as the Channel Islands; and I venture to think that we shall not get efficient protection from the evils which are so rightly complained of by those who take an interest in this alien question unless we are empowered to take measures against the unrestricted immigration of what is often an evil class. I have pointed out that we have no desire whatever to interfere with the entrance of any foreigner as such to this country. All we desire to do is to remove this class of undesirable aliens who bring no credit whatever to this country, but who bring in their train many evils from which we think the working classes of this country should be preserved.
§ MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea)
said the Home Secretary concluded his speech by stating as a reason why they should pass this intolerable Bill, that we were the only country that had not passed this kind of legislation. It was because this was the only civilised country that did not possess this kind of legislation that he was proud of being a Briton, and if we put ourselves abreast of other countries in passing this pettifogging restrictive legislation he would consider whether he should take a passage to some land resembling the country he used to know. We were losing some of the characteristics of a free people, and nothing indicated this more than the fact that because a few poor Jews came to this country and worked for low wages, and were supposed to be a nuisance to British workmen, this Bill was necessary. The British workman did not make half the complaint that factious politicians nervous about their seats did. Because a few poor Jews, flying from tyranny and oppression and countries where bad economic conditions existed, came to this country was no reason for a Bill such as this. He saw no reason for excluding the poor Jews. He would pass an Aliens Bill for the rich Jews of Bayswater, Fitzjohn's Avenue, Hampstead, Park Lane, and Throgmorton Street. But the Government dare not include these people in the schedule to the Bill. The political 1150 power and financial influence of these rich Jews were so great that they could pull the Government from Dan to Beersheba. We had a debt of £250,000,000, and we had lost 22,000 precious lives, and we would lose South Africa because of the rich Jew. He would include him in the schedule of this Bill, not because he worked for a living, but because he suborned politicians. [Cries of "No."] Did they doubt it? Let them look at the Cape Committee Report. The rich Jew suborned judges and corrupted Parliaments, made raids, organised rebellions and did not hesitate to do things to make himself still richer. In so doing the rich Jew was bringing upon this country untold harm which poor Jews would not do if they could, but by virtue of their condition they were unable to attack us.
To hear the hon. Member for Sheffield one would think that this was a new question. Let him read Cobbett's "History of Parliament," and he would find that from the fourteenth century down to the eighteenth there were the Sir Howard Vincents of those particular days who made equally ridiculous statements and advocated equally ridiculous and futile legislative repression. The fact was that every fifteen or twenty years some tariff reformer in disguise, some full-blown protectionist, some grand Imperialist, set up a crusade against the poor foreigner; but to the credit of the British House of Commons it had invariably resisted all attempts to persecute or oppress a man simply because he was a poor Jew and an industrious workman. The hon. and gallant Member for Sheffield, who had bluffed the Government into carrying out his views, ought to be Prime Minister. He ran the show both on protection and on destitute aliens. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that this Bill had been too long in arriving, and that the first Bill on this subject had been sketched out by the late Lord Salisbury. But that Bill, and others suggested, were not of the character of the present measure. They dealt with criminal aliens. Fresh statu- 1151 tory power was not required for that. The Chief Commissioner of Police could do it, and the port sanitary authorities could grapple with the disease, aspect of the question; that did not require a Bill of this inquisitorial character. If this Bill passed, some French John Bunyan would be bagged, and some German William Shakespeare, who had done a little poaching, would be stopped, or his certificate would be suspended. He did not know what would happen to the Irish Members; they might be de ported! Look at the futility of this measure. They were told to imitate America. Well, he had been to America, and he had a great respect for that new and enterprising country; but he would rather be found dead in England than alive in New York. That was real patriotism. What was the result of the system in America? Of the 634,000 emigrants who went to the United States last year only 400 were sent back to Europe, and they were imbeciles, idiots, and undesirable persons. That probably accounted for the transient character of the Tariff Reform League. Only twenty-three were sent back to the United Kingdom as criminals. It was wasting the time of the House of Commons to ask them to pass legislation of this kind when that was the case. They were asked to imitate the Colonies in this regard; but when the Colonies, and some people in this country, asked that the Lascars should be given the same accommodation and the same measurement on board ship, the Colonies had been blamed by a certain class of politicians for going too far. The diminishing birth-rate and declining population were evidence that the re "striction of immigration into the 1152 Colonies had been a failure; and he believed that if a Labour Ministry was formed in the Australian Commonwealth, instead of restricting immigration, they would take an opposite view, for there was nothing like responsibility for enlarging the mental horizon.
Supposing President Kruger had, six years ago passed a Bill of this kind against destitute aliens what pictures of tyranny and oppression would have been drawn. But the modern Tory out-Krugered Kruger. The extraordinary thing was that the Tories who talked when in opposition about freedom and liberty, when installed in office were disposed to make this country the most bureaucratic, as it was likely to be the most military, nation seen during the last forty years. The hon. and gallant Member for Sheffield said, "Look at the dirt of these people." But dirt was no test of character. The other day he was walking across St James' Park with a very representative Member of the House of Lords, who was dressed in an unconventional style. His companion would not have suited the hon. and gallant Member for Sheffield at all, and as they passed he could not help over-hearing one of the park keepers remark, "Why, John has picked up one of those park tramps." Untidyness of dress was no test of moral virtue, and neither was dirt a test of character. If hon. Members doubted him let them ask the officers and soldiers who had been compelled to do their duty under circumstances in which everyone of them would have been declared unclean and destitute. It was ridiculous that because men were shabby or dirty, after being three or four nights on board ship, that they should be declared incompetent to be citizens. 1153 Then, the hon. and gallant Member said, "See how criminal these people are." That argument answered itself. The more criminal these aliens were the less competitive they must be to the honest British working man in a free industrial market. They were told, "Look at the number of them who are bankrupt." If so, that disposed of the charge that they were beating the British shopkeeper out of the market into the workhouse. There could be no mistake about it; if this Bill wanted to help the British workman and be made a real Alien Exclusion Bill, it should provide for the deportation of every alien who worked at an honest livelihood. The fact was, it was only a front shop window Bill, prepared for the general election, and for East End constituencies and perhaps for the East End of Manchester. It would not apply to Scotland, for no Jew could live there. This Bill was in the same category with Old-Age Pensions, the Small Houses Bill, and the Prison Labour Bill.
§ ME. JOHN BURNS
The hon. and gallant Member for Sheffield said "Hear, hear." Well, the total amount of convict labour goods imported into this country last year was £183 14s. Id.; and before the Bill was passed the amount was about as small. The Prison Labour Bill whispered the promise of exclusion to the ear of the British workmen, but broke it to his hope after it became law. If it was wanted to get rid of the foreign criminals he would give a word of advice to the Home Secretary. Sir Richard Webster passed through the 1154 House, at two o'clock in the morning, a Bill known as the Bullies Bill, and within twenty-four hours 600 bullies and souteneurs from Piccadilly. Regent Street, and Soho voluntarily took the train for Paris, Vienna, and elsewhere-Why was it that they had comeback? It was because the Home Secretary and the police were not continuing to enforce that Act with the pluck and vigour which they had shown within the first week-after it had passed. If that Act were enforced as it should be, the bulk of the dangerous foreign criminals, of whom so much had been heard, would be got rid of in twenty-four hours. In fact nine-tenths of the cases which constituted the justification for this Bill could be dealt with by the police, by the medical officers of health, and by the port sanitary authorities, without requiring new legislation. Were the 42,000,000 of people in the United Kingdom to impotently confess their inability to grapple with not more than 100,000 Jewish craftsmen, scattered in four or five towns, and more than half of them located in one London constituency. The Jews were less than I percent, of the total population of Great Britain and Ireland, and in France they were less than ½ percent. To what extent did the foreigners compete with the British workmen? They had got rid of the second-hand clothing trade, by inventing new ready-made clothing to take its place. What were the trades of the people against whom the Bill was aimed? They sold ice-cream and chestnuts, turned organs, and carried on many other minor callings in which he, for one, did not wish to see the British workman shine; and some earned their living by waiting at table. If the 1155 persecuted from other lands could do that kind of work, because the Briton would not do it—and that in the main was the cause—no injustice was done at all. The objectionable clause in the Bill was that which referred to persons having no visible or probable means of support. What was the standard of visible or probable means of support? He knew lots of good men who under that definition would be turned away from our shores. Supposing America or the Colonies were to interpret the law in that way against those of our own race, it would prevent half the Irishmen getting into America at Castle Garden, and thousands obtaining a footing in Canada and other parts of the Empire. Did it mean that a man must be well-dressed? If so, it would not keep out the criminals who came from Paris, Vienna, Buda Pesth, Cairo, and especially the Bessarabian Jews, who are always well dressed, but who were so criminal that they had been slung out of South Africa altogether. They would let in clean, well-dressed, and apparently respectable criminals, but keep out the brawny, honest, though poverty-stricken alien.
Let us look at this matter from the point of view of ourselves. We were an emigrating nation, and would be for some years to come. If we adopted restrictions of this kind, it would be an incentive to other countries to be still more restrictive, which was the general tendency at the present day. Where was the grievance? With the exception of the hon. Gentleman who represented Stepney, it was admitted not to be large. It was not national. It was proportionally small, and was not relatively growing. What was more, the British 1156 workmen, to their credit, were not very much alarmed at it. We had very few foreign paupers, and therefore on the score of pauperism there was no ground for this legislation. And as regarded health, these aliens were perhaps the worst portion of the world's population for criticism. In the whole of London there were only 55 Jewish incurables, and these were not on the rates. In regard to lunatics (he spoke of those who were responsible for 18,000 lunatics in London), although lunacy amongst the Jews was slightly more than normal, it was not so much so as to warrant this Bill. It was true that the proportion of alien criminals was above the normal figures for the native population, but that was explained by the fact that a larger proportion of the foreigners taken into the calculation were adults.
He came now to the chief point, viz., the dispossession of British labour. He maintained that that was grossly exaggerated. In the last ten years, in all the trades in which aliens were employed, wages had been increased, and hours reduced, while the exports of their products had increased to an extraordinary extent. Curiously enough, the workmen in the alleged evicted trades did not feel half so keenly on the matter as the hon. Member for Stepney did. The difficulty was confined, roughly speaking, to the East End of London, and mainly to Stepney. There the dumping of aliens had accentuated many social and industrial difficulties; but if the foreign aliens were to live in a self-constituted Ghetto, which he regretted, it was surely better to have them gathered in one district than widely scattered. He would not advocate that by compulsion, but if they chose to do so of their own free will that 1157 was well. He maintained that the East End Jew was sober and non-criminal. The only fault he had to find with him was that he had none of the vices of the free man. He yielded to authority with ox-like submission. He was patient, thrifty, sober, and industrious to an extent which made his gorge rise; but to the extent that he did that he had disarmed all the arguments which had been brought against him, such as that he was criminal, that he was a charge on the public rates, and that he was lazy. He ventured to say that this difficulty was adjusting itself. There was not the overcrowding in the East End of London that there was some time ago. It was not true that the local authorities were not dealing with this question. Between 1891 and 1901, the number of tenants of one-room tenements in London had fallen by 81,000. There were not more than 80,000 to 100,000 Jews in East London, and yet 25,000 new houses were being built every year. An hon. Member opposite said that the Jews were overcrowding the whole of London; but in St. Giles, St. George's Hanover Square, and in Holborn and in other districts in the West End, the overcrowding was even greater than Stepney, Whitechapel, or St. George's-in-the-East. If we would put an end to the evil, let us establish fair rent Courts, as they had done in Ireland, extend the powers of local authorities, facilitate communication, stop the doing of work at home, abolish sub-contracting and the like. If they wanted to stop overcrowding they should bring in a Bill giving local authorities more power to deal with this problem. If they wanted to distribute these people, let them give power to the London County Council to provide cheap, rapid, 1158 and universal tramways over Westminster and the other bridges. But there were other methods of meeting the difficulty. They should kill home-work altogether; make it impossible to have work carried on in tenements where people eat, lived, and slept; they should totally abolish subcontracting, do away with child labour, and, above all, let the Home Secretary issue a regulation abolishing the Sunday market in Petticoat Lane. There was another thing to do, and it was to make each employer in the East End give their employees one day's rest each week. If that were done they would diminish the number of undesirable persons in that part of London.
His last point was that hon. Members had told them that there was a feeling growing up in this country against the Jew. That was not the case with the industrious poor, but it was true that there was an anti-Jewish feeling growing up elsewhere. It was mostly propagated in newspapers owned by Jewish proprietors and was advocated by, rich Jews who, having made their money out of foreign countries, settled here and forgot their poorer compatriots. But amongst the great bulk of the British working people there was no anti-Jewish feeling, although there was a feeling of resentment against the South African Jew, and against the mere financier who was a criminal not included in the schedule of this Bill. They were the men who were stimulating this anti-Jewish feeling. So far as the bulk of British working-men were concerned, they were too good and too considerate to do anything but offer a welcome to men who had fled from persecution in their own country. They wished this country to be regarded as an asylum for the oppressed 1159 of other nationalities. If the rich Jews supported this Bill against their poor fellow-countrymen they would do them an injustice. Nine-tenths of the aristocracy worshipped the Jew; one half of them were dying to marry Jewesses; and if Jews were coming to this country in increasing numbers it was due to the fact that the rich Jew, the Stock Exchange Jew, had opened up to his fellows in all parts of the world an example of what could be done if they were rich, and because the Conservative Party had made the Stock Exchange a new Jerusalem and Park Lane a now Mount Pisgah. This Government was not showing justice to the poor Jew, who was a hard worker, and was by no means a danger to the community.
§ SIR CARNE RASCH (Essex, Chelmsford)
said the hon. Member for Battersea appeared to be suffering from "Jew on the brain." For fourteen years he (Sir C. Rasch) had been the representative in that House of Tilbury Docks, and he always endeavoured to get all the information in his power. In the East of England people were tired of this incursion of 20,000 aliens every year, who swarmed the labour market, brought down wages,
§ and crowded the gaols. They felt that this species of imported manufactured goods ought not to be dumped upon them any longer, and that, if they were, they ought not to take them lying down. Had there been time, he would have liked to traverse some of the arguments of the right hon. Baronet Sir Charles Dilke, for whose knowledge he had the greatest respect. Although the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge of Paris was extensive and peculiar, there were other people who knew that city quite as well as he did. It had been said that several political refugees from France, who found an asylum here, were eminent and virtuous men. There were other communists also who did their best to come here, but because they did not run away in time, were caught and very properly shot. For his part, he would welcome any Bill which would have the effect of keeping out political refugees of that sort, some of whom had succeeded in getting here, and had done the country more harm than good.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 241; Noes, 117. (Division List No. 92.)1163
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Blundell, Colonel Henry||Chapman, Edward|
|Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden||Bond, Edward||Clare, Octavius Leigh|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Brassey, Albert||Clive, Captain Percy A.|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Coates, Edward Feetham|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Brotherton, Edward Allen||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy||Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)||Coghill, Douglas Harry|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Bull, William James||Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C. R.|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Burdett-Coutts, W.||Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole|
|Balcarres, Lord||Butcher, John George||Compton, Lord Alwyne|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J.(Manch'r||Caldwell, James||Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)|
|Balfour, Rt. HnGerald W. (Leeds||Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.||Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.||Carlile, William Walter||Cox. Irwin Edward Bainbridge|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Cautley, Henry Strother||Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks||Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire||Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Cust, Henry John C.|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Dalrymple, Sir Charles|
|Bignold, Arthur||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J. A.(Wore.||Davenport, William Bromley-|
|Bigwood, James||Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chatham|
|Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan||Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)||Reid, James (Greenock)|
|Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets||Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.||Richards, Henry Charles|
|Dickinson, Robert Edmond||King, Sir Henry Seymour||Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Staly bridge|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||Knowles, Sir Lees||Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Labouchere, Henry||Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson|
|Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.||Law Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye|
|Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon||Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R||Rose, Charles Day|
|Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.||Leo, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham||Round, Rt. Hon. James|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.||Russell, T. W.|
|Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)|
|Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S.||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas||Lowe, Francis William||Samuel, Sir Harry S. (Limehouse|
|Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W)||Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)||Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos, Myles|
|Faber, George Denison (York)||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Seton-Karr, Sir Henry|
|Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Mane.||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Macdona, John Cumming||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Maconochie, A. W.||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)|
|Fisher, William Hayes||M'Calmont, Colonel James||Smith, H. C. (North'mb. Tynside|
|Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Malcolm, Ian||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Forster, Henry William||Markham, Arthur Basil||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)|
|Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.||Martin, Richard Biddulph||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Fyler, John Arthur||Maxwell, Rt. Hn Sir H. E. (Wigt'n||Stock, James Henry|
|Galloway, William Johnson||Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Gardner, Ernest||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Stroyan, John|
|Garfit, William||Milvain, Thomas||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick||Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Gordon, Hn. J. E.(Elgin & Nairn||Molesworth, Sir Lewis||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'dUniv.|
|Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop||Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Goschen, Hon. George Joachim||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow||Tuff, Charles|
|Graham, Henry Robert||Morpeth, Viscount||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Morrell, George Herbert||Ure, Alexander|
|Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)||Morrison, James Archibald||Valentia, Viscount|
|Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer||Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H (Sheffield|
|Grenfell, William Henry||Mount, William Arthur||Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)|
|Gretton, John||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.|
|Greville, Hon. Ronald||Muntz, Sir Philip A.||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Guthrie, Walter Murray||Murray, Rt. Hn. A Graham (Bute||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Hambro, Charles Eric||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E.(Taunton|
|Hamilton, Marq. of (L'ad'nderry||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)||Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)|
|Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford||Nicholson, William Graham||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Hare, Thomas Leigh||Norman, Henry||Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne|
|Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley||O'Neil, Hon. Robert Torrens||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.||Parker, Sir Gilbert||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Heaton, John Henniker||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.|
|Helder, Augustus||Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley||Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H.(Yorks.)|
|Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.||Pemberton, John S. G.||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R.(Bath)|
|Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.||Percy, Earl||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Hickman, Sir Alfred||Pierpoint, Robert||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Hoare, Sir Samuel||Pilkington, Colonel Richard||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Hogg, Lindsay||Pirie, Duncan V.||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil||Plummer, Walter R.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.|
|Hudson, George Bickersteth||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Hunt, Rowland||Rankin, Sir James|
|Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.||Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson|
|Asher, Alexander||Bell, Richard||Bryce, Rt. Hon. James|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Black, Alexander William||Burke E. Haviland-|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon Herbert Henry||Boland, John||Burns, John|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Brigg, John||Cameron, Robert|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Broadhurst, Henry||Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)||Priestley, Arthur|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Rea, Russell|
|Crean, Eugene||Leng, Sir John||Reckitt, Harold James|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Levy, Maurice||Reddy, M.|
|Delany, William||Lough, Thomas||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway||Lundon, W.||Pickett, J. Compton|
|Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Rigg, Richard|
|Doogan, P. C.||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)||M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)||Robson, William Snowdon|
|Elibank, Master of||M'Crae, George||Roche, John|
|Ellice, Capt E. C (S. Andrw's Bgha||M'Fadden, Edward||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)||M'Hugh, Patrick A.||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)||M'Kean, John||Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isleof Wight)|
|Eve, Harry Trelawney||M'Kenna, Reginald||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)|
|Farrell, James Patrick||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Sheehy, David|
|Ffrench, Peter||Mooney, John J.||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Pitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants|
|Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.||Morley, Charles (Breconshire)||Sullivan, Donal|
|Gilhooly, James||Morlcy, Rt. Hon. John(Montrose||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||Moss, Samuel||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Murphy, John||Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Tomkinson, James|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Toulmin, George|
|Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Waldron, Laurence Ambrose|
|Harwood, George||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Hayden, John Patrick||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Helme, Norval Watson||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)||Wilson, Henry J. (York. W. R.)|
|Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)||Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd|
|Horniman, Frederick John||O'Dowd John|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||O'Malley, William|
|Joyce, Michael||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Charles Dilke and Mr. Trevelyan.|
|Kearley, Hudson E.||Partington, Oswald|
|Kilbride, Denis||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)|
|Langley, Batty||Power, Patrick Joseph|
§ Main Question put, and agreed to:— Bill read a second time, and committed for this day.