§ As amended, considered.
§ MR. EMMOTT (Oldham)
moved to emit Clause 1. He thought the House might very well consider at this stage whether it was wise to put on the Statute-book of this country a provision which obviously was not meant to be adequately carried out by the Government and which cast upon shippers and shipping companies the expense of an operation which was intended for the benefit of the nation. That was, he submitted, an unfair principle to go upon. This clause was meant, they were told, for the purpose of keeping out what were described as undesirable aliens, but the opposition to it was on the ground that it set up a poverty test. In his opinion no case had been made out for the exclusion of the aliens. Conditions might arise in which it would be necessary to protect ourselves against a huge immigration, but those conditions had not arisen yet. The number of pauper aliens in comparison with the total alien population was only one-fourth the number of British paupers as compared with the British population, and, therefore, so far from alien paupers being supported by the Britisher, the alien ratepayer made a grant in aid towards the support of British paupers. They had been informed during Questions that day that the total cost of alien paupers to this country was £29,000 per annum, and the 904 Home Secretary estimated that his Bill would involve an annual outlay of £24,000. He feared, however, it would cost the taxpayer far more than it would save him. Though he admitted the Bill had been altered for the better, it still did not protect the victims of religious persecution, and he argued that it was not right to cast on shipowners a charge which, if borne at all, should, be borne by the nation.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 1, line 6, to leave out Clause 1."—(Mr. Emmott.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'elsewhere,' in line 11, stand part of the Bill."
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's)
said he could not accept the Amendment. He maintained the necessity of excluding undesirable aliens, and, in so far as a certain onus was thrown on the shipowners, said he was assured by the shipowners themselves, including the hon. Member for Grimsby, who had a practical acquaintance with the matter that the cost would be infinitesimal. It must be remembered that the provision allowing the examination to be made on shore at the scheduled ports was a concession to the shipowners, who undertook, if it were granted, to rai[...]e no difficulty with regard to the cost, while the burden, such as it was, would make them more careful in regard to the kind of immigrants whom they brought to these shores. He could net admit that the hon. Member in his sympathy for the shipowner had shown any good reason for the omission of the clause. It was not unfair to ask the shipowner, who presumably made a profit by bringing aliens to this country, to pay any extra cost which might be incurred. He hoped that under these circumstances the hon. Member would not press his Motion to a division.
§ MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)
said that as the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary desired to postpone what he had to submit on the religious question he would say nothing about it now. But he 905 must observe that when the Home Secretary told them that buildings already existed, were they to understand that they existed in such a way as to be capable of being used as practicable places of public detention. There might be places in which immigrants could be put up for the night, but it must be remembered that it was part of the plan of the Government that they should be kept as prisoners, and that it should be an offence for which they could be punished and brought back for them to try to escape. Would the right hon. Gentleman tell them whether these places were what they called "lock-ups;" that they were to be under police supervision and where immigrants could be kept as prisoners in such a way as to prevent them trying to escape? He wished to have some information upon this subject. The right hon. Gentleman said that the view of the Opposition was that they ought not to exclude entry, but that they ought to exclude persons who were proved to be criminals, and that the view of the Government was that they ought not only to expel the criminal but that they ought to prevent the criminal and every other person considered undesirable from coming in.
He would recall the points on which the right hon. Gentleman had entirely failed to give any satisfaction in answer to the criticisms they had made. First of all they had had no evidence of the gravity of the evil, no statistics entitled to any credence had been given to them with regard to the number of aliens who came here to stay. In the next place, the right hon. Gentleman had never met their argument that they could not exclude aliens without doing wrong to a large number of innocent people. It had never been shown that the aliens who would be excluded under this Bill would be those who were guilty of the two offences charged under the Bill, viz., that they injured British trade
§ or that they became chargeable on the rates. What had been shown was that the Jews provided for the poor members of their own community, and that the bringing in of a great deal of Jewish labour enabled a number of trades to be established which could not flourish without cheap labour in their initial stages. That was a point on which they had repeatedly asked for information which they had never had. Further, the Home Secretary had been obliged to admit that he could not exclude aliens coming in in batches of under twenty and that the steamboat companies would practically be able to bring about all the evils of which he complained. Again, the right hon. Gentleman had never attempted to show that there were any means whatever by which the Bill would reduce the number of criminal aliens who entered. The Bill applied only to steerage passengers, and it would not exclude the most dangerous classes—the expert pick-pocket and the women whom they all desired to exclude, but who did not come in as steerage passengers. Therefore, as far as they were concerned, the Bill was a mere sham. Consequently, he was obliged to ask the Home Secretary whether he would at this stage, or on some of the Amendments, endeavour to give some Answer to the criticisms they had repeatedly made on the Bill, and whether he would endeavour to show in the first place that the evils were real; and in the second place, if they were proved to be real, whether the Bill would do anything to reduce them. Until that were done, they would be compelled to regard the Bill as one merely brought in to meet a political cry to which the Party opposite had lent themselves.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 228; Noes, 132. (Division List No. 285.)909
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.||Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Bailey, James (Walworth)||Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds)|
|Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.||Baird, John George Alexander||Banbury, Sir Frederick George|
|Arrol, Sir William||Balcarres, Lord||Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Baldwin, Alfred||Battley, Sir George C. T.|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Hickman, Sir Alfred||Pierpoint, Robert|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Hogg, Lindsay||Pilkington, Colonel Richard|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside)||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Hornby, Sir William Henry||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Bigwood, James||Hoult, Joseph||Purvis, Robert|
|Bill, Charles||Houston, Robert Paterson||Pym C. Guy|
|Bingbam, Lord||Howard, John(Kent, Faversham||Rankin, Sir James|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Howard, J. (Midd, Tottenham)||Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne|
|Bond, Edward||Hozier, Hon. James HenryCecil||Ratcliff, R. F.|
|Bowles, Lt.-Col. H.F.(Middlesex||Hudson, George Bickersteth||Reid, James (Greenock)|
|Bowles, T. Gibson(King's Lynn||Hunt, Rowland||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Brassey, Albert||Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)||Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Jameson, Major J. Eustace||Ridley, S. Forde|
|Brymer, William Ernest||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Ritchie, Rt. HonChas Thomson.|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles(Poplar||Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Campbell, Rt. Hn. J.A.(Glasgow||Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton||Roberts, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh)||Robinson, Brooke|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Kerr, John||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye|
|Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire||Kimber, Sir Henry||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Knowles, Sir Lees||Round, Rt. Hon. James|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich||Laurie, Lieut.-General||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A (Worc.||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Coates, Edward Feetham||Lawson, Hn. H.L. W. (MileEnd||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Lee, ArthurH.(Hants., Fareham||Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw.J.|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry||Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)||Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge||Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.||Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew)|
|Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile||Liddell, Henry||Simeon, Sir Barrington|
|Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Liewllyn, Evan Henry||Smith, HC.(North'mb, Tyneside|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.||Smith, Rt Hn J. Parker(Lanarks|
|Dairymple, Sir Charles||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Davenport, William Bromley-||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S||Spear, John Ward|
|Davies, Sir HoratioD. (Chatham||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset)|
|Denny, Colonel||Lowe, Francis William||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.|
|Dickinson, Robert Edmond||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Stroyan, John|
|Dimsdale, Rt, Hon. Sir Joseph C.||Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Oxf'd Univ|
|Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. Dixon||Macdona, John Cumming||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Doughty, Sir George||MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Maconochie, A. W.||Tollemache, Henry James|
|Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart||Mr Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Faber, Edmund B. (Hants. W.)||M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Fellowes, Rt. Hn Ailwyn Edward||Malcolm, Ian||Tuff, Charles|
|Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J.(Manc'r||Manners, Lord Cecil||Tuke, Lieut.-Col. Edward|
|Fielden, Edward Broeklehurst||Marks, Harry Hananel||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Martin, Richard Biddulph||Turnour, Viscount|
|Finlay, Rt Hn Sir R.B.(Inv'rn'ss||Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.||Vincent, Col. Sir C. AH.(Sheffield|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.||Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)|
|Fison, Frederick William||Melville, Beresford Valentine||Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H.|
|Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Milner, Rt.Hon.Str Frederick G.||Welby, Lt.-Col.A.C.E.(Taunton|
|Flower, Sir Ernest||Mil vain, Thomas||Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.)|
|Forster, Henry William||Mitchell, William (Burnley)||Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd|
|Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S.W||Molesworth, Sir Lewis||Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne|
|Gardner, Ernest||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.||Morgan, David J.(Walthamstow||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)|
|Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'r H'mlets||Morrell, George Herbert||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Morrison, James Archibald||Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H.(Yorks.)|
|Goschen, Hon. George Joachim||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R.(Bath)|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Mount, William Arthur||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Green, Walford D.(Wednesbury||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson|
|Grenfell, William Henry||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Guthrie, Walter Murray||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Hamilton, RtHnLordG (Midd'x||Myers, William Henry||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Hamilton, Marq. of(L'nd'nderry||Nicholson, William Graham|
|Hare, Thomas Leigh||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley||Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)||Sir Alexander Acland Hood|
|Heath, Sir James (Staffords NW.||Parker, Sir Gilbert||and Viscount Valentia.|
|Heaton, John Henniker||Pemberton, John S. G.|
|Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.||Percy, Earl|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.||Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Fowler, Rt, Hon. Sir Henry||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||O'Malley, William|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick)||O'Mara, James|
|Baker, Joseph Allen||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B.||Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil)||Parrott, William|
|Bell, Richard||Harwood, George||Paulton, James Mellor|
|Benn, John Williams||Hayden, John Patrick||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)|
|Black, Alexander William||Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.||Philipps, John Wynford|
|Boland, John||Helme, Norval Watson||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Bright, Allan Heywood||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||Reddy, M.|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Holland, Sir William Henry||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.||Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.||Runciman, Walter|
|Burt, Thomas||Jacoby, James Alfred||Russell, T. W.|
|Caldwell, James||Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Cameron, Robert||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Jones, William(Carnarvonshire)||Seely, Maj. J.E.B.(Isle of Wight|
|Campbell- Bannerman, Sir H.||Joyce, Michael||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Kearley, Hudson, E.||Sheehy, David|
|Cawley, Frederick||Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Lambert, George||Slack, John Bamford|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)||Smith, Samuel (Flint)|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Cogan, Denis J.||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington||Spencer, Rt Hn. C.R.(Northants|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Levy, Maurice||Stanhope, Hon. Philip James|
|Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)||Lough, Thomas||Sullivan, Donal|
|Cramer, William Randal||Lundon, W.||Tennant, Harold John|
|Crombic, John William||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Toulmin, George|
|Crooks, William||M'Crae, George||Wallace, Robert|
|Cullinan, J.||M'Hugh, Patrick A.||Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S)|
|Dalziel, James Henry||M'Kenna, Reginald||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)|
|Delany, William||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)|
|Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)||Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe||Weir, James, (Galloway)|
|Dilke, Rt, Hon. Sir Charles||Morley, Rt. Hn. John(Montrose)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Muldoon, John||Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)|
|Doogan, P. C.||Murphy, John||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Dunn, Sir William||Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)||Young, Samuel|
|Elibank, Master of||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)|
|Ellice, Capt EC S.Andrw'sBghs||O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMld||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Mr. Emmott and Mr. Noel|
|Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||Buxton|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)|
|Flynn, James Christopher||O'Dowd, John|
§ MR. CHARLES McARTHUR (Liverpool, Exchange)
said that recently he had had an opportunity of conferring with the Cunard Company and other companies in Liverpool upon whom the burden of carrying out this Act would largely fall. He wished to state that these companies fully appreciated the conciliatory spirit which the Home Secretary had displayed in reference to this Bill as regarded the difficulties of the shipping interest, and recognised that he had largely met their wishes and endeavoured to remedy the practical difficulties they had raised. There were, however, one or two points in which the Bill would press very hardly upon them. One of those points was as 910 to providing a place ashore where the immigrants were to be inspected. As this was a matter for the public convenience it should be defrayed at the cost of the public. The offence of importing an undesirable alien was an offence entirely created by this Bill. Where an Act was passed which threw upon a particular industry the burden of carrying out a certain service in the public interest, it was the duty of the State to make it as little burdensome as possible, and the State ought to bear the expense. That was the object of the Amendment he desired to move.
§ *MR. SPEAKER
That would be casting an additional burden upon the State, and it cannot be done upon the Report stage.
§ *MR. CHARLES McARTHUR
said the expense of carrying out the Act was thrown upon the State, and he wished to know whether he was wrong in arguing that the providing of accommodation ought to be made a part of the expense of carrying out the Act.
§ *MR. SPEAKER
That would be placing a greater charge upon the public funds than has been imposed by the Committee. The House cannot now add to the charges imposed by the Committee.
§ *MR. CHARLES McARTHUR
said he would omit the words "and provide," and move, in line 11, to omit the word "elsewhere" and substitute "at such other convenient place in the discretion of the immigration officer as he may appoint." As the clause stood at present inspection might take place elsewhere than on the ship, but it was not stated who was to appoint this place. According to the view of the Home Secretary each shipping company would have to arrange its own place. The Cunard Company might have one place, the White Star Line another, and the Allan Line another, and each company would have to provide under the Act a place of inspection for immigrants. He thought that such places ought to be provided by the authorities entrusted with the administration of the Act. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 1, Hue 11, to leave out the word 'elsewhere' and insert the words 'at such other convenient place in the discretion of the immigration officer as he may appoint.'"—(Mr. Charles McArthur.)—instead thereof:—
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'elsewhere' stand part of the Bill.'"912
§ LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE (Wiltshire, Cricklade)
thought it was desirable that these inquiries should be made in some public place or Court where the public had access, so that there would be no hole-and - corner proceedings. These proceedings would partake of the nature of a trial upon matters which might affect a man's fortune, and he wished to ask either the Home Secretary or the Attorney-General whether it would not be desirable on Sub-section 1 of Clause 2 to provide that these inquiries should be held in a public Court or place. What he wanted to suggest was whether they would not consider whether it would not be desirable to put in some words whereby the friends of the immigrants and the public Press could have access in order that the proceedings should not be of a hole-and-corner description.
§ MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)
said he thought the word "elsewhere" should be left out. It wanted some definition or explanation. The Bill, as originally drafted, provided that the examination should take place on the ship. The word "elsewhere" was an extraordinary one, and he should be glad if the Home Secretary would explain where the Government actually meant that the examination should take place. There was no particular reason why they should be enamoured of the Amendment, for it was moved by a shipowner, and they were very suspicious that shipowners wanted to throw the expense on the State; but it was a little better than the. Bill itself, because it provided that the first duty was to fix the place of examination, in which case the point of the noble Lord would be secured, for everybody would then know that the examination would take place at that particular place. The Government must have some plan in their mind, and he would be glad if they would tell them, in order that they might understand how the Bill would act, and where, when, and under what circumstances the examination would take place. As the Bill stood, nobody knew.
§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS
said he did not think there was any doubt about 913 the word "elsewhere," and, if he remembered rightly, it was accepted at the instance of the shipowners. It was perfectly clear that the original intention was that the inspection should take place on the ship, but, as a concession, they agreed that it should be held elsewhere, in buildings to be provided at the cost not of the State but of the shipowners. It was welcomed by the shipowners as preferable to examination where it might interfere with the discharge of the cargo. Now the hon. Member for Liverpool asked them to delete the word "elsewhere" and insert "at such other convenient place in the discretion of the immigration officer as he may appoint," and he was going on when it was pointed out that it would involve additional cost to the State. The concession of inspection on land was asked for by the shipowners, and, surely, if the shipowner made a profit, as he undoubtedly did, it was not unreasonable that he should be asked to pay something in the event of incoming aliens being a charge. At all events, if there were a charge, they could not expect it to fall upon the State. The noble Lord was very anxious that the inquiries should be hold in a public Court or in some place to which the public could obtain access and hear the whole inquiry. That was entirely a different view to that held in America, where the inquiry was private; and he ventured to think that it would be very undesirable for the aliens to have the whole world there to publish their affairs, and that they would themselves desire that the inquiry should be held without reporters present. He therefore hoped that as his hon. friend had found that he could not obtain his desire and cast the extra cost upon the State he would not press his Amendment, because he was sure the words in the Bill were fully calculated to carry out the whole desire of the promoters.
§ MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)
said he had listened to the extraordinary speech of the Home Secretary, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman who moved would go to a division. He was quite surprised to hear that the Home Secretary thought it might be in 914 the interest of the shipowners that the reporters should be present.
§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS
said he did not say that. He said the alien, coming into this country and having to disclose his past history and his means, would probably prefer that the reporters should not be present.
§ MR. DALZIEL
said the right hon. Gentleman had not in any previous period of the progress of the Bill shown any anxiety for the alien, and he would suggest that this was a late stage at which to take up his ease. It was not the interest of the alien they had to consider in this matter; when the right hon. Gentleman said that no reporters should be present, he must remember that the whole of the interest of the public was at stake. He therefore thought it was a most extraordinary position for the Government to take up, to say that one reason why the Amendment should be rejected was that reporters might be present and that that would be against the interest of the parties associated in the matter. That showed more than anything what really was the mind of the Government as to the working of the measure. Their idea was that it would be an entirely hole-and-corner matter. The public would not be admitted, the representatives of the Press would not be admitted, and it would be quite impossible for them to have any authentic details as to the proceedings. The whole thing would undoubtedly be secret, and they would simply have to take the Returns of the Home Secretary as to what took place. He knew the right hon. Gentleman did not want to make any Party capital out of carrying a matter of this kind, and he would really suggest to him whether he was not going a little further than the promoters intended, and appeal to him whether he would not reconsider the statement he had made and provide for the inquiries being public. If the Amendment were accepted, it did not go nearly as far as he wished, but he thought, from the shipping point of view, it was an important Amendment, because otherwise the inspection might be at a place which was inconvenient both to the passenger and the 915 shipping company. If, however, it were a convenient place and the public or the representatives of the public were not going to be admitted and the matter was to be one of secrecy, he did not think it would be to the credit of the
§ Government or that it would add to the prestige of the Bill.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 227; Noes, 142. (Division List No. 286.)917
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S.|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)||Lonsdale, John Brownlee|
|Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.||Fellowes, Rt Hn. Ailwyn Edward||Lowe, Francis William|
|Arrol, Sir William||Fergusson, Rt.Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r||Loyd, Archie Kirkman|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred|
|Bigot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Finlay, Rt.Hn Sir R.B.(Inv'rn'ss||Macdona, John Gumming|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Fisher, William Hayes||MacIver, David (Liverpool|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Fison, Frederick William||Maconochie, A. W.|
|Balcarres, Lord||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh, W|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Malcolm, Ian|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J.(Manch'r||Flower, Sir Ernest||Manners, Lord Cecil|
|Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds)||Forster, Henry William||Marks, Harry Hananel|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Foster, Philip S.(Warwrick, S.W||Martin, Richard Biddulph|
|Barry, Sir Francis T. (Wirdscr)||Gardner, Ernest||Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.|
|Hartley, Sir George C. T.||Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.||Maxwell, Rt Hn. Sir H.E.(Wigt'n|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Gordon, Maj Evans-(TrH'mleta||Maxwell, W.J.H.(Dumfriesshire|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Melville, Beresford Valentine|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Goschen, Hon. George Joachim||Mildmay, Francis Bingham|
|Bigwood, James||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.|
|Pill, Charles||Green, Walford D.(Wednesbury||Milvain, Thomas|
|Bingham, Lord||Guthrie, Walter Murray||Mitchell, William (Burnley|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Hamilton, Rt Hn Lard G.(Mdd'x||Molesworth, Sir Lewis|
|Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F.(Middlesex||Hamilton, Marq. of(L'nd'nderry||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy|
|Brassey, Albert||Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford||Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Morrell, George Herbert|
|Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Morrison, James Archibald|
|Brymer, William Ernest||Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer|
|Butcher, John George||Heath, Sir James(Staffords, NW||Mount, William Arthur|
|Campbell, Rt.Hn. J.A.(Glasgow||Hermor-Hodge, Sir Robert T.||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Hickman, Sir Alfred||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Hogg, Lindsay||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.||Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside||Myers, William Henry|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Hornby, Sir William Henry||Nicholson, William Graham|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Hoult, Joseph||Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.A(Wore.||Houston, Robert Paterson||Parker, Sir Gilbert|
|Coates, Edward Feetham||Howard, John(Kent, Faversham||Pemberton, John S. G.|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham||Percy, Earl|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry||Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil||Pierpoint, Robert|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Hudson, George Bickersteth||Pilkington, Colonel Richard|
|Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athele-||Hunt, Rowland||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas||Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Jameson, Major J. Eustace||Purvis, Robert|
|Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Pym, C. Guy|
|Cripps, Charles Alfred||Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred||Rankin, Sir James|
|Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile||Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. Denbigh||Rasch, Sir Frederic Came|
|Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Kerr, John||Ratcliff, R. F.|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Kimber, Sir Henry||Reid, James (Greeneck|
|Dairymple, Sir Charles||Knowles, Sir Lees||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Davenport, William Bromby||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Win.||Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine|
|Davies, Sir Horatio D(Chatham||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Ridley, S. Forde|
|Denny, Colonel||Lawrence, Wm, F. (Liverpool||Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson|
|Dickinson, Robert Edmond||Lawson, Hn. H. L.W.(Mile End||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||Lee, Arthur H(Hants., Fareham||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney|
|Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.||Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead||Robinson, Brooke|
|Disraeli, Coningaby Ralph||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye|
|Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. Dixon||Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert|
|Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.||Liddell, Henry||Round, Rt. Hon. James|
|Doughty, Sir George||Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Rutherford, John (Lancashire)||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)||Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd|
|Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)||Thornton Percy M.||Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne|
|Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-||Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw.J.||Tritton, Charles Ernest||Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E.R.)>|
|Sharps, William Edward T.||Tuff, Charles||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Shaw-Stewart, Sir H.(Renfrew)||Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward||Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H.(Yorks.)|
|Simeon, Sir Barrington||Tuke, Sir John Batty||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R,(Bath|
|Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)||Tumour, Viscount||Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson|
|Smith, H.C(North'mb, Tyneside||Vincent, Col. Sir C.EH(Sheffield||Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-|
|Smith, Rt. Hn. J Parker (Lanarks||Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Spear, John Ward||Walker, Col. William Hall||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset||Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.|
|Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord(Lancs.)||Warde, Colonel C. E.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.||Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E.(Taunton||Sir Alexander Ac land-Hood|
|Stroyan, John||Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.||and Viscount Valentia.|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.||Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||O'Dowd, John|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)|
|Allen, Charles P.||Gilhooly, James||O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||O'Malley, William|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick||O'Mara, James|
|Baker, Joseph Allen||Harcourt, Lewis||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil||Parrott, William|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Harwood, George||Paulton, James Mellor|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Hayden, John Patrick||Philipps, John Wynford|
|Bell, Richard||Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Benn, John William||Helme, Norval Watson||Reddy, M.|
|Black, Alexander William||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||Redmond, John E. (Waterford|
|Boland, John||Holland, Sir William Henry||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Runciman, Walter|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.||Russell, T. W.|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Jacoby, James Alfred||Samuel, S. M (Whitechapel)-|
|Burt, Thomas||Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Buxton, N.E.(York, NR, Whithy||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Seely, Maj. J.E.B(Isle of Wight|
|Coldwell, James||Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Cameron, Robert||Joyce, Michael||Sheehy, David|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Kearley, Hudson E.||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W||Slack, John Bamford|
|Cuwley, Frederick||Kitson, Sir James||Smith, Samuel (Flint)|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Lambert, George||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)||Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R.(Northants|
|Cogan, Denis J.||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Stanhope, Hon. Philip James|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Levy, Maurice||Sullivan, Donal|
|Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark||Lough, Thomas||Tennant, Harold John|
|Cremer, William Randal||Lundon, W.||Toulmin, George|
|Crombie, John William||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Cullinan, J.||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Ure, Alexander|
|Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan||M'Crae, George||Wallace, Robert|
|Dalany, William||M'Kenna, Reginald||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny,N.)||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Wagon, Eugene (Clackmannan|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe||Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Mooney, John J.||Weir, James Galloway|
|Doogan, P. C.||Morley, Rt. Hon. John(Montrese||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||Muldoon, John||Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)|
|Dann, Sir William||Murphy, John||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)|
|Edwards, Frank||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Ellice, Capt EC(S Andrw's Bghs.||Nolan, Col. John P(Galway, N.||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Emmott, Alfred||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Young, Samuel|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas||Norman, Henry||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Evans, Samuel, T (Glamorgan||O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary, Mid|
|Field, William||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.||Mr. Dalziel and Mr. Bright.|
|Flayin, Michael Joseph||O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.|
|Flynn, James Christopher||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 1, line 20, to leave out from the word 'that' to the word 'give' in line 21, and insert the words 'leave to land should not be
withheld under this Act.'"—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
§ Amendment agreed to.919
MR. HBEBERT SAMUEL (Yorkshire, Cleveland)
moved, on behalf of the on. Member for Halifax Mr. (Whitley), to exempt from the definition of an undesirable alien any person who could show that he would be supported by relatives. There was, he said, no inconsistency in this Amendment with the purposes of the Bill, and it was one which he thought the Government could and ought to accept. As the Bill stood an alien would be excluded if he could not show that he had in his possession or was in a position to obtain the means of decently supporting himself and his dependents, if any. He instanced the case of aliens who had settled in this country either before or after the passing of this Bill, who were permanently established here, and wished to bring over their parents from the country in which they lived. The aged parents might come to the shores of this country but would be met on arrival with the question, "Are you in a position to support yourselves or to obtain the means of decently supporting yourselves?" In all probability they would not be able to work, and would be unable satisfactorily to answer the question. In that case, as he read the Bill, the immigration officer would have no alternative but to exclude them. He could not conceive that the Government desired to inflict such a hardship, and he therefore hoped they would accept the Amendment. It had already been laid down by the Government that a person in receipt of Poor Law relief was not supporting himself within the meaning of the Bill, and the same might possibly be said with regard to persons subsisting on the charity of relatives. To prevent the hardship that might arise from such an interpretation some such words as he proposed should be inserted.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 1, line 28' after the word 'any,' to insert the words 'or that he will be supported by relatives.'"—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
§ Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted."
§ THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs)
said he hoped the House would not accept this 920 Amendment. The words, he submitted, were not necessary because if an immigrant was able to show that he would be able to obtain the money from his relatives he obviously showed that he was able to obtain the means of decently supporting himself. The position was covered by those words.
§ MR. DALZIEL
urged that it was the duty of the House to incorporate in this Bill some such words as those suggested by the Amendment. A question of this kind should not be left to the discretion of the immigration officer, because there was no guarantee as to what the capacity of the officer would be, and therefore it was necessary to put something in the Bill as a direction. He submitted that the Amendment was a useful one and would help the operation of the Bill, and therefore it ought to be accepted.
§ MR. EMMOTT
asked if this was one of the questions covered by the rules which were to be made, by the Home Secretary. It was a small point but an important one, and therefore he thought the House should have some information upon that point.
§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS
was understood to say that for the reasons stated by the hon. and learned Attorney-General these words were unnecessary.
§ LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE
said he understood the refusal of the hon. and learned Gentleman to accept this Amendment was due to his belief that the introduction of the words would do more harm than good. It was a question of the strict interpretation of the words of the Bill. It was a most important matter, because it raised the question whether under the wording of the Bill as it now stood it would be competent for an immigrant to say that because he had relations able to support him therefore he was in a position to support himself.
§ MAJOR SEELY (Isle of Wight)
expressed the opinion that it would be better to put in some words of this kind in order to avoid confusion in the future. The wording of the Bill had just been interpreted in two different ways, and it was fair to assume that the immigration 921 officers when appointed would not be less wise or more intelligent than the Members of that House. Therefore, in order to prevent the immigration officers interpreting the words differently, it was desirable that some such words should be incorporated in the Bill.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydfil)
said the reason for the Amendment which he now moved must be obvious to every Member of the House. Every alien who came into this country with a contract in his pocket guaranteeing him work would be able to satisfy the immigration officer that he was in a position to obtain the means of decently supporting himself out of the contract under which he was brought in. A contract which was intended to endanger and damage the British workman was a passport to every alien, no matter how they came into this country. That was a very serious matter. Let them take the American experience. The first American Bill contained no provision against aliens coming in under contract, and the result was that in Italy, Spain, and other countries agencies were formed, and contractors organised a regular system of sending in batches of people to America under contract, and because they were under contract these men were able to enter America free and unchallenged. The American Senate, therefore, had to amend the aliens law by introducing a contract clause to keep out otherwise desirable people who came in under contract. He contended that some such Amendment as this must be inserted. If it went abroad that the Government, having introduced this Bill, were not prepared to strengthen it so as to prevent it being used for the purpose of defeating British workmen in the case of a strike or lock-out the feeling, already strong, against this Bill on the part of the British workmen, would be very much accentuated. Individually, he was against the Bill, because he did not think it was workable in its present form. If it was desired that it should be operative the Government must amend it on the lines indicated by the Amendment.
922 Working men when striking for better conditions of employment found it was already sufficiently difficult in competing with the surplus labour of the unemployed at home, but if in addition they were to be threatened with the importation of foreigners their position would be very much worsened. He remembered two cases where this power had already been used. One was in connection with a dispute which occurred at Glengarnock Ironworks in Ayrshire. Some years ago when the labourers who were receiving 14s. a week asked for an increase of 1s., the manager asked for time to consider their request, and a fortnight subsequently fourteen or fifteen Poles put in an appearance, having come under contract at the old rate of 14s., and when the deputation again approached the manager to ask for his reply he pointed to these foreigners and said, "If you don't take the 14s. there are plenty more of these men who would only be too glad to come." If this was the sort of thing they were going to set up under this Bill it was time to stop it. The argument on a former occasion was that the position of workmen in this country would not, in the matter of foreign labour, be worsened under this Bill. But he would respectfully suggest that their position must be worsened under the Bill. All sorts of evasions would be attempted to circumvent the clauses of the Bill, and one of these would certainly be some organisation for bringing workmen into this country under some form of contract which would carry the immigrant beyond the immigration officer. He trusted that in order to protect British workmen who were seeking to improve their condition against undue and unfair competition, the Government would see their way to accept the Amendment. He begged to move.
§ MR. BELL (Derby)
seconded the Amendment. He could hardly conceive that any hon. or right hon. Gentleman, in the House would object to the acceptance of the Amendment because the chief reason for the introduction of this Bill was that foreign labour was being imported into this country to replace that of British workmen. If that was the real reason which had influenced the Government in introducing the Bill he 923 was unable to see how they could object to the acceptance of this clause. The workers of this country would very rightly come to the conclusion that if the Bill was introduced with that object it was only reasonable that a clause of this kind should appear in it. He was quite unable to see how the position of the British workmen would be improved if in cases of dispute it was possible to import 100 or 500 aliens. It was a matter of indifference so far as figures were concerned, beyond the fact that the greater the number imported the worse it would be. In regard to the aliens imported at the present time he had not heard a great deal of objection in any part of the country with the exception of one or two constituencies in London. If 100 or 500 foreigners were imported to replace those engaged in a dispute there would be thrown on the labour market here many men who were defending their own position. He could hardly conceive that the Government desired to do that. If the Amendment were not accepted it would create a good deal of bitter feeling against the Bill, the seriousness of which had not yet been recognised by the working men of this country.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 2, line 10, at the end, to insert the words '(e) If he is being brought into this country under contract to take the place of workmen during a trade dispute.'"(Mr. Keir Hardie.)
§ Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted."
§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS
said he could not accept the Amendment. Nothing in connection with the aliens question had received more careful consideration than the matter which the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil had brought forward in an exceedingly able and courteous way. The object of the Amendment was to exclude aliens who were "being brought into this country to take the place of workmen during a trade dispute." He had not heard that such a practice prevailed in this country, but the hon. Member who moved the Amendment had instanced a case where some Poles had been brought here for such a purpose. 924 It certainly had never come to his knowledge.
§ MR. AKERS - DOUGLAS
said the Amendment was opposed to the principle of the Bill. The Bill as it stood was intended to exclude aliens who owing to their low standard of living made it likely that they would fall readily into the hands of sweaters. The object of the Bill was also to keep out the alien who was destitute and likely to become a charge on the rates. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil had said that it would be easier under the Bill to obtain foreign indentured labour than at the present moment. He did not think that would be so, because at present employers had absolute freedom to bring in aliens by giving any promise they liked. Certainly, in future an employer would be limited in his action, because he would only be able to bring in those who could pass the tests provided by the Bill as desirable aliens.
§ MR. CLAUDE HAY (Shoreditch, Hoxton)
said he very much regretted that the right hon. Gentleman could not see his way to accept the Amendment. Apart from the evil which the mover of it had described, it was not unlikely that shipowners, who were subject to certain penalties under the Bill, would find in the possibility of importing contract labour a source of profit which they hoped would make up for the loss of some of the traffic which the Bill would stop. He thought they ought to be guided in this matter in some measure by the experience of the United States of America. He believed that of the immigrants who were refused admission last year something like 20 per cent. desired to enter for the purpose of undertaking contract labour. If that was so, it showed that the restriction upon immigration did have some direct bearing on the question of foreign labour imported under contract. A man might come to this country under a contract made for five months, and at the end of that period he might become a charge on the public rates.
§ MR. JOHN WILSON (Durham, Mid.)
said that he and other hon. Members who were present when this subject was discussed before had hoped that the Home Secretary would at this stage of the Bill have drawn a form of words to show that there was some real desire on the part of the Government to strengthen the position of the working classes of this country. But the non possumus attitude which the right hon. Gentleman had taken up seemed to have closed the door in that direction. The Home Secretary had made a great deal of the argument that this Bill was for the benefit of the working classes; but, for his own part, he had never been able to see anything in the Bill at all which, tended in that direction. If that had been the case there would not have been so much apposition to the Bill on the part of the working classes in the country. There had not been a single demand from the representatives of the working classes, inside or outside the House, for this Bill; and there had been no tendency on the part of the working classes themselves in that direction.
To take the Bill as it stood, and the interpretation of it by the Home Secretary, its principle was to keep out undesirable aliens. But would the word "undesirable" include a man who was brought to this country to take the place of a man on strike? He knew that long ago workmen used to strike without much thought. But now they negotiated with their employers and tried to arrange matters; and if they were forced to strike the sure inference was that they wanted to better their condition. That was the economic truth as to the existing relations between employer and employed. But this Bill left open the opportunity of workmen being brought from the Continent to take the place of men on strike. He was not charging the employers of this country as a whole that they would use this Bill, if it became law, for that purpose, or that they would use alien labour for the purpose of sweating and reducing the wages of the workmen here; but there were men who would use this Bill for the purpose of bringing in pauper labour to supplant the British workmen.
In Sub-section 3, Clause 1, a man was to be considered an undesirable alien who 926 had not in his possession or was not in a position to obtain the means of decently supporting himself and his dependents; and he was therefore to be excluded. But who was to judge the standard of decency in which a man and his family could live? He maintained that a man and his wife and family could be brought up in decency on a wage that was small compared with what hon. Gentlemen, who had a very much larger income, could conceive. But if the man had in his pocket a letter from an employer in this country that he would find employment, according to the Home Secretary, that would be enough to cover the proviso in the sub-section. It would be possible for an employer here to send over to the Continent hundreds of such letters, and when the recipients of these letters came over here and were asked by the immigration officers if they could show that they were in a position to obtain the means of decently supporting themselves and their dependents, all they had got to do was to produce such a letter from any employer in some part of Great Britain. It might be said that that had never been done; but they all knew that, human nature being what it was, advantage would be taken by a certain class of employers of the avenues which were opened, to them. This Bill opened up such an avenue.
He could have wished that before this Bill was introduced some sort of consensus of opinion on the part of the people had been taken in favour of it. They had had quite a number of measures introduced by this Government of which the public had had no idea beforehand. This Bill would disturb the whole economic relations between employers and workmen in this country. It would exclude men who came over here, impelled by honest poverty, to seek employment; while it would be an inducement to employers to bring over contract labour from abroad. He asked the Attorney-General to show the House in clear, plain, and obvious terms how the prohibition contained in the Amendment would conflict with the principles of the Bill. The ostensible reason for the Bill was that it was for the benefit of the working classes of this country; but they who claimed to speak for the working 927 classes, held that if this prohibition was not put in the Bill, no matter how large its provisions were to keep out criminals and undesirables, it would not be for the benefit of the working classes.
*MR. MAEKS (Kent, Thanet)
said that it must be admitted that the practice of importing foreign labour into this country under contract had not in the past been pursued to any large extent. But the conditions with regard to foreign labour were about to undergo a change. Up to the present time alien immigration into this country had been unchecked, unrestricted, and unregulated, with the result that we had always a mass of unemployed foreign labour ready at hand and prepared to take work at any kind of starvation wage. But they expected great results from this Bill and that a large amount of alien immigration would be stopped by it. If the object of the Bill was to be attained—viz., of arresting the importation of foreign cheap labour, that would not be accomplished unless the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman were adopted. All that the employer who wanted to avail himself of the very cheapest labour available had to do would be to supply a pauper alien with a contract of employment thereby removing his disqualification, and thus defeat one of the chief objects of the Bill. If, like the hon. Member for Merthyr; Tydvil, he thought the whole Bill a great mistake, he would not, like the hon. Member, seek to strengthen it. He did not believe in strengthening measures that were a mistake. But that was not his view. He believed that this Bill would be greatly for the benefit of the working classes of this country, and that that benefit would be largely extended by the adoption of the Amendment. It was for that reason that he supported the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.
§ *MR. CREMER (Shoreditch, Haggerston)
thought that the Government had made a mistake in introducing this Bill and foisting it on the country. The ostensible object of the Bill was to prevent the undue competition of aliens with British workmen, and in the constituency which he had represented in that House for many years a small section 928 of the people had been deluded by a bogus organisation, which had been started for that purpose, into the belief that they were seriously affected by pauper alien labour; and that they would be relieved from the difficult position in which they had been placed through want of employment, by the passage of this Bill, a Bill which it was f aid would prevent employers in the East End of London or any other part of the kingdom from engaging alien workmen. But, supposing a strike or lock-out took place here, any number of shoemakers, tailors, cabinetmakers or other artisans could be introduced from abroad into this country. He might be told that the immigration board would take care that every man who came into this country would be scrutinised very closely and unless he could produce the evidence required by the Bill, that he possessed or was in a position to obtain the means of decently supporting himself and his dependents, he would be returned to the country from which he came. But the sweating class who employed these pauper aliens could easily get over that difficulty. They could get just as many as they pleased, and at any time they pleased, of these poor wretched people from all parts of the Continent of Europe. AH they would have to do would be to provide each man or woman with a contract which would be produced to the immigration officer, a contract entered into between the immigrant and the sweating employer who had guaranteed him employment for six, eight, or twelve months.
How were they going, under this Bill, to prevent any such sweating employer from engaging as many pauper aliens as he pleased? There was, however, a body supposed to have a bona fide existence, the Free Labourers' Association, and that association, he supposed, might have something to say if there were any attempt on the part of the Government to prevent employers or workmen from entering into a free contract, whether the workmen came from the Continent of Europe or from any part of the United Kingdom. Let them devise whatever they please, it was practically impossible to prevent sweating employers 929 from engaging just as many foreign workmen or women as they pleased, and bringing them over to this country under a contract, the production of which would be sufficient warrant for the immigration board to allow them to pass into any port of the United Kingdom. He believed the Bill was going to prove an absolute and ghastly failure.
He should have thought the Government would by this time have seen the serious mistake they had made in attempting to deal with this evil. It was quite true that there had not been very many instances during a strike when men had been imported from the Continent, but there had been attempts on the part of employers, though fortunately they had failed, the workmen of this country, having friendly relations with the workmen of the Continent, were able to prevent masons, builders, tailors and shoemakers from being imported during labour struggles in this country. It was not for want of will but for want of power that employers had not brought foreign labourers into this country to supplant the British workman when he was endeavouring to better his position. He did not mind that so much, he supposed it was regarded as fair play; they had fought employers in the past and had defeated them. But during a normal condition of things, when there was no struggle, Jock-out, or strike, it would be practically impossible, through the agency of the Bill and the machinery it set up, to prevent sweating employers or employers of any kind importing into this country just as many poor people as they pleased to carry on the work in which they were engaged. He believed the Government by this time must have seen the lamentable failure that was likely to be the result of the Bill, and even at this eleventh hour he would advise them to withdraw it.
§ SIR GILBERT PARKER (Gravesend)
said that if he remembered rightly the hon. Member who had just sat down was one of those who signed a petition to the leader of the Opposition not to oppose the Bill, and another hon. Member on the other side had spoken of the evil 930 with which the Bill was to deal. He was glad to hear that they recognised there was an evil.
§ MR. JOHN WILSON (Durham, Mid.)
What I said was that after the explanation of the Home Secretary it would be competent for the sweating employer to send over 100 letters and bring over alien labourers.
§ SIR GILBERT PARKER
, continuing, said he understood, and he was not disagreeing with the Amendment. He was in agreement with it. It helped to strengthen the Bill, and it seems to him that they had had very strong arguments that afternoon in favour of the measure. If the foundations of the Bill were so wrong, then the only right thing was the Amendment. Even then, if it were carried, the Government would have done such a work that the right hon. Baronet would be obliged to give it his sanction.
§ *SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucester shire, Forest of Dean)
I said, if the subject is to be dealt with at all then this and the seamen who have not been touched are the two branches of it I should be content to deal with.
§ SIR GILBERT PARKER
said that they came back to the conclusion that there were evils, and they believed they were dealt with to some extent by the Bill. They had had that afternoon the clearest and strongest proof of it, for every Member who had spoken had admitted this evil of sweating, and the hon. Member who had just sat down said that his constituents were deeply concerned that a section of the Bill should be carried.
§ MR. CREMER
What I said was that a section of them had been deluded into the belief that the Bill would benefit them.
§ SIR GILBERT PARKER
said the hon. Member was so deluded himself that he petitioned his leader not to oppose the Bill. It was difficult to ride two horses at once, unless one were very expert. He only rose, however, to 931 say that he wished to support the Amendment. He believed it would strengthen the Bill, and he should be as strongly opposed as any Labour Member to employers taking advantage of industrial crises to import alien labour.
§ *MR. TREVELYAN (Yorkshire, W.R., Elland)
said he agreed that the speech of the hon. Member for Haggerston had some elements of interest in it, and the hon. Member for Gravesend said he was riding two horses at once, but he (Mr. Trevelyan) should say he was beginning to find out that he was putting his money on the wrong horse.
§ *MR. CREMER
The hon. Member is misrepresenting me. I never favoured this Bill from the first; I wanted it discussed so that we might show the hollow mockery of the whole thing.
§ *MR. TREVELYAN
said he and those opposed to the Bill were very much pleased to hear that that was the only motive which actuated the hon. Member for Haggerston, the hon. Member for Poplar, and some others on that side of the House. There was another speech that ought to interest the Member for Gravesend as a strong supporter of the hon. Member for West Birmingham. The main, and, in fact, the only reason given by the Home Secretary for his opposition to the Amendment was that it was a protective Amendment. He repudiated anything protective in the motive which had induced the Government to bring the Bill forward. It was a curious contradiction of the view of the hon. Member for West Birmingham. But if, in his view, the Amendment had been in any sense protective, he should certainly have refused to support it. He did not like the necessity for any Amendment of the kind, for he thought it would be very much better if they had a system of State arbitration to prevent trade disputes occurring. When a lock out or strike occurred a state of war ensued between the two parties concerned, and it was the business of the nation as far as possible to keep the field clear. What happened when a number of aliens or free labourers of any kind were introduced was that the employers had the unfair advantage of 932 bringing in what really amounted to contraband of war. It was in order to prevent such an advantage being given to one of the parties that many Members of the House supported this Amendment. He and those who thought with him opposed this Bill because in their opinion it was not necessary to keep out, as a class, aliens, most of whom were a benefit rather than otherwise to this country. But labourers brought in during a strike were not brought in in any sense as permanent citizens. When they had served the turn of the employers in defeating British labour and had cheapened wages they were sent back to the country from whence they came, or turned loose in the slums of our great cities. There was, therefore, a particular reason for the interference of the State in this way. It was to his mind a curious thing that the Government should oppose the one Amendment moved in the interest of labour by the Labour Members.
§ MR. HUNT (Shropshire, Ludlow)
said the principles of the Bill were perfectly good. The object of the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite was to stop the introduction of cheap labour into this country, but so far as he could see it was of no use to try and stop labour entering this country unless the production of that cheap labour was also stopped.
§ *MR. CHARLES WILSON (Hull, W.)
asked why the Government could not see their way to accept the Amendment. In his twenty years experience as an employer of labour he had never known a case where employers of labour had ever wished to employ foreigners. They had always recognised in the first place that they were of little use, and in the second that their importation always necessitated a further expenditure, because after the strike was over they had to be sent home. He had had some experience of strikes, and in the case of the strike against his own firm twelve years ago it was fought out fairly and squarely, and there had been no strike since. He did not think there had ever been a wish on the part of the employers to import foreign labour, and so far as his experience went no such thing had ever 933 been attempted. The employers of labour did not object to this Amendment, and that being so he could not see why the Home Secretary should not accept it.
§ MR. DAVID MACIVER (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
said it was not often he found himself in entire accord with the hon. Member who had just sat down. In the whole of his business experience no such case had ever come under his notice, and he did not believe that such a case would ever arise. His objection to the Amendment was that it was a dishonest Amendment in the first place, and further that it was outside the scope of the Bill. He urged hon. Gentlemen opposite to take a broader view of this question.
§ *MR. LEVY (Leicestershire,) Loughborough
said the observations of the hon. Member appeared to him to cast some reflection upon those who supported this Amendment. Apart from the objection of the Home Secretary that this Amendment was in the nature of a protective Amendment, he also appeared to object to it because he thought it would lower the standard of living. The hon. Member supported the Amendment in the belief it would prevent the standard of living being lowered, and contended that there was no greater method of lowering the standard of living in this country than by allowing large bodies of workpeople to come to this country under contract at the time of a trade dispute. The chief effect would be to drive down wages, and when wages were driven down the standard of living was lowered. It was argued that if these people were brought over at such times that they would ultimately be returned to their own country, but it was equally probable that they would be retained here. Another objection raised by the Home Secretary to the Amendment was that there had been no case where people had been brought into this country under contract during the existence of a strike, but the answer to that was that hitherto it was not necessary for them to have a contract, but under this Bill there were inducements to accept contracts. Workers had in the past come over of their own free will and were taken on in the 934 ordinary course of employment as required. He appealed to the Home Secretary to accept the Amendment, more especially as many on his side of the House who had supported the Bill up to the present supported the Amendment. In his opinion, if the Bill was passed in its present form without this Amendment it would do considerable harm to the workpeople of this country.
§ Mr. JOHN WILSON (Glasgow, St. Rollox)
said he should support the Amendment, not in any spirit of antagonism to the Bill, but because he thought the Amendment was necessary. He hoped the Government would accept it.
§ MR. DALZIEL
thought the Government would do well to give a favourable consideration to the debate which had taken place. The hon. Member for Liverpool had characterised the Amendment as a dishonest one, and had reflected on Mr. Speaker by stating that it was not within the scope of this Bill. He thought it was a great piece of assumption on the part of the hon. Member to have spoken in the way he had done. In his (Mr. Dalziel's) opinion this was as important and as honest an Amendment as had been moved to the Bill. There was an absolutely unanimous opinion in favour of the Amendment; every Labour Member who had spoken had urged the Government to accept the principle of it in order to meet the case they had been dealing with, and speakers on the Unionist side of the House—enthusiastic supporters of the Government—had urged its acceptance. Why did they not accept it? It was the Government who ought to have proposed the Amendment, because it was they who said that this Bill was going to benefit the working men of this country. The right hon. Member for Birmingham had said this Bill was going to keep out cheap labour, and it was because this Amendment was calculated to have that effect that it had been moved. He hoped the working classes, especially in the East End, would note the attitude the Government were adopting. It would be interesting to know the views of the hon. Member for Stepney on the point. What the Amendment 935 desired to guard against had happened several times in the past, one instance being that of the Dowlais Colliery dispute eighteen months ago, when fifty Spaniards were brought in. But if the view of the Government was that such an event was not likely to happen, why were they wasting time in opposing the Amendment? It had also to be remembered that after the passage of this Bill, if the expectations of the promoters were realised, the conditions would be entirely altered. The present supply of cheap labour would be practically stopped, so that the Free Labour Association would have to go abroad and bring the cheap labour in under contract. From the Party point of view nothing could be better, so far as the Opposition were concerned, than that the Government should refuse the Amendment, but, believing that the alteration ought in justice to be made, he appealed to the Government to accept it.
§ *MR. DUKE (Plymouth)
had a difficulty in understanding why the Government were so punctilious about accepting this Amendment. One of the objects of the Bill was to protect the pockets of the ratepayers generally from the burdens cast upon them by the undue access of undesirable aliens. The object of the Amendment was to protect British labour from unnatural and unwholesome competition; and he failed to see how the introduction of cheap unskilled labour during a strike could be described as a natural process. What was to become of those labourers when the purpose for which they had been introduced was accomplished. Either they or the labourers they had displaced would probably have to be maintained by the community. He was not very enthusiastic about legislation to exclude anybody from this country, but he would regard the importation of such competitors in any industry in which he was interested as being as undesirable as the introduction of persons with no means of livelihood. The object of the Amendment being to prevent an unnatural competition of alien labour which would probably cause pauperism, the proposal was not inconsistent with the general scheme of the Bill, and, as he was strongly in favour of preserving 936 England as far as possible for Englishmen, he could not vote against the Amendment.
§ *MR. EMMOTT
agreed that from the Party point of view the Opposition could not have a better cry than would be provided by the refusal of the Government to accept this Amendment, but, because of its inherent justice and reasonableness, he hoped some concession would be made. It was said this Amendment was protectionist—that if we were to forbid cheap labour we must tax the products of that labour. The effect of foreign protection was to make goods neither cheap nor excellent. We did not fear the goods therefore. Under our free trade system, however, wages in this country were higher than on the Continent, so that there was a perpetual inducement to bring labour over from Europe to compete with the workers here at a lower rate. All the Amendment proposed was to prevent such labour from taking the place of English labour during a trade dispute. Surely that was a very reasonable proposal. The Home Secretary had said that one of the reasons this Bill was introduced was to prevent these poor aliens that came in from falling quickly into the hands of sweaters. It was assuredly an equally good reason to keep aliens from coming into lower the trades union conditions and take the place of British workmen engaged in a trade dispute. The second argument of the Home Secretary was that there had been no instances in which labourers had been brought from abroad on contract to take the place of men on strike. Several such instances had been given by hon. Members in that debate. In addition to the instances already given he might mention the case of Silvertown, where Belgians were brought in to take the place of the bottle-blowers on strike. Through their agency the British workers were defeated, but the Belgians themselves, he was told, were for the most part now on the rates. He did not in the least abate his hostility to the clause, but if it was to be passed it ought certainly to apply to this class of aliens as well as to those already included.
§ MR. J. F. HOPE (Sheffield, Brightside)
said it was possible that the Amendment might be unnecessary, but, on the other hand, it might be very necessary, and he suggested to the Home Secretary that if he could not actually adopt the Amendment he should agree to the ordinary Party machinery not being brought into play.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)
reminded the House that the general feeling in Committee was that something in the nature of this Amendment ought to be accepted. He had supported the general principle of the Bill, but he thought that if the measure were passed without this proviso the evil of the introduction of foreign "blackleg" labour would be accentuated, because the ordinary immigrant, who to a large extent was used for "blackleg" purposes, would be excluded, and the men, instead of coming in casually, would be brought in under contract for this specific purpose. He submitted that to oppose an Amendment the object of which was to prevent such transactions was not a consistent attitude for supporters of the Bill to adopt, and he hoped the Government would endeavour to meet the point.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said there was absolutely nothing in the Bill which would facilitate the introduction of foreign labour to compete with British workmen in case of a strike. The Bill left that problem exactly where it now stood, and was directed to an altogether different object. It proposed to exclude alien immigrants who were undesirable from any of the points of view enumerated in the Bill, and this new element would be inconsistent with the general principle of the measure in the sense that it would introduce something absolutely novel and alien thereto. He quite admitted that the question was one on which much might be said. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had suggested that it was closely connected with the employment of foreign labour on British ships. Matters such as that were of enormous importance, but he protested against their being introduced into a measure of this kind. The ob- 938 jections, in his opinion, were insuperable. He hoped the House would not listen to the appeal which had been made by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said the very anxiety of the hon. Member in giving that advice seemed to him to be somewhat suspicious. He hoped he was not considered to be unduly credulous or suspicious, but the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy had said frankly that he was no friend of the Bill, and he hoped hon. Members on the Government side would bear in mind that by introducing an element of this kind they would be doing much to wreck a measure which would be likely to do a great deal of good, but which would not bear the introduction of this alien element. He hoped none of his hon. friends would act upon the advice which had been given them by hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were the avowed enemies of this Bill and who desired its destruction.
§ MR. HARWOOD (Bolton)
said the somewhat passionate eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman was entirely beside the mark. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that this Amendment was alien to the Bill, but that was not so at all. The Bill was intended to keep out aliens who were not likely to be able to earn their own living. This Amendment laid down that they should not accept as proof or probability a contract from an employer where a strike was going on. If ever there was a case proved up to the hilt it was this case, and for the right hon. Gentleman to talk of this being an alien matter was simply nonsense. He had stated that those who supported this Amendment were opposed to the Bill and wanted a free influx of aliens into this country. Now the Government were trying to place a net to catch certain people, and they were going to catch those who might be an advantage to the country and let through those who did most harm and who were certain to throw British workmen out of employment. The 939 people who would be kept out would be those who very often introduced into this country new trades and found employment for others.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 163; Noes, 230. (Division List No. 287.)941
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Gladstone, Rt.Hn. Herbert John||Parrott, William|
|Allen, Charles P.||Grant, Corrie||Paulton, James Mellor|
|Ambrose, Robert||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Perks, Robert William|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Philipps, John Wynford|
|Baker, Joseph Allen||Harcourt, Lewis||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Harwood, George||Price, Robert John|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Rea, Russell|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.||Hayden, John Patrick||Reddy, M.|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.||Redmond, John E. (Waterford|
|Benn, John Williams||Helme, Norval Watson||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Black, Alexander William||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Boland, John||Higham, John Sharp||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Holland, Sir William Henry||Rose, Charles Day|
|Bowles, Lt,-Col.H.F.(Middlesex||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Runciman, Walter|
|Bright, Allan Heywood||Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.||Russell, T. W.|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Hunt, Rowland||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Burt, Thomas||Jacoby, James Alfred||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Burke, E. Haviland||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||Seely, Maj.J.E.B.(Isle of Wight|
|Buxton,N.E.(York,NR.Whitby||Joicey, Sir James||Shaw, Charles Kdw. (Stafford)|
|Buxton, SydneyCharles(Poplar||Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea||Sheehy, David|
|Caldwell, James||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Cameron, Robert||Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.||Smith,H.C(North'mb.Tyneside|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Joyce, Michael||Smith, Samuel (Flint)|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Kearley, Hudson E.||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W||Spencer, Rt.Hn.C.R.(N'thants|
|Cawley, Frederick||Lambert, George||Stanhope, Hon. Philip James|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Cogan, Denis J.||Leese, SirJosephF.(Accrington||Sullivan, Donal|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Levy, Maurice||Tennant, Harold John|
|Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark||Lough, Thomas||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.|
|Cremer, William Randal||Lundon, W.||Toulmin, George|
|Crombie, John William||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Crooks, William||M'Crae, George||Ure, Alexander|
|Cullinan, J.||M'Kenna, Reginald||Vincent, Col.SirC.E.H(Sheffield|
|Dalziel, James Henry||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Wallace, Robert|
|Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan||Marks, Harry Hananel||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley|
|Delany, William||Mooney, John J.||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Morley,Rt.Hon.John(Montrose||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney|
|Donelan, Capt. A.||Moulton, John Fletcher||Weir, James Galloway|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||Muldoon, John||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Dunn, Sir William||Nannetti, Joseph P.||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Edwards, Frank||Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway,N.||Whiteley, George (York, W.R.|
|Elibank, Master of||O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid.||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Ellice, CaptEC(S.Andrw'sBghs||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny||Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W,|
|Emmott, Alfred||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas||O'Connor, James||Wilson, John (Glagsow)|
|Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Young, Samuel|
|Fenwick, Charles||O'Dowd, John||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Field, William||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||O'Malley, William||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Flynn, James Christopher||O'Mara, James||Mr. Keir Hardie and Mr.|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Bell.|
|Gilhooly, James||Parker, Sir Gilbert|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Balfour, Rt. Hon.AJ(Manch'r|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt.Hon.SirH||Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Bailey, James (Walworth||Balfour,RtHn.GeraldW.(Leeds|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Baird, John George Alexander||Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.|
|Arnold-Forster, Rt.Hn.HughO||Balcarres, Lord||Banbury, Sir Frederick George|
|Arrol, Sir William||Baldwin, Alfred||Banner, John S. Harmood-|
|Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor||Hambro, Charles Eric||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)|
|Bartley, Sir George C. T.||Hamilton, Marq.of(L'nd'nd'rry||Myers, William Henry|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Hardy, Laurence(Kent,Ashford||Nicholson, William Graham|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Hare, Thomas Leigh||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Heath, ArthurHoward(Hanley||Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)|
|Bigwood, James||Heath,SirJames(Staffords.NW||Peel, Hn.Wm.Robert Wellesley|
|Bill, Charles||Heaton, John Henniker||Percy, Earl|
|Bingham, Lord||Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford,W.||Picrpoint, Robert|
|Bond, Edward||Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.||Pilkington, Colonel Richard|
|Bousfield, William Robert||Hickman, Sir Alfred||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Brassey, Albert||Hoare, Sir Samuel||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Brodrick, Rt, Hon. St. John||Hogg, Lindsay||Purvis, Robert|
|Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)||Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry||Pym, C. Guy|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Hoult, Joseph||Rankin, Sir James|
|Campbell, Rt.Kn.J.A.(Glasgow||Houston, Robert Paterson||Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne|
|Carlile, William Walter||Howard,John(Kent.Faversham||Ratcliff, R. F.|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Hozier, Hon.JamesHenryCecil||Reid, James (Greenock)|
|Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire||Hudson, George Bickersteth||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)||Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Ridley, S. Forde|
|Chamberlain, Rt.HnJ.A. (Wore||Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. ArthurFred.||Ritchie, Rt.Hon.Chas.Thomson|
|Clive, Captain Perry A.||Kerr, John||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield|
|Coates, Edward Feetham||Keswick, William||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Kimber, Sir Henry||Robinson, Brooke|
|Coddington, Sir William||King, Sir Henry Seymour||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Knowles, Sir Lees||Round, Rt. Hon. James|
|Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Lambton, Hon. FrederickWm.||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge||Lawson, Hn.H.L.W.(MileEnd)||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Cripps, Charles Alfred||Lee, ArthurH.(Hants.Fareham||Scott, Sir S. (Marleybone, W.|
|Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile||Lees, Sir Elliot(Birkenhead||Saunderson, Rt.Hn.Col.Edw.J.|
|Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Leveson-Gower, FrederickN.S.||Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew|
|Dairymple, Sir Charles||Liddell, Henry||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Davenport, William Bromley||Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Smith, RtHnJ.Parker(Lanarks|
|Davies, Sir HoratioD. (Chatham||Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Dickinson, Robert Edmond||Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham||Spear, John Ward|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||Long, Rt.Hn.Walter(Bristol,S.||Stanley, EdwardJas.(Somerset|
|Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. SirJosephC||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.|
|Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Lowe, Francis William||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Dixon-Hartland,SirFred.Dixon||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.|
|Dorington,Rt. Hon.Sir John E.||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Doughty, Sir George||Lucas, ReginaldJ.(Portsmouth||Stroyan, John|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A- Akers-||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Dyke, Rt.Hon.SirWilliam Hart||Macdona, John Cumming||Talbot, Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxfd.Univ|
|Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)||Maconochie, A. W.||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Fellowes, RtHn.AilwynEdward||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Tollinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Fergusson, Rt.Hn.SirJ.(Manc'r||M'Iver,SirLewis(Edinburgh, W.||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Malcolm, Ian||Tuff, Charles|
|Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Manners, Lord Cecil||Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward|
|Finlay,RtHn SirR.B.(Inverness||Martin, Richard Biddulph||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.||Turnour, Viscount|
|Fison, Frederick William||Maxwell, Rt.HnSirHE. (Wigton||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Fitzroy, Hon.EdwardAlgernon||Maxwell, W.J.H(Dumfriesshire||Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir WilliamH|
|Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Melville, Beresford Valentine||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Flower, Sir Ernest||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Welby, Sir CharlesGE(Notts.)|
|Forster, Henry William||Milner, Rt.Hon.SirFrederickG.||Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd|
|Foster, PhilipS.(Warwick,S.W.||Milvain, Thomas||Whiteley,H.(Ashton und.Lyne|
|Galloway, William Johnson||Mitchell, William (Burnley)||Whitmore, Chares Algernon|
|Gardner, Ernest||Molesworth, Sir Lewis||Wilson, A. Stanley (York,E.R.|
|Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.||Montagu, Hon.J.Scott(Hants.)||Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H.(Yorks.|
|Godson, SirAugustusFrederick||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Wodehouse, Rt.Hn.E.R. (Bath|
|Gordon,MajEvans-(T'rHaml'ts||Morgan,DavidJ. (Walthamstow||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Gore, Hon, S. F. Ormsby-||Morpeth, Viscount||Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson|
|Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir JohnEldon||Morrell, George Herbert||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B.Stuart-|
|Goschen, Hon. George Joachim||Morrison, James Archibald||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer|
|Greene, HenryD. (Shrewsbury)||Mount, William Arthur||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Sir Alexander Acland-Hood|
|Halsey, Rt. Hon, Thomas F.||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||and Viscount Valentia.|
§ *SIR CHARLES DILKE
moved to insert the words "for political reasons," with the object of exempting political refugees from the scope of the Bill. He said the Amendment in regard to political refugees had not been before the House, having been shut out by the closure when the Bill was in Committee. This was a matter which was probably more prominent in the minds of a large number of the people of this country than any other matter connected with the Bill. All that had been said with regard to the principle of asylum in cases of religious persecution applied with greater force to the subject of political persecution. The words which the Government had introduced in order to meet this point were obviously unsatisfactory and insufficient. He had not heard any Member of the House confess publicly or privately that the Government words were sufficient to meet what was admitted to be a grievance that should be met. It was, he admitted, very difficult to find words to meet the case. The Government Amendment was confined to those who sought refuge in this country for the purpose of avoiding prosecution for an offence. It was admitted that that could be shown in the case of very few political refugees. Cases, for instance, must be present to their minds of distinguished refugees who had come from Russia at various times. In those cases actual avoidance of a definite prosecution for a political offence could hardly ever be shown.
Of course, in Russia there was an enormous amount of arbitrary arrest for the holding of political ideals—for mere suspicion of holding certain political opinions. In 1896 it was supposed that arbitrary arrest for political offences had ceased. A Ukase was published at that time which was received throughout the civilised world as meaning that arbitrary arrest had been discontinued, but that Ukase was so worded that it did not give effect to the meaning ascribed to it by the European Press. There had been a larger number of arrests since the issue of that Ukase than ever at any time before except in connection with the Polish insurrections of 1830 and 1801. Sir Donald Mackenzie Wallace, the most sound and least sensational writer about Russia, in discussing the 944 Ukase in the new edition of his book-stated that arbitrary arrest and imprisonment had really increased. Sir Donald gave the figures for 1903, which he had every reason to suppose came from the very highest source. There were 4,867 persons sent into the various forms of exile in different parts of Siberia without any form of trial. That number, in a single year, showed the extent to which political persecution had been carried in the Russian Empire. It was perfectly certain that none of the persons who escaped from detention in Russia, or who fled from Russia, when they had a warning of arbitrary arrest, would come under the words of exemption proposed by the Government. It would be necessary to prove the existence of a charge to show that the words were applicable, and that could not be shown in any of those cases. Of course, the House knew how terrible was the life to which persons who held certain political opinions were condemned. Friends of his own, men of the highest repute in the scientific and literary world, had been exiled to remote Governments for holding opinions which in any other country would have passed unnoticed. There were some of the settlements where men were sent for holding political opinions and where they invariably became mad in two or three years. It would be difficult to find words which would not be thought by the Government dangerously vague, yet he ventured to suggest that the form of words which the Government proposed were wholly insufficient.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 2, line 12, to leave out from the word 'country,' to the word 'leave,' in line 13, and insert the words 'for political reasons'"—(Sir Charles Dilke)—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'solely to avoid prosecution.' stand part of the Bill."
§ LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE
asked whether the Government had no reply to give to the convincing speech of his right hon. friend on a question which, he should have thought, would have appealed to every Englishman irrespective of Party. It would indeed be the 945 most extraordinary part of the course which had been pursued by the Government in regard to this matter if they treated with contempt the arguments of the right hon. Baronet, and did not vouchsafe a reply on this vital question. The Prime Minister was a man who had occupied a seat in this House for many years, and who had had the privilege—
§ THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.)
I rise to apologise. I own that to describe the noble Lord's interpretation of our silence as nonsense is an undesirable form of interjection, though not un-Parliamentary. But I must say that the noble Lord's interpretation of the silence of the Attorney-General and myself, when we were actually considering the point, as a contempt of the right hon. Baronet was so absurd that I cannot conceive the noble Lord really means it.
§ LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE
asked how could he obtain a knowledge of what was going on on the Treasury Bench. He waited and thought that his right hon. friend would be followed by someone on behalf of the Government, but he observed no intention on the part of either the Attorney-General or the Prime Minister to rise, and it was only when the Speaker was about to put the Question that he interposed. He felt sure that the right hon. Gentleman's interjection was not intended to reach him, and that it was far from the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to be discourteous to him. But he wished to urge upon the House that this was a very vital question, and that they should not let it go without further discussion This was a point on which previous Foreign Secretaries, both Liberal and Conservative, had fought hard and long. The House surely could not have forgotten the efforts that were made repeatedly last century by foreign Governments to get something of this kind into English legislation, and that their efforts were met by the firm and determined opposition of our own Foreign Ministers. After the Polish and Hungarian insurrections the foreign Ambassadors pressed on Lord Palmerston and Lord Granville, almost 946 to discourtesy, for a change in the English law, and it led to something like an unfriendly feeling between the two Courts. There was a Foreign Office despatch by Lord Granville, which was very carefully revised by Lord John Russell, in which it was very firmly stated that under no circumstances would this country yield one inch on this question. It was pointed out in that despatch that what ought to be remembered by all English Parties and by the Governments abroad was that any Government or any person who might be asking for the exclusion of certain foreign aliens might the day after have to come to this country and seek the benefit of the asylum that we had always given to foreign refugees from either religious or political persecution. That had been the case in regard to France, according to whether the Royalist or Republican movement was triumphant. After the lamentable assassination of the Emper[...] of Russia an attempt was made to indu[...] us to alter our alien laws, and so also in regard to movements in Greece and Turkey, but Lord Granville put his foot down and said there should be no alteration at all.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said the noble Lord had made a most uncalled-for attack upon the Attorney-General and himself which he should have thought the long Parliamentary experience of the noble Lord would have guarded him from making.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
The noble Lord made a violent and unjustifiable attack. He assumed that we were going to take not the smallest notice of the right hon. Baronet and his Amendment. That was a most preposterous charge.
§ LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE
I did not rise until I saw that the Speaker was about to put the Question, and I rose only to avert the danger of the Question being disposed of without any reply being made by the Government.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said the noble Lord was amply justified in rising, but 947 he was not justified in the remarks which he had made. The right hon. Baronet had rightly stated that there was no difference of opinion in the House as to the desirability of admitting aliens into this country who were genuinely driven out of their own country on the grounds of their being accused of political crime or involved in political agitation. The right hon. Baronet had stated that there was no difference between either side of the House as to the desirability of giving persons entry into this country who were driven out of their own country on the ground of being involved in political agitation, or in consequence of being accused of political crimes, or of being in danger of political punishment. There was really no difference of opinion between them, and the passionate appeal made by the noble Lord was really on this occasion thrown away.
The right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean admitted that to carry out this common object was by no means an easy matter, and he did not think the right hon. Baronet's own words would really meet the case. He thought he would recognise that they were far too wide. The question was how could they so word the clause as to let in those they desired to let in, and keep out those they desired to keep out. They had reached the point at which they must agree that it was legitimate to keep out the immigrant coming under the various categories described in the clause, but the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet would not keep them out at all. A man had only to say he disliked the political conditions of the country he lived in to be able to come in. He might have been slighted by his fellow-citizens when standing for some office, or think his merits were not sufficiently appreciated by the Party to which he belonged, and he would be able to come in under the right hon. Baronet's Amendment by saying really the political controversy was raging in his own country in a manner which caused him very much inconvenience and made life intolerable. The man who was destitute and who, therefore, was of the class they desired to exclude might turn their intentions to nought by saying the 948 political conditions of the country in which he lived were so utterly repulsive to him that he preferred the calmer atmosphere of British institutions. That was not the class they desired to admit even if they were destitute; the class they did desire to admit, even though they were destitute, were those who, in peril of their lives or in peril of their liberty, were really flying their country to avoid a hard fate which, in less happily situated communities than our own, too often overcome those who opposed the Government of the day.
The right hon. Baronet recommended words to their notice, but in the course of his speech he very nearly suggested that the difficulty was so great that he feared his words were too wide. He (Mr. Balfour) thought they were too wide, and he did not think it would be possible, therefore, for the Government to accept them. He had consulted with his learned friend as to whether it was not possible to find words not open to the objection to which those of the right hon. Baronet were open, and which would yet carry out that object which both sides had in view, and he thought it might be done if the clause were made to read "Solely to avoid prosecution or punishment on religious or political grounds or for an offense of a political character." He thought if the House would accept those words they would meet the case of the right hon. Baronet; and he ventured to suggest that he should withdraw his Amendment and allow his learned friend to substitute the words he had just read.
§ MR. ASQUITH (Fifeshire, E.)
said he agreed that they ought to discuss the proper form of words to be inserted to carry out what was the common purpose on both sides of the House, but they on that side of the House took strong exception to the exclusion of aliens on the ground of poverty alone, and, if the choice were between words which seemed too wide and words which were certainly too narrow, he thought the House ought to err on the side of generosity. There were two competing forms of words from which they had to make their choice. First of all, there were the words of the right hon. Member for the Forest 949 of Dean, which were very wide indeed and which would, cover almost every conceivable case of a refugee coming to this country, although that need rot trouble the mind of the House at all, because it was perfectly certain that any tribunal, whether immigration officers or a Court of law, which had to interpret the words would interpret them in the best sense, that the person came here not out of caprice but because the conditions of his own country made it unsafe for him to stay there. He did not think it would be the policy of this country to exclude anyone who came to this country under those conditions. Then there were the words of the right hon. Gentleman, which included only the two cases where a refugee was seeking to avoid either prosecution or punishment. There were a great many cases in which a man came here as a political refugee and yet could not be said to be seeking to avoid either prosecution or punishment. Prosecution meant a criminal proceeding in a Court of law for some offence against the law; punishment meant what the proceeding, when carried to its conclusion, resulted in. ["No."] He would be glad to know if punishment had any other meaning.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he should have thought that imprisonment without form of law was punishment, although there was no prosecution.
§ MR. ASQUITH
suggested the case of a man who was subjected to arbitrary confiscation of property without prosecution. Was that punishment?
§ MR. ASQUITH
thought that this should be made perfectly clear. The right hon. Gentleman let fall one expression which he heard with great satisfaction, because it seemed to embody the true principle, and that was when he spoke of men leaving their country from peril to life or liberty. If the words were adopted—"to avoid danger to life, limb, or liberty on political or religious grounds," he believed they would not be one whit too wide to meet the circumstances of the case, and he imagined would give general satisfaction.
§ LORD HUGH CECIL (Greenwich)
did not think the Amendment of the hon. Baronet could possibly be accepted. The Amendment would cover the not unlikely case of a man who fled to avoid conscription. That might be a very large class indeed. They might all be said to come over as political refugees. It had occurred to him that if the words "affecting life, limb, or liberty," were put in after the word "punishment," the Amendment would be one which would carry out the intention of the hon. Baronet.
§ MR. CRIPPS (Lancashire, Stretford)
asked whether the Prime Minister would adopt words to cover political cases similar to those which he had adopted with regard to religious refugees. If the right hon. Gentleman gave the same protection to political as he had given to religious refugees that would cover everything.
§ MAJOR SEELY
expressed the opinion that the suggestion of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich, if adopted, would meet with universal agreement, especially if in addition they were made to apply, as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stretford suggested, to religious and political belief.
§ MR. FORDE RIDLEY (Bethnal Green, S.W.)
pointed out that the words of the Amendment were wider than they need be, and he suggested that the word "imminent" should be put in in front of "danger."
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
suggested to the House that it was not desirable to insert the word "imminent," at all events in the place proposed. There was an Amendment lower down on the Paper which would more properly deal with that.
§ LORD HUGH CECIL
said the accepttance of such an Amendment would be altogether a departure from the arrangement come to in Committee.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said he would suggest to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that it was not desirable at that moment to complicate the clause further by saying "punishment involving 951 danger to life, limb, or liberty." All punishment must affect person or liberty, and therefore it was quite enough to say "to avoid prosecution or punishment on religious or political grounds." It would be difficult to find words that would satisfy everyone, but he submitted they would come nearest to covering the whole point by the formula he had suggested, viz., "solely to avoid prosecution or punishment on religious or political grounds or for an offence of a political character."
§ MR. RUFUS ISAACS (Reading)
suggested that the views of the House might be met by the provision being made to read as follows—"Solely to avoid prosecution or punishment on religious or political grounds or prosecution for an offence of a political character, or to avoid persecution involving danger to life or limb on account of religious or political belief." The Amendment as it stood was
§ too narrow in that it would not touch persecution involving danger.
§ MAJOR EVANS GORDON (Tower Hamlets, Stepney)
rose to move an Amendment, the object of which was to limit the application of the proposed exemptions to cases of actual and immediate persecution or danger,
§ *MR. SPEAKER
intimated that that raised a separate and distinct issue which would be reached in due time.
§ *SIR CHARLES DILKE
said that as no satisfactory arrangement had been, come to he should be obliged to take the sense of the House.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 244; Noes, 162. (Division List No. 288.)955
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Fison, Frederick William|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Cautley, Henry Strother||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire)||Flannery, Sir Fortsecue|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Flower, Sir Ernest|
|Arnold-Forster, Rt.Hn.HughO||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Forster, Henry William|
|Arrol, Sir William||Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.J.A(Wore||Foster, PhilipS. (Warwick,S.W.|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Clare, Octavius Leigh||Galloway, William Johnson|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt.Hon.SirH||Clive, Captain Percy A.||Gardner, Ernest|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Coates, Edward Feetham||Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Godson, SirAugustusFrederick|
|Balcarres, Lord||Coghill, Douglas Harry||Gordon, Maj.Evans-(T'rH'mlts|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Cohen, Benjan in Louis||Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r||Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas||Goschen, Hon. George Joachim|
|Balfour, Rt.HnGeraldW.(Leeds||Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow||Goulding, Edward Alfred|
|Balfour, Kenneth, R.(Christch.||Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile||Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Hall, Edward Marshall|
|Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor||Dalkeith, Earl of||Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.|
|Bartley, Sir George C. T.||Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Hambro, Charles Eric|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Davenport, William Bromley||Hardy, Laurence(Kent,Ashford|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Davies, SirHoratioD.(Chatham||Hare, Thomas Leigh|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Denny, Colonel||Hay, Hon. Claude George|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Dickinson, Robert Edmond||Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley|
|Bigwood, James||Dickson, Charles Scott||Heath,SirJames(Staffords,N. W|
|Bill, Charles||Dimsdale, Rt.Hon. SirJosephC.||Heaton, John Henniker|
|Bingham, Lord||Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford,W.|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Dixon-Hartland,SirFred.Dixon||Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.|
|Bond, Edward||Dorington, Rt.Hon.SirJohnE.||Hickman, Sir Alfred|
|Bousfield, William Robert||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A Akers-||Hoare, Sir Samuel|
|Bowles, Lt.-Col.H.F.(Middlesex||Duke, Henry Edward||Hogg, Lindsay|
|Bowles, T. Gibson (Kings Lynn||Dyke, Rt.Hon.Sir WilliamHart||Hope, J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside|
|Brassey, Albert||Egerton, Hon.A. de Tatton||Hornby, Sir William Henry|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Fellowes, RtHn.AilwynEdward||Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry|
|Brown, Sir Alex.H.(Shropsh.)||Fergusson, RtHn.SirJ.(Manc'r||Hoult, Joseph|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Houston, Robert Paterson|
|Butcher, John George||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Howard,John(Kent,Faversham|
|Campbell, RtHn.J. A. (Glasgow||Finlay, RtHn.SirR.B.(Inv'rn'ss||Howard, J. (Midd.,Tottenham|
|Carlile, William Walter||Fisher, William Hayes||Hozier, Hon.JamesHenryCecil|
|Hudson, George Bickersteth||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Hunt, Rowland||Morgan, DavidJ(Walthamstow||Shaw-Stewart, SirH.(Renfrew|
|Hutton, John (Yorks., N.R.)||Morpeth, Viscount||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Morrell, George Herbert||Smith,HC(Northumb,Tyneside|
|Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. ArthurFred.||Morrison, James Archibald||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Kerr, John||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer||Spear, John Ward|
|Keswick, William||Mount, William Arthur||Stanley, Hn.Arthur-(Ormskirk|
|Kimber, Sir Henry||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Stanley, EdwardJas.(Somerset|
|King, Sir Henry Seymour||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath||Stanley, Rt. Hon.Lord (Lancs.|
|Knowles, Sir Lees||Myers, William Henry||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Nicholson, William Graham||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.|
|Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)||Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Lawson, Hn.H.L.W.(Mile End)||Peel, Hn. Wm.RobertWellesley||Talbot, RtHnJ.G.(Oxf'dUniv.|
|Lee, ArthurH.(Hants,Fareham)||Pemborton, John S. G.||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead)||Percy, Earl||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Legge, Col. Hon. Hencage||Pierpoint, Robert||Tollemache, Henry James|
|Leveson-Gower, FrederickN.S.||Pilkington, Colonel Richard||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Liddell, Henry||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Pretyman, Ernest George||Tuff, Charles|
|Long, Rt,Hn.Walter(Bristol,S.||Purvis, Robert||Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward|
|Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Pym, C. Guy||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Lowe, Francis William||Randles, John S.||Turnour, Viscount|
|Loyd, Archie, Kirkman||Rankin, Sir James||Vincent, Col.SirCEH.(Sheffield|
|Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft||Rasch, Sir Frederic Came||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Lucas, ReginaldJ.(Portsmouth||Ratcliff, R. F.||Walrond, Rt.Hn.SirWilliamH.|
|Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Reid, James (Greenock)||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Macdona, John Gumming||Remnant, James Farquharson||Welby, SirCharlesG.E.(Notts.)|
|Maconochie, A. W.||Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine||Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd|
|M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Ridley, Sir Forde||Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne|
|M'Iver, SirLewis(EdinburghW||Ritchie, Rt. Hn.Chas. Thomson||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)||Wilson, A.Stanley (York,E.R.)|
|Malcolm, Ian||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Marks, Harry Hananel||Robinson, Brooke||Wilson-Todd, SirW.H.(Yorks.)|
|Martin, Richard Biddulph||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye||Wodehouse, Rt.Hn.E.R.(Bath|
|Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir HE(Wigt'n||Round, Rt. Hon. James||Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson|
|Maxwell, W. J. H.(Dumfriessh.||Royds, Clement Molyneux||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B.Stuart-|
|Melville, Beresford Valentine||Rutherford, John (Lancashire||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Milner, Rt. Hn. SirFrederickG.||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Milvain, Thomas||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert||Sir Alexander Acland-Hood|
|Molesworth, Sir Lewis||Saunderson, Rt.Hn.Col.Edw.J.||and Viscount Valentia.|
|Montagu, Hon. J.Scott(Hants.)||Scott, Sir S. (Marleybone, W.)|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)||Cameron, Robert||Eve, Harry Trelawney|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Fenwick, Charles|
|Allen, Charles P.||Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Field, William|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Causton, Richard Knight||Findlay, Alexander(Lanark,N.|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn.HerbertHenry||Cawley, Frederick||Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond|
|Baker, Joseph Allen||Channing, Francis Allston||Flynn, James Christopher|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Cheetham, John Frederick||Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Cogan, Denis J.||Gladstone, RtHn.HerbertJohn|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Condon, Thomas Josepn||Goddard, Daniel Ford|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E.(Berwick)|
|Bell, Richard||Cremer, William Randal||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill|
|Benn, John Williams||Crombie, John William||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton|
|Black, Alexander William||Cullinan, J.||Harcourt, Lewis|
|Boland, John||Dalziel, James Henry||Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan||Hayden, John Patrick|
|Brigg, John||Delany, William||Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.|
|Bright, Allan Heywood||Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)||Helme, Norval Watson|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Donelan, Captain A.||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Doogan, P. C.||Higham, John Sharp|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Duncan, J. Hastings||Holland, Sir William Henry|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Edwards, Frank||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)|
|Burt, Thomas||Elibank, Master of||Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.|
|Buxton, N.E. (York,NRWhitby||Ellice, Capt EC(S Andr'wsBghs||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel|
|Buxton, SydneyCharles(Poplar||Emmott, Alfred||Jacoby, James Alfred|
|Caldwell, James||Esmonde, Sir Thomas||Joicey, Sir James|
|Jones, DavidBrynmor(Swansea||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Spencer, RtHn C.R.(Northants|
|Jones, Leif (Appleby)||O'Dowd, John||Stanhope, Hon. Philip James|
|Jones, William(Carnarvonshire||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Joyce, Michael||O'Malley, William||Sullivan, Donal|
|Kearley, Hudson E.||O'Mara, James||Tennant, Harold John|
|Kennedy, VincentP.(Cavan, W.||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.|
|Lambert, George||Parrott, William||Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr|
|Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)||Partington, Oswald||Toulmin, George|
|Layland-Barratt, Francis||Paulton, James Mellor||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Leese, SirJosephF.(Accrington)||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)||Ure, Alexander|
|Levy, Maurice||Perks, Robert William||Wallace, Robert|
|Lough, Thomas||Philipps, John Wynford||Walton, JohnLawson(Leeds,S.|
|Lundon, W.||Power, Patrick Joseph||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley|
|MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Price, Robert John||Warner, Thomas Courtenay, T.|
|M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)||Rea, Russell||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan|
|M'Crae, George||Reddy, M.||Wason, JohnCathcart(Orkney)|
|M'Kenna, Reginald||Redmond, JohnE.(Waterford)||Weir, James Galloway|
|Mooney, John J.||Rickett, J. Compton||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen||Roe, Sir Thomas||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Morley, Rt. Hn.John(Montrose||Rose, Charles Day||Whiteley, George (York, W.R.|
|Moulton, John Fletcher||Runciman, Walter||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Muldoon, John||Russell, T. W.||Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)|
|Murphy, John||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Nannetti, Joseph P.||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)||Young, Samuel|
|Nolan, Col.JohnP.(Galway,N.)||Schwann, Charles E.||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Seely, Maj.J.E.B.(Isle of Wight|
|Norman, Henry||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid||Sheehy, David||Sir Charles Dilke and Mr.|
|O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Shipman, Dr. John G.||Harwood.|
|O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.||Slack, John Bamford|
|O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.||Smith, Samuel (Flint|
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 2, line 12, after the word 'prosecution,' to insert the words 'or punishment on religious grounds or.'"—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 2, line 13, after the word 'character,' to insert the words 'or persecution, involving danger of imprisonment or danger to life or limb, on account of religious belief.'"—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS
moved another Amendment in the same sub-section relating to an immigrant who wished to enter the country so as to avoid "persecution, involving danger of imprisonment or danger to life or limb, on account of religious belief."
§ *MAJOR EVANS GORDON
moved to amend the Home Secretary's Amendment by inserting words with the object of providing that the exemption should be limited to actual and immediate cases of hardship personal to the individual who pleaded them. No one recognised more 956 cordially and fully than he did that asylum should be granted to people who were in imminent danger of this kind, as, for instance, those flying from such outrages as recently occurred at Kishineff, but he thought there was great difficulty in framing words which, while exempting such persons, would not at the same time open the door to all immigrants from Eastern Europe, however undesirable, on a general plea of misgovernment in their own country. He was doubtful whether, even if the words he suggested were accepted, this difficulty would be entirely overcome. He begged the House to realise exactly what the effect of the original Amendment would be. On page 1 of the Bill they were setting up elaborate machinery to exclude certain classes admittedly undesirable. That was the main object of the Bill, and gave effect to the principle of the Bill. This principle had been affirmed on two occasions by large majorities in that House. On page 2 it was now proposed to introduce words by which fully nine-tenths of these people could claim exemption, not on the ground that they were in any immediate danger, or that they were religious or political refugees in the sense in which the people of this country really understood the term, but because of the general 957 misgovernment in Eastern Europe. While, therefore, they affirmed in one place that the economically unfit ought to be excluded in the interests of the people of this country, in another they gave every wastrel and mendicant a new statutory right to come in, provided he took the very slight trouble of rendering himself liable to punishment on religious or political grounds in Russia, Roumania, or Armenia. He was afraid that the proposed exemptions would provide shipowners and masters with very easy means of evading the Act, and that they would have little difficulty in educating the immigrants up to the requisite degree of persecution. He recognised that there were those in that House who disbelieved in the policy of excluding anybody, and where desire was, therefore, to render this Bill useless. There were others who, while supporting the Bill in principle, desired to provide a refuge for the genuine victims of persecution.
And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.