HC Deb 17 July 1905 vol 149 cc957-92

Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment [17th July] proposed on Consideration of the Bill, as amended.

Which Amendment was— 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 again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."


continuing his speech, said that when the House adjourned he was saying there were some who, while supporting the Bill in principle, desired to provide a refuge for the genuine victims of persecution. Among those they had to count the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich. There was no one in this House or outside of it for whose capacity and fair-mindedness he had a more profound respect, and he could assure the noble Lord if anything should shake his convictions it would be his noble friend's attitude on this matter. But had his noble friend thought this matter out, and did he realise where his opinion was leading him? The noble Lord had said that he over-estimated the scope of the Bill—but he thought the noble Lord had under-estimated the effect of the exemptions which he desired to see introduced into it. The Amendment said that we could not exclude persons who came here solely to avoid prosecution or punishment for an offence of a political character. The word "solely" might leave some room for discrimination—but who could decide upon a man's motive in such a case, otherwise than upon the evidence which he himself chose to give with regard to it? Apart from that it was unquestionable that an indefinite risk of punishment or prosecution hung over the head of a large majority of all the subjects of the Czar. Two influences would therefore be set in operation. On the one hand the Russian Government and its officials would only have to threaten punishment in order to compel us to receive anyone of whom they wished to be rid—and on the other hand anyone, however unemployable and undeserving, who was desirous of leaving Russia and settling in this country would only have to qualify as a political offender to gain the right to come here. Nothing was easier than to obtain that qualification. He might become a member of any unauthorised society, and then, as all such societies were prohibited, say that he was in fear of punishment for an offence of a political character—or he had only to possess himself of a revolutionary leaflet, or even to be seen in suspected company, in order to place himself within the four corners of this exemption. Was it the intention of the advocates of this Amendment that all such persons, whether desirable or not, should be admitted here as of right?

Then as to punishment or persecution on the ground of religion. In order to qualify for admission under this head, it would only be necessary for persons to transgress one of the numberless rules in the tomes of special laws applicable to Jews and other non-orthodox sects m Russia, They need only leave the village or town in which they were registered as domiciled without permission, or bathe in the sea at some prohibited place, for instance, at Libau, where there was a regulation forbidding Jews to bathe in the sea, in order to say that they were liable to punishment because they held certain religious belief. Was one sea-bath to entitle the economically unfit to enter and obtain citizenship in this country. Was it intended that we should, not by indulgence as hitherto, but by statutory provision, admit in future all such persons who had transgressed Russian regulations, possibly of set purpose, and had thus rendered themselves liable to trifling punishments? He was entirely at one with the noble Lord in desiring to give refuge and asylum to people who were in danger of serious punishment or injury, but while allowing such to come we must safeguard ourselves against the wider effects of a general plea. There did exist, in fact, a perfectly clear distinction between those persons who were genuine refugees fleeing from outrage and personal danger and those who wished to use the general political and religious regime in Eastern Europe to get them into this country, where they would, under the Bill, be otherwise inadmissible, and we ought in our legislation to recognise that absolutely actual and vital distinction. Let them take the Armenians' case. There were signs that an exodus of these people was already commencing. Shipping agents were recruiting them among the emigrants to America, and of course there were rejections of them in New York. Were we to admit an Armenian immigration wholesale, irrespective of individual character or fitness and of the effect on our own industrial conditions?

The Amendment as it stood made no provision as to the imminence of the punishment to which it referred. An offence of some kind might have been committed years before which rendered the offender liable to punishment of some kind in his country of origin, and we should be powerless to exclude such a person, however undesirable. The words which he proposed to insert were intended to meet that contingency.

Might he again point out the anomalous position we were in with regard to expulsion and repatriation as distinct from exclusion. As far as he could discern there were numbers of Members on both side who regarded exclusion of undesirables who gave themselves the description of refugees at the put of arrival as barbarous, while expulsion or repatriation of these same persons after arrival was legitimate. In the debate of Wednesday last he said that the Jewish Board of Guardians and other Jewish organisations had no hesitation in repatriating their undesirable co-religionists who, for one reason or another, had become a burden here. The hon. Member for Cleveland thereupon stated that all these people were sent back at their own request, and that none of them were victims of religious persecution. He had had no opportunity of contradicting that statement at the time, but as the matter was of great importance he hoped the House would allow him to do so now. The hon. Gentleman must have spoken in ignorance of the evidence given before the Royal Commission on this subject by such important members of the Jewish Community as Mr. Leonard Cohen, the chairman of the Jewish Board of Guardians, Mr. N. S. Josephs, of the Russo-Jewish Committee, and other witnesses. He would beg hon. Members to refer to this evidence. It showed in the most unmistakable manner that the persons sent back did not go of their own accord. If hon. Members would refer to the evidence they would see at Question 16,233 that Mr. N. S. Josephs, when asked whether these people returned home willingly, made the following reply— Perhaps they will at first be very unwilling and they will ask for help in the meantime, which we always refuse. Eventually they will come and say, 'We are prepared to go home' On this Lord James, the Chairman, remarked— The fact is you starve them out of the country" and the witness replied, "Yes. And further he again repeated that it was simply a case of starving them out. Not one word was said with regard to any exception being made in favour of persons who were the victims of persecution in their own country This aspect of the matter was never taken into consideration at all when repatriation cases were being considered, and at Question 15,511, when Mr. Leonard Cohen was asked whether he would object to the State attempting to do what the Jewish community themselves considered it advisable to do, he replied— I should consider it most desirable to keep out undesirable aliens. and in reply to the Colonial S cretary he said that it had always been the policy of the Jewish Board of Guardians to restrict the influx as far as possible. And this policy was steadily pursued quite irrespective of the treatment meted out to these people in Russia or Roumania. In this connection he would remind the House that in the year 1900 there was a sudden influx of refugses from Roumania. The reason for their coming was the malicious misgovernment they had been subjected to by the Roumanian Government. Did this fact prevent the Jewish authorities from sending them back to their homes? Not at all. A very large percentage was sent, and the Jewish Board of Guardians protested in the strongest terms against these refugees having ever been allowed to come here.

He therefore hoped that he had said enough to show that the hon. Member for Cleveland entirely mis-stated the facts when he said that persons repatriated returned voluntarily, and that none of such persons were the victims of persecution. In the opinion of Mr. Leonard Cohen it would be far more humane to prevent these people arriving here than to starve them out of this country after their arrival. But what he desired to point out especially was this—the responsible Jewish authorities here, large-minded and generous as they were, saw quite well that it would be disastrous to them and their struggling co-religionists if the general conditions of misgovernment in Eastern Europe were to be held to constitute a reason why every wastrel and destitute wanderer should claim and find asylum here as a religious refugee. They recognised no such right; they themselves knew that we must either open the floodgates of Eastern Europe unconditionally upon this country and take the consequence without palliation, or else decline to put a premium on the general misgovernment in those regions by receiving under the general amnesty of a religious refugee clause persons whom, for the specific reason of their character or condition, it was desirable, as the principle of the Bill affirmed, to keep out.

If hon. Members opposite, and some hon. Members on these benches, really meant to bring in every Russian who was potentially an object of oppression in that country, despite the consequence to our own people, they ought to do much more than oppose this clause and this whole Bill; they ought to bring in a measure compulsorily to stop the Jewish Board of Guardians from, repatriating their own co-religionists, as they habitually did. He thought the House should clearly realise to what we were committing ourselves. In any case he wished to make his own position perfectly clear. He desired above all things not to be a party to any deception from which the East of London might suffer in this matter, and not to claim that this Bill would produce results which he did not believe it would produce. Much, of course, depended upon its administration and upon the interpretation of the words they were now discussing. All he could say was that after very careful consideration they appeared to him, even perhaps with the additional words he had put down, to be too wide, and to jeopardise much that he considered in the Bill to be of the highest importance. He begged to move.


in seconding, the Amendment, said the words proposed by the Home Secretary did not go far enough to guard against the danger of opening wide the door to all who chose to say they were subjected in the country from which they fled to religious or political disabilities. Any man of the Hebrew faith might say he did not enjoy liberty in certain Continental States, and he might say it with perfect truth, but the admission upon this general allegation would defeat the object of the Bill—

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment to the Bill— In line 2, after the first word 'or,' to insert the word "imminent.'" (Major Evans Gordon.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'imminent' be there inserted in the proposed Amendment to the Bill."


hoped the Government would adhere to the Amendment as it stood. He had listened with attention to his hon. and gallant friend, and, not suspecting him of any want of sympathy with those it was the object of the Amendment to protect, he could not understand how from his hon. friend's point of view the Amendment would improve the Government proposal. There was no difference, whether the punishment was imminent or remote, and the imminence had nothing to do with its severity. At what particular joint did the danger become imminent? Were they to wait until the police were actually on the track of the refugee or would the issue of a warrant be sufficient, or the fact that accusation had been made or suspicion aroused? It seemed to him the word added nothing but confusion to the Amendment as it stood. He was much more apprehensive that the genuine refugee would not be able to get through than that the safeguards were not sufficient. No one would make a journey to a foreign country on a trivial ground. The immigration beard might take his hon. friend's point of view, and might say, "Is it credible that a person would have made this long journey solely on the ground that he was subjected to a trifling danger?" The immigration board would interpret the Bill in a natural way, and would say that the immigrant was exposed to such a degree of persecution as induced him to make a long journey.

The question of danger to life and limb went far beyond that of civil disability. The Amendment would cover cases where the persecution was not conducted under legal methods, but where there was some sort of lawless violence, as for instance by the Cossacks, countenanced by the Government. That sort of persecution was of a most oppressive character, and it was very difficult to define in words. Was it to be supposed that persons who suffered from that sort of oppression were to be excluded from this country, or that they were to be required to show that the danger they were in was an imminent danger? The Huguenots came into this country precisely en these terms, and a whole range of persons could be found who had been driven to emigration by religious persecution.

He was very glad that this Government Amendment had been put down, and he hoped that it would be maintained. The only objection that could be reasonably made to it was that it might appear to leave too large a discretion to the immigration officer and immigration board. He did not himself admire the part of the Bill which lift so wide a discretion to the immigration officer, but the discretion left in the case of refugees was not so difficult to exercise as that in regard to persons who had the difficult task of proving that they could make a decent livelihood in this country. Nothing was so difficult as to show that one could make a decent livelihood, and differences of interpretation were left open to the immigration officer. The words of the Government Amendment were far more precise, and he was very glad indeed that the Government had decided to submit it to the House. He would have been sorry if, on a plea of excluding criminals, lunatics, or other undesirable persons, they had done an act so uncharitable as to shut our doors in the face of those suffering from oppression. He was sure his hon. friend and his supporters did not wish to do that, and he hoped that the Amendment would be withdrawn.


said that his noble friend had referred to what passed in the Committee stage when the House practically came to the conclusion that the words in the Amendment proposed from these benches should be adopted. He was disposed to agree with his noble friend; and he thought the House would be well advised in adhering to the words proposed by the Government, and in regarding them as embodying what was, he did not say a formal compact between both sides of the House excluding proposals of emendation, but what was almost regarded in Committee as a settled question. He was very reluctant to accept either from one side of the House or the other any Amendment to the form of words on which they had been practically agreed. He did not think the words the hon. Member proposed would make the duty of the immigration commissioners more clear than it was made by the words proposed by the Government. He did not think that his hon. friend had really sufficiently considered the value of the word "solely" which was at the beginning of the Government Amendment. He would ask the House to resist any change in the words on which there had been a common agreement in Committee, and he suggested to his hon. friend that he should withdraw his Amendment.


said that in view of the statement of the Prime Minister he asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment to the Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. NORMAN (Wolverhampton, S.)

begged to move that after the word "imprisonment" there should be inserted "or of confiscation of property, or of penal exile." He submitted that these words did not in any way alter the sense of the clause, while, at the same time, they extended the Bill in a direction in conformity with the views of the Government and of every Member of the House. Penal exile was one of the most common forms of persecution in Russia at the present time.


appealed to his hon. friend to separate the word "property" from "liberty."


said he would be very glad to divide the two and would simply move "or confiscation of property."

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment to the Bill— In line 2, after the word 'imprisonment' to insert the words 'or of confiscation of property.'"—(Mr. Norman.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment to the Bill."


said he hoped the House would not accept this Amendment, not merely on the ground that it was opposed to the words already arrived at in Committee, but that the Amendment was unnecessary.

Question, put, and negatived


moved to insert the word "liberty." He said that he did this on behalf of his right hon. friend the Member for East Fife. If the word were inserted the Home Secretary's Amendment would read "or to avoid persecution involving danger of imprisonment, or danger to liberty, life, or limb, on account of religious belief."


seconded the Amendment.

Another Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment to the Bill— In line 2, after the word 'to' to insert the word 'liberty.'"—(Sir Charles Dilke.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'liberty' be there inserted in the proposed Amendment to the Bill."


said he hoped that the House would adhere to the form of words on the Paper. He was of opinion that the use of the word "imprisonment" would meet the necessities of the case; and he ventured to think that in the word "liberty" or the phrase "penal exile" there lurked a certain ambiguity. Mere exile did not necessarily mean imprisonment. He assumed that the case meant to be dealt with was that of banishment to Siberia or Archangel.


confessed he was in agreement with the Attorney-General that in the majority of cases exile did not mean imprisonment. A man who was exiled might be permitted to wander over a very large area, and in that sense he would not be in imprisonment. He hoped the Prime Minister would accept the Amendment, and that the right hon. Gentleman would consider that this question of exile was almost as great a danger as imprisonment, because the men were taken from their homes and sent elsewhere to a great distance. He did not agree that the words proposed by the Government were accepted in the Committee. Great importance was then attached to the word "liberty."


said that the Attorney-General was very ill-informed as to the subject of exile in Russia. A man might be exiled to a district with which there were no means of communication, and turned entirely loose in an Arctic wilderness hundreds of miles from civilisation. To speak of that as imprisonment was ridiculous. Then the people were interned in different towns in Russia, and that was why they wanted to have these words inserted in the Bill. He did not see why the words of the Home Secretary's Amendment should be regarded as sacrosanct.

MR. BOND (Nottingham, E.)

said that some hon. Members on his side of the House sympathised to a considerable extent with hon. Gentlemen opposite, and he suggested to insert after "danger to life or limb," the words 'or of deportation."


said that, although a particular form of words was more or less agreed upon in Committee, this particular word "liberty" was the one on which they were not entirely agreed. He himself thought that "liberty" was too wide, and had suggested "freedom." However, "liberty" was a word which was so thoroughly understood by the people, and by any possible immigration commissioners, that he thought the Prime Minister would be well advised to accept the Amendment. Could not the Prime Minister trust his own countrymen to understand what danger to "life, limb, or liberty" really meant? The word "liberty" was better than the word 'deportation."

COHEN (Islington, E.)

said he joined in the appeal to his right hon. friend to accept the Amendment. He would not do so if he thought it would be in any way a departure from the understanding arrived at the other day. So far as he was concerned, he wished to pay a tribute to the way in which the Home Secretary had met the objections which had been urged against the Bill, and, therefore, he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to include this word "liberty" in his Amendment.


said that he did not suggest that any of those hon. Gentlemen who had spoken in favour of the Amendment were desirous of departing from the agreement arrived at in Committee. He made no such charge or suggestion. He was still of the opinion that the word "freedom" was ambiguous. It added nothing to the security or advantage of the persons whom they desired to aid and protect, and it opened a very wide field of qualifications to any undesirable alien who wished to break through the provisions and safeguards of the Act. It had been said that it was absurd to say that it was imprisonment to send a person to Siberia, because he really had an enormous tract to wander over, and that nobody in that condition could be discribed as a prisoner. He did not agree with that at all, but, if it were so, he ventured to say that he could not be described as having been deprived of his freedom. If he were not imprisoned when he was sent to Siberia, then he did not lose his liberty. In both cases he was at liberty to wander over thousands of square miles, for his prison was EG doubt very large.


A prison must be a small thing.


said that he was sure the hon. Gentleman who interrupted him was as great a lover of personal freedom as anybody. If he were told be must go to South America and not leave, would he or would he not say that that was interfering with his liberty?


Certainly, but I should not be imprisoned.


I think he would. Imprisoned he certainly would be. Then he thinks there would be no interference with his liberty?


Oh yes, there would be interference with my liberty, but there would not be imprisonment. A prison must by law be a small place.


said that another phrase used in the debate was really not only ambiguous but absolutely misleading. It had been described as being exiled to be sent to Siberia. "Exiled," strictly, was being sent from one's own country to some other country.


What would the right hon. Gentleman call deportation to Siberia?


said he should call it "deportation to Siberia." But seriously, did anybody describe it as being exiled to have to go to some place within the limits of his own country. He ventured to think that all the House desired to obtain in the way of protec-

tion for those unfortunate victims of persecution was to use the words they had put in the Bill, and if in their interest they chose to stretch them, they would put in terms which would do a good deal to destroy the efficacy of a Bill which, by a large majority, the House had accepted in principle. Under these circumstances, he thought the House would be well advised if they adhered to the words which, though not agreed to, he freely admitted, the other night did, he believed, substantially carry out the common object of both sides of the House.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 147; Noes, 203. (Division List No. 289.)

Abraham, William(Cork,N.E. Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Newnes, Sir George
Allen, Charles P. Flavin, Michael Joseph Nolan, Col.JohnP.(Galway,N.)
Ashton, Thomas Gair Flynn, James Christopher Nolan, Joseph (Louth,South)
Baker, Joseph Allen Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Norman, Henry
Barlow, John Emmott Goddard, Daniel Ford O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Bell, Richard Harcourt, Lewis O'Connor, James (Wicklow,W,
Been, John Williams Hardic, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil O'Connor, John (Kildare, N,)
Black, Alexander William Harwood, George O'Dowd, John
Boland, John Hayden, John Patrick O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Helme, Norval Watson O'Malley, William
Brigg, John Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. O'Mara, James
Bright, Allan Heywood Higham, John Sharp O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Holland, Sir William Henry Parrot, William
Burke, E. Haviland Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Burt, Thomas Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk. Perks, Robert William
Buxton,N.E.(York,NR,Whitby Isaacs, Rufus Daniel Philipps, John Wynford
Buxton, SydneyCharles(Poplar Jacoby, James Alfred Power, Patrick Joseph
Caldwell, James Joicey, Sir James Price, Robert John
Cameron, Robert Jones, Leif (Appleby) Priestly, Arthur
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Jones William (Carnarvonshire Rea, Russell
Causton, Richard Knight Joyce, Michael Reddy, M.
Cawley, Frederick Kearley, Hudson E. Redmond, John K.(Waterford)
Channing, Francis Allston Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan,W. Richards, Thomas
Cheetham, John Frederick Kitson, Sir James Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Lambert, George Roe, Sir Thomas
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W. Rose, Charles Day
Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark) Layland-Barratt, Francis Runciman, Walter
Cremer, William Randal Leese, SirJosephF.(Accrington Russell, T. W.
Cullinan, J. Levy, Maurice Samuel, HerbertL.(Cleveland)
Dalziel, James Henry Lloyd-George, David Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan Lough, Thomas Seely, Maj.J.E.B.(Isleof Wight
Delany, William Lundon, W. Shackleton, David James
Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.) Macveagh, Jeremiah Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Dilke, Rt Hon. Sir Charles M'Crae, George Sheehy, David
Donelan, Captain A. M'Kean, John Shipman, Dr. John G.
Doogan, P. C. M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Slack, John Bamford
Duncan, J. Hastings Mansfield, Horace Rendall Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Edwards, Frank Markham, Arthur Basil Spencer,Rt.Hn. C. R.(Northants
Ellice, CaptEC(S.Andrw'sBghs Mooney, John J. Strachey, Sir Edward
Emmott, Alfred Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen Sullivan, Donal
Eve, Harry Trelawney Muldoon, John Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr
Fenwick, Charles Murphy, John Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.)
Findlay, Alexander(LanarkNE Nannetti, Joseph P. Tomkinson, James
Trevelyan, Charles Philips White, Patrick (Heath, North) Yoxall, James Henry
Ure, Alexander Whiteley, George (York,W.R.)
Wallace, Robert Whittaker, Thomas Palmer TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) Wilson, Fred.W.(Norfolk,Mid.) Mr. Herbert Gladstone and
Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) Mr. William M'Arthur
Weir, James Galloway Woodhonse,SirJ.T(Huddersf'ld
White, George (Norfolk) Young, Samuel
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Fergusson, Rt.Hn.SirJ.(Manc'r M'Iver, SirLewis(Edinburgh W
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst M'Killop, James(Stirlingshire)
Anson, Sir William Reynell Finch, Rt. Hon. GeorgeH. Majendie, James A. H.
Arkwright, John Stanhope Finlay, RtHnSirR.B.(Inv'rn'ss Marks, Harry Hananel
Arnold-Forster, Rt.Hn.HughO Fisher, William Hayes Martin, Richard Biddulph
Arrol, Sir William Fitzroy, Hon. EdwardAlgernon Maxwell, W.J.H(Dumfriesshire
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Flannery, Sir Fortescue Milvain, Thomas
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt.Hon.SirH Flower, Sir Ernest Montagu, Hon. J.Scott(Hants-
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Forster, Henry William Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
Bailey, James (Walworth) Galloway, William Johnson Morgan,DavidJ.(Walthamstow
Baird, John George Alexander Gardner, Ernest Morpeth, Viscount
Balcarres, Lord Garfit, William Morrell, George Herbert
Balfour, Rt.Hon.A J.(Manch'r Godson, SirAugustusFrederick Morrison, James Archibald
Balfour, Rt.HnGeraldW.(Leeds Gordon,Maj.Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts Mount, Will am Arthur
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby- Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Banner, John S. Harmood- Goulding, Edward Alfred Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Bartley, Sir George C. T. Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Myers, William Henry
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Grenfell, William Henry Nicholson, William Graham
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Hall, Edward Marshall O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Bignold, Sir Arthur Hardy,Laurenec(Kent, Ashford Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)
Bigwood, James Hare, Thomas Leigh Pemberton, John S. G.
Bill, Charles Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley Percy, Earl
Bingham, Lord Heath, SirJames(Staffords,NW Pierpoint, Robert
Blundell, Colonel Henry Heaton, John Henniker Pilkington, Colonel Richard
Bond, Edward Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford, W. Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Brassey, Albert Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Pretyman, Ernest George
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Hoare, Sir Samuel Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Bull, William James Hogg, Lindsay Purkis, Robert
Burdett-Coutts, W. Hope, J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside Pym, C. Guy
Butcher, John George Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Randles, John S.
Carlile, William Walter Hoult, Joseph Rankin, Sir James
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Houston, Robert Pacerson Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne
Cautley, Henry Strother Howard,John(Kent,Faversham Ratcliff, R. F.
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh. Hudson, George Bickersteth Reid, James (Greenock)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Hunt, Rowland. Remnant, James Farquharson
Chamberlain, RtHnJ.A.(Worc. Hutton, John (Yorks., N.R.) Ridley, S. Forde
Chapman, Edward Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred. Roberts, Samuel, (Sheffield)
Clare, Octavius Leigh Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton Robertson, Herbert (Hackney
Clive, Captain Percy A. Kenyon, Hon.Geo.T.(Denbigh. Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Coates, Edward Feetham Kerr, John Round, Rt. Hon. James
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Keswick, William Royds, Clement Molyneux
Coghill, Douglas Harry King, Sir Henry Seymour Rutherford, W. W (Liverpool)
Colston, Chas Edw. H. Athole Knowles, Sir Lees Sackville, Col. S. G. (Stopford-
Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas Laurie, Lieut.-General Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow Sharpe, William Edward T.,
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Lawrence, Win. F. (Liverpool Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Lee, ArthurH. (Hants,Fareham Smith, HC(North'mb.Tyneside
Dalkeith, Earl of Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead) Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Dairymple, Sir Charles Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Spear, John Ward
Davenport, William Bromley Leveson-Gower,Frederick N. S Stanley, Hon.Arthur(Ormskirk
Davies, SirHoratio D.(Chatham Liddell, Henry Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.
Denny, Colonel Llewellyn, Evan Henry Stewart, SirMarkJ.M'Taggart
Dickinson, Robert Edmond Long, Rt.Hn.Walter(Bristol,S Stone, Sir Benjamin
Dickson, Charles Scott Lonsdale, John Brownlee Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Loyd, Archie Kirkman Talqot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Doxford, Sir William Theodore Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth Tollemache, Henry James
Duke, Henry Edward Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Dyke, Rt.Hn.Sir William Hart Macdona, John Cumming Tritton, Charles Ernest
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton MacIver, David (Liverpool) Tuff, Charles
Fellowes, RtHnAilwynEdward M'Arthur Charles (Liverpool) Tuke, Sir John Batty
Turnour, Viscount Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon- Wodehouse, Rt.Hn.E.R.(Bath
Vincent, Col.SirCEH(Sheffield) Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter Whiteley, H. (Ashtonund.Lyne Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Walrond, Rt.Hn.SirWilliamH. Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Warde, Colonel C. E. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Welby, Lt.-Col.A.C.E(Taunton Wilson, A.Stanley(York, E.R. Sir Alexander Acland-Hood
Welby, SirCharlesG.E.(Notts.) Wilson, John (Glasgow) and Viscount Valentia.

moved to add the words "or political opinions." He said that would make the words read "or persecution involving danger of imprisonment or danger to life and limb on account of religious belief or political opinions." In spite of what had fallen from the Prime Minister during the discussion on the last Amendment, he ventured to hope that he would see his way to assent to the Amendment, because he believed it only gave effect to the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Gentleman and those who sat on his side of the House. He took it that it was an accepted principle that the Prime Minister and others on that side of the House were desirous with them of giving protection to those who sought our shores in consequence of persecution on account of their political opinions. They had already almost arrived at an agreement, he thought, to use the Prime Minister's phrase, with reference to religious opinions, and he was asking the House to give the same protection and freedom to those seeking the asylum of these shores from persecution on account of political opinions. He did not think the House would desire in any way to curtail that freedom, and he did not suppose the House would desire that there should be less freedom given to those who came here on account of political persecution than was given to those who came on account of religious persecution.



Another Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment to the Bill— At the end, to add the words 'or political opinions.'"—(Mr. Rufus Isaacs.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added to the proposed Amendment to the Bill."


said he hoped the House would not think it necessary to adopt the Amendment. They some time ago passed words which provided for the case of "danger of punishment on political grounds," and wherever a Government interfered with a man's liberty, or his property, and with his person on account of political opinions that was a case of "punishment on political grounds." Punishment was not confined to punishment following legal process; it would also refer to arbitrary punishment without any legal process whatever. With reference to religious views, it was necessary to guard against another case, because one real danger with regard to religious views was that of persecution taking a form of violence, but he did not think the same danger existed with regard to political opinions. That was not a danger to which they were particularly exposed. The real danger of persecution was with reference to religious views. They had specifically provided for "punishment on political grounds," and he submitted that the Amendment, therefore, was not required.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 152; Noes, 214. (Division List No. 290.)

Abraham, William(Cork,N. E.) Barlow, John Emmott Black, Alexander William
Allen, Charles P. Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Boland, John
Ashton, Thomas Gair Bell, Richard Bolton, Thomas Dolling
Baker, Joseph Allen Benn, John Williams Brigg, John
Bright, Allan Heywood Isaacs, Rufus Daniel Price, Robert John
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Jacoby, James Alfred Priestly, Arthur
Burke, K. Haviland- Joicey, Sir James Rea, Russell,
Burt, Thomas Jones David Brynmor(Swansea) Reddy, M.
Buxton,N.E(York,NR Whitby) Jones, Leif (Appleby) Redmond,John E. (Waterford)
Buxton, Sydney Charles (Poplar) Jones, William(Carnarvonshire) Richards, Thomas
Caldwell, James Joyce, Michael Rickett, J. Compton.
Cameron, Robert Kearley, Hudson, E. Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Kennedy,VincentP.(Cavan, W) Roe, Sir Thomas
Causton, Richard Knight Kitson, Sir James Rose, Charles Day
Cawley, Frederick Lambert, George Runciman, Walter
Channing, Francis Allston Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W. Russell, T.W.
Cheetham, John Frederick Layland-Barratt, Francis Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Leese,Sir Joseph F(Accrington) Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark) Levy, Maurice Schwann, Charles E.
Cremer, William Randal Lewis, John Herbert Seely, Maj.J.E.B.(IsleofWight)
Cullinan, J. Lloyd-George, David Shackleton, David James
Dalziel, James Henry Lough, Thomas Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan) Lundon, W. Sheehy, David
Delany, William Macveagh, Jeremiah Shipman, Dr. John G.
Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.) M'Crae, George Slack, John Bamford
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles M'Kean, John Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Donelan, Captain A. M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Spencer,Rt HnC.R.(Northants)
Doogan, P. C. Mansfield, Horace Rendall Stanhope, Hon. Philip James
Duncan, J. Hastings Markham, Arthur Basil Strachey, Sir Edward
Edwards, Frank Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen) Sullivan, Donal
Ellice,Capt EC(SAndrw'sBghs) Muldoon, John Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)
Emmott, Alfred Murphy, John Thomson, F.W. (York, W. R.)
Evans,SirFrancisH(Maidstone) Nannetti, Joseph P. Tomkinson, James
Eve, Harry Trelawney Newnes, Sir George Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Fenwick, Charles Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway,N.) Ure, Alexander
Findlay, Alexander(LanarkNE) Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Wallace, Robert
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Norman, Henry Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Flavin, Michael Joseph O'Brien,Kendal(TipperaryMid) Weir, James Galloway
Flynn, James Christopher O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) White, George (Norfolk)
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) O'Connor,James (Wicklow,W.) White, Patrick (Meath North.)
Goddard, Daniel Ford O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Whlteley, George (York, W. R)
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton O'Dowd, John Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Harcourt, Lewis O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) Wilson,Fred. W.(Norfolk, Mid.)
Hardie,J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil) O'Malley, William Wilson, Henry J.(York, W. R.)
Harwood, George O'Mara, James Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Hayden, John Patrick O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Woodhouse,Sir J.T.(Huddersf')
Helme, Norval Watson Parrott, William Young, Samuel
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Partington, Oswald Yoxall, James Henry
Higham, John Sharp Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Holland, Sir William Henry Perks, Robert William TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) Philipps, John Wynford Mr. Herbert Gladstone and
Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk. Power, Patrick Joseph Mr. William M 'Arthur.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Bartley, Sir George C. T. Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Cayzer, Sir Charles William
Anson, Sir William Reynell Bhownaggree, SirM. M Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Arkwright, John Stanhope Bignold, Sir Arthur Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.J.A.(Wore
Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.HughO. Bigwood, James Chapman, Edward
Arrol, Sir William Bill, Charles Clive, Captain Percy A.
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Bingham, Lord Coates, Edward Feetham
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt.Hn. SirH. Blundell, Colonel Henry Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Bond, Edward Coghill, Douglas Harry
Bailey, James (Walworth) Brassey, Albert Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole
Baird, John George Alexander Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas
Balcarres, Lord Bull, William James Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)
Balfour, Rt. Hn.A.J.(Manch'r) Burdett-Coutts, W. Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)
Balfour, RtHnGeraldW.(Leeds Butcher, John George Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Carlile, William Walter Cubitt, Hon. Henry
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H Dalkeith, Earl of
Banner, John S. Harmood- Cautley, Henry Strother Daiymple, Sir Charles
Davenport, William Bromley Keswick, William Ratcliff, R. F.
Davies,Sir HoratioD.(Chatham Kimber, Sir Henry Reid, James (Greenock)
Denny, Colonel King, Sir Henry Seymour Remnant, James Farquharson
Dickinson, Robert Edmond Knowles, Sir Lees Ridley, S. Forde
Dickson, Charles Scott Laurie, Lieut.-General Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Doughty, Sir George Lawrence, Win. F. (Liverpool Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Lee, ArthurH(Hants.,Fareham Round, Rt. Hon. James
Doxford, Sir William Theodore Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead) Royds, Clement Molyneux
Duke, Henry Edward Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S Sackville, Col. S. G. (Stopford-
Fellowes, Rt. Hn.Ailwyn Edw. Liddell, Henry Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Fergusson, Rt.Hn.SirJ.(Mano'r Llewellyn, Evan Henry Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Long, Rt.Hn.Walter(Bristol,S Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Lonsdale, John Brownlee Sharpe, William Edward T.
Finlay,Rt. Hn. SirR. B(Inv'rn'ss Lowe, Francis William Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Fisher, William Hayes Loyd, Archie Kirkman Smith, H.C(North'mb.Tyneside
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Flannery, Sir Fortescue Lucas, ReginaldJ.(Portsmouth Spear, John Ward
Flower, Sir Ernest Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Stanley, EdwardJas.(Somerset
Forster, Henry William Macdona, John Cumming Stanley, Rt.Hon. Lord (Lancs.
Galloway, William Johnson MacIver, David (Liverpool Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Tggart
Gardner, Ernest M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Garfit, William M'Iver, SirLewis(EdinburghW. Stone, Sir Benjamin
Godson,Sir Augustus Frederick M'Killop, Jamss (Stirlingshire Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rHm'lets Manners, Lord Cecil Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby- Marks, Harry Hananel Talbot, Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf'dUniv
Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Martin, Richard Biddulph Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Goulding' Edward Alfred Maxwell, W.J.H(Dumfrieshire Tollemache, Henry James
Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Mildmay, Francis Bingham Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.
Grenfell, William Henry Milvain, Thomas Tritton, Charles Ernest
Greville, Hon. Ronald Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants. Tuke, Sir John Batty
Hall, Edward Marshall Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Turnour, Viscount
Hambro, Charles Eric Morgan.David J.(Walthamstow Vincent,Col.SirC.E.H(Sheffield
Hardy, Laurence (KentAshford Morpeth, Viscount Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Hare, Thomas Leigh Morrell, George Herbert Walrond, Ht.Hn.SirWilliam H.
Hay, Hon. Claude George Morrison, James Archibald Warde, Colonel C. E.
Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley Mount, William Arthur Welby,Lt.-Col.A.C.E.(Taunton
Heath, SirJames(StaffordsNW. Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.
Heaton, John Henniker Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W. Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Myers, William Harry Whiteley, H.(Ashton and.Lyne
Hoare, Sir Samuel Nicholson, William Graham Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Hogg, Lindsay O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Willoughby, de Eresby Lord
Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury) Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Pemberton, John S. G. Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Hoult, Joseph Percy, Earl Wodehouse, Rt.Hn.E.R.(Bath
Howard, John(Kent,Faversh'm Pierpoint, Robert Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Hudson, George Bickersteth Pilkington, Colonel Richard Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Hunt, Rowland Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Wortley, Rt. Hon C. B. Stuart-
Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.) Pretyman, Ernest George
Jameson, Major J. Eustace Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir
Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. ArthurFred. Purvis, Robert Alexander Acland-Hood and
Jessel,Captain Herbert Merton Randles, John S. Viscount Valentia.
Kenyon, Hon. Geo.T. (Denbigh Rankin, Sir James
Kerr, John Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Proposed words inserted in the Bill.


moved to omit the words "immediately after a period of residence in the United Kingdom of not less than six months." The proposal, he said, dealt with the case of the alien who had been alternately described as the "Flying Dutchman" and the Wandering Jew." Under the clause, an alien who left Liverpool for New York and was there refused admission ran the risk of not being allowed to land again at Liverpool, with the result that he would have to remain in perpetual custody on the steamer. The words in the Bill amounted to this—that if an alien had resided for six months in the United Kingdom he was to be allowed to go to New York, and, if he was rejected there to come back and enter this country without further trouble. He failed to understand the reason for imposing this residential test, and the object of the Amendment was to delete it. If it was the wish of the promoters of the Bill to get rid of the alien he saw no reason why they should make it difficult for him to leave the country. He could understand the Government's desiring to prevent the entry of aliens, but once the entry had been effected there was surly no reason for putting impediments in the way of shipowners taking them away again. The object should be to get them out again as soon as possible, and he hoped the Government, if they could not abolish it altogether, would at any rate modify the provision.


formally seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 2, line 19, to leave out from the word, 'country,' to the word 'he,' in line 21."—(Mr Austin Taylor.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."


said these words were introduced by way of a concession, to the shipowning interest and in consequence of an Amendment moved in Committee by his hon. friend the Member for the East Toxteth Division of Liverpool. It was felt that it was not desirable that this country should be made the dumping ground of persons who entered it for a short time, took ticket to New York, were rejected there, and then brought back to be left on our hands. These words were introduced to meet that case. It was necessary to take some period as a test of residence which would qualify an alien to possess a right, as it were, to return to the United

Kingdom, and he thought the House would be of opinion that in taking six month the Government had selected a reasonable test.

MR. RUNCIMAN (Dewsbury)

said the Government had whittled down the Amendment which they promised to meet in Committee in a perfectly foolish way. It left the immigrant who had resided in the country for any period less than six months—it might be that he had lived here for five months—under the disability of having to be perpetually carried to and fro between New York and Liverpool, which the Government themselves had declared to be foolish. What was to happen to such a man if the vessel came to an end? Was he to be laid up for ever in port? Or what was to be done with him if the vessel were broken up? What was wanted was to get him back to his country of origin, and this Amendment, so far from assisting in that direction, actually prevented its being done. The "Lucania" or the "Campania" could not be compelled to go to Hamburg by way of a change simply to get rid of an undesirable? passenger.


He could be put on board a ship going to Hamburg.


asked how that, could be done if the company had no ship going to Hamburg. The man could not be put on another vessel by force. The six months limit made the Amendment which the Attorney-General himself inserted in Committee perfectly ridiculous, and, unless the Government cut it out, the Amendment was really no concession at all.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 220; Noes, 162. (Division List No. 291.)

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Arnold-Forster, Rt.Hn.HughO Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy
Ainsworth, John Stirling Arrol, Sir William Bailey, James (Walworth)
Anson, Sir William Reynell Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Baird, John George Alexander
Arkwright, John Stanhope Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt.Hon.SirH Balcarres, Lord
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J.(Manch'r Gray, Ernest (Weat Ham) Palmer Sir Walter (Salisbury)
Balfour,RtHnGeraldW.(Leeds) Grenfell, Willam Henry Peel, Hn.Wm.Robert Wellesley
Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch.) Greville, Hon. Ronald Pemberton, John S. G.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Hall, Edward Marshall Percy, Earl
Banner, John S. Harmood- Hambro, Charles Eric Pierpoint, Robert
Bartley, Sir George C. T. Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford Pilkington, Colonel Richard
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Hare, Thomas Leigh Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Hay, Hon. Claude George Pretyman, Ernest George
Bignold, Sir Arthur Heath,ArthurHoward(Hanley) Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Bigwood, James Heath, Sir.James(Staffords,NW Purvis, Robert
Bill, Charles Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford,W.) Pym, C Guy
Bingham, Lord Hoare, Sir Samuel Randles, John S.
Blundell, Colonel Henry Hogg, Lindsay Rankin, Sir James
Brassey, Albert Hope,J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside) Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Hoult, Joseph Ratcliff, R. F.
Bull, William James Howard, John(Kent Faversham Reid, James (Greenock)
Burdett-Coutts, W. Hudson, George Bickersteth Remnant, James Farquharson
Butcher, John George Hunt, Rowland Renwick, George
Carlile, William Walter Hutton, John (Yorks., N.R.) Ridley, S. Forde
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Jameson, Major J. Eustace Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Cautley, Henry Strother Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse Roberston, Herbert (Hackney)
Cavendish,V.C.W.(Derbyshire) Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. ArthurFred. Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton Round, Rt. Hon. James
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Kerr, John Royds, Clement Molyneux
Chamberlain,Rt.Hon.J.(Birm.) Keswick, William Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Chamberlain, Rt.HnJA.(Worc.) Kimber, Sir Henry Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Chapman, Edward King, Sir Henry Seymour Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Clive, Captain Percy A. Knowles, Sir Lees Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Coates, Edward Feetham Laurie, Lieut.-General Sharpe, William Edward T.
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Coghill, Douglas Harry Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Smith,HC(North'mb.Tyneside)
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Lawson, Hn.H.L.W.(MileEnd) Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Compton, Lord Alwyne Lee, ArthurH.(Hants.,Fareham Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead) Spear, John Ward
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Stanley,Hon.Arthur(Ormskirk)
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Leveson-Gower, FrederickN.S. Stanley, EdwardJas. (Somerset)
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Liddell, Henry Stanley, Rt.Hon.Lord (Lancs.)
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Llewellyn, Evan Henry Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Dalkeith, Earl of Long, Rt.Hn.Walter(Bristol,S.) Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Dairymple, Sir Charles Lonsdale, John Brownlee Stone, Sir Benjamin
Davenport, W. Bromley- Lowe, Francis William Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Davies, SirHoratioD.(Chatham Loyd, Archie Kirkman Talbot, Lord K. (Chichester)
Denny, Colonel Lucas Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Talbot, RtHnJ.G.(Oxf'dUniv.)
Dickinson, Robert Edmond Lucas,ReginaldJ.(Portsmouth) Tollemache, Henry James
Dickson, Charles Scott Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Macdona, John Cumming Tritton, Charles Ernest
Doughty, Sir George MacIver, David (Liverpool) Tuff, Charles
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Maconochie, A. W. Tuke, Sir John Batty
Doxford, Sir William Theodore M'Iver, SirLewis (EdinburghW. Turnour, Viscount
Duke, Henry Edward M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) Vincent, Col SirCEH(Sheffield)
Dyke, Rt.Hon.SirWilliamHart Manners, Lord Cecil Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Egerton, Hon. A de Tatton. Marks, Harry Hananel Walrond, Rt.Hon.SirWilliamH
Fellowes,RtHn Ailwyn Edward Martin, Richard Biddulph Warde, Colonel C. E.
Fergusson, Rt.HnSirJ.(Manc'r.) Maxwell, W.J.H.(Dumfriesshire Welby,Lt.Col.A.C.E.(Taunton)
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Melville, Beresford Valentine Welby, SirCharlesG.E. (Notts.)
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Mildmay, Francis Bingham Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Finlay, RtHnSirRB.(Inv'rn'ss) Milvain, Thomas Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Fisher, William Hayes Montagu, Hn. J. Scott(Hants.) Whiteley,H.(Ashton und.Lyne>
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Flannery, Sir Fortescue Morgan, Dovid,J.(Wathamstow Willoughby, de Eresby, Lord
Flower, Sir Ernest Morpeth, Viscount Wilson, A.Stanley(York,E.R.)
Forster, Henry William Morrell, George Herbert Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Foster, PhilipS.(Warwick,S.W. Morrison, James Archibald Wilson-Todd, SirW.H.(Yorks.)
Galloway, William Johnson Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Wodehouse, Rt,Hn.E.R(Bath)
Gardner, Ernest Mount, William Arthur Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Garfit, William Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B.Stuart-
Godson, SirAugustus Frederick Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Gordon, MajEvans-(T'rH'mlets Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby- Myers, William Henry Sir Alexander Acland-Hood
Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Nicholson, William Graham and Viscount Valentia.
Goulding, Edward Alfred O'Neil, Hon. Robert Torrens
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E. Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Pease, J. A. (Safiron Walden)
Allen, Charles P. Harcourt, Lewis Perks, Robert William
Ashton, Thomas Gair Hardie, J.Keir(MerthyrTydvil) Philipps, John Wynford
Baker, Joseph Allen Harwood, George Power, Patrick Joseph
Barlow, John Emmott Hayden, John Patrick Price, Robert John
Barran, Rowland Hirst Helme, Norval Watson Priestly, Arthur
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Rea, Russell
Bell, Richard Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Reddy, M.
Benn, John Williams Higham, John Sharp Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Black, Alexander William Holland, Sir William Henry Richards, Thomas
Boland, John Hope, John Deans(Fife, West Rickett, J. Compton
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk. Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Bond, Edward Isaacs, Rufus Daniel Roe, Sir Thomas
Brige, John Jacoby, James Alfred Rose, Charles Day
Bright, Allan Hoywood Joicey, Sir James Russell, T. W.
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Jones, DavidBrynmor(Swansea Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)
Burke, E. Haviland Jones, Leif (Appleby) Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Burt, Thomas Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Schwann, Charles E.
Buxton,N.E(York,NR,Whitby Joyce, Michael Seely, Maj.J.E.B.(Isle of Wight)
Buxton, SydneyCharles(Poplar Kearley, Hudson, E. Shackleton, David James
Caldwell, James Kennedy, VincentP.(Cavan,W. Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Cameron, Robert Kitson, Sir James Sheehy, David
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Lambert, George Shipman, Dr. John G.
Causton, Richard Knight Law, Hugh Alex.(Donegal.W. Slack, John Bamford
Cawley, Frederick Layland Barratt, Francis Spencer, RtHnC.R.(Northants)
Channing, Francis Allston Leese, Sir JosephF.(Accrington Stanhope, Hon. Philip James
Cheetham, John Frederick Levy, Maurice Strachey, Sir Edward
Condon, Thomas Joseph Lewis, John Herbert Sullivan, Donal
Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark) Lloyd-George, David Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen,E.)
Cremer, William Randal Lough, Thomas Thomas DavidAlfred(Merthyr)
Crooks, William Lundon, W. Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.)
Cullinan, J. M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Tomkinson, James
Dalziel, James Henry M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) Toulmin, George
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan M'Crac, George Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Delany, William M'Kean, John Ure, Alexander
Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.) M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Wallace, Robert
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Mansfield, Horace Rendall Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Donelan, Captain A. Markham, Arthur Basil Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Doogan, P. C. Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen) Weir, James Galloway
Duncan, J. Hastings Muldoon, John White, George (Norfolk)
Edwards, Frank Murphy, John. White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Elibank, Master of Nannetti Joseph P. Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)
Ellice,CaptEC(S.Andrw'sBghs) Newnes, Sir George Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Emmott, Alfred Nolan, Col. JohnP.(Galway,N.) Wilson, Fred W. (Norfolk.Mid)
Evans, SirFrancisH.(Maidstone Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Eve, Harry Trelawney Norman, Henry Wilson, John (Durham Mid.)
Fenwick, Charles O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Field, William O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Woodhouse, SirJT.(Hudd'rsf'd
Findlay, Alexander(LanarkNE O'Connor, James(Wicklow,W. Young, Samuel
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund O'Dowd, John Yoxall, James Henry
Flavin, Michael Joseph O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Flynn, James Christopher O'Malley, William TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) O'Mara, James Mr. Austin Taylor and Mr.
Gladstone,Rt.Hn. Herbert John O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Runciman.
Goddard, Daniel Ford Parrott, William
Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Partington, Oswald
MR. LEIF JONES (Westmoreland,) Appleby

said he did not intend to raise points which had already been decided, but in moving to omit certain words inserted by the Attorney-General he did not think that the Prime Minister could plead that this was a case in which there was anything like common agreement Take the case of poor people who had emigrated from this country, and, having failed abroad, returned to their native land as steerage passengers. Imagine a ship coming into this country with a number of native-born Englishmen on board who had been naturalised abroad. Some of them would, no doubt, desire to settle down in the land of their birth, but those who happened to have been naturalised in America, although Englishmen, would be classed as aliens. He should like to know exactly what was meant by "a temporary stay." This Bill was never intended to deal with British subjects who had been naturalised abroad. The Attorney-General had told them that there might be criminal amongst them, but he protested against the insinuation that the class o Englishmen of whom he was speaking were likely to contain any undue proportion of criminals. The criminal alluded to by the Attorney-General was a man who had already been punished in a foreign country, and why should he be punished again upon coming to this country? I would be said that he might be an habitual criminal, but even then the ordinary laws were sufficient to deal with him. The man must live somewhere, and he was not so sure that the land which had given birth to a criminal ought to shift its responsibility to the country which had given him hospitality. In the past it had always been their policy to encourage naturalisation in foreign countries, and nothing could encourage good feeling between nations more than making it easy for foreigners to naturalise here and encouraging at the same time our citizens to naturalise abroad. It was not desirable that naturalisation in another country should carry with it penalties or disabilities, or that we should weaken the tie which bound this country to all her children, no matter how far they might have wandered or however much they might have failed.


, in seconding the Amendment, said he could not see what objection he Government could have to the elimination of those words. Lord Bacon laid it down in one of his essay that a man had an inalienable right to return to the country of his birth, and he appealed to the hon. Member for Gravesend to agree with the principle which had been laid down by Lord Bacon. He wished also to again enter his protest against the absurd way in which this Bill had been forced through the House by the closure. Not only hon. Members from Ireland, but hon. Members on both sides of the House were agreed that when a man returned poor and penniless to the land of his birth he should be admitted.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 2, line 26, to leave out from the word 'subject,' to the end of Sub-section (3)."—(Mr. Leif Jones.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left Out stand part of the Bill."

MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)

said that upon this point they had not been met in a satisfactory manner. He wished to give an instance of the number of Irish-born Americans who wished, even after naturalisation, to return to their native land. One of the steamships which had arrived this week from America at an Irish port brought sixty-six saloon, fifty-nine second, cabin, and 273 steerage passengers, the bulk of the latter being Irish-born. He trusted the Government would allow Irishmen to return freely to the land of their birth.


said that it was owing to the previous discussion raised by the hon. Member as to the hardship inflicted upon Irish-born immigrants who were anxious to return to their old homes that the clause had been altered. But the present Amendment proposed to go one step further. The other night he assured the hon. Member for Rhondda that nothing was further from the wish of the Government than to exclude the honest working man. The resent Amendment was absolutely different from that rejected the other night. The latter would have admitted criminals, those previously rejected, lunatics, and idiots. The present Amendment, although the hon. Member delivered an impassioned appeal on behalf of repentant criminals desiring to return, would only apply to the British-born person only debarred otherwise by want of means. Having regard to the very mall number of such cases, and to the sentiment involved, he thought the House would do well to accept the Amendment.

MR. SHACKLETON (Lancashire, Clitheroe)

thanked the Government for the concession, which met what was regarded as a very serious matter in the country. Whatever might have been in the mind of the Attorney-General when this matter was discussed upon a former occasion, the only thing he had in mine was a man being left out through poverty. He was glad that the Government had met the claims of the workmen whose case had been voiced by himself and other Labour Members last week.


was very glad the Government had seen their way to meet the case in question, which was one of real hardship. He hoped the House would now accept the Amendment without further discussion.

Question put, and negatived.


moved the omission of Clause 2 for the purpose of obtaining some further information as to the immigration board and the qualifications of its Members. What guarantee could the Home Secretary give that the three persons appointed to the board would be suitable persons so far as the working of the Act was concerned? Of course the right hon. Gentleman would make an effort to obtain the most suitable persons, but, as the Press would not be admitted to their proceedings, which would practically be carried on in secret, it was all the more important that the greatest care should be taken that the persons appointed were likely to act in conformity with the general desires of the promoters of the Bill. He asked also whether the members of the board were to be paid. As there was to be no appeal against the decisions of the immigration board, he would ask whether the legal profession was to be represented.


seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 3, line 1, to leave out Clause 2."—(Mr. Dalziel.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill.


said the greatest care would be taken in the selection of members for the boards, and the panel would include a certain number of magistrates. One member of the board would be a magistrate, and of the other two one might be selected for his administrative experience and knowledge of the work of a Poor Law guardian, and the third might be a man of business experience. They had very great hopes of securing the co-operation of the Jewish Board of Guardians, whose experience in this matter would be of invaluable assistance. It was proposed that the members should receive payment for their services at the rate of two or three guineas for each meeting. He had made careful inquiry, and he was sure he would get men who would be generally acceptable, and who would have a thorough knowledge of the work. As to the question whether the Courts would be held in public or private, it would rest with the boards themselves to say whether their Courts should be open or in camera. They could not lay down any definite rule in the Bill on that matter. The boards were the proper persons to decide as to how the proceedings should be conducted in their own Courts. He was sure that the boards would consist of excellent and capable men who would see that justice was done not only to the people of this country but also to the immigrants.

MR. GUEST (Plymouth)

said this Amendment raised a very important joint. The Home Secretary had given a great deal of information as to the kind of executive he proposed to set up, but he had not stated what was to be the size of the panel to be appointed in connection with each Court, who would submit that panel to him, and upon what grounds he would select certain gentlemen to serve. It would be very important to know whether, when a panel was once selected, the members would be taken in rotation, whether it would be possible for the immigration officer to select a few gentlemen who happened to agree with him on the question of the exclusion of immigrants, or whether it would be essential for him to take the gentlemen in rotation. It was felt by some Members on his side of the House that an exceedingly zealous immigration officer, feeling that the importation of aliens was on the whole undesirable, might show a tendency to select for the panel certain gentlemen with whom he could get on, and who would be prepared to proceed easily and comfortably in the exclusion of aliens. Would the remuneration which was to be given to the members of the board be sufficient to tempt gentlemen on the panel whose impartiality would be absolutely above question?

MR. PEEL (Manchester, S.)

said it appeared from the Home Secretary's Answer that the word "business" had a wider signification than he might have attributed to it. He asked whether a wide interpretation would be put on the word "business" in the provision that the board should consist of "fit persons having magisterial, business, or administrative experience." On the Committee stage of the Bill he had an Amendment down to substitute "industrial" for "business," because he thought that word had a wider meaning. It was important to have gentlemen on the boards who were familiar with certain classes of occupation. If immigrants came here as skilled labourers they might be men we should be glad to have. They would be in a position to maintain themselves and not come upon the rates. It was quite obvious, however, that an unskilled labourer might be inclined to say, "I am a cotton spinner," or something of that Sort. If there was a man with definite personal knowledge of actual manufactures on the board he would be able by asking the immigrant half-a-dozen questions to see whether he was a skilled labourer or not. If the meaning of "business" did not include "industrial" he should be inclined to move the substitution of the latter word.


said he took it that persons of business experience would include gentlemen who were engaged in industrial enterprises, such as managers of mills. There were other Questions which he should like the Homo Secretary to answer. It was very important the House should know what was to be the exact composition and character of these immigration boards, seeing that they were to interpret the Act. The Home Secretary said that members of the boards were to be paid two or three guineas each time they sat. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to make up his mind on that point. Surely a board which disposed of 300 aliens at a sitting should be remunerated at a higher rate than one which dealt with only two or three cases. With regard also to procedure, he submitted that the sittings of these boards should take place in public if aliens attending before them should so desire it. It was perfectly true that the board might have to examine into delicate matters which the alien would desire to keep secret. That ought to be a matter to be settled in each particular case. Could the right hon. Gentleman secure to the alien the right to have his case investigated in public at his own initiative? When the practical working at the ports of entry was contemplated one was drawn more and more to the conclusion that this measure would never play a real and substantial part in the life of the country, and that it would speedily fall into what was called in the United States a "condition of innocuous desuetude."

DR. HUTCHINSON (Sussex, Rye)

asked when the boards were to meet.


said it must depend on circumstances how often the boards would meet. It was perfectly true that at the port of London there would be three or four sittings of the board in a week at certain times of the year, while at certain other ports the board would not meet more than once a fortnight or three weeks. The boards would meet as required. The proposed boards could be called together at any time. It was the desire of the Government that there should be no delay in dealing with immigrants after their arrival. In appointing members of the panel it would be his intention that labour should be represented as well as capital. The size of the panel must depend on circumstances. He did not propose that the panel should be a merely nominal one, but intended that the members should be taken as far as possible in rotation.

And, it being Midnight, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed to-morrow.