§ MR. SPEAKER
The Instruction standing in the name of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil is not in order, because it is a mandatory Instruction to a Committee of the Whole House.
§ Considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ [Mr. GRANT LAWSON (Yorkshire, N. R. Thirsk) in the Chair.]
§ Clause 1:—
§ *MR. LEVY (Leicestershire, Loughborough) moved the postponement of 269 the consideration of the clause. He pointed out that there was very great diversity of opinion on the opposite side of the House as to the clause as at present drafted. There were, in fact, 149 Amendments put down to the Bill, and ninety-five of those Amendments appeared in the names of the Government or of their supporters, and out of those ninety-five Amendments no fewer than thirty-one had been put down by the Government and their supporters in opposition to Clause 1. That, in his opinion appeared to be reasonable grounds for suggesting the postponement of the clause until a later stage of the Bill had been reached. Another reason why he suggested the postponement was that he believed the objects the Government professed to desire to attain could be secured by means of expulsion. He was not alone in that view. Indeed, he was well fortified in his opinion, because the chief of the London police, Mr. Henry, in his evidence before the Royal Commission on this subject strongly advocated expulsion as the best means of keeping alien criminals oat of this country and stated they never could be identified to be prevented coming into the country. Sir Edward Bradford gave expression to a like opinion, adding that any measure for the mere exclusion of criminals was almost impossible of good effect. One of the chief London magistrates, Sir Albert de Rutzen, also entirely approved of the expulsion clause, and Agreed with Mr. Henry and Sir Edward Bradford that, if expulsion were adopted, it would in a very short time have the effect of clearing out most of the criminal aliens from this country. He therefore thought it would be desirable that they should postpone the consideration of Clause 1 until they had dealt-with the question of expulsion.
§ SIR HOWARD VINCENT (Sheffield, Central)
On a point of order, may I ask whether the hon. Member is speaking to Clause 1, or whether he is not making a Second Reading speech?
The hon. Member must confine himself to the point whether expulsion should come before exclusion in the Bill.
§ MR. CHURCHILL (Oldham)
I presume, however, that the hon. Member would be entirely in order in bringing forward any arguments which would tend to justify the second clause being taken before the first.
§ MR. CHURCHILL
And those arguments need not merely have relevance to the advantage of expulsion over exclusion?
§ MR. LEVY
said he did not propose to go into the merits or demerits of Clause 1, but he contended that he was perfectly in order, and that the hon. and gallant Member for Sheffield had shown himself somewhat too zealous in his advocacy of the Bill, because, after all, what he was endeavouring to show was that every-thing which it was desired to secure by the Bill could be attained by taking the expulsion clause first, and then, if it could be shown that an expulsion clause gave them all the powers that were desired, the Government might find it to their advantage to redraft Clause 1. It was a question whether it was desirable to set up such highly expensive machinery as was provided for in Clause 1, It was also a question whether it was desirable to give such great powers, hitherto unknown, to a non-judicial tribunal. Again, it was a question whether it was well to take a step which would revolutionise the whole shipping industry of Great Britain, an industry carried on, undoubtedly, to the profit of the shipowners, and certainly to the great advantage of the British public. Under these circumstances he thought he was fully entitled to ask for the postponement of the clause, and he begged to move accordingly.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be postponed."—(Mr. Levy.)
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,) Kent, St. Augustine's
said he was sorry he could not accept the Amendment. The hon. Member had suggested that if Clause 2 were taken first and fully discussed, the Government 271 might deem it desirable to abandon Clause 1.
§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS
said he did not think the hon. Member had shown any sufficient reason for altering the drafting of the Bill, which had been most carefully considered not only by himself and the Attorney-General, but also by the draftsmen. They certainly thought that the objects they hoped to secure by the Bill would be best carried out in the manner proposed in the Bill as at present framed. The hon. Member had called attention to the opinions expressed by Mr. Henry and Sir Edward Bradford, but he would like to point out that the evidence which had been quoted dealt solely with the question of the expulsion of criminals, whereas this Bill was intended to deal with the introduction of undesirable aliens. He admitted that when the Bill was before the Grand Committee last year the postponement of Clause 1 was agreed to, but the circumstances now were altogether different. After all, this clause embodied the main principle of the Bill, and surely it was much better that they should give effect, in the first instance, to the principle before they attempted to deal with the machinery. In his opinion, if they were to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member, the only effect would be to make the Bill unintelligible, and therefore he must ask the House to support him in opposing the Amendment.
§ SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucester-shire,) Forest of Dean
said, as he understood it, the hon. Member's object in moving the postponement of Clause 1 was that, if they could first deal with the question of expulsion and could deal with it in the manner they were prepared to, even to the extent of strengthening the powers proposed in the Bill, it might be found unnecessary to proceed with the other
§ proposals in the measure. Of course, he perfectly understood it was not in order to discuss the merits of the clause on this Amendment, and he realised that there were great differences of opinion as to whether the Bill was a measure for the protection of British working men against the competition of foreigners, or whether it was merely a measure for the exclusion of undesirable aliens. They knew that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham and the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant were on one side, while the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, holding an. entirely different view, was on the other; and that being so, he would ask, was it wise to plunge into this mass of controversial issues? Would it not be better to deal first with the question of expulsion as against exclusion?
§ MR. CHURCHILL
failed to see why the Home Secretary should have declined to follow the precedent which he set last year in regard to this clause. But, at any rate, it was gratifying to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill had been well drafted. When they remembered how the last measure was drafted it was certainly satisfactory to hear on such a high authority that the inaccuracies, anomalies, and contradictions which were then apparent would not be discovered, in the dissection of the present Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had said he would not accept the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for the Lough-borough Division of Leicestershire. It might be in vain to urge him to modify that position, but he did urgently trust-that this attitude of uncompromising resistance thus displayed on the very first Amendment was not to be taken as the precursor of the treatment to be accorded-to all future Amendments in the course of the discussion of the measure.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 165; Noes, 189. (Division List No. 211.)275
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Black, Alexander William||Bryce, Rt. Hon. James|
|Allen, Charles P.||Blake, Edward||Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Boland, John||Burke, E. Haviland|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Brigg, John||Burt, Thomas|
|Benn, John Williams||Bright, Allan Heywood||Buxton, NE(York,NR,Whitby|
|Caldwell, James||Helme, Norval Watson||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)|
|Cameron, Robert||Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Holland, Sir William Henry||Price, Robert John|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Priestley, Arthur|
|Cawley, Frederick||Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)||Reddy, M.|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Jacoby, James Alfred||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Richards, Thomas|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Cogan, Denis J.||Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Jordan, Jeremiah||Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)|
|Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark||Joyce, Michael||Roche, John|
|Crean, Eugene||Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N.||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Cullinan, J.||Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan. W||Runciman, Walter|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Kilbride, Denis||Russell, T. W.|
|Delany, William||Lambert, George||Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland|
|Devlin, Chas. Ramsay(Galway)||Lamont, Norman||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.||Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Dobbie, Joseph||Leese, Sir J. F. (Acciington)||Sheehy, David|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Leng, Sir John||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Doogan, P. C.||Lewis, John Herbert||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Duffv, William J.||Lough, Thomas||Slack, John Bamford|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||Lundon, W.||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Edwards, Frank||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Ellice, Capt EC(SAndrw'sB'ghs||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Spencer, RtHnCR (Northants)|
|Ellis, John Edward (Notts)||M'Crae, George||Sullivan, Donal|
|Emmott, Alfred||M'Kenna, Reginald||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Evans, Sir F. H. Maidstone)||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Thomas, J A(Glamorgan, Gower|
|Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)||Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Tomkinson, James|
|Farrell, James Patrick||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Fenwick, Charles||Muldoon, John||Villiers, Ernest Amherst|
|Ferguson. R. C. Munro (Leith)||Murnaghan, George||Waldron, Laurence Ambrose|
|Ffrench, Peter||Murphy, John||Wallace, Robert|
|Field, William||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S|
|Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E.)||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Nussey, Thomas Willans||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Flynn, James Christopher||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Whiteley, George (York, W. R.|
|Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Wills, A. Walters (N. Dorset.|
|Furness. Sir Christopher||O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R|
|Gilhooly, James||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John||O'Dowd, John||Wilson, John (Falkirk)|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.|
|Hammond, John||O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.||Wood, James|
|Harcourt, Lewis||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Woodhouse, Sir JT(Huddersf'd|
|Hardie, J Keir(MerthyrTydvil)||O'Shee, James John||Young, Samuel|
|Harrington, Timothy||Parrott, William|
|Hayden, John Patrick||Partington, Oswald||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Levy and Dr. Hutchirson.|
|Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.||Pearson, Sir Weetman D.|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W(Leeds||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Chamberlain, RtHnJ.A.(Worc.|
|Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.||Bartley, Sir George C. T.||Chapman, Edward|
|Allsopp, Hn. George||Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin||Clive, Captain Percy A.|
|Anson, Sir Wm. Reynell||Bignold, Sir Arthur||Cochrane, Hn. Thos H. A. E.|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Bingham, Lord||Coghill, Douglas Harry|
|Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn. H. O.||Blundell, Colonel Henry||Cohen, Benjamin Louis|
|Arrol, Sir William||Bond, Edward||Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hn. John||Boscawen, Arthur Griffith||Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H||Boulnois, Edmund||Cripps, Charles Alfred|
|Bagot, Capt Josceline FitzRoy||Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn||Dalrymple, Sir Charles|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Brassey, Albert||Davenport, Wm. Bromley|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Brymer, William Ernest||Denny, Colonel|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Campbell, Rt Hn J. A(Glasgow)||Dickson, Charles Scott|
|Balcarres, Lord||Campbell, J. HM(Dublin Univ.||Doughty, Sir George|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.||Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers|
|Balfour, Rt Hn A. J. (Manch'r)||Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.||Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Cayzer, Sir Chas. William||Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart|
|Faber, George Denison (York||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||Lucas, Col Francis (Lowestoft||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert|
|Fellowes, RtHnAilwyn Edward||Lucas, Reginald J(Portsmouth||Round, Rt. Hn. James|
|Fergusson, Rt. HnSir J(Manc'r||Macdona, John Cumming||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.||M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)||Rutherford, John (Lancashire|
|Finlay, Sir R. B(Inv'rn'ssB'ghs||M'Calmont, Colonel James||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool|
|Fisher, William Hayes||M'lver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford|
|FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose||Malcolm, Ian||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon||Manners, Lord Cecil||Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse|
|Flower, Sir Ernest||Marks, Harry Hananel||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Forster, Henry William||Maxwell, RtHnSir HE(Wigt'n)||Seton-Karr, Sir Henry|
|Galloway, William Johnson||Maxwell, W. J. H(Dumfriesshire||Sharpe, Wm. Edward T.|
|Gardner, Ernest||Melville, Beresford Valentine||Shaw-Stewart, Sir H (Renfrew|
|Garfit, William||Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.||Middlemore, J. Throgmorton||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Gordon, HnJ. E(Elgin & Nairn)||Milner, Rt Hn. Sir Fredk. G.||Smith, HC(North'mbTyneside|
|Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)||Milvain, Thomas||Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Gordon, MajEvans(T'rH'mlets||Mitchell, Edw(Fermanagh, N.)||Spear, John Ward|
|Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby||Mitchell, William (Burnley)||Stanley, Edw. Jas (Somerset)|
|Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon||Montagu. Hn. J Scott (Hants.||Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lanes)|
|Greene, W. Raymond(Cambs)||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart|
|Hain, Edward||Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Halsey, Rt. Hn Thomas F.||Morpeth, Viscount||Talbot, RtHnJ.G (Oxf'dUniv.|
|Hamilton, Marqof(L'nd'nderry||Morton, A. H. Aylmer||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford||Mount, William Arthur||Thorburn, Sir Walter|
|Hare, Thomas Leigh||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Hay, Hn. Claude George||Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)||Tollemache, Henry James|
|Heath, Sir Jas. (StaffordsNW||Murray, ColWyndham(Bath)||Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.|
|Heaton, John Henniker||Nicholson, Wm. Graham||Tuke. Sir John Batty|
|Helder, Augustus||O'Neill, Hn. Robert Torrens||Turnour, Viscount|
|Hoare, Sir Samuel||Pease, Herb. P. (Darlington)||Vincent, Col. Sir C EH(Sheffield|
|Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside||Peel, Hn. W. Robt. Wellesley||Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.|
|Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry||Pemberton, John S. G.||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham||Percy, Earl||Welby, Lt-Col. AC E (Taunton)|
|Hozier, Hon. Jas. Henry Cecil||Pierpoint, Robert||Whiteley, H. (Ashton undLyne|
|Hunt, Rowland||Plummer, Sir Walter R.||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Jeffreys, Rt Hn. Arthur Fred||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.||Pretyman, Ernest George||Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart|
|Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T(Denbigh)||Purvis, Robert||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.||Rankin, Sir James||Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.|
|Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow||Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne||Younger, William|
|Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End)||Ratcliff, R. F.|
|Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)||Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.|
|Legge, Col. Hn. Heneage||Renwick, George|
|Long, Col Chas. W. (Evesham||Ridley, S. Forde|
|Long, RtHnWalter (Bristol, S.||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas Thomson|
|Lowe, Francis William||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield|
§ SIR CHARLES DILKE
said he desired to move the Amendment standing in his name in order to elicit the definition which the Government attached to the persons to whom the Act was to apply. The Bill was very difficult to understand, and was very obscure; and he could not but think that it was in conflict with the Merchant Shipping Act. Any definition different from that of the Merchant Shipping Act would cause trouble and inconvenience to ship-owners.
said he understood that the right hon. Gentleman was only asking a Question which he thought it would be to the convenience of the Committee should be asked.
§ SIR CHARLES DILKE
said he had not the slightest intention of obstructing the Bill. If the Secretary of State had power to define who was "a cabin passenger" and who was a "steerage passenger," then the provisions of the Act would be different from the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act. That would cause confusion and inconvenience; and in his opinion the matter should be dealt with solely by reference to the Merchant Shipping Act.
In page 1, line 6, to leave out the words 'an immigrant,' and insert the words 'a passenger.'"—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
§ THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs)
said the scheme of the Bill was not to adopt the law which obtained in the United States, under which all passengers were subjected to examination before they were allowed to land. That would be the result of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Merchant Shipping Act; but the Bill dealt with another matter altogether.
§ MR. CHURCHILL
said the right hon. Gentleman did not state what was the definition of the Government of "a cabin passenger."
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said that Clause 8 provided that steerage passengers included all passengers not declared by the Secretary of State to be cabin passengers.
§ MR. CHURCHILL
said that the meaning of the word "immigrant" depended on the definition of the words "steerage passenger" and "cabin passenger." What precise significance did the Government attach to the words "cabin passenger." The Committee ought to know.
§ MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)
said he was surprised that the Home Secretary did not realise the undesirability of the double definition. Not only were there to be two definitions as regarded passengers; but there were to be distinctions as between different ports. That would be certain to cause trouble and inconvenience.
§ MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)
said that the meaning of the word "immigrant" should be cleared up before the Committee proceeded further. They were told that an "immigrant" must not land at certain ports; but then they were informed that the word did not include any person who had a ticket for a foreign 278 port. The Committee ought to know what they were talking about. The clause provided that an immigrant should not be landed except at a port at which there was an immigration officer. But Clause 8 stated that immigrants included a certain class of persons who could land. If the matter could be cleared up now it would expedite the progress of the Bill.
§ MR. RUNCIMAN (Dewsbury)
said that the Amendment was of some moment to masters of vessels. The master would first have to make a return to the Board of Trade; and then the names were to be reshuffled, some passengers being put into the cabin class and some into the steerage class. He would suggest that if the Home Secretary adopted the Merchant Shipping Act he would get rid of the great difficulties which would otherwise arise. Even then he would not dispose of the distinction between rich and poor. The system was abandoned in the United States, the distinction having been officially declared to be "absurd." The Attorney-General admitted friction as regarded steerage passengers; why not also as regarded cabin passengers. He maintained it would cause friction in connection with both classes. On the cross-Channel traffic a few shillings would change a man from a steerage to a cabin passenger, and he would urge the Home Secretary to tell the Committee what he meant by "a cabin passenger." He hoped that the definition would be one which would not clash with the Merchant Shipping Act.
§ MR. EMMOTT (Oldham)
said that the difficulty ought to be apparent to every hon. Gentleman. There was a penalty clause under which the master of a ship was liable to three months imprisonment if he made a wrong return, although he was to be given two definitions. The Attorney-General stated that the definition ought to be different from the definition in the Merchant Shipping Act, but he did not indicate what the difference would be. Certainly the Committee ought not to pass from the matter without further explanation
§ MR. J. A. PEASE (Essex,) Saffron Walden
said the Committee ought to 279 be informed what the proposal of the Government was. He did not understand why the definition of the Merchant Shipping Act should not be adopted. That there should be some uniformity in the definition of cabin passengers in various Acts of Parliament must be obvious. The definition in the Merchant Shipping Act was negative rather than positive in its character. It amounted however, to this, that a passenger became a cabin passenger if he messed at the same table as the chief or second officer of the ship. If he paid at the rate of at least 30s. per week as his fare in passages north of the equator, and 20s. per week, south of the equator from British ports, a certain cubicle space must be allotted to him and so on. The Attorney General if he could not adhere to this definition, at least should give reasons why the definition in the Merchant Shipping Act was unsuitable in this Bill.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said that the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act would be absolutely inadequate for short voyages such as from the Continent to the British Islands. He would, however, suggest that the matter should stand over until Clause 8 was under discussion. It was, in his opinion, absolutely necessary that there should be elasticity in the definition of who was a cabin passenger and who a steerage passenger.
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD
said he thought it was a great pity to make distinctions on the ground of means. It was not in accordance with English law and practice with regard to the treatment of people arriving in this country. Further, a great number of persons travelling from the Continent would be able to evade the provisions of the clause altogether. He would give a concrete case to show why "passenger" should be substituted for "immigrant." A man was landed at Liverpool five weeks ago; the steamship company gave him 5s. and put him into a lodging-house. Subsequently, he was discovered to be a lunatic at large; and was sent to an asylum. That man would now remain a charge on the rates for the "rest of his natural life; and his age was only twenty-two. He was brought back from the United States, having been rejected at New York, and dumped down 280 at Liverpool. He could speak neither English, French, nor German, and it was impossible to ascertain to what country he belonged. Other men of that class could come in if the word" immigrant were retained in the clause; and a number of the evils which this Bill was designed to meet would remain in an even intensified form.
§ MR. CHURCHILL
said that there were two questions at issue. There was the inconvenience of the double definition; and also the question as to what was the Government definition of the words "cabin passenger." The Attorney-General stated why the definition in the Merchant Shipping Act would not be applicable; but what was the definition which the Government proposed?
I allowed the right hon. Baronet to ask a Question to which the Attorney General has replied.
§ MR. CHURCHILL
said that as yet the Committee had not been informed what was the definition of the Government with reference to the words "cabin passenger or the word" immigrant." The hon. Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool agreed as to the undesirability of proceeding without having a definition of these words. He sympathised very strongly with the objection against drawing class distinctions based solely or the possession of money. To draw a distinction between a man who could afford a cabin passage and a man who could only afford a steerage passage was absurd. If a man were a lunatic or an idiot he could come in if he could pay for a cabin passage.
§ SIR CHARLES DILKE
said that without further explanation it was impossible for the Committee to understand the meaning of the Act. At Newhaven there was a great deal of 281 traffic of exactly the same character as that at Dover and Folkestone, and unless some advance statement were made by the Home Secretary as to how it was intended to deal with the matter, the Committee would have considerable difficulty in discussing this clause at all.
§ MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR (Liverpool, East Toxteth)
hoped the Amendment would not be pressed to a division, as otherwise many Members would be placed in a very inconvenient position. The effect of the Amendment would be to bring about wholesale inspection of all on board ship, other than the master and crew. The Committee were considering, as practical men, the conditions of the passenger traffic entering this country not only from the East but also from the West. About 170,000 passengers came to England yearly from America and Canada, and they were, of a very different class from that which came from Europe and was largely responsible for the presence in our population of many lunatics, idiots, paupers, and criminals. From the point of view of the practical shipowner he submitted that it was very desirable that the Government should have a certain elasticity in the terms proposed. Personally, he thought it was almost impossible at the present stage to press for an exact definition of how they intended to meet trades differing so largely in their composition. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Baronet would be content with having raised a most valuable point, and not press it further at present. In any case, he could not possibly support the Amendment.
§ MR. STUART SAMUEL (Tower Hamlets, Whitechapel)
pointed out that no sooner had the Committee commenced the consideration of the Bill than it was lound impossible to define an alien, because it practically depended upon the definition of a cabin passenger. To leave the matter to the Home Secretary was to leave the whole question in the air, and the whole Bill might as well be left to the Home Secretary. The master of a ship would practically have to decide the question of when a cabin passenger was not a cabin passenger, and all information was refused as to 282 how the point should be decided. Unless this point were settled he failed to see how the Committee could proceed to the other clauses.
§ MR. WALLACE (Perth)
asked whether the word "immigrant" as used in the clause included persons who landed in this country intending to tranship and go elsewhere.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
If the hon. and learned Member will refer to Clause 8 he will see that they are excepted
§ MR. WALLACE
asked whether it was intended to prevent such people from landing at other than immigration ports.
§ MR. WALLACE
called the Attorney General's attention to the wording of Clause 8—that this word "immigrant" should not include—Any such passenger who shows to the satisfaction of the immigration officer concerned with the case that he desires to land in the United Kingdom only for the purpose of immediately proceeding elsewhere.But how could he "satisfy the immigration officer" unless he was brought to an immigration port?
§ MR. WALLACE
said he was anxious to know the meaning of Clause 1. Were immigrants intending to tranship prohibited by Clause 1 from landing otherwise than at an immigration port? The Attorney-General said that by Clause 8 they were not prohibited. But under that clause they must go to an immigration port and satisfy the immigration officer.
§ MR. WALLACE
asked whether the Attorney-General really suggested that an immigrant might land anywhere he 283 pleased if he declared he was going to tranship.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
The ship comes to the port and the examination takes place on the ship. If the intending passenger can satisfy the immigration Officer that he is going to land merely for the purpose of proceeding to some other country he does not fall within the prohibition of the Bill.
§ MR. WALLACE
submitted that that was not the point at all. If an immigrant intending to land to go elsewhere came across to England on a ship that did not call at an immigrant port, could he or could he not land at another port? The terms of the Bill did not cover the case at all. How could the Committee proceed with the discussion when the Attorney-General, on being asked the meaning of the word, admitted that the definition clause would make this clause ridiculous? At any rate the two clauses taken together were ridiculous. What the Committee wanted to know was whether an immigrant who intended to tranship could land at any port other than an immigrant port?
§ MR. WALLACE
asked whether the Attorney-G neral could show anything in the Bill excluding such immigrants from the operation of Clause 1. He could not, because it was not there. That showed the absurdity of the position. As he could not get a satisfactory Answer he would move to report Progress.
It is obvious that the clauses must be put down in some order. The definition clause must come in somewhere, and, as a matter of fact, it comes after the words we are discussing, do not think the fact that the definition clause does not come before the first two words of the Bill is a subject for a Motion to report Progress.
§ MR. BRYCE
pointed out that the Committee were in a great difficulty in discussing this clause because part of the enacting power was contained in Clause 8 and part in Clause 1. By Progress being reported an opportunity would be given to the Government of introducing operative words into Clause 1, and the Committee would then really be discussing matter of substance. A present, between Clauses 1 and 8, the Committee could not get at the meaning of the Bill, and therefore it was impossible to proceed further at present.
Under Rule 23 it is entirely within my discretion, if I consider that a Motion is not a proper one, either to put the Question from the Chair forthwith, or to decline to put the Question at all. I think my proper course on this occasion is to adopt the intermediate course, and to put the Motion at once from the Chair.
§ Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 184; Noes, 210. (Division List No. 212.)287
|Abraham. William (Cork, N. E.)||Cameron, Robert||Dilke, Bt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Dobbie, Joseph|
|Allen, Charles P||Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Donelan, Captain A.|
|Asher, Alexander||Cawley, Frederick||Doogan, P. C.|
|Asquith, Rt Hn. Herbert Henry||Channing, Francis Allston||Duffy, William J.|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Cheetham, John Frederick||Duncan, J. Hastings|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Churchill, Winston Spencer||Edwards, Frank|
|Benn, John Williams||Cogan, Denis J.||Ellice CaptEC(S Andrw'sBghs.|
|Black, Alexander William||Condon, Thomas Joseph||Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)|
|Blake, Edward||Crean, Eugene||Emmott, Alfred|
|Boland, John||Crombie, John William||Evans, SirFrancisH. (Maidstone|
|Brigg, John||Cullinan, J.||Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)|
|Bright, Allan Heywood||Dalziel, James Henry||Farrell, James Patrick|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Fenwick, Charles|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan||Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)|
|Burt, Thomas||Delany, William||Ffrench, Peter|
|Buxton, Sydney Chas. (Poplar)||Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway||Field, William|
|Caldwell, James||Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)||Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E.)|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Lundon, W.||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Runciman, Walter|
|Flynn, James Christopher||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Russell, T. W.|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||M'Crae, George||Samuel, HerbertL. (Cleveland)|
|Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.||M'Kenna, Reginald||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Gilhooly, James||Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle ofWight|
|Goddar,d Daniel Ford||Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Grey, Rt Hn. Sir E. (Berwick)||Mooney, John J.||Sheehy, David|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Hammond, John||Moulton, John Fletcher||Slack, John Bamford|
|Harcourt, Lewis||Muldoon, John||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Hardie, J Keir (MerthyrTydvil||Murnaghan, George||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Harrington, Timothy||Murphy, John||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Harwood, George||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Sullivan, Donal|
|Hayden, John Patrick||Nolan, Col John P. (Galway, N.)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe|
|Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)|
|Helme, Norval Watson||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Tomkinson, James|
|Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Ure, Alexander|
|Holland, Sir William Henry||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W||Villiers, Ernest Amherst|
|Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Wallace, Robert|
|Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.|
|Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)||O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Jocoby, James Alfred||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea||O'Dowd, John||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Jones, Leif (Appleby)||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Jordan, Jeremiah||O'Malley, William||Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)|
|Joyce, Michael||O'Mara, James||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Kearley, Hudson E.||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N.||Parrott, William||Wills, Arthur Walters(N. Dorset|
|Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W||Partington, Oswald||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Kilbride, Denis||Paulton, James Mellor||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid|
|Lambert, George||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)||Wilson, John (Falkirk)|
|Lamont, Norman||Pirie, Duncan V.||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)|
|Langley, Batty||Power, Patrick Joseph||Wood, James|
|Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.||Price, Robert John||Woodhouse. Sir J. T (Huddersf'd|
|Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)||Priestley, Arthur||Young, Samuel|
|Layland-Barratt, Francis||Reddy, M.||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Leese, Sir Joseph F (Accrington||Redmond, John E. (Waterford|
|Leng, Sir John||Richards, Thomas||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. Robert Spencer.|
|Levy, Maurice||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)|
|Lough, Thomas||Roche, John|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynto||Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Bignold, Sir Arthur||Cross, Herb, Shepherd (Bolton)|
|Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden||Bingham, Lord||Dalrymple, Sir Charles|
|Allsopp, Hon. George.||Blundell, Colonel Henry||Davenport, William Bromley-|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Bond, Edward||Davies, SirHoratioD.(Chatham|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Boulnois, Edmund||Denny, Colonel|
|Arpold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.||Brassey, Albert||Dickson, Charles Scott|
|Arrol, Sir William||Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)||Doughty, Sir George|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. SirH.||Brymer, William Ernest||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Gl'gow||Doxford, Sir William Theodore|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.||Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.||Fardell, Sir T. George|
|Balcarres, Lord||Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire||Fellowes. Rt. HnAilwynEdward|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Fergusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ. (Manc'r.|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r.||Chamberlain, Rt. HnJ. A. (Worc.||Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Finlay, SirR. B. (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs)|
|Balfour. RtHnGerald W. (Leeds||Chapman, Edward||Fisher, William Hayes|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.||Clive, Captain Percy A.||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Coates, Edward Feetham||Flower, Sir Ernest|
|Bartley, Sir George C. T.||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Forster, Henry William|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Coghill, Douglas Harry||Galloway, William Johnson|
|Beach, Rt. HnSirMichael Hicks||Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Gardner, Ernest|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Garfit, William.|
|Godson. Sir Augustus Frederick||M'lver, SirLewis (Edinburgh, W||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn||Manners, Lord Cecil||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford|
|Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)||Marks, Harry Hananel||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Gordon. Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets||Maxwell, RtHnSirH.E.(Wigt'n||Samuel, SirHarry S(Limehouse|
|Gorst, Rt. Hon, Sir John Eldon||Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfrieshire||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Melville, Beresford Valentine||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)||Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.||Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)|
|Greville, Hon. Ronald||Middlemore, John Throgmorton||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Hain, Edward||Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir FrederickG.||Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew)|
|Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.||Milvain, Thomas||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Hamilton, Marq.of(L'nd'nderry||Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford||Mitchell, Wiliam (Burnley).||Smith, H. C. (North'mbTyneside|
|Hare, Thomas Leigh||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Hay, Hon. Claude George||Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow||Spear, John Ward|
|Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley||Morpeth, Viscount||Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset|
|Heaton, John Henniker||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer||Stanley. Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)|
|Helder, Augustus||Mount, William Arthur||Stewart, SirMarkJ. M. M'Taggart|
|Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.|
|Hoare, Sir Samuel||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Stock, James Henry|
|Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath||Talbot, Lord E (Chichester.)|
|Houlosworth, Sir Wm. Henry||Myers, William Henry||TaIbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'dUniv.|
|Howard, John(Kent, Faversham||Nicholson, William Graham||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens||Thorburn, Sir Walter|
|Hudson, George Bickersteth||Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Hunt, Rowland||Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert(Wellesley||Tollemache, Henry James|
|Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)||Pemberton. John S. G.||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.||Percy, Earl||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton||Pierpoint, Robert||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.||Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Turnout Viscount|
|Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)||Plummer, Sir Walter R.||Vincent, Col Sir CEH(Sheffield)|
|Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir WilliamH.|
|Kimber, Sir Henry||Pretyman, Ernest George||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Pryce-lones, Lt.-Col. Edward||Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton|
|Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Purvis, Robert||Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne|
|Lawson. Hn H L W. (Mile End)||Rankin, Sir James||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham||Rasch, Sir Frederic Came||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)||Ratcliff, R. F.||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine||Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart|
|Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Renwick, George||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham||Ridley, S. Forde||Wylie, Alexander|
|Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol. S)||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson||Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.|
|Lowe, Francis William||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)||Younger, William|
|Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Rolleston Sir John F L.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.|
|Lucas. Reginald J. (Portsmouth||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert|
|Macdona, John Cumming||Round, Rt. Hn. James|
|M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|M'Calmont, Colonel James||Ruther ford, John (Lancashire|
§ MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)
said that anyone who had listened to the debate as he had done could not come to any other conclusion than that the Government had come down to this House for the second time without under-standing their own Bill. He thought it was a perfect farce, and it was altogether unfair to the House and to the Committee to come down with one of the principal measures of the session, and upon the very first Amendment show that they themselves had never seriously considered the real meaning of this particular clause. At the present moment he preferred to ask for a definition of the word "immigrant." Up to the present moment the Attorney-General, with a great 288 desire to meet reasonable criticism, and with all his ability and eloquence and his great desire to get the Bill through, had failed to explain satisfactorily to the Committee what the definition of this particular word was. Under these circumstances the Government must not complain if the progress of the measure was not so rapid as it would otherwise be. He well remembered how they were sneered at last year for moving Amendments which were to-day embodied in the Bill. But the right hon. Gentleman could not give a single explanation to satisfy the Committee. He was clever enough to know that this was not a workable Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman could not give a definition, why did he not 289 call in the support of some of his hon. friends? Where was the hon. Member for Sheffield, or the hon. Member for Stepney, who was supposed to be the pioneer of the movement? Could the hon. Member look with satisfaction on the inability of the Government to understand their own Bill? Why would he not give the Committee the interpretation of the word they were now considering. They had ascertained that if an immigrant, so-called, could only "travel as a cabin passenger he would be thoroughly welcome in the United Kingdom. That was a very important admission to have obtained. On the boats between Dieppe and Newhaven one end was steerage and the other end cabin, and a steerage passenger had only to pay the extra 2s. that was charged in order to become a cabin passenger. It was impossible for the Committee to go on with the discussion of the Bill, simply leaving the Home Secretary to state what was the interpretation of the word when they came to consider Clause 8, or leaving the right hon. Gentleman to include it in the rules to be passed under the Bill. That was not the way in which the Committee should be asked to consider a Bill of so far-reaching a character.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said he did not think it necessary to add anything in the nature of a further explanation of what was meant by the words "cabin passengers." The second point on which the hon. Member for Perth desired information was in reference to the question of the transhipment of aliens. He ventured to think that was a question of the most absolute simplicity. If the hon. Members would look at the terms of the Bill they would find that the difficulties referred to did not really exist. It was not intended to prevent passengers going through the United Kingdom if they were going to America or elsewhere, but it was perfectly obvious that they must secure that a person who said he was landing in the United Kingdom only for the purpose of going elsewhere was really only landing for that purpose, and that he was going to America or some other country. They could secure that only if they insisted on his coming to an immigration port where he could be tested. The hon. Member for Perth would see 290 if he looked at the first sub-section of Clause 8 that the matter was put beyond all doubt. It was in the following terms—The expression 'immigrant' in this Act means an alien steerage passenger who is to be landed in the United Kingdom, but does not include any such passenger who shows to the satisfaction of the immigration officer on board concerned with the case that he desires to land in the United Kingdom only for the purpose of immediately proceeding to some destination out of the United Kingdom.To allow persons who said that they were merely going through the United Kingdom to land at any other than an immigration port would be to encourage wholesale evasion. In order to ascertain whether a man was a transmigrant it was necessary that he should land at an immigration port. They did not desire to interfere with the transmigrants, but they must require that all such persons who came to immigration ports should give satisfaction to the officer on board that they were really going out of the kingdom. If they were allowed to land at other ports the country would be infested with persons who were really not transmigrants at all. He was sure that the hon. and learned Member for Perth would admit that what he had stated completely answered the point.
§ LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE (Wiltshire,) Cricklade
said he had listened with great interest to what had fallen from the Attorney-General. Owing to the ejaculation which was made across the Table of the House by the Home Secretary the Committee were led to an exactly opposite conclusion. It was not with the object of labouring that point that he rose, but he wanted to ask the Home Secretary a question which he thought was a fair one. If this discussion had proved nothing else, it had proved that a most important point was as to what the future definition of a cabin passsenger was going to be. Everything would depend on the terms of the orders to be issued under this Bill by the Home Office. That came clearly out under Sub-section 3 of Section 8, but the Committee were a long way from that section. What he wanted to ask the Home Secretary was whether he could undertake before the Committee reached Section 8, or, in any case, before they reached the Report stage of the Bill, to 291 lay before the House the general order contemplated under Sub-section 3 of Section 8 in regard to the expressions "passenger" and "steerage passenger." He could quite understand that certain ports would require special orders to be issued. He was not saying that these special orders should be laid on the Table of the House, but he submitted that they would be able to discuss that clause with infinitely greater ease and clearness if they had before them the text of the general order giving the definition of the terms referred to.
§ MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfiefd)
said the word "immigrant" was not a suitable one to use, ard that it would lead to all sorts of difficulties. Take the case of Liverpool, which would not be an immigration port and would have no officer. If a ship arrived at that port with a party of foreign immigrants on board, they could not be allowed to land over night because there would be no officer to allow them. That was one of the difficulties, and there were several others which would arise out of the use of the word "immigrant." The only chance of making the Bill successful, or of its doing any good at all, was by giving wide powers, though the Government should not be obliged to put them all into execution. He thought the word "passenger" would be a more appropriate one to use, because it would take in all immigrants, including "undesirables." There would be outcries from every port where they tried to put the Bill in force, and also from the shipping companies. If the Bill was to be put in force, let them have it in a form which would do some good. He thought this was a case where the widest power should be given to the Government and where there should be some chance of making the Bill useful instead of its being made a good Party cry.
§ MR. HARWOOD (Bolton)
said that there was no arrangement in the Bill, so far as he could see, to prevent these people from landing at a port where there was no immigration officer. They could land at such ports in thousands. If there was to be an immigration officer at every port in the United Kingdom, 292 then a great drawback would be put on the trade of this country. The House had been asked to vote £500,000 to back up the Cunard Company on the ground that our trade was declining; but he had lately seen placards in Vienna, Berlin, Hamburg, and other towns in Germany advising emigrants not to come through England. Would they come through this country if they were to be examined at every port? He was one of those who opposed the Bill upstairs last year on the ground that it was impractical and that it would cause more harm than good. It was a great modern, instance of the Chinaman burning down his house in order to get good roast pork
§ MAJOR SEELY (Isle of Wight)
said that the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had shown that there would be great difficulties in carrying out this measure where there was transmigration traffic. He wished to draw attention to the difficulty in regard to the word "immigrant." He fancied that the Government could not define that word. No Member on the opposite side of the House dared say that he had read this. Bill carefully and that he had no doubt that the word "immigrant" was clearly defined in it. It might not be pleasant to hear, but it was true. According, to the Bill the definition of an immigrant was that if a man was rich however vicious he might be, he was not an immigrant; but that if he was, poor, however respectable, he was am immigrant and could be excluded from entering this country. That lay at the root of the whole of this Bill; and it was for that reason that he opposed the Bill of last year. Unless it could be really shown that under this Bill, the criminal, whether rich or poor, would be excluded he would oppose it.
§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS
said that the hon. Member for Bolton seemed to think that immigrants might go in immigrant ships to ports where there was no immigration officer. The object of the Bill was to deal with a certain class of immigrants at certain ports possessing immigration machinery.
§ MR. HARWOOD
said he would remind the right hon. Gentlemanthat the bulk 293 of these immigrants did not come to this country in immigrant ships, but in ordinary ships.
§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS
said that from inquiries which he had made, that was not]the case. Ninety-seven per cent, came in these ships to eight certain ports.
§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS
said that it did. It was not the wish of the Government in any way to hamper foreigners who were bona fide passing through this country on their way to another nor was it their desire to hamper shipowners in that trade. He had put Amendments on the Paper which would, he believed, meet, to a large extent, their objections to the Bill. He could not accept the statement of the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight that what the Government wanted was not to exclude the rich criminal but to touch the poor immigrant.
§ MAJOR SEELY
said he did not utter a single word as to the wish of the Government to allow the rich criminal to land here. What he said was that the effect of the clause would be to allow the rich criminal to come in and to exclude the poor immigrant.
§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS
said that the criminal class was dealt with almost entirely under Clause 3; and that clause applied equally to rich and poor. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that it would be easy for a rich man to come in, and not for a poor man. He did not admit that at all, because it was perfectly possible for a respectable man to come here without necessarily showing that he had a certain amount of means, if he could show that he had an offer of employment in his pocket, or had friends or relations in this country. In that case there would be no difficulty whatever in the way of his getting in. These were the intentions of the Government. Hon. Members must see that the Government were not at all unwilling to receive their assistance in improving the Bill. Although they had not been able to accept the Amendment of the 294 hon. Member for Dundee, the discussions which had taken place upstairs last year had considerably modified their proposals, and the discussions which had taken place on the early part of the Bill would be borne in mind when they came to deal later with the definition clauses. He could not give any definite pledge to the noble Lord opposite in regard to the appeal he had made, but when they came to discuss Clause 8 dealing with definitions the Government would endeavour to indicate to the House the general lines of the Orders which would be prepared for the carrying out of the provisions of the Bill.
§ MR. COURTENAY WARNER
asked if there was any reason against adopting "passenger" instead of "immigrant."
§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS
said he thought so. If they thought of the enormous inconvenience there would be—[An HON. MEMBER on the OPPOSITION Benches: To the rich man.]—not only to the rich man but to the poor, who did not come within the categories in this Bill.
§ MR. BRYCE
said that the declarations of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General were not very clear to some hon. Members. Take the case of a Pole who, instead of coming in one of the big ships, came from Calais to Dover, which was not a port where there was an immigration officer. Would he be able to land at Dover? He understood that an immigrant ship was defined in the Bill as one which carried more than twenty alien steerage passengers. Would the Home Secretary tell the Committee how the Bill would work in that case?
§ MR. WALLACE
asked if these alien immigrans came in batches of nineteen were they entitled to go anywhere they liked in this country?
§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS
said he was anxious to be perfectly frank on the matter. This Bill was intended to deal with the immigration of a certain class of aliens who arrived here in bulk. It 295 was perfectly true that it would be impossible, without great expense, to erect immigrant machinery at every port in this country. They could not, therefore, prevent the infiltration of some undesirable immigrants into this country. But in a great many cases the undesirables would be dealt with under Clauses 3 and 4. Every country had a right to say what class of people should come within their borders; and we were perfectly right in saying that we could not allow large numbers of undesirable immigrants to come in here.
§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS
said that there were Amendments to reduce the number which would have consideration.
§ MR. WALLACE
said that he was quite sure after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that they would come in bodies of nineteen.
§ MR. CHURCHILL
said that the Committee would welcome the tone of the right hon. Gentleman's statement. He, himself, thoroughly agreed that examination should be restricted to certain ports. That was the only means by which the machinery could be put into execution. The infiltration of immigrants in tens and fifteens would, however, continue. The right hon. Gentleman had not given any reason for rejecting the Amendment. He wanted to know, however, why should a criminal, a lunatic, an idiot, a prostitute, or a diseased person come into this country immune from the provisions of the Bill simply because he or she could afford to take a cabin ticket? He really did not believe that the Tory Party would adopt such an absurd position. What would happen? A rope would be fastened across the deck. All on one side would be immune; all on the other would not. The possession of some small change was to be the deciding factor whether or not an immigrant should be allowed to enter, and the effect of the measure was to draw a line between rich and poor. Poverty was to be more loathsome than lunacy, idiocy, or disease, and unless a satisfactory answer were given to the 296 Amendment the Bill would meet with very serious opposition.
§ MR. PEEL (Manchester, S.)
said he had an Amendment on the Paper to reduce the number of immigrants from twenty to five; and he was glad to hear the statement of the Home Secretary on the point. As regarded the matter mentioned by the hon. Member for the Lichfield Division, the expression "passenger" included all passengers except those who might be directed by the Secretary of State to be regarded as cabin passengers. There was need for elasticity in the matter, and the Secretary of State should be given full liberty to lay down the necessary regulations. He was glad, therefore, that his right hon. friend had not given any undertaking as to what the precise regulations were to be.
§ MR. LOUGH
said that the statement of the Home Secretary did not include transmigrants. If they were excluded there would be a tremendous interference with one of the most lucrative industries in this country. The Home Secretary admitted that the evil he had to deal with was a local one, and comparatively a small one. The right hon. Gentleman knew from deputations from shipowners what great injury might be inflicted, yet he proposed to confine the transmigrant traffic to nine ports. In his opinion it would be far better to exclude the transmigrants altogether than make such a regulation. Many important ports, such as Dover and Queenborough, would have to be excluded. The Home Secretary was not in the difficulty he thought he was in regard to this matter. The right hon. Gentleman asked how he could prevent transmigrants stopping in this country; but he could throw the onus on the shipping companies.
§ MR. THEODORE TAYLOR (Lancashire,) Radcliffe
said that, as yet, the Committee had had no definition of the word "immigrant." Surely it was not contended that poverty was the deciding reason why an idiot, a lunatic, or a criminal should be kept out of the country. They did not want idiots, lunatics, or criminals, whether they were rich or poor. He was a member of the Committee which considered the Bill last session, and he sympathised with the aims of the Government, which he believed to be good; but it seemed to him impossible that a poverty test should be imposed. To many people that would appear to be the main test. The substitution of the word "passenger" for "immigrant" would undoubtedly enlarge the scope of the Bill. Ifr would, however, much simplify matters if the "word "passenger" were substituted for the word "immigrant." If the Government had this discriminating power why should it not apply to the rich as well as the poor undesirable? Surely the Government did not wish the country to believe that the possession of money was the real test under the Bill. The acceptance of the Amendment was on all fours with the object of the measure; it would increase, not lessen, the power of the Government, and perhaps give them greater justification later on for exercising the option which the Bill would give them.
§ MR. MARKS (Kent, Thanet)
said the great objection to the Amendment was to be found in the avowed object of the Bill itself, which was to restrict the influx into this country of a certain class of undesirable immigrants who came here, not to pass through, but to settle and to compete with the people of this country under unfair conditions. Even if the term "immigrant" were not defined, the well-known object of the Bill would surely justify the use of the word, and the limitations and qualifications could be dealt with at a later stage on the definition clause. If the Amendment were accepted, it would cause the Bill to be applied, to a class for whom it was not primarily intended.
§ MR. JOHN WILSON (Durham, Mid.)
said that from the point of view of the welfare of the country he would rather 298 take in a poverty-stricken man who came seeking honest employment than a man who meant to float a company and put his skill to nefarious purposes. Why should any class distinction be made? The most dangerous immigrants were frequently those who could pay for first-class passages and who come simply to exploit the country. When he landed in America as a young miner forty-five years ago he had £3; others possibly had £100, but he submitted that he was of the more use to the country because he offered his labour to the first man who would buy it. If the right hon. Gentleman wished the Bill to be acceptable and to have any effect on the moral character of the country, he would have to make it apply to all undesirables. The real gist of the matter was in the definition clause. It made no difference which end of a ship the immigrant came in; if he was an honest man he should be welcomed whether he came steerage or cabin.
§ MR WHITLEY (Halifax)
referring to the question whether an immigrant might be landed at other than an immigration port, pointed out that Liverpool was not one of the proposed ports.
§ MR. WHITLEY
said that was satisfactory to a certain extent, but it did not touch the general point he was about to raise. Considerable numbers of Swedes and Norwegians habitually went to the United States for two or three years, and then returned home, coming, as a rule, through this country. Under this Bill, if they went to a port at which there was not an immigration officer they would be unable to land, but would have to go round the coast until they came to an immigration port, their only crime being that they had travelled economically in order to have more money to take home, possibly, to their parents. The direct result would be that the whole 299 of that traffic would be driven to the German ships which went round the coast. Then there was the case of the young English workman who went to the United States and became a naturalised American. If he proposed to come home for a three months holiday—as many such did—it was possible that, under the drafting of the Bill, unless he arrived at an immigration port, he would not be allowed to land. Clause 1 was so absurdly drafted that it would do far more harm to the commerce and trade of the country than good to certain localities.
§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS
said that both the points raised by the hon. Member had been considered. There was undoubtedly a large traffic in Scandinavians, and he thought he could see his way to meet that point satisfactorily. As to the other case, he was not prepared to say that such men would be undesirable aliens. When the Committee reached the part of the Bill concerned, he would be able to show the hon. Member that such a thing as he had suggested would not be likely to happen.
§ MR. JOHN WILSON (Durham, Mid.)
said the steerage accommodation was now so much better than it used to be that men with considerable means frequently travelled that way. Numbers of men came over here to spend a few months, and in order to save money travelled steerage. They would all be affected by this Bill.
§ MR. WHITLEY
said the right hon. Gentleman had entirely missed his point. It was no good the Home Secretary saying that the men would not be shut out because they were not undesirable aliens. They would not be able to prove their desirability, as they would not be allowed to land.
§ MR. WHITLEY
said everything depended on the interpretation of the word "immigrant." The Bill was so drawn that it would apply to the class he had 300 described, and no amount of finesse in definition could get over the fact.
§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS
said that if immigrant traffic showed a tendency to develop at a particular port the necessary machinery would be set up. If the machinery was not there the port would be closed to "immigrant ships" but not to aliens arriving in any other ships.
§ MR. DOBBIE (Ayr Burghs)
asked the Committee to consider how the shipping interest of Scotland would be affected unless this Amendment were accepted. Leith, the only Scotch port scheduled, was but one of several, and it was not the most important for Continental traffic. Immigrants who now arrived at Dundee or Glasgow, frequently only to pass through Scotland, would be compelled to go to Leith, or be prevented from landing.
said the remarks of the hon. Member would be more in order on the Question that Clause 1 stand part, or on Clause 6, but they were not in order on this Amendment.
§ MR. DOBBIE
said that unless the Amendment were accepted the object of the Bill as far as Scotland was concerned would be defeated, because there they suffered not from the usual class of immigrant, but from a minor class who came from the Baltic in small numbers, usually not in immigrant ships, and who consequently would not be included under the Bill unless "passenger" were substituted for "immigrant." The rejection of the Amendment would prevent the operation of the clause in the prevention of an admitted evil, and dislocate the trade not only of Leith but also of other Scotch ports.
§ MR. SEELY (Lincoln)
thought the best way of dealing with the question was to leave in the word "immigrant" and give it in the definition clause the natural meaning assigned to it in the English language. An immigrant was a man who came to this country with the intention of residing here, and he was no more or no less an immigrant whether 301 he came as a steerage or a cabin passenger. Such a course would meet the difficulties that had been suggested and others that might arise.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 227; Noes, 196. (Division List No. 213.)305
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)||Lucas, Reginald J(Portsmouth)|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Faber, George Denison (York)||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred|
|Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden||Fardell, Sir T. George||Macdona, John Cumming|
|Allsopp, Hon. George||Fellowes, RtHnAilwyn Edward||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Fergusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ(Manc'r.||M'Calmont, Colonel James|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||M'Iver, SirLewis(Edinburgh, W|
|Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. HughO.||Finlay, Sir R. B. I(nv'rn'ssB'ghs)||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)|
|Arrol, Sir William||Fisher, William Hayes||Malcolm, Ian|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose||Manners, Lord Cecil|
|Aubrey-Fletcher. Rt. Hon. SirH.||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||Marks, Harry Hannael|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Flower, Sir Ernest||Martin, Richard Biddulph|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Forster, Henry William||Maxwell, Rt. Hn Sir HE(Wigt'n|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Galloway, William Johnson||Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire|
|Balcarres, Lord||Gardner, Ernest||Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Garfit, William||Middlemore, John Throgmorton|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. GeraldW(Leeds||Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.||Milner. Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.||Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick||Milvain, Thomas|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn||Mitchell, William (Burnley)|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)||Montagu, G. (Huntingdo)|
|Bartley, Sir George C. T.||Gordon, Maj Evans T'rH'mlets||Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon||Morgan, David J(Walthamstow|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir MichaelHicks||Goschen, Hon. George Joachim||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Morrell, George Herbert|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)||Morton, Arthur, H. Aylmer|
|Bingham Lord||Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)||Mount, William Arthur|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Greville, Hon. Ronald||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.|
|Boulnois, Edmund||Hain, Edward||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)|
|Bowles, T. Gibson (King'sLynn||Halsey, Rt. Hn. Thomas F.||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)|
|Brassey, Albert||Hamilton, Marq. of(L'nd'nderry||Myers, William Henry|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford||Nicholson, William Graham|
|Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)||Hare, Thomas Leigh||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens|
|Brymer, William Ernest||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)|
|Ball, William James||Heath, Sir J. (Staffords. N. W.||Peel, Hn. Wm. RobertWellesley|
|Butcher, John George||Heaton, John Henniker||Pemberton, John S. G.|
|Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow||Helder, Augustus||Percy, Earl|
|Campbell, J. H. M. (DublinUniv.||Henderson, Sir A (Stafford, W.)||Pierpont, Robert|
|Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.||Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire||Hoare, Sir Samuel||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Hogg, Lindsay||Purvis, Robert|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. JA. (Worc.||Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside||Rankin, Sir James|
|Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton||Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)||Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne|
|Chapman, Edward||Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil||Ratcliff, R. F.|
|Clive, Captain Percy A.||Hudson, George Bickersteth||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Coates, Edward Feetham||Hunt, Rowland||Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine|
|Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.||Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)||Renwick, George|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry||Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.||Ridley, S. Forde|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson|
|Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R.||Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Kimber, Sir Henry||Round, Rt. Hon. James|
|Cripps, Charles Alfred||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)||Lawrence, Sir Joseph(Monm'th||Rutherford, John (Lancashire|
|Davenport, William Bromley||Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End)||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham||Lee, ArthurH. (Hants, Fareham||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford|
|Denny, Colonel||Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Dickinson, Robert Edmond||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Samuel, Sir HarryS(Limehouse|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.||Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles)|
|Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.||Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.|
|Doughty, Sir George||Long, Rt Hn Walter(Bristol, S.||Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)|
|Douglas, Rt. Hn. A Akers-||Lowe, Francis William||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Shaw-Stewart, Sir H (Renfrew)|
|Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Sloan, Thomas Henry||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)||Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.)|
|Smith, H. C. (North'mb. Tynesde||Thorburn, Sir Walter||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Smith, Rt HnJ Parker(Lanarks||Tollemache, Henry James||Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart|
|Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Spear, John Ward||Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward||Wylie, Alexander|
|Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk||Tuke, Sir John Batty||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)||Vincent, ColSir C. E. H. (Sheffield||Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.|
|Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)||Walrond. Rt. Hn. Sir William H.||Younger, William|
|Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.||Welby, Lt. Col. A CE (Taunton)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.|
|Stock, James Henry||Whiteley, H (Ashton und. Lyne|
|Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Talbot, Rt Hn JG(Oxford Univ.||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Mooney, John J.|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Flynn, James Christopher||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)|
|Allen, Charles P.||Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Moulton, John Fletcher|
|Asher, Alexander||Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Muldoon, John|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.||Murnaghan, George|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Gilhooly, James||Murphy, John|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Gladstone, Rt HnHerbert John||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Goddard, Daniel Ford||Nolan, Col. John P (Galway. N.)|
|Black, Alexander William||Grant, Corrie||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)|
|Blake, Edward||Grey, Rt Hn. Sir E. (Berwick)||Nussey, Thomas Willans|
|Boland, John||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Brigg, John||Hammond, John||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.|
|Bright, Allan Heywood||Harcourt, Lewis||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W)|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Burt, Thomas||Harrington, Timothy||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Buxton, Sydney Chas. (Poplar)||Harwood, George||O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)|
|Caldwell, James||Hayden, John Patrick||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)|
|Cameron, Robert||Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.||O'Dowd, John|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||O'Malley, William|
|Cawley, Frederick||Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.||O'Mara, James|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Jocoby, James Alfred||Parrott, William|
|Cogan, Denis J.||Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea||Partington, Oswald|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Paulton, James Mellor|
|Crean, Eugene||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)|
|Cremer, William Randal||Jordan, Jeremiah||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Crombie, John William||Joyce, Michael||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Cullinan, J.||Kearley, Hudson E.||Price, Robert John|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N)||Reddy, M.|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardig n||Kilbride, Denis||Richards, Thomas|
|Delany, William||Kitson, Sir James||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway||Lambert, George||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)||Lamont, Norman||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Langley, Batty||Roche, John|
|Dobbie, Joseph||Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)||Russell, T. W.|
|Doogan, P. C.||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland))|
|Duffy, William J||Leese, Sir Joseph F(Accrington||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||Leng, Sir John||Schawann, Charles E.|
|Edwards, Frank||Levy, Maurice||Seely, Maj. J. EB (Isle of Wight|
|Ellice, Capt. E C(SAndrw's Bghs||Lewis, John Herbert||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)||Lough, Thomas||Sheehy, David|
|Emmott, Alfred||Lundon, W.||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Evans, Sir Francis H(Maidstone||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire),|
|Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Slack, John Bamford|
|Farrell, James Patrick||M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)||Smith, Samuel (Flint)|
|Fenwick, Charles||M'Crae, George||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)||M'Kenna, Reginald||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Ffrench, Peter||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Spencer, Rt Hn C R (Northant|
|Field, William||Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Stanhope, Hon. Philip James|
|Findlay, Alexander(Lanark, NE||Markham, Arthur Basil||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.||Sullivan, Donal|
|Taylor, Theodore C (Radcliffe)||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Tennant, Harold John||Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)||Wilson, John (Falkirk)|
|Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)||White, George (Norfolk)||Wood, James|
|Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.||White, Luke (York, E. R.)||Woodhouse, Sir JT(Huddersf'd|
|Tomkinson, James||White, Patrick (Meath, North)||Young, Samuel|
|Trevelyan, Charles Philips||Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Villiers, Ernest Amherst||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Wallace, Robert||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Churchill and Mr. Runciman.|
|Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.)||Wills, Arthur Walters (N Dorset|
|Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)||Wilson, Chas, Henry (Hull, W.|
|Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.||Wilson, Henry J. (York. W. R.|
It will be open to the hon. Member to move his solution of the difficulty on that part of the Bill.
§ MR. WHITLEY
said that, owing to what occurred a few moments ago, it was necessary that an Amendment should be put in after "immigrant" to protect the case of the British-born workman returning to visit his family. There was also the case of the Irishman who emigrated to the States, naturalised himself there, and then came home to revisit his relatives.
§ MR. WHITLEY
said he would move to insert after the word "immigrant" the words "not being a British-born subject." This was a matter which affected a large number of persons.
This is a Bill to amend the law with regard to aliens. I do not think any Amendment dealing with British-born subjects would be in order.
§ MR. WHITLEY
said that if they could be assured that a person who had been naturalised in the United States, although born in this country, was not an alien, 306 then it covered the ground. It was possible in such a case that a person would be refused a landing at Queenstown and be obliged to go to Liverpool, and it should be observed that this only applied to steerage passengers. He would move to add after the word "immigrant" the words "if he has not been born in the United Kingdom."
§ MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON (Hackney, S.)
said he thought any restriction upon the word "immigrant" should be made in Clause 8. To insert such Amendments now might lead to serious confusion.
It would not be in order to insert this Amendment here and it will more properly come in on Clause 8.
§ MR. CHURCHILL
said he understood that the hon. Member for Halifax had been allowed to move his Amendment.
§ MR. LOUGH moved to leave out from the word "not" in line 6 and to insert the word "only." The Amendment superficially appeared small, but it really involved a large question. The thing he feared about the Bill was the damage it would do to British trade. The Bill was constructed on the idea that once a great passenger shin arrived at a port there might be established on board a police Court, and lunatics or diseased people might be kept on board, The profit of a ship depended on having the ship rapidly cleared. When in New York he paid some attention to the working of a law for the exclusion of undesirable aliens, and he found that the greatest pains were taken to avoid delays to shipping. He noticed that 307 there was not the slightest difficulty in getting the great liners cleared of the immigrants on beard as well as the cabin passengers. An hour after it was cleared the ship was being cleaned, and arrangements were being made for the next voyage. This Bill was drafted without the most elementary knowledge of the requirements of seafaring. Every obstacle was placed in the way of getting passengers landed. If any immigrant was dissatisfied with the decision of the immigration officer, he could take his case to a Court of Appeal on the same afternoon or next day, and that would mean delaying the ship. The profit often depended, on the number of voyages that could be made within a certain time. Great advantage would be given to our rivals in the shipping trade if the arrangements in the Bill were persisted in. The Home Secretary knew all about this point, for he had been worried a great deal about it during the last month or two. It was because of the difficulty on this point that they were so late in getting the Bill into Committee. Was it not a reasonable thing to consider the dangers and difficulties that would be involved if the present framing of the Bill was retained? If they adopted the principle of the Bill they must go the whole way and set up suitable asylums to which immigrants could be brought. If there were lunatics on board a staff would have to be kept up to guard them as they might set fire to the ship in the night. The Home Secretary had partly conceded this point and had given notice of an Amendment to be moved later on. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to go further and to allow the immigrants to be landed and suitably accommodated at the port in a place approved by the Board of Trade.
In page 1, line 6, to leave out the word 'not,' and insert the word 'only.'"—(Mr. Lough.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'not' stand part of the Clause."
said he understood that the hon. Gentleman desired that the whole of the examination should 308 take place at the port, of landing after the ship had arrived. The question of examination had been carefully considered. They were agreed that the process must be as speedy as possible. It was for the advantage of the aliens, the shipowners, and the country that the decision should be come to as early as possible, and the Government thought that in many cases, where there were few aliens on board, the immigration officer could do the work perfectly well on board. It was perfectly true that a hard-and-fast rule could not be made for every port. There were ports, such as the port of London, where it would be possible when a ship was coming up the Thames for the immigration officer to go on board at Gravesend and do his work coming up. It would be the desire of shipowners that this alternative should be allowed. There was an objection to the hon. Member's Amendment from the point of view of those who supported the Bill. They were not prepared to allow the alien to pass from the control of the ship-owner until the decision was given. This was very important from their point of view, and although they were prepared to have the examination on board ship or on landing at the port as might be thought best in the circumstances of the case, they were not prepared to allow the responsiblity of the shipowner to cease from the moment he was disembarked. He was glad to say that shipowners accepted the view that they must retain responsibility, and that they must see that premises were available for the immigrants on landing. There were many ports—London, Liverpool, and others—where there was no reason why the examination should not take place on land. Disembarkation for that purpose would not, technically speaking, be a landing. He was not prepared to make the concession which the hon. Member for Islington desired. It was quite impossible, as he had pointed out before, that all the ports would agree on any common practice.
§ MR. GUEST (Plymouth)
said he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that in no case could a ship be considered cleared until all the immigrants had passed the examining officer. His 309 reason for saying that was that he could not allow the shipowner to escape the responsibility of taking the undesirable alien back again. The Bill provided that in the event of any alien becoming a member of the criminal class within six months after landing in the country he might be exported at the expense of the shipowner. He did not see, therefore, why the right hon. Gentleman should not accept the Amendment.
§ MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR
said facilities might be given to shipowners to get rid as soon as possible of the obligations imposed on them by the Bill. He did not quite follow his right hon; friend in his statement that the shipowners were to accept full responsibility for those undesirable aliens who were to be conditionally disembarked; still less could he accept the point raised by the hon. Member for Plymouth that that condition should extend for six months. These, however, were points which could be debated later on. It would be quite impossible for shipowners to take on liability for six months residence in the country where those persons had been allowed to enter by the legal immigration officer. In these circumstances, he insisted that the responsibility was with the country and not with the shipowners.
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD
said that this was one of the most important clauses in the working of the Bill. It related to a point which, in the experience of the United States and Canada, had caused the greatest difficulty and had been the subject of the amendment of their legislation during the past twenty years. There was no doubt whatever that it would be found in practice that in every one of the important ports in England where immigrants were landed it would be absolutely necessary to have suitable places on shore for the purpose of detention and inquiry. Again, vessels were constantly arriving at these ports with immigrants on board who were ill; and it frequently happened that the children were ill when the parents or guardians were not. These had also to be taken care of while the sick children were being attended to. That was a most important and difficult matter in the United 310 States and in Canada. There from 7 to 8 per cent. of all immigrants required to be detained for examination or for inquiry for some special reason. In the meantime all sorts of restrictions, such as bonds, were placed on the vessels. He found that in the United States they started in precisely the same sort of way as was now proposed in this Bill before the House—viz., without any provision for shore depots for detention; aid they were forced by the circumstances of the case to provide such places at very great expense. It was the same in Canada. It had been found absolutely impossible to examine the immigrants on board ship, to determine whether they were suffering from all or any of the diseases enumerated in the schedule, such as lameness, rickets, swollen glands, defects of speech, disease of the bones, etc. He had the Report for last year of the Immigration Office in Canada, in which it was pointed out that, by the force of circumstances, they had been compelled to go to great expense in providing machinery to carry out the immigration law on shore rather than on shipboard. He would point out that very large number of the people we should have to deal with in this country would be transmigrants. In Canada they had last year to deal with 30,374 transmigrants who were on their way to the United States. It was necessary that if a Bill of this kind was to be of the slightest use it should be effective. Of course, it was desirable that we should be able to shut out from this country the riff-raff of immigrants; but we must take them as they came. A large proportion of them would be good and a small proportion bad. But in the case of transmigrants the good would go on to America, while the bad would be left here. He hoped the Committee would reject this Amendment, which would not touch the question at all, and that the Amendment of his right hon. friend would, be accepted, which provided for all that was required for the purposes of "inspection and inquiry."
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)
, who was indistinctly heard, was understood to say that all that was wanted was to clear the ships as quickly as possible. He believed that it 311 was quite exceptional in America to have places of reception and examination for immigrants. He thought that the hon. Member who had just spoken was under a misapprehension in regard to the effect of the proposed amended clause which would impose additional liability on shipowners, because, while the immigrants were on shore the ship could be cleared, and the officers would be freed from the liability of looking after the immigrants. Under the circumstances, he should support the Amendment of his hon. friend rather than that of the Home Secretary as more likely to obtain what was desired.
§ MR. RUNCIMAN
said a vessel carrying immigrants was only a few hours in port and they often carried 600 or 700 passengers on board. The truth was that the passengers were so closely packed together that there were no means whatever for all of them to be examined singly by the immigration agent or the medical officer. If there was to be a place on shore for the examination of the passengers, as, for instance, at Newhaven, were these facilities to be provided at the expense of the shipowners or of the State?
§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS
said that all he wanted was that the paseengers should be examined either on board ship or on shore. He certainly did not intend that the shelters or depôts—[An HON. MEMBER on the IRISH Benches: Or compounds]—should be provided at the expense of the State. Several hon. Members had called attention to the practice which prevailed in America; but there was a very considerable difference between the nature of the traffic there and here. In America the immigrants only went to three or four ports. A great deal was to be said for the provision suggested by the hon. Member behind him, but if they were to deal with a number of ports in this country they must have more elasticity. Therefore, it might be necessary to make different regulations for the Eastern ports and the Western ports. In the Thames and the Tyne, though he did not know so much of the latter as of the former, and in nearly all the other east coast ports, arrangements might be made by 312 the shipping companies or the harbour authorities for the examination to take place on the shore. He admitted that that would add to the expense, but he did not think that that extra expense should be borne by the State.
§ MR. RUNCIMAN
said he quite understood what the intention of the right hon. Gentleman was, and he was glad that they had elicited from the right hon. Gentleman the very important fact that if shipowners were to avoid the detention of their vessels—a totally impossible proceeding—they would have to provide, at their own expense, accommodation for the examination of these passengers on shore. Some ports would be more expensive than others as regarded wharfage and warehouses, and in certain ports it would be impossible to get extra accommodation. Persons engaged in this industry would be let in for a new liability, which it could not well bear. He would say nothing about the inconvenience to the passenger; but if the examination were to take place on the Thames or the Tyne in winter he did not envy the passenger. It showed how little the proposals of the measure had been thought out.
§ MR. CHURCHILL
said it was quite clear that the Home Secretary contemplated a double system. Some passengers were to be inspected at sea and others in compounds on land. Both systems, however, would impose a burden on the shipping trade. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman to what comparative extent each system was to be used, and, also, by what means he would be able to compel shipping companies to provide accommodation on shore.
§ MR. CHARLES McARTHUR
said he saw no difference between the words in 313 the Bill and the words in the Amendment. In any event, the proper time to deal with the matter was on a subsequent Amendment. He knew something of the feeling of the shipowners, and he believed they were quite satisfied with the proposal of the Home Secretary.
§ MR. CHURCHILL
asked the Home Secretary to what extent it was proposed to have recourse to special examination on shore, and at what ports.
§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS
said that there were no partic lar ports to which they tied themselves. There was nothing to present any one of the ports mentioned being replaced by another, or the list being increased or diminished. He was not prepared to say at which ports it was proposed to establish these depots. He wanted it to be at the option of the shipowner. If the latter thought it better to have the examination on the quay, then it certainly would take place there, and vice versa. It was quite possible in the same port they might have examination of persons brought by one line of steamers on land, and of those brought by another, on board. The examination at present was conducted by an extremely able staff, and many shipowners preferred that it should take place at sea, and not wait until the ship was alongside. Surely It was better to give the shipowners the option.
§ MR. GEORGE WHITELEY (York-shire, W. R. Pudsey)
said the debate showed the utter impracticability of the "whole scheme. He wondered whether the hon. Members representing Liverpool considered the vast numbers of passengers who were being landed at Liverpool and who had to be got off these ships. They all knew the state of congestion that already existed in Liverpool. In his view, the right hon. Gentleman had suggested something it was impossible to carry into effect. He did not understand how they were going to deal with this traffic. It might be possible for officers to go on board at 314 Kingstown and other places and examine numbers of these immigrants, but they could not examine them all, and to examine them on these shores would entail a large charge on Liverpool. Who was to provide these shelters or concentration camps? The corporation of Liverpool, the Government, or the shipowners? The right hon. Gentleman said the shipowners were, but would not that put an intolerable burden upon the shipowners? The whole thing showed the morass through which the right hon. Gentleman was plodding his way and from which he apparently did not know how to extricate himself. The Bill had not been thought out in its working; the details had not been considered, and for his part he did not see how it was to be carried out.
§ MR. EMMOTT
asked what the right hon. Gentleman proposed to do with the shipowners. The right hon. Gentleman had indicated that he intended to make them build these shelters or compounds, or whatever they might be called, but he took no powers in his Bill to do so. The inference was that he would bully them into building shelters by making them wait ever so long before their ships could be cleared. That was not an English way of doing things. The whole of this immigration bogey was a very small thing, in spite of what the right hon. Gentleman said, and because of this small matter he proposed to interfere with the transmigrant trade of this country, worth many millions per annum. All the foreign agents were now pointing out the difficulties that would be put in the way of these transmigrants in England in the future as a reason why they should ship direct to foreign countries. Having sat through this discussion he was convinced, as everybody who had listened to the debate must be convinced, that the Government, in regard to this matter, was taking a very serious step which, if persisted in, was going to bring those interested in shipping into immense difficulties. He asked that this stage of the Bill should be further postponed.
§ MR. MARTIN (Worcestershire,) Droitwich
was understood to say that he thought a great deal too much had been 315 made by certain Members of the examination to which it was proposed to subject ah en immigrants. A medical man could easily pass a number of these people in a very few moments. Perhaps fifty of those arriving by a particular ship would not require looking at, and others would need only a very casual inspection. In regard to the inspection chamber—which he thought a proper word to employ—all that was needed was a very small shed, with a doctor's cell attached, and it would not cost £50 to build one.
§ MR. RUNCIMAN
asked whether the depots were to be put up at the cost of the shipowners, and if that was not the fact at whose cost were they to be put up.
§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS
said that, in nearly every case, in the great ports of this country to which these ships came these places already existed, and they could be used without expense. The Government did not intend to bear the cost of erecting buildings. He had said over and over again that any buildings erected would not be at the public, cost, and that if it were at the cost of anybody it would be at the cost of the shipowners who engaged in this trade, and who therefore must bear the expenditure.
§ MR. RUNCIMAN
said, then, it was the fact that these depots were to be erected at the cost of the shipowners.
§ MR. RUNCIMAN
Where necessary. The hon. Gentleman opposite said that was a paltry matter, but if he knew anything about the value of real property he would know that the purchase of riverside property was not a paltry matter. And in regard to the manner in which passengers are to be examined under this Act that was not so easy a matter as the hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine They were going to be examined to see not so much whether they were suffering from disease, but whether they were lunatics or idiots, and he could assure the hon. Gentleman that that was sometimes a very difficult matter. Not only were immigrants to be examined as to their physical and mental state, but also as to the 316 extent of their finances, and when a man was endeavouring to get into this country with very little money in his pocket, and it was probably the sole outlet he had for his energy and his hope for the future, he would not be too ready to facilitate the operations of the inspecting officer. Every step in that examination would lead to delay, and delay to those engaged in shipping was by no means a paltry matter. The demurrage on some of the vessels engaged in that trade might be anything up to £500 a day. The shippers engaged in the trade would be very wise to consider the regulations which the Home Secretary had outlined very roughly and see whether they were not laying upon themselves a burden which would be a most serious obstacle to the successful conduct of their business.
§ MR. RENWICK (Newcastle on-Tyne)
desired to say a word as a shipowner and as representing the short-sea traders of London, who carried practically 50 per cent, of the trade of the Port of London. They approved of the objects of the Bill, but differed with respect to some of its provisions. He frankly admitted that shipowners would prefer to see the examination carried out on shore, and if the Home Secretary was prepared to grant the option—as he understood him to be—of having the examination on shore, many of the difficulties would disappear. The moment the Bill became law every shipowner who carried passengers would exercise care to prevent undesirables coming in, and the different agents abroad would receive instructions to do the same. The Bill already provided, he believed, that where the examination had been satisfactorily made abroad it would be accepted here as sufficient. There would be no difficulty in passing the desirable or healthy immigrant. Moreover, so far as London was concerned, nearly the whole of the so-called immigrant traffic was carried by foreign ships, and that was doubtless the reason hon. Members opposite were so anxious to secure all these safeguards; they always desired to protect the foreigner. The Committee need not fear to accept the assurance of the Home Secretary that every facility would be given for the examination to be carried out on shore.
§ Sir CHAELES DILKE
was surprised that the hon. Member for Newcastle should have backed up the amazing statement of the hon. Member beside him as to the rate at which these examinations would take place. How anybody could suppose that 400 immigrants could be examined in an hour, and the necessary information obtained as to their character and health, he could not conceive, and hon. Members who made such statements could not have considered the nature of the questions to be put.
§ MAJOR EVANS GORDON (Tower Hamlets, Stepney)
said the primary object of the speeches of the Opposition was obviously to stir up the animosity of shipowners against the measure. Speaking as one who had gone carefully into the matter, especially as it affected London, he could assure the Committee that the traffic was mainly carried in foreign bottoms.
§ MAJOR EVANS GORDON
said that if the hon. Member so desired he could see the lists sent by the Customs officials to the Board of Trade, giving the names of the ships, the owners, the passengers carried, and the destination, and he would see that nearly the whole were foreign ships. As to the examination, wholly imaginary difficulties had been set up. It should not be forgotten that inspection was carried on at present by a medical officer and a Customs officer. He had been present at those examinations, and hon. Members would be surprised at the amount of information that was obtained.
§ MAJOR EVANS GORDON
said the time available varied according to the tide. The ships were boarded at Gravesend, and with a favourable tide the time 318 available would be less than if the tide were unfavourable. The present staff would, of course, have to be increased after the passage of this Bill. When the examination officer was unable to board the ship at Gravesend he followed by train to the dock, and, although there was no legal obligation upon them, the shipowners invariably retained their passengers on board until they had been examined by the officer. If shipowners did that without any legal obligation could anybody believe the difficulties suggested by hon. Members opposite would arise? The objections were wholly illusory, and, as he had said, were put forward to stir up the opposition of Unionist shipowners. Then as to the medical examination. He had been on one of these ships where a close medical examination took place, and the passengers offered no objection whatever. A cabin was placed at their disposal, and a sufficiently close examination was made to show which of the passengers was suffering from any serious disease. He had been on board a ship upon which there were eighty-five immigrants and three medical officers examined them thoroughly within an hour while the ship was coming up from Gravesend to the dock. All the objections made by hon. Members opposite were wholly illusory, and he believed that they were put forward with the sole object of stirring up shipowners on the Unionist Benches against the Bill. He had placed at the disposal of the Committee such knowledge as he had been able to acquire upon this subject, and he trusted that what he had said would set at rest any doubts as to the practicability of this proposal.
§ DR. HUTCHINSON
said that the statement they had just listened to was one of the most extraordinary medical histories it had been his lot to hear. Here were eighty-five people examined thoroughly with stethoscopes in sixty minutes, which gave three-quarters of a minute to each patient, and they were asked to believe that this was the sort of examination which completely eliminated any man with disease. Anyone who knew the mere A B C of this question must know that thoroughly to examine anybody needed a quarter of an 319 hour or twenty minutes, and even then it was a perfunctory examination. He had examined some of these immigrants three or four weeks ago, and when an hon. and gallant Member told him that three doctors examined eighty five people in an hour—
§ MAJOR EVANS GORDON
said on this occasion they boarded this ship and examined the immigrants. They boarded every ship that carried immigrants.
§ DR. HUTCHINSON
said that showed it was a show case. They heard the hon. and gallant Member was coming and three medical men put their stethoscopes in their pockets and boarded this ship. This was the sort of picture put before the House to make them think the same kind of thing was going on every day. The true facts of the case had not been brought before them, and he hoped, when the question of these diseased immigrants was raised, he might have a iew words to say which would not be so melodramatic as those of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
§ MR. LOUGH
said the hon. and gallant Member had not touched the Amendment at all. The object of his Amendment was to secure that there should be no difficulty imposed in the way of clearing the ship when she came to the dock. Some hon. Members opposite said that they agreed in principle with his Amendment, but in their opinion it was brought in at the wrong place. In case one or two of the eighty-five immigrants alluded to by the hon. Member opposite had been condemned they would not have been detained upon the ship. Therefore, accommodation ought to be provided on shore so that the ship might be cleared and these people might be run into the compound or hospital on shore. He did not think it was fair to charge them with pursuing merely Party tactics because they were trying to improve the Bill. If the Committee accepted this new principle it ought to be done in such a way as would not interfere in any way with the carrying on of the shipping industry. He did not think that a single word had 320 been said against the principle of his Amendment.
§ MAJOR EVANS GORDON
said that in the case he had mentioned there was one doctor and two medical officers of the Port of London on board. He did not think there was anything very unusual in the fact that they had such a thing as a stethoscope in their pockets.
§ LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE
said that there was a most essential distinction between an examination conducted for the special purpose of enforcing an Act of Parliament and an examination of a more or less amateurish character. An examination of the former character involved considerable legal consequences, and therefore each person should have the full right to have his case gone into in a thorough manner. The argument of the hon. and gallant Gentleman was absolutely worth-less.
§ MR. CHURCHILL
said that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Stepney was a great authority on this subject, but the hon. Member for Liverpool, who was also a great authority on the subject, took an entirely different view from him of the importance of the examination and of the place necessary for carrying on the examination. The hon. Member for Liverpool was perfectly clear in his statement that an elaborate establishment for carrying on the examination of the aliens who came here would be required, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman said that the whole thing could be done while the ship was coming up the river. Might he point out that there were some ports in this country where there would be no convenient facilities for the medical officers going on board. He would like to point out to the Committee that where a ship had landed any immigrant because he had appealed against the decision of the examiner or was ill, and so was left behind, he would have to be accommodated somewhere. He could not be accommodated on the open quay. He might have to wait several nights pending a final decision of his case, and decent accommodation ought to be provided. He 321 asked the Home Secretary whether that sleeping accommodation was to be provided at the cost of the shipping companies or not. He did most seriously point out that the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite had not in any way minimised the substantial point raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool that an establishment of an elaborate character for examinations would have to be erected, together with facilities for sleeping. He had only one other point to make. The hon. Member for the Droitwich Division made a remark which called forth some protest. He used the expression "inspection
§ chamber" for, said the hon. Member, that was an expression commonly used in reward to sewage, and he thought that it was an appropriate expression to apply to aliens. It should never be forgotten, however, that although those persons who came to our shores might be poor, diseased, or insane, nevertheless they were human beings; and he was quite sure that the use of such improper language was to be deprecated.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 220 Noes, 171. (Division List No. 214.)325
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas.||Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Corbett, A Cameron (Glasgow)||Hogg, Lindsay|
|Allaopp, Hon. George||Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Hope, J. F. (Sheffield Brightside|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Cripps, Charles Alfred||Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)||Hudson, George Bickersteth|
|Arnold-Forster, RtHn Hugh O.||Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)||Hunt, Rowland|
|Arrol, Sir William||Cust, Henry John C.||Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Davenport, William Bromley||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse|
|Aubrey-Fletcher. Rt. Hn. Sir H.||Denny, Colonel||Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Dickinson, Robert Edmond||Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Dickson, Charles Scott||Kennaway, Rt Hn. Sir John H.|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Dixon-Hartland, Sir FredDixon||Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.|
|Balcarres, Lord||Dorington, Rt Hn. Sir John E.||Keswick, William|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r.||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow|
|Balfour, RtHnGerald W. (Leeds||Dyke. Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart||Lawrence. Sir Joseph (Monm'th|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.||Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Lawson, Hn K L W. (Mile End)|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W)||Lee, Arthur H. (Hants. Fareham|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Fellowes. RtHnAilwyn Edward||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage|
|Bartley, Sir George C. T.||Fergusson. Rt Hn Sir J. (Manc'r.||Leveson-Gower, Frederick NS|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Llewellyn, Evan Henry|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir MichaelHicks||Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs||Long. Col. CharlesW. (Evesham|
|Bintinck, Lord Henry C.||Fisher, William Hayes||Long. Rt Hn Walter(Bristol, S.|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose||Lowe, Francis William|
|Bingham, Lord||Flower, Sir Ernest||Loyd, Archie Kirkman|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Forster, Henry William||Lucas, Reginald J(Portsm'th|
|Bond, Edward||Galloway, William Johnson||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred|
|Boulnois, Edmund||Gardner, Ernest||Macdona, John Cumming|
|Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn||Garfit, William||MacIver, David (Liverpool)|
|Brassey, Albert||Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)|
|Brodrick, Rt Hon. St. John||Godson. Sir Augustus Frederick||M'Calmont, Colonel James|
|Brymer, William Ernest||Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn)||M'Iver. Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W|
|Bull, William James||Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)|
|Campbell, Rt Hn JA(Glasgow)||Gordon, Maj. Evans(T'r. H'mlets||Malcolm, Ian|
|Campbell, JHM (Dublin Univ.||Goschen, Hon. George Joachim||Marks, Harry Hananel|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Graham, Henry Robert||Martin, Richard Biddulph|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire||Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury||Maxwell Rt Hn Sir H E (Wigt'n|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.||Maxwell, W J H(Dumfriesshire|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Greville, Hon. Ronald||Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Hamilton, Marq. of(L'nd'nderry||Middlemore, John Throgmorton|
|Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Worc.||Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford||Milner. Rt Hn. Sir Frederick G.|
|Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Milvain, Thomas|
|Chapman, Edward||Haslam, Sir Alfred S.||Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)|
|Coates, Edward Feetham||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Molesworth, Sir Lewis|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E||Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry||Heath, Sir James(Staffords. NW||Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Heaton, John Henniker||Morgan. David J (Walthamstow|
|Colomb. Rt Hon. Sir John C. R.||Helder, Augustus||Morrell, George Herbert|
|Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole.||Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer|
|Mount, William Arthur||Royds, Clement Molyneux.||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Rutherford, John (Lincashire)||Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward|
|Muntz, Sir Philip A.||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford||Tumour, Viscount|
|Myers, William Henry||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander||Vincent, Col Sir CEH (Sheffield|
|Nicholson, William Graham||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)||Seton-Karr, Sir Henry||Walrond, Rt HnSir William H.|
|Parker, Sir Gilbert||Sharpe, William Edward T.||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Peel, Hn. Wm RobertWellesley||Shaw-Stewart. Sir H. (Renfrew)||Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE (Taunton|
|Percy, Earl||Smith, HC(North'mb. Tyneside||Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne|
|Plummer, Sir Walter R.||Smith, Rt Hn J Parker(Lanarks||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)||Wilson A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Pretyman, Ernest George||Spear, John Ward||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Pryce-Jones, Lt. (Col. Edward||Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk||Wilson-Todd, Sir W H (Yorks.)|
|Purvis, Robert||Stanley, EdwardJas (Somerset||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Rankin, Sir James||Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart|
|Rasch, Sir Frederic Came||Stewart, Sir Mark J M'Taggart||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Ratcliff, R. F.||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.||Wylie, Alexander|
|Remnant, James Farquharson||Stock, James Henry||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine||Stone, Sir Benjamin||Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.|
|Renwick, George||Talbot, Lord E. (Caichester)||Younger, William|
|Ridley, S. Forde||Talbot, Rt. Hn J G (Ox 'd Univ.|
|Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia,|
|Rolleston, Sir John F. L.||Thorburn, Sir Walter|
|Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Round, Rt. Hon. James||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Farrell, James Patrick||Lewis, John Herbert|
|Allen, Charles P.||Fenwick, Charles||Lundon, W.|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Ffrench, Peter||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Field, William||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E.)||MacVeagh, Jeremiah|
|Back, Alexander William||Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)|
|Blake Edward||Flavin, Michael Joseph||M'Crae, George|
|Boland, John||Flynn, James Christopher||M'Kenna, Reginald|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Fuller, J. M. F.||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)|
|Brigg, John||Gilhooly, James||Mansfield, Horace Rendal|
|Bright, Allan Heywood||Gladstone, RtHnHerbert John||Markham, Arthur Basil|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Goddard, Daniel Ford||Mooney, John J.|
|Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.||Murnaghan, George|
|Burt, Thomas||Hammond, John||Murphy, John|
|Buxton, Sydney Chas. (Poplar)||Harcourt, Lewis||Nannetti Joseph P.|
|Caldwell, James||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil||Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N)|
|Cameron, Robert||Harrington, Timothy||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Hayden, John Patrick||Nussey, Thomas Willans|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Helme, Norval Watson||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Hemphill. Rt. Hn. Charles H||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||Henderson, Arthur (Durham.||O'Connor. James (Wick ow, W.|
|Cogan, Denis J.||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||O'Connor, John, (Kildare, N.)|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Hutchinson, Dr. Chas. Fredk.||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark||Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)||O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)|
|Crean, Eugene||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)|
|Cremer, William Randal||Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea||O'Dowd, John|
|Crombie, John William||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)|
|Cullinan, J.||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||O'Kelly. James (Roscommon|
|Delany, William||Jordan, Jeremiah||O'Malley, William N|
|Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway||Joyce, Michael||O'Mara, James|
|Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)||Kearley, Hudson E.||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N.||Parrott, William|
|Dobbie, Joseph||Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W||Partington, Oswald|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Kilbride, Denis||Paulton, James Mellor|
|Doogan, PC.||Lambert, George||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)|
|Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)||Lamont, Norman||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Duffy, William J.||Langley, Batty||Priestley, Arthur|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)||Reddy, M.|
|Edwards, Frank||Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Richards, Thomas|
|Emmott, Alfred||Levy, Maurice||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)||Soares, Ernest J.||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Roche, John||Spencer, Rt Hn CR (Northants||White, Patrick (Meath North)|
|Rose, Charles Day||Stanhope, Hn. Philip James||Whiteley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Runciman, Walter||Sullivan, Donal||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Russell, T. W.||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radclifte)||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)||Tennant, Harold John||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Samuel S. M. (Whitechapel)||Tomkinson, James||Wilson, John (Falkirk)|
|Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight||Trevelyan, Charles Philips||Wood, James|
|Sheehan, Daniel Daniel||Ure, Alexander||Young, Samuel|
|Sheehy, David||Villiers, Ernest Amherst||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Shipman, Dr. John G.||Wallace, Robert|
|Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Lough and Mr. Eugene Walson|
|Slack, John Bamford||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney|
|Smith, Samuel (Flint)||Weir, James Galloway|
|Soames, Arthur Wellesley||White George (Norfolk)|
§ And, it being after half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.