Commons Sitting of 28 June 1905

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS
Hythe Corporation Bill [Lords]; Stepney Borough Council (Superannuation) Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Malvern Water Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP I.)
Sir JAMES WOODHOUSE Sir JAMES WOODHOUSE reported from the Committee on Group I of Private Bills; That the parties opposing the M Thames Conservancy Bill had stated that the evidence of Mr. Alfred Brooks, 72, Fenchurch Street, E. C. was essential to their case: and, it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Mr. Alfred Brooks do attend the said Committee on Tuesday next, at Eleven of the clock.
Ordered, That Mr. Alfred Brooks do attend the Committee on Group I of Private Bills on Tuesday next, at Eleven of the clock.

PETITIONS.
  CHURCH DISCIPLINE BILL.
  Petition of Sion College, against; to lie upon the Table.
  CHURCH ORGANISATION AND DISCIPLINE BILL.
  Petition of Sion College, against; to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIAL MARRIAGES BILL.
  Petition of Sion College, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Lewis, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petition of Sion College, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 23rd June, 1905, declaring that Alfred William Cousins, Royal Laboratory, was appointed without a Civil Service Certificate through inadvertence on the part of the Head of his Department [by Act] to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAYS CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES ACT, 1864.
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade on an Application made during the year 1904 under the Act, and of the Proceedings of the Board of Trade with respect thereto [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 213.]
  RAILWAY COMPANIES POWERS ACT, 1864.
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade on an Application made during the year 1904 under the Act, and of the Proceedings of the Board of Trade with respect thereto [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 214.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3426 and 3427 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Postal Deliveries in Townships of Mullinavat, Kilmacow, and Mooncoin.
  MR. O'MARA: To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the morning mail from Dublin is not delivered in the townships of Mullinavat, Kilmacow, or Mooncoin until late in the afternoon, whereas the train bearing these letters stops at all stations;

  355
  and whether, in view of the small extra cost involved, he will have letters for these stations sorted in Dublin or en route and delivered on arrival of the morning mail train.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I have made inquiry on the question of establishing an additional service such as that suggested by the hon. Member, but I find that the cost of the existing service is so high that I should not be justified in incurring the expense necessary for meeting the hon. Member's wishes in the matter.

  Payment for Sunday Duty on Irish Travelling Post Offices.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Postmaster-General if a change is contemplated as regards the payment for Sunday duty on the Irish travelling post offices; and, if so, will he state the nature and scope of such a change.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The question is under consideration; and due notice will be given to the staff should any change be made.

  Cheap Labour in Submarine Boat Construction.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: To ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether, having regard to the recent accident to a submarine vessel in His Majesty's Navy and to a promise given by him on the 25th April, 1904, that inquiry would be made i to the cheap labour employed in the construction of these vessels, he will now state the result of his inquiry.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The inquiry showed that two labourers had been employed as improvers on work connected with the electric wiring of submarines at a rate less than that current for mechanics. The work done was inspected and found satisfactory.

  Treatment of British Subjects in the Congo Free State.
  MR. COGHILL: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any representations have been addressed by His Ma-
  356
  jesty's Government to the Sovereign of the Congo State with reference to the administration of that country; and whether His Majesty's Government is satisfied that adequate protection is given to British subjects in the Congo State, since the issue of the circular to the Powers.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) No recent complaints have been received in regard to the treatment of British subjects in the Congo, and it is hoped that by the appointment of two British Vice-Consuls, to reside at Leopoldville and Stanleyville respectively, their interests will be under closer supervision than has hitherto been possible.

  Swine Fever.
  MR. J. H. LEWIS: To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture how many reports of suspected cases of swine fever were received by the Board and how many were confirmed by the officers of the Board, in the years 1904 and 1905, respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) In the twenty-five weeks ending June 24th, 1905,3,507 suspected cases of swine fever were reported, and 390 of these were confirmed. During the corresponding period in 1904 the reported cases numbered 4,398 and the confirmed cases 752.

  Increased Postal Facilities for the North of Ireland.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Postmaster-General what would be the extra cost, if any, of an evening mail service via Greenore to London, the Midlands, and South of England.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he has received a resolution from the Omagh Urban District Council praying for an evening mail service via Greenore to London, the Midlands, and South of England; and whether, in view of the fact that this arrangement will confer a great boon upon the towns between Derry and Dundalk, on the Great Northern Railway, and can be carried out

  357
  without altering existing arrangements, he will grant this concession.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The actual additional cost of the suggested service cannot be stated, but the conveyance of each bag would have to be paid for, and there would also be special expense for bringing the bags from Euston Station to the General Post Office, besides the cost of station service in respect of many of the bags to provincial towns. I have received the resolution from the Omagh Urban District Council referred to in the second Question, but, as the hon. Member is no doubt aware, a considerable improvement is about to be carried out in the service from the North of Ireland to England by way of Larne. As regards the towns between Derry and Dundalk, I am now making inquiry as to the improvement which can be affected.

  Discharges of Workmen from Devonport Dockyard.
  MR KEARLEY: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the undertaking recently given by the Admiralty that the rates of discharges in the Royal dockyards should be limited to twenty-five per week, he will explain why the average discharges at Devonport Yard for some weeks past amount to seventy per week, and that in addition ninety-three men received a week's notice on Friday last to terminate their employment.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) It has been found necessary to increase the average discharges on reduction at Devonport to seventy instead of twenty-five per week as originally intended, as otherwise sufficient work could not be found for economical employment. In addition, ninety-two men received a week's notice on Friday last to terminate their employment, consequent on ninety-two apprentices coming out of their time who are entitled under contract to employment in the yard.
  MR. BENN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in regard to the discharges now taking place at Devonport, in accordance with a
  358
  recent notice from the Admiralty, that as apprentices completed their indentures, room was to be made for them by an equivalent dismissal of hired men, his attention has been directed to a system, now introduced for the first time, of selecting for dismissal, from gangs expressly formed for their fitness to carry out special work, experienced men of from thirteen to twenty-five years service, who, but for this new arrangement, would secure such continuity of employment as usually attaches to seniority and ability; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any, and, if any, what action in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) In order to ensure that the necessary reductions in numbers borne are actually carried out, it is necessary to provide against automatic increases, such as the entry of apprentices completing their indentures. Under the existing dockyard regulations the Admiralty are under agreement with the apprentices that:—"On coming out of their time, and subject to their good behaviour, they will be entered for a period of two years as journeymen, and will not be discharged during that time. "This regulation is not recent, as suggested in the hon. Member's Question; nor would it be economical to discharge apprentices just when their services are beginning to justify the outlay on their training. The selection of men to be discharged is left to the discretion of the dockyard officers. The least efficient me a are the first to be discharged, but in course of time, owing to the numbers of discharges necessary, it is inevitable that desirable men come within the scope of the order. Men of the servitude named, however, would have earned a gratuity. It is not proposed to interfere in any way with the discretion of the dockyard officers in carrying out this duty.

  Repairs to Fountains in Kensington Gardens.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: To ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he will state on what date the repairs to the fountains in Kensington Gardens, which are now being again undertaken, were first begun; in what those repairs consisted; when

  359
  they are likely to be completed; whether the repairs have been carried out by a contractor or by the Office of Works; what was the cost originally estimated; and what is likely to be the actual cost.
  (Answered by Lord Balcarres.) The hon. Member is under some misapprehension as to repairs to the fountains in Kensington Gardens "now being again undertaken. "All works were completed some three months back. The fountains were started in April of this year, and have continued playing since. The renewal of the deep-well pumps, the removal of old boilers and the supply of new, and the rebuilding of the engines commenced in 1903. It has been necessary to deal with the service in sections. The works have been carried out by contractors, the original cost being estimated at £2,448 and the actual cost being £2,583.

  Motor Traffic Regulations in the Royal Parks.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: To ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether it is proposed to extend the regulation, closing Hyde Park to motor vehicles between four and seven p.m. to the other Royal Parks.
  (Answered by Lord Balcarres.) The reply is in the negative, as there is no proposal before the First Commissioner to extend the regulation.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether, instead of limiting to the hours between four p.m. and seven p.m. as the time during which motor cars are excluded from Hyde Park, he will consider the advisability of excluding them entirely from all public parks under the control of the First Commissioner of Works.
  (Answered by Lord Balcarres.) The First Commissioner is not prepared to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member.

  Motor-Car Drivers' Licences.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state how many licences have been issued
  360
  to male and female motorists respectively, other than professional chauffeurs.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The only information I have as to the number of licences granted to drivers of motor-cars is that contained in the Parliamentary Return issued last year, from which it appeared that up to April 1st, 1904,5,152 licences had been granted to drivers of motor-cycles and. 35,518 to drivers of motor-cars. The Return, however, does not specify the number of licences given to male and female drivers respectively, or the number given to professionals.

  Motor-Car Licences and Regulations
  MR. WEIR: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the regulations existing in France controlling the issue of licences to chauffeurs, and other matters relating to motor-cars; whether he will consider the advisability of placing similar restrictions on the issue of licences in the United Kingdom; and will he also requite licence-holders to have their photographs on their licences, as abroad.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I am aware of the requirements of the French motor-car regulations. The question of amending the present system, of issuing licences to motor drivers is one of the subjects that will be considered in, the course of the inquiry into the working of the Motor-Car Acts which the Government propose to institute.

  Suggested Tax on Motor-Cars
  MR. WEIR: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the expediency of placing a tax on motor-cars on a scale rising in proportion to their horse-power.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) Yes, Sir.

  Fruit Preserving Experiments in Drogheda and Portadown.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the industrial concerns for preserving fruit and vegetables, commenced some two years

  361
  ago by the Department of Agriculture in Drogheda and Portadown, have been closed; and, if so, why has not the experiment of these concerns been carried on for a longer period; whether he can state the expenditure and income respectively of these two enterprises, detailing their respective expenditure for salaries, rents, wages, machinery, materials, and produce purchased, cost of experimental crops, and other expenses incurred; and also of the income received, detailing the several classes of goods sold, and the average price obtained, and the total. amount realised for each description, with the value realised for the crops produced; and, if the machinery and implements have been sold, setting out the cost of same and the amount for which they were sold in each case.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I have not yet completed my inquiries into the various matters referred to in this Question, and will thank the hon. Member to postpone it until Monday next.

  Waveney School, Ballymena.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say if the National Commissioners received a memorial in support of an application for aid to Waveney School, Ballymena; and whether, in view of the signatures attached to the memorial signifying approval of aid being granted to this school, he will request the Commissioners to reconsider their decision in regard to this school.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Several memorials in support of the application for aid to Waveney School were received by the Commissioners. The representations were carefully considered before the Board arrived at the decision refusing recognition to this school. The case has been under consideration more than once, and the Commissioners see no reason to alter their decision.

  Decision as to Retention of Lance as Weapon for Lancers and Dragoons,
  COLONEL LEGGE: To ask the Secretary of
  362
  State for War whether it has been decided to retain the lance as part of the equipment of regiments of Lancers, Dragoon Guards, and Dragoons.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The instructions laid down in Army Order 39 of March, 1903, with regard to the use of the lance, are still in force.

  Death Rate in Old Calabar Gaol.
  MR. JAMES O'KELLY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the death rate in the Old Calabar Gaol, where there are always from 400 to 500 prisoners, the majority of whom are crowded into cells at the rate of twenty-six par cell, and where some cells contain no fewer than thirty-five prisoners; and whether, seeing that out of 200 prisoners sent from Asaba in the beginning of last year only five are now alive, and in view of the number of cases of suicides among the prisoners, he will say whether he proposes to take any, and, if so, what, steps in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) My attention has been called to a statement in a newspaper to this effect, and an inquiry is being made into the matter.

  Punishment of Chinese Coolies in South Africa.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any official information as to frequent licking into shape of the Chinese coolies by Chinese policemen, and as to sentences of from five to fifty strokes on the culprit stripped and flung down on his face, one policeman holding his head and another his feet; and, if so, will he say under what law and by whose authority these punishments are inflicted.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I have no such information.

  Grant of Land to the Anglo-Newfound land Development Company.
  MR. LEIF JONES: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Government of Newfoundland paid

  363
  in 1901 the sum of 850,000 dollars to recover from Mr. R. G. Reid certain lands which had been granted to him by Act of Legislature; and that the same Government is now proposing to grant to the Anglo-Newfoundland Development Company, Limited, a perpetually renewable lease of a far larger area of land comprising the whole watershed of the Exploits River; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  MR. NUSSEY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that the Newfoundland Crown Lands Act, 1903, demands a payment of five dollars per square mile for the first year and of three dollars per square mile thereafter for all the lands granted under a ninety-nine years pulp limit lease, and that the perpetually renewable lease now proposed to be granted to the Anglo-Newfoundland Development Company, Limited, provides for the payment of two dollars per square mile only and expressly exempts the lessees from any payment whatever for swamp and barren lands, he proposes to take any, and, if any, what, action in the matter.
  MR. SOARES (Devonshire,): To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, under the Bill lately passed by the Newfoundland Legislature to confirm a contract made with the Anglo-Newfoundland Development Company, Limited, for the purpose of utilising the timber resources of the colony in the establishment of pulp and paper industries, the lessees are granted full mineral and quarry rights over an area estimated at 2,100,000 acres, such rights not being necessary for the stated purposes of the contract, and being subject only to a nominal charge of 5 per cent, on the net profits of the sale of precious and other metals, minerals, and mineral substances; and that the lessees are free from the provisions of the existing law as to the verification and proof of accounts by holders of mineral licences; and whether, seeing that the terms of the lease are contraiy in these and other respects to the express provisions of the Crown Lands Act of 1903, now in force in the colony, he will
  364
  state what action, if any, he proposes to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I can only refer the hon. Members to the Answer which I gave on June 22nd† To other Questions on the subject of this contract.

  Cost of Transvaal Governor's and Lieutenant-Governor's Establishments.
  MR. WHITLEY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been called to the fact that, according to the Treasury accounts of the Transvaal Government for the year ending June 30th, 1904, the expenses of the establishments of the Governor and Lieutenant-Governor amounted to a sum of £63,860, in addition to £30,000 set aside for buying a house for the Governor and £40,000 for the-building of a house for the Lieutenant-Governor, and that these expenses included such items as £1,535 8s. 8d. for a dance given at the Wanderers Hall, Johannesburg; and whether, having regard to the fact that the establishment of the late President Kruger only involved an annual cost of £7,700, he will call for greater economy in the Transvaal administration until the obligation of the £30,000,000 war contribution has been discharged.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I must remind the hon. Member that His Majesty's Government has elected to treat the new colonies as self-governing colonies in all matters in which Imperial interests are not directly concerned. The items of expenditure referred to clearly fall within the scope of this principle, and the Appropriation Ordinances which provide for them have been duly passed by the local Legislature. I may add that I am unable to follow all the hon. Member's figures and the comparison which he makes requires considerable qualification, because the expenses of the Governor's establishment (part of which is borne by Orange River Colony funds) and of the l Lieutenant-Governor's cover some items like clerical assistance and cables which appear separately in the Estimates of the South African Republic. In the case of
  †See (4) Debates, cxlvii., 1350.

  365
  the Governor's house, the sum set aside for its purchase would remove a charge of £1,900 per annum for rent. I feel sure that Lord Selborne may be relied upon to practise all reasonable-economy in these matters, and I may say that considerable retrenchments have been made by the Administration within the last year. It must be remembered, in dealing with the expenditure referred to, that the cost of land, building, and living, which enormously increased during and after the war, still remains very high.

  Disturbances at Angelo and New Comet Mines.
  MR. LEVY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will give particulars of the disturbances which took place on the 14th and 15th of May amongst the employees of the Angelo and New Comet Mines; what were the causes which produced the disturbances; and whether, seeing that five Chinese, four Kaffirs, and one Indian coolie were killed, what steps he proposes to take to prevent a recurrence of such incidents.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I have not yet received an official account of these disturbances; but I have asked for a Report.

  Alleged Cruelty to a Native at the Crœsus Gold Mine, Langlaate
  MR. LEIF JONES: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to a case tried before Mr. Van den Berg, at "A" Court, Johannesburg, on 17th May, 1905, in which an overseer at the Croesus Gold Mine, Langlaate, was fined £20 for cruelty to a native, and in which the indictment alleged that, on 8th May, the accused assaulted one of his native employees, named Jim Simali, by handcuffing him to an iron staple attached to a wooden plank made fast to the floor, keeping him in that position for four days without food or drink; whether he will take steps to have the man convicted of this crime removed from his post as overseer; and whether he will devise some greater safeguards than at present exist to prevent the occurrence of similar incidents in future.
  366
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lytelton.) I am asking the Governor for a report on this case, and for his observations as to the steps which the Government may be able to take, not merely to punish such offences but to prevent their occurrence. In the newspaper account of the trial which I have seen the accused is referred to as "a contractor," and not as "an overseer," and the magistrate found as a fact that the native had not been kept without food and drink.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    South African War Stores Inquiry— Officers Believed from Duty.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State War how many of the officers criticised in the Butler Report have been relieve from duty, and when were they thus relieved; and whether their salaries are to be fully paid while they are suspended from the discharge of the duties appertaining to their offices.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORESTER,)Five Army Service Corps officers Were relieved from duty on May 26th, and three Army Pay Department officers on June 9th. They are still drawing pay.

    South African War Stores Inquiry—Alleged Destruction of Official Documents.
    MR SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when did it come to his knowledge that according to the statement in the Butler Committee important documents bearing on the South African contracts and refunds had been lost or destroyed; when did he take steps and give orders that all documents connected with the inquiry both at home or in South Africa should be impounded; whit are the steps he has taken for the impounding of these documents; and what assurance, if any, can he give the House of Commons that those steps will be effective.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: In view of the further inquiry necessitated by the Report of Sir William Butler's Committee,

    367
    the Army Council decided to impound all documents connected therewith. A telegram to this effect was accordingly despatched on June 19th to the General Officer Commanding, South Africa, to take the necessary measures. Corresponding action was also taken in regard to the documents in the War Office.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: The right hon. Gentleman has not told me exactly how those documents were impounded. In whose hands were they kept?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I am responsible for taking care of them.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: When did the War Office get the Report?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I cannot say off-hand.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Was it not on April 13th?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, the hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: What was the date, Sir.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice.

    Officers and Libel Actions.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is in accordance with the rules and practice of the service for an officer who is still serving in the Army to bring a civil action with reference to any matter in relation to his conduct in the discharge of his duties until he has obtained the sanction of the War Office authorities in taking this step; whether the actions recently brought against The Times newspaper and the Daily News by Colonel Morgan, in which he obtained verdicts with damages against those papers, were brought at the instigation of he War Office; whether the consent of the War Office was previously obtained by Colonel Morgan for instructing his solicitors to bring an action for libel against the Daily News for its article in the issue of 16th June commenting on the Butler Retort, and was this step taken at the instiga-
    368
    tion of the War Office; and, if so, will he explain the circumstances in which the War Office gave consent to the bringing of this action or instigated that proceeding.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: There is no rule against officers taking legal action to defend their private characters when aspersed. Colonel Morgan informed the War Office of the action he had taken in reference to the articles in The Times and Daily News. He was not in any way instigated by the War Office to take such action.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: pressed for an Answer to the last part of his Question.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: He neither received nor required the sanction of the War Office.

    Colonel Morgan's Action.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is in accordance with the rules and practice of the service for an officer still serving in the Army to instruct his solicitors, as Colonel Morgan has done, to write to the Secretary of State for War letters with reference to the publication and the merits of a Departmental Report reflecting on his conduct; had Colonel Morgan, before taking this step, the sanction of the War Office authorities; and, if so, under what circumstances was that sanction given; whether, having regard to the fact that the better, dated June 19th, from Colonel Morgan's solicitors to the right hon. Gentleman, commenting on the Butler Report, has been published in the Press with his consent, why has his consent, solicited by Colonel Morgan in that letter, to send the complete correspondence to the Press, containing a letter from Colonel Morgan's solicitors on May 31st, protesting against the publication of the Butler Report, been withheld; and whether he will now publish, or consent to the publication of, the complete correspondence between himself and Colonel Morgan's solicitors on the subject.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Colonel Morgan has been permitted, since the

    369
    commencement of his civil actions for libel, to communicate with the War Office through the medium of his solicitors. Permission was granted to Colonel Morgan's solicitors to publish the letter of June 19th in the Press. The correspondence on this special feature of the case consisted of the above-quoted letter and our reply there to.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: In the letter which the Secretary of State allowed to be published there was a distinct reference to a letter written by Colonel Morgan's solicitors on May 31st, protesting against the publication of the Report. Will the right hon. Gentleman lay that letter on the Table or allow it to be published?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I have no power to prevent its publication.

    Natal field Force Canteen Balance.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is now prepared to lay a detailed statement of account respecting the £470,000 balance, stated by Lieutenant-Colonel Morgan in his-evidence before the Royal Commission on the South African War to be standing to the credit of the Natal Field Force canteens when that officer left South Africa; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the present working of the South African garrison institute system which grew out of the field force canteen system.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The field force canteens accounts will come within the purview of the Royal Commission. A report on the working of the South African garrison institutes is due from South Africa in July, and until I have seen it I cannot say what steps will be taken in regard to it.

    General Lyttelton.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any communications, verbal or written, have passed between General Sir Neville Lyttelton and the War Office with reference to retiring from his present position or being transferred to another post.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The reply is in the negative.

    The Destruction of Rations in South Africa
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what steps he proposes to take to investigate the circumstances attending the condemnation and destruction of £295,823 worth of emergency and other rations supplied for the use of the troops in South Africa, as described in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General [Command 45] issued on March 10th, 1905.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The Royal Commission will have power to deal with this question if at any stage of their proceedings they think it would throw light on the particular subject they have been asked to investigate.
    SIR A. HAYTERasked whether the case mentioned by the hon. Member for North Camberwell would come within the purview of the Royal Commission, since it was a case of a con tractor supplying rations condemned after the war. If so, it might be unfair to the contractor to be called upon to appear before the Public Accounts Committee if he was afterwards to appear before the Royal Commission.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It would be very improper for me to dictate to the Commission what will or will not be relevant to the inquiry with which they have been charged; but speaking merely from my own impressions I should conjecture that this subject would probably not come under their survey, and it would be quite proper for the Public Accounts Committee to examine into it. But that is merely a personal view taken with imperfect knowledge.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is it to be understood that the terms of reference will cover not only the sale of stores but their destruction?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot add to what I have said. The reference is, and was intended to be, a wide one, and

    371
    I think it is universally recognised as such, but exactly how the Commissioners will interpret it is not for me to judge, for it has passed out of my hands. I did my best to frame the reference on broad lines, but it would not be right to offer an authoritative interpretation of it now the Commissioners are at their work.
    DR. MACNAMARAasked whether, if the Commission held that the subject was not within their reference, the Government would engage that there should be an inquiry into the circumstances of the destruction of the stores.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir; the machinery is already provided in the Public Accounts Committee.

    Debate on War Office Administration.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the fact that the Royal Commission appointed to investigate the Report of the Butler Committee will be confined to a consideration of the circumstances connected with contracts, sales, and refunds to contractors in South Africa, he will give the House an opportunity of discussing the other matters of War Office administration dealt with in the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee, 1904, and of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, 1905.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The opportunity which I have engaged to give the House on the Estimates for the discussion of the Report of the Public Accounts Committee will, I hope, meet the views of the hon. Gentleman.

    The Royal Commission.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the fact that the members of the proposed Royal Commission of inquiry into the circumstances of the Government contracts and refunds in South Africa will be appointed by the Crown on his advice or responsibility and that the proposed inquiry concerns not merely the incriminated officers but the Cabinet in its collective capacity, the House of Commons will be given an opportunity of expressing its confidence
    372
    or otherwise in the gentlemen whom he intends to recommend to the Crown for appointment as members of this Commission; and whether he will give an. undertaking that he will not propose any gentleman to serve on that Commission who has been the recipient of honours, or has been or is the holder of any office of place or profit under the Crown on the recommendation of any member of the present Cabinet, or who has been or is a Government contractor, or a director of a company having contracts with Government Departments, or a director of any public company of which a member of the present Administration is also a director.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This Question was put down before the Commission was announced. I imagine the hon. Member does not now need an Answer to it.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: No, but it is a record of my idea.

    Military Manœuvres in Ireland.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether military Manœuvres on a large scale are to take place in Ireland in 1906, and whether any port on of the cost of these Manœuvres will be borne by Ireland, and what its probable amount; and whether, in view of the reports of experts on last year's military Manœuvres in England and the expenditure of time and money involved, he will consider the desirability of abandoning the proposed Manœuvres in Ireland next year.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The question of what Army Manœuvres will be held, in 1906 has not yet been considered.

    General Elles.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether any communication has reached the India Office on the subject of the resignation, transfer, or recall of General Sir E. R. Elles.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR-INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,): I have really nothing to add to the Answer I gave yesterday†. I have had
    † See page 253.

    373
    no communication on the subject except the despatch which was published to the House, in which Sir E. Elles stated that he had but a few months to serve, but if any changes were contemplated in has department he would desire to offer his resignation. Those changes are contemplated, and, that being so, he will probably desire to offer his resignation. In that case care will be taken that he will not be the loser by any changes.
    MR. MACVEAGH: It is stated in the newspapers that General Elles has stated that he has resigned, and that he under-stands that his resignation has been accepted. Has he resigned, and does the Secretary for India understand that he has resigned, and that his resignation has been accepted?
    MR. BRODRICK: I cannot answer more clearly than I have already done.
    MR. MACVEAGH: You can say "Yes" or "No."
    MR. BRODRICK: He has indicated his intention of resigning if certain changes were made. Since then have received no communication from General Elles, but it has been intimated to the Government of India that certain changes will be made which will, no doubt, involve General Elles's resignation.
    MR. MACVEAGH: How many communications have been received, from Lord Kitchener on this matter?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Lord Curzon.
    MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, having regard to the various conflicting reports in the public Press on the subject, he will state: (1) whether at any time since his recent visit to this country the Viceroy of India has intimated his intention of resigning office in the event of the powers of the Commander-in-Chief in India being largely increased: (2) whether any communication expressing disapproval of the decision of the Government in this matter has been received from Lord
    374
    Curzon, and h he in a position to give a denial to the reports that the Viceroy's resignation is impending.
    MR. BRODRICK: The House is aware from the despatches which have been published that a difference of opinion has arisen between the Commander-in-Chief in India and the Governor-General in Council as to the administration of the Army in India. I have nothing to add to what has been published except to say in reply to the second Question that since the receipt of the recent despatch conveying the decision of His Majesty's Government on the question at issue between the authorities in india, a communication has been received from the Viceroy suggesting certain modifications in the proposed arrangements, which are now under the consideration of His Majesty's Government. The Viceroy has not tendered his resignation.
    MR. DALZIEL: With regard to the suggested modifications, may I ask if Lord Curzon has intimated that in the event of his view not being adopted he will tender his resignation?
    MR. BRODRICKmade no reply,
    MR. DALZIEL: I presume I may take it that is so?
    MR. BRODRICKshook his head.

    Venezuela
    MR. STUART SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government of Venezuela has already paid into the Bank of England the amounts of money due to the British Government and the Governments of Germany and Italy under the award of the Tribunal of Arbitration according to the Agreement of February 13th, 1903; if so, what are the partial totals of each payment made by the said Government of Venezuela towards the fulfilment of its obligations according to the settlement with each of the above stated Governments; and on what dates were the said partial payments made.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,): It was provided by Article V. of the Protocol of 13th February, 1903, that "pending the decision of The Hague Tribunal" as to the question of priority the receipts of the Customs of the Ports of La Gueyra and Puerto Cabello should be paid over to the representative of the Bank of England at Caracas. From April 1st of that year, therefore, down to the date of the Hague Award (February 22nd, 1904) the monthly instalments were duly lodged in the Bank of England, and these at the latter date amounted to upwards of £178,500. This sum was then distributed between Great Britain, Germany, and Italy in proportion to the aggregate of the Awards obtained by each Power from the Claims Commissions up to that date, viz:—approximately, Great Britain £104,500, Germany £23,000, Italy £50,600. The Customs receipts after that time were retained at Caracas and were in the first instance distributed there by the Legations of the three Powers on the same principle. When, however, the Awards of the British, German, and Italian mixed Commissions had been completed a fixed ratio was established and the monthly instalments are now handed over by Venezuela directly to the representatives of the three Powers at Caracas. The amount of Customs receipts down to April last paid by Venezuela to His Majesty's Government is £224,369, or somewhat over 60 per cent, of the British claims, which, to that extent, have now been paid or are in process of payment.

    Misappropriation of Trust Funds.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General if he can inform the House how many cases of misappropriation of trust funds have been reported to the Lord Chancellor by the Incorporated Law Society in the fifteen years ending May 31st, 1905; and what sum of money was lost to the beneficiaries by the misfeasance of the delinquents in question.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,): These cases are not reported to the Lord
    376
    Chancellor. I am informed by the officials of the Incorporated Law Society that, during the fifteen years ended May 31st, 1905, there were sixty-one such cases, and that the total amount of trust funds misappropriated was approximately £152,110.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: May I ask whether cases of solicitors being struck off the rolls are not reported to the Lord Chancellor?
    SIR ROBERT FINLAY: If any solicitor is dealt with by the High Court on the application of the Incorporated Law Society he is Reported to the Lord Chancellor. During the last three years there have been fifty-six such cases.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: In how many of these cases were members of the Incorporated Law Society implicated?
    SIR ROBERT FINLAYwas understood to say he did not know.

    Motors in Hyde Park.
    MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether some road in Hyde Park can be set apart for motor cars and bicycles where they would be free from the dangers and smells arising from horse traffic, as in Paris and Berlin.
    LORD BALCARRES (Lancashire, Chorley): The First Commissioner regrets that he is unable to adopt this suggestion.

    Complaints against Motor-Cars in Hyde Park.
    MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether any complaints have been received from the public as to motorcars in Hyde Park; and, if so, the nature of the complaints.
    LORD BALCARRES: The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative: noise, speed, smell, smoke, and dust are complained of.
    MR. SOARES: Cannot the noble Lord also add danger?
    MR. BRIGHT: Is it not the fact that there is no smell or disagreeableness from electric cars?
    LORD BALCARRES: Perhaps no smell; but there may be objections of another sort.

    The New Motor-Car Regulation for Hyde Park.
    MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU: On behalf of the hon. Member for Coventry, I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether, in view of the fact that the sudden curtailment of ordinary rights of locomotion hitherto enjoyed by owners of electric and other mechanically-propelled carriages in the parks must involve serious consequences to those interested in the manufacture and sale of such carriages, he will take steps to cancel the order recently issued prohibiting the circulation of such carriages in Hyde Park between four and seven.
    LORD BALCARRES: The First Commissioner regrets that he is unable to cancel the regulation referred to.

    Suggested Modification of the New Motor-Car Regulation in Hyde Park
    MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether, seeing that the road within Hyde Park from Hyde Park Corner to the Marble Arch is wider than the rest of the roadways in Hyde Park, he will recommend that motor-cars, not used for purposes of trade, may be allowed within the now prohibited hours in the afternoon to proceed along the road in the Park from Hyde Park Corner to the Marble Arch, and vice versa.
    LORD BALCARRES: The First Commissioner regrets that he is unable to make the alteration suggested.

    Electrical Landaulettes in Hyde Park.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner
    378
    of Works, if he can state upon what grounds electrical landaulettes are excluded from Hyde Park between the hours of four and seven p.m. seeing that they emit no offensive odours and are limited by their construction to slow speed.
    LORD BALCARRES: They are excluded in the interests of the public who do not use motor-cars.

    Amalgamation of Offices of Crown Solicitor for County Antrim and Sessional Crown Solicitor for Belfast.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he can state if any economy has been effected by the amalgamition of the offices of Crown Solicitor for county Antrim and Sessional Crown Solicitor for the city of Belfast; and, if so, what is the amount saved by the new arrangement.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): A saving of £50 a year in salaries has been effected.
    MR. JOSEPH DELVIN: To what fund is it paid?
    MR. MACVEAGH: Is it carried to the Development Fund?
    MR. ATKINSON: No, Sir.

    Irish Language in Irish Schools
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether an inspector of national schools, named Connolly, is acting on the instructions of the Board of Education in endeavouring to discourage teachers from giving instruction to their pupils in Irish in places where the managers and the parents wish the language to be taught to the children.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG,): Mr. Connolly, Senior Inspector of National Schools, has received no instructions to discourage teachers from giving instruction to their pupils in Irish, and he denies that he is doing so.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: If I send him the statements of teachers will the right hon. Gentleman inquire further?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I will consider any statements sent me.

    School Examinations in Irish
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether arrangements have been made whereby national schools, in Irish-speaking parts of Ireland, adopting the bilingual education system will be inspected by inspectors competent to examine the children in Irish, or whether such schools will continue to be inspected by the local inspectors, irrespective of whether they are qualified to conduct the examination in both languages or not.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Arrangements have been made for the inspection, by competent inspectors, of all schools in which the bilingual programme is adopted.

    Instructions to Irish School Inspectors
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state whether the instructions issued by the Board of National Education in or about February, 1904, to their inspectors, which formed the subject of a debate in this House on March 14th, 1904, resulting in the defeat of the Government, have ever been withdrawn, or whether, in whole or in part, they have since been put in operation.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The instructions dated January (not February), 1904, were considered ambiguous in some respects, and the Board of National Education had agreed, prior to March 14th, to remove the ambiguities by the issue of a fresh circular of instructions. The form of the new circular was in fact outlined by my right Ion. friend the Member for Dover in replying to a Question put to him by their, on. Member on March 8th†, 1904.
    † See (4) Debates, exxxi., 460.
    380
    The modified instructions have since been acted upon.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I have not seen the circular, but is it a fact that children up to the fourth standard are prevented from learning Irish?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I must ask for notice of that.

    Girls' Schools in Ireland and Rule 127 (b).
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many separate national schools for girls in Ireland have only one room how many of such schools have only one teacher; and whether the Commissioners of National Education regard these single-room and single-teacher female schools as suitable in the sense of Rule 127 (b).
    MR. WALTER LONG: The number of girls' schools which have only one room cannot be stated without inquiry, which would take a considerable time. There are 1,212 girls' schools which have only one teacher, and it may be assumed that most of these schools have but one room. Whether such schools are suitable in the sense of Rule 127 (b) depends not only upon the sufficiency of the accommodation, but also upon the capacity and religious persuasion of the teacher, and her efficiency as regards the teaching of infants.

    Tobacco Growing in Ireland
    MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that only one person was authorised by the Beard of Inland Revenue to grow tobacco in Ireland last year and obtain the rebate of 1s. per pound on the produce, and that other persons who carried out experimental growing at the own cost have been refused a rebate; and if he will consider the desirability of recommending the Board of Inland Revenue to grant the rebate to these growers.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The rebate is only allowed to a limited number of growers selected by, and working under the supervision of, the Department of

    381
    Agriculture and Technical Instruction. The Department's Advisory Committee on Tobacco recommended that the experiment in 1904 should be confined to one centre, viz., Navan, and that at least twenty acres should be grown there. Others in the district having declined to offer land for the purpose, Colonel Everard undertook to plant the entire twenty acres, and consequently he was the only approved grower entitled to the rebate. The Answer to the concluding inquiry is in the negative.

    Cost of Building and Equipment for Irish Tobacco-Growing Experiments
    MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the total amount expended by the Board of Agriculture and Technical Instruction on the erection of a barn and heating apparatus for drying tobacco leaf on the estate of Colonel Everard; and whether the building and plant will become the property of this gentleman at the end of the experiments.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The amount expended was £1,725. The building and equipment remain the property of the Department, and will be disposed of by them on the completion of the experiments.

    Belfast Riot Charges
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on June 5th six young men, viz.:—Messrs. Greer, Currie, Cleland, Engleson, Ferguson, and Brown, were apprehended by the police in Belfast; and will he state whether these men were subsequently charged; and if so, what was the nature of the complaint, with the result in each case.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The six persons named were arrested by the police and charged with riotous behaviour. Each was fined 40s. and costs, and in addition all save Eagleson were required to find sureties to keep the peace. The fines were paid and the necessary recognisances entered into.

    New Recorder of Dublin.
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is intended to appoint as Recorder of Dublin a barrister sharing the religious and political opinions of the majority of the people of Dublin.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Mr. T. L. O'Shaughnessy, K. C., has been appointed as Recorder of Dublin.
    MR. MACVEAGH: Are his political and religious opinions in accord with those of the majority of the people of Dublin?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I have no knowledge whatever.
    MR. MACVEAGH: Will you appoint a Royal Commission with statutory powers to ascertain?
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: Was the Ulster Unionist Party consulted before the appointment was made?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Cusack Estate, Longford.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland will he explain the cause of delay in inspecting the Cusack (county Longford) Estate, a request for the purchase of which by the Estates Commissioners was issued on June 18th, 1904; and will he urge the Commissioners to now proceed with the acquirement and sub-division of this property.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I am informed that the necessary documents are now in the hands of the inspector for the purpose of inquiry and inspection of the estate.

    Longford Voters, Jurors, and Valuation Lists
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieu-tenant of Ireland whether he has received a copy of a resolution passed by the Longford Connty Council at their statutory meeting in favour of triennial

    383
    revision of voters, jurors, and valuation lists, or in the alternative the paying of the costs of preparing these lists out of Government funds; and whether it is proposed to take any action in this matter.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The suggestion conveyed by the resolution would involve Amendments in several Acts of Parliament and an alteration of the whole system of revision; and would apparently impose unfair burdens on the taxpayer. It is not proposed to take action in the matter.

    Dean Galbraith's Estate, County Tyrone
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Dean Galbraith, of county Tyrone, has now made an offer to his tenants in county Longford to sell this estate to them; and whether, seeing that most of the property is mountain and bog, tenanted by tenants under £4 valuation, and that this property comes within the definition of a congested estate, he will direct the attention of the Estates Commissioners to the landlord's offer, with a view to the opening of negotiations between that body and the landlord.
    MR. WALTER LONG: No proceedings as to this estate have taken place before the Commissioners, but if the estate should come before them the matter referred to in the Question will receive their attention.

    Flax Cultivation in Ulster.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the acreage under flax in Ulster at the time of the establishment of the Board of Agriculture in Ireland and the acreage now; and whether he will consider the question of issuing a special Report on the subject.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Department was established in 1900. The area under flax in Ulster in 1899 was 34,596 acres, and in 1904,44,027 acres. Articles on the flax-growing industry, and on the
    384
    results of the Department's annual experiments, have appeared from time to time in the Department's Journal, and have also been largely distributed in leaflet form. I am considering the question of the necessity of issuing a special Report.

    Norway and Sweden—Great Britain's Treaty Obligations.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury have His Majesty's Government considered the effect of the proposed dissolution of the union between Sweden and Norway upon the obligations undertaken by Great Britain in Article 2 of the Treaty of November 17th, 1855, guaranteeing the territories of the King of Sweden and Norway, and undertaking in certain eventualities to furnish naval End military forces in defence of those territories; and will these obligations be in any way impaired, so far as Great Britain is concerned, by the dissolution of the union between Sweden and Norway.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Undoubtedly, Sir, should a separation take place between the two kingdoms forming the Scandinavian Peninsula the treaty to which the hon. Member refers will require reconsideration.

    Scottish Education Bill.
    MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury on what day Committee of the Scotch Education Bill will be taken.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot fix a day for this. In my opinion the Scottish Churches Bill is of more pressing importance and should have precedence.

    Churches (Scotland) Bill.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he proposes to take the Second Reading of the Churches (Scotland) Bill.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope to take it on an early day. I am anxious to get on with it.

    NEW MEMBER SWORN.
    Augustine Roche, esquire, for the Borough of Cork.
  NEW BILL.
    WAR STORES (COMMISSION) BILL
    "To facilitate the proceedings of the Commissioners appointed to hold an investigation respecting War Stores in South Africa," presented by Mr. Attorney-General; supported by Mr. Solicitor-General; to be read a second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 257.]

MOTOR-CAR ACT (1903) AMENDMENT.
MR. SOARES (Devonshire,)in introducing a Bill to amend the Motor-Car Act of 1903, said he introduced this Bill under the ten minutes rule because, although it was a short and simple Bill, it was still, he ventured to think, one of considerable importance. It was introduced because of the debate which took place in the House a week or two ago. In that debate there was one very striking feature, namely, that all speakers, whatever view they took on other matters, were unanimous on one point. It was that something should be done with regard to "road hogs." What was a "road hog" These "road hogs" he ventured to think were defined by the first clause of the Motor-Car Act, which prescribed certain penalties for a man who recklessly, negligently, or dangerously drove a motor-car. Experience had proved fines were no deterrent to these gentlemen. They paid them and cared nothing more about it, hence he desired to alter the law in one particular only. Under Clause 1 of the Motor Act, 1903, which enacted the penalties for dangerous and reckless driving, on conviction for a first offence a magistrate had power to impose a penalty of £20, and on conviction of a second offence a penalty of £50 or three months imprisonment. He proposed to alter the law with reference to the first offence, and he proposed to give the magistrates power to inflict a fine of £20 or imprisonment for one month. This Bill had nothing whatever to do with the question of speed
386
limit. He left that entirely as it was at present, so neither the Prime Minister nor the Attorney-General nor the Secretary of the Board of Education need alarmed. He was quite sure if the Bill were adopted it would prove effective, because experience had shown that although these men did not mind running the risk of a fine they would think a longtime before they risked imprisonment He had endeavoured to be scrupulously fair in the Bill, and he had introduced a clause giving the same power of appeal in case of a savage sentence as was given under the Motor-Car Act. He did not, however, think they need fear that magistrates would act in a savage manner. In the debate the other day no complaint had been made with regard to the magistrates, and he had a letter in his pocket at that moment complaining not of the severity but of the leniency of the magistrates. If the Bill became law, he provided that it should come into force on September 1st, and it would continue as long as the Motor-Car Act of 1903. It was in no sense an anti-motor Bill, because it was backed by no lass the six Gentlemen who owned motors and took a keen interest in motoring. He appealed to the Government to assist in securing the passage of the Bill, expressing the hope that they would not shelter themselves behind the Committee to be appointed, a Committee which nobody wanted and which many thought was only being set up for the purpose of delay, and stating that if nothing were done now things would have to remain as they were till 1907, and the terrible accidents of which they read would continue to occur. He hoped also the Bill would not be blocked by any private Members, and he declared that if it were, on those hon. Members' shoulders would largely rest the responsibility for the accidents, loss of lives, and public anxiety, which were now prevalent throughout the country.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend The Motor-Car Act, 1903."
MR. SCOTT-MONTAGUhad nothing really to say against the propositions advanced by the

387
hon. Member for Barnstaple. At the same time it must not be forgotten that there was undeniably a prejudice against motor-cars in many districts, and it would be dangerous to put these stringent powers in the hands of some magistrates who, like Canon Greenwell, of Durham, were so prejudiced against cars. The existing powers were very strong; not only could a fine of £10 be inflicted for a first offence, but the licence could be suspended. He thought the House would do well to await the result of the inquiry promised by the Local Government Board. While he and his hon. friends were prepared to consider the
Bill he could not promise an easy passage for it.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked if he would be in order in moving the adjournment of the debate.
MR. SPEAKERsaid a discretion was with the Speaker whether he should put the Question that leave be given or a Motion for adjournment.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 222; Noes,)S. (Division List No. 217.)

AYES

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Donelan, Captain A.

Howard, John (Kent Faversham

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Doogan, P. C.

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Allen, Charles P.

Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Atherley-Jones, L.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hunt, Rowland

Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

Duffy, William J.

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Edwards, Frank

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Ellice, Capt EC (S. Andrw'sBghs

Jacoby, James Alfred

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

Jones, Lief (Appleby)

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Jordan, Jeremiah

Benn, John Williams

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

Joyce, Michael

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Earrell, James Patrick

Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N.)

Black, Alexander William

Fenwick, Charles

Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

Blake, Edward

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ. (Manc'r.

Kilbride, Denis

Boland, John

Ffrench, Peter

Knowles, Sir Lees

Boulnois, Edmund

Field, William

Lambert, George

Brigg, John

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Lamont, Norman

Broadhurst, Henry

Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, NE

Langley, Batty

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End)

Burke, E. Haviland

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Burt, Thomas

Flower, Sir Ernest

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Buxton, SydneyCharles (Poplar

Flynn, James Christopher

Leese, SirJoseph F. (Accrington

Caldwell, James

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Cameron, Robert

Fuller, J. M. F.

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Galloway, William Johnson

Lewis, John Herbert

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Gilhooly, James

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Gladstone. Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Lough, Thomas

Causton, Richard Knight

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Chapman, Edward

Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin & Nairn)

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

Clancy, John Joseph

Gordon, Maj. Evans (T'rH'mlets

Lundon, W.

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

Macdona, John Cumming

Cogan, Denis J.

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Grant, Corrie

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Hammond, John

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Crean, Eugene

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Malcolm, Ian

Crombie, John William

Harrington, Timothy

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Cullinan, J.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshir.

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Hayden, John Patrick

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Dalziel, James Henry

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Middlemore, JohnThrogmorton

Davenport, William Bromley

Helme, Norval Watson

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Delany, William

Higham, John Sharp

Murphy, John

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

Holland, Sir William Henry

Murray, Col. Wyndhm (Bath)

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Ridley, S. Forde

Toulmin, George

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary, Mid

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Tuff, Charles

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Ure, Alexander

O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Valentia, Viscount

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Runciman, Walter

Vincent, Col. Sir C. EH (Sheffield

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Russell, T. W.

Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

O'Donnell T. (Kery, W.)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Wallace, Robert

O'Dowd, John

Samuel, Herbert L (Cleveland)

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

O'Malley, William

Sheehy, David

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkuey)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Sloan, Thomas Henry

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Parrott, William

Smith, RtHn J. Parker (Lanarks

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Partington, Oswald

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Stanley, Hn. Arthur Ormskirk

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Woodhouse, Sir JT. (Huddersf'd

Price, Robert John

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

Reddy, M.

Sullivan, Donal

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Young, Samuel

Reid, J'ames (Greenock)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Renwick, George

Tennant, Harold John

TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Mr. Soares and Mr. Allhusen.

Richards, Thomas

Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

NOES

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Fellowes, RtHn. AilwynEdward

Myers, William Henry

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

Fison, Frederick William

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

Arrol, Sir William

Forster, Henry William

Pemberton, John S. G.

Aubrey-Fletcher. Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.

Rasch, Sir Frederick Carne

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Garfit, William

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Balcarres, Lord

Hamilton, Marq. of. (L'nd'nderry

Rose, Charles Day

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Bowles, T. Gibson(King's Lynn

Heath, Sir James (Staffords. NW

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Bright, Allan Heywood

Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

Samuel, Sir Harry S. (Limehouse

Brymer, William Ernest

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow

Jones. DavidBrynmor (Swansea

Stroyan, John

Campbell, J. H. M(Dublin Univ.

Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Levy, Maurice

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Lowe, Francis William

Turnour, Viscount

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Maconochie, A. W.

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R.

M'lver. Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

Denny, Colonel

Manners, Lord Cecil

TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Scott Montagu and Mr. Lonsdale.

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Marks, Harry Hananel

Elibank, Master of

Milvain, Thomas

Taber, George Denison (York)

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Soares, Mr. Allhusen, Mr. Cawley, Mr. Cameron Corbett, Mr. Fuller, Mr. Lambert, Mr. Lyell, Mr. Nussey, Mr. Philipps, Mr. Eemnant, Mr. Spear, and Mr. Wills.

MOTOR-CAR ACT (1903) AMENDMENT BILL.
"To amend the Motor Car Act, 1903." Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 258.]
MR. SPEAKER'S RETIREMENT BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time to-morrow.

ALIENS BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. GRANT LAWSON (Yorkshire, N. R. Thirsk) in the Chair.]
Clause 1:—
Amendment again proposed—
"In page 1, line 6, to leave out the word 'landed,' and to insert the words 'prevented from landing.'"—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
Question again proposed, "That the word 'landed' stand part of the clause."
MR. HUNTER CRAIGasked the Home Secretary whether he would consider the question of extending the number of open ports beyond those provided in the Bill. The people of the West of Scotland were particularly interested in having the port of Grangemouth included in the number of immigrant ports.
SIR CHARLES RENSHAWasked the Home Secretary whether it would be possible, where various ports were situated on the estuary, to make the estuary the unit for administrative purposes under the Bill instead of any one particular port? For instance, on one side of Scotland they had Greenock and Glasgow, both ports of importance, and on the other side, in the estuary of the Forth, they had Leith, Grangemouth, and Bo'ness. No doubt there were other similar cases in the United Kingdom, and he did think that if they could in such cases make the estuary the unit for administrative purposes it would materially facilitate the working of the Bill.
MR. BRYCEsaid that what he understood was the intention of the Government was that immigrants exceeding twenty in number could only come into the country at certain ports where inspection was provided, and that everywhere else they might come in up to the number of twenty and in successive batches. Therefore, if a number of steamers were crossing from Calais to Dover each one might bring twenty and discharge them on the quay at Dover so long as no vessel carried more than twenty. If there were more than twenty, the ship must go back to the port from which she came or must proceed to disgorge them at some port where there would be some inspection, Probably the latter course would be preferred, and the natural course that would suggest itself to any steamboat company would be to have a tender to take the immigrants exceeding twenty in number to another port where they would come in without inspection. Therefore, in all probability, transmigrants would come in large batches and would be rapidly passed through, having all their papers in order; but immigrants, on the other hand, who de-
392
sired to stay in England would come in small batches under twenty and would be landed at ports where there was no provision for inspection and would be-subject to no inquiry whatever. These people, who would come in small batches and who would be subject to inquiry whatever, were just the people they desired to exclude. The exclusion order would be of no use with regard to them, because they would not be seen until they committed some new crime.
It might be said that this was to presume an amount of organisation and care in the disposal of the immigrant which would give more trouble than it would be worth; but this immigrant traffic from the Continent of Europe had been organised on a great scale with much care and effort, and they must not assume that the companies would not adapt themselves to the conditions they would have to face if the Bill were passed, and so arrange that the transmigrant should pass through, and that those who were coming to stay and possibly prey upon the country should come in small batches and escape inspection altogether. Could anything be imagined more ineffective and absurd than this Bill. All the objects the Government set itself to attain would as defeated. He could not see, the more he looked at the Bill, what was to be attained by it, and he earnestly begged the Home Secretary and his colleagues to consider whether they would not make fools of Parliament and themselves if they insisted upon passing the Bill. Upon their own showing it had every prospect of being utterly useless. They appeared to have been deceived by a false idea of analogy between the United States and this country, but what possible analogy could there be between a country into which all the immigrants came at practically only five or six great ports, and this country, close to the Continent of Europe, and with a large number of small ports. Could they imagine anything more unlike than the conditions prevailing here and those prevailing in the United States? The system proposed by the Government would be not only costly and vexatious, but would be also ineffective.
MR. LOUGHasked if it was seriously intended that, at every port where this Bill would operate, absolute power over the shipping was to be given to the Home Secretary, who was the head of the police force, and that this branch of the commerce of the country was to be administered by the police force from a police point of view? Would not the right hon. Gentleman make some promise that he would at least give notice to our unfortunate merchantmen, to the unhappy people who imported and exported goods, before lie closed one port and opened another? The whole question required more examination than the Committee seemed disposed to give it. He asked this Question, not with the object of impeding the progress of the Bill, but because there seemed to be such absolute ignorance of the details of the system proposed to be set up.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,)said he had no intention, and should have no right, to give a preferential advantage to one port over another, always providing that the ships which this Bill proposed to deal with went to these particular ports.
MR. LOUGH: Would they all be closed?
MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: No.
MR. LOUGH: Then would they all be open?
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid the hon. Member for Islington seemed to be under some misapprehension. The principle of the Bill was to deal with the immigration of aliens in large quantities to this country. Only the aliens coming in immigrant ships in those quantities would be obliged to go to the ports listed. The ports had not been listed in the Bill in order to avoid confusion, as it might be necessary to add to them, or substitute one for another. Notice would be given to all concerned by the usual methods, by publication in the Gazette, and by communication with the ship owning companies and the foreign agents. There would
394
be no desire on the part of the Government to select too small a number of ports. When, on the First or Second Reading, he had been asked what ports would be included, he had said that certainly the eight chief ports described in the Return of the Board of Trade would be among them, but he also said that if they found that the traffic went to other ports they would be able to apply the machinery of the Bill to such ports. For instance, ship owners might desire to bring their traffic to Harwich rather than Dover, or to Queen-borough rather than Newhaven, and it was to meet such cases that they desired to have the power of transferring the machinery from one port to another. He entirely agreed with the right hon. Member for Aberdeen that there was no analogy between this country and the United States. The right hon. Gentleman had pointed out that the whole of the immigrant traffic which went to the United States practically went to five ports.
MR. BRYCE: Two or three.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid that was the reason why they had not adopted the American system in this Bill. In many ways it would have been more satisfactory if they could have done so, but the circumstances were entirely different, and their machinery must therefore he different. When the right hon. Gentleman suggested, however, that they ought to drop the first part of the Bill on that account, he entirely forgot that the Bill was introduced for the purpose of dealing with undesirable aliens who came to this country in bulk. The limit of twenty was suggested because they did not wish to put to unnecessary inconvenience ship owners who dealt with aliens who came in small parties. It was proposed to deal with criminals under Clause 3, and many of them could be dealt with by extradition. In many cases they were known to the police, and there was little difficulty in dealing with them. Whilst it was true that criminals might come through under the first part of the Bill, he believed the machinery of those two clauses would form a satisfactory provision for preventing their coming here and remaining in this country,

395
They must have regard to the general practice. He believed that by the provisions of this Bill they would secure those two objects. The machinery of the Bill was intended to deal with the landing of undesirable aliens in this country, and therefore they were not interfering with transmigration, and it was not their intention to put any difficulties in the way of transmigrants. They would allow transmigrants to pass through this country as uninterruptedly as possible, always providing that their officers were satisfied that it was a bona fide traffic, and was not being taken advantage of in order to land in this country any considerable number of undesirable aliens.
MR. DALZIELsaid they all recognised the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman had addressed the Committee, and the attitude he had taken up would great-facilitate the passing of this Bill. Although they had devoted much time to this Amendment he was sure the Home Secretary would recognise that the main principle of the Bill was raised in this Amendment. Upon this Amendment they had achieved the very important success of having got the Government to recognise that this Bill would not prevent the importation of undesirable aliens, and that was surely something. They now knew that when the Government put this Bill into the shop window throughout the country, and told the electors that if they supported the Government candidates they would pass a Bill to keep out undesirable aliens, they were stating something which was misleading.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think I had again better remind the Committee what the Amendment is. The Bill proposes that immigrant ships should be allowed to come to certain ports, and that there should be certain restrictions. The Amendment proposes that immigrant ships may come to any port, but only at certain ports should there be certain restrictions. It is to either one or the other of these proposals that the hon. Member should address himself.
MR. DALZIELsaid his point was that to attempt to limit this proposal to a certain number of ports was a mistake and ought not to be supported. Upon a previous occasion the Attorney-General spoke in defence of machinery which allowed aliens to come in at any port. But the whole machinery had now be an amended, and now they had before them, entirely different machinery altogether, which the right hon. Gentleman was no doubt equally ready to defend. The Home Secretary had admitted that this-Bill would not stop the importation of undesirable aliens.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,): He said "not entirely."
MR. DALZIELsaid they could not stop them coming in certain batches, so what was the use of pretending that this was a Bill which would keep aliens out of this country. The right hon. Gentleman said it would only stop them coming in bulk. It might be summed up by saying "large parties we cannot cater for; small parties cordially welcomed." At last they had pricked this alien bubble
THE CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member is making a Second Reading speech
MR. DALZIELsaid he was certainly not going outside the speech of the Home Secretary, but he would keep to the point as nearly as possible, and take another opportunity of dealing with the principle involved. The right hon. Gentleman was now asking for a power which the Committee ought not to give. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that he was not going to give them the names of the ports until after the Bill was passed, but he had no right to make such a demand, because the question of the different ports was the whole essence of the Bill. He supposed that it was in the West of Scotland and Glasgow that the greater part of this trade took place, and the only port they were going to include was the Port of Leith. Already the agency companies were advising the people abroad not to come to this country on account of

397
the great difficulties which were being placed in their way. This Amendment showed the utter hollowness of the claims of the Government in regard to this measure, for it was a sham measure from beginning to end.
MR. RENWICKsaid he thought hon. Gentlemen opposite spoke without any knowledge whatever of the shipping traffic. The Home Secretary, in proposing to schedule eight or nine principal ports, was doing something which would effectually deal with practically the whole of the undesirable alien traffic. The majority of the ships which traded between this country and the Continent and which carried these passengers did not carry them as a principal part of their trade. They traded to and from ports where they could get cargoes and they only carried passengers in a subsidiary way and not as ordinary passenger boats did. Therefore, he maintained that by scheduling these eight or nine principal ports practically the whole of the traffic would be covered. It was not for one moment to be supposed that ship owners were going to dodge the Act in the way hon. Gentlemen opposite contended they would. All that the shipowner got for bringing these aliens from the Continent would be from 5s. to 15s. each. Perhaps there would be ten or twenty such passengers—but that would be a large number to bring—so that all the shipowner would get from them would be £5 or £10. It would certainly not pay the shipowner to move his ship from one port to another in order to land these people. A ship from a foreign port was bound when she entered a port to put up her ensign, and she was boarded by the Customs officers and the sanitary authority and she had to pay the dues. Therefore, no owner would think of attempting to evade the Act by moving to another port. Consequently, if any undesirable wished to land at another port, he would have to pay a large sum to the shipowner or bribe the captain, and if he could afford to do that, he would not come over in an immigrant ship but as an ordinary first-class passenger. It was absurd to say that shipowners were going to dodge between ports to evade the Act.
398
He would like to read a resolution passed by the Direct Short-Sea Traders' Association, carrying on trade between London and the Continent, one of the most important bodies of shipowners in this country to show the attitude of shipowners regarding the question. This Association had 50 per cent, of the trade of the Port of London, and in the communication they sent to him they dealt with the question of the number of passengers and asked that the number twenty should be abolished and that there should be no limitation whatever, but that any ship bringing these passengers should be dealt with by the authorities. The concluding words of a resolution passed by them were to this effect—
"The Association will assist to the best of their ability any Government Department in their efforts to destroy the traffic in undesirable immigrants."
Shipowners were thus prepared to support the Government in stopping this traffic, and it ill became hon. Members opposite to infer that shipowners were going out of their way to destroy the efficiency of this Bill when it became law.
MR. BRIGHTsaid he happened to be a shipowner and knew what he was talking about when he asserted that the provisions of the Bill would not keep out the undesirable aliens, but would build up a trade at the non-scheduled ports at the expense of the scheduled ports. In fact, the Bill would give preferential treatment to particular ports, and, consequently, a preference to certain lines of steamers. A class of British shipowners engage in the Continental trade did not make a business of carrying emigrants, although glad to get an extra £10 by their ships collecting a few such passengers; but the result of what was now proposed would be that those shipowners would exert themselves to bring to this country a number of, say, nineteen emigrants every voyage where formerly they brought only perhaps a couple, if any. The bulk of the trade upon which it was sought to place restrictions was, he thought it would be admitted, a through trade, and the moment Parliament began to interfere

399
with it serious injury would be caused to the shipping trade. This kind of legislation was tried in the case of the Merchandise Marks Act, which had the effect of very greatly damaging the transhipment trade in goods; and this Bill would have a similar effect upon the transhipment trade in people. It should not be forgotten that the main business of this country was what he would call a middle business. But they all knew that, at bottom, this was really a tariff reform project. He supported the Amendment because he believed the proposal of the Bill was only an attempt to set up preferential treatment to the detriment of this country. Only one thousand immigrants who arrived in this country last year remained here, and it was to deal with so small a matter that the Government made proposals which would be sure to jeopardise a great and valuable
MR. DAVID MACIVERsaid that a great many ship owners did not share the views which had been expressed by the hon. Member who had just sat down. The views of the great companies had been well expressed by the hon. Member for East Toxteth, and by the hon. Member for Newcastle, who were perfectly satisfied with the Amendments which stood on the Paper in the name of the Attorney-General. If there was anything wrong with this Bill it was that it did not go far enough. The Amendment was thoroughly bad, and those who supported it entirely forget that other clauses would deal effectively with the smaller ports. He hoped the Committee would not waste any more time discussing this Amendment.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 215; Noes, 169. (Division List No. 218.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C. R

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Allhusen, Augustus HenryEden

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Graham, Henry Robert

Allsopp, Hon. George

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. HughO.

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Grenfell, William Henry

Arrol, Sir William

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Hain, Edward

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. SirH.

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Hamilton, Marq. of(L'nd'nderry

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Davenport, William Bromley

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Dewar, SirT. R. (TowerHamlets

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Baird, John George Alexander

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Balcarres, Lord

Dickson, Charles Scott

Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

Baldwin, Alfred

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Heath, SirJames(Staffords. N W

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hogg, Lindsay

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Dyke, Rt. Hn. SirWilliamHart

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Balfour, Rt. HnGeraldW.(Leeds

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

Howard John(Kent, Feversham

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Faber, George Denison (York)

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Fardell, Sir T. George

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Beach, Rt. Hn. SirMichaelHicks

Fellowes, RtHn. AilwynEdward

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ. (Manc'r.

Hunt, Rowland

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Finlay, SirR. B. (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs)

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

Boulnois, Edmund

Fisher, William Hayes

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Brassey, Albert

Fison, Frederick William

Kennaway, Rt, Hn. Sir John H.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Flower, Sir Ernest

Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

Brymer, William Ernest

Forster, Henry William

Knowles, Sir Lees

Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.

Foster, PhilipS. (Warwick, S. W.

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Galloway, William Johnson

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Gardner, Ernest

Lawson. Hn. H.L.W.(Mile End)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Garfit, William

Lee, ArthurH(Hants, Fareham

Chamberlain, RtHn. J. A. (Worc.

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin&Nairn)

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Chapman, Edward

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Gordon, Maj. Evans(T'rH'mlets

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S)

Palmer, Sir Walter(Salisbury)

Smith, RtHnJ. Parker(Lanark

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Smith, Hon. W. P. D. (Strand)

Lowe, Francis William

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Pemberton, John S. G,

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)

Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft)

Percy, Earl

Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord(Lanes.)

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Pilkington, ColonelRichard

Stewart, Sir MarkJ. M'Taggart

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Stirling-Maxwell, SirJohn M,

Macdona, John Cumming

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Maclver, David (Liverpool)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Stroyan, John

Maconochie, A. W.

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Purvis, Robert

Thornton, Percy M.

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Rankin, Sir James

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

M'Iver, SirLewis(Edinburgh, W

Rasch, SirFrederic Carne

Tritton, Charles Ernest

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Reid, James(Greenock)

Tuft, Charles

Malcolm, Ian

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Manners, Lord Cecil

Renwick, George

Turnour, Viscount

Marks, Harry Hananel

Ridley, S. Forde

Vincent, Col. SirC. EH(Sheffield

Maxwell, Rt HnSirH. E.(Wigt'n

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Walker, Col. William Hall

Maxwell, W. J. H(Dumfriesshire

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Warond, Rt. Hn. SirWilliam H.

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Robinson, Brooke

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Meysey Thompson, Sir H. M.

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Welby, Lt. Col. A. CE. (Taunton

Middlemore, JohnThrogmorton

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Milner, Rt. Hn. SirFrederick G.

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Milvain, Thomas

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool

Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E. R.)

Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.

Morgan, DavidJ. (Walthamstow

Samuel, Sir Harry S. (Limehouse

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Morpeth, Viscount

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Murray, CharlesJ. (Coventry)

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Younger, William

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

Myers, William Henry

Sharpe, Wiliam Edward T.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

Nicholson, William Graham

Shaw Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew)

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Sloan, Thomas Henry

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork. N. E.)

Delany, William

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Allen, Charles P.

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Jacoby, James Alfred

Asher, Alexander

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Donelan, Captain A.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Asquith, Rt. Hn. HerbertHenry

Doogan, P. C.

Jordan, Jeremiah

Atherley-Jones, L.

Duffy, William J.

Joyce, Michael

Barlow, John Emmott

Edwards, Frank

Kearley, Hudson E.

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Ellice, Capt EC(S. Andrw'sBghs

Kennedy P. J. (Westmeath, N.)

Benn, John Williams

Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W-

Black, Alexander William

Emmott, Alfred

Kilbride, Denis

Blake, Edward

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Lambert, George

Boland, John

Farrell, James Patrick

Lamont, Norman

Brigg, John

Fenwick, Charles

Langley, Batty

Bright, Allan Heywood

Ffrench, Peter

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

Broadhurst, Henry

Findlay, Alexander(Lanark, NE

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Flynn, James Christopher

Leese, Sir JosephF. (Accrington

Burke, E. Haviland

Fuller, J. M. F.

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Burt, Thomas

Gladstone, Rt Hn. HerbertJohn

Levy, Maurice

Buxton, Sydney Charles(Poplar

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Lewis, John Herbert

Caldwell, James

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Lough, Thomas

Cameron, Robert

Hammond, John

Lundon, W.

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Harcourt, Lewis

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Cawley, Frederick

Harrington, Timothy

M'Kenna, Reginald

Cheetham, John Frederick

Harwood, George

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Clancy, John Joseph

Hayden, John Patrick

M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

Cogan, Denis J.

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Helme, Norval Watson

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Mooney, John J.

Crean, Eugene

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Crombie, John William

Higham, John Sharp

Murphy, John

Cullinan, J.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Hops, John Deans (Fife, West)

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Davies, M. Vaughan(Cardigan)

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

402

403

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary, Mid

Richards, Thomas

Tomkinson, James

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Toulmin, George

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Ure, Alexander

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Wallace, Robert

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Rose, Charles Day

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

O'Dowd, John

Russell, T. W.

White, George (Norfolk)

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.

Samuel, S. M.(Whitechapel)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

O'Malley, William

Seely, Maj.J.E.B.(Isle of Wight

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

O'Mara, James

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Wills, Arthur Walters(N. Dorset

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Sheehy, David

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Parrott, William

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Partington, Oswald

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

Paulton, James Mellor

Slack, John Bamford

Woodhouse, SirJT. (Huddersf'd

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Young, Samuel

Power, Patrick Joseph

Soares, Ernest J.

Yoxall, James Henry

Price, Robert John

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants

Priestley, Arthur

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Trevelyan and Mr. Dalziel.

Rea, Russell

Sullivan, Donal

Reddy, M.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Tennant, Harold John

Question, put, and agreed to.

MR. FLYNN MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.) moved to Wave out the words "United Kingdom" in lines 6 and 7 of Clause and to insert the words "Great Britain." The effect of the Amendment would be to exclude Ireland from the Bill. He trusted the debate would not proceed very long before the Home Secretary intimated acceptance of the Amendment. It had been said that this Bill was largey a "faked up" demand on the part of certain politicians in England and Scot land. However that might be, there had unquestionably been no demand for the Bill in Ireland. There had never been a single resolution passed by any public body in Ireland in favour of the Bill, nor had any public man spoken on the question, or made any demand in connection with alien immigration. For many centuries Ireland was the sanctuary of large numbers of the victims of persecution and intolerance in other countries. In the reigns of Mary and Elizabeth a large number of people sought refuge in Ireland from the religious persecution of the time. Later on when the Jews were being persecuted all over the Continent a large number sought sanctuary in Ireland, and even at the present day there were in that country a considerable number of the descendants of the Huguenots who had to fly from France and other countries. Not only did Ireland not ask such a Bill as this, but her whole traditions and history, and the feelings of the people, were against a measure of this class which was aimed at the unfortunate
404
people who had to seek refuge. The demand that Ireland should be excluded from the Bill was a reasonable one, and he hoped the Home Secretary would at once announce that it was the intention of the Government to accept the Amendment.
It was not likely that any condition of things would arise in Ireland in regard to vessels from Continental ports such as had been described in connection with various ports in Eng land and Scotland. There was unquestionably considerable trade between certain Continental ports and ports in Ireland, and from that point of view they desired that Ireland should be excluded. But there was another consideration which he was sure must have escaped the notice of the framers of the Bill in connection with the constant communication between the United States and Ireland. The communication took the form of both emigration and immigration. The immigrants were mostly men and women who would be described under this Bill as aliens. Unfortunately, owing to the sad condition of Ireland large numbers of people had had to leave its shores during the last half century. A considerable number when they went to America became naturalised and forswore allegiance to the Sovereign of this country. They, therefore, became in the eye of the law aliens, and they would be prevented, except under severe restrictions, from coming back to Ireland. He

405
was sure that that was a matter which the Government could not have had in their mind when they were framing Clause 8 of the Bill. He was informed that over 10,000 Irish-born Americans who had been naturalised returned to the land of their birth and visited the Exhibition recently held at Cork. All these people would have been subjected to an examination which would have been intolerable if such a measure as this had been in operation. It was well known that a considerable number of immigrants came over every year. A small percentage of the Irishmen who had been naturalised in America travelled first class, and, therefore, would not be subject to the Bill, but a considerable number, who had only a few pounds to spend on a visit to their friends, came steerage and would be liable to exclusion. The test applied to these people would not be whether they were vicious or criminal, whether they were dynamitards or anarchists, but whether they were rich or poor. If he were an Irishman who had succeeded in making a fortune, and came as a cabin passenger, well and good; but if he were a poor man and travelled steerage he would come under the restrictions of this Bill.
It was no use telling him that some day or other the parties to whom these restrictions applied would be settled by the Board of Trade or the Home Office. He absolutely refused to place blind confidence in any future Home Secretary as to this interference with the natural desire of his fellow-countrymen, even if they had been naturalised in America, to revisit their native land. His experience of English administration was not of such a reassuring character that he should be prepared to put such large powers in the hands of the Board of Trade or the Home Office. There was one class of aliens which they particularly wished to exclude from Ireland, and that was British Ministers and British place-hunters. There was another class of Irish-born or British-born citizens who had been naturalised in America whom this Bill would exclude. It was not a large class, but one well worthy of consideration. A considerable number of old Irish-Americans—men and women—
406
whose last, earnest desire was that they should lay their bones in the sacred soil of their own country and in the graves of their forebears. That was a settled and deep feeling in the Irish breasts Most of them were poor and must travel steerage, and the immigration officer-would meet them and say, "What business have you here? Go on to Liverpool or go back to America." Nobody in Ireland had asked for the Bill; nobody took the slightest interest in it, and that because few saw the dangers lurking in it. It seriously interfered with the inflow of Irish-Americans into the country of their birth, and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would recognise these facts and exclude Ireland from the scope of the Bill.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, lines 6 and 7, to leave out the-words 'United Kingdom,' and insert the words 'Great Britain.'"—(Mr. Flynn.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'United Kingdom' stand part of the clause."
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid he was afraid that he could not see his way to accept the Amendment. He had no reason to think that Irish-Americana who came over to visit their relations in Ireland would not be able to satisfy the immigration officer as to their status and condition. There would be little difficulty in their passing the barrier when they could show that they had come to stay with relations and not to settle. There was one reason why it was impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment. It had come to his knowledge that a certain number of undesirable aliens came from America, remained in Ireland, and became a burden on the ratepayers.
MR. HUGH LAWsaid he did not suppose that there was any objection to the compulsory exclusion of lunatics and idiots from Ireland; but the right hon. Gentleman had not in any way answered the case put by his hon. friend the Member for Cork. Persons of Irish birth who had become naturalised in the United States, but

407
who desired to return and settle again in Ireland, would, on the face of it, be treated under this Bill as aliens, and might be treated as undesirables. He thought some more information was desirable as to what the procedure was be. An immigrant ship, under the Bill, was a vessel which carried twenty alien steerage passengers; and he wanted to know, in the first place, if there were twenty such persons as he had described on board a liner, whether they would be allowed to land at all in Ireland? In the second place, how and where were they to proceed in order to satisfy the immigration officer? There was a great stream of emigrants from Ireland to the United States every year, and a certain proportion of these emigrants returned to Ireland. Irish emigrants to America were of two classes—those who were successful, and those who were unsuccessful. Anyone who knew the congested districts of Ireland must be familiar with the sight of a large house which had a certain look of prosperity about it in the midst of desolation. It generally turned out on examination that that was the house of a man who had been in America, had made some little money, and had returned to spend the remainder of his days in his native land. They did not come as cabin passengers, and if they travelled in a vessel which carried twenty alien steerage passengers they would fall under the restrictions of the Bill, and would have to satisfy the immigration officer that they were proper persons to be allowed to land. Such people would, no doubt, have some money in their pockets and might be able to satisfy the immigration officer that they were not paupers, but still they would be put to a great deal of quite unnecessary inconvenience.
That might be a very serious matter, but there was another class. Unhappily it was only too common for Irish boys and girls to go to the United States and find that country not the golden land of promise which they had been led to expect, but only a land of disappointments. He knew himself of girls who had gone from their little mountain homes to the great cities of America, like New York, Chicago, or St. Louis where the climate and the conditions
408
of life were so different from that of their native land. After being in service for some years, possibly they married and became citizens of the United States. Their health failed them, and the desire came to return to their old homes. Now, how was such a girl to satisfy the immigration officer at a distant port from her old home, where she knew that there would always be a welcome for her and a share of such poor fare as the family had? She had no money in her pocket; perhaps she had only been able to scrape up the money for her steerage passage. She presented herself at Moville or Liverpool and was met by an English immigration officer who would say, "You are not a British subject; you are an alien and you have no means of support." She would reply "Yes; but I am going back to my family," and would mention the name of the mountain hamlet, of which the immigration officer had most probably never heard. Was it really intended, under cover of this Bill, which professed to be directed against criminals and undesirables, that the British Government was going to deny that girl a refuge with her family in her old home? Were these people to be exposed to the humiliation and the possible risk involved in this Bill. If Ireland wished to support her children who had failed in the struggle of life in the United States, that was no affair of the Government. Ireland was ready to welcome them back and the Government had no right to prevent Ireland affording them an asylum which it was ready to give.
MR. SLOANsaid he was entirely in sympathy with the proposition in the Amendment, should that be the result of the operation of the Bill. He had listened to the Home Secretary's statement that any Irish-born American who desired to return home to his mother country would not be considered to come under the terms of the Bill. That might not be the interpretation of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it was the interpretation of the Minister in charge of the Bill. He confessed that aliens in Ireland at the present time were not receiving the treatment from hon. Members opposite that they ought to receive. There were aliens in Ireland who were considered by hon.

409
Members opposite to be so undesirable that they could not get a means of livelihood.
AN HON. MEMBER: Where.
MR. SLOAN: In Limerick.
MR. JOYCE: I desire to contradict in the strongest terms the unfounded assertion the hon. Member has made, and he knows it is unfounded.
MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: On what authority does the hon. Member make that statement.
MR. JOYCE: Withdraw and apologise to Limerick.
MR. SLOAN: The hon. Member need not get into such a heat.
MR. JOYCE: I am as cool as a cucumber when I am dealing with people like you.
MR. SLOAN: I have had occasion to bring before the House the case of the class of people I refer to in Limerick who have not only been boycotted but are refused the means of livelihood and the necessaries of life.
MR. JOYCE: I again contradict this statement and say it is false from beginning to end.
MR. SLOAN: I appeal, Sir, to you—
THE CHAIRMAN: The whole discussion is entirely out of order.
MR. SLOAN: The hon. Gentleman has the same privileges in this House as I have.
MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: No man has the privilege to lie.
THE CHAIRMAN: I hope hon. Members on both sides will restrain themselves. This question is not in order, and I must ask the hon. Member to pass from it at once.
MR. SLOANsaid he would bow to the ruling of the Chair. He went on to
410
say that if the possible cases cited by hon. Members opposite came under the operation of the Bill they would have a case, but he could not understand how the Bill could be interpreted to mean that an Irish-born American returning to spend the remainder of his days in his native land would be described by the Home Secretary of the day as an undesirable alien. He could not further understand how it could be stated that a person coming from America to visit his friends in Ireland, and who had a return ticket, would be considered as coming under the operation of the Bill. If this Amendment what carried, Ireland would become the dumping ground for those people whom Great Britain refused to allow in. Ireland was a part of the United Kingdom and deserved the protection of this Bill, and that was the reason he objected to the Amendment.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the Government had the greatest possible sympathy with the Amendment; but the hon. Gentleman who moved it would admit that if Ireland were exempted there would be an influx of aliens into the country which Ireland did not want any more than Great Britain. There would be two ports in Ireland under the Bill.
CAPTAIN DONELANasked, if Queenstown would be one.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that probably it would. The Government had not the slightest desire to keep out of Ireland the class of persons to whom the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment referred; and, while it was not possible to accept the Amendment as proposed, the Government were perfectly ready to consider the matter with a view to achieving the object in view, with which he entirely sympathised.
MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid the speech of the Attorney-General had eased the position somewhat, but with reference to what the hon. Member for South Belfast had said, he would like to say that the argument of the hon. Member had been built on-what the Home Secretary had said. But they were not concerned with what the

411
Home Secretary said. They had built a good many arguments upon what the Chief Secretary for Ireland had said and they had suffered for it. He appealed to the hon. Member for South Belfast to shut out from view what the Home Secretary had said and to see what Section 8 of the Bill said. Section 8 said that the expression "immigrant" meant an alien steerage passenger who landed in the United Kingdom. Therefore, any Irishman who had gone to America in his early days, and had been naturalised there, who returned to the old country was an alien if he came steerage, which he was likely to do, and as an alien was subject to all the prohibitions of the Bill. That was a monstrous thing and Irish Members of all Parties should not submit to it. It applied not only-to Queenstown but to Moville, to Belfast, to Derry, and every part of Ireland. He did not care for the purpose of his argument whether the Attorney-General made-two ports in Ireland or not. That did not abolish Section 8 of the Bill. So long as the definition stood, so long would these hundreds and thousands of Irishmen who returned to their native land be subject to all these prohibitions. They would fight against that to the end. It was not fair of the Attorney-General to say he would confer with the Irish Members on the subject. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman realised the impossibility of passing the Bill in its present shape. It was the business of the Government to introduce Bills in proper form. They never could have considered the effect of this upon the thousands of Irish-Americans yearly returning to Ireland from America, and he for one would not stand it.
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid he wished to ask the Attorney-General whether the inclusion of Ireland was necessary or not. It always appeared to him that some kind of alien legislation was rendered necessary by the action of the United States. The Government there decided whether a cargo of immigrants should be admitted or not. If immigrants were rejected because of bad character, lunacy, or any other reason the shipping company concerned was obliged to take them back to
412
Europe; and the most convenient part of Europe to which they could be taken was Ireland. He understood that this was now actually being done, and that lunatics had been brought back and dumped down in Ireland and had become an expense to the local authorities of Ireland. The question he wished to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman was whether, under the provisions of the Bill as they stood or as they would stand when amended by the Government Amendments, there was power to stop things of that kind. He desired to point out that these people would not come back in large batches but in ones and twos, and therefore would not come within the provisions of the Bill, and might be landed in Ireland under the very noses of the authorities without there being power to stop them. What he wished to ask the Attorney-General was whether there were in the Bill any provisions which would enable us to prevent those immigrants who had been rejected by the United States from being dumped in Ireland.
MR. WALLACEasked whether it was not a fact that the shipping companies were compelled to take those whom the United States rejected back to the country from whence they came.
MAJOR SEELYsaid two new facts had arisen in consequence of this Amendment as to which he would like to ask a Question. First of all, was it a fact that the Home Secretary intended to make provision that where any man had a return ticket he should be exempted from the provisions of this Bill? He understood the right hon Gentleman to state that, and if it were so it was as well to know it. Secondly, was it not the fact that the Home Secretary proposed to provide that any one born within these islands would be exempt from the provisions of this Bill? Those were very important matters, both of which affected the position of Ireland.
MR. LEIF JONES (Westmoreland,)asked whether there was any provision in the Bill under which it would be possible to make any exemptions at all. Until the inconvenience of the

413
examination had occurred how could. any exemptions be made.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he understood the Questions of the right hon. Member for Cambridge related to two points; one, whether persons born in Ireland who had gone to the United States and who having become naturalised had come back were to be regarded as aliens, and the other, what was the nature of the provisions of the Bill for preventing persons of a very different class, who had been rejected by the United States, being dumped down in Ireland. He would not like to give a positive Answer at the moment to the first Question for the reason that though it was well known at common law that a British subject could not divest himself of his nationality by becoming naturalised in a foreign country, exceptions had been introduced by statute. Before returning a positive Answer to that Question he would like to have the assistance of the Foreign Office as to what conventions had been made with the United States. The matter was one eminently deserving of attention, and he could only repeat that nothing was further from the wishes of the Government than to prevent a particular class of persons from returning to their own country. As to the question of the provision for preventing rejected immigrants to America being landed in Ireland that had been explained by the Home Secretary. No such persons, being aliens, could be landed from immigrant ships except at those ports marked out as ports of arrival by the Aliens Board, and then only after proper examination. The power to reduce the number of "twenty" could and no doubt would he exercised if the question arose, so as to prevent the damping of immigrants in Ireland. He was not able to say whether the laws of the United States required a ship to take rejected aliens back to the country from which they came. The first Question asked by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight he had already answered and with regard to the second, with reference to return tickets, he did not think this was the time or place to consider that question. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman desired an Answer he would suggest that
414
the hon. and gallant Gentleman should ask the Home Secretary for the information, which he (Sir Robert Finlay) was not in a position to afford.
MR. HEMPHILLthought it was very hard, in the face of the opposition of those who represented the majority of the opinion of Ireland, that this measure should be pressed on that country, in which there had been no demand for it. If there was any demand for this measure it existed in certain quarters in England where there was great pressure of population and where it became the interest of particular individuals for Party or other reasons to raise this question. He agreed with the hon. Member for Cork, who pointed oat that some of the most useful inhabitants of Ireland were the descendants of those who could not have landed in Ireland if this law had been in operation centuries ago. Ireland had been a refuge to those who had been driven from other countries by tyranny and oppression, and the descendants of many of those who sought its hospitality lived there to-day. He thought it was most unreasonable to press this measure on Ireland. All Nationalist Members asked was that when a change was being made which at the best was a departure from the traditions of a great and free country, such an organise change should not, in spite of the remonstrances of her representatives, be forced upon Ireland, where no necessity or demand whatever existed for the measure. The retention of Ireland within the scope of the Bill simply afforded another argument in favour of enabling Ireland to legislate for herself so far as questions affecting the locality were concerned.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that when he spoke last he had not the statute before him. He could now inform the Committee that Section 6 of the Naturalisation Act, 1870, provided that a British-born subject on becoming voluntarily naturalised in a foreign country would cease to be a British subject, except when, with a particular class of case, he made a declaration that he desired to remain a British subject.
MR. BRYCEsaid the statement of the Attorney-General made the question raised by the Amendment much more important, inasmuch as the number of persons who, having become naturalised, returned from the United States to visit relatives in Ireland was very large indeed. If the Government intended to keep Ireland within the scope of the clause it was obviously necessary that they should make some provision to meet these cases.
MR. EMMOTTagreed that there was some weight in the objection that if Ireland were excluded from the clause she would remain open to the landing of undesirables while England was closed. But what he particularly desired to call attention to was the way in which the scope, expense, and difficulties of the Bill were being made increasingly plain. Two ports had now been added for Ireland, whereas none had been mentioned before, and both the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General had acknowledged the validity of the objections raised by his hon. friend. The case for the Bill had never been made out, but if it had, the Bill ought to have been more thorough and to have covered all the ports in the country.
MR. POWERsaid there was no doubt that this question was one about which it was easy to speak on the platform, and for which there was no difficulty in suggesting general remedies, but when one came to close quarters, it was seen that it was an extremely difficult matter to deal with. The provisions which had been so far submitted to the Committee, instead of mitigating would only increase the existing difficulties and to a large extent dislocate trade. As to the prevention of the coming of undesirable lunatics and so forth into Ireland, the Irish people would be very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman if he could stop the deportation of paupers from England to Ireland—a practice of daily occurrence, and the subject of much complaint. Then with regard to the possession of return tickets. Hundreds of people, having amassed a little money in America, came back to Ireland with the intention of remaining in the country; they con-
416
stituted some of the best of the Irish people, but they would probably be hit by the provisions of the Bill. Moreover, the carrying out of the Act would be in the hands of the police, who did not inspire the same confidence in Ireland as in England. In its present form he feared the measure would have little effect in the direction hoped for, but would produce confusion and chaos, and dislocate trade all over the country.
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid the Attorney-General now declared—as most Members who had looked into the subject knew before—that a returned immigrant who had become naturalised in America would be in the position of an alien under the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman had also admitted that that was a fair ground of complaint. Were the Committee justified in regarding that as an undertaking on the part of the Attorney-General that words should be introduced to meet the case?
SIR ROBERT FINLAY.What I said was that we were very desirous of introducing words with that object, and that if such a form of words could be devised without prejudice to the general purpose of the Bill, the Government would be willing to insert them.
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he would take that as an undertaking that if words were proposed the Government would insert them.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he would endeavour to find a form of words, and if any form could be found which would not damage the general purpose of the Bill, the Government would gladly insert them.
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that was a very cautious statement, and he was unwilling to abandon the discussion without a clear understanding that the Government would do their best honestly to meet this grievance.
SIR ROBERT FINLAY.Certainly we are going to endeavour to do it. I do not think the hon. and learned

417
Member can reasonably ask me to go further than I have done.
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he did not ask the Attorney-General to settle the words off-hand, but he did expect that when the proper portion of the Bill was reached words should be proposed to carry out the pledge just given. There now remained the broad question of whether Ireland ought to be included in the Bill. Personally he objected to the Bill, and if he had his way he would not enact it for either England or Ireland. But as a practical man he had to look at the matter from another point of view. If this measure, which for reasons he need not go into he regarded as a most objectionable one, was to be enacted for Great Britain, he was not in favour of the exclusion of Ireland, because if Ireland were excluded there would be the gravest possible danger of her being made the dumping-ground of undesirables, some of whom would attempt to filter through to England, but the great majority of whom would remain in Ireland. Therefore, he would advise his hon. friend to be content with the concession he had obtained on the narrower point and not divide on the Amendment.
MR. HIGH AMdesired to point out how illusory were the promises made by the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the possession of a return ticket would be a sufficient voucher to permit of a person landing.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I did not say that a return ticket would be so accepted at all. I said that I did not imagine that the class referred to by the mover of the Amendment would be shut out at all. I thought that they would be able to satisfy the immigration officer as to their status, and that the fact of their having relatives in Ireland would be a very great help to them in so doing.
MR. HIGHAMsubmitted that these matters ought to be dealt with in the Bill; they ought not to depend upon conversations across the floor of the House. Whether Ireland were excluded or not the Bill would not apply as between England and Ireland, so that the
418
lunatics to whom reference had been made would not be affected. Having arrived in Ireland, say at Queenstown, they had merely to be transhipped to any boat trading or carrying passengers between Ireland and England, and then their deportation from Ireland to England would be completed, as no one here could raise objection to the landing of a passenger from Ireland. This showed the enormous difficulties which faced the administration of this Bill. Thousands of people came over here on short holidays who were naturalised Americans and had been in America half their lifetime. They wished to spend a month or two in this country and they would be subjected to all the indignities of this Bill. They would have to prove that they had the means to maintain themselves, and prove also that they were not lunatics or idiots. The right hon. Gentleman had said that if he could devise words he would meet them, but the proper way to proceed would be to strike out the whole of that part of the clause. Lancashire and Yorkshire had against the Bill as it stood a grievance just as strong as Ireland. Cotton operatives went to the States, settled there, and often in later life visited their friends in the North of England. They were to be faced with these most unreasonable proposals, and they asked at least that there should be omitted from the Bill Sub section (3) (a) of the first clause, which was worded—
"(3) For the purposes of this section an immigrant shall be considered an undesirable immigrant—
(a) if he cannot show that he has in his possession or is in a position to obtain the means of decently supporting himself and his dependents (if any)."
There would then be very little difficulty about the acceptance of the Bill on his side of the House.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid he understood that this Amendment dealt with Irish immigrants who returned from America and desired to spend a short time with their friends in Ireland. This matter had occupied the attention of the great shipping lines which carried these passengers, and it had been carefully brought to the notice of those concerned

419
that this class of immigrant was one with which it was most essential no interference should take place. The same thing applied to the Scandinavians who were brought to Liverpool, and if that traffic was to be continued it was essential that it should be free from irritating and vexatious restrictions. At a later stage of the Bill he had an Amendment on the Paper which he hoped would receive favourable consideration at the hands of his right hon. friend, and that Amendment proposed to exempt altogether from the scope of this Bill steamers coming into our ports in that way which were able to satisfy the Government and the authorities that no undesirable immigrants would be landed from them. He thought that was the only satisfactory way in which this great trade could be safeguarded from the operations of this Bill. No less than 107,000 of this class of passengers were brought yearly into Liverpool, and amongst them, with the exception of a few immigrants rejected in the United States, what might be called the undesirable alien was a rara avis for whom no special legislation was needed. Anything like the wholesale inspection of that traffic in the port of Liverpool would be most disastrous to that trade.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is dealing with a question which is hardly in order on this Amendment, which refers to Ireland and not to Liverpool.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid the Amendment he had down would come later on in Clause and he thought it would meet this case. He hoped when they reached that part of the Bill, if ever they did reach it, that it might receive favourable consideration.
MR. LOUGHsaid he hoped the Home Secretary would give due consideration to the Amendment he was about to move. At the stage at which they had arrived the immigrant ship was now brought in, and he did not see why it should be brought in at all. Surely it would be better to strike out those words and leave the clause to apply generally rather than to a particular kind of ship. He thought
420
this objection would strike everybody who thought over the matter for a moment. According to this Bill an immigrant ship was one who brought more than twenty passengers, but they had been warned that Amendments would be proposed to reduce the number to ten or fifteen. Moreover, there was already power in the Bill to reduce the number at the discretion of the Government Department. The immigrant ship was to be of a particular kind in which alien steerage passengers came over. British Members of the House as a rule knew nothing about the horrors that might be connected with immigrant ships. Years ago they used to be called coffin ships, and what he wished to point out was that this Bill would tend to create a bad class of ship of that kind. The tendency of the trade was to carry these alien immigrants in the most splendid ships that crossed the ocean, and they provided them with good accommodation. If, however, this Bill became law they would be creating for this traffic a different kind of ship, and, moreover, the Home Secretary was retaining power to declare that a ship was not an immigrant ship if the owners satisfied him with regard to the regulations. Therefore a stigma would rest upon the immigrant ship. He thought the House ought seriously to consider whether it was desirable to create a lower class of vessel like this, thus interfering with the humane tendency of carrying these poor people on the very best ships. He thought the Home Secretary would relieve himself of a very great difficulty if he would strike out the words "immigrant ship." These were very unsatisfactory powers to give to a State Department, because there would be a tendency to favour certain ports, and the introduction of this "immigrant ship" considerably enlarged the scope of this undesirable tendency. If the right hon. Gentleman was going to make a concession on this point, he trusted that he would not do it after waiting till it had been discussed for an hour or two, but do it at once. It would considerably expedite the progress of the Bill if the Home Secretary would announce his concessions at once. He begged leave to move his Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 7, to leave out the words 'from an immigrant ship.'"—(Mr. Lough.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid they had discussed this question upon an Amendment which had already been under consideration, upon which he pointed out the effect of taking out those words. This particular Amendment attacked the principle of the Bill, and by adopting it hardship would be inflicted, inasmuch as it would close to foreigners all the ports of the United Kingdom except those in which the machinery was set up.
MR. LOUGHsaid that in view of what the right hon. Gentleman had said he would withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he desired to move the Amendment which stood in his name. This was an Amendment to strengthen the Bill, whereas the Amendments which had been moved up to the present had been designed to weaken it. He hoped the Home Secretary would be able to give them some assurance that he would reduce the number of aliens below twenty. He desired not only to restrain the admission of alien immigrants when they arrived in large numbers, but also desired to prevent them landing in England in small numbers. He thought undesirable aliens should not be allowed to come to this country, whether they came in batches of twenty or in twos and threes. It would be said that if his Amendment were carried enormous expense would be caused at the ports in providing the necessary machinery. Persons who had given attention to this subject knew that the real effect of the Bill would not be seen actually when the examination of the immigrants took place in British ports The real effect would be seen in the countries whence the immigrants came. The agencies which now induced many of these unfortunate people to come would no longer have the commercial incentive they had at present. When an emigrant
422
came to such a port as Hamburg he would be subjected to an examination so thorough before being allowed to embark that the examination in the English port would not be so costly as some hon. Gentlemen seemed to imagine.
The question of free ports which had been alluded to certainly did raise a difficulty. If, as hon. Gentlemen opposite had suggested, shipowners would be able to devise means whereby they would be able to land parties of immigrants in one of these so-called free ports, a great evil would arise. It would be necessary in that case to induce the authorities to establish machinery at the ports where the traffic Was being carried on, and those who had had to deal with Government Departments knew that that might be a matter of difficulty. Hon. Members who supported the Bill should bear in mind that if it became law the administration of it would not always necessarily be in friendly hands. Possibly some hon. Gentleman who now sat opposite might later on hold the position of Home Secretary, and it would be very easy for a Home Secretary who was opposed to the provisions of the Bill so to frame the regulations as to render the measure a dead letter; he could raise the number of immigrants so as to allow aliens to arrive in small or large numbers. His right hon. friend might by reducing the number be able to prevent the infiltration of aliens in the way hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House desired. He hoped his right hon. friend would be able to give at this stage some assurance that the wording of the Bill would be so altered as to cover not only the arrival of aliens in bulk but all undesirable aliens who came in smaller numbers.
This was not only a question of keeping out criminals. It was also an economic question. He was anxious to take this opportunity, the only one he had had of speaking on the Bill in the House, to point out that, whether aliens arrived in large parties or threes or fours, if owing to the lower standard of life and the insanitary conditions under which they lived an evil resulted, as he thought it did, then the Bill should be so framed as to show the aliens that they would

423
not be able to come here and pull down the standard of life of the working people of this country. A great deal more might be said in support of the Amendment, but it was quite unnecessary to take up the time of the Committee, as this Bill had been fully discussed in most of its aspects. The shipowning interest of which they had heard so much from the other side of the House was not inimical to the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 7, to leave out from the word 'ship,' to the word 'given,' in line 9, and insert the words 'without the leave of an immigration officer appointed under this Act.'"—(Mr. Claude Hay.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid this suggestion meant practically the setting up of machinery under the Bill at every port in the Kingdom, and for that reason alone he could not accept it. As he had explained again and again, the basis upon which the Bill was put forward was the dealing with the alien traffic in bulk. The figures in the Board of Trade Returns showed that the bulk of the traffic went on at a very few ports, and he did not wish to set up machinery the cost of which would be out of proportion to the advantage to be gained. It was not actually necessary to put this embargo on these free ports. Should events show a necessity, ports could be declared under the Bill and the number of immigrants might be modified. Suggestions had been made from both sides of the House that some such reduction in the figure would be necessary immediately. He acknowledged that when they came to discuss that clause he would consider whether the figure of twenty should not be reduced so as to avoid an amendment of the Bill soon after it was passed.
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid that after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman he asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
MR. DALZIELsaid that, while they were anxious to make progress with this
424
Bill, it was desirable to consider every Amendment on its merits. The Amendment moved by the hon. Member opposite was evidently to justify his position with his constituents, but from his own point of view it was logical, because it could carry out the object which the Bill was intended to affect. It would keep out every undesirable alien from this country. At the same time, he insisted that the Bill, as it stood, would not affect that purpose, because undesirables could come in provided they were not in large parties. He was amused to hear the right hon. Gentleman talk of the increased expense that would be involved if the Amendment were adopted. He, himself, pointed that out last year, but that did not alarm the right hon. Gentleman; he was then the champion of increased expense. So that, after all, one result of the discussions on the Bill last year was to make a notable convert to economy. After that, he hoped no more would be heard about the obstructive tactics of the Opposition last year. He maintained that if the Government wanted to really carry out the professed objects of this measure, they were bound to have an immigration officer at every port in the kingdom. Supposing a ship brought 500 immigrants and that fifty of them were rejected, and the shipowners were compelled to take them back to the port of embarkation what would happen? An enterprising agent would take charge of them and split them up into three or four different parties. The result would be that all of them would come into other ports in this country without any check. The fact was the whole Bill was a sham and a humbug. He, himself, was opposed to the introduction of undesirable aliens, but they could not provide machinery to effectually achieve the purpose in view, although the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite came nearer to accomplishing it than the Bill as it at present stood. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had made one or two remarks which gave some cause for alarm. In the first place, he was going to reduce the number of alien passengers to some figure below twenty. It was desirable to know, while this discussion was proceeding, what the new number was to be. Then he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman

425
not to delay longer in giving the Committee his full mind as to the number of ports he was going to list.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELasked if the Home Secretary denied that every undesirable alien who had been rejected at one of the specified ports could not be prevented from coming in at any other port in the United Kingdom?
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASwas understood to say that he had stated over and over again that an undesirable who had been sent back to his own country could, if he did not come in an "immigrant ship," return to a free port in this country.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that if the Amendment now before the Committee were rejected, and the right hon. Gentleman adhered to the system in the Bill by which eight ports were listed, and the other ports were left open, the undesirable alien could come over again to a non-listed port where there was no immigration officer and no machinery to reject him. The consequence would be that the Bill would be perfectly futile for the object in view.
MR. J. A. PEASEsuggested that the difficulty might be got over without putting the whole of this expensive machinery into operation in the non-listed ports. The Government might appoint the port sanitary authority at the non-listed ports who was always a medical officer—as the immigration officer for that port. In that way alien lunatics, imbeciles, and diseased persons would be rejected by the medical officer at those ports.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that the suggestion of his hon. friend had been considered last year, and it had been found to be totally impossible to apply such a system to the large night excursion traffic across the Channel. There were sometimes as manyas 1,500 workmen carried at reduced rates as passengers in the cross-Channel steamers, and it would be absolutely impossible in such a case to carry out the proposal of his hon. friend.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid it was desired generally in the House that there should be an opportunity of examining the immigrants on land, but only on the condition that the immigrants disembarked for that purpose did not pass oat of the hands of the shipowners. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name on the Paper.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 10, after the word 'ship' to insert the words 'or elsewhere if the immigrants are conditionally disembarked for the purpose.'"—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid he did not wish to detain the Committee by debating the merits of the Amendment, which he thought would improve the Bill. But something fell from the right hon. Gentleman to the effect that the buildings required and the conditional inspection and detention of the immigrants disembarked should be provided at the cost of the shipping companies. A great deal of solicitude for the immigrants had been displayed on both sides of the House.
MR. STUART SAMUELasked whether his Amendment should not come on at this point?
THE CHAIRMANsaid that the Amendment could not be moved unless a Resolution was first passed in Committee of Ways and Means authorising the money payment.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid that this was the first time since the Bill had been drafted that it had been made plain to the Committee that provision for the disembarkation of immigrants for the purpose of inspection would be necessary. The right hon. Gentleman definitely pointed out that facilities for inspection would have to be provided, and under these circumstances the question of the cost of those facilities became important. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the cost of keeping those immigrants was to fall upon the shipping companies, and the

427
were also to be at the cost of erecting structures, temporary or permanent, for this inspection. Had they been contemplating the Bill as it originally stood he might not be disposed to press this matter, but this was a new departure, and the limits to which it was going to be pressed in the future were not clearly defined. It was better, therefore, at the outset to state the views of the shipping companies. They did not think it fair that the cost of erecting those buildings should be thrown on their shoulders.
THE CHAIRMANsaid the particular Amendment before the House did not impose cost on anybody. It only sanctioned the landing. It was obvious something must be done afterwards, and the point that the hon. Member was raising would come later on, by the Amendment of the hon. Member.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsubmitted that the Amendment dealt with the question of landing immigrants for the purpose of appealing. But before the appeal was reached these immigrants might be temporarily disembarked for inspection to see if they were disqualified it was only when they were disqualified the question of appeal arose. He would propose to deal with the question by an Amendment suggesting that any accommodation which might be provided for the purpose of such investigation should be provided by the Secretary of State.
THE CHAIRMANsaid that would not be in order, because that would put a charge on the State.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORasked whether it would be in order to move an Amendment that the cost of constructing any accommodation required for such inspection should not be borne by the shipowners.
THE CHAIRMANsaid it was extremely awkward to have to deal with an Amendment he had not seen, and suggested that the hon. Gentleman should set his Amendment down on paper, so that it might be considered while the Committee was discussing the Amendment now before it.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDappealed to
428
the Secretary of State to add at the end of his Amendment the words, "for the purpose of inspection or special inquiry." As the words now stood, it was obvious that the places referred to could only be used for the purpose of inspection. But of those who landed at least 8 per cent, would have to be detained for inquiries to be made, and it was to enable these places to be used for both purposes that he suggested these words.
MR. LOUGHexpressed the opinion that some of the difficulties felt by hon. Members opposite could be avoided if they would discuss briefly but intelligibly the Amendment of the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman was meeting to a certain extent a suggestion which he (Mr. Lough) had made at an earlier stage. He had objected to the delay which might be caused to shipping by having this inspection on board, and he had suggested that the immigrants should be allowed to land and be examined on shore. The right hon. Gentleman having now made this proposal, this was the time to discuss the matter. It was not only a question for the shipowners but also for the public and trade generally to consider whether conditional landing should be allowed, and that was the object of the Amendment. He took leave to point out, however, that if the right hon. Gentleman compelled the shipping companies to bear the cost, they would take care that the buildings erected should be of an exclusive character and should only be used by those who paid for them. He contended that if a public institution of this character was to be set up it could only be set up at the cost of the Government or the municipalities. It would not be right or just to allow private individuals, at their own cost, to found institutions at certain places for public purposes. He thought the object of the hon. Member would be met, therefore, by discussing the difficulties of the situation without formulating any particular Amendment.
MR. LEIF JONESasked for an explanation of the Amendment of the Secretary of State. He said complaint

429
had been made that hon. Members did not read the Bill, and, therefore, he had very carefully read the clause in conjunction with this Amendment, and the result was, as it seemed to him, the two together did not make sense. The clause read—
"An immigrant … shall not be landed at any such port without the leave of that officer given after an inspection of the immigrants made by him on the ship."
to which words the right hon. Gentleman proposed to add—
"Or elsewhere if the immigrants are conditionally disembarked for the purpose."
He did not raise this as a point of order but to ask for some explanation, as it appeared to him that they were asked to say that an immigrant should not be allowed to land until after an inspection had been made on board ship or elsewhere which must mean on land.
MR. CHARLES MCARTHURsaid he thought a distinction was to be drawn between a landing and a conditional landing. A landing, under certain conditions, might be revoked, and in that case the immigrants would have to be returned to the ship.
MR. EMMOTTasked the Chairman's ruling as to whether the Amendment was in order or not.
THE CHAIRMANwas understood to reply that he would give his ruling shortly.
MR. CHARLES McARTHUR.said he had an Amendment on the Paper to provide that a conditional landing should not be a landing under the Bill.
MR. FORDE RIDLEYsaid that the word "disembarking" made perfect sense. It was not a landing.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think the word "landing" in the first line of the clause means a permanent landing, and that the words of the Amendment provide for a conditional landing only.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he would submit that there was no difference between the words "landing" and "disembarked." Disembarked meant to land from a bark. [An HON. MEMBER: You may disembark into a boat.] He begged pardon. They did not disembark into a boat. Disembark meant taken from a ship and put on the land, and, consequently, if this Amendment were adopted, it would mean that an immigrant should not be landed until he had been inspected by an officer on being landed for that purpose. It was a contradiction in terms. It was really enacting that he was both to be landed and not to be landed. He submitted to the acumen and lexicographical knowledge of the Attorney-General that really and truly the Amendment defeated the first part of the clause.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he was very much afraid that the hon. Member for the Appleby Division had overlooked the Amendment which stood lower down on the Paper in the name of the Home Secretary, who proposed, at the end of line 22 of the clause, to insert the words "but an immigrant conditionally disembarked shall not be deemed to have been landed so long as the conditions are complied with." He was glad the matter gave hon. Gentlemen opposite so much harmless amusement, but there was really no difficulty about it. Sub-section 2 of Clause 2 gave power to the Secretary of State to make rules with respect to the conditional landing of immigrants for the purpose of appeals or otherwise. If hon. Members would look at the matter with the desire to see how the thing would work, they would at once be alive to the fact that, if they allowed a man to be landed, he might go where he pleased. He had his liberty to go into any part of the United Kingdom and was no longer under any surveillance whatever. But, in certain cases it might be found more convenient, before he was let loose, if he might use the expression, in the United Kingdom, that the examination should take place, not on board ship, but on shore. For that purpose he was to be conditionally disembarked, but his conditional disembarkation was not to amount to a landing, enabling him to proceed where he liked. It was extremely easy

431
to make very small jokes on the subject, and he did not grudge hon. Members opposite any amusement they could derive from those jokes, though he thought the amusement was almost entirely confined to their authors.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he desired to fortify himself in the definition he bad given of the word "disembarked" by a quotation from the latest lexicographical authority, which his noble friend the Member for Greenwich had just handed to him. The Oxford Dictionary defined "disembark" as "to put ashore from a ship, to land." Would that satisfy his hon. and learned friend the Attorney-General?
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he was much obliged to his hon. friend, but if he could tear himself away from his literary studies for a moment, he thought he would find it more germane to the subject to look at the regulations in force in the country where this practice was in actual operation than to be turning up dictionaries. Article 4 of the regulations in force in the United States provided that whenever it should be necessary, in making the examination of immigrants, temporarily to remove them from the vessel to a desirable place for examination—
"Such immigrants shall not be regarded as landed so long as they are undergoing examination and are under the control of an officer, and such removal shall not be considered a landing during the pendency of any question relating to the examination."
THE CHAIRMANsaid that as this philological discussion had arisen out of a point of order he might said that in his opinion there was sufficient distinction between "landed" and "conditionally disembarked" to allow the Amendment to proceed.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid he desired to direct the attention of the Committee to the important question of who was to provide this accommodation. The shipowners objected to the expense being put on their shoulders and desired that it should be borne by the community, for whose benefit it was incurred. A Resolution authorising the expenditure of money
432
under this Bill would, he understood, be submitted to the House, and he hoped that, between now and the introduction of that Resolution, the Home Secretary would reconsider the matter and propose that the expense necessitated by the provision of this accommodation should be borne by the community.
MR. BRYCEasked if they were right in understanding from the Government that the cost of this provision was to be borne by the shipowners. If that were so, he should like to know how it was to be arranged that the shipowners should find quarters. Immigrants would have to be kept, so to speak, in bond. That task it might be possible for the Government to carry out; but it would be very difficult for the shipowner to carry it out. In the United States the difficulty was met by the Government dealing with the matter. The emigrant ships were obliged to send tenders disembarking the emigrants upon an island. It was very desirable that the Home Secretary should say what facilities were to be given to shipowners to enable them to provide or to obtain the necessary accommodation. Another question was as to the provision to be made by the Act for preventing the escape of immigrants and for compelling them to re-embark in case of their rejection. In the United States all that was done by the Government, but here, apparently, it was to be the duty of the shipowner. What powers would shipowners have in this country for the purpose of compelling a rejected immigrant to re-embark? As far as he could see, there was no provision whatever in that respect in the Bill.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid that on the previous evening he was asked whether the Government intended to provide facilities at the landing stages for the purpose of examination or for any purpose under the Act. He said then that it was not the intention of the Government to ask the community to make such provision. In the United States the circumstances were entirely different from those existing here. There these facilities were undoubtedly provided by the State, but a tax was levied on each immigrant. Here it was a concession to the shipowner that the examination

433
should not take place on board ship. The profit arising from this trade put a considerable sum into the pockets of the shipowners, and if these further facilities were desired by them they ought not to be provided at the expense of the community. He was advised by the shipowners that practically all the necessary facilities existed in the principal ports to which the ships carrying immigrants came. They themselves had depots and warehouses at the quay side. Therefore, he did not think any serious hardship or expense was likely to be placed on the shipowneis. But if expense was incurred by them it must be regarded as a payment for the purpose of avoiding examination on board ship.
MR. STUART SAMUELsaid it was very well for the Home Secretary to consider mainly the expense of these building's, but the immigrant had also got to be considered. These examinations would have to take place on the cheap, otherwise the cost to the country would be greater than a continuance of the present evils. The expenses of carrying into operation this measure would be so great that it would be far more economical to grant an old-age pension to every alien at present maintained at the cost of the State. According to this proposal the immigrant was to be detained by the direction of the Government, and the shipping companies were to provide the accommodation and house him. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the examination taking place upon the quay side. Did the Home Secretary propose that women and children, and people suffering from sea sickness, should be examined on the quay side? Frequently these people were landed in the middle of the night. They had been told that the Bill would not disturb the transmigrants, but was it likely that they would continue to come via this country if they could be taken as cheaply by other lines which did not come to our ports? British lines could now carry these transmigrants cheaper than foreign lines, but if the hardships of this Bill were put upon the shipowners they would have to charge more for passengers and there was a great danger that the whole of this valuable carrying trade would be lost to
434
this country. It was convenient to say that the shipping companies would pay it, but eventually the charge would have to be paid by the passengers. He hoped the Home Secretary would reconsider this question not only on account of the shipping companies, but also from the point of view of the transmigrants, who would not come through this country if they were subjected to the hardships imposed under this clause.
MR. CHARLES McARTHURsaid he wished to direct the Home Secretary's attention to what appeared to him to be an analogous case, and that was the regulations of the Merchant Shipping Act in regard to the inspection which took place at the present time. Section 360 of the Merchant Shipping Act provided that no emigrant ship should go to sea until there had been an inspection of the emigrants by a medical practitioner, and it was also laid down that the inspection should take place of board or at such convenient place as the emigration officer appointed. If the officer appointed a place onshore he took it that the expense was defrayed by the public. He did not see how the officer could appoint a place maintained by the shipowner. He maintained that accommodation provided in the public interest ought to be provided at the public cost.
MR. LOUGHsaid it ought to be clear to the Home Secretary that the explanation he had given of this matter would not do. Even admitting that in most cases provision already existed the right hon. Gentleman would have to provide for the remaining cases. He wished to point out that at the present time two dollars was charged in America to the shipowners upon every immigrant landed, and out of that sum an asylum for them was kept up. The place provided for this purpose in New York cost about £90,000 a year, and he understood that the cost had been doubled quite recently. Did the Home Secretary mean to allow the port authorities to levy on the shipowners a certain charge in respect of each immigrant, and then out of the fund to establish inspection premises? It was perfectly clear that a public establishment would be absolutely

435
necessary. It would not do to have a private institution which might be organised by the shipowners, and which they would use for private purposes. The establishment need not be provided at the cost of the public; it might be done at the cost of the shipowners. Of course, the cost would fall indirectly on the immigrants, because the shipowners would pass it on to them. It was now time to say openly whether the establishment was to be a public institution. The shipowners had gone to the Home Secretary in secret and had accepted from him an arrangement that would not work—at least he thought it would not work. If a charge was levied on immigrants at our ports our transmigration shipping traffic would be destroyed, Ships would be run direct from Hamburg, Trieste, and other ports, and the aliens going to America would not pass through this country.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid the hon. Member for West Islington had at great length dealt in about ten speeches that afternoon with various points which were not before the Committee at the particular moment he made them. [Cries of "Order."]
MR. DALZIEL: Who are you that you should lecture Members?
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid the point before the Committee was whether the words proposed by the Home Secretary should or should not be accepted. What was the suggestion? It was that an alternative should be given by way of conditional landing and that if it was found convenient the inspection should take place on shore instead of on board ship. What would happen in practice would be that if the inspection took place on the ship it would be a matter that would not take long, while if it took place on shore it would not take much longer. But if some immigrants had to be detained for inquiry they might be detained for to a week or a fortnight. There would be no necessity for large buildings where people would have to be kept, maintained, and fed. It would simply be a place where medical inspection would take place. The difficulty would be got rid of by
436
taking the bond of the shipowner to take care of the immigrant until it was seen whether the inquiry was satisfactory or not.
MR. HARWOODsaid the hon. Gentleman who spoke last and also the Home Secretary had treated this matter too lightly. If they were going to pass the Bill let it be a real Bill. What was it going to do? These aliens were to be examined about their health, their means, their capacity to labour, and their moral character, and did the right hon. Gentleman think that this could be done in a moment, especially remembering that most of these people spoke in a language probably unknown to the immigration officer? Either the right hon. Gentleman was going to do things properly or he was not. How about those aliens who would be retained? They were told that in America 8 per cent, were retained. What was going to be done with them? They could not all be put back on board the ship. Surely the House would see that they were face to face with the necessity of providing very expensive machinery, and they had a right to see that what they wished to do was worth doing at this cost. It was simply ridiculous to think of turning these people into a corner of a shed provided by the shipowner. He challenged shipowners to show where there was accommodation in any port of England for the purpose. What would happen? These people would be badly treated and the consequence would be that they would not come this way. Within the last few months he had seen advertisements at railway stations in Russia and Germany warning emigrants that it would be very much better not to go through England, but to go direct by German lines, because they would have less trouble. Unless the conditions to which we subjected them were civilised the trade would be driven away. It was perfectly absurd for the Government to try to ride two horses. They were pretending to do something, but they would not pay the money to do it properly. The Home Secretary said that the shipowners told him of places where the immigrants could be accommodated. Where were those places? He did not believe they existed; but if such places were not provided

437
great damage would be done to a most important trade.
MR. SPEAR (Devonshire,)said he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to require that any accommodation necessary to shipowners for carrying on their trade should be provided by them and not by the public. It would be as unreasonable for shipping companies to ask that the public should provide accommodation which the law required should be made as it would be for railway companies to ask that the public should provide railway stations. He would be sorry to put any impediment in the way of any lawful trade, but the chief hope he had was that the beneficial effect of this measure would be that it would make shipowners more careful as to the class of immigrants they brought to this country, and he was not going to support any step that would make it unduly easy for them to disregard precautions which were absolutely necessary. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would persist in requiring that any accommodation for carrying on this industry should be provided by the parties who got the profit.
MR. RITCHIEsaid it had been his fate to attempt more than once, both at the Local Government Board and at the Home Office, to deal with this question of alien immigration, and he had never been able to satisfy himself about any Bill he had ever produced, because of the enormous difficulties in the way. He might say that this particular question presented to him one of the greatest difficulties which a measure of the kind could contain. Of course, he had always been in favour of a Bill of this sort, and it had seemed to him in the past, and still seemed to him, that the least difficult solution of this point was to be found in the action of the dock companies. Those companies now provided accommodation for ships and cargoes and passengers, and although he did not say that it was an entirely satisfactory solution of the question, yet he felt pretty sure that the dock companies, wishing to attract as much custom to their docks as they could, would in the end be found ready to provide such reasonable accommodation as would be necessary for landing
438
immigrants. No doubt they would have to be paid for it, but he did not think the charge would be high. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman was right in saying that this should not be a public charge.
MR. DALZIELsaid it was useful to have the admission of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon that, with all his experience, he could not himself draft or agree on a Bill to deal with the question now under discussion. The present Government were not quite so difficult to please. The Home Secretary disclosed the fact that an enormous amount of cost would be incurred if the Amendment were adopted. Had the right hon. Gentleman considered on whom the responsibility was to rest of deciding whether the immigrants were to be landed conditionally or to remain on board ship? "Who was the authority to decide whether the examination should take place on ship or on shore? Obviously it would be the desire of the captain of the ship to get rid of his cargo as soon as possible. There might be from 800 to 1,000 immigrants in that one ship and all had got to be examined by one officer. They had to be examined as to their mental capacity and physical condition; inquiries had to be made as to whether they had been convicted before coming into this country, and so on. How long was that examination going to take, for each person would occupy a considerable portion of time? Again, they might be landed late at night, and accommodation would have to be provided for them, for they would have to sleep somewhere. Who was to provide the food for the immigrants when on land, because the contracting shipping company had discharged its obligation when the immigrants stepped ashore? He presumed that the examining officer could not be a doctor and a general magistrate at the same time. In last year's Bill they were to have a board of examiners. Again, who was to be responsible for the immigrants while they were on shore? Were they going to be surrounded with a regiment of soldiers, or planted in compounds, or put into sheds like cattle, each one in a stall? Who was to be responsible if a number of them escaped in the course of examination?

439
There were many other points which had not been considered by the Government.
The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had made a good deal of the fact that the State was not to pay the cost; that the port authority would benefit from this traffic, and obviously it ought to pay. The right hon. Member for Croydon thought that the dock companies should pay; but only in very rare cases would these companies gain any advantage. Did the Home Secretary contemplate that the local rates should bear any portion of this great expense? Who was the authority who would have to decide whether the examination should take place on board or on shore? Who would be responsible for the immigrants conditionally landed? Who would provide the necessary staff? Who would pay the expenses of the immigrants until they were allowed to pass through? Who was to pay the expenses of immigrants who wished to appeal if they were rejected? The right hon. Gentleman had not a single supporter for his proposal to increase expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon disagreed with the right hon. Gentleman. An hon. Gentleman opposite said that the expense would fall on the shipowners, and that was a matter which they ought to bear in mind.
MR. ASQUITH (Fifeshire, E.)said that the Committee should get Answers to the very pertinent Questions put by his right hon. friend. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon that this Amendment was unworthy of a Cabinet Minister. It was another illustration of the absolutely unworkable character of the Bill. He would undertake, if not to drive a coach and six, at least to steer a whole fleet of immigrant ships, all loaded with undesirable immigrants, through this clause. Who was to determine whether an immigrant was to be disembarked or not? When the immigrant was conditionally disembarked who was to provide the necessary accommodation for him? Who was to keep him? Who was to provide the compound? Next, supposing that such an immigrant escaped while the immigration officer was prosecuting his inquiries, was there any legal authority
440
for a constable to arrest him and take him back? Again, supposing that the immigrant conditionally landed was not a fit and proper person to enter this country, whose duty was it to put him back on the ship? What agent of the law or representative of the shipowner would be authorised to use force?
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that as the conditional landing was for the convenience of the shipowner, who wished to obviate the detention of his ship, it would be for him to say whether he wished his immigrants to be conditionally landed.
MR. DALZIELsaid his point was, would the captain of a ship be allowed to determine the time the immigrants should land without consulting the convenience of the examining authorities.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that was provided for in the regulations. As it was for the convenience of the shipowner he would have to find the necessary accommodation on shore, or arrange for it with the dock companies, who would certainly provide the facilities for this traffic which the law required. All the difficulties conjured up would disappear. As to the boarding of the immigrants on shore, that must be settled between the immigrants and the shipowners. He quite agreed that such expenses were not to be thrown on the National Exchequer or on the rates. It would be monstrous if the taxpayer were to the mulcted to save the pocket of the shipowner on whom the law had thrown this obligation. As to the escape of an immigrant conditionally disembarked, the second clause provided that the master of the ship should give security in the case of immigrants conditionally landed. He admitted that the clause did not provide for the recapture of the escaped immigrant.
And, it being 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.

EVENING SITTING.

  ALIENS BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. GRANT LAWSON (Yorkshire, N. R., Thirsk) in the Chair.]
  Clause 1:—
  Amendment proposed.
  "In page 1, line 10, after the word 'ship,' to insert the words 'or elsewhere if the immigrants are conditionally disembarked for the purpose.'"—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. FORDE RIDLEYsaid the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman raised a question of great importance to the shipping industry. Although they were anxious that no injustice should be done to that great industry this was a matter which should be considered dispassionately or without prejudice, because if this Bill was to become a workable Act it was essential that this difficulty should be disposed of in some way or other. It had already been shown that it might become necessary to provide accommodation at certain ports where aliens might be taken care of for a few hours, or even a few days, pending the inspection. The question was how such accommodation was to be provided with the least hardship to the shipping companies. One of the objections urged against the Amendment was that it would give preferential treatment to certain shipping companies. He maintained that no stronger argument could be urged in favour of the measure, because it was a fact that a large proportion of the immigrants arrived here in German and Danish bottoms. The British ships which carried immigrants to this country were not immigrant ships at all, they were mere cargo vessels travelling to certain ports for the purpose of picking up their cargoes and taking a few passengers. The pictures drawn by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy of a thousand
  442
  immigrants being landed on the quay immigrants who were for the most part, or wholly, women and children and all suffering from disease, was an exaggerated picture. He would welcome the application of the American system at our ports, but unfortunately that system could not be enforced owing to the cost of levying a tax on all immigrants arriving in this country, while if it was suggested that we should levy a tax on immigrants arriving in bulk only, hon. Members opposite would immediately say that we levied a tax on the poor, which we did not attempt to levy on those who were in better circumstances.
  MR. MARKHAMrose to a point of order, and asked whether the hon. Member was justified in entering into the question of United States taxation on immigrants mainly for the purpose of wasting time.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: Is it a Parliamentary expression deliberately to accuse any Member of wasting time?
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is an expression that I have heard used in the House, thought I deprecate its use very much.
  MR. MARKHAM: It is perfectly obvious.
  MR. FORDE RIDLEYwarmly protested against the insinuation of the hon. Member that he was deliberately wasting time, and said that at the time he was interrupted by the hon. Member he had actually finished with that point. The question seemed to him to resolve itself into this. Certain accommodation had to be provided by somebody. The question was what was the accommodation necessary? Was it as extensive as had been stated, and would the cost of providing it be so great that the shipping interest could not bear it? It seemed to him that if anybody would be hit by the expense of landing these immigrants it would be the foreign competitor of the British shipowner and not the British shipowner himself. It was the Danish and German shipowners who brought the bulk of these people to our

  443
  shores, and, that being so, he could not see why hon. Gentlemen opposite should object to the burden being placed on the foreign shipping companies who, in his opinion, were quite capable of taking care of themselves, and who would no doubt take precautions at the ports of embarkation to see that men who were lunatic, idiotic, who suffered from loathsome disease, or who were likely to become a charge upon the rates, were not taken on board their ships with the likelihood of their being thrown back on their hands when they reached this country, with the obligation to take them back again. It was quite possible that if such a thing occurred the foreign shipping companies would find it very difficult to get rid of the rejects of this country. A foreign shipowner who recklessly embarked a lot of undesirable aliens might find them on his hands for a long period before he found an opportunity of getting rid of them. In his opinion much of the criticism of hon. Gentlemen opposite had been criticism not of a constructive kind. Not one suggestion had been made which would help the shipowners out of this difficulty. Of course nobody liked to have to pay that bill, but somebody would have to, and the question was, Who should bear the burden? This would not be so irksome a charge as it had been attempted to make out, and he thought that after the Bill had been in operation for a few weeks it would be found to work smoothly and without injustice either to the community at large or the British shipowners.
  MR. RENWICKsaid he was extremely grateful to the Home Secretary for the concession he had made to the shipowners in allowing immigrants to be landed for the purpose of inspection. If a shipowner brought into this country goods on which duties were levied, as soon as the ship arrived the Custom-house officer went on board and took good care that the goods did not leave the ship until the duty was paid or the goods put into bond.
  MR. MARKHAM: Make them bonded immigrants.
  MR. RENWICKsaid the shipowner in the same way would have to give a bond that in the case of immigrants he would duly carry out the law. He would have to give a guarantee for the safe custody of all immigrants that he brought to this country. The competition between the various ports was very keen, and wherever there was a trade to a port and another port was jealous and wished to have a share of it they advertised facilities. Cattle coming from the River Plate and Canada were put into lock-up carriages which were provided by the municipality, thus showing very conclusively that the port authorities took very good care to provide facilities for carrying on that trade. He felt confident that in connection with the importation of aliens the shipowner would undertake to have a proper examination. At the present time, although this Bill was not in force, if there was a case of infectious disease the captain was not allowed to land any passengers until certain formalities had been complied with. Under the Bill, a shipowner bringing a certain number of immigrants into the country would give notice to have them examined and probably 90 per cent, of the number would have been passed by the medical officer before the ship cast anchor in London. That 90 per pent, would be free to go ashore and the remainder would stay to undergo further examination. Then, was there any hardship that undesirables should be sent back to their own country? We had sufficient undesirables here already, as could be seen by a perusal of our pauperism statistics. It would be found that there were more people in our workhouses at the present time than ever before. He quoted that in order to give an answer to the arguments of hon. Members opposite who displayed such extreme solicitude for undesirable aliens. For his part, he felt that we already had sufficient undesirables in this country and he did not wish the number to be increased. The Bill in no way interfered with immigrants in transit to other countries. He further felt confident that as soon as the Bill became law shipowners would become their own inspectors and take precautions to prevent their ships bringing undesirable aliens into this country. As soon as this Bill became law the shipowners would be able to put

  445
  sufficient pressure upon the harbour authorities to induce them to grant facilities for dealing with the traffic.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLORthought hon. Members would acquit him of any desire to press the interests of a particular trade against the well-being of the general community by the action he had taken in raising this question of expense. A concession had been made in the matter of disembarkation, but that concession, after all, was only in accordance with elementary considerations of public convenience. He had not raised any question as to the maintenance of immigrants during their detention; his only point had been that it was most unfair that the shipowners should be put to the cost of erecting the buildings necessary for the detention of the immigrants. Under the Aliens Bill of last year, which met with so untimely a death, it was provided that the Secretary of State might, with the sanction of the Treasury, provide such accommodation as might be required at any port for the temporary detention of aliens. Surely what was right in principle last year could not be wrong this year. No doubt the shipping trade spoke with a divided voice on the subject, but, as representing the shipping lines of Liverpool, he was requested to press the matter. It was not, however, particularly a Liverpool question; it should be looked at from the point of view of principle, and regarding it in that light he thought the accommodation, so far as buildings were concerned, should be provided by the State. An exactly parallel case was the provision of quarantine stations; they, like this Bill, were for the protection of the public from possibly dangerous elements, but whoever heard of their cost being borne by the shipowners? It might be possible for the shipowners to recover from the trade the additional cost that was to be thrown upon them, but that would be making the English ports more difficult and expensive and less attractive to the trade. Foreign countries had done everything in the way of making improvements at the public expense to cheapen their terminal ports. In this country all that was left to private enterprise, with the result that British shipowners had to bear more than their favoured rivals abroad. It would,
  446
  therefore, be well to consider from the point of view of preserving the trade of the country, whether it was wise to press still more unduly upon the shipping interest.
  MR. MARKHAMsaid that the proceedings since nine o'clock had been a farce, as all the talk was directed solely to the purpose of wasting time.
  MR. RENWICKrose to a point of order. He deeply resented the remark of the hon. Member. He had taken part in the debate since nine o'clock, and he ventured to say that he did not mean it to be a farce, and he hoped the Chairman would rule that it was not a farce.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I very greatly deprecate charges from one side or another about waste of time, and I hope they will not be made again.
  MR. MARKHAMsaid he would substitute "tragedy" for "farce" if it satisfied hon. Members opposite. But he had seen the Patronage Secretary on the Treasury Bench, as on many previous occasions, look round for Members to continue the debate.
  MR. RENWICKsaid that neither directly nor indirectly was he asked to speak by the Patronage Secretary or anybody else. He spoke as a Member of the House.
  MR. FORDE RIDLEY,rising to a point of order, asked whether the description of a debate of the House as a farce was a Parliamentary expression.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The expression has been used occasionally; I think it is an unfortunate one but I cannot say it is un-Parliamentary.
  MR. MARKHAM,who was received with Ministerial cries of "Withdraw," said he should withdraw nothing. What he had said was perfectly correct, as every hon. Member knew.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I hope the hon. Member will turn his attention to the consideration of the Amendment.
  MR. MARKHAMsaid he had supported the Second Readin of the Bill and wished to see it become law. But the House had reached only the tenth line of the Bill, and if much more rapid progress was not made with it he could only come to he conclusion that the Government were not anxious to see it upon the Statute-book.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to come to the Amendment.
  MR. MARKHAMsaid that with regard to the Amendment before the Committee, he thought that where a shipowner took every possible precaution to see that the immigrants he brought to this country were of a desirable character, and it was afterwards found that they were of bad character, the cost ought not to be borne by the shipowner. But unless the Amendment were adopted it would not be to the interest of the shipowners to take precaution against carrying undesirable aliens. He thought it would be a reasonable thing to introduce a clause to give a rebate to the shipowner who could show that he had taken every possible means to find out whether the people he was bringing into the country were respectable. In the United States shipowners made every possible inquiry, knowing that if they brought in undesirables they would have to bear the cost.
  In reply to Mr. J. F. HOPEwho asked a Question the terms of which were inaudible in the Press Gallery,
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that in addition to the security taken from the master of the vessel there were other provisions in the Bill in reference to the escape of immigrants from detention. From Section 10 (5) and Section 7 (1) it would be seen that an immigrant was liable to be dealt with as a rogue and vagabond if he escaped from the conditional landing. Further, Section 7 (3) provided that—
  "Any immigrant who is conditionally landed … shall be liable to be kept in custody in such manner as the Secretary of State directs and whilst in that custody shill be deemed to be in legal custody."
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYhoped the Government would not accede to the request of the hon. Member for the East Toxteth Division. He was the last man who would wish to impose an unjust burden upon any industry, but on the other hand he had no desire to place on the taxpayer a charge that he ought not to bear. Personally he did not think any buildings would have to be erected at all for this purpose.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR: Then why is the provision in the Bill?
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid the provision was inserted solely for the convenience of the shipowner. The shipowner could easily protect himself, as there was no obligation upon him to receive people who he thought would be rejected as undesirables. The hon. Member had not advanced any sufficient reason for an alteration of the Amendment in the manner suggested.
  Lord EDMUND FITZMAURICErose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  MR. DALZIELpointed out that the discussion had proceeded for some time before dinner, and that at nine o'clock the Opposition were prepared to allow the Amendment to go through without even putting the Committee to the trouble of a division. He hoped that that would be borne in mind if at any future stage the Opposition were charged with unduly occupying the time of the Committed. The discussion had shown that the Amendment raised larger principles than was at first thought. It was not at all an infrequent occurrence for 1,200 or 1,400 persons to be landed in a single night at Newhaven, and under the machinery of the Bill all these would have to be examined. The expense of their detention and feeding would have to fall upon someone, and he suspected it would be the shipowner. If that were so it would absolutely ruin the British shipping industry as against the foreigner. The right

  449
  hon. Gentleman had evidently not sufficiently considered the machinery of the-Bill or its probable cost. He did not-think the proposal would be effective, but at the same time the Amendment was an improvement and he would not oppose it.
  SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid that as the real reason for the Bill was that it was against the public interest that there should be unrestricted immigration into this country, it was not fair that a particular class should bear the cost of carrying out its provisions. He thought they had gone quite far enough in the direction of placing hampering conditions upon British shipping. In view of the efforts which were being put forward by Germany and other foreign countries to foster the shipping trade, he thought the House ought to be scrupulously careful to guard against putting any further burdens upon the shipping industry. He maintained that this ought to be made an Imperial charge and should not be placed upon any particular industry.
  MR. MARKHAMsaid the Home Secretary had not answered the Question lie had put to him. The Act introduced last year dealing with this subject, laid down that all the accommodation should be provided by the State. In a case where a shipowner had taken every possible precaution in bringing immigrants into this country, and by some mistake happened to have brought a criminal whom he would have to take back again, he thought it was very unreasonable that the whole of that cost should have to be borne by the ship owner. He trusted, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would give his careful attention to the point which had been raised.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid he could not regard this proposal as being any additional burden upon the shipowner.
  MR. EMMOTT*MR. EMMOTT moved an Amendment providing that the inspection should be made "as soon as practicable after the arrival of the ship in port." His object was to guard against the danger which
  450
  would result to the shipping interest through undue delay in inspection, and to see that the inspecting officer was called to account if unnecessary delay occurred. It was obvious that if the inspection could be taken at any time, and if any undue delay occurred owing it might be to the arbitrary conduct of some jack-in-office, serious damage might be done to the shipping industry. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 11, after the word 'inspector, to insert the words' such inspection to be made as soon as practicable after the arrival of the ship in port."—(Mr. Emmott.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASagreed with the view that the inspection should be made as soon as possible, and he was prepared to accept the principle of the Amendment. He suggested, therefore, that the insertion of the words "such inspection to be made as soon as practicable" would meet the wishes of the hon. Member.
  MR. EMMOTTagreed to this modification of the Amendment.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR moved to insert the following words: "Leave to land shall not be withheld from any immigrant who, having taken his ticket in and embarked from the United Kingdom direct for some other country, and having been refused admission into that country, returns direct there from to a port in the United Kingdom." By this he proposed to meet the difficulty that inevitably would arise of an immigrant who, embarking at a British port and having booked to a foreign port, was refused by the foreign Government. The question would then arise what was to be done with this unfortunate passenger. The shipowner could not be expected to keep him on board ship for the rest of his natural life, but what was the alternative if he could not land at either port? Various suggestions might be made as to

  451
  what should be done with this unhappy man. He might be got rid of m various ways, and sea captains adopted rough and-ready methods sometimes. 'The practical question he had raised, he thought, was very important, and the Amendment he had suggested was strictly limited in its character. Possibly the objection would be raised to his Amendment that the shipowner ought never to have taken this man on board, but that argument surely would not be brought forward by anybody who desired to get rid of aliens. If they had aliens in this country after the Act had passed, it would be either because they were in this country before the Act was passed, they must have got here by leave of the immigration officer, or they must have been smuggled in. Under such circumstances the liability could not rest with the shipowner for the perpetual custody of such aliens. He thought that it was only right that in such a case as he had given a man should be allowed to land.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 14, at end, to insert the words, 'leave to land shall not be withheld from any immigrant who, having taken his ticket in and embarked from the United Kingdom direct for some other country, and having been refused admission into that country, returns direct there from to a port in the United Kingdom.'"—(Mr. Austin Taylor.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. As it stood it would include transmigrants, and he protested against this country being made the dumping-ground for people sent back from the United States; the American Government should return them to the country of origin.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid he drew a clear distinction by his Amendment; it was limited to the immigrant who, having taken his ticket-in this country embarked direct for some other country. The foreign Government would not know the country of origin.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid this Amendment would apply to the trans-
  452
  migrant, and he understood that the case which the hon. Member desired to deal with was the man who was sent back from America. He thought that case deserved consideration, but he did not think that this Amendment was the proper way of dealing with it, and this was not the proper place. It would come in better when they reached the clause which dealt with the question of the persons who were not excluded. Here they were dealing with the general machinery. He trusted that his hon. friend would allow his proposal to stand over and bring it up again later on. He thought it would be then possible to introduce words which would meet the case which had been brought forward.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLORI shall be pleased to postpone my Amendment.
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid h took it that this Amendment was in order here, or else the Chairman would have ruled it out of order.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY.I did not say it was out of order. What I say is that this is not the most convenient place to deal with it.
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid he thought they were justified in accepting the ruling of the Chair upon this Amendment. What he desired to impress upon the Government was that this was a real question and it was not a mere matter of drafting. It was a matter of great moment, especially to Liverpool. It applied to those residents in this country who might be discarded in America, and who would return here. In the case of a man who had come from Hamburg and landed in London, and had then gone to Liverpool and booked to America, that man would have been permitted to land in this country by the immigration officer in London, and should, therefore, be readmitted if he was sent back from America. Surely the Attorney-General did not mean that the shipping company should keep that man on board their ship for the remainder of his life. How did the Home Secretary propose to deal with the problem put forward by the hon. Member for East

  453
  Toxteth? Would the right hon. Gentleman undertake to propose words equivalent to those contained in the Amendment?
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid he would undertake to bring up words at a later stage on the clause that would meet the views of both hon. Gentlemen.
  MR. J. A. PEASEasked whether the Amendment would be in order at a later stage.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I do not see any objection to it on the point of order.
  MR. PEELsaid if these people had been once passed by an immigration officer they were likely to pass the immigration officer again. It did not follow because they did not pass the American test that they would not pass the English test. It was hardly worth while to introduce an Amendment to meet that point.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the case they were supposing was that of the transmigrant, as soon as he had satisfied the immigration officer that he was only going through he was free.
  MR PEELsaid there was the case of the transmigrant and also the case of the man who changed his mind, went to America, and was sent back to this country. If only a month before the man had passed the test in this country why should he fail to pass the test here again?
  MR. J. A. PEASEsaid 195,000 aliens came last year into the country, 100,000 had through tickets, of the balance based upon the Census Returns of 1891 to 1901 not more than 13,000 settled, the remainder, fally 70,000 to 80,000, booked their passages to other countries, and were all immigrants to which the Amendment might become applicable. Some proceeded to other countries at once, and others after a short residence here. It was quite possible that, although they came into this country free from disease, they left it as undesirables, and would be returned to these shores. It would be a great
  454
  hardship to compel the shipowners to maintain these men in perpetuity.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLORasked leave to withdraw the Amendment, in view of the Home Secretary's statement.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he did not think that course represented the arrangement which had been come to.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid the arrangement was that the Government would put down an Amendment themselves.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUELasked what class of aliens rejected in the United States would be permitted to land? Would it be those who had passed through the United Kingdom and stayed a short time, or would it be those who had gone straight through?
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: It will be much more convenient to deal with that point when we have put our Amendment down.
  MR. LOUGHprotested against that course. It had been clearly stated that words of equal value to this Amendment would be accepted only they would be put in at a later stage. What had happened? Two hon. Members opposite had given a threatening notice to the Government and the arrangement come to had now been withdrawn. Why should not this be discussed now? The Amendment had been accepted, except in regard to the precise phraseology.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he pointed out in the first place that it was proposed to bring in the Amendment at the wrong part of the Bill, and in the second place that it was not properly worded. The promise which had been given had amply satisfied the mover of the Amendment, and he hoped it would satisfy hon. Members opposite.
  MR. LOUGHsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman had not given a complete description of what took place. When the hon. Member for Dewsbury brought the question before the Committee the Home Secretary got up and stopped

  455
  him, and said that, an agreement having been arrived at, the Amendment would be admitted. The only question was as to the phraseology of the Amendment, and where it would be put in. On his side they thought the whole thing was settled, then there came the threat from below the gangway on the other side, and now the Government were being intimidated out of making the concession. That was the reason why the Bill was making no progress. He hoped the Home Secretary, who had proceeded reasonably so far as he had been allowed, would stick to the promise he had made to the hon. Member for Dewsbury.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid it was impossible to make concessions unless they were accepted in the spirit in which they were made. If the offer he had made was not accepted he would withdraw it.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid hon. Members representing the shipping interest had accepted the assurance which had been given by the Home Secretary. He hoped they would now be allowed to proceed.
  MR. MARKHAMsaid they wished to know what the Attorney-General had promised. The Committee did not know where they were.
  MR. DALZIELsaid he understood that the Government were prepared to accept in principle the Amendment which had been moved by his hon. friend, and that they would move it at a later stage of the Bill. As the matter stood at present it would be quite in order for the Government, without any breach of faith, to bring forward an entirety different Amendment at a later stage. He hoped an assurance would be given that the main principle of the Amendment would be accepted.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsincerely hoped the Amendment would not be accepted. If it were accepted and became part of the law of the land, it might well happen that aliens whom a United States employer might desire to introduce into that
  456
  country in contravention of the contract labour laws would be dumped down in this country because they were refused admission into the United States. We should become the dumping-ground of that labour which in other countries was not considered fair labour, and our work people at home would be driven from work by the blacklegs refused admission to America.
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid he did not know whether that was a sample of the kind of speech they might reasonably expect from the supporters of the Bill. He had asked the Home Secretary whether he would provide in the Bill for dealing with a class of aliens who in certain circumstances might become a burden on shipowners for the rest of their lives, and the right hon. Gentleman had said he would do so later on. He was quite sure the right hon. Gentleman would not depart from that promise.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the undertaking of the Home Secretary to provide for the cases contemplated by the Amendment had landed the Government in this curious dilemma. One of the strongest arguments urged in favour of the Bill was that we ought not to be the dumping-ground of persons rejected by the United States. Now, the right hon Gentleman was apparently abandoning the whole of that argument, and by his acceptance of the principle of the Amendment was opening the door to that very dumping against which the supporters of the Bill had always so strongly protested. He could understand the hons Member for Hoxton rising in revolt, no doubt he would carry the revolt to the division lobby.
  MR. MARKSsaid that the view expressed by his hon. friend the Member for Hoxton was no mere delusion as to what might happen under the Amendment. As a matter of fact in 1904 the number of immigrants rejected at United States ports was no less than 8,000, and of that number 1,600 were rejected because they were coming into the country as contract labourers. That was one class who under the Amendment would be sent back to British ports.
  MR. HARWOODsaid the supporters of the Bill ought certainly to resist this Amendment. The House seemed to forget that transmigrants would undergo no examination, and the consequence was that this was only a concession to shipowners so as to allow immigrants to come who had not been examined at all. When they were refused in America they would come back here. This was most absurd.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid this was really a very important and substantial question. The Amendment, it would be observed, could only apply to an alien. If a British subject went to the United States and was rejected, he would be sent back here and, of course, we were bound to receive him. Therefore the exact effect of the Amendment would be that if aliens came to this country and rebooked to the United States or Canada, and were rejected, they would be sent back to this country. He had made careful inquiry into this matter, and found that between 20,000 and 30,000 of those who passed through Liverpool were booked in this very way. They came from the Continent and were on the way either to the United States or Canada. They had been induced to come through communications from friends in the United States or Canada, and tickets were taken out for them at Liverpool so that they might continue their journey. This was a most important matter for Liverpool. In 1904 no less than 2,700 men who had been booked from this country to the United States and Canada were rejected, and the people of Liverpool had back on their hands several hundreds of these men. Ten or twelve years ago an arrangement was made for a joint asylums board for the county, but owing to the overwhelming number of lunatics which Liverpool sent to the county asylum a rearrangement had to be made, and Liverpool was mulcted in an extra £6,000 a year. This extra number of lunatics was due to this very class of persons, who, setting out from the East of Europe, were booked at Liverpool, rejected in the United States, and dumped down again in Liverpool.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid he understood that an alien in order to come under the definition of the class of transmigrants would only have to show that he had a through ticket in his possession, and that when he came into this country he had the intention of passing on. That was all a transmigrant had to show under Clause 8 of the Bill. If the Amendment were accepted he took it that immigrants rejected by the United States would be able to return here. That would defeat the whole object of the Bill. He asked the Home Secretary whether that was a true definition of what would happen. He hoped the right hon. Gentle man would make the matter clear.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid the Government did not accept the Amendment, because it was too wide. They agreed, however, that hardship might exist, and were prepared to put in words at the proper place which would in spirit meet the Amendment of his hon. friend.
  MR. MIDDLEMOREdid not know precisely what the Home Secretary meant by meeting the Amendment in spirit. The Amendment suggested that we should accept the very worst class of alien immigrants, namely those whom America refused. That was what it amounted to. He thought that was wrong, unjust, and contrary to the spirit of the Bill. America had ten thousand times the absorbing power that we had, and if she could not take these undesirable aliens he was very sure we could not.
  Question put, and negatived.
  The next Amendment on the Paper stood in the name of Mr. WHITLEY (Halifax), and was in the following terms—
  "In page 1, line 14, at end, to insert the words 'Provided that the prohibition contained in this section shall not apply to any person, who, although a naturalised subject of another country, was born in the United Kingdom."
  THE CHAIRMANsaid this ought to come as an Amendment on Clause 8.
  MR CHARLES McARTHURsaid that under Sub-section 2, where leave

  459
  to land was withheld in the case of any immigrant the master of the ship or the immigrant might appeal to the emigration Board of the port. He contended that the master was not the proper person—it did not come within his sphere—to be held responsible for the immigrants. His business was to attend to the navigation of his ship, and he had not the necessary knowledge to qualify him to say when appeals should be made. The master could know nothing of those immigrants when they came on board ship in such large numbers. Further, the master could have no opportunity of examining them while attending to the proper navigation of his ship. Moreover, he could not supervise the immigrants when they went on shore, because his duties kept him on board ship. As the Bill stood, a number of obligations and penalties would be thrown upon the master for matters for which he could not really be held responsible. The Association of Shipmasters had pointed out that under this Bill a great deal too much was cast upon the masters which they could not perform at all. According to the Shipping Act of 1894, in matters of this kind the owners or agents were held responsible. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 16, after the word master, 'to insert the words' owner or agent.'"—(Mr. Charles Mc. Arthur.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid he had no objection to the Amendment.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid the Amendment he had to propose was preliminary to a subsequent one in a later clause. It was to secure that instead of a board there should be a tribunal or judicial authority. This matter had been discussed by the Standing Committee on Law, and he understood that the Government had accepted the principle that there should be some legal representative on the board. He
  460
  knew of no precedent for a board of this character being called upon to exercise judicial functions; and he thought that the Committee would recognise that as this body would have to deal with delicate questions relating to political crimes it should be a judicial body. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 17, to leave out the first word 'board,' and insert the word 'authority.'"—(Mr. Atherley-Jones.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'board' stand part of the clause."
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that the Government quite recognised that on a board of this kind there ought to be a person of legal experience, but it was not desirable that the board should be wholly legal.
  MR. LOUGHthought that the Attorney-General should follow the American precedent, which gave a right of appeal to Washington. It was, he insisted, incumbent on the Government to think of the exceptional cases in which an appeal should be provided.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that the questions to be decided would be almost invariably decided on matters of fact, and he did not think it at all desirable that there should be an appeal.
  MR. LOUGHsaid that, admitting that it would be only in exceptional cases that questions of any great magnitude would arise, yet there might come for refuge to our shores some very eminent alien, like Mazzini, who might be condemned by this board; and he thought there should be a right of appeal.
  MR. LEVYsaid he could quite imagine hon. Members who represented the East End of London, putting considerable pressure on the Home Secretary to refuse as many immigrants as possible, although these might be an economic asset to the country. He objected to the creation of an arbitrary authority against whose decision there was no appeal to a judicial body. Could

  461
  not the ordinary judicial authorities and magistrates of the country be trusted to deal with this work and decide on at the questions which might arise? It was undesirable that immigrants should be rejected at the dictates of a few hon. Members who desired to save their seats at the next election. He thought it was a public scandal and discredit to the House of Commons to say that there was no judicial tribunal in this country fitted to decide these questions. They might have a board who would reject Gorky, if he succeeded in reaching this country, and there would be no appeal. He implored hon. Members to stand up for the rights and liberties of the people, for the principle of asylum, and demand that immigrants should not be rejected without having an opportunity to appeal to a judicial tribunal.
  MAJOR SEELYsaid that it would be in the recollection of hon. Gentlemen opposite that this was a point on which there was great division of opinion last year, but a general agreement had been reached by them, showing that a judicial authority would be better than the new board proposed to be set up. We in this country had never yet been governed by a bureaucratic authority, but under the provisions of this Bill we would be governed by a bureaucracy. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he had made a concession, but that was only to alter the form of the bureaucratic government, and was no concession at all. Recollecting what had occurred last year, he would appeal to the Home Secretary to give some assurance that a judicial authority would deal with these cases.
  MR. DALZIELsaid that before the division was taken the Committee should have more light as to how this board was going to operate. He understood that names were going to be submitted to the Home Secretary from which he would select three men who were to constitute the board. Who was going to submit the list from which these men were to be selected by the Government? What character of persons was it contemplated to put on the board? Was this to be a political board? There was a strong feeling in regard to alien immigration in
  462
  some quarters, and he could conceive hon. Members for the East End of London insisting that the board should be constituted of gentlemen who strongly objected to any alien being admitted into this country at all. Why were the local judicial authorities not good enough for this purpose? He also asked if it were contemplated that the members of the board were going to be paid for their services. He asked his hon. friend the Member for Durham if he was willing that the Court of summary jurisdiction which he proposed should be unpaid?
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid that the Court of summary jurisdiction which he proposed would not involve much expense to the State.
  MR. DALZIELsaid that unfortunately the Government were in no way inclined to accept the views of his hon. friend. Of course the members of this board would have to be paid. They could not expect gentlemen of great business experience, or who belonged to the legal profession, to devote every day to the consideration of appeals in regard to these immigrants. If they were to be paid, what were their salaries to be? This was the time when the Committee ought to have some assurance from the Government as to what their intentions were in regard to all these matters.
  MR. RUNCIMANasked whether the Attorney-General really thought that the proposed board would be competent to deal with extradition cases and cases of lunacy among the immigrants. Was it possible that a scratch board of this character could be properly equipped for dealing with such cases? To imagine that three administrative or business gentlemen would be a fit and proper body to deal with these questions was absurd. They ought to be most careful as to the class of men who were going to be allowed to exercise these powers. He appealed to the Home Secretary to adopt the more reasonable frame of mind which he showed last year in Grand Committee. He urged the right hon. Gentleman to give them a Court of Summary Jurisdiction to which all these appeals might go.
  MR. BRIGHTsaid that this Bill was an entirely new departure. Not only would this measure seriously damage their immigrant trade, but it was also a direct attack upon human liberty, for they were now departing from the old idea of human freedom in this country which had done so much for the British Empire. He agreed that every possible safeguard should be adopted, but at the same time no injustice should be done. Professor Dicey in one of his recent books had stated that the Bill of 1904 betrayed a marked reaction against the immigration of foreigners, and showed an indifference to personal freedom, and this Bill was much the same. He appealed to the Government to provide a proper judicial authority for this purpose.
  MR. BRYCEsaid that as the point would have to be discussed again when Clause 2, which determined the constitution of the board, was reached, time would be saved if the Government were to accept the Amendment, which did not at all prejudice the question. It would be far more easy for the Committee to deal with this question upon its merits on Clause 2.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he could not accede to that suggestion. However suitable hon. Members might think a judicial authority would be, the Government considered that such an authority was not suitable for dealing with such questions as to whether an alien was an undesirable or not. The Government considered that a board was a good deal better to deal with these questions, and, moreover, the existing judicial authorities were very hard worked at present. The Government had made up its mind on the subject. Despatch was essential; the matter must be dealt with promptly, and that could only be done by setting up a special tribunal for the purpose.
  MR. RUNCIMAN. Does the learned Attorney-General think that this is a proper body for dealing with extraditable offences?
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: The only question for them to consider is whether a man has been convicted of these
  464
  offences, and they are the only questions which will arise. With regard to the question of lunacy, I think the hon. Member will recognise that every day such cases are dealt with by similar bodies to those which are now proposed. All the board would have to-decide was whether an immigrant had been convicted for an offence liable to extradition.
  MR. LOUGHasked whether, if this-board refused to allow a man like Mazzini to land, there would be no appeal. If so there was no precedent for it. These three gentlemen might make a flagrant mistake, yet their decision was to be-more absolute than that of a Judge of the High Court. In America an immigrant had only to find a small sum, about £1, and he could have his case taken to Washington and decided by the highest authorities in the country, no matter what his case was. Were we who had set an example where human freedom was concerned to refuse an appeal?
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that by Sub-section 4 of Clause 8 it was provided that if any question arose as to whether any offence was an offence of a political character, it should be referred to the Home Secretary, whose decision was to be final.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid this board would have the function of deciding whether or not an offence was practical, a board upon which might be the chief constable of the county, or an officer of Customs. If the hon. and learned Gentleman said it would be referred to the Home Secretary he made the matter worse, for this would be the first time in the history of the country that it had been proposed that judicial functions should be given to an executive officer. This raised a large constitutional question. It was really a kind of small Star Chamber which it was proposed to set up which would act absolutely independently, and there would be no appeal from its decisions, however monstrous they might be. The Attorney-General told them that they might appeal to the Home Office, but they all knew what that meant. From a recent case they knew that it was the head clerk at the Home Office

  465
  who disposed of such matters. He thought he was entitled to some support from his Front Bench on a matter of this sort. ["Hear, hear!"] He did not speak in any terms of complaint, because he recognised that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen had made a suggestion which, he thought, might have been acceptable to the Home Secretary.
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsaid his hon. and learned friend's appeal was perfectly justified. He hoped he would accept from him the assurance that they could not have anticipated that a discussion on the fourth section of Clause 8 would arise at that stage. His hon. and learned friend had expressed the views of those who sat on the Front Bench in re-
  gard to this matter, and, when the clause relating to this judicial body was reached, it was probable that it would meet with the strongest opposition on that side of the House. They fully recognised that this was one of the most crucial questions in the Bill.
  LORD HUGH CECILrose to continue the debate, when Mr. SECRETARY AKERS-DOUGLAS rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided—Ayes, 187; Noes, 147. (Division List No. 219.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Chamberlain, RtHn. J. A. (Worc.

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Allhusen, AugustusHenryEden

  Chapman, Edward

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Greene, Sir EW(B'rySEdm'nds

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Arnold-Forster. Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Arrol, Sir William

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Hamilton, Marq. of(L'nd'nderry

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Denny, Colonel

  Helder, Augustus

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J.(Manch'r.

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

  Balfour, RtHn Gerald W.(Leeds

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Howard, John(Kent, Faveraham

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Faber, Edmund B.(Hants, W.)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Beach, Rt. Hn.SirMichael Hicks

  Fellowes. RtHn.AilwynEdward

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Fergusson, Rt.Hn.SirJ.(Manc'r.

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George. H

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Finlay, SirR.B.(Inv'rn'ssB'ghs)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt.Hn.Col.W.

  Bingham, Lord

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Keswick, William

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Brassey, Albert

  Forster, Henry William

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Foster Philip S. (Warwick,S.W.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End)

  Bull, William James

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Lee, ArthurH.(Hants Fareham

  Butcher, John George

  Godson, SirAugustus Frederick

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Campbell, J.H.M.(DublinUniv.

  Gordon, Hn.J.E.(Elgin&Nairn)

  Legge, Col. Hon Heneage

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Gordon, Maj Evans(T'rH'mlets

  Leveson-Gower Frederick N. S.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol,S

  Percy, Earl

  Spear, John Ward

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Lucas, ReginaldJ.(Portsmouth)

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Stanley, Rt Hn. Lord (Lanes.)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Pryce-Jones, Lt-Col. Edward

  Stock, James Henry

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Purvis, Robert

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Tuff, Charles

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Renwick, George

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Turnour, Viscount

  Maxwell. RtHnSirH.E.(Wigt'n

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Vincent, Col. SirC.E H(Sheffield

  Maxwell, W. J. H(Dumfriesshire

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Middlemore, JohnThrogmorton

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. SirWilliam H.

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne

  Milvain, Thomas

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York,E.R.)

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Younger, William

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Smith, H.C(North'mb.Tyneside

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Smith, RtHnJ.Parker(Lanarks

  Peel, Hn. Wm.Robert Wellesley

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Lough, Thomas

  Allen, Charles P.

  Emmott, Alfred

  Lundon, W.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  M'Kean, John

  Bell, Richard

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Black, Alexander William

  Field, William

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Boland, John

  Findlay, Alexander(Lanark, NE

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Brigg, John

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Mooney, John J.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Buxton, N. E. (York, NR, Whitby

  Gilhooly, James

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Caldwell, James

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Nussey, Thomas Willan

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Hammond, John

  O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Harcourt, Lewis

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil)

  O'Brien, P. J. Tipperary, N.)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  O'Connor James(Wicklow, W.)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Harwood George

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Dowd, John

  Crean, Eugene

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Malley, William

  Crombie, John William

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  O'Mara, James

  Crooks, William

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Partington, Oswald

  Cullman, J.

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Joyce, Michael

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Delany, William

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Rea, Russell

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavap,W.

  Reddy, M.

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lamont, Norman

  Richards, Thomas

  Douglas, Charles M (Lanark)

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Duffy, William J.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Edwards, Frank

  Leese, SirJosephF.(Accrington

  Roberts, John H. (Dengibhs.)

  Ellice, Capt EC(S.Andrw'sBghs

  Levy, Maurice

  Roche, John (Galway, East

  468

  469

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Sullivan, Donal

  Whiteley, George(York, W.R.)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radclitre)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Runciman, Walter

  Tennant, Harold John

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  Wills, ArthurWalters(N. Dorset

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Tomkinson, James

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Toulmin, George

  Woodhouse SirJT.(Huddersf'd

  Seely, Maj J.E.B.(Isle of Wight

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Young, Samuel

  Sheehy, David

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

  Slack, John Bamford

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Question put accordingly, "That the word 'board' stand part of the clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 189; Noes, 145. (Division List No. 220.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Denny, Colonel

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt.Hn. Col. W.

  Allhusen, Augustus HenryEden

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Keswick, William

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn Hugh O

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lawson, HnHLW (Mile End)

  Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt Hn Sir H.

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

  Lee, ArthurH. (Hants, Fareham

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Fellowes, RtHn AilwynEdward

  Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ.(Man'cr.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick, N.S

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Finlay, Sir R.B.(Inv'rn'ssB'ghs

  Long, Col. CharlesW.(Evesham

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Long, Rt.Hn.Walter(Bristol, S.

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J. (Manch'r.)

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Forster, Henry William

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Foster. Philip S(Warwick, S. W..

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gardner, Ernest

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Banner, John S, Harmood-

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Beach, Rt.Hn.Sir Michael Hicks

  Godson, SirAugustus Frederick

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Gordon, Hn.J.E.(Elgin&Nairn)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Gordon, Maj. Evans(T'r H'mlets

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Bingham, Lord

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Maxwell, RtHn SirH.E.(Wigt'n

  Brassey, Albert

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Maxwell, W.J.H.(Dumfriesshire

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Greene, SirEW(B'ryS.Edm'nds

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Milvain, Thomas

  Bull, William James

  Hamilton, Marq.of(L'nd'nderry

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh,N.

  Butcher, John George

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Campbell, J.H.M.(Dublin Univ.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants).

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Morgan, DavidJ. (Walthamstow

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wore

  Helder, Augustus

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Chapman, Edward

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Mount, William Arthur

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Howard, John(KentFaversham

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Percy, Earl

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Turnour, Viscount

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Vincent, Col. SirCE. H.(Sheffield

  Purvis, Robert

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Skewes-Cox Thomas

  Walrond, Rt. Hn.SirWilliam H.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Whiteley, H, (Ashton und. Lyne

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Smith. H. C (North'mb. Tyneside

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Renwick, George

  Smith, RtHn J. Parker(Lanarks

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R)

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Spear, John Ward

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Wyndham,-Quin Col. W. H.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Stock, James Henry

  Younger, William

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Tuff, Charles

  Sandys, Lieut-Col. Thos. Myles

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork,N.E.)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  O'Brien, P. J, (Tipperary, N.)

  Allen, Charles P.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W-

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Bell, Richard

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Dowd, John

  Black, Alexander William

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Boland, John

  Hammond, John

  O'Malley, William

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Harcourt, Lewis

  O'Mara, James

  Brigg, John

  Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Partington, Oswald

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Harwood, George

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Buxton, NE.(York,NR,Whitby

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Rea, Russell

  Caldwell, James

  Higham, John Sharp

  Reddy, M.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Hope, John Deans (Fife West)

  Richards, Thomas

  Cawley, Frederick

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Joyce, Michael

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Kearley, Hudson, E.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Crean, Eugene

  Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan,W

  Runciman, Walter

  Cremer, William Randall

  Kilbride, Denis

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland

  Crombie, John William

  Lamont, Norman

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Crooks, William

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal,W.)

  Seely, Maj.J.E B.(Isle of Wight)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Sheehy, David

  Cullinan, J.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Levy, Maurice

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Delany, William

  Lough, Thomas

  Slack, John Bamford

  Devlin, CharlesRamsay(Galway

  Lundon, W.

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Doogan, P. C.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sullivan, Donal

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  M'Kean, John

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Duffy, William J.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Tennant, Harold John

  Edwards, Frank

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  Ellice, CaptEC(SAndrew'sB'ghs

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Tomkinson, James

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Toulmin, George

  Emmott, Alfred

  Mooney, John J.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Villiers Ernest Amherst

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Waldron, Lanrence Ambrose

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Wason,John Cathcart (Orkney

  Ffrench, Peter

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wason, John cathcart (Orkney

  Field, William

  O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

  White, George (Norfolk

  Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, N

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  472

  473

  White, Patrick (Meath,North)

  Wills, ArthurWalters(N.Dorset

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur.

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.

  Wilson, John(Durhim, Mid.)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Woodhouse, SirJT.(Huddersf'd

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Young, Samuel

  Question put, and agreed to.

  And, it being after Midni ght, the Chair man left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question proposed; "That the House do now adjourn."—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)
  MR. JOHN ELLISsaid that a large number of Orders of the Day were put down every day, which it was certain would not be reached this session, and he wished to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury whether ah announcement could not be made as to which of them could be dropped.
  MR. DALZIELasked whether the right hon. Gentleman could give them some assurance that he would be able to secure the attendance of a majority of the supporters of the Government on future occasions, and thus make it possible for them to save the time of the House. They were ready on the Opposition side of the House to allow an Amendment to go through at nine o'clock, and owing to circum stances which the right hon. Gentleman was aware of, a full hour was lost owing to the fact that the Government had not got a majority of their supporters present in the House. He wished to
  474
  know if the right hon. Gentleman would take some further steps to secure the Attendance of the supporters of the Government, and thus afford them more time to discuss this important Bill. If they lost one hour every night whilst the Aliens Bill was before the Committee, it would amount to a very large loss of time in the end, and they would be considering business when they ought to be thinking about going away for their holidays. Could the right hon. Gentleman not bring some pressure to bear upon his supporters, or hold out some hope that their services would be rewarded, so as to get his followers to attend in their places? There were many important Bills to consider and if they went on in this way there would be no hope for the Unemployed Bill.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he thought his hon. friend was quite justified in making some protest against the way the House had been treated. An Amendment had been under discussion which was not opposed by the Government, and there was no disposition to oppose it on either side of the House, and yet the matter was debated for a long time, mostly by hon. Members opposite. That was not the only case which had occurred of time being wasted that day during the Committee stage of the Aliens Bill. He thought the Home Secretary might endeavour to attend more regularly luring the Committee stage of the Aliens Bill than he had done during the last

  475
  sitting of the House. It was entirely owing to the Home Secretary's absence and want of touch with what had actually taken place that an incident had arisen which had given rise to a good deal of irritation. He hoped the Government would do everything in their power to carry on the business of the House of Commons creditably and avoid any further^ cause for complaint in this respect.
  MR. KEIR HARDIEasked whether the Unemployed Bill and the Workmen's Compensation Bill were going to be altogether shelved until the Aliens Bill was disposed of. He thought they had a right to insistupon some understanding upon this question, because if that was the case it was very evident that the chances of these other Bills were very slight indeed He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he had not found upon his own side of the House, as well as in the country generally, that the feeling was much more pronounced in favour of the Unemployed Bill becoming law than it was in respect to the measure which the House had been discussing that day. He could say, with some assurance, that the information which he had got in his possession fully justified his contention that this was the case. The working classes of the country had expressed no opinion in favour of the Aliens Bill, but they had made many demands to have the Unemployed Bill pushed through without any further delay. Only that day the Prime Minister had stated that he was unable to fix-a day for the Second Reading of the Unemployed Bill. Would the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury
  476
  give them some indication as to whether the Unemployed Bill would at least be allowed to run side by side with the Aliens Bill so as to obviate the danger which existed of two Bills which, in his opinion, were of infinitely more importance than the Aliens Bill not being passed into law this session. He trusted that they would have some assurance upon this point in order that they might make their arrangements for being present when the Unemployed Bill came on. He hoped the whole time of the session would not be wasted upon a worthless measure like the Aliens Bill.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRE-TARYOFTHETREASURY (Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD, Somersetshire,)said he was very glad to find that the legislation introduced by the Government in favour of the working classes was so popular on the Opposition side of the House, and he trusted that they would endeavour to assist the Government to pass those measures into law. The three important measures were the Workmen's Compensation Bill, the Unemployed Bill, and the Aliens Bill. He could not say at the present moment which would start at the shortest price. He would certainly convey to the Prime Minister the view which had been expressed upon these matters. With regard to what had been said by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe in regard to the Orders of the Day, he agreed that it was inconvenient and he would see what could be done in the matter.
  Ajourned at twenty-nine minute before One o'clock.