HC Deb 28 June 1905 vol 148 cc441-73

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 RIDLEY

said 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 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. MARKHAM (Nottinghamshire, Mansfield)

rose 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 (Glasgow, St. Rollox)

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 RIDLEY

warmly 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 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. RENWICK

said 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. RENWICK

said 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 sufficient pressure upon the harbour authorities to induce them to grant facilities for dealing with the traffic.

MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR

thought 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, 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. MARKHAM

said 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. RENWICK

rose 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. MARKHAM

said 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. RENWICK

said 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. MARKHAM

said 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. MARKHAM

said 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. HOPE (Sheffield, Brightside)

who asked a Question the terms of which were inaudible in the Press Gallery,

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said 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 BANBURY (Camberwell, Peckham)

hoped 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 BANBURY

said 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 FITZMAURICE (Wiltshire, Cricklade)

rose 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. DALZIEL

pointed 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 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 COLOMB (Great Yarmouth)

said 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. MARKHAM

said 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-DOUGLAS

said he could not regard this proposal as being any additional burden upon the shipowner.

*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 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-DOUGLAS

agreed 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. EMMOTT

agreed to this modification of the Amendment.

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 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 FINLAY

said 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 TAYLOR

said 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 FINLAY

said this Amendment would apply to the trans- 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 TAYLOR

I shall be pleased to postpone my Amendment.

MR. RUNCIMAN (Dewsbury)

said 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. RUNCIMAN

said 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 Toxteth? Would the right hon. Gentleman undertake to propose words equivalent to those contained in the Amendment?

MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS

said 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. PEASE

asked 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. PEEL (Manchester, S.)

said 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 FINLAY

said 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 PEEL

said 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. PEASE

said 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 hardship to compel the shipowners to maintain these men in perpetuity.

MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment, in view of the Home Secretary's statement.

MR. LOUGH

said he did not think that course represented the arrangement which had been come to.

MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS

said the arrangement was that the Government would put down an Amendment themselves.

MR. HERBERT SAMUEL

asked 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. LOUGH

protested 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 FINLAY

said 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. LOUGH

said 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 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-DOUGLAS

said 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 TAYLOR

said 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. MARKHAM

said they wished to know what the Attorney-General had promised. The Committee did not know where they were.

MR. DALZIEL

said 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 HAY

sincerely 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 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. RUNCIMAN

said 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 SAMUEL

said 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. MARKS (Kent, Thanet)

said 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. HARWOOD

said 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 RUTHERFORD

said 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. KEARLEY (Devonport)

said 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-DOUGLAS

said 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. MIDDLEMORE (Birmingham, N.)

did 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 CHAIRMAN

said this ought to come as an Amendment on Clause 8.

MR CHARLES McARTHUR

said that under Sub-section 2, where leave 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-DOUGLAS

said he had no objection to the Amendment.

MR. ATHERLEY-JONES (Durham, N. W.)

said 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 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 FINLAY

said 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. LOUGH

thought 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 FINLAY

said 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. LOUGH

said 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. LEVY (Leicestershire, Loughborough)

said 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 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 SEELY

said 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. DALZIEL

said 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 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-JONES

said that the Court of summary jurisdiction which he proposed would not involve much expense to the State.

MR. DALZIEL

said 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. RUNCIMAN

asked 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. BRIGHT

said 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. BRYCE

said 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 FINLAY

said 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 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. LOUGH

asked 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 FINLAY

said 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-JONES

said 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 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 FITZMAURICE

said 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 CECIL (Greenwich)

rose 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
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.)
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.

Forward to