THE ALIENS BILL. (Hansard, 17 May 1906)

§ MR. KEIK HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil)
said he desired to ask the Patronage Secretary a Question concerning an occurrence in another place. He wished to ask the hon. Gentleman what action the Government intended to take, if any, in connection with the rejection of the Aliens Bill by the House of Lords. This Bill was a small Bill which had passed the House of Commons without opposition. The principle involved in it was the keeping out of aliens who were being brought into this country under contract to take the places of British workmen engaged in a trade dispute. The alien was excluded because he was a foreigner under the law as it now stood, but no matter how poor he happened to be, if he came for the purpose of taking the place of British workmen who might be locked out, he could, without further question, evade the provisions of the Aliens Act.
The Bill had been discussed last session, and probably hon. Members on both sides of the House thought there was this year no occasion to reopen it. It went to a Second Reading in another place, and was rejected by a very large vote, and what lie wished to ask was why the Government did not put one of its members there in charge of the measure. Two members of the late Government in another place stated they were 740 willing to let the Bill be read a second time, provided some member of the Government would take the responsibility of the Bill at that stage. No response was made by the Government to that offer. It seemed to him therefore that the Government had failed in its duty towards the measure. He wished to know how long the Government intended to countenance and tolerate the existence of another place which was totally irresponsible to the country, and had power to make, mar, or mutilate a measure passed by the House which had, at all events, been elected to represent the people of the country. Was the democracy of Great Britain to be a reality or a sham? As things stood it was to all intents and purposes a sham. Were they in another place to ride rough-shod over measures passed by the House of Commons?

§ ME. CROOKS (Woolwich)
had also heard the debate in the House of Lords, which suggested to anyone listening that the House of Commons was non-existent. The House of Lords had got it into their heads that the Bill had had something to; do with protection or free trade. It did no doubt mean protection, but it was the protection of the workman against the sweater, and not the protection I that they talked about, which was the protection of the sweater against the worker. It was a strange thing that this House should be called in to instruct the other Assembly as to what they were to do. He heard the debate, and it appeared to him that the other House wanted a pledge that this Bill should be amended in Committee before they would give it a Second Reading, and failing to obtain that pledge they threw it out. He agreed with the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil that it was nearly time they went out to the nation and told them clearly that there was an Assembly which represented no one but themselves, which wasted all the energies of the representatives of the people, and opposed all the reforms that they were trying to bring about, and that so long as the House of Lords existed there was no room for a House of Commons. Then, he ventured to say, the people would rise in their wrath and put an end to that wonderful Assembly.

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OP THE TREASURY (Mr. GEORGE WHITE LEY, Yorkshire, W.R., Pudsey)
said the Bill to which allusion had been made had passed through all its stages in the House of Commons, practically unopposed, and, as he understood, with the general assent and support of the House. Many of those on that side of the House, and indeed, in all parts of the House, were concerned at the somewhat regrettable incident that a Bill passed without opposition in that House should have been summarily rejected in another place. But he pointed out that, after all was said and done, it was a private Member's Bill, and it was not the business or the custom of a Government to take up a private Member's Bill as a Government Bill in another place. But, although the Government did not do so in this instance, he might say that he in his private capacity, not as a member of the Government, did to some extent interest himself, understanding that the hon. Member for Barnard Castle had not A noble Lord within the circle of his acquaintance. He did not think there was any occasion upon which a Government had taken up a private Member's Bill—not as an ordinary thing—of course, it had been done. But the question of what the Government would do should be addressed to the Prime Minister, and he ventured to suggest that the Motion for Adjournment for the Whitsuntide holidays would afford a convenient opportunity.

§ MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON (Durham, Barnard Castle)
asked if the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury would give an assurance to the House that he would inform the Prime Minister of what had taken place on the Motion for Adjournment. That was, he said, what was done on a previous occasion, and he hoped that the Patronage Secretary would not depart from precedent in 742 this matter. He hoped the Patronage Secretary would follow the practices of the late Government and would intimate to the Prime Minister what had taken place.

MR. GEORGE WHITBLEY
said he would readily give the assurance. But in point of fact notice that this question was to be raised had only reached him about three minutes to eleven, or he would have endeavoured to secure the attendance of the Prime Minister. In fact he did go to his hon. friend's private, room, but he was not there.

§ MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON
said he did not wish the House or the Patronage Secretary to be under the impression that he desired the Prime Minister to be in his place when these discussions took place. All he asked the hon. Gentleman to do was kindly to inform the Prime Minister as to what had taken place on the Motion for Adjournment.

§ MR. GEORGE WHITELEY
I shall certainly with pleasure give that assurance to the hon. Member.

§ LORD R. CECIL
regretted that in this House they never had any opportuntunity of hearing anything about the Bill. He had read the Bill, and his judgment—perhaps quite wrongly—was that the Bill was absolutely unworkable. He had not heard the Patronage Secretary say that the Bill was a good one he did not know how far it would be in order to refer to the Debate in another place, but, as he understood the hon. Member for Merthyr, a speech was made, certain objections were taken, and the Government were asked to answer those objections. A suggestion was made that if some guarantee was given that the provisions of the Bill would be made workable and serviceable the Bill would be allowed to go through. That being so, he could not see that 743 any objection could be taken to those who sat in another place carrying out what they conceived to be their duty and rejecting the Bill. If hon. Members desired to abolish the House of Lords, that was an intelligible policy—[Cheers." [An HON. MEMBER: The sooner the better]—but while that House existed it would be a grave dereliction on the part of hon. Members to complain of its discharging its duties.

§ MR. PAUL (Northampton)
said he understood that in another place the Motion that the Bill should be read a second time that day six months was not moved. What happened was that the Motion that the Bill should now be read a second time was negatived. He would like to know whether that precluded the Bill being brought forward in another place again and so enabling another decision to be taken upon it. Because, as he understood, a Motion which merely negatived the Second Reading of a Bill did not preclude that Bill being brought forward during the same session or at any reasonable time.

§ MR. J. WARD
said that the real reason why this Bill was rejected in another place was because its promoters refused to give a pledge to allow the Bill to be amended out of existence. What he desired to call attention to was that unless some forcible pressure could be brought to bear on the other House, it seemed that most of the proceedings of this House were going to end in an absolute farce. Either the country was autocratically or democratically governed. Probably it would be a good thing to give the nation an opportunity of deciding whether it was in favour of representative government or government by gentlemen who represented no one Hut themselves.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
said, having heard the Lords' debate, he agreed that 744 the question negatived was that the Bill be "now" read a second time, He wished to ask what would be the effect of a similar finding in this House on any Bill, and whether it would not be possible to revive a Bill so negatived at any time.

§ MR. SPEAKER
In reply to the hon. Member, I may say that I am quite ignorant of what the rules in another place may be; but, if the same thing should occur in this House as is represented to have occurred in another, there would be nothing to prevent the mover of the Bill from presenting it for the consideration of the House afresh.

§ MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM (Glamorganshire, Rhondda)
said he was one of those present when the Bill was discussed and passed in this House and he desired to enter a strong protest on behalf of a very large body of working men against the regrettable incident that had taken place elsewhere this afternoon. The hon. Member recapitulated the position of the question dealt with in the rejected Bill as it appeared to the working people of this country, and expressed the hope that the present democratic Government would prove to the country that they were really in sympathy with the working classes. It did not matter what Government ruled in this country so long as it sympathised with the working man and dealt justly with those whom it represented. He thanked Mr. Speaker for his suggestion and hoped it would be possible for the Government to do in another place what Mr. Speaker had just said it would be possible to do in the House of Commons.