§ (1) No former enemy alien shall for a period of two years after the passing of this Act be permitted to land in the United Kingdom either from the sea or from the air, or to remain in the United Kingdom without the permission of the Secretary of State, to be granted only on special grounds.
§ (2) A list of the persons to whom permissions are so granted during each month shall be published in the "London Gazette" at the end of each such month.
§ Sir H. NIELDI beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "for a period of two years after the passing of this Act," and to insert instead thereof the words "until Parliament shall otherwise determine."
The House will remember that the period in Clause 1 in the Bill as introduced was two years. On the Second Beading we came to a compromise with the Home Secretary, and the period was made one year. In Committee this Clause was inserted, and two years has been made the period. I submit that it is not only inconsistent, but undesirable, to have two periods in the Bill, therefore my Amendment would have the effect of compelling the Government to legislate before the expiration of the two years. We all hope that the Government will legislate, as they promised, in order to deal drastically and generally with this subject in a permanent form; but in order that the Home Secretary and his Office should not be under the compulsion to do that within a limited period, having regard to the conditions under which Parliamentary life is carried on now, I suggest the insertion of the words "until Parliament otherwise determines." That leaves the Government a perfectly free hand to introduce legislation, if necessary, within two years.
§ Mr. BOTTOMLEYI beg to second the Amendment.
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME OFFICE (Mr. Shortt)I hope my hon. and learned Friend (Sir H. Nield) will follow the course which he adopted in Committee, and be content with the two years. Putting in the words he proposes 538 makes this a permanent measure. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes, because they say, "until Parliament shall otherwise determine," whereas if you put in a definite date, then the question must arise, and it is infinitely better that it should. My hon. and learned Friend has reminded the House that this was a matter agreed to in Committee. Originally the Bill gave one year, it was proposed that that should be left out, and then in Committee an hon. Member suggested two years, and my hon. and learned Friend himself said,
I am prepared to accept the word 'two.'We had a full discussion, and I hope my hon. Friend will continue to be satisfied to accept the word "two."
§ Sir J. BUTCHERI hope the Home Secretary will reconsider his decision. It was the declared policy of the Government at the time of the General Election to prevent enemy aliens from coming back to this country. That policy was accepted by a vast number of the Members of this House and was endorsed by them and by the electors. In that policy there was no limitation of time. Neither the Prime Minister nor anyone else in the Government said that the policy of the exclusion of former enemy aliens was to last for one, two, or any other number of years. I do not for a moment suggest that it is not open to Parliament, if they think fit, to review that policy. All that we ask them to do is to carry out the policy as declared by the Govern merit and as accepted by the country and then leave it to Parliament, if they think lit, to alter it. For that reason, if for no other, the words "two years" should be left out and the Amendment inserted. There is another reason. If you have two years put in you may have an awkward gap or hiatus. It is not by any means certain that the Government will be able to introduce such a Bill within two years. They may have other matters to deal with. What will happen if the two years elapse and no Bill is introduced? The declared policy of keeping out enemy aliens will come to an end and, in the interim between the expiration of two years and the new Bill being passed, all aliens will be able to come in without any interference whatsoever, unless the Government should think fit to introduce some Clause into an Order in Council. That would be extremely inconvenient. It would hamper the action of the Government, and it would force them either 539 to bring in a Bill at a time when they did not want to do so, or to issue a new Order in Council. The Amendment would leave it entirely open to them to alter the policy when they thought fit, and it would also facilitate the conduct of business. I do, therefore, ask the Government to say that it is really the only logical course to pursue.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYI hope that the Secretary will stand fast in this matter. It is much better to leave the words as they are. We do not know who will be our enemies in two years time, and the House has always been ready to give such powers as are necessary.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Mr. MURCHISONI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "two," and to insert instead thereof the word "seven."
It is needless to remind the right hon. Gentleman of the Election pledges of Ministers and of the fact that feeling in the country is very strong on this subject. In Clause 8 the Government practically say I that any enemy alien, whose affairs have I been thoroughly looked into and found to be unsatisfactory, is to be sent out of the country for a period of seven years. Surely it is only consistent therefore to prevent the wholesale influx of enemy aliens for a longer period than two years. This Amendment is not aimed in any way at the technical enemy alien or at British-born wives of Germans, but particularly at those enemy aliens, Germans, of whom we have had such unfortunate experience throughout the War. We cannot help feeling that the 84,000 or so Germans who were turned out of this country will be very anxious to get back, and it is against those that this Amendment is aimed. The German Government are doing their best to make the emigration of their people as easy as possible. They have actually set up a Department in Berlin, of which I have read an interesting account in the "Times" newspaper. Owing to the difficulty of Germans earning a livelihood in Germany, they are anxious to make it as easy as possible for them to emigrate to other countries. This applies especially to Germans of considerable education, the very type of people whom we wish to keep out of this country until our trade has recovered its position. It is not from any motives of vindictiveness that this Amendment is moved. It is simply a measure of 540 prudence, and is really the common sense of foresight and statesmanship, in the Committee upstairs the right hon. Gentleman raised various objections to a similar Amendment, one of which was that it would interfere very much with the trade of this country. I cannot see how it can possibly interfere with the trade of the country. We must recognise the economic necessity of trading with Germany, but that is no reason why we should allow the wholesale influx of Germans in so short a time as two years hence. The right hon. Gentleman also made a great point of the fact that the international situation wag a delicate one, and that it would be very difficult to promote legislation of the description desired. I would like him to tell us what legislation, if any, the Allied and Associated Powers have recently introduced on this subject. On 8th July the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in reply to a question, said that the United States were going to introduce some legislation. He said, with reference to the Regulations then in force:
One of these Regulations provided that in the case of hostile aliens [...]isa for the journey to the United States should in no case be granted unless special authority had first been given. It is understood that such authority has been sparingly given, and in the case of persons actually of enemy nationality has been practically confined to American-born women who acquired such nationality by marriage and who further had urgent reasons of health or business for returning to the United States."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th July, 1919, col. 1644, Vol. 117.]Apparently, in Portugal stringent regulations against the immigration of Germans are still in force, as also they are in Belgium. I should be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman could tell us what the other Associated Powers have done in the last three or four months in the way of introducing legislation, and, also, if they have introduced legislation, as I believe the United States have done, why it should be difficult for us to do the same?
§ Mr. SUGDENI bog to second the Amendment.
At the present moment we have a large number of unemployed amongst us in Lancashire, and it is very undesirable that there should be this large influx from every enemy country in Europe. We know that these countries have made preparations. It was suggested in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) that there are certain trades which cannot exist without the services of certain aliens from enemy countries 541 and certain powers, I think too wide powers, were given to the Home Secretary to permit certain specialised men to come to help those industries, where their presence is a vital necessity. I suggest that if the research work which is now being considered by the various industries in the country proceeds there will be no need to permit these specialised aliens in our midst, but if it is found vital that some must be used the Home Secretary has power to allow them entrance even if our Amendment be accepted. I suggest, therefore, that the Amendment will be useful, and I say, without hesitation, that we shall never have industrial peace and concord if we permit this large influx of aliens, because it is the aliens who make the industrial unrest which we have in this and other parts of the world. This is a fair and legitimate Amendment, and I press the Home Secretary to accept it.
§ Mr. SHORTTI cannot possibly accept this Amendment. We must, long before seven years are over, go into this question of aliens in the light of further information. There is no fear of an influx of undesirable aliens.
§ Mr. SUGDENI know that they are there ready to come, because our leaders in industry have the information.
§ Mr. SHORTTI have heard all these stories.
§ Brigadier-General CROFTBut you do not listen.
§ Mr. SHORTTEven if it were true that they were in Holland?
§ Mr. SUGDENI did not say Holland. I said in other countries.
§ Mr. SHORTTThey could not come here.
§ Brigadier-General CROFTThe Home Secretary has dismissed this Amendment very lightly. Apparently, he has no conception of the tremendous feeling throughout the length and breadth of the country upon this question. At this very time there are instances of men who have actually come back after fighting us, and who have been already restored and are in business in this country. This is causing tremendous wrath among the people of the country. I shall be very delighted to give the right hon. Gentleman two cases within twenty-four hours, two cases of well-known men. This is causing such unrest that I hope the right hon. Gentle- 542 man will not continue to oppose the Amendment. I understand that he has power to let in desirable enemy aliens. Why does he want more? Why does he want to do away with that limitation and allow the riff-raff of the German Empire and people known to be hostile to us to come pouring into this country at the very time when we have these great questions of unemployment and housing? If there is one thing more than any other which in industrial centres is causing an ugly feeling it is that the houses of British soldiers are being occupied by aliens in large numbers. Yet the right hon. Gentleman says that at the end of two years we are going to open our gates once more and lot anybody come into this country who chooses to do so. I am going to support my hon. Friend in the Lobby, and I hope that he will press his Amendment. Two years is entirely inadequate and in no way comparable with the speeches made by Ministers at the General Election, when they made it clear that this German penetration was going to be got rid of for a reasonable time.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODHon. Members who move Amendments like this really ought to consider the general purport of such legislation, and its effect upon the people as a whole. This particular Amendment affects me very slightly. I took my daughter out to Hungary some months ago to marry a Hungarian who had been at school and college in this country. What would be the result of this legislation? None of that Hungarian family, who speak English perfectly and whose members have been educated here, will be allowed to come to this country for seven years.
§ Mr. SUGDENYou can get a special permit.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODDo you think that I could get a special permit?
§ Brigadier-General CROFTPerhaps you might.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODEven my own daughter will not be permitted to come back to this country, because she has married a Hungarian and is a Hungarian subject. Is this really the sort of legislation that English gentlemen moan to inflict on people? I am by no means alone in the matter. Any number of people have relations who are Hungarians, or Austrians, or Germans. Are they never to be 543 allowed into this country because of these stories of 40,000 Germans in Holland waiting to step across into the freedom and the opportunities of employment here? I do think the House of Commons ought to come down off the high horse about these aliens. The War has been over for a year. The alien business has been run by the hon. Member for York for about four years. I trust that in this case those hon. Gentlemen will go into the Lobby to leave out the word "two"; then perhaps we may get bark to the original suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that instead of two years one year shall be the duration. I presume that when the right hon. Gentleman put down "one year" he thought that one year was sufficient. As a result of the machinations—not bargains—in Downing Street, he agreed to strike out "one" and to leave it at two years, as it was put in the Bill in Committee.
§ Mr. SHORTTWhat happened was this: I had originally put in one year as the duration. In consequence of that, one year was put into this Clause also, and I only opposed the substitution of "two" for "one" because I had got the Second Reading owing to the fact that I agreed to reduce the two years to one year.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODI still do not follow. As far as I can make out, if this Clause is passed no enemy alien would come for two years, although the Act only asks for one year. Two years after the passage of this Act no enemy alien will be able to come back into England.
§ Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSONExcept under permit.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODThe Home Secretary, when this Bill went through, thought one year was sufficient. Now he has gone back on that, and for exactly the same reason that he agreed to accept Clause 8, which he had previously desired to remove from the Bill. The Home Secretary originally had some qualms as to what the world outside this country would think of legislation such as this, and he desired to make it as little offensive as possible. Then hon. Members below the Gangway pressed this subject upon him, and immediately the Government gave way and introduced legislation of which they did not approve. I am all for making this Bill as little offensive as possible, and for that reason I shall vote for the suggestion 544 of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that this two years' period be reduced to one year. It is true I shall vote against him, but I shall vote with his better self rather than with his later thoughts, influenced as they may have been by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. I hope that all who want this Bill amended will vote for leaving out the word "two," and then we shall see whether we cannot get the original suggestion of the Home Secretary adopted and have in the Bill "one year" instead of "two years."
§ Sir COURTENAY WARNERI should not have interfered in this Debate, although I think there has been a total misconception of what the Amendments are. I have no sympathy at all with the lady or gentleman who goes away and marries a German or even a Hungarian. If they choose to go to another country, they belong to it, and it is not our business. The question is that this has been made "two years" because the operation of the Bill is two years. When the Bill comes to an end some Bill will have to be introduced to regulate these things. Personally, I am all for keeping Germans out as long as possible. I do not see that there is any objection to making this a longer period. I think that seven years is rather far ahead, if we consider that at the end of two years we are going to have a reconstitution of the whole Bill. I think we might have made it three years. I am sorry the Home Secretary has not given a rather more kindly reception to the Amendment, because I think he might well have said that the new Bill will not come in for a year, or for several months after this has expired, and therefore three or four years would be a safeguard and would not do much harm. With the idea kept in mind that there will be fresh legislation, it would be quite unnecessary to make it seven years. I know that in Committee we had two years, because I proposed it as a compromise, but when pressure is put by the House of Commons to make it three years, I think it would be quite reasonable for the Home Secretary to make some concession, particularly as there seems to be so much feeling about it
§ Sir H. NIELDIt was my original proposal that the period should be three years, and my hon. Friend (Sir T. Courtenay Warner) was the spokesman for two years, and two was inserted. The Bill was for two years as introduced, and then, as the result of the Second Reading 545 Debate, the Government promised that that period of two years should be reduced to one year, because the House then thought it necessary to put moral pressure, on the Government to legislate before the end of that year So that that is entirely a separate matter. It deals with the general question of the continuance of emergency powers. It was very different when we got to the definite statement with regard to enemy aliens. We have constantly listened to the taunts of the hon. Member for New-castle-under-Lyme. We know that in this matter he does not represent his constituents, because they repudiated him, and he declined to withdraw when he changed his politics entirely; so it comes with bad grace from the hon. and gallant Gentleman to pour public odium on those who are endeavouring to secure Britain for the British, and to keep Britain free from the undesirable alien. What I am so surprised at is that my hon. and gallant Friend, who has served in the War, as he told us the other day, with a great amount of satisfaction—who has served with great valour and whose interest are being advertised in my Division (where he is to speak) on account of the valour which I know he was fortunate enough to achieve—I am surprised that he should identify himself with this matter. I cannot for the life of me understand it, except that it is traditional policy, and in connection with the party he represents traditional policy is the very marrow of the backbone, and they cannot get away from it whatever happens to the body politic and the country. I hold that two years is not a long enough time, in view of the condition of Parliament and the difficulties under which we work here, and I regret that the Amendment has not been accepted. We desire to have some security against the German alien. We have suffered too much during the last five years. No amount of sentiment can wipe that out. We do not desire, and many of us say we will not have as far as we can prevent it, a return of the pre-war state of things, when Germany was able through her emissaries to undermine all those institutions which counted for anything in this country.
§ Mr. A. HOPKINSONI think the House will have begun to realise what have been our sufferings upstairs. Day after day we have listened to the same arguments from the same hon. Members. I do hope that the House will not be led 546 astray by the fact that this Amendment is opposed by the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. In this particular instance I think the common sense of the House will bear me out when I say that he is throwing himself on the right side for once. As for the hon. Member who spoke last, it is rather pitiful to see such an intense patriot adopting this attitude. I cannot understand this perpetual hatred of the Germans. After all, consider the matter. For four and a-half years the Germans put up a magnificent fight. On several occasions they very nearly beat us. I ask the House what more can we want of an enemy than that they should do that. They fulfilled their function as an enemy in a magnificent fashion, and I think it shows rather a poor spirit now to wish to punish them for doing it. I must say that the constant attitude of the hon. Member has led me once or twice to speak with some little heat on the various Amendments proposed. I hope he will not think I am personal when I say that I think that he is very much prejudiced indeed upon this matter, and that he talks without any regard whatsoever to the facts of the case. He brushes the whole question of British foreign trade aside as if it was of no importance at all. He endeavours to get support for his views by talking about such things as unemployment, not knowing the fact that unemployment in this country would be very much relieved indeed by this very much freer intercourse with Germany.
I stated in Committee, and I say now again, that if this country is going to be reconstructed from the economic point of view within a reasonable time, we must have former enemy aliens coming into it. If this country is to get any sort of satisfactory indemnity out of Germany we must have Germans coming into this country. [HON MEMBERS: ''Why?"] It is unnecessary to go into these things, and, no matter what arguments I advance, I should never convince the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. This question of the influx of former enemy aliens to this country is one which peculiarly affects my own Constituency and surrounding parts of the country. They are parts of the country which depend on certain industries which have been brought to a high pitch of perfection in Germany. During the War a very largo amount of our foreign trade has been seriously hampered owing to the want of dyes. There 547 has been an embargo, fortunately at present partially or wholly removed, on the import to this country of those dyes from Germany, and there is not the least question that the trade and commerce of this country has been very seriously injured owing to that embargo. But it may be said that we have had Government assistance and that the manufacture of dyes has been started in this country. That is so, but the quality and the cost of those dyes has been so extremely bad that it has put us at a great disadvantage in competition with other countries in manufactures. I merely give that trade as one example. I say positively, when we are settling down, if we cannot get, at any rate for many years to come, a constant regular supply of German dyes a very large proportion of our foreign trade in cotton goods will go to other countries which are sufficiently civilised to know when war is finished.
§ Sir J. BUTCHERIn reference to the personal attack made upon me a short time ago by the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), I hope I can afford to treat that attack with indifference, and, perhaps I may add, with contemptuous silence. That hon. Gentleman spoke of making this Bill as little offensive to Germans as possible. I hope he will not take it amiss if I suggest that he should make his speeches as little offensive as possible to Members of this House. He has brought forward a certain instance of a relative of his own who might be prevented from returning to this country if this Clause were passed. I think that argument is not one which would commend itself to the House as a whole.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODI gave it as an illustration.
§ Sir J. BUTCHERThere is a much larger question than the question of whether a relative of the hon. and gallant Member is to come back or not. This is a question whether the pledges of the Prime Minister and other Members are to be carried out or not. We on this side venture to suggest that to confine this prohibition to two years is not carrying out the pledge to its full and proper extent That is really the only question between us. The hon. Member who spoke after the hon. and gallant Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) made a speech not against the Clause as a whole or against this parti- 548 cular proposal, but a speech which would be relevant on a Motion to leave out the Clause The hon. Member did say one thing which I confess I heard not only with amazement but, if it is Parliamentary to say so, with disgust He told us that the functions of the Germans as enemies were in every respect magnificent, and that he cannot understand our hostility to the Germans, and that they put up a magnificent fight and nearly beat us. I gather that he drew the conclusion that we ought to clasp them to our hearts and welcome them to these shores. If that is his view I hope his Constituents will take note of it, and that those whose sons and fathers and relatives suffered through the deplorable actrocities committed in this War by the Germans, and not only due to the military power, but atrocities which were sanctioned and approved of by large sections of the civil population, will take note of the views of the hon. Member and of his condonation of those infamous crimes against humanity and civilisation. I should recommend the hon. Gentleman, if he never read the papers as to what has gone on for the last five years, and if he wants some enlightenment to cure him of his blindness, to read some of the reports which have come in great numbers, and which I have read, from the prisoners' camps in Germany where our unfortunate and helpless prisoners were treated with a brutality and inhumanity almost impossible to conceive, and for which I imagine there never was any precedent in history. I do not look upon his advocacy as to this Clause as being one of great importance or as one which will recommend itself to any large numbers of Members of this House or to anyone outside possibly except himself. As regards the general question, I do ask the Home Secretary if he cannot give an extension of time, can he give a guarantee that within two years this House will be given an opportunity of reconsidering the whole question of continuing this exclusion, if desired. If he cannot, and probably he is too cautious to give any such guarantee which it might be impossible to carry out, then I submit he would be wise to extend the period a little longer. If my information is correct, the Canadians have provided for the entire exclusion of Germans, Austro - Hungarians, Bulgarians, and other enemy races without any limit of time. Will the Home Secretary tell us if that information is correct In order 549 to ensure that these people, the friends of the hon. Member from Manchester, these enemies who incurred the indignation of the world, shall not be allowed to come here for a reasonable and proper time, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to omit the word "two" and to insert some longer date.
§ Captain W. BENNSome of us thought that the castigation by the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) was a little unnecessary. That hon. and gallant Member has given the best possible proof of his belief in this country and his desire to serve it, and he used a perfectly harmless remark which many soldiers would not have considered a very gross offence. If the hon. and learned Member had confined himself to an examination of the Amendment, I think it would have been more to the advantage of the deliberations of the House. Let us see where we stand. The Home Secretary preserves by the first Clause all the rigorous powers he possessed in the actual state of war for one year. Now it is proposed by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway to add further precautions and terms, and to put them in the Bill. This is one of the precautions which the Home Secretary did not consider requisite at all, and when the Bill was introduced it had none of these Clauses which were carried in Committee in defiance of the advice of the Government. I would ask the Home Secretary and the supporters of this Clause have they seriously considered what this Amendment does. It is not aimed at the people who committed those monstrous atrocities, which everybody with a sense of decency must view with unspeakable anger. It is proposed to exclude everybody of enemy origin, and how is that defined in the Bill? I have asked the question before, but it has not been answered. An enemy alien is defined as any person who is a subject or citizen of a State with which His Majesty was at war at any time during 1918. When we are framing an Act of Parliament, it behoves us to look into the details and sec really what these Clauses mean. The first people obviously meant are the Germans, and there is certainly a stronger case for that than any other, although I am not sure it is wise, even from our own point of view, to put this rigorous provision in the Act, and I think it is much better to leave the powers in the hands 550 of the Home Office. Take the case of the Bulgarians and the Turks. I do seriously ask those who are supporting this Amendment to think what will happen to the trade of this country if the same legislation is passed against us by those other countries This is not a factious point, but a point of substance. Suppose the Turks decided that no Englishman was to be permitted to land in their country for a period of seven years, and that the Bulgarians did the same, and the Austrians— though the Austrians do not matter so much, because their country is very small—and then what is going to happen? If such occurred it must be of the greatest possible material disadvantage to this country, and must create the very unemployment which hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway profess their intention of allaying. The most powerful advocacy of this Amendment has come from Gentlemen of the long robe, and I am asking them, very respectfully, for information. What is the position with regard to Russia? The definition says "anyone who was at war with us in 1918." I do not profess to interpret that myself, but no one can doubt that if you send aeroplanes and bomb the capital of a country some judge might hold that you were at war with that country. I am not a lawyer, and I ask those who support the Amendment and have knowledge and experience of the law to say what is the position. Then I want to know what about the people who live in the German Colonies. German East Africa, for instance, is a mandatory territory, and what is going to be the nationality of the people there? I should like the Home Secretary to tell us. Supposing that a man there does not assume British nationality—and I do not know that he can—
§ Mr. SPEAKERI do not see how that is relevant to the question we are now discussing, which is, to leave out two years, and to insert seven years.
§ 5.0 P.M.
§ Captain BENNI was discussing the point as to whether our trade would suffer by the absence from this country of persons who are enemy aliens. The point was that it might well be that business interests between this country and the ex-German colonies might demand before the expiry of the seven years the presence of these people in this country, and I want to be assured that this Amendment is not going to exclude people of that kind.
§ Mr. SHORTTThey would come under special reasons. As I explained, trade reasons are special reasons.
§ Captain BENNWhat we complain of is that instead of the thing being left in the hands of the Home Secretary we are here putting down terms which will bind his hands, and I submit that in these cases it is a very great hindrance to the setting up of these trade relations if every person who wishes to come over on business before the seven years have expired has to make a special application to the Home Office for the purpose. I observe in the previous Clause that the Home Secretary inserted a saving Subsection for the wives of enemy aliens. Do we understand that under the general terms of this Amendment the wives of enemy aliens are to be excluded for seven years from this country? Because if so, let me beg hon. Members to see what happens. Supposing that British women who have married Germans and were living in Germany and who were interned during the War have been compelled for the time being to remain there and then find themselves placed under this Subsection which forbids them to return to the home of their birth and of their allegiance—
§ Mr. MURCHISONI said that this Amendment was not aimed at British-born wives of enemy aliens.
§ Captain BENNThat is exactly the point. The amateur legislators below the Gangway introduce a Clause which will exclude for seven years the British wife of an enemy alien from landing in this country. I know it is not the intention of the hon. Member to do so, but the Amendment would have that effect. On these grounds, I submit that the original proposal of the Government was the best. Originally, the Home Secretary when he accepted the Clause inserted a proviso for one year only, but that he turned into two years after a debate with the hon. Gentlemen, below the Gangway, and I think that is as far as we ought to go, although personally I much prefer the original proposal of the Government.
§ Sir F. LOWEI think the real meaning of this Clause has been considerably obscured by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who last spoke and by other hon. Members. The Clause says that for a certain period no enemy alien shall be allowed to land in this country without 552 the permission of the Home Secretary, which can be given on special grounds. It does not say that all enemy aliens are to be excluded under all circumstances, for under the circumstances which have been mentioned by several hon. Members, if it is desirable, for business or family reasons, such as those adduced by the hon. and gallant Gentleman for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), that enemy aliens should be allowed to come into this country, they can, but for two years under this Clause they are not to be allowed to come in without that permission. Some of us think that two years is not long enough, and I personally share that view. I am not going to go over again the arguments in favour of the Amendment, because I think they are perfectly obvious and overwhelmingly in favour of an extension of the time. I think seven years is perhaps too long, and I rise mainly for the purpose of supporting the appeal which has been addressed to the Home Secretary to extend this period somewhat. It seems to me that this is a matter eminently for compromise. We do not want to wrangle over a small question like this for hours, as to whether it shall be two, three, four, or five years, and if the Home Secretary will offer us three years instead of two, I am prepared to support that.
§ Mr. SHORTTIf the three years will satisfy, I shall be very glad indeed to ask the House to insert it.
§ Sir R. COOPERFor my part, I certainly cannot agree to that, and I think the best justification I can give for holding tenaciously to that view is to remind the Home Secretary of the explicit pledges given on behalf of His Majesty's Government previous to the last General Election. There are pledges on record, and they were brought to the notice of the Committee upstairs—
§ Mr. SPEAKERI would remind the hon. Gentleman of the rule against repetition. We have had that argument brought forward over and over again.
§ Sir R. COOPERI am sure, Sir, that what I was going to say is so very well known that I have no need to press it. The point definitely promised by the Government was that after the War every Boclie should be returned to his own country, and the only understanding on the part of the public of that promise at that time was that the Government 553 pledged itself to take steps to keep this country as free as it reasonably and properly could from the presence of the Germans, whom we had every cause to distrust and to dislike. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) appealed more than once that the House should place its trust more in the decisions that might be given by the Home Secretary on behalf of the Home Office. It is not here a question of trusting or mistrusting any particular Minister presiding over that Department, but I must observe that the British public generally judges the Home Office from its actions broadly throughout the War, and the conclusion which I venture, to think the vast majority of people in this country have come to is that the administration of the Home Office in this respect has been so unsatisfactory that it would not be proper to trust it to exercise its own discretion as to how soon any particular enemy alien should be allowed to return to this country without very special reasons being given for such action. When one recalls the whole spirit in which I and many others spoke at the last General Election, one feels that the Government is not fulfilling that pledge which—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is saying the very thing that I warned him had been said in this House over and over again upon this topic, and I must ask him to respect the Rules of the House against repetition.
§ Sir R. COOPERAll I can say in conclusion is that for my part I am not prepared to accept three years. I think the seven years ought to be accepted by the Government, and I believe the country will expect nothing less.
§ Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSONI very much hope, in spite of what my hon. friend has just said, that the House will accept the concession offered by the Government. I was unable to follow exactly the argument addressed by the hon. Gentleman opposite, as much of it appeared to be against the Clause and not against this particular Amendment The Bill says that for two years, or, as is now proposed, three years, every former enemy alien who comes here shall require to have permission from the Secretary of State, and my hon. Friends have been anxious this afternoon to assure that the House of Commons shall have an opportunty in the future, if it thinks so fit, to continue that restriction 554 for a longer period. I only rise to say that I think my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Sir C. Warner), earlier in the discussion, put his finger on the real point. The Government, whether this Government or the next, are bound to come to the House of Commons after the expiration of one year from the end of the War for further powers, and any hon. Gentleman who looks at Clause? I will see why. Clause 1 continues the emergency war powers for a period of one year after the War, and if hon. Members will look at the principal Act, which is referred to there, they will see that there is a large number of these powers which no Government could possibly afford to allow to lapse under present conditions, or is likely to contemplate the lapsing of. There are not only powers which are dealt with specifically later in this Bill, but there are powers enabling the Government to determine the residence of aliens, to prohibit aliens residing in certain districts, to appoint officers to carry orders into effect, and so on All these powers would lapse were the Government not to come back to the House of Commons for further powers, and, therefore, I think my hon. Friends may take it as an absolute certainty that a further opportunity is certain to return within two years, and, if the Home Secretary's Amendment be accepted, it makes it even more certain.
§ Mr. MURCHISONAs the Mover of this Amendment, I am quite prepared to accept three years instead of seven.
§ Mr. SPENCERI am very sorry to hear the Home Secretary say that be is prepared to accept this Amendment, because, in my opinion, no case has been made out either for the three years or for the seven years. I think the arguments which have been advanced by the Mover and supporters of the Amendment have been to the effect that because the character of the enemy alien is altogether unreliable he is not to be trusted, that the enemy alien came to this country previous to the War and acted detrimentally to the interests of this country and will so act, therefore, if he returns again. If that is true, it is altogether illogical to talk about changing from two years to three. If there is any truth in that statement, then those who are seeking to change the Amendment from seven years to three would have been more logical to have moved an Amendment to have kept the alien out entirely and for ever. 555 If an enemy alien was unreliable before the War and always will be unreliable, the only logical position to take up is that he should be kept out for ever. The Mover of the Amendment says he is quite prepared to substitute three years for seven. Therefore, it is not a question of character or reliability with them at all, but just a question, it seems to mo, of their own feeling, and just as their own feeling subsides so they want the term of prohibition to subside. My own opinion about this question is this: Acts of this kind perpetrated on both sides of the Channel are just the things which lead to an interruption of good feeling between nations, and if we are to begin it here somebody else will take it up on the other side of the Channel, and it will be the occasion of a raging, tearing propaganda for an Army and a Navy and not to trust the principles of a League of Nations. Then, probably, in twenty, thirty, or forty years our children will have to go through the same thing that we have gone through. To avoid that altogether, it will be far better to let our feelings die down, and trust more to our judgment and reason, and because I think judgment and reason are on the side of the two years, I should support that period.
§ Mr. K1LEYIn. Committee the Home Secretary considered that one year was sufficient for his purpose. Pressure was brought to bear in Committee, and he made a bargain with my hon. Friends below the Gangway, and agreed to accept two. The Bill was accordingly altered from one year to two years, and now, because of additional pressure, the Home Secretary accepts three years. The Home Secretary time after time has pointed out, when desiring to get certain Amendments disposed of, that this is only a temporary measure, and now he proposes to extend the period. So far as I am concerned, I shall certainly vote against anything beyond two years.
§ Mr. FRANCEThe proceedings of the House with regard to this Bill remind me rather of what can be seen at 4 o'clock any day in the Zoological Gardens, the Home Secretary filling the rôle of keeper, trying to pacify the roaring lions. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the monkeys."] This afternoon an extra lump of one year has been thrown to the roaring legal lions who are anxious now to have as much as possible in the way of a long period. I 556 congratulate them in having so rapidly fallen from that historical and scriptural period of seven years to three. I notice, if I may say so without any offence, that the language and fierceness of words in this House with regard to enemy aliens appear to me to be in direct inverse proportion to the number of direct blows that were struck against the enemy during the period of the War. Hon. Members in this House who were in any degree actually engaged in His Majesty's Service are, I think, inclined, while not wishing at all to do anything detrimental or harmful to the welfare of the State, not to want in perpetuity, or even for a longer period than is absolutaly necessary, to keep up restrictions which are bound in their turn to be harmful to the State; but there are some Members of this House who want us to live in the atmosphere of a general election in perpetuity. The hon. Member acknowledges the justice of my remark. He Wants the Home Secretary to administer the Act with his ears tingling and his eyes fixed upon the denunciatory speeches made at the General Election. We cannot live for ever in that atmosphere, and I would like to point out two reasons for that. Some hon. Members are very anxious indeed to see a large war indemnity paid by Germany. How are they going to get it? Are they going to trade with Germany?
§ Sir R. COOPERWe want to import all the raw materials we can from Germany and supply her with all the manufactures we can.
§ Mr. FRANCEA delightful proposition, and it is to be carried on in strict silence, without the opportunity of conversing with the gentlemen with whom we are going to conduct these remarkably interesting transactions.
§ Brigadier-General CROFTDoes the hon. Member not know that under this Bill any genuine German can get a permit from the Home Secretary? All we want is that persons who have been known to be enemies of this country shall not get permission.
§ Mr. FRANCEI do not know what the hon. and gallant Member means by "persons known to be enemies of this country." I thought they were all known to be enemies. I am quite with the hon. and gallant Member if he wants to keep out of this country anyone who can be 557 described as an undesirable alien, or who can be looked upon with suspicion. The hon. and gallant Member knows I have no desire to view with any gentleness what has been done in the past, but I do not want the future to be marred for all time with the natural indignation we had against certain things done during the War. If we are to trade with Germany, this system of licence must not last longer than is absolutely necessary, and I am very glad the right hon. Gentleman has only given one year more to the roaring lions opposite. I have talked about trade. Two nights ago the House practically suspended its sitting by general consent so that Members of all parties might go to various parts of the country and address the listening population on the question of a League of Nations. It is not much good to expect the public outside to have very much respect for the utterances of Members of Parliament if they adjourn their Debate to go and make eloquent and moving appeals for something that will produce a better state of feeling throughout the world, so that we shall at some time or other come to a general friendship throughout the world and take every means we can to avoid falling again into a general state of war—it is not very consistent, I say, that we should talk on Tuesday night about the League of Nations and on Thursday afternoon we should ask the Home Secretary to make this period of exclusion seven years, remember all the wild and whirling words that were said and written during the General Election, and keep in our hearts a determined and desperate hate of everything German, when we must, whether we want to or not, some day or other trade with these people, and hope some day or other, when they are thoroughly reformed in their hearts, character, and lives, that we may live with them as friends in a great world.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYI am astonished at the proposed Amendment, and even more astonished at the Home Secretary's surrender. This Amendment is, with great respect, a Rip Van Winkle, Those in its favour, I am afraid, have been totally unobservant of what has been going on in Europe during the last few months. I saw the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the House a little while ago, and I hoped he was going to speak. The Hungarians are included. They were former enemy 558 aliens. I wonder if the hon. Gentleman knows that the common talk in Europe is really the possibility—in fact, it is said in Paris and Rome, as well as Vienna and Budapest—that a member of the Teck family will ascend the throne of Hungary! While there is a powerful party in Hungary asking us to allow this noble prince to accept the throne of Hungary, we are saying that no Hungarian shall be allowed to enter this country for three years without special permission. And no doubt the Opposition papers in Budapest, who are naturally opposed to us, will quote the speeches of the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) and the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Brigadier-General Croft), especially the latter, as leader of a party in this House, and ask what is the use of having such a prince for their ruler if this is to be the attitude of the English towards their people. Furthermore, with regard to hatred of the Huns, who I do not think are going to change in three or seven years, they are at present fighting shoulder to shoulder with English soldiers against Russians in the Baltic. They are to be told that they cannot come into this country without some special permit, and that they are still looked upon as undesirables and the sort of people we cannot possibly have here? Really it is Rip Van Winkleism, if I may use that term. My hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley), although so extraordinarily well-informed, does not seem to know what is going on in Europe to-day. This Amendment might have been accepted twelve months ago, but much water has flowed under the bridges since then. The present aspect of the situation in the Baltic, where the Germans are our allies and are fighting with us, should not be forgotten.
§ Sir E. WILDTwo or three words in reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's observations about Rip Van Winkleism. If I remember the story of Rip Van Winkle, he did waken up ultimately, and it seems desirable that the country in some of these matters should awaken too. However, I am not going to be led by the very amusing speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Batley into a discussion on the League of Nations. All I desire to say about that part of his speech is that if he or any other Member of the House has attended meetings in favour of the League of Nations, and ever held out to his audience any hope that 559 within any reasonable time we shall be embracing Germany, then he, in my humble judgment, is entirely misrepresenting the idea of the League of Nations. I have attended meetings in favour of the League of Nations, and I take care to tell my hearers what I conceive to be the true position of Germany in this matter. We must not overlook the fact that the defeat of Germany has removed a great danger, but we must not be forgetful of the past in considering Germany's entrance to the League. However, if we allow ourselves to talk in these generalities we shall have a general discussion upon every Clause. Therefore, I limit my very few words to the purpose of the Amendment, that is, the question of the period of years which is put clown in the Clause as two. I had an Amendment to make it five years, which I withdrew in favour of the Amendment of my hon. Friend who proposed to make it seven. I should have preferred seven, but I am willing to get the best I can, and I will take the three years suggested. It is quite a mistake, if I may say so, to regard this Bill as merely a one-year Bill. It is not so. The first Clause certainly speaks of one year, referring to Orders in Council, but in the splendid work done in Committee we have managed to induce the Government to take the view that alien legislation must be for a period of years and not merely be a matter of one year. I am not going to repeat the argument about the wild and whirling words used at election time. The answer to my hon. Friend is that those of us who got our Seats by the help of election pledges—I do not know about the wild and whirling words—are not going to forget those pledges, but propose to carry them out as far as we possibly can. I do altogether protest, as a new Member of Parliament, against that most superior view put forward from one of the benches behind me, of talking about the electors as if they were people to be cajoled when you wanted their votes, but once you came here, to be forgotten altogether in your superior position as a Member of Parliament; you forget then that you happen to represent the people who elected you!
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYMay I interrupt my hon. and learned Friend—
§ Sir E. WILDYou generally do. [Laughter.] Go on!
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYThis time I will, with the very courteous permission of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Does that attitude in relation to election pledges refer to Conscription?
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley)That is quite an irrelevant question.
§ Sir E. WILDAll I can say is that any pledge I gave I shall keep. That is my answer to those superior beings who tell us that election pledges, as soon as they have served their purpose, should be forgotten. There is just one other matter, I think, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I shall have your permission, as I do not think I shall be out of order in just saying one word. In connection with this Amendment, the word "insolent" has been used and queried as being unparliamentary? I should like to refer to the insulting things said in regard to the profession to which I happen to belong. It was said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite—I do not know whether he is a right hon. Gentleman or not—I refer to the Member for Leith—upon this very point—and he brought it in again—speaking with sarcasm he referred to the "hon. and learned So-and-so," or "the hon. and gallant So-and-so" on the other side, and he has indicated that some of these Clauses are only supported by lawyers, while opposed by soldiers. Nobody will deny the extreme gallantry of my hon. and gallant Friend. We should not be allowed to forget it even if we could forget it. But I will just say this, with regard to the argument that legal opinion is on one side and military opinion on the other, on that very Division on Clause 8 about which he used the remarks he did—and which, of course, were meant to be offensive—on that Division without the Government Whips—that is the House voted according to its conscience for once—for the Clause there were 226, of whom eighty-three were sailors or soldiers, and voting with the hon. and gallant Gentleman were 116, of whom twenty-two were soldiers or sailors. In the one other Division which I have taken out on the question of employment the Government Whips were against us. Out of 130 of our supporters fifty-two were soldiers, and out of 205 coerced into the Lobby fifty-two were soldiers, all of which 561 shows perfectly well the argument that this is a legal argument merely is not a true one. I do not propose to say further oil that point because personalities are very undesirable. All of us have done what we could, some of us at some little danger, in the country to serve our Sovereign, and the fact that, because we were over age, we were not out at the War, ought not to be brandished in our face. Personally I was a special constable, out in all the air raids, and I think my hon. and gallant Friend may perhaps repent the fact that in the exigencies of a very weak case he should have used so paltry and poor an argument. "All's well that ends well." I love to give and take knocks. If the Government will give us "three" we will take "three" and carry it.
§ Question put, "That the word 'two' stand part of the Bill."
§ Captain W. BENNOn a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. How will
§ those vote who wish to retain the two years in the Clause?
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI shall put the Question that "two" stand part of the Bill and they will vote "Aye."
§ Mr. MURCHISONOn a point of Order. Am I right in supposing that when this Amendment is disposed of, the Home Secretary has agreed to accept "three" years?
§ Mr. SHORTTwas understood to assent.
§ Mr. MURCHISONAnd that covers the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend—we have agreed to all this?
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI put the Question as to whether or not "two" shall stand part of the Bill. If the House decide that it shall not stand part, I presume the Home Secretary will move to insert his Amendment.
§ The House divided: Ayes. 41; Noes. 216.
563| Division No. 132.] | AYES. | [5.40 p.m. |
| Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke | Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York.) | Swan, J. E. C. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. William | Hayward, Major Evan | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.) |
| Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) | Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Benn, Capt. W. (Leith) | Hogge, J. M. | Thorne, Colonel W. (Plaistow) |
| Blake, Sir Francis Douglas | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander | Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C. |
| Briant, F. | Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian) | Wignall, James |
| Bromfield, W. | Parkinson, John Allan (Wigan) | Williams, J. (Gower, Glam.) |
| Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute) | Raffan, Peter Wilson | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Carter, W. (Mansfield) | Richardson, R. (Houghton) | Wood, Maj. Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Rose, Frank H. | Young, Lt.-Com. E. H. (Norwich) |
| Duncannon, Viscount | Royce, William Stapleton | Young, Robert (Newton, Lancs.) |
| France, Gerald Ashburner | Scott, A. M. (Glas., Bridgeton) | |
| Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) | Short, A. (Wednesbury) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr. |
| Graham, W. (Edinburgh) | Sitch, C. H. | Spencer and Mr. Kiley, |
| Grundy, T. W. | Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adair, Rear-Admiral | Bowyer, Captain G, W. E. | Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry |
| Ainsworth, Captain C. | Brassey, H. L. C. | Croft, Brig.-General Henry page |
| Allen, Colonel William James | Breese, Major C. E. | Curzon, Commander Viscount |
| Archdale, Edward M. | Bridgeman, William Clive | Davidson, Major-General Sir John H. |
| Atkey, A. R. | Broad, Thomas Tucker | Davies, T. (Cirencester) |
| Bagley, Captain E. A. | Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H. | Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington) |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Buckley, Lieutenant-Colonel A. | Dean, Com. P. T. |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir W. J. | Denison-Pender, John C |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Burdon, Colonel Rowland | Dennis, J. W. |
| Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick | Burn, Colonel C. R. (Torquay) | Denniss, E. R. Bartley (Oldham) |
| Banner, Sir J. S. Harmood- | Butcher, Sir J. G. | Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander H. |
| Barker, Major R. | Cautley, Henry Strother | Dixon, Captain H. |
| Barnston, Major H. | Cayzer, Major H. R. | Doyle, N. Grattan |
| Barrand, A. R. | Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Edge, Captain William |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Chadwick, R. Burton | Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Chamberlain, N, (Birm., Ladywood) | Eyres-Monsell, Commander |
| Bell, Lt.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) | Cheyne, sir William Watson | Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray |
| Bentinck, Lt.-Col. Lord H. Cavendish- | Coats, Sir Stuart | Farquharson, Major A. C. |
| Bethell, Sir John Henry | Cohen, Major J. B. B. | Fell, Sir Arthur |
| Betterton, H. B. | Conway, Sir W. Martin | Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue |
| Birchali, Major J D. | Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole | Foxcroft, Captain C. |
| Bird, Alfred | Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan) | Fraser, Major Sir Keith |
| Blades, Sir George R. | Cory, Sir James Herbert (Cardiff) | Galbraith, Samuel |
| Blair, Major Reginald | Courthope, Major George Loyd | Ganzoni, Captain F. C. |
| Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith- | Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University) | Gardiner, J. (Perth) |
| Bottomley, Horatio | Craig, Captain Charles C. (Antrim) | Gardner, E. (Berks, Windsor) |
| Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke) | Lyle, C. E. Leonard (Stratford) | Roundell, Lt.-Colonel R. F. |
| Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham | Lyle-Samuel, A. (Eye, E. Suffolk) | Rowlands, James |
| Gilbert, James Daniel | M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Bosworth) | Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund |
| Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John | M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.) | Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey) |
| Glyn, Major R. | M'Lean, Lt.-Col. C. W. W. (Brigg) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone) |
| Gould, J. C. | Macmaster, Donald | Seager, Sir William |
| Green, A. (Derby) | McMicking, Major Gilbert | Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar) |
| Green, J. F. (Leicester) | McNeill, Ronald (Canterbury) | Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.) |
| Greene, Lt.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.) | Macpherson, Rt. Hon, James I. | Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander |
| Greenwood, Col. Sir Hamar | Macquisten, F. A. | Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Greer, Harry | Magnus, Sir Philip | Steel, Major S. Strang |
| Gretton, Colonel John | Mallalieu, Frederick William | Strauss, Edward Anthony |
| Griggs, Sir Peter | Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.) | Sugden, Lieut. W. H. |
| Gritten, W. G. Howard | Martin, A. E. | Sutherland, Sir William |
| Hailwood, A. | Mitchell, William Lane | Sykes, Sir C. (Huddersfield) |
| Hanson, Sir Charles | Moles, Thomas | Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead) |
| Harmsworth, Cecil R. (Luton, Beds.) | Morison, T. B. (Inverness) | Taylor, J. (Dumbarton) |
| Harris, Sir H. P. (Paddington, S.) | Mount, William Arthur | Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey) |
| Haslam, Lewis | Murchison, C. K. | Thomas, Sir R. (Wrexham, Denb.) |
| Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.) | Murray, Hon. G. (St, Rollox) | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.) |
| Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon | Nall, major Joseph | Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (M'yhl) |
| Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E. | Neal, Arthur | Tickler, Thomas George |
| Hilder, Lieut-Colonel F. | Nicholl, Com. Sir Edward | Waddington, R. |
| Hinds, John | Nield, Sir Herbert | Wallace, J. |
| Haare, Lt.-Col. Sir Samuel J. G. | Palmer, Major G. M. (Jarrow) | Walsh, S. (Ince, Lancs.) |
| Hope, Harry (Stirling) | Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool) | Wardle, George J. |
| Hope, Lieut.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian) | Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike | Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T. |
| Houston, Robert Paterson | Perkins, Walter Frank | Warren, Sir Alfred H. |
| Hume-Williams, Sir Wm. Ellis | Philipps, Gen. Sir I. (Southampton) | Weigall, Lt.-Colonel W. E. G. A. |
| Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster) | Philipps, Sir O. C. (Chester) | White, Colonel G. D. (Southport) |
| Hurd, P. A. | Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray | Whitia, Sir William |
| Jackson, Lt.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York) | Pownall, Lt.-Colonel Assheton | Wild, Sir Ernest Edward |
| Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen) | Pratt, John William | Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury) |
| Kellaway, Frederick George | Purchase, H. G. | Willoughby, Lt.-Col. Hon. Claud |
| Kerr-Smiley, Major P. | Raeburn, Sir William | Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H. |
| Kidd, James | Ramsden, G. T. | Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, W.) |
| King, Commander Douglas | Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr. N. | Wilson, Colonel Leslie (Reading) |
| Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Rees, Captain J. Tudor (Barnstaple) | Wilson-Fox, Henry |
| Lane-Fox, Major G. R. | Reid, D. D. | Winterton, Major Earl |
| Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar | Renwick, G. | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales) | Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend) | Yate, Colonel Charles Edward |
| Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.) | Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich) | Yeo, Sir Alfred William |
| Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) | Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon) |
| Lonsdale, James R. | Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor) | |
| Lorden, John William | Robinson, T. (Stretford, Lancs.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Col. |
| Lort-Williams, J. | Rodger, A. K. | Sanders and Mr. J. Parker |
| Lowe, Sir F. W. |
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Fourteen minutes after Seven o'clock till Monday next, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.
§ Question, "That the word 'seven' be there inserted in the Bill," put, and negatived.
§ Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "of" ["for a period of"], insert the word "three."—[Mr. Shortt.]
§ Mr. SHORTTI beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "or to remain in the United Kingdom."
§ This Clause is to prevent enemy aliens coming here for the period stated, and if these words remain they would prevent those who are here already, and who have been allowed to remain, from staying here. I am sure that is not the intention of my hon. Friend opposite, and the real question is what is the best way to remedy this. I do not think the words "or to remain in the United Kingdom" are in the least necessary in dealing with persons who come without permission. I do not think any words of the kind suggested by my hon. Friend are necessary, and it is far better to eliminate these words, and 564 allow the Clause to provide that no enemy alien shall land without permission. I think that makes what is intended perfectly clear.
§ Sir J. BUTCHERI think the Clause would read much better if it read ''no former enemy alien shall be permitted to land in the United Kingdom, or having so landed without permission, shall be allowed to remain in the United Kingdom." I do not quite see what the position is supposing the words forbidding him to land are left out. The Clause would read, "no enemy alien shall be permitted to land." That does not say what would happen, if he is permitted to land. My hon. Friend says that he should not be permitted to remain here, but if they are here I think it is better to make the matter clear. I can imagine an enemy alien, supported by one of those Gentlemen we have heard to-day saying "I have landed—"
§ Mr. W. THORNEAre we the Gentlemen?
§ Sir J. BUTCHERI am not referring to the hon. Member for Plaistow, but to someone who spoke this afternoon who has had the wisdom to depart. I ask that in the case of these aliens having come without permission they shall not be permitted to remain.
§ Mr. SHORTTI do not mind which way it is done, because it means the same thing. The point is whether we should put this matter right now or in another place. I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "or" ["or to remain"], insert the words "if he should land without permission."—[Sir H. Neild.]
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "to be granted only on special grounds."
I move this Amendment solely in the interests of international trade, because there may be some misunderstanding about the words "special grounds." I think this is necessary if you are to encourage trade with our former enemies, and I would point out that the President of the Board of Trade has been urging us to trade with all parts of Europe, including former enemy territories. This would not weaken the provision against undesirable aliens, but it would show to bonâ fide traders that we have no objection to them coming here for legitimate purposes.
§ Mr. SHORTTI do not think that those words can possibly be accepted. We must have words pointing out that permission can only be given in cases of a special character. It is well recognised, and everybody knows it, that in trade permits for the purposes of trade are granted on special grounds. If a German wishes to come here to purchase goods that is a special ground.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYIf I withdraw this Amendment will the right hon. Gentleman accept my Amendment later on to insert the words "which shall include permission to land for genuine business purposes"?
§ Mr. SHORTTNo.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Sir J. BUTCHERI beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (l), to insert the 566 words, "and such permission shall be limited in duration to a period of three-calendar months, and may upon special grounds be reviewed from time to time for a like period."
The object of this Amendment is not to give enemy aliens a general power to remain here, but that the period should be limited to three months. These words are introduced at the suggestion of the Home Secretary in Committee, and therefore I think he will be ready to accept them.
§ Mr. SHORTTThe effect of this proposal would be that every British-born wife of a German subject would be put to the trouble of getting permission. It is highly improbable that anyone coming here for business purposes would require to stay for a longer period than three months. Therefore the only practical effect of this Amendment would be to put a serious inconvenience in the case of the British-born wife of a German subject. It is not a matter of great importance to those who have to administer the Act, but it might be a mutter of great importance to the women I have mentioned. It will be very seldom, certainly within the next three months, that permission will be required to stay longer than three months, but under this proposal a British-born wife would be put to all this trouble during the time the Act is in force, and therefore I ask my hon. and learned Friend not to press his Amendment.
§ Sir J. BUTCHERBy permission of the House, might I refer to what happened in Committee, when the Home Secretary accepted this proposal? These are the words he used:
I think it would be better if the provision was that such permission should be renewable every three months. I think that would meet what we have in mind.On the strength of that promise we did not press the matter further in Committee, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not object to this Amendment now.
§ Mr. SHORTTI have not objected; I have only pointed out the difficulty. I am only putting forward considerations which have arisen since that time.
§ Sir J. BUTCHERI hope the right hon. Gentleman will not resist my Amendment. Apparently he does not disapprove of the principle of it.
§ 6.0 P.M.
§ Brigadier-General CROFTMay I give an instance to show how important it is that there should be no laxity on this question. Earlier in the afternoon the Home Secretary asked me if I could cite any cases where enemies have come into this country and have received treatment of this kind. I propose to give one case in response to his question. There is a gentleman now in Manchester, who was the Austrian Vice-Consul there before the War, and who, when Germany declared war, went back to Austria, became a Colonel in the Austrian Army, and was fighting against the British forces all through the War. He has now returned to Manchester in a permanent business capacity. Apparently, the Homo Secretary knows very little about it, but I do suggest it is obvious that in a case like that it is desirable the permission should be reviewed from time to time.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYI beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to add the words "which shall include permission to land for genuine business purposes."
The object of this Amendment is solely to benefit not the people of this country at all, except perhaps indirectly, but possible customers coming to this country from abroad to buy British goods. Any hon. Member acquainted with great industrial centres like Manchester, Bradford, Wakefield, and similar places knows how the streets are filled with people from all parts of the world. Among them are Armenians, Turks, and Bulgarians, who come here to buy British goods. The insertion of these words would make it quite clear that it is not the intention of the Government to keep out genuine commercial men who want to come here for strictly business purposes. Without the insertion of the words there might be some misunderstanding in Bulgaria, in the Turkish Empire, in Upper Silesia and in Galicia, where the people technically have been our enemies, and my object is simply to make it quite clear that buyers coming here to do business will be permitted to land. Without the words it might be assumed by these people that the special grounds relate only to such cases as that of a British-born wife of an enemy alien or some person who may have performed some special service for this country. Make it 568 clear that if people come here for genuine commercial purposes they will be permitted to land.
§ Mr. SHORTTI hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the Amendment. The only possible effect will be to put in an indefinite provision. Surely people who are acquainted with business affairs will, as the Clause now stands, fully understand that business will be one of the special grounds for permission to come here. The words do not alter in the least the meaning of the Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the objection to them then?"] Putting in such words always has a bad effect in the interpretation of an Act of Parliament.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (2).
I see no object whatever in this Subsection, except that it may be in the interests of people who take an extreme view about the great alien peril, a view no doubt honestly and sincerely held. But I would ask what good is it going to do to publish the names of these people in the "London Gazette" which nobody ever reads, unless it is people who look through it to ascertain whether they have have been awarded any decorations or honours or unless it be the alien hunter. I am not making any personal reflection in this regard, but there are people outside this House who make money by writing newspaper articles and by stirring up hatred against other countries. Beyond that, I cannot understand what is the use of this Sub-section. It might lead, however, to a great deal of unpleasantness for quite respectable people who come here for the good of the trade of this country.
§ Mr. KILEYI beg to second the Amendment.
We have already been told by the Home Secretary that this permission will only be given for a very brief period to a person who comes for commercial purposes. Such a person might be here possibly for only a fortnight, yet a month later his name is to appear in the "London Gazette." Of course he will not be injured thereby. But when it 569 comes to the case of the English-born wife who comes over here, it is almost certain to cause her considerable annoyance. I cannot see Shat any useful object therefore is served by the Sub-section while it will put the country to a good deal of trouble and expense.
§ Mr. SHORTTIt is quite true that possibly this is not one of the most useful or necessary provisions in the Bill, but at the same time it is both useful and necessary. It is just as well that you should have publication of the names of persons who are allowed to come into the country. It cannot do any great harm. It is very difficult to see what harm it can do to anyone who is allowed to come, and if there happens to be someone about whom ii mistake were made it might lead to the discovery of that mistake, and if there is anyone who could be harmed by it being known that he had been allowed to be here the probability would be that he was a person who ought not to have been allowed here at all.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Amendment made: Leave out the word "at" ["at the end of each such month"], and insert thereof the words "as soon as practicable after."—[Mr. Shortt.]