SECOND READING.

HL Deb 17 July 1894 vol 27 cc117-56

Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.

Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2^a."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY AND LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of ROSEBERY)

My Lords, the closer examination which the Government have been able to give to the Bill of the noble Marquess has not strengthened any prepossessions they may have entertained in its favour. In the first place, I venture to think that no such proposal as this ought to be made to Parliament except on the initiative and on the authority of the Executive Government. That, in my opinion, is a very grave objection to the proposal. The noble Marquess, no doubt, may contend that it is owing to the laches, or the neglect of the Executive Government, that he has been compelled to move in this matter, but I venture to say that is not the case. The case, as regards the immigration of aliens, was infinitely stronger when he was at the head of the Government. At that time he did not move; and I have here in my box the answers, or some of the answers, that were made on the part of the Government at the time when they were pressed in the same way as the noble Marquess now presses us. In the House of Lords, in February, 1890, Lord Balfour of Burleigh stated that "the numbers of alien immigrants had been much exaggerated." At the end of May, 1891, Mr. W. H. Smith was extremely emphatic on this point. He said, "The whole subject is receiving the earnest attention of the Government." He went on to contend that the right of asylum in this country, as regards political refugees, has always been maintained; and the restrictions on the immigration of foreigners who may be supposed to be destitute would involve legislation which might bring about even greater evils. Regard must also be had to the fact that there is a considerable emigration of Englishmen to the Continent. Sir M. Hicks-Beach answered in the same sense in June, 1891. On July 28, 1891, Sir M. Hicks-Beach said, in answer to Lord Henry Bruce— It does not appear there is any sufficient reason at present for the adoption of effective measures to prevent the introduction of indigent foreigners. Then, again, in March, 1892, Mr. Ritchie replied— It does not appear to me there is any sufficient reason at present for the adoption of the course suggested by the hon. Member. That was to take steps to put a stop to the immigration of paupers. Now, my Lords, the reason I quote these answers is to show that at the time when the Government of the noble Marquess opposite gave these clear and weighty answers under the pressure of their own followers, among whom I observe Colonel Howard Vincent was the principal, the immigration of pauper aliens was infinitely greater than it is now. In 1892 the Board of Trade calculates that the net addition to the alien population residing in the United Kingdom was about 11,500, and that it fell to about 6,000 in 1893. The net increase due to the immigration of Russians and Poles into London, the great centre of such immigration, is estimated at rather over 7,000 in 1891, when the noble Marquess's Government was in power and was giving these answers; at about 3,000 in 1892; and at rather less than 3,000 in 1893. And at this moment I believe that immigration has touched the lowest point ever reached. I have in my hand the last Report on immigration down to July 11 last, and it says that the total number of alien immigrants that week is 55 less than the preceding week, and it is the smallest number that we have had for any week since that ending May 2. This is the more remarkable, as at this time in other years we have had the largest numbers. For instance, the Hamburg came here just at this time a year ago—July 6—with 113 aliens; this voyage she brought only four. Therefore, I think, my Lords, when we consider that the numbers have been falling ever since the attitude taken up by the noble Marquess and his Government on this question in 1891 and 1892, we are justified in concluding that this Government is not called upon to deal, and has not shown any neglect in dealing, with this question. On the contrary, it is an act, I think, open to question on more than one ground, in the last month of the Session, to bring forward a Bill in your Lordships' House which could have no chance of passing the other House, and that on the responsibility of an ex-Minister who gave such clear and decided notes on this question when he himself was in Office. My Lords, I am not one of those who take the high line that in no circumstances shall there ever be any restriction on alien immigration into this country. I have more than once expressed myself to the effect that the time may come when it may be necessary to impose such restrictions. If, for example, all the outlets for emigration were closed; if, to use a metaphor of the noble Marquess, all the conduit-pipes of emigration were shut, and if there was a large measure of expulsion from foreign States of populations tending to degrade and impoverish, and even largely to compete with, our industrial population, I myself should say that a case had arisen for legislation. But I venture to say that at the present moment there is no such case. I have read the figures as they have been most carefully sifted by the Board of Trade, and it cannot be said that there is anything to be alarmed at in the influx of some 3,000 aliens, when we do not even know how many of these aliens leave the country. The noble Marquess the other day brought figures to prove that the increase was something like 16,000 in five months, and some of the organs of the Press have improved on that statement, and have published the assertion that within the last six months 20,000 aliens have settled in the midst of our Metropolis. The noble Marquess forgot the very serious deductions to which his figures were liable. In the first place, a considerable number of the 16,000 are sailors—some 5,000 or 6,000—obviously not for settlement. Then there are a considerable number who arrive without through tickets, but who pass on to other destinations during the year of their arrival. Again, there are many who return to the countries from which they came; and, therefore, what these 16,000 represent is not the clear number of those who arrive to settle in this country, but the gross influx of aliens not holding through tickets for other countries. After sifting these figures the Board of Trade have come to the conclusion which I have indicated, and they have, if I may use a coarse expression, "sweated down" these figures to those which I have mentioned. And I venture to think that the figures which that responsible Department have laid before Parliament in their published Blue Book fully corroborate the other figures I have mentioned. Well, my Lords, in the Blue Book which was circulated the other day on alien immigration your Lordships will find the following statement on page 22:— The broad conclusions deducible are that the total number of aliens of all classes who have arrived in this country, and may be taken to have remained here, amounted in 1891 to about 12,000, in 1892 to 11,500, and in 1893 to rather less than 6,000. Then, again, I must call the attention of the noble Marquess to the fact that ever since the time when he took the firm and consistent attitude that no action was necessary or should be taken, there has been a considerable reduction in the in flux of alien paupers. Now, my Lords, there is another statement of the noble Marquess which would certainly have affected my position in this matter, and which, I think, must have made a considerable impression upon your Lord ships. He said that the principal conduit-pipe of emigration, that to the United States, had been recently closed. That is a statement for which I cannot find any corroboration. It is quite true that there have been laws passed in the United States of late for the restriction of immigration, but they had had no appreciable effect in that respect. The last of the United States laws dealing with the restriction of immigration came into force in May, 1893. Now, in 1893, 64,000 odd foreigners passed from the ports of the United Kingdom to the ports of the United States. How many of those 64,000 do your Lordships suppose were rejected under this new and more stringent law which the noble Marquess believes closed the conduit-pipe? Ninety-nine. Therefore, as the exact numbers were 64,263, your Lordships will see that nearly 64,200 were admitted into the United States. So the danger, which I quite admit seems to me to be the greatest danger of all, that of other countries placing restrictions on immigration, so that all the destitute immigrants might be forced on to our shores, is at the present moment illusory. Now, my Lords, there is another point to which I wish to call your attention. It is, of course, said that there are a number of pauper aliens entering this country, and it may also be alleged that the number of aliens already in this country constitute a serious danger in the way of competition in trade or chargeability to rates. These, I think, were important elements of the noble Marquess's statement. Now, as regards the influx of pauper aliens into London, they are, so far as I can ascertain, almost restricted to two quarters — part of St. George's-in-the-East and part of Whitechapel. Now, I do not deny that there is a strong feeling in a part of the Last End of London, and notably in these parishes, against the influx of these pauper aliens, but you must remember that, whether the number be great or small, they do not become chargeable to the rates. These Polish Jews do, no doubt, some of them, come in a state of some poverty to this country, but they do not become chargeable to the rates, because the race to which they belong undertakes their support when they are placed in circumstances of poverty, and therefore any argument which may be based on this ground, and which is practically alluded to in the provisions of this Bill for excluding pauper aliens, does not bear at all upon the influx of Jewish pauper aliens or Jewish poor people into the East End of London. But this is, perhaps, only a side issue, although I think the noble Marquess laid some stress upon it in his speech the other day. What I want to point out is, that the whole case is exceedingly small, far too small for legislation now, and not likely to become great enough for legislation in the future. I have quoted the figures which relate to the annual immigration of aliens into this country. No one can say that the influx of a few thousand aliens can do any harm to the population of this country, either in the way of competition or of association, or even of degradation, because, as a matter of fact, it is found that where the degraded immigrant settles in this country he does not tend to degrade those who surround him, but those who surround him tend to elevate him. The question is an essentially small one. What is the proportion of aliens to the remaining population of this country at this moment? In the United Kingdom there are only 5..8 foreigners to every 1,000 inhabitants. With a residue of 995 per 1,000 native Britons that does not seem to me a very alarming proportion. But it seems to me a much less alarming proportion when I contrast it with the proportions of other countries. In the German Empire the proportion of foreigners is 8.8 per 1,000 of the population; in Austria it is 17.2 per 1,000, while in France it is 29.7 per 1,000, and in America it is 147 per 1,000. There fore, I am bound to say that when we are asked to legislate for an enormous evil, to forsake our traditions in this manner, all of a sudden, in the last dying weeks of a languishing Session—

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Hear, hear.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

Yes, but why has it languished? I say that when we are asked to do all this, we should be presented with facts considerably more important than those which have been produced by the noble Marquess, or which any Department of the State is willing to bring to his support. My Lords, I know it is said that they might compete in industries with our own population. I cannot enter into that argument. It is a very lengthy argument, and it is presented in this Report on alien immigration to which I have already alluded. The reporter there says that it will be necessary to investigate very minutely and in great detail the circumstances of the various trades before he can produce any definite conclusion on the subject. But there is a letter in The Times from a supporter of the noble Marquess, and one well versed in this controversy—I mean Sir Julian Goldsmid—who says most distinctly that that competition does not exist, and he arrives, though indeed more tersely, at the same conclusion as is arrived at by the reporter to the Board of Trade, that that competition does not exist, and that what has happened is this: that the aliens have brought their trades with them—new trades which are not trades of the United Kingdom. They have brought and developed their trades in our midst as aliens in former times brought and developed their trades, and in no sensible degree do they compete with native industry. The two avocations in which I believe they are mainly engaged are the production of cheap cigars and cigarettes and of that form of cheap clothing, whether tailoring or boot-making, which produces the article called "slops." Our experience is that cheap clothing, in these few years during which alien immigration has been constantly going on, has increased some 52 per cent., and this is a collateral argument of some importance in support of the contention of Sir Julian Goldsmid and the Board of Trade. Therefore, then, I would ask, on what is it that we are to base this legislation against pauper alien immigration legislation to which, as I have before said, I am not unfavourable if circumstances should require it. But at the present moment, when, as far as I can make out, no vestige of an argument or fact can be brought in its favour, where are we to find a basis for proposing this legislation? It is clear that this immigration is small and decreasing; that on all authority there is no competition with native industry; and that this alien immigration does not produce any charge upon the rates; and, therefore, I ask on what grounds are we to go to the House of Commons in the month of August and ask them to pass legislation which conflicts with all our traditions, without having some plain argument and some statistics on which to base our action? There will be one result, no doubt—one drastic result of any such legislation. You will fortify the restrictions immeasurable against your own emigration abroad. There is a constant tendency in foreign countries, and I suspect your Lordships know it as well as I do, to increase vexatious health-restrictions in the hope that contagious disease may be excluded, and there is also in the United States, more especially, to which our great flow of emigration chiefly proceeds, a great tendency to bar the gate against those who go there insufficiently provided with this world's goods. If we are to set the example of restrictions on aliens of this kind, both as regards poverty and as regards disease, we with our very limited experience, and our slender basis of facts, are practically exhorting the United States to carry out much more stringent regulations than they have hitherto done to shut out our natural flow of emigration. In that way the Bill proposed by the noble Marquess will, I venture to say, have infinitely worse effects as regards the free flow of the population to the United Kingdom than anything that can be contemplated under the present state of things. Now, my Lords, I come to the other provisions of Bill. I might ask, perhaps, before leaving the first part of it, what are the exact provisions which the noble Marquess contemplates carrying into effect? He proposes to give to the Board of Trade Inspectors power to judge whether an alien is an idiot. Well, that is a very invidious power, and I am not sure that the Board of Trade Inspector would care to enter into a detailed examination of every alien, as indicated by the third clause of the Bill. Who is a person "likely to become a public charge"? Many of these people come over with no means. In the last Report there is mention of a woman 60 years of age; she had but small means, and you would say she was likely to become a public charge, but she was going to her relatives who had asked her to come over and who were going to support her. But in any case none of these pauper aliens, against whom your legislation is distinctly aimed, would become liable to the public charge for the reasons I have pointed out, and therefore I do not see what validity the Bill then would have. As regards a person affected with dangerous contagious or infectious disease, what would happen? He would remain on board ship, and he would contaminate the crew. I do not suppose that the noble Marquess would be prepared to carry out so large a measure as sending the ship back to the port from which she came, with all her passengers, a sort of pest-house, and her cargo ruined. It would be one of the greatest impediments to the commerce of the United Kingdom if any such dangerous idea was likely to be acted upon. What, then, would you do with a contagious person? You would have to freight a ship to take him back. In what respect would that be preferable to the present procedure of the Local Government Board which is this—that when a ship arrives containing a person affected with contagious disease that person is landed and treated by the sanitary authorities as if he were a person labouring under a contagious disease in the town in which he is landed. I cannot conceive what would be the improvement under the clause of the noble Marquess. Now, my Lords, I pass from the machinery, which, I think, the noble Marquess himself will admit is crude, and is probably introduced more for the purpose of raising discussion than for any purpose of effective operation, to the second division of the Bill. Here again I am quite willing to admit that where a case is made out for interference we should not allow any particular tradition to hamper us in dealing with it. If we were in a state of rebellion, or if we were at war with any foreign Power, it might be necessary to revive restrictions which were introduced by Mr. Pitt in 1793, though I do not know that they were particularly operative; but as a matter of fact when you are face to face with a grave and critical condition of affairs no statesman who is worth his salt will be hampered by any traditions, however illustrious, in doing his best to combat the evil with which he has to deal. But I venture to say that in the case of pauper aliens there is absolutely no case for the restrictions now proposed, and where there is no ground for any such restrictions it is extremely inadvisable to impose them. I will not return to the melancholy task undertaken by the noble Marquess in his speech on Thursday week on the First Reading. To the last day of my life I shall regret the inadvertence which led the noble Marquess to make a statement which I am sure be cannot substantiate, and which has produced, as I predicted it would, disastrous results abroad. I see that among those who justify him there is a tendency to say how utterly wrong were the vaticinations of Lord Rosebery. On the contrary, the speech of the noble Marquess has been received with singular and almost unanimous applause abroad. That was just what I was afraid of. All the time the noble Marquess was speaking I heard the distant hum of the applause of the foreign Press which is unfriendly to this country. The foreign Press has been seeking to fix on this country the imputation of being the harbourers of assassins who disturb their peace. It was a windfall which in their wildest dreams they could not have hoped for, when they heard the noble Marquess say that "these enterprises, so far as we can judge, have to a great extent been prepared and organised on this soil." Now, my Lords, as regards that statement, I ventured to contradict it at the time, and I have taken more pains to examine it since. I considered that so grave a charge should not be made without the most substantial evidence, and I went to the Home Office, which has supervision of this class of meditated crime, and the Home Office consulted the police, and they authorise me to state in the most clear and unambiguous terms that none of these conspiracies that have been hatched against foreign Governments or foreign States have been planned or plotted in these islands.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

None of the murderous outrages?

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

None since this Government has been in power. If it was before this Government came into power the noble Marquess must have been aware of them, and it was his duty and his responsibility to take measures to prevent them. So far as we are concerned our hands are clean. No outrages have been plotted or planned in these islands while we have been at the helm of the State, and, therefore, we have not undertaken the responsibility of proposing repressive measures to deal with them. The noble Marquess intimated that President Carnot's assassination was planned in this country. I thought the statement extremely doubtful, for no evidence had been adduced in proof of it. If the noble Marquess relies on the foreign Press for veracity in its assertions against this country he will be led far in detestation of his native land. Every detail of the progress of this assassin from the conception of the crime to its execution, so far as it is revealed in the Press, conclusively proves that there was no shadow of support for that allegation. What improvement, I asked, would the measure of the noble Marquess introduce into the present system of dealing with these offences? What happens now is this. Men, criminals no doubt—men of bad character, come to these islands, and I have no doubt are very undesirable inhabitants of them. They may when they are here meditate plots either against persons in these islands or against persons outside these islands. But they are under supervision while in this country, and under pretty strict supervision; and it is rare, I think, that we do not know what they have in contemplation. If they are contemplating crimes against people in these islands the law furnishes a sufficient remedy for dealing with them; but, if they are meditating crimes against people outside these islands, what is the remedy proposed by the Bill? It is to send them out of this country. It is quite obvious that they cannot assassinate persons outside these islands while they remain within them, and therefore the proposal of the noble Marquess is to send these people out of the country in order to give them the very facility they want to perpetrate crime. That, after all, is the common sense of the position, and we must rest very much on the comparative merits of the two courses before us—either the course we pursue now, which is that of strict supervision and communication with the foreign police—and I may mention in connection with this that we never had a single complaint as regards the inadequacy of our measures of prevention since we have been in power—or we can take the restrictive measures proposed by the noble Marquess. On two occasions within the last 50 years these measures have been passed by Parliament; a measure analogous to that proposed by the noble Marquess was proposed, not perhaps without justification, in that period of revolution, 1848. What was the result? In not one single instance was any action taken under that Act. Then in 1882, when there was a grave crisis in Ireland, perhaps the gravest crisis that this generation has been called upon to face, those powers were renewed as regards Ireland; and what was the result? In not one single instance were those powers used. Therefore, I again ask what is the basis or recommendation for this proposed legislation? You are going to invite Parliament, at a time when there is no complaint from abroad, at a time when there is no allegation, except from the noble Marquess, that crimes are plotted against foreign Governments within our shores, at a time when the only outrage within our shores has been the chance explosion of a projectile in the neighbourhood of Greenwich Observatory, as to which, owing to the death of the man who was carrying the projectile, we can offer no certain explanation—it is at this time of profound tranquillity, when no complaints are made from abroad, that the noble Marquess comes forward and asks us to renew legislation which on the two occasions of real crisis when it was proposed was never in a single case acted upon. I venture to think that the course recommended by the noble Marquess is not desirable. I venture to say that such legislation, if it is not absolutely required, is eminently inexpedient. You would have great difficulty in passing it. You remember the case of Lord Palmerston. I admit that Lord Palmerston's Government was not thrown out on the Act, but on the Despatch which had been addressed to him in connection with that Act. There are passages even in Lord Palmerston's speech on that occasion which are not without justification when we are asked to pursue the course indicated by the noble Marquess.— A disposition prevails on the Continent"— said Lord Palmerston, in bringing in this Bill— that the Government and Parliament of this country should take some steps which should place it in the power of the Government on mere suspicion to remove aliens from the United Kingdom. That is the course recommended by the noble Marquess. But what did Lord Palmerston say?— Sir, it is needless for me to say that it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose any measure of this kind to Parliament. We are sensible, as every body must be, that there may be cases in which men entertaining the most criminal projects might be removed with advantage from the country. But, at the same time, any law which gave to the Government that power would be so liable to abuse and would infringe so largely upon the general principle according to which the shores of the United Kingdom are open to people of all nations who might be compelled from political or other causes to seek a refuge here, and who, as long as they conduct themselves peaceably, ought to enjoy the peace and refuge which they seek, that any Government would hesitate long before they proposed any such measure to Parliament, and I am quite sure that any Parliament would be quite as disinclined to pass it. I have heard the illustrious shade of Lord Palmerston invoked for this legislation; but in face of that statement it would very much surprise me to hear it invoked again. Lord Palmerston also said— There is nothing in the Bill which gives the Executive Government any arbitrary power in regard either to Her Majesty's subjects or any alien resident within the realm. It gives no power of expulsion. There is nothing in it which in the slightest degree interferes with that law of hospitality by which we have invariably been guided with regard to foreigners seeking an asylum in this country. Any foreigner, whatever his nation, whatever his political creed, whatever his political offences against his own Government, may, under this Bill, as he does to-day, find in these realms a safe and secure asylum as long as he obeys the law of this land. That was the language of Lord Palmerston, not at a time of tranquillity, when there was no political imputation against this country, but immediately after an assassination directed against the ruler of a foreign country and traced to this country. Lord Palmerston, with that rare sagacity and long Parliamentary experience which distinguished him, saw conclusively that it was hopeless to propose any legislation to Parliament which touched the just jealousy of the privilege of asylum which exists in that body. I venture to say that that jealousy has not diminished now. The present more democratic character of the House of Commons has in no degree diminished the jealousy of any restriction of the right of asylum which prevails in this country. If anything, it has increased that jealousy, and I cannot conceive a more arduous task than for any Government, however strong, to attempt, without an overwhelming accumulation of facts, to pass any such measure as this through the House of Commons as at present constituted. My Lords, when I say this, I do not of course mean to say that there is or can be in this Government or in any Party in this country any sympathy with what is called Anarchical outrage. We should be willing to enter into the most cordial exchange of views with any foreign Government as to any reasonable method of preventing such crimes. The Anarchists do not represent to us any of those revolutionary graces which in old days recommended many political refugees to our shores. On both sides of the House we have recently had an opportunity of expressing our complete repudiation and horror of the most recent of these outrages. But I am unable to say, because we feel that horror, and because we entertain it as strongly as any nation that has been robbed of its Princes or statesmen by these outrages, that we should be compelled to depart from the course which has been shown to be secure, and to embark upon one which, when it has not been inoperative, has been regarded with the greatest jealousy and dislike by the people of this country. I pass from that jealousy to another and very practical consideration. The noble Marquess proposes—and I confess that after his long experience at the Foreign Office I am surprised at the proposal—to give the Secretary of State discretionary power to expel any alien when he shall have reason to believe that that course may be expedient for the preservation of peace and tranquillity within the country, or for the prevention of crime within or without the dominions of Her Majesty. I venture to say that the position of the Secretary of State would not be a pleasant one if that clause were passed. The noble Marquess knows perfectly well—no one better—that the Secretary of State would be pressed on all sides by foreign Governments to expel from our shores persons whom they considered dangerous to their own Rulers or Constitutions. The Secretary of State would be under continuous pressure, which it would be extremely ungraceful to resist, but to which it would be impossible to yield without issuing warrants at all times and seasons for the expulsion of refugees, whose expulsion foreign Governments might demand. I may give an instance. There is one Government I know that considers that newspapers which are printed in London are a source of incitement to crime within its dominions. If this Bill were passed, my noble Friend Lord Kimberley would have at once to issue warrants for the expulsion of everyone connected with those newspapers. Whether he thought it right or wrong, he would be bound at once to give up refugees to the Government that demanded them, under pain of coming to blows with the Government making the demand. Would that be a desirable state of things? My Lords, I will give a concrete instance of a man whose expulsion would certainly have been demanded from us under such a measure as the noble Marquess proposes, a man whom we could not have given up, and the refusal to expel whom would have involved us in the most strained relations with foreign Powers—I mean Joseph Mazzini. That man was in no respect allied to the new and godless set of revolutionists which has now arisen. His faith in his ideal Republic was subordinate to the highest and most profound belief in the Almighty guidance of the world. He has left a great impression in this country, and when he died, his own country, which had under other circumstances demanded from Switzerland that he should be expelled, passed a unanimous vote deploring his departure. I very much doubt whether, in the period between 1848 and 1860, the most violent pressure would not have been brought upon this Government to surrender Mazzini to the Government of Naples, which has ceased to exist, or to several Governments which are now living, and to which I will not, therefore, further allude. In what position would we have been? I do not believe that the people of this country would have allowed any Secretary of State to surrender Mazzini. What would have been the result? The Secretary of State would have been turned out of Office, and a flat refusal would have been sent by Parliament or by the authority of Parliament to the foreign Government that claimed the surrender. Therefore, if this clause had been in operation, you would have had a dislocation of our domestic Government at home and a still greater dislocation of our relations with foreign Governments. I say, then, my Lords, if you really mean to pass such a Bill as this, if you hope to recommend it to your countrymen, you can only do it in some solemn hour of supreme crisis, when the Government of this country, armed with the knowledge and responsibility that can recommend legislation to Parliament, can with that knowledge and that responsibility bring a practical measure before Parliament. As to this Bill, I deprecate its introduction; I foresee its disappearance; I do not believe for a moment that the noble Marquess can himself have meant that it should pass into law. Therefore, I think that it is hardly possible that he could have rendered a greater disservice to his country than by introducing this Bill and delivering the speech with which he introduced it.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I freely admit that in bringing forward a Bill of this character from the Opposition side of the House, I am challenging the conduct which the Government have pursued, and trying to point out to them that they have not met the crisis through which we have been passing in the manner which their duty and their position demanded. But I will deal, in the first place, with the least important points to which the noble Earl referred. He informs me that the Board of Trade have sweated my figures down. I readily admit that the Board of Trade are great adepts in that art, but for my part I prefer figures for use that have not been sweated. When I introduced this Bill to your Lordships, I pointed out the rate at which, according to the official figures furnished by the Board of Trade, aliens were being introduced into this country. I showed that in 1891 the official figures for the first three months gave 15,900 aliens, that the official figures for the first five months of the present year gave more than 15,000, and that, in my judgment, it was probable that when we obtained the figures for June they would show about 20,000 as the number that had come into this country during the first six months. As a matter of fact, the figures have come out since at 19,400, or a little more. The only deduction that is made from these figures, on which I understand that the opponents of this proposal rely, is that a certain number of these immigrants were sailors, and, it is said, that therefore it is certain that they went out again. In that respect I have, in the first place, to point out that many, especially of the most destitute immigrants, would represent themselves as sailors because they would come in by the process of working their passage. That is the ordinary mode in which a man who is destitute of all other means of procuring a passage procures it. I entirely deny that all who come into this country as sailors go out again as sailors. Such a contention involves the assumption that there are no sailors in distress or out of employment. I believe a very large number of aliens who are in destitute circumstances in this country are sailors who, on account of the great depression which has affected the shipping trade during the last few years, have been unable to con- tinue their previous avocation. I entirely demur to the broad assumption that all sailors who come into this country—all persons who give their names as being sailors—may be treated as going out again in the same capacity, and are not to be treated, therefore, as aliens who have remained in this country during the year. Even if we admit this deduction on account of sailors, the figures as they have been treated by the Board of Trade show a most marvellous contradiction. The Official Return of the Board of Trade derived from counting the immigrants represents that the aliens not stated to be en route to America who came in during the year 1893 were 33,458. Even if you go on the assumption that no sailors are destitute, and that no sailors remain behind unable to get on when they come into this country, there would still be only 9,000 to be deducted from that number, and then the number of alien immigrants into this country who stayed during the year 1893 was 24,000. That is the result of the official figures as they stand. Mr. Willis, in a paper, whose ability I readily grant, has sweated down that number of 23,000 to 6,000, but he has done that by the help of figures which are not official, which cannot be cross-examined, and which are wholly incapable of being weighed. He has attempted to prove that there cannot have been that number of immigrants remaining in the country, by comparing the number of persons who came into the country with the number of those who have gone out. But he has no official figures to show how many immigrants came in and how many went out. He is obliged to obtain that information by private communication with owners of ships and others from whom he imagines he has the means of arriving at a conclusion. That might be a trustworthy mode of computation if it were not confronted by the fact that in the face of 24,000 represented in the official figures to have come in, he only allowed for 6,000 remaining. I cannot say that I think these figures are of a trustworthy character, and until we have it in an official form, and can ascertain how many companies have been consulted, how many firms have been consulted, and what is the nature of the evidence they can give, those figures must be regarded with some doubt. But it would be a great mistake to suppose that on the ups and downs of figures a policy such as this can be based. What I ventured to lay before you was that the justification of a policy of this kind, of giving to our Government the power of excluding pauper aliens, depends upon the fact that other countries were doing the same. It is because America in the year 1893 made her legislation singularly more sharp, because Canada maintained an almost equally severe exclusion, and because, as I think, the noble Earl himself confessed, all nations were doing the same, that it becomes a matter of policy. Whether it is a matter of urgent policy or not, it becomes a matter of policy to give your Government the power to exclude aliens whom foreign restrictions must direct to your shores. If there is always moving out of Europe a pauper population, if all other nations refuse to receive them, it becomes a matter of mathematical certainty that they must come here. And do not imagine that because you do not find the names of pauper aliens on the workhouse lists that therefore they exercise no influence to the injury of your own population. It is these people who diminish the chances of earning a livelihood which your own population feels so much. Their difficulty of finding employment is increasing more and more, the number of those who are seeking public relief gets greater and greater, and there is a very general belief among working men, and I think that belief is founded upon facts, that the introduction of these aliens, who are content with the very lowest conditions of existence, has a tendency to drive our own population out of employment and to increase the hardness of that battle which they have to fight in finding the means of living. It is a matter of no small consideration that that is the belief they themselves entertain—that the Government of this country does not sufficiently safeguard their interests by preventing a competition to which they have a right to object. My Lords, the noble Earl relied very much on the fact that the American law had not been carried into operation in any great number of cases; but that is precisely an indication of the mode in which legislation of this kind acts. It does not act so much to drive people out as to deter them from coming in. The American law is now very strong. It forces Steamship Companies that bring immigrants to hand up in their offices in this country a full statement of the prohibition against persons landing who are likely to become a public charge. This matter is brought to the knowledge of those who are desiring to become immigrants into America, and naturally they shrink from making a fruitless voyage across the Atlantic in order to make a voyage back again; and the number of those who actually confront the American Inspectors becomes exceedingly small. But it would be very illogical to assert that on that account the law has had no effect. The noble Earl complains of the machinery I have put into the Bill. I need hardly say that on Second Reading that is not a matter which it is necessary to discuss at length. I should be very willing if this matter went on, if your Lordships pass the Second Reading, and we go into Committee, to adopt any more perfect machinery which the Government or anybody else might suggest; but my defence for adopting the machinery I have put into the Bill is that it is the American machinery. It is a machinery that has been tried and found to operate well, and I simply transfer the American enactment to the proposals I have laid before your Lordships.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

Has it been operative?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Yes, it has deterred those who would otherwise have gone from going, and has kept America free from paupers whose landing they dread. That is one of the great recommendations of such a measure for this country. I should be very sorry if there was a constant sending back of people who have come over to this country; but we know that when once destitute persons abroad are aware that they will not be allowed to settle in this country unless they have means of existence they will never undertake the enterprise. They will shrink from the process of inspection and refusal, and they will spare us the necessity of inflicting it upon them. The effect will be as efficacious here as in America—in fact more so, because the journey across the Channel or the North Sea is not so severe as that across the Atlantic. It is to the deterrent and not to the operative effect of this proposal that I look for efficacious action in keeping pauper aliens out of the country. The noble Earl spoke as if this Bill, if passed into law, must immediately spring into operation on all parts of our coasts. That is not the form in which it is drawn. If the Government so think fit, it may be allowed to remain dormant, and if the Government see occasion to put it into force they can do so by a simple proclamation. It is entirely on their responsibility, it is entirely in their discretion what shall be the amount of its operation, how long it shall last, and what force and operation they will give to the Bill if it passes. The noble Lord recommends us to wait until there is some great exodus proclaimed and determined upon abroad. In my opinion, it would be much wiser to do it now when there would be no apprehension of any invidious application of such legislation. If there were some great famine abroad, and there were numbers coming across, of whose sufferings you heard highly-coloured accounts, there would be a very serious difficulty not only in passing such a measure through Parliament, but in explaining it to the foreign Powers with whom you are living in friendship. It would put you under the necessity of discussing all the miseries that were going on, and all the danger of the exodus at a time when men's minds would be irritated and excited, and when, therefore, there would be the least possible chance of inducing persons on either side of the water to give a calm and cool consideration to such proposals. There is one danger, at all events, with which the noble Lord threatens me, which, I confess, I have no cause to fear. He seems to think that any legislation of this kind will encourage the Americans in pursuing the policy on which they have entered. Will the noble Lord tell me whether, in anything he has observed in American legislation, they require the least encouragement in the pursuit of any policy on which they may have seen fit to enter? There is no nation which is less liable to be driven from one side to the other in a policy which it has undertaken than the Government of America. I am quits certain that this Bill, if your Lordships pass it, will not have the least effect on America or any other Power in inducing them to alter the course of policy on which they have embarked. I have not represented this as an urgent case; but I feel that it is a case which is growing in urgency every year, and that the discouragement to your own population is very serious at a time when their misery is so great, and the difficulty of obtaining employment is so serious, if they feel that they are exposed to the competition of men with whom, on account of the different conditions under which they live, it is very hard for them to fight, and that the burdens under which they lie are increased by a pauperism which is not their own. I do not represent the matter as of that urgency that great and immediate public evil will result if the proposal is not adopted; but I think that, in view of the legislation of America and of Canada, and in view of the fact that the outlet for all the poverty of Europe is now practically stopped in that direction, the matter calls for the attention of Her Majesty's Government, and I think that Parliament ought to make it the subject of legislation at the earliest possible period. I am not alone in this opinion. I have hit upon a sentence, an eloquent sentence, which seems to me to indicate pretty clearly what ought to be the policy of this country in this respect. This is the sentence— I take it if there is one certainty in the world it is this: that with the growth of immigration and with the continual closing of the confines of States to the destitute immigrants of other countries, there is no country in the world that will not be compelled to consider its position, and possibly reconsider its position, with regard to pauper emigration, unless it wishes permanently to degrade the status and the condition of its own working classes. Those eloquent words are from the Earl of Rosebery.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

They do not seem to justify the introduction of a Bill in July.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The noble Lord relies upon this being July, but, when I remember how little the difficulties of season weighed upon the noble Lord and his colleagues last year, I do not feel that we can for a single moment admit that that is a difficulty. I now come to the other and more important portion of the Bill. The noble Lord tells me that I have attacked my country and given a support to all its calumniators, and that there is no ground whatever for saying that the outrages which have taken place abroad have been organised here. The noble Lord dwells a good deal on the fact that the late Government introduced no legislation of this kind. But, my Lords, the terrible outbreak of Anarchic violence and cruelty had not taken place when we were in office. This succession of massacres is a modern phenomenon. The noble Lord, I understand, condemns me for having said that these enterprises were organised on this soil. The words I used were these, and I certainly will not in the least admit that they were used by inadvertence—they are words to which I adhere:— The world has been horrified by tragic events that have taken place, and these tragic events have been merely, as it were, the culmination of a series of attempts, sometimes successful, sometimes unsuccessful, but which never could do anything but draw down upon them the denunciation and horror of all civilised men. The worst part of it is that these enterprises, so far as we can judge, are to a great extent prepared and organised on this soil. So far as we know, much of the material products by which these crimes have been effected are manufactured here. I listened with great curiosity to the denial which the noble Lord brought from the police, and I observed that it was always attempts against the foreign Governments which he denied were organised here. He never said anything about attempts against foreign peoples. He never said anything about these terrible massacres of innocent men, which are the most cruel feature of the outbreak of crime that this generation has witnessed. He spoke much of Governments and Princes. I would not say a word to extenuate or diminish my own expression of horror at the terrible crime under which the President of the French Republic has fallen; but there is even a deeper depth than that horrible atrocity. It is to be found in those fiendish and bloodthirsty crimes which have not even the wretched defence that they are directed against the holder of any Power or any authority in foreign countries, but which are directed against people who are absolutely innocent, who have no connection with any bad laws, or evil social phenomena, or any institutions that can be condemned. Such enterprises as Barcelona and the murder at the Terminus Hotel appear to me to exceed in wickedness, if it is possible, even the wickedness under which the President of the French Republic fell. Those inno- cent citizens were killed merely that attention might be attracted and that notoriety might be purchased for the assassins; and they flinched from no misery that they could inflict upon innocent men and women, from no destruction that resulted to families, if they could only attain the wretched objects that presented themselves to their diseased ambition. I venture to think that it is even a more terrible responsibility if it turns out to be the case that enterprises of this kind are prepared and organised in this country than even those enterprises which have still a shred, or a shadow, a tincture of political character upon them, horrible and detestable as they are.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Marquess, but since I spoke I have had the opportunity of communicating with the Home Secretary, who authorises me to extend the remarks I have made to all the murderous outrages of which the noble Marquess speaks.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Of course, I cannot cross-examine that statement, and, so far as it goes, the noble Lord must have the benefit of it. I have to rely upon what appears in sources of public information. If I had relied upon foreign newspapers, as the noble Lord suggests, I might have brought testimony to bear upon such statements; but it is absolutely incorrect to say that it is only those newspapers which are hostile to this country that have indulged in reflections of that kind. Such reflections have come from newspapers belonging to every party and every tinge of opinion, whether friendly to England or the reverse, and what I have myself noticed in newspapers gave me the impression which I laid before the House. I deny that I am bound to bring forward proof before I make such a complaint to Parliament. Such a doctrine would involve that you may never complain of any evil, however horrible, unless you are prepared to bring witnesses to swear to it at the Bar. That is a total misconception of the duty of a legislative body. We have often to deal with evils of which we are fully convinced, but of which we cannot give formal or legal proof. I will read what was published in The Times—I think it came from the Central News, which is, I believe, an organ devoted to Her Majesty's Government—with respect to that explosion in Greenwich Park which puzzled the noble Lord so much. That explosion took place in consequence of the accidental firing of a projectile which was being carried in his pocket by the secretary of a certain club called the Autonomic Club, where the anarchical foreigners meet for the innocent conversation which the noble Lord guarantees— The district of Tottenham Court Road has long been notorious as the favourite domicile of the most advanced section of the Socialist party and of the Anarchists, English and foreign. In a street off this main thoroughfare is a club, known to the police for years past as the resort of political desperadoes of all nationalities, wherein anarchy and the 'Social Revolution' are preached. Some time ago the frequency of the visits paid by some of the leading frequenters of the club to a house in another street leading off Tottenham Court Road, and the fact that a number of French and Spanish Anarchists had taken up their residence in the same building, led to a special and very careful watch being kept on the place. It was speedily discovered that the suspected men were in frequent communication with the leading Continental Anarchists, and, as a matter of fact, as it is now known, the latest bomb-thrower, Emile Henry, was in the house only a few weeks ago. There is also reason to believe that he obtained from fellow-conspirators in this house the ingredients and material with which to manufacture the infernal machine which he threw with such terrible effect in the Café Terminus in Paris. Of course, when you throw a bomb not much of it remains, and it is not easy to ascertain by examination whence it came or where it was made; but from The Times of February 14 it appears that M. Girard, the municipal analyst, thinks that the can containing bits of lead and zinc was probably an English can.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

Probably!

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Then unless I can produce the can and swear to the place where it was made the noble Lord thinks there is no possible reason for legislative interference.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

Was that extract from the Central News?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

No; from The Times correspondent in Paris. I suppose the noble Lord will also speak with contempt of The Times correspondent at Vienna; but in The Times of February 20 the correspondent of that paper in Vienna stated— It is interesting to note that, in the opinion of the police, most of the Anarchist handbills were printed in London. In The Times of February 17 I also find— In the Autonomie Club a quantity of Anarchist literature was seized, including a manifesto couched in the most vioient language, printed on blood-red paper, and headed in large letters 'Death to Carnot.' This had been printed in London, and is known to have been widely circulated in France. Five months after that the dreadful murder took place. Would you, if you were dealing with a private indictment, doubt that that murder was, partially at least, organised in England? It is idle to say, until you disprove these facts, that these murders are not organised here. The noble Earl makes this ingenious suggestion, that these murders are only committed abroad, and therefore the best thing to do is to induce these persons to remain here. But it is here that they remain, and consult, and plot, and obtain materials for doing their crimes, and it is from here that the criminal messengers go forth to accomplish their hideous task. I do not know how far the denials of the Home Secretary may go. Of course, I am bound to accept them absolutely, so far as they go. But I can only say that it is most unfortunate that these impressions have been allowed to go abroad uncontradicted if there is really no foundation for them in fact. But, my Lords, be pleased to remember, if it is true that I can only rely on unofficial information, and cannot penetrate the secrets of the Home Office, that public opinion, not only here but abroad, is in the same position: that they can only argue from the phenomena which they see, and from the indications which convey themselves to their minds; and that they have been going on for years and years more and more convinced that our institutions—it may be with no fault of our own except our legislation—do give a harbour to these atrocious villains and do afford facilities for the commission of their crimes. I made an omission the other day. In my last speech I did not pay a tribute to the ceaseless activity and singular intelligence of the British police throughout the whole of these affairs. But that does not lessen, in the least degree, the case against the English law as it stands, which does not place in our hands that which, in many instances, is the only effective weapon for preventing the organisation of offences of this kind. My Lords, I say that it is your duty not to allow this country to be the base of operations for crimes of this sort, that you are seriously injuring the interests of England abroad and seriously diminishing the influence of your country among foreign peoples, if you allow them to believe that reasonable precautions—precautions which every other nation takes—have not been taken by yon to prevent the organisation of crimes on your own soil. The noble Lord spoke much of Mazzini. He must have been conscious, while he was speaking, that he was treating of matters wholly irrelevant to the question before us. My whole case is that everything has changed since the days of Kossuth, Mazzini, and Garibaldi. It is no longer a case of liberty against despotism. It is no longer a question of giving a harbour of safety to those who, in the vicissitudes of politics, have failed to carry their own ideals into effect. You are now dealing with men for whom any such excuse is impossible, and would be almost disgraceful. You are dealing with men who commit crimes, which it is difficult to exceed by reference to any which history has recorded, and which it would be difficult to exceed in any imagination that the power of poets or romancers could portray. These men are here. If you remain the only State from which they cannot be turned out, by a mathematical law they must all come here. You are close to the countries in which their greatest crimes are committed. It is not the fault of police officers, or the absence of our goodwill. It is only the fault of the defects of your law. It is the result which must inevitably follow, that, being near as you are, this terrible disease of anarchical murder and outrage should find a refuge, an assistance, and a cover in the shelter which, most unwillingly, our soil offers to their crime. My Lords, I should regret very much if it should be resolved not to take measures of precaution after the fearful year of crime we have had, if only in order to clear this country, even in the eyes of these foreign newspapers whom the noble Lord despises so much from the too plausible suggestion that we have not regarded this crime with sufficient horror, nor taken adequate precautious to prevent it. It would be absurd if we should refuse to take those precautions lest we should fall into the other error, of which our ancestors were well and rightly afraid—namely, that of refusing succour to those who have no faults but their political opinions. We should only diminish our power of spreading sound political views in which we believe throughout the world if we allow them to be mixed up with the horrible caricature of them to which we have been exposed. My Lords, I do not express any very lively hope that, in the present state of business in the House of Commons, we should be able to carry this measure into law; but I do ask you to record your opinion that a change of the law in the direction of these suggestions is desirable, and to leave the responsibility of refusing to take it upon those who accept that responsibility, and to show, at all events, that there are many men and Members of one of the Houses of Legislature who view those responsibilities in a serious light in reference to the terrible phenomena of these later times. I do not, for a moment, accept the noble Lord's suggestion that the Minister for Foreign Affairs would not be able to refuse any improper suggestion which was made to him that he ought to exercise his power. Suggestions are made to Ministers by foreign Powers every month, which they are compelled to decline. Foreign Ministries know very well what are the views prevalent in this country, and no Minister would go against such public opinion. But I protest against the doctrine that out of fear of the weakness of our own administrators we will not arm them with the powers necessary to prevent the organisation of crime abroad or the maintenance of tranquillity at home. I feel convinced that these powers would not be misused, even by gentlemen with respect to whom my confidence is so little enthusiastic as it is with regard to those who now constitute Her Majesty's Government. But I am anxious to wipe off what appears to me to be a real disgrace to this country. The noble Lord seems to think that we can avoid the disgrace by stoutly denying the facts; but I am obliged to demur to any such ostrich-like policy. I desire to stand with a fair conscience before the enlightened and Christian intelligence of the world; and I wish it to be known that our country looks with as much horror as any other country upon these detestable enormities, and that it is willing to make some departure from its old habits and some sacrifice of its own convenience in order to make clear to its allies and to its friends that it has no part or share in crimes which have cast a stain of blood and horror on the closing years of the 19th century.

EARL COWPER

As I intend to vote against those with whom I generally find myself in company, I desire to explain in a few words my views on this subject. There is no doubt that anything on this subject which comes from the noble Marquess opposite must be deserving of the greatest attention, because for six years he brilliantly conducted the foreign affairs of this country, and while maintaining the honour and dignity of this country abroad, was careful not to get us into any difficulty with any foreign nation. Indeed, I feel that if the noble Marquess were in power and asked for this Bill, it would be impossible to refuse him; but that not being so, it is open to us all to exercise the right of private judgment. Nobody regards those anarchist outrages with greater horror and detestation than I do; but I cannot feel that this Bill is the best way to strengthen the hands of the Government to cope with them. If the hands of the Government really want strengthening in the matter, the course of action appears to me to lie in another direction. I maintain that by the proposals of the Bill you will not, by any means, get the anarchists and those who advocate their atrocious measures within your net; but, on the other hand, you will strike at many who do not at all come under the category of anarchists. I will not go at any length into the question of previous Alien Acts. Almost all of them were carried with the intention of protecting ourselves from dangerous foreigners, who came to commit outrages within our shores, and they have hardly ever been acted upon; but the real difference between these Acts and the measure now before us is that now we are asked to pass an Alien Bill for the protection of other nations. The time that most resembles the present state of things was 1858, when that abominable outrage was committed by Orsini. The man who threw the bomb not only endangered the life of the French Emperor, but caused the destruction of many innocent people, and but for an accident might have caused the death of many more. That was certainly a most outrageous crime, and one of which we might well be called upon to take notice. The circumstances now are very different, and I admit that so far as a difference exists it is in favour of the case of the noble Marquess, for now there have been no French Despatches left unanswered, and there are no furious denunciations by French military officers, such as were published in Paris in 1858; and, therefore, the present time presents less difficulty in enacting repressive measures. But I think that if we are to do anything it should be done in the direction which after mature consideration was decided on by Lord Palmerston, and that was in the direction of strengthening our own laws rather than in the direction of sending aliens out of the country. If we could not grapple with these Anarchists by means of the existing law, then the law must be amended and strengthened in order that nobody can excite to outrage or take part in outrage without bringing himself under the law. I believe the law is at present very strong in that direction, and that anybody who can be proved to have taken part in outrages of this kind, or to have been an accessory to them in any way can be punished as the law already exists. It is said that these outrages are committed entirely by foreigners, but I am afraid that no country, not even England, is entirely free from ruffians of the blackest die, or from that class whose mental condition hovers on the borderland between lunacy and crime, and I cannot feel sure that there are no Anarchists in England who are Englishmen. However that may be, we must have a different weapon than a mere power to the Secretary of State to tell these people to go away. If the law wants strengthening it must be strengthened in another way. I do not object to this power being given to the Secretary of State, because I fear any Secretary of State or any Government would be so weak as to surrender Garibaldi, Kossuth, or even Mazzini.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

There is nothing about surrender in my Bill.

EARL COWPER

But it would drive him away from this country, and that would mean in most cases to drive him into the hands of the authorities of his own country. But I was saying that I did not think that any Secretary of State would tell Garibaldi or Kossuth that they must leave our shores, or tell even Mazzini that he should go; because, in spite of the noble qualities which Mazzini undoubtedly possessed, there was one black spot on his career, and that was that he advocated assassination. But while I believe that no Secretary of State would under the Bill tell even Mazzini that he should leave our shores, the Bill would place any person who held the office of Secretary of State in a very disagreeable position. At present, if the Secretary of State is asked by any foreign nation to banish men of that kind from our shores, he would simply say, "I cannot do it." But if we pass this Bill he would be obliged to say, "I will not do it." Such a position of affairs would be likely to cause considerable friction between the Governments engaged in the controversy, especially if their relations were already in any way strained. Again, why should we press this Bill on an unwilling Government when the Government declare they have every weapon they want? Moreover, I deprecate any unnecessary multiplication of differences of opinion between this and the other House, and parading of such differences before the public. There are some measures in regard to which this House must record its opinions and stick to them. Every additional quarrel, every additional difference, must complicate matters in relation to the great main issue, and make it more difficult for the House of Lords, when it put its foot down, to insist on maintaining the opinions we have uttered, even to the very last. Seeing, therefore, that this Bill will not be acceded to by the other House, I cannot see the advantage of dividing on the present occasion. I hope that such a course will not be taken, but if it be taken, owing to what I consider to be the ineffective character of the Bill, and also its dangers in another direction, I shall be compelled to vote against the Second Reading.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

With regard to the first part of the measure, I must call attention to what I think is an error into which the noble Marquess has fallen with regard to the statistics of pauper aliens. He suggests an inconsistency in what he calls the official statistics and the statements which are made in the Blue Book recently published. My Lords, the Return, as it comes out month by mouth, and half-year by half-year, is a record of the immigration of aliens who are "not known" to be on their way elsewhere—that is, who have not through tickets. It does not purport to be a Return of aliens who enter and stay. It does not follow that because the aliens are not known to be on their way elsewhere, that they are, therefore, not so intending, and indeed it is certain that many of them do intend and do go elsewhere. That is the explanation of the difference between the large figures of the noble Marquess and the very much smaller figures alluded to in the Return. I pass from that to what the noble Marquess said was the more important part of the Bill. Now, my Lords, the noble Marquess has based the case on that part of the Bill on the ground that we are shown to have been implicated in some of the crimes which have recently taken place.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I must demur to that statement of my words. I did not use the word "implicated." I said that those crimes were, owing to defects of our law, organised on our soil.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

By "implicated" I mean what the noble Marquess has just described. If these crimes have taken place because of the condition of our law, and we could have prevented them by changing the law, I regard that as implicating us. But I deny that the noble Marquess has established either, as a matter of fact. He has said that we ought to legislate on account of the disgrace—that was the word he used—which rests upon us by reason of these circumstances. I deny altogether that any disgrace rests upon us. I deny that there is any foundation in point of fact or that there has been the slightest proof produced that any one of these Anarchist crimes which took place abroad was hatched in this country, or that any one of them would not have taken place just as and when it did if such a law as this had been in force. What evidence is before the House? On the one hand, your Lordships have the evidence of those who are likely to be as well informed as any people can be on the subject—the authorities who have been watching it during the last two years. That evidence so far is entirely against the supposition that these crimes were concocted here, or that the perpetrators of them went from this country to commit them. What have we on the other side? I quite admit that in a matter of this sort you may act upon evidence short of that which would convict a criminal in a Court of Justice. But still it should be some evidence. It should be evidence which ought to guide the action of reasonable men. Now, what is the evidence which the noble Marquess has produced? The principal evidence is a piece of Central News gossip about the Autonomic Club in Tottenham Court Road, upon which no reasonable man would act, and upon which certainly no reasonable man ought to act. Does the noble Marquess mean to say that these gossipy accounts, which we see every day when crimes are committed or when there is a raid on this or that establishment, are to be relied upon as strict statements of fact? Yet, against the official statement of the noble Earl all that the noble Marquess puts is this gossip of the Central News. But what does that gossip amount to? That a man named Henry, who committed one of these crimes, had at some time previously been in this country. The man's antecedents and whereabouts have been investigated in France. Is it not certain that that man, whether he had been in this country or not, had been living in France, and had been long in France before this crime was committed, and that he had been under the observation so far as could be of the French police when the crime was committed? To say that we are responsible for that crime in any sort of way, even if it be true, as to which there is no evidence but the statement of the Central News, that he had been in London some weeks before, is ridiculous. He committed that crime with some bits of iron and an explosive, both of them perfectly well obtainable in France just as well as here, and with a can which, it is suggested, was probably of English make, but which might have been obtained as easily in France as here, because I imagine there are plenty of cans of English make in France. Surely that could not be taken as any evidence that this crime was a crime resulting from any action in this country. But what should we have done if this Bill had been law? This man Henry was only a sojourner here. He came for the purpose of going back, and all we could have done would be to tell him to go, which is just precisely the action he took. How could you have taken any step towards preventing this crime? I deny that it is established as a fact that there is any special call for this legislation, and I maintain that it is in the highest degree undesirable to legislate in this fashion without an urgent necessity for it. But there is another thing which, it seems to me, the noble Marquess has to establish in order to prove his case for this Bill, and that is, not merely that some of these anarchical crimes might be planned here or that some of the materials might have been got here, but that the power which he proposes to give would do anything towards preventing the commission of these crimes or their concoction in this country. It is not every perpetrator of these crimes that is known beforehand as about to perpetrate them. The Home Secretary here could only get his information from the police, and it is very often difficult for the police to become aware of what is to come about. Under this Bill you cannot act until you get information that a man is plotting. It seems to me that if you had such information, the probability is that you would do much more harm than good by expelling him. The probability is that if a man was kept under police surveillance here, and our police were in communication with foreign police, the crime would be much more likely to be prevented than by expelling him. It seems to me the weapon with which you propose to arm the Government is one that never would be effective. There is no evidence that it ever has proved effective, and I think the noble Marquess was bound to offer some ground for believing that the mere power of expulsion—for that is all it amounts to—would enable you by expelling a man to render the number of crimes less. I am unable to see how it would do so. The man expelled would go somewhere. He is a man as a rule—very frequently, at all events—reckless of life, who often glories in these crimes when he knows his doom is certain. Do yon suppose that by merely sending a man of this description, even if you suspected him, out of this country, to make some other country the base of his operations, you would be likely to prevent any of these crimes? I cannot believe that you would, and to pass an Act which would be a mere page on the Statute Book and ineffectual would be infinitely worse than to leave the law as it stands. The noble Marquess asks us to pass the Bill in order to show our sense of the disgrace of offences of this kind being planned upon our shores. I think there would be nothing more unwise than to pass any legislation from a motive of that description. If we are certain that we are doing the best that could be done; if we are certain that legislation of this kind, if passed, though it might be a cause of embarrassment, would not furnish us with a weapon which would stop them one crime, then nothing would be more foolish than, for fear that foreign nations might think that we were not doing all that we ought, we should put upon the Statute Book legislation which would be a dead letter and which would not stop any crime. If such legislation did no good it must do harm, because if in a moment of excitement and horror and detestation of these crimes which make us all shudder you pass ineffective legislation under the notion that you are doing something, it is likely to make you less vigilant and active in that which you really can do. There is a risk also of this legislation, which would not diminish the number of anarchical crimes, endangering the relations between this and other countries at times when it might be all-important that these relations should not be strained. For these reasons I trust your Lordships will not give a Second Reading to this Bill, and I hope that the noble Marquess may respond to the appeal made by the noble Earl who has just sat down to consider whether it is necessary to take a Division upon it if it is not to be passed into law. We are all at one in our horror of these crimes and in desiring to prevent their being planned, and it would be a great misfortune if there should seem to be a division of opinion when that division of opinion was merely with reference to the best and wisest machinery to be adopted for dealing with these crimes.

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE

I will endeavour to occupy the time of your Lordships for as few minutes as is possible, for I know we have arrived at an hour when any prolongation of the Debate would be inconvenient. I wish to say one or two words as to the course which I propose to take upon this Bill. I think the House is indebted to the noble Marquess opposite for having raised this question. It is not, perhaps, one of the very largest importance as affecting the interests of a very large portion of the population, but it is one which vitally affects the interests of some very considerable classes. The question has been the subject of inquiry, both in this and in the other House for some time past, and I think it is time some step was taken to ascertain the position of the country with regard to the question of the control or restriction of alien immigration. I think that that question has been raised and discussed in a more convenient form by the production of a legislative measure than by an abstract resolution or even by a Motion for a public inquiry. As I understand the speech of the Prime Minister, the Government have taken up a position more absolutely opposed to any consideration of this question of the restriction of foreign immigration than has been taken up by any Government of any former time. Not later than last year in a Debate in the House of Commons the then Prime Minister and Mr. Mundella, who was then the President of the Board of Trade, expressed the willingness of the Government to have a further inquiry into the subject. But the noble Lord to-night appears to have made up his mind that the information that has already been obtained is complete, and satisfactorily disposes of the question without any further inquiry or consideration at all. I confess I am quite unable to adopt that view of the case, and although I feel that no practical result can attend the passing of this Bill in your Lordships' House without the co-operation of the Government, I shall vote for the Second Reading. If I am asked whether there is a case or not for conferring upon the Government certain restrictive powers for regulating the immigration of a certain class of aliens, I cannot deny that in my opinion there is a case. I will go still further. If it can be shown that the immigration of criminal persons, or persons affected with contagious disease, is injurious to any part of our population, the State, under certain circumstances, has a right and a duty to regulate and restrict such immigration. I cannot, however, maintain that in my opinion this is either a complete or, in many respects, a satisfactory measure. The Bill does not profess to deal with the most difficult part of the question. The prohibition of immigrants who would be liable to become a charge upon the rates would effect very little. Those people do not generally become chargeable on the rates; but, at the same time, the immigration of these people may, from the small wages they are prepared to accept, be the cause of making a very large portion of our population chargeable on the rates. Owing to their habits of life—to the low standard of life they adopt, and the low wages they are willing to accept—they may be the cause of depriving a large portion of our people of their employment, and if not of absolutely depriving them of their employment, of largely diminishing their wages. The principle of this regulation as to immigration has been admitted by a Committee of the House of Commons, although it was not prepared to go to the length of recommending immediate legislation. Since that time proposals for legislation have been aimed at the prevention or the mitigation of the evils connected with that immigration. It is my firm belief that legislation intended for that object will fail in its purpose unless it is supplemented by further legislation which shall place some check on the inflow into this country of that class of labour which is specially liable to the evils connected with sweating, and is in constant competition with that class of native labour which we have raised or are endeavouring to raise to a better condition than it has hitherto occupied. As I have said, the Bill does not deal at all with the class of immigrants which it is most important for us to consider, and I do not believe that, after all the inquiries that have already been made, we are yet in a position adequately or wisely to deal with that class. We require still farther investigation. It is true that we have had a Committee of the House of Lords that has dealt with part of the subject; and a Committee of the House of Commons that has dealt strictly with it. The Committee of the House of Commons admitted the difficulties under which they laboured and the almost total absence of information either as to the numbers or as to the conditions and mode of life of the immigrants into whose case they were inquiring. Each inquiry was more or less hampered by the fact that a simultaneous inquiry was going on in the other House. The Chairman of the Committee of the House of Commons declined to enter into one part of the question, because he thought it would encroach upon the functions of the Committee of this House. There were various indications also that the Committee of this House was prevented by the simultaneous inquiry of the House of Commons from going fully into this part of the question; and both the late Prime Minister and Mr. Mundella, as President of the Board of Trade, last year expressed this opinion that there was a case for further inquiry, and indicated a Committee of the House of Commons as the proper body to undertake it. In my opinion, a Commission—it need not be a large Commission, but a small Commission — would be a more practical and useful body to conduct such an inquiry. A great deal of information has, no doubt, been produced by the Board of Trade, but such conclusions as their Report contains are open to question; and, indeed, Mr. Giffin himself admits that it is not the function of the Board of Trade to draw conclusions as to policy from the information. What has been done has, no doubt, added very largely to the materials from which conclusions are to be drawn, but I do not think it would be safe to leave any department of the Government to draw conclusions on which Parliament could act from the information as yet at their disposal. It seems to me, therefore, that it would be desirable that a further inquiry, probably by a Commission, should be undertaken, and I would commend that course with equal confidence to both sides of the House. Such an inquiry can only strengthen the position of the Go- vernment if, as the Prime Minister thinks, there is no case to be made out in favour of the restriction of foreign immigration; and such an inquiry is equally necessary for the purposes of the noble Marquess opposite, because I think he will admit that until further information is obtained we are not very likely to be able to legislate practically on the subject. While I have no hesitation in supporting the Second Reading of the Bill as affirming the right and duty of the State to regulate the immigration of certain classes of aliens, at the same time I confess that I have some doubt as to the principle involved in the second part of the Bill. I think it is to be regretted that two subjects of such a different character should have been brought together in the same measure, the one dealing entirely with an economical question, the other being partly a political question and partly dealing with considerations affecting the general law. I think it desirable that two such very different matters should be dealt with separately. The noble Lord at the head of the Government must have found that the gloomy anticipations which he formed of the difficulties that would be raised by what he called the imprudent statements of the noble Marquess on the last occasion have surely been justified. I do not gather that the Government have received official information from foreign countries to show that the position of this Government with regard to other Governments has been injuriously affected by the proposal of this measure. On the contrary, I am disposed to think that most sensible people abroad must see that the proposal of the noble Marquess is brought forward with a sincere desire to place this Government in a position to fulfil more effectually than it can do at present its international duties with respect to other countries. If we are ever to strengthen our law it would be well to do it now, when no demands are made upon us by foreign Powers, when we are not asked to legislate in any spirit of panic, and when we have no other reason for action than a desire to do our duty to foreign Governments and peoples. I do not, however, feel absolutely convinced that the powers now sought to be conferred upon the Government would materially strengthen their hands. Therefore, in giving my vote for the Second Reading of this Bill, I only give my assent to the principles contained in the first part of the measure which deals with the immigration of destitute aliens, and I reserve full liberty of consideration and argument with respect to the second portion of the Bill should it come to be discussed in Committee.

LORD HALSBURY

I want to ask two very simple questions which I hope the Government will answer. In the first place, I wish to ask under what power and authority the Autonomie Club was interfered with by the police and broken up? I suppose I ought not to refer to newspapers, after what has been said as to their not being evidence, and that we ought to have actual evidence, as in a Court of Law, but undoubtedly newspaper reports, never contradicted, show that a certain number of persons in the club were seized and their papers examined. I want to know under what law and upon the accusation of what offence was that done? The second question which I wish to ask is equally simple. Why was none of the persons captured tried in a Court of Law? It appears that they were kept in custody one night and released next day. To the ordinary man the idea would present itself that this place harboured a gang of conspirators, and that therefore it was broken up by the police, the persons on the premises taken into custody, and their papers examined. But since that time nothing had been done. No one of those captured in the club has been tried for any offence. It would appear that there was a collection of foreigners engaged, I presume, in some business that was not innocent in this club. If it was innocent, then certainly the police committed a gross outrage upon them. But since the time when they were seized none of them has been tried for any offence or alleged offence in connection with their presence in the club. I cannot help thinking that foreign nations considering these things would naturally ask why, if the English law permitted such action by the police, it should not go a little further and make these people depart from our shores to a place where they could be more conveniently watched by the police and more summarily dealt with. The noble Earl opposite said that the English law was at present able to deal with those persons.

EARL COWPER

What I said was that if the law was not able to deal with them it should be strengthened.

LORD HALSBURY

I understood the noble Earl to express satisfaction with the present state of the law on the question. Lord Campbell, in the case of Dr. Bernard, said he would reserve that very point for the Court of Appeal; but inasmuch as the jury acquitted the prisoner the point was not then determined, nor has it been determined since. I have no information as to the offence which these people were supposed to have committed; nor do I know upon what authority the raid of the police was made, but can any human being doubt that the Autonomie Club was a club of foreign conspirators with aims that are inhuman, for anarchists are hostes humani generis? If the law of this country permits a nucleus of persons to meet in a club of this kind and hatch plots whilst foreign countries have the right to seize such conspirators and deal with them, where are they likely to collect except in the country which stands alone in assuming no special powers for their suppression?

On Question their Lordships divided:—Contents 89; Not-Contents 37.

Resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read 2^a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.