Lords Sitting of 5 July 1898

Preamble
THE LORD CHANCELLORtook his Seat on the Woolsack at a Quarter past Four of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with—
WEST HAM CORPORATION BILL.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
COVENTRY CORPORATION GAS BILL.
Committee to meet on Friday next.
MIDDLESBROUGH CORPORATION (GAS) BILL.
Committee to meet on Friday next.
WEST HAM CORPORATION BILL.
Examiner's Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Friday next.
SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
Reported with an Amendment.
BARRY RAILWAY BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
LINCOLN AND EAST COAST RAILWAY AND DOCK BILL.
Moved, That the order made on the 8th day of March last, "That no private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday, the 28th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be read a second time; agreed to; Bill read a second time accordingly.
LANCASHIRE, DERBYSHIRE AND EAST COAST RAILWAY BILL.
Moved, That the order made on the 8th day of March last, "That no private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday, the 28th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be read a second time; agreed to; Bill read a second time accordingly.
SHEFFIELD DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL.
Moved, That the order made on the 8th day of March last, "That no private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday, the 28th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be read a second time; agreed to; Bill read a second time accordingly.
SHEFFIELD DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL.
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Read the third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
WISHAW WATER BILL.
Read the third time, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
CRANBROOK DISTRICT WATER BILL.
Read the third time, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
CRAWLEY AND DISTRICT WATER BILL.
Read the third time, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
EAST HAM IMPROVEMENT BILL.
Read the third time, with the Amendments; a further Amendment made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
BELFAST HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
BLACKPOOL IMPROVEMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
SHERINGHAM GAS AND WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
POST OFFICE-ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
CARMARTHEN IMPROVEMENT BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Report from the Committee of Chairmen of the Standing Committee, That they have appointed the Lord Privy Seal (V. Cross) Chairman of the Standing Committee in the place of the Lord Herschell; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  TRADE REPORTS, 1898.
  I. Annual Series: Diplomatic and Consular Reports on Trade and Finance: No. 2146; Brindisi:
  II. Miscellaneous Series: Reports on Subjects of General and Commercial Interest: No. 468. Commercial High School at Leipzig:
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1877.
  Order in Council, dated 25th June, 1898, giving effect to an additional Rule of Court.
  PUBLIC RECORDS (WAR OFFICE).
  Schedule of documents at the War Office which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation in the Public Record Office.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888.
  1. (County of Salop.) Order of the County Council of Salop (supplementary to the "County of Salop (Cockshutt) Order, 1895"), making provision as to

  1077
  the liabilities of the parish of Cockshutt with regard to the Ellesmere Cemetery, under section 59 (4) of the Act, as confirmed by the Local Government Board.
  2. (County of Lancaster.) Order of the County Council of Lancaster, directing that the township of Latchford shall be united to and form part of the township of Warrington, tinder section 57 of the Act, as confirmed by the Local Government Board.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  EDINBURGH IMPROVEMENT PRO- VISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  House to be in Committee on Thursday next.
  POST OFFICE (LOCAL AUTHORITY GUARANTEE) BILL.
  To be read a second time on Friday next.—(The Lord Monkswell.)
  EX-OFFICIO JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee without Amendment, and to be read the third time on Friday next.
  POOR LAW UNIONS ASSOCIATION BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee without Amendment, and to be read the third time on Thursday next.
  SOLICITORS.(IRELAND) BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee without Amendment, and to be read the third time on Thursday next.

  COMMONS REGULATION (RUNCORN) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Viscount CROSS): My Lords, I have to move that the Order made on the 8th day of March, 1898—
  "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday, the 28th day of June next,"
  be dispensed with. The delay in this matter has been caused through great complications, and through difficulties which have been experienced in getting the consent of all the parties.
  Question put.
  Motion agreed to.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: I move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Question put.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read the third time on Thursday next.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read the third time on Thursday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Amendments made: Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read the third time on Thursday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): An Amendment made: Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendment to be received on Thursday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Amendments made: Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GAS) BILL.
Committee of the Whole House (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Tuesday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read the third time on Thursday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (POOR LAW) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read the third time on Thursday next.
METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read third time (according to order), and passed.
WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read third time (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) BILL. [H.L.]
Read third time (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
Read third time (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

ALLOTMENTS (LONDON) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships more than one moment in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, which is put forward by the London County Council. It is a very small and, I had hoped, a non-contentious Bill. Its object is to bring to the county of London the same advantages as are possessed by every other county in England. We have 14,000 acres of agricultural land, exclusive of market gardens, in London, and we have already 81 acres of allotments under 650 cultivators, with an annual rental of £350. These allotments do not throw any cost upon the ratepayers of London, and all we ask is that the Allotments Act shall be extended to the county of London. As the law stands at present we cannot let less than an acre of land under the Small Holdings Act of 1892; therefore we are obliged to let to one individual, who sub-lets to nine other individuals, one-tenth of an acre being generally supposed to be the best size for allotments in London. That brings in sub-letting, which is not at all a good custom. I am told that there is an objection to the Bill. Of course, the

1081
noble Lord who will speak for Her Majesty's Government will state the objection; but I am empowered to say that all we want is the principle of the Bill to be established. If the Bill is allowed to pass its Second Beading, and we can get rid of this evil of subletting in London, that is all we require. We should be very glad to alter the Bill so as to extend the powers proposed to be given to the London County Council to the various parishes, and to meet any other objections that may be offered. I hope your Lordships will give a Second Beading to this Bill.
*LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I am afraid I must ask your Lordships not to accede to the request of the noble Lord to give the Bill a Second Reading. The fact is that what is proposed to be granted to the County Council of London has never been granted to any county council in England, and I imagine that the County Council of London has scarcely the same experience in the acquisition of land for the purpose of allotments, and the letting out of lands for allotments, as have county councils with a large area of cultivable land within their boundaries. The objections to the Bill are not confined to that. The power which the noble Lord suggests should be given either to the county council, or to some other authority in the metropolis, is, as a matter of fact, now within their province. Under the Local Government Act of 1894, section 33, upon the request of an authority, such as a sanitary board, in the county council area, the Local Government Board can give to such an authority the power that a parish council possesses in a rural district, of letting out land for allotments; and as a matter of fact, in the only two cases in which applications have been made to the Local Government Board—Woolwich was one—these powers had been granted. I can quite imagine, my Lords, that on the outer boundaries of the area of the county of London there are places where the acquisition of land for the purpose of allotments may be desirable, and, at any rate, where the letting of lands for allotments ought to be in the power of some authority administering the affairs of the particular neighbourhood, and where the members of such an authority have
1082
an intimate acquaintance with the neighbourhood and its surroundings, the value of land, and so on; but to ask us to give such power to the County Council of London over the whole area of London, a greater part of which, as your Lordships must see, is not in the least adaptable to the purposes of the Allotments Act, seems to me to be an altogether extravagant demand. Then the noble Lord said the Bill would throw no cost upon the ratepayers. As a matter of fact, under the Bill any cost which the County Council fails to recover will be thrown upon the ratepayers generally of London, and not upon the ratepayers of that particular district in which the allotments had been acquired and endeavoured to be let. These are the objections, my Lords, that I have to the Bill. Having regard to the character of the area the County Council of London has to deal with, which is purely urban; to the fact that some local authorities in the county can actually obtain these powers simply by applying to the Local Government Board; to the fact that in the only two cases where powers have been asked for they have been granted; and to the fact that there is the risk run of the cost of a scheme of this kind falling, if not altogether, in some measure, on the ratepayers generally of London, I hope your Lordships will agree with me that this Bill should not receive its Second Reading. The noble Lord suggested that there were changes which he would accept in the Bill if it were allowed to pass its Second Reading. I contend that what we have to deal with is the Bill as submitted by his Lordship. To alter in principle the provisions of the Bill would be contrary to practice in a Second Beading Debate. I think it would be better, if the noble Lord thinks the County Council have any desire to secure the extension, of the Allotments Act to the parishes in the county, for him to bring up a Bill in that form.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I must say I am somewhat amazed at the opposition to this little Bill, and I am not in the least enlightened by the arguments of the noble Lord. I am rather averse to concluding that it is brought about by mere jealousy of the County

1083
Council, and if I had not heard the arguments of the noble Lord I should not hare attributed it to such motives. Just conceive the absurdity of the position! If the County Council had no power whatever of this kind it might be said that you did not desire in the area of the county of London to give any such powers to the County Council; but as a matter of fact, under the Small Holdings Act the County Council does actually possess the power of letting small holdings, but they must not let less than one acre. Can anything be more absurd than that? In such an area as lies round the metropolis it is highly probable, and I am told as a matter of experience it is found that those who desire to have an allotment to cultivate desire a very small piece of land. We are told that the County Council is such an extremely foolish body that it is not to be trusted with the exercise of this very small power. I did not think that anyone would have doubted that the able men—and there are many of them—on the London County Council could perfectly exercise that power. There is one other remark I would make. The noble Lord has himself told us that there actually exists the power, with the consent of the Local Government Board, for a parish, on application, to enjoy this, shall I call it, privilege; but it must apply to the Local Government Board. Why on earth should people in London be obliged to get leave from the Local Government Board for what can be done all over the country without leave? The thing seems to me absolutely ridiculous. There may be something in the objection of the noble Lord that if the power were given to the County Council the cost incurred through their not being able to let land would fall upon the ratepayers of the whole of the county of London. That could be met by a general power to let allotments being given to every parish in London; and if my noble Friend behind me [Earl Carrington] knew that such a proposal would not be opposed he would bring in a Bill to give it effect.
Question put.
The House divided:—Contents 25; Not-Contents 87.

CONTENTS.

Carrington, E. [Teller]

Davey, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Farrer, L.

Cowper, E.

Hawkesbury, L.

Crewe E.

Heneage, L.

Kimberley, E.

Herschell, L.

Northbrook, E.

Hobhouse, L.

Spencer, E.

Leigh, L.

Lingen, L.

Aberdare, L.

Monkswell, L.

Battersea, L.

Ribblesdale, L.

Boston, L.

Thring, L.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery)

Tweeddale, L. (M. Tweeddale)

Burghclere, L. [Teller]

Wandsworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor)

Halifax, V.

Hardinge, V.

Devonshire, D. (L. President)

Llandaff, V.

Portman, V.

Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal)

Aldenham, L.

Ampthill, L.

Grafton, D.

Ashbourne, L.

Portland, D.

Bagot, L.

Richmond, D.

Balfour, L.

Rutland, D.

Belper, L.

Bolton, L.

Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn)

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton)

Lansdowne, M.

Calthorpe, L.

Salisbury, M.

Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort)

Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward)

Churchill, L. [Teller]

Clinton, L.

Clonbrock, L.

Lathom, E. (L. Chamberlain)

Colchester, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Bathurst, E.

Crofton, L.

Bradford, E.

De Mauley, L.

Carnwath, E.

de Vesci, L. (V. de Vesci)

Clarendon, E.

Cranbrook, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Craven, E.

Erskine, L.

de Montalt, E.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow)

Denbigh, E.

Dudley, E.

Harlech, L.

Fortescue, E.

Harris, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Herries, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Hood of Avaion, L.

Mar, E.

James, L.

Mayo, E.

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare)

Minto, E.

Ravensworth, E.

Lawrence, L.

Romney, E.

Ludlow, L.

Selborne, E.

Macnaghten, L.

Stanhope, E.

Mendip, L. (V. Clifden)

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry)

Monckton, L. (V. Galway)

Waldegrave, E. [Teller]

Morris, L.

Muncaster, L.

Bangor, V.

Newlands, L.

Falkland, V.

Norton, L.

1085

Plunket, L.

Sinclair, L.

Poltimore, L.

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway)

Raglan, L.

Rookwood, L.

Tollemache, L.

St. Levan, L.

Ventry, L.

Sherborne, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington)

Bill rejected.

POOR LAW (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
*THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill, which will need very few words of explanation, as I do not anticipate there will be any opposition to its passage through this House. At the present time the laws which affect settlement and removal of paupers differ in all the three countries of England, Scotland, and Ireland. In England settlement is acquired either by birth or by three years' residence in a parish, and what is called a status of irremovability is acquired by residence for, one year in a union. In Scotland settlement is acquired either by birth or by five years' residence in a parish, and except on medical grounds there is nothing corresponding to a status of irremovability; in other words, anyone who becomes chargeable under the Poor Law may be sent from the parish in which he claims relief to the parish of his settlement; and he may be sent to any other parish in Scotland or out of the country to England or Ireland if his settlement is in one or other of those countries. This state of the law has given rise to complaints and to hardships both as regards paupers whose settlement is in other parishes in Scotland and also to some extent in the case of those who are removed to England and to Ireland. The objects of this Bill are twofold. In the first place, we propose to reduce the period which is required to acquire settlement by residence in a parish in Scotland from five to three years; and in the second place we propose that any English or Irish-born pauper who has resided for five years continuously in Scotland shall not be removable, either to England or Ireland, but shall remain chargeable to a
1086
parish in Scotland. In the case of paupers who have not lived for five years continuously in one parish in Scotland we shall allow an appeal to the Local Government Board for Scotland, to say whether it is or is not reasonable that their removal, out of the country should take place. The third clause of the Bill provides that where it is proposed to remove a Scottish-born pauper from the parish in which he is residing there will be an appeal to the Local Government Board, which Board shall, without delay, investigate the grounds of such appeal, and to determine whether it is reasonable and proper that such poor persons shall be so removed. The fourth and fifth clauses make the provision which I have mentioned as regards the English and Irish-born paupers; and the sixth clause deals with the question of machinery, and the power of granting warrants of removal under the Poor Law Removal Act, 1862. I do not mean to say that in the existing state of the law there are to be found all the grievances which both English and Irish Members have sometimes complained of, but I agree that in some cases hardship has occurred, and I admit that the present state of the law has given rise to a feeling that there is a grievance especially in Ireland. We have made these proposals with the object of removing what grievance there is. I am glad to be able to inform your Lordships that our efforts have been accepted by the other House of Parliament, and have been frankly accepted by the Irish Members, and the Bill has passed, with very slight amendment, through the other House. I hope that, under such circumstances, your Lordships will now read it a second time, and that in a few days it may become law.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I do not rise to offer any opposition to this Bill, which is founded on justice. It provides for the assimilation and equalisation of the law of the three kingdoms, and removes an Irish and also a Highland grievance, because the grievance is felt as keenly in Scotland as in Ireland. But there is one question I should like to ask the Secretary for Scotland with regard to the method in which he proposes to carry out the procedure under this Bill. He makes the Scotch Local

1087
Government Board the arbiter of all disputed cases; he makes the Scotch Local Government Board the arbiter between individual parishes where there is disagreement; and he makes the Scotch Local Government Board the arbiter between the pauper himself and either the parish to which he is to be removed or from which he is to be removed. As is stated in the Memorandum, no less than an average of 1,200 removals already take place every year. I am afraid that there will be always found a considerable number of disputes arising over these cases, and what I want to know is, on whom, in the Local Government Board, is the duty to be laid of making these inquiries and giving these decisions? Is the Local Government Board to be strengthened for the purpose? This Bill will involve a considerable increase of work on the Local Government Board for Scotland, and that Board is not, I think, over-manned, though its members are excellent people. I trust that my noble Friend will take care that some extra remuneration is given to the Board or the member of the Board upon whom will be cast the work arising under the Bill. I should like to remind my noble Friend of What has been done in a similar case in Ireland. I find it stated in the Times of a week ago that Mr. J. H. Monaghan, Q.C., for some years legal adviser of the Local Government Board, has been granted an addition to his salary owing to the great increase in the legal business of the Board. His increase, I believe, amounted to £600. I want to put in a little plea for similar treatment of our Scotch officials, and I hope my noble Friend will take care that either some increase is given to the staff to meet this extra work or that the members of the Board on whom the duty will fall should receive some extra remuneration.
Question put.
Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

ALIENS BILL.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time.
Question put.
Motion agreed to.
LORD HERRIES: My Lords, I beg to move the following Amendment—

CLAUSE 3.
"Line 16, leave out 'a person without means of support.'"
I have put down this Amendment to the Bill because I think the House has not had an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon these words which have been inserted in the Standing Committee. In my opinion the words "a person without means of support" very much enlarge the scope of the Bill. The words originaly were "a pauper." What the effect of these words would have been if the Bill had passed into law I do not know, but probably they would have had no effect at all. But now that the words have been inserted that "a person without means of support" shall be kept out by order of an inspector appointed under the Board of Trade, it appears to me that its effect may be very dangerous. In the first place, what is meant by "means of support"? I should like to know how long a person who comes into this country is expected to support himself. Is he expected to support himself a day, a week, or a month? If he is an able-bodied man he is likely to get employment in a day, and he will only require support for that day. He may possibly have a letter of introduction to some firm, and may be able to get employment in a day or two. We were told by the noble Earl who represents the Board of Trade in this House that the possession of money would be considered a criterion of whether a man had any means of support or not. There are numbers of people who arrive on our shores with very little money in their pockets. Are they to be sent back? There are a great number of German waiters who come over in the spring. I have no doubt a great many of them bring letters of introduction to hotel keepers, but they have little money. Are they to be sent back to their country because they have no money in their pockets? Then there are the poor organ-grinders. They come over with an organ, and possibly a monkey. Are they to be sent back

1089
because they have no money? If they were to play in the East End of London they would get sufficient coppers to provide a night's lodging, and would be able henceforth probably to get their living. Then there are domestic servants; I daresay your Lordships have seen the difficulty of getting domestic servants commented upon in the newspapers. I have seen letters proposing that domestic servants should be brought over from Germany and Norway, where very excellent domestic servants are to be found. How will it be possible to get these servants to come over? You would not think it safe to send money to them, as they might keep it and not come over. Therefore, you would pay their journey to this country, but when they arrive an inspector of the Board of Trade comes down upon them and says, "Where is your money?" and if they have no money they must go back. We know to what an extent technical education has been fostered on the Continent. We have been told how far superior the technical education given in Germany is to the education given in this country. Are we to deprive ourselves of this education? Are we not to encourage people from the Continent to come over to this country and help us? Every well-educated artisan who comes over to this country contributes to the prosperity of this country. It is much better that he should work in this country than in his own. If this Bill passes into law you will not only prevent these men coming into this country unless they have what is called "means of support" in their pocket, but you will be injuring the trade of this country. This is entirely a new departure in our history. For centuries England has been open to the artisans of all parts of Europe, and of the world, I may say. Some hundreds of years ago Edward III. brought over weavers and dyers from Flanders to teach the people of this country the weaving and dyeing industries; and in 1454 the women of London complained of lace-makers coming here, but these lace-makers started an industry which has been a means of support to successive generations. It is not the capital we want; it is the employees we want. And every day we are experiencing greater difficulty in finding English people who are prepared to take up
1090
menial work. I often think the time will arrive when the English citizen, will be something like the Roman citizen and will not undertake menial duties. If then we find persons on the Continent who are prepared to do menial work, why should they not be brought here? I voted for this Bill on the Second Reading in the hope that it would be confined to persons, who were likely to become a public charge. By that means we should be protecting the people of this country from the expense of supporting people who are not able to work. That is one thing; but if we try to protect the labourers of this country from the possible competition of people from another country, we are going a great deal further, and injuring the industry of this country. On the Continent there are men to be found who are far superior to the people of this country in certain trades—in certain industries. I would take for example all those industries connected with the development of electric power. I believe that on the Continent the people have made more use of electric power than we have in this country. Are we to keep out the people who understand this form of industry, because they do not happen to have three or four pounds in their pockets? I will ask your Lordships seriously to consider how far we should go in the direction in which this Bill evidently is prepared to take us. The object of the Bill may be, in the first instance, to prevent the rates of this country being burdened by the expense of keeping poor people from other parts of the world; but there is another and further object, and that is to protect the labour of this country. That was alluded to, I think, by the noble Earl when he was moving the Second Reading of the Bill. He said that the labour of the toilers in the East End of London was being undersold.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I said nothing of the kind. I never referred, in anything I said, to the labour aspect of the question. I said I did not rely on that part of the question at all.
LORD HERRIES: I beg the noble Earl's pardon. Someone started it on the other side of the House, and I thought it was the noble Earl. I understood that

1091
one of the objects of this Bill was to prevent aliens flocking to the East End of London and settling there, and underselling those who are engaged in the different trades in that locality. This is the object of the Bill, whether it was intended or not: to prevent labourers from Europe coming over to this country, and settling in it, and devoting their labour to the advancement of the different industries in this country. That will be its result, whether it was intended by the promoters of the Bill or not. We were certainly told that one of the results of allowing numbers of foreigners to come into this country was that in parts of the East End there was a great deal of overcrowding. I cannot help thinking that, to a certain extent, this Bill is a County Council Bill. The object seems to be to prevent overcrowding. The County Council already have powers to prevent this overcrowding. Why should they come to us and ask us to legislate in order to prevent overcrowding? I am not aware that there has been any demand for the Bill in its present form, from any part of England or Scotland, except London; there has been no demand for it in the large towns, Hull, Liverpool, Glasgow. Why should we pass a Bill which will affect aliens coming into every port in Great Britain, merely in order to keep out crowds of people who come and settle in the East End of London? I think myself that it would be a very great disadvantage to many parts of England. I believe that in parts of Lancashire and Yorkshire they welcome the foreign artisans settling in this country. Labour is scarce in some parts of the country, and when foreigners, possessing good technical knowledge, come into this country, it is an advantage to the country itself. I would ask your Lordships to hesitate before passing the Bill in its present form. If you leave out the words "with out means of support," the Bill will enable the inspectors of the Board of Trade to prevent the landing of aliens who are likely to become a public charge; and it appears to me that is all we want. Who are to be these inspectors? They must be men of considerable talent. They would have to be linguists. They ought to know every language, as men from all parts of the world flock to Eng-
1092
land. The inspector will say, "Where did you come from? What is your fortune?" which is a very inquisitive way of greeting every foreigner who comes into this country. Imagine a poor girl coming over from Germany or from Denmark. The inspector goes up to her, and makes use probably of the words in the legend, "What is your fortune, my pretty maid?" and if she says, "I have no fortune," he would say, "Then you must go back to your country." This is not in accordance with our notion of hospitality. Hitherto we have been an hospitable country, and now it is proposed to change all that. I hope, therefore, the Government will not object to the Amendment which I have put upon the Paper, and which I now move. I do not think it will in any way interfere with the scope of the Bill in the manner in which we wish it to act.
*LORD LUDLOW: I hope your Lordships will not sanction the omission of these words. A great deal must be left to the discretion of the inspectors as to the interpretation of the words "a person without means of support," and I see no reason why the inspectors would not exercise proper judgment in the matter. I cannot think that an inspector would regard an able-bodied man capable of hard work, or of exercising a trade or handicraft, as a person without means of support. It seems to me that if you omit these words you take the brain's out of the Bill. I cannot, myself Understand why the destitution and pauperism of other countries is to be imported here, where the incidence of local taxation is at present almost intolerable.
EARL COWPER: My Lords, I have not voted against this Bill till now, though I confess that I had very great doubts about it. I had great doubts whether a sufficient case has been made out to justify us in departing from the good old principle we have hitherto maintained of opening our doors widely to everybody, without fear of foreign competition, and without asking any questions. I am willing to believe, from the fact that the Government are supporting this Measure, that they have really looked into the matter, and have thought that a real evil exists. For this reason, therefore, I abstained, from voting, but I

1093
do think that this new clause which has been put in is going a little too far. I cannot help thinking that it will be difficult to carry out, and I am not quite sure what it means. Does it mean that a man must have a certain amount of money in his pocket? If so, it strikes me as rather hard on the man. A man might get robbed on the way, or drop his few pounds into the sea; in that case he would be turned back. It strikes me also that money is a very bad thing to go upon. If a man brings a few pounds with him, what is that? It will only keep him for a few weeks. A man physically of no value might bring a few pounds and be admitted, but a man with a good strong right arm and a clear head on his shoulders would be excluded because he has no money. Even if a man has no money at all, and is without visible means of support, he may be a man who would be perfectly entitled to enter. The words "likely to be a burden and a charge" seem to me quite sufficient, and unless there is some further alteration to soften the effect of the Bill I shall certainly vote for the Amendment.
LORD KELVIN: My Lords, I hope the Amendment to the Bill before your Lordships' House will be accepted, because I believe it removes a very serious danger which exists in the Bill as it stands. The danger has been well pointed out by the noble Lord who has just spoken, and I need scarcely occupy your Lordships' time in discussing it. But it does seem a very serious danger that an Act of Parliament should give the power to a Board of Trade inspector to stop from landing a young able-bodied man, or an able-bodied man of mature years, who had no visible means of support whatever except muscular strength and perhaps brain power and intelligence. How is a Board of Trade inspector to discover what means of support a person has other than money in his pocket? I do think this would be a piece of legislation which would be regretted by those who voted for it almost as soon as it was passed. I believe there is one section of the working men of this country to whom this Bill, as it stands, would be very acceptable—a section which, I believe and hope, is a very small minority of the workmen of this country.
1094
The working men who favour this Bill are, in my opinion, and in the opinion of those who know best what the workmen think on this subject, an insignificant number; and they approve of this Bill because it would protect them against capable men and able-bodied men, willing to act as skilled workmen and labourers in any part of the United Kingdom. It would prevent many good men from landing and from becoming honest competitors with home-bred workmen in doing good work for the country. The object of the Bill is approved of, I think, by a large majority of this House, but it is no part of the object of this Bill to introduce protectionism of a particularly injurious kind in the manner in which the Bill would most undoubtedly be effective. To introduce protection against competition from good men coming from other parts of the world is an un-English idea, and an idea which a great majority of our own workmen would rebel against. I believe that more mischief than we can now foresee would result from the passing of the Bill in the form in which it stands. The Amendment would deprive the Bill of the mischievous part of its potency, while not injuring the other part.
*VISCOUNT CLIFDEN: My Lords, I cannot agree with Lord Kelvin that this Bill does not mean protection. That is exactly what it means and aims at; and it is brought in to protect British workmen from the foreigner. It is a good old Tory Measure. The noble Lord who moved this Amendment has put himself out of court by saying he voted for the Second Reading. I think he is the last man who should complain now. I voted against the Second Reading. I do not think it comes properly from the noble Lord [Lord Herries], having voted for the Second Reading, to bring forward this Amendment. It is too late now. The House has decided to pass this good old Tory Measure.
LORD HENEAGE: My Lords, I demur from the noble Viscount's contention that any noble Lord who voted for the Second Reading of this Bill is prevented now from voting against it, as the whole principle of the Bill has been entirely altered. The words that have been

1095
inserted give an alternative reason for not allowing aliens to come into this country. We have the Bill in its original shape without these words, and I voted for it in that form. The real principle of the Bill was that it would deter shipowners from bringing over objectionable aliens, because they would have to take them back again. I never thought for one moment that inspection at the port of landing would do any good, because you would have to have an army of inspectors, the cost of whom would be more than the amount saved by preventing the objectionable aliens from landing. The insertion of these words entirely alters the whole case, and therefore it is really a Second Reading question over again. I do hope that the Government will consider these words, seeing that everything that is required is met without them. I am prepared to vote for the Bill in the form in which it was on the Second Reading, to prevent the rates being burdened by these aliens: but I am not prepared to vote for a Bill which is a purely protectionist Measure against foreigners.
THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (The Earl of DUDLEY): My Lords, I am afraid there is some misunderstanding as to the intentions of those who voted for these words in the Standing Committee. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment, and also several noble Lords who spoke subsequently, seemed to be under the impression that they enlarge the scope of the Bill—that they create a further barrier to the immigration of certain aliens into this country. Well, my Lords, I do not personally think that that is so, but whether it is so or not I can honestly say that was not my intention when I moved those words. I certainly did not intend to set up any additional barrier, if possible, to define, in some practical language, what was intended to be meant by the word "pauper." Of course that is my explanation, so far as these words are concerned; but if we go beyond that we then come to the question which, was raised in Committee of the whole House, as to whether this Bill would be strong enough, whether it would meet the objects which I believe this House has in
1096
view, if the word "pauper" were omitted altogether. I confess, my Lords, I do not think it would be sufficient. I think that some words of this sort are required, no matter whether you agree that "without means of support" are the best words for the purpose or not, because if the rejection of an alien depends on whether he is likely to become a public charge, it seems to me that that would enable one class, at any rate, of aliens, who come in here still, to come in unchecked. As has already been explained, there exist in this country several voluntary associations who voluntarily support aliens of the Jewish religion who are without means of support, and it seems to me that it would always be open to an alien of that class to tell the inspector that he was not likely to become a public charge, because, if he got into low water, he could always look to the voluntary associations for help; and, my Lords, it must be remembered in this connection that, after all, excellent as these institutions may be, they are by no means permanent. You have no safeguard that they will always exist. The liability of the State remains behind them, and if anything was to happen under which their good work should no longer be continued, the liability of the State would then be called upon, and these people who ore now supported in that matter would become chargeable on the public rates. I confess I should like to see these words retained; but, still, at the same time, if it is decided that they do enlarge the scope of the Bill, I set no great store by them, and I should not mind their being omitted. But, at the same time, I do believe some words defining "pauper" are necessary, and I should like myself to see these words retained.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: I trust I shall not be exceeding the privilege of your Lordships' House if I venture to make a few remarks on the general character of the opposition offered to this Bill. My Lords, I must confess—and I think it may be from my own inexperience—that the form in which, noble Lords have opposed this Bill strikes me as curious. On the Second Reading they did not oppose it on principle, with the exception of one noble Lord [Viscount Clifden], who actually stated that he

1097
opposed this Bill because it was grandmotherly legislation. Noble Lords have voted for the Second Reading, and have then attempted to destroy the Bill by Amendments. My Lords, it does seem to me that the Amendments they have moved have had an intention which should have been carried out by moving a direct Motion for the rejection of the Bill. What are the facts? On the Second Reading the noble Lord [Lord Herschell] confined his objections to the Bill to the questions, "What was a pauper?" "What was a person likely to become a public charge?" "Why had not the Government brought in the Measure?" and "Why was there not an official inquiry into the subject?" Lord Monkswell, who also spoke on the Second Reading, to the best of my recollection, did not oppose the Bill on principle.
LORD MONKSWELL: I beg the noble Lord's pardon, I did oppose the Bill on principle all through.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: I have the noble Lord's words here, to the best of my belief. He made certain statements, and referred to the Huguenots who came over a few hundred years ago, but so far as I could see there was no objection in the noble Lord's speech to the principle of the Bill.
LORD MONKSWELL: I voted against the Second Reading.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: However that may be, the principle of the Bill is contained in the words "a pauper, or likely to become a public charge." If the principle of the Bill was to exclude diseased and insane persons it would have been a Measure which would have had to do with the Local Government Board and not the Board of Trade. As it is now, the words, "without means of support, or likely to become a public charge," are, in my opinion, the main point of the Bill. My Lords, the noble Lord who moved the Amendment this afternoon referred to the Bill as a new departure, with the object of protecting labour. As I said when I interrupted the noble Lord—for which I may say I apologise—from my point of view that is not the main ground on which the Measure is based. It does seem to me
1098
curious that not one single noble Lord who has opposed this Bill has confuted any of the arguments I used on the Second Reading with regard to the increase of rent and overcrowding. These are the grounds on which, I believe, this Bill is necessary, and I do hope your Lordships will give it a Third Reading this afternoon by a very large majority. I have a letter here which I found in the Jewish Chronicle, recently published, with reference to overcrowding. It points out how a family, consisting of father, mother, a son of 18, and three young children occupied two rooms; the rent was 8s. a week, and by taking in four lodgers at 2s. a week each, they lived rent free. That is a state of affairs in the East End of London which must be lowering the social standard very greatly. I can only reiterate the hope I expressed that your Lordships will not accept this Amendment, and that the Bill will pass into law this evening.
Question put—
"That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the Bill."
The House divided:—Contents 86; Not-Contents 36.

CONTENTS.

Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor)

Dudley, E.

Fortescue, E.

Devonshire, D. (L. President)

Hardwicke, E. [Teller]

Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal)

Lauderdale, E.

Manvers, E.

Mayo, E.

Portland, D.

Onslow, E.

Richmond, D.

Ravensworth, E.

Rutland, D.

Romney, E.

Stanhope, E.

Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn)

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry)

Lansdowne, M.

Waldegrave, E.

Salisbury, M.

Wharncliffe, E.

Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward)

Bangor, V.

Falkland, V.

Hardinge, V.

Lathom E. (L. Chamberlain)

Llandaff, V.

Amherst, E.

Aldenham, L.

Bathurst, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Bradford, E.

Carnwath, E.

Ampthill, L.

Cawdor, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Clarendon, E.

Bagot, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Balfour, L.

Craven, E.

Belper, L.

de Montalt, E.

Boston, L.

1099

Burton, L.

Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-earl [Teller]

Calthorpe, L.

Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort)

Lawrence, L.

Churchill, L.

Lovaine, L. (E. Percy)

Clinton, L.

Ludlow, L.

Clonbrock, L.

Macnaghten, L.

Colchester, L.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway)

Cottesloe, L.

Crofton, L.

Morris, L.

De Mauley, L.

Muncaster, L.

de Ros, L.

Newlands, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Norton, L.

Erskine, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow)

Plunket, L.

Poltimore, L.

Farquhar, L.

Rookwood, L.

Forester, L.

Sherborne, L.

Harris, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington)

Hood of Avalon, L.

Iveagh, L.

Sinclair, L.

James, L.

Tollemache, L.

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare)

Tredegar, L.

Ventry, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Grafton, D.

Burghclere, L.

Davey, L.

Camperdown, E.

de Vesci, L. (V. de Vesci)

Carrington, E.

Cowper, E.

Farrer, L.

Crewe, E.

Harlech, L.

Grey, E.

Hawkesbury, L. [Teller]

Kimberley, E.

Minto, E.

Heneage, L.

Morley, E.

Herries, L. [Teller]

Northbrook, E.

Herschell, L.

Spencer, E.

Hobhouse, L.

Kelvin, L.

Halifax, V.

Leigh, L.

Portman, V.

Monkswell, L.

St. Levan, L.

Winchester, L. Bp.

Shand, L.

Stanmore, L.

Aberdare, L.

Thring, L.

Battersea, L.

Tweedmouth, L.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery)

Wandsworth, L.

THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: I now move, my Lords, that this Bill do pass.
Question put.
Motion agreed to.

TRAMWAYS ORDER IN COUNCIL (IRE- LAND) (LONDONDERRY AND LOUGH SWILLY RAILWAY) BILL.
House in Committee (according, to Order): Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read third time on Thursday next.

LIBRARIES (OFFENCES) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order); Amendments made; Bill recommitted to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended. [No. 142.]
House adjourned at 5.55.