§ "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 HARDWICKEI 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 HERRIESI 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 LUDLOWI 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 COWPERMy 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 KELVINMy 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 CLIFDENMy 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 HENEAGEMy 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 HARDWICKEI 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.
§ THE EARL OF HARDWICKEI 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.
§ THE EARL OF HARDWICKEHowever 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.
1099| 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. |
| 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 HARDWICKEI now move, my Lords, that this Bill do pass.
§ Question put.
§ Motion agreed to.