Lords Sitting of 22 March 1906

EARL OF BESSBOROUGH.
Petition of Edward, Earl of Bessborough, in the Peerage of Ireland, and Baron Ponsonby of Syonsby in the Peerage of England, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.
Several Lords took the Oath.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Rugby Subordinate School Bill [H.L.], London Squares and Enclosures Bill [H.L.]; Manchester Churches Bill [H.L.]. Reports from His Majesty's Attorney-General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
Fulwood Urban District Water Bill [H.L.]. A witness ordered to attend the S Select Committee.
Great Central and Lancashire, Derbyshire, and East Coast Railways Bill [H.L.]. A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, that the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Folkestone, Sandgate, and Hythe Tramways (No. 1) Bill [H.L.] ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed, provided that the First Schedule be amended by the omission of properties numbered 28, 29, 30, and 31 in the parish of St. Leonard, Hythe, and of the properties numbered 6, 7, 11, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, and 31 in the parish of Sandgate.
Read, and agreed to.
Fulwood Urban District Water Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Select Committee, That the Promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill.
514
Ordered that the Bill be not further proceeded with.
Preston, Chorley, and Horwich Tramways Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The orders made on the 8th and 13th instant discharged, and Bill committed.
Scottish Union and National Insurance Company Bill [H.L.]; read 2a, and committed.
Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway Bill [H.L.]; read 2a, and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
West Yorkshire Tramways Bill [H.L.], Folkestone, Sandgate, and Hythe Tramways (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]; read 2a, and committed. The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Thames Deep Water Dock (Extension of Time) Bill [H.L.]. The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill. Order of the day for the Second Reading discharged. Ordered that the Bill be not further proceeded with.
Manchester Churches Bill [H.L.]; read 2a (according to order), and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION.
  Petitions in favour of denominational religious education in schools; of teachers and parents and guardians of children in Yealand Conyers National School; St. Peters, Oldham; Smithhills Dean; Ellesmere School; Little Hutton, St. John Baptist; Crawshawbooth National School; Lower Darwen St. James Guide; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COLONIES: ANNUAL.
  No. 482. St. Lucia (Report for 1904).
  CHARITY COMMISSION.
  Fifty-third Report of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales.
  MARRIAGES, BIRTHS, AND DEATHS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  General Abstract of Marriages, Births, and Deaths registered in England and Wales in the year 1905.
  TRANSVAAL AND ORANGE RIVER COLONY.
  Letter of instructions to the Chairman of the Committee appointed to inquire and report upon certain matters connected with the future constitutions of the Transvaal and Orange River Colony.

  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  Returns of accidents and casualties as reported to the Board Trade by the several railway companies in the United Kingdom during the three months ended December 31st, 1905, in pursuance of the Regulation of Railways Act (1871); together with the reports of inspecting officers, assistant inspecting officers, and sub-inspectors of the Railway Department to the Board of Trade upon certain accidents which were inquired into. Part I. Returns of accidents.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND) ACT, 1879.
  Irish Teachers Pension Rules, 1906.

  SUPERANUATION.
  1. Treasury Minute, dated March 15th, 1906, declaring Aden and its vicinity an unhealthy district for the purposes of the Superannuation Acts, 1859 and 1876.
  2. Treasury Minute, dated March 15th, 1906, modifying Treasury Minute of May 27th, 1884, as to addition of years for purpose of pension to actual length of service of persons appointed to the office of clerk of the Upper Division in the Charity Commission.

  NATIONAL DEBT ANNUITIES.
  Account of the gross amount of all bank annuities and any annuities for terms of years, transferred, and of all sums of money paid to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, and the gross amount of annuities for lives and for terms of years which have been granted for the same, and contracts for payments on death which have been made within the year ended January 5th, 1906.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

NEW BILLS.
  PUBLIC TRUSTEE BILL [H.L.] (No. 32).
  A Bill to provide for the appointment of a public trustee, to amend the Judicial Trustees Act, 1896, and otherwise to amend the law relating to the administration of trusts.

  CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL [H.L.] (No. 33).
  A Bill to amend the law respecting appeals in criminal cases.
  Were presented by the Lord Chancellor; read 1a; and to be printed.

  LORD TWEEDMOUTH AND CHINESE LABOUR.
  The EARL of DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, seeing the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty in his place, I would like, with your Lordships' permission, to put to him a Question of which I have given him private notice, namely, to ask whether the account, at page 7 of The Times of March 21st last, of a speech delivered by him at the Hotel Great Central Marylebone Road, on the previous evening is correct in attributing to him the statement that "the Chinaman did not, as was claimed by the late Government, come to South Africa of his own free will;" and to ask, if this account is incorrect, in what way it should be corrected.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord TWEEDMOUTH): My

  517
  Lords, the report from which my noble friend quotes is not a verbatim one, and a negative has got into it which absolutely reverses my intended meaning. The passage that the noble Lord quoted should have read—
  "The Chinaman, it was claimed by the late Government, came to South Africa of his own free will, and in future, when in South Africa, if he wished to go back and had not the money in his own pocket, this country would find it for him. That removed some of the taint attached to the system."
  I stated that the late Government had said that they secured to the Chinaman a free choice of going to South Africa, and my argument simply was this, that the present; Government had complemented that, and affirmed it, and strengthened it by also making it perfectly open to the Chinaman, when he got to South Africa and found what his conditions of labour were, to return to China if he wished, and I said that if he had not the money to return at his own expense this country was prepared to find it. In order to confirm the statement I have just made I may quote from another newspaper, which gave what I said in this way—
  "Not only did the Chinaman go to South Africa of his own free will, but in future, if he wished to go back and had not the money, we in this country would find the money for him."

  THE SOUTH AFRICAN INQUIRY.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of ELGIN): My Lords, I have to inform the House that the Committee which is to proceed to South Africa has now been appointed. The members will be Sir West Ridgeway, who will be chairman, Lord Sandhurst, Sir Francis Hopwood, and Colonel Johnston. I propose to have laid on the Table the letter of instructions to the Committee.

  THE STANDING ORDERS.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of ONSLOW): My Lords, it has been the practice to confine the Committee of Selection to four Peers besides the Chairman of Committees. I have often felt that that is rather a small number, and that it would be
  518
  desirable to add to the Committee a certain number of Peers who are accustomed to work on Private Bill Committees and also the Leaders on both sides of the House, for I think it is very desirable that they should be made acquainted with the services which noble Lords render upon Select Committees, as to which now I think a great deal of ignorance prevails. I therefore ask your Lordships to amend the Standing Orders, and in due course I shall move to add a certain number of noble Lords to the Committee of Selection. I beg to move that the Motion standing in my name be agreed to.
  Moved, that the Standing Orders be amended as follows: 97. The Chairman of Committees and such other Lords as shall be named by the House shall be appointed a Committe to select and propose to the House the names of the five Lords to form a Select Committee for the consideration of each opposed Local Bill or Provisional Order Confirmation Bill, and shall appoint the Chair man of such Committee, and shall name the Bill or Bills which shall be taken into consideration on the first or any later day of meeting of such Committee. If a vacancy occur in any such Select Committee in the interval between any two sittings of the House, the Chairman of Committees may appoint a Lord to fill such vacancy, and in such case shall report the same to the House at the next sitting—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to. Standing Order amended accordingly to be printed as amended (No. 34.)

  PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS (AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD HYLTON: My Lords, in asking you to give a Second Reading to this Bill I shall not detain your Lordships long, for it is in the main the same Bill that your Lordships passed last year after it had been referred to a Select

  519
  Committee. The two principal objects of the Bill are (1) to promote and encourage the construction of suitable dwellings of a certain type for the working classes, cottages that are detached or semi-detached, and to free them from some very onerous and, I think I may almost say, tyrannical conditions which, originally intended and suitable for the crowded streets of cities, are now imposed on anyone building cottages of any kind in totally rural districts; and (2) to attempt to provide a solution, easy, cheap, and expeditious, in cases where difficulties arise between would-be builders and local authorities as to the construction, meaning, and interpretation of the by-laws. At present there is no such means of a friendly or amicable solution, and the consequence is that a considerable amount of litigation has taken place all over the country, and a great deal of public and private money has been needlessly wasted and consequent friction and ill-feeling has been caused.
  Twelve months ago the question might, I think, have been fairly asked whether there was any demand for legislation of this kind; whether the grievances which it hopes to meet were of such a character that legislation was necessary; whether the existing building by-laws did, as a matter of fact, check, hinder, and stop building in rural districts; and whether public and private funds were being wasted and frittered away in unnecessary litigation in the matter. But I think that since the debate which took place last year in this House on the Bill that I then had the honour of introducing, and especially since the publication of the evidence that was given before the Select Committee, there cannot be any difficulty in answering all those questions in the affirmative; and I should like, on behalf of the supporters of this Bill and those who feel interested in these topics, to take this opportunity of expressing our best thanks to the noble Marquess the late Leader of this House for having granted that Select Committee, whose evidence has enabled the public to see how widespread and almost universal in country districts are the evils of which I have complained.
  With reference to that point, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to refer to
  520
  the report of the special committee appointed by the Central Chamber of Agriculture to deal with the question of rural building by-laws, which was presented to the Council of the Central Chamber of Agriculture on February 6th last; The committee stated that they had held seven meetings, that they had examined a number of witnesses, and that they would have carried the inquiry much further but for the evidence that was given before the Select Committee of your Lordships' House last year. The committee added that they were deeply impressed by the magnitude of the interests at stake, and that to encourage the erection of cheap and suitable dwellings we required a great deal of elasticity, a quality not to be found in the existing by-laws. They stated that on the proper lodging of the agricultural population depended to a great extent the solution of the problem of the migration of the agricultural population to towns. I think that such evidence from a totally independent body, and one so important, will carry some weight with your Lordships.
  I quoted a great number of cases last year from different parts on the country in which specific grievances occurred, and I have no intention of wearying your Lordships by travelling over the same ground again. I quoted instances where by-laws forbade any materials being used for buildings except brick and stone. As your Lordships may perhaps be aware in many villages in Wiltshire there are excellent cottages built of chalk. This provision would have ruled such cottages out. It would have ruled out any attempt at utilising cement and other material. It would have ruled out all the wooden cottages of the south of England. In fact, the only materials in many cases allowed—they make no exception whatever—are brick and stone. Then, again, I quoted to your Lordships cases where cottages were not allowed to be built because the plans indicated that in one or two bedrooms the mathematical proportion of the window space to the floor space did not correspond to what was laid down in the building by-laws; and the result—the very absurd result—of that was that by reducing the size of the bedrooms in the intended cottages they would comply with the

  521
  by-laws, whereas if they were left larger and better bedrooms, as intended by the builders, they would not comply, and sanction was refused. There are also cases where plans have been rejected because at every point of the ceiling of the attic rooms, by six inches, or even perhaps by so minute a quantity as three inches, the height did not correspond to what was indicated in the bylaws. These cases I brought before your Lordships last year as showing the great difficulties with regard to the present by-laws, and that they all tended to increase the expense of building.
  In bringing forward this measure I do not urge it on your Lordships' acceptance from the point of view of the landowners and builders. I urge it chiefly on behalf of the working people who are to inhabit these cottages because, as your Lordships are perfectly aware, the more expensive the building is the higher must the rent tend to become, and the sufferers are not so much the landowners and the builders as the people who have to live in these cottages. I think that perhaps the principal grievance of all is that there is no court of appeal, no jurisdiction to which would-be builders can appeal to decide on any difficulty that arises between them and the local authorities. I wish to rest my case rather on general grievances, but I should like just to read a few lines from a letter received from the agent of a large landowner in the north of England. Writing from Wakefield, under date 16th March, he says—
  "Here we cannot build a coal-house even, or add on to a farm building, without having to get out plans of the fullest description for submission to the authorities. The erection of a wooden building to protect a wheelbarrow would be illegal. …. Lord St. Oswald was able to erect a shed at his colliery works without reference to anybody, they being exempt; but he could not erect a small building in connection with his farm without the necessity of preparing elaborate plans."
  I should like to refer to the evidence of one witness. Mr. Munro, one of the principal officers of the Local Government Board, was a witness before us; and, in answer to a question whether under the existing law he considered hardships were entailed, he said—
  "Oh, yes, of course there will always be hardships under the existing law."
  522
  "Hard cases," I think was the exact expression he used. I venture to think that the words of that gentleman are alone sufficient justification for an attempt at legislation on this point.
  If hard cases are brought before Parliament in which Chinamen or Russian Jews are concerned, Parliament makes it its business to inquire into them and to endeavour to redress those grievances; and I think I may claim that it is equally the duty of Parliament to examine and, if possible, redress hard cases in which British workmen's interests are concerned, for, as I said just now, this legislation is really not attempted on behalf of landowners or builders of cottages, but in the hope of being able to ensure British workmen a constant provision of good and suitable buildings. I think I am not going too far in saying that the evidence which was elicited before the Select Committee last year showed that in consequence of the tyranny and absurdity of some of the building by-laws landowners and cottage builders were in many districts holding their hands and refusing at present to go on building. There was a case from Lincolnshire in which we were told that a number of gentleman had determined to cease building any more cottages until some reform was made in the building by-laws.
  I will endeavour to anticipate three arguments that may be, or might be, brought against legislation of this character. The first argument is that if you pass a measure of this kind you will let in the jerry builder: that very poor cottages of unsuitable character will be built. I do not think that this Bill will give the jerry builder any greater opportunities than he at present enjoys. Your Lordships will observe that the Bill only applies to detached and semi-detached cottages; and, as we all know, the jerry builder is in the habit of acquiring a small piece of land and building upon it a row or terrace of houses. In cases of that kind the Bill would not apply. Further, my Lords, the exemptions contained in Clause 2 we endeavour to safeguard by many regulations with regard to sanitary matters; so that I hope and trust, if the Bill becomes law, the jerry builder, at all events, will not be able to take advantage of it.

  523
  Then there is another argument that might be used against the Bill, and it is that the building by-laws of 1877, the old urban model, however unsuitable for country and rural districts, can be replaced by the model rural code of 1901. If the Local Government Board had the power of making rural district councils give up the old code and take the new code, there would be a great deal to be said in favour of that course; but your Lordships are probably aware that it is the fact that the Local Government Board, once they have sanctioned a code of building by-laws for any particular district, have no power whatever to force that district to take a new code in place of the old one. The late President of the Local Government Board and Mr. Burns, who is at present at the head of that Department, have very wisely and judiciously issued circulars to the rural district councils, pointing out to them how advisable it would be that the new code of 1901 should be adopted in place of the code of 1877, but in a great many cases no notice whatever has been taken of the Local Government Board's circulars; and there are reasons, I am afraid, why those circulars will remain nothing but waste paper.
  It is far from my intention to make an attack on the administration of rural district councils, but we must not forget that in many cases, I think I may say in the majority of cases, there are people sitting as members of these councils to whom it is rather an advantage that the council should be working under a complicated and inadequate system of by-laws. You cannot forget that on most rural district councils in the country you find very often a builder or his son, or his brother; you find, perhaps, an architect, and you often find that the clerk to the council is a solicitor. Now, to all these people complicated and difficult by-laws under which to work brings grist to the mill, and those are not the people to whom it is at all agreeable that a simple, cheap, easy code of building by-laws should be in force. In cases where litigation takes place between the builder and the local authority, even if the case is won by the landowner or the builder, on
  524
  whom does the cost of the legal proceedings fall? Why, on the successful landowner or builder, because in nine cases out of ten he is the principal ratepayer in the neighbourhood. With him it is a case, I am afraid, generally, of "heads I lose, tails you win," in any case of litigation with the rural district council. There is another argument that is rather more justifiable on the part of rural district councils as to why they will not adopt the new building code. The chairman of a rural district council pointed out to me some time ago that it had taken them years to get the original building code sanctioned by the Local Government Board. An enormous amount of correspondence had passed on the subject; and at last, after considerable delay, a code was sanctioned. He used words to this effect—
  "We know that the new code of 1901 would be a much better one in this district, but we are not disposed to give up our old code and apply to the Local Government Board for a new one when we see reason to fear that we may be another three or four years before we get the new code sanctioned, and in the meantime the whole district will be in a state of confusion, and will not know under what building laws it is. We prefer, therefore, to keep our old code."
  Another argument on behalf of rural district councils against adopting the new code was brought before the Select Committee last year. It is rather an amazing argument, but it was brought forward by the clerk to the East Grinstead District Council, whose view was that if they got a new code for building in their district, building would became cheaper and easier, and that that would be very hard on the people who had invested capital under the old code. Therefore he said they did not mean to apply for the new code. In dealing with this question you must remember that there are gentlemen like the clerk to the East Grinstead District Council and his colleagues who take this—I venture to think unfair—view of the problems that await us in considering how to provide better accommodation.
  There is this further argument against legislation of this kind, that it would be preferable to give rural district councils the power of dispensing, in such cases as they may think fit, with the regulations of their own by-laws. Now, my

  525
  Lords, I venture to think that the majority of your Lordships will not consider the granting of such dispensing power a satisfactory solution of the problem, because it must open the door, at all events, to chances of jobbery, corruption, and favouritism. A council might find some reason for giving a dispensation to B. which they refused to A. But so unworkable are the present building by-laws found in several rural districts, that the councils have actually used this dispensing power, although it is illegal, and it has been declared that any ratepayer may proceed by a mandamus to make a rural district council enforce its own by-laws. I asked one witness who appeared before us last year—I think he was the chairman of the Chelmsford Rural District Council— whether, as a matter of fact, his council did claim this dispensing power, and his answer was—
  "We do not claim it, but we exercise it."
  I think that a practice of that kind is an argument for legislation in this direction, because it shows that the present by-laws are found, at all events in that district, so unworkable that the council adopt a totally illegal course in order to obviate the difficulties. I was an interested witness of a debate that took place not very long ago in this House on my noble friend Lord Harrowby's initiation with regard to small holdings. I think your Lordships will agree with me that if an extension of the system of small holdings, of which my noble friend is so enlightened a promoter, is to take place to any great extent over this country, we shall want a considerable extension of houses in which to lodge the small holders and their families, and, therefore, I venture to claim that a Bill of this character, if it can do anything to promote the building of cottages, is almost entitled to logical precedence to a measure such as my noble friend advocates, and of which I also am a warm supporter. I do not pretend that this Bill is of a wide or extensive character, or that its result may be very wide or extensive, but I do think, as a witness before the Committee last year told us, that it will have in many districts a very considerable and beneficent result, and I therefore trust your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
  526
  I will not trouble the House by going at any length through the clauses of the Bill. I have had the opportunity of conferring with the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board on this Bill, and I should like to express my grateful thanks to them for having met me and discussed the Bill with me. I believe that certain Amendments will be moved when we go into Committee, should the Bill be fortunate enough to secure a Second Reading, and I can only say that I shall be most willing to meet the views of the Government. I will defer any explanation of the clauses until the Committee stage.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Hylton).
  LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH: My Lords, as a Member of the Select Committee which was appointed by your Lordships' House to inquire into this question, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say one or two words in support of this Bill. After what my noble friend has said there is not very much to add except to assure your Lordships, which I think is almost unnecessary, that this is not a Bill of a polemical nature; it is not in the least of a Party character, but is an attempt to deal with a difficulty which is acknowledged on almost every side. The Committee to which my noble friend referred examined a good many witnesses from various parts of the country, who almost one and all supported some amendment of the present building by-laws, especially where they did involve a very vexatious restriction upon building schemes. In fact those witnesses who were in a certain measure against the Bill were not so much against its principle as against certain clauses of it, and were in favour of certain modifications. There was an undoubted consensus of opinion in favour of some change. Not only was this fully testified by the witnesses themselves, but it was brought out in evidence that many local authorities would wish to have the change, and were quite alive to the anomalous nature of some of their own regulations.

  527
  I do not propose to trouble your Lordships with much of the evidence, but I should like to refer to that given by Sir William Chance, who gave evidence of one or two very absurd instances of these restrictions. He referred to a scheme to utilise some old buildings in the making of new ones. There was nothing whatever against the scheme from a sanitary or from any other point of view. He said—
  "The scheme came before the committee of the district council. They knew that what they were going to do was an absolute absurdity, but they said that if the scheme was to be carried out the gentleman in question must pull down part of the building, as there was not sufficient open space at the rear."
  The witness was asked—
  "Do you think your opinions are shared by your colleagues on the council?"
  and his answer was—
  "I have given the two cases we had before us last Thursday. We have a by-laws committee, every member of which said the same thing, how absurd it was. But they added, 'We are bound to carry it out, otherwise we should have one law for one and one for another. We must have one law for all.'"
  I think that is sufficient to show your Lordships that the grievance is not only felt from outside, but by many of the local authorities themselves.
  As has been already remarked, this Bill, although at first sight rather technical, goes into deep and wide subjects. It is very intimately connected with the question of small holdings, about which we had an interesting debate some few days ago, because, of course, the success of small holdings very much depends on dwelling houses and buildings suitable for the small holders being erected without involving prohibitive costs.
  One word about builders. It may possibly be that some of the builders object to an easier scheme of building because it would not give them quite such lucrative jobs, but I think the more sensible of them will see that the more restrictions are placed on building the less business there is, and, therefore, it is to their advantage to support any well-defined scheme. The matter is not without difficulty. It may be said to be at once simple and also difficult, but I think that the difficulties are more apparent than real. The matter has been
  528
  thoroughly considered and thoroughly threshed out by this Committee. This is a Bill which attempts a practicable and reasonable solution of an admitted difficulty, and for this reason I hope your Lordships will consent to give it a Second Reading.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON): My Lords, I am sure the House and the country are under an obligation to the noble Lord opposite for having brought this subject before your Lordships' House. He made a most excellent speech last year on the subject, and his Bill of last year passed a Second Reading and was then referred to a Select Committee. The noble Lord has given us the substance of the Report of that Committee. So far as the principle of the Bill itself is concerned, the Government are entirely in sympathy. They, like everybody else, are fully aware that the bye-laws as they at present exist want considerable revision and amendment.
  But I am bound to say that the Bill, as it stands, does require a certain amount of alteration. I will venture to point out to the noble Lord a few of the alterations which we consider absolutely necessary, and if he can see his way to agree to these alterations, His Majesty's Government will be very glad to give the Bill a sympathetic and kindly support. In the first place, the title of the Bill would have to be altered, because, as it stands now, it embraces an Amendment of the Public Health Act, and we think it should be restricted, and I think the House will agree that it should be restricted, to building by - laws only. Under Clause 2 the Bill would apply to the whole of England and Wales. It would not, of course, touch London, but it would include Manchester, Leicester, and other large towns, which I venture to think is not the object of the noble Lord, and perhaps he would agree that the operation of this clause should be restricted to rural districts, or to urban districts to which it may be made to extend by order of the Local Government Board.
  Then we should like to see another sub-section introduced into this clause

  529
  running on parallel lines with Clause 4. If the noble Lord would agree to my proposal, Clause 4 might be struck out altogether. We propose to exclude from the exemption in Clause 2 by-laws relating to health, and to insert there a new sub-section, to be Sub-section 5, with the object of bringing in the by-laws under Section 157 of the Public Health Act, 1875, with respect to the structure of walls, foundations, and roofs, for securing stability, for prevention of fire, and for purposes of health. I do not think the noble Lord will have any objection to that. Clause 3 can stand as it is. Clause 4, as I have said, we propose to omit altogether. Clause 5 can stand as it is.
  We propose to omit altogether Clause 6, about which I believe there is a very strong diversity of opinion. As the noble Lord knows, this clause entirely alters, and I believe is intended to alter, the position of the Local Government Board as to its relations with local authorities as regards by-laws. The Local Government Board, as the House knows, can suggest an Amendment of by-laws, but they cannot force their own views on the local authorities. They can refuse to sanction by-laws submitted to them by the local authorities, but they cannot enforce a by-law of their own on an unwilling local authority; and, as the noble Lord informed the House, when a by-law is once made the Local Government Board have no power to alter it. Clause 6 of this Bill would give the Local Government Board an entirely new power, and most people think that that would be very strongly resented by local authorities; but if the principal of the exemptions in Clause 2, by the insertion of the sub-section to which I have alluded, and the appeal in Clause 7 are omitted, the main grievance as regards elasticity in the by-laws disappears.
  Sometimes, as the noble Lord said, the borough or district council refuses to pass the plans, and go so far as to decline to give any reasons whatever. That happened to me this year. A district council, which had allowed me to put up four cottages in one part of the district three or four years ago, suddenly turned round and refused to allow me to put up two more
  530
  in another part of the district, though they were to be identically the same cottages, built to exactly the same plans and specifications. I appealed to the chairman of the district council. He was a very sensible man, and the objections were waived. But no doubt councils do decline to approve of plans without giving any reason; and, as the noble Lord asks, What is a man to do under these circumstances? He may go on with his building, but he runs the risk of a prosecution. If he is prosecuted and loses his case he will have to pull down the house, and if he wins his case he has to pay the expenses of the action. It is not thought at all unreasonable to allow a court of petty sessions to determine whether a particular proposal does or does not conform to the by-laws.
  In these circumstances, if the noble Lord will give me a general assurance that he has no great objection to these limitations, I can assure him there will be no opposition, as far as the Government is concerned, to the Second Reading, but my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board looks upon this Bill as an experimental measure, which indeed it is, and one the operation of which must be very carefully watched. It may encourage the building of houses—everybody hopes it will—but my right hon. friend is very anxious that nothing should be done which might, in any way, diminish the safeguards against insanitary conditions and the erection of bad houses.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: My Lords, as my noble friend opposite knows, I have taken a very deep interest in this Bill, and I also had the honour of being a member of the Select Committee which your Lordships appointed last year to consider the Bill then brought forward by the noble Lord. I hope, therefore, your Lordships will allow me to make a few observations on the statement we have just heard from my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.
  I entirely agree with the noble Earl that Clause 6 ought to come out. Clause 6, if I understand it aright, interferes with the position of local authorities

  531
  in their own districts—a principle which I am sure my noble friend entirely disagrees with. It would also give the Local Government Board a very considerable amount of extra work in sending down inspectors, and would altogether increase the heavy duties which now fall upon that Department of the State. With regard to the alteration of Cause 2 which my noble friend has suggested, I would venture to point out to His Majesty's Government and to my noble friend that there are districts which are not purely urban, and not purely rural, but which, as it were, intermix. I shall be glad to hear during the Committee stage how the Government propose to meet that especial difficulty.
  The only other criticism I would venture to make is with regard to Clause 7. If I understand my noble friend aright, the Government are in favour of retaining that clause as it stands. I personally have had some hesitation in adopting that course. Clause 7 gives to petty sessions—that is, to magistrates—power to interfere with what the local authority has determined, and if it is objectionable for the Local Government Board to interfere with what the district council has settled in its own district, it seems to me to be equally objectionable that the magistrates of the district should be allowed to interfere in local government matters. I venture to think that if this clause is retained it should be so altered that magistrates should be able to adjudicate only on the matters definitely set down in the Bill if they are not carried out by the local authorities. With regard to sanitation and other matters, they should not have power, as it appears to me they would have under Clause 7, to interfere with the determinations which the local authorities themselves had arrived at. I approve of the principle of the Bill, and I am sure that if properly carried out it will be of great benefit to rural districts, and may, in some way, though not entirely, by the creation of cheap, wholesome lodgings for the working classes, prevent that migration from the rural districts to the cities which I am sure all your Lordships deplore.
  532
  On Question, Bill read 2a. accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Thursday next.

  LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Bill passed through Committee and reported to the House without Amendment.
  Moved, that the Standing Committee be negatived.—(Lord Avebury.)
  The EARL of HALSBURY: I trust your Lordships will not agree to the Motion which the noble Lord has just moved. This Bill introduces a new system of law altogether, and I think it would be rather dangerous that it should be allowed to go through without being referred to the Standing Committee.
  LORD AVEBURY: I moved the Motion negativing the Standing Committee as the Bill had twice been through Committee in this House without any Amendment being suggested, but in deference to the opposition of the noble and learned Lord, the late Lord Chancellor, I withdraw the Motion.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn. Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

  PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACTS (EXTENSION) BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: My Lords, the matters that affect the consideration of this Measure are but few, and I will state them very briefly to your Lordships. The object generally of the Bill is to extend the operation of the Acts known as the Public Libraries Acts, and

  533
  I assume that your Lordships feel that public libraries, so far as they exist in this country, are of benefit to the community and deserve encouragement. As the Acts that control the existence of these libraries have received the support and assent of your Lordships, I assume also that the legislation, so far as it has gone, equally meets with your Lordships' consent.
  As the matter stands now, the operation of these Acts is confined to limited areas. By the principal Act of 1892 and the Amending Act, public libraries can only be established in urban districts or in a parish. Reasons have lately been brought forward of a practical character to cause some to think that the benefit of these libraries should be extended to counties, and if these institutions are of advantage and utility in urban districts one cannot see why they should be other than beneficial in other districts. I am aware that there are practical difficulties, but I hope they may be overcome, in the way of applying these Acts to counties. At the same time I do not think your Lordships will contend that there is any reason why counties should be deprived of institutions which have been found of great benefit in urban districts.
  The question is, If you apply these Acts to counties, how can you carry them into effect in relation to those counties? You must have a governing body. In an urban district you have, of course, the local council, and if you have a governing body at all in the case of counties, it must be, I presume, the county council. Since this Bill has been printed I have received a great many communications from noble Lords, but though I have been very much struck with the courtesy of the letters I cannot say that I have received much encouragement from them. The objection put to me by the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries was that it was not thought well to give the power of approval of the application of the Acts to a representative body. The noble Earl thinks the power ought to remain with the ratepayers as a whole to vote on this question. There is no doubt a great deal to be said in favour of that view, and I hope it will meet with your
  534
  Lordships' approval that it should not be left to the county council alone, but that a plebiscite should be taken of the ratepayers as a whole. That is a provision that I am willing to see inserted in the Bill, and I hope it will remove the objection to the present clause on the part of the Local Government Board.
  A general objection exists to any increase in the local rate, and I find that those who for particular reasons take an interest in this measure think the rate could be reduced by one-half, and that instead of being one penny, as it is in the principal Act, a half-penny rate would be sufficient in the larger areas. In a Welsh county recently a beneficent gentleman offered a certain sum for the provision of a public library, but, much to the regret of everyone, the offer could not be accepted and the county was denied the benefits of this grant because there is at present no power of creating a body to enable the sum to be received and applied for the purposes intended.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord James of Hereford.)
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNrose to move "That the Bill be read 2a this day six months." The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am sure there is no Member of your Lordships' House who wishes to be in any way lacking in courtesy to my noble and learned friend who has just spoken, and I am very glad he recognises that all those to whom he has spoken with regard to this Bill have not been deficient in kind expressions towards himself, although they may not have been equally favourable to this Bill
  The state of the law at the present time is as has been stated by my noble and learned friend. The Act of 1892 confers upon parishes and urban districts the power, by a vote of the ratepayers, of obtaining a public library, and, of course, any parish in a county which desires to have a public library may, by a vote of its ratepayers, obtain one. Therefore, in this sense, the benefits of the Libraries Acts can at present be obtained by any parish or any urban district within a county. This Bill proposes to go further, and to say that

  535
  there may be a county library as distinct from parish or urban district libraries. I think it is unnecessary to point out to your Lordships that a county is a very unfit district for a library. What centre can my noble friend or anyone of your Lordships name which would be convenient for the ratepayers generally of the county?
  Not only that, but who would use this library? I presume that in most cases the centre adopted would be the county town. To an enormous majority of the rural parishes a library in a county town would be absolutely useless, and it would certainly be so to the ratepayers generally. I can conceive that there may be members of a county council who may go to the county town half an hour too soon, and who may wish to have some convenient sort of club in which to read French novels and otherwise amuse themselves until the time of their business arrives. As your Lordships know, there are always a certain number of persons who live in the vicinity of county towns to whom a library of this kind might be a very convenient lounge. But, apart from them, I do not see how to the county ratepayers generally a library could be of any use. My noble friend said, and he was rather hesitating on that point I thought, that there had been some demand for this Bill. I would ask him, was that demand made by the County Councils Association, or was it made by any county council in particular, because if it was made by one county council in particular, which, for the purposes of its own members, wishes to have a library, let it bring in a Private Bill, but do not let it, simply because it wishes to have a public library for itself, obtain that library by a general Bill of this kind.
  My noble and learned friend goes further. He admits himself that a county is not a suitable area, because he proposes to alter entirely the procedure laid down by the Act of 1892. That Act says that a vote of the ratepayers is to be taken, but my noble and learned friend proposes that the library shall be an accomplished fact by a vote of the county council itself. I think there might be in a county council five or six people who desired a library of this sort, and we know that if half a-dozen people in an assembly set their minds upon
  536
  attaining some object, they will find occasions when members are not attending for carrying their object out, and the ratepayers of the county, without knowing much about it, would suddenly find themselves saddled with a library which it would be impossible for the majority of them to use, but which they would have the satisfaction of paying for.
  Clause 8 of the Bill deals with exemption. It provides that—
  "Where the Public Libraries Acts, 1892 to 1901, have been adopted by any urban authority or parish within the county council district, such urban district or parish shall be exempted from payment of the Public Libraries Acts Rate levied by the county council authority."
  What will the result be? Every district in a county which wishes for a library will have got it, and it will be paying for it. The parishes which have not adopted the Act will alone remain as contributors to the cost of the library in the county town or in the centre of the county. I cannot help thinking that those who drafted this Bill are not very well acquainted with county administration. For instance, it says in Clause 2—
  "For the purposes of this Act, and subject to the provisions thereof, every county council district in England and Wales shall be a library district."
  I am not aware that there is such a thing in existence as a county council district. The administrative area of a county council is the county. When I first read that clause I thought this was a proposal to establish district libraries and. not county libraries. That, at all events, is one instance which I think shows that those who have drawn up this Bill have not studied the question very deeply.
  I do not think that I need detain your Lordships longer. I must say that it seems to me that a county is not at all a proper area for a library. As to the assessment, the county rate is an unfortunate fund into which everybody thinks he has a right to dip his hand, and of late years the additional burdens which have been laid on the county rates have been enormous, and they are constantly increasing. The much-burdened ratepayer has expressed his disgust in a variety of ways. I am not at all sure that he did not do it very largely in the ballot box not long ago, and I submit to your Lordships that we ought to be very careful

  537
  indeed in this House in scrutinising Bills which propose to impose additional burdens on the county rates. For these reasons I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
  Amendment moved—
  "To omit the word 'now' in order to insert at the end of the Motion these words 'this day six months.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am bound to confess that, on the Bill as it stands, I think most of your Lordships will be disposed to agree with my noble friend who has just sat down; but there are special circumstances in this case which have induced my noble and learned friend to bring in this measure, and I am empowered to make a suggestion to him. If he will agree that a rural council should have the same power to adopt the Acts as an urban council has now under the Act of 1893, the charge to be on the local rate, but that the county council should have the power to contribute to the library out of the county rate if it so chooses, I am empowered to say that His Majesty's Government will offer no objection to the Second Reading.
  LORD BELPER: My Lords, I should like to say one word in response to the remarks which have just been made by my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. I understand his proposal is to bring before the House a totally new Bill. This Bill is to extend to county councils powers which are at present given to urban districts and parishes. The county is already completely covered by powers to every parish and urban council to have libraries in their own district. I can quite understand that it may be desirable, and I do not see any objection to extending that power to rural district councils. But I think that would be a complete redrafting of the Bill, and if it is only proposed to extend to rural district councils the same power that is given to urban councils, it would be much better to withdraw this Bill and bring in a Bill for that purpose. In fact, if that is all that is intended, all the machinery in this Bill would fall to the ground, and there would be very little left of the present drafting except the title.
  The principle of the Bill, that is to say, that local authorities should have powers
  538
  with regard to libraries, has been over and over again admitted. I am surprised at my noble friend bringing forward this Bill without giving the House any reasons, the area being already covered in the way I have described, why a county council should be made the authority for exercising the powers under the Libraries Act. It is an unsuitable area. It would be impossible to choose any place or places in a county which would be convenient for a building of which county ratepayers could make use. As a matter of fact, as has been stated, the county town would probably be the only suitable centre, and in many county towns there already exist very adequate libraries. Not only do they exist for the use of the town itself, or the parish in which it is situated, but there are powers under the existing Acts for the authorities allowing the people outside that area to use the library, either on payment or without payment. It seems to me that that would be a much more convenient way of meeting the case of the neighbouring parishes than by putting a rate on the ratepayers who are living very likely at a great distance, and who would probably never use the powers under the Act at all.
  I join with Lord Camperdown in what he said about rateable powers being continually put on county councils. There is never a meeting of the County Councils Association where there is not some complaint of Acts passed by Parliament giving powers to county councils and putting the whole expense of administering those Acts on the county ratepayers. While we acknowledge that the rating of agricultural districts is not in a satisfactory condition, and while it has been recognised by the Local Taxation Committee that there ought to be material changes with regard to the taxation of the country, nothing has been done, but the ratepayers of the county are continually having fresh obligations thrown upon them, some of them of a very serious nature. Parliament passes these Acts and gives the administration of them to county councils, but makes no contribution out of the Consolidated Fund towards their cost. After what my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries has said, I hope my noble and learned friend will consider that it would hardly be his Bill if amended in the way suggested, and personally I

  539
  would hesitate to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill unless it was proved that there is a greater demand for it than has been shown to the House to day.
  THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord FITZMAURICE): My Lords, in addressing your Lordships for the first time I desire to ask for that indulgence which is always asked for, and rightly asked for, by those who rise under such circumstances. The Bill before your Lordships' House is one which, I think, in substance, in regard to its object, probably all of us would sympathise with, but the question which His Majesty's Government have to consider is as to how far the machinery proposed by the Bill is adequate to carry out the objects which the Bill proposes, and how far in these days, when questions of rating exercise such great influence and excite such great interest, the burdens which would arise under this Bill would be distributed in a manner likely to be generally approved.
  I think there is hardly one of us—especially those, and they are very numerous in your Lordships' House, who are concerned with county administration—who is not aware that from time to time public libraries that had been set up by private effort, after living a more or less flourishing existence for a while, fall on troubled days and gradually disappear. There is no power in our rural districts, such as exists in our towns, of giving institutions of that kind that guarantee of permanence which is the consequence of their having the support behind them of a public body. It was believed, no doubt, by those who framed the original Public Libraries Act that the powers given would be largely adopted, but that was not so. They were adopted in boroughs and in urban districts, and gradually Parliament substituted in our boroughs and urban districts the action of the public local authority for the action of the ratepayers themselves, voting either by ballot or voting paper.
  Now, the idea which underlies this Bill is that we should extend in some way or another to the county districts of England the same power which has been applied under the Acts of 1892 and 1893 to the boroughs and urban councils. But it does not follow, for the reasons just stated by my noble friend,
  540
  if we approve of the object that necessarily we approve of the machinery of the Bill. I think everybody who has had to do with county administration knows that one of the difficulties is the cry that is very often raised against what is called centralisation in the. county town, and what I am afraid of is that under the machinery of the Bill as it stands it will be exceedingly difficult for a county council to put the very machinery into operation which the Bill proposes to entrust to it, because it would be said that the county council was legislating for an area consisting of part of the county in regard to which it could not have such adequate information or such knowledge as would be possessed by the actual representatives of the locality. Under these circumstances my noble friend who represents this Department in your Lordships' House has made a suggestion which I cannot help hoping will go very far to meet both the views of my noble friend who has introduced this Bill and also the objections which have been urged.
  Under the Act of 1892, as the House is aware, the vote of the ratepayers in a district, whether a borough or an urban district or a parish, was the final and determining factor, but it is very curious that immediately following the passage of that Act a most important Amendment was made by another Act; the vote of the urban council sitting as a representative assembly was substituted for the vote of the ratepayers, and that vote is practically final and determines the matter. What my noble friend has suggested is this, that the same power which Parliament gave a number of years ago to urban councils, and which I say, speaking from my own knowledge, has been exercised more and more as time goes on with excellent results, should be given to rural councils. If that were done it would meet one of the injustices of the present situation which was alluded to by my noble friend who preceded me in this debate—I mean that you have a library now set up in an urban district which is charged on the borough or urban rate, and the ratepayers of the surrounding districts get the benefit of that library without paying for it. If this arrangement were adopted, the borough and urban council would be able to say, "If we are to be

  541
  asked to set up a library in our district, we must know what the rural council immediately surrounding us is going to do." In that manner I am inclined to think the suggestion made by my noble friend would be an exceedingly valuable one, because it would enable and encourage districts to combine together, and we should have this great and inestimable advantage, that we should be legislating on uniform lines.
  As being connected myself with a rural district more than with any town, I ask why is the rural district council not to be treated with as much respect as the council of a small town. I think rural councils ought to be encouraged to come into line. I am quite willing to grant, however, that although I hold that view I think there is a sphere for the county council in this matter. Here again I would submit that the suggestions made by my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries are perfectly in keeping with the general lines of our recent legislation on those matters. We cannot be too careful in trying to legislate upon recognisable lines, and not to increase that confusion from which local government in times past has so greatly suffered, and from which we are only slowly emerging.
  Your Lordships are acquainted with the machinery and working of county councils, and are quite aware that gradually Parliament has enabled county councils to exercise a certain amount of control, and in certain cases also to contribute out of the county rate in aid of the expenses of the local authority. I believe there is no clause in the Local Government Act of 1888, which was passed by the Party opposite, which has been more useful or which has done more to improve our roads than the section which gives power to county councils to contribute to the improvements made by local authorities, not on main roads, but on their own local roads. In that way a county council has very often been able to say, "If you will do certain things which will cost so much, we will give you a proportion." In my own county we always contribute one-sixth to the cost of any approved improvement. I am inclined to think that it would be a great advantage if county councils were able to say to the smaller local authorities in their
  542
  counties, "If you will act in a certain way in regard to these institutions We will come forward and help you in a moderate and reasonable manner." In this way, while throwing the main responsibility and chief cost on the locality benefiting, the county council might play a very useful part in encouraging a movement which I am bound to say I think is a very useful one.
  I know myself how very frequently schoolmasters complain of the difficulty in keeping up their own education and in keeping their minds fresh, if I may use the expression, because when they go to out-of-the-way places it is impossible to get at any books, and I cannot help thinking that, especially in a year when in all probability the education question is going to occupy a large portion of the attention of Parliament, it is well that we should bear in mind that education often is greatly handicapped in our rural districts because of the difficulty referred to. The position of His Majesty's Government is this, that we sympathise with the object of my noble and learned friend, but we do not think the machinery of his Bill is very satisfactory. We cannot help hoping that he will consent to the whole question going to a Committee and these different alternatives being considered. I know from communications which have reached me and from my own experience that there is a real and genuine desire that something of this kind should be done.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: My Lords, I very gladly accept the proposal of my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. In fact, I do not feel myself in a position to refuse any reasonable offer of assistance. The suggestion of my noble friend merely carries out, as far as I can judge, the view I have before me. I would suggest that this debate should now be adjourned, and I will put upon the Paper a clause that I think can be carried. I will place it on the Paper before the debate on the Second Reading is resumed, and if it is agreed to it can be grafted on the Bill. Perhaps it would not be in order for me to move the adjournment of the debate, but I should be very glad if some noble Lord would do so for me.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: I beg to move that the debate be adjourned.
  Moved, "That the debate stand adjourned."—(Lord Burghclere.)
  LORD BELPER: My Lords, with regard to procedure, I may perhaps be allowed to say one or two words. If the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill proposes to adjourn this debate in order that he may put new clauses into the Bill—
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: Only one clause.
  LORD BELPER: One clause would not enable the suggestions made by the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to be carried out. Then there were the further suggestions made by the noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. At any rate, if it is attempted to deal with the matter in one clause, I hope sufficient time will be given for the consideration of that clause. My own view is that there ought to be a new Bill. The suggestions made on behalf of the Government can hardly be grafted on this Bill. Whatever is done, I hope that ample time will be given for the consideration of any fresh proposal by the County Councils Association.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON AND THE EARL OF HALSBURYboth rose, the latter giving way for the Lord Privy Seal.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON): My Lords, I am afraid my noble and learned friend cannot do exactly what he proposes. He cannot give notice of an Amendment until the Bill has been read a second time. According to the rules and practice of the House, notice of all Amendments must be given, and can only be given after the Bill has been read a second time.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: The noble Marquess has stated what I rose to say, and, therefore, there is no need for me to do more than endorse what he has said.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I cannot help thinking that the noble and
  544
  learned Lord would be better advised if he withdrew this Bill and introduced a fresh one. There are plenty of opportunities in this House of getting a day for dealing with a Bill, and I certainly think that course would be the best one.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I gather that it is the feeling of the House that I should adopt the course suggested of withdrawing this Bill and introducing a new one. I therefore beg to withdraw the Bill, and I hope that every consideration will be extended to the new one which I shall introduce.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

  ADMINISTRATION OF THE ALIENS ACT.
  LORD NEWTONrose to call attention to the administration of the Aliens Act. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in calling attention to the administration of this Act I should like to remind the House that it was founded upon the Report of a Royal Commission presided over by my noble and learned friend Lord James of Hereford; that it was the principal measure of last session; that it was strongly, not to say bitterly, opposed in the other House; that it was carried by the closure; and that when it came up here, owing to circumstances which I need scarcely recall to the memory of the House, it was practically not debated at all; and, finally, I should like to point out that its administration depends very largely upon the views of the Home Secretary. I am not going to waste your Lordships' time in discussing the intentions of the Act, but I should like to insist upon the fact that very great pains were taken not to exclude any angels unawares, and every sort of precaution was adopted that refugees of the genuine type should not be excluded. I believe it is perfectly accurate to maintain that there has hardly been a case in which a genuine refugee has not been admitted. At any rate, there have been doubtful cases, and in each case the

  545
  benefit of the doubt has been given on the side of the alien.
  A very active campaign was conducted against this measure during its progress and after it became an Act, and a large number of allegations have been made against it, allegations which, as a matter of fact, have never been substantiated, and it is extremely difficult to reconcile the unfavourable opinions which have been expressed with regard to this Act, because there appears to be two views. One is the view that it is a grossly tyrannical measure which has excluded large numbers of deserving people from this country, and the other view is that it is such an extremely small and contemptible Act that it is hardly worth noticing at all. As a supporter of the former view, a Member of the other House who really ought to know better has distinguished himself by asserting a certain number of Russian deserters who were refused admission to this country, were returned to Russia, and were there executed.
  I might point out that this is an extremely improbable assertion of itself, for, as everyone who knows Russia will admit, it is an extremely difficult task for anyone to get on board a Russian steamer without having proper papers, and therefore what happens is this: A Russian deserter almost invariably makes his way into Germany and embarks on a German steamer. It is from a German port that he arrives here, and it is obvious that if a deserter arrived in that way and was rejected he would return to Germany, and there would be no means of putting him to death, because there is no military convention between Russia and Germany. As, moreover, no sort of proof has ever been given with regard to this allegation, as it has further been denied by the Russian Government, and as the Foreign Office also professes entire ignorance on the subject, I really am inclined to think that I am perhaps paying too much honour to this Member of Parliament in alluding to his assertion at all.
  Then, on the other hand as representing the other line of argument, we have the Daily News which has consistently poured contempt on the Act by showing how very few people have been affected by it in the sense of rejected aliens. I pass now to another organ—a paper called
  546
  the Manchester Guardian—which has always been noted no less for its unrelenting hostility to the late Government than for its overpowering affection for aliens of all kinds, from Mad Mullahs downwards. This organ, recognising at once in the Aliens Act the lowest depths of political depravity, instituted an inquiry of its own into the working of the Act. I believe that this enterprising organ conducted a most painstaking inquiry, and at the end it was obliged to confess that the Act has been administered in a broadminded and even in a liberal spirit; and the Home Secretary himself has been compelled to admit that in some particulars at all events he has found it an extremely useful measure. If any further proof of the leniency of this Act were required it would be found in the fact that during the month of January only eighty-nine persons were refused admittance to this country, and owing to what I may call the extremely lenient and liberal character of the Act it will be readily admitted that these eighty-nine people must have been so undesirable in their nature that no civilised country would have tolerated their presence for a moment.
  It is this liberal, lenient, and popular Act—for there is no doubt whatever as to its popularity in the country—whose chief defect appears to be that it does not go far enough, that the Home Secretary has set himself to emasculate, and this is easily performed by changing the object of one of the provisions of the Act and by altering one of the rules. I observe that the Home-Secretary, when challenged with having nullified the Act, pleaded in his defence that he had only altered one rule; just as a person who had a charge brought against him might excuse himself by saying he had "broken only one of the ten commandments." The alteration occurs with regard to Section 8, Subsection 2, which defines an immigrant ship as one which brings more than twenty alien passengers, "or such number as may be fixed by order of the Secretary of State."
  When this Bill came up here last session I moved an Amendment to reduce the number from twenty to ten on the ground that possibly by the time the Act came into operation a Liberal Government might be in Office, and that it was,

  547
  therefore, rather dangerous to entrust an unsympathetic Secretary of State with so much latitude. I therefore urged—and, of course, urged unsuccessfully—that it would be safer to reduce the number from twenty to ten. My noble friend Lord Belper, who was in charge of the Bill in this House, and who, naturally, would have nothing to do with my Amendment, because, however excellent it might have been, there was no time to carry it, replied to me as follows, showing that extreme and almost child-like confidence in his successor which one occasionally encounters amongst experienced Ministers, viz.—
  "The Government were aware that if the number was rigidly fixed at twenty the provision in the Bill might be avoided by shipowners bringing in less than twenty aliens. That was the reason why special power was given to the Secretary of State to vary the number if found desirable. He did not entertain intense distrust of the Secretary of State in this matter."
  If I were of a conceited disposition I should be inclined to boast that on this occasion I had proved myself an absolutely correct prophet, or at any rate, far more so than my noble friend.
  What happened? A Departmental Committee was formed for the purpose of making the rules in question; and, after a long and careful inquiry, the number was reduced from twenty to twelve, and I am informed that even this number of twelve was found to be too high, and that many opportunities were thereby afforded of evading the Act. I observed that only a fortnight ago the members of the London Immigration Board met at the Guildhall and unanimously agreed to recommend that the number should be reduced from twelve to five. The reply of the Home Secretary to that is to increase the number to twenty. In view of this fact I think it is quite clear that we are entitled to have the Report which I have alluded to—it cannot possibly be confidential, for there cannot be anything secret about it—and to know the reasons which have influenced the Secretary of State in making this important change.
  So much with regard to the alteration of the rules. The other question to which I shall briefly refer is the action of the Home Secretary with reference to the circumstances under which the aliens are allowed to land. Clause 1 is the clause which deals with the power to
  548
  prevent the landing of undesirable immigrants. Sub-section 3 reads as follows—
  "But in the case of an immigrant who proves that he is seeking admission to this country solely to avoid persecution or punishment on religious or political grounds leave to-land shall not be refused on the ground merely of want of means or the probability of his becoming a charge on the rates."
  I should like to explain that the machinery by which this Act is carried out consists of immigration officers and immigration boards. The immigration officers are under the control of the Home Office; the immigration boards are not. The immigration officer is really the important person, because he is the person who gives the order for admittance or rejection, and, if he refuses, then the board comes into play.
  The action of the Home Secretary has; been as follows: He sent a letter of advice to the boards, over whom he has no control at all, as to how he considers the Act ought to be interpreted. To the immigration officers, who are under his control, he sent a letter of instructions, or, I think it is more correct to say, a letter containing orders, and they are to this effect: that in all cases in which immigrants coming from parts of the Continent which are in a disturbed condition claim that they are flying from persecution, they should have the benefit of the doubt when any doubt exists, and leave to land must be given. Now, supposing my noble friend behind me, the Duke of Bedford, as President of the Zoological Society, were to issue a letter of advice to the council suggesting that impecunious persons might, under certain conditions, be admitted into the gardens, and at the same time wrote to the men at the turn-stiles saying that everyone was to be allowed in who asserted that he had not got the necessary funds. That is what it comes to. Taking this view of the matter, the function of the Immigration Board becomes an absolute farce. The board does not come into play at all. The alien is to be admitted, according to the instructions given to the immigration officer, and therefore the board might, so far as I can see, almost as well not exist.
  The principle of the clause, as it was intended to act, was that the alien had to prove that he was a

  549
  refugee. Now, the onus of proof is thrown on the immigration officer, who before he can refuse admission has to prove that the would-be immigrant is not a refugee, and he naturally is perfectly incapable of proving anything of the kind. It is perfectly obvious that doubt must always exist. Considerable doubt must exist as to what countries may fairly be described as being in a disturbed condition. Turkey, for intance, might be described as in a permanently disturbed condition. The Balkan States can be described as being periodically in a disturbed condition. Austria-Hungary is in a temporarily disturbed condition. In Franco there is a disturbed condition arising through conflict between the State and the Church; and Russia may be said to be indefinitely disturbed. To realise the absurdity of the way in which the Act must work try to imagine, if you can, an impecunious Briton being permitted to land in the United States on the ground that he was a victim of religious or political persecution, and it then transpiring that he was a passive resister or a conscientious objector. On one of these guileless refugees was found a letter telling him to say he had been lying hid in a cellar, that he had seen a number of men butchered, but that he was to conceal the fact that the £5 on him was borrowed.
  By the altering of this provision the Act has been rendered little better than a farce. I learn from a newspaper that over 1,000 aliens have landed in London during the last ten days, and that in not one single case was any objection made and not a single appeal taken to the Immigration Board. We stand, in short, almost exactly as we did before the Act was passed, and the only thing that remains of any value apparently is the deportation of aliens after they have been brought to justice. I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything more on the subject. All this talk about the sacred rights of asylum being violated is little better than mere rubbish. It is perfectly clear that there is no grievance of that kind at all. What the object of His Majesty's Government can be in encouraging large numbers of aliens to come to this country, when, according to their own statement, between 12,000,000 and 13,000,000 of
  550
  English people are on the verge of starvation under the blessings of free trade, is beyond my comprehension. Neither can I see how effective action can be taken on my part against the majority of 300 in another place. But if this Act is nullified, let us be perfectly clear as to how it has happened, and who is responsible for it.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down has taken the most unusual course in this House of confining his remarks entirely to the Motion of which he had given notice, and I shall hope to follow that admirable example. I should like to express my sympathy with one criticism he made of the Act itself, as to the. defects from which it undoubtedly suffers, owing to the fact that it received no amendment while in your Lordships' House. I am sure that he will agree with me that, under these circumstances, the Act has not reached that standard of perfection which we expect from an Act upon which your Lordships have exercised your power of revision. The noble Lord seemed to have been misled by the extravagances of the halfpenny Press, of which, I confess, I am not so great a student as he is. But with regard to the 1,000 aliens who, he says, have been landed in London during the last ten days, I should like to point out that he makes no reference to those who were transmigrants and were going on to other countries. The figures of the noble Lord are unofficial, and cannot be accepted as correct. As to the actual administration of the Act itself, I may point out that the Act came into operation on the 1st January, and it was necessary that certain rules and regulations should be made before that date. The regulations were drawn up in the Home Office, but the late Secretary of State left the Office without signing them and they were signed as they stood by my right hon. friend the present Secretary of State, who does not, I think, accept any responsibility with regard to them as they stood at that time. It is interesting to point out to your Lordships the full figures with regard to the refusals which took place under the rules and regulations sanctioned, though not technically signed, by Mr. Akers-Douglas. In addition to the eighty-nine refusals in the month of January there were only

  551
  fifty refusals in the month of February, so that the total number of refusals under the Aliens Act, which we were told was going to exclude such large numbers of people from competition in the home market, only amounted to 139. If that was continued throughout the year it would not have amounted to anything like a large number. The figures with regard to March are not available, but, in consequence of certain religious festivals which occur at the early part of the month, it is probable that there will not be a large number of refusals owing to the number of Jews travelling being much smaller than in January and February.
  With regard to the new regulations, they in no way interfere with what is considered by many people to be the most important part of the Act, the exclusion of those whom noble Lords on both sides of the House wish to see excluded, the criminal or diseased alien. Nothing in these regulations will interfere with their exclusion. There were three new regulations issued by the Secretary of State in addition to those which, as I have said, were drafted by Mr. Akers-Douglas. The first one had reference to the admission of the Press, and I think that on this matter, while there is any difficulty in getting at the facts, it is exceedingly valuable that we should, with the help of the Press, be able to know exactly what takes place.
  Then, with regard to the second regulation, I might perhaps read to your Lordships part of the letter from the Secretary of State to the Immigration Board—
  "The Act was passed for the purpose of checking the immigration of undesirable aliens. Parliament, in the judgment of the Secretary of State, never intended that in the administration for that object of the provisions of the Act they should be applied with a rigidity which excludes consideration as to whether refusal of leave to land would involve great personal hardship or suffering in the case of women or children. Again, the statements of a man claiming to be a political or religious refugee may be insufficient or inaccurate, yet he may be exposed to serious risk from political causes if he is forced to return. Though the Secretary of State recognises that the absence of corroborative evidence frequently makes it difficult for the board to come to a decision, he hopes that, having regard to the present disturbed condition of certain parts of the Continent, the benefit of the doubt, where any doubt exists, may be given in favour of any immigrants who allege that they are flying
  552
  from religious or political persecution in such districts."
  I ask noble Lords opposite if they wish that the benefit of the doubt should not be given to those aliens who come here and say they are flying from religious or political persecution, and I should be glad to take the parallel case with regard to the Zoological Gardens. If the noble Duke who is President of the Zoological Society found that a number of children who had never had a chance of seeing the chance of enjoying a day's liberty, who came from the slums, and who the noble Duke knew on their return to their homes without having been admitted to the Zoological Gardens ran the risk of being severely beaten or badly treated—in those circumstances there is no member of your Lordships' House who would not appove of the action of the noble Duke in allowing them to enter the gardens. The noble Lord also referred to the statements which were made by Mr. Rothschild. Mr. Rothschild is no supporter of His Majesty's Government, and I think the with Mr. Rothschild himself.
  The third regulation to which I have to draw attention raised the number of aliens from twelve to twenty. Twenty is the number in the Act itself. I do not know that it is necessary for any member of His Majesty's Government to defend the selection of that number by the late Secretary of State. Twenty was the number in the Act, and I think I may safely leave the defence of that number to the noble Lord my predecessor who is, I am glad to see, in the House this afternoon. But I should like to say that one reason which I believe actuated the Secretary of State in raising the number from twelve to twenty, was to relieve the pressure on the immigrant ports. The vast majority of the ports in this country have not got immigration boards, and ships which came to non-immigrant ports having fewer than twelve immigrants of course passed in freely. If they had more they were subject to this Act, and had to go round to one of the ports at which the machinery established under this Act was in existence. After only two months experience of this Act only two Office found that more than one case of hardship had arisen, and there were real reasons why the number should be altered.

  553
  I will give your Lordships two instances of the way in which this Act did press hardly on foreigners coming into this country. There was the case of the French onion sellers who arrived at a non-immigrant port. As there were more than twelve of them on board the ship there was a great deal of difficulty as to their admission to this country to carry on a trade to which none of us have any objection at all. There was another case in which a number of Scandinavian sailors came to this country in order that they might join certain ships which were lying in nonimmigrant ports. Under the order it would have been impossible for them to join their ships unless they had gone round to one of the Tyneside ports and travelled from there by train to the port where the ships were lying which they were to join. Under these circumstances, I do not think that it is very easy to blame the Secretary of State for doing what after all is only a matter of detail and not one of principle, and fixing the number at twenty, which His Majesty's late Government themselves thought should be the number necessary to make a ship an immigrant ship. In conclusion, I only desire to quote to your Lordships a statement that was made in the House of Commons the other day by the Solicitor-General in the late Government. Sir E. Carson said—
  "So far as he could see there was no justice in the allegation that the rules and recommendations of the right hon. Gentleman had in any way interfered with the Act of Parliament. Therefore, the only matter in which there might be ground for criticism seemed to be taken away if they looked at the thing fairly and honestly, because all that the Home Secretary had done was to bring to the minds of the immigration officers a sense of their duty. As the right hon. Gentleman was going to give the Act fair play it was only right that he should have a fair chance."
  I am quite unable to add anything to those admirable sentiments of Sir Edward Carson.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I confess I do not think this matter ought to be treated in the somewhat light manner in which it has been treated. If the Secretary of State has issued the directions that I understand he has issued, I think it is a most serious and important question, and one of far greater importance than the particular matter with which we are dealing, be-
  554
  cause if it was once supposed that an Act of Parliament deliberately passed by the Legislature could be set aside by indirect means at the direction of the Secretary of State, the mischief of such a proposition would extend far beyond the particular controversy we are now engaged upon. I understand that what the Secretary of State said was this—
  "I have issued to all the immigration officers instructions that in all cases in which immigrants coming from ports of the Continent which are at present in a disturbed condition, allege that they are flying from religious or political persecution, the benefit of the doubt, where any doubt exists as to the truth of the allegation, must be allowed and leave to land must be given."
  I venture to say that the action of the Home Secretary is contrary to the Act of Parliament. The Statute itself contains an express direction. I do not think there is any doubt what the language can mean. Happily it is not a question of doubtful law; it is the ordinary application of the English language, and I venture to think that the words in the Act are not susceptible of doubt.
  After the general proposition that an undesirable alien shall not be permitted to land, the statute proceeds thus—
  "But in the case of an immigrant who proves that he is seeking admission to this country solely to avoid persecution or punishment on religious or political grounds.— leave to land shall not be refused."
  The Act of Parliament contains an express direction that the intending immigrant shall "prove" that he is seeking admission solely to avoid persecution or punishment on political or religious-grounds. The good sense of that is obvious enough. What can the immigration officer know about the facts, and whether or not a man is flying from persecution? Of course, if the man offers no proof it can always be said that the matter is in doubt, and, according to the Secretary of State's instructions to his subordinates, leave to land must be given.
  I do not know what the facts were that were put before my very distinguished and learned friend Sir Edward Carson, but it is astonishing to me that a lawyer of his eminence should say that the express direction of the statute was satisfied by a mere allegation that the man was flying from persecution; and I can only suppose that a particular and partial view had been placed before my

  555
  learned friend when he made his statement in another place. The whole subject is one of a far more serious character than appears to be imagined. The question here is whether the Secretary of State has taken upon himself to disobey the law; whether a state of law has been created by the Secretary of State's directing persons under his command to disobey the Act of Parliament. I have not the least desire to treat harshly any awkward phrase, and I sympathise with the position of a Gentleman like the present Secretary of State for the Home Department who is not himself a lawyer, and must more or less rely upon the advice given to him; but I want to know if the words I have quoted accurately state the directions he has given to his subordinates. If so, I should like to know from any lawyer whether he can reconcile these two things; and, if he cannot, it appears to me that respect for the law has not been observed.
  The action of the Home Secretary in directing the immigration officers under his control deliberately to disobey the Act of Parliament in this way seems to me a much more serious and grievous infraction of the law than the slight inadvertence in connection with the whipping of the Chinese in South Africa of which we have heard so much during the last twenty-four hours. I speak always with reserve on such a subject. I have not got the words of the directions to the immigration officers. I only gather what they were from a report, which may not be accurate, of a statement in the other House of Parliament; but, if the words are as reported, I say, as a lawyer, that there cannot be the slightest doubt that the directions so given are contrary to the Act of Parliament and constitute an outrage upon the ordinary observance of the law.
  LORD FITZMAURICE: My Lords, if I desired to give a merely debating reply to the noble and learned Earl who has just addressed your Lordships I might be content with pointing out to him that it is highly improbable that the Solicitor-General of the very Government of which he himself was so great an ornament should have committed himself in his place in Parliament to the approval of the action of the Home Secretary of the present Government without adequate and full consideration. But, my Lords,
  556
  I feel that it would be hardly respectful on my part to the noble and learned Earl if I were to confine myself to what I have called a merely debating answer. Therefore I propose to say a few words upon the general question which has been brought forward by my noble friend opposite, and I shall allude more particularly to what has fallen from the noble and learned Earl.
  The Home Secretary has, in the first place, been accused of gross inconsistency. He has been told that whereas upon one of the earliest days on which Parliament met he spoke favourably of the operation of this Act, a very short time after, under the pressure, it was alleged, of excited and fiery speeches made outside and articles written in newspapers, ho altered his position and climbed down from what he had said before. In that matter I desire to say—and it is my duty, I think, to allude to this part of the question—that nothing could possibly be more unfair than that charge against the Home Secretary, because the portion of the Bill of which he spoke favourably was not the portion which has been discussed in your Lordships' House to-night. and which was discussed subsequently in the House of Commons, but another clause of the Bill, namely, Section 3, which is generally known as the "expulsion of undesirable aliens clause," which everyone will agree is a most desirable and excellent clause.
  I feel how almost absurd it is for me, following the noble and learned Earl, to allude to a legal issue, but if so humble a person as a chairman of quarter sessions may be allowed to refer to a legal matter, I may say that I have before now had before me as prisoners foreigners who had committed a long series of skilful crimes, and I unhesitatingly say that I have long wished that legislation of this kind had been passed so that a Judge or chairman of quarter sessions might be able to add to an ordinary sentence a sentence of expulsion or deportation. It was that portion of the Act to which the Home Secretary was alluding, and I hope that, whatever difference of opinion there may be with regard to the operation of the rest of this Act, on the value of that clause we are all agreed.
  But in reality it is not that clause which has excited the feeling that has

  557
  caused this debate. It is the principal clause of the Act—Clause 1—and more particularly that clause which relates to what is popularly called the right of asylum. It is not, perhaps, for me, not having been then a Member of your Lordships' House, to express an opinion, but I do think it was a matter of regret that last year the Amendments which I understand were actually placed upon the Table by the Members of the then Government were not proceeded with, because it would have given an opportunity to this House, in Committee, to consider the various points that had been raised. Nobody, I think, whatever his opinion may be on the general question, and the noble Lord who brought forward this matter did not go beyond general views, can deny that the wording of this Act is in many respects most unfortunate. If ever there was a case where the power of your Lordships' House as a chamber of revision over the work of the House of Commons might have been wisely and judiciously exercised, this was one which particularly called for such action on your part. However, it is too late to lament over that; but, nevertheless, we must bear this in mind, that the Home Office have been called upon to administer an exceedingly difficult Act of Parliament dealing with a most delicate subject and one full of legal pitfalls.
  I am sure no Member of your Lordships' House, whatever his opinion may be, will deny that the right of political asylum is a matter to be spoken of with the greatest respect, to be dealt with with the greatest care, and not to be treated in any manner cavalierly. One criticism of my noble friend's speech would be, I think, that he treated this question a little too cavalierly and lightly, that he did not quite sufficiently realise the depth of feeling and thorough honesty which I claim for those who fought hard to defend what we believed, and what we believe now, to be one of the most cherished institutions of this country—the right of asylum. I do not hesitate to say that in your Lordships' House, because this right has been largely the creation of your Lordships' House. If you were to go back to such chapters of our history as the asylum which was given to Protestant refugees, to the Huguenots and others who came at different times to this country, the part
  558
  played by your Lordships' House would bear comparison to that of any other body in the country, and therefore I claim that this House is just as much the guardian of this valuable and historic right of asylum which we have inherited as the House of Commons itself. The noble and learned Earl has asked that the Government should inform him as to what really has been the action of the Home Secretary in this matter.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: The actual language of the directions to the immigration officers.
  LORD FITZMAURICE: The distinction is perfectly clear, if I may say so, between the position of the Home Secretary with reference to the immigration officers in the ports, who are practically his own officers, and the immigration boards. With regard to the first, I am advised that the power of the Home Secretary is undoubted to give such directions as he has given, and those directions to the immigration officers are—
  "In all cases in which immigrants coming from parts of the Continent which are at present in a disturbed condition allege that they are flying from political or religious persecution, the benefit of the doubt, where any doubt exists, as to the truth of the allegation, will be allowed and leave to land will be given."
  Those are the directions to the immigration officers. With regard to the immigration boards, the language of the Home Secretary is that of advice only. I am quite willing to communicate the full text if necessary, though in regard to that I understand from the noble and learned Earl that he would take no objection. But in this connection I am convinced, and I feel here that I may appeal to the noble Earl as one of the greatest legal authorities in this country, that if he will look at the use of the word "prove" in the proviso to Section 1 he will acknowledge that the peculiar use of that word in that direction opens up a great vista of legal difficulties. In terms the Act requires the alien immigrant to prove that he is a refugee. Obviously this would mean strict legal proof. Under the circumstances this would be impossible. Neither the immigration officer nor the immigration board is a court. They have no power to administer an oath, so obviously the proof required cannot be legal proof in the strict sense of the term.

  559
  I urged on the Government last year in another place that these courts should be open courts, and conducted as Courts of Law. As a matter of fact, I foresaw the difficulties which would arise, and I placed an Amendment on the Paper in which I took the actual words of the Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1879, which was passed by the noble and learned Earl and his colleagues, and under which all Petty Sessional courts are open courts and held in public places. I desired to assimilate the functions and jurisdiction of these courts of immigration. If that Amendment had been adopted I venture to think that none of these difficulties would have arisen. Immigrant ships arrive at all hours, and the examinations often taken place before the immigration officers in the dark, and on board ship, and in estimating what is meant by proof the conditions under which the examination is conducted must be taken into account.
  The only possible evidence available is the statement of the alien, taken in conjunction with the probabilities of the case. If an alien states that he is a political refugee, and if it appears from the paper which he fills up and signs that he comes from a disturbed part of the Continent, the presumption is that his statement is correct, and the onus of proof is shifted, as the onus of proof is so often shifted in legal matters. The state of certain parts of Russia is a matter of common knowledge. The direction of the Home Secretary that an alien alleging himself to be a refugee is to have the benefit of the doubt is, I may also point out, confined to aliens who apparently come from disturbed parts of Europe, and therefore it would have no application to an alien alleging himself to be a Russian, but arriving in England from a place where there is no disturbance. The statement has been made that in this matter the Home Secretary has not acted in a statesmanlike or judicial manner, but according to the dictates of his inner conscience. Nothing could be further from the mind or the intention of the Home Secretary, and I claim that as he has received in Parliament approbation of his action from the Solicitor-General of the late Government, we stand on exceedingly good ground even when we have to meet so formidable
  560
  an antagonist as the noble and learned Earl opposite.
  I wish that I could stop my argument at the point that I have reached, but I would not be doing my duty, as representing the Foreign Office in this House, if I attempted to conceal from your Lordships that there is another aspect of this question. The Home Secretary was exposed, before he issued these amended regulations, to the attacks of those who suggested that he was indifferent to the right of asylum, and to the attacks of those who sympathised especially with all those complicated movements which at this moment are disturbing so many parts of the world. But there is another aspect of this question and quite as serious a one. I remember the late Sir William Harcourt used to be very fond of laughing at what he called grandmotherly legislation—the covering of the Statute Books with unnecessary laws which did no good and which often worked out in directions which no one expected, and created difficulties which no one foresaw. If I had to criticise this Act again I should renew the criticism I ventured to make upon it last year. This Act is creating difficulties of quite a different kind from those we have so far heard of, and it would not be right of me to leave entirely the brunt of the attack which has come from the other side to the defence of my noble friend who represents the Home Office, because there is a Foreign Office side to this question.
  I alluded just now to the fact that I thought it unfortunate that the Amendments which your Lordships placed on the Paper were never brought forward. I remember that when the Bill was discussed on Second Reading Lord Spencer, whose absence and its cause we all so deeply regret, asked what was the real meaning of sub-section (a) of section 1. And that really is the Act, or rather it is the fighting part of the Act around which all these controversies have arisen. We pressed for an explanation as to what was meant by the words—
  "A person having the means decently to support himself and his family."
  If a man arrived whose arms were strong, whose legs were strong, whose digestion was good, whose head was clear, and who happened not to have £5 in his pocket, was that man, we asked, to be

  561
  rejected on the ground that he had not the means to decently support himself? And was a man of doubtful health and whose constitution was undermined to be admitted merely because he had borrowed £5 from someone? We were unable to get an answer to those questions. But when the Bill was discussed in your Lordships' House the Government said that under those circumstances the man would not be excluded. My noble friend the present First Lord of the Admiralty expressed the same doubts which Mr. Asquith and Sir Charles Dilke have expressed in the House of Commons. He said he hoped there would be an opportunity of clearing the matter up in Committee, and no doubt it might have been cleared up in Committee, but your Lordships never had the opportunity. Owing to words of such dangerous legal laxity being used, I am sorry to say that troubles have arisen frequently, and are likely, I am afraid, to recur, quite apart from the question of Russian refugees or persons arriving in a verminous state. They are arising at these ports in regard to persons whom I am perfectly certain the late Government never intended to be annoyed under this Act.
  I do not for a moment insinuate that any of these evil results came within the minds of noble Lords opposite; but although the Act has been in operation only a few weeks the Foreign Office continues to receive a great number of complaints in regard to the inequalities and the injustices, and, indeed, in some cases almost the cruelties, which arise in some instances under the Act. We have had complaints from Norway in regard to fishermen, whalers, workmen and others who come to this country on temporary jobs, and into whose occupation uncertainty has been introduced. We have had complaints also from Norway in regard to fish packers and others engaged in industries which bring them temporarily to this country, and bring them very often with not a penny in their pockets, and the immigration board have considered it their duty to subject them to all the inconveniences of examination and the delays under the Act. We had the case, to which publicity has been given in the newspapers, of ship-wrecked Americans. Ship-wrecked men have in all ages been the special object of protection; but it
  562
  was found to be the duty of the immigration board to deal in an exceedingly harsh manner with these Americans, and the American Consul had to intervene to get them out of durance vile and had to guarantee a certain sum of money out of his own pocket before the men were released. Then there was the case of the French onion dealers.
  I am not here to pass censure on the immigration boards. They have done their very best to administer the Act judiciously, fairly, and in a sympathetic spirit, but they are in an unfortunate position. They are not a court of law and have none of the machinery which a court of law has to extract evidence and to test it. They have not, like petty sessions, an experienced chairman and clerk to advise them. Therefore I do not attack them if, in administering the Act, they have been, here and there, in pursuance of the Act, the unintentional means of inflicting hardship on people; but that hardship has been inflicted there can be no doubt. We are in the region of the unexpected. We at the Foreign Office have no security from day to day that we shall not have complaints, unofficial complaints as yet, but nevertheless complaints which cause discontent, and which, if they are allowed to go on, may in some cases in the end cause serious trouble.
  There was one particularly touching and painful case. It was the case in January in which two French girls of good position, belonging to families in France perfectly well known, were concerned. They were returning to England, one of them as a governess in a school and the other as a pupil, and they were subjected to such delays and annoyances at Folkstone—they were detained on the boat, then bundled on shore to be examined—that they were almost wild with terror, and the younger girl, twelve years of age, arrived in London in a condition almost dying with cold and hunger. I do not want to exaggerate, but owing to the unexpected operation of this Act of Parliament, which was placed on the Statute Book in a desperate hurry, we live at the Foreign Office from day to day in fear that we may have fresh additions to these complaints. Therefore, I do earnestly pray that my noble friend, who has himself taken an honourable part in diplomacy in former days, and other

  563
  noble Lords will realise our difficulties, and not regard this as a high-handed attempt by the Home Secretary to override an Act of Parliament.
  I feel that we have a full right to call upon noble Lords opposite to give us their assistance, because they themselves were parties to placing upon the Statute Book this Act of Parliament, not in precisely that accurate language, or in that final condition, which they themselves desired. I have to say, in conclusion, with regard to that aspect of the question which more particularly refers to the office I have the honour to represent in this House, that in view of the cases—I have not desired to take up too much of your Lordships' time by referring to others—which I have alluded to, and the fear we have that others like them may arise, it is my duty not to conceal from the House that if, under the new rules and practice introduced by the Home Office, it is not found possible to escape the inconvenience and the complicated controversies which arose immediately on the Act coming into operation, it may become necessary, in the interests of justice and of our good relations with foreign countries, to ask for an Amendment of the Act; and I make that statement with the full authority of the Secretary of State.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has given us a most interesting speech about the weather in January, shipwrecked mariners and onion sellers, in whom he appears to be very much interested. But what he said had really nothing whatever to do with the speech of my noble friend, who introduced this subject this evening, and very little to do with the speech of the noble and learned Earl the late Lord Chancellor. My noble friend who spoke first for the Government, and the noble Lord who has just sat down, took a somewhat unusual course in their statement of the Government's case this evening. They have both alluded at great length to things which happened in the other House of Parliament. Your Lordships are generally tolerant, I know, as to what speakers say, and no one has enjoyed that tolerance more than I have; but if your Lordships have permitted noble Lords opposite to refer to what was said by Sir Edward
  564
  Carson in the other House of Parliament, I would ask you to allow me to remind you under what circumstances his statement was made.
  The subject came on in the House of Commons, and the Secretary of State for the Home Department made exactly the same defence as was made by my noble friend Lord Beauchamp. He talked about the immigration boards, but said not one word about the immigration officers. That is our whole case. We have no objection to the letter addressed to the immigration boards. We have the strongest possible objection to the instructions issued to the immigration officers; and my learned friend Sir Edward Carson, as I understand, got up after the speech of the Secretary of State for the Home Department and said that he thought his course had been perfectly correct. That was agreed, Nobody objects to what has been written by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the immigration boards.
  My noble and learned friend behind me Lord Halsbury, put a legal Question which I think merits an Answer from some legal Member of His Majesty's Government. I say this in no disparaging spirit of the noble Lord. Can you tell us straight that in your opinion the word "must," which occurs in the instructions to the immigration officers, is not contrary to the spirit of the Act of Parliament, which placed the onus of proof on the immigrant? That is the keynote of our contention, and that Question has not been answered by any legal Member of your Lordships' House, though there are legal Members opposite both in the Government and supporting the Government. I do not wish to say any more in enforcing that point. Is the word "must" in strict conformity with the Act of Parliament?
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: The word "must" does not occur anywhere in the Order.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I am extremely glad to hear it; but it occurs twice in the Home Secretary's Answer given in the House of Commons.
  LORD FITZMAURICE: I read the actual document to the House just now. The word "must" is not in it. The words are "will be allowed."
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Is there really very much difference? Where any doubt exists as to the truth of the allegation, leave to land "will" be given to the immigrant. The Secretary of State says to his subordinates that leave will be given. It is exactly the same thing. I am much obliged to noble Lords opposite for their correction, and I repeat the Question which has been put to them by the noble and learned Earl behind me. The concluding remarks of the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs contained an announcement, upon the obtaining of which I congratulate my noble friend behind me. The noble Lord suggested that it may be necessary to amend this Act. I wonder if he means, so far as this particular point is concerned, to repeal it. It is because we have been suspecting that the Government have all along intended to repeal it, but that in this particular case they have not taken the course of introducing a repealing Act, but have altered the regulations, that we have felt it right to make a solemn protest against what has been done. I hope we shall have a straight answer to the legal point raised by my noble and learned friend behind me.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My Lords, I should have had the greatest pleasure in rising immediately after the noble and learned Earl, who asked a legal Question, had I had an opportunity of considering this point more fully. In point of fact, I had no notice that this legal Question was going to be brought forward, and I do not think it is possible or right for me, after hearing words read out from instructions that I have never seen, in reference to an Act which I do not know by heart, to offer a legal opinion on the merits of these matters. I shall, however, have the greatest pleasure in giving such opinion after I have had an opportunity of looking into them.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, after what has fallen from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, of course the House will wait with respect and anxious patience to hear his interpretation of the word "prove." I merely rise to ask one or two Questions with regard to matters of fact which I do not think have been answered. A few
  566
  moments ago, Lord Beauchamp, and, I think, the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, both said that the word "must" was not used in Mr. Gladstone's instructions to the immigration officers. I have in my hand a copy, verified by Mr. Gladstone's private secretary, of the words he used in the debate, and they run as follows—
  "Finally, I have issued to all the immigration officers instructions that in all cases in which immigrants coming from ports of the Continent which are at present in a disturbed condition allege that they are flying from religious or political persecution, and if there is a doubt, where any doubt exists as to the truth of the allegation it must be allowed, and leave to land must be given."
  Therefore, my Lords, there is no doubt whatever that Mr. Gladstone's order in that respect to the immigration officers was most peremptory. I wish to ask Lord Beauchamp whether he will lay on the Table the Report of the Committee. All that has been said to-night by way of explanation of this alteration is that it was made owing to a difficulty with some onion sellers and certain Scandinavian seamen who were going to join their ships
  LORD FITZMAURICE: I did not say that at all. On the contrary, I said that that part of my observations was entirely opening up a different chapter from that which had led to the alteration. I pointed out that Mr. Gladstone in another place had had to reply to attacks directed mainly by friends of these immigrants who claimed to be political refugees, and when I brought forward these other cases I was putting before your Lordships a chapter of events which I myself said was quite different.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I accept the explanation. In that case we have had no reason given to us why the number was changed from twelve to twenty.
  LORD FITZMAURICE: That was stated by my noble friend Lord Beauchamp.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Then it was Lord Beauchamp who spoke about the onion sellers and the Scandinavian seamen.
  LORD FITZMAURICE: No; I referred to them.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Lord Beauchamp, so far, has given us no other reason except that of these unfortunate men. What we want to know is the reason why the number was changed to twenty. We want to see the documents and the advice which Mr. Gladstone received when he made that change, because, whatever may have been his reasons, and however good they may have been, the result has been most unfortunate. The Act is now made absolutely inoperative by the increase of the number to twenty. I shall be very glad to know if we are to have that Report.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I do not wish to prolong this discussion for more than a few minutes, but there were some remarks made by the noble Earl opposite to which I cannot help referring. I am not at all surprised that the noble Earl should object on this occasion to references to what passed in the House of Commons, because no doubt the speech of Sir Edward Carson is an extremely awkward one for those who take the same line as the noble Earl. There may be some irregularities in these allusions, though they are constantly made in this House. It is the practice, when these things have passed into the pages of Hansard, constantly to allude to them. I think it would be impossible to carry on debates in both Houses of Parliament on the strict rule that neither House should refer to proceedings which had taken place in the other.
  I say it with all respect, but I do not think the noble Earl quite gave a fair account of what Sir Edward Carson said. We laymen are placed in a position of great difficulty when we find such eminent lawyers as the late Lord-Chancellor and the late Solicitor-General taking entirely different views of this subject. I find, on reference to Hansard, that Sir Edward Carson in the debate said that when a Question was put on the matter to the Home Secretary on the previous night he, from only a cursory examination, formed the opinion that the right hon. Gentleman was, by the powers conferred upon him, interfering with the Statute passed in the previous session; but that having heard the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman he found that he had come to an absolutely erroneous conclusion in that respect. It is therefore
  568
  obvious that Sir Edward Carson had considered the subject very carefully, and felt himself bound to admit that he had, in the first instance, formed a judgment he now believed to be erroneous. The noble Earl said that Sir Edward Carson made no allusion to the circular issued to the immigation officers. But Sir Edward's language on this point was very remarkable. He said—
  "The Home Secretary had told the immigration officers that in the cases in which they were in any doubt as to whether an alien was a political or a religious refugee, they ought to give him the benefit of the doubt. He (Sir Edward Carson) himself would have thought that that was the duty of the immigration officers without any instructions whatever. That was an ordinary rule in the administration of Acts of Parliament."
  That is a pretty strong opinion upon the very point which the noble Earl seemed to think Sir Edward Carson had given no opinion at all. I therefore venture to say that whatever weight we are to give to the opinion of the late Solicitor-General, we are entitled to claim him as an undoubted witness in favour of the legal correctness of the conduct of my right hon. friend, Mr. Herbert Gladstone, in the matter.
  LORD NEWTON: I should like to press for a Reply to my Question as to the production of the Report. Are we to have the Report?
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: No. The Home Secretary in another place has already refused, on principle, to lay on the Table a confidential document from a Committee of the Department. He has, however, laid on the Table the rules and orders and also a memorandum on the working of the Act, which contains the gist of the Committee's Report. The Report itself will not be laid, largely because it contains certain references to salary to be paid to people and other matters of that kind.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Then how are we to learn the reasons which induced the Secretary of State to change his mind?
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: I have done my best to state those reasons to the House to-night.
  House adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.