Sitting of 25 April 1904

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—Southport and Lytham Tramroad (Extension of Time) Bill [Lords]. Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill. Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time to-morrow.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STAND-ING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill; Local Government Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill. Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time tomorrow.
  Southend Water Bill. Lords Amendment considered, amended, and agreed to.
  Appleby Corporation Gas Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Thurles Urban District Council Water Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  Mullingar, Kells, and Drogheda Railway Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Wolverhampton Corporation Bill (by Order). Read the third time, and passed.
  Preston, Chorley, and Horwich Tramways Bill [Lords]. Ordered, That, in the case of the Preston, Chorley, and Horwich Tramways Bill [Lords], Standing Orders 204 and 235 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read a second time,—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
  Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PETITIONS.
  BISHOPRICS OF SOUTHWARK AND BIRMINGHAM BILL.
  Petition from Salisbury, in favour, to lie upon the Table.
  CHURCH DISCIPLINE BILL.
  Petition from Salisbury, against; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration; from Brechin; and Fife and Angus; to lie upon the Table.
  HOUSE-LETTING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENCES (RENEWAL).
  Petitions against alteration of Law: from Matlock; Sheffield; Stratford; Aberdeen; Tollerton; Wandsworth Common; Islington; Epping; Pencainewydd Denbigh; Barnsley; Cleator Moor Gravesend; and Wigan; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petition from Salisbury, against; to lie upon the Table.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL.
  Petition from Greenock, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING (LIGHTHOUSES) BILL.
  Petition from Greenock, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  RE-VACCINATION BILL.
  Two Petitions from St. Pancras. against; to lie upon the Table.
  RE-VACCINATION BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Scarborough; and Finsbury; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF BUTTER BILL.
  Petition from Peterborough, against; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Evesham, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Minute of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, dated 25th April, 1904, providing for the distribution of the General Aid Grant [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (CENSUS).
  Copy presented, of General Report of the Census of India, 1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (RAILWAYS AND IRRIGATION WORKS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 20th April; Mr. Price]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 138.]
  HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Copy presented, of Report on the Manuscripts of the Marquess of Bath, preserved at Longleat, Wiltshire [by Command); to lie upon the Table.
  COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) ACT, 1890.
  Account presented, showing Receipts and Expenditure on account of Proceedings during the year ended 31st March, 1901 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 139.]
  BANKRUPTCY ACT, 1883 (PROCEEDINGS).
  Account presented, showing the Receipts and Expenditure on account of Bankruptcy Proceedings during the year ended 31st March, 1904 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 140.]
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) ACT, 1898.
  Copy presented, of Rule amending Rule 24 (1) (a) of the Elementary School Teachers' Superannuation Rules, 1899 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) ACT, 1898.
  Copy presented, of Rule amending Rule 24 (1) (a) of the School Teachers' Superannuation Rules (Scotland) 1899 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATION ACTS, 1859 AND 1876.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 16th April, 1904, declaring Chengtu to bean unhealthy place within the meaning of the Superannuation Act, 1876 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 19th April, 1904, granting to Herbert C. Steeds, Counter Clerk and Telegraphist, London Post Office, a Retired Allowance under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Aunual Series, Nos. 3142 to 3145 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Instructions to Lightship Keepers.
  MAJOR JAMESON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state what instructions, if any, have been given to the lightship keepers by the three General Lighthouse Boards as to whether they are to show their station lights and signals if they should be driven out of their chartered positions, and the dates these instructions were issued; also if proper means of checking their proper positions daily are at the disposal of the keepers.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) By the courtesy of the three General Lighthouse Boards I am able to furnish the following information:—The instructions issued by the Trinity House and the Commissioners of Irish Lights to their lightship keepers on the above subject are as follows:—By night the usual lights will not be exhibited, but a fixed red light will be exhibited at each end of the vessel, and a red flare shown every quarter of an hour. By day the balls or other distinguishing masthead marks will be struck. The instructions issued by the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses are to the same effect, with the exception that they have not hitherto included the exhibition of a

  1025
  red flare at night. The contingency contemplated has, however, never arisen in the case of the only lightship belonging to this Board, and they have expressed readiness to adopt the practice of the other Boards as regards the flare. The dates of issue of the instructions are as follows:—Trinity House, 1852; Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses, 1837; Commissioners of Irish Lights, 1874. Where no land or other marks are available for checking the proper position of the lightships a special watch buoy is moored in the immediate vicinity, and the deep sea sounding lead is constantly used.

  Action of an Irish Resident Magistrate.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a case in which a resident magistrate sitting in petty sessions in Ireland sent a case for trial in opposition to the views of the majority of local magistrates sitting on the Bench with him; and, if so, will he state what action, if any, he proposes to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The order made in the case referred to was, I am advised, irregular. Notice will at once be served upon the accused that no further action will be taken upon this order by the Crown.

  Ireland—Arbitrator's Awards for Land taken for Labourers' Cottages.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the local district councils in Ireland have anything to say to the appointment of the arbitrators who award compensation for land taken for the purposes of labourers' cottages; and whether there is any appeal from these awards.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) None of the parties directly interested in proceedings which are referred to arbitration are consulted in respect to the selection of the person appointed to conduct the arbitration. If a district council were consulted the various other parties concerned—namely, the owners and occupiers, would naturally have to be consulted
  1026
  also. The award of the arbitrator is final and conclusive, except in cases where the sum awarded exceeds £1,000, when it may be appealed against under the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890.

  Bread Contracts for the Navy.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state why a tender over 15 per cent. higher than the tenders sent in by other competent contractors for the supply of bread to the ships of the Royal Navy visiting Berehaven Harbour was accepted on the last occasion that tenders were called for; whether he will arrange, in the interest of the ratepayers, that contracts for the supply of provisions for the ships of the Royal Navy are on all occasions given to those who tender the best value.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The tenders were obtained by one of His Majesty's ships in the neighbourhood, and, after an examination of sample loaves, by a committee, on which the lower deck was fully represented, the tender referred to was accepted by them as best fulfilling the condition as to quality and price.

  Naval Discharges—Case of Boy Ormsby Webb.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will explain under what circumstances the purchase-money—viz. (£25) has been refused in the case of Ormsby Webb, Boy 1st Class, O.N. 220, 708; and will he recommend the Admiralty to accept the purchase-money necessary to obtain this boy's discharge.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) This boy has been under training for two years at considerable expense to the country, during which time no application for his discharge appears to have been made. No sufficient reasons are now forthcoming to justify his discharge just as his training is completed. No material change appears to have taken place in the circumstances of the family since the boy joined the Navy.

  Naval Defences and Foreign Visitors.
  MR. YERBURGH: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether

  1027
  foreigners are admitted to view the defences of Gibraltar, Malta, and other of our naval stations; if so, whether there are any limitations to such viewing, and if limitations, what they are, and whether they are ever waived; and, if so, under what conditions and in whose favour.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The orders regulating admission to National Defences are contained in Appendix V. to the King's Regulations. Paragraph 2 delegates responsibility to the General or other Officer Commanding on the spot, for ensuring that unauthorised persons do not gain admission to military works.

  Class.

  United Kingdom.

  France.

  Russia.

  Germany.

  United States.

  Tons.

  Tons.

  Tons.

  Tons.

  Tons.

  Battleship

  1895

  146,450

  122,253

  84,558

  17,922

  55,201

  1904

  184,400

  87,800

  112,730

  103,976

  193,180

  Cruiser

  1895

  78,800

  82,710

  23,063

  3,568

  15025

  1904

  189,700

  78,483

  26,177

  49,200

  149,780

  Other Vessels

  1895

  14,970

  11,675

  2,978

  2.467

  6,736

  1904

  37,025†

  1,130‡

  14,486;

  2,064

  2,344

  Volunteer Long Service Medal -Transfers from Military to Naval Corps.
  MR. KEARLEY: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will say whether those Volunteers who have exchanged from military to naval Volunteer corps will be allowed to count their former service towards the period of service which entitles them to a Volunteer long service medal.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) No long service medal has been instituted for the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, and it is therefore premature to consider whether service in any other force should be taken into consideration; but the point raised in the hon. Member's Question will not be lost sight of.

  Engineer Commanders and Lieutenants.
  MR. KEARLEY: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will say what is meant by the requisite service of engineer commanders to qualify them for receipt
  † Including Scouts, 23,650 Tons.
  No detailed instructions are issued from this Department.

  Naval Shipbuilding at Home and on the Continent.
  MR. YERBURGH: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what was the total warship tonnage building in the United Kingdom on the 31st March, 1895, and on the 31st March, 1904, specifying how much of this was, or is, battleships and how much cruisers; and whether the same figures can be given for France, Russia, Germany, and the United States.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretymun.)
  of pay at the rate of 24s. a day; what is the period of transition during which engineer lieutenants will be granted the rank of engineer commander without receiving the pay of that rank; and when will the new arrangements by which an engineer commander on promotion is to receive the pay (21s. a day) laid down for that rank on promotion become fully operative.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The requisite service referred to is eight years from the date of promotion to chief engineer under former regulations, or from date of advancement to engineer lieutenant (senior list) under present regulations. The period of transition will extend to the time when, under the arrangements introduced in connection with the new scheme of entry, etc. of officers, the average ago of engineer lieutenants with eight years additional service after advancement to the senior list will have been reduced to the full
  ‡This does not include Submarines.

  1029
  extent contemplated. It may be mentioned that meanwhile all engineer lieutenants (including those holding rank as engineer commander prior to completion of the service qualifying for the pay of that rank) are benefiting in pay compared with what they would have received if the former regulations had been retained. It is anticipated that the reduction of average age referred to above will have been made by the time officers entering under the new scheme are becoming effective. The new arrangements will then be fully operative, as the rank of engineer commander will not be granted to any engineer lieutenant before he has served the full period on the senior list orginally fixed as the qualification for promotion to that rank (viz. eight years).

  Cromore-Gravir Road, Isle of Lewis.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the Congested Districts Board are now prepared to make a grant such as will admit of the Cromore-Gravir Road, Island of Lewis, being proceeded with.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) The Congested Districts Board, in February last, agreed to offer the sum of £2,700 on the usual conditions, being about 75 per cent. of the cost of the road, and this offer has been communicated to the local authorities.

  Education of Defective and Epileptic Scotch Children.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland, having regard to the fact that a sum of £3,255 appears in the Public Education (Scotland) Estimates for blind and deaf children, will he state what sum is provided for defective and epileptic children.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) No special sum is provided for defective and epileptic children under any sub-head of the Vote; but special rates of grant for such children are provided for in Article 20 (II.) of the Code, and any sums paid under that Article are charged against Sub-head E of the Vote (annual grants for day scholars). During the inspection year ending 31st August, 1903, the sum of £409 5s. 8d. was paid under the Article named.

  Scotch Equivalent Grants.
  MR. BLACK: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he can state shortly what equivalent grants Scotland at present receives, the date when each began, the occasion for making the grant, and the general application thereof.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) The term equivalent grant employed by the hon. Member is one which has no statutory or certain meaning, but for information on the subject of moneys devoted under various Statutes to exclusively Scottish uses I may refer to the Parliamentary Paper [Cd. 1646].

  Fees of Medical Witnesses in Scotch Sheriff Courts.
  MR. LAWRENCE: To ask the Lord Advocate whether in sheriff Courts the fee of one guinea per diem to a medical witness is a fixed sum or liable to be reduced if the case is unimportant or takes less than four hours attendance.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) The regulation in regard to medical fees in the sheriff Courts is as follows: Medical men when cited to give professional evidence from a distance of more than one mile from the towns in which they reside, if detained above four hours, are allowed, not exceeding, per day, £2 2s. besides fares, but nothing additional for maintenance; if in town they are allowed not exceeding, per day, £1 1s. The fee of a guinea, therefore, is not a fixed sum. The procurator fiscal may exercise his discretion and give less than that sum, according to the circumstances.

  Learners in Leeds Postal Telegraph Office.
  MR. LAWSON WALTON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that there are five female learners at present in the Leeds Postal Telegraph Department with two and a half years service, who, with the exception of a few weeks, have been on half-time duty at 5s. per week; and whether, in view of the fact that an official witness before the Wages Committee stated learners were generally appointed after about one year of service, and the local authorities state that nothing can be

  1031
  done, he will state what steps he proposes to take to provide appointments in these cases.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The five learners referred to have, for considerably more than half the period since the 1st of January, 1902, been employed on full-time duty at wages varying from 10s. to 15s. a week, according to their age, service, and qualifications. They will be appointed to the class of sorting clerks and telegraphists as soon as vacancies occur on that class at Leeds; in the meantime they will, as far as circumstances permit, be employed on full-time duties either at Leeds or at some other office. It is due to the fact that the telegraph work at Leeds has not increased so rapidly as was expected that vacancies have not occurred to which these learners could be appointed.

  Public Health. Acts Amendment Bill— Date of Introduction.
  SIR ALFRED HICKMAN: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if, in view of the interest taken by municipal bodies throughout the country in the promised Public Health Acts Amendment Bill, he will say when he will introduce it.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I cannot at present fix a date for the introduction of the Bill, but I will introduce it at the earliest date practicable.

  Irish Lights Board
  MAJOR JAMESON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Irish Lights tender "Princess Alexandra" has been condemned and sold; if so, what price she fetched; whether the Board of Trade have issued, or contemplate issuing, a certificate to her authorising the carrying of passengers beyond harbour limits; whether he will give the names and qualifications of the following officials: Master of the Irish Lights tenders "Tearaght," "Moya," "Irene," new steamer, inspector of lights, superintendent of stores, and second engineer "Tearaght;" and if he will state the price paid by the Commissioners of Irish Lights and the Northern Lights Commissioners for coal and oil delivered at their depots.
  1032
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The "Princess Alexandra" has been condemned and sold for £1,110. The vessel has not a passenger certificate, and no application for such a certificate is at present before the Board of Trade. The master of the "Tearaght" is Mr. A. E. Birt, who holds a certificate as master of a Home-trade passenger ship. The master of the "Moya" is Mr. E. Kearon, who holds a certificate as master of a Foreign-going ship. Mr. D. P. Fleming, who is master of the "Irene," and will command the new steamer when in commission, holds a certificate as master of a Home - trade passenger ship. The inspector of lights is Mr. R. Deane, who holds an extra master's certificate for a Foreign-going ship. The superintendent of stores is Mr. F. R. Foot, C.E., and the second engineer of the "Tearaght" is Mr. P. E. Waldron, who holds a first class engineer's certificate. The prices paid for oil and coal, delivered at depots, for the currrent year are: Commissioners of Irish Lights: Oil (paraffin) 6¼d. per gallon; oil (heavy mineral) 7⅞d. per gallon: Coal (steam) 20s. per ton; coal (Whitehaven) 16s. 6d.pcr ton. Northern Lights Commissioners: Oil (paraffin) 5d. per gallon; Coal (steam) 13s. 1d. per ton. For house coal, which is delivered by contractors at the several lighthouses, the price ranges from 13s. 6d. to 29s. 6d. per ton. The information supplied is given by the courtesy of the lighthouse authorities.

  The National Debt.
  MR. BUCHANAN: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount on 31st March, 1904, of the Funded Debt under its various classes and including the debts to the Banks of England and Ireland, also of the Unfunded Debt under the headings of War Stock and Bonds, Exchequer Bonds, and Treasury Bills, with dates of repayment in each case.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The annual Return relating to the National Debt, which will give the hon. Member all the information for which he asks, is completed, and will be in the hands of hon. Members of the House almost immediately.

  Metropolitan Police—Pensions for Good Service.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether pensions are now being paid to certain ex-superintendents and ex-inspectors of the Metropolitan Police in respect of allowances for good service which were made to them over and above the certified scale of their pay; and, if so, by what authority these extra pensions are paid.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) The "good service allowances" referred to by the hon. Member are drawn by six superintendents of the Metropolitan Police Force, and were granted as an addition to the ordinary pay of the officers' rank, and form part of the annual pay on which their pensions are calculated under The Police Act, 1890. Rateable deductions for the Superannuation Fund are levied from them. No ex-inspector of the Metropolitan Police is in receipt of a pension in the calculation of which a good service allowance was included.

  Ale and Beerhouses—Estimated Funds available for Compensation.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will grant a Return, by counties and county boroughs, showing the number of alehouses and beerhouses classified according to their annual values, and the estimated amount of the compensation funds available for the reduction of licences within each county and county borough.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I shall be ready to place at the disposal of the House all the information in my power; and I am considering the best form for the purpose.

  Aliens in British Prisons.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of aliens at present undergoing sentences in His Majesty's prisons in the United Kingdom.
  1034
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I have requested the Prison Commissioners to obtain this information. It has to be collected specially and may take a few days. The hon. Member shall have it with the least possible delay.

  Board of Education and Plans of Proposed New Schools and Alterations to Schools.
  MR. LAMBERT: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education if it is essential for a county education authority to submit plans before undertaking alteration and provision of new schools to the Education Department; and, if so, what section of the Education Acts necessitates this reference.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) Section 97 of the Elementary Education Act of 1870 requires that "the conditions required to be fulfilled in order to obtain an annual Parliamentary grant shall be those contained in the Minutes of the Department for the time being." Under Article 85 (a) of the Code, one of the, conditions of the annual grant is that I "the Board must be satisfied that the premises are healthy, are properly constructed and arranged for teaching, lighted, warmed, cleaned, drained and ventilated, are supplied with suitable offices, …" Unless the plans are first submitted to the Board and approved by them the local education authority will have no guarantee that the proposed alterations or new schools are such as meet the requirements of the Board. This precautionary measure may not be necessary in the case of small alterations, and the Board would be glad to arrange with local education authorities, when desired, to dispense with the submission of plans in cases of minor alterations if the inspector of the Board meets the architect or other responsible officer of the local authority on the spot, and approves what is proposed.

  Agricultural Education in Great Britain and Abroad.
  MR. LAMBERT: To ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he will state for the last available year the amounts spent by the Government on agricultural education in

  1035
  Great Britain, Ireland, France, United States, Denmark, Holland, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, together with the number of people engaged in agricultural pursuits in those countries respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) The products and requirements of the various countries named with regard to agricultural education differ very considerably, and their arrangements are of so varied and complex a character and are so interwoven with their general educational machinery that it is not practicable to give in any simple form information as to the expenditure incurred which would be of any real value for comparative purposes. Perhaps the hon. Member will take an opportunity of conferring personally with the officers of the Department concerned. They will be happy to refer him to the principal sources of information and to furnish him with particulars so far as it is within their power to do so.

  Board of Agriculture and Reduced Railway Rates.
  MR. LAMBERT: To ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he will state what has been done during the past year by the Board in inducing railway companies to reduce rates on agricultural produce, and particularly whether any reductions of railway rates have been effected in conveying fruit, hops, and vegetables from the south-eastern districts to London.
  (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) Arrangements have for some time past been in operation by which the Board's inspectors institute inquiries, when opportunities offer, as to complaints made by agriculturists with regard to railway rates. Particulars as to the work thus done is published annually in the Report of our Intelligence Division. Communications have also been taking place during the past few months between my noble friend, the President of the Board, and the railway companies with regard to the improvement generally of the conditions governing the carriage of agricultural produce and facilities by rail. Full information as to these communications is contained in a Paper
  1036
  which was laid upon the Table on Friday last, and will, I hope, be issued in the course of the present week.

  Bombay-Scinde Railway—Objection of the Rao of Cutch.
  SIR JOHN LENG: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he can inform the House what objections have been made by the Rao of Cutch to the construction through his State of the proposed Bombay-Scinde Connection Railway; and whether those objections are regarded by the Government of India as valid to obstruct the completion of a line which has been pronounced by them advisable on Imperial grounds.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick) I have not received any information from the Government of India regarding the objections alleged to have been raised by the Rao of Cutch to the construction through his State of the proposed Bombay-Scinde connection, but I have no reason to doubt that this railway, of which the utility is acknowledged, will eventually be completed when funds are available.

  India and the South African Garrison
  MR. EUGENE WASON: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will lay upon the Table at an early date the opinions and reasons recorded under Section 23 of the Act of 1858 by two members of the Council of India (in June last) as dissents from the proposals then being considered to charge the revenues of India with a considerable portion of I he cost of the British garrison in South Africa.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I must refer the hon. Member to my reply to a similar Question on 24th March†, which explains the reasons why I do not propose to lay Papers on this subject.

  Grievances of the Burma Police Force.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the complaints of the condition of the Burma police force expressed in two memorials to the Viceroy asking for
  † See (4) Debates, cxxxii, 616.

  1037
  relief; whether he is aware that the most junior assistant superintendent in the force, whose pay is 300 rupees permensem, is in his 16th year of service, and that there are below him seventeen officiating asssistants with an average service of about fourteen years whose permanent pay is 140 rupees, that of forty district superintendents in the force twenty-three are lumped together in the lowest grade, of whom six have been in the grade for thirteen years while four or five others have been in it for about ten years, that only four officers retire on account of age within the next five years, so that by 1909 every assistant superintendent will have had over twenty years service, and whether, having regard to the special and local character of these grievances arising from this condition of the service, he will consider the advisability of issuing orders for their redress in anticipation of the general orders which may have to be passed on the recommendations of the Police Commission.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The memorials referred to in the Question have not come before me; but I observe that the Viceroy, in his speech on the 30th March last, at the meeting of the Legislative Council when the Budget was under discussion, stated that he was aware of the condition of affairs in the superior police service in Burma, and would consider the question of taking measures to apply a remedy independently of the general reforms in the police which the Government of India hoped to introduce as the result of the consideration of the Report of the Police Commission.

  Irish Land Act—Quit, Crown, and Tithe Rent Redemptions.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of years purchase at which quit rents, Crown rents, and tithe rent-charges are being redeemed under the operation of the Land Act of last session.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I would refer to the Answers given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and
  1038
  myself to similar Questions on the 18th and 19th instant†.

  Supply of Newry Granite for Foundations of Dublin College of Science.
  MR. CLANCY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a contract has been entered into for the supply of Newry granite for the foundations of the new College of Science in Dublin; if so, whether the contract has been entered into after or without a previous public invitation for tenders, and who is responsible.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The reply is in the negative.

  Legal Proceedings by Landlords against Tenants in King's County.
  MR. HAVILAND BURKE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that certain landlords in the King's County are taking legal proceedings against tenants for practically irrecoverable arrears of rent; and whether, following the example of one of his predecessors in office, the right hon. Member for West Bristol, he can consider the advisability of bringing friendly pressure within the law to bear on these cases.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) There are no cases in this county, so far as I have been able to ascertain, in which proceedings have been instituted against tenants for practically irrecoverable arrears of rent. Proceedings are pending in only fourteen cases throughout the entire county for the recovery of arrears of rent, and only ten evictions for non-payment of rent were carried out in the county during the past year. The relations between landlords and tenants are most amicable.

  Troops in Belfast—Alleged Monopoly for Supply of Stores.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the General Officer Commanding the troops in Belfast has issued an order to the effect that the two regiments stationed in the Belfast District and the Royal Irish Fusiliers in
  † See pages 387 and 535.

  1039
  Holywood are to purchase all requirements for their sergeants' mess wet canteen from one firm in Dundalk; and can he say for what reason compulsion is used in this case.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) Under the present regulations the General Officer Commanding is responsible for the management of the canteens within his district, and the War Office has no information on the point raised. I Any inquiries accordingly should be addressed to the General Officer concerned.

  March, 1898.

  1889.

  1902.

  1903.

  1904.

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Value of output of gold for Transvaal

  1,217,424

  1,654,258

  442,303

  933,888

  1,309,329

  White employees

  10,684

  12,000

  5,627

  11,166

  —

  (about)

  Coloured labourers.

  82,062

  93,788

  24,527

  51,902

  72,340

  (average for year)

  (average for January to June)

  Revenue and Expenditure of the Transvaal.
  MR. BUCHANAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the figures of revenue and expenditure of the Transvaal for the nine months ending 31st March and the revenue and expenditure as estimated by Lord Milner to 30th June, also the railway revenue for the same periods.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) Transvaal revenue for nine months ending 31st March, £3,390,152. Expenditure for same period, £2,673,410. Latest Estimate for year to 30th June. Revenue, £4,300,000. Expenditure, £3,000,000 (maximum). Net railway revenue for period of nine months, £1,047,000 (last two months are estimates, not final figures). Estimate for year to 30th June, £1,400,000.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.
  Corporal Punishment in the Navy.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether boys or young men

  Output of Gold from, and Persons employed in, Transvaal Mines.
  MAJOR SEELY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state what was the total output of gold from the Transvaal mines, also the number of white and black persons respectively employed in those mines, for the month of March in this year, and in the years 1898, 1899, 1902, and 1903.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The following are the figures I am able to give:—
  under eighteen years of age, in the Royal Navy are liable to the punishment of flogging; and, if so, will he state under what provisions, statutory or otherwise, and for what offences, are floggings inflicted; are these floggings inflicted in public or in the presence of soldiers and sailors on board ship; what is the maximum number of lashes, and with what instrument are the lashes inflicted; what answer has been given by the Admiralty to the letter of the secretary of the Humanitarian Society requesting that permission be given to take photographs of the infliction of punishment by flogging in the Royal Navy; and what steps, if any, will be taken for the immediate abolition of this method of punishment.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARTHUR LEE,): Boys under eighteen are not subjected to the punishment of flogging, but, under the statutory powers given by the Naval Discipline Act, boys under eighteen may be punished by birching, or caning, as prescribed in Article 759 of the King's

  1041
  Regulations, which further prescribes in whose presence the punishment is to be inflicted, also the maximum number of strokes, and the instrument to be used. The offences rendering boys liable to this form of punishment are to be found in Article 723 of the King's Regulations. No reply beyond an acknowledgment was made to the letter of the secretary of the Humanitarian Society, the request made by him being regarded as an improper one. It is not proposed to take any steps for the abolition of this method of punishment.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I shall call attention to this practice on the Vote for the Admiralty.

  Labourers' Wages on Government Contracts.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it has been brought to his notice that unskilled labourers receiving less than the local minimum rate of wages are now employed upon the electrical wiring of submarines for His Majesty's Navy at Barrow-in-Furness; and if so, whether he will cause immediate inquiry to be made into this matter.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: The attention of the Admiralty has been called to the matter referred to in the hon. Member's Question, and inquiry is now being made in regard to it.

  Official History of the South African War.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to withhold the publication of so much of the official history of the South African War as was written by the late Colonel Henderson.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): The late Colonel Henderson had commenced writing the official history of the South African War and a small portion of his work had been received. When it was decided to revise the scale of the publication it was found
  1042
  that this portion could not be utilised. I may add that the portion which had been written by the late Colonel Henderson only reached a period antecedent to the commencement of the war.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that every official publication published by general authority during the last fifty years has contained a preface similar to that written by Colonel Henderson, and is Colonel Henderson's preface not of considerable literary as well as political importance.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I should not deny the literary qualities of any-thing written by Colonel Henderson, but I have been advised by the present editor of the work that it is impossible to embody Colonel Henderson's fragment in the work on the scale at which it is now proposed to produce it. If the hon. Gentleman had seen the portion of the work he would understand that without entirely recasting the work this portion could not be made use of.

  Military Riot at Southampton.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can say how many men of the 2nd Cheshire Regiment under orders to embark at Southampton for India on the troopship "Assaye" on Friday last took part in a riot, and how many, if any, of the men of this battalion are enlisted for three years service; also to what cause the riot is attributed.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No official information of the occurrence in question has reached the War Office. The number of three years men in the battalion cannot be obtained at so short notice, but the draft consisting of 100 men contained ninety-seven three years men.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: Were these three years men told on enlistment that they would not be sent to India?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, Sir; there could have been no such undertaking.

  Australia and the Transvaal Labour Ordinance.
  MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the resolution lately passed by the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia in opposition to the proposal to import Chinese indentured labour into the Transvaal has been communicated to this Government; and whether he will have laid upon the Table the text of this resolution and of any other resolutions on this subject passed by Colonial Legislatures during the last six months.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): I have not yet received the resolution referred to. It will be published when received. I am not aware of any other resolution of the kind which has not been published.

  Repatriation of, and Compensation paid to, the Boers.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table a detailed statement of the moneys expended in repatriation of the Boers after the war, and in compensation for losses sustained by them in or in consequence of the war, and stating the name and address of every person who received £100 or upwards of any such moneys and on what account the same was received.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I must refer to my previous answer to the hon. Member on Thursday last† which I do not see any reason to vary, but I will communicate with Lord Milner as to whether the limitation now proposed by the hon. Member will materially affect the reasons for which I have felt unable to agree to this Return.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: Is there any list of the persons to whom the moneys have been paid. Would the cost of obtaining the information be more than; the mere expense of copying that list?
  MR. LYTTELTON: I know of no such list.
  † See page 844.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask Lord Milner?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Departmental Supplies for the Transvaal
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state whether he has sent instructions to the Transvaal Government that departmental supplies for the Transvaal must be purchased through the Crown Agents for the Colonies; if so, whether such instructions will prevent local tendering for supplies; whether the Chambers of Commerce throughout the colony have protested against this measure; and what is the reason for this change in the practice hitherto prevailing in the Transvaal.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I have instructed the Government of the Transvaal that all materials and articles which are not the produce of South Africa should be purchased through the Crown Agents for the Colonies. Such instructions will prevent local tendering by agents and middlemen for supplies not of local production. I have no information as yet from Lord Milner as to the action of the Chambers of Commerce reported in last week's newspaper telegrams. My predecessor decided that the system of indent on the Crown Agents should be preserved in the Transvaal, and my instructions have been given to ensure observance of the practice which has been departed from in certain instances. The considerations which have weighed with my predecessor and myself are, shortly stated, that this system is on the whole best calculated to secure the interests of the colonial taxpayers, that it enables due attention to be given to the claim of the British manufacturer, and that it obviates the risk of pressure being brought to bear on officials by local agents and middlemen.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay upon the Table a Return of the amount paid in commission to the Crown Agents for goods purchased for South Africa during the last four years.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I think we shall be able to obtain that.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Is it the fact that the unofficial members of the Intercolonial and Legislative Councils have protested against this change?
  MR. LYTTELTON: I have no; heard of any such protest.

  The Tibetan Mission.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Tibetan expedition has advanced beyond Gyangtse; whether it has been recognised by Dalai Lama; if not, what are the future movements of the expedition, and what are the casualties already sustained through wounds, sickness, and frostbite.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,): The Mission has not advanced beyond Gyangtse, nor has any communication been received from the Dalai Lama. I stated on Monday last†, in reply to a Question, that an announcement of the intentions of His Majesty's Government in the event of the negotiations at Gvangtse breaking down would not be in the public interest at present. As regards casualties through sickness and frostbite, the Government of India report thirty-five deaths to date among combatants, and forty-five deaths among followers and coolies. Cases of frostbite are given approximately as sixty-one among combatants, sixty-eight among others. The Government of India hold that, considering the altitude and the exceptional severity of the winter, mortality and sickness are wonderfully low, thanks to a liberal supply of warm clothing and extra rations. General health has been fair to good, combatants suffering more than followers owing to night duties. The health of the force is now good. The following casualties in action have been already reported:— Wounded: British, one officer and one newspaper correspondent. Native, thirteen.
  † See page 374.

  Regulations for Indian Labour in the Colonies.
  MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can state what is the amount of civil rights and freedom from restriction insisted upon by the Indian Government in any contract made with its subjects before permitting them to leave India under indenture.
  MR. BRODRICK: I am afraid that I can only refer the hon. Member to the various colonial Ordinances dealing with the regulation of Indian labour which have been passed with the knowledge and subject to the criticism of the Indian Government, who are bound, in the words of the Indian Emigration Act of 1883, to satisfy themselves that the Government of the coolie-importing country "has made such laws and other provisions as the Governor-General in Council thinks sufficient for the protection of emigrants to that country during their residence therein."

  The Somaliland Operations.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, when the operations commenced against the Somali Mullah in March, 1901, he was then located in Italian Somaliland; and what has been the political and military advantage gained by the three years war against him.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,): The hon. Member will see if he refers to the despatches published in the Blue-book No. 5, Africa, 1901, that the Mullah was within the British protectorate when the operations against him were begun in 1901. The result of the operations has been to expel the enemy from British territory, to relieve the tribes under our protection from the suffering and loss which his presence occasioned, and so completely to break up the Mullah's following as to make a re-establishment of his power improbable.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEasked whether it was not the fact that during the greater part of the operations of 1901 the Mullah was in Italian Somaliland; and whether, in consequence of the Mullah's

  1047
  being in Italian Somaliland, the Italian Government were requested to co-operate with the British Government in expelling him.
  EARL PERCY: It is quite true that later on the Mullah was in Italian territory; but at the beginning he was in British territory.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: Shall we have an official history of this war also?

  The Macedonian Gendarmerie.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any, and if so what, number has been fixed for the European commissioned officers of gendarmerie who are to act in the vilayets of Macedonia; whether any non-commissioned officers are to be appointed; what is the size of the whole area for which the officers are to be appointed; what powers have been secured to these European officers of exercising control and giving orders without interference by Turkish authorities; how many British officers are to be sent to Macedonia; and what area has been specially allotted to them.
  EARL PERCY: No definite number of officers has been fixed. Twenty-five commissioned officers will be employed in the first instance and have already proceeded to Salonica. The Powers have insisted on the right of General Giorgis to raise the number to sixty, in addition to a smaller number of non-commissioned officers if their services are required. The area covered by the re-organisation scheme is approximately 19,350 square miles. The European officers will not be subject to the orders of anyone but the Italian General, and any attempt to interfere with them in the exercise of the powers necessary for the effective discharge of their duties would compel the Powers to reconsider their demands in regard to the position of these officers. A reservation to this effect was made by the Austro-Hungarian and Russian Ambassadors. Five British officers have been sent out and will be employed in the Sandjak of Drama.
  MR. BRYCE: Will these officers have full powers of giving orders that must be
  1048
  obeyed by the gendarmerie without any interference from the Turkish authorities?
  EARL PERCY: They will be the direct means of conveying the orders of General Giorgis to the troops.

  Graduation of the Income-Tax.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to refer the question of the practicability of the graduation of the income-tax to the Committee the appointment of which has been announced.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): No, Sir. As I have already staled, the Government do not consider that the question of graduation should form any part of the reference to the Committee on the Income-Tax.

  National Debt Statistics
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much he expects the total Debt to be reduced in the year 1904–5, excluding the operation of the Works Acts and similar Acts; and how much he expects that the operation of these works and similar Acts will add to our total liabilities during the year 1904–5.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The amount by which the total dead-weight debt is expected to be reduced in the year 1901–5 is, as stated by me last week, £7,120,000. I am unable at present to add anything to the statement I made on Tuesday last as to the liability which we are likely to incur in the current year in respect of the expenditure charged to capital account.

  Alleged Fraudulent Practices in Bonded Warehouses.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has now ascertained if the officers of Excise and Customs are compelled by their regulations to allow, in the Government bonded warehouses, German spirit to be labelled as brandy; and English spirit as Scotch whisky; and whether, in view of the fact that these

  1049
  practices are carried on with the cognisance of and under the supervision of Government officials, he will give instructions to the officials to report such proceedings to their superior officers and to the public prosecutor.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,): The primary-duty of revenue officials is to see that there is no fraud upon the revenue. It is not possible for them in the execution of that duty to safeguard the consumer, who has his own remedy and is otherwise protected against fraud or misdescription of goods sold to him. I have already explained that any attempt on the part of the Inland Revenue authorities to regulate the trade description of goods in bond would be useless because they have no means of enforcing a similar regulation after the goods have passed out of bond. It would be misleading to create an impression that the fact of goods being dutiable is equivalent to a Government guarantee of their quality.
  MR. MACVEAGH: What I want to know is whether it is a fact that these frauds are perpetrated under the supervision of Government officials, and whether these are the officials who are asked to report upon the matter.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I have every reason to believe that the Customs House officers carry out their duties in a proper manner.

  Anti-Vaccination Prosecution at Thames Police Court.
  MR. CROOKS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of a man, named Ward, who was summoned at the Thames Police Court for non-compliance with the Vaccination Act, on the 5th April, and to the fact that, after he had produced a doctor's certificate as to the child's unfitness for vaccination, the man was fined, the magistrate deciding against the man because he would not pledge himself to have the child vaccinated when it recovered, and afterwards declined to state a case for the High
  1050
  Court; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): I have inquired into this case and find no ground for action on my part. The offence charged was the failure to have the child vaccinated within six months of his birth. The medical certificate produced did not relate to that period and no exemption had been asked for. The father did not appear in answer to the charge. The magistrate was ready to take a lenient view of the case in accordance with his usual practice if he could have received any assurance of readiness on the part of the defendant to comply with the requirements of the law; but there was no doubt that the offence had been committed and the penalty incurred.
  MR. CROOKS: Will the right hon. Geatleman be good enough to make further inquiry and see if the certificate does not show that the child was suffering from rickets and debility?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Vagrants in Hyde Park.
  MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to the complaints that have been made with reference to the use made of Hyde Park by persons of the habitual vagrant class, he intends to propose any legislation this session for giving the police further powers than they now possess to deal with such persons.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: This is a matter for the First Commissioner of Works rather than for myself and I understand that it is under his immediate consideration with a view to providing some remedy for the existing state of things.

  Railway Level Crossing at Halbeath
  MR. WEIR: On behalf of the hon. Member for West Fifeshire, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the railway level crossing

  1051
  at Halbeath Station, Fifeshire, is a source of danger to the public; and, seeing that it is on the main line and numerous express trains pass over it daily, will he consider the advisability of communicating with the North British Railway Company with a view to suitable protection being provided.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): There is no record of any accident having occurred at the level crossing in question within the past twenty-five years and the crossing is not one in regard to which the Board of Trade have any statutory powers. I have, however, communicated with the railway company on the subject of the hon. Member's Question and am informed by them that the crossing is provided with gates interlocked from the signal cabin and these gates are invariably closed in good time to prevent the possibility of anyone using the crossing in such a way as to be endangered by an approaching train. It is added that there is a foot-bridge at the station so that no passenger need use the level crossing to go from one platform to another.

  Cost of Small-Pox Outbreak.
  MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state what has been the total or approximate cost to the different local bodies of the outbreak of small-pox in 1903 in London and the metropolitan district and in the rest of England and Wales respectively.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): There was no epidemic small-pox in London in the year 1903, the previous outbreak having in effect come to an end by Michaelmas, 1902. The expenditure of the Metropolitan Asylums Board in the year to Michaelmas, 1902, in respect of the removal, care, and treatment of patients consequent upon the epidemic is estimated at £132,381. This is in addition to a capital expenditure of about £492,000 for accommodation and transport facilities, which are practically still available. I am not in a position to give
  1052
  the particulars asked for as regards the other local authorities referred to in the Question.

  Pauper Aliens.
  MR. McKENNA: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state the number of aliens who have become chargeable to the common funds of the Poor Law unions of the United Kingdom for each year during the last ten years; the proportion which such pauper aliens bear to the whole alien population of the United Kingdom; and the proportion which pauper British subjects bear to the whole British population of the United Kingdom.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I obtained last year some information as regards aliens in England and Wales in receipt of relief on the 1st July, 1903, but I am not in possession of the particulars desired as regards the previous years. The number of aliens relieved on the 1st July, 1903, was 1,753, or 79 per cent. of the alien population according to the last census. The paupers of all classes in receipt of relief on that date were 2·4 per cent. of the estimated population. These figures only relate to England and Wales. As regards Scotland and Ireland, the matter is one for the Scottish and Irish Departments.

  Motors in Hyde Park.
  MR. BULL: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Islington I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is aware that in some of the roads in Hyde Park motorsare not allowed, but that such roads are only indicated by a regulation in small type on a general notice board; and whether to avoid constant mistakes by motorists coming for the first time to the park, he will cause conspicuous notice boards to be placed at each end of these prohibited roads stating clearly that motors are not allowed.
  LORD BALCARRES: The First Commissioner has made inquiry, and regrets that he cannot agree with my hon. friend that the present arrangement is unsatisfactory. There

  1053
  are constables on duty at either end of the prohibited road; they have experienced no difficulty; and are much more efficient as a warning to motorists than any notice board.

  Instruction in Cookery in Scotch Schools.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will consider the expediency of so amending the Scotch Education Code as to render instruction in cookery and domestic economy compulsory during the last year of a girl's attendance at school.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON,): I am to refer the hon. Member to my reply to his Question No. 9 on 16th March.† I am not prepared to interfere with the discretion of School Boards and school managers as to the use they shall make of the facilities which the Code affords.

  Island of Lewis Cemeteries.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the medical officer for the parish of Uig, Island of Lewis, has certified the Balanakill, Little Bernera, and Kirivig cemeteries as overcrowded, insanitary, and indecent, the coffins being in some cases within two feet of the surface; and will such steps be taken as may be necessary to secure the provision of new burying-grounds.
  MR. SCOTT DICKSON: I am in communication with the Local Government Board, who inform me that the parish council are taking steps to have new cemeteries opened instead of Kirivig and Little Bernera and intend extending Balanakill if allowed.

  Teachers in the Highland Crofting Counties.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state how many teachers are employed in the Highland crofting counties, and how many retiring teachers other than old parochial teachers have been granted pensions by School Boards since the passing of the Elementary Teachers Act of 1898.
  † See (4) Debates, cxxxi., 1257.
  MR. SCOTT DICKSON: The information asked for in the first part of the hon. Member's Question is contained in Command Paper 1970 (pages 172–173). I am not in a position to give the information asked for in the second part.

  Lloyd's Estate, King's County,
  MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the farm on the estate of J. J. Lloyd, of Glouster, near Shinrone, King's County, formerly in the possession of Amos J. Doolan, has been purchased by the agent of the property under the Land Purchase Act of last year, and that since the eviction of Doolan this farm has been let on the eleven months' system; and, if so, will he say on what date did this agent become tenant, and on what terms as to rent and tenure; whether he is aware that the Estates Commissioners received an application for re-instatement from Amos J. Doolan; and, if so, will he state the result of this application, and did the Estates Commissioners communicate with the evicted tenant and this agent before sanctioning the sale, and will he supply a copy of the correspondence.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): No application has yet been made to the Commissioners for the sale of this estate; but an application for re-instatement in his former holding has been received from Amos Palmer. I am unable to say, at present, whether he is identical with the ex-tenant named in the Question. I am making further inquiry, however, on this and other matters.

  Instruction in the Irish Language.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether' the National Board will sanction the payment of qualified pensioned teachers to teach Irish outside ordinary school hours.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Commissioners inform me that Article 179 of their Cod; prohibits an ex-national school teacher who is in receipt of a retiring gratuity or

  1055
  pension from being readmitted to the service of the Board.

  Irish Legislation.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when he proposes to introduce the measure dealing with the housing of the working classes in towns in Ireland, promised last session.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am unable to name a day until I see what progress is made with other Irish measures. It is, in my opinion, necessary to pass the Land Bill and Labourers Bill, a Bill for transferring certain savings in the Supreme Court to the Development Grant, and a Departmental Bill rendered obligatory by the scheme for reducing the police force. I undertook to consider the question of housing in towns in addition to the labourers question. The result of consideration convinced me that the latter ought to have priority, but it is doubtful whether any substantial advance can be made in respect of the former at a time when it is impossible either to extend the period of repayment of loans or to lower the interest upon them.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Does that mean that there will be no Housing Bill introduced this session.
  MR. WYNDHAM: It depends partly on the progress made with other measures, and in addition to that it might be prudent to await a more favourable time for dealing with the question.
  MR. NANNETTI: Before framing the Bill will the right hon. Gentleman take notice of the resolutions passed by the National Convention?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have not seen them.

  Epidemics in Schools.
  MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the medical officer of health for a district has power to close a national school in conse-
  1056
  quence of epidemic; and, if so, whether the teacher's salary is liable to be reduced in consequence of such closing.
  MR. WYNDHAM: A medical officer of health may recommend the closing of a school on the ground stated. The published regulations of the Commissioners expressly provide that in such circumstances a teacher's salary shall not be liable to reduction, except in cases where a school is closed for a very prolonged period. Salary without abatement may be paid for four consecutive quarters. An epidemic would hardly continue for more than a year.

  Cusack Estate, County Longford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the present position of the sale proceedings of Cusack Estate, county Longford; whether he is now able to give a Return showing the names of intending purchasers of this estate, and how many of same are evicted tenants or the sons of former evicted tenants on this property.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The position of affairs in respect of this estate has not altered, so far as I am aware, since I replied to the hon. Member's previous Question of the 3rd March.† The solicitor having carriage of the sale has been communicated with, however, and if the Question is repeated on Monday next I may be in a position to give further information.

  Drummeel Bog, County Longford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that the Estates Commissioners are bound to become public trustees for large tracts of bog sold under the Act of 1903 which are not in direct occupation of tenants, will he say if any application has been made to them to assume this position in connection with the Drummeel, county Longford, bog on the Granard Estate.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Local inquiry has been necessary to enable the Commissioners to identify the particular bog-land
  † See (4) Debates, cxxxi., 69.

  1057
  referred to. Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat the Question to-morrow.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Will the inquiry be public or private?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have been making inquiry myself in the endeavour to get an answer to the hon. Member's Question.

  Revenue Collections in Dublin.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the total amount of Imperial revenue received respectively by the collectors of Inland Revenue and Customs at Dublin for the year ended 31st March, 1903; the total amount received by the collector of Inland Revenue for local taxation licences during the same period; and will he also say why the Collector of Inland Revenue at Dublin is not instructed to pay the proceeds of these Irish local taxation licences direct into the Bank of Ireland to the credit of the local taxation account instead of forwarding the money to London, as is done at present.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: The total is £3,952,609, of which £414,261 was for local taxation purposes. The proceeds are paid into the Bank of Ireland; but as the payments in respect of the licences are required by law to be made from the Exchequer, they have first to pass through the Exchequer account before being paid to the local taxation account.

  Crown and Quit Rents in Ireland.
  MR. WILLIAM McKILLOP: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state in terms of years purchase the average price at which quit rents and Crown rents were redeemed in the years ending 31st December, 1901, 1902, and 1903.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The average price in Ireland is about twenty-five years purchase. The figures for Great Britain can be worked out if a week's notice is given.

  Irish ex-Constable in the Liverpool Customs.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of
  1058
  the Exchequer whether Sergeant Gallagher, late an officer of the Royal Irish Constabulary, Ballylinan, Queen's County, who has retired on pension, has been appointed to an official position in the Custom House, Liverpool; and, if so, whether he can state upon what recommendation this appointment has been made.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: This pensioner has been temporarily appointed to an unestablished position in the Customs at Liverpool on his own application, on the production of satisfactory evidence as to character.
  MR. DELANY: Did not this man leave Ireland without paying his debts

  Population, Revenue, and Expenditure Return.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will cause to be laid upon the Table a similar Memorandum respecting the progress of population, revenue, and expenditure to that of No. 163 of 1896, bringing the figures up to date, excluding, if needs be, the years in which the figures were complicated by the expenditure for the South African War.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Memorandum to which the hon. Member refers is a very elaborate one, and involves much labour in its preparation. It deals with decennial periods, and I think the next issue had better be deferred until the completion of another decennial period in 1906.

  Irish Banks and Government Money.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any objection to state the conditions under which the Bank of Ireland and the Provincial Bank of Ireland deal with Irish Government moneys passing through their hands on the road to the Exchequer; whether, in addition to the benefit derived by the retention of these moneys for some days in their hands, they also receive special payment for transacting this business; and whether he will appoint an independent Committee to inquire into and

  1059
  report on the existing position of the Bank of Ireland and the Provincial Bank of Ireland in relation to the State and to the other joint stock banks of Ireland.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The revenue receipts paid into the Bank of Ireland are credited to the Exchequer on the day of receipt; those paid through the Provincial Bank are transferred after an interval of a week. The banks receive no remuneration for their work in bringing revenue to the Exchequer other than the benefit they derive from the temporary use of the money. I do not think any object would be gained by the appointment of a Committee such as suggested by the hon. Member. The Treasury is entirely satisfied with the relations of the Bank of Ireland with the Government, which date from its establishment, and which have since been constantly referred to in Acts of Parliament. Those relations were carefully considered in connection with the Bank Act of 1892, and the provisions of that Act remain in force for twenty years, i.e., until 1912.

  Dublin Telegraph Messengers.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to an order issued by the Dublin authorities that all boys engaged there as telegraph messengers over sixteen are to seek for other employment or be dismissed after three months; whether he is aware that in the past town postmen were recruited from the efficient boys, and that there are a number of those boys over eighteen years of age who have no trade or other available means of employment; and, if so, will he say if this order has been issued with his sanction; and whether the Dublin authorities are urging these boys to join His Majesty's Army by promising them re-employment after three years service in the Army.
  THE POSTMASTER - GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,: I regret that it has been necessary to discontinue for a time the appointment of telegraph messengers at Dublin as assistant postmen, since there are already an unduly large number of assistant postmen waiting for estab-
  1060
  lished appointments. The messengers over sixteen years of age have therefore been informed that it is to their advantage to seek other employment; but they have not been urged to join the Army.

  Telephone Communication with Killarney.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether repeated applications have been received for the extension of telephonic communication to Killarney; and whether, in view of the fact that a number of tourists as well as local people would be served by the extension, he will say what is the objection raised against the giving of the required facilities in this matter.
  LORD STANLEY: A considerable number of applications for the extension of the Trunk Telephone System in Ireland have been received, and a comprehensive inquiry is now being made as to the possibility of meeting these demands. The plans now in preparation include one for an extension to Killarney, and I shall be glad if it is found practicable to carry it out. The difficulty in the way of the extension of the Trunk System in the South of Ireland has been the large expenditure involved, owing to the length of the lines. Unfortunately, the traffic and revenue on the existing lines are small.

  Cotton Manufactures—Proposed International Conference.
  MR. HARCOURT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is yet able to give the promised answer to the request made to him by a deputation at Manchester in January, that His Majesty's Government should take the initiative in summoning an International Conference of those interested in the manufacture of cotton, with a view to considering the present and future difficulties of the industry and the best methods of dealing with them.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR.): The subject is engaging a great deal of the attention

  1061
  of the Government, but the deputation to which the hon. Gentleman refers rather put in the forefront of their argument the necessity of dealing with purchase in advance as a general system. I have some doubt about the propriety of summoning a conference in this country on the subject, because I doubt whether any good can be done by legislation; but there are probably other matters in which consumers and manufacturers of cotton have common interests with their Continental brethren, and if further inquiry should substantiate that view we shall be very glad to do what we can to further communication between branches of the manufacturing industry here and on the Continent.

  Land Values Assessment and Rating Bill.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government will afford time for the discussion of the adjourned Motion to send the Land Values Assessment and Rating Kill to the Standing Committee on Law. Will the right hon. Gentleman also take into consideration the fact that the Committee on Law has now only one Bill before it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know that the consideration which the hon. Gentleman has just laid before me is relevant to the answer to the Question on the Paper. It is well known that the question of giving Government facilities to private Members' Bills is one that must be used with the utmost caution, and they can never be suffered to be used except in regard to Bills which command the general assent of both sides of the House. That is the rule which, I think, invariably obtains, and I do not think it can be departed from in the present case.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can inform the House of the business to be taken during the week.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It may be for the convenience of hon. Members if I
1062
state that if we succeed in getting the Second Reading of the Aliens Rill tonight and time is available we shall put down the Report of the Money Resolution in connection with the Savings Banks Bill, the Penal Servitude Bill, and Report of Supply. To-morrow, under the Ten Minutes Rule, the President of the Local Government Board will introduce the Valuation Bill, and the Secretary of the Education Department the Education (Local Authority Default) Bill. At the Wednesday afternoon sitting we shall take the Southwark and Birmingham Bishoprics Bill, and on Thursday Supply, Class 1.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: When is it proposed to proceed with the Irish Land and Labourers Bills?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Not in the course of the present week.
MR. SOARES: What Votes are to be taken on Thursday?
MR. A.J. BALFOUR: Votes 4 and ll.

NEW BILL.
  CHARITABLE LOAN SOCIETIES (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To amend the Charitable Loan Societies (Ireland) Act, 1900,"presented by Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland; to be road a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 162.]

ALIENS BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
SIR CHARLES DILKErose to move as an Amendment," That this House, holding that the evils of low-priced alien labour can best be met by legislation to prevent sweating, desires to assure itself

1063
before assenting to the Aliens Bill that sufficient regard is had in the proposed measure to the retention of the principle of asylum for the victims of persecution." He said: I have no doubt that we shall discuss this Rill with a complete absence of heat; but that is not the case outside this House. [Sir HOWARD VINCENT: Hear, hear!] The hon. Member for Sheffield is probably aware that most violent and shameful attacks have been made on those who think it their duty to oppose a measure of this kind. Among the documents that have been circulated to those who are supposed to be opposed to the provisions of this Bill are, for example, such a monstrous statement as is published in a daily paper in London, and signed by a gentleman who does not hesitate to put his own signature to a breach of privilege—
"It is hoped that every London newspaper under British control will publish a list of the traitors in Parliament who vote against this measure."
That is not the frame of mind in which a measure of this kind ought to be discussed. While I am quite certain the Bill will be discussed in this House with calmness, I must warn Conservative Members who have thrown themselves into this agitation that they have raised a devil which they will find it difficult to lay. This Bill was originally a Socialistic measure, but it is now repudiated by Socialists who wisely became opposed to legislation of this description. It is something like what was forced on Louis Blanc in 1818; it was one of the four demands of the French Socialists which led to the break up of his Government, and which eventually led to his flight to this country where he arrived a destitute alien. It was rather unworthily suggested, I think, from the other side against those of us who oppose this measure that, as on the First Heading we did not divide the House, we dare not divide the House. It is not usual to divide the House against the introduction of a Bill; but I can assure hon. Members as far as I am concerned that they shall not be disappointed as to a division to-day, for it certainly is my intention to take the opinion of this House.
The hon. and gallant Member for the Tower Hamlets Division, who was a member of the Commission, has given an
1064
enormous amount of time, trouble, and consideration to this subject. I agree with him that a case might be made out for legislation of this kind. So far from being an advocate of laissez faire, I have been one of the strongest opponents of that principle since I have been in the House of Commons. It is to some extent, as the hon. and gallant Member has said, a question of numbers and proportion. The hon. and gallant Member in his admirable letter in to-day's Times, gives what is the case of the most reasonable supporters of this measure. He states very frankly that he is much more concerned with the attack on the destitute alien than with the attack on the undesirable alien. It is, from his point of view, a question of competition, and he attributes to their supposed increase, sweating in this country. Now the hon. Member for the Elland Division, who will do me the honour to second my Motion, has, like myself, interested himself in this subject ever since he came into this House. He has written on the subject and he has travelled the Colonies; and this enables him to speak with regard to the subject. If I thought the tendency of this immigration were to have that effect upon sweating which the hon. and gallant Member thinks, I should not have placed the Amendment upon the Paper. The hon. and gallant Member says that the destitute alien is ruining our people by what he calls competition of the severest kind, and he concludes his letter by saying that—
"These persons may be called victims of persecution if we allow that everyone in Russia is persecuted more or less according to our ideas."
The letter appears to me to conflict with the leading passages of the Report of the Commission of which the hon. and gallant Member was a leading member. I shall ask the House to consider the Bill mainly on the lines of the Report and on the evidence of the witnesses before that Commission. As I read the Report of the Commission it is right in the teeth of the hon. and gallant Member. In the first place he assumes that the numbers we have to deal with in this country are very great, and that the proportion is greater than in other countries. I hope that hon. Members in this House who are

1065
going to take part in this discussion and in voting on this Bill have not long since made up their minds upon it. I hope they will examine the Report of the Commission and the evidence. I fully agree with the Commission on this question of numbers. They state their full reasons, which must lead us deeply to suspect any figures except those in the census, and they state the deductions which have to be made from the numbers that have been returned as alien immigrants; and they point out how the sailors affect the question. I have always been in favour of special legislation in regard to sailors. Then they point out the enormous number of persons who are travelling every year on business and pleasure—the number who are, in fact, merely passing through this country. They conclude, therefore, that although we cannot know for certain the exact number, the census is by far the best test that we have. There is an annual Return presented by the Board of Trade. It is a year since it has been distributed, and it is most unfortunate that we have to discuss this Bill in the absence of a continuance of that Return. But I think we may conclude in face of the evidence given by Mr. Llewellyn Smith before the Commission that there has been no change, and that the same tendency has continued. The facts brought out in last year's Return go to show an increased emigration of Britons from this country and a vastly increasing transmigration of aliens through this country, and not a constantly increasing number of aliens settled here. The Secretary of State for the Home Department in introducing this Bill no doubt unwittingly misled the House. He mentioned that the figures in 1901 showed an increase of 81,000 aliens, and in 1902 82,000, which is at variance with the evidence before the Royal Commission. The suggestion is that there was a large addition to the alien population of this country in recent years. The Board of Trade says—
"It must not be interred that these figures represent the real increase in the total number of alien immigrants who actually settle in this country."
The Board gives the net increase in the alien population at 9,000 in 1901 and 8,800 in 1902, and shows that these numbers correspond exactly with the
1066
census returns, and also that the balance of emigration outward is increasing. There is, moreover, an enormous transmigration of aliens for the United States. The balance of this enormous and increasingly vast transmigration is increasingly a balance outwards. The Board of Trade point out that the figures which the Home Secretary quoted include all the third class passengers coming into the country at certain ports. All these are not destitute, and many of these who are destitute proceed to Canada. Again, I would call the attention of the House to the enormous extent of this traffic to Canada. It is not shown in the American Return. There are a vast number of people carried by the Beaver Line to Canada, and most of them pass through ultimately to the United States. I cannot but think that an incidental defect of these regulations will be to heavily discourage our shipping trade, and a very large trade this shipping trade in emigrants has now become. It may startle the House, which has often heard of the enormous emigration in the past, that the number of persons passing through this country to foreign lands is more than it has ever been. The number of emigrants leaving this country by British liners and steamers for lands across the distant seas is greater than it ever was, even in the Irish famine, or the days of the great gold rush to California and Australia. The number conveyed in 1902 was 387,000—a gigantic trade, a trade of great value to the port of Liverpool, and to British shipping. In 1847, the beginning of the Irish famine, there were 258,000; in 1848, 248,000; in 1849, 299,000; in 1850, 280,000; in 1851, 335,000; and in 1852, when the gold rush was at its height. 368,000. From 1852 down to recent years the traffic had fallen away. Now it has vastly increased, and is greater than it has ever been before. [Major EVANS GORDON: Hear, hear!] The hon. Member cheers that fact, but the balance outward is continually increasing, and this does not affect the figures he has in his mind.
The hon. Member for Stepney in his letter says it is a question of numbers and of proportion. We have seen about numbers; now about proportion. There is a very interesting official

1067
answer on this in the Board of Trade evidence. The percentage of aliens of any kind in this country is one-fourth of what it is in France. It is less than that in any Continental country, and is substantially not increasing, because the minute increase which is examined by the Board of Trade is more than accounted for by the increase in the number of rich men who have made London their home since London has become the fashionable centre in place of Paris. Not only is the proportion of aliens abroad larger, but, generally speaking, those aliens are poorer. They are, on the average, a less substantial class. As the hon. and gallant Member states in the second part of his letter it is a question of quality and proportion, I ask the House to consider what the percentage is. In Germany the proportion of aliens has increased. It used ten years ago to be 0·8, now it is 1·38; in Belgium it has also slightly increased. It was 2·6 and is now 2·82. In France it has slightly decreased, it was nearly 3, now it is 2½d. In Switzerland it was once 6½, it is now over 9½ In this country it was 0·58, now it is 0·69, an infinitesimal increase. The Board of Trade in making these statements, and the Commission in repeating them, very frankly face the facts, and the Commission in its Report says—
"It will be observed that the proportion of alien immigrants in this country is comparatively small."
In regard to the infinitesimal increase in the total the Commission says—
"In regard to the increase of the alien proportion from 0·58 to 0·69 percent, some effect must be given to the evidence that greater care was taken in 1902 to ascertain the number of resident aliens than on previous occasions."
Therefore the Commission did not itself believe there was any increase at all. Now it is undoubtedly a fact that once upon a time Members opposite did not share the view that this immigration was an entirely bad thing for the country. There has been a change of opinion, but not a change of facts. There is no increase of danger, but a change in the way in which that supposed or apprehended danger is regarded. There have frequently been times in our history when the number of destitute aliens in our country was infinitely greater than
1068
now. There were times when it was as great as it is now in those foreign countries where it is greatest. It was infinitely greater than now. At the time when the numbers were so great there was the same opposition to the aliens as there is now, but it is a curious fact that when we look back hon. Members are always inclined to give away the past. They are always inclined to say alien immigration was a benefit in its day. At the time when the Palatines were brought into this country under Queen Anne at the public expense there was great opposition, and I do not wonder at it. There were 10,000 brought to London in a single year all destitute and all without a trade; again in 1793 the proportion of aliens was great, and it was a mistake to suppose that they were all people of noble birth flying from France. The great majority, as Dr. Cunningham tells us, were people of low birth.
I said on the introduction of the Bill that we were an emigrating rather than an immigrating nation. It is an extraordinary position in which this Bill places the House. We spend public money on emigration. We keep up a public Emigration Office, and the President of the Local Government Board is always signing orders for the sending out of paupers at the expense of the rates. We still send millions of destitute Irish—some people think by the fault of our legislation—to seek the hospitality of the United States, and we are to decline on the mere ground of destitution those expelled from Russia by religious persecution, and who come here in the proportion of about one-tenth to those received by the United States. We want to know on what ground it is suggested this exclusion should take place. The hon. and gallant Member says it is because sweating is promoted by the reception of these people in this country. The Resolution we have placed on the Paper represents the views of the Member for Elland and myself, which are the views held by the most advanced men in the labour movement and by those most affected, viz., those in the tailoring trade, that the evils of sweating are best dealt with by legislation, and the enforcement of regulations of a different kind. This matter was inquired into by

1069
the House of Lords Committee on Sweating which reported on the point in these words—
"Undue stress has been laid on foreign immigration, inasmuch as we rind that the evils complained of obtain in trades not alluded by foreign immigration."
MAJOR EVANS GORDON: What date?
SIR CHARLES DILKE: The Committee reported in 1890. I suppose the hon. Member intends to suggest the evil has increased. There is no evidence to support that view. The evidence before the Commission is in the opposite direction, and the Report of the investigation in the East of London is diametrically opposite. We say this is a sham remedy for sweating, and that sweating must be met by other means, and above all by stringent enforcement of the workshop laws. There was a change made in the workshop laws in 1901, and some of us resisted the change, because we proposed a very different system which we believe would have met the position. In 1895 I had moved an Amendment which would have applied the New Zealand legislation directed against sweating, which has been adopted in other countries, and which a majority of those supposed to be most affected by this alien immigration themselves supported. Our case is that it is underpaid labour of English women and girls in those trades which is more responsible for the evils of sweating than the introduction of the alien. The Board of Trade, which issues to the House every year the interesting and valuable Paper of which I spoke just now, have not commented on that Paper since 1894 In 1894, when there was agitation on this subject, they commented on that annual Return. Going carefully into the evidence of Mr. Llewellyn Smith, who was responsible at the time, before this Royal Commission, which is before the House, Mr. Smith shows no sign of having changed his opinion.
The Board of Trade in 1894, reporting on the effect of destitute aliens on sweating, said that the worst of all the labour evils was the bringing in of married women to do men's work.
1070
That evil at all events has no place among the Jews. The struggle is—
"not between English non-Jewish men and Jews…English women and girls are more and more brought in at lower wages, that is in trades where women are not organised."
When this matter was considered on the Amendment to the Factory Act of 1895, of which I have spoken, a great impression was made upon some of us by the statement of a delegate of the tailoring trade, which is the trade most affected by these changes. That delegate said—
"The blackleg is the alien, though he come from my own town."
I do not wish to quarrel with the Report signed by the hon. and gallant Member. I think it is a very fair statement of the case. In paragraph 129 the Commissioners state that—
"The effect on the three main industries—tailoring, cabinetmaking, and shoemaking—in which aliens are employed, has been beneficial. It has increased the demand for, and the manufacture of, not only goods made in this country which were formerly imported from abroad, but the materials used in them. It has indirectly given employment to native workers."
As to the displacement of native labour, they also say the evidence has been very conflicting. I do not think that is a Report from which the hon. and gallant Member can And much encouragement for his views as expressed in today's Times. There are 25,500 aliens in the United Kingdom engaged in the tailoring trade, and the cabinet trade with under 5,000 comes next. The Commissioners say of wages—
"It certainly appears that notwithstanding the influx of aliens there has been a general tendency to increase in the trades mentioned."
What becomes of the interruptions of the hon. Member who asked for the date of the House of Lords Sweating Report, when, according to the Royal Commissioners themselves, there has been an increase of wages in the very trades which are supposed to be most affected by alien labour? Without going into figures at greater length, I may say that the tailoring trade is, by a majority, in favour of the principles which my hon. friend and I are putting before the House to day—viz., that the matter should he dealt with in a different way from the method of exclusion. As to the furniture trade there is mentioned in the

1071
evidence a very curious case which is typical of the state of things which prejudice has called into this question. It is the case of a man who came in as a destitute alien and who, in a few years, was possessed of a furniture factory in the neighbourhood of London, occupying thirteen acres of land, fitted with the most up-to-date machinery, employing 3,000 workmen (nearly all Christians), and doing an enormous export trade. The Board of Trade, commenting on cases of this kind in their scientific Report, said—
"The same, individual within a few years excites the hostility of his English neighbours for his pauperism and their indignation for his wealth."
Now comes the question—whether if you are to have legislation of this kind it will be possible to retain the principle of asylum for the victims of persecution? The hon. and gallant Member for the Tower Hamlets Division, who has faced this question, says that he wants to keep these people out because of their competition, their numbers and their pro-portion, and he admits that all the population of Russia are victims of persecution. But the Jews are victims of persecution in a more peculiar degree than any persons in Russia, because in Russia other people have not been burned alive, or hunted through their towns as the Jews have been, and it amazes me that the hon. and gallant Member, who has seen Russia for himself, should class them with Russians as being victims of persecution. The words of which I am most afraid are, "likely to become a charge on public funds" and "having no visible or probable means of support." Let the House dismiss from its mind all question of getting rid of a special class of undesirable aliens. If that were all that was proposed, we might, and doubtless should, come to terms. The hon. and gallant Member admits that the one point on which he wants the Bill is not the undesirable but the destitute alien. The words I have quoted are not new; they were proposed and discussed in this House years ago, and they appear in the legislation of the United States. But in the United States they have led to legal decisions which are in the teeth of the official statement as to what is to be their meaning in our legislation. The
1072
point was considered before the Royal Commission, and representatives of the police said it would be very difficult to deal with, while Mr. Llewellyn Smith said it would be impossible. We are distinctly told that these words, if put into our legislation, will be interpreted to keep out persons who have no money in their possession. The provision as to having money in their possession was found in the United States to be dodged in the same way that the provision requiring Members of this House to swear they possessed an estate used to be dodged. The money was simply handed from one person to another. That is not the test in the United States. It has there been held that a man is not under the mischief of the law who has two strong arms and ten fingers, and who is willing to work—that such a man brings capital and property into the country. But that is not the interpretation to be put upon the words here, and the hon. and gallant Member has made it clear that he would not support this Bill unless it was intended to have exactly the opposite effect. These words, curiously enough, have fallen under the ban directly of Mr. Gladstone and indirectly of Mr. Disraeli. When the words were suggested in 1894 Mr. Gladstone simply riddled them and tore them to pieces, and Mr. Disraeli's contention was that the poor Jew brought to us the spark of genius which was too often wanting in our race. When asked what the words would mean, Mr. Llewellyn Smith, speaking for the Board of Trade, said—
"You may pretend to do it, but you cannot do it."
That is, exclude them on the mere ground of absence of means. Without that exclusion hon. Members opposite would not give twopence for the Bill.
The hon. and gallant Member opposite said the question must be settled by quality and proportion. The question of proportion I have dealt with; as to quality, I would implore hon. Members before they pass a measure of this kind to read the weighty evidence given before the Royal Commission by impartial men, representing public bodies, who had no axe to grind and were not prejudiced on either side. I would instance the evidence of such men as the Chairman of the

1073
Whitechapel Board of Guardians, Canon Barnett, factory inspectors, and others whose evidence is altogether against the contention of hon. Members opposite. They say that sweating is declining, but, as I say, I would have stronger anti-sweating legislation, such as we have frequently proposed in this House, and in regard to which foreign countries are easily taking the lead of us. According to the evidence of Messrs. Vaughan and Herbert Evans, His Majesty's Inspectors of Factories, sweating is declining. Further, the evidence of Dr. Shirley Murphy, Medical Officer of Health for London; of Dr. Hamer, his assistant; of Dr. Niven, Medical Officer of Health for Manchester; of Mr. Ward, vaccination officer, and of all the Poor Law and school board authorities, is overwhelmingly against this Bill. Dr. Shirley Murphy, for instance, speaks of the regular lives led by these destitute aliens, and the total absence of drinking among them. Dr. Hamer speaks of their admirable lives, and I would particularly refer to Question 3963. He shows that the mortality, even where these aliens are overcrowded by no fault of their own, is much lower than among our own people. Captain Denniss, who has for ten years been chairman of a board of managers of the School Board in East London, gave evidence which was tremendously strong on the subject of the Jewish children in the schools, and he applied to them the very epithet which hon. Members opposite would be inclined to withhold. He speaks of their special "manliness," and as he is an officer of the Royal Engineers he knows what he is speaking about. The divisional superintendent of the Tower Hamlets Division, the chairman of the continuation schools committee and the headmasters of the Board schools to which the children go all give them the same character. The headmaster of the Christian Street Board School says—
"The Jewish children are above our boys."
The headmaster of the Settle Street Board School says the same thing. The headmaster of the Betts Street Board School says of the Jewish children—
"They show better knowledge of English History than the English children. They are proud to become English."
1074
That is the overwhelming evidence of every impartial witness but one who was called before this Commission. I appeal to those who are neither Jews nor persons in sweated trades—to those who represent public authorities who came before this Commission, school board people, Poor Law people factory inspectors, the clergy and such people. As I say in the present day hon. Members opposite, when we ask them about this exclusion of those who are victims of persecution, and put to them a case from the past, say, "Yes, it would have been shameful and wicked, and contrary to the interests of this country, to exclude the people you name, but we are now dealing with a wholly different state of things." I am not old enough to remember 1848, but I can remember the people who came over in that year, and the effect they had upon art workmanship in this country, and upon trades in Birmingham and London. At that time the feeling was such that had a measure of exclusion been proposed it would have been very difficult to get these aliens in. But in 1871, I remember very well that you would have kept them out. I remember the state of feeling in 1871. Take the case of the most distinguished ambassador in the world. You now think that you would have let him in when he came hither as a destitute alien in 1871; but I remember the feeling at the time. Hon. Members would have been more inclined to have boiled these men in oil. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] I see the hon. and gallant Member for Sheffield in his place. How many trades in Sheffield and how much improvement in Sheffield manufactures have been due to alien workmen? I know the hon. and gallant Member will give up the question in the fashion I have described. When he was at the head of the Detective Department in this country the hon. and gallant Member conceived a very strong opinion on the subject of alien immigration and he has maintained it ever since, and it fits in very well with the opinion which he holds on another subject. He made some years ago a great point in Questions to the Foreign Office about what he described as the monstrous and wicked case of the Spanish anarchists, referring to about twenty-eight people who came to this country in July, 1897, who were alleged to

1075
be anarchists to whom this country was giving shelter and protection. The hon. Member would have had them handed over to the Spanish Government to be hanged outside the lines at Gibraltar. We were not, however, satisfied with the character given to those men at that time, but had such men attempted to land in our country under the provisions of this Bill they would have undoubtedly been excluded and put on board ship, landed at some foreign port, extradited and hanged. It was a good job that we were not satisfied with the account given of their characters, because it was afterwards admitted by the Spanish Government that these men had been improperly charged as anarchists and that they had been tortured in defiance of the law. Two of them were actually paid their fares back by the Spanish Government, with apologies for having teen treated as they were. I am afraid that in this country, though not in this House, there has been an agitation kindled and fanned in the way I have described and that an anti-Jewish feeling has been aroused, it is impossible to close our; eyes to that fact. Those who read the newspapers which support this Bill cannot help seeing what the tone is. The faults which are set down to the Jews are caused by persecution in the past—the historical growth of the persecution of that race. The principle of the right of asylum, strong as it is, in the case of Jews ought to appeal with double strength to every one holding Christian principles, as a proper exchange for the hateful and shameful system of un-Christian persecution. And before you change these principles, of which the country is proud, in this matter an overwhelming case ought to be made out. I have examined the figures, numbers, and proportion alleged by the hon. and gallant Member, and I ask the House to say whether any overwhelming necessity has been established for this Bill.
MR. TKEVBLYAN: I beg to second the Motion which has been moved by the right hon. Baronet. I am aware that my task is not an easy one in view of the anti-Jewish feeling which exists in some parts of the country, but I hope that this House may be made to feel that a
1076
good deal of outside public opinion has placed far too high an estimate upon the social and economic effects of alien immigration at the present time. This Bill appears to have many of the characteristics of panic legislation. In many directions the evils complained of have been exaggerated. This measure has adopted in some cases remedies which I think I shall be able to show will be totally ineffective, and above all it ignores much greater evils which may result from the Bill. My right hon. friend has dealt so fully with the question of the number of aliens at present coming into this country that I shall not say anything on that point except that I think it is very unfortunate indeed that the Home Secretary, speaking with more authority than anyone else, when the measure was first introduced should have used figures which it is so utterly impossible to substantiate as those which the right hon. Gentleman put forward during the First Reading. He said that we had to reckon 81,000 aliens as having come to this country to stay in 1901, and 82,000 in 1902; and in another part of his speech the right hon. Gentleman told the House that the total increase of immigration of aliens from 1891 to 1901 was 68,000 less than what he alleged to be the total in either of the two years he had alluded to. It may be pardonable in a working man, after seeing a few streets filling up with aliens and whose purview is limited to the East End boroughs, to believe that the state of things he sees is happening all over the country, but it is unpardonable in those who are acquainted with the statistics which any of the Government Departments can supply. The Report, upon which the whole of this Bill is supposed to be based, gives the only figures that you can really take, and they are census figures. In judging of the number of aliens who come into this country according to those figures in the last few years there were only something like 7,500 aliens added to the population in the course of each year. Then there is another popular superstition about, the aliens, and that is that they are liable to introduce a large number of diseases into this country. If we read the papers which influence public opinion outside we read such phrases as

1077
"The small-pox epidemic was attributed to the scum washed on to our shores from dirty water coming from foreign drain pipes." Just to explode that illusion I will read the conclusions of the Report upon which this legislation is said to be based. The Report calls attention to the opinion of Dr. Williams, who is the medical officer of the Corporation of the City of London. He says—
"As to the health of the alien immigrant I should say it was fairly good. The number of cases of infection introduced that I have detected amongst these people has not been numerous, speaking as a whole. I cannot say that much infectious disease has come into the country among these people."
This view is borne out by the report of the Poor Jews' Shelter, through which a very large number of foreign aliens pass. The officials at that shelter say that "During six years only one case of sickness has occurred amongst the thousands who have passed through the shelter." It is practically certain that disease is not a serious question of which the country need be afraid.
There is rather more of a case to be made out for a slight rise in the criminal statistics of this country owing to the number of aliens who come in. There is a larger proportion of the actual population of aliens who are convicted in the course of the year than the proportion of the general public. But it is pointed out in the Report that whereas the American alien is only 10 per cent, of the whole of the aliens, the American aliens convicted of criminal offences amount to 23 per cent., that is, most crime among aliens is to be found, not among that part of the alien population which it is particularly desired to exclude. But with regard to this question of excluding criminals there really ought not to be any difference of opinion between the two sides of the House. I think it may be said that there is hardly any one on this side any more than on the other side of the House who would not be delighted to exclude the persons in some of the categories in the schedule of this Bill. It is true that persons like criminals or prostitutes may be kept out by legislation, but I have shown that there are very few diseased persons to be kept out; if, however, these latter can be kept out so much the better. The experi-
1078
ence of America, whatever else it proves, proves that this legislation is perfectly useless to keep out criminals and prostitutes. Statistics of the last three years in America show that in these two categories only twenty in the one class and seven in the other were excluded. The present Commissioner of Police, Mr. Henry, who gave evidence, with which Sir Edward Bradford concurred, said that he regarded it as impracticable to keep out criminals. Neither of these gentlemen could think of any way in which it could be done. I think most of us would agree with one of the clauses of the Bill with regard to criminals, and that is, that an addition to the sentence should be made if the alien is actually convicted in England. I cannot see any objection to that, and I think that would probably have the support of the House.
These questions to which I have alluded seem to me to be rather questions of minor importance. There are two great charges in the popular mind against aliens, which are, first of all, that they cause overcrowding, and, secondly, that they come in with low-class and low-priced labour in order to compete disastrously with English workmen. With regard to the question of overcrowding, my right hon. friend hardly spoke. What is the total of overcrowding in this country? I am not going into statistics, because the House for the last four years has been having theoretical debates on the question of overcrowding, and they have been given over and over again. In every one of our great industrial centres overcrowding is a terrible evil, but it is almost universal, and exists in English towns just as much as in those in which there is an alien population, There were figures given, I think, before the Commission in regard to London itself by the Assistant Medical Officer of Health of the London County Council. These showed that the worst overcrowding was not in the Jewish districts but in some parts of Lambeth, St. Pancras, and Kensington. But at any rate overcrowding is certainly as great in many parts of London and other towns where there is no alien question at all. What real difference in this great question can the addition of 7,000 foreigners a year make? Take London. According to the Commission Report the increase per

1079
year in London of the alien population is 3,800. The increase of the population of London per year is 90,000 or more. It is a mere drop in the bucket. It is inappreciable in dealing with the gigantic problem of overcrowding. Overcrowding cannot be dealt with by peddling exclusions such as are proposed in this Bill. It is an organic evil and the organic evil is the want of cheap and quickly built houses, and the want of building land. Nothing can be more futile than to try to shift on to the shoulders of these miserable foreigners the evils which really come to us owing to our system of taxation of houses and the difficulty of dealing with the question of land in this country.
Then I come to the charge that low-priced alien labour displaces the native worker, and here again it seems to me that alien low-class labour is a symptom and not a cause. Here again there has been a great deal of exaggeration. The Home Secretary in introducing the Bill told the House casually, though he did not dilate upon it, that a large amount of labour is displaced. My right hon. friend who moved the Amendment quoted some clauses of the Report, but he rather minimised, I think, the effect of one of the decisions of the Commission in paragraph 131. They said in regard to the question of displacement—
"On the whole we arrive at the conclusion that it has not been proved that there is any serious direct displacement of skilled English labour."
they go on to say—
"Leaving the skilled market out of the question, we think it proved that the industrial conditions under which a large number of aliens work in London fell below the standard which ought to be maintained."
They did not say any more than the Lords Committee in 1890 said. They did not say that there was any serious displacement of labour. The Lords Commit tee in 1890 said practically the same thing. Nowhere, I repeat, is it alleged that the Englishman is driven out of the market. On the other hand, the Reports of the Board of Trade inspectors declare that trades have actually been created. Export trades in mantles, boots, and shoes, have either been created or, at any rate, largely stimulated by the appearance of those foreigners in our midst. The point
1080
of the accusation against them is that they work under sweated conditions. Aliens coming into this country find a system of unregulated industry in existence. They find that they can work under filthy surroundings, that they can work for wretchedly low wages and in many cases no wages at all, and that they can work as long as they or their immediate masters please. That is an evil which exists, and many Englishmen do the same. Some thrive by it and rise out of the condition; others stick there; others sweat it out and die there. I do not see the point of making these unfortunate aliens the scapegoat for our own neglect in this matter. We ought to be thankful to them for turning the search-light of public reprobation on a system under which our own people suffer in common with them. This is not the place to discuss what legislation can be applied to the sweating industries of this country. Some of us believe in more stringent legislation than others, but at any rate I think we might all go far in the direction of bringing the sweated industries more directly under the active and effective control of factory inspectors. That is the least we can do. But it is really time that we did begin to consider what our colonists have been able to do in dealing with sweated industries before we go to new legislation such as this, with the faint-hearted idea that by excluding a few aliens we shall be able to make a difference in dealing with this problem. In the Colonies they dealt with sweating and completely wiped it out in many of the great cities of New Zealand and Australia.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: They do not allow aliens to come in.
MR. TREVELYAN: Well, they do not try to go there in large numbers. I believe that a great part of this agitation is directed against one particular set of aliens, namely, the Jews, and I believe that this agitation is directed by those who are really forcing public opinion against those who cannot be called destitute as well as against those who are mean and poverty-stricken. All the evidence brought forward goes to prove that the great mass of these aliens do in the long

1081
run become good enough citizens, that they are fairly sober and industrious, that they have their vices, that they are gamblers, perhaps more than the average Englishman. Certainly they drink less than Englishmen. The evidence goes to prove that they love education, and that their children are active and clever in the schools. In that admirable report by the hon. Member for Stepney on the countries from which these unfortunate people come he has pointed out that in Russia one of the reasons which cause the emigration of the Jewish population is that they can not get good education under the Russian system for their children. No doubt they are people who are very often dirty, but it is rather difficult to establish the proportion of national filth amongst the poor of different nations. The authorities differ. Canon Barnett says that the only difference really to be found among the very poor and impoverished aliens and the English is that the English native sweeps the dirt under the bed and that the alien throws it out of the window. I remember reading in Robert Louis Stevenson's account of Edinburgh that in the old days the wayfarer in the neighbourhood of Canon-gate would be constantly warned to avoid the slops and dirt thrown out upon the streets from the upper windows. I think we may hope that as the conditions of life of those people improve they will be just as susceptible to improvement as ever the Scotch were or as ever the English were. The most that this Bill can effect is the exclusion of a few hundred people. Those people are largely, as is almost universally admitted, refugees from persecution, either direct or indirect. In Russia it is to a great extent very direct indeed. There have been massacres within the last few months. There are laws which have driven the population from the country districts into the towns, so that their miserable condition there is due very largely directly to the legislation of the Government under which they live. In Roumania for years they have been living in a condition of constant and deliberate persecution. The hon. Member for Stepney speaks of the malignant policy against the Jews. I think we ought to have a far deeper necessity if we are going just at this time to enter into legislation which may exclude the
1082
Hebrew from asylum here. I have no particular belief in Providential return for national calamity or personal welldoing, but I cannot help thinking that at this very time while Eastern Europe is in some cases hounding to death and in many cases to exile these people, that we should keep open the shelter which only a small portion of them are glad to take. We shall not as a nation be the losers by it. We cannot doubt that those who in future have the teaching of the Jewish population will inculcate patriotism to this country, where for a half a century they have found complete civic freedom as they have not been able to do in most parts of the world. At this juncture I most of all dread what may happen if we enter upon this policy of exclusion. Among many people already—not many in this House, but many people outside of it—there is a frankly anti-Semitic movement, and I deplore it. I believe this is an evil step in the same direction as the Governments of Russia and Roumania have been going. It may be that it is not intended, but the action of many Members of this House has been calculated to excite the feeling which we know to exist in part of our population, and with the case of the persecution of Dreyfus reverberating through the West of Europe there is no use saying that there is no danger of this kind in our own country. I think it is a fortunate thing that we have been peculiarly free from any anti-Semitic movement in England, and we have not lost by it. We have had statesmen, manufacturers, merchants, and the like who themselves, or their predecessors, came to this country as aliens exactly as do those people you now wish to exclude. It seems to me a useless and short-sighted, and at this moment very largely an inhuman policy, to keep out those who may after all be like those of whom I have just spoken.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out all the words after the word 'That' in order to add the words this House, holding that the evils of low-priced alien labour can best be met by legislation to prevent sweating, desires to assure itself be fore assenting to the Aliens Bill that sufficient regard is had in the proposed measure to the retention of the principle of asylum for the victims of persecution.'"—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MAJOR EVANS GORDON: The Amendment which has been moved by the right hon. Baronet and by the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire has undergone considerable changes since it was first put down on the Paper. The originalintention, apparently, was to move a direct negative to the Second Reading of the Bill; but wiser counsels have perhaps prevailed. In the course of these more neutral proposals laid before us, the right hon. Baronet has done me the honour to refer to a letter which appeared in The Times this morning above my signature. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman should say—as he did say—that I would not give two pence for this Bill if it did not include the destitute amongst those with whom the measure now before the House is calculated to deal. I said, and I adhere to the statement, that I think a very important part of this question is its economic side, and that the destitute who come here do play an important part in rendering legislation necessary, for reasons which I will endeavour to describe. The Amendment on the Paper raises two questions: the prevention of sweating and the retention of the principle of asylum for the victims of persecution in foreign countries. I have never minimised the bad treatment of the Jews in Russia and Roumania, and I have no desire to see our doors closed to the genuine victims of persecution in those countries, provided the movement is carried on under proper and reasonable regulations, without inflicting detriment and hardship on our own people. I desire as ardently as anyone in this House to see an amelioration in the condition of the Jews in Eastern Europe, but I cannot countenance the transfer of their burdens to the shoulders of the poorest and most helpless of our own population.
I think, however, that the House should have some clear idea of what is meant when the word "persecution" is used and that we should realise bow far the principle of free asylum is likely to lead us. From an English standpoint everyone outside the official class in Russia is in a sense "persecuted."
1084
The law is harsh, stern, and uncertain in its operation; the lives and liberties of the people are almost absolutely in the hands of those who administer it. In any case it is not the Jews alone who are badly treated. The Roman Catholics throughout the Empire have almost if not quite as much to complain of, and the operations of the Russian Government in Finland, and among the Stundists and other sects will be fresh in hon. Members' minds. With regard to the Jews a good deal of misapprehension exists. The right hon. Gentleman's generalisations would lead anyone unacquainted with the facts to suppose that the whole of the five or six million Jews in Russia were the victims of persecution. This is by no means the case. A large number of them are prosperous merchants, bankers, and tradesmen; a still larger number make a good living as shopkeepers and artisans. With some exceptions they are compelled to live within the fifteen western provinces commonly known as the "Jewish Pale" and in the ten Governments of Poland. But this is a country 1,000 miles long by 1,000 miles broad, containing more than 356.000 square miles of land, and a population of 43,000,000 souls, of whom some 5,000,000 are Jews. In itself this would be no great hardship. There is room and employment to spare for the whole Hebrew population if they were free to inhabit any part of this vast territory. But this is not so. By the May laws of 1882, all Jews who could not prove their right to live in the country and whose names did not appear upon the village registers were compelled to move into the towns. These towns, with few exceptions, are in no sense industrial centres where employment can be found for large numbers of people. This produced an artificial congestion and is probably the cause of the westward flow of emigration from Russia which has since been going on. The stream is by no means all pure water; sometimes it contains deleterious and objectionable matter. The question before us is whether it should be filtered or not. With regard to the May laws, it is a remarkable fact that even where no restrictions as to residence exist, as in Poland and Austria, for instance, there is an inherent tendency among the Jews to herd together in the towns. As

1085
Sir Samuel Montagu told the Royal Commission, when the walls of the Ghetto in Rome were thrown down, the people refused to avail themselves of their freedom. The same thing is manifest in New York, in London, and in other industrial centres to-day. It is this characteristic which differentiates this class of immigration from any other form of migration in the world, and which presents the most difficult feature in the problem before us. The right hon. Baronet quoted certain figures which are quite illusory.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: Why did the Royal Commission give them if they were useless?
MAJOR EVANS GORDON: What I object to is the inference which the right hon. Baronet draws from them. You must take into consideration that in France not 50 per cent, of the aliens are wage-earners; and there is nothing to compare in France or in any other country outside America, to the concentration of the immigration of aliens in certain areas of the East End of London. Although the May laws of 1882 press hardly on masses of the Russian Jews, they are not regarded as an unmixed evil by those unaffected by them. In the villages of the "Pale," nearly all the craftsmen are Jews, and the tailors, the shoemakers, the blacksmiths, who have been left in possession would not welcome an influx of their co-religionists which would expose them to serious competition. I do not desire to weary the House with a lecture on Russian methods of government. I have embodied the results of my personal investigations in a Report which is included in the evidence of the Royal Commission. Apart from deplorable outbreaks of violence, such as have recently occurred at Kischineff, which the authorities took no immediate or adequate steps to prevent, what we somewhat loosely call persecution here is a whole system of government in Russia, under which the entire population, and especially the Jews and other non-orthodox sects, suffer. I think it is a very large order, a very serious step to say that anyone who chooses to say that he is persecuted in his own
1086
country, should, irrespective of all other conditions, be allowed to come into this country, free from all other inquiry. We must remember that Russian methods are not our methods and that however much we may reprobate them, our first duty is to our own people. We have to safeguard them against becoming the indirect victims of the misgovernment of foreign countries.
In dealing with this question of the treatment of the Jews it is impossible to ignore the action of the Jewish authorities themselves. For years past they have found it necessary to repatriate large numbers of people, who, to quote the words of the Chairman of the Jewish Board of Guardians, ought never to to have come here. It is hard to believe, if the conditions were as bad in Russia and as good in England as is sometimes alleged, that such a course would be adopted. Why do these people come? They come because the elaborate machinery at Hamburg and elsewhere, which has been set up to meet the requirements of the American laws, is not put into operation in our favour. In 1899, 609 cases were repatriated. In 1900, an exceptional year, 1825 cases, and in 1903, 339 cases were sent back to their homes out of a total of 466 new arrivals who applied to the Jewish Board of Guardians for assistance. That is 78 per cent. The total number of repatriated cases in 1903 was 1151. These repatriated persons are not all new arrivals, many of them have been here for some years. What have they been doing during that time? They have been swelling the ranks of the unemployed, the sweated, and the overcrowded. They have been drawing upon charitable resources, and helping to drag down those who but for their presence might have prospered. I should explain that each "case" is estimated to average three souls, so that the number of people annually sent back to their country for one cause and another is considerable. The waste of money, the sorrow and disappointment caused by this useless travelling is deplorable to think of. The Bill before the House will put some check upon it, because by setting up a standard of health, character, and efficiency for those we accept, we shall

1087
deter those who do not reach that standard from coming, and shipping companies from bringing them.
It is sometimes asserted, I think I have heard something of the kind during this debate, that the undesirable among the immigrants are so few as to make no difference, that the industrial field in England is unlimited and that there is room for all who have come or who may come in future. On the other hand, we have evidence of the constant endeavours made by the Jewish authorities, not only to send these people back to their homes, but to emigrate them to America and South Africa, and by means of notices distributed abroad to prevent them leaving their native country. How in face of these facts can it be asserted that the influx from Eastern Europe is wholly desirable or industrially advantageous? Now, Sir, presumably the right of asylum for Hebrew immigrants is safe in the hands of the Jewish Hoard of Guardians, and I would ask the House what reasonable objection can there be to the proposed action of the State in doing in its own interests what the leaders of the Jewish community do to protect their co-religionists who have settled in this country. I may be met with the question, "Why, when so much is done by the Jewish authorities to relieve the pressure, is legislation necessary?" Sir, the answer is that the Board of Guardiaus and Russo-Jewish Committee only deal with such cases as apply to them and who consent to return when urged and advised to do so. Within my knowledge the least desirable among this class of immigrants absolutely refuse to return, even at the expense of other people. And here let me point out that the difficulty in securing the re-admission of these people into Russia, which is supposed to exist, is imaginary. The Russian Consul, when giving evidence recently in the Lord Mayor's Court, said that he had in a few months distributed 800 passports at the instance of the Jewish Board of Guardians for repatriation purposes. Moreover, these charitable bodies deal with people of their own faith only, and the most undesirable elements of all in our foreign population are not Jews. There are quarters in London infested and infected by the riff-raff and scum of all nations.
1088
I need not name their professions. A deputation which waited on the Home Secretary not along ago had something to say on this subject, and I sincerely trust that this Bill may be effective in ridding our streets of those elements which now render them a disgrace and reproach.
The right hon. Gentleman, and those who think with him, seem to be of opinion that this country should be an asylum for all who are dissatisfied with the laws of their own land—that the word "persecution" should be the Open Sesame irrespective of all other considerations —that it is a cloak which covers a multitude of sins—and that the comfort and the moral and economic welfare of our own people are quite subordinate matters. Where does the right hon. Gentleman draw the line? Does he draw it anywhere? Does he deny to us the well-known principle of international law that a nation has a right to exclude foreigners? Why should we not exclude foreigners who are diseased or of bad character, or hopelessly destitute? Or does he carry the doctrine of free asylum for the victims of persecution abroad to the absurd length of including foreigners who are manifestly objectionable? And is it fair or wise to permit the continuance of a movement which bears so hardly upon our own poor in many districts because there may at some uncertain date arise another disturbance like the Commune in France, when even then the permissive character of the Bill would safeguard political refugees. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman, safe in the sylvan seclusion of the Forest of Dean, to philosophise on the traditions of England and extol the beauties of free and unrestricted asylum to all and sundry. What part of the burden which this asylum imposes has he borne? Has he seen his friends and constituents driven from their homes and deprived of their work? Will he undertake to house 10,000, 20,000, or 30,000 foreigners in the homes of his constituents and seek to pacify them with speeches about the open door? Sir, the open door is a very fine thing so long as it is someone else's. Why are the sympathies of the hon. Gentlemen opposite reserved for the aliens? Are they aware of the conditions among our

1089
own people in the East End of London and in many other parts of the country due to this unrestricted influx? They demanded a referendum on the question of imported cheap labour in South Africa, where it is urgently required, where the employment of our own people is strictly safeguarded, and where not a single white man will be displaced either from his work or from his home. Will they take the verdict of a referendum upon the question of the foreign invasion of the East End? If not, why not? Why are they so anxious to exclude cheap alien labour from a land where it competes with no white man's work when they see no harm in the introduction of alien labour into the Lanarkshire mines or the Beckton Gas works where it competes with native workmen in the most direct and effective manner? Sir, there is ample evidence in the Report of the Royal Commission as to the evils arising from the unrestricted inflow. They are by no means confined to the East End of London. Complaints are made in many parts of the country and are increasing in number and in force. But it is upon the East End that the burden presses most heavily. There signs are not wanting that the oppressed of foreign countries are becoming the oppressors here.
The right hon. Baronet in his speech on the introduction of this Bill told the House that the whole agitation was directed against 20,000 tailors, 3,500 cabinetmakers, and 3,000 shoemakers. If this were so we may be certain that the recommendation of the Royal Commission would never have been made. But it is not so. I should like to draw the attention of the right hon. Baronet and of this House to the fact that recently the Alien Immigration Committee of the Jewish Board of Guardians estimated the number of foreign workers in this country at 200,000. The question of numbers is a difficult one to decide. The Board of Trade figures make no pretence to accuracy and have given rue to some exaggeration. But neither the advocates for restriction nor its opponents can draw any valid conclusion from them. The census comes nearer the truth, but even the census does not give an exact picture of the facts. It shows that in 1901 there were
1090
54,000 foreigners in the Borough of Stepney alone; but this figure, large as it is, does not include the children of foreign parents born in this country. They are technically English. Sir, I do not desire to enter into any argument on this point beyond saying that had I been born in Germany, I should not have become a German. When, however, we are considering the effects of immigration, we must take into account the total increase in population to which immigration has given rise. If a couple go into a house to-day and in five yen's time have four children, a census of the house should show six persons and not two. A sample census was taken by the Registrar-General, which showed that an increase of 50 per cent. would have to be allowed if these children were included. Therefore it is safe to say that the real number of people of foreign extraction in Stepney in 1901 was nearer 80,000 than 50,000. Sir, what does this mean? It is impossible that a movement of this magnitude should have gone forward without an immense displacement of the native population. Mr. Harper, Statistical Officer of the London County Council, estimates that more than 52,000 native persons left Stepney in the ten years 1891 to 1901. Concurrently, according to the Chief Superintendent of the H Division, 107 streets in Stepney alone have in six years passed wholly into foreign occupation. And it is quite an error to suppose—as is constantly asserted—that the native inhabitants have been elbowed out by the pressure of commercial and industrial buildings. A prominent Jewish member of the Stepney Borough Council pointed out to the Royal Commission that, owing to the erection of large blocks of dwellings, the loss of house accommodation due to the erection of business premises has been more than counterbalanced. I have not time to dwell upon the hardship and suffering which this wholesale eviction has occasioned, or the bitterness of feeling which it has engendered, but I can assure the House, after long and close personal observation, that they are as real as they are under the circumstances natural. I am, therefore, quite at a loss to understand what the right hon. Baronet means when he says that the agitation is directed against a few

1091
thousand tailors and shoemakers. Clause 4 of this Bill will, I hope and believe, do much to put an end to an intolerable state of things disastrous to native and alien alike.
Sir, I have detained the House too long already, or I would deal more fully with the many other evils of which the concentration and incidence of immigration in certain localities have been the cause. These are the questions of overcrowding, of high rents, of low wages, of sweating and cheap production purchased at a ruinous cost in bad conditions, and there is the question of the local tradesmen who have, in many instances, been ruined, and in all much reduced in circumstances. Upon all these subjects much might be said. Of course, in a Bill of this nature much must depend upon the nature of the regulations which are made under it, and the manner in which they are administered. With sound regulations and wise and careful administration I believe the measure will do much to mitigate and remove some of the evils to which I have re1erred. For my part, and on behalf of my constituents, I thank the Government for introducing it, and I hope it will have the cordial support of the great majority of this House. I do not think that the doubts and fears expressed by the right hon. Baronet and the seconder of this Amendment have any foundation in fact. Nor do I believe that in the hands of the present or any future Home Secretary the enforcement of the provisions of this Act is in the least likely to err on the side of harshness or severity.
MR. HAYES FISHERsaid that every one of those who supported this Bill were in full sympathy with the historical aspect of the admission of the foreigner into England, and they agreed with the Report of the Royal Commission, which in one paragraph said: "We owe much to the foreigners, who have enabled us to become the manufacturers of the world." Neither were those who supported this Bill oblivious to the pathetic side of the case, which told them that England in all ages had been an asylum for those who had been driven from their own country on account of their religious,
1092
political, or social ideals. But he did not think, after reading this Bill, that the real right of asylum was to be taken away from those who might legitimately seek it. The historical side was very interesting and very beautiful, but no hon. Member could listen to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Stepney without being convinced that for the last twenty years we had been confronted with the squalid problem of pressure of poverty upon subsistence affecting one large portion of London and, he believed, in a lesser degree many other towns throughout the country, and it was not to be expected that Englishmen who had suffered, as those in the constituency of the hon. and gallant Member for Stepney had suffered, should regard the foreigner with that favourable eye with which Englishmen formerly viewed him. They saw the foreigner coming here and displacing them in the labour market; demanding a share of our rates, lowering the level of our social life, and increasing the numbers of our criminal population. The right hon. Baronet no doubt would dispute that part of the proposition. He even denied that the numbers were increasing. In his opinion, however, they had undoubtedly increased. It was true that the proportion the alien population bore to the other population of this country was small compared with other countries. The Committee which sat in 1889 arrived at the conclusion that, although the percentage of increase was not alarming, still there was an increase of immigration, and nobody who had studied the figures in the Report of that Committee could come to any other conclusion than that there had been a steady increase in proportion to the English population, if there was no increase why was there this agitation? Why was the question before the Royal Commision and why was the Bill before the House. The right hon. Baronet had said the proportion here was not so great as in other countries, but even-foreign country, so far as he was aware and certainly our self-governing colonies, whatever the proportions might be, had taken means to regulate the immigration of foreign paupers.
This was not a "must and shall" Bill: it was a Bill which merely set up certain

1093
regulations under which aliens were to be admitted into this country in the future. It did not say they should be entirely prohibited: it merely said the Home Secretary should make regulations and conditions for their admission and residence. The right hon. Baronet had said that if this Bill were passed people like those who were admitted into this country in 1848 or 1871 would not be allowed to come here. He begged to differ. That matter would have to be regulated by the House of Commons, and such were the sentiments of this House that if this Bill were passed it would be very carefully watched in order to see what class of people were to be or might be, prohibited from landing on our shores. Who would be prohibited? Those who had been guilty of extraditable offences within the past five years; prostitutes and those who lived upon their earnings, a growing class unfortunately in this country. People of notoriously bad character would also be subject to regulation; to that everyone would agree. The hon. Member for Elland would not give this Bill a Second Reading, but if it was not read a second time how was it possible that any regulations should be drawn up to exclude these undesirable classes of people. He did not think there was any reason why under this Bill the right of asylum should be discontinued to all those who desired and deserved the right of asylum. He admitted this Bill might lead to the prevention of thousands of poor people being landed in this country. We had a right to consider our own people first. This was not a hard measure, and if the immigration of these people dislocated our own population he did not see why the Government should not have some power to regulate that immigration. Stepney was, after all, not Palestine, and these undesirables, might find their promised land elsewhere.
There were proposals in this Bill which might be very wisely used to prevent any great congestion, and nobody in the House when discussing this Bill in Committee would object to the clause which allowed a Court of Justice to repatriate a man who had been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanour and who had suffered a term of imprisonment. In fact, a strong opinion had been expressed by metropolitan police magistrates and judges for some power of that kind.
1094
When these points had been carefully considered in Committee, as they would have to be, he believed the House would come to the conclusion that the time had arrived when this country ought to possess, as all other nations possessed, the power of regulating the influx of aliens. The Bill was constructed on sound lines, because it would minimise the evils of which the hon. and gallant Member for Stepney and many others had so much cause, from the British point of view, to complain, and could be so revised in Committee as fully to safeguard that right of asylum which Englishmen, with their love of liberty, had always been wishful of according to all who deserved it.
MR. ASQUITH: I desire in a few sentences to explain the reasons why I shall certainly give my vote in support of the Amendment. This Bill, it must be conceded, is an entirely new departure in British legislation, for it gives to an officer of the Executive, by his own act, without any reference to a Court of law or to judicial procedure, power to prohibit admission to these shores of any person who is not a subject of the Crown, provided he comes within certain categories. This is a change in the law so drastic, so revolutionary in its character, that it behoves those who propose it to show a case of overwhelming necessity, to show that the evils to be met are not merely local or transient, and to show that there are not more satisfactory and less objectionable methods open to us for dealing with such evils as undoubtedly exist. I do not deny for a moment that there are evils, though to a great extent they are local in their scope, connected with the immigration of aliens into this country, to which I will refer in a moment, which demand consideration, and for which I will endeavour to show that very simple remedies, not at all of this revolutionary character, can be found.
There are certain remarkable features about this question. In the first place we have the Report of the Royal Commission leading to a series of recommendations the Report does not in the least justify, and then we have the Bill going far in advance of the—as I think—illogical recommendations of the Commission.

1095
I do not want to go into details or over ground already covered, but I will ask the House to consider what are the dimensions of the problem. We have at this time in the country an alien population, making the necessary correction for additions since the last census, of some 300,000 out of a total population of 42,000,000. I confess I was surprised at the small ness of the number, and still more when I found the Royal Commission Report, comparing decade by decade, gave the annual rate of increase between 1891 and 1901 as being smaller than that between 1881 and 1891. The numbers, as the right hon. Baronet has said, show that comparing our situation with that of other countries and particularly that of the United States, we have a far smaller proportion of aliens to population than any other civilised country in the world. We have considerably less than 1 per cent.; it rises to 2½ per cent, in France, to 9½ per cent, in Switzerland, and in the United States it is something like 14 per cent. If it be the evil it has been described to be, and I do not admit that to have an alien element in our population is an evil, then we are suffering from it to a much smaller extent than our commercial rivals in other parts of the world.
Then we proceed from numbers to quality—the social and industrial value of this element in our population. Pauperism has already been referred to, and here facts are significant and of more value than rhetoric; and it appears that though London is the only place where the matter assumes anything like a serious proportion—and even there it might almost be said to be confined to Stepney—only 2½ percent, are in receipt of Poor Law relief as compared with 8 percent, of the total population of the Metropolis. Then as to industrial capacity, I do not wish to use exaggerated language and I will not attempt to compare industrially the poor aliens that come from Russia, Roumelia, Poland, and the East of Europe with the Walloons who found refuge here at the time of the Reformation, and still less with the Huguenots who came from France after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. But at the same time it is an indisputable fact, which the evidence before
1096
the Royal Commission attests, that these alien communities, settling for the most part in the East End of London and to some extent in industrial centres like Leeds and Manchester, have introduced or revived at least three considerable trades —cabinetmaking, shoemaking, and tailoring—and in these have added to the export trade of the country, the increase in the tailoring trade alone between 1888 and 1902 being from £4,700,000 to £6,300,000. As the Royal Commissioners point out, by origination or development of trade, aliens have increased the export of British-made goods and have added to the demand for raw material. In paragraph 144 of their Report the Commissioners state that the evidence went to show that these aliens were sober and thrifty, and of the children a Stepney teacher of large experience among them said they were particularly punctual and regular in school attendance, the percentage of attendance being as high as from 90 to 95, and showed a ready response to the call for expressions of sympathy with the sick and afflicted. This is impartial evidence as to the value of the element this immigration introduces into our population.
It is suggested that these immigrants belong in greater measure than the persons of the corresponding social class in this country to the criminal classes. I will make this concession to the supporters of this legislation—that the evidence does show a larger percentage of crime among them as compared with the native-born population. But percentages in a matter of this kind are dangerous, and I think, if they were analysed, it would be found that the great bulk of the offences of which aliens are convicted are not of a serious character and are offences punished with relatively short terms of imprisonment. Under these circumstances, what case has been made out for legislation, above all for the kind of legislation proposed in the Bill?
Before I sit down I will indicate one or two changes which I think might with advantage be made. The Bill contains three provisions of an especially drastic; character—it gives power of refusal of admission and of expulsion to the Home

1097
Secretary, and it gives power to the Local Government Board to prescribe particular areas of alleged congestion or over-population, and to prevent immigrants from making their homes there. I confess, when I look at the schedule of the Bill and find power given to Executive officers, without any safeguards of judicial procedure or observance of the laws of evidence, to prohibit admission of an immigrant on the ground that he is likely to become a charge upon public funds or has no visible means of supporting himself or that he is of notoriously bad character, I am aghast at the administrative problem presented. I should have been prepared on this matter to take the opinion of those most conversant with our police and criminal administration. Take the case of "notoriously bad character." What does it mean? Notoriously to whom or where? How-are you going to tell that a person is of notoriously bad character unless you accept the testimony of the police in the country from which, in all probability, he has been expelled for religious or political reasons? Very much the same may be said of the other categories. How do you know what means of living a man has; how can you judge of the proba-ability of his requiring relief from the rates? I will undertake to say that many of the Walloons, Huguenots, and others who in days gone by established themselves here and contributed a most valuable ingredient to the industrial development of the country would have come under these categories. If this power had then existed they might have been excluded, not only to their own detriment, but to the infinite injury of the country which gave them hospitality. Look at the evidence before the Committee. Look at the testimony which is to be found in the dissentient Report—the only Report which seems to me to be founded upon the evidence—of Sir Kenelm Digby. First of all there is Sir Edward Bradford, who for ten years was at the head of the Metropolitan Police, and who in that capacity exhibited tact, judgment, and administrative efficiency, which it is impossible to eulogise too highly. He tells you that any provision of this kind is absolutely unworkable;
1098
and in that opinion he has the concur rence of the present Commissioner of Police, Mr. Henry. Further support is given to that view by Sir Albert de Rut-zen, the chief magistrate of the Metropolis, and one whose experience is wider and longer than that of any other magistrate upon the Bench. It would be almost presumptuous to add any testimony of mine, but I do say that having myself in days gone by been responsible for these matters in London, I do not hesitate to say that I absolutely concur in the judgment of these experienced administrators. In my opinion it is impossible to carry out the scheme of this Bill and determine satisfactorily whether an intending immigrant belongs to one or other of these different categories.
I will dismiss in passing the proposal to schedule particular areas and exclude the alien from them, making them a preserve for British-born subjects. A more childish proposal, speaking with all respect of the authors of the Bill, his never been submitted to this House, and I will not waste words upon it. I may be asked, "Are you content to leave things entirely as they are?" I am not. But there is only one provision of the Bill to which I can give the faintest countenance. I would empower Courts of law before whom aliens are criminally convicted of serious offences to add expulsion to the sentence. I see nothing either administratively difficult, politically unjust, or from any point of view contrary to public policy in a provision of that kind. When a person abuses the hospitality which this country has offered by violating our laws I see no reason why we should burden ourselves longer with his presence. As regards overcrowding, it appears mainly to exist in the borough of Stepney, though it is also to be found in one or two other districts. There, again, the proper remedy is to be found in a slight amendment or a more vigorous enforcement of the existing law. If you were to bring these block-houses and tenement-houses under the by-laws of the local authorities, there is no reason why you should not deal with this question of overcrowding in a perfectly adequate and

1099
satisfactory way. As regards the other serious point, to which I attach the greatest importance, if it is proved that in some of these industries work is being done under insanitary conditions by methods which are compendiously described by the term sweating, the proper remedy is to be found possibly in an amendment, certainly in a more vigilant administration, of the Factory and Workshops Acts. I do not believe that, under the ample powers now vested in the Home Secretary, any of these evils connected with sweating and unregulated trades could not with an adequate inspectorial staff be properly dealt with. At any rate I am satisfied that there is no adequate reason for establishing an invidious, and, as I believe, perfectly unworkable system of inquisition for aliens arriving on our shores, setting at defiance one of the noblest and one of the most beneficent traditions of British policy.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has put the case from the point of view of those who are opposed to any legislation such as that which is before us with his usual eloquence and straightforwardness. But I venture to say, after listening to his speech, his recommendation comes to this—that in addition to a slight amendment of the criminal law the only change advocated is the change in the Public Health Laws which would enable the local authorities to deal by inspection with the tenement holders. I doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman is right in his assumption, and I have observed, as I daresay other Members have observed, how much more easy reform always seems to those who are not in office than to those who are in office, and are responsible for it. What is the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman? It is that we should make a very small amendment in the Public Health Laws, which I hope to have the opportunity of doing in a Bill which I propose to introduce this session. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that if local authorities have the power to make these by-laws and to subject the tenement or block-house to the same
1100
conditions of inspection which other classes of property are subject to, we shall deal with a great deal of the difficulty. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has had time in the many calls on him in his distinguished career, to look closely into these minor questions of local government. Let me tell him at once that he will find, if he goes closer into the problem, that the local authorities will join issue with him and with absolute justice tell him that the question of overcrowding of certain parts of the country by a particular class of resident is a general and not a particular question; a national and not a local one. On what grounds are you going to charge the local body at Stepney, or some other small area of London, with the extremely difficult, invidious, and in many cases very unpopular duty of dealing with these overcrowded areas—overcrowded by a particular class who are willing to submit to conditions of daily life which the ordinary native population will not tolerate. If it be right that they should come in and without any check being placed upon their arrival in this country, that is part of your national law, and the local authorities would say, "You have no right to cast upon us a duty which is in itself so difficult and so unpopular." The right hon. Gentleman concluded his speech by saying—and others have spoken in the same vein—that we are going to shut the door of this country, which has for generations and centuries been open to the down-trodden people of other countries, who have come here and found a home, and, as other speakers have reminded us, have left their mark on the industries and well-being of the country. I do not believe that anybody ran find in this Bill as it stands anything which is likely to lead to such disastrous results as these, and I venture to say that if it can be clearly shown that the Bill as drawn would be likely to have such results in the hands of a tyrannical Minister, such Amendment would have the approval and support of the Government. We do not want to check by any measure of this kind the legitimate and reasonable importation into this country of people who are in good health, who are of good character, and who desire to take their part in the industry of the country.

1101
The right hon. Gentleman said he stands aghast at a proposal which is quite new to our laws. It is quite true that as far as our laws are concerned it is new; but it is not new to other countries or to the majority of our colonies; and I confess that if he stands aghast at legislation of the kind now before the House, I stand aghast when I hear a distinguished member of the Party of progress and reform seek to bring discredit on the Unionist Government because we have taken a new departure and are making a proposal for which there is no precedent in our own laws. It is a novel kind of argument. Other countries have this legislation and apparently they have found no great difficulty in giving it effect. The right hon. Gentleman when he had got over his surprise and horror at the boldness of the Unionist Government in making a sudden departure of this kind, went on to ask how we were going to give effect to the conditions in the schedule, and how we were to find out the people who came under the description of the schedule. Really, does the right hon. Gentleman, who has himself been at the Home Office, believe it is impossible for the Secretary of State, in conjunction with his officers, to draw up regulations which will prevent conditions of this kind being improperly and unjustly administered? I wonder how many Members of this House have taken the trouble to go down to one of our ports where these men arrive and watch them as they disembark. I venture to say any man of reasonable experience in the work of inspecting this particular class of immigrant will have very little difficulty indeed in putting into force the special conditions under the regulations of the Home Office.
If you say the Bill is too drastic, if you say you must not run the risk, by carrying a measure of this kind, of shutting the door of this country to the foreigner who comes here with the intention and desire to become a good citizen, and if you say you cannot enforce this Bill what is the alternative? The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean said that we had no business to propose legislation of this drastic nature unless an overwhelming case were made out?
1102
What is the overwhelming case? The Member for East Fife told us that undesirable or pauper aliens are only to be found in London. I can assure him that he is mistaken. I assure him that this state of things is by no means confined to London or to any part of London. If the right hon. Gentleman will go to some of our seaports where this class of immigrants come in, he will find feeling and indignation quite as great as in Stepney, or in these parts of East London which are specially affected. I ask the House, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite, is Parliament to do nothing because this question has not yet assumed sufficiently great dimensions? I am surprised at such a suggestion, because if it means anything it means that we are to wait until the condition of things already to be found in a great many of our large towns, and in a considerable part of the Metropolis, is no longer confined to those limited districts but has a much wider area and affects a much larger number of the people, and if we wore to take his advice and postpone our legislation until this evil was to be found in a much larger number of places, legislation of this kind would be perfectly useless, and the condition of things would be such that the feeling of the people of this country would lead us to close the door altogether to people coming from other countries, and practical legislation would cease to be possible. There is already a strong enough feeling in the poorer parts of London. Let hon. Gentlemen do the kind of work which it is my lot to do in my Department.
We have all heard Gentlemen on both sides of the House make eloquent and often pathetic speeches upon the housing question. We have been told what a disgrace it is to this country that at this time in our history it should be difficult for working men to get decent houses, and there is a great deal to be said in support of that view. But if it is a disgrace to this country that the working classes should find it difficult to get decent houses at decent rents because the increase in the population has been so rapid and because the difficulty of providing them has been so great, is it not a still greater disgrace to this country that wherever there are those homes and

1103
houses, men of British origin who are ready to pay a fair rent for their houses, provided they are allowed to live in decent conditions, should be turned out of them at the shortest possible notice. By whom? By the landlords who are aliens—in order to put in occupants who are aliens. I have wondered when these stories have been told, when I found that they rest not in imagination or exaggeration but upon bare facts, at the moderation and self-control of the people who are exposed to these difficulties.
We cannot stand where we are now, and we cannot do nothing. The proposals of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Forest of Dean would not meet the case in any degree. If you are simply to add expulsion to the power of imposing sentences, which already exists, and if you are, in addition to that, to content yourselves with an amendment of the Public Health Act, you would not touch even the fringe of the question. I believe that the provisions of the Bill can be enforced. I believe that the power to be given to a single Minister is not too strong a power to be entrusted to the hands of any official without some intermediate power being given to, I presume, a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. I am quite aware that the Committee recommended that the cases should be dealt with by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. We did our best to apply that recommendation of the Committee, and we only abandoned it and substituted for it the provision in the Bill because, if the House will stop to think for a moment of the way in which this law is to be applied, they will find that if the case went before the local police magistrate, great difficulty and delay would be attendant on that course, and would cause much greater trouble and inconvenience to these people. What is wanted in their own interest is not that they should be turned out of this country without rhyme or reason when they come under none of the descriptions applied to aliens. What we want is that there should be a power to check and regulate. This is not a Bill for their total exclusion; it is not a Bill to stop aliens coming into this country, it is a Bill to check and regulate the immigration of aliens—a Bill to give
1104
power to an Executive officer to compel the removal of an alien if he comes under certain special descriptions. Outside the Metropolis there are not many of our large seaport towns into which many of these aliens come. Go to the Poor Law guardians of a great city like Liverpool or Hull. They will tell you—not now for the first time, for they have been saying it for years—that it is a monstrous injustice to saddle the rates of those towns with the cost of maintaining these people who arrive destitute and within a few hours of their arrival are obliged to take refuge in the local poorhouse. If it is right for them to come in—if you are to say that the character of your country for hospitality stands so high that you cannot afford to let it be lowered in that respect, then at all events if you are to maintain the principle for the sake of your national character, pay for it out of your national Exchequer: you have no right to maintain the character of your country as a whole at the expense of a board of guardians here or there who are specially affected by this continuing, and, in many cases, growing evil. I believe this is no Bill for the exclusion of foreigners when they are persecuted or when they merely come here because they think that there is a better opening for their industry and brains than there is in their own country. It is a Bill to give moderate powers, to be reasonably applied. If we had adopted the suggestion of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction I think the result would have been delay without any greater security for the alien.
After all, it would not be difficult for the Secretary of State to draw up the necessary regulations, and it would not be difficult for an officer acting under these regulations to ascertain what wore the character and occupation of the people on board these ships. We are asked, for instance, as to the case of a man or woman who would have no manifest means of subsistence. What happens at the present time? At the present time thousands of these people are given money enough to provide themselves with a living for the first fortnight or three weeks in this country. Surely if they arrive without any friends to whom they can apply, without a penny in their

1105
pocket, and without any means whatever of subsistence, and can only get a living by one of two ways—by underselling labour in the neighbourhood or begging in the streets—surely that is not a case in which they are coming either to benefit local industry or to do any good to the national character of the country, and surely there ought to be a check on their numbers and a power to send them back. When you deal with the worst classes there can, I take it, be little difficulty in ascertaining whether they come within that category or not. I have already dealt with the third and fourth categories. I do not know what means the Home Office and their officials have of ascertaining whether they are notoriously of bad character or not, but I fancy it would not be difficult for the officers who would have to discharge duties under the Bill, in conjunction with the police, to fairly and reasonably satisfy themselves on that point. The right hon. Gentleman, in opposing the Bill, gave an extreme case. He asked how the character of these people was to be ascertained. Was it to be ascertained from the police and the officials of the Government of the country which had driven them out? If the same persecution were going on such as we have been recently familiar with, and which we have all deplored—if there were the same persecution going on in a foreign country against some particular class of the people, of some particular faith, is it likely, for a single instant, that it would not be known long before we had to deal with the oases on our shores? Is it likely that it would not be perfectly known to the Government of the day and their officials that a particular class were being driven out from one particular country, and, that, therefore, particular care should be exercised here, having regard to the fact that they were fleeing for their lives from a country where they were being tyrannically treated? These would be special cases which would require special treatment, but in the average case I believe, having seen these men land on our shores, having seen them arrive in the ships, and having made myself as well acquainted as I could, both from the evidence given before the Royal Commission, and by interviews with men
1106
that have been personally acquainted with these cases in this country—I believe there is nothing in this Bill which would justify the extreme description given of it by Gentlemen opposite. On the other hand, we have made proposals in which the House will find a reasonable basis for the future settlement of this question. We, of course, are not foolish enough to ask that our proposals should not be subject to amendment. On the contrary, we are quite ready to consider any suggestion which would have for its object the improvement of this Bill in order that it should secure the end that we all have in view.
In asking the House to pass the Second Reading, we ask them to adopt the principle and to express the decision that the time has come when this question of alien immigration cannot be left where it is, when it must be dealt with by regulations which have to be rather Imperial than local in their character. We say that we cannot leave the local authorities to deal with it them selves. You must go beyond the local authority, and deal with it from the point of view of the Government. You must see that there are certain conditions which would make the immigration of these people impossible. We provide the means by which that should be enforced. We mean no tyranny and we should sanction no tyranny. While we are willing to offer an opportunity to the industrious, the thrifty and the well-conducted of other countries to work with our own people, and to help us in making the industries in this country prosperous, we do not care any longer to allow the unrestricted importation of those who come under the different categories of this Bill, and who, on all sides, must be admitted to be an undesirable addition to the population.
MR. NORMANsaid that in rising to support the Second Reading of the Bill from those Benches, it must be painfully evident that he was somewhat in the position of a political alien.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Come to this side of the House and then you will be all right.
MR. NORMANsaid that the case was even worse than that. He was in fact, a species of Ishmael, for he found himself unfortunately differing from almost everybody. He differed strongly from his hon. and gallant friend opposite, for example, in his allusions to the question of Chinese labour. Many of the reasons which caused him to support the Second Reading of this Bill were similar to those which induced him to oppose the introduction of Chinese labour into the Transvaal. He differed from his right hon. friend the Member for East Fife and from his hon. friend the Member for the Elland Division. Again, he differed in one respect from the Report which he himself had signed. That might seem an extraordinary thing, but it was perfectly simply explained. The House would not be surprised to learn that the differences of opinion amongst members of the Royal Commission were very sharp, and if every member had insisted either in imposing his own views on the other members or in writing a separate Report there would had been a series of personal Reports and the labour of the Royal Commission would had been thrown away. His point of difference was in the matter of the prohibited areas, for he did not see how that scheme could possibly work. He signed the recommendation for the reason which he had given, and in order that the matter might be discussed in the House. The speech of the right hon. Member for East Fife was a very strong attack, and he heard it with the respect he felt for anything that fell from his right hon. friend; but he thought that one or two of the right hon. Gentleman's arguments were hardly sound. A great deal of time was given by the members of the Commission to the consideration of the question of Poor Law relief. Why was it that so many of these aliens took a comparatively small proportion of Poor Law relief? It was because of the extraordinary Jewish charities. The Jewish charities in the East End of London were probably the most lavish, most generous, most kindly, and certainly the most highly organised in the world. Any hon. Member who would take the trouble to look at his cross-examination of one of the gentlemen
1108
closely concerned in the administration of these charities and the long list which this witness before the Royal Commission gave of these charities, would see that what he had stated was the simple fact. It was surely a little late in the day to introduce the argument about the Walloons and Huguenots. If his right hon. friend or other hon. Gentlemen who used that argument had been, as he had been, in the cities of the "Pale" in certain parts of Russia; if they had spent days, as he had done, in the purlieus of Berdicheff and other towns which sent their due quota of immigrants to the East End of London, he did not think that they would have been so ready to draw a parallel between the Walloons and the Huguenots.
In regard to the question of deciding who was an undesirable alien, he thought it was essential that that should be arranged by a Court of law. He would disapprove giving such authority to any single administrative official. It was impossible for him to support the Amendment of his right hon. friend the Member for Forest of Dean, because it was divided into two dissimiliar and unconnected parts. He should like 10 support one part, but not the other. He yielded to no man in his desire that the right of political asylum in this country should not be restricted in the slightest degree. There was no desire, he believed, on the part of any hon. Member of the House to do so. They all wished that the right of political asylum should be continued unimpaired. It had always been our glory to accord that right. But with regard to the other part of the Amendment, which said that many of the evils complained of could be dealt with by the ordinary legislation to prevent sweating, that had come before the Commission again and again. His own opinion was that that was not so. A great deal of evidence on the point had been given, and the impression left on his mind was that it was practically impossible to turn the whole excessive alien population in the streets at the same moment, and unless this were done, the process would be as a witness had said, merely putting a "legal ferret" into one burrow when the rabbits would all bolt into another. The right hon. Baronet had spoken of the value to the United States

1109
of the alien immigrants there; and in a passage of some eloquence had referred to "the strong arms and deft hands." of these immigrants having rendered great service to the American people. Ho would like to show the right hon. Baronet the other side of the picture. In the 27th Annual Report (1901) of the United Hebrew Charities, which was the representative Jewish body in the United States, and corresponded to the Jewish Board of Guardians in London, the following passage occurred—
"A condition of chronic poverty is developing in the Jewish community of New York that is appalling in its immensity. Forty-five per cent of our applicants, representing between 20,000 and 25,000 human beings, have been in the United States over five years, have been given the opportunities for economic and industrial improvement which this country affords, yet, notwithstanding all this, have not managed to reach a position of economic independence. 2,585 of the new applicants, representing 7 per cent, of the Jewish immigration to the United States during the year, found it necessary to apply at the office of the United Hebrew Charities within a short time after arrival. The statement can safely be made that during the year from 75,000 to 100,000 members of the New York Jewish community are unable to supply themselves with the immediate necessaries of life."
and then the report went on to speak of—
"The horrible congestion in which so many of our co-religionists live, the squalor and filth, the lack of air and sunlight, the absence frequently of even the most common decencies, are too well known to require repetition."
and next the report went on to refer in very striking terms to—
"The results accruing from these conditions—the vice and crime, the, irreligiou ness, lack of self-restraint, indifference to social conventions, indulgence in the most degraded and perverted appetites which are growing daily more pronounced and more offensive.
There was, he thought, a very striking contrast between these facts and the glowing eulogy of the right hon. Baronet on the, "strong arms and deft hands" of the alien immigrants to the United States. There was no reason whatever why British shipping interests should be injured, for a perfectly simple arrangement could be made for any amount of genuine transmigration properly supervised. He had come to the conclusion, alter cross-examination of witnesses before the Royal Commission, that the figures in the census returns were wholly untrustworthy, while those refer-
1110
ring to transmigration were farcical. He had tried to get in a paragraph to that effect in the Report, but his fellow-Commissioners thought it too strong. His hon. friend the Member for Elland Division said that aliens became "good enough" citizens. He knew what a good citizen was, and what a bad citizen was; but not what a "good enough" citizen was. He asked himself what sort of "good enough" citizens lived under the conditions here existing. If his hon. friend would go a couple of hundred yards from the House, take a ticket by railway to the East End of London, which would be reached in twenty-five minutes, he would find railway time tables posted up there in Hebrew characters, the bills of the places of amusement distributed in the streets printed in Hebrew, and the public entertainments given in Yiddish. If he pursued his investigation a little further, he would discover a foreign Press of the most extraordinary character in this country, of which little was known—a Press in which was advocated with great impunity all kinds of revolutionary doctrine. He could not see how "good enough citizens" could be raised in such conditions.
The right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean drew an accurate picture of what took place in regard to the Spanish anarchists; but an inaccurate picture of what would take place under this Bill. The right of asylum was rooted in the minds of the British people; and any Home Secretary, or anybody else, who set himself at defiance of that opinion would be swept out of office under all circumstances. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean made one remark which struck him as unjust and unkind. He was sure that it was not only contrary to the right hon. Gentleman's nature to make ah unjust charge, but that it was not what the right hon. Gentleman meant to say. The right hon. Gentleman stated that those who supported this Bill were anti-Jewish, anti-Semitic. That was a great mistake; and he repudiated it. To him anti-Semitism was a most deplorable and abominable prejudice, and he would, under no circumstances, take part or lot in it. He always refused on the Commission o

1111
use the word "Jew" in connection with alien immigration. It was a matter of indifference to him what were the religious views of these aliens. He judged them by their own personal character and their effect on this community; and he regretted that his right hon. friend should, in an unguarded moment, have made that charge. It should be remembered by those who opposed the Bill that a number of the most influential and enlightened members of the Jewish community were in favour of some measure of restriction. He stated that as a fact within his own personal knowledge. As an example of the mistaken views which prevailed among the opponents of the Bill, he might quote his hon. friend the Member for the Elland Division who said—
"Nobody would desire not to keep out certain classes of those aliens mentioned in the schedule."
His hon. friend was not informed on this point. Let him look at the evidence given before the Commission by the Medical Officer of the London County Council. An answer given to a question put to him was an interesting example—he said it from no want of respect to that distinguished official—of what sort of position hide-bound red-tapeism led a man to take up. He asked the witness whether he would be willing to exclude certain persons on the ground of being personally diseased, and the witness answered, "Certainly not." He next asked if any person suffering from a contagious disease such asophthalmia should be excluded, and the witness replied, "No, certainly not." He went further and asked if the witness would exclude men suffering from a loathsome contagious disease, and again the reply was, "No." Then he asked whether the exclusion should apply to persons suffering from any conceivable disease, and the reply was that it should not apply to any persons suffering from any disease that existed in this country, but only to cases of bubonic plague or similar diseases that did not exist here. That was an example of the extraordinary attitude taken up by certain opponents of restriction.
Looking at the provisions of this Bill, he honestly found it difficult
1112
to understand the attitude of anyone who opposed it. Surely the onus of proof ought to be with the other side. Why should England alone receive this unrestricted immigration, a large part of which was so undesirable? He made these remarks with the conviction that this immigration would increase very largely. There was no doubt whatever but that in the not distant future the flood of these undesirables would increase a hundredfold, unless restricted. Why should we alone be willing to receive them? Why should we alone suffer from their competition—in so many cases a very unfortunate competition? Why should we alone give up a whole quarter of our capital city to them? Why should we alone be compelled to employ a large proportion of our criminal administration to deal with them? And, lastly, why should we neglect the urgent warning of almost the entire body of metropolitan magistrates? If every country received its share of these alien immigrants it would be our bounden duty to accept our fair share of the burdens and to offer a helping hand, but it did not seem right that we, and our criminal administration, should bear it entirely alone. There was one other point which had not occurred to some of the opponents of the Bill, and that was the question of affording these aliens an asylum without any kind of questions being asked. Under existing circumstances prosecution or persecution of these people in foreign countries would be likely to continue, but if the refuge given by this country were to be closed, it would compel the authorities abroad to yield to the pressure of civilised opinion and to do something at home to mend matters. It had to be borne in mind that the restriction could not be estimated by the number of people actually turned back at the ports of landing, and that there were thousands of people who were deterred from starting by the American law. Then, again, the House should remember that we were sending abroad many of the best classes of our own people. Whole shiploads of our skilled mechanics emigrated to Canada, and if we continued to export of our best, and to receive the worst of other countries it would not be long before the quality

1113
of our own people would be seriously impaired and deteriorated. For the reasons he had advanced, he would support the Bill, although he could not by any means regard it as a perfect measure, and ho was ready to justify his action before, any meeting of the working classes of this country.
MR. COHENsaid this was a subject in which he was deeply interested and to which he had given most anxious thought. He had approached the question without any feeling of bias, on the ground that a number of persons who might be restricted from landing in this country might be persons of the community to which it was his pride to belong. He had approached the subject as far as he could from the economic point of view, which he believed to be the only point of view from which it should be approached, and from which alone it could be properly solved. And let him say that he had not been thirteen years in that House without knowing that at all events inside those walls there was not a suspicion of what was called anti-Jewish feeling in the minds of any Member of that House. He did not think there was such an entire absence of prejudice against his community throughout the country. He believed there was in several places what was to him, and what he believed would be to many hon. Members, an unpleasant trace of that feeling, and he thought that feeling had been fed, if it had not been absolutely created, by the misleading statistics which had been disseminated throughout the country by popular speakers addressing platform audiences. He had had a good deal of experience of platform audiences, and the character and style of speeches and statistics which were addressed to those audiences. He knew that they must be prepared for misrepresentations, and if they wanted correct statistics they certainly did not go for them to a popular meeting on Alien Immigration, or Chinese Labour, or Public Education.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Or tariff reform.
MR. COHEN: Or even on tariff reform. He was glad to be reminded
1114
of that, because it was the last subject on which he should go for enlightenment to a popular meeting. He distinguished, however, between observations made in speeches to popular audiences and statistics given in the British House of Commons by the head of a great Department of State, and one, moreover, who was so invariably moderate in his language and accurate in his statistics as the Home Secretary. Therefore he did regret that in that House, with his authority, the Home Secretary should have given currency to statistics which were not slight exaggerations, but had been used by speaker after speaker to exaggerate actual facts by 1,000 per cent. He was quite sure his right hon. friend would be the very last man to mislead the House, and therefore he should look with great interest for his explanation. The only thing that occurred to him was that the right hon. Gentleman had totalled up the monthly Returns, which his hon. friend the Member for Sheffield was very fond of quoting, and that the Home Secretary had disregarded the warning published with those Returns, and which was repeated by the Royal Commission, who said that the net increase of the foreign population in this country of all classes was, in 1891, 9,000, and in 1892, 8,800, just a tenth part of what was represented. There was a statement in the Royal Commission Report to which he wished to draw the attention of his hon. friend the Member for Sheffield—
"It therefore appears that the number of persons shown in the Return as being alien immigrants in the sense above mentioned is of little value as a guide to the number of aliens remaining in this country."
That was the subject into which alone they had had to inquire, and that was the subject which was alone any guide to legislation, and to giving effect to the diminution of the so-called too many aliens at present in this country. No doubt some hon. Member would say—I am sure my hon. friend the Member for Sheffield will say—"Even taking your view, an increase of 7,000 aliens in a year is too many. "It seemed to him, however, that 7,000 aliens in a population of 42,000,000 or 43,000,000 was an item which was not worth considering. The total foreign

1115
population of this country was only five-eighths per cent., and it was a matter that need concern them but little. But numbers was not the only ground upon which legislation was desired. It was stated What there was congestion and that the immigrants displaced native labour and added considerably to the numbers of the criminal classes. He admitted a state of congestion both deplorable and discreditable in the East of London, but denied that it was greater, or even so great, as in other parts of London which were not affected by these immigrants. He knew something of this congestion, because for thirteen years he was president of the Jewish Hoard of Guardians, which had struggled day after day and year after year against this evil and which had at least done a little more than the local authority in arresting it. But when they desired to cure an evil they should correctly diagnose the cause, and in his opinion if they ousted a few immigrants they would not to any appreciable extent alleviate this frightful overcrowding in many parts of London, for the reason that they were not the cause of it. This overcrowding was caused by the erection of factories the invasion of railways, and by the difficulty of the workpeople to find, as they must do, quarters in which to live near their work. It was there and there only must they seek for the cause. He did not consider the demolition of slum property an unmitigated evil, though it took away a great deal of the dwelling accommodation of these people, because it got rid of a lot of insanitary places.
MAJOR EVANS GORDONpointed out that one of the most important witnesses before the Royal Commission, Mr. Councillor Lewis, stated that the increase in the number of large industrial dwellings counterbalanced the dislocation caused by the erection of the factories.
MR. SPEAKERsaid the question of overcrowding was not material except in so far as it was alleged to be caused by the pressure of aliens.
MR. COHENsaid with regard to the displacement of labour it was not disputed that these immigrants had created an industry which did not before exist and
1116
had not therefore caused a diminution in the scale of wages. He did not say that some of them did not live in a disreputable way. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had shown that they had increased the exports of furniture, boots, and ready-made garments, and contributed to the prosperity of those employed in those industries. He had argued he hoped temperately, and from the point of view of numbers cogently, against the proposals of this Bill, nevertheless, he was not prepared to vote against it, for the reason that it sought to accomplish, though he doubted of its doing so, an object which had his most earnest support, namely, to keep criminal and other dissolute classes out of this country, and any Bill that tried to accomplish that was one which he would not vote against, however much he might differ from some of its provisions, and from this Bill he differed strongly in several points of method. The speeches of the right hon. Baronet and the hon. Member for Elland incorporated one Amendment, but affirmed two points which he did not feel able to support. The hon. Member for Elland was opposed to making poverty a reason for exclusion. He could not conscientiously support that attitude. During the time he was president of the Jewish Board of Guardians they had continuously refused their support to any immigrants who, after being here, failed to find any means of support. Although, as the House must know, these people were not cast on the public rates, the Guardians had always set their face against those who did not leave their country on account of persecution, but who came over here to better themselves, as the phrase went, and failed. He could not therefore associate himself with the hon. Member for Elland. He did not desire those to remain who could not maintain themselves and whose presence in this country could not do otherwise than add to the destitution and poverty already too rife. The right hon. Baronet had opposed this Bill because he was not satisfied as to the retention of the privilege of this country as an asylum to the victims of persecution. If he shared the view of the right hon. Baronet he would vote with him but he did not.

1117
He did not believe it possible that any Party in this House would attempt to withdraw from this country the brightest jewel in its crown, and to reverse the traditions on which the history and glory of the country had been built. He believed the greatest protection against any such attempt would always be found within the four walls of the British House of Commons.
MR. STUART SAMUELspeaking as a Jew, thanked the House for the sympathetic reception it had accorded the remarks which had been made in deprecation of the outrages in Russia and elsewhere; and cordially agreed that there was not the slightest trace of anti-Jewish feeling in the House, nor, speaking generally, in the country at large. The President of the Local Government Board, in opening his speech, said he hoped to make out an overwhelming case for the legislation now proposed, but so far from doing that the right hon. Gentleman had failed to make out any case at all. He had referred to the evils of overcrowding. Everybody would be in favour of the present condition of things being remedied, but it could not be said that that overcrowding was due to aliens. According to the Report of the Royal Commission, there were districts in Holborn where the percentage of aliens was only 3·29 of the population, while the overcrowding was 34·2; whereas in Whitechapel, with a percentage of aliens of 18, the overcrowding was only 12 per cent. Therefore, if the Government intended to proceed with their provisions regarding "prohibited areas," they ought to extend the restriction to natives—a proposal which would not be tolerated for a moment. If a Bill of this kind was to effect any good it was necessary that it should relieve a certain portion of the population of burdens under which they now suffered. The hon. and gallant Member for Stepney had referred to the matter in his letter to The Times as though the destitutealiens were the principal point involved. In the whole of Stepney the total number of cases in receipt of Poor Law relief, excluding medical relief of aliens in 1901 was 526, and in 1902, 521. The ratio of percentage in Stepney generally was 7·9, whereas, among aliens
1118
alone it was only 3·7. Moreover, between 1870 and 1900 the decrease in Poor Lawrelief throughout England and Wales was 23 per cent., and throughout the Metropolis 19·5 per cent., but in Whitechapel, the centre of the alien population, it was 60·8 per cent.
The next point was as to aliens being the propagators of disease. In the course of six years, no fewer than 27,000 aliens had passed through the Poor Jews Temporary Shelter in Stepney, and there had been only one case of sickness. That was surely a remarkable proof of the healthiness of those who arrived on these shores. Further testimony was afforded by the Jewish Home for Incurables, which took out of the workhouses all incurable cases other than those of tuberculosis and cancer. The total number of patients at present in that institution was only fifty-five. With regard to workmen being ousted from their occupation by aliens, it was difficult to arrive at any conclusion from the evidence given before the Royal Commission. A certain number of men must be displaced by any competition, but he submitted that, as the aliens were largely employed in work which the British workmen would not, and in many cases were not adapted to undertake, the competition was reduced to a minimum. He was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the Bill might be modified in Committee. If the Government were to reconsider the questions of the prohibited areas, and of whether or not an alien was a suitable person—a point which went necessarily beyond the purview of any official, and would be the first step towards establishing a bureaucracy in this country—many of the objections to the Bill would disappear. Every well-conducted citizen would desire to see criminals excluded from this country, but at the same time care should be taken not to be unjust to those who had the same right to trial as every other person in the land. He hoped the Government would see their way to modify at any rate the two objectionable provisions to which he had referred.
MR. FORDE RIDLEYsaid the Amendment which had been proposed was couched in very

1119
mild terms, but in view of the speeches to which the House had listened, be could only express his surprise that the right hon. Baronet and his friends had not kept their Motion in the stronger form in which it was originally drafted. Hon. Members opposite ought to have had the courage of their convictions, and opposed the Bill openly. The right hon. Baronet, in explaining why he did not divide on the First Reading of the measure, said it was not usual to take a division on that stage of a Bill. Nevertheless the right hon. Baronet was one of those who voted recently in the division on the First Heading of the Licensing Bill.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: I did not give that as the reason but as a reason. There are occasions when a Bill is so undoubtedly objectionable that it is advisable to divide against it upon the First Reading.
MR. FORDE RIDLEYsaid that was the only reason the right hon. Baronet gave why he did not divide on the First Heading of this Bill, and he said it was not usual when he had not seen the provisions of the Bill. One thing to which the right hon. Baronet referred in criticising the statistics of the number of aliens who arrive in this country, was the question of the sailors. He referred to a large number of sailors being included in the figures which had been quoted. He had taken means to find out the number of sailors included in those figures, and he could only say that the result of his investigations had been that the number of sailors remained stationary from year to year. Therefore any increase in the figures could not be attributed to the fact of sailors being included amongst the figures given. The figure of 8,000 which the right hon. Baronet quoted of course applied to the increase and the increase only, and it did not apply to the total number of aliens, although from the way the figures had been used, many hon. Members might have been misled into thinking that 8,000 was the total number. Then the right hon. Baronet also referred to the children in the schools and to the Jewish boys in the Board schools in the East End of London. No one would be more ready than he to agree that
1120
Jewish children born of Jewish parents whether they lived in the East End of London or any other part of the country, were really good specimens of humanity. They were British subjects because they were born in this country, and he believed they grew up and became loyal British subjects. He did not think it was at all necessary for them to emphasise the fact that they were courageous and made thoroughly good English citizens, for when the right hon. Baronet referred to that matter and thus introduced the racial question into the discussion, that was something which he very much deplored. He knew it was difficult and almost impossible to keep this question out, but when they spoke of the opinion of the Jew and the Gentile and made statement; as to what the opinion was of a Jewish child as such, he thought that it was only fair that they should always bear in mind that whatever the Press might say—and the right hon. Baronet had referred to most unfortunate letters and statements which had been published wherein the Jews as Jews had been adversely criticised, and the character of themselves and their children also called into question—he thought that the right hon. Baronet would do them the credit, at any rate, that on this side of the House they had done all they could to prevent this question being imported into the discussion. These scurrilous suggestions and abominable publications were in no way owing to any action, or words which they had given expression to either in this House or outside upon the platform. He would remind the right hon. Baronet before he passed from this point that if these complaints were made he should recollect what a very great influence the Jewish community could claim to have upon the British Press and what a very large control they possessed over the newspaper industry in this great city.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Elland Division referred to what he called the very slight rise in criminal convictions. Was he aware that from the year 1900 to 1903 there were no less than 13,000 convicts, or an increase of 50 per cent, in the occupants of our prisons? That is to say that in the four years from 1899 to 1903 no less than 13,000 criminals were detained in His Majesty's

1121
prisons, and the cost of this large criminal class was not less than £30,000 a year. Hon. Members would see that this was not a slight matter and it was not a slight rise in criminal convictions. These criminal statistics were so grave a matter that they alone would be sufficient to justify His Majesty's Government in taking some steps to put a stop to this evil. The right hon. Baronet admitted the overcrowding, but other hon. Members who had spoken had attributed overcrowding to other causes than the influx of aliens, and had suggested that the question could be dealt with by the local authorities without the intervention of Parliament. If there was one advantage in a measure such as this, it was that it went to the root of the matter, and once and for all removed the cause which had had such a disastrous effect on overcrowding. The rector of Spitalfields, the Rev. Mr. Davis, who of all men in London, or in the East End of London at any rate, knew this question to the backbone, said—
"In regard to overcrowding, they are content to pay an exorbitant rent because of having secured rooms, and they intend to live under forbidden conditions. The landlord knows this when he lets the house to the tenant, because the lent he is to receive compels him to know it. The tenant knows it when he takes the house with the intention of subletting so as at least to live rent free, and the sub-tenant knows that the taking of a lodger or two in their rooms will not be forbidden."
These are the words of the rector of Spitalfields, and no stronger words could be used to show what the effect of this overcrowding was, and how it did really succeed in forcing up the rents in those parts of London where the poor congregated, and where it was impossible for them to pay what was absolutely prohibitive and unfair. The result of this had been that largo numbers of the British population had been turned out of those neighbourhoods in which it was absolutely essential that they should live in order that they might be near their work. He was sorry he did not see the hon. Member for Whitechapel in his place, but he knew, if any one knew, what an over-congested district was, and what overcrowding was. He represented a constituency which was entirely alien, and where they would hardly see the English
1122
language written either in newspapers, posters, or timetables, or in any other printed matter, but where Yiddish was the universal language and where they might just as well be in Palestine as in London. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton had spoken weighty words upon this question and the effect it had had upon the working classes, and he knew this question thoroughly, for he had travelled widely. He was himself a member of the Royal Commission, and had himself studied and investigated all the evidence that was brought before the Royal Commission. The standard of living was undoubtedly lowered by the influx of these unfortunate creatures. Their standard of life was of course entirely different to that which was adopted by our own fellow-countrymen, and he believed there was not an hon. Member in this House, on whichever side he might sit, who would desire to see the working classes of their great city forced to live under such conditions as did these unfortunate aliens. By the very state in which they arrived they must of necessity fall a ready prey to the sweater, for they could do nothing else. At the very most they had a few shillings at their command, and it was a notorious fact that as soon as they arrived in this country they were preyed upon—he was afraid generally by members of their own community —and sweated, and they had to work long hours day and night for a starvation wage on which no British workman could possibly live and support a wife and family. This was a shocking state of things, and although they had had Committees and Commissions on sweating, they still had sweating with them; and if they were ever to put a stop to this disgraceful state of things which existed in the large overcrowded cities, it could only be by going to the fountain head, and cutting off the supply of these unfortunate people who came here without any visible means of subsistence, without a knowledge of the language, and who became a prey to unscrupulous employers who desired to enrich themselves at the expense of these unfortunate people.
There was one other point in regard to the question which had not been referred

1123
to by other speakers, and that was the effect this was having in certain districts, and especially in East London, upon Sunday observance. It was a most deplorable tiling that Sunday should not only be turned into a day of ordinary commerce like any other day of the week, but that it should be the day on which of all others there should be more business done both in the streets and in the shops, and on which the people of whole neigh bourhoods came out in their thousands to do their business. Not only did these aliens make it a day of business themselves, but they compelled, by the unfair competition thus set up, those who would like to spend Sunday as a day of rest to open their places of business in self defence in order that they might not lose their trade. He thought that was a point that should not be lost sight of in connection with this question. He desired to express his thanks to the Government for having introduced this Bill. He would just like to say that it did seem strange that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who but a few-weeks ago were expressing themselves in the most violent language against the introduction of alien labour into the Transvaal should this afternoon be found expressing themselves in equally violent terms in favour of introducing alien labour into their own country. Note the difference in the two cases. In the colony where they so much objected to the immigration of alien labour it was admitted that there was a great dearth of labour, and that it was necessary for the prosperity of the colony that there should be some means of stimulating industry, whereas it was admitted, on the oilier hand, that in this country the unskilled labour market was so overcrowded that it was almost impossible for our own people to find a subsistence. That was a strange anomaly, and one worthy of consideration when they thought of the great agitation supported by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite regarding the introduction of Chinese labour into the Transvaal.
He hoped that this measure would receive the support not only of Members on that side of the House, but also of a great many hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side, for, after all, it was not a Party question, it was a question
1124
which was outside ordinary politics. It was one which seriously affected the welfare of the working classes of this country. There was one suggestion he would make to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. He should be only too pleased if he would add a provision to the Rill that the fines imposed by the local magistrates should go in relief of the local rates, and not to; the Metropolitan Fund. That would assist those who were anxious to deal with the question of overcrowding. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give that matter his careful consideration. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife referred to the obtaining of proof as to whether immigrants who arrived in this country had a visible means of subsistence. He did not think it; was necessary to worry them selves about any question of that kind. Surely the onus of proof should be thrown upon the immigrant himself. Why should the authorities be put to any trouble to obtain that information? It was because he believed this was a wise and comprehensive measure, and one which would deal with a grave and admitted evil, and would be of the greatest possible benefit to the working classes of this country, that he would support the Second Reading.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he was one of the few on the Opposition side of the House who, though he did not altogether agree with the Bill as it stood, intended to give it support on the Second Reading. Although he represented an East End constituency, it was one which had practically none of the aliens of the class in question. Therefore he was entirely free in regard to that matter. Knowing something of the East End he felt bound to vote for this Bill, because he believed that the evils arising from the ever-increasing importation of aliens was doing an immense amount of damage to the working classes in that part of London. A great deal that had been said regarding the Bill exaggerated its scope and importance. To his mind it was not a Bill that would keep out all aliens, nor did he think that was the intention of it. He supported it because he believed that if it was administered in a proper spirit

1125
it would do much to discriminate between those who proved most undesirable additions to overcrowded districts and those who, for political reasons, sought an asylum in England. Ho was quite sure that no man in the House had any racial or sectarian feeling in this matter. They desired to deal with it on economic grounds, and not with respect to the race, language, or nation of the immigrants. A great deal had been said against the Bill, especially by the mover of the Amendment, in regard to the right of asylum. He did not think anybody believed that the right of asylum should be invalidated in any way at all. He agreed with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton when he said that this Bill like previous Bills, would be administered with common sense, and while it would keep out those who formed the great exodus from Eastern nations, he hoped it would in no sense prevent the real political refugee from taking refuge in this country.
His right hon. friend the Member for East Fife made a great deal of the fact that the number of aliens living in this country was small as compared with the whole population, and that the annual immigration was not very extensive in actual numbers. He did not deny it for a moment. No-body would deny that if the annual influx of aliens was scattered over all localities there would be no grievance, and that the Bill would be unnecessary. But they all knew that the difficulty arose from the fact that there was congestion of population in certain districts. He was not himself concerned to dispute the question of figures. He thought the figures given by some of the speakers were ludicrously small both in regard to the number of aliens in the country and the annual addition which was taking place. What the Commission said in their Report made it quite clear that the numbers now were much in excess of those in previous years, and that they were likely to show not a diminution but an increase. There had been a great deal of historical reference to the immigrants who came here in past times, but they were on a totally different plane from the class of immigrants to whom they were now referring. It was not a question of what happened 100 or 200
1126
years ago. It was unfortunately, a question of the last twenty, and especially the last ten, years. The kind of immigration had entirely altered, and in his opinion it was much more objectionable now than it was before. There were, however, two very serious blots on the Bill he would assist in removing in Committee. Far too much unrestricted power was given to the Secretary of State, and the provisions for dialing with the housing question were almost ludicrous. The principal objections to the unrestricted influx of aliens arose from the fact that in the last few years they had come, not from the Western countries from which in days gone by our industries had received assistance, but they came in increasing numbers from Eastern Europe, and were in religion, blood, character, social habits, and political ideas, antagonistic to British feeling. Taking the figures given in the Report for 1893, compared with last year, the total immigration of Poles and Russians had increased from 8,000 to 28,000, while the immigration of Germans, French, Norwegians, and Italians had all diminished. That was a very significant fact. The increase, so far as it went, was of the worst class of aliens, while the better class of immigrants was decreasing.
There was another point which had not yet been made by any previous speaker. They were told that the very large number of these immigrants to this country were only in transit to America. That was perfectly true, but what did it mean? The bulk of the immigrants had through tickets for America; and a very large number besides, as soon as they could save enough money, also went to America. That was to say, all the best and most enterprising of these immigrants went to America, and it was the refuse of the refuse of East Europe that remained in this country. That was a point of great importance. A great deal was talked about American competition, but if America was to be our great competitor, surely it was not desirable that America should obtain the best alien immigrants and leave the worst for this country. This was not a question of the whole country; it was a question of localities, of the increase of pressure, and the congestion which

1127
was taking place in certain areas throughout London. In 1861 the foreign population of the Borough of Whitechapel was 7·7 percent.; in 1881 it had risen to 13 per cent.; and at the present time, according to the Report of the Royal Commission, was 37 per cent That surely was a very serious matter for that part of London. But that was not the worst of it. The foreign aliens were gradually absorbing fresh streets and fresh localities. Some connections of his own who were in business in the East End of London twenty years ago, built a street of houses for their workmen. At that time the alien immigration was limited and for many years they tried to resist it, but at the present moment there was not a single workman in these houses, and the street was full of Polish and Russian Jews. That showed how alien immigration was spreading gradually over the East of London, and absorbing street after street. They had heard something that afternoon in regard to the housing question. That was one of the most difficult problems which had to be faced. The London County Council had gone to great expense in dealing with the housing question, and at the present moment in their model dwellings in Boundary Street no less than 24 percent, of the residents were aliens. He objected, as a ratepayer in London, being called upon to go to the expense of providing model dwellings for the unhoused population of the East of Europe.
With regard to the question of wages, his hon. friend had endeavoured very much to minimise it; that was to say, his hon. friend contended that the pressure on wages, sweating, and the conditions of employment could be dealt with in another way and that it, did not increase in regard to particular trades. In some respects he endorsed his hon. friend's argument. But it was obvious that the Russians and Poles, coming to this country illiterate, ignorant of our language, and penniless, were bound to be the victims of the sweater, and, moreover, the conditions of life and labour to which they had been accustomed in the Ghetto were such that the pittance which the sweater gave seemed to them a satisfactory and reasonable wage. They had had a good deal
1128
of queer economics of late, but it was new to him that when within a particular and somewhat restricted trade, there was an enormous influx of cheap labour that would not have a serious effect in breaking down the rate of wages in that trade! He agreed with his right hon. friend the Member for Forest of Dean that more might be done by factory legislation to deal with sweating; but that did not go far enough. If they could get rid of one reason for the existence of the sweating system, they would increase the likelihood of other legislation being successful. In regard to the practicability of dealing with this question, he had endeavoured to show that there was really a very strong case for dealing with it, not by way of absolute exclusion but by discrimination, and by discouraging undesirable aliens coming to this country at all.
They had been told, especially by his right hon. friend the Member for East Fife, that the scope of this Bill had been very much exaggerated, that all that was wanted was to lay down the legal proposition that we would not have undesirable aliens. That had been done in the United States, and it came out very clearly in the Report that the result was, not that many aliens were excluded from America—only 300 were sent back last year—but that at the source from which aliens were shipped, there was a filtering process which kept back those who were not likely to fulfil the requirements of the American law. He did not think himself that our position was exactly the same. At present there was every inducement to the alien to come to this country when he was driven out of his own by persecution, conscription, or by distress. His friends encouraged him, and sent assistance to him to come here where he could obtain a good rate of wages. Again, the cheap-ness and the facilities of the means of transit had enormously increased of late years. It was absolutely the interest of the steamship companies to get as many of these aliens as passengers as they could, because there was no liability on them at all. If this Bill passed, and the general principle was accepted, it would be found that the position would be reversed. The undesirable alien would be discouraged from coming by the

1129
stringent regulations governing his admission, and the steamship companies would have an enormous inducement to select only the best class of immigrants, in the knowledge that, if they brought any who were undesirable, they would be under the obligation to carry them back to the port whence they came. It was rather curious to learn from the Report that at Hamburg there were now two descriptions of emigrants—those for America, and those coming to this country. Both were under control, but the shipping companies discriminated between them. The former were carefully selected before being despatched, while the latter were not; and it was not too much to say that some who were rejected as unfit for America were sent over to England.
There was great exaggeration in regard to the difficulty of carrying out this legislation. There were practically only seven ports in this country at which immigrants arrived, and only four from which they came. Three of the seven ports might be left altogether out of account. Hull and Grimsby were merely ports of transit, so that Leith, London, and Newhaven were the only ports which would have to be looked after in regard to administration when the Bill passed. No less than 74 percent, came to London from Bremen, Hamburg, and Libau. There were practically only eleven steamers a week which brought these immigrants; so that the administration of the Bill would be restricted to a comparatively few places and a few-ships, and could be carried out without the stupendous difficulties that had been suggested by his hon. friends. He had to consider what to do on this Second Heading of the Bill, and as the Amendment of his right hon. friend, to the terms of which he did not strongly object and with part of which he thoroughly agreed, was a hostile Amendment which if carried, would destroy the Bill, he could not see his way to vote for it, though he should not vote against it. He should certainly vote for the Second Reading of the Bill which, in his opinion, contained the right principle and to which he trusted improvements in detail would be made in Committee.
MR. PEELsaid that in one sense the Bill had been very
1130
vigorously dealt with by Members on the other side. Those who had listened to the speeches of the hon. Member for South Wolverhampton and of he hon. Member for the Poplar Division of the Tower Hamlets would be relieved of any anxiety they had in supporting the Bill. It was quite true that a very different speech was heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fifeshire, but he by no means showed a very close acquaintance with the subject, which he treated in far too comfortable and far too easy a fashion. They not only wanted to establish some kind of filter for aliens who came from other countries, but they wished to prevent the backflow into this country of that particular class of aliens who had been rejected by the restrictive legislation of other countries. It was admitted that they had the right, if they liked, to prohibit altogether, or to restrict, the immigration of aliens into this country. What they had to decide, looking at all the facts of the case, and not looking only to the welfare of these aliens in other countries, was whether unrestricted immigration was or was not an advantage to this country. He had no objection of any kind to the mere coming in of Jews, and he thought it was rather unfortunate that the subject was raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean, because this was a much broader question than that of anti-Semitic feeling on which the right hon. Baronet said the objection to aliens was based. If they examined the principal trades in which these aliens were employed when they came into this country they would find, on the evidence of the leaders in those trades, that it was not in the more skilful branches, but mainly, if not entirely, in the unskilled portions that they were employed. In some cases, owing to the low wages which they accepted, the aliens could produce work more cheaply than it could be done by the improved processes and new machines which had been introduced. Could anybody point to any new process or to any new trade which had been introduced in the last twenty years by aliens? Several claims had been set up on their behalf, but in the case instanced of the ready-made clothing trade, and the cigarette-making

1131
trade, they could not claim the credit for their initiation. The most important ground on which support should be given to the Bill was the necessity of keeping up the standard of living in this country. The difficulty of administering factory laws and of enforcing the sanitary regulations was enormously aggravated by the concentration in particular parts of towns of people who knew nothing at all about these things. Their whole standard of living, in fact, was entirely different from that of the people among whom they took up their residence. In considering this question the House was bound to pay regard to the effect that this state of things would have, by lowering the standard of living generally on the health of the people, and, in the long run, on the industrial superiority of this country.
And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.

EVENING SITTING.

  ALIENS BILL.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment [25th April] to Question [25th April], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Which Amendment was—
  "To leave out all the words after the word 'That, in order to add the words 'this House, holding that the evils of low-priced alien labour can best ho met by legislation to prevent sweating, desires to assure itself, before assenting to the Aliens Bill, that sufficient regard is had in the proposed measure to the retention of the principle of asylum for the victims of persecution.'"—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. PEEL,continuing his speech, said he wished to turn to another aspect of the controversy, and he did not think it would be seriously denied that a large amount of the competition of these aliens was in respect of the lower kinds of labour. That had been admitted by many of the witnesses who had given evidence before the Royal Commission, although a different story was told by a Mr. Lyons. Secretary
  1132
  to the Society of Garment Makers, who maintained that these aliens were mostly employed in what might be called the middle class of work, and not in the poorest and worst kind. The point was worth making, because it had been contended that we were undersold by these cheaper goods from abroad. Very often these goods were only cheaper in appearance, because they were made of inferior materials—in fact, they were shoddy. These goods were mostly made for export. But he thought there was in some foreign markets a reaction against shoddy goods sent to them, let him say from Germany; but British goods, by their excellence of manufacture and better stability, had been undoubtedly winning their way in foreign markets. The cheap and shoddy goods that were made by aliens and exported were not altogether a good thing for our name; it was not well that such goods should be associated with our exports. A great deal bad been said as to the horrible misery inflicted by sweating in connection with alien labour, and the way in which it had been increased by unrestricted entrance of foreign labour but that, after all, was only a contributory cause, and to restrict the immigration of these aliens was after all only one of the methods of dealing with the matter. He did not say that the question might not be dealt with by the increased stringency of factory legislation, but the idea of putting down home work was almost impossible of realisation. He pointed out the difficulties involved in the inspection of small factories run by aliens, and contended that even without aliens something of this sweating would go on, but the difficulty of dealing with it was enormously increased and enhanced by the continuous immigration of these aliens who, by their ignorance of our language, lack of skill, and want of knowledge of this country, were in more danger of being made the victims of sweating to a greater degree than the people of this country.
  As to the trades unions, some figures had been quoted by the Member for the Forest of Dean, but if examined into it would be seen how almost impossible it would be to rely upon them. Mr. Llewellyn Smith had shown that even in cases where the wages in all the different sub-divisions of

  1133
  a trade had increased, it might happen that owing to a change in the proportion of skilled and unskilled labour, the total wages might have decreased. Moreover, the figures could not be gathered from trade unions and largo employers. The sweaters very naturally did not make any return. The hon. Member for Battersea would bear him out when he said the trades in which aliens were employed were little organised from a trade union point of view. That was a fact which he considered it very important to bear in mind in estimating the value of the figures quoted so confidently by the Member for the Forest of Dean. Those figures must, he held, be subject to many deductions. Alien immigration retarded the work of trade unions in raising the standard of living, and it also had a very serious effect in lowering wages and producing overcrowding, the evils of which had to be remedied at the cost of the ratepayer. A higher standard of life in the East End of London was rendered almost impossible owing to the continuous influx of these aliens. The Bill was not intended to exclude, but to sift alien immigrants. He sympathised with the feeling that we had established for our-selves a name and reputation for allowing everybody to come to this country, but that reputation should not be earned at the expense of our own people, and he thought it better to do something to promote the real happiness and prosperity of the poor than to maintain a tradition of unrestricted entry the price of which was the degradation of our towns.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had said he would not lightly violate the tradition of which this country was so justly proud, and his only reason for so doing was that the urgency had become so great that it was necessary to afford protection to our own people. But the speech of the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean, he considered, remained unanswered. He regretted that any vote on that aide of the House should be given against the most cherished tradition of the Liberal Party, and he hoped that, notwithstanding the opinions expressed in debate, the Liberal Party would be officially represented in the division. He
  1134
  had listened with considerable interest to what must be regarded as the principal speech which had yet been made from the Front Bench, and from what he gathered from the right hon. Gentleman the purpose of the Bill was confined to the exclusion of aliens who were undesirable persons in the sense in which that term was usually employed. If the Bill merely effected the exclusion of persons suffering from disease or addicted to crime, he would be prepared to support it, but this measure in its scope and power of action was capable of excluding aliens of whatever condition, however reputable and respectable they might be. The argument of the Tight hon. Gentleman was that there were a number of people who came to this country, especially from Germany, Russia and Poland, who were more or less associated with the criminal classes, or suffering more or less from disease, who were wasters and strays on the Continent. That was entirely in conflict with the Report of the Royal Commission. The Report of the Commission showed that 60 per cent, of the aliens who, under pressure, had immigrated into this country had a knowledge of skilled trades. According to the medical officer of the county of London, their health and physique were everything that could be desired.
  The Bill was really aimed at the exclusion of these aliens from a trade union point of view. It was protective. But the effect of the introduction of alien immigrants employed in the cabinetmaking, tailoring and shoemaking trades had, the Royal Commission reported, been beneficial in indirectly giving employment to native industry. This country in former years had derived enormous advantages from the entry of alien skilled labour; especially was this the case in the pottery and textile industries, the improvement in which was largely due to the introduction of foreign skilled labour. The aliens in the Metropolis were mainly occupied in the tailoring trade. Formerly the slop tailoring of London had been done by an Irish colony in Soho, but these people had not been driven to destitution by the aliens; they had drifted into occupations more congenial to them. The Bill would destroy the right of asylum which had hitherto existed in this country. It

  1135
  would give the Homo Secretary power to require certificates of character, but from whom would such certificates be obtained? From the police authorities of the country whence the aliens came? If so, what chance was there of a political fugitive from justice ever again finding an asylum in this country? He knew no sentiment that more deeply moved the public feeling in this country than this sacred principle of asylum. The Bill, too, would introduce a most abominable system of espionage, for a foreigner coming into this country would be obliged to remain under police surveillance for two years. He did not deny that the importation of a considerable number of aliens into a narrow and congested area of London had had evil results, but he denied that this was the fons et origo of the mischief in regard to labour. The remedy was not to exclude aliens, but to insist on proper sanitary conditions being observed by the local authorities.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid if this was panic legislation, as the hon. Member for the Elland Division had suggested, it was a panic which had been a long time coming. It was now sixteen years ago since the Select Committee was appointed by the House to consider the matter, and their Report, although it did not recommend immediate legislation, contemplated the possibility of such legislation becoming necessary in the future. He thought the Government had been much too dilatory in introducing such legislation, but congratulated the Home Secretary on the completeness of the measure. The late Lord Salisbury took a very strong view on this matter and himself introduced a Bill in 1894 in the House of Lords. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean was not in the House when the hon. Member for Wolverhampton spoke; had he been, he did not think he would have persevered in the Amendment moved. There was considerable difficulty in arriving at exact figures on the question, and even the census returns were by no means satisfactory. But taking the census returns as the best that could be obtained, it appeared that in 1901 there were
  1136
  286,925 aliens in the country, of whom 95,245 were Russians or Poles, and of those 53,537 were resident in London, 42,033 being in the borough of Stepney alone. There were also 53,000 Germans, of whom 27,147 were resident in London. It was true the number was small when compared with the whole population, but the evil was that they were concentrated in particular districts and in particular trades, and when the condition of affairs in Stepney, Whitechapel, and Shoreditch was considered, it would surely be admitted that it was incumbent upon the Government to do something to remove the terrible congestion there existing All were proud of the fact that this country had afforded asylum to many men who had since risen to considerable distinction, and they were anxious that that right should not be interfered with. But this Bill had nothing to do with the right of asylum; it simply made provision with reference to the immigration of aliens, and gave to this country the right already possessed by every other country in the world, including our own self-governing colonies.
  The evil was really a growth of the last twenty-five years. In 1903 the total number of aliens coming into the country was 82,572; 13,410 of these were sailors, and this introduction of foreign sailors to man the mercantile marine was one of the most serious factors of the situation. In 1902, 81,533, of whom 15,000 were sailors, came in, so that in the two years, after deducting sailors, 170,285 aliens landed in this country at the eastern ports. Some of these certainly proceeded subsequently to the United States, but no one had the least idea of how many did so, and it was, undoubtedly, the case that the worst remained here. What was the condition of the aliens arriving in this country? According to Dr. Williams, the medical officer for the Port of London, many of them were in a filthy, verminous condition. Surely it could not be contended that they were desirable immigrants? If the matter was impartially considered, there was not the slightest doubt that the introduction of persons such as those scheduled

  1137
  in the Bill was eminently undesirable. It was not fair to the ratepayers of this country, and the Metropolis especially, that they should be taxed to support destitute aliens. Surely it was incumbent upon the Government to take measures to remove this terrible congestion of aliens in the East End of London. The right of asylum, of which they were all proud, was unaffected by the Bill. The Bill simply proposed to make provisions with respect to the immigration of aliens, and not only every foreign country, but every self-governing British colony had passed legislation of a similar character. If an alien committed an offence in a foreign country he was expelled. But in this country in 1903 there were 1,300 aliens in provincial prisons, and 1.915 aliens in the Metropolitan prisons, who were maintained at a cost to the taxpayers of £30,000, and when their time was up were released to prey again upon the community. Traders, too, suffered to an enormous extent. British shopkeepers were driven out of a neighbourhood because the aliens would only deal with their co-religionists, and again, a large number of aliens went into bankruptcy with a large amount of unsecured liabilities. Not one single speech had shown that this Bill had anything to do with any anti-Semitic feeling whatever, nor was it directed against foreigners as a whole.
  MR. BRYCEsaid the hon. Member who had last spoken had been the leader of the Government in this matter and deserved credit for the fact that the movement of which he had proved himself to be the stormy petrel had attained its present position after sixteen years of agitation. He had listened with some disappointment to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member as well as to other speeches. Ho could not see that they had made out that the existing evils were such as to justify the exceptional remedies which the House was asked to apply to them. He did not deny that a case might sometimes be made out for excluding aliens from this country; that it might be found that the entrance of the foreigner of a lower standard of life and social condition was undesirable because these people
  1138
  could not assimilate with the established population of the country. But he was bound to say he did not think that any case had been made out for interfering with the free movement of population from one part of the world to the other, such as the peoples of California and Australia had for excluding Chinese. The general practice of mankind had been to allow the free movement of population from one country to another, and the mixture of the races had generally been found to be a good thing for the country where the races had mixed and had proved themselves capable of forming a civilised community. What was the case against the alien immigrant here? In the first place, he was entirely confined to the East End of London, and almost entirely to the borough of Stepney. Now they were asked to make a new departure, to set up a new condition of administration for the whole country for the sake of a small number of people living in one borough in the East End of London! Was there not a disproportion between the evil and the remedy? No case had been made out showing that any harm had happened to any part of England except Stepney. He once had the honour of representing Stepney in that House and he received a great deal of kindness there, but, after all, Stepney was not England, and they could not legislate for all England merely for the sake of one borough.
  It was said that the Russian Poles who came here were the off-scourings of Eastern Europe. What was it they were guilty of? It was not ill-health or that they introduced epidemic diseases. The Jewish population were less apt to be attacked with epidemics than any section of Europeans. In Rome in old days the Ghetto was comparatively immune from plague, and in more recent years the Jews were more immune from cholera than the Europeans among whom they lived. Was the complaint to be urged against them on account of poor relief? The evidence of the chairman of the White-chapel Union showed that the locality was put to no expense for poor relief owing to the action of the Jewish charitable agencies in looking after their own poor, and if the House would refer to the figures they would find the

  1139
  remarkable fact that the percentage of alien paupers to total alien population was2·4 while the percentage of paupers to the population generally was 7·9. Thus there was really no case at all as regarded poor relief. Nor was the case any stronger as to their influence on labour. The evidence showed that the development of the industries in which the alien had engaged had benefited in various ways, while the Commission said that there had been no proof forthcoming that there had been any serious displacement of English skilled labour. It was true that as a temporary measure, English labourers were undersold when the aliens had newly arrived and were in their transition stage; but after a few years they became capable of making better terms for themselves and did not permanently depress the labour market. The case really seemed to rest on the plea of overcrowding. He agreed that it was a serious evil, but it was not confined to Stepney. It was quite as bad in other parts of London and in other cities. The evil called for prompt and drastic treatment wherever it existed, but it could not be got rid of by relieving overcrowding in Stepney alone.
  Then there was the case of crime. It was perfectly true that the aliens committed a greater proportion of crime than the rest of the population, but no attempt had been made to show that the crime attributable to aliens was due to the particular class against whom the Rill was directed. There was no evidence that it was, and there was a good deal of negative evidence to show that it was not. The criminals from whom we suffered did not come into the country in a destitute condition, and they would not be caught in this web of the Home Secretary's devising. He believed that the evil had been immensely exaggerated, and while the crime was confined to one particular part of London it was not an evil which needed the large general remedies proposed in the Bill. How were they going to deal with it. When he was at the Board of Trade nine years ago the matter had already been pressed on their attention with a view to devising some method by which at least the undesirable alien could be excluded, and at that time they were quite unable to find
  1140
  any effective method. Was this Bill calculated to secure that end? Was the remedy not likely to prove worse than the disease? Among the remedies suggested by the Bill was the need for better statistics. The House was agreed on that point. It would no doubt be a great advantage to know the facts more fully than they did. Next, that there should be a thorough medical examination of aliens entering the country. It would be a costly and troublesome business, but in principle no one would object to this. He did not think it would be found that these immigrants were responsible for the introduction of contagious diseases. The third proposal was that persons who had been convicted of a serious offence might have added to their sentence the direction that when they were liberated from confinement they should be deported to the country from whence they came. That proposition would meet with no criticism, for every one who had spoken had agreed that the power was a proper one to vest in Judges, and perhaps in inferior tribunals. Then there was a fourth proposition, which he did not find in the Bill, but which was made by the Royal Commission and upon which also he thought they would all agree. At any rate, the point was one in regard to which some amendment was required.
  Another proposition of the Bill was to deal with overcrowding by declaring certain areas to be prohibited for the reception of aliens. The more that proposition was looked into the more would it be found to be absolutely unworkable. The Royal Commission did not say a single word about the practicability of it. They threw the remedy down without endeavouring to prove that it was capable of application, and several witnesses evidently did not think it was capable of application. Another argument was that overcrowding existed in other parts of London, in Glasgow, Manchester, and many of our great towns. But why did it exist there? Simply because overcrowding was a general evil, and it existed partly because the law was defective, but much more because the local authorities would not put the law into force. He ventured to appeal to

  1141
  the Home Office and to the Local Government Board to make a more serious effort than had yet been made to set the law put into force. If the local authorities could be kept up to the work, and if the minor amendments which might be needed to increase their powers were made, they could get rid of this evil altogether without all this moonshine about prohibited areas.
  Then there was stoppage at the ports, the most important proposal of the Bill. Stop how? By inspectors acting under the Home Office, the ultimate decision resting with the Home Secretary. I respect the Government had departed from the recommendation of the Royal Commission, which proposed that no one should be debarred from entry except by sentence of a Court Summary Jurisdiction, given on tile production of something like evidence. That would be, at any rate, more consonant with the practice which had hitherto governed them in this country. But the Government threw that overboard altogether. They left the decision to the sole, unaided fiat of the Home Secretary, and, apparently, without any test of evidence. How were they to ascertain in any one of the classes to be excluded what was the character of the persons? He presumed it would be from the police of the country from which they came. He did not suggest that the Government had brought in the Bill with any intention of encroaching upon or destroying what an hon. friend of his called the sacred right of asylum, but he did think that they were putting into the hands of their detectives a very dangerous power, which, although they did not mean to abuse it, might, in other times, be capable of abuse, and which, at any rate, was a departure from one of the most sacred and cherished traditions of the British Constitution. Then, again, how was an inspector to know whether a man had visible means of support or not? He had got, at any rate, his arms and his brains, and many people who had got on best in this country had come in with nothing but their brains and their arms. There was no evidence in the Report of the Commission to justify the proposals of the Government. It seemed that the
  1142
  measure was intended as a sort of scarecrow to frighten alien immigrants, which was neither a sapient nor a dignified course for this country to adopt. Such measures had been shown to be ineffective in the United States, where less than 1 per cent, of the immigrants who presented themselves were now turned back, although among them there were many who had come under labour contracts, and were, therefore, of the very class against which more than any other the United States enactment was directed. A strong view as to the impracticability of stopping the criminal at the ports was held by four of the highest authorities on the subject—Sir Kenelm Digby, Sir Edward Bradford, Mr. Henry, and Mr. Albert de Rutzen. Was a plan which these authorities condemned likely to work?
  There seemed to be a rather un-unreasonable prejudice against these aliens, who after a few years assimilated our civilisation and very often proved useful and capable members of society. He remembered when he was Member for the Tower Hamlets that one of the ablest men he had to deal with was a German Jew following the humble trade of a cigar-maker who spoke with a foreign accent, and was probably a pauper immigrant, but nevertheles he was an exceedingly able and honest man, and he at least made upon him the impression that amongst those people which they were apt to consider as an undesirable class there was often a great deal of talent. Upon one occasion at Sheffield ha saw a foreigner who had some difficulty about his ticket on the platform at the railway station, and he discovered that he had lost his ticket. He questioned him in his own language, and, after he had interceded, the officials allowed him to proceed on his journey. He turned out to be a shoemaker, and he had nothing but the little bundle he was carrying, but nevertheless he was an exceedingly bright fellow who was going to his brother in Manchester, and he felt perfectly certain that that man would be a valuable acquisition to the population of Manchester. The remedy proposed appeared to be not only utterly disproportionate to the evil which existed, but at variance with the beat, traditions

  1143
  of our legislation. This was really a sham Bill, and he strongly suspected that its authors knew it would not work, but had introduced it only to meet a popular cry. The President of the Board of Trade had said that there was a strong feeling upon the subject, but he might very well have used the same argument in regard to the action of the Roumanian Government who persecuted the Jews. He could not admit that the existence of this strong feeling was a sufficient reason why this House should legislate by bringing in a sham Bill to be placed upon the Statute-book.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): It is not my desire to take up an undue length of time in the discussion to-night, but I think there are certain questions which the House will expect me to answer, and which have been expressly directed to me in the course of the debate. Therefore, with the permission of the House, I will reply as shortly as I can to those criticisms, and then very briefly give the reason why I think this Bill should receive a Second Reading. The right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean has very courteously called attention to an obvious inaccuracy which I made in introducing the Bill, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for having given me the opportunity of admitting the inaccuracy. The figures I gave were quoted in the Alien Immigration Returns published by the Board of Trade under the heading "Aliens, not described as en route to places out of the United Kingdom." and were obviously far greater than the numbers which, according to the census returns, could be reckoned as having ever lived in this country. It has been suggested that at the bottom of the Bill there is an anti-Semitic feeling. Might I, on my own part and on the part of those who have introduced the Bill, deny emphatically that we are influenced by any racial or religious feeling? I entirely agree with the denunciations which have been made by the hon. Member for the Elland Division of the inhuman treatment which has been
  1144
  too often accorded to the Jews in Eastern Europe, and I would not be slow to make my acknowledgment of the advantages which in the past we have received from their presence in this country and the benefits which they have conferred upon it. I would like to add my meed of praise of the very excellent example which they set us in the way in which they look after their more distressed brethren. The hon. Member for the Elland Division and the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean suggested in the Amendment which they have brought forward upon the Second Reading of this Bill that the whole of the evils of which complaint was made might be met by a more stringent administration of the laws relating to sweating. I venture to say that however excellently these laws are administered, and even if they are amended to the extent which many hon. Members desire, they will in themselves be unequal to dealing with the problems which the House is called upon to face. The evils of unrestricted immigration are not confined to sweating. The Royal Commission in their Report state think that they think that—
  "The greatest evils produced by the presence of alien immigrants here are the overcowding caused by them in certain districts in London and the consequent displacement of the native population."
  The whole of the figures have been gone into and they have been quoted on both sides of the House to-night. Of the 286,925 aliens resident in this country in 1901, there were in the borough of Stepney alone 54,310. My hon. friend the Member for Stepney has reminded the House that that does not include the whole case. To that number you have to add those who were born in this country of alien parents, who are naturally not included in the Return. In these figures you have a very good proof of the inconvenience not only of this great immigration of aliens, but of their congestion in one particular district. My hon. friend the Member for Bethnal Green alluded to the fact that within the last six years 107 streets in Stepney have passed wholly into the occupation of aliens.
  MR. LOUGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the population?
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: The figure are to be found in the Report. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to proceed without interrupting my argument. These 107 streets in the borough of Stepney have passed wholly into the occupation of aliens. What, therefore, is the condition of these streets and houses? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife asked the House to look carefully into the evidence as well as the Report of the Royal Commission. I am quite certain that if the House accept his advice and look carefully into the report of the evidence given before the Royal Commission they will see what is the condition of the streets and houses which have been entirely taken over by this alien population. There are rooms and cellars too often occupied by more than one family, used as workshops in the day and as sleeping places at night. The Commissioners gave an instance of ten houses of fifty-one rooms which were occupied by 254 people. The house owners, or house builders, often aliens themselves, buy up property after property in that district, and on account of the higher rents aliens offer to give, the landlords turn out the occupying tenants and, therefore, you have not only all the evils of overcrowding, but the worst state of those evils. I venture to think that this overcrowding, with all its concurrent evils, is a matter which has certainly a claim upon the attention of the Government. It not only leads to the displacement of the native population, but is becoming a very serious menace to the maintenance of law and order.
  The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, and other speakers on the other side of the House, in the course of the debate have maintained that if this Bill should pass this country will no longer be the sanctuary for the victims of persecution. Well, there is certainly nothing which is further from the wish of the Government than to bring about any change of this character. This country has always
  1146
  been the asylum for the persecuted and the oppressed, and I venture to think that it would be a great breach of national hospitality if we were now, and for the first time, to close our doors against political refugees and against those who solely are the victims of political tyranny. I maintain that there is nothing in this Bill which can possibly by any stretch of imagination be said to keep out that class from this country. The right hon. Baronet said that he could give instances of cases in which this would be the effect. He said that under this Bill, as far as he understood it, men such as Dalou, Prince Peter Kropotkin, and the brothers Reclus would have been prevented from having a home in this country. To all these we were only too proud to give hospitality, and we should welcome men like them in the future. Nothing will be put in the regulations (which I may point out are to he laid before the House) which would prevent refugees of that character coming as freely to this country as they have ever done in its history. The Government fully realise the advantages which this country has received from refugees—refugees from France and other countries who brought with them a knowledge of art and trade which has greatly benefited our manufactures in the past. All we desire to do is to prevent aliens of the characters described in the schedule of the Bill from coming to this country and causing inconvenience and suffering to our own population. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fifeshire, for whose opinions and criticisms I have the highest regard, has carried on with great success the office which I have now the honour to hold. I am bound to lay the criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman very carefully to heart. He tells me that there are no precedents whatever for the action which it is proposed to take under this Bill. I am not going to rake up precedents, but I think he will remember that there have been Alien Acts in the last century in which the power that is now asked for has been exercised. Even greater powers were asked.
  MR. ASQUITH: For a temporary emergency.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: No; more than temporary. If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to the debates on the Second Reading of an Aliens Bill in 1816, he will find that powers of a very stringent character were asked for and as a fact a drastic measure were, carried. It is not however the, precedent on which this Bill is based, nor, I confess, until the right hon. Gentleman raised the point was I aware of the fact that it existed. The right hon. Gentleman says that these powers are too great to be given to any individual. Well, I would point out that these powers are to be exercised under regulations, that these rules will come automatically under the provisions of the Publications Act, which provides that after having been published in draft they shall be laid before Parliament for forty days where they can be discussed and dealt with like any other rules that are laid before this House. Further than that, the Secretary of State, whoever he may be, will always be responsible in this House for any action he takes, and his conduct can always be criticised and, if necessary, his salary can be reduced on the Estimates which are yearly brought forward in the House. My hon. friend the Member for Fulham made. I think, with great force one criticism with regard to the carrying out of the provisions of the Bill. That is to say, he criticised the provisions of Sub-clause (3) of Clause 2, which gives the Secretary of State power to act in respect of aliens in this country who may have been here for not more than two years. I admit that there is a distinction to be drawn between the cases aimed at in this Subsection and those provided against in Sub-clause (1). If you are to deal with the latter you must deal at once, because if you do not take immediate action the alien will have landed, and the ship will have left, and it will be impossible to deport him in the same ship to the country from which he came. With regard to the other cases, when the alien is already here I think it is quite a question whether efficient steps could not be taken through the medium of a Court of Justice. The criticisms on Clause 4 were dealt with by my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board in connection with
  1148
  the Department for which he is responsible. I need only say that we shall be quite ready to accept any reasonable Amendment.
  I am glad to find that there is one portion of the Bill which, I think, meets with the general approbation of the House of Commons, and that is the clause dealing with the deportation of aliens who have been convicted of crime in this country. I think there can be no doubt that the crime of this country would be very considerably reduced if a portion of the sentence passed on aliens in this country was that they should be obliged to leave the country or be dealt with under the Vagrancy Acts. From all the reports which I have received, not only from Judges, but from chairmen of quarter sessions and police magistrates, I am quite certain that if these provisions were carried out there would be a very large decrease in crime in London and in many of our big towns, and that they would effectively deal with a large amount of petty crime. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the crime committed by aliens is largely and chiefly larceny and small offences and not very serious crime; or, at all events, not murder or crime against the person. But it is to be remarked that judging from the number of their previous convictions there is probably a larger class of habitual criminals among aliens than among any other class of the population, and I think it is only fair to the citizens of this country that if aliens come up, as they sometimes do, eight, ten, or twelve times, that they should have in future as part of their sentence the sentence of deportation. I only now desire to point out that in addition to the arguments which have been used in favour of the Second Heading of this Bill, we think it is an anomaly that this country, almost if not quite alone among the civilised countries of the world, should have no power of excluding or expelling any class of alien or aliens, however injurious their presence may be in this country. It is that power—that power of expulsion—which is exercised by other civilised States, by our own Colonies, even by such a small dependency of this country

  1149
  as the Channel Islands; and I venture to think that we shall not get efficient protection from the evils which are so rightly complained of by those who take an interest in this alien question unless we are empowered to take measures against the unrestricted immigration of what is often an evil class. I have pointed out that we have no desire whatever to interfere with the entrance of any foreigner as such to this country. All we desire to do is to remove this class of undesirable aliens who bring no credit whatever to this country, but who bring in their train many evils from which we think the working classes of this country should be preserved.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid the Home Secretary concluded his speech by stating as a reason why they should pass this intolerable Bill, that we were the only country that had not passed this kind of legislation. It was because this was the only civilised country that did not possess this kind of legislation that he was proud of being a Briton, and if we put ourselves abreast of other countries in passing this pettifogging restrictive legislation he would consider whether he should take a passage to some land resembling the country he used to know. We were losing some of the characteristics of a free people, and nothing indicated this more than the fact that because a few poor Jews came to this country and worked for low wages, and were supposed to be a nuisance to British workmen, this Bill was necessary. The British workman did not make half the complaint that factious politicians nervous about their seats did. Because a few poor Jews, flying from tyranny and oppression and countries where bad economic conditions existed, came to this country was no reason for a Bill such as this. He saw no reason for excluding the poor Jews. He would pass an Aliens Bill for the rich Jews of Bayswater, Fitzjohn's Avenue, Hampstead, Park Lane, and Throgmorton Street. But the Government dare not include these people in the schedule to the Bill. The political
  1150
  power and financial influence of these rich Jews were so great that they could pull the Government from Dan to Beersheba. We had a debt of £250,000,000, and we had lost 22,000 precious lives, and we would lose South Africa because of the rich Jew. He would include him in the schedule of this Bill, not because he worked for a living, but because he suborned politicians. [Cries of "No."] Did they doubt it? Let them look at the Cape Committee Report. The rich Jew suborned judges and corrupted Parliaments, made raids, organised rebellions and did not hesitate to do things to make himself still richer. In so doing the rich Jew was bringing upon this country untold harm which poor Jews would not do if they could, but by virtue of their condition they were unable to attack us.
  To hear the hon. Member for Sheffield one would think that this was a new question. Let him read Cobbett's "History of Parliament," and he would find that from the fourteenth century down to the eighteenth there were the Sir Howard Vincents of those particular days who made equally ridiculous statements and advocated equally ridiculous and futile legislative repression. The fact was that every fifteen or twenty years some tariff reformer in disguise, some full-blown protectionist, some grand Imperialist, set up a crusade against the poor foreigner; but to the credit of the British House of Commons it had invariably resisted all attempts to persecute or oppress a man simply because he was a poor Jew and an industrious workman. The hon. and gallant Member for Sheffield, who had bluffed the Government into carrying out his views, ought to be Prime Minister. He ran the show both on protection and on destitute aliens. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that this Bill had been too long in arriving, and that the first Bill on this subject had been sketched out by the late Lord Salisbury. But that Bill, and others suggested, were not of the character of the present measure. They dealt with criminal aliens. Fresh statu-

  1151
  tory power was not required for that. The Chief Commissioner of Police could do it, and the port sanitary authorities could grapple with the disease, aspect of the question; that did not require a Bill of this inquisitorial character. If this Bill passed, some French John Bunyan would be bagged, and some German William Shakespeare, who had done a little poaching, would be stopped, or his certificate would be suspended. He did not know what would happen to the Irish Members; they might be de ported! Look at the futility of this measure. They were told to imitate America. Well, he had been to America, and he had a great respect for that new and enterprising country; but he would rather be found dead in England than alive in New York. That was real patriotism. What was the result of the system in America? Of the 634,000 emigrants who went to the United States last year only 400 were sent back to Europe, and they were imbeciles, idiots, and undesirable persons. That probably accounted for the transient character of the Tariff Reform League. Only twenty-three were sent back to the United Kingdom as criminals. It was wasting the time of the House of Commons to ask them to pass legislation of this kind when that was the case. They were asked to imitate the Colonies in this regard; but when the Colonies, and some people in this country, asked that the Lascars should be given the same accommodation and the same measurement on board ship, the Colonies had been blamed by a certain class of politicians for going too far. The diminishing birth-rate and declining population were evidence that the re "striction of immigration into the
  1152
  Colonies had been a failure; and he believed that if a Labour Ministry was formed in the Australian Commonwealth, instead of restricting immigration, they would take an opposite view, for there was nothing like responsibility for enlarging the mental horizon.
  Supposing President Kruger had, six years ago passed a Bill of this kind against destitute aliens what pictures of tyranny and oppression would have been drawn. But the modern Tory out-Krugered Kruger. The extraordinary thing was that the Tories who talked when in opposition about freedom and liberty, when installed in office were disposed to make this country the most bureaucratic, as it was likely to be the most military, nation seen during the last forty years. The hon. and gallant Member for Sheffield said, "Look at the dirt of these people." But dirt was no test of character. The other day he was walking across St James' Park with a very representative Member of the House of Lords, who was dressed in an unconventional style. His companion would not have suited the hon. and gallant Member for Sheffield at all, and as they passed he could not help over-hearing one of the park keepers remark, "Why, John has picked up one of those park tramps." Untidyness of dress was no test of moral virtue, and neither was dirt a test of character. If hon. Members doubted him let them ask the officers and soldiers who had been compelled to do their duty under circumstances in which everyone of them would have been declared unclean and destitute. It was ridiculous that because men were shabby or dirty, after being three or four nights on board ship, that they should be declared incompetent to be citizens.

  1153
  Then, the hon. and gallant Member said, "See how criminal these people are." That argument answered itself. The more criminal these aliens were the less competitive they must be to the honest British working man in a free industrial market. They were told, "Look at the number of them who are bankrupt." If so, that disposed of the charge that they were beating the British shopkeeper out of the market into the workhouse. There could be no mistake about it; if this Bill wanted to help the British workman and be made a real Alien Exclusion Bill, it should provide for the deportation of every alien who worked at an honest livelihood. The fact was, it was only a front shop window Bill, prepared for the general election, and for East End constituencies and perhaps for the East End of Manchester. It would not apply to Scotland, for no Jew could live there. This Bill was in the same category with Old-Age Pensions, the Small Houses Bill, and the Prison Labour Bill.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Hear, hear!
  ME. JOHN BURNS: The hon. and gallant Member for Sheffield said "Hear, hear." Well, the total amount of convict labour goods imported into this country last year was £183 14s. Id.; and before the Bill was passed the amount was about as small. The Prison Labour Bill whispered the promise of exclusion to the ear of the British workmen, but broke it to his hope after it became law. If it was wanted to get rid of the foreign criminals he would give a word of advice to the Home Secretary. Sir Richard Webster passed through the
  1154
  House, at two o'clock in the morning, a Bill known as the Bullies Bill, and within twenty-four hours 600 bullies and souteneurs from Piccadilly. Regent Street, and Soho voluntarily took the train for Paris, Vienna, and elsewhere-Why was it that they had comeback? It was because the Home Secretary and the police were not continuing to enforce that Act with the pluck and vigour which they had shown within the first week-after it had passed. If that Act were enforced as it should be, the bulk of the dangerous foreign criminals, of whom so much had been heard, would be got rid of in twenty-four hours. In fact nine-tenths of the cases which constituted the justification for this Bill could be dealt with by the police, by the medical officers of health, and by the port sanitary authorities, without requiring new legislation. Were the 42,000,000 of people in the United Kingdom to impotently confess their inability to grapple with not more than 100,000 Jewish craftsmen, scattered in four or five towns, and more than half of them located in one London constituency. The Jews were less than I percent, of the total population of Great Britain and Ireland, and in France they were less than ½ percent. To what extent did the foreigners compete with the British workmen? They had got rid of the second-hand clothing trade, by inventing new ready-made clothing to take its place. What were the trades of the people against whom the Bill was aimed? They sold ice-cream and chestnuts, turned organs, and carried on many other minor callings in which he, for one, did not wish to see the British workman shine; and some earned their living by waiting at table. If the

  1155
  persecuted from other lands could do that kind of work, because the Briton would not do it—and that in the main was the cause—no injustice was done at all. The objectionable clause in the Bill was that which referred to persons having no visible or probable means of support. What was the standard of visible or probable means of support? He knew lots of good men who under that definition would be turned away from our shores. Supposing America or the Colonies were to interpret the law in that way against those of our own race, it would prevent half the Irishmen getting into America at Castle Garden, and thousands obtaining a footing in Canada and other parts of the Empire. Did it mean that a man must be well-dressed? If so, it would not keep out the criminals who came from Paris, Vienna, Buda Pesth, Cairo, and especially the Bessarabian Jews, who are always well dressed, but who were so criminal that they had been slung out of South Africa altogether. They would let in clean, well-dressed, and apparently respectable criminals, but keep out the brawny, honest, though poverty-stricken alien.
  Let us look at this matter from the point of view of ourselves. We were an emigrating nation, and would be for some years to come. If we adopted restrictions of this kind, it would be an incentive to other countries to be still more restrictive, which was the general tendency at the present day. Where was the grievance? With the exception of the hon. Gentleman who represented Stepney, it was admitted not to be large. It was not national. It was proportionally small, and was not relatively growing. What was more, the British
  1156
  workmen, to their credit, were not very much alarmed at it. We had very few foreign paupers, and therefore on the score of pauperism there was no ground for this legislation. And as regarded health, these aliens were perhaps the worst portion of the world's population for criticism. In the whole of London there were only 55 Jewish incurables, and these were not on the rates. In regard to lunatics (he spoke of those who were responsible for 18,000 lunatics in London), although lunacy amongst the Jews was slightly more than normal, it was not so much so as to warrant this Bill. It was true that the proportion of alien criminals was above the normal figures for the native population, but that was explained by the fact that a larger proportion of the foreigners taken into the calculation were adults.
  He came now to the chief point, viz., the dispossession of British labour. He maintained that that was grossly exaggerated. In the last ten years, in all the trades in which aliens were employed, wages had been increased, and hours reduced, while the exports of their products had increased to an extraordinary extent. Curiously enough, the workmen in the alleged evicted trades did not feel half so keenly on the matter as the hon. Member for Stepney did. The difficulty was confined, roughly speaking, to the East End of London, and mainly to Stepney. There the dumping of aliens had accentuated many social and industrial difficulties; but if the foreign aliens were to live in a self-constituted Ghetto, which he regretted, it was surely better to have them gathered in one district than widely scattered. He would not advocate that by compulsion, but if they chose to do so of their own free will that

  1157
  was well. He maintained that the East End Jew was sober and non-criminal. The only fault he had to find with him was that he had none of the vices of the free man. He yielded to authority with ox-like submission. He was patient, thrifty, sober, and industrious to an extent which made his gorge rise; but to the extent that he did that he had disarmed all the arguments which had been brought against him, such as that he was criminal, that he was a charge on the public rates, and that he was lazy. He ventured to say that this difficulty was adjusting itself. There was not the overcrowding in the East End of London that there was some time ago. It was not true that the local authorities were not dealing with this question. Between 1891 and 1901, the number of tenants of one-room tenements in London had fallen by 81,000. There were not more than 80,000 to 100,000 Jews in East London, and yet 25,000 new houses were being built every year. An hon. Member opposite said that the Jews were overcrowding the whole of London; but in St. Giles, St. George's Hanover Square, and in Holborn and in other districts in the West End, the overcrowding was even greater than Stepney, Whitechapel, or St. George's-in-the-East. If we would put an end to the evil, let us establish fair rent Courts, as they had done in Ireland, extend the powers of local authorities, facilitate communication, stop the doing of work at home, abolish sub-contracting and the like. If they wanted to stop overcrowding they should bring in a Bill giving local authorities more power to deal with this problem. If they wanted to distribute these people, let them give power to the London County Council to provide cheap, rapid,
  1158
  and universal tramways over Westminster and the other bridges. But there were other methods of meeting the difficulty. They should kill home-work altogether; make it impossible to have work carried on in tenements where people eat, lived, and slept; they should totally abolish subcontracting, do away with child labour, and, above all, let the Home Secretary issue a regulation abolishing the Sunday market in Petticoat Lane. There was another thing to do, and it was to make each employer in the East End give their employees one day's rest each week. If that were done they would diminish the number of undesirable persons in that part of London.
  His last point was that hon. Members had told them that there was a feeling growing up in this country against the Jew. That was not the case with the industrious poor, but it was true that there was an anti-Jewish feeling growing up elsewhere. It was mostly propagated in newspapers owned by Jewish proprietors and was advocated by, rich Jews who, having made their money out of foreign countries, settled here and forgot their poorer compatriots. But amongst the great bulk of the British working people there was no anti-Jewish feeling, although there was a feeling of resentment against the South African Jew, and against the mere financier who was a criminal not included in the schedule of this Bill. They were the men who were stimulating this anti-Jewish feeling. So far as the bulk of British working-men were concerned, they were too good and too considerate to do anything but offer a welcome to men who had fled from persecution in their own country. They wished this country to be regarded as an asylum for the oppressed

  1159
  of other nationalities. If the rich Jews supported this Bill against their poor fellow-countrymen they would do them an injustice. Nine-tenths of the aristocracy worshipped the Jew; one half of them were dying to marry Jewesses; and if Jews were coming to this country in increasing numbers it was due to the fact that the rich Jew, the Stock Exchange Jew, had opened up to his fellows in all parts of the world an example of what could be done if they were rich, and because the Conservative Party had made the Stock Exchange a new Jerusalem and Park Lane a now Mount Pisgah. This Government was not showing justice to the poor Jew, who was a hard worker, and was by no means a danger to the community.
  SIR CARNE RASCHsaid the hon. Member for Battersea appeared to be suffering from "Jew on the brain." For fourteen years he (Sir C. Rasch) had been the representative in that House of Tilbury Docks, and he always endeavoured to get all the information in his power. In the East of England people were tired of this incursion of 20,000 aliens every year, who swarmed the labour market, brought down wages,
  and crowded the gaols. They felt that this species of imported manufactured goods ought not to be dumped upon them any longer, and that, if they were, they ought not to take them lying down. Had there been time, he would have liked to traverse some of the arguments of the right hon. Baronet Sir Charles Dilke, for whose knowledge he had the greatest respect. Although the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge of Paris was extensive and peculiar, there were other people who knew that city quite as well as he did. It had been said that several political refugees from France, who found an asylum here, were eminent and virtuous men. There were other communists also who did their best to come here, but because they did not run away in time, were caught and very properly shot. For his part, he would welcome any Bill which would have the effect of keeping out political refugees of that sort, some of whom had succeeded in getting here, and had done the country more harm than good.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 241; Noes, 117. (Division List No. 92.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Chapman, Edward

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Bond, Edward

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Brassey, Albert

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Bull, William James

  Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C. R.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Balcarres, Lord

  Butcher, John George

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J.(Manch'r

  Caldwell, James

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Balfour, Rt. HnGerald W. (Leeds

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Carlile, William Walter

  Cox. Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Bignold, Arthur

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J. A.(Wore.

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Bigwood, James

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chatham

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Staly bridge

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Labouchere, Henry

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.

  Law Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R

  Rose, Charles Day

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Leo, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Russell, T. W.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S.

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lowe, Francis William

  Samuel, Sir Harry S. (Limehouse

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W)

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos, Myles

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Mane.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Smith, H. C. (North'mb. Tynside

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Malcolm, Ian

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Forster, Henry William

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Maxwell, Rt. Hn Sir H. E. (Wigt'n

  Stock, James Henry

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Gardner, Ernest

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Stroyan, John

  Garfit, William

  Milvain, Thomas

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Gordon, Hn. J. E.(Elgin & Nairn

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'dUniv.

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

  Tuff, Charles

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Ure, Alexander

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Valentia, Viscount

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H (Sheffield

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Mount, William Arthur

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Gretton, John

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A Graham (Bute

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E.(Taunton

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'ad'nderry

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Nicholson, William Graham

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Norman, Henry

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  O'Neil, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.

  Helder, Augustus

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H.(Yorks.)

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R.(Bath)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Percy, Earl

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Plummer, Walter R.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Hunt, Rowland

  Rankin, Sir James

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Asher, Alexander

  Bell, Richard

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Black, Alexander William

  Burke E. Haviland-

  Asquith, Rt. Hon Herbert Henry

  Boland, John

  Burns, John

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Brigg, John

  Cameron, Robert

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  1162

  1163

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Rea, Russell

  Crean, Eugene

  Leng, Sir John

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Levy, Maurice

  Reddy, M.

  Delany, William

  Lough, Thomas

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway

  Lundon, W.

  Pickett, J. Compton

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Rigg, Richard

  Doogan, P. C.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Elibank, Master of

  M'Crae, George

  Roche, John

  Ellice, Capt E. C (S. Andrw's Bgha

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  M'Kean, John

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isleof Wight)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Sheehy, David

  Ffrench, Peter

  Mooney, John J.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Pitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Gilhooly, James

  Morlcy, Rt. Hon. John(Montrose

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Moss, Samuel

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Murphy, John

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Tomkinson, James

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Toulmin, George

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Harwood, George

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Wilson, Henry J. (York. W. R.)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Dowd John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  O'Malley, William

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Charles Dilke and Mr. Trevelyan.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Partington, Oswald

  Kilbride, Denis

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Langley, Batty

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Main Question put, and agreed to:— Bill read a second time, and committed for this day.

  SAVINGS BANKS ACTS AMENDMENT [DEFICIENCY ANNUITY].
  Resolution reported, "That it is expedient to authorise the continuance of the payment of the terminable annuity payable under Section 1 of the Savings Banks Act, 1880, in each year up to the end of the half-year ending on 20th May, 1917, in pursuance of any Act of the present session to amend the Savings Banks Acts."
  Resolution read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.
  And, it being after Midnight, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed this day.
  On the Motion for the adjournment of the House.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD,)said it might be convenient for hon. Members to know that the Government proposed to take the Report stage of the Budget Resolutions on Wednesday instead of the Bishopric of Southwark Bill.
  Adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve o'clock.

A QUESTION OF PROCEDURE.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSISURY): I have to make a somewhat unusual Motion, and I must explain to your Lordships how the question arises. Your Lordships are doubtless aware that, on the succession of a Peer, his title has to be investigated. But where it is known to be, and is found on investigation to be, only the ordinary succession of a son or of some one in the direct line, there is no difficulty and, instead of compelling the parties to go to the expense of the elaborate machinery of the Committee of Privileges, it has been the practice of this House to take the certificate of the Lord Chancellor for the time being, who investigates the title, certifies the House, and accordingly the writ is issued, and in the ordinary course the Peer takes his seat. It so happens that a writ was issued to Lord Hartismere (Lord Henniker) at the commencement of this Parliament. He never came forward, and never took up his writ. The result was that there was lying in the office a writ to be given to the Peer to whom it belonged—a writ directed to Lord Hartismere by his title in the ordinary course. His son, apparently not being aware of what I have stated as to the preliminary investigation before he took his seat, came to the office and asked for his writ. There was a writ directed to his title in the office. The Christian name was not observed, and the writ was delivered to him. He came to the Table last Thursday, took the oath, and subscribed his name as a Peer of Parliament. It is a curious fact that a good many years ago—it was before the Irish Church was disestablished—the same mistake was made in the case of the Bishop of Dromore; and, in making the Motion which I am about to move, I am following the exact precedent in that case. The incident cannot be passed over because it is part of the regular business of the House. The Motion is:—"That the entry in the Journals of the House of Thursday last that Lord Hartismere (Lord Henniker) sat first in Parliament after the death of his father be vacated; that the entry of the name of the Lord
1014
Hartismere among the Lords present on Thursday last be vacated, and that the signature on the Test Roll be vacated." It was a mistake, of course, and nothing but a mistake, and I am sorry that the young gentleman who made it will have the trouble of going through the form again. I hope ho will not be disturbed, but I am compelled to make the Motion because it is in accordance with the Orders and Rules of the House, and it is very important indeed that they should not be disregarded. I make the Motion.
Moved, "That the entry in the Journals of Thursday last, stating that Lord Hartismere (L. Henniker)sat first in Parliament after the death of his father, be vacated. That the entry of the name of the Lord Hartismere among the Lords present on Thursday last be vacated. That the signature on the Test Roll be vacated."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Agreed to; and ordered accordingly.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—Bishop's Stortford and District Gas; Brixham Gas; St. Marylebone Electric Lighting; Colney Hatch Gas; London and North Western Railway; Midland Railway; Charing Cross. Euston, and Hampstead Railway; Felixstowe Gas; Birkdale Improvement; Acton Improvement; Soothill Nether Urban District Tramways; Southend-on-Sea Gas. The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
De Trafford Estate. Petition for a Private Bill; together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto; read, and referred to two English Judges.
Lord Tredegar's Supplemental Estate. Petition for a Private Bill; together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto; read, and referred to two English Judges.
London, Tilbury, and Southend Rail-way Bill. A petition of Messrs. Batten,

1015
Proffitt, and Scott, of 32. Great George Street, London, praying for leave to present a petition of the East Ham Urban District Council, praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill, although the time limited by Standing Order No. 93 for presenting such petition has expired; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; and Standing Order No. 93 to be considered To-morrow in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said petition.
Holywood Tramways Bill [H.L.]. A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.
Chippenham Gas Bill. Read 2a, and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Kirkby-in-Ashfield Urban District Gas Bill. Read 2ª and committed.
Sheppy Gas Bill. Read 2a, and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Wellington (Somerset) Gas Bill. Read 2a, and committed.
North Staffordshire Railway Bill. Read 2a, and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Norwich Water Bill; Sutton Gas Bill; Croydon Gas Bill. Road 2a, and committed.
Great Northern Railway Bill. Read 2a, and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Bill. Read 2a.
Ryde Gas Bill. Read 2a, and committed.
Amersham, Beaconsfield, and District Water Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
Lothians Electric Power Bill [H.L.]. Committee to meet on Tuesday, the 3rd of May next.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]. A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of
1016
Trade under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Wexford, was presented by the Lord Wolver-ton; read la; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 50.)

PETITIONS.
  INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
  Petition against the sale of, on Sundays; of inhabitants of Plymouth; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (METRIC SYSTEM) BILL [H.L.]
  Petition in favour of; of Parliamentary and Police Boroughs of Scotland; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  SUPERANNUATIOX.
  Treasury Minute, dated 16th April, 1901, declaring Chengtu to be an unhealthy place within the meaning of the Superannuation Act, 1876.
  Treasury minute, dated 19th April, 1904, granting a retired allowance to Herbert C. Steeds, counter clerk and telegraphist, London Post Office, under Section 2 of the Superannuation Act, 1887.

  COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) ACT, 1890.
  Account showing receipts and expenditure on account of proceedings under the Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890, during the year ended 31st March, 1904.
  BANKRUPTCY ACT, 1883 (PROCEEDINGS).
  Account showing the receipts and expenditure on account of bankruptcy proceedings during the year ended 31st March, 1904.

  ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) ACT, 1898.
  Rule amending Rule 24 (1) (A) of the School Teachers' Superannuation Rules (Scotland), 1899.
  Rule amending Rule 24 (1) (A) of the School Teachers' Superannuation Rules (Scotland), 1899.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Minute of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, dated 25th April, 1904, providing for the distribution of the general aid grant.
  INDIA (CENSUS).
  General Report of the Census of India, 1901.

  HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Report on the manuscripts of the Marquess of Bath, preserved at Longleat, Wiltshire. Vol. I.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  ARMY ANNUAL BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order). Bill reported without amendment. Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.
NEW BILL.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894 to 1900, was presented by the Lord Wolverton; read 1a; to be printed; and to be Read 2a on Thursday next. (No. 51.)

  MARINERS AND INCOME-TAX.
  LORD MUSKERRYrose to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the changed attitude of the Board of Inland Revenue on the subject of mariners being, under certain circumstances, exempt from payment of income-tax; and to ask why the Board of Inland Revenue are now requiring certain mariners to pay income-tax when, under the terms of a letter addressed by the Board to the Merchant Service Guild in the year 1901, they have hitherto been freed from payment. He said: My Lords, I wish to call the attention of your Lordships to a curious case of inconsistency on the part of the Board of Inland Revenue in regard to the incidence of income-tax upon mariners. I am quite prepared to say that under ordinary circumstances it
  1018
  is but right that those who enjoy the privileges of citizenship of this country should be compelled to contribute to its taxation, but I venture to say that mariners labour under exceptional circumstances and are denied the ordinary privileges of citizenship. They are required to pay their quota of rates and taxes, but no facilities are given to enable them to exercise their votes, and to have some voice in the framing of the laws under which they are governed.
  Under the Merchant Shipping Act, mariners are liable to incur a multitude of pains and penalties. In the case of a merchant captain the total liabilities in the shape of fines which can be inflicted upon him under the Merchant Shipping Act exceed £7,000, and under the Aliens Bill the Government propose to saddle him with another £100 penalty for bringing in undesirables, when as a matter of fact he has nothing to do with the shipment of passengers. He has quite enough to do to attend to the safe navigation of his vessel. Consequently, it will not be a matter of surprise to your Lordships that such people, possessing little, if any, privileges under the Merchant Shipping Act have some reluctance in paying income-tax; and as it appears that under the law relating to income-tax they are under certain circumstances exempt from payment, they cannot be blamed for taking advantage of it.
  In the year 1901 the Merchant Service Guild was informed by the Secretary of the Board of Inland Revenue that an unmarried mariner who was not an owner or rated occupier and was absent from the country for a period of six months during the year—which need not necessarily be continuous—could claim exemption from payment of the tax. This was admitted by the Board, and in some cases, I understand, they went so far as to return payments made by mariners in previous years. There has now, however, been an entire change of front on the part of the Board of Inland Revenue which requires, I consider, some explanation. Hitherto, as I have said, it was only necessary under certain circumstances for a mariner to be absent from the country for six months during the year to claim exemption. The Board now inform the Merchant Service Guild that

  1019
  the mariner must be away from the country during the whole of the year. This makes a great difference, and is a serious matter for many of those who earn their living—and a scanty one it usually is—at sea.
  Why the Board of Inland Revenue have changed their tactics towards a very deserving class of the community I cannot imagine, and it is somewhat extraordinary that they should express radically different opinions on the same subject within the short space of two or three years. Consequently, I hope that His Majesty's Government may be able to afford some satisfactory explanation, and I trust that the original views of the Board of Inland Revenue will prove to be the correct ones. While dealing with the treatment of mariners by the Board of Inland Revenue, I would like to point out what your Lordships and the general public, I think, are not aware of, and that is that when naval officers win a prize at Greenwich College—£10 or £50—it is paid them less income-tax. I think this is rather mean on the part of a great nation. They also get certain sums called hard-lying money to compensate for their extra hardships and discomforts when serving in the smaller vessels of His Majesty's Fleet, such as torpedo boats and others. This is also paid less income-tax.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of DONOUGH-MORE): My Lords, I do not think I need go into the rights or wrongs of the question which the noble Lord has raised with reference to money prizes which has already been discussed ad nauseam; but I think I can give my noble friend a satisfactory explanation as to why a change has been made in the practice of the Inland Revenue authorities in regard to merchant seamen who spend a certain amount of time out of the country. In consequence of some uncertainty as to the exact legal status of these seamen, it has not been the practice of the Board of Inland Revenue to prosecute in cases such as the noble Lord has mentioned. The assessment has been made, but proceedings have not been taken if the tax was not properly paid. But lately, however, the Inland Revenue authorities have been legally advised that these seamen are liable, and therefore, although reserving to themselves
  1020
  the usual discretion in such cases, they are prepared to maintain the view of the law as it has been interpreted.
  LORD MUSKERRY: Will that apply if they are a year absent?
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I understand that is so.
  LORD MUSKERRY: And will it apply to naval officers?
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: That I cannot say.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Five o'clock, till Tomorrow half-past Ten o'clock.