Source: https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1905/aug/03/aliens-bill
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 08:53:36+00:00

Document:
HANSARD 1803–2005 → 1900s → 1905 → August 1905 → 3 August 1905 → Lords Sitting → RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
§ House in Committee (according to order).
moved to amend the clause by providing that the immigrants should be inspected on the ship 5 or "at such other convenient place in the discretion of the immigration officer as he may appoint and provide." In his speech on the Second Reading of the Bill he had indicated that noble Lords on the Opposition side would have a few Amendments, and the Amendment he now moved was one of those of which he spoke. It did seem very hard that shipowners should have to pay the various expenses, and also for the maintenance of the rejected aliens. There could be no doubt that this Bill would affect the shipping interest very seriously, and it might affect it to such an extent as to entirely divert the trade in the carriage of aliens across the seas from British shipping to that of other countries. His Amendment was not a large one. As the clause originally stood, all inspection was to be made on board the ship. That was found to be exceedingly inconvenient, and a concession was made by the Government in the other House that under certain circumstances the inspection might take place on shore. But, as the Bill now stood, the expense of providing accommodation for the inspection of immigrants on shore would fall on the shipowners. As this was a public object, it seemed hard that an additional loss should be placed on shipowners in this way. He believed he could move the Amendment without in any way infringing the privileges of the other House.
said the Government could not accept the Amendment. He would not have said anything about the last point referred to by the noble Earl if he had not himself mentioned it. Many of them thought it was not for the House of Lords to look after the privileges of the House of Commons. The House of Commons could look after that matter themselves. But this point had been the subject of adjudication in the other House, and the words "and provide" were held by the Speaker to be out of order on the Report stage 6 on the ground that they altered the financial provisions of the Bill. That objection applied in a still higher degree in their Lordships' House. The whole theory of the Bill was that the expense should be thrown upon the shipowners. That had been universally determined in the other House. The Government were prepared to stand by that principle, and therefore could not consent to the Amendment.
thought the noble and learned Earl had rather overstated his case when he said that this was universally agreed to in the House of Commons. His own idea was that it was the very point which was not agreed.
said that perhaps he ought to have added the word "ultimately." He admitted that it was controverted for a time, but it was ultimately agreed to.
said he must again dispute that. The case of the shipowners was that it was a great hardship on them that they should have to bear the expense of taking aliens who were refused admission into this country back to the place from which they came. That was still more intensified by the fact that not only were the shipowners so obliged to take back alien immigrants as defined by the Bill, but they had also to take back at their own expense cabin passengers. It seemed to him a most extraordinary thing that while the Government, in this Bill, did not consent to hold, any examination of cabin passengers to see if they were undesirable persons under the Bill, still they threw on the shipowners the onus and expense of taking back cabin passengers supposing that within six months after their landing in the country they were found to be undesirable. The Government would not take the burden of deciding whether cabin passengers were undesirable or not, but when they were proved to be undesirable the burden of taking them back was thrown on the shipowners. He thought that a very great hardship. He hoped his noble friend would insist on his Amendment, and he would suggest the omission of 7 the words "and provide," so that no discussion with regard to privilege might arise.
If you leave out those words there is no difference.
I am afraid I shall have to press my Amendment to a division.
Does the noble Earl adopt the suggestion to leave out the words "and provide?"
§ On Question, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the clause," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 60; Not-Contents, 15.
Canterbury, L. Abp. Eldon, E. Chelmsford, L.
Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.) Lauderdale, E. Congleton, L.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) Mayo, E. De Saumarez, L.
(L. President.) Osnslow, E. Ellenborough, L.
Argyll, D. Waldegrave, E. [Teller.] Forester, L.
Churchill, V. [Teller.] James, L.
Ailesbury, M. Hood, V. Kenyon, L.
Linlithgow, M. Knutsford, V. Ludlow, L.
Pembroke and Montgomery, E. Bangor, L. Bp. Mount Stephen, L.
(L. Steward.) London, L. Bp. Newton, L.
Abingdon, E. Abinger, L. Robertson, L.
Carnwath, E. Ashbourne, L. Stalbridge, L.
Chichester, E. Balfour, L. Windsor, L.
Darnley, E. Belper, L. Wolverton, L.
Manchester D. Spencer, E. Davey, L.
Portsmouth, E. Coleridge, L. Welby, L.
§ that he was following the proposals of the Majority Report of the Commission in which they recommended that the alien immigrant who within two years of his arrival, was ascertained or was reasonably supposed to be under the various headings might be ordered by a Court of summary jurisdiction to leave this country. Under the Bill the decision, would lie first of all with the immigrant officer, who, of course, would be a man of no judicial experience. The only appeal then was to an immigration board, consisting of three persons appointed by the Secretary of State.
§ The questions which, this board would have to decide were very grave and very intricate. They would have to decide on the supposed lunacy of an immigrant; they would have to decide on the very nice question as to whether the offence which was supposed to have been committed was or was not of a political character—a matter which called for the exercise of a judicial decision; they would also have to decide under the succeeding sub-section whether or not he was coming to this country to avoid prosecution on religious or political grounds, another very nice question. All these questions would have to be decided, according to the provisions of the Bill, by aboard which had no judicial character at all. There was no provision in the Bill to ensure the proceedings before this immigration board being on oath. They knew that the Secretary of State might provide rules, but they did not know what those rules would be. The Amendment would not in any sense interfere with the main object of the Bill. It was only an administrative alteration, and did not in any way go to the root and principle of the Bill; and as it had been recommended by the Commission he hoped the noble and learned Lord who presided over that body would give him his support. He thought that the alien, before he was prevented from landing, should know that he had been considered an undesirable alien by a proper Court judicially constituted.
hoped the House would not accept the Amendment. The noble and learned Lord had stated that it was recommended by the Royal Commission that a Court of First Instance should deal with this matter, but the procedure which was recommended by the Royal Commission was not the same as the procedure under the Bill. That 10 was not a question of excluding the alien at the port of entry; but if there was anybody who was called attention to, the police were to get information, and subsequent proceedings were then to come before a Court of summary jurisdiction. But under this Bill they were dealing with immigrant aliens before they were landed, or, at all events, when they were only landed for the purpose of inspection, and the Court suggested by the Bill seemed to be a proper and an adequate one for dealing with the sort of matters that would have to be inquired into.
It is not a Court at all.
agreed. He had meant to call it a board. The board would have no question of law to deal with, but questions of fact, of which absolute legal proof might be impossible. The Secretary of State had ensured, as far as he could, that one of those who were appointed on the board should be a magistrate, and it was intended that as far as possible a magistrate should be the chairman. The two other members were to be, as far as could be arranged, men of business and administrative experience. If the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord were carried, it would make the Bill practically unworkable. In the first instance the matter would have to go to a Court of summary jurisdiction, but if there was to be an appeal to quarter sessions, as in all cases of dispute there would be, that might mean a delay of two or three months. What was to be done with the alien who was landed for the purpose of this inquiry during that time? It would make the Bill unworkable if the decision in his case were to be delayed for any such length of time as that. For that reason, and because His Majesty's Government thought the body suggested by the Bill would be a proper one for the purpose, he could not accept the Amendment.
said the noble Lord was in error in stating that under the Bill one member of the immigration board must be a magistrate. Subsection 1 of Clause 2 provided that the 11 immigration board for a port should consist of three persons summoned in accordance with rules made by the Secretary of State under this Bill out of a list approved by him, comprising fit persons having magisterial, business, or administrative experience. Therefore, all three could be magistrates, or none.
§ that a magistrate should be the chairman.
asked why, if it was intended that one of the members should be a magistrate, a provision to that effect should not be inserted in the Bill.
§ On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 68; Not-Contents, 16.
Canterbury, L. Abp. Lauderdale, E. Colchester, L.
Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.) Minto, E. Dunboyne, L.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) Onslow, E. Ellenborough, L.
(L. President.) Stamford, E. Estcourt, L.
Argyll, D. Waldegrave, E. [Teller.] Hampton, L.
Ailesbury, M. Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) Lawrence, L.
Lansdowne, M. Knutsford, V. Macnaghten, L.
Linlithgow, M. Mount Stephen, L.
Bangor, L. Bp. Newton, L.
(L. Steward.) St. Albans, L. Bp. Rathmore, L.
Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain,) Robertson, L.
Abinger, L. St. Oswald, L.
Camperdown, E. Amherst, of Hackney, L. Stalbridge, L.
Carnwath, E. Ashbourne, L. Suffield, L.
Denbigh, E. Biddulph, L. Wynford, L.
Manchester, D. Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.) Overtoun, L.
Ripon, M. Burghclere, L. Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.).
Coleridge, L. [Teller.] Stanley of Alderley, L.
Carrington, E. [Teller.] Davey, L. Tweedmouth, L.
§ —said this was a purely drafting Amendment, and he did not now propose to move it.
moved to leave out Sub-section 3 (a), which includes among "undesirable immigrants" any immigrant who cannot show that he 13 has in his possession, or is in a position to obtain, the means of decently supporting himself and his dependents, if any. The object of this Amendment was to omit what was called the poverty clause. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill had placed on the Paper an Amendment which to a certain extent met his (Lord Coleridge's) objection; but now that the noble Lord did not intend to proceed with that Amendment the Amendment standing in his (Lord Coleridge's) name became more imperative. His object was to secure that persons should not be excluded solely on the ground of poverty. The only excuse for objecting to an alien coming in on the ground of poverty would be if he was likely to become a charge on the rates. In the debate on the Second Reading Lord James of Hereford had shown that there was no case against aliens on the ground of their becoming chargeable on the rates. It could not be said that the incursion of aliens had led to the ratepayers having additional burdens put upon them. Indeed, they were looked after in an admirable manner by charitable organisations, and the Report of the Commission showed that even if they came in without any money they became in a very short time not only wage-earners, but persons of means. The Report of the Commission stated, in terms, that though the immigrant might come in in a state of poverty, as time proceeded he often entered on a different phase of existence, and with greater skill and increased knowledge was able to earn a substantial living. The Commission said— The balance of evidence before us is in favour of the aliens when they reach this stage. An alien, if he came as a cabin passenger, could be as undesirable as he pleased. He might be a criminal; he might be diseased; he might be a lunatic; he might be everything that was objectionable, but let him once take a cabin passage and he could come in without the intervention or the leave of the immigration officer. Therefore it was strictly true to say that the object of the sub-section which he proposed to delete was not to exclude the alien because he might come upon the rates, because he was a criminal, because he 14 was a lunatic, or because he was in any sense undesirable, but simply and solely because he was poor. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill might refer to the cry of the alien coming in and underselling the British workman. If that was the case, why had the Government been so strenuous to resist any exclusion of persons imported by employers in the time of a strike, the object of whose introduction was to undercut and undersell British workmen? If the noble Lord excluded the poor alien in the one case, he logically ought to exclude him in the other. He (Lord Coleridge) protested against the exclusion of anybody because he had not a balance at the bank and because he came in in the steerage instead of in the cabin.
thought that the argument of the competition of immigrants coming in poverty to undersell the labour of the poor at home was the strongest point made for the Bill. He would be quite unable to support the Amendment if his noble friend went to a division. In his opinion, if this sub-section was struck out they would be deleting the main and most valuable part of the Bill. He could not agree with his noble friend that aliens did not affect the question of the rates, and he was glad to note that in the other House a contrary view was taken most strongly by Mr. Sydney Buxton. It was a strong point how the importation of a large number of poor persons who were not skilled in labour, and who were by former surroundings accustomed to live in different conditions and work for less money—how the importation of these people into a small area could do otherwise than lead to acute competition with the trades carried on in that district. These people, speaking Yiddish or some other foreign tongue, were obliged to concentrate in particular districts, and therefore the competition set up in those particular districts was acute. The London County Council, at considerable expense, erected model dwellings in Boundary Street. Very 15 careful investigation was made as to the class of people inhabiting those dwellings, which were erected at the cost of the ratepayers; and it was ascertained that 25 per cent, of the occupiers were aliens. They were all sorry for these people, but he was bound to say that their first duty was to look after their own people in this matter. Having regard to the great difficulty that existed in the East End of London in the matter of employment, he really could not see why their Lordships should stand in the way of any measure which would alleviate that difficulty.
did not think the speech which had just been delivered was a very satisfactory support to the Government, because it was repeating in this House the argument which Mr. Chamberlain tried to fix on the Government during the Second Reading in another place, and which was promptly repudiated by MR. Balfour, who protested that this was a Bill for dealing with aliens who were morally undesirable, and did not, even in an indirect way, affect the fiscal question. The noble Earl who spoke last had thrown in the question of concentration, which had nothing whatever to do with this Amendment. What they were considering was whether poverty or the inability to show that he had in his possession, or was in a position to obtain, the means of decently supporting himself and his dependents was to be a ground for the exclusion of the alien. He put it to the House whether it was not a hard thing in this case to put the affirmative on the immigrant, and to enact that a man should be presumed guilty unless he proved himself innocent. Take the case of a man coming from Poland who could not speak a word of English. He was met at the landing stage by some official who told him he had to prove to him affirmatively that he had the means of decently supporting himself and those dependent upon him. That seemed very unreasonable. He did not think the term "right of asylum" had anything to do with this. Right of asylum had reference to the protection given to a person who was flying from persecution in another country. At this 16 moment they were contending for the open door and not for asylum. Unless it was the intention that bona fide and proper Amendments were to be thrown aside and not considered owing to the exigencies of time, he thought they might fairly appeal to the Government whether at any rate the burden of proof should not be thrown on the people who wanted to keep out these decent men rather than on the aliens themselves.
protested against the arguments of Lord Portsmouth. He believed the Bill to be a bad Bill, an unworkable Bill, and a Bill which would not effect the objects for which it was introduced. This was not meant to be a Bill to keep out a man because he was poor, and he would on that point quote the observations of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, who distinctly said on the Second Reading that— If a man was an able-bodied man and a healthy man, the fact of his poverty would not exclude him. He looked upon that as a very valuable admission from the Government. The object of the Bill was to exclude undesirable persons, and with that principle he, at any rate, was perfectly in agreement with the Government. He thought that any Government had a right to exclude undesirable persons, especially persons who were included in the categories in this particular clause. At the same time, the view of the Government being so strong that mere poverty was not to exclude, he held that the section was unnecessary. He would therefore vote in favour of Lord Coleridge's Amendment to delete it.
objected to the definition given of the section by the noble and learned Lord who moved the Amendment. It was not a clause to exclude a man simply because he was poor. He did not think that an accurate definition of the section. The fact was the section excluded a man if he could not show that he was likely to be able to live decently in this country when he got in. If he had a trade and was sober and industrious, he would probably have every chance of showing the board that he had 17 the means of getting his living. Again, if his friends would undertake that during the first few days before he found employment he would have the means of livelihood, that no doubt would be sufficient for the board. But what the clause did say was that they should exclude a man if he could not show that he had in his possession, or was in a position to obtain, the means of decently supporting himself and his dependents, if any. Many of these people came in with no means whatever, and there was every chance that at first they would become a charge on the rates. At all events, it was shown that they settled down in districts of London which were all very much congested, and that they lived in an insanitary manner, large numbers crowding together in the same house; and he thought it was reasonable to say that when they came in they should be compelled to show that they had a reasonable chance of earning their living and would not become a burden on the ratepayers.
Lord Coleridge had not only given his own reasons, but had put into his (Lord Belper's) mouth arguments which he never used on the Second Reading and had no intention of using. He referred to the argument about these people not being allowed to come in on the ground that they would cut prices or interfere with the employment of home workmen. That was not the ground on which this Bill had been drawn, and he thought noble Lords opposite should have been well aware of that by the fact that an Amendment was moved by the Opposition in the other House proposing to extend the Bill for the purpose of preventing workmen being brought in under contract to interfere with workmen in this country. That Amendment was resisted by the Prime Minister, who in unqualified terms stated that it was quite alien to the Bill to do anything of the sort, and that the Bill had nothing whatever to do with protection and was not framed for that purpose. He hoped the House would not adopt the Amendment.
said the question whether poverty should be a ground for exclusion was the subject 18 of grave consideration by the Commission and they took a considerable amount of evidence on that point. After full consideration they made a recommendation to this effect, that it was desirable to exclude certain persons, and, amongst others, those likely to become a charge on the rates; and, as he understood it, this sub-section carried out that recommendation in a particular form. He could not, therefore, do other than adhere to the proposal contained in the Bill. In Stepney, where there were 54,000 aliens, the percentage of those receiving Poor Law relief was only 3.5, and if they struck out medical relief the percentage was less than 1 per cent. Among the native population in Stepney, however, the percentage of those receiving Poor Law relief was 7.9, and when medical relief was deducted 3.7. The whole of the county of London was much the same. But he did not think this was a proper guide in the matter, for they had a great deal of poverty that never touched the rates. The Jewish community took charge of their own aliens in a way that kept them off the rates, and, therefore, the amount of poverty was not fully represented by the number of aliens on the rates. The evil through aliens living in overcrowded conditions was very detrimental to the public health, and there was also the serious question of their competing with the other workmen in the neighbourhood. These were the reasons why the Commissioners came to the conclusion that aliens ought to be excluded if they were in a state of poverty.
An immense number of poor people came to this country to avoid religious and political persecution, and it would be a great cruelty to send them back again; but this was fully guarded against in the Bill, which provided that in the case of an immigrant who proved that he was seeking admission to this country solely to avoid prosecution or punishment on religious or political grounds, or for an offence of a political character, or persecution, involving danger of imprisonment or danger to life or limb, on account of religious belief, leave to land should not be refused merely on the ground of want of means or the probability of his becoming a charge on the rates. Therefore, the question remained in its barest aspect, 19 was it wise that aliens should be allowed to come into this country when it was clear that they had no means of supporting themselves? Lord Stanley of Alderley had spoken of the injustice of putting the burden of proof on the alien, who might not even be able to speak the English language; but there were always persons on board these vessels who spoke the language thoroughly. He had no fear on that account. He believed the House would be acting not harshly but wisely in accepting the clause as it stood.
said he had great sympathy with the arguments of those who had spoken from the Opposition side, because he knew the thrift, sobriety, and good family life of the Jews in the East End of London. Yet there were facts on the other side which would induce him to vote with the Government. For instance, in Stepney, in 1881, the total population was 282,676. In 1890 the population had risen to 298,600, an increase of 15,924, but during that period the inhabited houses had decreased by 3,890. Therefore 15,924 more people were crowded into 3,890 fewer houses. There were 63,000 aliens in Stepney alone, and 107 streets in the borough of Stepney had been acquired by aliens in six years. This caused a great displacement of the native people, who had been driven to find a home elsewhere. It was estimated that 52,000 English people had left the district during the last decade. He felt that they were justified in passing a provision of this kind when he remembered the great mass of people unable to support themselves who were pouring into these districts, and making life almost intolerable for those who lived there.
thought the right rev. Prelate had immensely strengthened the case they were making on that side of the House for treating this question much more as a local than as a general one. These local over crowdings should be dealt with by local measures. They should be prevented locally, and he thought it was a mistake to deal with this thing as a national question, as if it applied to the whole of the country, whereas it only affected certain districts.
said the argument of the noble Lord was directed rather to the principle of the Bill, and might perhaps better have been included in a speech against the Second Reading. He wished to say one word with reference to the point made by Lord Coleridge. He understood him to dwell upon what he believed to be the hardship of requiring these immigrants to prove affirmatively that they were in possession of means sufficient to enable them to support themselves decently. There would be a good deal of force in that argument if the Bill was what the noble and learned Lord desired to make it. In a previous Amendment, which had been disposed of, the noble and learned Lord had endeavoured to substitute for the immigration officer and the immigration board a Court of summary jurisdiction, with an appeal to quarter sessions. If that was the tribunal which had to decide the point he thought there would be great hardship in requiring these poor people to prove affirmatively that they did not come within the reservations contained in this clause; but that was not in the Bill.
Under the Bill these questions would be dealt with, not by a Court, but by a board composed of persons with common sense and business experience, who should have no difficulty in deciding with fairness whether or not a particular immigrant was undesirable. He was assured that in some of the great Continental ports there had existed during the last ten years boards of this description, established, he believed, at the instance of the shipowners themselves, which had been entirely successful in a simple and rough-and-ready manner in distinguishing between those immigrants who were fit to be taken on board their ships and carried to America, and those who were not. This provision seemed to him to be essential to the Bill. He rather protested against the manner in which it had been described by the noble and learned Lord. The noble and learned Lord had described it as the poverty clause, as the clause which enabled persons to be excluded solely on account of poverty. That was not 21 how the clause was worded. It was aimed, not at mere poverty, but at a kind of destitution which made it evident that the destitute person was unfit to take his place in the community, and that if he attempted to do so he would become a charge on the rates, and would inevitably find his way to those collections of miserable people who herded together in parts of London, and became a regrettable and dangerous feature in the society of that city.
§ with overcrowding, and that increased power should be obtained for certain purposes, especially with the object of bringing all dwellings within specified areas under the operation of the by-laws made under the powers of the Public Health Act."
§ That was a remedy for the disease so graphically described by the right rev. Prelate, and not the exclusion of the persons on the ground—and he repeated the statement—of poverty, and poverty alone. Therefore, if he obtained any support, he would press his Amendment to a division.
said the noble and learned Lord had read the recommendation of the Commission imperfectly. He had forgotten to read the passage which contained the words— Or likely to become a charge on public funds. That seemed to him to be very relevant to the matter they were discussing, but the noble and learned Lord had omitted it altogether.
§ On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 78; Not-Contents, 17.
Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.) Lathom, E. Ashbourne, L.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) Lauderdale, E. Balfour, L.
(L. President.) Mayo, E. Belper, L.
Portland, D. Portsmouth, E. Chelmsford, L.
Ailesbury, M. Verulam, E. Clonbrock, L.
Bath, M. Waldergave, E. [Teller.] Colchester, L.
Linlithgow, M. Churchill, V. [Teller.] De L'Isle and Dudley, L.
Pembroke and Montgomery, E. Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) Estcourt, L.
Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.) Knutsford, V. Hampton, L.
Camperdown, E. Bangor, L. Bp. Kenyon, L.
Denbigh, E. Abinger, L. Ludlow, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) Addington, L. Macnaghten, L.
Allerton, L. Mount Stephen, L.
Eldon, E. Alverstone, L. Newton, L.
Rathmore, L. Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.) Windsor, L.
Robertson, L. Stalbridge, L. Wolverton, L.
St. Oswald L. Suffield, L. Wynford, L.
Canterbury, L. Abp. Stamford, E. Kinnaird, L.
Ripon, M. Burghclere, L. Stanley of Alderley, L.
Coleridge, L. [Teller.] Tweedmouth, L.
Carrington, E. [Teller.] Davey, L.
asked the indulgence of the House to move an Amendment which was not on the Paper, the object of which was to secure that one of the three members of the immigration board should always be a justice of the peace. The noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill had told the House that the Secretary of State had promised, in the House of Commons, that one member of the board should always be a magistrate.
No. I said that the Secretary of State had stated that as far as possible he would take care that a magistrate should be appointed, but there may be many cases in which that would not be possible.
said this statement strengthened the necessity for the Amendment. The noble Lord must not think that noble Lords on the Opposition side of the House were so simple and so lacking in intelligence as to accept that promise as binding. He had every confidence in the word of the Secretary of State, but Secretaries of State came and Secretaries of State went, and the Secretary of State to-morrow might not be the Secretary of State of to-day, and might not feel himself bound by any such assurance. Either something was meant by that assurance or it was not, and if it was meant to induce them to accept the clause it ought to be put definitely in the Bill. If the Government meant that as a rule one member of the immigration board should be a magistrate, he could not for the life of 24 him see what the objection was to stating it in the Bill. If the noble Lord liked to add the words "as far as possible" he was master of the situation and he (Lord Davey) could not object; but, at any rate, they should have definitely in the Bill what the rule was to be instead of its depending merely on a promise given in debate by a Secretary of State who might be out of office when the question became vital. The clause was an extraordinary one. The noble Lord, he supposed, knew what was meant by "a person having magisterial experience," but he had the advantage of him (Lord Davey) if he did. Did it include the magistrate's clerk? Did it include the usher of the Court? Did anybody before ever hear of such an expression in or out of an Act of Parliament? To expect them to accept the Secretary of State's assurance as to what the nature of the composition of this board should be was, he must say, to exhibit rather a mean idea of the intelligence of noble Lords on that side of the House. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.
said the objection to the Amendment was that the whole matter was one which demanded instant treatment, and it might not always be possible to find a magistrate. Certainly the Thames Police Court magistrate could not attend as he was very much overworked as it was. He could not follow what the noble and learned Lord meant when he said it was impossible to understand the words 25 "a person having magisterial experience." He supposed it meant a person who had had a magistrate's experience, not necessarily a man who was a magistrate at the time, but who had been a magistrate. The House of Commons had been content with the assurance which had been given. It was well, in a matter of this kind, not to bind themselves by hard and fast rubs, but to rely upon those who had to carry out the Act.
did not doubt that the Government and their successors would endeavour in perfect good faith to carry out the pledge given, but he objected to the immigration board being appointed in the way he understood it would be appointed. He understood that the Home Secretary was to draw up a list of twelve names and someone was to go round and get three of these gentlemen to serve.
said that what was proposed was that in each port concerned there should be a panel from whom three gentlemen would be selected for the board when required. It was obvious that the same three gentlemen would not serve every time.
did not think the Lord Chancellor was justified in claiming for this clause the consent in the House of Commons which silence gave, because this was one of the clauses which were dealt with in the other House under the principle of compulsory silence. He could not see that there would be any hindrance caused by the insertion of the words proposed.
asked what was to be the procedure before the immigration board? Was it to be open to the public who wished to attend? Would there be interpreters? Was the alien to be represented? or was it to be a tribunal before whom no one could appear except the immigrant who was to prove that he was not undesirable?
referred Lord Stanley of Alderley, in answer to his Question, to Sub-section 1 of Clause 2, which provided that— The immigration board for a port shall consist of three persons, summoned in accordance with rules made by the Secretary of State under this Act out of a list approved by him for the port comprising fit persons having magisterial, business, or administrative experience. With regard to the Questions asked by Lord Coleridge, he could not do better than refer the noble and learned Lord to Sub-section 2 of the same clause, which enacted that— A Secretary of State may make rules generally with respect to immigration boards and their officers, and with respect to appeals to those boards, and with respect to the conditional disembarkation of immigrants for the purpose of inspection, appeals, or otherwise, and may by those rules amongst other things provide for the summoning and procedure of the board, and for the place of meeting of the board, and for the security to be given by the master of the ship in the case of immigrants conditionally disembarked. Rules made under this section shall provide for notice being given to masters of immigrant ships and immigrants informing them of their right to appeal, and also, where leave to land is withheld in the case of any immigrant by the immigration officer, for notice being given to the immigrant and the master of the immigrant ship of the grounds on which leave has been withheld.
said this was the very reason why he asked the Question. The practice had grown up of legislating by rules which they never saw. He wanted to know what rules the Secretary of State was going to make. This was a very important matter, because he was empowered to make the proceedings secret or open, and to admit or exclude the Press. He wanted to know what the procedure was to be under the rules.
said the object of all these rule-making powers was to enable them to facilitate a particular thing that was intended to be done. The noble and learned Lord's Question was a suggestion that the rules should be placed in the statute, which was most undesirable.
Will the rules, when they are made, be laid before Parliament?
, in reply to Lord Coleridge's further Question, said the question as to whether the proceedings before the board should be open or not, would be at the discretion of the immigration board. There might be a great number of cases in which it would be undesirable to have the public admitted.
§ Moved, "That any rules made by the Secretary of State under this clause be laid before both Houses of Parliament."—(The Marquess of Ripon).
§ that rules would be made informing immigrants of their right of appeal. Where was that right of appeal given?
It is the appeal referred to in the Bill itself—the appeal from the immigration officer to the immigration board.
I thought the immigration board was the first Court.
§ On Question, "That those words be there inserted," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 16; Not-Contents, 75.
Manchester, D. Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.) Monkswell, L.
Ripon, M. Burghclere, L. Ribblesdale, L.
Carrington, E. Davey, L. [Teller.] Tweedmouth, L.
Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.) Minto, E. Chemlsford, L.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry) Morton, E. Cheylesmore, L.
(L. President.) Onslow, E. Clonbrock, L.
Argyll, D. Verulam, E. De L'Isle and Dudley, L.
Marlborough, D. Waldegrave, E. [Teller.] Dunboyne, L.
Churchill, V. [Teller.] Estcourt, L.
Ailesbury, M. Hood, V. Forester, L.
Bath, M. Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) Hampton, L.
Linlithgow, M. Knutsford, V. James, L.
Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.) London, L. Bp. Lawrence, L.
Peterborough, L. Bp. Ludlow, L.
Camperdown, E. Abinger, L. Newton, L.
Carnwath, E. Addington, L. Robertson, L.
Chichester, E. Allerton, L. St. Oswald, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) Amherst, of Hackney L. Stalbridge, L.
Eldon, E. Balfour, L. Windsor, L.
Haddington, E. Belper, L. Wolverton, L.
Lathom, E. Biddulph, L. Wynford, L.
said he understood that there would be some difficulty about this. It was desirable that the rules should come into operation at once, and 29 the delay in laying them on the Table of Parliament might seriously affect the operation of the Bill. He could not accept the Amendment.
said this was only an example of the great inconvenience which the House was put to by having Bills brought up at so late a period of the session, when the Government felt it was impossible to make any Amendments at all. This was the second time that an Amendment had been moved from that side of the House which exactly corresponded with what the Government said was their intention. His noble friend Lord Ripon merely proposed the insertion of a provision which gave effect to the views of the Lord Chancellor. He protested against the position in which the House was placed, for it could not even move a wise and reasonable Amendment to carry out the views of the Government because of the difficulty that would be incurred in another place if the Bill were amended.
said that in justice to the Government he ought to say that this stage of the Bill would have been taken at an earlier period if the Second Reading stage had not been postponed to meet the convenience of the House generally, and, amongst others, that of noble Lords opposite. This made a delay of three days, and when the Committee stage was put down for Tuesday there was another postponement to meet the convenience of the noble Marquess Lord Ripon, who wished to bring on his Motion relating to India.
explained that he was not proposing that the rules should not have effect until they had been laid on the Table of Parliament. He was simply asking that the rules after they had been made, and possibly acted upon if Parliament was not sitting, should be laid on the Table when Parliament met.
said the Aliens Bill was the sole result of the session's work. It was the one little thing that had been saved out of a barren session. In those circumstances, surely they might have reasonably ex- 30 pected to have had the Bill sent up to their Lordships' House earlier in the session. The fact that its consideration in Committee was put off from Tuesday till Thursday made very little difference.
It was twice put off.
Yes, but the two postponements only made a difference of four days altogether.
§ On Question, resolved in the negative.
said the object of this Amendment was to strengthen the sub-section. It would be observed that the sub-section only dealt with overcrowded aliens, whereas the cause of the overcrowding, or, if he might coin a word, the case of the overcrowder was omitted. What happened was this, that about a year after landing many of these aliens, although in many cases wretchedly poor, managed to get hold of houses and crowded them with newly-arrived aliens under conditions which were extremely detrimental to public health and which became so objectionable that British residents were driven out of the locality altogether. By his Amendment the persons who procured others to live in this condition would be reached. He was afraid he did not see much prospect, from what had passed, of his Amendment being accepted, but he believed it had obtained the approval of the Home Secretary, and he ventured to class it amongst those wise and reasonable Amendments which were alluded to by his noble friend opposite a moment ago.
could not agree with the statement that the Amendment had the approval of the Home Secretary. The provision in the clause was limited to aliens who had come into this 31 country within the year. He did not think there would be any landlord of these overcrowded dwellings who would not have been living in the country much longer than one year, and, therefore, the Amendment would be practically inoperative. The Amendment was intended to include the landlord with the aliens, but if the landlord was an alien who had not come in within the twelve months he would not be included. The Government thought that the actual words as they were in the Bill were quite sufficient to put a stop to the evil state of things which had arisen in particular parishes.
§ Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
moved to omit the words "or been living under insanitary conditions due to overcrowding." It seemed to him an unreasonable thing to go to an alien and because he happened to live in a crowded dwelling under conditions we did not consider sanitary to punish him by shipping him back to the place from whence he came. The person who should be proceeded against would be the owner of the house, who permitted the insanitary tenancy. Overcrowding by aliens was not more objectionable than overcrowding by Britons. He appealed to the Bishop of London whether it was not the case that overcrowding in the East End of London resulted in much less evil in the case of aliens than in the case of the native population. In equally unsuitable conditions they would find both the death-rate and the sick rate much lower among aliens than among Londoners. He did not like the Bill, but the Bill, at any rate, in many parts had a certain foundation. This clause, however, seemed to him to have no foundation at all. If it were made a police offence to live in an overcrowded room, and a fine of 5s. or 10s. imposed, that would be a trifling matter; but what was proposed in the Bill was that a man who had paid his passage over and had, perhaps, just got his head above water, should, merely because he was living in conditions not satisfactory to health, be driven out of the country. He felt that this pro- 32 vision in the Bill was so vicious that he should certainly divide against it.
said the evil of overcrowding, especially in Stepney, was a very great one indeed, and it was enormously aggravated by the alien immigrants who came in and settled in these particular districts. He did not think he could add anything to the strength of what had been said by the right rev. Prelate with regard to the evil of the great congestion in these particular districts, and the insanitary mode of living adopted by a large number of aliens. Of course, it might be argued that the best way of dealing with that state of things was to enforce the present law, but it could not be dealt with under the present law without a perfect army of inspectors, and if anything was to be done the law must be strengthened. In the meantime, why should they not get in this Bill what was a most admirable provision, viz., that people who, after notice, were found living in insanitary conditions due to overcrowding should be liable to be expelled from the country? Why should they not be sent back in the same way as other undesirable aliens? Surely they did not want to encourage the poorest classes of aliens to further overcrowd the most crowded part of London and to live in a state of insanitation far beyond anything that obtained in the case of the ordinary inhabitants of the district. This provision in the Bill would be of great value in remedying present overcrowding. This was a way of dealing with the evil which, the Government thought could be very easily carried out, and they would be very sorry to see this useful provision left out of the Bill.
said that among the virtues which he ascribed to the aliens in East London—their good family traditions, their thrift, and their sobriety—he had not been able to mention their cleanliness. He could 33 not say from his experience that the alien population added to the cleanliness of East London. It was quite the reverse. It must also be remembered that they made very bad landlords. Even the Chief Rabbi himself in a sermon quoted the remark of one of them, "Thank God I live under a Christian landlord." When these houses passed into the hands of aliens acute overcrowding followed. With regard to the statement that this would be a great hardship in the case of the little man who had just got his head above water, he would observe that if the alien was in that position he would not be living in the insanitary and overcrowded condition referred to. He could say from experience that the question of overcrowding was one of the most difficult questions with which local authorities had to deal. He hoped the clause would be allowed to remain as it stood.
§ in his reply that there was no hardship if these persons were dealt with in the way proposed after notice. He did not understand that there was any provision that the person should have notice.
did not intend his words to be taken in that way. He meant that when this Act passed aliens would know that if they lived under insanitary conditions due to overcrowding they did so at the risk of being expelled.
If the noble Lord means that Acts of Parliament are known to every subject, that may be law, but it is not common sense.
§ On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 72; Not-Contents, 15.
Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.) Mayo, E. Clonbrock, L.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) Minto, E. Colchester, L.
(L, President.) Morton, E. De L'Isle and Dudley, L.
Argyll, D. Shrewsbury, E. Ellenborough, L.
Marlborough, D. Verulam, E. Estcourt, L.
Portland, D. Waldegrave, E. [Teller.] Forester, L.
Ailesbury, M. Churchill. V. [Teller.] James, L.
Bath, M. Hood, V. Kenyon, L.
Pembroke and Montgomery, E. Lawrence, L.
(L. Steward,) Bangor, L. Bp. Ludlow, L.
Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.) London, L. Bp. Macnaghten, L.
Peterborough, L. Bp. Newton, L.
Camperdown, E. Abinger, L. St. Oswald, L.
Chichester, E. Allerton, L. Stalbridge, L.
Denbigh, E. Alverstone, L. Suffield, L.
Doncaster, E. (Buccleuch and Queensberry.) Amherst of Hackney, L. Windsor, L.
Eldon, E. Balfour, L. Wynford, L.
Haddington, E. Belper, L. Zouche, of Haryngworth, L.
Manchester, D. Carrington, E. Stamford, E.
Coleridge, L. [Teller.] Monkswell, L. Tweedmouth, L.
, in the absence of Lord Muskerry, moved to make the owner or agent directly responsible for the expenses connected with the expulsion of an alien instead of the master of the ship. It was, perhaps, right enough to fine captains in the old days of wooden sailing ships, previous to telegraphs and railways. Then a captain was really captain of his ship, but at present he was only captain when his ship was at sea. In harbour everything was managed by the owner or agent, who had the telegraph wire and a telephone in his office. If the captain who was engaged in short trips was to be held responsible for all that was done in harbour, he would not be able to get sufficient rest to enable him adequately to perform his duties when at sea, with the result that the safety of the ship's navigation would suffer.
regretted that the Government could not accept the Amendment to leave out the masters. The object of the Bill was, in dealing with these foreign ships—and they were all foreign ships—to make the owner responsible. The owner was a foreigner living in a foreign country, and the only way of dealing with him was through the captain. There were similar cases under the Merchant Shipping Act in which large penalties were nominally placed on the master of the ship with the object of their hitting the owner, and in cases of this sort it was absolutely necessary to follow this course in order to prevent a foreign shipowner escaping liability altogether. It might be argued that the master would in all cases be the agent, but he was informed that that was not the case, and that unless he was made the agent for this special purpose he would not be liable.
then moved to omit that part of the clause which provided that the master of any ship belonging to the same owner should be liable for the expenses of the return of an alien under an expulsion order. He said that under this clause as it stood at present a captain could be fined in consequence of the conduct of any captain in the employ of the same company. For instance, a captain in the Wilson line, running from Hull to Hamburg, might be fined for the neglect of duty of a captain in the same line who was running between Newcastle and Riga, whom he might never have seen, and with whose appointment as master he had had nothing whatever to do. Next year a new Motor-Car Bill would be brought before Parliament. What would their Lordships or the Members of the House of Commons say if it were to contain a clause making any Member of either House liable for the fines inflicted on any other Member of the House in which he happened to sit. Yet this was on all fours with what was being done by this Bill. He was speaking in the presence of several motorists, some of whom might have been fined, but, if so, he was sure that they would not wish that other Members of the House should pay their fines for them. Captains of ships had no more power to select or interfere with the captains employed by the same owner than Members of their Lordships' House had of selecting those amongst whom they sat. He thought it probable that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would refer him to Section 2 of Clause 7, which again referred to certain sections of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894, more especially to Clauses 681 and 693. Clause 681 made the fine recoverable as a civil debt from the captain. He could find nothing in any of the clauses which gave any protection to the merchant captain, and it was only when all the powers of the law against the captain had been put in force, that the shipowner's liability appeared to come in. The clause as it stood was a blot on 37 the Bill, and he hoped that the Government would accept his Amendment.
said the remarks he had made with regard to the former Amendment applied equally to this one. This particular provision, however, went a little further. It was to the effect that where a particular ship which had brought aliens in had gone out of port, there should be a means of getting at the owners through the captain of any other ship belonging to the same line. The object was not to make any one pay who was not liable, but to get rejected aliens taken back by a ship belonging to the same company.
moved to amend the definition of "immigrant ship," which in the clause is defined as "a ship which brings to the United Kingdom more than twenty alien steerage passengers," etc., by substituting the number ten for twenty. This was another Amendment which he believed enjoyed the sympathy of the Home Secretary, and he hoped he might be more successful with it. He did not see what special virtue there was in the number twenty. An alien immigrant was an alien immigrant whether he came as a single spy or in whole battalions. He could see no reason whatever why any number should be specified, but he desired to be reasonable, and he suggested, as a compromise, ten. Under the Bill the Home Secretary enjoyed very considerable power. Over and over again they would find in the Bill that the Secretary of State had power to do pretty much as he liked. The Bill would come into operation on January 1st next, and by 38 that time it was possible there might be a Government in office which was not particularly friendly to the Bill. Lord Coleridge might be Home Secretary, and they knew from his own words that the noble and learned Lord was very far from being amicably disposed to the Bill; and it would be open to him to render the Bill almost innocuous. He thought it was advisable that some check should, if possible, be placed on hypothetical proceedings of this character. With regard to the inevitable objection, he foresaw that if this Amendment were carried it would lead to trouble in another place, he would point out that it need involve only one division in the other House, and, therefore, without being unduly rash, the Government might accept it.
supported the Amendment. Whether a ship brought in one alien immigrant or twenty, it was much the same thing. He could not understand why the limit of twenty was inserted in the Bill.
said the remarks of the noble Earl who had just sat down showed that he had not studied the scheme of the Bill deeply. The object was to deal with alien immigrants coming in at particular ports. It was not proposed to examine every ship that arrived in the United Kingdom. Certain ports would be selected, the ports to which these aliens were usually shipped, and at those ports there would be an officer and an immigration board. He did not see any particular virtue in the number twenty, but he thought it was a number which was more applicable to the scheme of the Bill than ten. It was an adequate number, and one at which the line of wholesale traffic might be drawn. The Government were aware that if the number was rigidly fixed at twenty the provision in the Bill might be avoided by shipowners bringing in less than twenty aliens. That was the reason why special power was given to the Secretary of State to vary the number if 39 he found it necessary to do so. He did not entertain intense distrust of Secretaries of State in this matter. He thought the procedure in the Bill fixing the adequate number of twenty in the first instance a most convenient one. If they fixed a lower number he did not see that there would be any advantage, and it might make it necessary to examine a much larger number of ships in some cases than would be desirable. They felt that the fixing of the number of twenty, tempered by the discretion vested in the Secretary of State, was the best way of dealing with the clause, and they must adhere to it as it stood.
moved to omit that part of the clause which provides that if a question arises as to whether any offence is an offence of a political character it shall be referred to the Secretary of State. He said the Amendment was not one directed in any sense against the principle of the Bill, nor was it, as he thought, in any way out of accord with it. There was an additional reason why they should give attention to this particular proposal, because both in Committee and on Report in the House of Commons, through the circumstances under which discussion was carried on, this Amendment was not reached and was not discussed at all.
As the Bill stood, an alien who was destitute could be excluded from this country. He could then claim asylum and shelter on the ground of being a political offender. Having done so, his claim was referred to the Home Secretary, and the Home Secretary then decided finally whether or not his offence was a political one. This raised the question, a very old question and one that had been the subject of controversy very often before, as to how far the power of deciding what was a political offence should lie with the Executive Government rather than with a judicial body. At the time of the passing of the Extradition Act of 1870 this point was raised, and it was most carefully provided that all decisions 40 of this kind should be left with the judicial body. The Attorney-General, speaking on the second Reading of that Bill, said— There was a distinct provision that no criminal should be surrendered for any political offence. They had found it most difficult to define all political offences, and had finally given up the attempt and left the matter to the Courts. Under this Bill it was proposed to leave what was admitted by distinguished lawyers to be a difficult matter to the ipse dixit of the Home Secretary. In 1890 a case arose under the Act of 1870, in which the extradition of a Swiss was demanded by the Swiss Government. The man said he was engaged in a political disturbance, that his offence was a political one, and that therefore it was not right that he should be extradited. The matter was brought before the Bow Street magistrate, who decided that the man should be extradited, but he appealed to the Court of Queen's Bench, and that Court decided that his was a political offence and that he should not be extradited. He thought difficult cases on the borderland would constantly arise, and he contended that this was not a question that should be left to a member of the Executive Government. In some cases difficulties might arise between our own Government and a foreign Government on such a subject, and he did not think that it was a very desirable thing that a member of the Government of the day should, decide the matter. That was essentially a case where the subject should be referred to a judicial body, and where the principle laid down in the Extradition Act of 1870 should be adhered to. He had to confess himself a layman in such matters, but he thought this was a point which was worthy of serious consideration. If the Government could not accept his Amendment then, he hoped they would consider the subject and introduce an Amendment of their own on the Report stage.
thought that the noble Lord had hardly appreciated the effect of his own Amendment. 41 He proposed to omit these words, but he had not suggested who was to try the offences referred to, or where they should be tried. It was doubtless true, as the noble Lord had said, that it was occasionally somewhat difficult to define a particular offence; but, on the other hand, their Lordships should consider what they were doing. In the first place, what tribunal were they going to set up? This was a matter which had to be decided on the arrival of the person. Such a proposal as was made in another place, to have a decision subject to an appeal which in turn would be subject to a further appeal, was not applicable to a matter that must be decided immediately. They could not keep a person in the position of being neither accepted nor rejected; a decision must be given one way or the other at once. Looking at the nature of the decision to be given, he would have thought that perfect security was obtained by leaving the matter to the Secretary of State, responsible to Parliament, because no Secretary of State would care to take the responsibility of refusing asylum in a doubtful case. The noble Lord was doubtless moving with a desire to aid the supposed refuges, but his own view was that the most perfect security was obtained by leaving the matter to the Secretary of State, who was responsible to Parliament.
said he had purposely left the Amendment in its present form, and had refrained from suggesting another tribunal because he thought it was a matter rather for the Government. These cases of political offences would not very frequently arise, and they ought to be dealt with with extreme care. Under the Extradition Act a man went before the magistrate, and then from the decision of the magistrate there was an appeal to a higher Court. He thought it would have been well to follow some similar course in these cases. It was just under this Bill that cases were likely to arise similar to the instance in 1890 to which he had referred. He regretted that the noble and learned Lord had not adopted a more sympathetic attitude. He thought it was a subject which would have commended itself to 42 the noble and learned Lord, and, if his noble friends would support him, he was inclined to press the matter to a division.
said the noble Lord had stated that he would be content with getting rid of the appeal to the Secretary of State, and would leave it to the Government to consider whether any form of appeal should be substituted. That would put them in this position. In political cases, either the question would have to be decided by the immigration board, which had not been spoken of in terms of inordinate respect by the critics of the Bill, and which, he thought, would be quite incompetent to deal with the question; or an appeal would have to be given to the Courts of Law. Several times in the course of the debate it had been said that what was required was some simple and expeditious way of dealing with cases as they arose. The attainment of that object was not consistent with a procedure which would leave it open to any immigrant whose fitness for admission was challenged to raise a question of law, or induce somebody else to raise a question of law, to be carried from Court to Court, involving litigation, during which, presumably, the shipowner would be responsible for the charge of the would-be immigrant. The whole proposal was so foreign to the general purpose and scope of the Bill that the Government could not do otherwise than resist it.
§ Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday next.
Forward to COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE TO CROPS BILL.

References: V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V.