Mr. FLYNN (Cork, N.) moved to leave out the words
"United Kingdom" in lines 6 and 7 of Clause 1,
and to insert the word "Great Britain". The
effect of the Amendment would be to exclude Ireland
from the Bill. He trusted the debate would not
proceed very long before the Home Secretary
intimated acceptance of the Amendment.
It had been said that this Bill was largely a
"faked up" demand on the part of certain
politicians in England and Scotland. However
that might be, there had unquestionably been
no demand for the Bill in Ireland. There had never
been a resolution passed by any public body
in Ireland in favour of the Bill, nor had any
public man spoken on the question, or made any
demand in connection with alien immigration.
For many centuries Ireland was the sanctuary
of large numbers of the victims of persecution
and intolerance in other countries. In the
reigns of Mary and Elizabeth a large number
of people sought refuge in Ireland from the
religious persecution of the time. Later on
when the Jews were being persecuted all over
the Continent a large number sought sanctuary
in Ireland, and even at the present day there
were in that country a considerable number of
the descendants of the Huguenots who had to
fly from France and other countries.
Not only did Ireland not ask such a Bill as this,
but her whole traditions and history, and the
feelings of the people, were against a measure
of this class which aimed at the unfortunate
people who had to seek refuge. The demand
that Ireland be excluded from the Bill was
a reasonable one, and he hoped the Home Secretary
would at once announce that it was the intention
of the Government to accept the Amendment.
It was not likely that any condition of
things would arise in Ireland in regards to
vessels from Continental ports such had been
described in connection with various ports
in England and Scotland. There was unquestionably
considerable trade between certain Continental
ports and ports in Ireland, and from that point
of view they desired that Ireland be excluded.
But there was another consideration which he was
sure must have escaped the notice of the framers
of the Bill in connection with the constant
communication between the United States and
Ireland. The communication took the form of
both emigration and immigration. The immigrants
were mostly men and women who would be described
under this Bill as aliens. Unfortunately, owing
to the sad condition of Ireland large numbers
of people had to leave its shores during
the last half century. A considerable number
when they went to America became naturalised
and foreswore allegiance to the Sovereign of
this country. They became in the eyes of the
law aliens, and they would be prevented, except
under severe restrictions, from coming
back to Ireland. He was sure that that was
a matter which the Government could not have
had in their mind when they were framing
Clause 8 of the Bill. He was informed that over
10,000 Irish-born Americans who had been
naturalised had returned to the land of
their birth and visited the exhibition recently
held at Cork. All these people would have been
subjected to an examination which would have been
intolerable if such a measure as this had
been in operation. It was well known that a
considerable number of immigrants came over
every year. A small percentage of the Irishmen
who had been naturalised in America travelled
first class, and, therefore, would not be subject
to the Bill, but a considerable number who
had only a few pounds to spend on a visit
to their friends, came steerage and would
be liable to exclusion. The test applied to
these people would not be whether they were
vicious or criminal, whether they were
dynamitards or anarchists, but whether
they were rich or poor. If he were an
Irishman who had succeeded in making a
fortune, and came as a cabin passenger,
well and good; but if he were a poor man
and travelled steerage he would come
under the restrictions of the Bill.
It was no use telling him that some day
or other the parties to whom these restrictions
applied would be settled by the Board of Trade
or the Home Office. He absolutely refused to
place confidence in any future Home Secretary as
to this natural desire of his fellow countrymen,
even if they had been naturalised in America,
to visit their native land. His experience
of English administration was not of such
a reassuring character that he should be
prepared to put such large powers in the hands
of the Board of Trade or the Home Office.
There was one class of aliens which they
particularly wanted to exclude from Ireland,
and that was British Ministers and
British Placehunters. There was another
class of Irish born or British born citizens
who had been naturalised in America whom this
Bill would exclude. It was not a large class,
but one well worthy of consideration.
A considerable number of old Irish-Americans
- men and woman-whose last, earnest desire
was that they should lay their bones in the
sacred soil of their own country and in the
graves of their own forebears. That was a
settled and deep feeling in the Irish breast.
Most of them were poor and must travel
steerage, and the immigration officer
would meet them and say, "What business
have you here ? Go on to Liverpool or go back
to America." Nobody in Ireland had asked
for the Bill; nobody took the slightest interest
in it, and that because few saw the
dangers lurking in it. It seriously interfered
with the inflow of Irish-Americans into the
country of their birth, and he hoped that
the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary
would recognise these facts and exclude Ireland
from the scope of the Bill.
Amendment proposed-
"In page 1, lines 6 and 7, to leave out the words
'United Kingdom', and insert the
words 'Great Britain'."_ (Mr. Flynn.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'United Kingdom'
stand part of the clause."
MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS said he was afraid that
he could not see his way to accept the Amendment.
He had no reason to think that Irish-Americans
who came over to visit their relatives in
Ireland would not be able to satisfy the
immigration officer as to their status and
condition. There would be little difficulty
in their passing the barrier when they
could show that they had come to stay with
relations and not to settle. There was one reason
why it was impossible for the Government to accept
the Amendment. It had come to his knowledge
that a certain number of undesirable aliens
came from America, remained in Ireland, and
became a burden on the ratepayers.
Mr. HUGH LAW (Donegal, W.) said he did
not suppose that there was any objection to
the compulsory exclusion of lunatics and idiots
from Ireland; but the right hon. Gentleman had
not in any way answered the case put by his
hon. friend the Member for Cork. Persons of
Irish birth who had become naturalised in
the United States, but who desired to return
and settle again in Ireland, would, on the
face of it, be treated under this Bill as
aliens, and might be treated as undesirables.
He thought that some more information was desirable
as to what the procedure was to be. An
immigrant ship, under the Bill, was a vessel
which carried twenty alien steerage passengers;
and he wanted to know, in the first place, if there
were twenty such persons as he described
on board a liner, whether they would be
allowed to land at all in Ireland ?
In the second place, how and where were
they to proceed to satisfy the immigration
officer ? There was a great stream of
emigrants from Ireland to the United States
every year, and a certain proportion of these
emigrants returned to Ireland. Irish emigrants
to America were of two classes-those who were
successful, and those who were unsuccessful.
Anyone who knew the congested districts of
Ireland must be familiar with the sight of a large
house which had a certain look of prosperity
about it in the midst of desolation.
It generally turned out on examination that
that was the house of a man who had been in
America, had made some little money, and had
returned to spend his days in his native land.
They did not come as cabin passengers, and if
they travelled in a vessel which carried
twenty alien steerage passengers they would
fall under the restrictions of the Bill,
and would have to satisfy the immigration
officer that they were proper persons to be
allowed to land. Such people would, no doubt,
have some money in their pockets and might
be able to satisfy the immigration officer
that they were not paupers, but still they
would be put to a great deal of
quite unnecessary inconvenience.
That might be a serious matter, but
there was another class. Unhappily it was
only too common for Irish boys and girls
to go to the United States and find that
country not the golden land of promise
which they had been led to expect, but only a
land of disappointments. He knew of girls
who had gone from their little mountain
homes to the great cities of America,
like New York, Chicago, or St. Louis where
the climate and conditions of life were so
different from that of their native land.
After being in service for some years,
possibly they married and became citizens
of the United States. Their health failed them,
and the desire came to return to their
old homes. Now how was such a girl to
satisfy the immigration officer at a
distant port from her old home,
where she knew their would always be a welcome
for her and a share of such poor fare as the
family had ? She had no money in her pocket;
perhaps she had only been able to scrape up
the money for her steerage passage.
She presented herself at Moville or Liverpool
and was met by an English immigration
officer who would say, "You are not a British
subject; you are an alien and you have no
means of support". She would reply "Yes ;
but I am going back to my family," and
would mention the name of the mountain
hamlet, of which the immigration officer
had most probably never heard. Was
it really intended, under cover of this Bill,
which professed to be directed against criminals
and undesirables, that the British Government
was going to deny that girl a refuge
with her family in her old home? Were
these people to be exposed to the
humiliation and the possible risk involved
in this Bill. If Ireland wished to support
her children who had failed in the struggle
of life in the United States, that was no
affair of the Government. Ireland was ready to
welcome them back; and the Government had
no right to prevent Ireland affording
them an asylum which it was ready to give.
Mr. SLOAN (Belfast, S.) said he was
entirely in sympathy with the proposition
in the Amendment, should that be the result
of the operation of the Bill. He had
listened to the Home Secretary's statement
that any Irish-born American who desired
to return home to his mother country
would not be considered to come under
the terms of the Bill. That might not
be the interpretation of hon. Gentleman
opposite, but it was the interpretation of the
Minister in charge of the Bill. He confessed
that aliens in Ireland at the present time
were not receiving the treatment from
hon. Members opposite that they ought
to receive. There were aliens in Ireland
who were considered by hon. Members opposite
to be so undesirable that they could not get a
means of livelihood.
An. HON. MEMBER: Where.
Mr. SLOAN : IN Limerick.
Mr. JOYCE (Limerick): I desire to contradict
in the strongest terms the unfounded assertion
the hon. Member has made, and he knows it is unfounded.
Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY (Limerick, W) : On what authority
does the hon. Member make that statement.
Mr. JOYCE: Withdraw and apologise to Limerick.
Mr. SLOAN: The hon. Member need not get into such a heat.
Mr. JOYCE: I am as cool as a cucumber when
I am dealing with people like you.
Mr. SLOAN: I have had occasion to bring
before the House the case of the class of
people I refer to in Limerick who have not
only been boycotted but are refused the means
of livelihood and the necessaries of life.
Mr. JOYCE: I again contradict this statement
and say it is false from beginning to end.
Mr. SLOAN: I appeal, Sir, to you-
The CHAIRMAN: The whole discussion is out of order.
Mr. SLOAN: The hon. Gentleman has the same
privileges in this house as I have.
Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR (Kildare, N)
No man has the privilege to lie.
THE CHAIRMAN: I hope hon. Members on both
sides will restrain themselves. This question
is not in order, and I must ask the
hon. Member to pass from it at once.
Mr. SLOAN said he would bow to the
ruling of the chair. He went on to
say that if the possible cases cited by hon.
Members opposite came under the operation
of the Bill they would have a case,
but he could not understand how the
Bill could be interpreted to mean that
an Irish-born American returning to
spend the remainder of his days in
his native land would be described
by the Home Secretary of the day
as an undesirable alien. He could not
further understand how it could be
stated that a person coming from America
to visit his friends in Ireland,
and who had a return ticket, would
be considered as coming under the operation
of the Bill. If this Amendment was
carried, Ireland would become the
dumping ground for those people
whom Great Britain refused to allow in.
Ireland was a part of the United Kingdom
and deserved the protection of this
Bill, and that was the reason he
objected to this Amendment.
SIR ROBERT FINLAY said the Government
had the greatest possible sympathy with
the Amendment; but the hon. Gentleman who
moved it would admit that if Ireland were
exempted there would be an influx of aliens
into the country which Ireland did not want
any more than Great Britain. There would
be two ports in Ireland under the Bill.
CAPTAIN DONELAN (Cork,E) asked if Queenstown would be one.
SIR ROBERT FINLAY said that probably it
would. The Government had not the slightest
desire to keep out of Ireland the class
of persons to whom the hon. Gentleman
who moved the Amendment referred; and while
it was not possible to accept the
Amendment as proposed, the Government were
perfectly ready to consider the matter
with a view to achieving the object in
view, with which he entirely sympathised.
Mr. T.W. RUSSEL (Tyrone, S) said the speech
of the Attorney-General had eased the
position somewhat, but with reference
to what the hon. Member for South Belfast
had said, he would like to say that the argument of
the hon. Member had been built on what
the Home Secretary had said. But they were
not concerned with what the Home Secretary
said. They had built a good many arguments
upon what the Chief Secretary for Ireland
had said and they had suffered for it.
He appealed to the hon. Member for South
Belfast to shut out from view what the
Home Secretary had said and to see what
Section 8 of the Bill said. Section 8
said that the expression "immigrant" meant an alien
steerage passenger who landed in the
United Kingdom. Therefore, any Irishman
who had gone to America in his early days,
and had been naturalised there, who returned
to the old country was an alien if he came steerage,
which he was likely to do, and as an alien
was subject to all the prohibitions of the Bill.
That was a monstrous thing and Irish Members
of all Parties should not submit to it.
It applied not only to Queenstown but to Moville,
to Belfast, to Derry, and every part of Ireland.
He did not care for the purpose of the argument
whether the Attorney-General made two ports
in Ireland or not. That did not abolish
Section 8 of the Bill. So long as the
definition stood, so long would these
hundreds of thousands of Irishmen who
returned to their native land be subject
to these prohibitions. They would fight
against that to the end. It was not fair of
the Attorney-General to say he would confer
with the Irish members on the subject.
He was glad the right hon. Gentleman realised
the impossibility of passing the Bill
in its present shape. It was the business
of the Government to introduce Bills in
the proper form. They never could have
considered the effect of this upon the
thousands of Irish-Americans yearly returning
to Ireland from America, and he for one would
not stand for it.
Sir JOHN GORST (Cambridge University) said
he wished to ask the Attorney-General whether
the inclusion of Ireland was necessary or
not. It always appeared to him that some
kind of alien legislation was rendered
necessary by the action of the United States.
The Government there decided whether a
cargo of immigrants should be admitted or not.
If immigrants were rejected because of bad
character, lunacy, or any other reason the
shipping company concerned was obliged to
take them back to Europe; and the most
convenient part to which they could be
taken was Ireland. He understood that
this was now actually being done, and
that lunatics had been brought back and
dumped down in Ireland and had become
an expense to the local authorities of
Ireland.
The question he wished to ask the hon.
and learned Gentleman was whether, under
the provisions of the Bill as they stood
or as they would stand when they were
amended by the Government Amendments,
there was power to stop things of that kind.
He desired to point out that these people
would not come back in large batches but
in ones and twos, and therefore not
come within the provisions of the Bill,
and might be landed in Ireland under the
very noses of the authorities without there
being power to stop them. What he wished to
ask the Attorney-General was whether there
were in the Bill any provisions which
would enable us to prevent those immigrants
who had been rejected by the United States
from being dumped in Ireland.
Mr. WALLACE (Perth) asked whether it was
not a fact that the shipping companies were
compelled to take those whom the United States
rejected back to the country from whence they came.
Major SEELY (Isle of Wight) said two new
facts had arisen in consequence of this
Amendment as to which he would like to ask a
Question. First of all, was it a fact that
the Home Secretary intended to make provision
that where any man had a return ticket
he should be exempted from the provisions of
this Bill? He understood the right hon.
Gentleman to state that, and if it were so
it was as well to know it. Secondly, was
it not the fact that the Home Secretary
proposed to provide that any one born
within these islands would be exempt
from the provisions of the Bill ? Those
were very important matters, both of which
affected the position of Ireland.
Mr. LEIF JONES (Westmoreland, Appleby)
asked whether there were any provisions
within the Bill under which it
would be possible to make any exemptions at all.
Until the inconvenience of the examination
had occurred how could any exemptions be made.
Sir ROBERT FINLAY said he understood the
questions of the hon. Member for Cambridge
related to two points; one, whether born in
Ireland who had gone to the United States
and who having become naturalised had come
back were to be regarded as aliens, and the
other, what was the nature of the provisions
of the Bill for preventing persons of a
very different class, who had been rejected
by the United States, being dumped down
in Ireland. He would not like to give a
positive Answer at the moment to the
first Question for the reason that though
it was well known at common law that a
British subject could not divest
himself of his nationality by becoming
naturalised in a foreign country, exceptions
had been introduced by statute.
Before returning a positive Answer to that
Question he would like to have the assistance
of the Foreign Office as to what conventions
had been made with the United States.
The matter was one eminently one deserving
of attention., and he could only repeat
that nothing was further from the wishes
of the Government than to prevent a particular
class of persons returning to their own country.
As to the question of the provision for
preventing rejected immigrants to America
being landed in Ireland that had been
explained by the Home Secretary. No such
persons, being aliens, could be landed
from immigrant ships except at those
ports marked out as ports of arrival
by the Aliens Board, and then only after
proper examination. The power to reduce the
number of "twenty" could and no doubt would
be exercised if the question arose, so as to
prevent the dumping of immigrants in Ireland.
He was not able to say whether the laws of the
United States required a ship to take rejected
aliens back to the country from which they came.
The first Question asked by the hon. Member for
the Isle of Wight he had already answered and
with regard to the second, with reference to
return tickets, he did not think this was the time
or place to consider that question. If the hon.
and gallant Gentleman desired an answer he would
suggest that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should
ask the Home Secretary for the information, which he
(Sir Robert Finlay) was not in a position to afford.
Mr. HEMPHILL (Tyrone, N.) thought it was very hard,
in the face of the opposition of those who represented
majority of the opinion of Ireland, that this measure
should be pressed on that country, in which there had
been no demand for it. If there was any demand for
this measure it existed in certain quarters in England
where there was great pressure of population and it
became the interest of particular individuals for
Party or other reasons to raise this question.
He agreed with the hon. Member for Cork, who pointed
out that some of the most useful inhabitants of
Ireland were the descendants of those who could
not have landed in Ireland if this law were in
operation centuries ago. Ireland had been a refuge
to those who had been driven from other countries
by tyranny and oppression, and the descendants of
many of those who sought its hospitality lived
there today. He thought it was most unreasonable
to press this measure on Ireland. All Nationalist
Members asked was that when a change was being made
which at the best was a departure from the traditions
of a great and free country, such an organic change
should not, in spite of the remonstrances of her
representatives, be forced upon Ireland, where no
necessity or demand existed for the measure. The
retention of Ireland within the scope of the Bill
simply afforded another argument in favour of enabling
Ireland to legislate for herself so far as questions
affecting the locality were concerned.
Sir ROBERT FINLAY said that when he spoke last he had
statute before him. He could now inform the Committee
that Section 6 of the Naturalisation Act, 1870, provided
that a British born subject on becoming voluntarily
naturalised in a foreign country would cease to be a
British, except when, with a particular class of case,
he made a declaration that he desired to remain a British
subject.
Mr. BRYCE said the statement of the Attorney-General
made the question raised by the Amendment much more
important, inasmuch as the number of persons who, having
become naturalised, returned from the United States to
visit relatives in Ireland was very large indeed. If
the Government intended to keep Ireland within the scope
of the clause it was obviously necessary that they should
make some provision to meet those cases.
Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) agreed that there was some weight
in the objection that if Ireland were excluded from the
clause she would remain open to the landing of undesirables
while England was closed. But what he particularly desired
to call attention to was the way in which the scope, expense
and difficulties of the Bill were becoming increasingly
plain. Two ports had now been added for Ireland, whereas
none had been mentioned before, and both the Home
Secretary and the Attorney General had acknowledged the
validity of the objections raised by his hon. friend. The
case for the Bill had never been made out, but if it had,
the Bill ought to have been more thorough and to have
covered all the ports in the country.
Mr. POWER (Waterford, E) said there was no doubt that
this question was about which it was easy to speak on the
platform, and for which there was no difficulty in suggesting
general remedies, but when one came to close quarters, it was
seen that it was an extremely difficult matter to deal with.
The provisions which had been so far submitted to the
committee, instead of mitigating would only increase the
existing difficulties and to a large extent dislocate trade.
As to the prevention of the coming of undesirable lunatics
and so forth into Ireland, the Irish people would be very
grateful to the hon. Gentleman if he could stop the
deportation of paupers from England to Ireland a practice
of daily occurrence, and the subject of much complaint.
Then with regards to the possession of return tickets.
Hundreds of people, having amassed a little money in
America, came back to Ireland with the intention of
remaining in the country; they constituted some of the
best of the Irish people, but they probably be hit by
the provisions of the Bill. Moreover, the carrying out
of the Act would be in the hands of the police, who did
not inspire the same confidence in Ireland as in England.
In its present form he feared the measure would have
little effect in the direction hoped for, but would produce
confusion and chaos, and dislocate trade all over the
country.
Mr. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)
said the Attorney-General now declared as most members
who had looked into the subject knew before that a returned
immigrant who had become naturalised in America would be in
the same position of an alien under the Bill. The hon.
and learned Gentleman had also admitted that that was a
fair ground for complaint. Were the committee justified
in regarding that as an undertaking on the part of the
Attorney-General that words should be introduced to meet
the case?
Sir. ROBERT FINLAY. What I said was that we were very
desirous of introducing words with that object, and that if
such a form of words could be devised without prejudice to
the general purpose of the Bill, the Government would be
willing to insert them.
Mr. JOHN REDMOND said he would take that as an undertaking
that if words were proposed the Government would insert them
Sir. ROBERT FINLAY said he would endeavour to find a form of
words, and if any form could be found which would not damage the
general purpose of the Bill, the Government would gladly insert
them.
Mr. JOHN REDMOND said that was a very cautious statement,
and he was unwilling to abandon the discussion without a clear
understanding that the Government would do their best honestly
to meet this grievance.
Sir ROBERT FINLAY. Certainly we are going to do it. I do not
think the hon. and learned Member can reasonably ask me to go
further than I have done.
Mr. JOHN REDMOND said he did not ask the Attorney-General
to settle the words off hand, but he did expect that when the
proper portion of the Bill was reached words should be proposed
to carry out the pledge just given. There now remained the
broad question of whether Ireland ought to be included in the
Bill. Personally he objected to the Bill, and if he had his
way he would not enact it for England or Ireland. But as a
practical man he had to look at the Bill from another point
of view. If this measure, which for reasons he need not go
into he regarded as a most objectionable one, was to be
enacted for Great Britain, he was not in favour of the
exclusion of Ireland, because if Ireland were excluded
there would be the gravest possible danger of her being
made the dumping ground of undesirables, some of whom
would attempt to filter through to England, but the
great majority of whom would remain in Ireland.
Therefore, he would advise his hon. friend to be
content with what he had obtained on the narrower point
and not divide on the Amendment.
Mr. HIGHAM (Yorkshire, W.R., Sowerby) desired to point
out how illusory were the promises made by the Home Secretary.
The right hon. Gentleman stated that the possession of a
return ticket would be a sufficient voucher to permit of
a person landing.
Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS : I did not say that a return ticket
would be so accepted at all. I said that I did not imagine
that the class referred to by the mover of the Amendment
would be shut out at all. I thought that they would be
able to satisfy the immigration officer as to their status,
and that the fact of their having relatives in Ireland would
be a very great help to them in so doing.
Mr. HIGHAM submitted that these matters ought to be dealt
with in the Bill; they ought not to be dealt with across the
floor of the House. Whether Ireland was excluded or not the
Bill would not apply as between England and Ireland, so that
the lunatics to whom reference had been made would not be
affected. Having arrived in Ireland, say at Queenstown,
they had merely to be transhipped to any boat trading or
carrying passengers between Ireland and England, and then
their deportation from Ireland to England would be completed,
as no one here could raise objection to the landing of a
passenger from Ireland. This showed the enormous
difficulties which faced the administration of this Bill.
Thousands of people came over here on short holidays
who were naturalised Americans and had been in America
half their lifetime. They wished to spend a month or
two in this country and they would be subjected to all
the indignities of this Bill.
They would have to prove that they had the means to
maintain themselves, and prove also that they were not
lunatics or idiots. The right hon. Gentleman had said
that if he could devise words he would meet them, but the
proper way to proceed would be to strike out the whole of
that part of the clause.
Lancashire and Yorkshire had against the Bill as it stood
a grievance just as strong as Ireland. Cotton operatives
went to the States, settled there, and often in later life
visited their friends in the North of England. They were
to be faced with these most unreasonable proposals, and
they asked at least that there should be omitted from
the Bill Sub-section (3) (a) of the first clause, which
was worded
"(3) For the purposes of this section an immigrant
shall be considered an undesirable immigrant
(a) if he cannot show that he has in his possession or
is in apposition to obtain the means of decently
supporting himself and his dependants (if any)."
There would then be very little difficulty about the
acceptance of the Bill on his side of the House.
Mr. AUSTIN TAYLOR (Liverpool, East Toxteth)
said he understood that this Amendment dealt
with Irish immigrants who returned from America
and desired to spend a short time with their
friends in Ireland. This matter had occupied
the attention of the shipping lines which carried
these passengers, and it had been carefully
brought to the notice of those concerned
that this class of immigrant was one with
which it was most essential no interference
should take place. The same thing applied
to the Scandinavians who were brought to
Liverpool, and if that traffic was to be
continued it was essential that it should
be free from irritating and vexatious restrictions.
At a later stage of the Bill he had an Amendment
proposed to exempt altogether
from the scope of this Bill steamers coming into
our ports in that way which were able to satisfy
the Government and the authorities that no
undesirable immigrants would be landed from them.
