The speech made by James Lowther, the then Conservative MP for the Isle of Thanet, in the House of Commons on 11 February 1893.
I cannot avoid expressing my regret that it falls to my lot to introduce a subject of this importance under conditions so little favourable to its satisfactory consideration by the House. I am not, of course, going to rake up the embers of controversy respecting the policy of considering the Address under the very exceptional circumstances of a Saturday Sitting. This has come about by circumstances over which I have no control, yet I venture to enter a very emphatic protest against a Saturday Sitting. The subject of my Amendment, as I have before stated, is one of very great importance, and it will be generally admitted, without regard to the views which hon. Members in every quarter of the House may entertain as to the direction which legislation or Executive action on it should take, that not only is it of importance, but it is of great interest to all classes, and possesses the characteristics of extreme urgency. I must again repeat that this is not a Party subject.
MR. W. E. GLADSTONE Hear, hear!
MR. JAMES LOWTHER I am glad to find that, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues realise that fact, but when I stated my personal position in this matter the other night I gathered from sounds of dissent from those less well informed than the right hon. Gentleman that they thought my action was not wholly devoid of some Party considerations. But, now I need not labour that point since it has been so generally conceded that there is nothing of a Party character in this Motion. I ought, perhaps, to explain that I was in no way responsible for action not being taken by the late Government. I may remind the House that the question was introduced early in the career of the last Parliament, and a Select Committee was appointed to consider the subject, and did consider it for two Sessions.
I was not then a Member of the House, and consequently no place was accorded me in the deliberations of the Committee. I, moreover, was not in a position to urge upon the Government of the day the immediate consideration of the recommendations of the Committee or of the evidence adduced in the course of the inquiry, for the reason that it always has been, and I hope it always will be, recognised that when a Member of this House has made himself responsible for the conduct of a question and its submission to the House of Commons, it would be contrary to Parliamentary courtesy and usage for another Member to interpolate his action and to do anything which would have a tendency to take the matter out of the hands of the hon. Member who had made himself responsible for it; and in this connection I have to make reference to the loss which the Conservative Party, and indeed the House at large, has suffered by the lamented death of the Member for Stockport (Mr. Jennings), who devoted much attention to this question. The hon. Member had indicated his intention of bringing the matter under the notice of the last House of Commons; but unfortunately his health was so unsatisfactory that he was compelled to abandon the intention, and asked me to deal with the subject as best I could. In consequence of that intimation, questions were addressed to the then Government by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Sheffield and by myself, and the result eventually was an announcement that the question had been placed in the hands of the then Home Secretary, who had been charged by his colleagues with the duty of preparing a measure dealing with the subject, and it was hoped that it would be shortly laid before the House. The Nome Secretary subsequently informed me, in reply to questions publicly put, that he had prepared two alternative drafts of a measure. We were then approaching a time when it was obvious that contested legislation, or any legislation partaking very largely of a controversial character, could scarcely be proceeded with with any hope of success in the expiring moment of the Parliament; and in the course of a week or two after the declarations of the then Leader of the House and of the then Home Secretary, the latter right hon. Gentleman informed me that certain difficulties had arisen in the way of placing the Bill in the hands of hon. Members, although be hoped that those difficulties would be overcome in a short time.
It is not for me, however, to attempt to peer into the region of contemporary history to seek the causes of hesitation on the part of the late Government. Rumour, verified I am bound to say by a statement by a Member of t he late Cabinet, pointed in the direction that assurances were not forthcoming that the measure would receive that general support at the hands of the Leaders of the then Opposition in the absence of which it was useless to introduce a Bill on the subject, which there was no hope of passing into law before the dissolution of Parliament. I have entered thus far into the history of the subject for the purpose of clearing myself and those who think with me from any charge of having neglected our opportunities for bringing this subject under the notice of the House whilst our own Political Party held the reins of Office. The evil with which I now ask Her Majesty’s Government to deal has been largely increasing in this country during the last few years. It is not only with the actual immigration of alien paupers that the Government will have to deal; but they will have also to reckon with the state of public opinion which that unrestricted immigration has formulated. I am aware that a strong opinion prevails in many quarters that my proposal is of a half-hearted character, many persons desiring that a measure should be introduced of a mere stringent nature, and that it should be in the direction of the total exclusion of alien immigrants.
Many Trades Councils and other Public Bodies, composed of politicians of all Parties, especially those which now directly represent the labouring classes, desire to see a measure of a most stringent character passed into law that would have the effect of prohibiting not only the immigration of the destitute persons with whom my Motion proposes to deal, but also of stopping the competition with home labour—whether the immigrant arrives in this country in an affluent or in a destitute condition. But that is not a matter with which I propose to deal to-day. I wish to guard myself distinctly against being supposed to be out of sympathy with those who point to the serious competition with home labour which has been established in various parts of this country by means of foreign alien immigration. The minds of the middle classes, I know, are very largely exercised with regard to the competition due to the engagement of foreign clerks on the commercial staffs in the various mercantile houses in this country; mid amongst the voluminous correspondence which I have received since I have placed my notice upon the Paper are many communications from domestic servants and waiters, who, not unnaturally, complain of the very serious competition to which they are subject by reason of the employment of foreigners. But that subject is not immediately before us in the Motion which I now submit.
As I said before, the evil is increasing, notwithstanding the denial of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean. We are constantly met by statistics which, it is asserted, show that the total number of foreigners in this country form but an infinitesimal proportion of our total population; but even taking the official figures, which, in my opinion, are absolutely unreliable, they show that there has been an increase of 35 per cent. in the foreign population of the country between the Census of 1881 and the last Census. The authorities upon whom is east the duty of preparing the Census Returns, and who discharge that duty, as a whole, with singular ability and industry, had very serious difficulties to contend with; and had it not been for the very cordial co-operation of some of those associated with the administration of various charities in London, even approximate Returns of the number of aliens in this city could scarcely have been obtained. It is notorious, its was pointed out by a Select Committee of this House, that these immigrants congregate in a few specified localities, and attach themselves to particular trades and callings upon which they exercise a very marked effect.
There are those who evade the definition of foreigners by the adoption of an English name, or in a smaller number of cases by going through the process of naturalisation, and the House should bear that in mind in connection with the figures laid before it. But there are other Returns besides the Census Returns. There are Returns ordered to be made under an Act of William IV., which was dragged from its oblivion by the Select Committee. That Act enables the authorities in this country to compel the masters of vessels to fill in certain Returns, giving the nationality of their passengers. These Returns are, I venture to say, for all practical purposes, substantially worthless. They are, I am informed, made up in a most haphazard manner. The captain, who has his hands full with navigation and other important duties, delegates the task to a subordinate officer. I am told that the ship’s carpenter, no doubt a very invaluable officer, has often the task assigned to him; but he has his own work to do, so eventually his subordinate—the carpenter’s boy—has to undertake the responsibility of carrying into effect legislation sanctioned in the reign of William IV. These Returns, even taking them for what they are worth, show a very serious state of affairs.
The figures, prior to the year 1891, may be dismissed as utterly unreliable, and so I will pass at once to the figures for 1891 and 1892. They show that in the year 1891 38,000 aliens arrived in this country who were not stated to be en route for America; while of the 98,500 who were supposed to merely pass through the country on their way to other lands, it is probable that no insignificant proportion remained here. The Board of Trade attach a foot-note to the Returns, to the effect that it is not to be assumed that the aliens not stated to be en route to America remain in this country, as, in fact, many return to the Continent. I think it would have been a little more candid on the part of those who are responsible for die Returns upon this subject if they had gone on to say that they had not possessed themselves with information which enabled them to state authoritatively that any considerable proportion of the 98,000 aliens stated to be en route to America had not remained in this country. I assert, without fear of contradiction, that a large proportion of them do remain in this country, and I would like to draw attention to the grounds upon which some of them do so, and the particular category in which they are placed.
It is well-known that the stringent regulations in force in the United States have had during recent times a very deterrent effect upon those who are responsible for the shipping arrangements between Liverpool and other ports in the United Kingdom and the United States. The authorities in the latter country are invested with a power, which on many recent occasions they have shown they are not disinclined to exercise, under which they can compel the steamship owners to carry back at their own cost any persons who, in their judgment, are not fit objects for reception into that country—that is to say, those who are suffering under disabilities which are specified in detail in the regulations in force in the United States; and such, for example, as are the most utterly unfit and destitute, and liable to become chargeable on the rates, are denied admission and are thrown back upon the steamship owners, who are compelled, at their own expense, to take them back to their homes. And when I use the words “their homes” I have fallen into a verbal error. Whither do they return—these discarded immigrants? Do they return them to Russia or other countries of Europe whence they have come? I fear not. In many cases they return them to the port of embarkation; they cast them, penniless and destitute, on the landing stages at the ports of the United Kingdom, there to become fierce competitors with our own working people, and, in many cases, to become chargeable to the rates of the localities on which they are stranded. I should like to draw the special attention of the House to the character and race of great numbers of these immigrants. There can, for instance, be no doubt that Italian immigration has been carried on largely into this country, and, I believe, mainly into the Metropolis.
Many Italian children are annually imported for the purpose of carrying on a trade which comes within the laws of mendicity and vagrancy. Those who have the management of Government Departments must know full well that this is a matter of notoriety, and no hon. Member will, I feel sure, be found to defend, on its merits, such a state of things. Ought such a gross outrage to be any longer perpetrated upon the hospitality of this country? There are, no doubt, graver causes of complaint with respect to the great numbers of immigrants entering this country from the Russian Empire, of whom a large proportion are of the Jewish race. Before I deal further with this matter I wish to say that, so far as I am personally concerned—and I think I am also speaking for all those who are co-operating with me in this matter—nothing could be further from our objects and sentiments than to cause pain to that injured race, many of whose members in this country are among the most loyal and patriotic and charitable subjects of the Queen. I also desire expressly to guard against saying anything which might give offence to those who are responsible for the law as it is administered in the dominions of the Czar.
I think I shall have the sympathy of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House when I deprecate, even on the part of those who may occupy positions of greater freedom and less responsibility, any indulgence in remarks which might run the risk of being misinterpreted by any Powers which are in alliance with this country. While I have never been one of those who have expressed extreme admiration for the policy and principles embodied in the system of government in vogue in Russia, and while I have never made myself responsible for the endorsement of the policy associated with what has been called “the Divine figure from the North,” I shall carry with me the assent of Her Majesty’s Government when I say that any Member dealing with a subject of this kind, Which bears very directly upon the internal administration of foreign States, would be wise to adopt, so far as reference to such internal administration is concerned, the policy of “hands off.”
As to the reasons which in my judgment operate very strongly in favour of action on the part of this House, they are to be found in the ruinous competition which has been brought into play with regard to our home labour markets. In particular localities and in certain trades, as I said before, this undue competition is extremely severe. It is notorious that the tailoring trade, for instance, as was shown by the evidence given before the Sweating Committee, is absolutely overrun by these destitute foreign immigrants. The percentage of foreigners in the London tailoring trade has been put as high as 90 per cent. of the whole number of workers engaged in that trade; while the figure given by Mr. Burnett, the Labour Correspondent of the Board of Trade, who is considered rather to understate than to overstate the matter, is 80 per cent. in London. That is to say, out of 18,000 or 20,000 persons engaged in the trade, only a few hundreds are of the Anglo-Saxon race. The system of employing aliens, too, is spreading to Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Glasgow, and other large towns, and the ready-made clothing trade is falling almost entirely into foreign hands.
Again, in the boot and shoe trade, 25 per cent. of those employed in London are foreigners; and these are constantly on the increase, while a similar condition of affairs prevails in the case of the cabinet makers. There are other trades which, though less important, have in the past at Ordered employment to considerable numbers of our own people, and these are being more and more absorbed by foreigners. Of these minor industries, I may cite as examples artificial flower making, stick-polishing, and work of that sort. Many persons who formerly gained an honest livelihood by those trades have now become chargeable to the rates, because they are unable to get employment in consequence of the large influx of foreigners. That is not all. Many of these aliens, arriving in a destitute condition, not only themselves become chargeable upon the rates, but they constructively add to the demands upon public charity, and upon the pockets of the ratepayers, by throwing out of employment our own work-people.
SIR J. GOLDSMID (St. Pancras, S.) Will the right hon. Gentleman give us some figures to prove that?
MR. JAMES LOWTHER My hon. Friend, on whom I am happy to think will devolve the ditty of replying to me, knows perfectly well that there are no such statistics in existence. I have already pointed out that the difficulties of preparing the Census—so far as these aliens were concerned—were almost insurmountable, and that the Board of Trade Returns are far from reliable; yet t he hon. Baronet asks me—a private individual—to give figures showing how many natives of this country, as the result of alien competition, have been driven out of employment and on to the rates. Such figures are practically impossible of compilation by any body—whether public or private.
SIR J. GOLDSMID My question referred to the number of Jews who are said to have been driven upon the rates in consequence of immigration.
MR. JAMES LOWTHER The hon. Baronet has put into my mouth terms which I did not employ. My hon. Friend asks me how many Jews have become chargeable upon the rates or upon charitable funds. I have already stated I am aware that a very large number of persons who come within the category of those to whom I am endeavouring to draw attention by my Amendment profess the Jewish faith; but I must decline to base my argument upon either race or creed. I know perfectly well that the charitable element among the Jewish connection have concerted measures for dealing with distress in the East End of London, and, indeed, it is the only bright picture in relation to this painful subject that such charity and large-heartedness has been employed. But that is one of the grounds of my complaint. The philanthropy and assistance which my hon. Friend and others have bestowed upon the charitable institutions of this country, without reference to the claims of race or creed, have been largely appropriated by those who have no claim whatever to them. These destitute aliens, who ought to be supported by the Government under whom they were born, are being sent over here in large numbers to compete not only with honest labour in the market, but with the charitable funds of this country, against those who have a legitimate claim to public and to private charity. This is one of the most serious forms which that competition has assumed.
My hon. Friend will be able to confirm me in the statement that during the last few years the reply to applications for charitable subscriptions, which hitherto had invariably been sent by many of the most philanthropic and generous hearted members of his own community, have been that they deeply regretted that demands upon the charitable funds under their control, which had a prior claim because of the affinity of race or creed, rendered it impossible for them to contribute to objects of a general character with a liberality which otherwise they would have exhibited. I am glad my hon. Friend has drawn attention to this point. These destitute aliens who come into this country, and who should be supported in their own native countries by the Government under which they were born, are made chargeable upon the charitable funds of this country, and, what is more, they have, in some cases, even become individually chargeable on the rates. I am not going to accept contradiction on that point, even from such a great authority as my hon. Friend, unless he gives some statistics to show not only that these destitute aliens do not go on the rates, but that they do not constructively add to the burdens of the ratepayers by driving native labour into the workhouse.
My own opinion is, that a not inconsiderable number find their way on to the rates; but no private individual or Government Department that could be created could ever present accurate statistics to show the number of persons thrown upon the rates as the indirect effect of this foreign competition. There is another serious matter which must be taken into consideration in connection with this subject. I refer to sanitary grounds, on which this alien immigration is a very serious and grave national danger. In the last few months we have had an only too well-founded alarm with respect to the appearance in this country, as following closely upon its appearance in many parts of the Continent, of one of the most terrible epidemics which have been known during this or any other generation.
Within a few hours of the appearance of Asiatic cholera at Hamburg, the disease was found to be in existence upon one of the emigrant ships which was moored at Gravesend after coming front that continental port. The extent of the danger in this respect is not, however, to be measured merely by the number of persons who may arrive from ports scheduled as being under this terrible visitation, because it is well-known that the districts from which these unfortunate people are mainly drawn are hotbeds of disease. Typhus and other fevers of the most serious character are practically chronic in those districts; and it is within official knowledge that the condition in which these emigrants for the most part live is filthy and revolting in the extreme. Nor are the conditions under which they live after their arrival in this country such as we can contemplate with equanimity. Their dwellings arc of the most foul and loathsome character; they are huddled together in numbers and under conditions which happily do not prevail in these days among the home-born population of this country; and the general hygienic conditions under which they live are such as to render their presence a source of permanent danger to the health of this country.
It is all very well to talk of issuing orders—as has been done with much promptitude by the President of the Local Government Board, for which the right hon. Gentleman deserves all credit— calling upon Local Authorities to exercise supervision over the sanitary districts over which they have control, and it is all very well to endeavour to carry out certain regulations at the ports; but when we find that persons are living Within a few minutes’ drive of this House under revolting conditions of human existence which can be scarcely imagined, can it be denied that the presence of these people constitute a source of permanent danger with regard, not only to the initiation, but to the propagation of disease?
The President of the Local Government Board knows perfectly well that he might go on multiplying his staff of Inspectors in vain in the endeavour to deal adequately with this evil. One of the remedies proposed to check the immigration of these people is that the British taxpayer should be called upon to pay for the appointment of numerous inspectors. But I think that, no matter how you may enlarge your staff of Inspectors, it will be impossible to render innocuous the existence of these people in our midst. There are, I am aware, some persons who object to any legislation on this subject, or to any administrative arrangements, which can have a tendency to run counter to the old traditions of hospitality in this country. Under proper conditions, no doubt, hospitality is a virtue; but what would be said of a father of a family who exercised hospitality wholesale, and, in order that he might entertain anybody aid everybody, turned his own fancily out of doors? I venture to think that if this hospitable person found himself before a bench of magistrates charged with neglecting his obligations to his family, and if he stated that he turned his family out to starve so that he might entertain persons who had no claim upon his hospitality, the plea would be regarded as an aggravation of his offence.
There are also those who talk very largely about the right of asylum, but the person who exercises that right under such conditions should, I think, he conducted himself to an asylum of another kind—namely, the nearest madhouse. There are those, again, who take the view that any interference with this immigration would be counter to the great principles of Free Trade. I do not profess to be an authority upon Free Trade; but, while I do not wish to enter upon this subject, I will say, as one who has never hesitated to avow myself an opponent of the fiscal system prevailing in this country, that I would welcome nothing more heartily than that the cause of Free Trade should be identified with Free Trade in destitution, with Free Trade in sweating, and with Free. Trade in disease. I should welcome that as a platform on which I should be heartily delighted to meet the advocates of Free Trade. There is another argument, in addition to that of the right of asylum, which may be used in the Debate. It is what is called the minimising argument, the argument that the number of persons affected is relatively small, and that the injury to the community is very slight.’ It is, however, clearly explained in the deport of the Select Committee that it is the concentration of this immigration in given areas, and particularly trades that constitutes so great an evil apart altogether from the actual number concerned.
The House will probably be told that there is emigration as well as immigration. That emigration, however, consists for the most part of the best blood or the country, and of the able-bodied men who are driven front England, Scotland, and Ireland, out of their own country, and out of the dominions of the Queen, to seek refuge in foreign lands. Possibly amongst those persons there may be found a curtain number who have immigrated, but the most hopeless and the most destitute element is left behind. I may also be told that my Amendment is contrary to the recognised principles of English legislation. If that is the ease, then so much the worse for the precedents that may be adduced. On the other hand, I say that the legislation of this country shows that when an evil is found to exist a remedy is applied. What are other countries doing in this matter? In speaking of the extreme urgency of this evil I am not dealing merely with its sanitary aspect, but also with the fact that, in consequence of the more stringent legislation and regulations adopted in the countries of Europe, the United States of America, and in our own colonies, the risk is greatly increased of a larger number still of destitute persons being thrown upon these shores. Germany and Austria and the other Continental Powers have adopted very stringent legislation in this respect. I will not Weary the House by going in detail through the regulations of the various States that have legislated on the subject, but I hope my omission to do so will not be used against me to show that I am not in full possession of the facts. I may say, speaking- generally, that every country has adopted regulations for checking the incursion of destitute persons.
The United States legislation prevent the landing of any person who, all the opinion of the authorities, is likely to become a public charge or to compete unfairly with native labour. The result of the regulations under the American Alien Acts and under the Contract Labour Law is that already the Steamship Companies have adopted stringent precautions to prevent such persons from taking passages in order to avoid the responsibility of bringing them back again to their own country, and the stream of immigration into this country is thereby likely to be largely increased. Already, as the result of the arrangements made by the United States, a considerable number of these persons have been refused passages by the various Shipping Companies and I do not think Her Majesty’s Government are in a position to deny that, although in the past the regulations in the United States may only have been intermittently put in force, public opinion in that country has expressed itself in decided terms to the effect that, if the existing legislation is not found to be powerful enough, Congress will be called upon to pass more stringent legislation. I take it that the House agrees with me that, speaking generally, all the European countries have legislated in the direction to which I refer.
SIR CHARLES DILKE (Forest of Dean) No.
MR. JAMES LOWTHER The right hon. Baronet says “no.”
SIR CHARLES DILKE I do not deny that there are such laws, but I do deny that they are enforced.
MR. JAMES LOWTHER Yes, although stringent laws are upon the Statute Books of these countries, they have only been hitherto intermittently enforced, yet, in times like the present, when sanitary precautions are forced upon the attention of the authorities, the House may be sure that these powers will be more stringently exercised in future, and that in the United States Congress will be compelled by the force of irresistible force of public opinion to see that they are so exercised. There is only one Power which has scarcely any legislation worth mentioning on this subject, and which, although in ancient alliance with this country, was not held in high favour in certain influential quarters—I mean the Turkish Empire. I do not think the Prime Minister would care to take as his model of social and domestic legislation a Power which has been described by the right hon. Gentleman—as “the one anti-human specimen of humanity,” and has also been referred to as the “Unspeakable Turk.” I know that the right hon. Gentleman has been wrongly credited with the last-named observation, though the quotation I gave first would not be denied by him as his own, while the other no doubt should be assigned to the late Mr. Carlisle. I am bound to admit that, without public opinion at its back, it would be difficult for the Government to carry serious legislation dealing with this matter.
But the subject has been urged on the attention of the House by many representative bodies. The Trade Union Congress, and also Trade Councils and Unions in many of our most important centres of industry, has passed resolutions strongly urging the subject upon the attention of Parliament. I myself have had deputations from London trade councils on the matter. Forty-three labour organisations, six town councils, 14 metropolitan boards of guardians, and 16 boards of vestries, have also taken action. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade will be prepared to deny my statements, which are not made at random. The Trade Union Congress, which assembled in Glasgow last autumn, passed a resolution instructing its Parliamentary Committee— To use every legitimate means in its power to have brought and passed through the House of Commons a Bill to prevent the immigration of pauper aliens to our shores. Political bodies of all kinds have taken this matter up. The National Union of Conservative Associations has more than once passed similar resolutions. There is in London an Association for preventing the immigration of destitute aliens, and the executive of that Association includes several members of this House, and even of Her Majesty’s Government, which shows, at all events, that this is by no means a Party question.
I think it right to remind the House that this question is not a Party question, and that hon. Members opposite, as well as behind me, are members of this Association. And that there is also another body called the London. Reform Union, which is very largely patronised by hon. Members on the other side of the House. I ought to mention what the objects, cited in the official published paper, are of this body— London Reform Union, 9, Bridge Street, Westminster. Object: To reform the existing administration of the river, docks, and wharves, the markets, water supply, means of lighting, locomotion, police, the City funds, hospitals, and other charities; to disseminate knowledge concerning the unfavourable conditions under which vast numbers of the working population live owing to defective and insanitary dwelling and working accommodation, irregular and ill-paid labour, the competition of alien immigrants, the harshness of the Poor Laws, and so on.
Now, Sir, that body I find has been patronised by a good many Members of this House. As I am reading from a document, I shall be in order, and it may be more convenient to hon. Members who may not yet be acquainted with the constituencies of hon. Members if I quote from the document. Amongst the supporters of this scheme for disseminating knowledge concerning the unfavourable conditions under which the working population live, owing to the competition of alien immigrants and other causes, are— Mr. Haldane, Q.C., M.P., Haddington; T. Lough, M.P., West Islington; Ralph Neville, M.P., Exchange, Liverpool; W. Saunders, Walworth; J. Stuart Wallace, M.P., Limehouse; Murray M’Donald, M.P., Bow; S. Montagu, M.P., Whitechapel; D. Naoroji, M.P., Finsbury; Lord Compton, M.P., Barnsley; J. W. Benn, M.P., St. George’s, E.; Professor Stuart, M.P., Hoxton. The Members of the rank and file of the Party are not without some official guidance and support, for I find no less than 11 Members of Her Majesty’s Government are either connected with this body or with a body representing similar views. I find two Lords of the Treasury, Mr. W. M’Arthur and Mr. R. K. Causton; the name of Mr. Sydney Buxton, who occupies a position so well earned, of Under Secretary for the Colonies; Mr. T. Burt, Secretary to the Board of Trade. I find the name of the right hon. A. Acland, Vice President of the Council; the right hon. Arnold Morley, Postmaster General, who comes down, I see, with £100. I also find the name of Lord Carrington, Lord Chamberlain. Then we come to other great personages, the Marquess of Ripon, K.G., Secretary to the Colonies, and the Earl of Rosebery, Secretary of Foreign Affairs, who, I see, like the Postmaster General, has given £100.
Then we come to the name of a gentleman who I am very glad to find is a Vice President. Foremost amongst Vice Presidents I find right hon. A. J. Mundella, M.P. Sir, this list would hardly be complete if I did not remind the House that at a large and influential meeting in support of this body, held, I think, upon the 15th December, a speech was delivered—the House need not be afraid, I am not going to read it, but it was, I need hardly add, an eloquent and able speech from the right hon. H. Asquith, Her Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State, and the Daily News in furnishing the report says— The meeting broke up, and Mr. Asquith and Lord Rosebery were cheered along the Strand when they left the meeting. I do not suppose the people present, and who cheered the Ministers down the Strand, eared very much about many of these subjects; I dare say many of the subjects they had only a slight interest in; but the subject of all those included in the programme for which most persons care is the subject which I have brought forward. The right hon. Gentleman and Ids Colleague on the strength of this received a cheer down the Strand, and they ought to do what in them lies to carry out the objects to which the Association they were addressing lends its influence and name.
Sir, I twist thank the House for the indulgence they have extended to me, but I fear, although I have been compelled at no inconsiderable length to enter into the matter, there may be some points which I may have omitted to make perfectly clear, still I think I have shown the Horse that there are grounds for prompt action in this matter. We do not want any more inquiries. We had a Committee in each House of Parliament; we have had the Sweating Committee of the House of Lords; the Alien Committee of the Noose of Commons: elaborate inquiries industriously pursued by Members of both Houses: the facts are plain, and they are that prompt and effective action is necessary. For my own part, while cherishing the hope that the Government will recognise the necessity, I shall certainly not consider myself justified in assuming any share or responsibility in the event of further outbreak of disease or the intensification of the other evils to which I have referred. I should not envy those on whose heads such responsibility would rest. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
