In this chapter let us very briefly consider the best way in which this wrong may be set right. Several suggestions have been made for dealing with this question apart from legislation; some of them have been acted upon, but none seem to go to the root of the evil. Among these well-meaning but unsuccessful efforts, may be classed the recent action of the Government in causing notices to be posted up at some of the principal European ports, warning intended immigrants of the state of the labour market here, and of the hardships that await them. This sounds very well in theory, but in practice it may be doubted if it has had the effect of stopping one single immigrant from proceeding on his journey. For in nine cases out of ten, that journey is already nearly accomplished before the notice catches his eye. A Russian Jew, for instance, who had travelled all the way from the heart of Russia to Hamburg, would hardly be likely to turn back at the eleventh hour. What is there for him to do but to go forward all the same? He has made all his preparations, broken up his home, sold his little stock, and perhaps expended a life's savings in the purchase of a through ticket to that new land where he has been told all good things are; and by the time he reaches the port it is too late for him to turn back even if he could. But would he if he could? I very much doubt it. "Whatever happens," he may argue, "things cannot be much worse with me than they have been." Besides, he may have the direct, or indirect, promise of employment through some sweater's agent, or he may have heard—such news travels fast—of the "shelters," of the relief-funds, of the soup-kitchens, of the loan and industrial departments of the Jewish Board of Guardians, and of the numerous foreign "Benevolent Societies," or of other similar charitable organizations for foreigners in distress, which abound in London. The Chief Commissioner of the Police writes in his Report[33]:—"It cannot be ascertained that any societies are in existence in London to offer direct inducements to immigrants; but, undoubtedly the prospect of shelter and assistance till work is obtained, which some hold out, acts as an indirect inducement to many."[34] "Whatever happens," the immigrant argues to himself, "I shall not actually starve." He proceeds on his journey, notices and warnings notwithstanding, and in due time arrives here, one more unit to intensify the awful struggle for existence which is daily and hourly going on among thousands in London and our large provincial cities.

What, then, is the remedy?

The answer is simple. In the words of the Select Committee upon Immigration—"It is clear that the only way effectually to check the immigration of foreign paupers is to stop them at the port of arrival." This is the course adopted in the United States and in Germany. The police regulations at Hamburg are to the effect that no person without means is allowed to land at that port; and if found to have been taken there and landed, the captain of the vessel in which the person sailed, is liable to a penalty of 300 marks, and moreover is compelled at his own expense to take the destitute person away from Hamburg. As we have already seen, in the United States and our principal colonies, similar laws exist to forbid the landing of destitute and undesirable aliens, while other European countries have also taken steps to guard themselves against them. Though the details may vary in particular instances, the principle in all cases remains the same. England could not do better than adopt some similar plan, and compel the steamship companies to take back to the place where they first took them on board, all persons whom they attempted to land at our ports, who were unprovided with the means of subsistence, mentally or bodily afflicted, or likely in any way to become a public nuisance or a public burden. But it will require a special Act of Parliament to compel the steamship companies to do this, and every effort should be made to get such an Act placed upon the statute-book. The mere knowledge that such a law existed would exercise an excellent deterrent effect, and serve to keep away thousands and thousands from our shores; for directly the steamship companies knew that they brought such passengers at their own risk, they would speedily cease bringing them at all, and would exercise that same circumspection in bringing people here, which they now have to exercise in the case of other countries.

Such, I submit, would be an effectual remedy. It has much to recommend it from a practical point of view. It is no visionary scheme; it has been tested by experience in other countries, and has been found to work admirably. Why should it not work equally well here? But at the same time it is idle to deny, having regard to the present state of public business, and to the fact that the life of the present Parliament is ebbing fast, that any legislation on this subject must of necessity be tardy. In the meantime there is much to be done. That the working-classes of this country are already alive to the danger may be seen in a moment by glancing at the long list of Trades Unions and labour organizations which have already condemned it.[35] But that the other classes which make up the electorate are equally convinced of its urgency may be doubted, and the reason is obvious—it does not touch them so nearly. Therefore, no opportunity should be lost of bringing the real facts of the case before the public. With this object the present little book has been written, and if it should have the effect of causing any to pause and consider the importance of this question, the reason for its existence will have been more than justified.

"There is a general agreement that pauper immigration is an evil, and should be checked." This much was admitted by the House of Commons' Committee in their Report, and they went on to say that "the objections to such a proposal are not based on grounds of policy in any instance, but upon the difficulty of carrying such a measure into effect." Furthermore, they admitted that though they were not prepared to recommend legislative interference just at present, because of the "great difficulties" in the way, yet "they contemplated the possibility of such legislation becoming necessary in the future, in view of the crowded condition of our great towns, the extreme pressure for existence among the poorer part of the population, and the tendency of destitute foreigners to reduce still lower the social and material condition of our own poor."

This Report was issued in 1889. Little more than two years have elapsed since its publication, and already it must be admitted the danger has greatly increased. It may be asked—Are the difficulties which surround this question likely to become less by waiting for the future? Are they not rather liable to become greater as time goes on, and the evils lamented by the Committee assume more formidable aspects? To admit the existence of an evil, to deplore its effects, and yet to shrink from proposing any remedy because there are difficulties in the way, is a very lame and impotent conclusion. Such a proceeding may or may not agree with the political exigencies of the moment, may or may not be desirable from a party point of view; but it shows a deplorable lack of the courage of conviction, and of the higher order of statesmanship. A problem which other nations under similar circumstances have successfully solved, is surely not one from which English statesmen should shrink, because of the difficulties besetting its solution.

Let us analyse these difficulties. One, we are frequently told, is the short sea passage between the Continent and England, which would render it practically impossible for us to adopt a similar plan to that already existing in other countries. But if at Hamburg they can effectually prevent the landing of destitute persons from England, surely in England we can prevent the landing of destitute persons from Hamburg—the port from which the great bulk of these objectionable aliens generally come? The difficulty in the one case is no greater than the difficulty in the other. That objection is easily disposed of. But the other impediment—the lack of trustworthy statistics—is more serious, since without statistics there can be no legislation. I have already alluded to the Board of Trade Returns, and have endeavoured to show how utterly worthless they are for all practical purposes. The same dearth of information was the great stumbling-block in the way of the House of Commons' Committee. To that, its chairman, Sir William Marriot, has testified.[36] "The difficulty was," he said, "that there was no means of getting correct information; and it was a most extraordinary thing, that, though we had some witnesses from the Board of Trade, they were utterly unaware of certain Acts of Parliament which ought to be carried out by them, namely, the Act of William IV.; and we discovered that, although the people were calling for fresh legislation, there was a law existing by which we could get information at every port in England." Such was the state of affairs then. It is not much better now. Returns are not taken from every port in England; important ones—Southampton for instance—being still omitted; those from three of the most important ports are only partial; and from all they are loosely prepared, only checked "now and then," and the penalties for violation of the Act are never enforced. How can such returns be considered satisfactory? If they really want us to know the exact dimensions of the extent of alien immigration, there can be no difficulty in the way. The Act exists; it is only for the Government to put it into force; it is only a question of method, of means, and of men. But if they do not want us to know, that is another matter, and pressure should be brought to bear until the required information is forthcoming.

Such then is the remedy, such are the difficulties in the way of its being applied. They are easily surmounted. The real crux of the question is this. Is such a remedy justified by the circumstances of the disease? I submit, for reasons already given, that it is. State intervention is an extreme measure; as a rule it is better to let natural laws take their course, to see what can be done by individual effort, mutual help, organization, and combination. Men of the school of thought of Mr. Herbert Spencer and Mr. Auberon Herbert would probably denounce such a measure as "socialistic," in that it would limit the freedom of the individual, and limit the utility of his individual capital by forbidding him to employ it in certain ways. I admit the plausibility of their strictures in many instances, but not in this one. The key-note of such a measure as that which I have indicated, would be to help the weak, and to protect those who are not able to help themselves. Speaking generally, I am not a believer in what is termed "grandmotherly legislation." You cannot make men sober, religious, industrious, or moral by Acts of Parliament. The experiment has been tried, and failed. But you can at least remove all the stumbling-blocks in the way of their becoming so. In this particular instance, individual effort has been tried and failed. It has been found to be useless in stemming the tide of pauperism and degradation which pours in upon us from abroad. Therefore, in the last extremity, we resort to the State as the natural protector of our people.

It has been urged as an objection to such a measure that it would violate the principles of Free Trade. The fact that this movement is supported by many whose fidelity to Free Trade principles is above suspicion, is a sufficient answer to that objection.[37] But even were it otherwise—what then? Free Trade is not a fetish. It was made for man, and not man for it. There is no such thing as Free Trade in human bodies. You cannot argue that the economic laws which are applicable to goods should govern man. You cannot confuse humanity with commodities. You may exclude commodities by a tariff if you please—that is not an immoral principle. You may let in commodities freely if you choose; but to let in human bodies to compete with those who are natives of the soil, who are your flesh and blood, and who already have the greatest difficulty in supporting life—to allow this, because to shut them out would be violating the principle of Free Trade, is to sacrifice a principle to a name.

Lastly, it has been said that to prohibit the destitute and unfit of other countries would be a dangerous and a mischievous innovation. Prohibition in itself is no innovation. We already prohibit many things which tend to our national hurt—false coins, disease in animals, in special shapes in human beings, products dangerous to life and limb, besides various things touching our revenue. Prohibition, therefore, in this instance, would only be extended in a fresh direction. Nor can it be declared contrary to the laws of the land or the principles of the Constitution. Such an objection is founded upon ignorance, and not on fact. The Alien Acts of the Plantagenets and early Tudors; the Proclamation of Mary against the French, of Elizabeth against the Scots; the Peace Alien Acts, and the War Alien Acts of the Georgian era; and, in a lesser degree, the Chartist Act of the present reign—a perusal of these will tend to convince any dispassionate student of our history, that while this country has always been desirous of welcoming the persecuted and oppressed of other lands, national interests have ever been deemed to have the prior claim. I do not wish to go over again the arguments already adduced in favour of some judicious restrictive measure. To do so would be to weary and not to edify. It will suffice, in conclusion, to say that they may all be summed up in the memorable words of Sir George Grey, when introducing the Chartist Act of 1848:—

"The grounds on which it is proposed, are simply those which this country has always maintained, and has every right to maintain, namely, that of self-protection."