NATURALIZATION BILL—(Lords.) [BILL 86.] CONSIDERATION. (Hansard, 28 April 1870)

§ MR. VERNON HARCOURT
rose to move certain clauses of which he had given notice. He proposed, he said, to omit the 4th clause in order to insert an Amendment, the effect of which would be to declare that the children of foreigners born in this country should not, by the fact of their birth alone, be regarded as British subjects, but should be regarded as aliens until they were naturalized. Why should they give to aliens merely because they were accidentally born in this country, and whose mothers, perhaps, had been in England only for a few days or a few weeks, the privileges of British subjects, which they might not desire? privileges which, it must be remembered, descended even to their children and grandchildren. Could it be maintained that they either could or ought to enforce against those persons when they went abroad, the obligations of British subjects as they would enforce them against British subjects in the ordinary sense of the word? Their experience of such cases as those of the famous Don Pacifico and the Baron de Bode showed the inexpediency of our undertaking to give to that class of persons the same protection as we were bound to extend to bonâ fide British subjects. Such a doctrine violated the principle of the Bill, which was that they 2021 should terminate the double allegiance. The children of foreigners, by the law of all countries, retain the allegiance of their parents, and we ought not to seek to confer on them in addition the artificial character of British subjects. A strong opinion had been pronounced by the Lord Chief Justice of England on the subject, and he hoped the Government would be able to assent to the Amendment, which was entirely in accordance with the principle of the Bill.

§ SIR ROUNDELL PALMER
said, the Bill was intended to fulfil a practical and also an urgent object—namely, to terminate certain practical difficulties with the United States of America, and to give effect to the Convention which had been entered into with that country. If the propositions of his hon. and learned Friend were now adopted, not only would they be entering, without an opportunity for sufficient consideration, into a subject of very great difficulty and very large importance, but they might be introducing an element of confusion and practical difficulty into those very relations with the United States which it was the main object of the Convention which had been entered into to settle. His hon. and learned Friend expressed rather what he wished to see accomplished than anything which the Bill attempted to accomplish, or which this country by itself could accomplish, when he said the main principle of the Bill was to get rid of double allegiance—an object which could not be completely attained without the consent of other nations. The Commissioners thought it important to have such a rule as would at once get rid practically of difficulties with other countries abroad, and, at the same time, not introduce any unnecessary difficulties at home. They had to deal, practically, not with rare and extraordinary cases of transitory foreigners, but with the far more common and numerous cases of children born in this country—the children of persons long resident here for purposes of trade, foreigners by birth, and, perhaps, still by nationality; persons, the great majority of whom had not thought it worth while, and, under any change of the 2022 law, might never think it worth while, to get letters of naturalization; and if, for the sake of any uniform theory, the status of these children were made to follow the status of the parents as to nationality, a practical hardship and disability would be inflicted upon a large and important class of persons who, as the law now stood, became upon their birth British citizens, and often proved to be most valuable British citizens. At this moment he believed there were in the House Members who were the sons of foreigners resident in England, and who were yet as good Englishmen as any whom he now addressed. The Commissioners, therefore, recommended that if a child were born in this country of an alien father he should still have the privileges of a British subject by reason of his birth, unless, when he came of age, he made a declaration that he wished to be considered an alien. The principle of thus constituting a primâ facie nationality, with a power of choice on the attainment of majority, was acted upon in some other countries, and seemed to meet every practical object. On the other hand, the Commissioners recommended that, while we should continue to offer the privileges of British nationality to children of British subjects born abroad, those privileges should not be asserted in a sense inconsistent with the allegiance which those persons might owe to the country in which they were born. He could not agree with his hon. and learned Friend as to the universal prevalence abroad of the theory he advocated; and to attempt to apply such a theory in practice would land us in difficulties of a very serious character. For instance, the rule did not obtain in the United States, which asserted, like ourselves, that birth gave citizenship. The child of a British father born in the United States became an American citizen, and few emigrants there, in comparison with the whole number, naturalized themselves. What, then, would be the consequence of adopting the suggestion, that, for good or for evil, for all purposes whatever, everybody born of a British father in the United States, when the father was not naturalized there, should be deemed a British subject? The United States desired to encourage emigration, and would not for a moment adopt that view. In Denmark, in Holland, and in Portugal, the children of 2023 foreigners not naturalized born in those countries were considered the subjects of those countries, and in Italy also the birth determined the nationality. But his hon. and learned Friend proposed that, after the passing of the Act— No person born within the dominions of Her Majesty of an alien father, which person at the time of his birth became under the law of any foreign state a subject of such state, shall be deemed a British subject by reason only of his birth within the dominions of Her Majesty. No doubt that proposal was intended to meet certain difficulties in the case; but it could not be carried out, because it would involve perpetual inquiries into the laws of all foreign countries to determine whether the child of an alien was a British subject or not. To be obliged for all purposes of Parliamentary and municipal franchises to ascertain whether the father at the birth of the child was a citizen of a foreign country, and to determine this point, not by our own law, but by the law of other nations, would introduce the greatest uncertainty. You could not refer to a simple, uniform rule on this subject in other countries. For example, a Frenchman who had lived here without the purpose of returning to France was no longer a Frenchman, and you could not, therefore, determine nationality in such a case without going into the question of domicil; the practical difficulties of which, in the unanimous judgment of the Commissioners, made its adoption as a test of nationality impossible, however proper it might seem to be in theory. A Prussian living here for 10 years ceased to be a Prussian subject; and, therefore, according to the theory of his hon. and learned Friend, a child of such a father born in the 11th month of the 10th year of such residence would be a Prussian child, but if born after the completion of the 10th year, it would be English. Again, a Spaniard or Italian would lose his nationality if he accepted foreign service. Thus, under the rule proposed by his hon. and learned Friend, many persons might have no nationality at all, for their parents being primâ facie foreigners, you could not, without minute inquiry into questions of fact, of which the proof might often be difficult, and questions of foreign law, as applied to those facts, tell whether they were British subjects or aliens. All these were at least reasons for not hastily changing the law, and he sub- 2024 mitted that every reasonable object was answered by the 4th clause of the Bill. All countries had, with practical uniformity, admitted that statutory legislation, giving rights as citizens, in this or in any other nation, to those who, by the law which touched them locally at their birth, and by the principles of International Law, owed a primary allegiance as subjects to some other State, could not operate upon those persons, without their own consent, so as to impose upon them any obligations inconsistent with their natural allegiance. Whatever might be the letter of the statutes, as to "all intents and purposes whatsoever"—and words as strong had received a reasonable interpretation, qualifying their effect, in many other cases—there had never arisen from them, in practice, any real difficulty at all.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
said, that the Bill did not express any opinion, but attempted to give to both sides the greatest facilities for getting rid of or retaking allegiance to this country. There was very much to be said for the theoretical views of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. V. Harcourt); but after careful consideration the Government had resolved to keep this matter out of the Bill, which was not a nationality one, but related only to expatriation and repatriation. Therefore, the hon. and learned Gentleman's observations were not relevant to the subject, and he could not accede to the proposition.

§ MR. VERNON HARCOURT
formally moved his other clause, which he said was founded on the unanimous recommendation of the Commissioners. He hoped that the House would not deal with this question, as the hon. and learned Member for Richmond seemed to desire, by dealing with it in sections in successive Sessions of Parliament. Surely, there might now be passed a clause as to which there was no difference of opinion in any country in the world, and which was founded on the words of the statute in force in America.

§ SIR ROUNDELL PALMER
said, he remained of the same opinion as to this subject, and he had no intention of conveying the idea that the House ought always to be altering this part of the law. But the present Bill did not seek to repeal the existing statutes on this matter, and although, on this point, the Commissioners had expressed a unanimous opinion, yet the House could hardly deal with so important a matter in a summary way upon that opinion alone, in a Bill which, as introduced by the Government, did not relate to that question.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
trusted that the House would keep to the simple object of the Bill, and not deal with a subject which required much consideration and negotiation.

§ MR. CHARLEY
moved, in Clause 1, page 1, line 10, to leave out "real and," and in line 11, after "alien" to insert And real property of every description may be taken, acquired, held, and disposed of by an alien becoming such in pursuance of this Act.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
said, it was impossible for the Government to accede to the Amendment. If it were adopted, persons disavowing British nationality, who might have gone to America and returned to this country for purposes for which some persons did return, would have a right to acquire real property which would be denied to a French nobleman.