HC Deb 29 July 1914 vol 65 cc1491-504

The wife of a British subject shall be deemed to be a British subject, and the wife of an alien shall be deemed to be an alien.


I beg to move to leave out the words "be deemed to be" ["be deemed to be a British subject"] and to insert instead thereof the word "become."

I do not propose to repeat the arguments I used earlier, but I shall shortly explain the effect of the Amendment. I propose to move further Amendments so that the Clause will run, "The wife of a British subject shall become a British subject, and the wife of an alien shall become an alien, if and when she shall have made a declaration that she desires to become a British subject or an alien (as the case may be), and such declaration shall have been received, registered, and certified by the Secretary of State in accordance with regulations made under the provisions of this Act." She has a choice when she marries of saying whether she wishes to claim her nationality or adopt the nationality of her husband.


I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that what he said on the Motion to recommit the Bill will provide very little consolation for a large number of women who feel that they are suffering a real, practical disability under this Bill. It is also true that women of the country in enormous numbers who are not themselves affected by the Bill, who are not married to aliens, who are never likely to be married to aliens, resent bitterly the difference of treatment which this Bill metes out to the adult woman compared with that of the child. The right hon. Gentleman said that in every civilised country in the world the wife must necessarily follow the nationality of her husband; but why? At any rate in this country a great deal of hardship follows this practice. In the constituency I represent there are, I think I may safely say, a thousand—yes, I think thousands—of British-born Jewesses who are married to Jews who have not become naturalised and have lost their British nationality in consequence. There is not one in a hundred of them who is effected at all by the suggestion that if she does not take the nationality of her husband she will not be able to obtain any property which may be left under the law of her husband. They are not troubled about that, but they are about this: that under our Insurance Act at present the woman is entitled to full benefits, but the moment she marries an alien she loses these full benefits and all the other rights which her unmarried sister possesses.

I think the right hon. Gentleman used the expression "the contract of marriage that was entered into," but why should that contract carry with it that the woman must necessarily accept the nationality of her husband. It is said it is convenient she should have his nationality. Let her be the judge of that. This Amendment does not say she shall not take the nationality of her husband. If convenient and if to her advantage she ought to have the right to exercise her choice, and in this matter if the House resists this Amendment it is adding to the many grievances which women are feeling in this matter that they have no choice, that they are not allowed to have a voice, that they are forced out of their nationality. There are Members in this House, I believe, who are prepared to go to civil war because they say they are forced out of the jurisdiction of this Parliament, and yet in the next breath they are perfectly willing to vote a woman right out of her nationality against her will, simply because she marries an alien. You say that is the law. Why is it necessary that a woman living in this country with her husband shall be compelled to lose what privileges there are of British nationality because she marries? It is no answer to tell her that they do it in Germany or France or anywhere else, and that it would be inconvenient to the Colonies I think makes not the least difference.


I fully appreciate my hon. Friend raising this point, I quite understand, and I do not in the least suggest he was wrong in doing so, holding the views he does. I do not in the least suggest either that if he carried his point it would go one step towards altering the law. Whether the Bill would be proceeded with is quite another matter. It obviously could not. This Bill is a Bill to declare the British existing law. But we have accepted some Amendments to which we think we can get the Dominions to agree. They are not very serious Amendments. In spite of their having accepted the Bill in its present form we have run that risk, but we could not run the risk of accepting an Amendment so far-reaching as this Amendment. This Bill is not introduced as an opportunity to amend the British law of nationalisation, but it is putting in the form of a Bill the existing law. If my hon. Friend and those who agree with him insist on taking this occasion not to carry this Bill in the form which the Dominions have accepted, but in the form which he and his Friends wish to have it, all I can tell them is that they jeopardise and probably kill the Bill.

If it is required to have an Amendment of our British nationality it is open to my hon. Friend to introduce a Bill or to press upon the Government to introduce a Bill for that purpose; but this Bill was not introduced with that object. I really do not think this is the proper occasion to argue the merits, but on the merits of the case, if a woman on marriage does not adopt the nationality of her husband very serious questions of domicile and property immediately arise. Now we have to remember that our existing laws in relation to domicile have been framed upon the assumption that a woman does adopt the nationality of her husband. When my hon. Friend says that it was not the law until 1870 I do not think he is quite right. It did not become Statute law until 1870, but I think opinions could be quoted to show that it was the law before 1870. However, if we made this change now, it could not be made without many other alterations in the law. The advantage of having uniform nationality for husband and wife has been so universally recognised that although it was not the Statute law in the United States until 1907, the United States in 1907, at the height of the feminist movement made this very alteration in the law for the sake of uniformity. This Bill in this form having been submitted to the Dominions and agreed to by them, and having been introduced for the purpose of establishing a uniform system of law throughout the Empire, I do appeal to my hon. Friends not to take advantage of this opportunity to endeavour to convert this Bill into a Bill for amending the British law of nationality.


The Home Secretary started by giving two reasons why this Amendment should not be accepted. His first was that this was an agreed Bill with the Dominions. I believe it is the case that Canada has passed the Bill with great reluctance. I believe Australia has not yet passed the Bill. It is only in a country where woman suffrage prevails that a question of this sort would be raised, and I do not think the acceptance of an Amendment of this sort would wreck the Bill. Then he said we could not amend the Bill because this Bill was a consolidating Bill. It is not. It is called "an Act to consolidate and amend the law, etc." It is in certain ways an amending Bill, and this Amendment is not outside its scope. His third reason was, I think, equally groundless. He said if we carried the Amendment questions of great difficulty of property and domicile would arise. Surely he knows that domicile is a different thing from nationality. A person is domiciled in that place where he intends to reside. A person can reside in France and retain his British nationality. The two questions are perfectly distinct. Questions of marriage depend on domicile, not on nationality. Questions of marriage, since the passing of the Married Women's Property Act, are not affected by nationality.


I think my hon. Friend has forgotten Clause 5 of the Finance Bill.


I am afraid I have forgotten Clause 5 of the Finance Bill; I do not know what it is. The Colonial Secretary also gave several reasons. He said all civilised nations adopted this rule. I did not think that England was not civilised until 1869. I did not think that civilisation dated from the passing of the Elementary Education Act. The second difficulty he raised was that questions about children would arise. The law is that the child follows the father's nationality. No question about children would arise even if the husband and wife were of different nationalities. The child will follow the father's nationality, subject of course to Sub-section 1 of Clause 1 of this Bill, that all persons who are born within the allegiance are natural-born British subjects. His third reason was that the whole question was examined in 1869, that very eminent lawyers voted in favour of it, and he sees no reason to make a change. Well, a good deal has happened in the last thirty-five years and in no direction have bigger changes come to pass than in the views taken of women's rights. Surely in the last thirty-five years a completely different view has arisen of the legal rights of women and a very much broader view is now taken of that subject. What was right in 1869 is not necessarily right now. This proposed change in the law, I believe, would create no legal difficulties, and it is demanded by a very large majority of women in this country. I do not think it would wreck the Bill, and I appeal to the Government, if they cannot support it, to let the House of Commons decide. If we have a free division and the Government Whips are not put on I believe the House will carry this Amendment, and do so without imperilling the Bill.

1.0 A.M.


I would like to endorse the appeal of my hon. Friend who has just spoken that we should be allowed to have a free vote on this subject. Otherwise many of us will be reluctantly compelled to vote for the Amendment whatever the result may be. I have listened to the two speeches made from the Front Bench on this subject, and neither of them seemed to me convincing. The Home Secretary's argument was a curious one to come from a Liberal Minister. It was that what was decided by the House of Commons forty-four years ago should be good enough for the House of Commons now. A great many things have happened in those forty-four years to very seriously affect this question. Forty-four years ago the whole position of women was very different from what it is to-day. I cannot accept the argument that we should follow other countries who are very much more backward than we are in many respects, and many of which have not a Married Women's Property Act. There are two points which are certainly essential: one theoretical and the other practical. We have recognised in the last forty-four years that the individual existence of a woman as a separate entity, and we are bound to recognise more and more the economic position of women. Reference has been made to the Old Age Pensions Act, and this, I think, backs my view in this matter. I have had cases of British women having married aliens, and then discovering, when they came to apply for old age pensions, that they could not get it because their husbands were aliens. These women, when they married, could not have known that the Old Age Pensions Act would be passed and that by marrying aliens they would deprive themselves of their pensions. The Home Secretary challenged the statement of the law made by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras. I have in my hand a quotation from a very eminent authority on this subject. Cockburn says:— By the common law of England marriage had no effect on the nationality of women. An English woman marrying an alien still remained a British subject, an alien woman marrying a British subject remained none the less an alien until 7 and 8 Vic. c. 66. The Report of the Departmental Committee appointed in 1899, says:— By Section 46 of the Act of 1844 it was provided that any woman married to a natural-born subject or person naturalised should be deemed and taken to be herself naturalised and have all the rights and privileges of a natural-born British subject. No provision was made for the case of a natural-born or naturalised British woman marrying an alien. The common law still governed her station and she did not lose her British nationality. These authorities are clear on the point that we made a grievous blunder in 1870, and there is no reason why we should not put that blunder right in 1914. When we have an opportunity of remedying a grievance like this I do not see why we should not do so because of some alleged idea that the Dominions would not agree to it. At the present time it is extremely doubtful whether they have accepted the principle. I have here a copy of a resolution passed by a large meeting at Melbourne protesting and asking that the Bill should be rejected as insulting to women. We cannot really be asked to perpetuate an injustice. Supposing we introduced another Bill, an amending Bill, what would be the conditions? It would immediately make a hole in your Imperial law. You would immediately have the English law different to the law of the Dominions. I am astonished at this argument being raised. Surely we may just as well alter the law now than at another time. That being so, I for one will not hesitate to vote for the Amendment.


Perhaps I may be allowed to restate some of the very serious objections to a change of this law which is universal throughout the world. You will raise at once questions as to what is to be the nationality of children born of two parents whose nationality is different. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Obviously it would have to be decided by law which nationality the child was to obtain—whether it is to be that of the father or the mother. There are always very difficult questions raised in the case of persons of dual nationality. Undoubtedly the woman in this case would suffer. You will force other countries to recognise the wife of their national as being a national of her original country. Then there is always the question of whether you are to give the child a dual nationality. Great difficulty will arise as to the inheritance of property by an alien wife. There will be imposed on her very often a very serious liability to taxation. She will be liable to death duties and income tax in other countries owing to the fact of her being the wife of an alien. An alien here would be liable to taxation in her own country and also liable to taxation in this country. She might also lose the protection of her husband's relations, and not be in a position to use that of her own. Jurisdiction in law will become complicated, especially in matters of extradition, and certainly the determination of domicile will be confused by the double nationality.

The hon. Member for Durham said we had made an advance in the question of women's rights during the last thirty-five years. I admit that quite frankly. In no country has the advance been so great as in the United States, yet, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, the United States in the last seven years has found it necessary by Statute to make it quite clear that an American woman marrying an alien has to accept the nationality of the man she has married. My hon. Friend who spoke last thought that the Commonwealth of Australia might object to this Clause. On the contrary, this is already the law by their own Statute in Australia, and in Canada also by their previous Statute which they have passed since they attained self-governing power and capacity. The hon. Member alluded to what he thought was a fact that an Englishwoman maintained her British nationality after marriage to an alien up to the year 1870. That indeed was not the case. In 1865 Lord Clarendon was asked by Lord Blomfield, our Minister in Prussia, to send for the information of the Government of Prussia a statement of what the English naturalisation laws and the status of married women were. Lord Clarendon's despatch to Lord Blomfield begins in this way, "First, that a woman British-born subject who has married a foreigner possesses the status of her husband and is not entitled to claim the protection of Her Majesty's legations abroad." This was in 1865, four years before the Royal Commission sat. On the Report of the Royal Commission was founded the Act of 1870 and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras thought that this subject of the nationality of an English woman married to an alien was not much considered by Parliament at that time. But indeed he is wrong. It was considered by four very great lawyers. I have now been able to find short quotations from them. The Attorney-General, Sir P. Collier, said:— It was impossible to provide against every conceivable case of hardship but they must consider what rule was most, expedient. In his opinion the balance of convenience was in favour of enacting that the wife should take the status of the husband. If she did not there would be difficult and complicated questions of domicile. The Solicitor-General, Sir J. Coleridge, said:— All the rights and privileges of the parties were protected by the Bill. Sir Roundell Palmer, afterwards Lord Selborne, said:— These questions were very carefully considered in the Commission and proposed that they should be settled in accordance with the universal principles of private International law. It was quite settled as a matter of International law that the status of the wife followed the status of the husband. He hoped the House would adhere to some general principles and not be effected by theoretical cases. Mr. Jessel, afterwards the Master of the Rolls, said:— The object of the Bill was to amend our naturalisation law so as to make it conform more nearly to International law, and that it was necessary to adopt the general rule that the wife should follow the nationality of the husband. The effect of the debate and of these opinions was summarised in this House by a distinguished Member of Parliament of that day in these words:— Inconvenience may occur in some cases but he did not see what other course could be adopted than that of making the nationality of the wife follow that of the husband. That was the opinion of the Member for Stroud, Mr. Dickinson, father of my hon. Friend. With such admirable advice as that founded on the opinion of four such able lawyers, I would beg the House not to-day to depart from a decision so well arrived at.


I do not wish to touch on the theoretical side of the question, but both the mover and the seconder of this Amendment based it on the practical hardship suffered by certain women in this country. All the cases to which they referred were the cases of women married to aliens, evidently permanently residing in this country. It seems to me very undesirable that you should encourage aliens, permanently residing in this country, not to acquire British citizenship. I know that a certain small expenditure is involved, as was, no doubt, so in the case mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, of the man who had been sixty-seven years in this country, and who married an English wife. But I believe the total expense involved was equal to eight weeks' old age pension for them, and, in that case, I should have thought there would have been no difficulty in borrowing the sum required on the strength of the next eight weeks' instalments.

But, while the grievance which the right hon. Gentleman and the seconder are trying to remove is a comparatively small one, this Bill, I submit, is intended to remove a very great and admitted hardship with which the different Governments of the Empire have tried to deal for a number of years; it is a hardship accumulating at the rate of several hundred thousand cases in the course of a few years, namely, I mean the people who become British subjects in Canada and in other Dominions, and are not British subjects here, including people as distinguished as one very eminent Canadian Minister, who is, I believe, in London at this moment. It is a very real hardship, and one which, owing to the difficulty of arriving at an agreement between a number of Governments, and of getting that agreement carried out by legislation, has defeated the Imperial Conference for a period of something like ten years.

It seems to me that when, at last agreement had been arrived at, and the Governments were got together to frame something like the foundations of a common citizenship for the whole of the British Empire, it would be disastrous if, for the sake of removing some small local grievance, or for a further step in the theoretical position of women, we endangered that measure in any degree, and threw back the whole position to what it was before. It seems to me that when we have arrived at a common ground of citizenship through this measure, it will always be open for hon. Members here to raise a further suggestion for Amendment, and to enlist the support of people in Australia and elsewhere. I do trust that the House in this case will look at the wider Imperial considerations, and at the immense difficulties that have faced all the Governments of the Empire in coming to an agreement, and not try to destroy the Bill for the sake of a slight theoretical advance.


My first objection to the Amendment is that it really does not seem, as a matter of drafting, to be quite successful, for the Amendment will declare that the wife of a British subject shall become a British subject. As a matter of fact, in more than nine cases out of ten she is a British subject before she is married. Therefore, she cannot become a British subject and the Amendment, from that point of view, is absurd. There is another case, which the hon. Gentlemen apparently have not considered. If an American woman marries a British subject, unless she makes a specific declaration, she has no nationality whatever, because, by the law of the country to which she belongs, she has adopted the nationality of her husband and, having failed to make a declaration, she has not, by the law of Great Britain, obtained the nationality of Great Britain. Therefore, she must be deemed to be a person of no nationality whatever. That would be the effect of the Amendment. But, I wish to oppose it altogether on its merits; I think the idea that a woman is to have a different nationality from her husband is extremely objectionable. It does seem to me that the idea of a husband and wife, living together under the same roof, on the most intimate terms possible, are actually to exercise separate nationalities, is to strike at the root idea of marriage altogether.

The case is put forward to us as arising out of the claim of women for citizenship. Well, but, suppose both husband and wife have a strong opinion on citizenship, and perhaps exercise the duties and responsibilities of citizenship to the highest possible degree, and the two people belong to separate nationalities; how on earth can it be done? It is quite impossible that a husband and wife should be exercising citizenship in the highest sense of the word under separate nationalities. The whole case is put forward on the basis that women marry men who have no sense of citizenship whatever, and who do not know, and do not care. Speaking as one who has married an alien, I cannot imagine anything more inconvenient than to have separate nationalities. The case was made by the hon. Member for Stepney, arising out of the Old Age Pensions Act and the Insurance Act. Well, when those Acts were before the House I thought that the separate treatment of aliens was a mistake, and that any person domiciled in this country, of whatever nationality, ought to have the same position, because they were making the same provision. If these cases were dealt with in that spirit, the whole of the grievances alleged in regard to old age pensions and insurance would disappear at once, and it would be only a question of amending the Bills. I hope the Government will resist the Amendment on its merits, and have nothing to do with it.


I rise to support this Amendment, on the ground that women ought to have the right to exercise their will in this matter, and ought not to be disposed of by the operation of law. After all, a woman, in my opinion, is just as much entitled as a man to claim to be an independent being on her own account, and not merely an adjunct of her husband. An Englishman going to Germany and marrying a German woman there would consider it a gross injustice if by mere operation of law, he was declared to have lost his English citizenship and to have become a German. Nevertheless, some of us think it the most natural thing in the world to tell an English woman that if she chooses to marry an alien she must be punished by loosing her British citizenship. I certainly cannot be one to support any such doctrine. We have been told that in 1870 the most eminent lawyers argued this case and decided that there would be a balance of convenience by altering the law which had existed up to that time, and deprived women in these cases of their British citizenship. We were not told that women were asked to express any opinion of it, to argue the case, or to plead the case at all. Women are not given the opportunity of doing so now. The matter is to be settled here, before even those dominions where women have the vote have had an opportunity through their legislatures where they are represented of expressing their view upon it.

We are told that very serious consequences will arise if the women and the men are of different nationalities, that is, if this Clause be altered according to this Amendment. These consequences existed in this country, and in the United States for long enough, and they did not produce any very disastrous results. We could face those results again, if necessary, but I venture to say that very serious consequences will arise if this Clause be passed in the form in which it is brought to us. There is a very great feeling among women outside against this. Surely, there is already enough bitterness on the part of women outside with regard to questions affecting their position in the country. This is not the time, surely, to pass a law in this House which is utterly opposed by the great majority of the organised women in this country.

I venture to say it would be a very great mistake and a very great disaster to the country if we were to go on and in matters of this sort were to fly in the face of the opinion of women in this country. We are always told that man would do justice. Well, man would not treat man in this way. Men would not submit to losing their nationality simply because they married an Indian, and it is entirely wrong for a man Parliament elected by men to force that on women.

Finally, I wish to join in the appeal to the Government to let us have a free vote on this question. It is quite untenable and absurd to say that if this Amendment were carried this Bill must fall. It is simply another example, it seems to me, of the executive coming forward and dictating to the Legislature at every point, and saying: "Unless we have our will on this and that point the world will come to an end." I for one shall vote for this Amendment whether the Government put on their Whips or not. If they insist on putting them on and are defeated, very well, the consequences will be on them and not upon us. I shall vote against them in any case.

Amendment made: At the end of the Clause insert the words, "Provided that where a man ceases during the continuance of his marriage to be a British subject it shall be lawful for his

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 108; Noes, 59.

Division No. 205.] AYES. [1.23 a.m
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Acland, Francis Dyke Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) O'Doherty, Philip
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) O'Donnell, Thomas
Amery, L. C. M. S. Hazleton, Richard O'Dowd, John
Barnston, Harry Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) Henry, Sir Charles O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George) Higham, John Sharp O'Shee, James
Boland, John Pius Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. O'Sullivan, Timothy
Bowerman, Charles W. Holt, Richard Durning Pollard, Sir George H.
Brady, Patrick Joseph Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Raffan, Peter Wilson
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Hughes, Spencer Leigh Reddy, Michael
Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood) Illingworth, Percy H. Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Clough, William Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)
Crumley, Patrick Joyce, Michael Robinson, Sidney
Cullinan, John Kilbride, Denis Rothschild, Lionel de
Dairymple, Viscount King, Joseph Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Lardner, James C. R. Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth) Levy, Sir Maurice Scanlan, Thomas
Devlin, Joseph Lundon, Thomas Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.
Doris, William Lynch, Alfred Sheehy, David
Duffy, William J. Maclean, Donald Sherwell, Arthur James
Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) MacVeagh, Jeremiah Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Stewart, Gershom
Essex, Richard Walter M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding) Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Esslemont, George Birnie Meagher, Michael Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)
Ffrench, Peter Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix.) Verney, Sir Harry
Flavin, Michael Joseph Millar, James Duncan Waring, Walter
France, Gerald Ashburner Molloy, Michael Webb, H.
Gilmour, Captain John Muldoon, John White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.)
Gladstone, W. G. C. Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones Murphy, Martin J. Wing, Thomas Edward
Gulland, John Wiliam Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) Nolan, Joseph TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
Hackett, John Nugent, Sir Walter Richard William Jones and Captain Guest.
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Barnes, George N. Hudson, Walter Roberts, George H. (Norwich)
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe) Rowlands, James
Booth, Frederick Handel Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney) Rowntree, Arnold
Bridgeman, William Clive Jewett, Frederick William Sanders, Robert Arthur
Bryce, J. Annan Kenyon, Barnet Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)
Cassel, Felix Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th) Shortt, Edward
Chancellor, Henry George Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. Sutton, John E.
Chapple, Dr. William Allen Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) Toulmin, Sir George
Cory, Sir Clifford John Markham, Sir Arthur Basil Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Marshall, Arthur Harold Watson, Hon. W.
Dawes, J. A. Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Norman, Sir Henry Williams, Aneurin (Durham. N. W.)
Elverston, Sir Harold Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)
Glanville, Harold James Pratt, J. W. Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Glazebrook, Captain Philip K. Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) Yeo, Alfred William
Goldsmith, Frank Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.
Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham) Radford, George Heynes TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) Rendall, Athelstan Dickinson and Mr. Hills.
Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

wife to make a declaration that she desires to retain British nationality, and thereupon she shall be deemed to remain a British subject."—[Mr. Harcourt.]