§ The following Amendments shall be made in the principal Act:
§ (3) In Sub-section (1) of Section eight (which relates to the grant of certificates of naturalisation in British possessions) after the words "United Kingdom" there shall be inserted the words "and of a High Court or superior Court 1392 of the possession for the High Court, and with the omission of any reference to the approval of the Lord Chancellor," and after the words "any certificate proposed to be granted" there shall be inserted the words "and any proposal to revoke any certificate."
§ Sir W. DICKINSONI beg to move, after Sub-section (3), to insert the following new Sub-section:
(4) In Section ten (which relates to the national status of married women) at the end of the Section there shall be added the words "and provided that where an alien is a subject of an enemy State it shall be lawful for his wife if she was a British subject before her marriage to make a declaration that she desires to resume British nationality, and thereupon the Secretary of State, if he is satisfied that it is advisable that she be permitted to do so, may grant her a certificate of naturalisation.This Amendment is one which I put down in Committee. I had some hope that the Home Secretary would consider an Amendment on this point before the Report stage. I do not know whether in the very short time which has elapsed he has had an opportunity of considering this. The Home Office should have the power at its own discretion absolutely to assent to an application made by the British-born wife of an alien enemy to resume her British nationality. If that could be done I believe that the Home Secretary would find no small number of cases in which the circumstances would justify him entirely in giving this relief. The hardship endured by many British women who, many years ago, married Germans, has been intense. They never thought that they would find themselves in the position which has arisen during this War. Their husbands may be interned, or may be sent back to Germany, and the question arises whether the women themselves may not be sent to Germany. I cannot help feeling that if the Home Secretary had this power he would find many cases in which he would feel bound to exercise this discretion.
§ Sir G. CAVEI have thought of this again, and I think it is a matter which the House can well consider. It is a matter which arises during the War, and therefore ought to be considered now. The serious objection to this Amendment is that we are asked to allow a severance of nationality between husband and wife. There is the further objection that the wife might well desire to be a British subject during the War between Great Britain and her husband's country, and that after the War she and her husband, a man of different nationality, might come together 1393 again, and that might be a serious matter for her. What we do now in the case of British-born women married to enemy aliens is to relieve them under the Restrictions of Aliens Order, and there are many cases, I think some hundreds, in which British-born women have been so relieved. But there are some eases that deserve to be considered. I am speaking of the woman separated from her husband, who may be fighting against us, and whom she may not have seen perhaps for five or ten years. I have had before me more than one such case, and in such cases where there is really separation between the wife and the husband I think perhaps the Secretary of State might have a discretion. I propose to accept the Amendment of my right hon. Friend, but I wish him to understand that it is only in rare cases that I may find it possible to apply it.
§ Sir E. CARSONMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is going to make any alteration in the Amendment or is he going to leave it as it is? Is he going to leave it to the Secretary of State's discretion?
§ Sir G. CAVEI would like to hear any suggestion my right hon. Friend has to make.
§ Sir E. CARSONI did not know that you would be likely to accept the Amendment. I had not seen it until I read it this morning on the Paper, and I have not considered any Amendment to it, but this Amendment now proposed seems to me to be opening up a very wide area by leaving the matter entirely to the discretion of the Home Secretary. You might have the case of an alien whose certificate had been taken away from him, and whose alien wife might be left in the position in which she would have all the rights and privileges of a British subject—a position which might have serious consequences.
§ Mr. A. WILLIAMSI think we can trust the Home Secretary to use the power given to him in a proper way. It certainly would not be a discreet use of the power to grant certificates of naturalisation in such cases as the right hon. Member for Dublin University suggests. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had not seen this Amendment until today. It was on the Paper in the Committee stage and was discussed, and the Home Secretary promised to give the 1394 matter his further consideration. I believe it would be far better to leave the matter to the discretion of the Home Secretary without attempting to fetter it with words. If words were introduced it might have the result of cases being included which perhaps we would rather not include, and, on the other hand, exclude some cases which it would appear very evident ought to be dealt with. Personally, I am quite content to leave it to the Home Secretary for the time being to exercise his discretion.
§ Sir R. COOPERAs I understand it, the Home Secretary accepts the principle of the Amendment but does not actually approve of the way in which it is drafted, but if he accepts it as it is, surely that is not the way to make an Act of Parliament!
§ Sir G. CAVEI stated that although it would leave me a discretion, it is one which I could only very rarely exercise.
§ Mr. BOOTHI suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that this Amendment should be limited to British-born subjects, and I agree with the right hon. Member for Trinity College that, as it stands, it would be opening the door too widely. It might be that a woman who was a British subject had only got her British naturalisation previously to marrying some man, even a naturalised man. She might even be a German woman who had married a naturalised German, and she would still come under the operation of the Amendment.
§ Sir W. DICKINSONI should not object to the words "British-born."
§ Mr. BOOTHI suggest, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "British" ["if she was a British subject"], to insert the word "born."
§ Sir G. CAVEI beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "was" ["was a British subject"], to insert the words "by birth."
It would then read, "shall be lawful for his wife if she was at birth a British subject." The Amendment comes in there better, I think, than at the point suggested by the hon. Member.
§ Sir W. DICKINSONI accept the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, which would enable the bonâ-fide British woman 1395 to make a declaration that she desires to resume her British nationality. The only point on which I wish to ask the Home Secretary a question is whether the words are really the right words to use. I take it that we all mean the same thing.
§ Sir G. CAVEThis point of retention of nationality is dealt with by Section 7A.
§ Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.
§ Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
§ Brigadier-General McCALMONTBefore we pass this Bill, I should like to inquire as to whether the Home Secretary is prepared to make some statement of the administration of the Bill in Ireland. Under present conditions the alien question in Ireland is in grave danger of being forgotten because of enemy questions of other kind, and no one is able to find out who is responsible for the administration of the law. It is sometimes the military authority, sometimes the naval authority, sometimes the Home Secretary himself, sometimes the Chief Secretary, and sometimes the police. I only wish to ask two questions. I believe I am right in saying that any action against the naturalised alien in Ireland has to go the whole way to the Army Council before any decision can be given and the police authorities in various parts of Ireland receive instructions not only from the naval and military authorities and from the Chief Secretary, but sometimes direct from the right hon. Gentleman himself. It would remove an impression of uneasiness if the right hon. Gentleman would give us some assurance that the law will be administered in Ireland as in England, and if those people who desire to see it properly administered may know to whom they should apply when these difficulties arise. I fully recognise that at the present time the conditions are abnormal and I should be the last to suggest that the military authorities should have less power than they have now, but the public generally and the police should understand exactly who is responsible for the administration of this Clause.
§ Sir E. CARSONBefore the Bill is put from the Chair on the Motion for the Third Reading I should like to make a few 1396 remarks. May I say that in any observations I have to make I hope the Home Secretary will understand that we all feel very grateful to him for the considerate way in which he has received the various proposals which have been made. At the same time I cannot help reflecting, after sitting here all day, how little the interest in this House in this question compares with the intense feeling outside with regard to aliens. It is really an extraordinary thing to me, and nothing shows me more how little this House is in sympathy with the country than the fact, that here is a Bill that they have been clamouring for all through the country for the last three or four years, more particularly and more vehemently recently, and it is put down for its consideration on two Fridays by the Government and is attended in the Sessions by an average of about fifteen or twenty Members. All I can say is that I do not believe there is at the present moment any question more agitating a nation worn out by the horrors of war and the infamies of enemy belligerents than is the treatment which in the past and at the present time is being meted out to aliens and especially enemy aliens in this country. I cannot help also reflecting upon the fact that after three or four years cogitation upon this subject and after all that has been written and said upon it we should have such a weak and emasculated Bill. I really think we might have had a Bill going to the whole root of this question.
There is one thing I would like to bring before the House. We have been talking a great deal of taking away certificates of naturalisation and of putting people back to their original nationality. One thing you have not touched at all, and that is the ridiculous proposition of our laws, that if a German woman happens to be passing through London and a child is born in one of the hotels, that child is a British subject. So far as I know you have no way of taking away that nationality from it as a British subject. To my mind that is one of the most absurd propositions of law and one of the most absurd remnants in our laws. Is it not extraordinary that after four years of war, during which this thing has been brought before our eyes daily and hourly, we make no provision whatever for it in this Bill? I think, too, that the country is greatly perplexed about the position 1397 during the War of naturalised enemy subjects. We had a great deal of excitement at an early stage of the War about enemy aliens who were naturalised being allowed to be members of the Privy Council. After four years cogitation you make no suggestion whatsoever as regards that in your Bill and having passed this great Bill, which is to settle this question during the War without any discussion whatsoever, you still lay down that to His Majesty's Council can be summoned a German, an Austrian, a Turk, a Bulgarian or anybody else so long as he is made a Privy Councillor. For my own part, I think that is all wrong.
You have not touched the question of enemy aliens in this House who have been naturalised. I do not know if there are any here in the House, but I hope they will not be offended. I think they ought not to be here, and I say it openly. The absurdity of our allowing, once war breaks out, men who were of German origin to come in and legislate here as regards the War or as regards the terms of peace, makes a pantomime of legislation and I tell you why I say so. Nothing will persuade me that if I had been twenty years in Germany I would not have had exactly the same feelings towards this country as I have now. I believe you cannot get it out of your blood. It is there. It has come down from century to century, and there it is, and to go and bring in legislation and pass it without dealing with these matters is, I think, very regrettable. There is something more the country is interested in as regards this question of naturalisation, and that is the number of naturalised aliens in our public offices. The country has an idea, and I am not sure that there is not some foundation for it, that some of the heads of offices like to keep them there. They may have good reasons, but I am perfectly certain that, whatever the House may think, the nation is entirely opposed to allowing into our munition works or into our various offices connected with the War, any persons who are naturalised and who have been of enemy origin. Besides, we constantly hear of large contracts being given out to naturalised alien enemies. Only the other day my hon. Friend told us of a large contract which had been given to Weiner, an Austrian naturalised subject. I hope he has since looked up the history of this gentleman, which has been sent to 1398 me, but this is not the time to go into that. These are the kinds of instances which make the country doubtful of the earnestness of the Government in really wishing to take full advantage of the circumstances created by the War to get rid of this penetration by alien enemies into the very vitals of this country in carrying on business, and especially business in relation to the War, and I hope the Home Secretary will assure us that this is not the last Bill on the subject that we are going to have. I think he would do a very good work if he would try and have the whole of this subject put upon some satisfactory basis, because what people are asking themselves is this: "If you allow these people, when naturalised, to hold these positions during the War, what belief can we have in your pledges that you are not going to allow ever again the same penetration as we had before?" The people are determined more and more to have the British Empire for the British people, not in the sense of wishing in the slightest degree to be hostile to those who come amongst us, but they have got to distrust German, Austrian, and foreign methods in relation to business. Their eyes have been opened, and they are not going in the future, as they did in the past, to allow foreigners or aliens, by their particular methods, which are not our methods, to try and monopolise and intrigue themselves into positions and businesses in this country which they have no right to as against our own people.
Sir H. DALZIELI desire to associate myself with the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend who has just sat down. I thank the Home Secretary and the Government for this Bill. I could have wished it was a stronger Bill, but I recognise that it does go a considerable way in the direction which we have advised for a long time past. The Bill is weak in one or two particulars. It is weak, I think, in assuming that every person naturalised since the War broke out should continue to be a British subject unless something definite against him is brought forward. I would have approached the matter from another standpoint and said that all Germans naturalised since the outbreak of war should cease to be British subjects at once and should only be readmitted if the case was overwhelmingly in the national interest. Who are these persons? These are people who have lived amongst us in some oases for twenty or thirty years, and made huge fortunes in 1399 this country, and never thought it worth their while to pay for the privilege by becoming a British subject. I honour them if they did not feel that they could throw off their own nationality, but I speak with contempt of men who, having lived in this country and refused to take advantage of its citizenship, the very moment they find themselves in a difficulty come to the British Government and wish to be made British citizens. There is no patriotism about that. It is simply making use of this country for their own ends, and that is why I say that every person who was naturalised at the outbreak of war is in quite a different category from the person who, twenty or thirty years ago, took up his citizenship in this country.
This Bill, if it does nothing else, ought, I think, to remove all this sloppy sentiment which we have heard about naturalisation papers. We hear them spoken of as if they were some great charter which this country had conferred upon deserving people, and to interfere with which in any way would almost be in the category of the Belgian treaty with Germany. We have to-day, by this Bill, broken all idea of that kind. They became citizens of this country in many cases wrongly, not being free of their own nationality. They got it under misrepresentation in many cases, and their own laws prevented them from becoming whole-heartedly British subjects, and by this Bill we are giving power to the Home Secretary practically to revoke naturalisation under certain conditions and for certain reasons. I venture, to say that, in my opinion, not 5 per cent. of the Germans naturalised in this country have been naturalised because they hated German militarism and the system under which they were born, and that the remaining 95 per cent. became naturalised purely for business reasons and business convenience. If there is anyone I sympathise with today it is the German in this country—a naturalised subject, if you like who, having been born in Germany, and having lived to man's estate, and judged of the reasons that governed the policy of the Germans in the past, and having made up his mind that he was opposed to all that, and solemnly declared that he wished to cease to be a German subject, finds himself naturalised here at this time, and loyal, I doubt not, to this country.
1400 I sympathise with that man, but they are a very small proportion. Ninety-five per cent. of the Germans who are naturalised here—I say it advisedly—are men who obey the call of blood, whose interests are with Germany, who rejoice when she has a victory, and who are disappointed when she has a defeat. I had the head official of a camp calling on me the other day—a well-known German camp in this country which I have visited several times—and, in my capacity of a member of the committee visiting the camp, I asked him, "What was the demeanour of the Germans recently when we had reverses—do they show their sympathy is still with Germany?" These men are interned civilians. "Yes, indeed," he replied, "and we have very good reason to know that. On the morning after a British reverse they come into the office and refuse to take off their hats and insist on smoking cigars in my office." I said, "Do you tolerate that?" He replied, "I report it." I do not blame them, but it shows that their interests are with their native country; and if Germany was victorious in this War it is wonderful, from the highways and byways, how the real Germans would show themselves. We have, therefore, got to approach this question with the belief that only 5 per cent. have become British naturalised subjects because they were opposed to the policy and military ambitions of Germany. What about the other 95 per cent.?
Let me take a typical case—that of Mr. Schroeder. He was living in this country for years before the War, and was a very rich man. He was naturalised after the War broke out, but not because he wanted to be a British subject. Mr. Schroeder has never, to his honour be it said, said, "I throw off the military despotism of Germany and want to breathe the free air of Britain for all time." Nothing of the kind! So far as I can trace, there is no act or deed which shows that Mr. Schroeder wanted to become a British subject. It is recorded in the official records that Mr. Schroeder was naturalised after the War not because he wanted to become a British subject, but to enable him to continue his business. That is the official explanation, and this country gave the naturalisation on the representation of certain financial authorities in the City that it was in the interests of British finance that he should become naturalised. Does the House think that we are scrapping the loyalty of Mr. Schroeder when for our own convenience, 1401 and for financial reasons, because he was accepting important bills from abroad, we made him a British subject? Nothing of the kind. I say that Schroeder is free to-day, although a British subject, to be loyal and true to the Kaiser, about whom he made such splendid speeches a few years ago. That is a type of naturalisation since the War. It was the same before. We all know them in our acquaintanceship—men who became British subjects for business reasons and for the privileges which they otherwise would not have had in carrying on their business, and the question of loyalty to this country and taking the oath never weighed with them a bit. They are honest enough, many of them, to say so.
Therefore, I say, we have to take note of the fact, and dismiss all idea that because a man pays a few pounds for a naturalisation certificate therefore he is a changed man. Nothing of the kind. These men are Germans to-day, and I should think very little of them if they did not love their country to-day, naturalised or unnaturalised. I should like to know, as I said before, if the British Forces were outside Berlin, on which side the sympathies of the Englishman or Scotsman interned in Germany would be. Of course, he would obey the call of the blood! The mere signature of a man does not alter his feelings with regard to nationality. Therefore, it is no use shutting our eyes to the fact that the sympathies of Germans, although naturalised British subjects, are with their native land. Mr. Schroeder became a British subject on the outbreak of the War. He still retains his sympathies for Germany. He has, for example, paid between £50,000 and £60,000 to German interests in this country since the out-break of war. I do not blame him, but there it is. It may be out of his pocket. It may be a recommendation to the Kaiser after the War to show what great service he rendered during the War to the interests of Germany. Not only that, but the British Government have allowed this same Mr. Schroeder, by special permission of the War Office, to give presents every year to the soldiers who guard the German prisoners in this country. Why are those privileges given to a wealthy German in this country who is naturalised? I have the statement of the War Office that he is granted this special privilege. 1402 It is this tenderness on the part of the Government which makes people outside so suspicious.
Why is it necessary in the fourth year of the War that there should be a public agitation outside to make the people who are supposed to lead do the most obvious thing that could present itself to them? Are we asking them to do anything unjust or unreasonable? What we ask has been done by all our Allies and practically all our Colonies. Do we suggest that they have been guilty of injustice? Why is it that people who ought to lead in the country are the very last to take action, and have almost to be kicked into action? I know there are some people who describe this as a "stunt." I remember those people. A stunt, to be successful, has got to be true, and it has got to be well justified and correct. I think you can claim all those qualifications for the subject of the agitation with which some of us are identified. There are people who talk about this to-day as an organised agitation. Why should we organise an agitation? What purpose does it serve? Most of the Members who plead this cause are staunch supporters of the Government in every respect. The only reason some of us have taken it up is that we are convinced it is a public danger, and that unless something is done, you are going to shatter the unity that has prevailed in this country—and very soon, too—because people cannot understand this great consideration for those of enemy origin in this country. I cannot forget, too, that the people who describe this to-day as a hysterical agitation, actuated by base and improper motives, are the very people who, when Lord Roberts was pointing out the danger of Germany, and when Robert Blatchford and many other distinguished people were warning the country that Germany was going to attack us, and that we ought to be prepared, described that movement at that time as a political stunt, which ought not to be taken any notice of. I pay no heed to that. I say to-day there is a real, living danger with regard to enemies in our midst in this country. The Home Secretary will not deny that he stated in so many words the other night that if there were an invasion of this country hundreds—shall I say thousands—of people who are at liberty to-day would be immediately put into prison. If that is the case, if they are dangerous in case of invasion, are 1403 they less dangerous at other times? I am one of those who have never dismissed the possibility of invasion, nor do I think the Government have, or they would not have 500,000 men in this country to defend it.
You cannot afford to take risks in time of War. You must do injustice to some in order to do justice to the nation as a whole, and I say this whole controversy ought to have been settled years ago if the Government had done the obvious thing in regard to matters we brought before them. I recognise that this Bill goes to some considerable extent in the direction we have agitated. It has been brought forward largely, I think, even the Home Secretary will admit, because of public uneasiness. But I recognise my right hon. Friend brought this Bill forward before the later stages of this controversy, and I think he deserves that credit, because it belongs to him. But I would point out to him, at the same time, that while he has taken enormous powers under this Bill, it depends upon how those powers are going to be exercised as to whether they are effective or not. This Bill sets up another Committee—the third dealing with aliens set up, or proposed, during the last week. To use the classical language of a distinguished politician, we have had "a litter of committees." I think it is necessary, in this case, we should have a Committee to weigh the evidence in regard to applications of naturalisation or cancellation, or any of these other things, but the weakness of this Bill, if I may say so, the weakness of the policy of the Government, is that there is no person really in charge of the Departments concerned with the administration of the law in regard to it. Why, you have at this moment the Home Secretary, the Admiralty, the War Office, the Board of Trade and the Scottish Office, and now you are going to deal with aliens in Ireland for the first time since the War began, though I believe there are more dangerous ones possibly there than in any other part of the kingdom. You have all these different Departments, but you have no Minister at the head. There should be a representative Committee, consisting of representatives of all the different Departments, to whom we could look for carrying out the legislation and policy with which we have equipped the Government.
1404 I would venture to make one appeal to the Home Secretary. He has a difficult task to perform. He recognises the strong feeling in this matter. Will he not consider again the importance of having a Minister and an Interdepartmental Committee to deal with this matter? I believe it would go a long way to satisfy the public mind. My right hon. Friend has not the time to deal with all the matters affected by an important measure of this kind. It is the work really of one Minister. Let him have either his Under-Secretary, or someone else, who will be prepared to answer in this House and to the country for the proper carrying out of the law in regard to aliens. Many Members of this House—I am one of them—never get under 100 letters a morning daily on this matter. How useful it would be for us to pass them on to a Minister to deal with them. It would save an enormous amount of time and a great deal of expense, but, apart from that, the public would know the Government were dealing with them. I was talking the other day to an important official, one of the highest men in the service. He said, "I know we have dangerous people in certain quarters where they ought not to be a danger to the State. I am uneasy about it, and I am anxious about it, but I have no power to remove them." I said, "Why?" He replied, "Oh, it has to go through at least six or eight different Departments before it conies back to me, which takes five or six weeks, and by the time it is considered people get apathetic about it, and possibly nothing is done." That condition of things ought not to exist in time of war. We ought to have one man who could in one hour remove a person who is likely to do something injurious to the interests of our country. Therefore I beg of my right hon. Friend to consider the desirability of having an Interdepartmental Committee, representative of all the interests involved, in regard to the carrying out of the law affecting aliens. I ask him to get a real live man in charge of that Department. Let him be the person to be kicked in the eyes of the country if he does not carry out the stated policy. I believe in that way we will go a very considerable distance to settling this very great controversy.
§ Mr. HEMMERDEI desire to speak a few words on this Bill before it leaves this House, not because I am out of sympathy 1405 with a good many of the remarks made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University, for I have great sympathy with him when he talks about the amazing state of affairs in this country that men who were but recently naturalised can occupy high office and semi-judicial office in this country. But people like the last speaker talk as though this was practically the most important thing, and the one thing that was thrilling and filling the minds of the people of this country.
§ Commander BELLAIRSHear, hear!
§ Mr. HEMMERDEI do not believe a word of it. We know perfectly well that at a time like this when there is no real political fighting going on, when the political truce is on, when the three great parties have almost joined hands in supporting the Cabinet and the Government it is very difficult indeed to get up much interest in politics. I remember once a very prominent member of the Government saying that in politics the platform would always beat the Press. For four years the platform has been silent. The Press has had its way. It is the easiest thing in the world for the Press at any election, and at any moment, to support some unworthy "stunt," especially if we are not doing very well at the front for the moment. A few victories, and the nonsense we have heard in the last few months would not have an audience. We are told by the right hon. Gentleman that the Home Secretary has been forced into this attitude by him and his friends. Why, it is months ago, when the Home Secretary was making a statement about this Bill—I remember him being here during the Debate on this very question—that personally, although I am absolutely opposed to this alien agitation, I expressed myself much the same as now in regard to this Bill which is being brought forward. I am not against the Bill. I am against certain phases of it, and against certain attempts to extend it by what I think most unworthy ways. I rejoice that the Government has stood firm in this matter, and has kept a judicial mind and a judicial balance, and has refused to be harried and hurried into taking a course absolutely unworthy of this country. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy gets up and says that 95 per cent. of the people who have been naturalised in this country absolutely and 1406 practically retain their sympathies with their country. I do not believe a word of it.
§ Mr. HEMMERDEI do not believe a word of it. I believe domicile in many cases is a stronger force than the call of the blood. I do not say that is so with our own nation. I think our own nation gets naturalised with great difficulty, and that people who are British remain British all over the world. I believe that to be true. I have not been all over the world, but I have spoken to a great many people who have been, and I have been about a bit, and I have always found that they say that on the whole the German is a very easy person to naturalise. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh!"] I know there are contrary opinions to that, but I say that the German is very much keener at trade than he is in the matter of nationality. Whether that be so or not, I say the figure of 95 per cent. is grossly exaggerated. It is absolutely unworthy of this country that we should get into such a state of hysteria and make hysterical statements of that sort. It is not that large numbers of this country are not entirely in support of the Government in the matter of this Bill. What we do say is, and what the country is so much inflamed about, is the statements made without regard to the truth, and in point of view which are absolutely untrue.
The other day a Committee was appointed to advise the Government on this question. They brought in certain proposals about the Delbrück law. They said that all certificates of naturalisation granted since the 1st January, 1914, ought to be automatically taken away except if national grounds could be discovered for keeping them, and the reason given was that from date onwards Germans could not be naturalised in other countries and give up their own nationality. I am not talking about the hon. Baronet now, but about the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for York, who said in this House—I am within the hearing of those who heard what he said—and that was the basis of his argument to this House for taking away these certificates. He was prepared to move an Amendment upon the ground that the Home Secretary said a few minutes afterwards was absolutely false. He had got the whole thing absolutely upside down. When you have-an agitation like that with a prominent 1407 Chancery lawyer appointed to consider the case, and the Court reports, and he comes down to the House, obviously having not read the thing at all, is it very surprising that we should seem a little bit uneasy about these statements being accepted by the public? As a matter of fact, I believe the position as regards Germans has always been that a German could be naturalised in a foreign country, and that did not take away his naturalisation in Germany unless he were absent from Germany a certain number of years, or took certain steps in Germany to denaturalise himself. I am quite certain you could do that, because I have actually prepared the documents for it, and I know it is perfectly possible to get rid of your nationality on undergoing certain formalities, such as being away from the country a certain length of time. That is very true. But the Delbrück law, for the first time, says that anyone who was naturalised without the consent of the German Government ipso facto ceased to be a German. Yet when this Report came out, to the surprise of the country—it may be that individual members of the Committee had not read the Report!—it was said, "Oh, yes, let us take away the certificates, because from that date, as a matter of fact, the German could not possibly throw off his nationality." That is put forward by a prominent legal Member of this House.
It is for that reason that we, who are absolutely with the Government, are profoundly disquieted when we find the public misled in this way. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs the other day complained that the Home Secretary had, in certain instances, overridden the recommendations of the Committee that decided upon the case of these aliens. The present Home Secretary said he had never done so. The right hon. Gentleman himself, although he complained of the Home Secretary overriding the Committee's decisions, apparently has no confidence in their decisions, because he is one of the persons who is constantly stating that their decisions ought to be revised. Apparently he is convinced, whether or not Home Secretaries ought to interfere, that the decisions of the Committee ought to be revised, perhaps by another Committee!
What is the real measure of this agitation? A number of people are not interned 1408 at the present time, every one of whose cases have been decided by a Committee presided over by two of the most trusted and prominent judges on the bench. Judicial consideration has been given to the cases, and these people are at large. Is that a national danger? I do not believe when you have appointed another Committee and have gone over these cases—the Home Secretary has gone over some of them himself and some of these persons have been interned—I do not think when you have gone over these cases with anything like a judicial committee, such as I am quite sure we shall have, you will find many changes will be made.
Then there is the question about which I have always taken a much keener interest, and I think in this matter our national honour is involved. I refer to the question of naturalisation. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy to talk about the fun, to make a mock of it, and say it is a somewhat solemn document. To many of us it is a solemn document. I do not desire to read it now, but the ceremony of naturalisation goes through in this country with all sorts of solemnities. I think it would be an atrocious thing if we were to take away a certificate of naturalisation in this country for any but a good cause, and if there is a good cause there is not a Member in this House who would not be in favour of it. If there is a good cause, if those concerned have broken the oath upon which they were naturalised, one had a perfect right to say to them, "You have broken your oath of allegiance and we are going to take away your rights." I have spoken strongly twice before in the House on this subject of the burden of proof, and I am glad the Government have stood firm, and I am sure they will continue to stand firm, on this question. I am all for revising certificates of naturalisation granted during the War, although I am against the suggestions made about Mr. Schroeder. When the Government asks a man to be naturalised, until we know to the contrary, we assume that although his sympathies may remain German he is sufficiently honourable not to show them during the War. Other people have been naturalised for natural reasons and others for personal reasons. I say that to take away the certificate of naturalisation from honourable people who have been here 1409 for a few years without cause would be a violation of national honour. For that reason I rejoice that the Home Secretary has stood firm upon that matter. I believe that from start to finish the right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to hold the scales fairly in this matter. We all see the troubles of the aliens in our midst, and one is also sorry to feel that many of our own subjects are going through the same trouble in other countries.
We have to remember that for years and years this country has opened its doors wide to all comers. It is all very well to say it is a mistaken policy, but there are few of us looking back a few hundred years who have not a good deal of foreign blood in our veins, and in the heat of war-time we ought to consider whether it is not more worthy not to get excited about little dangers, but remember the traditions of this country are the things that have made it, and also remember the way we have always invited persecuted people to come here, and this has made this country more beloved than any country in the world.
Shortly before the Revolution in Russia I was there, and I was much surprised at the regard which ordinary educated Russians had for this country, and that is so because we have been so generous in the way we have invited the whole world to come here. We may have been wrong, but even with the risks we have run this country has derived great strength from the foreign blood that has come into it. I do not care two pins whether what I am saying is popular or not, or whether the alien stunt is popular. We shall have to face our constituents on these stunts, and I know that when it comes to fighting out these matters in any great British constituency, although these things may be popular for the moment, we shall find the British public take long views and are pretty sensible on these matters. Therefore, we need not be in the least nervous about the British public losing their heads on a matter like this. A good deal of very unworthy talk may inflame the public mind, but I believe there is at the root of this question a desire to show fair play, and whatever our opponents do—and God knows they have done horrible things enough!—the people desire that nothing should be done here that will defame the fair name of this country or tear up any document to which this country has set its seal.
§ 4.0 P.M.
§ Commander BELLAIRSMy hon. Friend who has just spoken has discovered that in some way the British public has lost its head. I have discovered no such signs. On the contrary, I think they have maintained a most exemplary patience for four years, which is hardly requited by this Bill. My hon. Friend argued about the Delbrück law, but the question of interest is, What is the German law? It is such in Germany that men like Sir Edgar Speyer may still remain German citizens. I will read what a prominent German lawyer, Professor Seligson, said about the law in Germany just a few months ago, in the "Berliner Tageblatt" concerning Germans living in foreign countries:
According to a recent judicial decision in Germany, they have not lost their German nationality even after living ten years out of Germany and even though they have not registered themselves at the local German Consulate, on condition that they have visited Germany in the course of this ten years' period. Such visit having interrupted the period of absence, this period begins to run anew as though there had been no previous absence from Germany; moreover they remain German citizens even if they have acquired a foreign nationality. It is only the acquisition of American nationality in the United States, which in conformity with the terms of the Bancroft Treaty, implies the loss of German nationality.The result of that is that Germans like Sir Edgar Speyer, who have become English citizens according to our law, remain German citizens according to German law. My two right hon. Friends who have spoken have so fully covered the ground that I shall be very brief. I said the other day that I thought this House was suspect in the matter of alien legislation with the country. One reason for that is undoubtedly the readiness with which we have admitted men of German birth into the government of this country, and into Government employment. There is another reason. The only Bill that we have passed has weakened this question of naturalisation. Before the War it took seven years' residence in the United Kingdom for a German to become a British subject. This law came into existence on 1st January, 1915, during the War, and it actually reduced the period to five years for anybody who had been resident in the British Dominions. I am not sure that this Bill does not further weaken this question by bringing in the territories that have been taken from the enemy by allowing them to acquire British citizenship when they have been residents under 1411 the British flag for a period of five years. I think that is a very undesirable state of things.I believe the French law is much more stringent, and we should do well to copy the French in regard to this question. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson) made some very strong remarks about those men of enemy, descent who were in the Government, or are employed by the Government. There are two classes: the people high up and the people low down. I think it very wrong and invidious that when we, as Members of Parliament, have criticised the presence of men of German descent in the Foreign Office, the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs has at once gone to the point of anger, and has more or less castigated us for having ventured to doubt the loyalty to those gentlemen. It is not a question of doubting their loyalty—it is a question of undermining of public confidence through the presence of men who, following the call of the blood, might very well be inclined to support Germany against this country in war. I do not doubt the loyalty of these gentlemen for one moment, but I do think that, as gentlemen, their right course ought to be to relieve His Majesty's Government of all embarrassment by retiring from their positions. It is the example which was set to them by one of the most loyal gentlemen in this country, the Marquess of Milford Haven, better known as Prince Louis of Battenburg. No finer example was set by anyone in this country at the beginning of the War than when he relieved the Government from embarrassment by retiring from his high office.
Now for an example of the people low down. I had a question on the Order Paper to-day, which I was asked to postpone, about a man whose real name was Krahn, who, after going through many vicissitudes in this country and having actually been imprisoned, was taken, on the 1st April this year, into an important record office in a subordinate position where he would be able to obtain confidential information. No one can doubt that this man, of German descent, ought never to have been able to get into Government employment, still less into a record office in the War Office. For these and for other reasons, knowing that hard cases make bad law, and knowing that the one and only consideration ought to be the paramount one of the safety of the 1412 country, I still hope that when this Bill goes to another place the Government will take every opportunity of endeavouring to strengthen it.
§ Sir R. BARRANThe last speaker but one recommended us to trust naturalised Germans until we find them disloyal—that is, that we should give the benefit of the doubt in these cases to the enemy and not to our own country. The important question is, What is going to be the method of treatment and of administration of this Bill if it becomes law? I agree with the right hon. Member for Trinity College in regretting that this Bill is not very much stronger than it is. He referred to the danger of enemy aliens in our public offices. I do not know how far he means to go, when he speaks of our public offices, whether he means the Foreign Office and the Civil Service generally or whether he is referring directly to what I wish to draw attention to, the munitions works and controlled establishments. I should like to know what is going to be the administration of this Act in regard to the munitions works, the controlled establishments, and, although I do not wish to dwell very much on the point, to the Diplomatic service. This Act will be a failure unless it is administered in a much harder and firmer manner than the Home Office has been administered during the last year or two. I want to deal with this question of treating the enemy alien who has been naturalised as if he was honourable in every respect and loyal to this country until he is found out to the contrary. We have had a striking number of cases of naturalised enemy aliens who have not acted in that way, but who have acted very seriously to the detriment of the country in the carrying on of the War. In the course of the last few months there have been a number of cases of naturalised aliens in our munition factories, or our controlled establishments, or connected with companies who are making munitions of war, who have been convicted of malpractices and fined or sent to prison. I think we ought to give the benefit of the doubt to our own country, and not to these men. We ought not to leave them in a position for one or two years of being able to do us serious danger. Let me give an example. If the Government like, I will give them full particulars, though I am not going to give them to the House. An enemy alien naturalised many years ago in this country has been at the head of a 1413 firm which for several years during the War has been making large quantities of a specialised article in the metal trade that is essential for the carrying on of the War. His firm for the last two years have been receiving large quantities of raw material to make up into this particular article. Other firms, purely British, have also been receiving this material, but this particular firm of which this enemy alien is the head, have been turning out the largest number of rejections of any of the firms making this article.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI do not see how this comes at all within the ambit of this Bill. This is not a Bill to deal with enemy aliens, but with naturalised subjects, and if the hon. Member desires to give the illustration he must put it in another way.
§ Sir R. BARRANI am sorry. It is my fault. The Gentleman is a naturalised alien. I merely used the term for shortness. His firm have been receiving a large share, a very large proportion, of the raw material for manufacturing this article, and their percentage of rejections over a long period has been the highest. Yet the firm have continued to receive a larger proportion of the raw material than any of their competitors. The question naturally arises how he has succeeded in getting this privilege. It may prove that it has been by underhand or entirely wrong methods, but that I cannot say. Meanwhile, purely British firms have been placed at a disadvantage. By peculiar methods he succeeds in getting more than his share of the raw material, and he succeeds in producing far more than ten times the proper proportion of rejections, thus over a period of several years delaying the production of one of our principal arms for fighting. That firm and that gentleman are at present under the consideration, I believe, of the Law Officers of the Crown. My point is one to which the Home Secretary or the Home Office and the Ministry of Munitions have not paid sufficient attention in the past. It is that we have in our munition works and in our controlled establishments a number of naturalised aliens who, if their cases were carefully looked into, would be found to be under the suspicion—justifiable suspicion—that their actions have been unfriendly to this country. The question then arises. Why should these men be left in these positions? There are plenty of Englishmen to take their places. There is no reason why, in 1414 the engineering trade, which is the particular example I have given, at the beginning of the War such men should not have been pushed out and British-born men of engineering ability put in their places. Many such cases have been brought to light. There are a great many cases which have never been brought to light. There are many cases for which no consideration could be obtained either by questions put in this House or by information given to the Ministry of Munitions or to any of the heads of the Departments. At this period of the War there is only one safe course for us to take. It is diametrically opposed to the one suggested by the hon. Member opposite. It is to presume that every naturalised alien in this country will work for the country to which he belongs, and for us to say that, unless we have definite evidence in his favour—it should not be put the other way: that unless we have definite evidence against him—he is in all things, and has been at all times, loyal to this country, he ought to be removed from that post. If he claims that he is a loyal citizen, the very least that he can do is to show his loyalty to the country he has adopted, and be willing to stand on one side during the War, as several distinguished men have done, and to allow his place to be taken by a man who is not under suspicion. The least the Home Office and the Ministry of Munitions can do is to take away the risk of these men doing harm to us in our munition works and controlled establishments, so as to remove that justifiable want of confidence which is felt right through the industrial parts of this country, and the feeling that the lives of our men at the front are being endangered by the continued presence of these people in important positions under the Ministry of Munitions, where they can have a very serious and unfortunate effect on the lives of our soldiers who are at the front. The same is true when you go to the Diplomatic Service. There are men in the Diplomatic Service who ought not to remain there.
§ Mr. SPEAKERReally, all these things are rather matters of administration. They are only very remotely connected with the Third Reading of this Bill. They are matters which would come more properly on the Vote for the Ministry of Munitions or the Foreign Office, and so on.
§ Sir R. BARRANI accept your ruling, Sir. I agree that these are purely matters 1415 of administration, and the only reason why I have brought them forward is that I am thoroughly dissatisfied with the present administration of these matters. I hope that when this Bill is passed we shall have a very different system of administration than we have had up to now.
§ Sir G. CAVEI have listened to a good many speeches in the hope of hearing some observations which related either to the Bill or to the administration of my Department. Perhaps it is time to deal with the few points which have been raised. The hon. Member (Sir R. Barran), following what is a very common example, has imputed to my office faults, if they be faults, which turn entirely upon the duties of 'other Departments—in one case, that of the Gentleman who obtained too much raw material—the Board of Trade, and in the other the Ministry of Munitions. Throughout his speech—and the same applies to other speeches—there was not a word which applied in any way to the work of the Home Office—although he was good enough to name it—or to the provisions of this Bill.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite wanted to know something about the administration of the naturalisation law in Ireland. The whole law of naturalisation is administered by the Home Office in this country. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was, I think, confusing naturalisation with the administration of the law relating to enemy aliens. Naturalisation is, of course, a national matter—very often an Imperial matter. As regards the internment of aliens, that is not, of course, material to the Bill, but there is not really any such confusion as he supposes. Technically the duty is mine. Actually it is delegated to the Irish Office, and is carried out through the Irish police. I am satisfied that if any inquiries he has to make are addressed to the Irish Office in Dublin he will find that matters there are administered quite as strictly and as carefully as they are in this country. I have no personal knowledge of the matter, but from what I have heard I think he must have been misinformed in thinking there is law.
The right hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Dalziel) addressed his observations to the position of persons who were naturalised in this country. In the recommendations of the group of Members of which the 1416 hon. and gallant Gentleman was Chairman there is no recommendation on this subject which has not been embodied in the Bill, and therefore his criticisms, as far as they are condemnatory, are not condemnatory of me or of the Bill itself.
Sir H. DALZIELI think the right hon. Gentleman went a little further than the Bill. He said if information was received from a responsible person about a naturalised alien his case would be reviewed.
§ Sir G. CAVEThat is so. If any information is received imputing disloyalty, disaffection, or any other of the offences which are now specified in the Bill, he will at once have his case reviewed, and the Bill puts in Parliamentary language what the Committees very naturally put in language less Parliamentary. But however that may be, neither the right hon. Gentleman nor any of his colleagues has proposed any Amendment which would carry the Bill further than it has gone in connection with naturalised persons. The proposal to denaturalise enemy aliens who have been naturalised during the War, or at all events to review their cases, is fully dealt with under this Bill. The effect of the Bill now is that in cases where an enemy alien has been naturalised during the War there will be a careful review by the Committee and there will be an open reference to the Committee as to whether the certificate should be continued or not, and if they say it ought not to be continued then effect will be given to that.
I think the only other concrete point raised was that there should be one Minister dealing with aliens. It was said that there were five or six Departments dealing with them. I am interested to hear that. I did not know it. I am interested to hear that I did not know it. I am afraid I was under the impression that all this work falls upon my Department and the Board of Trade, or at any rate I was not aware of any other Department except the Military Intelligence Department which has anything to do with this subject. There is complete coordination between that Department and my own.
§ Sir G. CAVEAnd the Naval Intelligence Department. I do not think my right hon. Friend or anybody else would propose to transfer the work of the Military 1417 Intelligence Department or of the Naval Intelligence Department from the military or naval authorities to a new Minister. It would be a very foolish thing to do and, therefore, I am sure my right hon. Friend would not propose it. The work of the Military Intelligence Department is admirably done. I refer to them day by day for help and advice. The police of the country work closely with the Military Intelligence Department and help each other. I do not think there is in the world any system of intelligence better than or so good as our own. That is not only my view but the view of foreign countries which from time to time come to us for information and advice. With the exception of those two Departments there is no other besides my own that deals with aliens as such, although the Board of Trade deal with businesses. I do not think any good would be done by placing under a new Minister the duties of the Home Office the Board of Trade and the two Intelligence Departments in connection with aliens, However, this is not a matter for me, but for the Government and the Cabinet. I need hardly say that if I could be relieved of the duty of dealing with aliens I should be relieved of a very troublesome part of the work which now devolves upon me.
There has been a certain amount of general discussion, but throughout the discussion there has not been a word of criticism directed against my office or against the administration of the law relating to aliens so far as my office is concerned. I was grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson) for saying that he had no criticism to make against myself and my office. When I am criticised in this House I am always glad of it because one can deal with critics in this House. We see one another face to face, and if a charge is made I can either admit it or refute it. Therefore, it is a satisfaction to have charges if there be any brought on the floor of this House. What it is impossible to deal with is criticism outside, especially irresponsible and anonymous criticism. I knew, of course, when I took the Home Office that I was taking an office which is almost always unpopular, because it has many unpopular duties to perform, duties in regard to which it would be wrong to seek popularity. I did not take the office for my own pleasure or profit. I took it because I knew it was a difficult office, and I thought that I could 1418 carry out the duties. I do not think that any Member of this House can realise to what length criticism of the kind to which I refer can go or realise what it means unless he has experience of it. I had better not describe it. But I must say this: Criticism of that irresponsible kind is impossible to deal with. One's only remedy is to go on doing what seems right, leaving people to find out whether the charges made are true or false, and trusting to the final judgment of one's colleagues in this House and of one's countrymen as a whole.
I make no high claim for myself, but I claim to have been and to be as keen and determined as anyone in the country that this War shall be carried on against our enemy with all lawful weapons which we can use, and I claim in the administration of the Home Office to have done my duty in connection with aliens as in connection with other matters. I have been, I think, strict, very strict, often very hard, in the administration of the laws relating to aliens. The system which I have administered has been approved time after time by this House. Some of our most severe critics have taken part in it and have asked for the naturalisation of enemy aliens, have asked for exemption of enemy aliens from internment, and have asked for the release from internment of enemy aliens already interned. I do not criticise their action, but I think that those facts make it more incumbent upon them to be at all events fair and moderate in criticising the Minister who has to administer the law relating to aliens. I should add that I was myself the author of the Trading With the Enemy Act, the only Act under which enemy businesses can be taken from aliens and vested in the Public Trustee. Then there are the changes which I had the honour of announcing last week, and these have been almost entirely carried out. In two cases Orders in Council were necessary for carrying them out, and those Orders have been made. The two Committees which I mentioned are on the point of being constituted. As to patents and the enemy banks, Orders have been made, and the only thing remaining to be done is to bring in a Bill on Monday dealing with future enemy banks. Therefore, I think we cannot be accused of delay in carrying out, practically within a week, the whole of the very important changes which we announced. This Bill is not the fruit of any agitation of any kind. It was 1419 announced by me months ago, and it would have been introduced last year but for the necessity of consulting the Dominions, which, of course, always takes time. The moment I got answers from the Dominions this Bill was framed and introduced. Nobody will be more glad than I to see it passed into law, and nobody will be more anxious to see it firmly and efficiently administered.
§ Mr. R. McNEILLAs to the concluding portion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, I heard it with a good deal of surprise. He made a complaint, dignified complaint no doubt, upon the amount and nature of the criticism to which he has been subjected, and he referred to anonymous criticism, I presume criticism in the Press. I do not profess to be a wide reader of newspapers, but, as far as I have seen, my right hon. Friend has been singularly free from any criticism of that sort, and he has enjoyed rather an unusual share of public confidence—certainly he has in this House. I must say that no Minister has had a larger share of the confidence of the House. But in other respects the speech of my right hon. Friend was decidedly unsatisfactory, because there was one phase of the criticism brought forward in this Debate to which he really made no reference at all. It was the criticisms of the right hon. Member for Kirkealdy and the right hon. Member for Dublin University, and it was in regard to this Bill being regarded only as a small instalment of legislation on this subject. I hoped very much that my right hon. Friend, when he came to reply, would have given some information upon that subject, some assurance with regard to it. I was one of a number of Members of this House who, a long time ago now, voluntarily undertook investigations of this and kindred subjects connected with aliens during the War. Although we had no responsibility and no official position, we conducted that work with a very great amount of industry, and I think with thoroughness. We called a great many witnesses, and we examined the existing state of the law. We made a Report, which I know was brought to the knowledge of my right hon. Friend, dated as long ago as December, 1914, and speaking in this House on a subsequent occasion he made reference to that Report. As long ago as 14th February, 1917, my right hon. Friend said 1420
As to the question of denaturalisation, the point is being considered by the same Committee——That is, the Committee to which he has just referred—the Committee have arrived at certain con-elusions, but have not yet reported."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th February, 1917, col. 713, Vol. 90.]I really do think that the House and the country have good grounds for complaint against the Government—I do not say, of course, against my right hon. Friend—when he was able to tell the country seventeen months ago—in February, 1917—that the Committee to which he had referred this very point dealt with in this Bill, although it had not reported, had come to definite conclusions. That certainly led the country to suppose that within a very few weeks, or at the outside a few months, this matter would have been dealt with by legislation. The only sort of reply made to that by my right hon. Friend is that it was necessary to communicate with the Dominions. Does he really expect the country to believe that it takes seventeen months in time of war to consult the four or five Governments of the Dominions in order to arrive at a concerted policy on one single point with regard to the denaturalisation as a matter of war urgency of the aliens in this country? All I can say is I am utterly unable to accept that as a good and sufficient reason for seventeen months' delay in dealing with this matter; but the facts are patent, and the words he used in February are the only answer I have heard to what has been said this afternoon.
§ Sir G. CAVEIt is not quite right to say seventeen months. We did not get the answer from the Dominions until too late to introduce a Bill last Session. We prepared it and introduced it at the earliest moment this Session. It was not seventeen months after—about twelve months, and at the earliest possible time.
§ Mr. R. McNEILLThere has been that delay, and I will leave my right hon. Friend's explanation at that. The point I want to insist upon is that that is only one point. I have not the reference now to replies which, I think, have been given by the Leader of the House, but my impression is that at a very early period the Government were asked whether they were going to deal with the subject of 1421 naturalised aliens, the status of aliens, and the definition of nationality. Certainly, I was led to expect—I do not know that I was different from others—and the country and this House were led to expect that we should have an overhauling of our naturalisation laws before this, and that if the particular points dealt with in this Bill were singled out for separate treatment, it would only be because it was a war emergency measure about which there was more hurry, and that the rest of the subject could be allowed to wait. We have had no intimation throughout the proceedings on this Bill that this is not the last word. The Home Secretary has given no intimation that all those larger subjects are to be dealt with. When the right hon. Gentleman talks about excitement out of doors, newspaper stunts, organised campaigns, agitation, and so forth, does he imagine that this Bill is going to stop it? I do not myself subscribe to any of those descriptions of what is going on. My impression is that there is a very large body of perfectly reasonable and instructed public opinion which is extremely dissatisfied with the conditions of our naturalisation laws, and most anxious to see them changed, and that opinion is finding perfectly legitimate expression in the newspapers, and it will continue to do so. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University called attention to what is, after all, the fundamental point with regard to the question of nationality, namely, that we in this country rest our definition and idea of nationality upon what lawyers no doubt would call jus soli instead of jus sanguinis—a fundamental difference, and, as, I think, the Committee to which I have referred pointed out eighteen months ago, we and the United States of America, who have followed us and have taken their definition of nationality from our Common Law, stand alone in the civilised world in that regard. That is a matter which requires consideration, and, in the judgment of a very great number of people, change and alteration. We have not had any sort of statement from the Government that they propose to do that.
§ Sir G. CAVEIt really was not relevant to this Bill, but my hon. Friend may take it from me that we have thoroughly investigated that point. Indeed, I have a report on it in my hands, and that no doubt will be one of the points which will be dealt with by the 1422 Expert Committee to which I have referred. And there are, of course, many other points connected with the law of nationality.
§ Mr. McNEILLI am grateful for that statement. What I want to know is whether we have a definite statement or assurance from the Government that they are proposing to deal with the whole question of our naturalisation laws and that we may look forward, at a very early date—subject to what may happen with regard to an election or otherwise—but that as far as the Government are responsible they will say that in the next Session, or in the next Parliament if they are still responsible, they will bring in a general naturalisation law based upon the recommendations of the Committee to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred? I have not heard any definite statement that that is the Government's intention, and many of us took steps to ascertain whether we could introduce Amendments into this Bill, so strong is the feeling that these larger points ought to be dealt with. There is a matter which was referred to by my right hon. Friend opposite, the question of making naturalised persons ineligible for certain positions in this country. That is a matter which there is a great deal of feeling about—almost as much feeling as there is about the point dealt with in this Bill—and if it is the Government's intention to bring in legislation at as reasonable a date as they can, dealing with that and other points, making more strict the conditions upon which certificates of naturalisation are granted, making naturalised persons ineligible for a number of positions, including membership of this House, and matters of that sort, I think it is a great pity that they did not take the opportunity of the introduction of this Bill to make that announcement, I was not able to be here on the Second Reading of the Bill, but I read the reports of it, and I cannot remember that either then or at any time up to the present moment any such announcement as that has been made by my right hon. Friend, and it is because there has been no announcement of that sort made that so much dissatisfaction has been expressed in the criticisms that have been made upon this Bill itself. The character of this discussion to-day has been that, whilst, almost without a dissentient voice, the Bill has been welcomed, and, on the whole, the provisions of the Bill have been approved almost 1423 from all parts of the House, there is evident dissatisfaction that the Bill itself is so very limited in its scope. I do not know whether it is now too late for the right hon. Gentleman to give us further information on this subject, but all I can say is that, from the point of view of criticism of the Government and of himself, about which he is evidently very sensitive, and also of the much more important point of view of the satisfaction of reasonable opinion out-of-doors, I think, if it is not too late, he might even now give us some sort of assurance in the direction I have indicated.
§ Sir J. WALTONI rise to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that he will soon be in possession of further powers to deal with the alien enemy danger in our midst. I think that even he would not deny that this provision is long overdue, but we can only say, "Better late than never." But that we should have been waging the most terrible War the world ever knew for four years before we had arrived at this stage is really the reason of the disquietude in the country on this very vital question. The Bill is certainly too limited in its scope. I personally have the greatest confidence in the present Home Secretary, and believe that he will administer it with firmness, and make it have as good results as so weak a measure can possibly achieve. I was sorry he seemed reluctant to accept suggestions of a simple character which would have been welcomed by the country, such, for instance, as the suggestion that a naturalised British subject, in signing registers at hotels and other places, should be compelled to state "naturalised British subject" to let us know where we are, and, further, that the multitude of enemy aliens who have changed their names into English names should be compelled, when signing their English name, to add below the name from which they changed into the English name. Those two little suggestions, which my right hon. Friend did not deign for a moment to consider, would have given satisfaction to the country. Since I made the suggestions I have had a crowd of communications from all over the country thanking me, and hoping these suggestions would be given effect to. I do not wish for a moment to stand in the way of the Third Beading of the 1424 Bill, because, although it is not entirely satisfactory, we do recognise that the Home Secretary has, in some respects, met our wishes by Amendments which certainly make it a more effective measure to accomplish what we desire than it was as at first framed. He has conducted it with that tact and ability which distinguish him, and I can only hope, as the last speaker stated, that it is only the forerunner of other measures, because, no matter what he or anyone else may say, the majority of people in the country are determined that alien enemies should not be in this country in the future on the same terms as before, or trade with it or exploit it as they did before. Therefore, we have begun to protect British interests, and we are glad that the Government have begun to safeguard us from the alien danger.
§ Sir R. COOPERI want to be quite frank with my right hon. and learned Friend in reference to his concluding remarks about criticism. I may say for myself and the hon. Members on whose behalf I speak, that we want to get on with the Bill, and to get the best possible Bill that we can. I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to think that I and others are thoroughly satisfied as far as his administration is concerned. What we do feel is that the Prime Minister's speech last week did show a new spirit on the part of His Majesty's Government, and we trust that that spirit is going to be reflected in the various Departments of State, and that the laxity about which I and others have complained will be very much modified. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will not think that we are now entirely satisfied. It is impossible for me to raise one or two other points now, but I am going to ask the Home Secretary to allow me to communicate with him on the three points which I do still consider of importance in connection with this Bill and its administration.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.