§ No certificate of naturalisation shall for a period of five years after the termination of the present War be granted to any German subject.—[Mr. Stewart.]
§ Brought up, and read the first time.
§ Mr. STEWARTI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
The House listened last Wednesday with interest and gratitude to the statement of the Home Secretary that the Home Office had made a Regulation that no one of German nationality would be admitted to British citizenship for five years. The object that my Friends and I have in desiring that this new Clause
§ scandal. I think the Home Secretary is meeting the promoters of this Amendment perfectly fairly. He has told us that the matter is now before the Conference of the Overseas Dominions, and I think it would be a slight upon them, in view of that, if we were to proceed to take any action now, and show that we wished to prejudice the matter. I, therefore, sincerely hope the matter will not be proceeded with.
§ Colonel FABERIf the Amendment be carried, how will it affect the Bill?
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 21; Noes, 49.
1363| Division No. 68.] | AYES. | [1.19 p.m. |
| Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D. | Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, South) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Alden, Percy | King, Joseph | Watt, Henry A. |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | McMicking, Major Gilbert | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Martin, Joseph | Williams, Aneurin (Durham) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John (Battersea) | Mason, David M. (Coventry) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Raffan, Peter Wilson | |
| Chancellor, Henry George | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Collins, Sir William (Derby) | Rowlands, James | Sir W. Dickinson and Mr. Anderson. |
| NOES. | ||
| Baldwin, Stanley | Gibbs, Col. George Abraham | Palmer, Godfrey Mark |
| Barran, Sir Rowland H. (Leeds, N.) | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. John | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Bathurst, Col. Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.) | Greig, colonel James William | Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse) |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Guest, Capt. Hon. F. E. (Dorset, E.) | Peto, Basil Edward |
| Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. | Pratt, John W. |
| Boyton, Sir James | Hewins, William Albert S. | Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend) |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H. | Samuels, Arthur W. (Dub. U.) |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur |
| Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George | Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | Stewart, Gershom |
| Clyde, James Avon | Macmaster, Donald | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Coats, Sir Stuart (Wimbledon) | McNeill, R. (Kent, St. Augustine's) | Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Cotton, H. E. A. | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud |
| Craig, Ernest (Crewe) | Mason, Robert (Wansbeck) | Yate, Col. Charles Edward |
| Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir James B. | Millar, James Duncan | |
| Edge, Capt. William | Money, Sir L. G. Chiozza | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Faber, Col. W. V. (Hants, W.) | Morgan, George Hay | Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward |
| Fell, Sir Arthur | Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert | |
| Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes (Fulham) | Newman, Major J. R. P. (Enfield) |
§ should be added to the Bill is that we are faced with a General Election under entirely new conditions, and, although we might be quite content to leave the Regulation as it stands now if we were sure that the present Home Secretary would be in power for the coming five years, our wish is to embody this in the Bill, so that in the event of a new Administration arising, the opinions of which we cannot forecast, if they wished to modify the principle the Home Office have now laid down it would require legislation, and the public would be aware of what they proposed to do. I think the country, as a whole, would be grateful if, in one of our expiring efforts, if we are to expire, we 1365 did our best to lay down what provisos we can to prevent our country being contaminated by German influences. I will not weary the House with a list of what the Germans have done since the War began, which I think should entail upon them the mark of public reprobation, which is contained in this Clause. I will only take one point, and that is that we, as a people who are more interested than any other in free access and travel by the seas, should publicly lay it down that the methods which the Germans have taken with regard to our sea-going traffic should be met by a declaration that we do not want to have anything to do with them for the five years embodied in this Clause. In the paper to-day there is a record of a French steamer being sunk, the crew of which escaped in their boats, which were subsequently rammed by a U-boat, with the result that there is only one survivor to leave a record of that particularly hateful act. And I think that a nation which has formally and nationally struck a medal to celebrate the sinking of the "Lusitania," where over a thousand innocent people were sent to their death, shows a mentality which we do not wish to be absorbed in our nationality. If we accept this new Clause we only support publicly what the Home Office have already decided to do departmentally. While we should take steps to guard ourselves against an undue influx of German citizens into our nationality, it would be well also if we took some stronger steps to protect ourselves against an undue immigration of Germans, should times be bad in their own country after the War, and should they wish to come here and enjoy our hospitality.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat does not arise out of this Clause.
§ Mr. STEWARTIt seems to me unwise, if we now proceed to shut the front door, that we should leave a back door open for them to come and invade us. I would like to draw the Home Secretary's attention to the increased precautions which will have to be taken in regard to granting certificates of nationality to neutrals, because we know perfectly well that many Germans have lived in this country for years as Swiss, and may try and become British citizens as soon as the War is over, and I think it will be particularly necessary in regard to anyone claiming Belgian nationality, because in Belgium a great many Germans have naturalised themselves 1366 as Belgians, and Belgians, to their bitter regret, know to-day that they returned as the advance guards of the Hun army into Belgium to point out their neighbours and friends for the special attention of the invaders. Although I think it will be some time before the Belgian Government is properly constituted and able to lay its fingers on those who treated their nationality in such a special manner, I hope the Home Secretary will see that those who may apply for British nationality as Belgians will be carefully scrutinised, in order to see whether they are not in fact Germans. Will he also see if he can make the acquirement of British citizenship a little more dignified and ceremonious?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat has nothing to do with this Clause, and I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself to the Clause which he has moved.
§ Mr. STEWARTI will not proceed with that point, Sir. The German characteristics, which have been specially accentuated in the War, are deceitfulness in peace and cruelty in war, and I think we should be well advised to protect our citizens by preventing people who have displayed those characteristics from availing themselves of the tolerance which they have enjoyed in the past. If the Home Secretary would like to raise the period to seven years I would have no objection, because scientific people tell us that the human form renews all its tissues in seven years, and therefore any German seven years after peace is declared would be physically a new man, and we hope spiritually also, and I am sure the Dominions would not raise any objection if we increased the time to seven years.
§ Mr. R. McNEILLI shall be very glad to second the Motion, and I think the one point with which the Mover began his speech is quite sufficient justification for the Clause. I understand the Home Secretary has announced that it is the intention of the present Government that no certificate of naturalisation shall be given to a German for five years after the War. If that is so, I cannot conceive of any reason why it should not be put into this Bill. It is obviously the only real security that that intention of the Government will be carried out. It is quite certain that the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman is one that has given very widespread satisfaction, and I hope he will 1367 secure his own intention by putting it beyond the possibility of evaporation by embodying it in this Bill.
§ Sir G. CAVEI said on Wednesday that we had adopted the general rule at the Home Office that no German shall be naturalised, not only during the War, but during the five years after the War. When I said "the general rule," I had in my mind exceptions of three classes, all of which, I think, will commend themselves to those who propose this Clause. First, British-born subjects, that is, British-born widows of alien enemies. I think it is the universal feeling in the House that a woman who has been married to an alien enemy, but is a widow, and desires to resume her British nationality, should not be deprived of the chance. The second exception which I would make is in favour of men who have served in our Army. I am not going to give any names, of course, but there are men of enemy nationality who are fighting to-day in our Army or the Armies of our Allies. I think there, too, the whole House would wish to make an exception. The third exception I had in my mind was this: persons of what we call friendly races. There are races in enemy countries, such as the German Poles, the Czechs in Austria, the Alsatians in Alsace, and the Lorrainers who are undoubtedly hostile to Germany, and are very willing to help us, and, indeed, are helping us in many ways in the War. Therefore, if we can define that class I should like to make that also an exception. Subject to those three exceptions which I had in my mind when I said "general," I have myself adopted the five years' rule, and naturally I cannot be unwilling to have it confirmed by Parliament. Therefore, if the House thinks it right, I am quite willing to accept the Clause with the addition of the three exceptions to which I have referred. I have drawn some words which, I think, will have that effect, and I am quite prepared to move them. They are:
But this provision shall not apply to a person who (a) has served in the British Army, or in the Army of any of His Majesty's Allies; (b) is a member of a race or community known to be opposed to the German Government; or (c) was at birth a British subject.
§ Mr. A. WILLIAMSAre the words intended to be confined to the Army and not to include the Navy?
Sir H. DALZIELI think the Clause before the House is that which is on the Paper. We have not officially before us the Home Secretary's suggestion. Let me say, as far as the Clause on the Paper is concerned, I personally would be disposed to enlarge its operation considerably. I know there is a desire to treat Germans as distinct from Austrians or Turks, or any other nationality fighting against us, but I do not know that this is the way to punish the Germans, particularly in an Amendment to a Bill of this kind, and I would rather suggest to the Home Secretary, when his Amendment to the Clause comes up, that he should add words to the Clause, "or the subject of a country which at the time of the passing of this Act was at war with His Majesty." Why should we legislate specially for Germans to-day? Even with the proposed Amendment of the Home Secretary an Austrian will still be able to get his nationality within five years. I hope the Home Secretary will be good enough to adopt my suggestion. With regard to his suggested Amendment, I think probably, so far as two of the exceptions are concerned, there is a good deal to be said for them, but I am not at all so sure about the third suggestion. To make an exception simply because a person may happen to belong to a section of the community nominally in an enemy country, although that particular section of the community may foe favourable to us in this War, is, I think, rather wide. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman ought to extend that so far as he has suggested, and I hope he will consider the question of extending this provision to subjects of all countries at present at war with His Majesty.
§ Mr. D. MASONI regret very much that it has been proposed to incorporate this in the Bill, for the following reasons. I yield to no one in my detestation of many of the acts of the enemy committed in the present War, but I do think it is most unwise to incorporate this in a Bill. The Home Office has the power at present, but if you put these things in an Act it seems to me that you will cripple this country in any peace negotiations. This is not a war measure, as the Home Secretary told us, but it is to be a permanent measure. Yet, before the peace negotiations are begun, we are going out of our way to penalise ourselves. It will probably lead to retaliation, and we have nothing for it. We do not take away the 1369 power by not putting it in the Bill. The Home Secretary has still that power and the country has still that power, but to put it in a Bill seems to me most unwise. It is a power that should be left, just as any other power with regard to raw materials, the economic weapon and many other powers, which may be of great service to this country and the Allies when we come to discuss peace negotiations. It seems to me most unwise to incorporate it in this Bill. I admit it is very difficult to think of this measure without regard to German facts, but we have to project our minds and realise that we are drawing up a Bill for all nationalities. We desire, I hope, to see, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife has stated, a "clean peace," and, therefore, we should go into negotiations with our hands free, and not penalise ourselves by putting into a measure something which may affect our power to negotiate, and which, I believe, will very materially prejudice us in such negotiations. Therefore, would it not be wiser, whilst still retaining this power, not to incorporate it in a measure? We also look forward to a reformed Germany after the War. I beg to enter a protest against the Amendment.
§ Mr. C. ROBERTSI do not suppose that we want any Germans for a period of five years after the War naturalised in respect of the cases mentioned or some similar cases. I should not imagine that any German would wish to be naturalised here. I do not think, therefore, that this particular new Clause is going to do any harm. At the same time, I think there are considerable objections to having the suggested Amendments put to us in this way. It is quite impossible—and it only illustrates what I said at the beginning—to follow exactly what they mean; and it is very inconvenient that we have not had a little more time and had these Amendments on the Paper. It is quite obvious that the Home Secretary, who is a most accomplished draftsman, and in whose skill in this matter everyone in the House has the greatest confidence, has made one slip already. He has left out the Navy.
§ Sir G. CAVEI think not. The Amendment which I will propose deals with the forces.
§ Mr. ROBERTSReally, this matter, I think, has been dealt with in a somewhat hurried way.
§ Sir G. CAVEMy hon. Friend will for give me. The Amendment which I read to the House refers to the Allies.
§ Mr. ROBERTSI do not want to revert to the question which has already been discussed, but all the same a German woman who marries will have that preferential point of being able to become a British subject in spite of this being on the Statute Book. Therefore, she does not require a certificate of naturalisation; she gets in in spite of the Clause. It would be very much more satisfactory if we could have had a little more time to consider what is meant. The Amendments are not on the Paper. They are thrown across the floor of the House, and it is really impossible to follow what alterations are made. Perhaps the Homo Secretary is satisfied. I am sure the Committee are not.
§ Sir E. CARSONI myself think that this Amendment is about the best part of the whole Bill. The Bill is very anæmic, and has very little in it beyond the five years' provision. We do not want to have any of these naturalisation certificates granted to Germans. I deprecate the kind of argument which, like the hon. Member for Coventry, says, "I am in favour of doing something; I am all in favour of their not being allowed here and of the Home Secretary not giving them certificates of naturalisation, but I dislike so and so." I have great confidence in the present Home Secretary, but he cannot bind his successors. Therefore we want this matter put into the Bill. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry says you may have a reformed German in time of peace.
§ Mr. D. MASONHear, hear!
§ Sir E. CARSONSo you may. When he has reformed we shall pass a new Act of Parliament. This does not in the least prevent us. I shall look forward with pleasure to the hon. Member for Coventry getting up in the House and describing the reformation which has taken place, and then proposing that he shall go back to old times, and shake hands. So long, however, as the Germans have not expatiated the foul crimes against humanity and international law which they have committed it is only right that every opportunity should be taken by this House of showing, by the Acts it passes, that we are not going to allow them to come within the ordinary comity of the nations.
§ Colonel YATEI should like to support what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy has said. I wish to see the Amendment extended so as to include the members of all the nations who are fighting against us at present. I cannot see any particular cause why, after the War, we should allow the naturalisation of Bulgarians and Turks within the next five years. I agree with my right hon. Friend also in what he said about the third exception read to us by the Home Secretary. I really cannot see any particular advantage in throwing the door open to Poles and Czechs during the next five years. They are members of nations who are now against us and they might well wait for the five years.
§ Mr. BOOTHI am in doubt as to the inclusion or exclusion of some of these words. I would like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether, if we pass these words "any German subject"——
§ Mr. SPEAKERWe do not pass these words or any other words at the moment. All we pass is that the Clause be read a second time. Then it is open to Amendment.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Clause accordingly read a second time.
Sir H. DALZIELI beg to move to leave out the words "German subject," and to insert instead thereof the words "subject of a country which at the time of the passing of this Act was at war with His Majesty."
I hope my right hon. Friend will, if he cannot accept the exact words, will accept the principle, which seems to me necessary in order to add to the value of the provision.
§ Colonel YATEI beg to second the Amendment.
Mr. H. SAMUELI rather hope the Home Secretary will not accept this Amendment. I think it good not to draw a distinction between Germans on the one hand and Austrians, Hungarians, Turks, and Bulgarians on the other. The crimes which have excited our abhorrence have been mostly committed by the Germans. On the whole, Austrians have treated British subjects in Austria fairly well.
Mr. SAMUELShe had a leading hand in the War, but we are speaking of 1372 national characteristics and not of individual persons. I am not sure it would be wise to have a Clause of this sort. And so put all enemy countries precisely on a par. It must be remembered that this Clause does not in any way affect any person who comes from those countries to this country after the War, for in any case it takes five years' residence in this country to qualify at all for naturalisation. It does not affect, either, any person except those resident in the United Kingdom at the present time, and, therefore, here before the War. It will only affect persons who were Turkish subjects, or Austrians, or Hungarians, naturalised here during the War, and before the War. No one else would be qualified for naturalisation, and I deprecate the extension of the Clause in the way proposed.
§ Mr. BOOTHI very much hope the Home Secretary will accept this Amendment. Surely if we adopt the position of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland we shall dishearten our Allies. Take the case of the Serbians which I have mentioned. They have been in no way better treated by the Bulgarians than the Germans treated the Belgians. There have been no more hideous and infernal atrocities in the world than those committed by the Bulgarians on the Serbians, and now they are going to decimate the whole population in order to collar their rations. If we are going to differentiate in the degree of crime between the Prussians, Bavarians, and Bulgarians, then I am afraid we are opening up a prospect which is anything but pleasing. We are on perfectly logical ground if we say that no subject of any nation we are at present fighting should be naturalised for five years. That is a simple line to take. We do not want a lot of Prussians coming over here and pretending that they are Austrians. They will all be saying that they are Austrians, and personally I do not think there is much to choose between an Austrian and a Prussian.
§ Mr. BOOTHWe have got quite enough of them here now, for there are hundreds and thousands roaming about in this country. How can we say that an Austrian is kind, when his ally, the Prussian, is sinking our hospital ships? Our enemies must all stand or fall together, like we have to do with our Allies.
§ Mr. PETOI want to support what has just fallen from the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth). I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Samuel) will see on further consideration that it is quite impossible to draw a distinction between one of His Majesty's enemies and another. The case of Bulgaria has been mentioned. What about the conduct of the Turks in Armenia, and their treatment of the garrison at Kut? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland has pointed out that the Amendment will undoubtedly not operate in the way it is intended, and I suggest to the Home Secretary that it might be possible in another place to add words to the effect that for the purpose of naturalisation residence shall only count from a period after the signing of peace. Then we should be postponing naturalisation in the case of every citizen of an enemy country for five years after the termination of the War, which is the intention of the Amendment. I hope the Home Secretary will consider that further point, and I am sure we are indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland for pointing out this effect.
§ 2.0 P.M.
§ Sir G. CAVEThere is a great deal in what has been said on this point, but it is very difficult to deal with these matters in an Act of Parliament. Undoubtedly there has been great cruelty on the part of others of our enemies besides the Germans, and especially the Turks, and I do not think we could very well justify making any difference between a German and a Turk. Notwithstanding what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland, I think it would be wise to make this Clause apply to all enemy countries, but if this is done I must adhere to my exception in favour of friendly races, because the acceptance of this Amendment makes the case all the stronger. In Germany the men of friendly race are few, but in Turkey and Austria this is a more important matter. Take the Armenians and the Syrians and some other races. I am sure hon. Members would not like to shut out those races.
§ Sir W. DICKINSONI understand the right hon. Gentleman has put some words in to protect the position of the married woman.
§ Sir G. CAVEOnly widows who are natural-born British subjects.
§ Colonel YATEMay I call the Home Secretary's attention to the very important point put before us by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland as to a person under the present law not being able to naturalise for five years? If that is so, will the right hon. Gentleman put some Amendment in this Clause extending the time, say, to seven years?
Major NEWMANWhen the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland speaks of five years' residence he is really wrong. What is required is five years' residence not in this country, but in His Majesty's Dominions, and a man only needs to reside one year in this country and four years in Canada or Hong Kong or any other British Dominion.
§ Sir J. WALTONI desire to thank my right hon. Friend for having accepted the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel). All the arguments have been on the side of accepting this Amendment. I was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland offer any objection. Surely he has not forgotten the butchery of hundreds of thousands of Armenians by the Turks, or the atrocities perpetrated by the Bulgarians, or the brutal acts of warfare perpetrated by the Austrians! I have perhaps more personal friends in. Austria than any other hon. Member of this House, but I confess that after all that has happened during the last four years I do not think any course we can take would be too strong to give expression to our condemnation of all the inhuman barbarities and disregard of all international law which the whole of the enemies who are waging war against us have been guilty. I, therefore, welcome the acceptance by my right hon. Friend of this Amendment, and I feel certain he will not object to the addition relating to friendly aliens suggested by the Home Secretary.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Sir G. CAVEI beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add the words,
but this provision shall not apply to a person whoI shall be glad if any improvement of this Amendment can be suggested, but it seems to me to carry out what most hon. Members desire.
- (a) has served in His Majesty's forces, or in the forces of any of His Majesty's Allies;
1375 - (b) is a member of a race or community known to be opposed to the enemy Governments; or
- (c) was at birth a British subject."
Sir H. DALZIELI think we ought to respond to the appeal of the Home Secretary in this matter. He has met us in what, I think, was a wider and more important question than is raised in his new Amendment. I confess that I should like Amendment (b), which raises the question of friendly aliens, inquired into, but I presume there will be some deep scrutiny in the future, more than there has been in the past, with regard to anyone obtaining that position. Personally, I see no need at all for any burning desire to make British subjects of the subjects even of the friendly portions of an enemy country, and I think we ought to be more careful in the future than in the past. I would like to ask the Home Secretary what does the term "forces" cover? Does it apply to military forces only, or does it apply to, say, the police force—special constables, and so on?
§ Sir G. CAVE"Military" includes the naval and air forces.
Sir H. DALZIELWith that exception we might accept it, but it occurred to me that if it included special constables they might be kept very busy at the Home Office after the War.
§ Mr. R. McNEILLI would like to say one or two words indicating how thoroughly I agree with what has fallen from my right hon. Friend. I do not want to labour the question of this Clause, otherwise I would like to press my objection to this particular part of the Home Secretary's Amendment relating to friendly races. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend that it is perfectly unintelligible to find this intense anxiety to manufacture British subjects. Why, in the world, should we do so? It is a very great privilege, and ought to be so regarded, and I feel confident that any German, Pole, Alsatian, or Czech, or an Italian in Austria, would not consider it a grievance if he had to wait for five years to obtain British citizenship when he had to wait a lifetime to acquire citizenship in his own country. I regret 1376 that my right hon. Friend has thought it necessary to put in this particular provision, because it opens the door to very great doubt as to whether these provisions will be carried out by the Home Office—I do not say by my right hon. Friend, but by the Home Office—with the stringency the country desires. There are heaps and heaps of poisonous Huns in all these friendly nations. Alsatians have been the worst spies used by the Germans in this War. They have tried to fill Alsace and Lorraine with their own German blood, and the difficulty of determining whether a man, either from Alsace or Lorraine, is German in sympathy or pro-Ally would be exceedingly great, and if the mere fact that a man belongs to one of these friendly races is to be taken as a sufficient reason for granting him as a matter of course a certificate of naturalisation it will go far to defeat the purpose of this provision. On the whole, it is a very great gain to get this Clause accepted, and we are grateful to the Home Secretary for having done so. Even with that flaw in it, I think it is a very valuable addition to the Bill.
§ Mr. A. WILLIAMSI hope very much that the Home Secretary will adhere to his second exception, and I will give the House what, I think, is an instance affording a reason for it. If you take the case of the Armenians you will find that a million of them have been massacred on account of their friendliness to this country. In the last few months all the fighting which has been done on the Caucasus Front on our side has been almost wholly done by Armenians. Many of these are Turkish subjects. Are you, after the War, going to tell a Turkish Armenian who has lived, perhaps, three or four years before the War in this country, and who comes along, having completed his time, desiring to be naturalised, that, in spite of all that his race has done, you do not consider him fit to be naturalised because he has had the misfortune to be born under Turkish tyranny? There is nothing in this Clause which compels you to naturalise a man of one of these enemy countries even if he belongs to the friendly races or communities. You have to investigate his particular case, and if you find that his case absolutely fits him for naturalisation, it would be a real cruelty to tell the man that because he was born under the alien Government, you refuse to help 1377 him. Therefore, I very much hope that the Home Secretary will adhere to this exception.
§ Mr. STEWARTI should like to join in the expression of gratitude and appreciation to the Home Secretary for what he has just done. After one's experience of these things, it is very acceptable to get more than you ask for in an Amendment to a Bill, but I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to put in a fourth proviso on this particular point. Would he institute a language test about these aliens who are coming to join us here? There are many German subjects and others who have become British subjects who did not even take the trouble to learn our own language, and, as I mentioned in Committee the other day, in one of the elections which was held in the City of London there were any number of people for whose benefit the election addresses had to be put in their own language because they did not speak English. We should be gratified if the Home Secretary would assure us that people who aspire to the great privilege of British citizenship should have to think it worth while to learn the language of this country, and it would content the public mind and make this Bill even more popular than it is already.
§ Sir W. DICKINSONI suggest to the Home Secretary that the words he has just put in, "by birth a British subject," may be worthy of some consideration. For one thing, it is new in naturalisation law, and if it is intended to meet the case of a woman it does not entirely do so. Under the Act of 1914, in the case of a woman who was a British subject previously to her marriage to an alien, and whose husband has died or whose marriage has been dissolved, the Home Secretary may grant a certificate of naturalisation. But she is not necessarily a British subject at birth, and I submit to his consideration that it may extend to a very considerable class of people we have not contemplated. I doubt very much whether a woman who was born in Canada before the Act of 1914 was passed would have been a British subject at birth under that Act, and I am not sure that you ought to limit this provision to women who were actually born British subjects. The provision of 1914 was "if she had been a British subject before her marriage," then she should have this Tight to obtain British nationality, but 1378 to throw it back to the time of her birth is not altogether fair. For example, an American who came over here and became naturalised might marry an alien. If she was divorced she would, under the present law, have the right to say that she wished at once to become a British subject. If the words that the Home Secretary proposes are put in, they will lose that right. You are therefore taking away a certain right in these cases, and there is no reason for doing so. There is no reason for the postponement for five years, because there is no question about Germans or anything else. It is purely a question how you are going to deal with these women who were British subjects before, and who had the rights of British subjects whatever their country of birth might have been.
Mr. H. SAMUELThere is a disadvantage in discussing extremely complicated matters of this sort without having the Amendment in black and white before us, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will give consideration to the question before the Bill reaches another place. There is, in particular, one point which deserves his consideration. He speaks of those who have been serving in His Majesty's Forces or the forces of His Majesty's Allies. I have always understood, although we have the fullest possible co-operation of the United States, and although we all know how much the cause of the Allies owes in these days to the splendid gallantry of the American troops, that, as a matter of international law, America is not an Ally, because she has not entered into any treaty or alliance with ourselves, France, and the other countries who are bound together by treaty in the War. My right hon. Friend clearly intends to include those who have served in the American Army, just as he does those who have served in the Armies of France and Italy. Obviously that ought to be so, and I suggest to him that he should consider whether the term "Allies" is the right term to use.
§ Mr. PETOThe words in the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman are "race or community opposed to the enemy." I think that the phrase "opposed to" is a very doubtful one. What we really want to indicate is a nationality or community that is held in subjection by the enemy and is alien to them. If you say "opposed to," one 1379 wonders whether it is active or passive opposition that is required. That, therefore, is another matter, which I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider before the Bill reaches another place.
§ Sir G. CAVEI am very grateful for the suggestions that have been made. The House will understand that when I propose an Amendment to an Amendment I cannot very well put it upon the Paper, because I want to hear what the hon. Member who proposes the Amendment has to say before I can know whether I can accept it at all. With regard to what the hon. Member for the Wirral Division (Mr. Stewart) said, I may point out that anyone who applies for naturalisation must have an adequate knowledge of the English language, and, with regard to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North St. Pancras (Sir W. Dickinson) said, I should have thought that a woman born in Canada was a British subject. I think that is so under the Act of 1914.
§ Sir W. DICKINSONYes; but I was dealing with women born before 1914.
§ Sir G. CAVEI will consider the point. I quite agree that the position of the United States ought to be considered, and we will have, it looked into. The same applies to the words "opposed to" with regard to which my hon. Friend the Member for the Devizes Division (Mr. Peto) has raised some question.
§ Amendment agreed to
§ Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.