§ 7 and 8. Captain GARRO-JONESasked the Home Secretary (1) whether, prior to the deportation of John Zarlia, consideration was given to the fact that during the War this man was employed by the Liverpool Gas Company; that he was called up for military service, but was exempted on the ground of his employment being of national importance; whether he can specify any reason why this seaman was treated as an alien; and how it comes about that a supposed alien was repatriated to a British Colony;
(2) whether he is aware that John Zarlia, the seaman who has been deported to a British Colony on the ground that he is thought to be an alien, has a wife and child, who are being maintained by the Liverpool Guardians to the extent of 15s. per week; and whether he will consult with the Colonial Office with a view to securing the return of this man to his home and family in Liverpool?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSWith the hon. and gallant Member's permission, I will answer these questions together as they relate to a single ease which, as I have already explained, is not one of deportation. I understand that this man was during part of the War employed in Liverpool as stated and that he has a wife and child there. In reply to previous questions I have given details of the circumstances in which he was refused leave to land as an alien and was removed by the shipping company in accordance with the provisions of the Aliens Order. If he is in fact a British subject and is able to produce satisfactory evidence on the point, he is of course free to return to this country if he wishes.
§ Captain GARRO-JONESOn a point of Order. I put down these two questions in order to get answers to specific points, but the right hon. Gentleman has taken the opportunity of lumping the questions together and evading the specific point. That being so, I wish to 1734 ask, as a supplementary question, whether the right hon. Gentleman can specify any reason why this seaman was treated as an alien and how it comes about that a supposed alien has been repatriated to a British Colony?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSWith great respect, may I say that the hen. and gallant Member is asking a question which he has asked several times before, and which has been answered already. I fully explained why this man was refused leave to land here—because he was, and is still believed to be, an alien. Consequently, he was not repatriated at our expense at all, but the ordinary course was followed which is followed in all cases of a shipping company bringing a man here who is not allowed to land. They took him back to the place he came from and the fact that he came from a British Colony does not prove that he is a British subject.
§ Captain GARRO-JONESCan the right hon. Gentleman give any specific item of evidence to show that this man was an alien; and, if not, is it to go out to all the coloured subjects of the British Empire that, unless they can prove by specific documentary evidence—which very few of them can give—that they are British subjects, they are to be deprived of every privilege of British subjects when they come to this country and are to be treated as aliens?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSNo, Sir. Certainly not. The hon. and gallant Member not justified in making that statement. For many years past this man has been treated as an alien and assumed to be an alien and has passed as an alien. In these circumstances, it is for him to show that he is a British subject when he asks leave to land here.
§ Captain GARRO-JONESI beg to give notice that on the first opportunity I shall raisa this matter either on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House or on the Vote for the right hon. Gentleman's salary.