BRITISH NATIONALITY AND STAUTS OF ALIENS BILL [Lords]

HC Deb 09 November 1933 vol 281 cc353-418

Order for Second Reading read.

3.49 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour)

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The Bill to which I now ask the House to give a Second Reading does not set out to make any comprehensive revision of the law relating to nationality or to make any change of major importance. Its purpose is limited to make such amendments of the law relating to the national status of married women as are necessary to give effect to a convention on certain questions relating to the conflict of nationality laws concluded at The Hague in 1930. The Bill, therefore, is limited in scope. Its main object is one with which I think everyone must sympathise. It is to avoid the hardship which at present arises when a woman becomes stateless by reason of her marriage.

As far back as 1924 the Council of the League of Nations was considering the possibility of international codification of different branches of law, and a preparatory committee gave a good deal of time and thought to the selection and preparation of suitable subjects. One subject recommended by the committee, after very careful consideration, to the Governments concerned, was this question of nationality. While it appeared at that time that there was no prospect of international agreement upon any of the major problems of nationality, there did seem to be a possibility that some of the difficulties which arise owing to the divergence of national laws, and in particular the hardship caused by statelessness, might be removed by international action. Then a conference was arranged under the auspices of the League of Nations. It met at The Hague in the year 1930, and resulted in the signature of a Convention. This Convention has been printed for convenience as Command Paper 4347. It consists of 31 Articles. The great majority of those Articles can be accepted by this country without any alteration of the existing law, but there are three of them, relating to the nationality of married women, which require an amendment of the law. Those three Articles are set out in the memorandum to the Bill.

The present law regarding the national status of married women is contained in Section 10 of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act of 1914. That Act lays down the general proposition that the wife of a British subject shall be deemed to be a British subject, and that the wife of an alien shall be deemed to be an alien. That general proposition, however, has certain qualifications. The first is that where a man during the continuance of his marriage ceases to be a British subject, that is to say, if he becomes naturalised in a foreign State, his wife may retain her British nationality by making a declaration that she desires to do so. The second empowers the Secretary of State to grant a certificate of naturalisation to a British-born woman married to an alien who is the subject of a State which is at war with this country.

The position is therefore as follows: If a British-born woman marries an alien she thereby loses her British nationality. If she marries 'a British subject who thereafter becomes naturalised in another country, she equally loses her British nationality when her husband is so naturalised, unless she avails herself of the right which I have mentioned of retaining her nationality by making a declaration. A foreign woman who marries a British subject thereby acquires British nationality, and if a certificate of naturalisation is granted to an alien in this country the British nationality so conferred extends automatically to his wife, even if she has no desire to become a British subject. The principle which underlies the British law, that the wife's nationality follows that of her husband, is, of course, one which has given rise to considerable controversy, but it would not give rise to the particular hardship of statelessness if it were the law enforced in all countries. A woman whose husband becomes naturalised in a foreign country would simply exchange one nationality for another.

As a matter of fact, this is what happens in most cases where a British woman who loses her British nationality in the way just mentioned acquires at the same time the nationality of her husband under the laws of his country. But in some countries, of which the most important from the point of view of the various parts of the British Empire is the United States, this is not so. The British woman who marries a citizen of the United States loses her British nationality without thereby acquiring any other in its place. She becomes therefore stateless, and in these days may on that account be exposed to very serious personal hardship. This difficulty the Bill seeks to remove, and its passage would provide relief for a very large number of women who have become, or may in future become, stateless, by reason of their marriage.

By many women of British birth the loss of British nationality may be felt to be a greater hardship than the failure to acquire another nationality. As a result of the opposition of many of the women's organisations, who urged a revision of the Hague Article so as to embody the principle of equality between the sexes, the matter has beers further considered by the League of Nations, but the result of further examination and prolonged discussion only confirmed the conclusion reached at the Hague Conference, that international agreement cannot at present be obtained on the proposals, without a radical change placing women in a position of complete independence as regards nationality. The Assembly accordingly passed a Resolution in 1932 expressing a hope that the Hague Convention would be ratified by the Governments, and pointing out that the Convention was not intended to embody any principle in contradiction of the independence of the nationality of married women, and that the ratification of the Convention would in no way prejudice further concerted international action when such action was practicable.

That brings us down to 1932. With these conclusions of the League of Nations His Majesty's Government are in agreement, but it is neither the failure to reach international agreement on any wider amendment of the law, nor any argument based on the merits or demerits of the proposal to embody the principle of equality in the law, which has decided the Government to confine the Bill to provisions necessary to give effect to the Hague Convention. I think it can be said that the reason why the Government have come to their conclusion is that. it is based on the Empire-wide character of our nationality law, and on the impracticability at the present time of securing agreement within the Commonwealth on any lines other than those dealt with in the Bill.

Since 1914 it has been the unbroken constitutional procedure that any question of amending the laws regulating British nationality has been discussed and considered by all His Majesty's Governments. Indeed, only by strict adherence to this practice of consultation and agreement can a uniform corpus of nationality law within the British Commonwealth be maintained. In accordance with this practice, the proposal that the nationality law should be radically altered by a complete removal of the disabilities of married women has been discussed with representatives of the self-governing British Dominions on more than one occasion, and the only result has been, after the legislation to ratify the Convention has been delayed for three years, to make it clear that no agreement on this large problem at the present time would be practicable. For this reason, I submit, legislation of a radical character, in view of what has passed, cannot be entertained. In the meantime, the Dominion of Canada, owing to numerous cases of women in that Dominion who suffer from this disability by marriage with American citizens, and become stateless, has already taken steps to pass legislation bringing into operation. in anticipation of similar action by the other members of the British Commonwealth, the proposals which I am submitting to the House to-day. I think it is clear that it would be very undesirable, after what has passed, and the fact that the Dominion of Canada has already taken legislative action, that we should have further delay.

It may be of some advantage; perhaps, if I say a few words about the arrangement of the Bill itself. The scheme of the Bill is to substitute a new Section for Section 10 of the principal Act. Paragraph (1) of Subsection (1) of the Bill repeats the existing provision that the wife of a British subject shall be deemed to be a British subject, and the wife of an alien shall be deemed to be an alien. Paragraphs (4) and (6) re-enact the existing exceptions to this general principle, and paragraphs (2), (3) and (5) add new exceptions. Paragraph (2), it is to be observed, deals with the British woman who marries a foreigner but does not thereby acquire his nationality. Instead of becoming stateless, she is to retain her British nationality. Paragraph (3) makes a similar provision for the British woman, who, having married a British subject, is liable to become stateless when her husband has become naturalised in some other country. If the woman does not acquire her husband's new nationality, she is to retain her British nationality.

Paragraph (4) repeats the existing provision which enables a British woman whose husband is naturalised abroad to make a declaration, and so be deemed to have retained her British nationality. As a result of the provisions of paragraph (3), this provision will in future only have application where under the law of the foreign country, the woman acquires her husband's new nationality. Opportunity has been taken to define the period of time within which the declaration must, be made, as the absence of such definition has given rise, I understand, in the past to considerable difficulties. The proposal is that the declaration shall be made within one year from the date of her husband's acquisition of a new nationality. The Secretary of State may, in special circumstances, extend this period. Paragraph (5) deals with the alien woman whose husband acquires British nationality by the grant to him of a certificate of naturalisation. In accordance with the terms of the Convention, it will in future rest with her to decide whether she will acquire her husband's new nationality or not. At the present moment she acquires it automatically. Paragraph (6) re-enacts the existing provision regarding British-born wives of aliens who are subjects of a State at war with His Majesty. The final provision in Subclause (2) of Clause 1 is consequential on the new provision in paragraph (5). It gives the Secretary of State power to prescribe by regulation the form of the new declaration of acquisition of British nationality which paragraph (5) allows an alien woman to make.

I hope the House will see no difficulty about giving this Bill a Second Reading. To reject the Bill or to delay it can, I submit, only result in subjecting a number of women for a further period to a hardship which everybody agrees they ought not to be under, and which there is no difficulty about removing. On the other hand, nothing that we pass to-day places any obstacle in the way of effect being given in the future to the principle of equality. Neither the Convention nor this Bill in any way prejudices that question, but it leaves the matter open for future discussion. I am very conscious of the opinion held by certain sections inside and outside the House on this matter, but I submit to the House of Commons, on the broad issue, that this Bill is a big step forward, and in no way prejudices future discussion of these problems.

4.8 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE

I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words: this House cannot assent to the Second Reading of a Bill which fails to give full effect to the policy declared by His Majesty's Government at the 1931 Assembly of the League of Nations in favour of the removal of all disabilities of married women in matters of nationality, and will postpone indefinitely a satisfactory settlement. We have had a lucid description of this Bill from the Home Secretary, and the reasons why it has been introduced. I have also read carefully the arguments in another place. I think that the Home Secretary is right in thinking that this is a small Bill. It was described in another place as a trivial Bill. We think that it is an entirely inadequate Bill, and that is the view of the women's organisation who have been pressing for these changes in the status of married women. I do not think there is the least necessity for me to say anything in support of the principle, which was supported by this country at The Hague, in favour of removing altogether this disability attaching to married women. The principle has been approved in this House very frequently—in fact no later than in the summer, when a Bill introduced by the hon. Member for the West Derby Division (Sir J. Sandeman Allen) was given a Second Reading, and all we have to consider to-day is why is it that the Government are not prepared to give effect to what everybody desires, and what will be the effect of our acceptance or rejection of this very small Measure.

We are told that there is an absolute need for acting in the closest collaboration with other parts of the Empire in this matter. We are told that we are closely bound by precedent, that ever since 1914 in these matters we have had to move step by step with the Dominions. I should have thought that in this matter the very last thing that is urgent in the eyes of most people of the world is uniformity, because you have the greatest possible discrepancies all over the world, and although this will remove some anomalies, it is going to leave numerous anomalies. I cannot understand what is the overmastering reason why we should necessarily march step by step with all the Dominions, and take our step from the most backward. Take the lack of uniformity. If an Englishwoman marries an American, she remains British. If she marries a Frenchman, she becomes French. That is a highly anomalous situation. Why is it a worse anomaly if a South African should marry a Frenchman and become French, while a. Canadian or English woman who marries an American should remain British? I cannot see that it makes any terrible upset in the world. As a matter of fact, this principle that we are asked to keep in the Bill, that is to say, that the wife of an alien becomes an alien, is only recent. Up to 1870 British women did retain their nationality, and, as far as I can gather, there was no special difficulty about it. The change was made, apparently, for the convenience of a certain number of men. Before 1870, women were not consulted on these matters, and it is really a remnant of the status of the married women before the days of the Married Women's Property Act.

The sort of principle we are embodying here means that in all matters of this kind we are to be bound by the least advanced Parliament in the British Commonwealth of Nations. We have always got to wait until we can get uniformity. We are not allowed to take the initiative ourselves. I cannot think why we should accept this position, and I shall want a great deal more persuasion before I can accept that position. I have not seen it put forward in the debates in the other House, and I have not heard here what are the over-mastering reasons why we should keep in exact step with all the Dominions in this matter. I have not heard what terrible effect is going to happen in relation to the status of married women if it is to be something different in Canada, South Africa or the Irish Free State from what appertains in this country.

I want to know what are the practical, real difficulties, because it is possible to be so Imperialistic as to sacrifice the Empire to an Imperial ideal. We had an example of that not long ago in this House where the Dominions Secretary—and no one is keener on the Empire—in the sacred name of setting up an Imperial tribunal, started, and is continuing, a tariff war between this country and the Irish Free State. That is what I call destroying the Empire in the name of the Empire. It seems to me that it is quite possible in this matter to sacrifice realities to a dull uniformity which will be of no practical use whatever.

The next question with which I would deal is: What is going to he the effect if we throw out this Bill and what is going to be the effect if we accept it? We all want to ratify this Convention. I should like however to ratify and at the same time give a lead to the rest of the Dominions and the rest of the world. I have a great fear that if once a certain number of comparatively small disabilities are removed there will be a tendency for the Government to go asleep as far as this matter is concerned. The Government of course say that they will press on with it just the same, but I very much doubt it. We have the declaration that they think it impossible to come to an agreement with the Dominions. We have had no suggestion that the particular Dominions which are standing out—I do not know which they are—are likely to change their views. If we pass this Measure, will not the Government then say "We have done all we can and other matters must wait until we can reach general agreement"? That general agreement may be postponed and postponed. Perhaps the question will be brought up at Imperial Conferences; they will disagree upon it or discuss other matters, and so it will lag on and lag on and we shall never get anything done.

There is no reason why women in this country should be prejudiced because of what I contend to be the backward state of public opinion in some of the Dominions on this question. If there are going to be inconveniences as a, result of having separate laws with regard to the nationality of married women I do not see why other Dominions should not feel that awkwardness and hasten to remove it. If the Government say that they will accept an Amendment to the Bill omitting the paragraph in Clause 1 which declares that the wife of an alien shall be deemed to be an alien, we can carry this Bill, we can ratify the Convention, we can give a lead to the Empire and we can then see what is going to happen. If the other Dominions find it extremely awkward that there should be variations of the law in this respect in the Empire then they can come into line. Why should we be held back all the time in order to wait for them? It is for those reasons that I move the Amendment. I hope that the House will not assent to the Second Reading of a Bill which is opposed by the women's organisations, which does not meet the overwhelming, if not unanimous opinion in this country, as to what ought to be done but which, by conceding a few minor points, seeks to set the whole matter at rest and which will, I believe, delay the ultimate reform that is desired.

4.20 p.m.

Sir GERALD HURST

I recognise the great authority with which the women's organisations who are supporting the objection to this Bill speak upon this question. I also recognise how much beholden we are to those organisations for their services to women's interests in the past. This is one of the few points on which I disagree with their views and I wish to put before the House the ground on which I consider that, from the point of view of women themselves, the limited character of this Bill is advantageous to them and to the country. The main object of the Bill—and I think it is common ground that the main object though a limited one is achieved by the Bill—is to meet the great disadvantages placed upon English women who have married Americans by the Cable Act passed by Congress in 1922. Under that Act, although an Englishwoman loses her English nationality by marrying an American, yet from the point of view of United States law, she does not thereby become an American citizen. She has to reside one year in America and then petition for naturalisation and, even if that is granted, she loses her American nationality again if she lives for two years consecutively outside the United States. A woman in those circumstances at the present time is often in the unhappy position of being stateless and therefore it is clearly to her advantage that under the provisions in this Bill which carry out Article 8 of the Convention she should remain a British citizen if she marries an American, notwithstanding the general law on the subject.

Up to that point I assume that everybody is agreed. Where I differ from the hon. Gentleman who has moved the rejection of the Bill is in his suggestion that the Bill is unduly limited and that the Government in framing it ought to have paid more regard to realities. The realities of this question are rather different from what one would gather from a mere enunciation of first principles. I ask the House to consider the effect of a Measure passed by Parliament enacting that an Englishwoman who marries a foreigner automatically retains her English nationality notwithstanding her marriage and enacting that a foreign woman who marries an Englishman shall retain her foreign nationality notwithstanding her marriage. Two dilemmas would ensue. In many cases the woman would be stateless which, in my submission, would be a disadvantage to her. In other cases she would have a double nationality which, in my submission, would also be a disadvantage to her.

Let me illustrate my point. Assuming that a Frenchwoman, a German, an Austrian, a Dutchwoman, an Italian or a Dane married an Englishman. By our law she would remain a French, German, Austrian, Dutch, Italian, or Danish national as the as might be, if this Measure were passed in the wide form which has been suggested. But by the laws of France of Germany of Austria is, of Holland, or Italy, and of Denmark she would have ceased to be a national of any of those countries. She would not have become a British national and in that case she would be stateless. The nation to which she previously belonged would decline to recognise her as one of its nationals; we should decline to recognise her as a British national unless she took out nationalisation papers. In that case the result of the course advocated by those who desire to widen this Measure would be a condition of statelessness and it is no advantage to a woman to be stateless. She would have the greatest difficulty for instance in getting passports and if she required diplomatic assistance she would have nobody to take up her cause.

Then take the case of double nationality. Assuming that an English woman married a national belonging to any of those countries which I have named, by the law of those countries she would become a French, German, Austrian, Dutch, or Italian citizen as the case might be. But by English law, if we framed our Measure on the wide basis proposed by the hon. Gentleman opposite, she would retain her English nationality so that an English woman married to a Frenchman and living in France would be French by French law and English by English law. There are great disadvantages, as I have said, attaching to double nationality. I refer hon. Members to Article 4 of the Convention which declares that a State may not afford diplomatic protection to one of its nationals as against a State whose nationality such person also possesses. By widening the scope of the Bill you would be enabling the English woman who marries a subject of one of the countries which I have specified to retain her British nationality, but if she went to live in any of those countries her British nationality would be no use to her. She would be the subject of two nations but by the law of the country in which she was living her English nationality would be negligible and useless.

Captain CAZALET

Is not that argument based on the understanding that those countries which have been named are not prepared to accept the Convention which the Government are asking us here to accept to-day? If those countries are going to accept it does not the hon. and learned Member's argument fall to the ground? Would it not be the case that such a woman would retain her own nationality until she made the decision as to which nationality she desired to adopt.

Sir G. HURST

As I understand the position—I speak subject to correction—the law of those countries to-day is the same as our law. The point that I am making is that it is a mistake for this country or for any country to legislate in this matter on first principles—simply on the belief that it is a good thing for a married woman to regain her original nationality—without regard to the view of the law entertained by other countries. You cannot act individually and entirely on your own initiative in cases of this sort because unless you have universal cooperation there will be either statelessness or double nationality which as I have shown are equally disadvantageous to the married women.

I feel that all these Statutes about nationality should he very liberally administered. At present the law enables a very easy re-assumption of British nationality to lie made by the English woman who has married a foreigner, if she becomes a widow. The cheaper and the easier such a re-assumption of nationality is made the better. The provision in Clause 1 by which the wife of an alien who is a subject of a State at war with His Majesty may become a British citizen, if she was at birth a British subject, is d so a very great advantage. During the last War many women suffered greviously in deprivation of property by reason of being married to aliens. Much may be done by administration and by administrative generosity but I quarrel with the view that, without any consideration as to the view of the law taken in other countries, we can legislate in this matter on our own initiative. The remedy may be worse than the disease; and the English woman who marries a foreigner may find herself worse off as the result of such legislation.

I also question the first principles which are being invoked in this case. The hon. Gentleman opposite used the word "disabilities" Many of us will require a little persuasion before we are brought to believe that the prima facie view that husband and wife should belong to the same nationality really represents a disability to the wife.

Mr. ATTLEE

The disability is that she should be forced to change her nationality without her volition.

Sir G. HURST

I think when a woman marries a man it is best for them both that she should take the man's nationality. That was the reason why this change of the English law was made in 1870.

Viscountess ASTOR

What was the reason?

Sir G. HURST

That in the long run, taking the ordinary view of the normal Happy marriage, it was best that the wife should take the husband's nationality.

Mr. McGOVERN

And take his politics too!

Sir G. HURST

That was why the present law was introduced in 1870. I think we must look upon this question, not from the point of view of first principles so much as from the point of view of its practical influence on family life. Take the case of husband and wife. They may differ about religion, which is a pity; they may differ, less often, about politics, which is also regrettable, but you do not want to add to the points of difference anything more than you can help, and, so far as nationality is concerned, if a woman cares to marry a foreigner, and loves him enough, it is better for her to take his nationality too. In the long run marriage is more likely to succeed the fewer the points of difference the spouses may have.

Viscountess ASTOR

That was all right in 1870.

Sir G. HURST

It may be an open question as between husband and wife, but it is not an open question from the point of view of the children. There, it is a very great advantage that there should be no difference of nationality between the father and the mother. If a child goes to school in a country where the father is a national of that country, but the mother has a foreign nationality, and it is known to the child's school companions, I think the child may adopt an apologetic attitude about one of his or her parents. It may also tend to make the children take sides as between them. The child must have a preference for one nationality as against the other, and it seems to me that, from the point of view of family life, which is so threatened by socialism to-day, this double nationality may have a bad effect upon family harmony and unity. The more points of unity and harmony a family has, the better. You cannot always help differences in taste or in politics, but why add to the points of difference the difference of nationality?

Of course, the period of the War was an abnormal time, but an English woman who was married to a German in Germany had a far better time, or more tolerable time, because she was German by having married. She had a very good time compared with what she would have had if she had been an English national. A German woman who married an English man before the War and lived in England during the War was absolutely protected from losing her personal property, whereas if she had retained German nationality, she would have had a very hard time. These are abnormal cases, I know, but you have to look at abnormal cases, because in normal life these questions do not arise, and emergencies such as this, I think, bring it home to a woman, to use the common phrase, on which side her bread is buttered. This is not a question to be judged by anything other than the realities of family life, the test of which will be found in times of emergency, when the woman's true interests are best served by having the nationality of her husband. It is a very open question, but that is the view that I take about a woman's interests. Because I believe that that is the true interest of women, I am glad that the scope of this Bill, useful though it may be within its limited application, is so limited, and for that reason I hope it will be passed in its present form.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES

We have just listened to a speech which might conceivably have been addressed to this House some 60 years ago, just about the time when the 1870 Act was placed upon the Statute Book, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Moss Side (Sir G. Hurst) seems to have lost sight of what has been taking place in the legislation of this country during the past 50 or 60 years. He has evidently, notwithstanding his wide professional experience, forgotten the Married Women's Property Act and the fact that women are now admitted to all the universities and professions in this country. He has even forgotten the fact that in this Legislature itself there are women, who are playing a great part in the political life of this country. He has over- looked the fact that for something like eight or nine years, I believe, women were included in the Government of this country and sat on the Treasury Bench. It is quite conceivable that the reason that this Bill has been introduced in it present form and that it is not a more generous Measure is that during the last two years there has been no woman sitting upon the Treasury Bench. If there had been a woman in the Ministry, I am quite certain that the Bill would not have been of so limited a scope.

Viscountess ASTOR

It depends on the woman.

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES

Coming to the point that has been made by my hon. and learned Friend, I am quite satisfied that he has in many directions overlooked what this Bill really does. His main objection, apart from the objection which he expressed at the close of his speech, the old objection relating to the subjection of women, seems to have been that we are going to have confusion, that if we widen the scope of this Bill and permit married women to declare what nationality they will take, in the same way as a man is entitled to declare it, we shall create difficulties with foreign States. The very first principle which underlies the Convention to which reference has already been made is set out in Article I of the Convention, and it is the overriding principle so far as this Convention is concerned. It reads as follows: It is for each State to determine under its own law who are its nationals. This law shall he recognised by other States in so far as it is consistent with international conventions, international custom and principles of law generally recognised with regard to nationality. If this Parliament in its wisdom decides that all women are entitled to say what their nationality is to he, no foreign State is justified in complaining of that attitude, because it rests with us in this country to decide who are to be our own nationals. That is the position which, I think, the British Government has taken in the past.

My hon. and learned Friend referred to the possibility of double nationality. No matter what legislation is likely to be adopted in this country or in the Dominions, I think everyone will realize that we are very far from the position when we shall be able to get absolute uniformity in this respect throughout all the countries of the world, but is that a reason why this country should wait until there is a possibility of getting uniformity? If the objection to this Bill succeeds, you will have British women retaining British nationality, residing in foreign States, the nationality of which they have also secured, according to the law of those States, by marriage, and if there is diplomatic trouble, Article 4 of the Convention lays it down that: A State may not afford diplomatic protection to one of its nationals against a State whose nationality such person also possesses. That is a perfectly reasonable provision in the Convention. If a German woman should elect to have British nationality, if the law were altered, and should live in this country, naturally there would be resentment on the part of our Government if the German Government were to endeavour to interfere in such a case. She has elected to take British nationality, and presumably, having done so, she would be entitled to be regarded in all respects in this country as a British national,

Mr. PIKE

What if she elected to go back to Germany

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES

Then, with her German nationality, I suggest that there again she could not look to this country to protect her. Whatever you may do there will be difficult cases, but that is no reason why you should not attempt to legislate in a broad and generous manner. I think the Bill in its present form is a narrow Bill and is calculated, as is suggested in the Amendment, to postpone indefinitely a satisfactory settlement. May I submit that the Bill gives expression to a man's view of the nationality of married women? It is based on the antiquated principle of masculine superiority, and it discriminates against women in matters of nationality. I am satisfied that the conscience of all civilised countries is opposed to the recognition of an antiquated principle of this kind. There is no reason why you should discriminate against a woman in matters of nationality any more than you do to-day in any other respect, in respect of property, of other civil' rights, of education, and so on. I believe that the Bill fails to give any regard to the almost universal demand of the women of this country and, I believe also, of the women of the Dominions, in addition to the women If many foreign States.

Coming to the Bill itself, it certainly will remove certain anomalies, but is it going to remove all the anomalies which nut merely a woman but any enlightened person is entitled to ask should be removed? Take the main Clause. It removes anomalies as has already been pointed out. It means that in the case of the marriage of a woman to a citizen of the United States and, possibly, a citizen of three or four of the South American States, that woman will continue to preserve her British nationality. The question, I think, is a Little doubtful so far as Paris is concerned. I do not think that the law in regard to French nationality is absolutely clear, but, so far as the great bulk of the European States are concerned, the woman immediately upon marriage will acquire alien nationality and, as the result of a decision of the House of Commons, will cease to enjoy British nationality.

Viscountess ASTOR

Does not the hon. Member think that wives influence men far more than men influence wives, and that it is far more dangerous to have an Englishman sitting here with a German or even an American wife than for an English woman with a foreign husband to do so? We are not half as much influenced by men as they are by us.

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES

I do not suppose that any of us has had the experience to which the Noble Lady refers.

Viscountess ASTOR

Every one of you knows it.

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES

At any rate, when you deal with that point you see the absurdity of the provision. Let me go a step further and take the other side and indicate an evil that is being perpetuated by Sub-section (1), which says: The wife of a British subject shall be deemed to be a British subject. What is happening at this moment? In the last few days reference has been made in more than one of the courts of this country to what is really becoming a grievous scandal. Foreign women who are undesirable aliens come to this country and marry British citizens. Such a woman possibly leaves her husband at the door of the registry, never seeing him again, neither he wanting to see her nor she wanting to see him. British nationality has been acquired by such a woman, and she is entitled to all the rights and privileges of British nationality to the same extent as any member of this legislature. Is it a good thing to perpetuate that in this country? Most of us regard British nationality as a prize, as something worthy of receiving, and it ought never to be permitted that an alien, whether a man or a woman, should acquire British nationality unless he or she goes through the same steps that everybody who asks to be naturalised has to go through now.

This Clause will deal with a certain number of cases, but I believe we shall find that there will be a large number of stateless persons whom this Clause will not help. There are in this country a large number of stateless men. Their wives will continue to be stateless. There are cases where British women have married Americans, and this Bill will not help them in any way. I believe there are cases where Americans have lost their American citizenship. Will the Bill cover cases where men have lost their citizenship and their wives are stateless? Will they, under the terms of this Bill, reacquire British citizenship? In Subsection (4) there is a time limit of 12 months within which a woman may declare her desire to retain British nationality. In the original Bill the time limit was only six months. I should like to ask the Minister whether the effect of Sub-section (5) will not create in many cases serious anomalies.

When this matter was discussed in another place every speaker, including the Lord Chancellor who introduced the Bill, agreed that it was desirable that the woman should have complete liberty to select her own nationality, and the main reason that was given against adopting that principle, a principle which has been recognised on more than one occasion by this House and has, I believe, received the support of His Majesty's Government, was that there were difficulties with regard to the Dominions. It is desirable that the Dominions and this country should go together in this respect, but, as was suggested by more than one speaker in another place, why should not this country take a lead? Why should not the Mother of Parliaments of the Empire give an indication as to the direction that the children should take? If you refer to the observations submitted by the Government in July last year to the League of Nations, you will find that Australia is prepared to move forward. A telegram, sent on the 28th July last year to the League of Nations by the Australian Government, stated: Australian Government is prepared to accept principle that woman on marriage shall not lose her nationality or acquire new nationality without her consent and to amend nationality law accordingly, provided His Majesty's Governments in United Kingdom and British self-governing Dominions are agreeable take similar action, so that uniformity of nationality laws throughout Empire may be preserved, such uniformity being of importance in interests of system of Imperial naturalisation now in force. I suggest that this country, knowing the attitude that is taken by Australia, and India also, should urge the Governments of the other Dominions to adopt a similar course. In the meantime, there is no absolute urgency to press this Bill forward. It is conceivable that this Convention may not be signed by the requisite number of States, and I suggest that the Government might consider whether it is not desirable to withdraw this Bill at the present stage and place themselves in Immediate communication with the Governments of the Dominions. If the Governments of the Dominions follow the lead that has been taken by Australia it may be possible that within the next few months the Government may he prepared to introduce a Bill which will be accepted. It might not be with absolute unanimity because I can understand my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Moss Side opposing any far-reaching Bill, but I have no doubt that if a Bill of that kind were introduced, this House would follow the precedent it has set on more than one occasion and give it a Second Reading and press it through with a view to its being put on the Statute Book.

4.55 p.m.

Viscountess ASTOR

I am rather sorry for the Home Secretary, because I know that in his heart he stands where we do about this question of the nationality of Englishwomen. Before dealing with the Home Secretary, I must say how horrified I am with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Moss Side (Sir G. Hurst) and to hear the speech that he made, because always when I have stood alone in this House in the Parliaments of the last 15 years fie has been on the side of the-women. Why he has left the modern woman and has now taken the attitude that the men took in 1870, I cannot understand. He puts up the same old plea that we always hear when we want to do anything about women, the plea that family life will be impaired. I have heard the worst of blackguards talking about the beauty of family life. The hon. and learned Member is not one of them. He is a family man, he is a respectable fellow, and he knows perfectly well that giving the votes to women has not wrecked the family life of England. He knows that our legislation is far better and that our whole moral tone is better politically since women had the vote. There is not a man in the House of Commons who would not say that, because most of them would it be here if the women had not worked so hard for them. In any election or in any national crisis the women come up and show how sound they are. They are worthy of citizenship then.

When we come to consider the question of the nationality of married women, then in a House of Commons, representing a country which has 1,500,000 more women than men, there are hardly any men. If it were a question of the nationality of married men they would be here in their thousands. I am ashamed of them. That plea about wrecking the family life is not worthy. We have always heard it when women were fighting. The hon. and learned Member made me laugh when he said that this Bill would cause dissension among children and make them ashamed of their parents. Every parent in this House knows that our children are always ashamed of us. One of the tragic things is to visit your children at school, especially boys, and you soon find that out. We have to put up with that, so I do not think that there is anything in that point. Then he said it would make difficulties. That was the reason it was done away with in 1870. Until that time a British woman, once a British subject, was always a British subject. Then a committee of lawyers was set up, and they took that privilege away from women because it was inconvenient. I suppose that women had no property rights then, so that the lawyers could not make any money out of them. I am surprised that a lawyer should want to take any rights away from women to-day. They ought to want to give rights to them.

Think of the condition of women in 1870. They had no property rights, no rights to their children, and they were the chattels of their husbands. Ever since 1914 there has been a real move among women about the question of the rights of married women. We know what appalling cases came up during the War. We are not legislating for war now; this is not emergency legislation, but legislation that ought to last for ever. This Bill provides that an English woman who marries either an American or Russian will preserve her British nationality. If she marries a Frenchman or a German or an Italian or a Spaniard or a South American she loses all citizen-ship—or, at any rate, loses her nationality. What is worse, she loses citizenship, because in those countries women have no political rights. You may think it is nothing, but it means a good deal to us to have some say in world affairs, and the countries which do not give women their rights are going to suffer for it. Already that is the case in the world. The countries which do not give women their rights are generally under dictators. The countries which do not recognise women are in a bad way, in a very bad way. A country can get no higher than the consciousness of its people, and if you try to keep women as chattels, or only give them opportunities in the way of exercising their wiles over men, to get them into their meshes—well, those are not rights. I call that "men's wrongs" and not "women's rights."

Mr. PIKE

Did not the Noble Lady say just now that the vast majority of married men in this country were inspired by their wives?

Viscountess ASTOR

I did not say "in this country, but in every country. But do not let us go back. That is the A.B.C. of the thing. I am far more frightened of what may happen in the Diplomatic Corps. Suppose one of our young diplomats who goes abroad is married to a foreign wife. I am afraid he is far more apt to represent the ideals of his wife than the thoughts of his own country. Oh, you do not know as much about it as I do. I can tell you of dozens of cases. I know cases where men in our Diplomatic Service who have married foreign women are far more influenced by their wives than by the thoughts of the women of their own country. Make no mistake about that. The thoughts of the women in English-speaking countries are far different from the thoughts of the women in other countries. We have different views on all sociological matters from those of the women in Latin-speaking countries. That, really, is what worries me about this matter. You talk about the Hague Convention, and say this was not ratified there. Most of the countries present at the Hague Convention do not give women any rights. Naturally, they were not going to ratify it. Which of the Colonies are against it? South Africa, I believe, and Ireland, and I believe the Quebec section of Canada. Really, is that a reason for holding back rights from British women? The women of South Africa have only just got the vote, and the women of Ireland—have they got the vote?

Mr. LOGAN

They have got the trousers.

Viscountess ASTOR

They have got the priests. Why we should be held back by the most backward of our Colonies I cannot conceive. It is very hard on the women and on this House that the Government should come here with this ridiculous little Measure and say it is because of the Imperial question that they will not go ahead. I am frightened that if we pass this Measure the Government will think it is the end of the matter and will do nothing more for women. They are wrong there. I wish to give them a list of the societies which are bitterly opposed to this what the Home Secretary calls "A very inadequate" or "paltry"—what was the word used? I have got it down. What did you say? I wrote it down. Anyhow, the Home Secre- tary said it was a very feeble attempt on the part of the Government. Well, what what were the words? I wrote them down. Oh, "A Bill of restricted scope" It certainly is—much too restricted. They may think they are going to please the women, but here is a list of women's organisations which are going to fight it tooth and nail because it does not fulfil the promises made to them by the Government. In 1931 the British delegation at Geneva said: The British Government considers it is right that all the disabilities of married women in matters of nationality should be removed, and that in so far as nationality is concerned a married woman should be in the same position as a woman, married or unmarried, or any single woman. To-day the Government are bringing forward a Bill in which they are denying the rights which they were pledged to give us at Geneva, and put forward the paltry excuse of Imperial considerations. Here are the women's organisations: the National Council of Women, which has 2,000,000 members, the Women's Cooperative Guild, the largest body of organised married women in the country, the Women's National Liberal Federation, the National Union of Women Teachers, British Commonwealth League, the National Council for Equal Citizenship, the Six-Point Group, the National Society for Women's Service, Women's Freedom League, the Open Door Council, the St. Joan's Social and Political Alliance.

Mr. LOGAN

What was the opinion of the St. Joan's Council in regard to Ireland—in connection with your insulting remarks earlier on?

Viscountess ASTOR

Now, now! You are so sensitive. We Protestants do not mind. I should not be sensitive about my religion. I would not be frightened of what anybody says.

Mr. LOGAN

What you say does not make any difference in the House of Commons, it is the opinions of other people outside. My opinion of you is already formed.

Viscountess ASTOR

Oh dear! Do not be so flattering. One of the finest organisations in the whole of England is the St. Joan's Social and Political Alliance. It is a Roman Catholic alliance, and it is against the Bill. They will tell you what they think of the backward women of Ireland and Quebec. They have said it in their own Church. They are fighting the reactionaries in the Catholic Church, and we are fighting the reactionaries in the House of Commons. They are not all so timorous as you are. The remaining society on the list is the National Women Citizens Association. All those societies are against the Bill. Every Member here has been helped by those women. The reason the women are against this Bill is that if we pass this makeshift legislation we shall not get what everyone is demanding. After all, we have a right to citizenship. It may be a little inconvenient to lawyers, but it is not going to wreck the Empire. It cannot wreck the Empire. It is going to lead the Empire. We ought to give a lead. We are going too far with this "youth movement" if the Mother of Parliaments has to wait on Ireland and South Africa. Surely the Home Secretary knows that the Government are pledged up to the hilt. He knows what went on at Geneva—that the whole tendency of some countries, as far as this question of nationality was concerned, was so unsatisfactory that they referred it, back. I wonder whether hon. Members know which countries did ratify it? There were only four—Brazil, Norway, Sweden and Monaco. We cannot wait for our backward Dominions. After all the Canadian delegation voted for it at Geneva, the Australians are for it and the Indians are for it, and so are all forward people. Leave the Colonies out of it.

The question is, what ought we to do at home? Have not our women a right to their British nationality? Just because a woman marries a German she has to become a German. Women may not want German citizenship. One of you, if you went abroad and married a German woman, you would not like to become a German, and why should the women like to become German? I hope the Members of the House of Commons will get up and demand a definite promise from the Government to give women the full rights which they have promised them. If so, they cannot vote for this very paltry Measure. We are not asking anything that it impossible—nothing that the Home Secretary does not know is right. After all, Englishmen have been the fairest in the world towards women up to now—the fairest in the world—and English women have been the fairest in the world to men. You know perfectly well that you can depend upon us, but we are wondering whether we can depend upon you. I beg hon. Members to remember the vast body of organised women who are fighting for this reform and that many of them are pledged to vote for equal rights, and I hope that to-day they will get up and speak and get from the Government a pledge of further legislation. If not, the only thing to do is to go into the Lobby against the Government. Nothing brings a Government to book so quickly. If we went into the Lobby against the Government to-day, within one month we would get a Bill giving equal rights.

5.12 p.m.

Captain CAZALET

Unlike the Noble Lady, I cannot speak on this subject as the parent of a large family of children. I listened with great interest to the speech of my learned Friend the Member for Moss Side (Sir G. Hurst). It was a speech such as I expected from him, lucid and full of the legal difficulties which might arise if this Bill were defeated and the full demands of those who are opposing it were accepted by the Government. But I hardly think it is fair that he should use against our proposals arguments based on what may or may not happen in war-time. Further, he said that dual nationality might create difficulties. I know that a great many married women have dual nationalities, but I have not yet heard that it has ever created any great difficulties in the home or, as a matter of fact, in the legal courts of the various countries in which they reside. I am prepared to admit that the full grant of our claims might create difficulties, but against that we have to set human rights and justice and the remedying of certain injustices from which women are suffering to-day.

The Noble Lady told us that 60 years ago women could not own property, could not dispose of it, could not make a will or sign a deed. They had no independent existence apart from their husbands. Slowly the situation has become amended in almost all respects save this one question of nationality, as to which a retrograde step has been taken since 1870. I would observe that not all the advantages are with the men. I am told that, subject to certain conditions, men are still liable for all the debts of their wives. No doubt the married men in this House know more about that than I do.

Viscountess ASTOR

Women have protested.

Captain CAZALET

If women have really protested and wish to be responsible for their own debts, I am surprised at the weakness with which those protests have been voiced in this House. For the last 10 years we have brought forward measures to give women equal rights of nationality with men. Our efforts have been given a First Reading and a Second Reading. We have never had an adverse vote, and hardly a criticism. We have had plenty of sympathy—sympathy galore—but of action, none whatever. To-day we are asked by the Home Secretary to be grateful for very small mercies, indeed. I am grateful that certain restrictions in regard to the registration of British-born women have been waived during the past few months, and the women who were affected by this administrative decision are also grateful. We should be much more grateful if we thought that these small mercies were evidences of favours to come, but I am perfectly prepared to prophesy that if the right hon. Gentleman gets this Bill, we shall not hear again the question of the nationality of married women as long this Parliament lasts.

No one has disputed that very real grievances and hardships exist and, so far as I know, no one challenges the justice of the general principles which we are advocating to-day. If there were any question of whether the hardships exist, may I say that I have a box at home filled with letters, from which we enumerated about 400 cases of women suffering hardship through the present law in regard to nationality. I saw a body of these women some few months ago. If hon. Members had only been there and listened to the tales of tragedy which were told—women deserted by their husbands and now aliens in this country, jobs refused on every hand because they were aliens, the stigma of alien and foreigner being passed on to the children as well—I am perfectly certain that they would be on our side in advocating some further measure to-day.

I would like to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department whether this Bill applies to women who possess, or whose husbands possess, what is called a Nansen passport issued by the League of Nations to certain individuals who, for one reason or another, have no nationality of their own. Unless hon. Members have come into contact with these cases, it is impossible for them to imagine the difficulties which those people find themselves up against to-day. It. takes them three weeks to get a visa to travel to the Continent. A friend of mine who has a Nansen passport decided to take a small car abroad this summer and tour in it. The official Automobile Association of this country refused to accept the responsibility of trying to get the necessary permits in Europe, because the owner of the passport happened to hold a Nansen passport. I would like very much indeed to know whether the relief promised in this Bill will apply to such women.

The truth, of course, is that because only a small number of people are affected, we have not had a reform in this matter years ago. It is a very poor excuse that we cannot do anything because various parts of the Empire will not follow suit. That has been the argument and the excuse, and it has not been given for the first time to-day. It has been given regularly every time the subject has been raised for the last 10 years. If it is such a small thing and affects so few people, would it really matter if, in this instance, the law were different in this country from what it is in other parts of the Dominions? I am perfectly certain that if we do not set the lead, one of the Dominions will take the law into its own hands. I would far rather that this country were in the vanguard on these lines than that we should be forced to follow some other portion of the Empire.

This Bill affects only a very small section of British-born women who have married Americans, Argentinians or Russians. Perhaps there is something to be said for the case of the English woman who voluntarily not only marries a foreigner, but goes and lives, and is domiciled, in the foreign country. If she wishes to live there, and if she is taking part in the national life of that country, as indeed all good citizens should do, and if her children are born and brought up in that country, there is a good argument that she should adopt the nationality of the country in which she lives, in exactly the same way as a foreign man who came over and lived in England, carried on his business and had his livelihood here and paid taxes and took part in the life of this country. We should expect that foreigner to take out naturalisation papers and become a British citizen. What we feel is that, in so far as it is possible, the English woman who marries a foreigner should be given the option for a certain time to decide whether she will take up the nationality of her husband or, if she does not wish to continue to reside in the foreign country. will come back to this country or to some other part of the British Empire. [An HON. MEMBER: "How long would you allow?"] I am just coming to that point.

Let me take an example which is to be found in the French law. French law is, in my opinion, far more satisfactory in this matter. The French take into consideration almost every difficulty and problem which has arisen in our Debate to-day. I will read out two or three small points regarding the law of nationality of women in France. It is French law that a foreign woman who marries a Frenchman acquires French nationality only if she makes application for that purpose or if, according to her national law—that is, if she is an Englishwoman, according to the English law—she acquires her husband's nationality upon marriage. If we changed the law in this country in the way which we desire, when an Englishwoman went to France, lived there and married a Frenchman, exactly what we wish would occur. If a foreign woman wishes to become French she has a free choice in the matter. She can take out French naturalisation papers, and only if she desires to do so does she become a French citizen.

Here is the most important point of all. A French person who has lost French nationality can recover it provided that he or she resides in France. That is a very excellent and commonsense point of view. That is the gist of all our complaints to-day. Those with whom we are concerned are British-born women who may marry foreigners for one reason or another. Who are we to say whether they should or should not? The point is that if they wish to come back to live in their own country, there should be restored to them, subject to certain conditions, the rights of British citizenship.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW

Even in her husband's lifetime?

Captain CAZALET

Certainly. Most of the cases that we have had before us were those of the wives of seamen who had been deserted by their husbands. These are very poor people, and they cannot get any information about their husbands. They live at some port in this country, and are condemned for the rest of their lives, to be aliens in their own country and perhaps in their own town. Hon. Members will hardly believe it, but it was only a few months ago that these British-born women had to go regularly to the police station and report themselves as aliens.

Mr. PIKE

Would the hon. and gallant Member agree, in the case of an Englishman and his wife becoming naturalised foreigners, and then desiring to come back to England, to their admission to the privilege of British nationality?

Captain CAZALET

Certainly. If I understand the question of the hon. Member aright, it is as follows. If an English husband and wife go abroad to live and become citizens of some foreign country, and later desire to come home and return and live here, I should apply the ordinary laws to them after they have lived here for the stipulated period of time. If they had been born British citizens, I should, by administrative action of the Home Secretary, facilitate their naturalisation papers, and instead of their making application after five years, I would probably give it to them in two years or three years, as the case might be.

There is one other matter in regard to French law which covers the point in regard to time. "After the expiration of one year, where a woman has been deserted by her husband, the French woman who lost her nationality by marriage with an alien can only recover it if her ordinary place of residence has been on French territory for at least two years" That seems to me to be a perfectly com- monsense regulation. The French law very largely depends upon what is known as domicile or residence. I do not care whether you apply it to a man or a woman. If a British-born woman comes back into this country and takes up abode here, pays taxes and plays a part in our national life, if she has resided here for a period of two years arid wishes to continue to reside here, every facility should be given to her to take up British citizenship with the full privileges of a British citizen.

Miss HORSBRUGH

Would the hon. and gallant Member include women who have no means of coming back here to take work?

Captain CAZALET

If a British born woman wishes to come back, I believe that the generosity of our people is sufficient to welcome her back home; even if she desires to get work but cannot find it. That is a matter which ought to be within the power of the Home Secretary. I cannot believe that in a genuine case of a British-born woman wishing to come back to reside here the privilege would not be given to her. I believe that the regulations should be strict, because of the conditions which prevail among the unemployed women in this country. I hope at a later stage to move an Amendment which will allow British nationality to he given at the discretion of the Home Secretary to British-born women who come back and who have lived in this country for two years or longer, and to whom the Home Secretary thinks it proper and right to restore nationality, and I hope then to go into that question in greater detail.

I realise perfectly well that the majority —in fact practically all—of the women's organisations are opposing this Bill. I should like very much to oppose it, because I believe it is inadequate and trivial, and does not go to the heart of the problem, but I am moved by this consideration: Lord Buckmaster, whom no one will say has not been a sincere advocate of the rights of women for many years in this country, did not oppose this Measure in the House of Lords, for two reasons, one of which was that the Measure will actually give relief to about 400 or 500 women. I would not take upon myself the responsibility of opposing any Measure which would bring even the smallest part of relief to women who are suffering under this disability. He also did not oppose it—and I do not intend to oppose the Second Reading—if the Government would give a categorical statement that they regard this as only a first step in the re-adjustment of an injustice to women which is long overdue. I know that the Home Secretary cannot give a categorical promise on behalf of the Government, but if he will give us, on his own initiative, a promise that he will, before this Parliament is over, give most sympathetic consideration to a, further extension of our demand along these lines, we should be doing a hardship if we opposed this Measure. I shall not oppose the Bill on Second Reading, nor after I have moved Amendments in the Committee stage, if the Government will either accept those Amendments or give us a definite promise that they are going to take action before this Parliament is over. If the Government refuse to give any promise to us, we will then be well within our rights, and the rights of the women whose interests we represent to-day, in opposing the Third Reading.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT

I think it would be a mistake to suppose that this is a matter of no importance. This discussion reminds me of some previous Indian discussions in which it had to be remembered throughout that what was being said here was not only addressed to Members of the House who happened to be present, but to large numbers of people outside. I have exactly the same impression about this debate. It is not merely connected with a few individual women. So far as they are concerned, this Bill admittedly cures difficulties in particular cases; but that is not the main ground upon which I desire to address the House for a few minutes. Before I reach that main ground, I want to glance at sonic of the points which have been made during the discussion.

In the first place, may I call attention to a curious defect in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Bill, in which, while he hinted at differences within the Dominions as to this Measure or the larger Measure which is asked for, he gave no indication of the grounds on which that position rested. With respect, I think that when the House of Commons is asked to review an important matter of this sort, and is told that certain Dominion Governments have reservations with regard to a larger Measure, we should, in order that our support for this smaller Measure may be reasonably asked for, be told at any rate something of the grounds on which the Dominions take up that position. I did not desire to interrupt my right hon. Friend, because I knew that he was dealing with an extremely difficult matter, but I say now that I hope that whoever is going to reply on behalf of the Government will give the House some account of the grounds which have induced certain of the Dominion Governments to withold their support from a larger Measure.

The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) intervened on a point on which I was not clear. The House is familiar with his intense devotion to certain religious interests, and I hope that his intervention did not mean that this Bill runs in conflict with any principle which he holds dear.

Mr. LOGAN

I should like to relieve the hon. and learned Gentleman's mind of any wrong idea. I was protesting at an insult which was levelled. With regard to this Bill, I fully support it on behalf of the women.

Mr. KNIGHT

I am glad to have elicited that statement, because in my own mind I was not clear, and I wanted to be sure that any suggestion which might be held out that a certain great Church is opposed to this Bill on any ground is quite without foundation.

Mr. DENVILLE

I think there is a misconception. The Roman Catholic Church has taken no exception whatsoever to this Bill.

Mr. KNIGHT

I have received to-day a publication of the League of Nations communicated to the Council of the League on the 26th September last, which sets out a petition to the League from the International Committee of Catholic Women for the Nationality of Married Women in support of the larger Measure, and contains an account of the signatures attached to this Catholic petition to the League of Nations. It is signed by many eminent dignitaries of the Church in many countries, and by prominent men in various countries, including Members of this House, some of whom I see before me, and, if I may, I should like to take the opportunity of congratulating my hon. Friend who has just intervened on his appearance in this distinguished Assembly. I only mention the matter now because there is an impression outside—and it was feared that it affected the mind of the Lord Chancellor when he was dealing with this matter in another place—that this Church resents the Bill as involving some interference with the identity between man and wife in marriage. It is not so, and that fact should be placed on record here.

That, therefore, cannot be one of the grounds which my right hon. Friend, in moving the Bill, did not state. The House should be perfectly clear on the matter. No religious opposition is raised by this Measure. Indeed, in the petition of the International Committee of Catholic Women, the principle stated in the petition is that a woman, whether married or unmarried, should have the same right as a man to retain or change her nationality. That is the principle of the larger Measure, and that is supported by the great Church to which I have referred. The only other matter in the course of the discussion to which I want to refer is some observations which were made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Moss Side (Sir G. Hurst), to whom we always listen with great interest. He thought that some injury to family life, and some loss of respect on the part of children for their parents, would be involved. I think his apprehensions are very much exaggerated, and they do not carry any force to my mind.

This House, in recent years, has reviewed the relation of woman to the State. It has endowed them with functions in the State; it has called upon them to discharge duties which were hitherto closed to women; it has opened to women the doors of avocations which formerly were not open to them. As a culmination of all that, views have developed as to the right idea of the relation of women to the State, and I submit that this culminating liberty of freedom of choice of nationality should now be accepted. I admit that practical difficulties will arise, but they will not arise in many cases, and, even if the difficulties in those cases were serious, which is the more important—the question of difficulties in a few cases, or the general right demanded by very large representative bodies of women in the country?

In my view, this is a claim which ought to be met, in the best interests of the State. I am certain—and this is my reason for venturing, at the beginning of my remarks, to ask the House to remember that behind this Assembly there exists a large body of women—I am certain that the withholding of this right is going to work serious mischief in the State until it is accorded, and for this reason, that, although it affects only a few, it becomes part of that sense of differentiation against men which is increasingly moving women in this country. Therefore, I hope very strongly that, although the Government at this moment are not able to go beyond the present Bill, for reasons of which, frankly, at the moment I am not aware, the House will recognise that it is dealing here with something of the greatest importance affecting a very large number of women outside this House. In my view it would meet the situation as it should be met by granting the petition which has been sent to this House, and which is so largely supported by the large women's organisations of the country.

5.40 p.m.

Miss RATHBONE

The case against this Bill, or rather, the case for going very much further than this Bill, has been so fully stated by the preceding speakers that there is not a great deal more that I need add, but there arc a few points which I should like to make. The right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill, and, still more, the Lord Chancellor speaking in another place, laid some stress on the desire of the Government not to go beyond the point where there was a possibility of obtaining unanimity among the Dominions. The Lord Chancellor is a great lawyer, and he cannot be accused of ambiguity about anything on which he is not compelled to be ambiguous, but I noticed that he was singularly vague in his reference to the reasons which made non-unanimity among the Dominions on this question so very disastrous and undesirable. He did not give a single point on which any serious difficulty would arise if we went a little further than some of the Dominions were prepared immediately to follow.

In the second place, he gave us no assurance that, even if we accept this little Bill to-day instead of pressing for a larger Bill, it would lead to unanimity among the Dominions. There is not unanimity now, and, therefore, if we take the step which we are asked to take today, and if this Bill in its present form be passed into law, we shall form two with Canada, and the law in the other Dominions will be different; and the most that the Lord Chancellor could say was that, if we took this step, he hoped and trusted that the other Dominions would follow. I think we need stronger reasons than that before we accept the view that we should take a. step which nearly every organised body of women in this country condemns as completely inadequate, merely because of our desire for a unanimity which we are not sure of achieving in any case. Is it really a dignified position for the Mother Country to say that, in a matter of this sort, we must make sure that the slowest and least progressive of the Dominions is willing to keep line with us? Canada has gone a step ahead; why should not we go a step ahead of Canada?

I think that some misconception was unfortunately caused by the mention of the Irish Free State. There is a rumour that the Irish Free State is one of the countries which is supposed not to be willing to go along with us in this matter. It is a rather persistent rumour, and there may be something in it, but, as several speakers have said, if there is anything in it it is not due to the Roman Catholic Church. I was very glad that the two interventions during the speech of the hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight) made it clear to every one of us that there is no religious opposition on this question. The St. Joan's Social Alliance, which is one of those active societies that have been working for this Bill, is a loyal daughter of the Roman Catholic Church, and we may be quite sure that it would not be doing all the work that it is doing for the Bill if it had not the support of large numbers of dignitaries and great masses of opinion in its own Church. Indeed, this question has never been regarded as one on which the Church as such has ever taken a decided attitude.

Suppose that it is the Irish Free State that is raising objections, are we really so much in love with the Irish Free State that it is suitable for us to be obliged to say, "We will wait until the Irish Free State or, if it comes to that, any other Dominion is converted? "Why cannot the Government take their courage in both hands and go ahead and trust to the Dominions to carry out the declarations that they made before the League of Nations in 1931? It is not as though we were pledged to wait for the Dominions. On the contrary, when the subject was before the Imperial Conference in 1931, it was definitely laid down that it is for each member of the Commonwealth to define for itself its own nationals, that those nationals should be persons possessing a common status, and that local conditions or other special circumstances might from time to time necessitate divergence from this general principle. Therefore, we are not pledged to confine ourselves to this small Bill by definite assurances given to the other Dominions, nor is there any reason why there are serious practical disadvantages in taking a step ahead of the rest of the Dominions.

Another point with which I want to deal is that made by the late Solicitor-General, whom I had not expected to find taking the view that he did. His attitude reminded me of the old story of the Scottish bridegroom who, when issuing from the church, said to his bride: "The Minister said henceforth you and I are one, and, mind, I am that one "That, apparently, is what he thinks is the attitude which, if enforced by the State, will lead to the greatest harmony between husband and wife. He objects to going further than the Bill, because he thinks on the whole it is for the benefit of family life that husband and wife should be of the same nationality. If we go further and carry out the measure which the great majority of the women's societies desire, which would give the wife not the obligation to retain her British nationality if she marries a foreigner, but merely the right to do so, the wife can choose for herself. Whatever jars may arise between husband and wife after marriage, they are generally pretty well able to come to an agreement before marriage. Would it not be better that they should thrash out between themselves whether the wife wishes to retain her nationality or not rather than that she should be compelled to make a choice which I think not a man in the House would care to make? A man convinced against his will Is of the same opinion still, and a woman denationalised against her will is only likely to cherish in her heart a stronger sense of attachment to her own nationality if she is forcibly deprived of it. The hon. Member for Hallam (Mr. L. Smith) said it was better that the children should look upon their parents as having the same nationality, but the children are bound to know that the mother, if British born, is British by race, by blood, by language and perhaps by the religion that she professes. Is it not better in the case of a couple united by bonds of love that the State should not come in and force the woman to make a sacrifice of her nationality which she might bitterly regret? It is not for this House, in which the great majority of Members belong to a party who believe they have almost a monopoly of attachment to the Empire, to take too lightly that strong sentimental attachment which a woman has to the country in which she was born, and the blood that runs in her veins and makes her passionately dislike to be forced to change her nationality.

A Member with whom I discussed the Bill yesterday said, "If a woman wants to marry a German and does not like to become a German, she had better not marry" Sometimes, when I look around the House or at the world that man-made legislation has turned out, I wonder that any woman wants to marry anybody, but we all know that women make the choice under the influence of feelings which are perhaps too strong for reason. It is not going to make for the happiness of marriage that there should be this forced alienage. The last speaker, who knows the whole subject so well, said there are many cases of cruel hardship which arise under the present law, and which are not going to be cured by this Bill. I have much less to do with this subject than he, but only a week ago a case was brought to my notice of a highly educated, capable woman of British nationality who some time ago married a foreigner. They were people of substance and good blood but, because he belongs to a nation where there are great national difficulties going on, she found it better to return and she built up a good business here. Her husband has now rejoined her. He is not likely ever to become chargeable to the State, but he does not wish to lose his nationality and, because she has taken her husband's nationality, every month she has to apply for leave to remain in the country of her birth. They are both treated as aliens and, naturally, it is impossible to sustain the good business that she has built up under those conditions. That is only one of many conditions of hardship which arise, and will continue to arise under this Bill.

The last point I want to make is, Why not accept the thin end of the wedge? Generally speaking, I am a confirmed thin-end-of-the-wedger. I have often found myself in conflict with my fellow-women in different organisations because I am nearly always in favour of taking what you can get and using it as a lever to work for something more. If I believed that was going to be the result of passing this Bill, I should not oppose it. I will not oppose it to-day if we can get the assurance that the last speaker but one asked for, that if we pass it, the Government will within this Parliament endeavour to introduce something bigger. But I am very doubtful about getting that assurance and, without it, I know what will happen. When the Bill is placed on the Statute Book and we begin to demand something further, we shall be told, "Wait and see the effects. We cannot always be digging these matters up. The Act is only just passed. You cannot expect us to disturb it for some years" We are doing this utterly inadequate and feeble thing in the hope that the other Dominions will follow. It will be difficult to take this step now and ask the Dominions to go thus far, and then the very next year ask them to go a little further. It is because we are establishing what we hope will be a precedent for the Empire that it has to be a good precedent. No case has been made out why we should be asked to pass such an utterly inadequate Bill. The House has again and again affirmed the principle of the larger Bill that we should like to see passed, which would give very woman the choice of retaining her nationality or accepting that of her husband. We ask the Government to take the matter back, or to give us an assurance that they will accept Amendments, so that we may be taking a step which with good heart and courage we can set up as an example which not only the Dominions but other countries of the world may follow.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS

The Government to-day have had a thoroughly good scolding from several people who are quite efficient in scolding a Government, though I do not know that they contribute very much else to our affairs. I most certainly am not going to join them, neither am I going to join the hon. Lady in the brilliant, obviously well-informed and highly interesting picture that she drew as to the best ways of making married life a perfect success. The Government, in bringing in this Bill, have done all that is humanly possible in present conditions to meet a very difficult position, and we are very thankful to them. But there is the point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman below me in connection with Clause 1 (6), under which a woman is enabled to resume her British nationality in case of war. Apparently she can do it almost at once. Would it not be possible to enlarge the Sub-section so that a woman might resume her nationality on her husband's death, or on dissolution of the marriage? I think the case ought to be met, always subject to the agreement of the Home Secretary, who will naturally have to go into the case and see that it is a genuine one. Would it not be possible to insert in the Bill that it is the woman's right, where her whole means of livelihood is cut off abroad and her whole interest in becoming a French or an Italian citizen has ceased, at once to resume her nationality? I believe she can do so now after a considerable lapse of time, and I should like to be informed how long an interval must elapse. I believe that is the only point on which there has been a considerable case made out for readjustment in the later stages of the Bill, except for certain cases of hardship in connection with seamen, and I should like to ask the Government to go thoroughly into the matter with a view to Amendments which would greatly increase the value of the Bill.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN

I intervene in order to clear up what, perhaps, may be a misapprehension in regard to my attitude to this Bill. I wish it to be set out clearly that I am in full support of the opinion brought forward by the various societies making a demand in this matter. My difficulty in regard to the Bill is not that it is the thin edge of the wedge. I shall go into the Lobby and vote against it, because I am fully convinced that the representations made by the various women's organisations have not been met in the Bill. I agree that, as far as the Home Secretary is concerned, it is a step in a given direction, but, if I am able to understand the expression of opinion of the various organisations in regard to the status of married women, the Bill does not meet the views of British nationals. My intervention was, perhaps, partly brought about by a remark of the noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor) which was most indiscreet. I should resent in this House at all times any attack in regard to my nationality or my religion. It was most insulting, and I trust that it will not occur again. If it does, I shall resent it.

Viscountess ASTOR

I do not understand what the hon. Member means by "insult."

Mr. LOGAN

If the Noble Lady does not know what the word "insult" means, her education has been sadly neglected.

Turning to the Bill, I observe that certain Members of this House are fully pledged in regard to this matter. It is not a question of the thin end of the wedge, but of supporting the representations made to them by women's organisations outside. I do not think that any Member of this House, having pledged himself to support any Measure, can whittle away the representations of a deputation which meets him. It may be the duty of Members of Parliament to meet deputations, but it is also the duty of Members of Parliament, when they have pledged their word, not to whittle down their pledges. I am convinced that the case enunciated by the various organisations, apart altogether from the question of religion, is not being met by this Bill. I believe that the British House of Commons can do better. This is a hotch-potch kind of way of bringing forward legislation, and it is not progressive. A unanimous body of opinion believes that the Bill does not meet what has been demanded. When you give an expression of opinion to a deputation you should either be for or against a thing, and there should be no question of hole—and—corner methods, or of the thin end of the wedge. As I understand Party politics, or the life of this nation, I believe that when deputations come here representing a body of people they desire specific action to be taken. They want to know where you stand, and what you are going to do. What is the good of particular organisations coming to see hon. Members if hon. Members are not prepared to express their views by action in the House of Commons? It must be decisive either for or against. I believe in definite action.

I am convinced that the Bill does not meet the position. I compliment the Minister upon bringing it forward, because it is a step in a given direction, but it is not a step in the direction which women's organisations outside desire. I believe that the organisation has made out a case, and their views should be heard in the House of Commons. We are only playing with the question, and a fuller Measure ought to have been brought forward. I have made my attitude clear, and I shall go into the Lobby and vote against the Bill, not because I do not think that it is a good Bill, but because I believe that it is not what is demanded by those who ask for it. [Laughter.] There is nothing illogical in stating that, from the point of view of advantage, the Government have brought in something which is only half a Measure. I want the National Government to recognise that when such a demand is made from outside, it should be met. For that reason, I intend to vote against the Bill.

6.7 p.m.

Sir JOHN WITHERS

Before I listened to this Debate, I most certainly thought that the Bill was the limit to which any successful legislation ought to extend. I foresaw a very considerable difficulty in practice, and I imagined the case of an English woman who retained her nationality, married, say, to a Russian and living in Russia. The children, I take it, would be Russians, and suppos- ing her husband died, you would then have a British woman with Russian children; a British woman under one system of international law and the children under another. It seemed to me to be a very extraordinary position in a case of international law. But since I have listened to the Debate, I am bound to say that, to a great extent, my opinion has been modified, and it is very much that of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) who, I think, has been persuaded to a certain extent by extremely hard cases. Take the case of wives of foreign sailors who have been mentioned here. They have come back to this country with a foreign nationality and with children, and have been deserted by their husbands in an English port, and left there. They are foreign citizens with foreign children, and their position in very desperate. I am bound to agree with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Torquay that this Bill, if possible, should be amended, and, if not, that a subsequent extension should be made, if and when opportunity offered. Of course, I am not going to be so foolish as to vote against the Bill, seeing that it goes so far, and I shall accept it with pleasure for what it is worth.

6.9 p.m.

Miss HORSBRUGH

The criticisms which have been levelled against this Bill by those who ask us to vote against it have all been on the grounds of not what is in the Bill but what is not in the Bill. The suggestion has been made from more than one part of the House that Amendments might he put down which would, to a great extent, deal with the peculiar difficulties which many of us are aware are at present suffered by people who were originally of British nationality. Those who tell us that they are going to oppose the Bill are, I think, taking away the chance of making a very decided step in the right direction. I may be told by many people that a step in the right direction is no use, and that a promise coming from the Government that other difficulties should be looked into is of no assistance to those who feel that this subject should be dealt with from a wider point of view. I cannot agree with those people. Above all, this subject is an international subject, and there are many here, keen supporters of the League of Nations, who, I think, have not this afternoon sufficiently realised what work can still be done in facing this matter from an international point of view. In many cases we have been told that we can do no harm by pressing forward, and that the Government can do no harm by taking the lead. There are many cases in which harm might be done, and the reason why I do not want to insist that the Government should press forward now without further discussion both within the Empire and with the League of Nations, is that I believe that there are certain anomalies which we might find we were up against.

The only reason why I do not urge at this moment a further move forward is on account of the difficulties which certain women would be up against. It is for the sake of the women and on account of their difficulties of nationality that I believe we find the very real reason for adopting the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman suggests should be adopted and for giving support to the Bill with the hope of further Amendments in difficult cases. I have listened with the greatest possible interest to each speech which has been made, and it seems to me that more and more difficulties have been pointed out. The hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) seemed to think that in some way there ought to be a narrower scheme about the nationality of women. He said that he did not particularly want women to keep their British nationality if they were going to live in a foreign country. If they were going to marry a German, Italian or any other foreigner and live in the particular country, he thought that in many cases it would be better that they should adopt the nationality of that land.

Viscountess ASTOR

The hon. and gallant Member said that they should have the right to choose.

Miss HO RSBRUGH

As far as I heard the hon. and gallant Member, he said that he thought that in those cases it was better that they should have the nationality of the country in which they were living with their husbands, but that he did consider that there were the great difficulties—he seemed rather to narrow the issue on this point—of the women who might want to live in this country or return to this country, and he thought that their case had not been sufficiently considered. I asked him at that point what he would do on the subject of women wanting to come back to this country and resume nationality if they were not able to support themselves. I think I am right in saying that the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham thought those women ought to be able to get back their British nationality without due delay, but, if we have been basing our debate on equality, are we, therefore, going to allow men who have been naturalized as nationals of other countries also to come back and resume their nationality? We must realise at present the enormous number of people who have become nationals of other countries, many of whom have become citizens of the United States. Every Member of this House must have had letters from such people wanting to come back to this country. They have no work out there, and want to return to their own country to try to find work. If we relax it for women, must we not relax it for men?

Viscountess ASTOR

After all, men do that sort of thing of their own free will, but a woman has automatically to become a citizen whether she likes it or not.

Miss HORSBRUGH

You cannot remedy one equality by creating another. Are we going to say that simply because a woman chooses to marry a citizen of the United States and goes to live in the United States, if she wants to come back and earn her living here, she is to have a shorter period and that the man should have a different period?

Captain CAZALET

I was referring to the case of married seamen. The seamen have disappeared and they cannot trace them, and my remarks applied particularly to them. I have no desire to give women privileges which men have not got to-day.

Miss HORSBRUGH

Before the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham came back into the House we had already dealt with the subject of seamen and desertion and had asked that amendments should be made in those cases. I would point out that as soon as we discuss this subject we are getting up against difficulties. If we are to have equality, it must be the same measure of equality all round. It is not an easy subject. Many hon. Members to-day would give the impression that a Bill on the lines they desire could have been brought in without difficulty. It might have been brought in but it would not have been passed without difficulty. I do not believe that the majority of people in this country are as yet in favour of it. I do not believe, in spite of the enormous women's organisations of which we have heard, that the majority of the women of this country are definitely in favour of it. The majority of the women here have not given it much consideration. The majority of the women of this country have not been awakened to the difficulties, and I believe that if the larger Measure was pressed forward at this time we should have in this House and in the country a great deal of opposition to it. I look forward to a greater measure of relief on this subject than we find in the present Bill.

The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) talked about what seemed to me almost a dictatorship by organisations outside this House. I do not want to see any dictator either inside or outside. I believe that every Member of this House has the right to vote and support what he or she feels is best. I have never pledged myself to any society on this subject. I have said both here and at Geneva that I am not fully satisfied with the Bill now before the House nor with the other Bill introduced.

Mr. L0GAN

The hon. Lady has become a very able politician.

Miss HORSBRUGH

I thank the hon. Member for his very flattering remarks. I have spoken to the deputations and given them my reasons for not considering the present Bill absolutely the Bill that I should have liked to have seen, and I have told them that I am not altogether pleased with the Bill presented on another occasion. This subject requires further consideration. We must ask for international discussion on it. Those people who have been watching the work of the League of Nations and supporting it are the people who, perhaps more than others, should press for- ward for more work at Geneva, at the Assembly, in regard to the matter. I shall be told what. was said in the Assembly in 1931. I have seen the resolutions in the Assembly of this year. There are resolutions which have been put down and passed at Geneva which show the ideals which the different nations are striving for, but cannot at present be widely supported. I say that if we were to press at once for the greater change which is suggested we should not get the co—operation of the different Governments.

Viscountess ASTOR

Does the hon. Lady expect for one moment that we shall get the co—operation of countries that have refused to give votes to women? Does she really think that we ought to wait for those countries?

Miss HORSBRUGH

I would remind the Noble Lady that to-day the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham quoted from the French law and told us that on many points he would like to see the same law here from the point of view of nationality. In France, as yet, there are not votes for women.

Viscountess ASTOR

Nor in Germany, nor in Spain.

Miss HORSBRUGH

It ought to be from the international point of view that our work should go on. I think the present Bill will get support and be amended to deal if possible with the hard cases which we know exist, but if we press forward as some hon. Members have asked us to do, there will arise many anomalies which they have not altogether for seen. The idea that the woman who marries a foreigner must be allowed if she desires to choose her nationality is not the ideal of all people in this country. If you make it out as an insult for a woman to be forced to take the nationality of the man she has married, why should it not be an insult for the woman who marries to be forced to take the name of the man? If we wish to get real equality we must make a great many changes. The idea that these things are an insult to women is net entertained by the majority of women in this country. I have been told that what we want is complete liberty on the part of the woman to choose the nationality she desires. At the present time women, when they get the chance, have complete liberty to accept which husband they want.

Viscountess ASTOR

Not always.

Miss HORSBRUGH

We have been told this afternoon that in many cases the woman does not like the nationality which she is forced to take. The woman may be British, and German nationality, French nationality or Italian nationality does not appeal to her. If the nationality is so abhorrent to her, why is not the man of that nationality also abhorrent to her? I have pointed out some of the difficulties which we should have to face if all the suggestions made by those who are opposing the present Bill were entertained. This Bill definitely makes a step in the direction which I think we all want to go. No speaker has said that it is useless, but each speaker has pointed out that there are good points in the Bill, although they are small. We are hoping to make amendments in order to make the Bill more useful, and I think that we should be helping the cause of the unfortunate people and, above all, that small number who are really suffering, by not voting against the Bill. If we do not pass the Bill those people will continue in real suffering and disability. For that reason, I would appeal to those who do not believe that we are going far enough. I agree with those who do not believe that this Bill has met the request of the organisations—it has not—but it is doing certain definite things, and if they are worth doing I think we should do them.

6.24 p.m.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL

The Minister in charge of the Bill has not received very enthusiastic support. Even the hon. Lady who has just spoken surprised me by the timidity she displayed on this occasion, a timidity which is not usually associated with her. She is very bold in expressing her opinions, and she surprised me because she was content for the present to move just one tiny step in a direction which I am sure is not quite clear. I wonder whether she is quite sure that this Bill is a step in the right direction. We can only decide that, if we are satisfied that she has in view the same goal that we have in view, and after hearing her I am not sure that she has the same goal in view as the other hon. Ladies who have spoken to-day and the ladies who form associations outside, for which, apparently, she has so much contempt.

Miss HORSBRUGH

I must ask the hon. Member not to say that I have any contempt for the organisations outside this House, because I have not. I have the greatest admiration for their work. I told them that I did not consider that this Bill was all that I wanted and that I did not think either that the fuller Measure introduced was satisfactory, but that did not mean that I have contempt for them. I have the greatest admiration for them.

Mr. GRENFELL

I withdraw the statement at once, but I would say that they are associations of which she is independent, and with which she does not want to be associated.

Miss HORSBRUGH

No.

Mr. GRENFELL

The hon. Lady dissented very strongly from the proposals of those associations and showed that she does not want to be associated in ideas with them. Therefore, I am not unfair to the hon. Member, and I am sure that she will recognise, after seeing her own words, the truth of what I am saying. She appears to think that this Bill is a step in the right direction and that when we have taken that step she will join with other people in consultation, which will take considerable time, before any further step is taken. She takes the view that when this step has been taken then, on a suitable occasion, she along with others will take the next step, and step by step she will come to the point to which she is prepared to go; but she showed very grave doubt whether a woman on marriage is entitled to retain independence of opinion.

Miss HORSBRUGH

I am quite sure that I never said that a woman on marriage should not retain independence of opinion.

Mr. GRENFELL

Well, independence of choice in regard to nationality. The hon. Lady appeared to think that a woman on marriage should surrender everything. If she did not mean that I do not know what she did mean. If she means that marriage is an institution in which the wife consents to be bound in everything with her husband and that marriage is an institution in which then husband retains his freedom of opinion and his freedom of nationality, while the woman surrenders everything, and she agrees with the hon. and learned Member for Moss side (Sir G Hurst), then I do not know where she stands. Perhaps she will speak in Committee and make the point clear.

The hon. and learned Member for Moss Side raised the point of principle and appealed to the House to be realists in this matter and not to rely upon sentiment and emotion. He said that he was a realist in the matter and was prepared to examine it on the basis of first principles. He submitted a number of tests of what he termed the principles underlying the Bill. I would ask why should the nationality of the woman be changed on marriage and not that of the man. Why should the woman surrender her nationality and the man retain his'? It is said that the woman has ample choice and need not to marry a. man whose nationality she does not like. When a woman marries a man she does not marry his nation. She swears to love, cherish and obey the man but not the Government of the man's country. If a woman falls in love with a German and marries him she does not thereby swear fealty to Hitler and his associates for all time sand to accept the form of Government and constitution of the country in which the man lives.

The vital principle in this question is equality between man and woman, and we have had no reply to that this afternoon. The hon. and learned Member for Moss Side may be a family man—I take the Noble Lady's word for it—a fully domesticated family man. He is not like the hon. Member below the Gangway who knows nothing about the problems of marriage and yet is a consistent champion of the cause of woman. His advocacy is based on an acknowledgment of the principle of equality between woman and man. He is so chivalrous that he has become the champion of all women and of their proper demands. If hon. Members of this House depart from that principle they, may well have doubts on this matter. If they believe woman to be the inferior in the institution of marriage and man to be the superior, then I understand them, but I must point out that there is no room for a superior Position if they believe in equality.

Miss H 0 RSB RUGH

May I remind the hon. Member that several times I said that I believed in equality, and although I pointed out that there may be certain difficulties which would appear, and certain inequalities, yet I never gave the House the impression that I did not believe in equality

Mr. GRENFELL

The hon. Lady has been exceptionally unfortunate this afternoon because she always expresses her self so clearly.

Sir G. HURST

May I also tell the hon. Member that I never suggested, or dared to suggest, that woman is inferior to man; never.

Mr. GRENFELL

The hon. and learned Member has been too well trained to say such a thing. Listening to all the speeches which have been made by hon. Members in all quarters of the House, they appeared to find no satisfaction in this Bill. I have found nothing in the Bill to praise. The hon. Lady has said that we have had to go outside the Bill to find any grounds for condemnation; she has spent most of her time this afternoon outside the Bill in order to find arguments to support it. The Bill does not give equality between women and men, and I must emphasise that the principle of equality is the vital consideration. Worse than that, it does not give equality as between one woman and another; it does not put all women on the same basis. One woman to-day might marry a man of one nationality and another woman a man of another nationality: in one case she is able to retain her British citizenship while the other woman would lose it.

This Bill does not give to these two women the same right to retain their British citizenship because of the difference in the laws of the country in which the husband resides. The Bill does not give equality between man and woman. A great work in the service of women has been done by women's associations up and down the country, and we should be proud of those women, whose names we could mention, who belong to these associations and who have carried on the propaganda work which has enabled the hon. Lady to come to this House, to our pleasure and satisfaction. This House has been enriched by the presence of women. But this Bill and some of the speeches that we have heard to-day are not complimentary to those who have fought for equal freedom for women under the franchise laws of this country. It leaves the main inequality untouched, and to my mind it is not complimentary to the women Members of this House to find a Minister of the Crown raising distinctions and trying to confine the freedom of women to standards which might be good enough for reactionary people 70 years ago, but which are utterly out of sympathy with the progressive women's movement of to-day.

The Bill, instead of being a small step forward, might be a step backward in the fight for equality for women. It is often said by those who are opposed to progress that half—a—loaf is better than no bread, but half a Bill may be worse than no Bill at all. If women want equality, economic, social, and industrial equality, and they are entitled to it, they must not take one little timid step forward and then stop to have committees and consultations to see whether they must go on. They must make bold demands, and I would suggest that we should reject this Bill because it is not bold enough and might be taken afterwards as an excuse for not doing anything more for the next 20 years. The problems connected with this question are familiar to everyone. I met a most remarkable case the other day of an English woman married to a German, long before the War, a fine type of English woman, now a mother and grandmother. She was going back to Germany to join her family. She was proud of her nationality.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS

What was her nationality?

Mr. GRENFELL

British.

Mr. WILLIAMS

She is a German.

Mr. GRENFELL

She is a British woman. She had four boys now all grown up, two desired to be known as Germans and two as Englishmen. All these boys are Germans. Their mother was legally a German, although she wished to retain her British citizenship and wanted to bring the two English boys back to this country. That woman was British and remained British, but by the laws of nationality she had been compelled to adopt German nationality. Her husband was dead and she was not able to resume her British citizenship, nor could she make her boys British. The problems connected with this problem are very intricate and involved, and if we decide to do nothing until they are solved we shall never do anything. If we base ourselves on the simple principle of equality as between man and woman, and give a woman on marriage and after marriage——

Miss HORSBRUGH

Is it equality to allow a woman to come back to her British nationality and not allow her sons to become British? You have not got equality there.

Mr. GRENFELL

A woman might marry an Englishman and he might find it convenient to change his nationality, and very often he does. He may become a German, or a Russian, by choice, and by the exercise of that choice he takes his wife with him.

Miss HO RSBRUGH

Not in this case.

Mr. GRENFELL

No, I know, but if that Englishman becomes a German or an American and wants to come back to his British nationality he can, and he brings his wife back again with him. The wife may be drawn backwards and forwards at the option of the husband. Why should not the wife have the option of remaining British? Why not confer that freedom of choice upon the woman?

Sir J. WITHERS

She has that option under the Bill.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

The hon. Member should look at Sub-section (4) of Clause 1.

Mr. GRENFELL

The point has been explained to the House this afternoon. The husband can change his nationality as often as he likes, and he takes his wife with him. We say that this is an abuse of the wife's freedom of choice and that she must have at least some measure of freedom, some choice in the matter. We want an English woman to remain English if she desires to do so. We think that the small step that is made by this Bill may be regarded as the only possible step to be made in the years to come, and we shall therefore vote against it. We believe that the fairness of this claim to equality will be borne in on the people of this country, and if the Bill is withdrawn a full measure of freedom and equality for the wife will eventually come before the British House of Commons.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) does not seem to have prepared his brief very carefully. He completely misunderstood what the hon. Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) said and also what the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Sir G. Hurst) said, and in his peroration he demonstrated completely that he had not even read Sub-section (4) of Clause 1. The whole of his peroration was based on the assumption that that Sub-section dial not exist; and on those grounds he asks the House to reject the Bill. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) and the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) have expressed a hope that the Bill will be amended in Committee. It is not my business to interpret this point, but if hon. Members will read the long Title of the Bill they will find that it is An Act to amend the law relating to the national status of married women so far as is necessary for giving effect to a Convention. In those circumstances you cannot introduce anything which is not in the Convention and, therefore, in my opinion all the talk to-day about amendments is beside the mark.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS

When the husband is dead the woman is no longer married, and two out of the three Amendments which I suggested dealt with the case of women no longer married and I suggested that in Sub—section (6) which deals with the resumption of nationality when she is no longer married, they might come under the Bill.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

With all great respect, the Title of the Bill, which defines the scope of the Bill, is to give effect to certain articles in The Hague Convention. The articles are set forth on the front of the document and anything which goes outside these articles will, I think, be ruled out of order. I regret very much the eloquence spent on the possibility and desirability of Amendments which the Chairman of Committees will have no option but to Rule out of order. I am not an authority in the matter; I can only express an opinion, but I think my opinion will be found to be the right one.

Viscountess ASTOR

The hon. Member is now giving an additional reason for voting against the Bill. If we reject this Bill we may get a Bill that will give equality.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

For the moment I am not dealing with the merits of the Bill. If the Noble Lady would remember that she has the right and privilege of all of us, that is to be able to speak and to listen, and if she would listen with greater care——

Viscountess ASTOR

To you?

Mr. WILLIAMS

Precisely. It would be to the Noble Lady's advantage if she did so. She would find that I was dealing with the question whether it was possible or not to amend the Bill, and that for the moment I was not discussing the merits of the Bill. My own view with regard to the Bill is that whatever is done in this matter there is bound to be a certain amount of injustice. It is like the Polish Corridor; there is no satisfactory solution. It is not true that there is any great mass of enthusiasm amongst the rank and file of the women of this country. They are not particularly interested in the Measure one way or the other. The bulk of the women's societies do not represent the mass of the women in this matter. They represent a few enthusiasts.

Viscountess ASTOR

The thinkers.

Mr. WILLIAMS

Not necessarily the thinkers, but those who make the most noise at certain times.

Viscountess ASTOR

Would the right hon. Gentleman tell me——

Mr. WILLIAMS

I am not right hon.

Viscountess ASTOR

You will be if you go on as you are going now. You are doing your bit all right.

Mr. SPEAKER

This is the House of Commons.

Viscountess ASTOR

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Does the hon. Member think that it is the thinking people who carry the country with them? The great mass of people do not think about anything.

It is the thinking people who make the programmes of the country. It is no good the hon. Member telling us that the great mass of people are not thinking about this. The thinking women who influence the women of the country are against the Bill and for absolute equality.

Mr. WILLIAMS

I do not know whether the Noble Lady assumes that her acquaintances are alone to be counted among thinking women. I have a great many acquaintances among women who think, and my observations lead me to the belief that during the process of thinking as a rule they are silent. There is a very large body of opinion that quite frankly thinks there is a, great deal to be said for the present law, on the ground that in actual practice 99 women out of 100 do in fact on marriage adopt the nationality of their husbands. That is true of the bulk of them on marriage, and the grievances which we have had pointed out to us are grievances which develop many years later, when they want to change the nationality that they adopted and cherished previously, and want to do it on terms much easier than those that are accorded to a man who has changed his nationality. That is the plain truth of the matter.

The great mass of people in this country do not sympathise with this agitation, though they have a great deal of sympathy with some of the women who are suffering under the existing law. But a, large proportion of these women are suffering because other countries have changed their laws—the United States for example. The United States does not extend to the wives of Americans the privileges that we accord. A great many of the cases with which I am familiar are cases which have been inflicted upon us by the great Republic. A good many have been inflicted on us by another Republic, Soviet Russia. There is not in this matter anything like the burning enthusiasm amongst ordinary persons that most of the speakers in this Debate imagine. I have no hesitation in saying what I think whether it is popular or unpopular. In this matter I believe I represent far more people than do most of those who have spoken with so much enthusiasm this afternoon. The Bill will create a certain number of new injustices while it will also cure a certain number of existing injustices. Whether on balance it will be good or bad I do not know. I think it is worth while experimenting. I am prepared to vote for the Bill, and still more because of the very poor and indifferent reasons which have been given for opposing it.

6.52 p.m.

The UNDER—SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Douglas Hacking)

I have very little to add to the explanation which the Home Secretary gave of the objects of the Bill and the reasons why it should be passed as soon as possible. Several points of detail have been raised in the Debate, and to these I had better reply first. With regard to remarks of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), it is not for me, as it was not for him, to anticipate the Chairman's Rulings, but one cannot help pointing out that the title of this Bill is— An Act to amend the law relating to the national status of married women so far as is necessary for giving effect to a Convention. It would appear that we cannot amend the law to bring in certain other questions of nationality which have been mentioned here to-day. What we have done in the Bill is to restate the existing law, and to amend it only so far as is necessary to give effect to the Hague Convention. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) in an excellent speech answered many of the criticisms which have been made against the Bill. There are a few points left over to which she did not reply. The hon. Member for the Gower Division (Mr. D. Grenfell) referred at the end of his speech to a case which he described as pathetic, the very sad case indeed of a woman of British origin who married a German. The man died and the widow could not regain British nationality. The hon. Member said there were four children, and he described the case as pathetic because the woman could not regain British nationality.

Mr. D. GRENFELL

She lived in Germany.

Mr. HACKING

There is no reason why she should not have regained British nationality. A certificate of naturalisation could be granted in such a case provided she was here without any conditions as to residence, for a fee of 5s. only, and if the children of that woman were under 21 they would be included in the certificate of naturalisation without any extra charge.

Mr. GRENFELL

They were over 21.

Mr. HACKING

Then, of course, they would have to be dealt with in the ordinary way. Another point mentioned by the hon. Member was this: He asked, when a husband changes nationality what happens to the wife? The answer is that every time a husband changes his nationality the wife, if of British origin, can regain her British nationalty. The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) asked why the Government were not prepared to accept the whole principle of equality. He answered that question himself by asking another. He said: Are we always to have to wait for the most backward nations? He asked: Are we never to take the initiative? The answer is that we have taken the initiative on more than one occasion. We took the initiative as recently as July, 1931, when we sent out to all the Dominions a memorandum recommending equality. We have had consultations as recently as last year, but up to now we have not succeeded in getting general agreement within the Empire.

Viscountess ASTOR

Could the House know which part of the Empire has been holding things up?

Mr. HACKING

No, the House cannot have that information. It would not be fair to those Dominions that have either accepted it or refused it. I cannot give that information. Another point made by the hon. Member for Limehouse was that the Bill abolished only very small disabilities; and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) said that this was only a trivial Measure. Other speakers said the same thing in different words. Really, is this a trivial Measure; is it really the wiping away of only small disabilities? Thousands of women will regain British nationality under the Bill. That is a very great deal. I prefer to agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Moss Side (Sir G. Hurst), who referred to the very great disadvantages of the present position. The Bill is opposed by women's organisations, we are told. Quite frankly I doubt that. It is true that they desire more and they expected more than is given in the Bill, but surely they would rather have this Bill than nothing at all. That appeared to be the view of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chippenham also. He asked whether the Bill would apply to those stateless women whose husbands possess Nansen passports. They will clearly remain British subjects. I was glad to hear my hon. and gallant Friend say that we should be grateful for small mercies.

Captain CAZALET

Will the Bill affect women who have already married husbands with Nansen passports, and not apply merely to the future?

Mr. HACKING

Oh, yes, certainly. The hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) said that this was a wholly inadequate and feeble little thing. My reply is to repeat what I have said about the many stateless people who will get advantage from the passing of the Bill into law. Surely they would rather have this Bill than nothing at all.

I was also asked: If a British subject goes to the United States of America taking his wife with him and becomes a naturalised citizen, will his wife be British? The answer is "Yes." It is said that there is no urgency in connection with this Bill and that there is no guarantee that other countries will ratify this Convention. It does not matter in the slightest whether they ratify this Convention or not; we intend to pass the Bill and abolish this hardship without any further delay, irrespective of what other countries may do. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) asked how long a woman would have to wait before re-acquisition of British nationality after her husband was dead or if the marriage has been dissolved. I have already answered that question, because a question of the same kind was put by the hon. Member who sits opposite me. The certificate of naturalisation can be granted without any conditions as to residence here for the fee of 5s. That is the existing law, contained in Section 2 (5) of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS

And is generally granted?

Mr. HACKING

Yes. Then my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers) asked me about the children. If the children are under 21, they will be in the same certificate without any extra cost. I should like for a few moments to turn to the actual Amendment which is on the Order Paper. The declaration of policy to which the hon. and gallant Member referred was made by Dame Edith Lyttelton at the first Committee of the Assembly of the League of Nations in September, 1931. He did not quote the statement which she made, and perhaps it would be just as well if the House heard the actual statement, because it is not one of which anybody need be ashamed: The United Kingdom Government considered it right that all the disabilities of married women in matters of nationality should he removed and that, as far as her nationality is concerned, the married woman should be in the same position as any man, married or unmarried, or any single woman. I am not considering at this moment the principle contained in that statement—not at all. I am not concerned now with the question whether the principle is right or whether it is wrong. I am not concerned with whether it is desirable or whether it is undesirable. What I am concerned with now is whether it is possible to give practical application, either international or Imperial, to such a principle of equality of treatment at the present time. What is the history of this matter?

Mr. D. GRENFELL

Does this Government repudiate the pledge given by the Labour Government in 1931?

Mr. HACKING

If this pledge had been given by the Labour Government in 1931 I might have been more likely to have disagreed, but it was not; it was given by the first National Government. I think it was made at the time the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) was Home Secretary.

Viscountess ASTOR

The National Government?

Mr. HACKING

The first National Government. I repeat: What is the history of this question? The Hague Convention had been concluded in 1930, but as it fell far short of the demands of the women's organisations these organisations had the whole question brought up before the League in September, 1931. It was on that occasion that the statement I have quoted was made, on the instructions of the then Government. It was hoped that a statement of that nature would encourage other countries, and particularly the Dominions, to adopt a similar policy. It was never contemplated that His Majesty's Government would introduce legislation of this kind unless agreement had previously been reached with the other Governments of the Empire. It is interesting to note the attitude of the Labour Government as explained by Mr. Clynes when he was Home Secretary in the House of Commons in 1930, when Dr. Bentham introduced a Private Members Bill to give this equality of treatment which is demanded by certain hon. Members in the House to-day. Mr. Clynes said: It is not unnatural that the advocates of the reform proposed in this Bill should feel considerable disappointment at the result of the Imperial Conference, and should urge His Majesty's Government to take independent action. I do not think that those who urge this course on the Government fully realise the grave consequences that would follow. That is a statement made by one of the leaders of the party who are now criticising us for taking exactly the same action.

Viscountess ASTOR

We are ashamed of that statement.

Mr. HACKING

Mr. Clynes said later in his speech: What happened at the Hague Conference and the recent Imperial Conference showed that it has not so far been found possible to reach agreement on the proposals embodied in this Bill. That was the Bill to which he was referring at the time, to give equality of treatment. It follows that for the Parliament of this country to pass this Bill into law in its present form, would he in effect to take independent action, causing a breach in the common status, a breach which, as has been repeatedly declared is not to he contemplated."[OFFICIAL REPORT. 1st. December, 1930; cols. 1734–5, Vol. 295.] Those words are true to-day. There has been no agreement. Independent action would cause a breach, as was stated by Mr. Clynes, which is not to be contemplated. That is the answer to the question that was asked. me by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. In 1932 we informed the League that His Majesty's Government were prepared to ratify the Hague Convention but that, whether they could go further—these were the exact words that were used— in the direction of giving effect to the principle of equality between men and women must depend upon the extent to which that principle receives the support of the Governments of other countries, and especially those of the other members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. Our intention was nude perfectly clear as recently as 1932. At the League Assembly in that year, as a result of prolonged discussion, the Government were advised to ratify the Hague Convention as being the utmost upon which international agreement could then be obtained and as not preventing full acceptance of the women's demands if at any later time agreement could be reached on them. It is perhaps worth while to quote the wording of the Draft Resolution which was afterwards adopted by the Assembly of the League of Nations in 1932. It first considered certain matters: it notes certain opinions, it recognises certain facts, and then it expresses satisfaction that the coming into force of Articles 8 to 11, the Articles with which we are now dealing, would in no way prejudice further concerted international action when such action became practicable. Then, finally, this Resolution expresses the hope that the States which have already signed the Hague Nationality Convention will introduce such legislation as may be necessary to give effect thereto and will deposit their ratification at an early date. We are giving a practical application to that expression of hope by introducing this Bill. The whole crux of this matter is that we are not prepared to do anything which will make a breach in the unity of nationality law throughout the Empire and, at present, agreement to give effect to the women's demands cannot be obtained within the Empire. As I have said, we on this side of the House have riot come to that conclusion alone; that conclusion was shared by the Labour Government when it was in office on the last occasion.

Mr. KNIGHT

The right hon. Gentleman may not have been present, but when I made some observations I asked him to give us some of the grounds of opposition. With great respect to him and the Government, I suggest that when the Government ask us to pass legislation and inform us that certain other legislation cannot be passed because certain Dominion Governments do not agree, that may be good grounds, but we are entitled to be told what are the grounds of disagreement.

Mr. HACKING

Our grounds for not conceding anything further in this particular Bill before the House of Commons are, as I have already told the hon. and learned Member, that we are not prepared to do anything which would make a breach in the unity of nationality law throughout the Empire, and that opinion of ours has been shared by Governments in the past. A general answer to the Amendment which has been moved is that in my opinion it confuses two things. The present Bill is in no sense an alternative to the demands of the women's organisations, but the fact that the Government for inter—Imperial reasons is unable at present to give effect to the demands which are made by those organisations is surely no reason why it should refrain from doing something else which will admittedly remedy a hardship, which it is pledged internationally to do, and which the Dominions and ourselves have agreed at an Imperial Conference should be done—moreover, something which Canada has already done.

I am conscious that it must be a great disappointment to many that the Government, are not in a position to deal with the major question of equality between the sexes in the matter of nationality, but I would ask those who urge the claims of women to he treated in the same manner as men to be content for the moment with the very good opportunity that they have had of stating their views not only here but also in places outside this House. They obviously feel a keen regret, which has been expressed to-day in the House of Commons, that the issue which they have so much at heart cannot be brought before the House for decision to-day. They must, however, rest assured that the issue is being in no way prejudiced by this Bill, and I hope that they will accept from me the repeated assurance that the whole issue has received the fullest consideration not only by the League of Nations but also by the Governments of the British Commonwealth in consultation. There are occasions on which it is right to postpone the achievement of some minor object until a greater object can be secured, but I am satisfied that it would not be right to treat the present Bill in this manner.

The grievance of those who have become stateless by reason of their marriage is no light one. It is a grievance which is widespread; it affects women of very many nations. Now that agreement has been obtained internationally to remove this grievance by a method which can be adopted without difficulty by all the countries concerned, I cannot see how we would be justified in withholding a remedy from those state. less persons who have been anxiously awaiting it. The House would, in my opinion, incur a serious responsibility if it denied this remedy any longer. A delay of three years has already occurred since the Hague Convention was signed. That delay was interposed solely for the purpose of enabling further consideration to be given to the views of the advocates of the principle of equality. Now that it has become clear beyond all question that the Hague Convention represents the maximum of possible agreement at the present time, both in the Empire and throughout the world, further delay would be obviously unjustifiable.

I would like the House to consider for a moment the difficulties to which persons are exposed who are in the unfortunate position of possessing no nationality. For a woman to have no national status, either in her country of origin or in her husband's country, is surely a serious disability. Passports cannot be obtained; travelling presents difficulties, uncertainties and embarrassments. Even residence, either in her husband's country or her own, is not a matter of right but only a matter of grace. I also stress the fact that the Dominion which has the greatest number of women who have been rendered stateless by marrying aliens

found the problem so pressing that they were constrained to legislation in advance of the other members of the Commonwealth to deal with it. They took that action in the full expectation that their example would be followed throughout the Commonwealth. Their example is being followed here.

Uniformity of British nationality law ought to be speedily restored. If the House were to reject the Bill it is obvious that serious difficulties would soon arise, if only from the fact that the same person could be a British subject in one part of the Commonwealth and not in another part of the Empire. The removal of the hardship dealt with in this Bill can be effected without requiring any country to commit itself either to the principle of equality or to principle whereby the nationality of the wife must always follow that of the husband. Whichever view we may hold, we are in no way committed by accepting the provisions of the Bill.

While I fully understand and sympathise with the view of those who regret that it has not been possible to fight out the major issue here and now, I hope that it will be realised in the House and outside that the reform to which the House is now asked to give its assent is one which ought to be brought into operation at once. I repeat that it does not stand in the way of the object which the women's organisations have so enthusiastically championed at Geneva and elsewhere. They will, no doubt, possibly under the leadership of the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), continue their efforts, but I ask them not to think that they are being discouraged by the passage of this Bill.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 179; Noes, 43.

Division No. 299.]	AYES.	[7.20 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.	Braithwaite, MaJ. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)	Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Agnew, Lieut. Com. P. G.	Beit, Sir Alfred L.	Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Albery, Irving James	Blaker, Sir Reginald	Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Allen, Lt. Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)	Bllndell, James	Burnett, John George
Anstruther Gray, W. J.	Borodale, Viscount	Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Aske, Sir Robert William	Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton	Castlereagh, Viscount
Atholl, Duchess of	Boyd Carpenter, Sir Archibald	Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (ChTppenham)
Bailey, Erie Alfred George	Bracken, Brendan	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)	Hurst, Sir Gerald B.	Rankin, Robert
Clarry, Reginald George	Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)	Ray, Sir William
Clayton, Sir Christopher	Ker, J. Campbell	Ross, Ronald D.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Kerr, Hamilton W.	Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.	Lambert, Rt. Hon. George	Runge, Norah Cecil
Cook, Thomas A.	Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Cooke, Douglas	Lees-Jones, John	Russell,Hamer Field (Sheffield.B'tside)
Cranborne, Viscount	Lennox-Boyd, A. T.	Russell, R. J. (Eddlsbury)
Crooke, J. Smedley	Lewis, Oswald	Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)	Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)	Salt, Edward W.
Croom-Johnson, H. P.	Lindsay, Noel Ker	Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Crossley, A. C.	Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest	Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard	Llewellin, Major John J.	Savery, Samuel Servington
Culverwell, Cyril Tom	Lloyd, Geoffrey	Shakespeare. Geoffrey H.
Curry, A. C.	Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)	Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwcil)
Davies, MaJ. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)	Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.	Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Lyons, Abraham Montagu	Skelton, Archibald Noel
Dickie, John P.	Mabane, William	Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Doran, Edward	MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C.G.(Partick)	Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Edmondson, Major A. J.	MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)	Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Elmley, Viscount	MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)	Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.	Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)	Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.	McKie, John Hamilton	Spens, William Patrick
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard	McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)	Stevenson, James
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)	Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest	Stewart, J. H. (Fife. E.)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.	Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot	Stourton, Hon. John J.
Fermoy, Lord	Margesson. Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.	Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst	Martin, Thomas B.	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Fox, Sir Gifford	Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)	Sutcliffe, Harold
Ganzoni, Sir John	Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John	Templeton, William P.
Glossop, C. W. H.	Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)	Thompson, Luke
Goodman. Colonel Albert W.	Morrison, William Shepherd	Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas	Moss, Captain H. J.	Thorp, Linton Theodore
Grimston, R. V.	Munro, Patrick	Titchfleld. Major the Marquess of
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.	Nail, Sir Joseph	Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.	Nail-Cain, Hon. Ronald	Train. John
Guy, J. C. Morrison	Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.	Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Hacking. Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)	Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Hamilton, Sir George (lltord)	Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid	Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)	Nunn, William	Warranter, Sir Victor A. G.
Hartland, George A.	O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh	Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.	Palmer, Francis Noel	Whyte, Jardine Bell
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)	Pearson, William G.	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Hills. Major Rt. Hon. John Waller	Peat, Charles U.	Williams. Herbert G. (Croydon. S.)
Holdsworth, Herbert	Petherick, M.	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)	Peto, Geoffrey K (W'verh'pt'n, Bllston)	Withers, Sir John James
Hore-Belisha, Leslie	Pike, Cecil F.	Womersley, Walter James
Hornby, Frank	Powell, Lleut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.	Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)
Horsbrugh, Florence	Procter, Major Henry Adam
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)	Pybus, Percy John	TELLER FOR THE AYES.—
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)	Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)	Sir George Penny and Dr.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)	Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)	Morris-Jones.
NOES.
Attlee, Clement Richard	Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	McGovern, John
Banfield, John William	Grentell, David Rees (Glamorgan)	Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Bevan. Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)	Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Maxton, James
Briant, Frank	Grundy, Thomas W.	Parkinson, John Allen
Buchanan. George	Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)	Price, Gabriel
Cape, Thomas	Harris, Sir Percy	Rathbone, Eleanor
Cove, William G.	HIcks, Ernest George	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Hirst, George Henry	Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Daggar, George	Jenkins, Sir William	Tinker, John Joseph
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Dobbie, William	Leonard, William	Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Edwards. Charles	Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick	Wllmot, John Charles
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)	Logan, David Gilbert
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)	McEntee, Valentine L.	TELLER FOR THE NOES.—
		Mr. Groves and Mr. G Macdonald.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, land agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. Hacking.]