BRITISH NATIONALITY BILL [Lords]

HC Deb 13 July 1948 vol 453 cc1052-119

Again considered in Committee.

Amendment proposed: In page 1 line 7, leave out "British subject" and insert "citizen."—[Mr. Ede.]

Question again proposed, "That the words 'British subject' stand part of the Clause."

Mr. Chamberlain

I was just calling attention to certain characteristics on the expression "citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies," which I think is a rather regrettable one. It has been pointed out, and quite rightly, that it is really a residual expression. After the other parts of the Commonwealth have been dealt with, these two have to be linked together because there is nothing else that can be done about it. It is extremely artificial, and I and many others know the Colonies intimately enough to know that the idea of citizenship means little or nothing to them, whereas the idea of "British subject" means a lot, indeed practically everything. The proposed expression is a very heterogeneous and artificial expression, and indeed rather an unfortunate one because if there is one thing which those who live in the Colonies want to avoid, it is any suggestion of a tie-up with Whitehall or Downing Street. They may exaggerate the danger and difficulties of such a thing but it is very real.

5.45 p.m.

I was speaking the other day to the Secretary of the Nigerian Trade Union Congress and he expressed that view very forcibly—"A link a connection, yes, but a tie-up, no." It seems to me that there is far too much of a tie-up in this Bill. Furthermore, the very term "Colonies" will be out-of-date before very long, in my view. Already those who live in the Colonies object to being called Colonials. It is regrettable that in this Bill we are perpetuating an expression which will, I think, within five or ten years be out-of-date and in many ways will be anathema to those who live in the Colonies.

I feel very strongly that the attitude which should have been adopted in this matter is that this old country should have kept the door wide open all the time for British subjects from the whole Commonwealth. I do not believe it is necessary to have the two-tier system in this country. I do not believe that the Dominions are more or less forcing our hand in this direction. I should have liked to see in this Bill the situation that any member of the Commonwealth became a recognised British subject immediately he set foot in this country.

By these arrangements in the Bill there will now be a situation that if someone comes from the West Indies or Nigeria he is a recognised citizen of this country immediately, but if someone comes from Australia or Canada it is not so. He has to serve a probationary 12 months before he can become a citizen of the United Kingdom. That is all wrong. The Attorney-General says that is not so but I think he is quite wrong. There is no doubt at all. It is clear, and I invite him to contradict my statement, that someone coming from Nigeria is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies directly he sets foot in this country, and he is recognised as such immediately, but that some one coming from Australia is not recognised in that way. He is on a lower plane, and much though we esteem and value our friends in the Colonies, we surely do not want to put them on a different and higher plane in this matter to our brothers and sisters in the Dominions.

Similarly, I put it to the Attorney-General that if a British citizen marries a Maltese wife she is immediately a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and is recognised as such. If, on the other hand, he marries an Australian that is not so, she has got to apply to be registered as such. In each case he brings his wife into this country, but the Maltese wife is in a preferential position compared with the Australian wife. I invite the Attorney-General to deny that. If that is the case, both being estimable people, why put one on a different level from the other?

Those are the points I wanted to put. I do not see any reason for forcing upon us in this country the two-tier system. Surely the status of British citizen in the old Mother Country, with the door wide open for every one in the Commonwealth, should be enough. If the Dominions want to put an additional gateway, an additional condition, we do not quarrel with that. But we do quarrel with the idea that they should seek or even be said to force such a two-tier system or such an additional gateway upon this country.

Mr. Pickthorn (Cambridge University)

I am in a little difficulty because we have heard so much about status today. In considering that you and I, Major Milner, are equal in status, because your superiority is of course wholly sessile, I am left almost wondering whether we ought not to start addressing the occupant of the Chair, whoever it may be, as "Citizen." It is perfectly certain, I think, that where there is excessive concern about status, freedom is almost always in danger. I do not always know exactly what status means. We know what a Minister with Cabinet status means. It means a Minister they will not have in the Cabinet, but who is paid as if they would. All the excessive emphasis upon identity or equality of status is really likely to land us in more harm than good.

I should like to begin if I may—I shall not in all be long—by asking the Attorney-General because he has been if I may say so without impertinence or sycophancy extremely determined in sitting through us all, and in case there might arise a moment soon when refreshment becomes indispensable, I begin therefore with a couple of specific points addressed rather to him, and hope I may be allowed to be a little more general later. One of my specific points is this. Suppose when this is in operation that His Majesty's Government in South Africa disfranchises any class, say, Indians—I do not mean merely disfranchises them from voting for Parliament but disfranchises them in the Roman law sense, declares them not to be citizens—and suppose they then come, or even without needing to suppose that, they come, to this country, do they or do they not thereupon, upon South African disfranchisement, become citizens of the United-Kingdom-and-Colonies? I think they do.

The Attorney-General

indicated assent.

Mr. Pickthorn

I cannot believe that was in contemplation. If it was in contemplation, I think it should have been explained to us on Second Reading that we are now putting it in the power of a Dominion by legislating any large class of its inhabitants out of its citizenship to put them, so to speak, without our consent into our citizenship. That seems a very odd result of excessive pursuit of equality of, status, and I think that there ought to be some explanation of it and probably some change in this Bill. I am bound to say that if the Attorney-General now tells us, as he just has, by physical indications if not by articulate speech, that that was understood all along, it was part of the duty of the Treasury bench to explain it on Second Reading.

My second specific point to the Treasury bench is upon the point about discrimination. We have been told more than once from the Treasury bench that erecting what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) called "machinery for discrimination" was not in any contemplation of any actual discrimination. I think that is fair, that we have been told that by both the right hon. Gentlemen in charge of the Bill more than once. But I really do not understand how they reconcile that with Clause 5 and with the provision for Dominion citizens to acquire the citizenship of the United-Kingdom-and-Colonies, invisibly hyphened. If there is nothing here to acquire, if there is to be no sort of discrimination, what is there in that citizenship to acquire for which we have to provide the machinery? I think it quite plain that there must be in contemplation—I do not mean in definite and positive intention as for legislation in the next Session or something of that kind—but there must be in contemplation discrimination, and that the machinery of discrimination, therefore, is not merely machinery in vacuo.

I want to say something a little more general about the language which is the exact topic of our discussion here. I am sorry that the hon. Member for North West Hull (Mr. R. Mackay) is not in his place. I think I understood his speech. His speech, if I could boil it down fairly, amounted to saying that the word "British" must not be used for people overseas because there were an awful lot of people overseas who did not like it, and, on the other hand, neither must it be used for us because there were an awful lot of people overseas—I think, the same people; at any rate, over-lapping classes of people—who liked it too much to be willing to see us using it. I think that is not at all a parody of his argument. I found it quite impossible to follow that or to see how it was compatible with this country and this House preserving any kind of control of its own destinies. Of course, if there are to be five, six, 10—I think about—different States all under the same allegiance, all with legislatures more or less omnicompetent, it is perfectly plain that the only chance for the maintenance of any reality connecting those States together as distinct from the rest of the world, any chance of that happening must depend upon their all treating each other with consideration and endeavouring to be in step with each other. That is quite plain, but it is also plain that that must be done from all sides. It must be done from more than one point of view at a time.

I still do not understand what we have been told about consultation—the Prime Ministers' Conference, the conference at the official level, and all that. I still do not understand how all that is really compatible with any kind of nation of democracy.

Mr. J. Foster

My hon. Friend said "nation." Surely, he means "notion" of democracy?

Mr. Pickthorn

Did I say that? I am sorry, I meant "notion of democracy." We here represent directly some 50 million people and indirectly in the Colonies provided for in Clause 1 of the Bill—I forget how many more—it may be another 30 million or 40 million. At any rate, the population represented directly or indirectly by this Parliament is much greater than the population represented by the Canadian or the New Zealand or any other Dominion Government. Therefore, if there were to be any kind of democracy in what we are now doing, it was, therefore, necessary that Members of this House and of another place and those whom we represent should have been fully seized of what was intended and desired, what was possible and impossible, in time for discussion, and in time for influence to be brought by those who might then have discussed it and made up their minds.

But that is not in the least what has happened. What has happened has been that there has been a Prime Ministers' Conference. I have forgotten the date of that. [An HON. MEMBER: "It was in 1946."] In 1946, was it? Then there was an official conference, and then the Canadian Parliament legislated. And now we are told that we must legislate in the same way as the Canadian Parliament, and this afternoon we were told that the Prime Minister of Australia, knowing presumably that the Bill was past its Second Reading—I do not say he would not have spoken if he had not known— has said that they intend to legislate in the same way.

At what point then could it possibly have been—since the argument has been put before us that we must take this Bill with little or no Amendment because of relations with the Dominions—that is what has been put before us—at what point of time were we ever at which any British citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies could by any means affect this legislation? There never was any such point of time—never. That is a very odd effect of the extreme democratic theories of hon. Gentlemen opposite—a very odd effect indeed—and I think it has the effect of making us see that this Clause, which is the operative Clause of the Bill, and particularly these words here, which in themselves are not perhaps very operative but which go to the whole root of the nature of the way we are approaching the matter, form reason in itself enough why the Government should not be given this Amendment.

Then I think there are other reasons too. I do not apologise for being to some extent rather vague in what I am going to say next. [Interruption.] No, I do not think so. I think that was no doubt intended to be an unfriendly piece of facetiousness. What I have said so far has had no doubt all sorts of faults but I do not think it has been vague; but if there is any dubiety on the Treasury Bench, I will be willing to give way to have it put to me to make clear. In what I now approach there must necessarily be a certain amount of vagueness because these matters are very largely matters of ambiguous words and very largely indeed matters of feelings about words.

The main matter which we are now debating under the guidance from the Chair is not strictly the matter of the first Amendment but the main matter is really the choice between the notion of allegiance and subjecthood on the one side and citizenship and legislation on the other, as the root of loyalty. I think that is what the whole Debate has been about all this afternoon and I think it cannot be denied that the Government's Amendment is intended to strengthen the citizenship and legislation view of what makes full membership—rights and duties; to strengthen that view, as against the view of allegiance and subjecthood and tradition as being the roots that matter.

6.0 p.m.

Therefore, I would ask the right hon. Gentlemen opposite to consider—I tried to put this in a different way on the Second Reading—I would ask them to bear with a quotation from Latin, and I will give them a probably incorrect translation afterwards—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am thinking more of my own bad qualities than of any want of learning there may be on the Treasury Bench. This is the phrase: Jam non consilio bonus, sed more eo perductus, ut non tantum recte facere possim, sed nisi recte facere non possim. [An HON. MEMBER: "Jolly good speech."] I do not know where it comes from, but this is roughly what it means—and I beg hon. Gentlemen opposite, although I know that Latin is now always regarded as slightly funny—when I was a history lecturer if one mentioned the word "beer" one always got a hearty laugh—I beg them to see the serious point there is in this. The words mean something like this: Good not by dint of thinking it out, but led thereto by habit, so that not only I can do the right thing but, unless rightly, I cannot act at all. That is, I think, peculiarly applicable to a man's relation with the State to which he owes allegiance. The essence of any hope of keeping the thing straight is that people should act rightly in relation to their country because their habit of mind—and the habit of mind of everybody they respect—all the books they have been taught from, all the people they have been brought up among—is such that other ways of behaving towards their country do not occur to them.

I believe that if you once let go of that and, most especially, if you let go of that in this kind of multi-national looseness which we call the Commonwealth, I believe that if you let go of that, you will never get hold of it again; and, apart from all the technique of this highly technical Clause, it is beyond dispute that what the Government are asking today is, as I said just now, to let go of the traditional matter-of-course notion of allegiance and strengthen the notion of citizenship as a matter of legislation and of separate identifiable consent from generation to generation.

I believe that those are reasons why this Amendment should be resisted, and I am glad to know that we shall have at least two with us from the other side of the Committee, the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Chamberlain) has made it plain that he is on our side. Though I was not quite clear why, I am all for it—

Mr. R. Chamberlain

rose—

Mr. Pickthorn

Do not tell me why again. All I want to know is that the hon. Member is on our side. I will give way in a second. Also the hon. and learned Gentleman from North Aberdeen (Mr. Hector Hughes)—

Mr. Hector Hughes

No, I am not on your side.

Mr. Pickthorn

That surprises me very much because the hon. and learned Gentleman from Aberdeen—he is learned and he has read the Clause, all the Clause I have no doubt—went out of his way to interrupt an hon. and learned Friend of mine—

Mr. Hughes

To show how wrong he was in his argument.

Mr. Pickthorn

Exactly. In order to explain that one could not have such a thing as a British subject of New Zealand. Under this Bill one has to have a British subject, or be capable of having under this Clause, a British subject of all sorts of places. Those are at least two hon. Members we shall have in the Lobby with us tonight.

Dr. Morgan (Rochdale)

I hope the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his rather peculiar, confused crinkum-crankum, as they used to call it in the old days. It is a sort of decorative eloquence which really means nothing. It sounds rather learned, as if the hon. Member were addressing a history class at Cambridge, but it is really hermaphroditic—neither one thing nor the other.

In the five minutes during which I have promised to speak, I wish to raise again the question of the Colonies and Colonial subjects with regard to this Bill. I have already asked it, in an interruption to the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) last time, and I ask it again. This is a very intricate Bill dealing with a very intricate subject. The Dominions have a perfect right to settle the status of their own citizens and inhabitants. Great Britain has a certain rule of citizenship in this country and we have a right to maintain it. I agree with the hon. Member for North-West Hull (Mr. R. Mackay) that there must be changes, as the world has a new orientation, to give the Dominions the right to decide things and make civic laws for themselves.

I again point out the fact that the British Commonwealth, consisting of its Colonial Empire, has a series of intricate problems dealing with the Colonies. Ceylon is a Dominion. Jamaica, much bigger, is self-governed but is not a Dominion. Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa have a right, as Dominions, to bar certain British subjects from entering into those Dominions. That is not depriving them of their British citizenship; they still have that right. If they have that right, under this Bill the reverse does not happen. Supposing Ceylon and Jamaica were federated, they would not have the right to bar South Africans or Canadians or anyone from the other Dominions from entering their Colonies. The hon. Gentleman talked about disfranchising citizens, but we do that constantly in our Colonies; there are British subjects of the King in our Colonies who have never had the vote. Disfranchising the citizen does not necessarily mean that he does not still retain his rights as a British citizen.

I ask the Attorney-General to explain again the position of the British colonial subject vis-à-vis his freedom and his right as a British citizen, having regard to this Bill and the right of the Dominions to settle their civic status. For instance, will a colonial from the West Indies—federated or not, with self-government or just an ordinary Colony—still have the right of travelling to say, South Africa, and asking for the right of British citizenship there, whether it is given in two tiers or one tier—I see some right hon. Members and hon. Members on the Front Bench are laughing. It may seem very funny. They are probably new in a political career, but I have been long enough in politics not to laugh at a serious topic because, if we affect colonial subjecthood now, there may be riots and burnings and incendiarism in those Colonies, to our detriment. I ask right hon. Members and hon. Members on the Front Bench not to laugh at problems of this kind, which are very serious from the point of view of the Government and of citizenship in the Colonies, and I ask the Attorney-General to devote at least a few minutes to elucidating that point.

Mr. Emrys Roberts (Merioneth)

This discussion has travelled far since the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) sought to argue, as I think he did, that this Amendment would destroy the historical basis of British nationality, the conception of allegiance. It is easy enough to make certain criticisms of this Amendment and to say that the description "citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies" is a clumsy phrase; that it is a pity that Members of Parliament did not have an earlier opportunity of knowing that discussions were going on between representatives of the Dominions; and that the terminology has become confused by reason of the fact that the genus is now to be known either as a "British subject" or as a "Commonwealth citizen." It is easy enough to make those criticisms. There are certain things in common, however, between all Members of the Committee: first, that the House can only bind the United Kingdom and the Colonies. We all accept that we have no jurisdiction over or any legislative competence within any of the Commonwealth countries. The second thing in common is the desirability, so far as is possible, of preserving a common status or a common nationality for the members of every Commonwealth country, including the United Kingdom and her Colonies. I think those things are in common.

What has been missing from the Opposition's criticism is any practical suggestion of how to carry out the idea of a common designation or a common conception for the Commonwealth as a whole, except by the method proposed by the Bill. It is not true to say that, if we designate members of the United Kingdom and Colonies as "citizens "rather than as" British subjects," we shall thereby destroy the conception of allegiance to the Crown. That allegiance still remains, and persons who become "citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies"—for example, by naturalisation—still have to take the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown. Once Canada had passed her Canadian Citizenship Act prescribing a separate Canadian citizenship, I think that any Government in the United Kingdom was forced to face that fact. We were forced, not to adopt any conception of "United Kingdom citizenship," but to recognise the problem that henceforward different Dominions would legislate and develop their own independent ideas of citizenship; and that, if we did nothing about it, if we preserved the designation "British subject" for this United Kingdom alone, the danger, was that, in course of time, that designation would be lost altogether as a designation for all the members of the Commonwealth. That is the real fallacy of the Opposition's argument.

By keeping in the Bill the designation for members of the United Kingdom and Colonies, by retaining the designation "British subjects of the United Kingdom and Colonies," we thereby make it more improbable that the various Commonwealth countries will regard their citizens as British subjects. There is grave danger in driving the conception of "British subject" to embrace merely the people of this island and the Colonies. We are far more likely to get the whole of the Commonwealth marching in step if we say we will call members of each individual self-governing community "citizens;" and if, being partners, being great States with trust and confidence in one another, we then say, "In the case of every member of the Commonwealth that calls its people 'citizens' we will admit all those people to the common conception of 'British subject.'" Whether by accident or by design, there is a great conception behind this Bill, a conception which can contribute a great deal to the development of the ideal of the British Commonwealth. My colleagues and I, therefore, will support the Government.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. John Foster (Northwich)

The issue on this Amendment is whether we should introduce what the hon. Member for North-West Hull (Mr. R. Mackay) has called a two-tier system or a one-tier system. In other words, the Bill as it stands says that the United Kingdom and the Colonies should merely have the description "British subject," and the Government Amendment seeks to introduce two classes, one of a "United Kingdom and Colonies citizen" and then, on top of that, the "British subject." First, I should like to question the proposition of the hon. Member for North-West Hull that there is a strong desire in the Dominions that we should adopt a two-tier system although it does not make any difference to us. I think that by implication he admitted there was no difference between a "British subject" and a "United Kingdom and Colonies citizen," because he did not meet the point of the questions from this side as to what the difference was.

Mr. R. Mackay

May I interrupt the hon. Member to make the matter clear. The difference is that "British" covers the whole Commonwealth—some 50 million of this island, some 60 million in the Colonies and some 300 or 400 million within the Dominions. The term "British subject" covers them all, but the term "United Kingdom and Colonies citizen" applies only to the 60 million colonial people and the 50 million of this island. The term "Canadian citizen" applies only to the 12 million of Canada, so that the term "citizen" is limited geographically to the individual countries, whereas the term "British subject" now will apply to the whole amalgamation of all parts of the Commonwealth and Colonies.

Mr. Foster

I understand that, but I still do not think the hon. Member has explained why the 60 million people in the Colonies, who are British subjects anyway, must divide themselves into two classes. I think he recalled the argument of the Home Secretary that in doing so we should be interfering with the Dominions.

Let us consider for a moment the classes of persons who will become "United Kingdom and Colonies citizens" on the passing of the Act, which I think will show that, by accepting the Amendment, we shall be interfering with the Dominions. It is not generally realised that, if the Bill is passed as amended, "United Kingdom and Colonies citizens" will consist, first, of people born in the United Kingdom and Colonies; secondly, the sons or daughters of fathers possessing that qualification. It will consist also of persons born in territories annexed to the United Kingdom and Colonies. But, "United Kingdom and Colonies citizen" will comprise also people in the Dominions such as—hypothetically—Indians who are not admitted to South African citizenship and who are not citizens of India. It will also admit, as United Kingdom and Colonies citizens, without any application on their part, married women in, let us say, Australia or Canada who, because of the law of citizenship passed in that country, are not admitted to Canadian or Australian citizenship.

The Attorney-General

The hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) referred, although he did not make it clear to the Committee, to persons who already enjoy the privilege of being British subjects and, as subjects, British citizens. He has not made it clear that these are transitional provisions designed to ensure that nobody who is a British subject today, is deprived of that status by this Bill.

Mr. Foster

I agree with that object. Obviously, nobody who is now a British subject should be deprived of that right. But why does the Bill get into the difficulty of interfering in the South African Dominion and saying—this is purely hypothetical—"Although your Citizenship Bill deprives the Indians in South Africa of South African status and, therefore, according to your law, of British subjecthood, we are interfering and saying you cannot do that." That is a clash which the Government need never have encountered. If they left the Indians in South Africa and the peoples in the United Kingdom as British subjects, none of their troubles would arise.

True, it is transitional, but the hon. Member for North-West Hull described it as superior, as setting ourselves apart. Well, I ask him: is it not setting ourselves apart to pick out people in the Dominions to remain British subjects against the wording of their citizenship law? Suppose the situation is reversed, and suppose the Dominion of Australia in its citizenship law said, "We do not approve of the provision by which an alien who marries a British subject does not become a British subject so we, Australia, say that any alien who marries a British subject in any part of the other Dominions shall be a citizen of Australia." We find that, although now a German woman who marries a citizen of the United Kingdom would not, on that hypothesis, become a citizen of the United Kingdom by marriage, and would not, therefore, become a British subject through United Kingdom citizen- ship, she would, because of the Australian citizenship law, be a citizen of Australia. Now, in reverse, that is all we are doing in this Bill, and it seems to me that the very inference about which the Home Secretary is complaining—an inference with whose object I agree—is achieved by this Bill.

The Attorney-General said that the Government do not want anybody who is a British subject now to lose his subject-hood. I agree with that. But because the only way of obtaining British subject-hood after this Bill is passed as amended will be through citizenship, those people who lose their citizenship in the Dominions will have to be made artificially United Kingdom citizens, so that they may preserve their subjecthood. That is contained in Clauses 11 and 12. That seems to me very artificial, and, in effect, wrong from a Commonwealth point of view, because by doing that, we are interfering in the affairs of the Dominions. We are, in effect, saying, "Although you are quite independent, and can disfranchise your Indians in South Africa and remove their subjecthood, we do not approve of it." That is not the way to do it, and it only raises all those problems which hon. Gentlemen opposite have anticipated as clearly pulling the Commonwealth apart.

As we want to be the country which saves these people's British subjecthood, we should save them by letting them remain British subjects, and not by having two classes in this country; then the disfranchised Indians in South Africa remain British subjects by our law, we are British subjects here, and we do not have to make them artificially citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

Mr. Emrys Roberts

Surely, the hon. Gentleman is confusing the whole issue. This Amendment is not to substitute the term "citizen" for "British subject," but to leave out "British subject" of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Surely, his argument is beside the point.

Mr. Foster

I think, with respect, that the hon. Member is wrong. The object of this Amendment is to leave out "British subject" and to insert "citizen."

Mr. Emrys Roberts

Will the hon. Member look in the Bill at the words immediately folowing "British subject"?—"of the United Kingdom and Colonies."

Mr. Foster

But if the word "subject" is altered it makes it "citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies," and what I am complaining about—I think the issue has been joined on this, and I notice the hon. Member for North-West Hull nodding his head—is that the object of this Amendment is to create a special class of "citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies." Until now, as the Bill stands the 60 million people in the United Kingdom and Colonies will stay British subjects, and will not be "citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies." By this argument I was trying to meet the views expressed by hon. Members opposite, that not to accept this Amendment would be to interfere with the Dominions.

There is one other respect in which I should have thought that the artificial creation of "United Kingdom and Colonies citizens" was rather inappropriate. This is not so important, but the Committee will notice that under the Bill all persons born in a Protectorate or protected State are made United Kingdom and Colonies citizens. The argument in favour of retaining British subjecthood for only the United Kingdom and Colonies is that it is artificial to term these people "United Kingdom and Colonies citizens." I do not think that a protected State, such as, say, Johore, will relish being taken out of its protected state and put into the Colonies. To be logical, the term should be "citizen of the United Kingdom, Colonies, protected States and Protectorates." The protected States are, in their view, different from Colonies. I do not say they are in any way superior, but they are different; and after this Bill is passed persons born in a Protectorate or protected State will be known as "United Kingdom and Colonies citizens." I should have thought that, again, showed the objection to creating an artificial class in this country.

I was glad that the Home Secretary did not today support the reasons for the change in this Bill on the grounds of his previous insinuation during Second Reading, that there was some colour prejudice for opposing this Amendment. I thought that on Second Reading he did himself less than justice by insinuating that opposition—which was probably from this side—was due to colour prejudice, and I feel that he ought really to withdraw that at some stage. If he looks at his Second Reading speech he will see that he said one of the reasons for opposing the creation of this class of United Kingdom and Colonies citizen was on the ground of a colour prejudice. I hope he will take an opportunity of saying he did not mean that.

Mr. Ede

Since the hon. Gentleman says that, I am very gratified that in this Committee there has been no suggestion of that kind, and I willingly pay that testimony to the speeches made on the opposite side of the Committee. But in the previous discussion in and around the Bill there have been used phrases which indicated that some people did object on those lines. The hon. Member will realise, however, that I was speaking before anyone else in this Committee had spoken; and when there was a demur from the other side of the Committee, I thought I indicated that I accepted the point of view that those interruptions expressed for hon. Members of this Committee.

Mr. Foster

The right hon. Gentleman says he accepted it, but I think he did so rather grudgingly; he said that the noble Lord the Member for Southern Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) had evidently given up some reactionary views. I do not think that was a very gracious way of saying that we on this side in no sense had any colour prejudice. It was not very charitable, and it was not very fair, to impute colour prejudice to this side. I do not think the Home Secretary retracted it on Second Reading in a very gracious manner; I am sorry; but if he reads it I think he will see it.

The other argument advanced by the Home Secretary on Second Reading was, that if we did not make the people of the Colonies citizens, we should be retarding their advancement; we should be opposing the idea that they were equal with us. Well, of course, it is nothing of the sort. At the present moment they are British subjects; they are equal with us; they can come to this country—even if it is distasteful to the Minister of Labour—and get jobs here; they are entirely equal in this country. It will not make them any more equal, or advance their status, by making them United Kingdom and Colonies citizens.

6.30 p.m.

Therefore, I ask the Attorney-General to deal with the point as to whether he considers the creation of this class of United Kingdom-Colony citizens of various complexions in the Dominions is not really an instance of interfering in the Dominions. We are very anxious that nobody should lose their British subject-hood if they do not want to. On the principles enunciated by the hon. Member for North-West Hull, it does not fall to us any more than to Australia, Canada or South Africa to say that people are subject to it through legislating for them, but we can achieve that object by remaining as we are. If we do not want to remain as we are, the logical way out of it is to leave the matter to the good sense and moral principles of the Dominions, who have a moral duty not to pass a citizenship law which deprives the people who have been born there or lived there for a long time of their British subject-hood.

Mr. Hector Hughes (Aberdeen, North)

I am sure the Committee is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hull (Mr. R. Mackay) for raising the discussion to the practical plane on which it was opened by the Home Secretary and taking it away from the vague and metaphysical propositions put to it in the course of the argument since. I have two quite practical propositions to put to the Committee, but before doing so I should like to say a word about what was said by the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) and his attack on the Attorney-General for attributing the phrase "civis Romanus sum" to Cicero. The hon. Member for the Combined Universities suggested that it should have been attributed to Paul of Tarsus, and I think I am right in saying it was used by both these people.

Mr. Ede

Surely it was Saul of Tarsus.

Mr. Hector Hughes

I accept the correction. When the hon. and learned Member goes back to the Combined Universities he will find that it was used by Cicero in his speech "Pro Archia" when Cicero was trying to get Roman citizenship for that distinguished slave who was a famous poet of the time. He will find it in the famous speech.

The two practical points I wish to make are these. The hon. and learned Member for the Combined Universities sought to argue—and I hope I am not doing him any wrong in saying this—that it would be possible to be a British subject of New Zealand. I suggested in my interruption that that was quite impossible. That interruption was intended to make the point that one can be a subject of His Majesty the King but not a subject of a country. One can be a citizen of a country, and it would make nonsense of this Clause to read it in the way that the hon. and learned Member for the Combined Universities said it ought to be read. If one looks at the Clause one sees these words, in Subsection (1): Every person who under this Act is a British subject of the United Kingdom and Colonies … shall thereby have the status of a British subject. That I suggest is nonsense, but the way the Clause will read if the Amendment is carried is: Every person who under this Act is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies … shall by virtue of that citizenship have the status of a British subject. That I suggest is common sense and ought to be accepted by the Committee.

Much has been said about one-tier and two-tier systems. The one-tier system is obviously the system comprising subjects of His Majesty the King, which we find all over the British Commonwealth of Nations and the Empire. The two-tier system involves not only that greater outer ring of British subjects but also an inner ring of citizens of each particular Dominion. That two-tier system is one which has been accepted by all the Dominions which have citizens of their Dominion. It has a bearing upon our membership of the United Nations Organisation and upon our membership of the Court of International Justice, as indeed it had a bearing upon our membership of the League of Nations. That was very well brought out by Professor A. Berriedale Keith, the acknowledged authority on constitutional law who, in his book "The Sovereignty of the British Dominions" at page 64, dealt with this very point. Speaking of the development of internal sovereignty he said this: Of even greater constitutional importance was the action first taken by Canada in defining within the broader circle of British subjects the narrow class of Canadian citizens. The term was first adopted for a limited purpose, that of immigration, when it was desired to make clear what persons were so connected with Canada as to be exempt from the provisions of the immigration legislation. But a wider use was rendered necessary by the creation of the Permanent Court of International Justice. Under the statute of that body it is impossible for two nationals of one Power to be elected Judges; and as Canada, in virtue of its independent membership of the League of Nations, was also an independent member of the Court, it was necessary to secure that if a Canadian were elected he would not be refused a seat because a British member was already elected. Canadian nationality, therefore, is ascribed by an Act of 1921 to all Canadian citizens as defined in the Immigration Act, 1910 … Again dealing with the Irish aspect of it, Professor Keith says: The Irish Free State by its Constitution conferred citizenship on all persons domiciled in the Free State on the coming into force of the Constitution, if born there or in Northern Ireland or if either parent was born in Ireland, or if he had resided for seven years in the Free State. Later on he says: Though citizens of the Irish Free State still enjoy in the rest of the Empire the rights accorded to British subjects in general, political rights in the Free State are strictly limited to citizens of the Free State by the Constitution. These are some practical applications of this difference between the idea of citizenship and the idea of being a subject of His Majesty the King. So we find that the admirable, cogent, lucid but unconvincing argument presented by the hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) is not borne out by constitutional authorities. It is not recognised by any of the writers on the British Commonwealth of Nations whose works I consulted when writing my book on the Commonwealth, nor by practitioners in the constitutional law. We find the same line of argument running through the speeches of the present Premiers of the Dominions. The Home Secretary in opening referred to the views of the present Prime Minister of Australia, Mr. Chifley. We find it also in the books of Professor Dicey; in the speeches and books of Field Marshal Smuts; and in the authoritative works of Dr. Nathan in South Africa. We also find it in every authoritative exposition of the constitutional law. I am sorry that the Opposition have taken this line in a matter of this kind, which should be a non-party matter.

This change, this advance, because it is an advance consonant with the ideas of all the Dominions, is an advance for the good of the Empire and the British Commonwealth of Nations as a whole. It is evolved from the idea that each Dominion is supreme within its own borders. They determine what their citizenship shall be; we determine what our citzenship shall be, and it would be wrong to impose any shackle upon making the change and marking the progress which is adumbrated in this Bill. Therefore, I hope the House will take a non-party view of this and that all parties will vote for the change which the Home Secretary has proposed.

6.45 p.m.

Sir Ralph Glyn (Abingdon)

This Debate today has made it even more difficult than it was on Second Reading for some hon. Members to make up their minds how to vote. I am impressed by what has been said by some hon. Members in regard to the curious position that will be created for some members of British Colonies if they find themselves in other Dominions. I see that point. On the other hand, it seems quite obvious to me that the Bill, as amended in another place, really does not make much sense. In any case I think we ought to move out some of the words that have been put in. I am certain that it is our duty to keep in step with the great Dominions. I am not so interested in the Bill coming to pass as I am in the feeling which has led to the Bill.

What we must recognise is that all the member States of the British Commonwealth have an independent position. They have that position, and separate votes. They must be perfectly free to pass whatever legislation they like. The dilemma I am in is this. We cannot divest ourselves of our responsibility to all the people in the British Colonies. They are the responsibility of this House; this House sees to it that the Minister for the Colonies is responsible to this House, so that each one of us is responsible for the welfare of all the people in the Colonies.

I am not happy about it now because I begin to feel that we are rather premature in linking up the citizens of the United Kingdom and the Colonies. I should be entirely in favour of it, if I did not see that it was going to react adversely. If only the Attorney-General can convince me about that I shall have no doubt how I shall vote, but I am rather worried about it. I feel that the development of the Colonial Empire must go towards the grouping of Colonies and their eventual emergence as Dominions. When that happens the situation is simple. They become the created citizens of Central Africa, West Africa, East Africa or the Caribbean and fit in perfectly with the picture now presented to us. But I am worried by this one factor, that by calling people in the Colonies "citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies" there may be some legislation in one of the Dominions which would have a detrimental effect on their position. It might lead to trouble between ourselves and that Dominion. I would like to be absolutely certain that in the discussion—with which I wholeheartedly agree—as a result of the meeting of Prime Ministers and the technical meeting, all these points about the position of members of a British Colony were discussed. In labour legislation or in trades union legislation, say, in the Union of South Africa, are they going to be given the same status and is it going to create all sorts of difficulties?

What I should like to see would be that we should retain the words "British subject" for everybody in the Colonies and retain our complete responsibility for their welfare, because we must avoid doing anything that would lead to complications between the United Kingdom and any of the Dominions.

Mr. Osbert Peake (Leeds, North)

We have had a full discussion on this Amendment. A great deal of it might have been avoided had the Government thought fit to publish the report of the conference of experts which assembled in London in February of last year. It is now 18 months since this conference reported, and it does seem an astonishing thing that we should be asked, in the British House of Commons, to make a complete and original departure from our existing conception of nationality law, the change being based upon a report which has never been published.

The Attorney-General, in replying on the Second Reading Debate, gave two reasons, which he said I should well appreciate, for the report never having been published. He said first of all: This was a conference of officials. It is not usual to publish reports of conferences of that kind. Is there any hon. Member of this House who has not seen on many occasions reports published by the Government which merely consist of official reports. It is the commonest occurrence in the world for reports of inter-departmental committees to be made public. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say: Moreover, this was a conference which reported not only to us, but to all the Commonwealth countries. It was a joint report,"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1948; Vol. 453, c. 499.] That does not seem to me a good reason for not publishing the report. It is a good reason for securing the assent of the other parties to the publication of the report, but on a matter of such supreme importance it would have been a good thing if we had seen precisely what it was that this conference agreed upon, because there seems to have been a good deal of confusion surrounding that particular point.

Instead of that, instead of having the report published, and being able to show what resolutions were carried in the conference, what has happened has been this. At every stage of the Debates on this Bill, both in this House and in another place, Ministers have come forward from time to time with new statements as to whom they have seen, as to what Dominion statesman they have met, and have given us hearsay and piecemeal evidence of what that Dominion representative thought about the Bill. That is a very slipshod method in which to handle a matter of this degree of public importance. Even at this stage I do not know whether this Clause, the Amendment to which we are discussing, is, in fact, an agreed Clause. We were told in the White Paper that there was an agreed scheme. Of course there is an agreed scheme, and that we are all prepared to accept. But it has never been made clear, at any rate to me, whether the actual words of Subsection (1) of Clause 1 of this Bill have been the subject of agreement between us and the self-governing Dominions. I can hardly believe that the words of Clause 1 were agreed at the conference.

The Attorney-General

It might be for the convenience of the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee if I pointed out that in the White Paper, which has now been in the possession of the Committee and of the right hon. Gentleman for some considerable time, at paragraph 8 it is stated: Clause 1 of the Bill, which is the key clause, has been agreed with all the countries named in it.

Mr. Peake

I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I had overlooked that statement in the White Paper. That makes it all the more curious that the Government themselves should then have proceeded to amend Clause 1. They added Subsection (2) to Clause 1 during the progress of this Bill through another place.

The Attorney-General

It was stated quite clearly when that was done that it was with consent. It was done because certain other Dominions had come into existence which were not in existence at the time of the original agreement.

Mr. Peake

We have reached the position that between the introduction of this Bill, its Second Reading and its Committee stage in another place, an agreed Amendment has been made to Clause 1. Does it not seem incredible in those circumstances that it was impossible during the same period to secure the assent of the Dominions to the publication of the report of the conference upon which this Bill is based? Does not it seem equally incredible that the subject matter of this Amendment, which involves the substitution of the words "British subject" for the word "citizen," could not also have been referred to the Dominions since the introduction of the Bill in another place some three months ago? Have any communications passed with the Dominions upon whether this Amendment is or is not agreeable to the Dominions? That is a matter upon which the Committee might well be enlightened.

It would appear from what the right hon. Gentleman has stated that Clause 1 was agreed in terms on which the self-governing Dominions insisted—or that we agreed to the introduction of the term "citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies." If we had desired to substitute for those words, the words "British subject of the United Kingdom and Colonies," I cannot for the life of me imagine that any Dominion would have taken exception to that being done. In the course of the Second Reading Debate I said that this was a matter of phraseology, and so, in fact, it is. It is the question whether we use the word "citi- zen" or the words "British subject" to describe those persons who live either in Great Britain or in the Colonies and who will not be embraced by any of the separate codes of nationality law being established in the self governing Dominions.

It is merely a matter of phraseology, but phraseology can be of immense importance. It is supremely important to get phraseology which, first and foremost, is acceptable, and which is apt and fitting in the second place. We can well understand the desire of persons who live in Canada to be able to say, first and foremost, "I am a Canadian" and, in the second place, "I am a British subject." The same may well apply to Australia and to the other Dominions, but I cannot imagine anybody saying, "I want, first and foremost, to be considered as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies." I am sure that nobody would dream of putting forward such a view.

When I intervened in the course of the speech of the Home Secretary this afternoon, when he was telling us how he registered at hotels in some of the more outlying portions of the Kingdom, I asked how he would register in the future. He, quite frankly, said that he would continue, as hitherto, to register as a British subject. Of course we all shall. We shall have a choice. By virtue of our citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies we shall be British subjects, but I do not believe that anybody will put in the register, as an Australian might put, "I am an Australian" or a Canadian might put, "I am a Canadian"—I cannot conceive that anybody will enter the words "citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies."

Mr. Hector Hughes

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that when he is entering his name in an hotel register, he is entering his nationality, not his citizenship. In nearly every case the heading of the column is "Nationality."

Mr. W. J. Brown

In any case, there would not be room for all those words.

Mr. Peake

In answer to the hon. and learned Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hector Hughes), if the heading is "Nationality" then the correct thing to put in the hotel register is, "citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies," because the whole basis of the scheme is that every part of the Dominions is, for the future, to have its own nationality law. It is not a question, as one or two hon. Members have imagined, of us saying that we will have no gateway at all to the second tier, or the second stage, of being British subjects. It is only a question of what the gateway in our case shall be called. The word "citizen" is not one which we shall use in practice, nor is it a word that any of the subjects of His Majesty whom I know who are at present colonial subjects will use. It is not a word that they will want and it is not a word that they will use.

The argument against the use of the word "citizen" has been fairly fully deployed. The only argument in favour of it which I should like to demolish, as it is the only one which has not been demolished by anybody else, is the one used by the Attorney-General in winding up the Debate on the Second Reading. He was talking about the appropriateness of the term "citizen" in relation to the United Kingdom and the Colonies. He said: It is said that citizenship is an inappropriate term to use in relation to what is geographically, socially and politically a rather heterogeneous community at varying stages of development. That involves a profound misconception both as to the nature of citizenship and as to our relations with the colonial peoples. Citizenship—I am using the term in its broad sense as opposed to municipal citizenship—is related to the territorial area and is (subject to the sovereignty of the area.) The area of sovereignty and of citizenship are the same.

The Attorney-General

That report is not quite accurate, although I am not sure whether the inaccuracy has any relevance to the point which the right hon. Gentleman is making. It will appear in a corrected form. What I think I said was: Citizenship—I am using the term in its broad sense as opposed to municipal citizenship—is related to the territorial area which is subject to the same sovereignty.

Mr. Peake

I am not clear whether that makes any difference in the sense.

The Attorney-General

As the words stand at the moment, I do not think that they make any sense at all, but I hope that as altered they make a little sense.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Peake

I am obliged. The sentence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to which I wish to draw attention is: The area of sovereignty and of citizenship are the same."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1948; Vol. 453, c. 503.] That simply is not so under this Bill, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in making a statement of that sort, showed a very profound ignorance of the British-protected persons who fall within the sovereignty of the Governors of so many of our West African Colonies. There are literally tens of millions of persons who fall within the area of sovereignty of British Colonies on the West Coast of Africa, in Aden and in other places, who will not be British citizens at all under this Bill, and who are not intended to be British citizens under this Bill. They are and they still remain nothing but British-protected persons. Therefore, it is not true to say that the area of sovereignty and of citizenship are the same.

The hon. Baronet the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) rather read the Bill on Second Reading as going to confer British citizenship on British-protected persons, but it was pointed out from the Government Front Bench that that was not the case.

Sir R. Glyn

They cease to be aliens.

Mr. Peake

It is true that they cease to be aliens for the purposes of the Aliens Act.

Neither the people of the United Kingdom, nor the people of Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Colonies have any desire to be labelled "citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies." They will not, in fact, use the phrase, and the phrase represents merely a sham and a delusion. They will have no citizenship in common, and, in practice, they will have no equality of rights and obligations, and the term "citizen" in relation to this vast area of the United Kingdom and the Colonies all agglomerated together is without any meaning of any sort or kind. We, therefore, feel strongly that the words "British subject" should be retained, because the legal effects will be precisely the same, and we are, therefore opposed to the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross)

We have had a discussion in relation to the first Clause the key Clause, of this Bill which has necessarily extended over a fairly wide field and which has inevitably involved traversing very much the same ground in regard to many matters that we had to examine on Second Reading. The Committee will bear with me if I, for my part, also have to traverse some of the matters which we discussed then, and if, perhaps, I have to repeat some of the things I then said.

The most notable characteristic of our discussion this afternoon is the complete failure of hon. Members opposite to recognise, still less to welcome, the real nature of the Commonwealth as a living organism which is flexible, which is adaptable, which is constantly re-adjusting its relationships, and the maintenance and strengthening of which depends, not on the United Kingdom ordering everybody to march by the right, but on all of us equally agreeing together that we will find some way of marching in step. If we are to go on building up this remarkable political organisation, on the future of which so much depends, we must in this country make our contribution where we can to finding means of keeping in step with the Legislatures of the other Commonwealth countries, and we must be prepared to accept the conclusions of the Commonwealth as a whole, as reached by their respective Governments or their Prime Ministers, rather than pursuing an independent and isolated course.

The right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) made some complaint, as indeed he did on Second Reading, of the fact that we had not thought it right to publish the report of the experts who discussed the details of this matter in 1947. I must point out again, in regard to that, that agreement in principle was reached not in 1947 between experts, but in 1946 between the then Prime Ministers of all the Commonwealth countries. That was when the agreement in principle was reached. What happened in 1947 was that experts, under the direction of the several Prime Ministers, met here in London to work out in a little more detail the actual machinery of the new structure which the Commonwealth Prime Ministers had agreed to set up.

It has not been the practice in matters concerning Commonwealth relations—I am not dealing with the question of inter-Departmental Committees at all; we are on a much higher and wider plane here—it has not been the practice in connection with matters of Commonwealth relationships to publish the reports of conferences of that kind taking place at the expert level, nor, indeed, I think I am right in saying, and the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) will correct me if I am wrong, has it hitherto been the practice to publish in this country the detailed reasons which might have led Governments and Prime Ministers of each Commonwealth country to reach particular conclusions.

It is for the Government of each Commonwealth country to satisfy us own Legislature that the action which it is proposing to take is correct and is founded on proper reasons. So far as the Commonwealth countries are concerned, it is sufficient for us to say, as we did say at the earliest possible moment, when the White Paper was published, that all the Commonwealth countries are agreed upon the Clause which is now being discussed as the key Clause, the fundamental Clause, in this Bill.

Hon. Members opposite, not for the first time, seem to exhibit the qualities of the ostrich and persist in closing their eyes to the fact that, however reluctant we are—and it is natural that we should be reluctant—to change the form and structure of the Commonwealth to which we have been accustomed in the past in this matter, that structure, in relation to this matter of the common status is already breaking up and collapsing, if indeed it has not already collapsed. So long as the Dominions were Dominions in the strict sense, and so long as they were prepared to accept from the United Kingdom Parliament a common code enacted by this Parliament and adapted or applied by them, it was, of course, very simple, logical and convenient to make the status of nationality throughout the Commonwealth depend on the doctrine of allegiance to the King, but, once that conception of Empire in the strict sense, and of Dominion in the strict sense, has gone, some other agreed conception has to be put in its place, and it has to be an agreed conception if, in regard to this matter, we are to continue to march in step with the other Commonwealth countries and to create a common basis for nationality and allegiance.

The right hon. Member for North Leeds was, of course, mistaken in confusing nationality and citizenship, and in saying, as he did to the hon. and learned Member on this side, that, if he were required to state his nationality, he could answer that he was a citizen. That is one of the fundamental misconceptions of which hon. Members opposite do not appear yet to have rid themselves.

Mr. Peake

Assuming the right hon. and learned Gentleman to be right on that point, what is the nationality of the persons in various parts of the Empire?

The Attorney-General

The nationality of the persons in the various parts of the Empire when this Bill is passed will be exactly what it is today. That is the fundamental purpose of this Bill, and if the right hon. Gentleman does not know what is the nationality of the persons in the different parts of the British Commonwealth of Nations today it only serves to illustrate the ignorance which appears to exist on the benches opposite in regard to the nature of our Commonwealth relations. They are British subjects.

Mr. Peake

If the right hon. and learned Gentleman reads Subsection (2) of this Clause he will see there that the terms "British subject" and "Commonwealth citizen" are made interchangeable. He is suggesting that I am wrong in saying that the term "citizen" can be used in describing a person's nationality, but under this Bill when it is passed anybody will be free to say "I am a Commonwealth citizen" when asked to state his nationality.

The Attorney-General

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that may be a very clever attempt to get out of the point which he made.

Mr. Peake

That is a complete answer.

The Attorney-General

It is not a complete answer. What the right hon. Gentleman said, as he will find if he takes the trouble to read his own speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow morning, was that if a person was required to state his nationality in a British hotel he would be correct in saying, "I am a citizen of the United Kingdom." That is not so. If one chose the alternative form which is provided in Clause 2 one would be entitled in future to call oneself a Commonwealth citizen. Apparently the right hon. Gentleman has not realised that that is an entirely different thing from being a citizen of the United Kingdom. That described the nationality, and the expression "Commonwealth citizen" is synonymous and interchangeable with the expression "British subject" which we use today and which I expect we shall always use in this country.

Mr. W. J. Brown

Will the Attorney-General make this matter plain in terms that I can understand? Am I right in assuming that after we have passed this Bill a Scotsman will still be a Scotsman, a Welshman still a Welshman, an Irishman still an Irishman? May I also ask whether, although an Australian will be entitled to be described either as a British subject or as a Commonwealth citizen, there is no manner of doubt whatever that he will still be an Australian?

The Attorney-General

I shall not quarrel with the hon. Gentleman about any of those matters. If I pursued them I might find myself in very great racial difficulties.

Mr. Henry Strauss

Hitherto it has been customary to have nationalities stated on passports. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman say, if this Bill goes through with the Government Amendment, that passports of this country will have no reference to the United Kingdom and Colonies in describing nationality?

7.15 p.m.

The Attorney-General

I do not know whether that has been settled or not, but if the passport is required to state the nationality of the person concerned it will undoubtedly have to say that he is a British subject; or, if it is preferred to use the other phrase, as it may be in certain Dominions, it will describe the person as a Commonwealth citizen. As far as we are concerned, I apprehend that we should stick to the phrase which we use now.

The difference between local citizenship and the nationality of each member of the Commonwealth is something which must of course, be appreciated, and which is fundamental to the whole structure of this Bill. That structure involves the provision of a number of separate gates, as they are called, each of them controlled by each separate Dominion, through which people may pass to the common status of allegiance and nationality. In our law—and this, perhaps, is an answer the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown)—one of the devices to which we have been driven, as a matter of fact, by the words "British subject," which are really in themselves not quite appropriate, is the use of the term "nationality" to denote the status of allegiance to the King. More strictly, I think it is intended to denote race and descent, but we use it to describe the common status of allegiance to the King.

Mr. J. Foster

rose—

The Attorney-General

I shall soon have to stop giving way, or I shall be getting into serious trouble with the Chair.

Mr. Foster

I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. Would he not agree that the nationality of a Canadian is described as such on his passport, and that it would be wrong and not sufficiently descriptive to describe him as a British subject? Therefore, when stating his nationality, to say "British subject" is not enough. A man must state his citizenship and nationality when he has one.

The Attorney-General

I could not say what is the practice with a Canadian passport, but I should not have thought that that was necessarily the case at all. I will come back to that point, but I should think that when one is travelling abroad or when one is appearing in a foreign law suit or during a time of war, it would not be very sensible or useful merely to describe one's citizenship; it should be enough to say, "I am a British subject." If I merely described my citizenship in the terms proposed by hon. Members opposite I should be liable to be asked, "Are you a British subject of Canada or of the Cameroons, or a British subject of Jersey or of Jamaica?" But, it is enough for me, and I hope it will always be enough for all who owe allegiance to His Majesty, as we all do under this Bill, to say that we are British subjects of His Majesty. That is the status which people will enjoy in international relations, and that is the status to which His Majesty, through all his Governments, will give protection. That is as I understand the position in international law.

What hon. Members opposite have not fully appreciated is that the Bill must distinguish between persons whose nationality is to be determined by reference to the United Kingdom law, and those whose nationality has to be determined by reference to the law of Canada or Australia or one of the other Commonwealth countries. That distinction is necessary for determining not so much perhaps the present status of existing living British subjects, as the acquisition of British nationality by their descendants or by marriage or in circumstances in which they may be deprived of their British nationality. To say that a British subject is a British subject, as I think was said by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn)—I do not want to use an offensive expression—is just nonsense. The status of a British subject is not a local status. That term describes the nationality and the allegiance of the person concerned, and he carries that nationality and allegiance with him wherever he may be, in all parts of the world.

There is no such thing as a British subject who is a British subject only in a local area or a British subject of some local area, and I hope there never will be, although there would be if this Bill was passed into law in the form in which hon. Members opposite desire it to be passed. British subjects are British subjects all over the world and in whatever part of the British Commonwealth of Nations they may happen to be. I am coming back to that point presently in connection with another matter which the hon. Member for Abingdon raised.

The point that I want to emphasise at this stage is that the status of a British subject is the common status which all members of the Commonwealth, of the Colonies or of the United Kingdom will enjoy and share together. The whole point of this Bill is not to alter that common status, that allegiance which we owe to the King, but to provide for the future how that common status—not the local status but the common status—shall be acquired.

We were forced to deal with this matter and provide new methods because the tottering edifice of the common code, which had been so much weakened by the action—the quite proper and legitimate action; action they were fully entitled to take—of Australia and New Zealand in 1933 and of Ireland in 1935, had been completely destroyed when Canada passed her own citizenship laws in 1946. And we know today that Australia is following suit on exactly the same lines as we are adopting and, as I mentioned on Second Reading, that legislation of this kind has already been announced in the New Zealand Parliament. That was the position we had to face and the question was, what was to be done?

The Opposition have not really sought to present any real, alternative method. What is to take the place of the common code which is now disappearing? Is it not essential if the tradition—and it is, I agree, a very proud tradition—of a common family throughout the Commonwealth, the tradition of a single allegiance to a single King, is to be maintained, that we should not be content with each of us proceeding on our own way, allowing each Commonwealth country to legislate regardless of what was contemplated and intended to be done in the others, but that we should try, by agreement, to proceed upon the same lines?

I should have thought all hon. Members in this Committee would have felt it was wholly inimical to the progressive and close development of co-operation and understanding between the Commonwealth that we should insist in this country-on retaining what has been described 1-y the hon. Member for North-West Hull (Mr. R. Mackay) as the single-tier system, stepping straight into the status of British subject, regardless of citizenship, when the rest of the Dominions have desired and have agreed that the proper structure should be a two-tier structure, to nationality through citizenship—each Commonwealth country creating its own citizens and recognising, of course, the citizens of other Commonwealth countries as together sharing the same family name and the allegiance to the common Crown. That point was, if I may say so, very clearly and forcibly put by the hon. Member for North-West Hull who, I suppose, perhaps more than any of us, speaks with knowledge and experience of these Commonwealth matters.

Once we accept the scheme of the Bill it would be a grave error, if we have the interests of the Commonwealth at heart, to seek to retain for our own local status a title which differs from that which we concede is a proper one for the Commonwealth, and which the Commonwealth countries desire to adopt. It would be folly for us to try—in what is, after all, as the right hon. Gentleman said, to some extent only a form of words—by the use of this particular form of words to suggest that we were putting ourselves on a special plane. I am certainly proud, as everybody is proud, to be a British subject, but I should be less proud of that description if it did not mean, and only mean, that status which I enjoyed and shared with all the other equal members of the equal Commonwealth of Nations.

When one starts to examine the thing in a little more detail, becomes a little more technical about it, the term "British subject" is not really an expression which is appropriate at all to designate the status of a person in relation to his rights and obligations in the society in which he lives—his political position. The words "British subject" denote the relationship between a man and his King. What word is there to describe the political status which results from such a relationship? "Subjection" obviously cannot be used. I see that some writer in a newspaper the other day was driven to use a horrible expression, which I had not come across before—"subjecthood."When one tries to find a noun appropriate to describe the status resulting from the personal relationship, one finds—I think this is right; hon. Members opposite have shown by their own Amendments to the Bill that it is right because they have used it in Clause 20—that the only word that is apt is the word that we are using throughout the Bill, and not only in Clause 20—"citizenship."That is the only expression that can be used. I do not mind very much whether it was used by Cicero or not, but it is the only word that can be found in the English language to describe this status—the word "citizenship."

Mr. W. J. Brown

Verminhood.

The Attorney-General

I hesitate to apply that any particular hon. Member at the moment. "Citizenship" may seem to some minds, and I dare say it does, at first blush, seem to connote the idea of relationship to some municipal corporation or local area of that kind, but it is not so in the language of any other country in the world and it is not strictly so in our own. All over the world—I come now to another point raised by the right hon. Member for North Leeds—citizenship is, in fact, the term used to describe the people of a particular area—that is subject to the same sovereignty; the area of the sovereignty and the area of the citizenship is the same. It describes the status of persons who are ultimately subject to the same sovereignty.

I do not say, of course, and nobody has ever attempted to say, that everyone within the area of that sovereignty is a citizen. Of course, he is not. One may have people in this country who are foreigners and aliens and not citizens of this country at all; they are within the area of the sovereignty, but they are not citizens. Over the area where sovereignty is exercised, the persons who are the people of that country—to use an expression in contra-distinction to aliens—are the citizens of that area.

Their rights in different parts of the area may greatly differ. I believe it is true that the rights of people in the southern states of America are very different from the rights that might be enjoyed by the same people if they travelled to the Eastern seaboard, but they are proud to describe themselves as citizens of the United States and it is that subordination to the common legislature, that allegiance to the same sovereign, which constitutes the community of interest in the common status to which the right hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) referred.

I come to the point raised both by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) and the hon. Member for Abingdon. Citizens of a colony under this Bill will, of course, be citizens here. If they go to Rochdale or Abingdon they will have exactly the same rights as I should have if I went to Rochdale or Abingdon. If, on the other hand, they go to some other Commonwealth country—South Africa or Canada or where ever it may be—they will have the same rights there, as far as I know, as I should have if I went to South Africa or Canada. That depends entirely on the legislation which may be passed there. Whatever their position after this Bill has been enacted, it will in no way differ from their position now. It is open to the Commonwealth legislatures to discriminate. Suggestions have been made that they may do so; I hope and I am sure we all hope, that they will not, but it is open to them to discriminate between British subjects coming from England or those coming, for instance, from India. That will remain open to them, but it will be no easier for them to do that tomorrow than it was yesterday.

7.30 p.m.

I hope that we shall not seek to give, as the Bill in its present form would seek to give, to the term "British subject" a purely local connotation. The greater—the Commonwealth—status includes the lesser, the United Kingdom and colonial status. If one is a British subject in the Commonwealth as a whole then he will be a British subject in whatever part of the Commonwealth he may choose to go in this country, in a Colony, or in one of the other Commonwealth countries. The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke about differentiation. It is exactly that which we seek by the provisions of this Bill to avoid. We do not want it to be said that in our relations with His Majesty there are variations, degrees and qualifications between the different classes of His Majesty's subjects. We want to provide that there shall be a common class throughout the Commonwealth, all the same, whatever the incidents of their citizenship may be in the particular countries from which they come.

Now I come to a point raised by the hon. Member the Senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn). It was also touched upon, I think, by the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster). Persons who before the passing of the Bill were British subjects, and who, possibly because of discriminatory legislation, if such a course were unfortunately adopted by a particular Commonwealth country, do not become Commonwealth citizens, are intended to be brought in by the transitional provisions in Clauses 11 and 12 of the Bill to British subject-hood, and they are brought in through the door of United Kingdom and colonial citizenship. There is nothing there which involves any interference with the Commonwealth legislatures.

I dare say the hon. Member for North-wich would agree that the Commonwealth Governments and Prime Ministers are better able to decide than he is whether the course we propose here involves any interference with their sovereign rights. They do not think it does. They have agreed with the scheme in this sense, and they have agreed that we are entitled in this country to provide that anybody who is a British subject now shall retain that status. That is what we are doing. We do not interfere with the law in Canada, South Africa, or wherever it may be. They may by laws—I do not say they will: but they may—make some discrimination amongst those who are now British subjects, in defining those who are to be their citizens and those who are not. We cannot stop that. They are sovereign. But we can say, without any kind of interference with them, "Those persons who are British subjects today will continue, by our law, to be recognised as British subjects, and if you do not adopt them we will pass them through our own gateway."

Mr. J. Foster

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is asking me if I agree. Does he realise that there is a circuit? Suppose, hypothetically, that South Africa decides that Indians shall not be citizens to South Africa and, therefore, not British subjects. Or let us suppose Canada decides that Indians shall not be Canadian citizens. Canada having decided that anybody shall be a Canadian citizen who is recognised by another part of the Commonwealth. When the United Kingdom recognises Indians as British subjects they will go back again into Canada. Therefore, we have altered the law, because Indians, though excluded by one country, are put in again by us.

The Attorney-General

I am not saying that we are not. We cannot alter the law so far as South Africa is concerned—it that is the country which is introducing discriminatory legislation. We have taken that particular country as an example. I do not want it to be thought for a moment that there is any question whatever of discriminatory legislation there. I hope there never will be. We have merely taken it for an example. That country can provide by law that Indians are not to be regarded as South African citizens and are not to obtain British nationality through the South African gateway.

What we say then, under this Bill, is that if those persons are already British subjects they shall retain that status, and they shall enter through our gateway. It would be open, of course, to India if she wanted to declare that such persons were citizens of India and get the common status through the Indian gateway. But we are content for the purposes of United Kingdom law to make quite sure that those people who are British subjects already will not lose that status so far as our law is concerned. What may be the position by the law of the other Dominions depends on the action which their own legislatures may take.

Mr. Pickthorn

The right hon. and learned Gentleman says these are transitional provisions. At what point, if any, is the transition over? Would not the effect continue to any distant time?

The Attorney-General

No. We may have an opportunity of discussing that when we come to those actual Clauses; but it is provided for in the Clauses. If the hon. Gentleman will read the Clauses he will see it is provided for. I have not the actual form of words in my mind, but I think it is "until the date when the citizenship law is passed in the Commonwealth country"—or some such words. That is the scheme of the thing, but we can discuss the details of it there.

Then there was the point raised, I think, by the hon. Member for Abingdon about the position of protected States. Protected States are not, of course, Colonies. They do not become Colonies under this Bill. Nor do the inhabitants of protected States become British subjects. If a present inhabitant of a protectorate or protected State is already a British subject he will remain one. That is the effect of the provisions in this Bill, and certain quicker machinery is provided by which such persons may, in some circumstances, obtain naturalisation. But protected States do not alter their status in any degree.

My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Chamberlain) asked what would be the position if New Zealand chose to use the term "British subject" instead of "citizen." We have no reason whatever to suppose that New Zealand is likely to do that. All our information leads to the contrary conclusion. We have every reason to think that New Zealand and all the other Commonwealth countries will implement the agreement which was come to on the key matter embodied in Clause 1 of the Bill. Moreover, it may be that they will be given encouragement to do so and to use the expression "citizen" knowing that that status is the gateway to the common status of a British subject throughout the Commonwealth countries.

If for some reason which I completely fail to understand or to anticipate New Zealand did use the words "British subject" instead of "citizen of New Zealand," I suppose our courts would have to decide whether a "subject" of New Zealand, was, in fact, a "citizen" of New Zealand; and I dare say that that would provide some interesting litigation, although I should think the result would not be very much in doubt. However, that is one of those hypothetical questions which it is very easy to raise in a discussion like this but which is not very likely to occur in practice. Having got this agreement about the basic scheme of the Bill we can expect other countries will implement it just as we intend to implement it.

So I ask the Committee to restore to this Bill language the omission of which would destroy the whole structure which the free nations of our Commonwealth have agreed to set up in order to preserve our common allegiance to His Majesty, and the common family name, the common brotherhood which we share throughout the Commonwealth. I end on this note. So far as we are concerned in the United Kingdom we cannot legislate beyond the area of our sovereignty, the United Kingdom and our Colonies. So far as we are concerned all who are now British subjects will remain so; all who are now under the duty of allegiance to His Majesty will continue so to be; and all who possess that status now will be able, under the provisions of this Bill, to transmit it to their descendants in a way which will ensure that it will be recognised throughout our Commonwealth and throughout the world.

Question put, "That the words 'British subject' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 111, Noes, 308.

Division No. 258.]	AYES.	[7.40 p.m.
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.	Howard, Hon. A.	Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Amory, D. Heathcoat	Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)	Pickthorn, K.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.	Hurd, A.	Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Astor, Hon. M.	Hutchison, Lt-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)	Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Baldwin, A. E.	Jeffreys, General Sir G.	Raikes, H. V.
Bennett, Sir P.	Jennings, R.	Rayner, Brig. R.
Bossom, A. C.	Keeling, E. H.	Renton, D.
Bower, N.	Lancaster, Col. C. G.	Roberts, H. (Handsworth)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.	Langford-Holt, J.	Robinson, Roland
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.	Sanderson, Sir F.
Butcher, H. W.	Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.	Scott, Lord W.
Carson, E.	Lindsay, M. (Solihull)	Shephard, S. (Newark)
Challen, C.	Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)	Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Channon, H.	Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)	Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.
Clarke, Col. R. S.	Low, A. R. W.	Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.	Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.	Smithers, Sir W.
Corbet, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)	MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.	Snadden, W. M.
Crowder, Capt. John E.	McCallum, Maj. D.	Spearman, A. C. M.
Darling, Sir W. Y.	McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.	Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
De la Bère, R.	MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.	Macdonald, Sir P. (I of Wight)	Strauss, Henry (English Universities)
Drewe, C.	McFarlane, C. S.	Studholme, H. G.
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)	Mackeson, Brig. H. R.	Sutcliffe, H.
Duthie, W. S.	McKie, J. H. (Galloway)	Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Eccles, D. M.	Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)	Touche, G. C.
Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter	Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)	Turton, R. H.
Foster, J. G. (Northwich)	Maitland, Comdr. J. W.	Ward, Hon G. R.
Fox, Sir G.	Manningham-Buller, R. E.	Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)	Marshall, D. (Bodmin)	White, Sir D. (Fareham)
Gage, C.	Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)	White, J. B. (Canterbury)
Gammans, L. D.	Medlicott, Brigadier F.	Williams, C. (Torquay)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.	Mellor, Sir J.	Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Grimston, R. V.	Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)	Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cir'cester)	York, C.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.	Nicholson, G.	Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.	Nield, B. (Chester)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)	Odey, G. W.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hogg, Hon Q.	O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.	Major Conant and Major Ramsay.
NOES.
Acland, Sir Richard	Evans, John (Ogmore)	McAdam, W.
Adams, Richard (Balham)	Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)	McAllister, G.
Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)	Fairhurst, F.	McEntee, V. La T.
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)	Farthing, W. J.	McGhee, H. G.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Fernyhough, E.	Mack, J. D.
Alpass, J. H.	Field, Capt. W. J.	McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Attewell, H. C.	Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)	Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Austin, H. Lewis	Follick, M.	McKinlay, A. S.
Awbery, S. S.	Foot, M. M.	McLeavy, F.
Ayles, W. H.	Forman, J. C.	MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.	Fraser, T. (Hamilton)	Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Bacon, Miss A.	Freeman, Peter (Newport)	Mainwaring, W. H.
Baird, J.	Ganley, Mrs. C. S.	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Balfour, A.	Gibbins, J.	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.	Gilzean, A.	Mann, Mrs. J.
Barstow, P. G.	Glanville, J. E. (Consett)	Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Bartlett, V.	Glyn, Sir R.	Marquand, H. A.
Barton, C.	Gooch, E. G.	Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Battley, J. R.	Goodrich, H. E.	Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Bechervaise, A. E.	Gordon-Walker, P. C.	Mayhew, C. P.
Benson, G.	Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)	Mellish, R. J.
Berry, H.	Grenfell, D. R.	Middleton, Mrs. L.
Beswick, F.	Grey, C. F.	Mikardo, Ian
Bing, G. H. C.	Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)	Mitchison, G. R.
Binns, J.	Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)	Monslow, W.
Blenkinsop, A.	Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)	Moody, A. S.
Blyton, W. R.	Guest, Dr. L. Haden	Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Boardman, H.	Gunter, R. J.	Morley, R.
Bottomley, A. G.	Guy, W. H.	Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.	Haire, John E. (Wycombe)	Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)	Hale, Leslie	Morrison, Rt. Hon H. (Lewisham, E.)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)	Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil	Mort, D. L.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)	Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.	Moyle, A.
Bramall, E. A.	Hannan, W. (Maryhill)	Murray J. D.
Brook, D. (Halifax)	Hardman, D. R.	Neal, H. (Clay Cross)
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)	Hardy, E. A.	Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Brown, George (Belper)	Harrison, J.	Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Brown, T. J. (Ince)	Hastings, Dr. Somerville	O'Brien, T.
Brown, W. J. (Rugby)	Haworth, J.	Oldfield, W. H.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.	Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)	Oliver, G. H.
Burden, T. W.	Herbison, Miss M.	Orbach, M.
Callaghan, James	Hewitson, Capt. M.	Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Carmichael, James	Hicks, G.	Palmer, A. M. F.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.	Holman, P.	Parker, J.
Champion, A. J.	Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)	Parkin, B. T.
Chater, D.	Horabin, T. L.	Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Chetwynd, G. R.	Hoy, J.	Paton, J. (Norwich)
Clues, W. S.	Hubbard, T.	Pearson, A.
Cocks, F. S.	Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)	Peart, T. F.
Coldrick, W.	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)	Perrins, W.
Collins, V. J.	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Popplewell, E.
Colman, Miss G. M.	Hughes, H. D. (W'Iverh'pton, W.)	Porter, E. (Warrington)
Comyns, Dr. L.	Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)	Porter, G. (Leeds)
Cook, T. F.	Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)	Price, M. Philips
Corlett, Dr. J.	Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)	Pritt, D. N.
Cove, W. G.	Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)	Proctor, W. T.
Crawley, A.	Jeger, G. (Winchester)	Pryde, D. J.
Crossman, R. H. S.	Johnston, Douglas	Pursey, Comdr. H.
Daggar, G.	Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)	Randall, H. E.
Daines, P.	Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)	Ranger, J.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)	Jones, J. H. (Bolton)	Rankin, J.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)	Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)	Rees-Williams, D. R.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)	Kendall, W. D.	Reeves, J.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)	Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Reid, T. (Swindon)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)	King, E. M.	Rhodes, H.
Deer, G.	Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.	Richards, R.
de Freitas, Geoffrey	Kinley, J.	Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Delargy, H. J.	Kirby, B. V.	Robens, A.
Diamond, J.	Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.	Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Dobbie, W.	Lang, G.	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Dodds, N. N.	Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.	Rogers, G. H. R.
Driberg, T. E. N.	Lee, F. (Hulme)	Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)	Leonard, W.	Royle, C.
Durbin, E. F. M.	Leslie, J. R.	Sargood, R.
Dye, S.	Levy, B. W.	Scollan, T.
Ede, Rt. Hon J. C.	Lewis, T. (Southampton)	Scott-Elliott, W.
Edelman, M.	Lindgren, G. S.	Shackleton, E. A. A.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)	Lipson, D. L.	Sharp, Granville
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)	Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.	Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)	Logan, D. G.	Shurmer, P.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)	Longden, F.	Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)	Lyne, A. W.	Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

Simmons, C. J.	Tiffany, S.	White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Skeffington, A. M.	Timmons, J.	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Skinnard, F. W.	Titterington, M. F.	Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)	Tolley, L.	Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Snow, J. W.	Turner-Samuels, M.	Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Solley, L. J.	Ungoed-Thomas, L.	Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Sorensen, R. W.	Osborne, Henry	Williams, R. W. (Wigan)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank	Viant, S. P.	Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Steele, T.	Wadsworth, G.	Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, R.)	Walkden, E.	Willis, E.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.	Walker, G. H.	Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.
Strauss, Rt. Hon G. R. (Lambeth)	Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)	Wise, Major F. J.
Stubbs, A. E.	Warbey, W. N.	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Swingler, S.	Watkins, T. E.	Woods, G. S.
Sylvester, G. O.	Watson, W. M.	Wyatt, W.
Symonds, A. L.	Weitzman, D.	Yates, V. F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)	Wells, P. L. (Faversham)	Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)	Wells, W. T. (Walsall)	Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)	West, D. G.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)	Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)	Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)	Mr. Collindridge and
Thurtle, Ernest	White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)	M. Wilkins.

Question, "That the word 'citizen' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 1, line 10, leave out "British subject or."

In line 11, leave out "thereby," and insert "by virtue of that citizenship."—[Mr. Ede.]

The Chairman

If the Committee agrees, I think it would be convenient to discuss the next Amendment, in page 2, line 1, to leave out Subsection (4), together with the proposed new Clause (Continuance of certain citizens of Eire as British subjects.)

The Attorney-General

I beg to move, in page 2, line 1, to leave out Subsection (4).

I am afraid I took up a very long time on the previous occasion on which I addressed the Committee, and I shall endeavour to be as brief as I can on this one, because here we are really traversing exactly the same point—and it is a fairly short point—that we have to consider during Second Reading. We are now considering whether we should delete Subsection (4) of Clause 1 as it stands in the Bill, as it has come down to us from another place, and in effect substitute the new Clause (Continuance of certain citizens of Eire as British subjects).

The Bill as at present drafted is calculated to cause embarrassment to those whose interests it is so mistakenly pretended or desired to protect, and at the same time it is likely to inflict an affront on a nation which, whether she were a member of the Commonwealth or a complete stranger, we have no right to impose upon her. The persons affected by this Amendment are citizens and subjects of Eire. The sovereign legislature of Eire has laid down, as it was entitled to do, the principle, that in general its people—using now a neutral phrase—should not be of divided loyalty, but that they should decide, not seeking to get the best of both worlds, of which country they desired to be citizens.

It is perfectly open, of course, to any existing citizen of Eire to cease to be a citizen of Eire and to become a citizen of any other country; and persons who in future become citizens of Eire will not be debarred, as far as I know, by the Eireann law—although, of course, I cannot speak for the law of that country—and certainly will not be debarred by the United Kingdom law, from becoming nationals of other countries if they choose. But it is the fundamental right of any sovereign State to say that those who wish to retain the privileges of its own citizenship and nationality must forswear the citizenship and nationality of other countries. We may regret that particular countries should wish to take that course; but we cannot deny as a matter of international law, or as a matter within the practice of our own Commonwealth, that it is for each separate nation State which is a sovereign State to decide for itself whether it shall provide as part of its law that those who choose to be its citizens are not at the same time to be the citizens of any other country. Now, as a matter of fact, the Government and Parliament of Eire do not seek to do that, although they would have been entitled to if they had so chosen.

There is much in this Bill—as I indicated in the course of our Second Reading Debate—about which the Government of Eire are uneasy; but they are content that those who under our existing law are British subjects should be entitled to claim to retain that British nationality without forfeiting their status and their position as citizens and subjects of Eire, the country in which they chose to live. Speaking as a lawyer, I am bound to say that, whilst we may have many political regrets about this, it seems to me that the position which has been taken up by the Government of Eire, ever since it was first enunciated by Mr. de Valera in that statement which I read to the House on Second Reading, is a correct position so far as the law is concerned.

Of course, in this Parliament we can disregard these rules of international law and of comity between the different countries in the Commonwealth. The United Kingdom Parliament can do anything. We can pass a Bill declaring that black is white, and the moment that Bill receives the Royal Assent, black will be white. It has been said that the only thing the United Kingdom Parliament cannot do is to make a man a woman. But I am not sure about that. The physiological results might be distinctly disappointing, but if such an Act were passed by this Parliament, then, in law, a man would become a woman. There is nothing that we cannot do.

The question that we have to consider here is: Is it really wise to proceed in this way in relation to a sister country, our relationship with which we are most anxious to improve? As a matter of comity governing the relations between the different Commonwealth countries, and as a matter of international law governing the relations between independent sovereign States, it would be quite wrong for us to insist on giving British nationality to persons who live in Eire, who have Eireann nationality, and who under the law of Eire are not entitled to have the nationality of another country. We have no more right to say of the citizens of Eire than of any other country—any completely sovereign country, the United States of America, or any other country—that, notwithstanding the fact that they choose to remain in Eire, and choose to retain the status of subjects and citizens of Eire and the nationality of Eire, they should none the less retain, under our law, the status which they would have possessed if history had been different and Eire had not broken away from the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament.

8.0 p.m.

What we are entitled to say, and what we say by the proposed new Clause which appears at the end of the Amendment Paper, is, without in any way affecting the rules of comity which ought to govern our relationship, and which ought to govern the relationship of all the Commonwealth countries in matters of this kind: "Although you are, and remain, a citizen of Eire, if you come to this country we will give you all the advantages and all the privileges that we would confer on one of our own subjects and citizens." We are entitled to say that to Eire or to the citizens of any other Commonwealth country. Any other Commonwealth country is entitled to do the same.

What we are not entitled to say is: "Despite the laws of your own country and despite the fact that you choose to remain there and to be a citizen of that country, we are going to make you a national of this country." That we do not propose to do under the Bill. What we seek to do is to enable those who are British subjects at present to retain that right by claiming it. That, the Eire Government have agreed that we might do. Beyond that we have said, in relation to Eire as to any other sovereign State, it is for them to decide what the nationality of their people may be, and that all that we can do with propriety is to say that we shall always welcome those people to the full privileges that we extend to our own people in this country.

Mr. W. J. Brown (Rugby)

The discussion on this Amendment is different in character from the discussion on the first three Amendments. The argument then was pre-eminently a legal one as to the precise effect upon the status of individuals of this or that combination of words as against other combinations. The argument here seems to be entirely different in kind and degree. The issue here is whether we are to import, or rather to accept at the instance of another place, the importation into the Bill of a provision which will have the effect of bringing us into conflict with another people. That, and nothing more or less, is the issue that we have to discuss here.

Whatever may be the argument about the Canadians, the Australians, the South Africans and the rest, Ireland is not a British country. She claims to be a mother country in her own right. She has certainly sent out many sons all over the world. To treat Ireland as though she were like the countries which are of British settlement and origin is to approach the matter from a completely wrong angle. The Irish understand that the term "British subject" is one which is cherished by countries of the British race, but it would be a triumph of overstatement to say that it is a title which is loved by the Irish. Indeed, they have always consistently refused to accept the status of British subject. The very same sort of historical reason which makes the term "British subject" valuable and welcome to Canadians, Australians, South Africans and Englishmen, makes that title opprobrious to the Irish. We ought not, therefore, to seek to thrust it on them.

The third point is that the Irish have always objected, not only in words but, since they have had the power, in terms of law, to the term "British subject" being applied to them. The purpose of the Irish Nationality (Citizenship) Act, 1935, was to repudiate the claim that birth in Ireland could confer any nationality other than Irish nationality. It has been argued that since 1935 the issue has rather gone by default, and that the Irish have passively accepted the title "British subject" without making very much fuss about it. That is not true. It will be within the knowledge of the Attorney-General and other Members of the Government that conflicting legislation as between Eire and Britain in relation to citizenship has been the cause of conflict and difficulty between the two countries and, to a less extent, between the two peoples.

I do not want to be misunderstood. We have had difficulty on this matter in the past. For example, during the war I do not think that any Irishman resident in England was unwilling to do his turn at civil defence, fire watching and the rest, but there were many Irishmen who objected like the very devil to being conscripted to do that work as "British subjects." There is all the difference in the world between asking for voluntary service from a man and seeking to impose that service on him as an obligation by thrusting upon him a nationality which he does not want. In other parts of the Commonwealth the Irish resisted conscription as "British subject," not because they were unwilling to fight for the land in which they lived and in which they made their living, but because they objected to being conscripted as "British subjects."

We may regard all that as a triumph of wrong-headedness. We may think that British subjecthood is perhaps the greatest honour that can ever be conferred upon a man. If he happens to take the view that that is not the case, we have to recognise that fact, and to proceed accordingly. These two races have a great deal in common. We do not want to throw any spanners into that particular wheel. We want the memory of Cromwell to be forgotten. I remember the story that was told about Mr. Lloyd George after one of his Irish conferences at No. 10 Downing Street, with Arthur Griffiths and Michael Collins and others. After hours of negotiation they were all coming out of the front door when they were surrounded by a swarm of reporters. Some of them said to Mr. Lloyd George: "Sir, have you settled it?" His reply was: "Settled? Settled? We haven't got past Cromwell yet!" We have got past Cromwell, and we do not want to resurrect him in this connection, much as we may admire him in other connections.

The form of the Bill before it went to the other place was agreed with the Irish Government. I am told—and the Home Secretary or the Attorney-General may confirm this—that it was not a particularly enthusiastic agreement. It might be described as an acquiescence in the terms of the proposed Bill, rather than an enthusiastic advocacy of it. Even so, it is a considerable thing to have got an acquiescence. Having got it now, it would be utter folly to throw it away as if it were worth nothing. Anybody who has negotiated with any Irishman knows that to achieve any sort of agreement with him is a triumph of the improbable over the impossible! In those circumstances, the Government are perfectly right to try to restore the Bill to the condition it was in before it went to another place, and I will wholeheartedly support them in the Lobby.

Mr. Gage (Belfast, South)

It is difficult for one who, like myself, was born in the South of Ireland and lived his early life in perhaps one of the stormiest periods of Irish history, to speak on this Amendment without emotion. The Committee will discount, on that account, anything I say which they feel may proceed merely from my emotions. I hope, being an Irishman, to be able to look at this matter not in the sentimental way in which most Englishmen look at Ireland, but through the spectacles of objectivity and common sense. When one looks at this Amendment and considers Ireland, and I think I can claim that I know Southern Ireland as well as most Members here, if not better than some, and the effect it will have upon Ireland, we find this. We find that roughly the South of Ireland can be divided into three groups. First of all there are those people who loathe England and have always loathed England, those people who have never for the last 25 years regarded themselves as British subjects and really do not care whether they are called British subjects by England or not. This Amendment will have no effect upon them at all. They have never been particularly impressed by any English Parliament, and being deeply conservative by nature they are certainly unlikely to be impressed by the measures of a Socialist Government. So far as they are concerned, this Amendment might never have been introduced at all.

Secondly, there are the people—and I suppose I may claim to be one of them—commonly called the "Southern Irish Loyalists," who are deeply affronted by this Amendment. They have for many years felt that it was their duty to build up the greatness of this Commonwealth, and they now feel affronted that they should have to go to an English Home Secretary and apply to him to be called, what they think is their undoubted right, a British subject. That feeling cannot be exaggerated. I know it to be the case from my relations with countless friends throughout the South of Ireland and in this country. In between these two classes there is perhaps the largest class of all, those who are really not particularly interested in this matter and will not be affected by it at all. So far as Southern Ireland is concerned, I do not think that this Amendment will be of any real importance at all. Its only effect will be that it will be regarded as ridiculous by one section and odious by the other. Already I have seen comments in the Irish papers on the subject of what their status here is to be; they are not to be British subjects and yet they are to have all the rights and privileges of British subjects. I take it that if they so desire they will be able to stand for Parliament. I assume that that will be the case, although they will not be British subjects. Someone in a Dublin paper said that they will be a sort of international hermaphrodite. No one on either side has yet described precisely what their status will be.

So far as the North of Ireland is concerned, I think it is uncontroversial that this Amendment will set up another bar to the union of Ireland. I should have thought that the Home Secretary, who is very wise in these matters, would have been the bitterest opponent to this, because I recollect that on a previous occasion, when we were discussing an Amendment put forward by some of my hon. Friends—I think it was moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Antrim (Sir Hugh O'Neill)—during the Representation of the People Bill dealing with residents on either side of the border, he took it upon himself to take to task my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down (Sir W. Smiles) for a speech he made on the subject. My hon. Friend was pointing out the difference between residents on either side of the border, and the right hon. Gentleman said this: During my period of office I have done my very best to understand the temperament and problems of Northern Ireland, and I have on occasions incurred some odium with my hon. Friends on this side because I have endeavoured to observe strict impartiality in the discharge of the duties of my office in so far as they concern Northern Ireland. I am bound to say, however, that I consider the greater part of my work in that regard undone by the deplorable speech made by the hon. Member for Down (Sir W. Smiles). I can think of nothing more calculated to make it difficult for me to pursue my policy than the attacks he made on other British subjects with whom he happens to disagree in politics."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st April, 1948; Vol. 449, c. 1973–4.] The right hon. Gentleman might have added that soon they would not be British subjects unless they got his permission.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Delargy (Manchester, Platting)

Surely the Home Secretary on that occasion was referring to people resident in Northern Ireland having come from the South whom Members opposite wished to exclude from the voters registers.

Mr. Gage

The hon. Member must read the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman was referring quite clearly to people who might be resident in the South and had come up and got on the register in the North. At that time they were British subjects, and he referred to them as such. I have no complaint about that, if indeed they are to remain British subjects.

When the Attorney-General was referring to this matter in his speech on Second Reading he said, and truly said, that the relations between this Parliament and Southern Ireland had unfortunately not been happy. He did not realise that as he said these words he himself was perpetuating to a large extent that unhappiness, because it has always been the case that Englishmen, so far as Ireland is concerned, seem to have the great gift of doing the wrong thing in the wrong way. When the Attorney-General—and I hope he will not think I am being in any way offensive—made his plausible argument and talked about Ireland in a slightly patronising way, he was only falling into the tradition of English politicians on both sides. I do not of course excuse some of my hon. Friends on this side, as they have a similar gift very often for doing the right thing in the wrong way in regard to Ireland.

My right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) will forgive me for saying that he too was guilty of this in the same Debate, when immediately before the Attorney-General he sought to fortify his argument by a very invidious and inaccurate comparison between the war effort of the North of Ireland and the South, which had very little to do with the matter. I only say that because it is an unfortunate fact that statesmen in England always seem, when dealing with Ireland, to speak in a patronising way and as if it were the fault of Ireland that our relations have not been too happy. They always speak of trying to do better next time, and then proceed to make the same mistakes. They are making now, at this stage in Irish history, perhaps the greatest mistake of all, because they are—and it cannot be too strongly emphasised—doing something which Southern Irish Loyalists feel is wrong. By insisting that those who live in Eire should write to the Home Secretary to obtain the status of British subjects they are doing something which Southern Irish Loyalists feel is an indignity which is being put upon them.

The Attorney-General truly said that it is possible to do most things by Act of Parliament. It is possible to make black white, or to license a dog, and there is also an Act of Parliament which turns lawyers like himself and myself into gentlemen. Yes, most things can be done by Act of Parliament, but a man's loyalties cannot be changed by Act of Parliament. His heart cannot be changed. Call him what you like, it is impossible to change the way he is made, and the way he thinks about these things. Yet that is what this Amendment, to some extent, seeks to do. It cannot change the loyalties of these people in Southern Ireland, but it can wound their feelings.

In conclusion, I hope that my friends in the South, if this Amendment is passed, will not apply to have themselves called British subjects, because their claim to that rests on far surer grounds. It rests on their great record in the past, and in the services which they are now performing towards this country and which, in spite of anything that may be done here, or elsewhere, they will continue to give unstintingly. It is on that that their claim rests, and not on any legalistic interpretation. I am not speaking as a lawyer in this matter, because these things go too deep for those who have experienced the passions and feelings that no Englishman can properly understand. I am quite certain that even if this Government do not recognise it, English people generally recognise that the claim of many of those in the South of Ireland, who have stuck to England throughout all the stages of her history, is a just and honest one.

Mr. Emrys Roberts

All of us must recognise the sincerity with which the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage) has addressed the Committee. He has sharply separated the ethics of Englishmen and Irishmen in this matter, but as I am in neither of those categories I can take a detached view of this problem. So long as the law of this country insists that certain persons who form a loyal English group within Eire are British subjects, and the law of Eire says they are not, that is a position which cannot make for good will between the two countries. The Government of Eire agreed that these people could become British subjects, and would be recognised as Britsh subjects. If we now reject the agreement which was made with the Government of Eire we shall lose the benefit of the good will that was created. For that reason, I shall support the Amendment.

Mr. Delargy

Unlike the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage) I was not born in Southern Ireland, but in the North of England, and I can, therefore, consider this matter without emotion in my usual calm and detached manner. The hon. Member spoke principally about the Southern Irish Loyalists. He spoke of them with an emotion which was both deep and sincere, and which all of us on this side, as well as on his own, respect, even if we do not share it. But emotion is not the best of arguments, and the hon. Gentleman rather give his case away at the end by reminding the Committee that he was not speaking as a lawyer on this point. The hon. Gentleman spoke for a very small minority—about 2 per cent. It is generally taken that the Southern Irish Loyalist population is about 2 per cent. of the population of the 26 counties of Southern Ireland.

The hon. Gentleman says we shall affront those people unless we resist the Home Secretary's Amendment. That would mean, of course, that we would be affronting the other 98 per cent., which I do not consider to be a very valid democratic argument.

Mr. Gage

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the other 98 per cent, care one way or the other about this matter?

Mr. Delargy

So far as we know they do. No Gallup poll or census has been taken among them, nor has it been taken among the Southern Irish Loyalists. But we know from their spokesmen that they do consider this matter of prime importance. The Government and the Opposition in Eire are completely unanimous on this point. No affront is being offered to Southern Irish Loyalists in asking them to send an application form to His Majesty's principal adviser in the matters. What is difficult or humiliating about it?

This Amendment is a good one, because it aims at two simple results, both of which are most praiseworthy. We are trying, first, to recognise a fact and, second, to seal a friendly agreement. It is a fact that most Irishmen do not regard themselves as British subjects, and it is also a fact that the Irish Citizenship Act, 1935, does not regard them as British subjects. However much we may disagree with that fact we must recognise it. This admirable Amendment simply faces that fact; it agrees that there is a fact. I know it is asking a lot of the Opposition to recognise a fact, even when it stares them in the face, but that is precisely what the Amendment seeks to do.

The second result, as I have said, will be to legalise a friendly agreement. Unfortunately, there have been so few friendly agreements between the two countries that we certainly ought to encourage any agreement whenever we can. On Second Reading, I pointed out that the Irish civil servants who attended the conference in 1947, under the admirable chairmanship of Sir Alexander Maxwell, were satisfied with the results. So are politicians in Ireland. The Opposition party in Dail Eireann and the present Government there are far more pleased with the Home Secretary's interpretation of this matter than with the narrow, niggardly and Victorian-minded Amendment which has come to us from another place. What is good enough for all politicians in Ireland and what meets with the approval of His Majesty's Government and the Home Secretary here ought surely to be good enough for us.

8.30 p.m.

There is one curious question I should like to ask and maybe the Home Secretary or the Attorney-General will answer it later. The words "citizen of Eire" do not mean in Ireland what they are held to mean here. The word "Eire" is used on both sides of this Committee to signify that part of Ireland which is governed from Dublin, but in Dublin itself and also what is more important, in actual fact, it means something different. The word "Eire" according to the dictionary and to the Irish Constitution reads quite simply "Ireland"—the whole of Ireland. A citizen of Eire, therefore, an inhabitant of Eire means a man or woman in any part of Ireland, north or south. I should like to know whether this definition, which is in the dictionaries, and as understood by the lawyers as well as the lexicographers, is going to be accepted here.

If it is not, as well as changing the laws we are also presuming to change language and the meaning of words. The Attorney-General a little time ago reminded us that in this Parliament we can do practically anything. We can legally make black into white and he was not certain but that we can make a man into a woman. I want to know if legally we can alter the meaning of words in the dictionary. However, that is a question which comes at the end of the Amendment. I hope the Amendment will pass, because, as I say, it legalises something which has existed for 13 years in Ireland and it helps, in however small a way, to build up friendly relations between these two countries.

Mr. Peake

We are discussing an Amendment to delete Clause 1 (4) in the Bill as it now stands, and with that we are discussing the new Clause at the end of the Order Paper entitled "Continuance of certain citizens of Eire as British subjects." We are told that this Bill is designed to clarify the position regarding nationality throughout the British Commonwealth, to tidy matters up and to produce order in place of a threatened chaos. The first question which I ask myself in regard to this Amendment dealing with the position of citizens of Eire is: What is their future status going to be? So far as I am aware under British or United Kingdom law as it stood hitherto, there have been three classes of persons, British subjects, aliens, and the category whose position is not quite so clearly defined as the other two—British protected persons.

If the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment is carried and Subsection (4) is deleted, we are thrown back to the position that nobody will have the slightest conception what is the position of Eire citizens under our own domestic law. It is quite clear they will not for the future be British subjects. It is stated in the White Paper issued with the Bill that the mere fact that Eire is omitted from the list of Dominions, as stated in Clause 1 (2), shows that that is in fact the case. They will not be British subjects, but it is further stated that they will not be aliens.

I am of the opinion that they will clearly not be British protected persons, and they will, therefore, occupy a novel, indeed a unique position, because, while they have no national status here, it is declared in Clause 2 (2) that they will continue to enjoy all rights and privileges as if they were British subjects. That seems to me the first reason why we should maintain Subsection (4) in the Bill. It makes it clear what the status of Eire citizens will be in the future; it will continue to be in the future what it has been for the past 13 years—that of British subjects.

It is stated that if this position is allowed to continue, it will be an affront to the citizens of Eire. This situation has already gone on for 13 years, ever since the Eire Citizenship Act of 1935, and so far as I know no great disadvantages flowed from it. It is true that during the war, at the Home Office we had certain difficulties in defining Defence Regulations and other Measures under which we were enabled to prevent British subjects from Eire landing at United Kingdom ports. There were some technical difficulties about the exclusion of British subjects from the United Kingdom. What is proposed in the Bill will not overcome that difficulty. It is perfectly true they will cease to be British subjects, but it is laid down in Clause 2 that they are to continue to enjoy all rights and privileges as if they were British subjects, so that making them no longer British subjects will not help in any way if, in the event of another war, we wish to control traffic between Eire and the United Kingdom. In this matter the onus of proof must rest upon the Government. They are proposing a change in the status here of citizens of Eire, and the onus of proof, therefore, must rest with them.

I want for a moment to turn from the main subject to the new Clause. It provides that from the passing of this Bill all citizens of Eire will cease to be British subjects forthwith, but it is provided by the new Clause that any citizen of Eire who immediately before the commencement of this Act was also a British subject can continue to remain a British subject, if he or she fulfils conditions laid down in the Clause relating to his or her connection with this country, and also if he or she makes application to the Home Secretary expressing his or her desire to remain a British subject.

The first point to which I would call attention is that the Clause applies only to living persons. As I read the Clause, it is not possible for a person who is a citizen of Eire and who elects to remain a British subject to transmit that British status to his successors. Clearly the new Clause only applies to people who are alive at the time of the passage of the Bill. That is to say, in the course of time there will be no citizens of Eire who will in future be British subjects. As soon as the present generation who elect to retain British nationality die out, not a single citizen of Eire will also be a British subject.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas (Llandaff and Barry)

They can elect for their children.

Mr. Peake

They can elect for their children if their children are alive at the time of the passing of the Bill. There is a new provision relating to children under the age of 16 which was not found in the original Bill introduced in another place. For that we are grateful, but in the course of time we shall get to a position where no citizen of Eire is also a British subject.

We are told that this is the result of a bargain or a deal reached, I imagine, at the time of the conference 18 months ago between the British and Eire Governments, and what we ought to be told, if this is a bargain, is what we stand to gain by it. After all, the essence of any bargain is that each side gains some advantage from it. I can quite see that Eire gains a great deal by this arrangement. They gain a clear admission by the Government of the United Kingdom that citizens of Eire will no longer be regarded here as British subjects. We are told that that is something which they have long desired to achieve, and it seems that they are gaining what they desire.

However, what I ask myself is: What advantage do we get from these arrangements now or in the future? I cannot see that we gain anything. We abandon those who are known as the Southern Irish Loyalists. We are deserting our friends in the South of Ireland, those people who came over in large numbers—I will not say in greater numbers than came from Northern Ireland—to help us in the war effort. I agree, with the exception of a single sentence, with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage) on this matter. I am quite sure that the vast majority of the citizens of Eire do not care a rap how they are regarded in this country, but a few, a minority of those whom we know as the Southern Irish Loyalists, do care a great deal. I am quite sure that our friends, the people who stood by us in Southern Ireland, who came forward to help us in the war, will be deeply offended by what the Government are now proposing to do.

I therefore ask the Home Secretary, in justifying this bargain, if he can, to try to show what we gained by this arrangement. Things have gone on in an anomalous position, it is true, for the past 13 years but the anomaly does not seem to have done anybody very much harm. However, instead of that, we are to have a completely new anomaly from henceforward onwards and citizens of Eire will have a status in this country which is undefinable, which has never been defined hitherto and which never can be defined in the future. For those reasons, we shall go into the Lobby against the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Ede

We have had a short, and for an Irish discussion, a placid one on this Amendment. In fact, the only person who really got into trouble or had hard words said about him was the right hon. Gentleman when he had to listen to what his hon. Friend the Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage) said about him. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) stated the case for the Amendment very well. In his analysis of the situation he dealt accurately and faithfully with the issues involved. The right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) alleged that there was some bargain or deal in this matter. I know of no one on this side of the Committee or any of my noble Friends in another place who has made any such suggestion that there has been a bargain or deal.

Mr. Peake

I am afraid I must have misunderstood the whole course of our Debates on this matter. Surely it has been stated time and time again from the Government Front Bench that this is an agreement between the British Government and the Government of Eire?

Mr. Ede

Yes, this is undoubtedly an agreement, but not a bargain. I do not know anyone who has alleged that there was any bargain or deal.

Mr. James Hudson (Ealing, West)

It is a straightforward agreement.

Dr. Morgan

It is a new definition of agreement.

Mr. McGhee (Penistone)

It is a Tory definition of agreement.

Mr. Peake

What is the difference between an agreement and a bargain?

Mr. Ede

A very considerable one. Occasionally I find myself in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman, but I have not so far been aware that it has been the result of a bargain or a deal. Perhaps my idea of a deal happens to coincide with his or perhaps he sufficiently conceals his idea so that I am able to agree with him. There was nothing of that kind in these discussions. We are faced with the anomaly which exists as a result of the Act of the Parliament of Eire in 1935 and the position of citizens of Eire when they come to this country. What we have managed to do for the first time in the history of the two countries since the separation between them, is to arrive at a working arrangement as to how these respective people shall be regarded in this country. I agree with what the hon. Member for Rugby said. I am not at all sure that on both sides it was not more acquiescence rather than agreement which marked the concluding stages of our discussions.

The hon. Member for South Belfast thought it would be an affront for a person to become a British citizen by permission of the Home Secretary. Let me say that the permission of the Home Secretary is not involved. If a person claims from Southern Ireland to be a British subject, by that claim he becomes a British subject, and there is no power in this Clause that may refuse him. In that, certainly, the citizen of Eire who desires to become a British subject, and to be known as such, is favoured above all the other people of the earth. Anyone else who desires to make such a claim and to have it granted, has, of course, to go through the complete process of naturalisation. He has to have the prescribed period of residence and to be subjected to the investigation of his character and antecedents by the Secretary of State and his advisers, and in other ways to subject himself to a very considerable examination before he acquires that status. Any person now living in Southern Ireland who desires to become a British subject becomes such merely by making the claim, and no one in this country, if he makes that claim, can refuse him the status for which he asks.

Mr. Gage

If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me—this is an important matter. He has, has he not, to satisfy one of the grounds set out in the new Clause?

Mr. Ede

Yes.

Mr. Gage

Provided he satisfies those grounds?

Mr. Ede

Provided he satisfies those grounds, and makes the claim, then the permission of the Secretary of State is not required.

With regard to the position of the person who has not made such a claim, but comes to this country, he is not an alien. The moment he lands on these shores he has all the rights and privileges that attach to being a British subject in this country. I cannot see that there is any affront to anyone in being in that position. In fact I should have thought that those who are claiming for the Southern Irish loyalist the right that he should retain his position of a British subject without any question, would have welcomed that arrangement. It is true that this may present anomalies, but in my experience of attempting to deal with the Irish, whether Southern or Northern, if one can do anything at all it is sure to be either by way of creating an anomaly or of recognising one.

My hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Delargy) asked me about the question of who was a citizen of Eire. The Eire (Confirmation of Agreements) Act, 1938, provides that in United Kingdom law the word "Eire" is to be used to describe what was previously known as the Irish Free State, that is to say, the 26 counties of Southern Ireland. The persons who will be affected by this arrangement, and by the new Clause, will be those who are subject, as citizens, to the Government of Southern Ireland. It does not extend to the six counties of Northern Ireland.

The right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) asked what was to happen in the event of a future war; how should we be able to deal with the citizens of Southern Ireland under the provisions of this Measure if, unfortunately, another war was to break out. He drew attention to the fact that in the last war the problem was not without its great difficulties. But, apparently as a result of his own presence at the Home Office, those difficulties were overcome, and I have no doubt that on any future occasion the resources of English statesmanship and of English draftsmen would be sufficient to deal with the situation that then arose. I believe that, by the fact that we have been able to get the acquiescence of both sides to the present arrangement, we can find some hope for an improvement in the relationship between those two countries.

I can assure hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that those who participated in the conference on behalf of Southern Ireland were most helpful in the way they approached the subject. Southern Ireland in fact was the only country which sent a woman to the conference. They were most helpful in every way throughout the proceedings. We commend this Amendment and the new Clause to the Committee because they represent for the first time something upon which people on both sides of the Irish Sea have been able to agree.

Mr. Gage

The right hon. Gentleman did not answer one question which I asked. Will the rights of those people who do not apply to him, include that of being able to stand for this Parliament? Apparently they have all the rights and privileges.

Mr. Ede

I want to be quite clear about the question. This is a person who comes to this country, who has not applied for permission to be regarded as a British subject but who comes here and desires to stand for Parliament. One of the rights and privileges of a British subject is to be eligible for candidature for this House. Therefore, these persons, being in this country and having all the rights and privileges of a British subject, will be eligible for candidature for, and membership of, this House.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas

My right hon. Friend referred to giving permission. Surely, all that is necessary is that notice should be given? There is no question of giving permission. As I understand it, particularly from his previous observations, there is no question of permission being given by the Home Secretary to the claimant. The position is merely that notice must be given.

Mr. Ede

I hoped that I had made it clear in my previous remarks that no permission is required.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

The Chairman

I hope that we may come to a decision.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles (Down)

The right hon. Gentleman has stated that when a citizen of Eire comes to England he enjoys all the rights and privileges of a British subject. I should like him also to make it clear that when a British subject from England goes to Eire he will enjoy there all the rights and privileges of an Eire citizen.

Mr. Ede

That depends upon the law of Eire just as the rights and privileges of a person from this country in any of His Majesty's Dominions depends upon the law of the country to which the person from this country goes.

Sir W. Smiles

Then I understand that no agreement of any kind has been come to on this subject.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn

I apologise if I have been stupid but I am afraid I have not yet quite understood the right hon. Gentleman on three points. The first is that the Irishman or the Eireann I think is the right world—the Eireann not meaning the Aryan Hitler meant but the Eireann in the other sense—who has not claimed to be registered as a British subject, comes to this country and may be elected to this House. Can he take the oath when he has been elected? Whether or not he takes the oath, can he, for instance, be charged with high treason? It seems to be a very anomalous arrangement if he can be a Member of this House. He might be First Lord of the Treasury, because we all know that the bovine Saxon may pull but does not push so hard, and one of these chaps might get ahead of us all. May he become First Lord of the Treasury, yet be incapable of being guilty of high treason?

The second point which I. did not get quite clear was about the Eireann who does claim to have some connection with this country, and, therefore, to be registered as a British subject. I. had thought that I. understood the Bill and the Clause, but I. am not sure that I. understand the explanation, and the question I. put is this: The right hon. Gentleman said there was no question of his consent, but there is, surely, the question of his recognition of a set of facts? Or is that wrong? Does this recognition depend on his judgment whether or not the applicant has that degree of direct relation to this country and its Government which the applicant claims to have and upon which the applicant rests his claim to be registered as a British subject? I. think that puts the question clearly, and, with every respect, although I. may be mistaken, I. do not think the answer to that question was previously clear, and I. hope that we may get it clear.

Thirdly, and with much more diffidence, is it quite certain—I am glad that we now have the advantage of the presence of the learned Attorney-General again—is it quite certain that, if this Clause passes as it is and the rest of the Bill passes, is it quite certain that somebody, born and brought up in Eire but not having been registered as a British subject, would find it quite impossible to claim in a British court of law that he was a British subject under the common law? It is quite certain that no court could hold that there was an allegiance, that there had been an allegiance, that there had been no explicit ending of that allegiance and that, therefore, the claim as ordinarily founded upon the allegiance was still standing? Is it quite certain that this Clause would get away from the possibility of that decision?

Mr. Delargy

On a point of Order. Is it in Order for an hon. Member to delay the whole Committee by asking questions most of which have been answered by

Front Bench Ministers when he was absent from the House?

The Chairman

I. do not think that question arises.

Mr. Ede

I. will endeavour to deal with the questions put by the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn). With regard to the first, the man would be capable of taking the oath. Whether he took it or not would be a matter for him. Mr. Bradlaugh refused to take the oath, though he could come to the Table and be sworn—[Interruption.] I. cannot answer here for what would be the effect on a man under Irish law. After all, none of us wants to create bad relations between the two countries, and I. hope I. shall not be pressed to give offhand answers to questions which might raise such points. I. am only dealing—and I. do not profess to do more—with issues that will be raised under United Kingdom law in the event of the Amendment being carried and the Bill becoming law. If, having taken the oath, he was then accused of high treason, I. am advised that he could be tried, and, if found guilty, condemned for that offence.

The second question which the hon. Member put was with regard to the extent, if any, to which permission from the Secretary of State is required under the new Clause. I. am advised that under the Clause as drafted, I. have no claim to be satisfied that the man fulfils the three conditions. If there is a bona fide claim, I. have no option at all, but whether the question of bona fides could be tested in the courts or not is a matter on which lawyers would have to advise me. The third question which the hon. Gentleman put to me was again entirely legal in its character, and would depend for its answer on a decision of the courts.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 105; Noes, 307.

Division No. 259.]	AYES.	[9.6 p.m.
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.	Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.	Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Amory, D. Heathcoat	Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Corbet, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.	Carson, E.	Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Baldwin, A. E.	Challen, C.	Crowder, Capt. John E.
Bennett, Sir P.	Channon, H.	Darling, Sir W. Y.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)	Clarke, Col. R. S.	Digby, S. W.
Boyd-Corpenter, J. A.	Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.	Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Drayson, G. B.	Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)	Roberts, H. (Handsworth)
Drewe, C.	Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.	Robinson, Roland
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)	McCallum, Maj. D.	Ropner, Col. L.
Duthie, W. S.	McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.	Scott, Lord W.
Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter	MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)	Shephard, S. (Newark)
Fletcher, W. (Bury)	McFarlane, C. S.	Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Foster, J. G. (Northwich)	Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)	Smiles, Lt.-Col Sir W.
Fox, Sir G.	Maitland, Comdr. J. W.	Snadden, W. M.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)	Manningham-Buller, R. E.	Spearman, A. C. M.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.	Marshall, D. (Bodmin)	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Gage, C.	Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)	Strauss, Henry (English Universities)
Gammons, L. D.	Mellor, Sir J.	Sutcliffe, H.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.	Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)	Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Grant, Lady	Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cir'cester)	Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)	Nicholson, G.	Touche, G. C.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.	Nield, B. (Chester)	Wakefield, Sir W. W.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.	Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.	Walker-Smith, D.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)	Odey, G. W.	Ward, Hon. G. R.
Howard, Hon. A.	O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.	Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)
Hurd, A.	Orr-Ewing, I. L.	White, Sir D. (Fareham)
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)	Osborne, C.	White, J. B. (Canterbury)
Jeffreys, General Sir G.	Peake, Rt. Hon. O.	Williams, C. (Torquay)
Jennings, R.	Pickthorn, K.	Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Keeling, E. H.	Ponsonby, Col. C. E.	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Langford-Holt, J.	Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.	York, C.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.	Raikes, H. V.	Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.	Ramsay, Maj. S.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.	Rayner, Brig. R.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)	Renton, D.	Mr. Studholme and
		Brigadier Mackeson.
NOES.
Acland, Sir Richard	Colman, Miss G. M.	Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Adams, Richard (Balham)	Comyns, Dr. L.	Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)	Cook, T. F.	Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.	Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)	Guest, Dr L. Haden
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)	Corlett, Dr. J.	Gunter, R. J.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Cove, W. G.	Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Alpass, J. H.	Crawley, A.	Hale, Leslie
Attewell, H. C.	Crossman, R. H. S.	Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Austin, H. Lewis	Daggar, G.	Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Awbery, S. S.	Davies, Edward (Burslem)	Hardman, D. R.
Ayles, W. H.	Davies, Ernest (Enfield)	Hardy, E. A.
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.	Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)	Harrison, J.
Bacon, Miss A.	Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)	Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Baird, J.	Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)	Haworth, J.
Balfour, A.	Deer, G.	Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.	de Freitas, Geoffrey	Herbison, Miss M.
Barstow, P. G.	Delargy, H. J.	Hewitson, Capt. M.
Barton, C.	Diamond, J.	Hicks, G.
Battley, J. R.	Dobbie, W.	Holman, P.
Bechervaise, A. E.	Dodds, N. N.	Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Benson, G.	Driberg, T. E. N.	Hoy, J.
Berry, H.	Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)	Hubbard, T.
Beswick, F.	Durbin, E. F. M.	Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Bing, G. H. C.	Dye, S.	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Binns, J.	Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N)
Blenkinsop, A.	Edelman, M.	Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Blyton, W. R.	Edwards, John (Blackburn)	Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Boardman, H.	Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)	Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Bottomley, A. G.	Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)	Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Bowden, Flg, Offr. H. W.	Evans, E. (Lowestoft)	Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)	Evans, John (Ogmore)	Janner, B.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)	Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)	Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)	Fairhurst, F.	Jenkins, R. H.
Bramall, E. A.	Farthing, W. J.	Johnston, Douglas
Brook, D. (Halifax)	Fernyhough, E.	Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)	Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)	Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Brown, George (Belper)	Follick, M.	Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Brown, T. J. (Ince)	Foot, M. M.	Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Brown, W. J. (Rugby)	Forman, J. C.	Keenan, W.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.	Fraser, T. (Hamilton)	Kendall, W. D.
Burden, T. W.	Freeman, Peter (Newport)	Kenyon, C.
Callaghan, James	Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.	King, E. M.
Carmichael, James	Ganley, Mrs. C. S.	Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.	Gibbins, J.	Kinley, J.
Champion, A. J.	Gibson, C. W.	Kirby, B. V.
Chater, D.	Gilzean, A.	Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.
Chetwynd, G. R.	Glanville, J. E. (Consett)	Lang, G.
Cluse, W. S.	Gooch, E. G.	Lee, F. (Hulme)
Cocks, F. S.	Gordon-Walker, P. C.	Leonard, W.
Coldrick, W.	Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)	Leslie, J. R.
Collindridge, F.	Grenfell, D. R.	Lever, N. H.
Collins, V. J.	Grey, C. F.	Levy, B. W.

Lewis, I. (Southampton)	Palmer, A. M. F.	Swingler, S.
Lindgren, G. S.	Pargiter, G. A.	Sylvester, G. O.
Lipson, D. L.	Parker, J.	Symonds, A. L.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.	Parkin, B. T.	Taylor, R. J. (Marpeth)
Logan, D. G.	Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)	Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Longden, F.	Paton, J. (Norwich)	Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Lyne, A. W.	Pearson, A.	Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
McAdam, W.	Peart, T. F.	Thomas, John R. (Dover)
McAllister, G.	Perrins, W.	Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
McEntee, V. La T.	Popplewell, E.	Tiffany, S.
McGhee, H. G.	Porter, E. (Warrington)	Timmons, J.
Mack, J. D.	Porter, G. (Leeds)	Titterington, M. F.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)	Price, M. Philips	Tolley, L.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)	Pritt, D. N.	Turner-Samuels, M.
McKinlay, A. S.	Proctor, W. T.	Ungoed-Thomas, L.
McLeavy, F.	Pryde, D. J.	Usborne, Henry
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)	Pursey, Comdr. H.	Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)	Randall, H. E.	Viant, S. P.
Mainwaring, W. H.	Ranger, J.	Wadsworth, G.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Rankin, J.	Walker, G. H.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)	Rees-Williams, D. R.	Warbey, W. N.
Mann, Mrs. J.	Reeves, J.	Watkins, T. E.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)	Reid, T. (Swindon)	Watson, W. M.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)	Rhodes, H.	Weitzman, D.
Marquand, H. A.	Richards, R.	Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Marshall, F. (Brightside)	Ridealgh, Mrs. M.	Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George	Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)	West, D. G.
Mayhew, C. P.	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)	Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.
Mellish, R. J.	Ross, William (Kilmarnock)	Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)
Middleton, Mrs. L.	Royle, C.	White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)
Mikardo, Ian	Sargood, R.	White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Mitchison, G. R.	Scollan, T.	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Moody, A. S.	Scott-Elliott, W.	Wilcock, Group-Capt C. A. B.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.	Segal, Dr. S.	Wilkins, W. A.
Morley, R.	Shackleton, E. A. A.	Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)	Sharp, Granville	Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)	Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)	Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)	Shurmer, P.	Williams, R. W. (Wigan)
Mort, D. L.	Silverman, J. (Erdington)	Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Moyle, A.	Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)	Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Murray J. D.	Simmons, C. J.	Willis, E.
Nally, W.	Skinnard, F. W.	Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.
Neal, H. (Clay Cross)	Smith, C. (Colchester)	Wise, Major F. J.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)	Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)	Solley, L. J.	Woods, G. S.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)	Sorensen, R. W.	Wyatt, W.
O'Brien, T.	Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank	Yates, V. F.
Oldfield, W. H.	Steele, T.	Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Oliver, G. H.	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)	Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Paget, R. T.	Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. (Lambeth, N.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)	Stubbs, A. E.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
		Mr. Snow and Mr. G. Wallace.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

cc1119-56
1. CLAUSE 2.—(Limitation of liability of citizens of Dominions and Eire for offences overseas. Status of citizens of Eire and British protected persons.) 26 words
cc1119-25
1. CLAUSE 3.—(Subjects by birth.) 1,836 words
cc1125-7
2. CLAUSE 4.—(Subjects by descent.) 748 words
c1127
3. CLAUSE 5.—(Registration of British subjects of countries mentioned in s. 1 (3) or of citizens of Eire and female British protected persons, married to British subjects of the United Kingdom and Colonies. 18 words
cc1127-41
4. CLAUSE 6.—(Registration of alien women married to British subjects of the United Kingdom and Colonies and of minors.) 5,571 words
c1141
5. CLAUSE 8.—(Effect of registration as a British subject of the United Kingdom and Colonies.) 25 words
c1141
6. CLAUSE 9.—(Naturalisation of aliens and British protected persons.) 25 words
c1142
7. CLAUSE 10.—(Power to specify British subjects of the United Kingdom and Colonies by Order in Council on incorporation of territory.) 28 words
c1142
8. CLAUSE 11.—(British subjects before commencement of Act becoming Pritish subjects of United Kingdom and Colonies.) 28 words
c1142
9. CLAUSE 12.—(British subjects whose citizenship has not been ascertained at the commencement of this Act.) 39 words
c1142
10. CLAUSE 15.—(Persons who have ceased to be British subjects on loss of British nationality by parent.) 86 words
c1143
11. CLAUSE 17.—(Applications for naturalisation pending at the commencement of Act.) 25 words
c1143
12. CLAUSE 18.—(Renunciation.) 28 words
cc1143-5
13. CLAUSE 19.—(Deprivation.) 744 words
cc1145-7
14. CLAUSE 20—(Deprivation in the United Kingdom and Colonies of persons deprived elsewhere.) 894 words
c1147
15. CLAUSE 22.—(Legitimated children.) 34 words
cc1147-8
16. CLAUSE 24.—(Certificate in case of doubt.) 313 words
cc1148-50
17. CLAUSE 25.—(Discretion of Secretary of State, Governor, or High Commissioner.) 769 words
c1150
18. CLAUSE 28.—(Orders in Council, regulations and rules.) 167 words
c1151
19. CLAUSE 31.—(Interpretation.) 153 words
c1151
20. CLAUSE 32.—(Channel Islands and Isle of Man.) 28 words
c1151
21. CLAUSE 33.—(Short title, commencement and repeal.) 26 words
cc1151-2
22. NEW CLAUSE.—(Continuance of certain citizens of Eire as British subjects.) 464 words
cc1152-4
23. FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Naturalisation.) 481 words
c1154
24. SECOND SCHEDULE.—(British subjects without citizenship under section twelve of this Act.) 254 words
cc1154-6
25. THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Enactments repealed.) 565 words
c1156
26. TITLE 42 words